american eloquence studies in american political history edited with introduction by alexander johnston reedited by james albert woodburn volume iv. (of ) vii.--civil war and reconstruction viii.--free trade and protection. ix.--finance and civil service reform. contents introduction vii.--civil war and reconstruction abraham lincoln first inaugural address, march , . jefferson davis inaugural address. montgomery, ala., february , . alexander hamilton stephens the "corner-stone" address --atheneum, savannah, ga., march , . john caleb breckenridge and edwin d. baker suppression of insurrection --united states senate, august , . clement l. vallandigham on the war and its conduct --house of representatives, january , . henry ward beecher address at liverpool, october , . abraham lincoln the gettysburgh address, november , . abraham lincoln second inaugural address, march , . henry winter davis on reconstruction ; the first republican theory --house of representatives, march , . george h. pendleton on reconstruction ; the democratic theory --house of representatives, may , . thaddeus stevens on reconstruction; radical republican theory --house of representatives-december , . henry j. raymond	. on reconstruction; administration republican theory --house of representatives, december , . thaddeus stevens on the first reconstruction bill --house of representatives, january , . viii.--free trade and protection. henry clay on the american system --in the united states senate, february - , . frank h. hurd. a tariff for revenue only --house of representatives, february , . ix.--finance and civil service reform. justin s. morrill on the remonetization of silver --united states senate, january , . james g. blaine on the remonetization of silver --united states senate, february , john sherman on silver coinage and treasury notes --united states senate, june , . john p. jones on silver coinage and treasury notes --united states senate, may , . george william curtis on the spoils system and the progress of civil service reform --address before the american social science association, saratoga, n. y., september , . carl schurz on the necessity and progress of civil service reform --address at the annual meeting of the national civil service reform league, chicago, ills., december , . list of illustrations george w. curtis--frontispiece from a painting by samuel lawrence. john c. breckenridge from a photograph. henry w. beecher	. wood-engraving from photograph. abraham lincoln wood-engraving from photograph. james g. blaine wood-engraving from photograph. introduction to the fourth volume. the fourth and last volume of the american eloquent e deals with four great subjects of discussion in our history,--the civil war and reconstruction, free trade and protection, finance, and civil service reform. in the division on the civil war there has been substituted in the new edition, for mr. schurz's speech on the democratic war policy the spirited discussion between breckenridge and baker on the suppression of insurrection. the scene in which these two speeches were delivered in the united states senate at the opening of the civil war is full of historic and dramatic interest, while the speeches themselves are examples of superior oratory. mr. schurz appears to advantage in another part of the volume in his address on civil service reform. the speeches of thaddeus stevens and henry j. raymond, delivered at the opening of the reconstruction struggle under president johnson, are also new material in this edition. they are fairly representative of two distinct views in that period of the controversy. these two speeches are substituted for the garfield-blackburn discussion over a "rider" to an appropriation bill designed to forbid federal control of elections within the states. this discussion was only incidental to the problem of reconstruction, and may be said to have occurred at a time ( ) subsequent to the close of the reconstruction period proper. the material on free trade and protection has been left unchanged for the reason that it appears to the present editor quite useless to attempt to secure better material on the tariff discussion. there might be added valuable similar material from later speeches on the tariff, but the two speeches of clay and hurd may be said to contain the essential merits of the long-standing tariff debate. the section of the volume devoted to finance and civil service reform is entirely new. the two speeches of curtis and schurz are deemed sufficient to set forth the merits of the movement for the reform of the civil service. the magnitude of our financial controversies during a century of our history precludes the possibility of securing an adequate representation of them in speeches which might come within the scope of such a volume as this. it has, therefore, seemed best to the editor to confine the selections on finance to the period since the civil war, and to the subject of coinage, rather than to attempt to include also the kindred subjects of banking and paper currency. the four representative speeches on the coinage will, however, bring into view the various principles of finance which have determined the differences and divisions in party opinion on all phases of this great subject. j. a. w. vii.--civil war and reconstruction. the transformation of the original secession movement into a _de facto_ nationality made war inevitable, but acts of war had already taken place, with or without state authority. seizures of forts, arsenals, mints, custom-houses, and navy yards, and captures of federal troops, had completely extinguished the authority of the united states in the secession area, except at fort sumter in south carolina, and fort pickens and the forts at key west in florida; and active operations to reduce these had been begun. when an attempt was made, late in january, , to provision fort sumter, the provision steamer, star of the west, was fired on by the south carolina batteries and driven back. nevertheless, the buchanan administration succeeded in keeping the peace until its constitutional expiration in march, , although the rival and irreconcilable administration at montgomery was busily engaged in securing its exclusive authority in the seceding states. neither of the two incompatible administrations was anxious to strike the first blow. mr. lincoln's administration began with the policy outlined in his inaugural address, that of insisting on collection of the duties on imports, and avoiding all other irritating measures. mr. seward, secretary of state, even talked of compensating for the loss of the seceding states by admissions from canada and elsewhere. the urgent needs of fort sumter, however, soon forced an attempt to provision it; and this brought on a general attack upon it by the confederate batteries around it. after a bombardment of two days, and a vigorous defence by the fort, in which no one was killed on either side, the fort surrendered, april , . it was now impossible for the united states to ignore the confederate states any longer. president lincoln issued a call for volunteers, and a proclamation announcing a blockade of the coast of the seceding states. a similar call on the other side and the issue of letters of marque and reprisal against the commerce of the united states were followed by an act of the confederate congress formally recognizing the existence of war with the united states. the two powers were thus locked in a struggle for life or death, the confederate states fighting for existence and recognition, the united states for the maintenance of recognized boundaries and jurisdiction; the confederate states claiming to be at war with a foreign power, the united states to be engaged in the suppression of individual resistance to the laws. the event was to decide between the opposing claims; and it was certain that the event must be the absolute extinction of either the confederate states or the united states within the area of secession. president lincoln called congress together in special session, july , ; and congress at once undertook to limit the scope of the war in regard to two most important points, slavery and state rights. resolutions passed both houses, by overwhelming majorities, that slavery in the seceding states was not to be interfered with, that the autonomy of the states themselves was to be strictly maintained, and that, when the union was made secure, the war ought to cease. if the war had ended in that month, these resolutions would have been of some value; every month of the extension of the war made them of less value. they were repeatedly offered afterward from the democratic side, but were as regularly laid on the table. their theory, however, continued to control the democratic policy to the end of the war. for a time the original policy was to all appearance unaltered. the war was against individuals only; and peace was to be made with individuals only, the states remaining untouched, but the confederate states being blotted out in the process. the only requisite to recognition of a seceding state was to be the discovery of enough loyal or pardoned citizens to set its machinery going again. thus the delegates from the forty western counties of virginia were recognized as competent to give the assent of virginia to the erection of the new state of west virginia; and the senators and representatives of the new state actually sat in judgment on the reconstruction of the parent state, although the legality of the parent government was the evident measure of the constitutional existence of the new state. such inconsistencies were the natural results of the changes forced upon the federal policy by the events of the war, as it grew wider and more desperate. the first of these changes was the inevitable attack upon slavery. the labor system of the seceding states was a mark so tempting that no belligerent should have been seriously expected to have refrained from aiming at it. january , , after one hundred days' notice, president lincoln issued his emancipation proclamation, freeing the slaves within the enemy's lines as rapidly as the federal arms should advance. this one break in the original policy involved, as possible consequences, all the ultimate steps of reconstruction. read-mission was no longer to be a simple restoration; abolition of slavery was to be a condition-precedent which the government could never abandon. if the president could impose such a condition, who was to put bounds to the power of congress to impose limitations on its part? the president had practically declared, contrary to the original policy, that the war should continue until slavery was abolished; what was to hinder congress from declaring that the war should continue until, in its judgment, the last remnants of the confederate states were satisfactorily blotted out? this, in effect, was the basis of reconstruction, as finally carried out. the steady opposition of the democrats only made the final terms the harder. the principle urged consistently from the beginning of the war by thaddeus stevens, of pennsylvania, was that serious resistance to the constitution implied the suspension of the constitution in the area of resistance. no one, he insisted, could truthfully assert that the constitution of the united states was then in force in south carolina; why should congress be bound by the constitution in matters connected with south carolina? if the resistance should be successful, the suspension of the constitution would evidently be perpetual; congress alone could decide when the resistance had so far ceased that the operations of the constitution could be resumed. the terms of readmission were thus to be laid down by congress. to much the same effect was the different theory of charles sumner, of massachusetts. while he held that the seceding states could not remove themselves from the national jurisdiction, except by successful war, he maintained that no territory was obliged to become a state, and that no state was obliged to remain a state; that the seceding states had repudiated their state-hood, had committed suicide as states, and had become territories; and that the powers of congress to impose conditions on their readmission were as absolute as in the case of other territories. neither of these theories was finally followed out in reconstruction, but both had a strong influence on the final process. president lincoln followed the plan subsequently completed by johnson. the original (pierpont) government of virginia was recognized and supported. similar governments were established in tennessee, louisiana, and arkansas, and an unsuccessful attempt was made to do so in florida. the amnesty proclamation of december, , offered to recognize any state government in the seceding states formed by one tenth of the former voters who should take the oath of loyalty and support of the emancipation measures. at the following session of congress, the first bill providing for congressional supervision of the readmission of the seceding states was passed, but the president retained it without signing it until congress had adjourned. at the time of president lincoln's assassination congress was not in session, and president johnson had six months in which to complete the work. provisional governors were appointed, conventions were called, the state constitutions were amended by the abolition of slavery and the repudiation of the war debt, and the ordinances of secession were either voided or repealed. when congress met in december, , the work had been completed, the new state governments were in operation, and the xiiith amendment, abolishing slavery, had been ratified by aid of their votes. congress, however, still refused to admit their senators or representatives. the first action of many of the new governments had been to pass labor, contract, stay, and vagrant laws which looked much like a re-establishment of slavery, and the majority in congress felt that further guarantees for the security of the freedmen were necessary before the war could be truly said to be over. early in president johnson imprudently carried matters into an open quarrel with congress, which united the two thirds republican majority in both houses against him. the elections of the autumn of showed that the two thirds majorities were to be continued through the next congress; and in march, , the first reconstruction act was passed over the veto. it declared the existing governments in the seceding states to be provisional only; put the states under military governors until state conventions, elected with negro suffrage and excluding the classes named in the proposed xivth amendment, should form a state government satisfactory to congress, and the state government should ratify the xivth amendment; and made this rule of suffrage imperative in all elections under the provisional governments until they should be readmitted. this was a semi-voluntary reconstruction. in the same month the new congress, which met immediately on the adjournment of its predecessor, passed a supplementary act. it directed the military governors to call the conventions before september st following, and thus enforced an involuntary reconstruction. tennessee had been readmitted in . north carolina, south carolina, florida, alabama, louisiana, and arkansas were reconstructed under the acts, and were readmitted in . georgia was also readmitted, but was remanded again for expelling negro members of her legislature, and came in under the secondary terms. virginia, georgia, mississippi, and texas, which had refused or broken the first terms, were admitted in , on the additional terms of ratifying the xvth amendment, which forbade the exclusion of the negroes from the elective franchise. in georgia the white voters held control of their state from the beginning. in the other seceding states the government passed, at various times and by various methods during the next six years after , under control of the whites, who still retain control. one of the avowed objects of reconstruction has thus failed; but, to one who does not presume that all things will be accomplished at a single leap, the scheme, in spite of its manifest blunders and crudities, must seem to have had a remarkable success. whatever the political status of the negro may now be in the seceding states, it may be confidently affirmed that it is far better than it would have been in the same time under an unrestricted readmission. the whites, all whose energies have been strained to secure control of their states, have been glad, in return for this success to yield a measure of other civil rights to the freedmen, which is already fuller than ought to have been hoped for in . and, as the general elective franchise is firmly imbedded in the organic law, its ultimate concession will come more easily and gently than if it were then an entirely new step. during this long period of almost continuous exertion of national power there were many subsidiary measures, such as the laws authorizing the appointment of supervisors for congressional elections, and the use of federal troops as a _posse comitatus_ by federal supervisors, which were not at all in line with the earlier theory of the division between federal and state powers. the democratic party gradually abandoned its opposition to reconstruction, accepting it as a disagreeable but accomplished fact, but kept up and increased its opposition to the subsidiary measures. about - a reaction became evident, and with president hayes' withdrawal of troops from south carolina, federal control of affairs in the southern states came to an end. foreign affairs are not strictly a part of our subject; but, as going to show one of the dangerous features of the civil war, the possibility of the success of the secession sentiment in england in obtaining the intervention of that country, the speech of mr. beecher in liver-pool, with the addenda of his audience, has been given. abraham lincoln, of illinois. (born , died .) first inaugural address, march , . fellow citizens of the united states: in compliance with a custom as old as the government itself, i appear before you to address you briefly, and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the constitution of the united states to be taken by the president "before he enters on the execution of his office." i do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement. apprehension seems to exist, among the people of the southern states, that by the accession of a republican administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. there never has been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. it is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. i do but quote from one of those speeches when i declare that "i have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. i believe i have no lawful right to do so, and i have no inclination to do so." those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that i had made this and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which i now read: "resolved, that the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its judgment exclusively, is essential to the balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any state or territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes." i now reiterate these sentiments; and, in doing so, i only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming administration. i add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the states, when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause, as cheerfully to one section as to another. there is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. the clause i now read is as plainly written in the constitution as any other of its provisions: "no person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." it is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the re-claiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. all members of congress swear their support to the whole constitution--to this provision as much as any other. to the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause, "shall be delivered up," their oaths are unanimous. now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not, with nearly equal unanimity, frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath? there is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by state authority; but surely that difference is not a very material one. if the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him, or to others, by what authority it is done. and should any one, in any case, be content that his oath should go unkept, on a mere unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept? again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not, in any case, surrendered as a slave? and might it not be well, at the same time, to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause of the constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states"? i take the official oath to-day with no mental reservation, and with no purpose to construe the constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules. and while i do not choose now to specify particular acts of congress as proper to be enforced, i do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed, than to violate any of them, trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional. it is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a president under our national constitution. during that period, fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have, in succession, administered the executive branch of the government. they have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. yet, with all this scope for precedent, i now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years, under great and peculiar difficulty. a disruption of the federal union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted. i hold that in contemplation of universal law, and of the constitution, the union of these states is perpetual. perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. it is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. continue to execute all the express provisions of our national government, and the union will endure forever--it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself. again, if the united states be not a government proper, but an association of states in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? one party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that, in legal contemplation, the union is perpetual, confirmed by the history of the union itself. the union is much older than the constitution. it was formed, in fact, by the articles of association in . it was matured and continued by the declaration of independence in . it was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen states expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the articles of confederation in . and, finally, in , one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the constitution was "to form a more perfect union." but if destruction of the union, by one, or by a part only, of the states, be lawfully possible, the union is less perfect than before, the constitution having lost the vital element of perpetuity. it follows, from these views, that no state, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence within any state or states, against the authority of the united states, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. i therefore consider that, in view of the constitution and the laws, the union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability i shall take care, as the constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the union be faithfully executed in all the states. doing this i deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and i shall perform it, so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the american people, shall withhold the requisite means, or, in some authoritative manner, direct the contrary. i trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself. in doing this there need be no blood-shed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. the power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. where hostility to the united states, in any interior locality, shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. while the strict legal right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable withal, that i deem it better to forego, for the time, the uses of such offices. the mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the union. so far as possible, the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. the course here indicated will be followed, unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing, and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles, and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections. that there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the union at all events, and are glad of any pretext to do it, i will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, i need address no word to them. to those, however, who really love the union, may i not speak? before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain why we do it? will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the certain ills you fly from have no real existence? will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from,--will you risk the omission of so fearful a mistake? all profess to be content in the union, if all constitutional rights can be maintained. is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in the constitution, has been denied? i think not. happily the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the constitution has ever been denied. if, by the mere force of numbers, a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution--certainly would if such right were a vital one. but such is not our case. all the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions in the constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them. but no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. no foresight can anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain, express provisions for all possible questions. shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or state authority? the constitution does not expressly say. may congress prohibit slavery in the territories? the constitution does not expressly say. must congress protect slavery in the territories? the constitution does not expressly say. from questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. if the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease. there is no other alternative; for continuing the government is acquiescence on one side or the other. if a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which, in turn, will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such a minority. for instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy, a year or two hence, arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present union now claim to secede from it? all who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this. is there such perfect identity of interests among the states to compose a new union, as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed secession? plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. a majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. whoever rejects it, does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism, in some form, is all that is left. * * * physically speaking, we cannot separate. we cannot remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. a husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. they cannot but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. it is impossible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before. can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always, and when after much loss on both sides and no gain on either you cease fighting, the identical old questions as to terms of intercourse are again upon you. this country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. i cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the national constitution amended. * * * i understand a proposed amendment to the constitution--which amendment, however, i have not seen--has passed congress, to the effect that the federal government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the states, including that of persons held to service. to avoid misconstruction of what i have said, i depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that, holding such a provision now to be implied constitutional law, i have no objections to its being made express and irrevocable.' the chief magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have conferred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the states. the people themselves can do this also if they choose, but the executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. his duty is to administer the present government as it came to his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor. why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? is there any better or equal hope in the world? in our present differences is either party without faith of being in the right? if the almighty ruler of nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the north, or yours of the south, that truth and that justice will surely prevail, by the judgment of this great tribunal of the american people. by the frame of the government under which we live, the same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. while the people retain their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years. my countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. if there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old constitution unimpaired, and on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. if it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in this dispute there is still no single good reason for precipitate action. intelligence, patriotism, christianity, and a firm reliance on him who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty. in your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, are the momentous issues of civil war. the government will not assail you. you can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. you have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while i shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend" it. i am loth to close. we are not enemies, but friends. we must not be enemies. though passion may have strained, it must not break, our bonds of affection. the mystic cords of memory, stretching from every battle-field and patriot grave to every living heart and hearth-stone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the union when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature. jefferson davis, of mississippi.' (born , died .) inaugural address, montgomery, ala., february , . gentlemen of the congress of the confederate states of america, friends, and fellow-citizens: our present condition, achieved in a manner unprecedented in the history of nations, illustrates the american idea that governments rest upon the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter and abolish governments whenever they become destructive to the ends for which they were established. the declared compact of the union from which we have withdrawn was to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity; and when in the judgment of the sovereign states now composing this confederacy it has been perverted from the purposes for which it was ordained, and ceased to answer the ends for which it was established, a peaceful appeal to the ballot-box declared that, so far as they were concerned, the government created by that compact should cease to exist. in this they merely asserted the right which the declaration of independence of defined to be inalienable. of the time and occasion of this exercise they as sovereigns were the final judges, each for himself. the impartial, enlightened verdict of mankind will vindicate the rectitude of our conduct; and he who knows the hearts of men will judge of the sincerity with which we labored to preserve the government of our fathers in its spirit. the right solemnly proclaimed at the birth of the states, and which has been affirmed and reaffirmed in the bills of rights of the states subsequently admitted into the union of , undeniably recognizes in the people the power to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of government. thus the sovereign states here represented proceeded to form this confederacy; and it is by the abuse of language that their act has been denominated revolution. they formed a new alliance, but within each state its government has remained. the rights of person and property have not been disturbed. the agent through whom they communicated with foreign nations is changed, but this does not necessarily interrupt their international relations. sustained by the consciousness that the transition from the former union to the present confederacy has not proceeded from a disregard on our part of our just obligations or any failure to perform every constitutional duty, moved by no interest or passion to invade the rights of others, anxious to cultivate peace and commerce with all nations, if we may not hope to avoid war, we may at least expect that posterity will acquit us of having needlessly engaged in it. doubly justified by the absence of wrong on our part, and by wanton aggression on the part of others, there can be no use to doubt the courage and patriotism of the people of the confederate states will be found equal to any measure of defence which soon their security may require. an agricultural people, whose chief interest is the export of a commodity required in every manufacturing country, our true policy is peace and the freest trade which our necessities will permit. it is alike our interest and that of all those to whom we would sell and from whom we would buy, that there should be the fewest practicable restrictions upon the interchange of commodities. there can be but little rivalry between ours and any manufacturing or navigating community, such as the northeastern states of the american union. it must follow, therefore, that mutual interest would invite good-will and kind offices. if, however, passion or lust of dominion should cloud the judgment or inflame the ambition of those states, we must prepare to meet the emergency, and maintain by the final arbitrament of the sword the position which we have assumed among the nations of the earth. we have entered upon a career of independence, and it must be inflexibly pursued through many years of controversy with our late associates of the northern states. we have vainly endeavored to secure tranquillity and obtain respect for the rights to which we were entitled. as a necessity, not a choice, we have resorted to the remedy of separation, and henceforth our energies must be directed to the conduct of our own affairs, and the perpetuity of the confederacy which we have formed. if a just perception of mutual interest shall permit us peaceably to pursue our separate political career, my most earnest desire will have been fulfilled. but if this be denied us, and the integrity of our territory and jurisdiction be assailed, it will but remain for us with firm resolve to appeal to arms and invoke the blessing of providence on a just cause. * * * actuated solely by a desire to preserve our own rights, and to promote our own welfare, the separation of the confederate states has been marked by no aggression upon others, and followed by no domestic convulsion. our industrial pursuits have received no check, the cultivation of our fields progresses as heretofore, and even should we be involved in war, there would be no considerable diminution in the production of the staples which have constituted our exports, in which the commercial world has an interest scarcely less than our own. this common interest of producer and consumer can only be intercepted by an exterior force which should obstruct its transmission to foreign markets, a course of conduct which would be detrimental to manufacturing and commercial interests abroad. should reason guide the action of the government from which we have separated, a policy so detrimental to the civilized world, the northern states included, could not be dictated by even a stronger desire to inflict injury upon us; but if it be otherwise, a terrible responsibility will rest upon it, and the suffering of millions will bear testimony to the folly and wickedness of our aggressors. in the meantime there will remain to us, besides the ordinary remedies before suggested, the well-known resources for retaliation upon the commerce of an enemy. * * * we have changed the constituent parts but not the system of our government. the constitution formed by our fathers is that of these confederate states. in their exposition of it, and in the judicial construction it has received, we have a light which reveals its true meaning. thus instructed as to the just interpretation of that instrument, and ever remembering that all offices are but trusts held for the people, and that delegated powers are to be strictly construed, i will hope by due diligence in the performance of my duties, though i may disappoint your expectation, yet to retain, when retiring, something of the good-will and confidence which will welcome my entrance into office. it is joyous in the midst of perilous times to look around upon a people united in heart, when one purpose of high resolve animates and actuates the whole, where the sacrifices to be made are not weighed in the balance, against honor, right, liberty, and equality. obstacles may retard, but they cannot long prevent, the progress of a movement sanctioned by its justice and sustained by a virtuous people. reverently let us invoke the god of our fathers to guide and protect us in our efforts to perpetuate the principles which by his blessing they were able to vindicate, establish, and transmit to their posterity; and with a continuance of his favor, ever gratefully acknowledged, we may hopefully look forward to success, to peace, to prosperity. alexander hamilton stephens, of georgia. (born , died .) the "corner-stone" address; athenaeum, savannah, ga., march , mr. mayor and gentlemen: we are in the midst of one of the greatest epochs in our history. the last ninety days will mark one of the most interesting eras in the history of modern civilization. seven states have in the last three months thrown off an old government and formed a new. this revolution has been signally marked, up to this time, by the fact of its having been accomplished without the loss of a single drop of blood. this new constitution, or form of government, constitutes the subject to which your attention will be partly invited. in reference to it, i make this first general remark: it amply secures all our ancient rights, franchises, and liberties. all the great principles of magna charta are retained in it. no citizen is deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers under the laws of the land. the great principle of religious liberty, which was the honor and pride of the old constitution, is still maintained and secured. all the essentials of the old constitution, which have endeared it to the hearts of the american people, have been preserved and perpetuated. some changes have been made. some of these i should prefer not to have seen made; but other important changes do meet my cordial approbation. they form great improvements upon the old constitution. so, taking the whole new constitution, i have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment that it is decidedly better than the old. allow me briefly to allude to some of these improvements. the question of building up class interests, or fostering one branch of industry to the prejudice of another under the exercise of the revenue power, which gave us so much trouble under the old constitution, is put at rest forever under the new. we allow the imposition of no duty with a view of giving advantage to one class of persons, in any trade or business, over those of another. all, under our system, stand upon the same broad principles of perfect equality. honest labor and enterprise are left free and unrestricted in whatever pursuit they may be engaged. this old thorn of the tariff, which was the cause of so much irritation in the old body politic, is removed forever from the new. again, the subject of internal improvements, under the power of congress to regulate commerce, is put at rest under our system. the power, claimed by construction under the old constitution, was at least a doubtful one; it rested solely upon construction. we of the south, generally apart from considerations of constitutional principles, opposed its exercise upon grounds of its inexpediency and injustice. * * * our opposition sprang from no hostility to commerce, or to all necessary aids for facilitating it. with us it was simply a question upon whom the burden should fall. in georgia, for instance, we have done as much for the cause of internal improvements as any other portion of the country, according to population and means. we have stretched out lines of railroad from the seaboard to the mountains; dug down the hills, and filled up the valleys, at a cost of $ , , . * * * no state was in greater need of such facilities than georgia, but we did not ask that these works should be made by appropriations out of the common treasury. the cost of the grading, the superstructure, and the equipment of our roads was borne by those who had entered into the enterprise. nay, more, not only the cost of the iron--no small item in the general cost--was borne in the same way, but we were compelled to pay into the common treasury several millions of dollars for the privilege of importing the iron, after the price was paid for it abroad. what justice was there in taking this money, which our people paid into the common treasury on the importation of our iron, and applying it to the improvement of rivers and harbors elsewhere? the true principle is to subject the commerce of every locality to whatever burdens may be necessary to facilitate it. if charleston harbor needs improvement, let the commerce of charleston bear the burden. * * * this, again, is the broad principle of perfect equality and justice; and it is especially set forth and established in our new constitution. another feature to which i will allude is that the new constitution provides that cabinet ministers and heads of departments may have the privilege of seats upon the floor of the senate and house of representatives, may have the right to participate in the debates and discussions upon the various subjects of administration. i should have preferred that this provision should have gone further, and required the president to select his constitutional advisers from the senate and house of representatives. that would have conformed entirely to the practice in the british parliament, which, in my judgment, is one of the wisest provisions in the british constitution. it is the only feature that saves that government. it is that which gives it stability in its facility to change its administration. ours, as it is, is a great approximation to the right principle. * * * another change in the constitution relates to the length of the tenure of the presidential office. in the new constitution it is six years instead of four, and the president is rendered ineligible for a re-election. this is certainly a decidedly conservative change. it will remove from the incumbent all temptation to use his office or exert the powers confided to him for any objects of personal ambition. the only incentive to that higher ambition which should move and actuate one holding such high trusts in his hands will be the good of the people, the advancement, happiness, safety, honor, and true glory of the confederacy. but, not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other--though last, not least. the new constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution, african slavery as it exists amongst us, the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. this was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this as the "rock upon which the old union would split." he was right. what was conjecture with him is now a realized fact. but whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands may be doubted. the prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution were that the enslavement of the african was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. it was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other, in the order of providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. this idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. the constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guaranties thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. they rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. this was an error. it was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when "the storm came and the wind blew." our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man, that slavery--subordination to the superior race--is his natural and normal condition. this, our new government, is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. this truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. it has been so even amongst us. many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. the errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. those at the north who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. all fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind, from a defect in reasoning. it is a species of insanity. one of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises. so with the antislavery fanatics; their conclusions are right, if their premises were. they assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal rights and privileges with the white man. if their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just; but, their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. i recollect once hearing a gentleman from one of the northern states, of great power and ability, announce in the house of representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the south would be compelled ultimately to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics or mechanics; that the principle would ultimately prevail; that we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. the reply i made to him was that upon his own grounds we should ultimately succeed, and that he and his associates in this crusade against our institutions would ultimately fail. the truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, i admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. they were attempting to make things equal which the creator had made unequal. in the conflict, thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the confederate states. it is upon this, as i have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and i cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world. as i have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. it was so with the principles announced by galileo. it was so with adam smith and his principles of political economy. it was so with harvey and his theory of the circulation of the blood; it is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. now they are universally acknowledged. may we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? it is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature and the ordination of providence in furnishing the materials of human society. many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. with us, all the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. not so with the negro; subordination is his place. he, by nature or by the curse against canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. the architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material--the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. the substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it; and by experience we know that it is best not only for the superior race, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. it is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the creator. it is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of his ordinances, or to question them. for his own purposes he has made one race to differ from another, as he has made "one star to differ from another star in glory." the great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to his laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these views. this stone, which was rejected by the first builders, "is become the chief of the corner," the real "corner-stone" in our new edifice. * * * mr. jefferson said in his inaugural, in , after the heated contest preceding his election, that there might be differences of opinion without differences of principle, and that all, to some extent, had been federalists, and all republicans. so it may now be said of us that, whatever differences of opinion as to the best policy in having a cooperation with our border sister slave states, if the worst came to the worst, as we were all cooperationists, we are all now for independence, whether they come or not. * * * we are a young republic, just entering upon the arena of nations; we will be the architects of our own fortunes. our destiny, under providence, is in our own hands. with wisdom, prudence, and statesmanship on the part of our public men, and intelligence, virtue, and patriotism on the part of the people, success to the full measure of our most sanguine hopes may be looked for. but, if unwise counsels prevail, if we become divided, if schisms arise, if dissensions spring up, if factions are engendered, if party spirit, nourished by unholy personal ambition, shall rear its hydra head, i have no good to prophesy for you. without intelligence, virtue, integrity, and patriotism on the part of the people, no republic or representative government can be durable or stable. john c. breckenridge, and edward d. baker john c. breckenridge, of kentucky, (born , died ), edward d. baker, of oregon, (born , died ) on suppression of insurrection, united states senate, august i, . mr. breckenridge. i do not know how the senate may vote upon this question; and i have heard some remarks which have dropped from certain senators which have struck me with so much surprise, that i desire to say a few words in reply to them now. this drama, sir, is beginning to open before us, and we begin to catch some idea of its magnitude. appalled by the extent of it, and embarrassed by what they see before them and around them, the senators who are themselves the most vehement in urging on this course of events, are beginning to quarrel among themselves as to the precise way in which to regulate it. the senator from vermont objects to this bill because it puts a limitation on what he considers already existing powers on the part of the president. i wish to say a few words presently in regard to some provisions of this bill, and then the senate and the country may judge of the extent of those powers of which this bill is a limitation. i endeavored, mr. president, to demonstrate a short time ago, that the whole tendency of our proceedings was to trample the constitution under our feet, and to conduct this contest without the slightest regard to its provisions. everything that has occurred since, demonstrates that the view i took of the conduct and tendency of public affairs was correct. already both houses of congress have passed a bill virtually to confiscate all the property in the states that have withdrawn, declaring in the bill to which i refer that all property of every description employed in any way to promote or aid in the insurrection, as it is denominated, shall be forfeited and confiscated. i need not say to you, sir, that all property of every kind is employed in those states, directly or indirectly, in aid of the contest they are waging, and consequently that bill is a general confiscation of all property there. as if afraid, however, that this general term might not apply to slave property, it adds an additional section. although they were covered by the first section of the bill, to make sure of that, however, it adds another section, declaring that all persons held to service or labor; who shall be employed in any way to aid or promote the contest now waging, shall be discharged from such service and become free: nothing can be more apparent than that that is a general act of emancipation; because all the slaves in that country are employed in furnishing the means of subsistence and life to those who are prosecuting the contest; and it is an indirect, but perfectly certain mode of carrying out the purposes contained in the bill introduced by the senator from kansas (mr. pomeroy). it is doing under cover and by indirection, but certainly, what he proposes shall be done by direct proclamation of the president. again, sir: to show that all these proceedings are characterized by an utter disregard of the federal constitution, what is happening around us every day? in the state of new york, some young man has been imprisoned by executive authority upon no distinct charge, and the military officer having him in charge refused to obey the writ of _habeas corpus_ issued by a judge. what is the color of excuse for that action in the state of new york? as a senator said, is new york in resistance to the government? is there any danger to the stability of the government there? then, sir, what reason will any senator rise and give on this floor for the refusal to give to the civil authorities the body of a man taken by a military commander in the state of new york? again: the police commissioners of baltimore were arrested by military authority without any charges whatever. in vain they have asked for a specification. in vain they have sent a respectful protest to the congress of the united states. in vain the house of representatives, by resolution, requested the president to furnish the representatives of the people with the grounds of their arrest. he answers the house of representatives that, in his judgment, the public interest does not permit him to say why they were arrested, on what charges, or what he has done with them--and you call this liberty and law and proceedings for the preservation of the constitution! they have been spirited off from one fortress to another, their locality unknown, and the president of the united states refuses, upon the application of the most numerous branch of the national legislature, to furnish them with the grounds of their arrest, or to inform them what he has done with them. sir, it was said the other day by the senator from illinois (mr. browning) that i had assailed the conduct of the executive with vehemence, if not with malignity. i am not aware that i have done so. i criticised, with the freedom that belongs to the representative of a sovereign state and the people, the conduct of the executive. i shall continue to do so as long as i hold a seat upon this floor, when, in my opinion, that conduct deserves criticism. sir, i need not say that, in the midst of such events as surround us, i could not cherish personal animosity towards any human being. towards that distinguished officer, i never did cherish it. upon the contrary, i think more highly of him, as a man and an officer, than i do of many who are around him and who, perhaps guide his counsels. i deem him to be personally an honest man, and i believe that he is trampling upon the constitution of his country every day, with probably good motives, under the counsels of those who influence him. but, sir, i have nothing now to say about the president. the proceedings of congress have eclipsed the actions of the executive; and if this bill shall become a law, the proceedings of the president will sink into absolute nothingness in the presence of the outrages upon personal and public liberty which have been perpetrated by the congress of the united states. * * * * * mr. president, gentlemen talk about the union as if it was an end instead of a means. they talk about it as if it was the union of these states which alone had brought into life the principles of public and of personal liberty. sir, they existed before, and they may survive it. take care that in pursuing one idea you you do not destroy not only the constitution of your country, but sever what remains of the federal union. these eternal and sacred principles of public men and of personal liberty, which lived before the union and will live forever and ever somewhere, must be respected; they cannot with impunity be overthrown; and if you force the people to the issue between any form of government and these priceless principles, that form of government will perish; they will tear it asunder as the irrepressible forces of nature rend whatever opposes them. mr. president, i shall not long detain the senate. i shall not enter now upon an elaborate discussion of all the principles involved in this bill, and all the consequences which, in my opinion, flow from it. a word in regard to what fell from the senator from vermont, the substance of which has been uttered by a great many senators on this floor. what i tried to show some time ago has been substantially admitted. one senator says that the constitution is put aside in a struggle like this. another senator says that the condition of affairs is altogether abnormal, and that you cannot deal with them on constitutional principles, any more than you can deal, by any of the regular operations of the laws of nature, with an earthquake. the senator from vermont says that all these proceedings are to be conducted according to the laws of war; and he adds that the laws of war require many things to be done which are absolutely forbidden in the constitution; which congress is prohibited from doing, and all other departments of the government are forbidden from doing by the constitution; but that they are proper under the laws of war, which must alone be the measure of our action now. i desire the country, then, to know this fact; that it is openly avowed upon this floor that constitutional limitations are no longer to be regarded; but that you are acting just as if there were two nations upon this continent, one arrayed against the other; some eighteen or twenty million on one side, and some ten or twelve million on the other, as to whom the constitution is nought, and the laws of war alone apply. sir, let the people, already beginning to pause and reflect upon the origin and nature and the probable consequences of this unhappy strife, get this idea fairly lodged in their minds--and it is a true one--and i will venture to say that the brave words which we now hear every day about crushing, subjugating, treason, and traitors, will not be so uttered the next time the representatives of the people and states assemble beneath the dome of this capitol. * * * * * mr. president, we are on the wrong tack; we have been from the beginning. the people begin to see it. here we have been hurling gallant fellows on to death, and the blood of americans has been shed--for what? they have shown their prowess, respectively--that which belongs to the race--and shown it like men. but for what have the united states soldiers, according to the exposition we have heard here to-day, been shedding their blood, and displaying their dauntless courage? it has been to carry out principles that three fourths of them abhor; for the principles contained in this bill, and continually avowed on the floor of the senate, are not shared, i venture to say, by one fourth of the army. i have said, sir, that we are on the wrong tack. nothing but ruin, utter ruin, to the north, to the south, to the east, to the west, will follow the prosecution of this contest. you may look forward to countless treasures all spent for the purpose of desolating and ravaging this continent; at the end leaving us just where we are now; or if the forces of the united states are successful in ravaging the whole south, what on earth will be done with it after that is accomplished? are not gentlemen now perfectly satisfied that they have mistaken a people for a faction? are they not perfectly satisfied that, to accomplish their object, it is necessary to subjugate, to conquer--aye, to exterminate--nearly ten millions of people? do you not know it? does not everybody know it? does not the world know it? let us pause, and let the congress of the united states respond to the rising feeling all over this land in favor of peace. war is separation; in the language of an eminent gentleman now no more, it is disunion, eternal and final disunion. we have separation now; it is only made worse by war, and an utter extinction of all those sentiments of common interest and feeling which might lead to a political reunion founded upon consent and upon a conviction of its advantages. let the war go on, however, and soon, in addition to the moans of widows and orphans all over this land, you will hear the cry of distress from those who want food and the comforts of life. the people will be unable to pay the grinding taxes which a fanatical spirit will attempt to impose upon them. nay, more, sir; you will see further separation. i hope it is not "the sunset of life gives me mystical lore," but in my mind's eye i plainly see "coming events cast their shadows before." the pacific slope now, doubtless, is devoted to the union of states. let this war go on till they find the burdens of taxation greater than the burdens of a separate condition, and they will assert it. let the war go on until they see the beautiful features of the old confederacy beaten out of shape and comeliness by the brutalizing hand of war, and they will turn aside in disgust from the sickening spectacle, and become a separate nation. fight twelve months longer, and the already opening differences that you see between new england and the great northwest will develop themselves. you have two confederacies now. fight twelve months, and you will have three; twelve months longer, and you will have four. i will not enlarge upon it, sir. i am quite aware that all i say is received with a sneer of incredulity by the gentlemen who represent the far northeast; but let the future determine who was right and who was wrong. we are making our record here; i, my humble one, amid the sneers and aversion of nearly all who surround me, giving my votes, and uttering my utterances according to my convictions, with but few approving voices, and surrounded by scowls. the time will soon come, senators, when history will put her final seal upon these proceedings, and if my name shall be recorded there, going along with yours as an actor in these scenes, i am willing to abide, fearlessly, her final judgment. mr. baker. mr. president, it has not been my fortune to participate in at any length, indeed, not to hear very much of, the discussion which has been going on--more, i think, in the hands of the senator from kentucky than anybody else--upon all the propositions connected with this war; and, as i really feel as sincerely as he can an earnest desire to preserve the constitution of the united states for everybody, south as well as north, i have listened for some little time past to what he has said with an earnest desire to apprehend the point of his objection to this particular bill. and now--waiving what i think is the elegant but loose declamation in which he chooses to indulge--i would propose, with my habitual respect for him, (for nobody is more courteous and more gentlemanly,) to ask him if he will be kind enough to tell me what single particular provision there is in this bill which is in violation of the constitution of the united states, which i have sworn to support--one distinct, single proposition in the bill. mr. breckenridge. i will state, in general terms, that every one of them is, in my opinion, flagrantly so, unless it may be the last. i will send the senator the bill, and he may comment on the sections. mr. baker. pick out that one which is in your judgment most clearly so. mr. breckenridge. they are all, in my opinion, so equally atrocious that i dislike to discriminate. i will send the senator the bill, and i tell him that every section, except the last, in my opinion, violates the constitution of the united states; and of that last section, i express no opinion. mr. baker. i had hoped that that respectful suggestion to the senator would enable him to point out to me one, in his judgment, most clearly so, for they are not all alike--they are not equally atrocious. mr. breckenridge. very nearly. there are ten of them. the senator can select which he pleases. mr. baker. let me try then, if i must generalize as the senator does, to see if i can get the scope and meaning of this bill. it is a bill providing that the president of the united states may declare, by proclamation, in a certain given state of fact, certain territory within the united states to be in a condition of insurrection and war; which proclamation shall be extensively published within the district to which it relates. that is the first proposition. i ask him if that is unconstitutional? that is a plain question. is it unconstitutional to give power to the president to declare a portion of the territory of the united states in a state of insurrection or rebellion? he will not dare to say it is. mr. breckenridge. mr. president, the senator from oregon is a very adroit debater, and he discovers, of course, the great advantage he would have if i were to allow him, occupying the floor, to ask me a series of questions, and then have his own criticisms made on them. when he has closed his speech, if i deem it necessary, i will make some reply. at present, however, i will answer that question. the state of illinois, i believe, is a military district; the state of kentucky is a military district. in my judgment, the president has no authority, and, in my judgment, congress has no right to confer upon the president authority, to declare a state in a condition of insurrection or rebellion. mr. baker. in the first place, the bill does not say a word about states. that is the first answer. mr. breckenridge. does not the senator know, in fact, that those states compose military districts? it might as well have said "states" as to describe what is a state. mr. baker. i do; and that is the reason why i suggest to the honorable senator that this criticism about states does not mean anything at all. that is the very point. the objection certainly ought not to be that he can declare a part of a state in insurrection and not the whole of it. in point of fact, the constitution of the united states, and the congress of the united states acting upon it, are not treating of states, but of the territory comprising the united states; and i submit once more to his better judgment that it cannot be unconstitutional to allow the president to declare a county or a part of a county, or a town or a part of a town, or part of a state, or the whole of a state, or two states, or five states, in a condition of insurrection, if in his judgment that be the fact. that is not wrong. in the next place, it provides that that being so, the military commander in that district may make and publish such police rules and regulations as he may deem necessary to suppress the rebellion and restore order and preserve the lives and property of citizens. i submit to him, if the president of the united states has power, or ought to have power, to suppress insurrection and rebellion, is there any better way to do it, or is there any other? the gentleman says, do it by the civil power. look at the fact. the civil power is utterly overwhelmed; the courts are closed; the judges banished. is the president not to execute the law? is he to do it in person, or by his military commanders? are they to do it with regulation, or without it? that is the only question. mr. president, the honorable senator says there is a state of war. the senator from vermont agrees with him; or rather, he agrees with the senator from vermont in that. what then? there is a state of public war; none the less war because it is urged from the other side; not the less war because it is unjust; not the less war because it is a war of insurrection and rebellion. it is still war; and i am willing to say it is public war,--public as contra-distinguished from private war. what then? shall we carry that war on? is it his duty as a senator to carry it on? if so, how? by armies under command; by military organization and authority, advancing to suppress insurrection and rebellion. is that wrong? is that unconstitutional? are we not bound to do, with whomever levies war against us, as we would do if he were a foreigner? there is no distinction as to the mode of carrying on war; we carry on war against an advancing army just the same, whether it be from russia or from south carolina. will the honorable senator tell me it is our duty to stay here, within fifteen miles of the enemy seeking to advance upon us every hour, and talk about nice questions of constitutional construction as to whether it is war or merely insurrection? no, sir. it is our duty to advance, if we can; to suppress insurrection; to put down rebellion; to dissipate the rising; to scatter the enemy; and when we have done so, to preserve, in the terms of the bill, the liberty, lives, and property of the people of the country, by just and fair police regulations. i ask the senator from indiana, (mr. lane,) when we took monterey, did we not do it there? when we took mexico, did we not do it there? is it not a part, a necessary, an indispensable part of war itself, that there shall be military regulations over the country conquered and held? is that unconstitutional? i think it was a mere play of words that the senator indulged in when he attempted to answer the senator from new york. i did not understand the senator from new york to mean anything else substantially but this, that the constitution deals generally with a state of peace, and that when war is declared it leaves the condition of public affairs to be determined by the law of war, in the country where the war exists. it is true that the constitution of the united states does adopt the laws of war as a part of the instrument itself, during the continuance of war. the constitution does not provide that spies shall be hung. is it unconstitutional to hang a spy? there is no provision for it in terms in the constitution; but nobody denies the right, the power, the justice. why? because it is part of the law of war. the constitution does not provide for the exchange of prisoners; yet it may be done under the law of war. indeed the constitution does not provide that a prisoner may be taken at all; yet his captivity is perfectly just and constitutional. it seems to me that the senator does not, will not take that view of the subject. again, sir, when a military commander advances, as i trust, if there are no more unexpected great reverses, he will advance, through virginia and occupies the country, there, perhaps, as here, the civil law may be silent; there perhaps the civil officers may flee as ours have been compelled to flee. what then? if the civil law is silent, who shall control and regulate the conquered district, who but the military commander? as the senator from illinois has well said, shall it be done by regulation or without regulation? shall the general, or the colonel, or the captain, be supreme, or shall he be regulated and ordered by the president of the united states? that is the sole question. the senator has put it well. i agree that we ought to do all we can to limit, to restrain, to fetter the abuse of military power. bayonets are at best illogical arguments. i am not willing, except as a case of sheerest necessity, ever to permit a military commander to exercise authority over life, liberty, and property. but, sir, it is part of the law of war; you cannot carry in the rear of your army your courts; you cannot organize juries; you cannot have trials according to the forms and ceremonial of the common law amid the clangor of arms, and somebody must enforce police regulations in a conquered or occupied district. i ask the senator from kentucky again respectfully, is that unconstitutional; or if in the nature of war it must exist, even if there be no law passed by us to allow it, is it unconstitutional to regulate it? that is the question, to which i do not think he will make a clear and distinct reply. now, sir, i have shown him two sections of the bill, which i do not think he will repeat earnestly are unconstitutional. i do not think that he will seriously deny that it is perfectly constitutional to limit, to regulate, to control, at the same time to confer and restrain authority in the hands of military commanders. i think it is wise and judicious to regulate it by virtue of powers to be placed in the hands of the president by law. now, a few words, and a few only, as to the senator's predictions. the senator from kentucky stands up here in a manly way in opposition to what he sees is the overwhelming sentiment of the senate, and utters reproof,malediction, and prediction combined. well, sir, it is not every prediction that is prophecy. it is the easiest thing in the world to do; there is nothing easier, except to be mistaken when we have predicted. i confess, mr. president, that i would not have predicted three weeks ago the disasters which have overtaken our arms; and i do not think (if i were to predict now) that six months hence the senator will indulge in the same tone of prediction which is his favorite key now. i would ask him what would you have us do now--a confederate army within twenty miles of us, advancing, or threatening to advance, to overwhelm your government; to shake the pillars of the union; to bring it around your head, if you stay here, in ruins? are we to stop and talk about an uprising sentiment in the north against the war? are we to predict evil, and retire from what we predict? is it not the manly part to go on as we have begun, to raise money, and levy armies, to organize them, to prepare to advance; when we do advance, to regulate that advance by all the laws and regulations that civilization and humanity will allow in time of battle? can we do anything more? to talk to us about stopping, is idle; we will never stop. will the senator yield to rebellion? will he shrink from armed insurrection? will his state justify it? will its better public opinion allow it? shall we send a flag of truce? what would he have? or would he conduct this war so feebly, that the whole world would smile at us in derision? what would he have? these speeches of his, sown broadcast over the land, what clear distinct meaning have they? are they not intended for disorganization in our very midst? are they not intended to dull our weapons? are they not intended to destroy our zeal? are they not intended to animate our enemies? sir, are they not words of brilliant, polished treason, even in the very capitol of the confederacy? (manifestations of applause in the galleries.) the presiding officer (mr. anthony in the chair). order! mr. baker. what would have been thought if, in another capitol, in another republic, in a yet more martial age, a senator as grave, not more eloquent or dignified than the senator from kentucky, yet with the roman purple flowing over his shoulders, had risen in his place, surrounded by all the illustrations of roman glory, and declared that advancing hannibal was just, and that carthage ought to be dealt with in terms of peace? what would have been thought if, after the battle of canne, a senator there had risen in his place and denounced every levy of the roman people, every expenditure of its treasure, and every appeal to the old recollections and the old glories? sir, a senator, himself learned far more than myself in such lore (mr. fessenden), tells me, in a voice that i am glad is audible, that he would have been hurled from the tarpeian rock. it is a grand commentary upon the american constitution that we permit these words to be uttered. i ask the senator to recollect, too, what, save to send aid and comfort to the enemy, do these predictions of his amount to? every word thus uttered falls as a note of inspiration upon every confederate ear. every sound thus uttered is a word (and falling from his lips, a mighty word) of kindling and triumph to a foe that determines to advance. for me, i have no such word as a senator to utter. for me, amid temporary defeat, disaster, disgrace, it seems that my duty calls me to utter another word, and that word is, bold, sudden, forward, determined war, according to the laws of war, by armies, by military commanders clothed with full power, advancing with all the past glories of the republic urging them to conquest. i do not stop to consider whether it is subjugation or not. it is compulsory obedience, not to my will; not to yours, sir; not to the will of any one man; not to the will of any one state; but compulsory obedience to the constitution of the whole country. the senator chose the other day again and again to animadvert on a single expression in a little speech which i delivered before the senate, in which i took occasion to say that if the people of the rebellious states would not govern themselves as states, they ought to be governed as territories. the senator knew full well then, for i explained it twice--he knows full well now--that on this side of the chamber; nay, in this whole chamber; nay, in this whole north and west; nay, in all the loyal states in all their breadth, there is not a man among us all who dreams of causing any man in the south to submit to any rule, either as to life, liberty, or property, that we ourselves do not willingly agree to yield to. did he ever think of that? subjugation for what? when we subjugate south carolina, what shall we do? we shall compel its obedience to the constitution of the united states; that is all. why play upon words? we do not mean, we have never said, any more. if it be slavery that men should obey the constitution their fathers fought for, let it be so. if it be freedom, it is freedom equally for them and for us. we propose to subjugate rebellion into loyalty; we propose to subjugate insurrection into peace; we propose to subjugate confederate anarchy into constitutional union liberty. the senator well knows that we propose no more. i ask him, i appeal to his better judgment now, what does he imagine we intend to do, if fortunately we conquer tennessee or south carolina--call it "conquer," if you will, sir--what do we propose to do? they will have their courts still; they will have their ballot-boxes still; they will have their elections still; they will have their representatives upon this floor still; they will have taxation and representation still; they will have the writ of _habeas corpus_ still; they will have every privilege they ever had and all we desire. when the confederate armies are scattered; when their leaders are banished from power; when the people return to a late repentant sense of the wrong they have done to a government they never felt but in benignancy and blessing, then the constitution made for all will be felt by all, like the descending rains from heaven which bless all alike. is that subjugation? to restore what was, as it was, for the benefit of the whole country and of the whole human race, is all we desire and all we can have. * * * * * i tell the senator that his predictions, sometimes for the south, sometimes for the middle states, sometimes for the northeast, and then wandering away in airy visions out to the far pacific, about the dread of our people, as for loss of blood and treasure, provoking them to disloyalty, are false in sentiment, false in fact, and false in loyalty. the senator from kentucky is mistaken in them all. five hundred million dollars! what then? great britain gave more than two thousand million in the great battle for constitutional liberty which she led at one time almost single-handed against the world. five hundred thousand men! what then? we have them; they are ours; they are the children of the country. they belong to the whole country; they are our sons; our kinsmen; and there are many of us who will give them all up before we will abate one word of our just demand, or will retreat one inch from the line which divides right from wrong. sir, it is not a question of men or of money in that sense. all the money, all the men, are, in our judgment, well bestowed in such a cause. when we give them, we know their value. knowing their value well, we give them with the more pride and the more joy. sir, how can we retreat? sir, how can we make peace? who shall treat? what commissioners? who would go? upon what terms? where is to be your boundary line? where the end of the principles we shall have to give up? what will become of constitutional government? what will become of public liberty? what of past glories? what of future hopes? shall we sink into the insignificance of the grave--a degraded, defeated, emasculated people, frightened by the results of one battle, and scared at the visions raised by the imagination of the senator from kentucky upon this floor? no, sir; a thousand times, no, sir! we will rally--if, indeed, our words be necessary--we will rally the people, the loyal people, of the whole country. they will pour forth their treasure, their money, their men, without stint, without measure. the most peaceable man in this body may stamp his foot upon this senate-chamber floor, as of old a warrior and a senator did, and from that single stamp there will spring forth armed legions. shall one battle determine the fate of an empire? or, the loss of one thousand men or twenty thousand, or $ , , or $ , , ? in a year's peace, in ten years, at most, of peaceful progress, we can restore them all. there will be some graves reeking with blood, watered by the tears of affection. there will be some privation; there will be some loss of luxury; there will be somewhat more need for labor to procure the necessaries of life. when that is said, all is said. if we have the country, the whole country, the union, the constitution, free government--with these there will return all the blessings of well-ordered civilization; the path of the country will be a career of greatness and of glory such as, in the olden time, our fathers saw in the dim visions of years yet to come, and such as would have been ours now, to-day, if it had not been for the treason for which the senator too often seeks to apologize. mr. breckenridge. mr. president, i have tried on more than one occasion in the senate, in parliamentary and respectful language, to express my opinions in regard to the character of our federal system, the relations of the states to the federal government, to the constitution, the bond of the federal political system. they differ utterly from those entertained by the senator from oregon. evidently, by his line of argument, he regards this as an original, not a delegated government, and he regards it as clothed with all those powers which belong to an original nation, not only with those powers which are delegated by the different political communities that compose it, and limited by the written constitution that forms the bond of union. i have tried to show that, in the view that i take of our government, this war is an unconstitutional war. i do not think the senator from oregon has answered my argument. he asks, what must we do? as we progress southward and invade the country, must we not, said he, carry with us all the laws of war? i would not progress southward and invade the country. the president of the united states, as i again repeat, in my judgment only has the power to call out the military to assist the civil authority in executing the laws; and when the question assumes the magnitude and takes the form of a great political severance, and nearly half the members of the confederacy withdraw themselves from it, what then? i have never held that one state or a number of states have a right without cause to break the compact of the constitution. but what i mean to say is that you cannot then undertake to make war in the name of the constitution. in my opinion they are out. you may conquer them; but do not attempt to do it under what i consider false political pretenses. however, sir, i will not enlarge upon that. i have developed these ideas again and again, and i do not care to re-argue them. hence the senator and i start from entirely different stand-points, and his pretended replies are no replies at all. the senator asks me, "what would you have us do?" i have already intimated what i would have us do. i would have us stop the war. we can do it. i have tried to show that there is none of that inexorable necessity to continue this war which the senator seems to suppose. i do not hold that constitutional liberty on this continent is bound up in this fratricidal, devastating, horrible contest. upon the contrary, i fear it will find its grave in it. the senator is mistaken in supposing that we can reunite these states by war. he is mistaken in supposing that eighteen or twenty million upon the one side can subjugate ten or twelve million upon the other; or, if they do subjugate them, that you can restore constitutional government as our fathers made it. you will have to govern them as territories, as suggested by the senator, if ever they are reduced to the dominion of the united states, or, as the senator from vermont called them, "those rebellious provinces of this union," in his speech to-day. sir, i would prefer to see these states all reunited upon true constitutional principles to any other object that could be offered me in life; and to restore, upon the principles of of our fathers, the union of these states, to me the sacrifice of one unimportant life would be nothing; nothing, sir. but i infinitely prefer to see a peaceful separation of these states, than to see endless, aimless, devastating war, at the end of which i see the grave of public liberty and of personal freedom.' clement l. vallandigham, of ohio. (born , died .) on the war and its conduct; house of representatives, january , . sir, i am one of that number who have opposed abolitionism, or the political development of the antislavery sentiment of the north and west, from the beginning. in school, at college, at the bar, in public assemblies, in the legislature, in congress, boy and man, in time of peace and in time of war, at all times and at every sacrifice, i have fought against it. it cost me ten years' exclusion from office and honor at that period of life when honors are sweetest. no matter; i learned early to do right and to wait. sir, it is but the development of the spirit of intermeddling, whose children are strife and murder. cain troubled himself about the sacrifices of abel, and slew his brother. most of the wars, contentions, litigation, and bloodshed, from the beginning of time, have been its fruits. the spirit of non-intervention is the very spirit of peace and concord. * * * the spirit of intervention assumed the form of abolitionism because slavery was odious in name and by association to the northern mind, and because it was that which most obviously marks the different civilizations of the two sections. the south herself, in her early and later efforts to rid herself of it, had exposed the weak and offensive parts of slavery to the world. abolition intermeddling taught her at last to search for and defend the assumed social, economic, and political merit and values of the institution. but there never was an hour from the beginning when it did not seem to me as clear as the sun at broad noon that the agitation in any form in the north and west of the slavery question must sooner or later end in disunion and civil war. this was the opinion and prediction for years of whig and democratic statesmen alike; and, after the unfortunate dissolution of the whig party in , and the organization of the present republican party upon the exclusive antislavery and sectional basis, the event was inevitable, because, in the then existing temper of the public mind, and after the education through the press and the pulpit, the lecture and the political canvass, for twenty years, of a generation taught to hate slavery and the south, the success of that party, possessed as it was of every engine of political, business, social, and religious influence, was certain. it was only a question of time, and short time. such was its strength, indeed, that i do not believe that the union of the democratic party in on any candidate, even though he had been supported also by the entire so-called conservative or anti-lincoln vote of the country, would have availed to defeat it; and, if it had, the success of the abolition party would only have been postponed four years longer. the disease had fastened too strongly upon the system to be healed until it had run its course. the doctrine of "the irrepressible conflict" had been taught too long, and accepted too widely and earnestly, to die out until it should culminate in secession and disunion, and, if coercion were resorted to, then in civil war. i believed from the first that it was the purpose of some of the apostles of that doctrine to force a collision between the north and the south, either to bring about a separation or to find a vain but bloody pretext for abolishing slavery in the states. in any event, i knew, or thought i knew, that the end was certain collision and death to the union. believing thus, i have for years past denounced those who taught that doctrine, with all the vehemence, the bitterness, if you choose--i thought it a righteous, a patriotic bitterness--of an earnest and impassioned nature. * * * but the people did not believe me, nor those older and wiser and greater than i. they rejected the prophecy, and stoned the prophets. the candidate of the republican party was chosen president. secession began. civil war was imminent. it was no petty insurrection, no temporary combination to obstruct the execution of the laws in certain states, but a revolution, systematic, deliberate, determined, and with the consent of a majority of the people of each state which seceded. causeless it may have been, wicked it may have been, but there it was--not to be railed at, still less to be laughed at, but to be dealt with by statesmen as a fact. no display of vigor or force alone, however sudden or great, could have arrested it even at the outset. it was disunion at last. the wolf had come, but civil war had not yet followed. in my deliberate and solemn judgment there was but one wise and masterly mode of dealing with it. non-coercion would avert civil war, and compromise crush out both abolitionism and secession. the parent and the child would thus both perish. but a resort to force would at once precipitate war, hasten secession, extend disunion, and while it lasted utterly cut off all hope of compromise. i believed that war, if long enough continued, would be final, eternal disunion. i said it; i meant it; and accordingly, to the utmost of my ability and influence, i exerted myself in behalf of the policy of non-coercion. it was adopted by mr. buchanan's administration, with the almost unanimous consent of the democratic and constitutional union parties in and out of congress; and in february, with the consent of a majority of the republican party in the senate and the house. but that party most disastrously for the country refused all compromise. how, indeed, could they accept any? that which the south demanded, and the democratic and conservative parties of the north and west were willing to grant, and which alone could avail to keep the peace and save the union, implied a surrender of the sole vital element of the party and its platform, of the very principle, in fact, upon which it had just won the contest for the presidency, not, indeed, by a majority of the popular vote--the majority was nearly a million against it,--but under the forms of the constitution. sir, the crime, the "high crime," of the republican party was not so much its refusal to compromise, as its original organization upon a basis and doctrine wholly inconsistent with the stability of the constitution and the peace of the union. the president-elect was inaugurated; and now, if only the policy of non-coercion could be maintained, and war thus averted, time would do its work in the north and the south, and final peaceable adjustment and reunion be secured. some time in march it was announced that the president had resolved to continue the policy of his predecessor, and even go a step farther, and evacuate sumter and the other federal forts and arsenals in the seceded states. his own party acquiesced; the whole country rejoiced. the policy of non-coercion had triumphed, and for once, sir, in my life, i found myself in an immense majority. no man then pretended that a union founded in consent could be cemented by force. nay, more, the president and the secretary of state went farther. said mr. seward, in an official diplomatic letter to mr. adams: "for these reasons, he (the president) would not be disposed to reject a cardinal dogma of theirs (the secessionists), namely, that the federal government could not reduce the seceding states to obedience by conquest, although he were disposed to question that proposition. but in fact the president willingly accepts it as true. only an imperial or despotic government could subjugate thoroughly disaffected and insurrectionary members of the state." * * * this federal republican system of ours is, of all forms of government, the very one which is most unfitted for such a labor. this, sir, was on the th of april, and yet on that very day the fleet was under sail for charleston. the policy of peace had been abandoned. collision followed; the militia were ordered out; civil war began. now, sir, on the th of april, i believed that coercion would bring on war, and war disunion. more than that, i believed what you all believe in your hearts to-day, that the south could never be conquered--never. and not that only, but i was satisfied--and you of the abolition party have now proved it to the world--that the secret but real purpose of the war was to abolish slavery in the state. * * * these were my convictions on the th of april. had i changed them on the th, when i read the president's proclamation, * * * i would have changed my public conduct also. but my convictions did not change. i thought that, if war was disunion on the th of april, it was equally disunion on the th, and at all times. believing this, i could not, as an honest man, a union man, and a patriot, lend an active support to the war; and i did not. i had rather my right arm were plucked from its socket and cast into eternal burnings, than, with my convictions, to have thus defiled my soul with the guilt of moral perjury. sir, i was not taught in that school which proclaims that "all is fair in politics." i loathe, abhor, and detest the execrable maxim. * * * perish office, perish honors, perish life itself; but do the thing that is right, and do it like a man. certainly, sir; i could not doubt what he must suffer who dare defy the opinions and the passions, not to say the madness, of twenty millions of people. * * * i did not support the war; and to-day i bless god that not the smell of so much as one drop of its blood is upon my garments. sir, i censure no brave man who rushed patriotically into this war; neither will i quarrel with any one, here or elsewhere, who gave to it an honest support. had their convictions been mine, i, too, would doubtless have done as they did. with my convictions i could not. but i was a representative. war existed--by whose act no matter--not by mine. the president, the senate, the house, and the country all said that there should be war. * * * i belonged to that school of politics which teaches that, when we are at war, the government--i do not mean the executive alone, but the government--is entitled to demand and have, without resistance, such number of men, and such amount of money and supplies generally, as may be necessary for the war, until an appeal can be had to the people. before that tribunal alone, in the first instance, must the question of the continuance of the war be tried. this was mr. calhoun's opinion * * * in the mexican war. speaking of that war in , he said: "every senator knows that i was opposed to the war; but none but myself knows the depth of that opposition. with my conception of its character and consequences, it was impossible for me to vote for it. * * * but, after war was declared, by authority of the government, i acquiesced in what i could not prevent, and what it was impossible for me to arrest; and i then felt it to be my duty to limit my efforts to give such direction to the war as would, as far as possible, prevent the evils and dangers with which it threatened the country and its institutions." sir, i adopt all this as my position and my defence, though, perhaps, in a civil war, i might fairly go farther in opposition. i could not, with my convictions, vote men and money for this war, and i would not, as a representative, vote against them. i meant that, without opposition, the president might take all the men and all the money he should demand, and then to hold him to a strict responsibility before the people for the results. not believing the soldiers responsible for the war or its purposes or its consequences, i have never withheld my vote where their separate interests were concerned. but i have denounced from the beginning the usurpations and the infractions, one and all, of law and constitution, by the president and those under him; their repeated and persistent arbitrary arrests, the suspension of _habeas corpus_, the violation of freedom of the mails, of the private house, of the press, and of speech, and all the other multiplied wrongs and outrages upon public liberty and private right, which have made this country one of the worst despotisms on earth for the past twenty months, and i will continue to rebuke and denounce them to the end; and the people, thank god, have at last heard and heeded, and rebuked them too. to the record and to time i appeal again for my justification. henry ward beecher, of new york. (born , died .) address at liverpool, october , for more than twenty-five years i have been made perfectly familiar with popular assemblies in all parts of my country except the extreme south. there has not for the whole of that time been a single day of my life when it would have been safe for me to go south of mason's and dixon's line in my own country, and all for one reason: my solemn, earnest, persistent testimony against that which i consider to be the most atrocious thing under the sun--the system of american slavery in a great free republic. [cheers.] i have passed through that early period when right of free speech was denied to me. again and again i have attempted to address audiences that, for no other crime than that of free speech, visited me with all manner of contumelious epithets; and now since i have been in england, although i have met with greater kindness and courtesy on the part of most than i deserved, yet, on the other hand, i perceive that the southern influence prevails to some extent in england. [applause and uproar.] it is my old acquaintance; i understand it perfectly--[laughter]--and i have always held it to be an unfailing truth that where a man had a cause that would bear examination he was perfectly willing to have it spoken about. [applause.] and when in manchester i saw those huge placards: "who is henry ward beecher?"--[laughter, cries of "quite right," and applause.]--and when in liverpool i was told that there were those blood-red placards, purporting to say what henry ward beecher had said, and calling upon englishmen to suppress free speech--i tell you what i thought. i thought simply this: "i am glad of it." [laughter.] why? because if they had felt perfectly secure, that you are the minions of the south and the slaves of slavery, they would have been perfectly still. [applause and uproar.] and, therefore, when i saw so much nervous apprehension that, if i were permitted to speak--[hisses and applause]--when i found they were afraid to have me speak [hisses, laughter, and "no, no!"]--when i found that they considered my speaking damaging to their cause--[applause]--when i found that they appealed from facts and reasonings to mob law--[applause and uproar]--i said, no man need tell me what the heart and secret counsel of these men are. they tremble and are afraid. [applause, laughter, hisses, "no, no!" and a voice: "new york mob."] now, personally, it is a matter of very little consequence to me whether i speak here to-night or not. [laughter and cheers.] but, one thing is very certain, if you do permit me to speak here to-night you will hear very plain talking. [applause and hisses.] you will not find a man--[interruption]--you will not find me to be a man that dared to speak about great britain , miles off, and then is afraid to speak to great britain when he stands on her shores. [immense applause and hisses.] and if i do not mistake the tone and temper of englishmen, they had rather have a man who opposes them in a manly way--[applause from all parts of the hall]--than a sneak that agrees with them in an unmanly way. [applause and "bravo!"] now, if i can carry you with me by sound convictions, i shall be immensely glad--[applause]; but if i cannot carry you with me by facts and sound arguments, i do not wish you to go with me at all; and all that i ask is simply fair play. [applause, and a voice: "you shall have it too."] those of you who are kind enough to wish to favor my speaking--and you will observe that my voice is slightly husky, from having spoken almost every night in succession for some time past,--those who wish to hear me will do me the kindness simply to sit still, and to keep still; and i and my friends the secessionists will make all the noise. [laughter.] there are two dominant races in modern history--the germanic and the romanic races. the germanic races tend to personal liberty, to a sturdy individualism, to civil and to political liberty. the romanic race tends to absolutism in government; it is clannish; it loves chieftains; it develops a people that crave strong and showy governments to support and plan for them. the anglo-saxon race belongs to the great german family, and is a fair exponent of its peculiarities. the anglo-saxon carries self-government and self-development with him wherever he goes. he has popular government and popular industry; for the effects of a generous civil liberty are not seen a whit more plain in the good order, in the intelligence, and in the virtue of a self-governing people, than in their amazing enterprise and the scope and power of their creative industry. the power to create riches is just as much a part of the anglo-saxon virtues as the power to create good order and social safety. the things required for prosperous labor, prosperous manufactures, and prosperous commerce are three. first, liberty; second, liberty; third, liberty. [hear, hear!] though these are not merely the same liberty, as i shall show you. first, there must be liberty to follow those laws of business which experience has developed, without imposts or restrictions or governmental intrusions. business simply wants to be let alone. [hear, hear!] then, secondly, there must be liberty to distribute and exchange products of industry in any market without burdensome tariffs, without imposts, and with-out vexatious regulations. there must be these two liberties--liberty to create wealth, as the makers of it think best, according to the light and experience which business has given them; and then liberty to distribute what they have created without unnecessary vexatious burdens. the comprehensive law of the ideal industrial condition of the word is free manufacture and free trade. [hear, hear! a voice: "the morrill tariff." another voice: "monroe."] i have said there were three elements of liberty. the third is the necessity of an intelligent and free race of customers. there must be freedom among producers; there must be freedom among the distributors; there must be freedom among the customers. it may not have occurred to you that it makes any difference what one's customers are, but it does in all regular and prolonged business. the condition of the customer determines how much he will buy, determines of what sort he will buy. poor and ignorant people buy little and that of the poorest kind. the richest and the intelligent, having the more means to buy, buy the most, and always buy the best. here, then, are the three liberties: liberty of the producer, liberty of the distributor, and liberty of the consumer. the first two need no discussion; they have been long thoroughly and brilliantly illustrated by the political economists of great britain and by her eminent statesmen; but it seems to me that enough attention has not been directed to the third; and, with your patience, i will dwell upon that for a moment, before proceeding to other topics. it is a necessity of every manufacturing and commercial people that their customers should be very wealthy and intelligent. let us put the subject before you in the familiar light of your own local experience. to whom do the tradesmen of liverpool sell the most goods at the highest profit? to the ignorant and poor, or to the educated and prosperous? [a voice: "to the southerners." laughter.] the poor man buys simply for his body; he buys food, he buys clothing, he buys fuel, he buys lodging. his rule is to buy the least and the cheapest that he can. he goes to the store as seldom as he can; he brings away as little as he can; and he buys for the least he can. [much laughter.] poverty is not a misfortune to the poor only who suffer it, but it is more or less a misfortune to all with whom he deals. on the other hand, a man well off--how is it with him? he buys in far greater quantity. he can afford to do it; he has the money to pay for it. he buys in far greater variety, because he seeks to gratify not merely physical wants, but also mental wants. he buys for the satisfaction of sentiment and taste, as well as of sense. he buys silk, wool, flax, cotton; he buys all metals--iron, silver, gold, platinum; in short he buys for all necessities and all substances. but that is not all. he buys a better quality of goods. he buys richer silks, finer cottons, higher grained wools. now a rich silk means so much skill and care of somebody's that has been expended upon it to make it finer and richer; and so of cotton and so of wool. that is, the price of the finer goods runs back to the very beginning, and remunerates the workman as well as the merchant. now, the whole laboring community is as much interested and profited as the mere merchant, in this buying and selling of the higher grades in the greater varieties and quantities. the law of price is the skill; and the amount of skill expended in the work is as much for the market as are the goods. a man comes to market and says: "i have a pair of hands," and he obtains the lowest wages. another man comes and says: "i have something more than a pair of hands; i have truth and fidelity." he gets a higher price. another man comes and says: "i have something more; i have hands, and strength, and fidelity, and skill." he gets more than either of the others. the next man comes and says: "i have got hands, and strength, and skill, and fidelity; but my hands work more than that. they know how to create things for the fancy, for the affections, for the moral sentiments"; and he gets more than either of the others. the last man comes and says: "i have all these qualities, and have them so highly that it is a peculiar genius"; and genius carries the whole market and gets the highest price. [loud applause.] so that both the workman and the merchant are profited by having purchasers that demand quality, variety, and quantity. now, if this be so in the town or the city, it can only be so because it is a law. this is the specific development of a general or universal law, and therefore we should expect to find it as true of a nation as of a city like liverpool. i know that it is so, and you know that it is true of all the world; and it is just as important to have customers educated, intelligent, moral, and rich out of liverpool as it is in liverpool. [applause.] they are able to buy; they want variety, they want the very best; and those are the customers you want. that nation is the best customer that is freest, because freedom works prosperity, industry, and wealth. great britain, then, aside from moral considerations, has a direct commercial and pecuniary interest in the liberty, civilization, and wealth of every nation on the globe. [loud applause.] you also have an interest in this, because you are a moral and religious people. ["oh, oh!" laughter and applause.] you desire it from the highest motives; and godliness is profitable in all things, having the promise of the life that now is, as well as of that which is to come; but if there were no hereafter, and if man had no progress in this life, and if there were no question of civilization at all, it would be worth your while to protect civilization and liberty, merely as a commercial speculation. to evangelize has more than a moral and religious import--it comes back to temporal relations. wherever a nation that is crushed, cramped, degraded under despotism is struggling to be free, you, leeds, sheffield, manchester, paisley, all have an interest that that nation should be free. when depressed and backward people demand that they may have a chance to rise--hungary, italy, poland--it is a duty for humanity's sake, it is a duty for the highest moral motives, to sympathize with them; but besides all these there is a material and an interested reason why you should sympathize with them. pounds and pence join with conscience and with honor in this design. now, great britain's chief want is--what? they have said that your chief want is cotton. i deny it. your chief want is consumers. [applause and hisses.] you have got skill, you have got capital, and you have got machinery enough to manufacture goods for the whole population of the globe. you could turn out fourfold as much as you do, if you only had the market to sell in. it is not so much the want, therefore, of fabric, though there may be a temporary obstruction of it; but the principal and increasing want--increasing from year to year--is, where shall we find men to buy what we can manufacture so fast? [interruption, and a voice, "the morrill tariff," and applause.] before the american war broke out, your warehouses were loaded with goods that you could not sell. [applause and hisses.] you had over-manufactured; what is the meaning of over-manufacturing but this: that you had skill, capital, machinery, to create faster than you had customers to take goods off your hands? and you know that rich as great britain is, vast as are her manufactures, if she could have fourfold the present demand, she could make fourfold riches to-morrow; and every political economist will tell you that your want is not cotton primarily, but customers. therefore, the doctrine, how to make customers, is a great deal more important to great britain than the doctrine how to raise cotton. it is to that doctrine i ask from you, business men, practical men, men of fact, sagacious englishmen--to that point i ask a moment's attention. [shouts of "oh, oh!" hisses, and applause.] there are no more continents to be discovered. [hear, hear!] the market of the future must be found--how? there is very little hope of any more demand being created by new fields. if you are to have a better market there must be some kind of process invented to make the old fields better. [a voice, "tell us something new," shouts of order, and interruption.] let us look at it, then. you must civilize the world in order to make a better class of purchasers. [interruption.] if you were to press italy down again under the feet of despotism, italy, discouraged, could draw but very few supplies from you. but give her liberty, kindle schools throughout her valleys, spur her industry, make treaties with her by which she can exchange her wine, and her oil, and her silk for your manufactured goods; and for every effort that you make in that direction there will come back profit to you by increased traffic with her. [loud applause.] if hungary asks to be an unshackled nation--if by freedom she will rise in virtue and intelligence, then by freedom she will acquire a more multifarious industry, which she will be willing to exchange for your manufactures. her liberty is to be found--where? you will find it in the word of god, you will find it in the code of history; but you will also find it in the price current [hear, hear!]; and every free nation, every civilized people--every people that rises from barbarism to industry and intelligence, becomes a better customer. a savage is a man of one story, and that one story a cellar. when a man begins to be civilized, he raises another story. when you christianize and civilize the man, you put story upon story, for you develop faculty after faculty; and you have to supply every story with your productions. the savage is a man one story deep; the civilized man is thirty stories deep. [applause.] now, if you go to a lodging-house, where there are three or four men, your sales to them may, no doubt, be worth something; but if you go to a lodging-house like some of those which i saw in edinburgh, which seemed to contain about twenty stories ["oh, oh!" and interruption], every story of which is full, and all who occupy buy of you--which is the better customer, the man who is drawn out, or the man who is pinched up? [laughter.] now, there is in this a great and sound principle of economy. ["yah, yah!" from the passage outside the hall, and loud laughter.] if the south should be rendered independent--[at this juncture mingled cheering and hissing became immense; half the audience rose to their feet, waving hats and hand-kerchiefs, and in every part of the hall there was the greatest commotion and uproar.] you have had your turn now; now let me have mine again. [loud applause and laughter.] it is a little inconvenient to talk against the wind; but after all, if you will just keep good-natured--i am not going to lose my temper; will you watch yours? [applause.] besides all that, it rests me, and gives me a chance, you know, to get my breath. [applause and hisses.] and i think that the bark of those men is worse than their bite. they do not mean any harm--they don't know any better. [loud laughter, applause, hisses, and continued up-roar.] i was saying, when these responses broke in, that it was worth our while to consider both alternatives. what will be the result if this present struggle shall eventuate in the separation of america, and making the south--[loud applause, hisses, hooting, and cries of "bravo!"]--a slave territory exclusively,--[cries of "no, no!" and laughter]--and the north a free territory,--what will be the final result? you will lay the foundation for carrying the slave population clear through to the pacific ocean. this is the first step. there is not a man that has been a leader of the south any time within these twenty years, that has not had this for a plan. it was for this that texas was invaded, first by colonists, next by marauders, until it was wrested from mexico. it was for this that they engaged in the mexican war itself, by which the vast territory reaching to the pacific was added to the union. never for a moment have they given up the plan of spreading the american institutions, as they call them, straight through toward the west, until the slave, who has washed his feet in the atlantic, shall be carried to wash them in the pacific. [cries of "question," and up-roar.] there! i have got that statement out, and you cannot put it back. [laughter and applause.] now, let us consider the prospect. if the south becomes a slave empire, what relation will it have to you as a customer? [a voice: "or any other man." laughter.] it would be an empire of , , of people. now, of these, , , are white, and , , black. [a voice: "how many have you got?" applause and laughter. another voice: "free your own slaves."] consider that one third of the whole are the miserably poor, unbuying blacks. [cries of "no, no!" "yes, yes!" and interruption.] you do not manufacture much for them. [hisses, "oh!" "no."] you have not got machinery coarse enough. [laughter, and "no."] your labor is too skilled by far to manufacture bagging and linsey-woolsey. [a southerner: "we are going to free them, every one."] then you and i agree exactly. [laughter.] one other third consists of a poor, unskilled, degraded white population; and the remaining one third, which is a large allowance, we will say, intelligent and rich. now here are twelve million of people, and only one third of them are customers that can afford to buy the kind of goods that you bring to market. [interruption and uproar.] my friends, i saw a man once, who was a little late at a railway station, chase an express train. he did not catch it. [laughter.] if you are going to stop this meeting, you have got to stop it before i speak; for after i have got the things out, you may chase as long as you please--you would not catch them. [laughter and interruption.] but there is luck in leisure; i 'm going to take it easy. [laughter.] two thirds of the population of the southern states to-day are non-purchasers of english goods. [a voice: "no, they are not"; "no, no!" and uproar.] now you must recollect another fact--namely, that this is going on clear through to the pacific ocean; and if by sympathy or help you establish a slave empire, you sagacious britons--["oh, oh!" and hooting]--if you like it better, then, i will leave the adjective out--[laughter, hear! and applause]--are busy in favoring the establishment of an empire from ocean to ocean that should have fewest customers and the largest non-buying population. [applause, "no, no!" a voice: "i thought it was the happy people that populated fastest."] ` now, what can england make for the poor white population of such a future empire, and for her slave population? what carpets, what linens, what cottons can you sell them? what machines, what looking-glasses, what combs, what leather, what books, what pictures, what engravings? [a voice: "we 'll sell them ships."] you may sell ships to a few, but what ships can you sell to two thirds of the population of poor whites and blacks? [applause.] a little bagging and a little linsey-woolsey, a few whips and manacles, are all that you can sell for the slave. [great applause and uproar.] this very day, in the slave states of america there are eight millions out of twelve millions that are not, and cannot be your customers from the very laws of trade. [a voice: "then how are they clothed?" and interruption.] * * * but i know that you say, you cannot help sympathizing with a gallant people. [hear, hear!] they are the weaker people, the minority; and you cannot help going with the minority who are struggling for their rights against the majority. nothing could be more generous, when a weak party stands for its own legitimate rights against imperious pride and power, than to sympathize with the weak. but who ever sympathized with a weak thief, because three constables had got hold of him? [hear, hear!] and yet the one thief in three policemen's hands is the weaker party. i suppose you would sympathize with him. [hear, hear! laughter, and applause.] why, when that infamous king of naples--bomba, was driven into gaeta by garibaldi with his immortal band of patriots, and cavour sent against him the army of northern italy, who was the weaker party then? the tyrant and his minions; and the majority was with the noble italian patriots, struggling for liberty. i never heard that old england sent deputations to king bomba, and yet his troops resisted bravely there. [laugh-ter and interruption.] to-day the majority of the people of rome is with italy. nothing but french bayonets keeps her from going back to the kingdom of italy, to which she belongs. do you sympathize with the minority in rome or the majority in italy? [a voice: "with italy."] to-day the south is the minority in america, and they are fighting for independence! for what? [uproar. a voice: "three cheers for independence!" and hisses.] i could wish so much bravery had a better cause, and that so much self-denial had been less deluded; that the poisonous and venomous doctrine of state rights might have been kept aloof; that so many gallant spirits, such as jackson, might still have lived. [great applause and loud cheers, again and again renewed.] the force of these facts, historical and incontrovertible, cannot be broken, except by diverting attention by an attack upon the north. it is said that the north is fighting for union, and not for emancipation. the north is fighting for union, for that ensures emancipation. [loud cheers, "oh, oh!" "no, no!" and cheers.] a great many men say to ministers of the gospel: "you pretend to be preaching and working for the love of the people. why, you are all the time preaching for the sake of the church." what does the minister say? "it is by means of the church that we help the people," and when men say that we are fighting for the union, i too say we are fighting for the union. [hear, hear! and a voice: "that 's right."] but the motive determines the value; and why are we fighting for the union? because we never shall forget the testimony of our enemies. they have gone off declaring that the union in the hands of the north was fatal to slavery. [loud applause.] there is testimony in court for you. [a voice: "see that," and laughter.] * * * in the first place i am ashamed to confess that such was the thoughtlessness--[interruption]--such was the stupor of the north--[renewed interruption]--you will get a word at a time; to-morrow will let folks see what it is you don't want to hear--that for a period of twenty-five years she went to sleep, and permitted herself to be drugged and poisoned with the southern prejudice against black men. [applause and uproar.] the evil was made worse, because, when any object whatever has caused anger between political parties, a political animosity arises against that object, no matter how innocent in itself; no matter what were the original influences which excited the quarrel. thus the colored man has been the football between the two parties in the north, and has suffered accordingly. i confess it to my shame. but i am speaking now on my own ground, for i began twenty-five years ago, with a small party, to combat the unjust dislike of the colored man. [loud applause, dissension, and uproar. the interruption at this point became so violent that the friends of mr. beecher throughout the hall rose to their feet, waving hats and handkerchiefs, and renewing their shouts of applause. the interruption lasted some minutes.] well, i have lived to see a total revolution in the northern feeling--i stand here to bear solemn witness of that. it is not my opinion; it is my knowledge. [great uproar.] those men who undertook to stand up for the rights of all men--black as well as white--have increased in number; and now what party in the north represents those men that resist the evil prejudices of past years? the republicans are that party. [loud applause.] and who are those men in the north that have oppressed the negro? they are the peace democrats; and the prejudice for which in england you are attempting to punish me, is a prejudice raised by the men who have opposed me all my life. these pro-slavery democrats abuse the negro. i defended him, and they mobbed me for doing it. oh, justice! [loud laughter, applause, and hisses.] this is as if a man should commit an assault, maim and wound a neighbor, and a surgeon being called in should begin to dress his wounds, and by and by a policeman should come and collar the surgeon and haul him off to prison on account of the wounds which he was healing. now, i told you i would not flinch from any thing. i am going to read you some questions that were sent after me from glasgow, purporting to be from a workingman. [great interruption.] if those pro-slavery interrupters think they will tire me out, they will do more than eight millions in america could. [applause and renewed interruption.] i was reading a question on your side too. "is it not a fact that in most of the northern states laws exist precluding negroes from equal civil and political rights with the whites? that in the state of new york the negro has to be the possessor of at least two hundred and fifty dollars' worth of property to entitle him to the privileges of a white citizen? that in some of the northern states the colored man, whether bond or free, is by law excluded altogether, and not suffered to enter the state limits, under severe penalties? and is not mr. lincoln's own state one of them? and in view of the fact that the $ , , compensation which was promised to missouri in aid of emancipation was defeated in the last congress (the strongest republican congress that ever assembled), what has the north done toward emancipation?" now, then, there 's a dose for you. [a voice: "answer it."] and i will address myself to the answering of it. and first, the bill for emancipation in missouri, to which this money was denied, was a bill which was drawn by what we call "log-rollers," who inserted in it an enormously disproportioned price for the slaves. the republicans offered to give them $ , , for the slaves in missouri, and they outvoted it because they could not get $ , , . already half the slave population had been "run" down south, and yet they came up to congress to get $ , , for what was not worth ten millions, nor even eight millions. now as to those states that had passed "black" laws, as we call them; they are filled with southern emigrants. the southern parts of ohio, the southern part of indiana, where i myself lived for years, and which i knew like a book, the southern part of illinois, where mr. lincoln lives--[great uproar]--these parts are largely settled by emigrants from kentucky, tennessee, georgia, virginia, and north carolina, and it was their vote, or the northern votes pandering for political reasons to theirs, that passed in those states the infamous "black" laws; and the republicans in these states have a record, clean and white, as having opposed these laws in every instance as "infamous." now as to the state of new york; it is asked whether a negro is not obliged to have a certain freehold property, or a certain amount of property, before he can vote. it is so still in north carolina and rhode island for white folks--it is so in new york state. [mr. beecher's voice slightly failed him here, and he was interrupted by a person who tried to imitate him. cries of "shame!" and "turn him out!"] i am not undertaking to say that these faults of the north, which were brought upon them by the bad example and influence of the south, are all cured; but i do say that they are in process of cure which promises, if unimpeded by foreign influence, to make all such odious distinctions vanish. there is another fact that i wish to allude to--not for the sake of reproach or blame, but by way of claiming your more lenient consideration--and that is, that slavery was entailed upon us by your action. [hear, hear!] against the earnest protests of the colonists the then government of great britain--i will concede not knowing what were the mischiefs--ignorantly, but in point of fact, forced slave traffic on the unwilling colonists. [great uproar, in the midst of which one individual was lifted up and carried out of the room amidst cheers and hisses.] the chairman: if you would only sit down no disturbance would take place. the disturbance having subsided, mr. beecher said: i was going to ask you, suppose a child is born with hereditary disease; suppose this disease was entailed upon him by parents who had contracted it by their own misconduct, would it be fair that those parents that had brought into the world the diseased child, should rail at that child because it was diseased. ["no, no!"] would not the child have a right to turn round and say: "father, it was your fault that i had it, and you ought to be pleased to be patient with my deficiencies." [applause and hisses, and cries of "order!" great interruption and great disturbance here took place on the right of the platform; and the chairman said that if the persons around the unfortunate individual who had caused the disturbance would allow him to speak alone, but not assist him in making the disturbance, it might soon be put an end to. the interruption continued until another person was carried out of the hall.] mr. beecher continued: i do not ask that you should justify slavery in us, because it was wrong in you two hundred years ago; but having ignorantly been the means of fixing it upon us, now that we are struggling with mortal struggles to free ourselves from it, we have a right to your tolerance, your patience, and charitable constructions. no man can unveil the future; no man can tell what revolutions are about to break upon the world; no man can tell what destiny belongs to france, nor to any of the european powers; but one thing is certain, that in the exigencies of the future there will be combinations and recombinations, and that those nations that are of the same faith, the same blood, and the same substantial interests, ought not to be alienated from each other, but ought to stand together. [immense cheering and hisses.] i do not say that you ought not to be in the most friendly alliance with france or with germany; but i do say that your own children, the offspring of england, ought to be nearer to you than any people of strange tongue. [a voice: "degenerate sons," applause and hisses; another voice: "what about the trent?"] if there had been any feelings of bitterness in america, let me tell you that they had been excited, rightly or wrongly, under the impression that great britain was going to intervene between us and our own lawful struggle. [a voice: "no!" and applause.] with the evidence that there is no such intention all bitter feelings will pass away. [applause.] we do not agree with the recent doctrine of neutrality as a question of law. but it is past, and we are not disposed to raise that question. we accept it now as a fact, and we say that the utterance of lord russell at blairgowrie--[applause, hisses, and a voice: "what about lord brougham?"]--together with the declaration of the government in stopping war-steamers here--[great uproar, and applause]--has gone far toward quieting every fear and removing every apprehension from our minds. [uproar and shouts of applause.] and now in the future it is the work of every good man and patriot not to create divisions, but to do the things that will make for peace. ["oh, oh!" and laughter.] on our part it shall be done. [applause and hisses, and "no, no!"] on your part it ought to be done; and when in any of the convulsions that come upon the world, great britain finds herself struggling single-handed against the gigantic powers that spread oppression and darkness--[applause, hisses, and uproar]--there ought to be such cordiality that she can turn and say to her first-born and most illustrious child, "come!" [hear, hear! applause, tremendous cheers, and uproar.] i will not say that england cannot again, as hitherto, single-handed manage any power--[applause and uproar]--but i will say that england and america together for religion and liberty--[a voice: "soap, soap," uproar, and great applause]--are a match for the world. [applause; a voice: "they don't want any more soft soap."] now, gentlemen and ladies--[a voice: "sam slick"; and another voice: "ladies and gentlemen, if you please,"]--when i came i was asked whether i would answer questions, and i very readily consented to do so, as i had in other places; but i will tell you it was because i expected to have the opportunity of speaking with some sort of ease and quiet. [a voice: "so you have."] i have for an hour and a half spoken against a storm--[hear, hear!]--and you yourselves are witnesses that, by the interruption, i have been obliged to strive with my voice, so that i no longer have the power to control this assembly. [applause.] and although i am in spirit perfectly willing to answer any question, and more than glad of the chance, yet i am by this very unnecessary opposition to-night incapacitated physically from doing it. ladies and gentlemen, i bid you good-evening. abraham lincoln. the gettysburgh address, november , . fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. we are met on a great battlefield of that war. we have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. it is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. but in a larger sense we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. the brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our power to add or detract. the world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. it is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. it is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us, that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under god, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth. abraham lincoln. second inaugural address, march , . fellow-countrymen: at this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at first. then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued seemed very fitting and proper. now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. the progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, i trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. with high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured. on the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. all dreaded it, all sought to avoid it. while the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it with war--seeking to dissolve the union and divide the effects by negotiation. both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came. one eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the union, but localized in the southern part of it. these slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. all knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. to strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the union by war, while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease when, or even before the conflict itself should cease. each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. both read the same bible and pray to the same god, and each invokes his aid against the other. it may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just god's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. the prayer of both could not be answered. that of neither has been answered fully. the almighty has his own purposes. woe unto the world because of offences, for it must needs be that offences come, but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh. if we shall suppose that american slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of god, must needs come, but which having continued through his appointed time, he now wills to remove, and that he gives to both north and south this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern there any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living god always ascribe to him? fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. yet if god wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, that the judgments of the lord are true and righteous altogether. with malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as god gives us to see the right, let us finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphans, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and a lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations. henry winter davis, of maryland. (born , died .) on reconstruction; the first republican theory; house of representatives, march , . mr. speaker: the bill which i am directed by the committee on the rebellious states to report is one which provides for the restoration of civil government in states whose governments have been overthrown. it prescribes such conditions as will secure not only civil government to the people of the rebellious states, but will also secure to the people of the united states permanent peace after the suppression of the rebellion. the bill challenges the support of all who consider slavery the cause of the rebellion, and that in it the embers of rebellion will always smoulder; of those who think that freedom and permanent peace are inseparable, and who are determined, so far as their constitutional authority will allow them, to secure these fruits by adequate legislation. * * * it is entitled to the support of all gentlemen upon this side of the house, whatever their views may be of the nature of the rebellion, and the relation in which it has placed the people and states in rebellion toward the united states; not less of those who think that the rebellion has placed the citizens of the rebel states beyond the protection of the constitution, and that congress, therefore, has supreme power over them as conquered enemies, than of that other class who think that they have not ceased to be citizens and states of the united states, though incapable of exercising political privileges under the constitution, but that congress is charged with a high political power by the constitution to guarantee republican governments in the states, and that this is the proper time and the proper mode of exercising it. it is also entitled to the favorable consideration of gentlemen upon the other side of the house who honestly and deliberately express their judgment that slavery is dead. to them it puts the question whether it is not advisable to bury it out of sight, that its ghost may no longer stalk abroad to frighten us from our propriety. * * * what is the nature of this case with which we have to deal, the evil we must remedy, the danger we must avert? in other words, what is that monster of political wrong which is called secession? it is not, mr. speaker, domestic violence, within the meaning of that clause of the constitution, for the violence was the act of the people of those states through their governments, and was the offspring of their free and unforced will. it is not invasion, in the meaning of the constitution, for no state has been invaded against the will of the government of the state by any power except the united states marching to overthrow the usurpers of its territory. it is, therefore, the act of the people of the states, carrying with it all the consequences of such an act. and therefore it must be either a legal revolution, which makes them independent, and makes of the united states a foreign country, or it is a usurpation against the authority of the united states, the erection of governments which do not recognize the constitution of the united states, which the constitution does not recognize, and, therefore, not republican governments of the states in rebellion. the latter is the view which all parties take of it. i do not understand that any gentleman on the other side of the house says that any rebel government which does not recognize the constitution of the united states, and which is not recognized by congress, is a state government within the meaning of the constitution. still less can it be said that there is a state government, republican or unrepublican, in the state of tennessee, where there is no government of any kind, no civil authority, no organized form of administration except that represented by the flag of the united states, obeying the will and under the orders of the military officer in command. * * * those that are here represented are the only governments existing within the limits of the united states. those that are not here represented are not governments of the states, republican under the constitution. and if they be not, then they are military usurpations, inaugurated as the permanent governments of the states, contrary to the supreme law of the land, arrayed in arms against the government of the united states; and it is the duty, the first and highest duty, of the government to suppress and expel them. congress must either expel or recognize and support them. if it do not guarantee them, it is bound to expel them; and they who are not ready to suppress are bound to recognize them. we are now engaged in suppressing a military usurpation of the authority of the state governments. when that shall have been accomplished, there will be no form of state authority in existence which congress can recognize. our success will be the overthrow of all sent balance of government in the rebel states. the government of the united states is then in fact the only government existing in those states, and it is there charged to guarantee them republican governments. what jurisdiction does the duty of guaranteeing a republican government confer under such circumstances upon congress? what right does it give? what laws may it pass? what objects may it accomplish? what conditions may it insist upon, and what judgment may it exercise in determining what it will do? the duty of guaranteeing carries with it the right to pass all laws necessary and proper to guarantee. the duty of guaranteeing means the duty to accomplish the result. it means that the republican government shall exist. it means that every opposition to republican government shall be put down. it means that every thing inconsistent with the permanent continuance of republican government shall be weeded out. it places in the hands of congress to say what is and what is not, with all the light of experience and all the lessons of the past, inconsistent, in its judgment, with the permanent continuance of republican government; and if, in its judgment, any form of policy is radically and inherently inconsistent with the permanent and enduring peace of the country, with the permanent supremacy of republican government, and it have the manliness to say so, there is no power, judicial or executive, in the united states that can even question this judgment but the people; and they can do it only by sending other representatives here to undo our work. the very language of the constitution, and the necessary logic of the case, involve that consequence. the denial of the right of secession means that all the territory of the united states shall remain under the jurisdiction of the constitution. if there can be no state government which does not recognize the constitution, and which the authorities of the united states do not recognize, then there are these alternatives, and these only: the rebel states must be governed by congress till they submit and form a state government under the constitution; or congress must recognize state governments which do not recognize either congress or the constitution of the united states; or there must be an entire absence of all government in the rebel states--and that is anarchy. to recognize a government which does not recognize the constitution is absurd, for a government is not a constitution; and the recognition of a state government means the acknowledgment of men as governors and legislators and judges, actually invested with power to make laws, to judge of crimes, to convict the citizens of other states, to demand the surrender of fugitives from justice, to arm and command the militia, to require the united states to repress all opposition to its authority, and to protect it against invasion--against our own armies; whose senators and representatives are entitled to seats in congress, and whose electoral votes must be counted in the election of the president of a government which they disown and defy. to accept the alternative of anarchy as the constitutional condition of a state is to assert the failure of the constitution and the end of republican government. until, therefore, congress recognize a state government, organized under its auspices, there is no government in the rebel states except the authority of congress. * * * when military opposition shall have been suppressed, not merely paralyzed, driven into a corner, pushed back, but gone, the horrid vision of civil war vanished from the south, then call upon the people to reorganize in their own way, subject to the conditions that we think essential to our permanent peace, and to prevent the revival hereafter of the rebellion--a republican government in the form that the people of the united states can agree to. now, for that purpose there are three modes indicated. one is to remove the cause of the war by an alteration of the constitution of the united states, prohibiting slavery everywhere within its limits. that, sir, goes to the root of the matter, and should consecrate the nation's triumph. but there are thirty-four states; three fourths of them would be twenty-six. i believe there are twenty-five states represented in this congress; so that we on that basis can-not change the constitution. it is, therefore,a condition precedent in that view of the case that more states shall have governments organized within them. if it be assumed that the basis of calculation shall be three fourths of the states now represented in congress, i agree to that construction of the constitution. * * * but, under any circumstances, even upon that basis it will be difficult to find three fourths of the states, with new jersey, or kentucky, or maryland, or delaware, or other states that might be mentioned, opposed to it, under existing auspices, to adopt such a clause of the constitution after we shall have agreed to it. if adopted it still leaves all laws necessary to the ascertainment of the will of the people, and all restrictions on the return to power of the leaders of the rebellion, wholly unprovided for. the amendment of the constitution meets my hearty approval, but it is not a remedy for the evils we must deal with. the next plan is that inaugurated by the president of the united states, in the proclamation of the th december ( ), called the amnesty proclamation. that proposes no guardianship of the united states over the reorganization of the governments, no law to prescribe who shall vote, no civil functionaries to see that the law is faithfully executed, no supervising authority to control and judge of the election. but if in any manner by the toleration of martial law, lately proclaimed the fundamental law, under the dictation of any military authority, or under the prescription of a provost marshal, something in the form of a government shall be presented, represented to rest on the votes of one tenth of the population, the president will recognize that, provided it does not contravene the proclamation of freedom and the laws of congress; and to secure that an oath is exacted. there is no guaranty of law to watch over the organization of that government. it may be recognized by the military power, and not recognized by the civil power, so that it would have a doubtful existence, half civil and half military, neither a temporary government by law of congress nor a state government, something as unknown to the constitution as the rebel government that refuses to recognize it. the only prescription is that it shall not contravene the provisions of the proclamation. sir, if that proclamation be valid, then we are relieved from all trouble on that score. but if that proclamation be not valid, then the oath to support it is without legal sanction, for the president can ask no man to bind himself by an oath to support an unfounded proclamation or an unconstitutional law even for a moment, still less after it shall have been declared void by the supreme court of the united states. * * * by the bill we propose to preclude the judicial question by the solution of a political question. how so? by the paramount power of congress to reorganize governments in those states, to impose such conditions as it thinks necessary to secure the permanence of republican government, to refuse to recognize any governments there which do not prohibit slavery forever. ay, gentlemen, take the responsibility to say in the face of those who clamor for the speedy recognition of governments tolerating slavery, that the safety of the people of the united states is the supreme law; that their will is the supreme rule of law, and that we are authorized to pronounce their will on this subject. take the responsibility to say that we will revise the judgments of our ancestors; that we have experience written in blood which they had not; that we find now what they darkly doubted, that slavery is really, radically inconsistent with the permanence of republican governments; and that being charged by the supreme law of the land on our conscience and judgment to guarantee, that is to continue, maintain and enforce, if it exist, to institute and restore, when overthrown, republican government throughout the broad limits of the republic, we will weed out every element of their policy which we think incompatible with its permanence and endurance. the purpose of the bill is to preclude the judicial question of the validity and effect of the president's proclamation by the decision of the political authority in reorganizing the state governments. it makes the rule of decision the provisions of the state constitution, which, when recognized by congress, can be questioned in no court; and it adds to the authority of the proclamation the sanction of congress. if gentlemen say that the constitution does not bear that construction, we will go before the people of the united states on that question, and by their judgment we will abide. george h. pendleton, of ohio. (born , died .) on reconstruction; the democratic theory; house of representatives, may , . the gentleman [mr. h. w. davis] maintains two propositions, which lie at the very basis of his views on this subject. he has explained them to the house, and enforced them on other occasions. he maintains that, by reason of their secession, the seceded states and their citizens "have not ceased to be citizens and states of the united states, though incapable of exercising political privileges under the constitution, but that congress is charged with a high political power by the constitution to guarantee republican government in the states, and that this is the proper time and the proper mode of exercising it." this act of revolution on the part of the seceding states has evoked the most extraordinary theories upon the relations of the states to the federal government. this theory of the gentleman is one of them. the ratification of the constitution by virginia established the relation between herself and the federal government; it created the link between her and all the states; it announced her assumption of the duties, her title to the rights, of the confederating states; it proclaimed her interest in, her power over, her obedience to, the common agent of all the states. if virginia had never ordained that ratification, she would have been an independent state; the constitution would have been as perfect and the union between the ratifying states would have been as complete as they now are. virginia repeals that ordinance, annuls that bond of union, breaks that link of confederation. she repeals but a single law, repeals it by the action of a sovereign convention, leaves her constitution, her laws, her political and social polity untouched. and the gentleman from maryland tells us that the effect of this repeal is not to destroy the vigor of that law, but to subvert the state government, and to render the citizens "incapable of exercising political privileges"; that the union remains, but that one party to it has thereby lost its corporate existence, and the other has advanced to the control and government of it. sir, this cannot be. gentlemen must not palter in a double sense. these acts of secession are either valid or invalid. if they are valid, they separated the state from the union. if they are invalid, they are void; they have no effect; the state officers who act upon them are rebels to the federal government; the states are not destroyed; their constitutions are not abrogated; their officers are committing illegal acts, for which they are liable to punishment; the states have never left the union, but, as soon as their officers shall perform their duties or other officers shall assume their places, will again perform the duties imposed, and enjoy the privileges conferred, by the federal compact, and this not by virtue of a new ratification of the constitution, nor a new admission by the federal government, but by virtue of the original ratification, and the constant, uninterrupted maintenance of position in the federal union since that date. acts of secession are not invalid to destroy the union, and valid to destroy the state governments and the political privileges of their citizens. we have heard much of the twofold relations which citizens of the seceded states may hold to the federal government--that they may be at once belligerents and rebellious citizens. i believe there are some judicial decisions to that effect. sir, it is impossible. the federal government may possibly have the right to elect in which relation it will deal with them; it cannot deal at one and the same time in inconsistent relations. belligerents, being captured, are entitled to be treated as prisoners of war; rebellious citizens are liable to be hanged. the private property of belligerents, according to the rules of modern war, shall not be taken without compensation; the property of rebellious citizens is liable to confiscation. belligerents are not amenable to the local criminal law, nor to the jurisdiction of the courts which administer it; rebellious citizens are, and the officers are bound to enforce the law and exact the penalty of its infraction. the seceded states are either in the union or out of it. if in the union, their constitutions are untouched, their state governments are maintained, their citizens are entitled to all political rights, except so far as they may be deprived of them by the criminal law which they have infracted. this seems incomprehensible to the gentleman from maryland. in his view, the whole state government centres in the men who administer it, so that, when they administer it unwisely, or put it in antagonism to the federal government, the state government is dissolved, the state constitution is abrogated, and the state is left, in fact and in form, _de jure_ and _de facto_, in anarchy, except so far as the federal government may rightfully intervene. * * * i submit that these gentlemen do not see with their usual clearness of vision. if, by a plague or other visitation of god, every officer of a state government should at the same moment die, so that not a single person clothed with official power should remain, would the state government be destroyed? not at all. for the moment it would not be administered; but as soon as officers were elected, and assumed their respective duties, it would be instantly in full force and vigor. if these states are out of the union, their state governments are still in force, unless otherwise changed; their citizens are to the federal government as foreigners, and it has in relation to them the same rights, and none other, as it had in relation to british subjects in the war of , or to the mexicans in . whatever may be the true relation of the seceding states, the federal government derives no power in relation to them or their citizens from the provision of the constitution now under consideration, but, in the one case, derives all its power from the duty of enforcing the "supreme law of the land," and in the other, from the power "to declare war." the second proposition of the gentleman from maryland is this--i use his language: "that clause vests in the congress of the united states a plenary, supreme, unlimited political jurisdiction, paramount over courts, subject only to the judgment of the people of the united states, embracing within its scope every legislative measure necessary and proper to make it effectual; and what is necessary and proper the constitution refers in the first place to our judgment, subject to no revision but that of the people." the gentleman states his case too strongly. the duty imposed on congress is doubtless important, but congress has no right to use a means of performing it forbidden by the constitution, no matter how necessary or proper it might be thought to be. but, sir, this doctrine is monstrous. it has no foundation in the constitution. it subjects all the states to the will of congress; it places their institutions at the feet of congress. it creates in congress an absolute, unqualified despotism. it asserts the power of congress in changing the state governments to be "plenary, supreme, unlimited," "subject only to revision by the people of the united states." the rights of the people of the state are nothing; their will is nothing. congress first decides; the people of the whole union revise. my own state of ohio is liable at any moment to be called in question for her constitution. she does not permit negroes to vote. if this doctrine be true, congress may decide that this exclusion is anti-republican, and by force of arms abrogate that constitution and set up another, permitting negroes to vote. from that decision of congress there is no appeal to the people of ohio, but only to the people of new york and massachusetts and wisconsin, at the election of representatives, and, if a majority cannot be elected to reverse the decision, the people of ohio must submit. woe be to the day when that doctrine shall be established, for from its centralized despotism we will appeal to the sword! sir, the rights of the states were the foundation corners of the confederation. the constitution recognized them, maintained them, provided for their perpetuation. our fathers thought them the safeguard of our liberties. they have proved so. they have reconciled liberty with empire; they have reconciled the freedom of the individual with the increase of our magnificent domain. they are the test, the touchstone, the security of our liberties. this bill, and the avowed doctrine of its supporters, sweeps them all instantly away. it substitutes despotism for self-government--despotism the more severe because vested in a numerous congress elected by a people who may not feel the exercise of its power. it subverts the government, destroys the confederation, and erects a tyranny on the ruins of republican governments. it creates unity--it destroys liberty; it maintains integrity of territory, but destroys the rights of the citizen. thaddeus stevens, of pennsylvania. (born , died .) on reconstruction; the radical republican theory; house of representatives, december , . a candid examination of the power and proper principles of reconstruction can be offensive to no one, and may possibly be profitable by exciting inquiry. one of the suggestions of the message which we are now considering has special reference to this. perhaps it is the principle most interesting to the people at this time. the president assumes, what no one doubts, that the late rebel states have lost their constitutional relations to the union, and are incapable of representation in congress, except by permission of the government. it matters but little, with this admission, whether you call them states out of the union, and now conquered territories, or assert that because the constitution forbids them to do what they did do, that they are therefore only dead as to all national and political action, and will remain so until the government shall breathe into them the breath of life anew and permit them to occupy their former position. in other words, that they are not out of the union, but are only dead carcasses lying within the union. in either case, it is very plain that it requires the action of congress to enable them to form a state government and send representatives to congress. nobody, i believe, pretends that with their old constitutions and frames of government they can be permitted to claim their old rights under the constitution. they have torn their constitutional states into atoms, and built on their foundations fabrics of a totally different character. dead men cannot raise themselves. dead states cannot restore their own existence "as it was." whose especial duty is it to do it? in whom does the constitution place the power? not in the judicial branch of government, for it only adjudicates and does not prescribe laws. not in the executive, for he only executes and cannot make laws. not in the commander-in-chief of the armies, for he can only hold them under military rule until the sovereign legislative power of the conqueror shall give them law. there is fortunately no difficulty in solving the question. there are two provisions in the constitution, under one of which the case must fall. the fourth article says: "new states may be admitted by the congress into this union." in my judgment this is the controlling provision in this case. unless the law of nations is a dead letter, the late war between two acknowledged belligerents severed their original compacts, and broke all the ties that bound them together. the future condition of the conquered power depends on the will of the conqueror. they must come in as new states or remain as conquered provinces. congress--the senate and house of representatives, with the concurrence of the president--is the only power that can act in the matter. but suppose, as some dreaming theorists imagine, that these states have never been out of the union, but have only destroyed their state governments so as to be incapable of political action; then the fourth section of the fourth article applies, which says: "the united states shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government." who is the united states? not the judiciary; not the president; but the sovereign power of the people, exercised through their representatives in congress, with the concurrence of the executive. it means the political government--the concurrent action of both branches of congress and the executive. the separate action of each amounts to nothing, either in admitting new states or guaranteeing republican governments to lapsed or outlawed states. whence springs the preposterous idea that either the president, or the senate, or the house of representatives, acting separately, can determine the right of states to send members or senators to the congress of the union? to prove that they are and for four years have been out of the union for all legal purposes, and, being now conquered, subject to the absolute disposal of congress, i will suggest a few ideas and adduce a few authorities. if the so-called "confederate states of america" were an independent belligerent, and were so acknowledged by the united states and by europe, or had assumed and maintained an attitude which entitled them to be considered and treated as a belligerent, then, during such time, they were precisely in the condition of a foreign nation with whom we were at war; nor need their independence as a nation be acknowledged by us to produce that effect. after such clear and repeated decisions it is something worse than ridiculous to hear men of respectable standing attempting to nullify the law of nations, and declare the supreme court of the united states in error, because, as the constitution forbids it, the states could not go out of the union in fact. a respectable gentleman was lately reciting this argument, when he suddenly stopped and said, "did you hear of that atrocious murder committed in our town? a rebel deliberately murdered a government official." the person addressed said, "i think you are mistaken." "how so? i saw it myself." "you are wrong, no murder was or could be committed, for the law forbids it." the theory that the rebel states, for four years a separate power and without representation in congress, were all the time here in the union, is a good deal less ingenious and respectable than the metaphysics of berkeley, which proved that neither the world nor any human being was in existence. if this theory were simply ridiculous it could be forgiven; but its effect is deeply injurious to the stability of the nation. i cannot doubt that the late confederate states are out of the union to all intents and purposes for which the conqueror may choose so to consider them. * * * * * but suppose these powerful but now subdued belligerents, instead of being out of the union, are merely destroyed, and are now lying about, a dead corpse, or with animation so suspended as to be incapable of action, and wholly unable to heal themselves by any unaided movements of their own. then they may fall under the provision of the constitution, which says "the united states shall guarantee to every state in the union a republican form of government." under that power, can the judiciary, or the president, or the commander-in-chief of the army, or the senate or house of representatives, acting separately, restore them to life and readmit them into the union? i insist that if each acted separately, though the action of each was identical with all the others, it would amount to nothing. nothing but the joint action of the two houses of congress and the concurrence of the president could do it. if the senate admitted their senators, and the house their members, it would have no effect on the future action of congress. the fortieth congress might reject both. such is the ragged record of congress for the last four years. * * * * * congress alone can do it. but congress does not mean the senate, or the house of representatives, and president, all acting severally. their joint action constitutes congress. hence a law of congress must be passed before any new state can be admitted, or any dead ones revived. until then no member can be lawfully admitted into either house. hence it appears with how little knowledge of constitutional law each branch is urged to admit members separately from these destroyed states. the provision that "each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members," has not the most distant bearing on this question. congress must create states and declare when they are entitled to be represented. then each house must judge whether the members presenting themselves from a recognized state possess the requisite qualifications of age, residence, and citizenship; and whether the elections and returns are according to law. the houses, separately, can judge of nothing else. it seems amazing that any man of legal education could give it any larger meaning. it is obvious from all this that the first duty of congress is to pass a law declaring the condition of these outside or defunct states, and providing proper civil governments for them. since the conquest they have been governed by martial law. military rule is necessarily despotic, and ought not to exist longer than is absolutely necessary. as there are no symptoms that the people of these provinces will be prepared to participate in constitutional government for some years, i know of no arrangement so proper for them as territorial governments. there they can learn the principles of freedom and eat the fruit of foul rebellion. under such governments, while electing members to the territorial legislatures, they will necessarily mingle with those to whom congress shall extend the right of suffrage. in territories, congress fixes the qualifications of electors; and i know of no better place nor better occasion for the conquered rebels and the conqueror to practise justice to all men, and accustom themselves to make and to obey equal laws. and these fallen rebels cannot at their option reenter the heaven which they have disturbed, the garden of eden which they have deserted; as flaming swords are set at the gates to secure their exclusion, it becomes important to the welfare of the nation to inquire when the doors shall be reopened for their admission. according to my judgment they ought never to be recognized as capable of acting in the union, or of being counted as valid states, until the constitution shall have been so amended as to make it what its framers intended, and so as to secure perpetual ascendency to the party of the union; and so as to render our republican government firm and stable forever. the first of those amendments is to change the basis of representation among the states from federal members to actual voters. now all the colored freemen in the slave states, and three fifths of the slaves, are represented, though none of them have votes. the states have nineteen representatives of colored slaves. if the slaves are now free then they can add, for the other two fifths, thirteen more, making the slaves represented thirty-two. i suppose the free blacks in those states will give at least five more, making the representation of non-voting people of color about thirty-seven. the whole number of representatives now from the slave states is seventy. add the other two fifths and it will be eighty-three. if the amendment prevails, and those states withhold the right of suffrage from persons of color, it will deduct about thirty-seven, leaving them but forty-six. with the basis unchanged, the eighty-three southern members, with the democrats that will in the best times be elected from the north, will always give them a majority in congress and in the electoral college. they will at the very first election take possession of the white house and the halls of congress. i need not depict the ruin that would follow. assumption of the rebel debt or repudiation of the federal debt would be sure to follow. the oppression of the freedmen, there--amendment of their state constitutions, and the reestablishment of slavery would be the inevitable result. that they would scorn and disregard their present constitutions, forced upon them in the midst of martial law, would be both natural and just. no one who has any regard for freedom of elections can look upon those governments, forced upon them in duress, with any favor. if they should grant the right of suffrage to persons of color, i think there would always be union white men enough in the south, aided by the blacks, to divide the representation, and thus continue the republican ascendency. if they should refuse to thus alter their election laws it would reduce the representatives of the late slave states to about forty-five and render them powerless for evil. it is plain that this amendment must be consummated before the defunct states are admitted to be capable of state action, or it never can be. the proposed amendment to allow congress to lay a duty on exports is precisely in the same situation. its importance cannot well be overstated. it is very obvious that for many years the south will not pay much under our internal revenue laws. the only article on which we can raise any considerable amount is cotton. it will be grown largely at once. with ten cents a pound export duty it would be furnished cheaper to foreign markets than they could obtain it from any other part of the world. the late war has shown that. two million bales exported, at five hundred pounds to the bale, would yield $ , , . this seems to me the chief revenue we shall ever derive from the south. besides, it would be a protection to that amount to our domestic manufactures. other proposed amendments--to make all laws uniform; to prohibit the assumption of the rebel debt--are of vital importance, and the only thing that can prevent the combined forces of copperheads and secessionists from legislating against the interests of the union whenever they may obtain an accidental majority. but this is not all that we ought to do before these inveterate rebels are invited to participate in our legislation. we have turned, or are about to turn, loose four million of slaves without a hut to shelter them, or a cent in their pockets. the infernal laws of slavery have prevented them from acquiring an education, understanding the commonest laws of contract, or of managing the ordinary business of life. this congress is bound to provide for them until they can take care of themselves. if we do not furnish them with homesteads, and hedge them around with protective laws; if we leave them to the legislation of their late masters, we had better have left them in bondage. their condition would be worse than that of our prisoners at andersonville. if we fail in this great duty now, when we have the power, we shall deserve and receive the execration of history and of all future ages. two things are of vital importance. . so to establish a principle that none of the rebel states shall be counted in any of the amendments of the constitution until they are duly admitted into the family of states by the law-making power of their conqueror. for more than six months the amendment of the constitution abolishing slavery has been ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the states that acted on its passage by congress, and which had legislatures, or which were states capable of acting, or required to act, on the question. i take no account of the aggregation of whitewashed rebels, who without any legal authority have assembled in the capitals of the late rebel states and simulated legislative bodies. nor do i regard with any respect the cunning by-play into which they deluded the secretary of state by frequent telegraphic announcements that "south carolina had adopted the amendment," "alabama has adopted the amendment, being the twenty-seventh state," etc. this was intended to delude the people, and accustom congress to hear repeated the names of these extinct states as if they were alive; when, in truth, they have no more existence than the revolted cities of latium, two thirds of whose people were colonized and their property confiscated, and their right of citizenship withdrawn by conquering and avenging rome. . it is equally important to the stability of this republic that it should now be solemnly decided what power can revive, recreate, and reinstate these provinces into the family of states, and invest them with the rights of american citizens. it is time that congress should assert its sovereignty, and assume something of the dignity of a roman senate. it is fortunate that the president invites congress to take this manly attitude. after stating with great frankness in his able message his theory, which, however, is found to be impracticable, and which i believe very few now consider tenable, he refers the whole matter to the judgment of congress. if congress should fail firmly and wisely to discharge that high duty it is not the fault of the president. this congress owes it to its own character to set the seal of reprobation upon a doctrine which is becoming too fashionable, and unless rebuked will be the recognized principle of our government. governor perry and other provisional governors and orators proclaim that "this is the white man's government." the whole copperhead party, pandering to the lowest prejudices of the ignorant, repeat the cuckoo cry, "this is the white man's government." demagogues of all parties, even some high in authority, gravely shout, "this is the white man's government." what is implied by this? that one race of men are to have the exclusive right forever to rule this nation, and to exercise all acts of sovereignty, while all other races and nations and colors are to be their subjects, and have no voice in making the laws and choosing the rulers by whom they are to be governed. wherein does this differ from slavery except in degree? does not this contradict all the distinctive principles of the declaration of independence? when the great and good men promulgated that instrument, and pledged their lives and sacred honors to defend it, it was supposed to form an epoch in civil government. before that time it was held that the right to rule was vested in families, dynasties, or races, not because of superior intelligence of virtue, but because of a divine right to enjoy exclusive privileges. our fathers repudiated the whole doctrine of the legal superiority of families or races, and proclaimed the equality of men before the law. upon that they created a revolution and built the republic. they were prevented by slavery from perfecting the superstructure whose foundation they had thus broadly laid. for the sake of the union they consented to wait, but never relinquished the idea of its final completion. the time to which they looked forward with anxiety has come. it is our duty to complete their work. if this republic is not now made to stand on their great principles, it has no honest foundation, and the father of all men will still shake it to its centre. if we have not yet been sufficiently scourged for our national sin to teach us to do justice to all god's creatures, without distinction of race or color, we must expect the still more heavy vengeance of an offended father, still increasing his inflictions as he increased the severity of the plagues of egypt until the tyrant consented to do justice. and when that tyrant repented of his reluctant consent, and attempted to re-enslave the people, as our southern tyrants are attempting to do now, he filled the red sea with broken chariots and drowned horses, and strewed the shores with dead carcasses. mr. chairman, i trust the republican party will not be alarmed at what i am saying. i do not profess to speak their sentiments, nor must they be held responsible for them. i speak for myself, and take the responsibility, and will settle with my intelligent constituents. this is not a "white man's government," in the exclusive sense in which it is used. to say so is political blasphemy, for it violates the fundamental principles of our gospel of liberty. this is man's government; the government of all men alike; not that all men will have equal power and sway within it. accidental circumstances, natural and acquired endowment and ability, will vary their fortunes. but equal rights to all the privileges of the government is innate in every immortal being, no matter what the shape or color of the tabernacle which it inhabits. if equal privileges were granted to all, i should not expect any but white men to be elected to office for long ages to come. the prejudice engendered by slavery would not soon permit merit to be preferred to color. but it would still be beneficial to the weaker races. in a country where political divisions will always exist, their power, joined with just white men, would greatly modify, if it did not entirely prevent, the injustice of majorities. without the right of suffrage in the late slave states (i do not speak of the free states), i believe the slaves had far better been left in bondage. i see it stated that very distinguished advocates of the right of suffrage lately declared in this city that they do not expect to obtain it by congressional legislation, but only by administrative action, because, as one gallant gentleman said, the states had not been out of the union. then they will never get it. the president is far sounder than they. he sees that administrative action has nothing to do with it. if it ever is to come, it must be by constitutional amendments or congressional action in the territories, and in enabling acts. how shameful that men of influence should mislead and miseducate the public mind! they proclaim, "this is the white man's government," and the whole coil of copperheads echo the same sentiment, and upstart, jealous republicans join the cry. is it any wonder ignorant foreigners and illiterate natives should learn this doctrine, and be led to despise and maltreat a whole race of their fellow-men? sir, this doctrine of a white man's government is as atrocious as the infamous sentiment that damned the late chief-justice to everlasting fame; and, i fear, to everlasting fire. henry j. raymond, of new york. (born , died .) on reconstruction; conservative, or administration, republican opinion; in the house of representatives, december , . i need not say that i have been gratified to hear many things which have fallen from the lips of the gentleman from ohio (mr. finck), who has just taken his seat. i have no party feeling, nor any other feeling, which would prevent me from rejoicing in the indications apparent on that side of the house of a purpose to concur with the loyal people of the country, and with the loyal administration of the government, and with the loyal majorities in both houses of congress, in restoring peace and order to our common country. i cannot, perhaps, help wishing, sir, that these indications of an interest in the preservation of our government had come somewhat sooner. i cannot help feeling that such expressions cannot now be of as much service to the country as they might once have been. if we could have had from that side of the house such indications of an interest in the preservation of the union, such heartfelt sympathy with the efforts of the government for the preservation of that union, such hearty denunciation of those who were seeking its destruction, while the war was raging, i am sure we might have been spared some years of war, some millions of money, and rivers of blood and tears. but, sir, i am not disposed to fight over again battles now happily ended. i feel, and i am rejoiced to find that members on the other side of the house feel, that the great problem now before us is to restore the union to its old integrity, purified from everything that interfered with the full development of the spirit of liberty which it was made to enshrine. i trust that we shall have a general concurrence of the members of this house and of this congress in such measures as may be deemed most fit and proper for the accomplishment of that result. i am glad to assume and to believe that there is not a member of this house, nor a man in this country, who does not wish, from the bottom of his heart, to see the day speedily come when we shall have this nation--the great american republic--again united, more harmonious in its action than it ever has been, and forever one and indivisible. we in this congress are to devise the means to restore its union and its harmony, to perfect its institutions, and to make it in all its parts and in all its action, through all time to come, too strong, too wise, and too free ever to invite or ever to permit the hand of rebellion again to be raised against it. now, sir, in devising those ways and means to accomplish that great result, the first thing we have to do is to know the point from which we start, to understand the nature of the material with which we have to work--the condition of the territory and the states with which we are concerned. i had supposed at the outset of this session that it was the purpose of this house to proceed to that work without discussion, and to commit it almost exclusively, if not entirely, to the joint committee raised by the two houses for the consideration of that subject. but, sir, i must say that i was glad when i perceived the distinguished gentleman from pennsylvania (mr. stevens), himself the chairman on the part of this house of that great committee on reconstruction, lead off in a discussion of this general subject, and thus invite all the rest of us who choose to follow him in the debate. in the remarks which he made in this body a few days since, he laid down, with the clearness and the force which characterize everything he says and does, his point of departure in commencing this great work. i had hoped that the ground he would lay down would be such that we could all of us stand upon it and co-operate with him in our common object. i feel constrained to say, sir--and do it without the slightest disposition to create or to exaggerate differences--that there were features in his exposition of the condition of the country with which i cannot concur. i cannot for myself start from precisely the point which he assumes. in his remarks on that occasion he assumed that the states lately in rebellion were and are out of the union. throughout his speech--i will not trouble you with reading passages from it--i find him speaking of those states as "outside of the union," as "dead states," as having forfeited all their rights and terminated their state existence. i find expressions still more definite and distinct; i find him stating that they "are and for four years have been out of the union for all legal purposes"; as having been for four years a "separate power," and "a separate nation." his position therefore is that these states, having been in rebellion, are now out of the union, and are simply within the jurisdiction of the constitution of the united states as so much territory to be dealt with precisely as the will of the conqueror, to use his own language, may dictate. now, sir, if that position is correct, it prescribes for us one line of policy to be pursued very different from the one that will be proper if it is not correct. his belief is that what we have to do is to create new states out of this territory at the proper time--many years distant--retaining them meantime in a territorial condition, and subjecting them to precisely such a state of discipline and tutelage as congress or the government of the united states may see fit to prescribe. if i believed in the premises which he assumes, possibly, though i do not think probably, i might agree with the conclusion he has reached. but, sir, i cannot believe that this is our condition. i cannot believe that these states have ever been out of the union, or that they are now out of the union. i cannot believe that they ever have been, or are now, in any sense a separate power. if they were, sir, how and when did they become so? they were once states of this union--that every one concedes; bound to the union and made members of the union by the constitution of the united states. if they ever went out of the union it was at some specific time and by some specific act. i regret that the gentleman from pennsylvania (mr. stevens) is not now in his seat. i should have been glad to ask him by what specific act, and at what precise time, any one of those states took itself out of the american union. was it by the ordinance of secession? i think we all agree that an ordinance of secession passed by any state of this union is simply a nullity, because it encounters in its practical operation the constitution of the united states, which is the supreme law of the land. it could have no legal, actual force or validity. it could not operate to effect any actual change in the relations of the state adopting it to the national government, still less to accomplish the removal of that state from the sovereign jurisdiction of the constitution of the united states. well, sir, did the resolutions of the states, the declarations of their officials, the speeches of members of their legislatures, or the utterances of their press accomplish the result? certainly not. they could not possibly work any change whatever in the relations of these states to the general government. all their ordinances and all their resolutions were simply declarations of a purpose to secede. their secession, if it ever took place, certainly could not date from the time when their intention to secede was first announced. after declaring that intention, they proceeded to carry it into effect. how? by war. by sustaining their purpose by arms against the force which the united states brought to bear against it. did they sustain it? were their arms victorious? if they were, then their secession was an accomplished fact. if not, it was nothing more than an abortive attempt--a purpose unfulfilled. this, then, is simply a question of fact, and we all know what the fact is. they did not succeed. they failed to maintain their ground by force of arms--in other words, they failed to secede. but the gentleman from pennsylvania (mr. stevens) insists that they did secede, and that this fact is not in the least affected by the other fact that the constitution forbids secession. he says that the law forbids murder, but that murders are nevertheless committed. but there is no analogy between the two cases. if secession had been accomplished, if these states had gone out, and overcome the armies that tried to prevent their going out, then the prohibition of the constitution could not have altered the fact. in the case of murder the man is killed, and murder is thus committed in spite of the law. the fact of killing is essential to the committal of the crime; and the fact of going out is essential to secession. but in this case there was no such fact. i think i need not argue any further the position that the rebel states have never for one moment, by any ordinances of secession, or by any successful war, carried themselves beyond the rightful jurisdiction of the constitution of the united states. they have interrupted for a time the practical enforcement and exercise of that jurisdiction; they rendered it impossible for a time for this government to enforce obedience to its laws; but there has never been an hour when this government, or this congress, or this house, or the gentleman from pennsylvania himself, ever conceded that those states were beyond the jurisdiction of the constitution and laws of the united states. during all these four years of war congress has been making laws for the government of those very states, and the gentleman from pennsylvania has voted for them, and voted to raise armies to enforce them. why was this done if they were a separate nation? why, if they were not part of the united states? those laws were made for them as states. members have voted for laws imposing upon them direct taxes, which are apportioned, according to the constitution, only "among the several states" according to their population. in a variety of ways--to some of which the gentleman' who preceded me has referred--this congress has, by its action, assumed and asserted that they were still states in the union, though in rebellion, and that it was with the rebellion that we were making war, and not with the states themselves as states, and still less as a separate, as a foreign power. * * * * * why, sir, if there be no constitution of any sort in a state, no law, nothing but chaos, then that state would no longer exist as an organization. but that has not been the case, it never is the case in great communities, for they always have constitutions and forms of government. it may not be a constitution or form of government adapted to its relation to the government of the united states; and that would be an evil to be remedied by the government of the united states. that is what we have been trying to do for the last four years. the practical relations of the governments of those states with the government of the united states were all wrong--were hostile to that government. they denied our jurisdiction, and they denied that they were states of the union, but their denial did not change the fact; and there was never any time when their organizations as states were destroyed. a dead state is a solecism, a contradiction in terms, an impossibility. these are, i confess, rather metaphysical distinctions, but i did not raise them. those who assert that a state is destroyed whenever its constitution is changed, or whenever its practical relations with this government are changed, must be held responsible for whatever metaphysical niceties may be necessarily involved in the discussion. i do not know, sir, that i have made my views on this point clear to the gentleman from pennsylvania (mr. kelley), who has questioned me upon it, and i am still more doubtful whether, even if they are intelligible, he will concur with me as to their justice. but i regard these states as just as truly within the jurisdiction of the constitution, and therefore just as really and truly states of the american union now as they were before the war. their practical relations to the constitution of the united states have been disturbed, and we have been endeavoring, through four years of war, to restore them and make them what they were before the war. the victory in the field has given us the means of doing this; we can now re-establish the practical relations of those states to the government. our actual jurisdiction over them, which they vainly attempted to throw off, is already restored. the conquest we have achieved is a conquest over the rebellion, not a conquest over the states whose authority the rebellion had for a time subverted. for these reasons i think the views submitted by the gentleman from pennsylvania (mr. stevens) upon this point are unsound. let me next cite some of the consequences which, it seems to me, must follow the acceptance of his position. if, as he asserts, we have been waging war with an independent power, with a separate nation, i cannot see how we can talk of treason in connection with our recent conflict, or demand the execution of davis or anybody else as a traitor. certainly if we were at war with any other foreign power we should not talk of the treason of those who were opposed to us in the field. if we were engaged in a war with france and should take as prisoner the emperor napoleon, certainly we would not talk of him as a traitor or as liable to execution. i think that by adopting any such assumption as that of the honorable gentleman, we surrender the whole idea of treason and the punishment of traitors. i think, moreover, that we accept, virtually and practically, the doctrine of state sovereignty, the right of a state to withdraw from the union, and to break up the union at its own will and pleasure. i do not see how upon those premises we can escape that conclusion. if the states that engaged in the late rebellion constituted themselves, by their ordinances of secession or by any of the acts with which they followed those ordinances, a separate and independent power, i do not see how we can deny the principles on which they professed to act, or refuse assent to their practical results. i have heard no clearer, no stronger statement of the doctrine of state sovereignty as paramount to the sovereignty of the nation than would be involved in such a concession. whether he intended it or not, the gentleman from pennsylvania (mr. stevens) actually assents to the extreme doctrines of the advocates of secession. thaddeus stevens, of pennsylvania. (born , died .) on the first reconstruction bill; house of representatives, january , mr. speaker: what are the great questions which now divide the nation? in the midst of the political babel which has been produced by the intermingling of secessionists, rebels, pardoned traitors, hissing copperheads, and apostate republicans, such a confusion of tongues is heard that it is difficult to understand either the questions that are asked or the answers that are given. ask what is the "president's policy," and it is difficult to define it. ask what is the "policy of congress," and the answer is not always at hand. a few moments may be profitably spent in seeking the meaning of each of these terms. in this country the whole sovereignty rests with the people, and is exercised through their representatives in congress assembled. the legislative power is the sole guardian of that sovereignty. no other branch of the government, no other department, no other officer of the government, possesses one single particle of the sovereignty of the nation. no government official, from the president and chief-justice down, can do any one act which is not prescribed and directed by the legislative power. suppose the government were now to be organized for the first time under the constitution, and the president had been elected, and the judiciary appointed; what could either do until congress passed laws to regulate their proceedings? what power would the president have over any one subject of government until congress had legislated on that subject? * * * the president could not even create bureaus or departments to facilitate his executive operations. he must ask leave of congress. since, then, the president cannot enact, alter, or modify a single law; cannot even create a petty office within his own sphere of operations; if, in short, he is the mere servant of the people, who issue their commands to him through congress, whence does he derive the constitutional power to create new states, to remodel old ones, to dictate organic laws, to fix the qualifications of voters, to declare that states are republican and entitled to command congress, to admit their representatives? to my mind it is either the most ignorant and shallow mistake of his duties, or the most brazen and impudent usurpation of power. it is claimed for him by some as commander-in-chief of the army and navy. how absurd that a mere executive officer should claim creative powers. though commander-in-chief by the constitution, he would have nothing to command, either by land or water until congress raised both army and navy. congress also prescribes the rules and regulations to govern the army; even that is not left to the commander-in-chief. though the president is commander-in-chief, congress is his commander; and, god willing, he shall obey. he and his minions shall learn that this is not a government of kings and satraps, but a government of the people, and that congress is the people. * * * to reconstruct the nation, to admit new states, to guarantee republican governments to old states, are all legislative acts. the president claims the right to exercise them. congress denies it, and asserts the right to belong to the legislative branch. they have determined to defend these rights against all usurpers. they have determined that, while in their keeping, the constitution shall not be violated with impunity. this i take to be the great question between the president and congress. he claims the right to reconstruct by his own power. congress denies him all power in the matter except that of advice, and has determined to maintain such denial. "my policy" asserts full power in the executive. the policy of congress forbids him to exercise any power therein. beyond this i do not agree that the "policy" of the parties is defined. to be sure, many subordinate items of the policy of each may be easily sketched. the president * * * desires that the traitors (having sternly executed that most important leader rickety wirz, as a high example) should be exempt from further fine, imprisonment, forfeiture, exile, or capital punishment, and be declared entitled to all the rights of loyal citizens. he desires that the states created by him shall be acknowledged as valid states, while at the same time he inconsistently declares that the old rebel states are in full existence, and always have been, and have equal rights with the loyal states. he opposes the amendment to the constitution which changes the basis of representation, and desires the old slave states to have the benefit of their increase of freemen without increasing the number of votes; in short, he desires to make the vote of one rebel in south carolina equal to the votes of three freemen in pennsylvania or new york. he is determined to force a solid rebel delegation into congress from the south, which, together with northern copperheads, could at once control congress and elect all future presidents. congress refuses to treat the states created by him as of any validity, and denies that the old rebel states have any existence which gives them any rights under the constitution. congress insists on changing the basis of representation so as to put white voters on an equality in both sections, and that such change shall precede the admission of any state. * * * congress denies that any state lately in rebellion has any government or constitution known to the constitution of the united states, or which can be recognized as a part of the union. how, then, can such a state adopt the (xiiith) amendment? to allow it would be yielding the whole question, and admitting the unimpaired rights of the seceded states. i know of no republican who does not ridicule what mr. seward thought a cunning movement, in counting virginia and other outlawed states among those which had adopted the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery. it is to be regretted that inconsiderate and incautious republicans should ever have supposed that the slight amendments already proposed to the constitution, even when incorporated into that instrument, would satisfy the reforms necessary for the security of the government. unless the rebel states, before admission, should be made republican in spirit, and placed under the guardianship of loyal men, all our blood and treasure will have been spent in vain. * * * the law of last session with regard to territories settled the principles of such acts. impartial suffrage, both in electing the delegates and in ratifying their proceedings, is now the fixed rule. there is more reason why colored voters should be admitted in the rebel states than in the territories. in the states they form the great mass of the loyal men. possibly, with their aid, loyal governments may be established in most of those states. without it all are sure to be ruled by traitors; and loyal men, black or white, will be oppressed, exiled, or murdered. there are several good reasons for the passage of this bill. in the first place, it is just. i am now confining my argument to negro suffrage in the rebel states. have not loyal blacks quite as good a right to choose rulers and make laws as rebel whites? in the second place, it is a necessity in order to protect the loyal white men in the seceded states. with them the blacks would act in a body; and it is believed then, in each of said states, except one, the two united would form a majority, control the states, and protect themselves. now they are the victims of daily murder. they must suffer constant persecution or be exiled. another good reason is that it would insure the ascendency of the union party. "do you avow the party purpose?" exclaims some horror-stricken demagogue. i do. for i believe, on my conscience, that on the continued ascendency of that party depends the safety of this great nation. if impartial suffrage is excluded in the rebel states, then every one of them is sure to send a solid rebel representation to congress, and cast a solid rebel electoral vote. they, with their kindred copperheads of the north, would always elect the president and control congress. while slavery sat upon her defiant throne, and insulted and intimidated the trembling north, the south frequently divided on questions of policy between whigs and democrats, and gave victory alternately to the sections. now, you must divide them between loyalists, without regard to color, and disloyalists, or you will be the perpetual vassals of the free-trade, irritated, revengeful south. for these, among other reasons, i am for negro suffrage in every rebel state. if it be just, it should not be denied; if it be necessary, it should be adopted; if it be a punishment to traitors, they deserve it. viii.--free trade and protection. the periods into which this series has been divided will furnish, perhaps, some key to the brief summary of tariff discussion in the united states which follows. for it is not at all true that tariff discussion or decision has been isolated; on the contrary, it has influenced, and been influenced by, every other phase of the national development of the country. bancroft has laid none too great stress on the influence of the english mercantile system in forcing the american revolution, and on the attitude of the revolution as an organized revolt against the english system. one of the first steps by which the continental congress asserted its claim to independent national action was the throwing open of american ports to the commerce of all nations--that is, to free trade. it should, however, be added that the extreme breadth of this liberality was due to the inability of congress to impose any duties on imports; it had a choice only between absolute prohibition and absolute free trade, and it chose the latter. the states were not so limited. both under the revolutionary congress and under the confederation they retained the entire duty power, and they showed no fondness for free trade. commerce in general was light, and tariff receipts, even in the commercial states, were of no great importance; but, wherever it was possible, commercial regulations were framed in disregard of the free-trade principle. in order to retain the trade in firewood and vegetables within her own borders, new york, in , even laid prohibitory duties on connecticut and new jersey boats; and retaliatory measures were begun by the two states attacked. the constitution gave to congress, and forbade to the states, the power to regulate commerce. as soon as the constitution came to be put into operation, the manner and objects of the regulation of commerce by congress became a public question. many other considerations were complicated with it. it was necessary for the united states to obtain a revenue, and this could most easily be done by a tariff of duties on imports. it was necessary for the federalist majority to consider the party interests both in the agricultural states, which would object to protective duties, and in the states which demanded them. but the highest consideration in the mind of hamilton and the most influential leaders of the party seems to have been the maintenance of the union. the repulsive force of the states toward one another was still sufficiently strong to be an element of constant and recognized danger to the union. one method of overcoming it, as a part of the whole hamiltonian policy, was to foster the growth of manufactures as an interest entirely independent of state lines and dependent on the national government, which would throw its whole influence for the maintenance of the union. this feeling runs through the speeches even of madison, who prefaced his remarks by a declaration in favor of "a trade as free as the policy of nations would allow." protection, therefore, began in the united states as an instrument of national unity, without regard to national profit; and the argument in its favor would have been quite as strong as ever to the mind of a legislator who accepted every deduction as to the economic disadvantages of protection. arguments for its economic advantages are not wanting; but they have no such form and consistency as those of subsequent periods. the result of the discussion was the tariff act of july , , whose preamble stated one of its objects to be "the encouragement and protection of manufactures." its average duty, however, was but about . per cent. it was followed by other acts, each increasing the rate of general duties, until, at the outbreak of the war of , the general rate was about per cent. the war added about per cent, to this rate. growth toward democracy very commonly brings a curious bias toward protection, contrasted with the fundamental free-trade argument that a protective system and a system of slave labor have identical bases. the bias toward a pronounced protective system in the united states makes its appearance with the rise of democracy; and, after the war of , is complicated with party interests. new england was still the citadel of federalism. the war and its blockade had fostered manufactures in new england; and the manufacturing interest, looking to the democratic party for protection, was a possible force to sap the foundations of the citadel. dallas, of pennsylvania, secretary of the treasury, prepared, and calhoun carried through congress, the tariff of . it introduced several protective features, the "minimum" feature, by which the imported article was assumed to have cost at least a certain amount in calculating duties, and positive protection for cottons and woollens. the duties paid under this tariff were about per cent. on all imports, or per cent. on dutiable goods. in and , under the lead of clay, tariffs were adopted which made the tariff of duties still higher and more systematically protective; they touched high-water mark in , being per cent. on all imports, or . per cent. on dutiable goods. the influence of nullification in forcing through the compromise tariff of , with its regular decrease of duties for ten years, has been stated in the first volume. under the workings of the compromise tariff there was a steady decrease in the rate on all imports, but not in the rate on dutiable goods, the comparison being per cent. on total to per cent. on dutiable for , and per cent. on total to per cent. on dutiable for . the conjunction of the increase in non-dutiable imports and the approach of free trade, with general financial distress, gave the whigs success in the elections of ; and in they set about reviving protection. unluckily for them, their chosen president, harrison, was dead, and his successor, tyler, a democrat by nature, taken up for political reasons by the whigs, was deaf to whig eloquence on the subject of the tariff. after an unsuccessful effort to secure a high tariff and a distribution of the surplus among the states, the semi-protective tariff of became law. its result for the next four years was that the rate on dutiable goods was altered very little, while the rate on total imports rose from per cent. to per cent. the return of the democrats to power was marked by the passage of the revenue tariff of , which lasted, with a slight further reduction of duties in , until . under its operation the rates steadily decreased until, in , they were . per cent, on dutiable goods, and . per cent. on total imports. the platform of the republican party in the election of made no declaration for or against free trade or protection. the results of the election showed that the electoral votes of pennsylvania and illinois would have been sufficient to give the party a victory in . both party policy and a natural regard to its strong whig membership dictated a return to the protective feature of the whig policy. in march, , mr. morrill introduced a protective tariff bill in the house of representatives, and it passed that body; and, in june, the republican national convention adopted, as one of its resolutions, a declaration in favor of a protective system. the democratic senate postponed the morrill bill until the following session. when it came up again for consideration, in february, , conditions had changed very considerably. seven states had seceded, taking off fourteen senators opposed to the bill; and it was passed. it was signed by president buchanan, march , , and went into operation april , raising the rates to about per cent. in august and in december, two other acts were passed, raising the rates still higher. these were followed by other increases, which ran the maximum up, in , to per cent. on dutiable goods, the highest rate from to date. it may be noted, however, that the rate of -- . per cent. on dutiable goods--still retains its rank as the highest in our history. the controlling necessity for ready money, to prevent the over-issue of bonds and green-backs, undoubtedly gained votes in congress sufficient to sustain the policy of protection, as a means of putting the capital of the country into positions where it could be easily reached by internal-revenue taxation. this conjunction of internal revenue and protection proved a mutual support until the payment of the war debt had gone so far as to provoke the reaction. the democratic national convention of attacked the tariff system as a masterpiece of iniquity, but no distinct issue was made between the parties on this question. in and , the republican party was the one to force the issue of protection or free trade upon its opponent, but its opponent evaded it. in , both parties admit the necessity of a reduction in the rates of duties, if for no other reason, in order to reduce the surplus of government receipts over expenditures, which is a constant stimulus to congressional extravagance. the republican policy is in general to retain the principle of protection in the reduction; while the democratic policy, so far as it is defined, is to deal as tenderly as possible with interests which have become vested under a protective system. what influence will be exerted by the present over-production and depression in business cannot, of course, be foretold; but the report of mr. mcculloch, secretary of the treasury, in december, , indicates an attempt to induce manufacturers to submit to an abandonment of protection, as a means of securing a decrease in cost of production, and a consequent foreign market for surplus product. in taking clay's speech in as the representative statement of the argument for protection, the editor has consulted professor thompson, of the university of pennsylvania, and has been guided by his advice. on the other side, the statement of representative hurd, in , has been taken as, on the whole, the best summary of the free-trade argument. in both cases, the difficulty has been in the necessary exclusion of merely written arguments. henry clay, of kentucky. (born , died .) on the american system; in the united states senate, february - , . the question which we are now called upon to determine, is not, whether we shall establish a new and doubtful system of policy, just proposed, and for the first time presented to our consideration, but whether we shall break down and destroy a long-established system, carefully and patiently built up and sanctioned, during a series of years, again and again, by the nation and its highest and most revered authorities. and are we not bound deliberately to consider whether we can proceed to this work of destruction without a violation of the public faith? the people of the united states have justly supposed that the policy of protecting their industry against foreign legislation and foreign industry was fully settled, not by a single act, but by repeated and deliberate acts of government, performed at distant and frequent intervals. in full confidence that the policy was firmly and unchangeably fixed, thousands upon thousands have invested their capital, purchased a vast amount of real and other estate, made permanent establishments, and accommodated their industry. can we expose to utter and irretrievable ruin this countless multitude, without justly incurring the reproach of violating the national faith? * * * when gentlemen have succeeded in their design of an immediate or gradual destruction of the american system, what is their substitute? free trade! the call for free trade is as unavailing, as the cry of a spoiled child in its nurse's arms, for the moon, or the stars that glitter in the firmament of heaven. it never has existed, it never will exist. trade implies at least two parties. to be free, it should be fair, equal, and reciprocal. but if we throw our ports wide open to the admission of foreign productions, free of all duty, what ports of any other foreign nation shall we find open to the free admission of our surplus produce? we may break down all barriers to free trade on our part, but the work will not be complete until foreign powers shall have removed theirs. there would be freedom on one side, and restrictions, prohibitions, and exclusions on the other. the bolts and the bars and the chains of all other nations will remain undisturbed. it is, indeed, possible, that our industry and commerce would accommodate themselves to this unequal and unjust state of things; for, such is the flexibility of our nature, that it bends itself to all circumstances. the wretched prisoner incarcerated in a jail, after a long time, becomes reconciled to his solitude, and regularly notches down the passing days of his confinement. gentlemen deceive themselves. it is not free trade that they are recommending to our acceptance. it is, in effect, the british colonial system that we are invited to adopt; and, if their policy prevails, it will lead substantially to the recolonization of these states, under the commercial dominion of great britain. * * * i dislike this resort to authority, and especially foreign and interested authority, for the support of principles of public policy. i would greatly prefer to meet gentlemen upon the broad ground of fact, of experience, and of reason; but, since they will appeal to british names and authority, i feel myself compelled to imitate their bad example. allow me to quote from the speech of a member of the british parliament, bearing the same family name with my lord goderich, but whether or not a relation of his, i do not know. the member alluded to was arguing against the violation of the treaty of methuen--that treaty not less fatal to the interests of portugal than would be the system of gentlemen to the best interests of america,--and he went on to say: "it was idle for us to endeavor to persuade other nations to join with us in adopting the principles of what was called 'free trade.' other nations knew, as well as the noble lord opposite, and those who acted with him, what we meant by 'free trade' was nothing more nor less than, by means of the great advantages we enjoyed, to get a monopoly of all their markets for our manufactures, and to prevent them, one and all, from ever becoming manufacturing nations. when the system of reciprocity and free trade had been proposed to a french ambassador, his remark was, that the plan was excellent in theory, but, to make it fair in practice, it would be necessary to defer the attempt to put it in execution for half a century, until france should be on the same footing with great britain, in marine, in manufactures, in capital, and the many other peculiar advantages which it now enjoyed. the policy that france acted on was that of encouraging its native manufactures, and it was a wise policy; because, if it were freely to admit our manufactures, it would speedily be reduced to the rank of an agricultural nation, and therefore a poor nation, as all must be that depend exclusively upon agriculture. america acted, too, upon the same principle with france. america legislated for futurity--legislated for an increasing population. america, too, was prospering under this system. in twenty years, america would be independent of england for manufactures altogether. * * * but since the peace, france, germany, america, and all the other countries of the world, had proceeded upon the principle of encouraging and protecting native manufacturers." * * * i regret, mr. president, that one topic has, i think, unnecessarily been introduced into this, debate. i allude to the charge brought against the manufacturing system, as favoring the growth of aristocracy. if it were true, would gentlemen prefer supporting foreign accumulations of wealth by that description of industry, rather than in their own country? but is it correct? the joint-stock companies of the north, as i understand them, are nothing more than associations, sometimes of hundreds, by means of which the small earnings of many are brought into a common stock, and the associates, obtaining corporate privileges, are enabled to prosecute, under one superintending head, their business to better advantage. nothing can be more essentially democratic or better devised to counterpoise the influence of individual wealth. in kentucky, almost every manufactory known to me is in the hands of enterprising and self-made men, who have acquired whatever wealth they possess by patient and diligent labor. comparisons are odious, and but in defence would not be made by me. but is there more tendency to aristocracy in a manufactory, supporting hundreds of freemen, or in a cotton plantation, with its not less numerous slaves, sustaining perhaps only two white families--that of the master and the overseer? i pass, with pleasure, from this disagreeable topic, to two general propositions which cover the entire ground of debate. the first is, that, under the operation of the american system, the objects which it protects and fosters are brought to the consumer at cheaper prices than they commanded prior to its introduction, or, than they would command if it did not exist. if that be true, ought not the country to be contented and satisfied with the system, unless the second proposition, which i mean presently also to consider, is unfounded? and that is, that the tendency of the system is to sustain, and that it has upheld, the prices of all our agricultural and other produce, including cotton. and is the fact not indisputable that all essential objects of consumption affected by the tariff are cheaper and better since the act of than they were for several years prior to that law? i appeal for its truth to common observation, and to all practical men. i appeal to the farmer of the country whether he does not purchase on better terms his iron, salt, brown sugar, cotton goods, and woollens, for his laboring people? and i ask the cotton-planter if he has not been better and more cheaply supplied with his cotton-bagging? in regard to this latter article, the gentleman from south carolina was mistaken in supposing that i complained that, under the existing duty, the kentucky manufacturer could not compete with the scotch. the kentuckian furnishes a more substantial and a cheaper article, and at a more uniform and regular price. but it was the frauds, the violations of law, of which i did complain; not smuggling, in the common sense of that practice, which has something bold, daring, and enterprising in it, but mean, barefaced cheating, by fraudulent invoices and false denominations. i plant myself upon this fact, of cheapness and superiority, as upon impregnable ground. gentlemen may tax their ingenuity, and produce a thousand speculative solutions of the fact, but the fact itself will remain undisturbed. let us look into some particulars. the total consumption of bar-iron in the united states is supposed to be about , tons, of which , tons are made within the country, and the residue imported. the number of men employed in the manufacture is estimated at , , and the total number of persons subsisted by it at , . the measure of protection extended to this necessary article was never fully adequate until the passage of the act of ; and what has been the consequence? the annual increase of quantity since that period has been in a ratio of near twenty-five per centum, and the wholesale price of bar-iron in the northern cities was, in , $ per ton; in , $ ; in , $ ; and in , from $ to $ --constantly diminishing. we import very little english iron, and that which we do is very inferior, and only adapted to a few purposes. in instituting a comparison between that inferior article and our superior iron, subjects entirely different are compared. they are made by different processes. the english cannot make iron of equal quality to ours at a less price than we do. they have three classes, best-best, and best, and ordinary. it is the latter which is imported. of the whole amount imported there is only about , tons of foreign iron that pays the high duty, the residue paying only a duty of about thirty per centum, estimated on the prices of the importation of . our iron ore is superior to that of great britain, yielding often from sixty to eighty per centum, while theirs produces only about twenty-five. this fact is so well known that i have heard of recent exportations of iron ore to england. it has been alleged that bar-iron, being a raw material, ought to be admitted free, or with low duties, for the sake of the manufacturers themselves. but i take this to be the true principle: that if our country is producing a raw material of prime necessity, and with reasonable protection can produce it in sufficient quantity to supply our wants, that raw material ought to be protected, although it may be proper to protect the article also out of which it is manufactured. the tailor will ask protection for himself, but wishes it denied to the grower of wool and the manufacturer of broadcloth. the cotton-planter enjoys protection for the raw material, but does not desire it to be extended to the cotton manufacturer. the ship-builder will ask protection for navigation, but does not wish it extended to the essential articles which enter into the construction of his ship. each in his proper vocation solicits protection, but would have it denied to all other interests which are supposed to come into collision with his. now, the duty of the statesman is to elevate himself above these petty conflicts; calmly to survey all the various interests, and deliberately to proportion the measures of protection to each according to its nature and the general wants of society. it is quite possible that, in the degree of protection which has been afforded to the various workers in iron, there may be some error committed, although i have lately read an argument of much ability, proving that no injustice has really been done to them. if there be, it ought to be remedied. the next article to which i would call the attention of the senate, is that of cotton fabrics. the success of our manufacture of coarse cottons is generally admitted. it is demonstrated by the fact that they meet the cotton fabrics of other countries in foreign markets, and maintain a successful competition with them. there has been a gradual increase of the exports of this article, which is sent to mexico and the south american republics, to the mediterranean, and even to asia. * * * i hold in my hand a statement, derived from the most authentic source, showing that the identical description of cotton cloth, which sold in at twenty-nine cents per yard, was sold in at twenty-one cents, in at nine-teen and a half cents, in at seventeen cents, in at fourteen and a half cents, in at thirteen cents, in at nine cents, in at nine and a half cents, and in at from ten and a half to eleven. such is the wonderful effect of protection, competition, and improvement in skill, combined. the year was one of some suffering to this branch of industry, probably owing to the principle of competition being pushed too far. hence we observe a small rise of the article of the next two years. the introduction of calico-printing into the united states, constitutes an important era in our manufacturing industry. it commenced about the year , and has since made such astonishing advances, that the whole quantity now annually printed is but little short of forty millions of yards--about two thirds of our whole consumption. * * * in respect to woollens, every gentleman's own observation and experience will enable him to judge of the great reduction of price which has taken place in most of these articles since the tariff of . it would have been still greater, but for the high duty on raw material, imposed for the particular benefit of the farming interest. but, without going into particular details, i shall limit myself to inviting the attention of the senate to a single article of general and necessary use. the protection given to flannels in was fully adequate. it has enabled the american manufacturer to obtain complete possession of the american market; and now, let us look at the effect. i have before me a statement from a highly respectable mercantile house, showing the price of four descriptions of flannels during six years. the average price of them, in , was thirty-eight and three quarter cents; in , thirty-eight; in (the year of the tariff), forty-six; in , thirty-six; in , (notwithstanding the advance in the price of wool), thirty-two; and in , thirty-two and one quarter. these facts require no comments. i have before me another statement of a practical and respectable man, well versed in the flannel manufacture in america and england, demonstrating that the cost of manufacture is precisely the same in both countries: and that, although a yard of flannel which would sell in england at fifteen cents would command here twenty-two, the difference of seven cents is the exact difference between the cost in the two countries of the six ounces of wool contained in a yard of flannel. brown sugar, during ten years, from to , with a duty of one and a half cents per pound, averaged fourteen cents per pound. the same article, during ten years, from to , with a duty of three cents, has averaged only eight cents per pound. nails, with a duty of five cents per pound, are selling at six cents. window-glass, eight by ten, prior to the tariff of , sold at twelve or thirteen dollars per hundred feet; it now sells for three dollars and seventy-five cents. * * * this brings me to consider what i apprehend to have been the most efficient of all the causes in the reduction of the prices of manufactured articles, and that is competition. by competition the total amount of the supply is increased, and by increase of the supply a competition in the sale ensues, and this enables the consumer to buy at lower rates. of all human powers operating on the affairs of mankind, none is greater than that of competition. it is action and reaction. it operates between individuals of the same nation, and between different nations. it resembles the meeting of the mountain torrent, grooving, by its precipitous motion, its own channel, and ocean's tide. unopposed, it sweeps every thing before it; but, counterpoised, the waters become calm, safe, and regular. it is like the segments of a circle or an arch: taken separately, each is nothing; but in their combination they produce efficiency, symmetry, and perfection. by the american system this vast power has been excited in america, and brought into being to act in cooperation or collision with european industry. europe acts within itself, and with america; and america acts within itself, and with europe. the consequence is the reduction of prices in both hemispheres. nor is it fair to argue from the reduction of prices in europe to her own presumed skill and labor exclusively. we affect her prices, and she affects ours. this must always be the case, at least in reference to any articles as to which there is not a total non-intercourse; and if our industry, by diminishing the demand for her supplies, should produce a diminution in the price of those supplies, it would be very unfair to ascribe that reduction to her ingenuity, instead of placing it to the credit of our own skill and excited industry. practical men understand very well this state of the case, whether they do or do not comprehend the causes which produce it. i have in my possession a letter from a respectable merchant, well known to me, in which he says, after complaining of the operation of the tariff of , on the articles to which it applies, some of which he had imported, and that his purchases having been made in england before the passage of that tariff was known, it produced such an effect upon the english market that the articles could not be resold without loss, and he adds: "for it really appears that, when additional duties are laid upon an article, it then becomes lower instead of higher!" this would not probably happen where the supply of the foreign article did not exceed the home demand, unless upon the supposition of the increased duty having excited or stimulated the measure of the home production. the great law of price is determined by supply and demand. what affects either affects the price. if the supply is increased, the demand remaining the same, the price declines; if the demand is increased, the supply remaining the same, the price advances; if both supply and demand are undiminished, the price is stationary, and the price is influenced exactly in proportion to the degree of disturbance to the demand or supply. it is, therefore, a great error to suppose that an existing or new duty necessarily becomes a component element to its exact amount of price. if the proportions of demand and supply are varied by the duty, either in augmenting the supply or diminishing the demand, or vice versa, the price is affected to the extent of that variation. but the duty never becomes an integral part of the price, except in the instances where the demand and the supply remain after the duty is imposed precisely what they were before, or the demand is increased, and the supply remains stationary. competition, therefore, wherever existing, whether at home or abroad, is the parent cause of cheapness. if a high duty excites production at home, and the quantity of the domestic article exceeds the amount which had been previously imported, the price will fall. * * * but it is argued that if, by the skill, experience, and perfection which we have acquired in certain branches of manufacture, they can be made as cheap as similar articles abroad, and enter fairly into competition with them, why not repeal the duties as to those articles? and why should we? assuming the truth of the supposition, the foreign article would not be introduced in the regular course of trade, but would remain excluded by the possession of the home market, which the domestic article had obtained. the repeal, therefore, would have no legitimate effect. but might not the foreign article be imported in vast quantities, to glut our markets, break down our establishments, and ultimately to enable the foreigner to monopolize the supply of our consumption? america is the greatest foreign market for european manufactures. it is that to which european attention is constantly directed. if a great house becomes bankrupt there, its storehouses are emptied, and the goods are shipped to america, where, in consequence of our auctions, and our custom-house credits, the greatest facilities are afforded in the sale of them. combinations among manufacturers might take place, or even the operations of foreign governments might be directed to the destruction of our establishments. a repeal, therefore, of one protecting duty, from some one or all of these causes, would be followed by flooding the country with the foreign fabric, surcharging the market, reducing the price, and a complete prostration of our manufactories; after which the foreigner would leisurely look about to indemnify himself in the increased prices which he would be enabled to command by his monopoly of the supply of our consumption. what american citizen, after the government had displayed this vacillating policy, would be again tempted to place the smallest confidence in the public faith, and adventure once more into this branch of industry? gentlemen have allowed to the manufacturing portions of the community no peace; they have been constantly threatened with the overthrow of the american system. from the year , if not from , down to this time, they have been held in a condition of constant alarm and insecurity. nothing is more prejudicial to the great interests of a nation than an unsettled and varying policy. although every appeal to the national legislature has been responded to in conformity with the wishes and sentiments of the great majority of the people, measures of protection have only been carried by such small majorities as to excite hopes on the one hand, and fears on the other. let the country breathe, let its vast resources be developed, let its energies be fully put forth, let it have tranquillity, and, my word for it, the degree of perfection in the arts which it will exhibit will be greater than that which has been presented, astonishing as our progress has been. although some branches of our manufactures might, and in foreign markets now do, fearlessly contend with similar foreign fabrics, there are many others yet in their infancy, struggling with the difficulties which encompass them. we should look at the whole system, and recollect that time, when we contemplate the great movements of a nation, is very different from the short period which is allotted for the duration of individual life. the honorable gentleman from south carolina well and eloquently said, in : "no great interest of any country ever grew up in a day; no new branch of industry can become firmly and profitably established but in a long course of years; every thing, indeed, great or good, is matured by slow degrees; that which attains a speedy maturity is of small value, and is destined to brief existence. it is the order of providence, that powers gradually developed, shall alone attain permanency and perfection. thus must it be with our national institutions, and national character itself." i feel most sensibly, mr. president, how much i have trespassed upon the senate. my apology is a deep and deliberate conviction, that the great cause under debate involves the prosperity and the destiny of the union. but the best requital i can make, for the friendly indulgence which has been extended to me by the senate, and for which i shall ever retain sentiments of lasting gratitude, is to proceed with as little delay as practicable, to the conclusion of a discourse which has not been more tedious to the senate than exhausting to me. i have now to consider the remaining of the two propositions which i have already announced. that is second, that under the operation of the american system, the products of our agriculture command a higher price than they would do without it, by the creation of a home market, and by the augmentation of wealth produced by manufacturing industry, which enlarges our powers of consumption both of domestic and foreign articles. the importance of the home market is among the established maxims which are universally recognized by all writers and all men. however some may differ as to the relative advantages of the foreign and the home market, none deny to the latter great value and high consideration. it is nearer to us; beyond the control of foreign legislation; and undisturbed by those vicissitudes to which all inter-national intercourse is more or less exposed. the most stupid are sensible of the benefit of a residence in the vicinity of a large manufactory, or of a market-town, of a good road, or of a navigable stream, which connects their farms with some great capital. if the pursuits of all men were perfectly the same, although they would be in possession of the greatest abundance of the particular products of their industry, they might, at the same time, be in extreme want of other necessary articles of human subsistence. the uniformity of the general occupation would preclude all exchange, all commerce. it is only in the diversity of the vocations of the members of a community that the means can be found for those salutary exchanges which conduce to the general prosperity. and the greater that diversity, the more extensive and the more animating is the circle of exchange. even if foreign markets were freely and widely open to the reception of our agricultural produce, from its bulky nature, and the distance of the interior, and the dangers of the ocean, large portions of it could never profitably reach the foreign market. but let us quit this field of theory, clear as it is, and look at the practical operation of the system of protection, beginning with the most valuable staple of our agriculture. in considering this staple, the first circumstance that excites our surprise is the rapidity with which the amount of it has annually increased. does not this fact, however, demonstrate that the cultivation of it could not have been so very unprofitable? if the business were ruinous, would more and more have annually engaged in it? the quantity in was eighty-one millions of pounds; in , two hundred and four millions; and in , near three hundred millions! the ground of greatest surprise is that it has been able to sustain even its present price with such an enormous augmentation of quantity. it could not have been done but for the combined operation of three causes, by which the consumption of cotton fabrics has been greatly extended in consequence of their reduced prices: first, competition; second, the improvement of labor-saving machinery; and thirdly, the low price of the raw material. the crop of , amounting to eighty-eight millions of pounds, produced twenty-one millions of dollars; the crop of , when the amount was swelled to one hundred and seventy-four millions (almost double of that of ), produced a less sum by more than half a million of dollars; and the crop of , amounting to thirty millions of pounds less than that of the preceding year, produced a million and a half of dollars more. if there be any foundation for the established law of price, supply, and demand, ought not the fact of this great increase of the supply to account satisfactorily for the alleged low price of cotton? * * * let us suppose that the home demand for cotton, which has been created by the american system, should cease, and that the two hundred thousand bales which the home market now absorbs were now thrown into the glutted markets of foreign countries; would not the effect inevitably be to produce a further and great reduction in the price of the article? if there be any truth in the facts and principles which i have before stated and endeavored to illustrate, it cannot be doubted that the existence of american manufactures has tended to increase the demand and extend the consumption of the raw material; and that, but for this increased demand, the price of the article would have fallen possibly one half lower than it now is. the error of the opposite argument is in assuming one thing, which being denied, the whole fails--that is, it assumes that the whole labor of the united states would be profitably employed without manufactures. now, the truth is that the system excites and creates labor, and this labor creates wealth, and this new wealth communicates additional ability to consume, which acts on all the objects contributing to human comfort and enjoyment. the amount of cotton imported into the two ports of boston and providence alone during the last year (and it was imported exclusively for the home manufacture) was , bales. on passing from that article to others of our agricultural productions, we shall find not less gratifying facts. the total quantity of flour imported into boston, during the same year, was , barrels, and , half barrels; of which, there were from virginia, georgetown, and alexandria, , barrels; of indian corn, , bushels; of oats, , bushels; of rye, about , bushels; and of shorts, , bushels; into the port of providence, , barrels of flour; , bushels of indian corn, and , bushels of rye. and there were discharged at the port of philadelphia, , bushels of indian corn, , bushels of wheat, and , bushels of rye and barley. there were slaughtered in boston during the same year, , (the only northern city from which i have obtained returns,) , beef cattle; , calves; , sheep, and , swine. it is confidently believed that there is not a less quantity of southern flour consumed at the north than eight hundred thousand barrels, a greater amount, probably, than is shipped to all the foreign markets of the world together. what would be the condition of the farming country of the united states--of all that portion which lies north, east, and west of james river, including a large part of north carolina--if a home market did not exist for this immense amount of agricultural produce. without that market, where could it be sold? in foreign markets? if their restrictive laws did not exist, their capacity would not enable them to purchase and consume this vast addition to their present supplies, which must be thrown in, or thrown away, but for the home market. but their laws exclude us from their markets. i shall content myself by calling the attention of the senate to great britain only. the duties in the ports of the united kingdom on bread-stuffs are prohibitory, except in times of dearth. on rice, the duty is fifteen shillings sterling per hundred weight, being more than one hundred per centum. on manufactured tobacco it is nine shillings sterling per pound, or about two thousand per centum. on leaf tobacco three shillings per pound, or one thousand two hundred per centum. on lumber, and some other articles, they are from four hundred to fifteen hundred per centum more than on similar articles imported from british colonies. in the british west indies the duty on beef, pork, hams, and bacon, is twelve shillings sterling per hundred, more than one hundred per centum on the first cost of beef and pork in the western states. and yet great britain is the power in whose behalf we are called upon to legislate, so that we may enable her to purchase our cotton. great britain, that thinks only of herself in her own legislation! when have we experienced justice, much less favor, at her hands? when did she shape her legislation with reference to the interests of any foreign power? she is a great, opulent, and powerful nation; but haughty, arrogant, and supercilious; not more separated from the rest of the world by the sea that girts her island, than she is separated in feeling, sympathy, or friendly consideration of their welfare. gentlemen, in supposing it impracticable that we should successfully compete with her in manufactures, do injustice to the skill and enterprise of their own country. gallant as great britain undoubtedly is, we have gloriously contended with her, man to man, gun to gun, ship to ship, fleet to fleet, and army to army. and i have no doubt we are destined to achieve equal success in the more useful, if not nobler, contest for superiority in the arts of civil life. i could extend and dwell on the long list of articles--the hemp, iron, lead, coal, and other items--for which a demand is created in the home market by the operation of the american system; but i should exhaust the patience of the senate. where, where should we find a market for all these articles, if it did not exist at home? what would be the condition of the largest portion of our people, and of the territory, if this home market were annihilated? how could they be supplied with objects of prime necessity? what would not be the certain and inevitable decline in the price of all these articles, but for the home market? and allow me, mr. president, to say, that of all the agricultural parts of the united states which are benefited by the operation of this system, none are equally so with those which border the chesapeake bay, the lower parts of north carolina, virginia, and the two shores of mary-land. their facilities of transportation, and proximity to the north, give them decided advantages. but if all this reasoning were totally fallacious; if the price of manufactured articles were really higher, under the american system, than without it, i should still argue that high or low prices were themselves relative--relative to the ability to pay them. it is in vain to tempt, to tantalize us with the lower prices of european fabrics than our own, if we have nothing wherewith to purchase them. if, by the home exchanges, we can be supplied with necessary, even if they are dearer and worse, articles of american production than the foreign, it is better than not to be supplied at all. and how would the large portion of our country, which i have described, be supplied, but for the home exchanges? a poor people, destitute of wealth or of exchangeable commodities, have nothing to purchase foreign fabrics with. to them they are equally beyond their reach, whether their cost be a dollar or a guinea. it is in this view of the matter that great britain, by her vast wealth, her excited and protected industry, is enabled to bear a burden of taxation, which, when compared to that of other nations, appears enormous; but which, when her immense riches are compared to theirs, is light and trivial. the gentleman from south carolina has drawn a lively and flattering picture of our coasts, bays, rivers, and harbors; and he argues that these proclaimed the design of providence that we should be a commercial people. i agree with him. we differ only as to the means. he would cherish the foreign, and neglect the internal, trade. i would foster both. what is navigation without ships, or ships without cargoes? by penetrating the bosoms of our mountains, and extracting from them their precious treasures; by cultivating the earth, and securing a home market for its rich and abundant products; by employing the water power with which we are blessed; by stimulating and protecting our native industry, in all its forms; we shall but nourish and promote the prosperity of commerce, foreign and domestic. i have hitherto considered the question in reference only to a state of peace; but who can tell when the storm of war shall again break forth? have we forgotten so soon the privations to which not merely our brave soldiers and our gallant tars were subjected, but the whole community, during the last war, for the want of absolute necessaries? to what an enormous price they rose! and how inadequate the supply was, at any price! the states-man who justly elevates his views will look behind as well as forward, and at the existing state of things; and he will graduate the policy which he recommends to all the probable exigencies which may arise in the republic. taking this comprehensive range, it would be easy to show that the higher prices of peace, if prices were higher in peace, were more than compensated by the lower prices of war, during which supplies of all essential articles are indispensable to its vigorous, effectual, and glorious prosecution. i conclude this part of the argument with the hope that my humble exertions have not been altogether unsuccessful in showing: first, that the policy which we have been considering ought to continue to be regarded as the genuine american system. secondly, that the free-trade system, which is proposed as its substitute, ought really to be considered as the british colonial system. thirdly, that the american system is beneficial to all parts of the union, and absolutely necessary to much the larger portion. fourthly, that the price of the great staple of cotton, and of all our chief productions of agriculture, has been sustained and upheld, and a decline averted, by the protective system. fifthly, that if the foreign demand for cotton has been at all diminished, the diminution has been more than compensated in the additional demand created at home. sixthly, that the constant tendency of the system, by creating competition among ourselves, and between american and european industry, reciprocally acting upon each other, is to reduce prices of manufactured objects. seventhly, that, in point of fact, objects within the scope of the policy of protection have greatly fallen in price. eighthly, that if, in a season of peace, these benefits are experienced, in a season of war, when the foreign supply might be cut off, they would be much more extensively felt. ninthly, and finally, that the substitution of the british colonial system for the american system, without benefiting any section of the union, by subjecting us to a foreign legislation, regulated by foreign interests, would lead to the prostration of our manufactories, general impoverishment, and ultimate ruin. * * * the danger of our union does not lie on the side of persistence in the american system, but on that of its abandonment. if, as i have supposed and believe, the inhabitants of all north and east of james river, and all west of the mountains, including louisiana, are deeply interested in the preservation of that system, would they be reconciled to its overthrow? can it be expected that two thirds, if not three fourths, of the people of the united states would consent to the destruction of a policy, believed to be indispensably necessary to their prosperity? when, too, the sacrifice is made at the instance of a single interest, which they verily believe will not be promoted by it? in estimating the degree of peril which may be incident to two opposite courses of human policy, the statesman would be short-sighted who should content himself with viewing only the evils, real or imaginary, which belong to that course which is in practical operation. he should lift himself up to the contemplation of those greater and more certain dangers which might inevitably attend the adoption of the alternative course. what would be the condition of this union, if pennsylvania and new york, those mammoth members of our confederacy, were firmly persuaded that their industry was paralyzed, and their prosperity blighted, by the enforcement of the british colonial system, under the delusive name of free trade? they are now tranquil and happy and contented, conscious of their welfare, and feeling a salutary and rapid circulation of the products of home manufactures and home industry, throughout all their great arteries. but let that be checked, let them feel that a foreign system is to predominate, and the sources of their subsistence and comfort dried up; let new england and the west, and the middle states, all feel that they too are the victims of a mistaken policy, and let these vast portions of our country despair of any favorable change, and then indeed might we tremble for the continuance and safety of this union! and need i remind you, sir, that this dereliction of the duty of protecting our domestic industry, and abandonment of it to the fate of foreign legislation, would be directly at war with leading considerations which prompted the adoption of the present constitution? the states respectively surrendered to the general government the whole power of laying imposts on foreign goods. they stripped themselves of all power to protect their own manufactures by the most efficacious means of encouragement--the imposition of duties on rival foreign fabrics. did they create that great trust, did they voluntarily subject themselves to this self-restriction, that the power should remain in the federal government inactive, unexecuted, and lifeless? mr. madison, at the commencement of the government, told you otherwise. in discussing at that early period this very subject, he declared that a failure to exercise this power would be a "fraud" upon the northern states, to which may now be added the middle and western states. [governor miller asked to what expression of mr. madison's opinion mr. clay referred; and mr. clay replied, his opinion, expressed in the house of representatives in , as reported in lloyd's congressional debates.] gentlemen are greatly deceived as to the hold which this system has in the affections of the people of the united states. they represent that it is the policy of new england, and that she is most benefited by it. if there be any part of this union which has been most steady, most unanimous, and most determined in its support, it is pennsylvania. why is not that powerful state attacked? why pass her over, and aim the blow at new england? new england came reluctantly into the policy. in , a majority of her delegation was opposed to it. from the largest state of new england there was but a solitary vote in favor of the bill. that interesting people can readily accommodate their industry to any policy, provided it be settled. they supposed this was fixed, and they submitted to the decrees of government. and the progress of public opinion has kept pace with the developments of the benefits of the system. now, all new england, at least in this house (with the exception of one small still voice), is in favor of the system. in , all maryland was against it; now the majority is for it. then, louisiana, with one exception, was opposed to it; now, without any exception, she is in favor of it. the march of public sentiment is to the south. virginia will be the next convert; and in less than seven years, if there be no obstacles from political causes, or prejudices industriously instilled, the majority of eastern virginia will be, as the majority of western virginia now is, in favor of the american system. north carolina will follow later, but not less certainly. eastern tennessee is now in favor of the system. and, finally, its doctrines will pervade the whole union, and the wonder will be, that they ever should have been opposed. frank h. hurd, of ohio. (born , died .) a tariff for revenue only; house of representatives, february , . mr. chairman: at the very threshold it is proper to define the terms i shall use and state the exact propositions i purpose to maintain. a tariff is a tax upon imported goods. like other taxes which are levied, it should be imposed only to raise revenue for the government. it is true that incidental protection to some industries will occur when the duty is placed upon articles which may enter into competition with those of domestic manufacture. i do not propose to discuss now how this incidental protection shall be distributed. this will be a subsequent consideration when the preliminary question has been settled as to what shall be the nature of the tariff itself. the present tariff imposes duties upon nearly four thousand articles, and was levied and is defended upon the ground that american industries should be protected. thus protection has been made the object; revenue the incident. indeed, in many cases the duty is so high that no revenue whatever is raised for the government, and in nearly all so high that much less revenue is collected than might be realized. so true is this that, if the present tariff were changed so as to make it thereby a revenue tariff, one fifth at least could be added to the receipts of the treasury from imports. whenever i use the phrase free trade or free trader, i mean either a tariff for revenue only or one who advocates it. so far as a tariff for revenue is concerned, i do not oppose it, even though it may contain some objectionable incidental protection. the necessities of the government require large revenues, and it is not proposed to interfere with a tariff so long as it is levied to produce them; but, to a tariff levied for protection in itself and for its own sake, i do object. i therefore oppose the present tariff, and the whole doctrine by which it is attempted to be justified. i make war against all its protective features, and insist that the laws which contain them shall be amended, so that out of the importations upon which the duty is levied the greatest possible revenue for the government may be obtained. what, then, is the theory of protection? it is based upon the idea that foreign produce imported into this country will enter into competition with domestic products and undersell them in the home market, thus crippling if not destroying domestic production. to prevent this, the price of the foreign goods in the home market is increased so as to keep them out of the country altogether, or to place the foreigner, in the cost of production, upon the same footing as the american producer. this is proposed to be done by levying a duty upon the foreign importation. if it be so high that the importer cannot pay it and sell the goods at a profit, the facilities of production between this and other countries are said to be equalized, and the american producer is said to be protected. it will be seen, therefore, that protection means the increase of price. without it the fabric has no foundation on which to rest. if the foreign goods are still imported, the importer adds the duty paid to the selling price. if he cannot import with profit, the american producer raises his price to a point always below that at which the foreign goods could be profitably brought into the country, and controls the market. in either event, there is an increase of price of the products sought to be protected. the bald proposition therefore is that american industries can and ought to be protected by increasing the prices of the products of such industries. there are three popular opinions, industriously cultivated and strengthened by adroit advocates, upon which the whole system rests, and to which appeals are ever confidently made. these opinions are erroneous, and lead to false conclusions, and should be first considered in every discussion of this question. the first is, that the balance of trade is in our favor when our exportations exceed our importations. upon this theory it is argued that it cannot be unwise to put restrictions upon importations, for they say that at one and the same time you give protection to our industries and keep the balance of trade in our favor. but the slightest investigation will show that this proposition cannot be maintained. a single illustration, often repeated, but never old in this discussion, will demonstrate it. let a ship set sail from portland, maine, with a cargo of staves registered at the port of departure as worth $ , . they are carried to the west india islands, where staves are in demand, and exchanged for sugar or molasses. the ship returns, and after duty paid the owner sells his sugar and molasses at a profit of $ , . here more has been imported than exported. upon this transaction the protectionist would say that the balance of trade was against us $ , ; the free trader says that the sum represents the profit to the shipper upon his traffic, and the true balance in our favor. suppose that after it has set sail the vessel with its cargo had been lost. in such case five thousand dollars' worth of goods would have been exported, with no importation against it. the exportation has exceeded the importation that sum. is not the balance of trade, according to the protection theory, to that amount in our favor? then let the protectionist turn pirate and scuttle and sink all the vessels laden with our exports, and soon the balance of trade in our favor will be large enough to satisfy even most advocates of the american protective system. the true theory is that in commerce the overplus of the importation above the exportation represents the profit accruing to the country. this overplus, deducting the expenses, is real wealth added to the land. push the two theories to their last position and the true one will be clearly seen. export every thing, import nothing, though the balance of trade may be said to be overwhelmingly in our favor, there is poverty, scarcity, death. import every thing, export nothing, we then will have in addition to our own all the wealth of the world in our possession. secondly, it is said that a nation should be independent of foreign nations, lest in time of war it might find itself helpless or defenceless. free trade, it is charged, makes a people dependent upon foreigners. but traffic is exchange. foreign products do not come into a country unless domestic products go out. this dependence, therefore, is mutual. by trade with foreign nations they are as dependent upon us as we upon them, and in the event of a disturbance of peace the nation with which we would be at war would lose just as much as we would lose, and both as to the war would in that regard stand upon terms of equality. it must not be forgotten that the obstruction of trade between nations is one of the greatest occasions of war. it frequently gives rise to misunderstandings which result in serious conflicts. by removing these obstacles and making trade as free as possible, nations are brought closer together, the interests of their people become intermingled, business associations are formed between them, which go far to keep down national dispute, and prevent the wars in which the dependent nation is said to be so helpless. japan and china have for centuries practised the protective theory of independence of foreigners, and yet, in a war with other nations, they would be the most helpless people in the world. that nation is the most independent which knows most of, and trades most with, the world, and by such knowledge and trade is able to avail itself of the products of the skill, intellect, and genius of all the nations of the earth. a third erroneous impression sought to be made upon the public mind is that whatever increases the amount of labor in a country is a benefit to it. protection, it is argued, will increase the amount of labor, and therefore will increase a country's prosperity. the error in this proposition lies in mistaking the true nature of labor. it regards it as the end, not as the means to an end. men do not labor merely for the sake of labor, but that out of its products they may derive support and comfort for themselves and those dependent upon them. the result, therefore, does not depend upon the amount of labor done, but upon the value of the product. that country, therefore, is the most prosperous which enables the laborer to obtain the greatest possible value for the product of his toil, not that which imposes the greatest labor upon him. if this were not the case men were better off before the appliances of steam as motive power were discovered, or railroads were built, or the telegraph was invented. the man who invents a labor-saving machine is a public enemy; and he would be a public benefactor who would restore the good old times when the farmer never had a leisure day, and the sun never set on the toil of the mechanic. no, mr. chairman, it is the desire of every laborer to get the maximum of result from the minimum of effort. that system, therefore, can be of no advantage to him which, while it gives him employment, robs him of its fruits. this, it will be seen, protection does, while free trade, giving him unrestricted control of the product of his labor, enables him to get the fullest value for it in markets of his own selection. the protectionist, relying upon the propositions i have thus hurriedly discussed, urges many specious reasons for his system, to a few of which only do i intend to call attention to-day. in the first place, it is urged that protection will develop the resources of a country, which without it would remain undeveloped. of course this, to be of advantage to a country, must be a general aggregate increase of development, for if it be an increase of some resources as a result of diminution in others, the people as a whole can be no better off after protection than before. but the general resources cannot be increased by a tariff. there can only be such an increase by an addition to the disposable capital of the country to be applied to the development of resources. but legislation cannot make this. if it could it would only be necessary to enact laws indefinitely to increase capital indefinitely. but, if any legislation could accomplish this, it would not be protective legislation. as already shown, the theory of protection is to make prices higher, in order to make business profitable. this necessarily increases the expense of production, which keeps foreign capital away, because it can be employed in the protected industries more profit-ably elsewhere. the domestic capital, therefore, must be relied upon for the proposed development. as legislation cannot increase that capital, if it be tempted by the higher prices to the business protected, it must be taken from some other business or investment. if there are more workers in factories there will be fewer artisans. if there are more workers in shops there will be fewer farmers. if there are more in the towns there will be fewer in the country. the only effect of protection, therefore, in this point of view, can be to take capital from some employment to put it into another, that the aggregate disposable capital cannot be increased, nor the aggregate development of the resources of a country be greater with a tariff than without. but, secondly, it is said that protection increases the number of industries, thereby diversifying labor and making a variety in the occupations of a people who otherwise might be confined to a single branch of employment. this argument proceeds upon the assumption that there would be no diversification of labor without protection. in other words, it is assumed that but for protection our people would devote themselves to agriculture. this, however, is not true. even if a community were purely agricultural, the necessities of the situation would make diversification of industry. there must be blacksmiths, and shoemakers, and millers, and merchants, and carpenters, and other artisans. to each one of these employments, as population increases, more and more will devote themselves, and with each year new demands will spring up, which will create new industries to supply them. i was born in the midst of a splendid farming country. the business of nine tenths of the people of my native county was farming. my intelligent boyhood was spent there from to , when there was no tariff for protection. there were thriving towns for the general trading. there were woollen mills and operatives. there were flouring mills and millers. there were iron founders and their employes. there were artisans of every description. there were grocers and merchants, with every variety of goods and wares for sale; there were banks and bankers; there was all the diversification of industry that a thriving, industrious, and intelligent community required; not established by protection nor by government aid, but growing naturally out of the wants and necessities of the people. such a diversification is always healthful, because it is natural, and will continue so long as the people are industrious and thrifty. the diversification which protection makes is forced and artificial. suppose protection had come to my native county to further diversify industries. it would have begun by giving higher prices to some industry already established, or profits greater than the average rate to some new industry which it would have started. this would have disturbed the natural order. it would necessarily have embarrassed some interests to help the protected ones. the loss in the most favorable view would have been equal to the gain, and besides trade would inevitably have been annoyed by the obstruction of its natural channels. the worst feature of this kind of diversified industry is that the protected ones never willingly give up the government aid. they scare at competition as a child at a ghost. as soon as the markets seem against them, they rush to congress for further help. they are never content with the protection they have; they are always eager for more. in this dependence upon the government bounty the persons protected learn to distrust themselves; and protection therefore inevitably destroys that manly, sturdy spirit of individuality and independence which should characterize the successful american business man. thirdly, it is said that protection gives increased employment to labor and enhances the wages of workingmen. for a long time no position was more strenuously insisted upon by the advocates of the protective system than that the wages of labor would be increased under it. at this point in the discussion i shall only undertake to show that it is impossible that protection should produce this result. what determines the amount of wages paid? some maintain that it is the amount of the wage fund existing at the time that the labor is done. under this theory it is claimed that, at any given time, there is a certain amount of capital to be applied to the payment of wages, as certain and fixed as though its amount had been determined in advance. others maintain that the amount of wages is fixed by what the laborer makes, or, in other words, by the product of his work, and that, therefore, his wage is determined by the efficiency of his labor alone. both these views are partly true. the wages of the laborer are undoubtedly determined by the efficiency of his work, but the aggregate amount paid for labor cannot exceed the amount properly chargeable to the wage fund without in a little time diminishing the profits of production and ultimately the quantity of labor employed.' but, whichever theory be true, it is clear that protection can add nothing to the amount of wages. it cannot increase the amount of capital applicable to the payment of wages, unless it can be shown that the aggregate capital of a country can be increased by legislation; nor can it add to the efficiency of labor, for that depends upon individual effort exclusively. a man who makes little in a day now may in a year make much more in the same time; his labor has become more efficient. whether this shalt be done depends on the taste, temperament, application, aptitude, and skill of the individual. no one will pretend that protection can increase the aggregate of these qualities in the labor of the country. the result is that it is impossible for protection, either by adding to the wage fund or by increasing the efficiency of labor, to enhance the wages of laboring men, a theory which i shall shortly show is incontrovertibly established by the facts. i will now, mr. chairman, briefly present a few of the principal objections to a tariff for protection. as has been shown, the basis of protection is an increase in the price of the protected products. who pays this increased price? i shall not stop now to consider the argument often urged that it is paid by the foreign producer, because it can be easily shown to the contrary by every one's experience. i shall for this argument assume it as demonstrated that the increase of price which protection makes is paid by the consumer. this suggests the first great objection to protection, that it compels the consumer to pay more for goods than they are really worth, ostensibly to help the business of a producer. now consumers constitute the vast majority of the people. the producers of protected articles are few in comparison with them. it is true that most men are both producers and consumers. but, for the great majority, there is little or no protection for what they produce, but large protection for what they consume. the tariff is principally levied upon woollen goods, lumber, furniture, stoves and other manufactured articles of iron, and upon sugar and salt. the necessities of life are weighted with the burden. it is out of the necessities of the people, therefore, that the money is realized to support the protective system. i say, mr. chairman, that it is beyond the sphere of true governmental power to tax one man to help the business of another. it is, by power, taking money from one to give it to another. this is robbery, nothing more nor less. when a man earns a dollar it is his own; and no power of reasoning can justify the legislative power in taking it from him except for the uses of the government. yet, mr. chairman, the present tariff takes hundreds of millions of dollars every year from the farmer, the laborer, and other consumers, under the claim of enriching the manufacturer. it may not be much for each one to contribute, yet in the aggregate it is an enormous sum. for many, too, it is very much. the statistics will show that every head of a family who receives four hundred dollars a year in wages pays at least one hundred dollars on account of protection. put such a tax on all incomes and the country would be in a ferment of excitement until it was removed. but it is upon the poor and lowly that the tax is placed, and their voices are not often heard in shaping the policies of tariff legislation. i repeat, the product of one's labor is his own. it is his highest right, subject only to the necessities of the government, to do with it as he pleases. protection invades, destroys that right. it ought to be destroyed, until every american freeman can spend his money where it will be of the most service to him. to illustrate the cost of protection to the consumer, consider its operation in increasing the price of two or three of the leading articles protected. take paper for example. the duty on that commodity is twenty per cent. ad valorem. most of the articles which enter into its manufacture or are required in the process of making it are increased in price by protection. the result is that the price of paper to the consumer is increased nearly fifteen per cent.; that is, if the tariff were taken off paper and the articles used in its manufacture, paper would be fifteen per cent. cheaper to the buyer. the paper-mills for five years have produced nearly one hundred millions of dollars' worth of paper a year. the consumers have been compelled to pay fifteen millions a year to the manufacturer more than the paper could have been bought for without the tariff. in five years this has amounted to $ , , , an immense sum paid to protection. it is a tax upon books and newspapers; it is a tax upon intelligence; it is a premium upon ignorance. so heavy had the burden of this tax become that every newspaper man in the district i have the honor to represent has appealed to congress to take the duty off. the government has derived little revenue from the paper duty. it has gone almost entirely to the manufacturer, who himself has not been benefited as anticipated, as will presently be seen. these burdens have been imposed to protect the paper manufacturer against the foreigner, in face of the confident prediction made by one of the most experienced paper men in the country, that if all protection were taken off paper and the material used in its manufacture, the manufacturer would be able to successfully compete with the foreigner in nearly every desirable market in the world. take blankets also for example. the tariff on coarse blankets is nearly one hundred per cent. ad valorem. they can be bought in most of the markets of the world for two dollars a pair. yet our poor, who use the most of that grade of blankets, are compelled to pay about four dollars a pair. the government derives little revenue from it, as the importation of these blankets for years has been trifling. this tax has been a heavy burden upon the poor during this severe winter, a tax running into the millions to support protection. heaven save a country from a system which begrudges to the shivering poor the blankets to make them comfortable in the winter and the cold! secondly, protection has diminished the income of the laborer from his wages. the first factor in the ascertainment of the value of wages is their purchasing power, or how much can be bought with them. if in one country the wages are five dollars a day and in another only one dollar, if the laborer can in the one country with the one dollar, purchase more of the necessary articles required in daily consumption, he, in fact, is better paid than the former in the other who gets five dollars a day. admit for a moment that protection raises the wages of the laborer, it also raises the price of nearly all the necessaries of life, and what he makes in wages he more than loses in the increase of prices of what he is obliged to buy. as already stated, a head of a family who earns $ per year is compelled to pay $ more for what he needs, on account of protection. what difference is it to him whether the $ are taken out of his wages before they are paid, or taken from him afterward in the increased price of articles he cannot get along without? in both cases he really receives only $ for his year's labor. the statistics show that the average increased cost of twelve articles most required in daily consumption in over was ninety-two per cent., while the average increase of wages of eight artisans, cabinet-makers, coopers, carpenters, painters, shoemakers, tail-ors, tanners, and tinsmiths, was only sixty per cent., demonstrating that the purchasing power of labor had under protection in thirteen years depreciated . per cent. but protection has not even raised the nominal wages in most of the unprotected industries. i find that the wages of the farm hand, the day laborer, and the ordinary artisan are in most places now no higher than they were in . but it is confidently asserted that the wages of laborers in the protected industries are higher because of protection. admit it. i have not the figures for , but in there were not , of them; but of the laborers in other industries there were , , , exclusive of those in agriculture, who were , , more. why should the wages of the half million be increased beyond their natural rate, while those of the others remain unchanged? more--why should the wages of the , , be diminished that those of the half million may be increased? for an increase cannot be made in the wage rate of one class without a proportionate decrease in that of others. but the wages of labor in protected industries are not permanently increased by protection. another very important factor in ascertaining the value of wages is the continuance or the steadiness of the employment. two dollars a day for half the year is no more than a dollar a day for the whole year. employment in most protected industries is spasmodic. in the leading industries for the past ten years employment has not averaged more than three fourths of the time, and not at very high wages. within the last year manufacturers of silk, carpets, nails and many other articles of iron, of various kinds of glassware and furniture, and coal producers have shut down their works for a part of the time, or reduced the hours of labor. production has been too great. to stop this and prevent the reduction of profits through increasing competition, the first thing done is to diminish the production, thus turning employes out of employment. wages are diminished or stopped until times are flush again. with the time estimated in which the laborers are not at work, the average rate of wages for the ten years preceding did not equal the wages in similar industries for the ten years preceding under a revenue tariff. indeed, in many branches the wages have not been so high as those received by the pauper labor, so-called, in europe. but it is manifest that the wages in these industries cannot for any long period be higher than the average rate in the community, for, if the wages be higher, labor will crowd into the employments thus favored until the rate is brought down to the general level. so true is this, that it is admitted by many protectionists that wages are not higher in the protected industries than in others. thirdly, the effect of protection is disastrous to most of the protected industries themselves. we have seen that many of them have in recent years been compelled to diminish production. the cause of this is manifest. production confines them to the american market. the high prices they are compelled to pay for protected materials which enter into the manufacture of their products disable them from going into the foreign market. the profits which they make under the first impulse of protection invite others into the same business. as a result, therefore, more goods are made than the american market can consume. prices go down to some extent through the competition, but rarely under the cost of production, increased, as we have seen, by the enhanced price of material required. the losses threatened by such competition are sought to be averted by the diminution of production. combinations of those interested are formed to stop work or reduce it until the stock on hand has been consumed. production then begins again and continues until the same necessity calls again for the same remedy. but this remedy is arbitrary, capricious, and unsatisfactory. some will not enter into the combination at all. others will secretly violate the agreement from the beginning. others still, when their surplus stock has been sold, and before the general price has risen, will begin to manufacture again. there is no power to enforce any bargain they have made, and they find the plan only imperfectly curing the difficulty. they remain uncertain what to do, embarrassed and doubtful as to the future. they have through protection violated the natural laws of supply and demand, and human regulations are powerless to relieve them from the penalty. take, as an illustration of the operation of the system, the article of paper. one of the first effects of the general tariff was to increase the price of nearly every thing the manufacturer required to make the paper. fifteen mil-lions of dollars a year through the protection are taken from the consumer. the manufacturer himself is able to retain but a small part of it, as he is obliged to pay to some other protected industry for its products, they in turn to some others who furnished them with protected articles for their use, and so on to the end. the result is that nominal prices are raised all around; the consumers pay the fifteen millions, while nobody receives any substantial benefit, because what one makes in the increased price of his product he loses in the increased price he is obliged to pay for the required products of others. the consumer is the loser, and though competition may occasionally reduce prices for him to a reasonable rate, it never to any appreciable extent compensates him for the losses he sustains through the enhanced price which the protective system inevitably causes. it is not to be disputed that many of the protected manufacturers have grown rich. in very many cases i think it can be demonstrated that their wealth has resulted from some patent which has given them a monopoly in particular branches of manufacturing, or from some other advantage which they have employed exclusively in their business. in such cases they would have prospered without protection as with it. i think there are few, except in the very inception of a manufacturing enterprise, or in abnormal cases growing out of war or destruction of property, or the combinations of large amounts of capital, where protection alone has enriched men. the result is the robbery of the consumer with no ultimate good to most of the protective industries. at a meeting of the textile manufacturers in philadelphia the other day, one of the leading men in that interest said: "the fact is that the textile manufacturers of philadelphia, the centre of the american trade, are fast approaching a crisis, and realize that something must be done, and that soon. cotton and woollen mills are fast springing up over the south and west, and the prospects are that we will soon lose much of our trade in the coarse fabrics by reason of cheap competition. the only thing we can do, therefore, is to turn our attention to the higher plane, and endeavor to make goods equal to those imported. we cannot do this now, because we have not a sufficient supply either of the culture which begets designs, or of the skill which manipulates the fibres." what a commentary this upon protection, which has brought to such a crisis one of the chief industries protected, and which is here confessed to have failed, after twenty years, to enable it to compete even in our own markets with foreign goods of the finer quality! what is true of textile manufacturing is also true of many other industries. what remedy, then, will afford the american manufacturer relief? not the one here suggested of increasing the manufacture of goods of finer quality, for, aside from the impracticability of the plan, this will only aggravate the difficulty by adding to the aggregate stock in the home market. * * * the american demand cannot consume what they produce. they must therefore enlarge their market or stop production. to adopt the latter course is to invite ruin. the market cannot be increased in this country. it must be found in other countries. foreign markets must be sought. but these cannot be opened as long as we close our markets to their products, with which alone, in most instances, they can buy; in other words, as long as we continue the protective system. i say, therefore, to the american manufacturer, sooner or later you must choose between the alternatives of ruin or the abandonment of protection. why hesitate in the decision? are not canada and south america and mexico your natural markets? england now supplies them with almost all the foreign goods they buy. why should not you? your coal and iron lie together in the mountain side, and can almost be dropped without carriage into your furnaces; while in england the miners must go thousands of feet under the earth for those products. * * * the situation is yours. break down your protective barrier. all the world will soon do the same. their walls will disappear when ours fall. open every market of the world to your products; give steady employment to your laborers. in a little while you will have the reward which nature always gives to those who obey her laws, and will escape the ruin which many of your most intelligent opera-tors see impending over your industries. i have not time to-day to more than refer to the ruinous effect of protection upon our carrying trade. in , seventy-five per cent. of the total value of our imports and exports was carried in american vessels; while in but seventeen per cent. was carried in such vessels, and in the proportion was still less. in , ships and barks were built in the united states, while in there were only . it is a question of very few years at this rate until american vessels and the american flag will disappear from the high seas. protection has more than all else to do with the prostration of this trade. it accomplishes this result ( ) by enhancing the price of the materials which enter into the construction of vessels, so that our ship-builders cannot compete with foreigners engaged in the same business; ( ) by increasing the cost of domestic production so that american manufactured goods cannot profitably be exported; and ( ) by disabling our merchants from bringing back on their return trips foreign cargoes in exchange for our products. nor will i say any thing as to the increase of the crime of smuggling under protection, a crime which has done incalculable harm to honest dealers, particularly on the border, and a crime out of which some of the largest fortunes in the country have been made. there are many who will admit the abstract justice of much that i have said who profess to believe that it will not do to disturb the tariff now. but for the protectionist that time never comes. when the depression in business was universal, they said you must not disturb the tariff now, because the times are so hard and there is so much suffering. now, when business has improved, they say you must not interfere with the tariff, because times are good and you may bring suffering again. when the present tariff was first levied it was defended as a temporary expedient only, required as a necessity by war. now that a quarter of a century nearly has passed by and peace has been restored for fifteen years, the advocates for protection are as determined to hold on to the government bounty as ever. if they are to be consulted upon the subject as to when the people shall have relief, the system will be perpetual. it is said we must not disturb the tariff because we must raise so much revenue. i do not propose to disturb it to diminish revenue, but to increase it. the plan i propose will add one fifth at least to the revenue of the country. it is protection i propose to get rid of, not revenue. it has been well said that revenue ceases where protection begins. it is claimed that by taking away protection you will embarrass many industries by compelling them to close up and discharge their employees. i do not believe that the changing of the present tariff to a revenue tariff will produce this result. i believe that at once every manufacturer will make more in the diminished cost of production than he will lose in the taking away of protection. but if there should be danger to any industry i would provide against it in the law which changes the tariff so that if there should be any displacement of labor there will be no loss in consequence. no more perfect illustration of the effect of free trade has been shown than in the history of the united states. very much of our prosperity is due to the fact that the productions of each state can be sold in every other state without restriction. during the war the most potent argument for the cause of the union was found in the apprehension that disunion meant restriction of commerce, and particularly the placing of the mouth of the mississippi river under foreign control. the war was fought, therefore, to maintain free trade, and the victory was the triumph of free trade. the union every day exhibits the advantages of the system. are these due to the accident of a state being a member of that union or to the beneficent principle of the system itself? what would prevent similar results following if, subject only to the necessities of government, it were extended to mexico, to canada, to south america, to the world? in such extension the united states have everything to gain, nothing to lose. this country would soon become the supply house of the world. we will soon have cattle and harvests enough for all nations. our cotton is everywhere in demand. it is again king. its crown has been restored, and in all the markets of the world it waves its royal sceptre. out of our coal and minerals can be manufactured every thing which human ingenuity can devise. our gold and silver mines will supply the greater part of the precious metals for the use of the arts and trade. with the opportunity of unrestricted exchange of these products, how limitless the horizon of our possibilities! let american adventurousness and genius be free upon the high seas, to go wherever they please and bring back whatever they please, and the oceans will swarm with american sails, and the land will laugh with the plenty within its borders. the trade of tyre and sidon, the far extending commerce of the venetian republic, the wealth-producing traffic of the netherlands, will be as dreams in contrast with the stupendous reality which american enterprise will develop in our own generation. through the humanizing influence of the trade thus encouraged, i see nations become the friends of nations, and the causes of war disappear. i see the influence of the great republic in the amelioration of the condition of the poor and the oppressed in every land, and in the moderation of the arbitrariness of power. upon the wings of free trade will be carried the seeds of free government, to be scattered everywhere to grow and ripen into harvests of free peoples in every nation under the sun. ix.--finance and civil service reform. with the election of and the inauguration of president hayes, march , , the period of reconstruction may be said to have closed. the last formal act of that period was the withdrawal of the national troops from the south by president hayes soon after his inauguration. during the last two decades the "southern question," while it has been occasionally prominent in political discussions,--especially in connection with the lodge federal elections bill, - , has, nevertheless, occupied a subordinate place in public interest and attention. as an issue in serious political discussions and party divisions the question has disappeared. in addition to the subject of the tariff, considered in the previous section, public attention has been directed chiefly, during the last quarter of a century, to the two great subjects, finance and civil service reform. the financial question has been like that of the tariff,--it has been almost a constant factor in political controversies since the organization of the government. the financial measures of hamilton were the chief subject of political controversy under our first administration, and they formed the basis of division for the first political parties under the constitution. the funding of the revolutionary debt, its payment dollar for dollar without discrimination between the holders of the public securities, the assumption of the state debts by the national government, and the establishment of the first united states bank, these measures of hamilton were all stoutly combated by his opponents, but they were all carried to a successful conclusion. it was the discussion on the establishment of the first united states bank that brought from hamilton and jefferson their differing constructions of the constitution. in his argument to washington in favor of the bank, hamilton presented his famous theory of implied powers, while jefferson contended that the constitution should be strictly construed, and that the "sweeping clause"--"words subsidiary to limited powers"--should not be so construed as to give unlimited powers. madison and giles in the house presented notable arguments in support of the jeffersonian view. for twenty years after our financial questions were chiefly questions of administration, not of legislation. in the attempt to recharter the first united states bank was defeated in the senate by the casting vote of vice-president clinton. the financial embarrassments of the war of , however, led to the establishment, in , of the second united states bank,--by a law very similar in its provisions to the act creating the first bank in . the bill chartering the second united states bank was signed by madison, who had strenuously opposed the charter of the first bank. the financial difficulties in which the war had involved his administration had convinced madison that such an institution as the bank was a "necessary and proper" means of carrying on the fiscal affairs of the government. the second bank was, however, opposed on constitutional grounds, as the first had been; but in in the famous case of mcculloch vs. maryland, the supreme court sustained its constitutionality, chief-justice marshall rendering the decision. the court held, in this notable decision, that the federal government was a government of limited powers, and these powers are not to be transcended; but wherein a power is specifically conferred congress might exercise a sovereign and unlimited discretion as to the means necessary in carrying that power into operation. the next important chapter in our financial history is the war upon the second united states bank begun and conducted to a finish by president jackson. a bill rechartering the bank was passed by congress in , four years before its charter expired. jackson vetoed this bill, chiefly on constitutional grounds, in the face of marshall's decision of . the political literature of jackson's two administrations is full of the bank controversy, and this literature contains contributions from webster, clay, calhoun, benton, and other of the ablest public men of the day. no subject of public discussion in that day more completely absorbed the attention of the people. on these important subjects, which engaged public attention during the first half-century of our national history, there may be found many valuable speeches. these, however, are largely of a constitutional character. it has been since the opening of our civil war that our financial discussions have assumed their greatest interest and importance. we can attempt here only a meagre outline of the financial history of the last thirty years,--a history which suggests an almost continuous financial struggle and debate. leaving on one side the questions of taxation and banking, the financial discussion has presented itself under two aspects,--the issue and redemption of government paper currency, and the government policy toward silver coinage. the issue, the funding, and the payment of government bonds have been incidentally connected with these questions. the first "legal-tender" act was approved february , . mr. blaine says of this act that it was "the most momentous financial step ever taken by congress," and it was a step concerning which there has ever since been the most pronounced difference of opinion. the act provided for the issue of $ , , non-interest-bearing notes, payable to bearer, in denominations of not less than $ , and legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, except duties on imports and interest on the public debt. these notes were made exchangeable for per cent. bonds and receivable for loans that might thereafter be made by the government. supplementary acts of july , , and january , , authorized additional issues of $ , , each, in denominations of not less than one dollar, and the time in which to exchange the notes for bonds was limited to july , . it was under these acts that the legal-tender notes known as "greenbacks," now outstanding, were issued. the retirement of the greenbacks was begun soon after the war. on april , , an act authorized the secretary of the treasury to retire and cancel not more than $ , , of these notes within six months of the passage of the act, and $ , , per month thereafter. this policy of contraction was carried out by secretary mcculloch, who urged still more rapid contraction; but the policy was resisted by a large influence in the country, and on february , , an act of congress suspending the authority of the secretary of the treasury to retire and cancel united states notes, became a law without the signature of the president. on march , , an "act to strengthen the public credit" was passed, which declared that the "greenbacks" were redeemable in coin. this act concluded as follows: "and the united states also solemnly pledges its faith to make provision at the earliest practicable period for the redemption of the united states notes in coin." on january , , the "resumption act" was passed. it declared that "on and after january , , the secretary of the treasury shall redeem in coin the united states legal-tender notes then outstanding, on their presentation for redemption at the office of the assistant treasurer of the united states in the city of new york, in sums of not less than fifty dollars." the same act provided that while the legal-tender notes outstanding remained in excess of $ , , , the secretary of the treasury should redeem such notes to the amount of per cent. of the increase in national bank notes issued. on may , , an act was passed forbidding the further retirement of united states legal-tender notes, and providing that "when any of said notes may be redeemed or be received into the treasury under any law from any source whatever and shall belong to the united states, they shall not be retired, cancelled, or destroyed, but they shall be re-issued and paid out again and kept in circulation." when this act was passed there were $ , , of united states notes outstanding, and there has been no change in the amount since. as to the silver policy of the government since the war it is expected that the purport of certain important acts of legislation should be understood by all who would have an intelligent conception of our financial controversies. the act of february , , suspended the coinage of the standard silver dollar of and / grains. this act authorized the coinage of the trade dollar of grains, making it a legal tender for $ . this is the act which has been called the "crime of ," on which tomes of controversy have been called forth. it is discussed at some length in the speech of mr. morrill, found in our text. on february , , the bland-allison act was passed over the veto of president hayes. a bill providing for the free and unlimited coinage of silver, of and / grains to the dollar, had passed the house in november, , under a suspension of the rules. at this time the bullion in the silver dollar was worth about cents. when the bland free-coinage act came to the senate, it was amended there on report of senator allison, of iowa, chairman of the finance committee of the senate, by a provision that the government should purchase from $ , , to $ , , worth of silver bullion for coinage into dollars. holders of the coin were authorized to deposit the same with the united states treasurer and to receive therefor certificates of deposit, known as silver certificates. these certificates are not legal tender, although receivable for customs, taxes, and all public dues, and are redeemable only in silver. this act called forth an exhaustive and able debate. senator morrill, of vermont, opened the debate in opposition to silver coinage. senator beck, of kentucky, was one of the ablest advocates of silver coinage, while mr. blaine made a notable contribution to the debate, in which he favored the unlimited coinage of a silver dollar of grains. preceding the congressional action there had been much public discussion on the subject throughout the country. a monetary commission had been organized, by joint resolution of august , , for the purpose of making an examination into the silver question. this commission made an exhaustive report to congress on march , , the majority of the commission recommending the resumption of silver coinage. also, previous to the discussion of the bland-allison act in the senate, the celebrated matthews resolution was passed by that body. this asserted that "all bonds of the united states are payable in silver dollars of and / grains, and that to restore such dollars as a full legal tender for that purpose, is not in violation of public faith or the rights of the creditors." the de-bate on this resolution was a notable one. it was chiefly under these aspects that the financial question was discussed in the years - . the bland-allison act was in operation from to , during which time $ , , in silver were coined per month, the minimum amount authorized by law. on july , , the so-called sherman act stopped the coinage of silver dollars and provided for the purchase of silver bullion to the amount of , , ounces per month. against this bullion treasury notes were to be issued, redeemable in gold or silver coin at the option of the secretary of the treasury. these notes were made a legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, and receivable for all customs, taxes, and all public dues. it was also declared in this act to be the established policy of the united states to maintain the two metals on a parity with each other upon the present legal ratio, or such ratio as may be provided by law. on account of this language in the law the secretary of the treasury under mr. cleveland has not deemed it advisable to exercise the discretion which the law gives him to redeem these notes in silver, and these new treasury notes have been treated as gold obligations. by november , , when the silver purchase clause of the act of july , , was repealed, treasury notes to the amount of $ , , had been issued, though some of these have since been exchanged for silver dollars at the option of the holders. it has been by these treasury notes and the outstanding greenbacks that gold has been withdrawn from the treasury, thus depleting the gold reserve and making bond issues necessary. it has been deemed advisable by successive administrations of the treasury department to maintain a gold reserve of $ , , against the $ , , outstanding greenbacks, though no law requires that such a reserve should be maintained further than that the act of march , , pledges the faith of the united states that its outstanding notes should be redeemed in coin. the repeal of the silver purchase clause of the sherman act was accomplished in a special session of congress, november , . since this repeal, the silver policy of the government has been as it was before the bland-allison act of , which involves a complete suspension of silver coinage. the acts of and of were compromise measures, agreed to by the opponents of silver coinage in order to prevent the passage of a bill providing for full unlimited coinage of silver at the ratio of to . speaking in his _recollections_ of the situation in , senator sherman says: "the situation at that time was critical. a large majority of the senate favored free silver, and it was feared that the small majority against it in the other house might yield and agree to it. the silence of the president on the matter gave rise to an apprehension that if a free coinage bill should pass both houses he would not feel at liberty to veto it. some action had to be taken to prevent a return to free silver coinage, and the measure evolved was the best obtainable. i voted for it, but the day it became a law i was ready to repeal it, if repeal could be had without substituting in its place absolute free coinage." since the contention has been carried on by the silver men in a public agitation in favor of free silver coinage, without compromise or international agreement, and this year ( ), by our form of political referendum, the question has been referred to the people for decision. we have attempted to include four representative orations on this complex subject, from four of our most prominent public men. the literature of the subject is unlimited. mr. morrill is a representative advocate of the gold standard. in the same discussion mr. blaine offers a compromise position. senator sherman is an international bimetallist and a pronounced opponent of independent silver coinage. he has given much attention--probably no one has given more--to financial questions during a long public life. senator jones is recognized as one of the ablest advocates and one of the deepest students of monetary problems on the free silver side of the controversy. the extracts from these speeches will indicate the merits of the long debate on silver coinage,--the greatest question in our financial history in a quarter of a century. the reform of the civil service has been a subject of public attention especially since . the public service of the united states is divided into three branches, the civil, military, and naval. by the civil service we mean that which is neither military nor naval, and it comprises all the offices by which the civil administration is carried on. the struggle for civil service reform has been an effort to substitute what is known as the "merit system" for what is known as the "spoils system"; to require that appointment to public office should depend, not upon the applicant's having rendered a party service, but upon his fitness to render a public service. it would seem that the establishment in public practice of so obvious a principle should require no contest or agitation; and that the civil service should ever have been perverted and that a long struggle should be necessary to reform it, are to be explained only in connection with a modern party organization and a party machinery and usage which were entirely unforeseen by the framers of the constitution. the practice of the early administrations was reasonable and natural. washington required of applicants for places in the civil service proofs of ability, integrity, and fitness. "beyond this," he said, "nothing with me is necessary or will be of any avail." washington did not dream that party service should be considered as a reason for a public appointment. john adams followed the example of washington. jefferson came into power at the head of a victorious party which had displaced its opponent after a bitter struggle. the pressure for places was strong, but jefferson resisted it, and he declared in a famous utterance that "the only questions concerning a candidate shall be, is he honest? is he capable? is he faithful to the constitution?" madison, monroe, and john quincy adams followed in the same practice so faithfully that a joint congressional committee was led to say in that, having consulted all accessible means of information, they had not learned of a single removal of a subordinate officer except for cause, from the beginning of washington's administration to the close of that of john quincy adams. the change came in with the accession of jackson. the spoils system was formally proclaimed in . in that year martin van buren was nominated minister to england, and, in advocating his confirmation, senator marcy, of new york, first used the famous phrase in reference to the public officers, "to the victors belong the spoils of the enemy." since then every administration has succumbed, in whole or in part, to the spoils system. the movement for the reform of the civil service began in - , in the th and th congresses in investigations and reports of a joint committee on retrenchment. the reports were made and the movement led by hon. thomas a. jenckes, a member of the house from rhode island. these reports contained a mass of valuable information upon the evils of the spoils service. in an act, a section of an appropriation bill, was passed authorizing the president to prescribe rules for admission to the civil service, to appoint suitable persons to make inquiries and to establish regulations for the conduct of appointees. mr. george william curtis was at the head of the civil service commission appointed by general grant under this act, and on december , , the commission made a notable report, written by mr. curtis, on the evils of the present system and the need of reform. in april, , a set of rules was promulgated by the commission regulating appointments. these rules were suspended in march, , by president grant although personally friendly to the reform, because congress had refused appropriations for the expenses of the commission. appeal was made to the people through the usual agencies of education and agitation. president hayes revised the civil service rules, and mr. schurz, secretary of the interior, made notable application of the principle of the reform in his department. president garfield recognized the need of reform, though he asserted that it could be brought about only through congressional action. garfield's assassination by a disappointed placeman added to the public demand for reform, and on january, , , the pendleton civil service law was passed. this act, which had been pending in the senate since , provided for open competitive examinations for admission to the public service in washington and in all custom-houses and post-offices where the official force numbered as many as fifty; for the appointment of a civil service commission of three members, not more than two of whom shall be of the same political party; and for the apportionment of appointments according to the population of the states. provision was made for a period of probation before permanent appointment should be made, and no recommendations from a senator or member of congress, except as to the character or residence of the applicant, should be received or considered by any person making an appointment or examination. the act prohibited political assessments in a provision that "no person shall, in any room occupied in the discharge of official duties by an officer or employee of the united states, solicit in any manner whatever any contribution of money or anything of value, for any political purpose whatever." the pendleton act was a landmark in the history of the reform and indicated its certain triumph. the act was faithfully executed by president arthur in the appointment of a commission friendly to the cause, and under the act the civil service rules have since been extended by presidents harrison and cleveland until the operations of the reform embrace the greater part of the service, including fully , appointments. it is not probable that the nation will ever again return to the feudalism of the spoils system. no two men have done more for the cause of civil service reform than george william curtis and carl schurz. when mr. curtis died, in , the presidency of the civil service reform league, so long held by him, worthily devolved upon mr. schurz. it may be said that in the last twenty-five years of mr. curtis' life is written the history of this reform. his orations on the subject have enriched our political literature and they hold up before the young men of america the noblest ideals of american citizenship. he gave unselfishly of his time and of his exalted talents to this cause, and his services deserve from his countrymen the reward due to high and devoted patriotism. refusing high and honorable appointments which were held out to him, he preferred to serve his country by doing what he could to put her public service upon a worthy plane. the oration from mr. curtis included in our text is one among many of his worthy productions. j. a. w. justin s. morrill, of vermont. (born .) on the remonetization of silver --united states senate, january , . mr. president, the bill now before the senate provides for the resuscitation of the obsolete dollar of and / grains of silver, which congress entombed in by an act which diminished the weight of gold coins to the extent of . per cent., and thus bade a long farewell to silver. it is to be a dollar made of metal worth now fifty-three and five-eighths pence per ounce, or ten cents less in value than a gold dollar, and on january d, awkwardly enough, worth eight and three-fourths cents less than a dollar in greenbacks, gold being only if per cent. premium, but, nevertheless, to be a legal tender for all debts, public and private, except where otherwise provided by contract. the words seem to be aptly chosen to override and annul whatever now may be otherwise provided by law. beyond this, as the bill came from the house, the holders of silver bullion--not the government or the whole people--were to have all the profits of coinage and the government all of the expense. this, but for the amendment proposed by the committee on finance, would have furnished the power to the enterprising operators in silver, either at home or abroad, to inflate the currency without limit; and, even as amended, inflation will be secured to the full extent of all the silver which may be issued, for there is no provision for redeeming or retiring a single dollar of paper currency. labor is threatened with a continuation of the unequal struggle against a depreciated and fluctuating standard of money. the bill, if it becomes a law, must at the very threshold arrest the resumption of specie payments, for, were the holders of united states notes suddenly willing to exchange them for much less than their present value, payment even in silver is to be postponed indefinitely. for years united states notes have been slowly climbing upward, but now they are to have a sudden plunge downward, and in every incompleted contract, great and small, the robbery of peter to pay paul is to be fore-ordained. the whole measure looks to me like a fearful assault upon the public credit. the losses it will inflict upon the holders of paper money and many others will be large, and if the bill, without further radical amendments, obtains the approval of the senate, it will give the death-blow to the cardinal policy of the country, which now seeks a large reduction of the rate of interest upon our national debt. even that portion now held abroad will come back in a stampede to be exchanged for gold at any sacrifice. the ultimate result would be, when the supply for customs shall have been coined and the first effervescence has passed away, the emission of silver far below the standard of gold; and when the people become tired of it, disgusted or ruined by its instability, as they soon would be, a fresh clamor may be expected for the remonetization of gold, and another clipping or debasing of gold coins may follow to bring them again into circulation on the basis of silver equivalency. in this slippery descent there can be no stopping place. the consoling philosophy of the silver commission may then be repealed, that a fall in the value of either or both of the metals is a "benefaction to mankind." if that were true, then copper, being more abundant and of lower value, should be used in preference to either gold or silver. the gravity of these questions will not be disputed. the silver question in its various aspects, as involved in the bill before us, is one of admitted importance, possibly of difficult solution; and it is further embarrassed by not only the conflicting views of those entitled to some respect, but by the multifarious prescriptions intruded by a host of self-constituted experts and by all of the quack financiers of the land. every crocheteer and pamphleteer, cocksure "there's no two ways about it," generously contributes his advice free of charge; but sound, trust-worthy advice does not roam like tramps and seldom comes uninvited. many of the facts which surround the subject are perhaps of too recent occurrence to justify hasty and irrevocable conclusions. the service of our own people, however, must be our paramount concern. their intercourse with themselves and with the world should be placed upon the most solid foundation. if any have silver to sell it is comparatively a small matter, and yet we earnestly desire that they may obtain for it the highest as well as the most stable price; but not at the expense of corn, cotton, and wheat; and it is to be hoped, if any have debts to meet now or hereafter, that they may meet them with the least inconvenience consistent with plain, downright, integrity; but, from being led astray by the loud declamations of those who earn nothing themselves and know no trade but spoliation of the earnings of others, let them heartily say, "good lord, deliver us." * * * * * a stupid charge, heretofore, in the front of debate, has been made, and wickedly repeated in many places, that the coinage act of was secretly and clandestinely engineered through congress without proper consideration or knowledge of its contents; but it is to be noted that this charge had its birth and growth years after the passage of the act, and not until after the fall of silver. long ago it was declared by one of the old greek dramatists that, "no lie ever grows old." this one is as fresh and boneless now as at its birth, and is therefore swallowed with avidity by those to whom such food is nutritious or by those who have no appetite for searching the documents and records for facts. whether the act itself was right or wrong does not depend upon the degradation of congress implied in the original charge. interested outsiders may glory in libelling congress, but why should its own members? the act may be good and congress bad, and yet it is to be hoped that the latter has not fallen to the level of its traducers. but there has been no fall of congress; only a fall of silver. to present the abundant evidence showing that few laws were ever more openly proposed, year after year, and squarely understood than the coinage act of , will require but a moment. it had been for years elaborately considered and reported upon by the deputy comptroller of the currency. the special attention of congress was called to the bill and the report by the secretary of the treasury in his annual re-ports for , , and , where the "new features" of the bill, "discontinuing the coinage of the silver dollar," were fully set forth. the extensive correspondence of the department had been printed in relation to the proposed bill, and widely circulated. the bill was separately printed eleven times, and twice in reports of the deputy comptroller of the currency,--thirteen times in all,--and so printed by order of congress. a copy of the printed bill was many times on the table of every senator, and i now have all of them here before me in large type. it was considered at much length by the appropriate committees of both houses of congress; and the debates at different times upon the bill in the senate filled sixty-six columns of the _globe_, and in the house seventy-eight columns of the _globe_. no argus-eyed debater objected by any amendment to the discontinuance of the silver dollar. in substance the bill twice passed each house, and was finally agreed upon and reported by a very able and trustworthy committee of conference, where mr. sherman, mr. scott, and mr. bayard appeared on the part of the senate. no one who knows anything of those eminent senators will charge them with doing anything secretly or clandestinely. and yet more capital has been made by the silver propagandists out of this groundless charge than by all of their legitimate arguments.' * * * * * the gold standard, it may confidently be asserted, is practically far cheaper than that of silver. i do not insist upon having the gold standard, but if we are to have but one, i think that the best. the expense of maintaining a metallic currency is of course greater than that of paper; but it must be borne in mind that a paper currency is only tolerable when convertible at the will of the holder into coin--and no one asks for more than that. a metallic currency is also subject to considerable loss by abrasion or the annual wear; and it is quite important to know which metal--gold or silver--can be most cheaply supported. a careful examination of the subject conclusively shows that the loss is nearly in proportion to the length of time coins have been in circulation, and to the amount of surface exposed, although small coins, being handled with less care, suffer most. the well-ascertained result is that it costs from fifteen to twenty-five times more to keep silver afloat than it does to maintain the same amount in gold. to sustain the silver standard would annually cost about one per cent. for abrasion; but that of gold would not exceed one-twentieth of one per cent. this is a trouble-some charge, forever to bristle up in the path-way of a silver standard. it must also be borne in mind that the mint cost of coining silver is many times greater than that of the same amount in gold. more than sixteen tons of silver are required as the equivalent of one ton of gold. as a cold matter of fact, silver is neither the best nor the cheapest standard. it is far dearer to plant and forever dearer to maintain. a double standard put forth by us on the terms now proposed by the commission or by the house bill would be so only in name. the perfect dual ideal of theorists, based upon an exact equilibrium of values, cannot be realized while the intrinsic value of either of the component parts is overrated or remains a debatable question and everywhere more or less open to suspicion. a standard of value linked to the changing fortunes of two metals instead of one, when combined with an existing disjointed and all-pervading confusion in the ratio of value, must necessarily be linked to the hazard of double perturbations and become an alternating standard in perpetual motion. the bimetallic scheme, with silver predominant--largely everywhere else suspended, if not repudiated--is pressed upon us now with a ratio that will leave nothing in circulation but silver, as a profitable mode of providing a new and cheaper way of pinching and paying the national debt; but a mode which would leave even a possible cloud upon our national credit should find neither favor nor tolerance among a proud and independent people. the proposition is openly and squarely made to pay the public debt at our option in whichever metal, gold or silver, happens to be cheapest, and chiefly for the reason that silver already happens to be at per cent. the cheapest. in , to have paid the debt in silver would have cost per cent. more than to have paid it in gold, and then there was no unwillingness on the part of the present non-contents to pay in gold. silver was worth more then to sell than to pay on debts. no one then pulled out the hair of his head to cure grief for the disappearance of the nominal silver option. since that time it has been and would be now cheaper nominally to pay in silver if we had it; and therefore we are urged to repudiate our former action and to claim the power to resume an option already once supposed to have been profitably exercised, of which the world was called upon to take notice, and to pay in silver to-day or to let it alone to-morrow. i know that the detestable doctrine of machiavelli was that "a prudent prince ought not to keep his word except when he can do it without injury to himself;" but the bible teaches a different doctrine, and honoreth him "who sweareth to his own hurt and changeth not." if we would not multiply examples of individual financial turpitude, already painfully numerous, we must not trample out conscience and sound morality from the monetary affairs of the nation. the "option" about which we should be most solicitous was definitely expressed by washington when he said: "there is an option left to the united states whether they will be respectable and prosperous or contemptible and miserable as a nation." our national self-respect would not be increased when turkey, as a debt-paying nation, shall be held as our equal and mexico as our superior. the credit of a great nation cannot even be discussed without some loss; it cannot even be tempted by the devious advantages of legal technicalities without bringing some sense of shame; but to live, it must go, like chastity, unchallenged and unsuspected. it cannot take refuge behind the fig-leaves of the law, and especially not behind a law yet to be made to meet the case. * * * * * the argument relied upon in favor of a bimetallic standard as against a monometallic seems to be that a single-metal standard leaves out one-half of the world's resources; but the same thing must occur with a bimetallic standard unless the metals can be placed and kept in a state of exact equilibrium, or so that nothing can be gained by the exchange of one for the other. hitherto this has been an unattainable perfection. a law fixing the ratio of of silver to of gold, as proposed by different members of the commission, would now be a gross over-valuation of silver and wholly exclude gold from circulation. it will hardly be disputed that the two metals cannot circulate together unless they are mutually convertible without profit or loss at the ratio fixed at the mint. but it is here proposed to start silver with a large legal-tender advantage above its market value, and with the probability, through further depreciation, of increasing that advantage by which the monometallic standard of silver will be ordained and confirmed. the argument in behalf of a double standard is double-tongued, when in fact nothing is intended, or can be the outcome, but a single silver standard. the argument would wed silver and gold, but the conditions which follow amount to a decree of perpetual divorcement. enforce the measure by legislation, and gold would at once flee out of the country. like liberty, gold never stays where it is undervalued. no approach to a bimetallic currency of uniform and fixed value can be possible, as it appears to me, without the co-operation of the leading commercial nations. even with that co-operation its accomplishment and permanence may not be absolutely certain, unless the late transcendent fickleness of the supply and demand subsides, or unless the ratio of value can be adjusted with more consummate accuracy than has hitherto been found by any single nation to be practicable. one-tenth of one per cent. difference will always exclude from use one or the other metal; but here a difference nearly one hundred times greater has been proposed. the double-standard nations and the differing single gold- or silver-standard nations doubtless contributed something to the relative equalization of values so long as they furnished an available market for any surplus of either metal, but this they are doing no longer. silver, though not yet universally demonetized, is thrown upon the market in such masses and from so many prolific sources as to be governed by the inexorable laws of demand and supply. its magic as coin, if it has not hopelessly departed, has been, like the retreating soldier, fearfully "demoralized," and is passing to the rear. * * * * * it cannot be for the interest or the honor of the united states, while possessed of any healthy national pride, to resort to any expedient of bankrupt governments to lower the money standard of the country. that standard should keep us "four square" to the world and give us equal rank in the advanced civilization and industrial enterprise of all the great commercial nations. i have failed of my purpose if i have not shown that there has been so large an increase of the stock of silver as of itself to effect a positive reduction of its value; and that this result has been confirmed and made irreversible by the new and extensive european disuse of silver coinage. i have indicated the advisability of obtaining the co-operation of other leading nations, in fixing upon a common ratio of value between gold and silver, before embarking upon a course of independent action from which there could be no retreat. i have also attempted to show that, even in the lowest pecuniary sense of profit, the government of the united states could not be the gainer by proposing to pay either the public debt or the united states notes in silver; that such a payment would violate public pledges as to the whole, and violates existing statutes as to all that part of the debt contracted since , and for which gold has been received; that the remonetization of silver means the banishment of gold and our degradation among nations to the second or third rank; that it would be a sweeping per cent. reduction of all duties upon imports, requiring the imposition of new taxes to that extent; that it would prevent the further funding of the public debt at a lower rate of interest and give to the present holders of our per cent. bonds a great advantage; that, instead of aiding resumption, it would only inflate a currency already too long depreciated, and consign it to a still lower deep; that, instead of being a tonic to spur idle capital once more into activity, it would be its bane, destructive of all vitality; and that as a permanent silver standard it would not only be void of all stability, and the dearest and clumsiest in its introduction and maintenance, but that it would reduce the wages of labor to the full extent of the difference there might be between its purchasing power and that of gold. james g. blaine, of maine. (born , died .) on the remonetization of silver, united states senate, february , . the discussion on the question of remonetizing silver, mr. president, has been prolonged, able, and exhaustive. i may not expect to add much to its value, but i promise not to add much to its length. i shall endeavor to consider facts rather than theories, to state conclusions rather than arguments: first. i believe gold and silver coin to be the money of the constitution--indeed, the money of the american people anterior to the constitution, which that great organic law recognized as quite independent of its own existence. no power was conferred on congress to declare that either metal should not be money. congress has therefore, in my judgment, no power to demonetize silver any more than to demonetize gold; no power to demonetize either any more than to demonetize both. in this statement i am but repeating the weighty dictum of the first of constitutional lawyers. "i am certainly of opinion," said mr. webster, "that gold and silver, at rates fixed by congress, constitute the legal standard of value in this country, and that neither congress nor any state has authority to establish any other standard or to displace this standard." few persons can be found, i apprehend, who will maintain that congress possesses the power to demonetize both gold and silver, or that congress could be justified in prohibiting the coinage of both; and yet in logic and legal construction it would be difficult to show where and why the power of congress over silver is greater than over gold--greater over either than over the two. if, therefore, silver has been demonetized, i am in favor of remonetizing it. if its coinage has been prohibited, i am in favor of ordering it to be resumed. if it has been restricted, i am in favor of having it enlarged. second. what power, then, has congress over gold and silver? it has the exclusive power to coin them; the exclusive power to regulate their value; very great, very wise, very necessary powers, for the discreet exercise of which a critical occasion has now arisen. however men may differ about causes and processes, all will admit that within a few years a great disturbance has taken place in the relative values of gold and silver, and that silver is worth less or gold is worth more in the money markets of the world in than in , when the further coinage of silver dollars was prohibited in this country. to remonetize it now as though the facts and circumstances of that day were surrounding us, is to wilfully and blindly deceive ourselves. if our demonetization were the only cause for the decline in the value of silver, then remonetization would be its proper and effectual cure. but other causes, quite beyond our control, have been far more potentially operative than the simple fact of congress prohibiting its further coinage; and as legislators we are bound to take cognizance of these causes. the demonetization of silver in the great german empire and the consequent partial, or well-nigh complete, suspension of coinage in the governments of the latin union, have been the leading dominant causes for the rapid decline in the value of silver. i do not think the over-supply of silver has had, in comparison with these other causes, an appreciable influence in the decline of its value, because its over-supply with respect to gold in these later years, has not been nearly so great as was the over-supply of gold with respect to silver for many years after the mines of california and australia were opened; and the over-supply of gold from those rich sources did not effect the relative positions and uses of the two metals in any european country. i believe then if germany were to remonetize silver and the kingdoms and states of the latin union were to reopen their mints, silver would at once resume its former relation with gold. the european countries when driven to full re-monetization, as i believe they will be, must of necessity adopt their old ratio of fifteen and a half of silver to one of gold, and we shall then be compelled to adopt the same ratio instead of our former sixteen to one. for if we fail to do this we shall, as before, lose our silver, which like all things else seeks the highest market; and if fifteen and a half pounds of silver will buy as much gold in europe as sixteen pounds will buy in america, the silver, of course, will go to europe. but our line of policy in a joint movement with other nations to remonetize is very simple and very direct. the difficult problem is what we shall do when we aim to re-establish silver without the co-operation of european powers, and really as an advance movement to coerce them there into the same policy. evidently the first dictate of prudence is to coin such a dollar, as will not only do justice among our citizens at home, but will prove a protection--an absolute barricade--against the gold monometallists of europe, who, whenever the opportunity offers, will quickly draw from us the one hundred and sixty millions of gold coin still in our midst. and if we coin a silver dollar of full legal tender, obviously below the current value of the gold dollar, we are opening wide our doors and inviting europe to take our gold. and with our gold flowing out from us we are forced to the single silver standard and our relations with the leading commercial countries of the world are at once embarrassed and crippled. third. the question before congress then--sharply defined in the pending house bill--is, whether it is now safe and expedient to offer free coinage to the silver dollar of / grains, with the mints of the latin union closed and germany not permitting silver to be coined as money. at current rates of silver, the free coinage of a dollar containing / grains, worth in gold about ninety-two cents, gives an illegitimate profit to the owner of the bullion, enabling him to take ninety-two cents' worth of it to the mint and get it stamped as coin and force his neighbor to take it for a full dollar. this is an undue and unfair advantage which the government has no right to give to the owner of silver bullion, and which defrauds the man who is forced to take the dollar. and it assuredly follows that if we give free coinage to this dollar of inferior value and put it in circulation, we do so at the expense of our better coinage in gold; and unless we expect the uniform and invariable experience of other nations to be in some mysterious way suspended for our peculiar benefit, we inevitably lose our gold coin. it will flow out from us with the certainty and resistless force of the tides. gold has indeed remained with us in considerable amount during the circulation of the inferior currency of the legal tender; but that was because there were two great uses reserved by law for gold: the collection of customs and the payment of interest on the public debt. but if the inferior silver coin is also to be used for these two reserved purposes, then gold has no tie to bind it to us. what gain, therefore, would we make for the circulating medium, if on opening the gate for silver to flow in, we open a still wider gate for gold to flow out? if i were to venture upon a dictum on the silver question, i would declare that until europe remonetizes we cannot afford to coin a dollar as low as / grains. after europe remonetizes on the old standard, we cannot afford to coin a dollar above grains. if we coin too low a dollar before general re-monetization our gold will flow out from us. if we coin too high a dollar after general remonetization our silver will leave us. it is only an equated value both before and after general remonetization that will preserve both gold and silver to us. * * * * * fifth. the responsibility of re-establishing silver in its ancient and honorable place as money in europe and america, devolves really on the congress of the united states. if we act here with prudence, wisdom, and firmness, we shall not only successfully remonetize silver and bring it into general use as money in our own country, but the influence of our example will be potential among all european nations, with the possible exception of england. indeed, our annual indebtment to europe is so great that if we have the right to pay it in silver we necessarily coerce those nations by the strongest of all forces, self-interest, to aid us in up-holding the value of silver as money. but if we attempt the remonetization on a basis which is obviously and notoriously below the fair standard of value as it now exists, we incur all the evil consequences of failure at home and the positive certainty of successful opposition abroad. we are and shall be the greatest producers of silver in the world, and we have a larger stake in its complete monetization than any other country. the difference to the united states between the general acceptance of silver as money in the commercial world and its destruction as money, will possibly equal within the next half-century the entire bonded debt of the nation. but to gain this advantage we must make it actual money--the accepted equal of gold in the markets of the world. re-monetization here followed by general remonetization in europe will secure to the united states the most stable basis for its currency that we have ever enjoyed, and will effectually aid in solving all the problems by which our financial situation is surrounded. sixth. on the much-vexed and long-mooted question of a bi-metallic or mono-metallic standard my own views are sufficiently indicated in the remarks i have made. i believe the struggle now going on in this country and in other countries for a single gold standard would, if successful, produce wide-spread disaster in the end throughout the commercial world. the destruction of silver as money and establishing gold as the sole unit of value must have a ruinous effect on all forms of property except those investments which yield a fixed return in money. these would be enormously enhanced in value, and would gain a disproportionate and unfair advantage over every other species of property. if, as the most reliable statistics affirm, there are nearly seven thousand millions of coin or bullion in the world, not very unequally divided between gold and silver, it is impossible to strike silver out of existence as money without results which will prove distressing to millions and utterly disastrous to tens of thousands. alexander hamilton, in his able and invaluable report in on the establishment of a mint, declared that "to annul the use of either gold or silver as money is to abridge the quantity of circulating medium, and is liable to all the objections which arise from a comparison of the benefits of a full circulation with the evils of a scanty circulation." i take no risk in saying that the benefits of a full circulation and the evils of a scanty circulation are both immeasurably greater to-day than they were when mr. hamilton uttered these weighty words, always provided that the circulation is one of actual money, and not of depreciated promises to pay. in the report from which i have already quoted, mr. hamilton argues at length in favor of a double standard, and all the subsequent experience of well-nigh ninety years has brought out no clearer statement of the whole case nor developed a more complete comprehension of this subtle and difficult subject. "on the whole," says mr. hamilton, "it seems most advisable not to attach the unit exclusively to either of the metals, because this cannot be done effectually without destroying the office and character of one of them as money and reducing it to the situation of mere merchandise." and then mr. hamilton wisely concludes that this reduction of either of the metals to mere merchandise (i again quote his exact words) "would probably be a greater evil than occasional variations in the unit from the fluctuations in the relative value of the metals, especially if care be taken to regulate the proportion between them with an eye to their average commercial value." i do not think that this country, holding so vast a proportion of the world's supply of silver in its mountains and its mines, can afford to reduce the metal to the "situation of mere merchandise." if silver ceases to be used as money in europe and america, the great mines of the pacific slope will be closed and dead. mining enterprises of the gigantic scale existing in this country cannot be carried on to provide backs for looking-glasses and to manufacture cream-pitchers and sugar-bowls. a vast source of wealth to this entire country is destroyed the moment silver is permanently disused as money. it is for us to check that tendency and bring the continent of europe back to the full recognition of the value of the metal as a medium of exchange. seventh. the question of beginning anew the coinage of silver dollars has aroused much discussion as to its effect on the public credit; and the senator from ohio (mr. matthews) placed this phase of the subject in the very forefront of the debate--insisting, prematurely and illogically, i think, on a sort of judicial construction in advance, by concurrent resolution, of a certain law in case that law should happen to be passed by congress. my own view on this question can be stated very briefly. i believe the public creditor can afford to be paid in any silver dollar that the united states can afford to coin and circulate. we have forty thousand millions of property in this country, and a wise self-interest will not permit us to overturn its relations by seeking for an inferior dollar wherewith to settle the dues and demands of any creditor. the question might be different from a merely selfish stand-point if, on paying the dollar to the public creditor, it would disappear after performing that function. but the trouble is that the inferior dollar you pay the public creditor remains in circulation, to the exclusion of the better dollar. that which you pay at home will stay there; that which you send abroad will come back. the interest of the public creditor is indissolubly bound up with the interest of the whole people. whatever affects him affects us all; and the evil that we might inflict upon him by paying an inferior dollar would recoil upon us with a vengeance as manifold as the aggregate wealth of the republic transcends the comparatively small limits of our bonded debt. and remember that our aggregate wealth is always increasing, and our bonded debt steadily growing less! if paid in a good silver dollar, the bondholder has nothing to complain of. if paid in an inferior silver dollar, he has the same grievance that will be uttered still more plaintively by the holder of the legal-tender note and of the national-bank bill, by the pensioner, by the day-laborer, and by the countless host of the poor, whom we have with us always, and on whom the most distressing effect of inferior money will be ultimately precipitated. but i must say, mr. president, that the specific demand for the payment of our bonds in gold coin and in nothing else, comes with an ill grace from certain quarters. european criticism is levelled against us and hard names are hurled at us across the ocean, for simply daring to state that the letter of our law declares the bonds to be payable in standard coin of july , ; expressly and explicitly declared so, and declared so in the interest of the public creditor, and the declaration inserted in the very body of the eight hundred million of bonds that have been issued since that date. beyond all doubt the silver dollar was included in the standard coins of that public act. payment at that time would have been as acceptable and as undisputed in silver as in gold dollars, for both were equally valuable in the european as well as in the american market. seven-eighths of all our bonds, owned out of the country, are held in germany and in holland, and germany has demonetized silver and holland has been forced thereby to suspend its coinage, since the subjects of both powers purchased our securities. the german empire, the very year after we made our specific declaration for paying our bonds in coin, passed a law destroying so far as lay in their power the value of silver as money. i do not say that it was specially aimed at this country, but it was passed regardless of its effect upon us, and was followed, according to public and undenied statement, by a large investment on the part of the german government in our bonds, with a view, it was understood, of holding them as a coin reserve for drawing gold from us to aid in establishing their gold standard at home. thus, by one move the german government destroyed, so far as lay in its power, the then existing value of silver as money, enhanced consequently the value of gold, and then got into position to draw gold from us at the moment of their need, which would also be the moment of our own sorest distress. i do not say that the german government in these successive steps did a single thing which it had not a perfect right to do, but i do say that the subjects of that empire have no right to complain of our government for the initial step which has impaired the value of one of our standard coins. and the german government by joining with us in the remonetization of silver, can place that standard coin in its old position and make it as easy for this government to pay and as profitable for their subjects to receive the one metal as the other. * * * * * the effect of paying the labor of this country in silver coin of full value, as compared with the irredeemable paper or as compared even with silver of inferior value, will make itself felt in a single generation to the extent of tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, in the aggregate savings which represent consolidated capital. it is the instinct of man from the savage to the scholar--developed in childhood and remaining with age--to value the metals which in all tongues are called precious. excessive paper money leads to extravagance, to waste, and to want, as we painfully witness on all sides to-day. and in the midst of the proof of its demoralizing and destructive effect, we hear it proclaimed in the halls of congress that "the people demand cheap money." i deny it. i declare such a phrase to be a total misapprehension, a total misinterpretation of the popular wish. the people do not demand cheap money. they demand an abundance of good money, which is an entirely different thing. they do not want a single gold standard that will exclude silver and benefit those already rich. they do not want an inferior silver standard that will drive out gold and not help those already poor. they want both metals, in full value, in equal honor, in what-ever abundance the bountiful earth will yield them to the searching eye of science and to the hard hand of labor. the two metals have existed side by side in harmonious, honorable companionship as money, ever since intelligent trade was known among men. it is well-nigh forty centuries since "abraham weighed to ephron the silver which he had named in the audience of the sons of heth--four hundred shekels of silver--current money with the merchant." since that time nations have risen and fallen, races have disappeared, dialects and languages have been forgotten, arts have been lost, treasures have perished, continents have been discovered, islands have been sunk in the sea, and through all these ages and through all these changes, silver and gold have reigned supreme, as the representatives of value, as the media of exchange. the dethronement of each has been attempted in turn, and sometimes the dethronement of both; but always in vain. and we are here to-day, deliberating anew over the problem which comes down to us from abraham's time: the weight of the silver that shall be "current money with the merchant." john sherman, of ohio. (born .) on silver coinage and treasury notes; united states senate, june , . i approach the discussion of this bill and the kindred bills and amendments pending in the two houses with unaffected diffidence. no problem is submitted to us of equal importance and difficulty. our action will affect the value of all the property of the people of the united states, and the wages of labor of every kind, and our trade and commerce with all the world. in the consideration of such a question we should not be controlled by previous opinions or bound by local interests, but with the lights of experience and full knowledge of all the complicated facts involved, give to the subject the best judgment which imperfect human nature allows. with the wide diversity of opinion that prevails, each of us must make concessions in order to secure such a measure as will accomplish the objects sought for without impairing the public credit or the general interests of our people. this is no time for visionary theories of political economy. we must deal with facts as we find them and not as we wish them. we must aim at results based upon practical experience, for what has been probably will be. the best prophet of the future is the past. to know what measures ought to be adopted we should have a clear conception of what we wish to accomplish. i believe a majority of the senate desire, first, to provide an increase of money to meet the increasing wants of our rapidly growing country and population, and to supply the reduction in our circulation caused by the retiring of national-bank notes; second, to increase the market value of silver not only in the united states but in the world, in the belief that this is essential to the success of any measure proposed, and in the hope that our efforts will advance silver to its legal ratio with gold, and induce the great commercial nations to join with us in maintaining the legal parity of the two metals, or in agreeing with us in a new ratio of their relative value; and third, to secure a genuine bimetallic standard, one that will not demonetize gold or cause it to be hoarded or exported, but that will establish both gold and silver as standards of value not only in the united states, but among all the civilized nations of the world. believing that these are the chief objects aimed at by us all, and that we differ only as to the best means to obtain them, i will discuss the pending propositions to test how far they tend, in my opinion, to promote or defeat these obtects. and, first, as to the amount of currency necessary to meet the wants of the people. * * * * * it is a fact that there has been a constant increase of currency. it is a fact which must be constantly borne in mind. if any evils now exist such as have been so often stated, such as falling prices, increased mortgages, contentions between capital and labor, decreasing value of silver, increased relative value of gold, they must be attributed to some other cause than our insufficient supply of circulation, for not only has the circulation increased in these twelve years per cent., while our population has only increased per cent., but it has all been maintained at the gold standard, which, it is plain, has been greatly advanced in purchasing power. if the value of money is tested by its amount, by numerals, according to the favorite theory of the senator from nevada (mr. jones), then surely we ought to be on the high road of prosperity, for these numerals have increased in twelve years from $ , ,- to $ , , , in october last, and to $ , , , on the st of this month. this single fact disposes of the claim that insufficient currency is the cause of the woes, real and imaginary, that have been depicted, and compel us to look to other causes for the evils complained of. i admit that prices for agricultural productions have been abnormally low, and that the farmers of the united states have suffered greatly from this cause. but this depression of prices is easily accounted for by the greatly increased amount of agricultural production, the wonderful development of agricultural implements, the opening of vast regions of new and fertile fields in the west, the reduced cost of transportation, the doubling of the miles of railroads, and the quadrupling capacity of railroads and steamboats for transportation, and the new-fangled forms of trusts and combinations which monopolize nearly all the productions of the farms and workshops of our country, reducing the price to the producer and in some cases increasing the cost to the consumer. all these causes cooperate to reduce prices of farm products. no one of them can be traced to an insufficient currency, now larger in amount in proportion to population than ever before in our history. but to these causes of a domestic character must be added others, over which we have no control. the same wonderful development of industry has been going on in other parts of the globe. in russia, especially in southern russia, vast regions have been opened to the commerce of the world. railroads have been built, mines have been opened, exhaustless supplies of petroleum have been found, and all these are competitors with us in supplying the wants of europe for food, metals, heat, and light. india, with its teeming millions of poorly paid laborers, is competing with our farmers, and their products are transported to market over thousands of miles of railroads constructed by english capital, or by swift steamers through the red sea and the suez canal, reaching directly the people of europe whom we formerly supplied with food. no wonder, then, that our agriculture is depressed by low prices, caused by competition with new rivals and agencies. any one who can overlook these causes and attribute low prices to a want of domestic currency, that has increased and is increasing continually, must be blind to the great forces that in recent times throughout the world are tending by improved methods and modern inventions to lessen the prices of all commodities. these fluctuations depend upon the law of supply and demand, involving facts too numerous to state, but rarely depending on the volume of money in circulation. an increase of currency can have no effect to advance prices unless we cheapen and degrade it by making it less valuable; and if that is the intention now, the direct and honest way is to put fewer grains of gold or silver in our dollar. this was the old way, by clipping the coin, adding base metal. if we want a cheaper dollar we have the clear constitutional right to put in it grains of gold instead of , or grains of silver instead of / , but you have no power to say how many bushels of wheat the new dollar shall buy. you can, if you choose, cheapen the dollar under your power to coin money, and thus enable a debtor to pay his debts with fewer grains of silver or gold, under the pretext that gold or silver has risen in value, but in this way you would destroy all forms of credit and make it impossible for nations or individuals to borrow money for a period of time. it is a species of repudiation. the best standard of value is one that measures for the longest period its equivalent in other products. its relative value may vary from time to time. if it falls, the creditor loses; if it increases, the debtor loses; and these changes are the chances of all trade and commerce and all loaning and borrowing. the duty of the government is performed when it coins money and provides convenient credit representatives of coin. the purchasing power of money for other commodities depends upon changing conditions over which the government has no control. even its power to issue paper money has been denied until recently, but this may be considered as settled by the recent decisions of the supreme court in the legal-tender cases. all that congress ought to do is to provide a sufficient amount of money, either of coin or its equivalent of paper money, to meet the current wants of business. this it has done in the twelve years last passed at a ratio of increase far in excess of any in our previous history. * * * * * under the law of february, , the purchase of $ , , worth of silver bullion a month has by coinage produced annually an average of nearly $ , , a month for a period of twelve years, but this amount, in view of the retirement of the bank notes, will not increase our currency in proportion to our increase in population. if our present currency is estimated at $ , , , , and our population is increasing at the ratio of per cent. per annum, it would require $ , , increased circulation each year to keep pace with the increase of population; but as the increase of population is accompanied by a still greater ratio of increase of wealth and business, it was thought that an immediate increase of circulation might be obtained by larger pur chases of silver bullion to an amount sufficient to make good the retirement of bank notes, and keep pace with the growth of population. assuming that $ , , a year of additional circulation is needed upon this basis, that amount is provided for in this bill by the issue of treasury notes in exchange for bullion at the market price. i see no objection to this proposition, but believe that treasury notes based upon silver bullion purchased in this way will be as safe a foundation for paper money as can be conceived. experience shows that silver coin will not circulate to any considerable amount. only about one silver dollar to each inhabitant is maintained in circulation with all the efforts made by the treasury department, but silver certificates, the representatives of this coin, pass current without question, and are maintained at par in gold by being received by the government for all purposes and redeemed if called for. i do not fear to give to these notes every sanction and value that the united states can confer. i do not object to their being made a legal tender for all debts, public or private. i believe that if they are to be issued they ought to be issued as money, with all the sanction and authority that the government can possibly confer. while i believe the amount to be issued is greater than is necessary, yet in view of the retirement of bank notes i yielded my objections to the increase beyond $ , , . as an expedient to provide increased circulation it is far preferable to free coinage of silver or any proposition that has been made to provide some other security than united states bonds for bank circulation. i believe it will accomplish the first object proposed, a gradual and steady increase of the current money of the country. * * * * * what then can we do to arrest the fall of silver and to advance its market value? i know of but two expedients. one is to purchase bullion in large quantities as the basis and security of treasury notes, as proposed by this bill. the other is to adopt the single standard of silver, and take the chances for its rise or fall in the markets of the world. i have already stated the probable results of the hoarding of bullion. by purchasing in the open market our domestic production of silver and hoarding it in the treasury we withdraw so much from the supply of the world, and thus maintain or increase the price of the remaining silver production of the world. it is not idle in our vaults, but is represented by certificates in active circulation. sixteen ounces of silver bullion may not be worth one ounce of gold, still one dollar's worth of silver bullion is worth one dollar of gold. what will be the effect of the free coinage of silver? it is said that it will at once advance silver to par with gold at the ratio of to . i deny it. the attempt will bring us to the single standard of the cheaper metal. when we advertise that we will buy all the silver of the world at that ratio and pay in treasury notes, our notes will have the precise value of / grains of pure silver, but the silver will have no higher value in the markets of the world. if, now, that amount of silver can be purchased at cents, then gold will be worth $ . in the new standard. all labor, property, and commodities will advance in nominal value, but their purchasing power in other commodities will not increase. if you make the yard inches long instead of you must purchase more yards for a coat or a dress, but do not lessen the cost of the coat or the dress. you may by free coinage, by a species of confiscation, reduce the burden of a debt, but you cannot change the relative value of gold or silver, or any object of human desire. the only result is to demonetize gold and to cause it to be hoarded or exported. the cheaper metal fills the channels of circulation and the dearer metal commands a premium. if experience is needed to prove so plain an axiom we have it in our own history. at the beginning of our national government we fixed the value of gold and silver as to . gold was undervalued and fled the country to where an ounce of gold was worth ounces of silver. congress, in , endeavored to rectify this by making the ratio to , but by this silver was undervalued. sixteen ounces of silver were worth more than ounce of gold, and silver disappeared. congress, in , adopted another expedient to secure the value of both metals as money. by this expedient gold is the standard and silver the subsidiary coin, containing confessedly silver of less value in the market than the gold coin, but maintained at the parity of gold coin by the government. * * * * * but it is said that those of us who demand the gold standard, or paper money always equal to gold, are the representatives of capital, money-changers, bondholders, shylocks, who want to grind and oppress the people. this kind of argument i hoped would never find its way into the senate chamber. it is the cry of the demagogue, without the slightest foundation. all these classes can take care of themselves. they are the men who make their profits out of the depreciation of money. they can mark up the price of their property to meet changing standards. they can protect themselves by gold contracts. in proportion to their wealth they have less money on hand than any other class. they have already protected themselves to a great extent by converting the great body of the securities in which they deal into gold bonds, and they hold the gold of the country, which you cannot change in value. they are not, as a rule, the creditors of the country. the great creditors are savings-banks, insurance companies, widows and orphans, and provident farmers, and business men on a small scale. the great operators are the great borrowers and owe more than is due them. their credit is their capital and they need not have even money enough to pay their rent. but how will this change affect the great mass of our fellow-citizens who depend upon their daily labor? a dollar to them means so much food, clothing, and rent. if you cheapen the dollar it will buy less of these. you may say they will get more dollars for their labor, but all experience shows that labor and land are the last to feel the change in monetary standards, and the same resistance will be made to an advance of wages on the silver standard as on the gold standard, and when the advance is won it will be found that the purchasing power of the new dollar is less than the old. no principle of political economy is better established than that the producing classes are the first to suffer and the last to gain by monetary changes. i might apply this argument to the farmer, the merchant, the professional man, and to all classes except the speculator or the debtor who wishes to lessen the burden of his obligations; but it is not necessary. it is sometimes said that all this is a false alarm, that our demand for silver will absorb all that will be offered and bring it to par with gold at the old ratio. i have no faith in such a miracle. if they really thought so, many would lose their interest in the question. what they want is a cheaper dollar that would pay debts easier. others do not want either silver or gold, but want numbers, numerals, the fruit of the printing-press, to be fixed every year by congress as we do an appropriation bill. now, sir, i am willing to do all i can with safety even to taking great risks to increase the value of silver to gold at the old ratio, and to supply paper substitutes for both for circulation, but there is one immutable, unchangeable, ever-existing condition, that the paper substitute must always have the same purchasing power as gold and silver coin, maintained at their legal ratio with each other. i feel a conviction, as strong as the human mind can have, that the free coinage of silver now by the united states will be a grave mistake and a misfortune to all classes and conditions of our fellow-citizens. i also have a hope and belief, but far from a certainty, that the measure proposed for the purchase of silver bullion to a limited amount, and the issue of treasury notes for it, will bring silver and gold to the old ratio, and will lead to an agreement with other commercial nations to maintain the free coinage of both metals. and now, sir, i want to state in conclusion, without any purpose to bind myself to detail, that i will vote for any measure that will, in my judgment, secure a genuine bimetallic standard--one that will not demonetize gold or cause it to be hoarded or exported, but will establish both silver and gold as common standards and maintain them at a fixed ratio, not only in the united states but among all the nations of the world. the principles adopted by the acts of and have been sustained by experience and should be adhered to. in pursuance of them i would receive into the treasury of the united states all the gold and silver produced in our country at their market value, not at a speculative or forced value, but at their value in the markets of the world. and for the convenience of our people i would represent them by treasury notes to an amount not exceeding their cost. i would confer upon these notes all the use, qualities, and attributes that we can confer within our constitutional power, and support and maintain them as money by coining the silver and gold as needed upon the present legal ratios, and by a pledge of all the revenues of the government and all the wealth and credit of the united states. and i would proclaim to all our readiness, by international negotiations or treaties, to bring about an agreement among nations for common units of value and of weights and measures for all the productions of the world. this hope of philosophers and statesmen is now nearer realization than ever before. if we could contribute to this result it would tend to promote commerce and intercourse, trade and travel, peace and harmony among nations. it would be in line with the civilization of our age. it is by such measures statesmen may keep pace with the marvellous inventions, improvements, and discoveries which have quadrupled the capacity of man for production, made lightning subservient to his will, revealed to him new agencies of power hidden in the earth, and opened up to his enterprise all the dark places of the world. the people of the united states boast that they have done their full share in all this development; that they have grown in population, wealth, and strength; that they are the richest of nations, with untarnished credit, a model and example of self-government without kings or princes or lords. surely this is no time for a radical change of public policy which seems to have no motive except to reduce the burden of obligations freely taken, a change likely to impair our public credit and produce disorder and confusion in all monetary transactions. others may see reasons for this change, but i prefer to stand by the standards of value that come to us with the approval and sanction of every party that has administered the government since its beginning. john p. jones, of nevada. (born .) on treasury notes and silver, in the senate of the united states, may , . mr. president, the question now about to be discussed by this body is in my judgment the most important that has attracted the attention of congress or the country since the formation of the constitution. it affects every interest, great and small, from the slightest concern of the individual to the largest and most comprehensive interest of the nation. the measure under consideration was reported by me from the committee on finance. it is hardly necessary for me to say, however, that it does not fully reflect my individual views regarding the relation which silver should bear to the monetary circulation of the country or of the world. i am, at all times and in all places, a firm and unwavering advocate of the free and unlimited coinage of silver, not merely for the reason that silver is as ancient and honorable a money metal as gold, and equally well adapted for the money use, but for the further reason that, looking at the annual yield from the mines, the entire supply that can come to the mints will at no time be more than is needed to maintain at a steady level the prices of commodities among a constantly increasing population. * * * * * history gives evidence of no more prolific source of human misery than a persistent and long continued fall in the general range of prices. but, although exercising so pernicious an influence, it is not itself a cause, but an effect. when a fall of prices is found operating, not on one article or class of articles alone, but on the products of all industries; when found to be not confined to any one climate, country, or race of people, but to diffuse itself over the civilized world; when it is found not to be a characteristic of any one year, but to go on progressively for a series of years, it becomes manifest that it does not and can not arise from local, temporary, or subordinate causes, but must have its genesis and development in some principle of universal application. what, then, is it that produces a general decline of prices in any country? it is produced by a shrinkage in the volume of money relatively to population and business, which has never yet failed to cause an increase in the value of the money unit, and a consequent decrease in the price of the commodities for which such unit is exchanged. if the volume of money in circulation be made to bear a direct and steady ratio to population and business, prices will be maintained at a steady level, and, what is of supreme importance, money will be kept of unchanging value. with an advancing civilization, in which a large volume of business is conducted on a basis of credit extending over long periods, it is of the uttermost importance that money, which is the measure of all equities, should be kept unchanging in value through time. a reduction in the volume of money relatively to population and business, or, (to state the proposition in another form) a volume which remains stationary while population and business are increasing, has the effect of increasing the value of each unit of money, by increasing its purchasing power. * * * * * we have , , workmen in this country. in order that they may be kept uninterruptedly employed it is absolutely necessary that business contracts and obligations be made long in advance. accordingly, we read almost daily of the inception of industrial undertakings requiring years to fulfil. it is not too much to say that the suspension for one season of the making of time-contracts would close the factories, furnaces, and machine-shops of all civilized countries. the natural concomitant of such a system of industry is the elaborate system of debt and credit which has grown up with it, and is indispensable to it. any serious enhancement in the value of the unit of money between the time of making a contract or incurring a debt and the date of fulfilment or maturity always works hardship and frequently ruin to the contractor or debtor. three fourths of the business enterprises of this country are conducted on borrowed capital. three fourths of the homes and farms that stand in the name of the actual occupants have been bought on time, and a very large proportion of them are mortgaged for the payment of some part of the purchase money. under the operation of a shrinkage in the volume of money this enormous mass of borrowers, at the maturity of their respective debts, though nominally paying no more than the amount borrowed, with interest, are, in reality, in the amount of the principal alone, returning a percentage of value greater than they received--more than in equity they contracted to pay, and oftentimes more, in substance, than they profited by the loan. to the man of business this percentage in many cases constitutes the difference between success and failure. thus a shrinkage in the volume of money is the prolific source of bankruptcy and ruin. it is the canker that, unperceived and unsuspected, is eating out the prosperity of our people. by reason of the almost universal inattention to the nature and functions of money this evil is permitted, unobserved, to work widespread ruin and disaster. so subtle is it in its operations that it eludes the vigilance of the most acute. it baffles all foresight and calculation; it sets at naught all industry, all energy, all enterprise. * * * * * the advocates of the single gold standard deem even silver money much better money than greenbacks. does it then follow that when greenbacks were our only money--good enough money to carry our nation through the greatest war in all history--we were "along-side" or underneath the barbarous nations of the world? it is not the form or material of a nation's money that fixes its status relatively to other nations. that is accomplished by the vitality, the energy, the intellectuality and effective force of its people. the united states can never be placed "alongside" any barbarous nation, except by compelling our people to compete with barbarous peoples--compelling them to sell the products of american labor at prices regulated by the cost of labor and manner of living in barbarous countries. as well might it be said that we are alongside the barbarous people of india because we continue to produce wheat and cotton. the distinguishing feature of all barbarous nations is the squalor of their working classes. the reward of their hard toil is barely enough to maintain animal existence. a civilized people are placed alongside a barbarous one when, in their means of livelihood, the foundation of their civilization, they are made to compete with the barbarians. that was the result accomplished for the farmers and planters of the united states when silver was demonetized. * * * * * it is a remarkable circumstance, mr. president, that throughout the entire range of economic discussion in gold-standard circles, it seems to be taken for granted that a change in the value of the money unit is a matter of no significance, and imports no mischief to society, so long as the change is in one direction. who has ever heard from an eastern journal any complaint against a contraction of our money volume; any admonition that in a shrinking volume of money lurk evils of the utmost magnitude? on the other hand, we have been treated to lengthy homilies on the evils of "inflation," whenever the slightest prospect presented itself to a decrease in the value of money--not with the view of giving the debtor an advantage over the lender of money, but of preventing the unconscionable injustice of a further increasing value in the dollars which the debtor contracted to pay. loud and re-sounding protests have been entered against the "dishonesty" of making payments in "depreciated dollars." the debtors are characterized as dishonest for desiring to keep money at a steady and unwavering value. if that object could be secured, it would undoubtedly be to the interest of the debtor, and could not possibly work any injustice to the creditor. it would simply assure to both debtor and creditor the exact measure for which they bargained. it would enable the debtor to pay his debt with exactly the amount of sacrifice to which, on the making of the debt, he undertook to submit, in order to pay it. in all discussions of the subject the creditors attempt to brush aside the equities involved by sneering at the debtors. but, mr. president, debt is the distinguishing characteristic of modern society. it is through debt that the marvellous developments of the nineteenth-century civilization have been effected. who are the debtors in this country? who are the borrowers of money? the men of enterprise, of energy, of skill, the men of industry, of fore-sight, of calculation, of daring. in the ranks of the debtors will be found a large preponderance of the constructive energy of every country. the debtors are the upbuilders of the national wealth and prosperity; they are the men of initiative, the men who conceive plans and set on foot enterprises. they are those who by borrowing money enrich the community. they are the dynamic force among the people. they are the busy, restless, moving throng whom you find in all walks of life in this country--the active, the vigorous, the strong, the undaunted. these men are sustained in their efforts by the hope and belief that their labors will be crowned with success. destroy that hope and you take away from society the most powerful of all the incentives to material development; you place in the pathway of progress an obstacle which it is impossible to surmount. the men of whom i have spoken are undoubtedly the first who are likely to be affected by a shrinkage in the volume of money. the highest prosperity of a nation is attained only when all its people are employed in avocations suited to their individual aptitudes, and when a just money system insures an equitable distribution of the products of their industry. with our present complex civilization, in order that men may have constant employment, it is indispensable that work be planned and undertakings projected years in advance. without an intelligent forecast of enterprises large numbers of workmen must periodically be relegated to idleness. enterprises that take years to complete must be contracted for in advance, and payments provided for. a constant but unperceived rise in the value of the dollar with which those payments must be made, baffles all plans, thwarts all calculation, and destroys all equities between debtor and creditor. if we cannot intelligently regulate our money volume so as to maintain unchanging the value of the money unit, if we cannot preserve our people from the blighting effects which an increase in the measuring power of the money unit entails upon all industry, to what purpose is our boasted civilization? by the increase of that measuring power all hopes are disappointed, all purposes baffled, all efforts thwarted, all calculations defied. this subtle enlargement in the measuring power of the unit of money (the dollar) affects every class of the working community. like a poisonous drug in the human body, it permeates every vein, every artery, every fibre and filament of the industrial structure. the debtor is fighting for his life against an enemy he does not see, against an influence he does not understand. for, while his calculations were well and intelligently made, and the amount of his debts and the terms of his contracts remain the same, the weight of all his obligations has been increased by an insidious increase in the value of the money unit. * * * * * in an ancient village there once stood a gold clock, which, ever since the invention of clocks, had been the measure of time for the people of that village. they were proud of its beauty, its workmanship, its musical stroke, and the unfailing regularity with which it heralded the passing hours. this clock had been endeared to all the inhabitants of the village by the hallowed associations with which it was identified. generation after generation it had called the children from far and wide to attend the village school; its fresh morning peal had set the honest villagers to labor; its noonday notes had called them to refreshment; its welcome evening chime had summoned them to rest. from time immemorial, on all festive occasions, it had rung out its merry tones to assemble the young people on the green; and on the sabbath it had advertised to all the countryside the hour of worship in the village church. so perfect was its mechanism that it never needed repair. so proud were the people of this wonderful clock that it became the standard for all the country round about, and the time which it kept came to be known as the gold standard of time, which was universally admitted to be correct and unchanging. in the course of time there wandered that way a queer character, a clock-maker, who being fully instructed in the inner workings of time-tellers, and not having inherited the traditions of that village, did not regard this clock with the veneration accorded to it by the natives. to their astonishment he denied that there was really any such thing as a gold standard of time; and in order to prove that the material, gold, did not monopolize all the qualities characteristic of clocks, he placed alongside the gold clock, another clock, of silver, and set both clocks at noon. for a long time the clocks ran along in almost perfect accord, their only disagreement being that of an occasional second or two, and even that disagreement only at rare intervals, such as might naturally occur with the best of clocks. but the council of the village, in their admiration for the gold clock, passed an ordinance requiring that all the weights (the motive power) of the silver clock, except one, be removed from it, and attached to those of the gold clock. instantly the clocks began to fall apart, and one day, as the sun was passing the meridian, the hands of the gold clock were observed to indicate the hour of , while those of the silver clock indicated . . at this everybody in the village ridiculed the silver clock, derided the silver standard, and hurled epithets at the individual who had had the temerity to doubt the infallibility of the gold standard. finally, the divergence between the clocks went so far that it was noon by the gold standard when it was only a.m. by the silver standard, so that those who were guided by the gold standard, notwithstanding that it was yet the gray of the morning, insisted on eating their mid-day meal, because the gold standard indicated that it must be noon. and when the sun was high in the heavens, and its light was shining warm and refulgent on the dusty streets of the village, those who observed the gold standard had already eaten supper and were preparing for bed. but this state of things could not last. it was clear that the difference between the standards must be reconciled, or all industry would be disarranged and the village ruined. discussion was rife among the villagers as to the cause of the difference. some said the silver clock had lost time; others that both clocks had lost time, but the silver clock more than the gold; while others again asserted that both clocks had gained time, but that the gold clock had gained more than the silver clock. while this discussion was at its height a philosopher came along and observing the excitement on the subject remarked: "by measuring two things, one against the other, you can never arrive at any determination as to which has changed. instead of disputing as to whether one clock has lost or another gained would it not be well to consult the sun and the stars and ascertain exactly what has happened?" some demurred to this because, as they asserted, the gold standard was unchanging and was always right no matter how much it might seem to be wrong; others agreed that the philosopher's advice should be taken. upon consulting the sun and the stars it was discovered that what had happened was that both clocks had gained in time but that the gain of the silver clock had been very slight, while that of the gold clock had been so great as to disturb all industry and destroy all correct sense of time. nothwithstanding this demonstration, there were many who adhered to the belief that the gold standard was correct and unchanging, and insisted that what appeared to be its aberrations were not in reality due to any fault of the gold clock, but to some convulsion of nature by which the solar system had been disarranged and the planets made to move irregularly in their orbits. some of the people also remembered having heard at the village inn, from travellers returning from the east, that silver clocks were the standard of time in india and other barbarous countries, while in countries of a more advanced civilization gold clocks were the standard. they therefore feared that the use of the silver clock might have the effect of degrading the civilization of the village by placing it alongside india and other barbarous countries. and although the great mass of the people really believed, from the demonstration made, that the silver standard of time was the better one, yet this objection was so momentous that they were puzzled what course to pursue, and at last advices were consulting the manufacturers of gold clocks as to what was best to be done. now our gold standard men are in the position of those who first refuse to look at anything beyond the two things, gold and silver, to see what has happened, and who, when it is finally demonstrated that all other things retain their former relations to silver, still persist that the law which makes gold an unchanging standard of measure is more immutable than that which holds the stars in their courses. if they will compare gold and silver with commodities in general, to see how the metals have maintained their relations, not to one another but to all other things, they will find that instead of a fall having taken place in the value of silver, the change that has really taken place is a rise in the value of both gold and silver, the rise in silver being relatively slight, while that of gold has been ruinously great. and those who do not shut their eyes to the truth must see that the change of relation between the metals has been effected by depriving silver of its legal-tender function, as the want of accord between the clocks was brought about by depriving the silver clock of a portion of its motive power--the weights. the only thing that has prevented a greater divergency between the metals is the limited coinage by the united states--the single weight that, withheld from the gold clock, prevented its more ruinous gain. * * * * * everybody admits that the value of all other things is regulated by the play against each other of the forces of supply and demand. no reason has been or can be given why the value of the unit of money is not subject to this law. the demand for money is equivalent to the sum of the demands for all other things whatsoever, for it is through a demand first made on money that all the wants of man are satisfied. the demand for money is instant, constant, and unceasing, and is always at a maximum. if any man wants a pair of shoes, or a suit of clothes, he does not make his demand first on the shoemaker, or clothier. no man, except a beggar, makes a demand directly for food, clothes, or any other article. whether it be to obtain clothing, food, or shelter--whether the simplest necessity or the greatest luxury of life--it is on money that the demand is first made. as this rule operates throughout the entire range of commodities it is manifest that the demand for money equals at least the united demands for all other things. while population remains stationary, the demand for money will remain the same. as the demand for one article becomes less, the demand for some other which shall take its place becomes greater. the demand for money, therefore, must ever be as pressing and urgent as the needs of man are varied, incessant, and importunate. such being the demand for money, what is the supply? it is the total number of units of money in circulation (actual or potential) in any country. the force of the demand for money operating against the supply is represented by the earnest, incessant struggle to obtain it. all men, in all trades and occupations, are offering either property or services for money. each shoemaker in each locality is in competition with every other shoemaker in the same locality, each hatter is in competition with every other hatter, each clothier with every other clothier, all offering their wares for units of money. in this universal and perpetual competition for money, that number of shoemakers that can supply the demand for shoes at the smallest average price (excellence of quality being taken into account) will fix the market value of shoes in money; and conversely, will fix the value of money in shoes. so with the hatters as to hats, so with the tailors as to clothes, and so with those engaged in all other occupations as to the products respectively of their labor. the transcendent importance of money, and the constant pressure of the demand for it, may be realized by comparing its utility with that of any other force that contributes to human welfare. in all the broad range of articles that in a state of civilization are needed by man, the only absolutely indispensable thing is money. for everything else there is some substitute--some alternative; for money there is none. among articles of food, if beef rises in price, the demand for it will diminish, as a certain proportion of the people will resort to other forms of food. if, by reason of its continued scarcity, beef continues to rise, the demand will further diminish, until finally it may altogether cease and centre on something else. so in the matter of clothing. if any one fabric becomes scarce, and consequently dear, the demand will diminish, and, if the price continue rising, it is only a question of time for the demand to cease and be transferred to some alternative. but this cannot be the case with money. it can never be driven out of use. there is not, and there never can be, any substitute for it. it may become so scarce that one dollar at the end of a decade may buy ten times as much as at the beginning; that is to say, it may cost in labor or commodities ten times as much to get it, but at whatever cost, the people must have it. without money the demands of civilization could not be supplied. george william curtis, of new york (born , died .) on the spoils system and the progress of civil service reform. an address delivered before the american social science association at its meeting in saratoga, new york, september , . twelve years ago i read a paper before this association upon reform in the civil service. the subject was of very little interest. a few newspapers which were thought to be visionary occasionally discussed it, but the press of both parties smiled with profound indifference. mr. jenckes had pressed it upon an utterly listless congress, and his proposition was regarded as the harmless hobby of an amiable man, from which a little knowledge of practical politics would soon dismount him. the english reform, which was by far the most significant political event in that country since the parliamentary reform bill of , was virtually unknown to us. to the general public it was necessary to explain what the civil service was, how it was recruited, what the abuses were, and how and why they were to be remedied. old professional politicians, who look upon reform as dr. johnson defined patriotism, as the last refuge of a scoundrel, either laughed at what they called the politics of idiocy and the moon, or sneered bitterly that reformers were cheap hypocrites who wanted other people's places and lamented other people's sins. this general public indifference was not surprising. the great reaction of feeling which followed the war, the relaxation of the long-strained anxiety of the nation for its own existence, the exhaustion of the vast expenditure of life and money, and the satisfaction with the general success, had left little disposition to do anything but secure in the national polity the legitimate results of the great contest. to the country, reform was a proposition to reform evils of administration of which it knew little, and which, at most, seemed to it petty and impertinent in the midst of great affairs. to congress, it was apparently a proposal to deprive members of the patronage which to many of them was the real gratification of their position, the only way in which they felt their distinction and power. to such members reform was a plot to deprive the bear of his honey, the dog of his bone, and they stared and growled incredulously. this was a dozen years ago. to-day the demand for reform is imperative. the drop has become a deluge. leading journals of both parties eagerly proclaim its urgent necessity. from new england to california public opinion is organizing itself in reform associations. in the great custom-house and the great post-office of the country--those in the city of new york--reform has been actually begun upon definite principles and with remarkable success, and the good example has been followed elsewhere with the same results. a bill carefully prepared and providing for gradual and thorough reform has been introduced with an admirable report in the senate of the united states. mr. pendleton, the democratic senator from ohio, declares that the spoils system which has debauched the civil service of fifty millions of people must be destroyed. mr. dawes, the republican senator from massachusetts, summons all good citizens to unite to suppress this gigantic evil which threatens the republic. conspicuous reformers sit in the cabinet; and in this sorrowful moment, at least, the national heart and mind and conscience, stricken and bowed by a calamity whose pathos penetrates every house-hold in christendom, cries to these warning words, "amen! amen!" like the slight sound amid the frozen silence of the alps that loosens and brings down the avalanche, the solitary pistol-shot of the d of july has suddenly startled this vast accumulation of public opinion into conviction, and on every side thunders the rush and roar of its overwhelming descent, which will sweep away the host of evils bred of this monstrous abuse. this is an extraordinary change for twelve years, but it shows the vigorous political health, the alert common-sense, and the essential patriotism of the country, which are the earnest of the success of any wise reform. the war which naturally produced the lassitude and indifference to the subject which were evident twelve years ago had made reform, indeed, a vital necessity, but the necessity was not then perceived. the dangers that attend a vast system of administration based to its least detail upon personal patronage were not first exposed by mr. jenckes in , but before that time they had been mainly discussed as possibilities and inferences. yet the history of the old new york council of appointment had illustrated in that state the party fury and corruption which patronage necessarily breeds, and governor mckean in pennsylvania, at the close of the last century, had made "a clean sweep" of the places within his power. the spoils spirit struggled desperately to obtain possession of the national administration from the day of jefferson's inauguration to that of jackson's, when it succeeded. its first great but undesigned triumph was the decision of the first congress in , vesting the sole power of removal in the president, a decision which placed almost every position in the civil service unconditionally at his pleasure. this decision was determined by the weight of madison's authority. but webster, nearly fifty years afterwards, opposing his authority to that of madison, while admitting the decision to have been final, declared it to have been wrong. the year , which saw the great victory of slavery in the missouri compromise, was also the year in which the second great triumph of the spoils system was gained, by the passage of the law which, under the plea of securing greater responsibility in certain financial offices, limited such offices to a term of four years. the decision of , which gave the sole power of removal to the president, required positive executive action to effect removal; but this law of vacated all the chief financial offices, with all the places dependent upon them, during the term of every president, who, without an order of removal, could fill them all at his pleasure. a little later a change in the method of nominating the president from a congressional caucus to a national convention still further developed the power of patronage as a party resource, and in the session of - , when john quincy adams was president, mr. benton introduced his report upon mr. macon's resolution declaring the necessity of reducing and regulating executive patronage; although mr. adams, the last of the revolutionary line of presidents, so scorned to misuse patronage that he leaned backward in standing erect. the pressure for the overthrow of the constitutional system had grown steadily more angry and peremptory with the progress of the country, the development of party spirit, the increase of patronage, the unanticipated consequences of the sole executive power of removal, and the immense opportunity offered by the four-years' law. it was a pressure against which jefferson held the gates by main force, which was relaxed by the war under madison and the fusion of parties under monroe, but which swelled again into a furious torrent as the later parties took form. john quincy adams adhered, with the tough tenacity of his father's son, to the best principles of all his predecessors. he followed washington, and observed the spirit of the constitution in refusing to remove for any reason but official misconduct or incapacity. but he knew well what was coming, and with characteristically stinging sarcasm he called general jackson's inaugural address "a threat of re-form." with jackson's administration in the deluge of the spoils system burst over our national politics. sixteen years later, mr. buchanan said in a public speech that general taylor would be faithless to the whig party if he did not proscribe democrats. so high the deluge had risen which has ravaged and wasted our politics ever since, and the danger will be stayed only when every president, leaning upon the law, shall stand fast where john quincy adams stood. but the debate continued during the whole jackson administration. in the senate and on the stump, in elaborate reports and popular speeches, webster, calhoun, and clay, the great political chiefs of their time, sought to alarm the country with the dangers of patronage. sargent s. prentiss, in the house of representatives, caught up and echoed the cry under the administration of van buren. but the country refused to be alarmed. as the yankee said of the americans at the battle of white plains, where they were beaten, "the fact is, as far as i can understand, our folks did n't seem to take no sort of interest in that battle." the reason that the country took no sort of interest in the discussion of the evils of patronage was evident. it believed the denunciation to be a mere party cry, a scream of disappointment and impotence from those who held no places and controlled no patronage. it heard the leaders of the opposition fiercely arraigning the administration for proscription and universal wrong-doing, but it was accustomed by its english tradition and descent always to hear the tories cry that the constitution was in danger when the whigs were in power, and the whigs under a tory administration to shout that all was lost. it heard the uproar like the old lady upon her first railroad journey, who sat serene amid the wreck of a collision, and when asked if she was much hurt, looked over her spectacles and answered, blandly, "hurt? why, i supposed they always stopped so in this kind of travelling." the feeling that the denunciation was only a part of the game of politics, and no more to be accepted as a true statement than snug the joiner as a true lion, was confirmed by the fact that when the whig opposition came into power with president harrison, it adopted the very policy which under democratic administration it had strenuously denounced as fatal. the pressure for place was even greater than it had been ten years before, and although mr. webster as secretary of state maintained his consistency by putting his name to an executive order asserting sound principles, the order was swept away like a lamb by a locomotive. nothing but a miracle, said general harrison's attorney-general, can feed the swarm of hungry office-seekers. adopted by both parties, mr. marcy's doctrine that the places in the public service are the proper spoils of a victorious party, was accepted as a necessary condition of popular government. one of the highest officers of the government expounded this doctrine to me long afterwards. "i believe," said he, "that when the people vote to change a party administration they vote to change every person of the opposite party who holds a place, from the president of the united states to the messenger at my door." it is this extraordinary but sincere misconception of the function of party in a free government that leads to the serious defence of the spoils system. now, a party is merely a voluntary association of citizens to secure the enforcement of a certain policy of administration upon which they are agreed. in a free government this is done by the election of legislators and of certain executive officers who are friendly to that policy. but the duty of the great body of persons employed in the minor administrative places is in no sense political. it is wholly ministerial, and the political opinions of such persons affect the discharge of their duties no more than their religious views or their literary preferences. all that can be justly required of such persons, in the interest of the public business, is honesty, intelligence, capacity, industry, and due subordination; and to say that, when the policy of the government is changed by the result of an election from protection to free-trade, every book-keeper and letter-carrier and messenger and porter in the public offices ought to be a free-trader, is as wise as to say that if a merchant is a baptist every clerk in his office ought to be a believer in total immersion. but the officer of whom i spoke undoubtedly expressed the general feeling. the necessarily evil consequences of the practice which he justified seemed to be still speculative and inferential, and to the national indifference which followed the war the demand of mr. jenckes for reform appeared to be a mere whimsical vagary most inopportunely introduced. it was, however, soon evident that the war had made the necessity of reform imperative, and chiefly for two reasons: first, the enormous increase of patronage, and second, the fact that circumstances had largely identified a party name with patriotism. the great and radical evil of the spoils system was carefully fostered by the apparent absolute necessity to the public welfare of making political opinion and sympathy a condition of appointment to the smallest place. it is since the war, therefore, that the evil has run riot and that its consequences have been fully revealed. those consequences are now familiar, and i shall not describe them. it is enough that the most patriotic and intelligent americans and the most competent foreign observers agree that the direct and logical results of that system are the dangerous confusion of the executive and legislative powers of the government; the conversion of politics into mere place-hunting; the extension of the mischief to state and county and city administration, and the consequent degradation of the national character; the practical disfranchisement of the people wherever the system is most powerful; and the perversion of a republic of equal citizens into a despotism of venal politicians. these are the greatest dangers that can threaten a republic, and they are due to the practice of treating the vast system of minor public places which are wholly ministerial, and whose duties are the same under every party administration, not as public trusts, but as party perquisites. the english-speaking race has a grim sense of humor, and the absurdity of transacting the public business of a great nation in a way which would ruin both the trade and the character of a small huckster, of proceeding upon the theory--for such is the theory of the spoils system--that a man should be put in charge of a locomotive because he holds certain views of original sin, or because he polishes boots nimbly with his tongue--it is a folly so stupendous and grotesque that when it is fully perceived by the shrewd mother-wit of the yankee it will be laughed indignantly and contemptuously away. but the laugh must have the method, and the indignation the form, of law; and now that the public mind is aroused to the true nature and tendency of the spoils system is the time to consider the practicable legal remedy for them. the whole system of appointments in the civil service proceeds from the president, and in regard to his action the intention of the constitution is indisputable. it is that the president shall appoint solely upon public considerations, and that the officer appointed shall serve as long as he discharges his duty faithfully. this is shown in mr. jefferson's familiar phrase in his reply to the remonstrance of the merchants of new haven against the removal of the collector of that port. mr. jefferson asserted that mr. adams had purposely appointed in the last moments of his administration officers whose designation he should have left to his successor. alluding to these appointments, he says: "i shall correct the procedure, and that done, return with joy to that state of things when the only question concerning a candidate shall be, is he honest? is he capable? is he faithful to the constitution?" mr. jefferson here recognizes that these had been the considerations which had usually determined appointments; and mr. madison, in the debate upon the president's sole power of removal, declared that if a president should remove an officer for any reason not connected with efficient service he would be impeached. reform, therefore, is merely a return to the principle and purpose of the constitution and to the practice of the early administrations. what more is necessary, then, for reform than that the president should return to that practice? as all places in the civil service are filled either by his direct nomination or by officers whom he appoints, why has not any president ample constitutional authority to effect at any moment a complete and thorough reform? the answer is simple. he has the power. he has always had it. a president has only to do as washington did, and all his successors have only to do likewise, and reform would be complete. every president has but to refuse to remove non-political officers for political or personal reasons; to appoint only those whom he knows to be competent; to renominate, as monroe and john quincy adams did, every faithful officer whose commission expires, and to require the heads of departments and all inferior appointing officers to conform to this practice, and the work would be done. this is apparently a short and easy and constitutional method of reform, requiring no further legislation or scheme of procedure. but why has no president adopted it? for the same reason that the best of popes does not reform the abuses of his church. for the same reason that a leaf goes over niagara. it is because the opposing forces are overpowering. the same high officer of the government to whom i have alluded said to me as we drove upon the heights of washington, "do you mean that i ought not to appoint my subordinates for whom i am responsible?" i answered: "i mean that you do not appoint them now; i mean that if, when we return to the capital, you hear that your chief subordinate is dead, you will not appoint his successor. you will have to choose among the men urged upon you by certain powerful politicians. undoubtedly you ought to appoint the man whom you believe to be the most fit. but you do not and can not. if you could or did appoint such men only, and that were the rule of your department and of the service, there would be no need of reform." and he could not deny it. there was no law to prevent his selection of the best man. indeed, the law assumed that he would do it. the constitution intended that he should do it. but when i reminded him that there were forces beyond the law that paralyzed the intention of the constitution, and which would inevitably compel him to accept the choice of others, he said no more. it is easy to assert that the reform of the civil service is an executive reform. so it is. but the executive alone cannot accomplish it. the abuses are now completely and aggressively organized, and the sturdiest president would quail before them. the president who should undertake, single-handed, to deal with the complication of administrative evils known as the spoils system would find his party leaders in congress and their retainers throughout the country arrayed against him; the proposal to disregard traditions and practices which are regarded as essential to the very existence and effectiveness of party organization would be stigmatized as treachery, and the president himself would be covered with odium as a traitor. the air would hum with denunciation. the measures he should favor, the appointments he might make, the recommendations of his secretaries, would be opposed and imperilled, and the success of his administration would be endangered. a president who should alone undertake thoroughly to reform the evil must feel it to be the vital and paramount issue, and must be willing to hazard everything for its success. he must have the absolute faith and the indomitable will of luther. "here stand i; i can no other." how can we expect a president whom this system elects to devote himself to its destruction? general grant, elected by a spontaneous patriotic impulse, fresh from the regulated order of military life and new to politics and politicians, saw the reason and the necessity of reform. the hero of a victorious war, at the height of his popularity, his party in undisputed and seemingly indisputable supremacy, made the attempt. congress, good-naturedly tolerating what it considered his whim of inexperience, granted money to try an experiment. the adverse pressure was tremendous. "i am used to pressure," said the soldier. so he was, but not to this pressure. he was driven by unknown and incalculable currents. he was enveloped in whirlwinds of sophistry, scorn, and incredulity. he who upon his own line had fought it out all summer to victory, upon a line absolutely new and unknown was naturally bewildered and dismayed. so wellington had drawn the lines of victory on the spanish peninsula and had saved europe at waterloo. but even wellington at waterloo could not be also sir robert peel at westminster. even wellington, who had overthrown napoleon in the field, could not also be the parliamentary hero who for the welfare of his country would dare to risk the overthrow of his party. when at last president grant said, "if congress adjourns without positive legislation on civil service reform, i shall regard such action as a disapproval of the system and shall abandon it," it was, indeed, a surrender, but it was the surrender of a champion who had honestly mistaken both the nature and the strength of the adversary and his own power of endurance. it is not, then, reasonable, under the conditions of our government and in the actual situation, to expect a president to go much faster or much further than public opinion. but executive action can aid most effectively the development and movement of that opinion, and the most decisive reform measures that the present administration might take would be undoubtedly supported by a powerful public sentiment. the educative results of resolute executive action, however limited and incomplete in scope, have been shown in the two great public offices of which i have spoken, the new york custom-house and the new york post-office. for nearly three years the entire practicability of reform has been demonstrated in those offices, and solely by the direction of the president. the value of such demonstrations, due to the executive will alone, carried into effect by thoroughly trained and interested subordinates, cannot be overestimated. but when they depend upon the will of a transient officer and not upon a strong public conviction, they are seeds that have no depth of soil. a vital and enduring reform in administrative methods, although it be but a return to the constitutional intention, can be accomplished only by the commanding impulse of public opinion. permanence is secured by law, not by individual pleasure. but in this country law is only formulated public opinion. reform of the civil service does not contemplate an invasion of the constitutional prerogative of the president and the senate, nor does it propose to change the constitution by statute. the whole system of the civil service proceeds, as i said, from the president, and the object of the reform movement is to enable him to fulfil the intention of the constitution by revealing to him the desire of the country through the action of its authorized representatives. when the ground-swell of public opinion lifts congress from the rocks, the president will gladly float with it into the deep water of wise and patriotic action. the president, indeed, has never been the chief sinner in the spoils system, although he has been the chief agent. even president jackson yielded to party pressure as much as to his own convictions. president harrison sincerely wished to stay the flood, but it swept him away. president grant doubtfully and with good intentions tested the pressure before yielding. president hayes, with sturdy independence, adhered inflexibly to a few points, but his party chiefs cursed and derided him. president garfield,--god bless and restore him!--frankly declares permanent and effective reform to be impossible without the consent of congress. when, therefore, congress obeys a commanding public opinion, and reflects it in legislation, it will restore to the president the untrammelled exercise of his ample constitutional powers according to the constitutional intention; and the practical question of reform is, how shall this be brought about? now, it is easy to kill weeds if we can destroy their roots, and it is not difficult to determine what the principle of reform legislation should be if we can agree upon the source of the abuses to be reformed. may they not have a common origin? in fact, are they not all bound together as parts of one system? the representative in congress, for instance, does not ask whether the interests of the public service require this removal or that appointment, but whether, directly or indirectly, either will best serve his own interests. the senator acts from the same motives. the president, in turn, balances between the personal interests of leading politicians--president, senators, and representatives all wishing to pay for personal service and to conciliate personal influence. so also the party labor required of the place-holder, the task of carrying caucuses, of defeating one man and electing another, as may be ordered, the payment of the assessment levied upon his salary--all these are the price of the place. they are the taxes paid by him as conditions of receiving a personal favor. thus the abuses have a common source, whatever may be the plea for the system from which they spring. whether it be urged that the system is essential to party organization, or that the desire for place is a laudable political ambition, or that the spoils system is a logical development of our political philosophy, or that new brooms sweep clean, or that any other system is un-american--whatever the form of the plea for the abuse, the conclusion is always the same, that the minor places in the civil service are not public trusts, but rewards and prizes for personal and political favorites. the root of the complex evil, then, is personal favoritism. this produces congressional dictation, senatorial usurpation, arbitrary removals, interference in elections, political assessments, and all the consequent corruption, degradation, and danger that experience has disclosed. the method of reform, therefore, must be a plan of selection for appointment which makes favoritism impossible. the general feeling undoubtedly is that this can be accomplished by a fixed limited term. but the terms of most of the offices to which the president and the senate appoint, and upon which the myriad minor places in the service depend, have been fixed and limited for sixty years, yet it is during that very period that the chief evils of personal patronage have appeared. the law of , which limited the term of important revenue offices to four years, and which was afterwards extended to other offices, was intended, as john quincy adams tells us, to promote the election to the presidency of mr. crawford, who was then secretary of the treasury. the law was drawn by mr. crawford himself, and it was introduced into the senate by one of his devoted partisans. it placed the whole body of executive financial officers at the mercy of the secretary of the treasury and of a majority of the senate, and its design, as mr. adams says, "was to secure for mr. crawford the influence of all the incumbents in office, at the peril of displacement, and of five or ten times an equal number of ravenous office-seekers, eager to supplant them." this is the very substance of the spoils system, intentionally introduced by a fixed limitation of term in place of the constitutional tenure of efficient service; and it was so far successful that it made the custom-house officers, district attorneys, marshals, registers of the land-office, receivers of public money, and even paymasters in the army, notoriously active partisans of mr. crawford. mr. benton says that the four-years' law merely made the dismissal of faithful officers easier, because the expiration of the term was regarded as "the creation of a vacancy to be filled by new appointments." a fixed limited term for the chief offices has not destroyed or modified personal influence, but, on the contrary, it has fostered universal servility and loss of self-respect, because reappointment depends, not upon official fidelity and efficiency, but upon personal influence and favor. to fix by law the terms of places dependent upon such offices would be like an attempt to cure hydrophobia by the bite of a mad dog. the incumbent would be always busy keeping his influence in repair to secure reappointment, and the applicant would be equally busy in seeking such influence to procure the place, and as the fixed terms would be constantly expiring, the eager and angry intrigue and contest of influence would be as endless as it is now. this certainly would not be reform. but would not reform be secured by adding to a fixed limited term the safeguard of removal for cause only? removal for cause alone means, of course, removal for legitimate cause, such as dishonesty, negligence, or incapacity. but who shall decide that such cause exists? this must be determined either by the responsible superior officer or by some other authority. but if left to some other authority the right of counsel and the forms of a court would be invoked; the whole legal machinery of mandamuses, injunctions, _certioraris_, and the rules of evidence would be put in play to keep an incompetent clerk at his desk or a sleepy watchman on his beat. cause for the removal of a letter-carrier in the post-office or of an accountant in the custom-house would be presented with all the pomp of impeachment and established like a high crime and misdemeanor. thus every clerk in every office would have a kind of vested interest in his place because, however careless, slovenly, or troublesome he might be, he could be displaced only by an elaborate and doubtful legal process. moreover, if the head of a bureau or a collector, or a postmaster were obliged to prove negligence, or insolence, or incompetency against a clerk as he would prove theft, there would be no removals from the public service except for crimes of which the penal law takes cognizance. consequently, removal would be always and justly regarded as a stigma upon character, and a man removed from a position in a public office would be virtually branded as a convicted criminal. removal for cause, therefore, if the cause were to be decided by any authority but that of the responsible superior officer, instead of improving, would swiftly and enormously enhance the cost, and ruin the efficiency, of the public service, by destroying subordination, and making every lazy and worthless member of it twice as careless and incompetent as he is now. if, then, the legitimate cause for removal ought to be determined in public as in private business by the responsible appointing power, it is of the highest public necessity that the exercise of that power should be made as absolutely honest and independent as possible. but how can it be made honest and independent if it is not protected so far as practicable from the constant bribery of selfish interest and the illicit solicitation of personal influence? the experience of our large patronage offices proves conclusively that the cause of the larger number of removals is not dishonesty or incompetency; it is the desire to make vacancies to fill. this is the actual cause, whatever cause may be assigned. the removals would not be made except for the pressure of politicians. but those politicians would not press for removals if they could not secure the appointment of their favorites. make it impossible for them to secure appointment, and the pressure would instantly disappear and arbitrary removal cease. so long, therefore, as we permit minor appointments to be made by mere personal influence and favor, a fixed limited term and removal during that term for cause only would not remedy the evil, because the incumbents would still be seeking influence to secure re-appointment, and the aspirants doing the same to replace them. removal under plea of good cause would be as wanton and arbitrary as it is now, unless the power to remove were intrusted to some other discretion than that of the superior officer, and in that case the struggle for reappointment and the knowledge that removal for the term was practically impossible would totally demoralize the service. to make sure, then, that removals shall be made for legitimate cause only, we must provide that appointment shall be made only for legitimate cause. all roads lead to rome. personal influence in appointments can be annulled only by free and open competition. by that bridge we can return to the practice of washington and to the intention of the constitution. that is the shoe of swiftness and the magic sword by which the president can pierce and outrun the protean enemy of sophistry and tradition which prevents him from asserting his power. if you say that success in a competitive literary examination does not prove fitness to adjust customs duties, or to distribute letters, or to appraise linen, or to measure molasses, i answer that the reform does not propose that fitness shall be proved by a competitive literary examination. it proposes to annul personal influence and political favoritism by making appointment depend upon proved capacity. to determine this it proposes first to test the comparative general intelligence of all applicants and their special knowledge of the particular official duties required, and then to prove the practical faculty of the most intelligent applicants by actual trial in the performance of the duties before they are appointed. if it be still said that success in such a competition may not prove fitness, it is enough to reply that success in obtaining the favor of some kind of boss, which is the present system, presumptively proves unfitness. nor is it any objection to the reformed system that many efficient officers in the service could not have entered it had it been necessary to pass an examination; it is no objection, because their efficiency is a mere chance. they were not appointed because of efficiency, but either because they were diligent politicians or because they were recommended by diligent politicians. the chance of getting efficient men in any business is certainly not diminished by inquiry and investigation. i have heard an officer in the army say that he could select men from the ranks for special duty much more satisfactorily than they could be selected by an examination. undoubtedly he could, because he knows his men, and he selects solely by his knowledge of their comparative fitness. if this were true of the civil service, if every appointing officer chose the fittest person from those that he knew, there would be no need of reform. it is because he cannot do this that the reform is necessary. it is the same kind of objection which alleges that competition is a droll plan by which to restore the conduct of the public business to business principles and methods, since no private business selects its agents by competition. but the managers of private business are virtually free from personal influence in selecting their subordinates, and they employ and promote and dismiss them solely for the interests of the business. their choice, however, is determined by an actual, although not a formal, competition. like the military officer, they select those whom they know by experience to be the most competent. but if great business-houses and corporations were exposed to persistent, insolent, and overpowering interference and solicitation for place such as obstructs great public departments and officers, they too would resort to the form of competition, as they now have its substance, and they would resort to it to secure the very freedom which they now enjoy of selecting for fitness alone. mr. president, in the old arabian story, from the little box upon the sea-shore, carelessly opened by the fisherman, arose the towering and haughty demon, ever more monstrous and more threatening, who would not crouch again. so from the small patronage of the earlier day, from a civil service dealing with a national revenue of only $ , , , and regulated upon sound business principles, has sprung the un-american, un-democratic, un-republican system which destroys political independence, honor, and morality, and corrodes the national character itself. in the solemn anxiety of this hour the warning words of the austere calhoun, uttered nearly half a century ago, echo in startled recollection like words of doom: "if you do not put this thing down it will put you down." happily it is the historic faith of the race from which we are chiefly sprung, that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. it is that faith which has made our mother england the great parent of free states. the same faith has made america the political hope of the world. fortunately removed by our position from the entanglements of european politics, and more united and peaceful at home than at any time within the memory of living men, the moment is most auspicious for remedying that abuse in our political system whose nature, proportions, and perils the whole country begins clearly to discern. the will and the power to apply the remedy will be a test of the sagacity and the energy of the people. the reform of which i have spoken is essentially the people's reform. with the instinct of robbers who run with the crowd and lustily cry "stop thief!" those who would make the public service the monopoly of a few favorites denounce the determination to open that service to the whole people as a plan to establish an aristocracy. the huge ogre of patronage, gnawing at the character, the honor, and the life of the country, grimly sneers that the people cannot help themselves and that nothing can be done. but much greater things have been done. slavery was the giant despair of many good men of the last generation, but slavery was overthrown. if the spoils system, a monster only less threatening than slavery, be unconquerable, it is because the country has lost its convictions, its courage, and its common-sense. "i expect," said the yankee as he surveyed a stout antagonist, "i expect that you 're pretty ugly, but i cal'late i 'm a darned sight uglier." i know that patronage is strong, but i believe that the american people are very much stronger. carl schurz, of new york. (born .) the necessity and progress of civil service reform. an address delivered at the annual meeting of the national civil service reform league at chicago, ill., december , . what civil service reform demands, is simply that the business part of the government shall be carried on in a sound, business-like manner. this seems so obviously reasonable that among people of common-sense there should be no two opinions about it. and the condition of things to be reformed is so obviously unreasonable, so flagrantly absurd and vicious, that we should not believe it could possibly exist among sensible people, had we not become accustomed to its existence among ourselves. in truth, we can hardly bring the whole exorbitance of that viciousness and absurdity home to our own minds unless we contemplate it as reflected in the mirror of a simile. imagine, then, a bank, the stockholders of which, many in number, are divided into two factions--let us call them the jones party and the smith party--who quarrel about some question of business policy, as, for instance, whether the bank is to issue currency or not. the jones party is in control, but the smith men persuade over to their side a sufficient number of jones men to give them--the smith men--a majority at the next stockholders' meeting. thus they succeed in getting the upper hand. they oust the old board of directors, and elect a new board consisting of smith men. the new smith board at once remove all the officers, president, cashier, tellers, book-keepers, and clerks, down to the messenger boys--the good and the bad alike--simply because they are jones men, and fill their places forth-with with new persons who are selected, not on the ground that they have in any way proved their fitness for the positions so filled, but simply because they are smith men; and those of the smith men who have shown the greatest zeal and skill in getting a majority of votes for the smith party are held to have the strongest claims for salaried places in the bank. the new men struggle painfully with the duties novel to them until they acquire some experience, but even then, it needs in many instances two men or more to do the work of one. in the course of events dissatisfaction spreads among the stockholders with the smith management, partly shared by ambitious smith men who thought themselves entitled to reward in the shape of places and salaries, but were "left out in the cold." now the time for a new stockholders' meeting arrives. after a hot fight the jones party carries the day. its ticket of directors being elected, off go the heads of the smith president, the smith cashier, the smith tellers, the smith bookkeepers, and clerks, to be replaced by true-blue jones men, who have done the work of the campaign and are expected to do more of it when the next election comes. and so the career of the bank goes on with its periodical changes of party in power at longer or shorter intervals, and its corresponding clean sweeps of the bank service, with mismanagement and occasional fraud and peculation as inevitable incidents. you might watch the proceedings of such a banking concern with intense curiosity and amusement. but i ask you, what prudent man among you would deposit his money in it, or invest in its stock? and why would you not? because you would think that this is not sensible men's business, but foolish boys' play; that such management would necessarily result in reckless waste and dishonesty, and tend to land many of the bank's officers in canada, and not a few of its depositors or investors in the poor-house. such would be your judgment, and in pronouncing it you would at the same time pronounce judgment upon the manner in which the business part of our national government, as well as of many if not most of our state and municipal governments, has been conducted for several generations. this is the spoils system. and i have by no means presented an exaggerated or even a complete picture of it; nay, rather a mild sketch, indicating only with faint touches the demoralizing influences exercised by that system with such baneful effect upon the whole political life of the nation. looking at the financial side of the matter alone--it is certainly bad enough; it is indeed almost incomprehensible how the spoils system could be permitted through scores of years to vitiate our business methods in the conduct of the national revenue service, the postal service, the indian service, the public-land service, involving us in indescribable administrative blunders, bringing about indian wars, causing immense losses in the revenue, breeding extravagant and plundering practices in all departments, costing our people in the course of time untold hundreds of millions of money, and making our government one of the most wasteful in the world. all this, i say, is bad enough. it might be called discreditable enough to move any self-respecting people to shame. but the spoils system has inflicted upon the american people injuries far greater than these. the spoils system, that practice which turns public offices, high and low, from public trusts into objects of prey and booty for the victorious party, may without extravagance of language be called one of the greatest criminals in our history, if not the greatest. in the whole catalogue of our ills there is none more dangerous to the vitality of our free institutions. it tends to divert our whole political life from its true aims. it teaches men to seek something else in politics than the public good. it puts mercenary selfishness as the motive power for political action in the place of public spirit, and organizes that selfishness into a dominant political force. it attracts to active party politics the worst elements of our population, and with them crowds out the best. it transforms political parties from associations of patriotic citizens, formed to serve a public cause, into bands of mercenaries using a cause to serve them. it perverts party contests from contentions of opinion into scrambles for plunder. by stimulating the mercenary spirit it promotes the corrupt use of money in party contests and in elections. it takes the leadership of political organizations out of the hands of men fit to be leaders of opinion and workers for high aims, and turns it over to the organizers and leaders of bands of political marauders. it creates the boss and the machine, putting the boss into the place of the statesman, and the despotism of the machine in the place of an organized public opinion. it converts the public office-holder, who should be the servant of the people, into the servant of a party or of an influential politician, extorting from him time and work which should belong to the public, and money which he receives from the public for public service. it corrupts his sense of duty by making him understand that his obligation to his party or his political patron is equal if not superior to his obligation to the public interest, and that his continuance in office does not depend on his fidelity to duty. it debauches his honesty by seducing him to use the opportunities of his office to indemnify himself for the burdens forced upon him as a party slave. it undermines in all directions the discipline of the public service. it falsifies our constitutional system. it leads to the usurpation, in a large measure, of the executive power of appointment by members of the legislative branch, substituting their irresponsible views of personal or party interest for the judgment as to the public good and the sense of responsibility of the executive. it subjects those who exercise the appointing power, from the president of the united states down, to the intrusion of hordes of office-hunters and their patrons, who rob them of the time and strength they should devote to the public interest. it has already killed two of our presidents, one, the first harrison, by worry, and the other, garfield, by murder; and more recently it has killed a mayor in chicago and a judge in tennessee. it degrades our senators and representatives in congress to the contemptible position of office-brokers, and even of mere agents of office-brokers, making the business of dickering about spoils as weighty to them as their duties as legislators. it introduces the patronage as an agency of corrupt influence between the executive and the legislature. it serves to obscure the criminal character of bribery by treating bribery with offices as a legitimate practice. it thus reconciles the popular mind to practices essentially corrupt, and thereby debauches the popular sense of right and wrong in politics. it keeps in high political places, to the exclusion of better men, persons whose only ability consists in holding a personal following by adroit manipulation of the patronage. it has thus sadly lowered the standard of statesmanship in public position, compared with the high order of ability displayed in all other walks of life. it does more than anything else to turn our large municipalities into sinks of corruption, to render tammany halls possible, and to make of the police force here and there a protector of crime and a terror to those whose safety it is to guard. it exposes us, by the scandalous spectacle of its periodical spoils carnivals, to the ridicule and contempt of civilized mankind, promoting among our own people the growth of serious doubts as to the practicability of democratic institutions on a great scale; and in an endless variety of ways it introduces into our political life more elements of demoralization, debasement, and decadence than any other agency of evil i know of, aye, perhaps more than all other agencies of evil combined. these are some of the injuries the spoils system has been, and still is, inflicting upon this republic--some, i say; not all, for it is impossible to follow its subtle virus into all the channels through which it exercises its poisonous influence. but i have said enough to illustrate its pernicious effects; and what i have said is only the teaching of sober observation and long experience. and now, if such are the evils of the spoils system, what are, by way of compensation, the virtues it possesses, and the benefits it confers? let its defenders speak. they do not pretend that it gives us a very efficient public service; but they tell us that it is essentially american; that it is necessary in order to keep alive among our people an active interest in public affairs; that frequent rotation in office serves to give the people an intelligent insight in the nature and workings of their government; that without it parties cannot be held together, and party government is impossible; and that all the officers and employees of the government should be in political harmony with the party in power. let us pass the points of this defence in review one by one. first, then, in what sense can the spoils system be called essentially american? certainly not as to its origin. at the beginning of our national government nothing like it was known here, or dreamed of. had anything like it been proposed, the fathers of the republic would have repelled it with alarm and indignation. it did, indeed, prevail in england when the monarchy was much stronger than it is now, and when the aristocracy could still be called a ruling class. but as the british government grew more democratic, the patronage system, as a relic of feudalism, had to yield to the forces of liberalism and enlightenment until it completely disappeared. when it invaded our national government, forty years after its constitutional beginning, we merely took what england was casting off as an abuse inconsistent with popular government, and unworthy of a free and civilized nation. if not in origin, is the spoils system essentially american in any other sense? only in the sense in which murder is american, or small-pox, or highway robbery, or tammany hall. as to the spoils system being necessary to the end of keeping alive among our people an active interest in public affairs--where is the american who does not blush to utter such an infamous calumny? is there no patriotism in america without plunder in sight? was there no public spirit before spoils systems and clean sweeps cursed us, none between the battle of lexington and jackson's inauguration as president? such an argument deserves as an answer only a kick from every honest american boot. i admit, however, that there are among us some persons whose interest in public affairs does need the stimulus of office to remain alive. i am far from denying that the ambition to serve one's country as a public officer is in itself a perfectly legitimate and honorable ambition. it certainly is. but when a man's interest in public affairs depends upon his drawing an official salary, or having such a salary in prospect, the ambition does not appear so honorable. there is too pungent a mercenary flavor about it. no doubt, even among the mercenaries may be found individuals that are capable, faithful, and useful; but taking them as a class, the men whose active public spirit is conditional upon the possession or prospect of official spoil are those whose interest in public affairs the commonweal can most conveniently spare. indeed, our political life would be in a much healthier condition if they did not take any part in politics at all. there would be plenty of patriotic americans to devote themselves to the public good without such a condition. in fact, there would be more of that class in regular political activity than there are now, for they would not be jostled out by the pushing hordes of spoils-hunters, whose real interest in public affairs is that of serving themselves. the spoils system is therefore not only not a stimulus of true public spirit, but in spreading the mercenary tendency among the people it has served to baffle and discourage true public spirit by the offensive infusion in political life of the mercenary element. the view that the spoils system with its frequent rotations in office is needed to promote among the people a useful understanding of the nature and workings of the government, finds, amazing as it may seem, still serious adherents among well-meaning citizens. it is based upon the assumption that the public service which is instituted to do certain business for the people, should at the same time serve as a school in which ignorant persons are to learn something about the functions of the government. these two objects will hardly go together. if the public service is to do its business with efficiency and economy, it must of course be manned with persons fit for the work. if on the other hand it is to be used as a school to instruct ignorant people in the functions of the government--that is, in the duties of a postmaster, or a revenue collector, or an indian agent, or a department clerk--then we should select for such places persons who know least about them, for they have the most to learn; and inasmuch as such persons, before having acquired the necessary knowledge, skill, and experience, will inevitably do the public business in a bungling manner, and therefore at much inconvenience and loss to the people, they should, in justice to the taxpayers, instead of drawing salaries, pay something for the instruction they receive. for as soon as they have learned enough really to earn a salary, they will have to be turned out to make room for others, who are as ignorant and in as great need of instruction as the outgoing set had been before. evidently this kindergarten theory of the public service is hardly worth discussion. the school of the spoils system, as it has been in operation since , has educated thousands of political loafers, but not one political sage. that the government will not work satisfactorily unless all its officers and employees are in political harmony with the ruling party, is also one of those superstitions which some estimable people have not yet been able to shake off. while they sternly resist the argument that there is no democratic and no republican way of sorting letters, or of collecting taxes, or of treating indians, as theoretical moonshine, their belief must, after all, have received a rude shock by the conduct of the last three national administrations, including the present one. when in , after twenty-four years of republican ascendency, the democrats came into power, president cleveland determined that, as a general rule, officers holding places covered by the four-years-term law should, if they had conducted themselves irreproachably, be permitted to serve out their four-years terms. how strictly this rule was adhered to i will not now inquire. at any rate it was adhered to in a great many cases. many republican office-holders, under that four-years rule, remained in place one, or two, or three years under the democratic administration. president harrison, succeeding mr. cleveland, followed a similar rule, although to a less extent. and now president cleveland again does the same. not only did we have during his first term the startling spectacle of the great post-office of new york city remaining in the hands of a postmaster who was not a democrat, but recently of the collectorship of the port of new york, once considered the most important political office in the country, being left for a year or more in possession of a republican. it is clear, the presidents who acted thus did not believe that the public interest required all the officers of the government to be in harmony with the party in power. on the contrary, they thought that the public interest was served by keeping efficient officers in their places, for a considerable time at least, although they were not in such harmony. and no doubt all sensible people admit that the common weal did not suffer therefrom. the theory of the necessity of political accord between the administrative officers of the government and the party in power has thus been thoroughly exploded by actual practice and experience. being obliged to admit this, candid men, it is to be hoped, will go a step further in their reasoning. if those two presidents were right in thinking that the public welfare was served by keeping meritorious officers not belonging to the ruling party in place until they had served four years, is it not wrong to deprive the country of the services of such men, made especially valuable by their accumulated experience and the training of their skill, by turning them out after the lapse of the four years? if it was for the public interest to keep them so long, is it not against the public interest not to keep them longer? * * * * * but all these evidences of progress i regard as of less importance than the strength our cause has gained in public sentiment. of this we had a vivid illustration when a year ago, upon the motion of mr. richard watson gilder, the anti-spoils league was set on foot for the purpose of opening communication and facilitating correspondence and, in case of need, concert of action with the friends of civil service reform throughout the country, and when, in a short space of time, about , citizens sent in their adhesion, representing nearly every state and territory of the union, and in them, the most enlightened and influential classes of society. more encouraging still is the circumstance that now for the first time we welcome at our annual meeting not only the familiar faces of old friends, but also representatives of other organizations--good government clubs, working for the purification of politics; municipal leagues, whose aim is the reform of municipal governments; and commercial bodies, urging the reform of our consular service. we welcome them with especial warmth, for their presence proves that at last the true significance of civil service reform is being appreciated in constantly widening circles. the good government club understands that if the moral tone of our politics, national or local, is to be lifted up, the demoralizing element of party spoil must be done away with. the municipal league understands that if our large municipalities are to be no longer cesspools of corruption, if our municipal governments are to be made honest and business-like, if our police forces are to be kept clear of thugs and thieves, the appointments to places in the municipal service must be withdrawn from the influence of party bosses and ward ruffians, and must be strictly governed by the merit system. the merchants understand that if our consular service is to be an effective help to american commerce, and a credit to the american name, it must not be subject to periodical partisan lootings, and our consuls must not be appointed by way of favor to some influential politician, but upon a methodical ascertainment of their qualifications for the consular business; then to be promoted according to merit, and also to be salaried as befits respectable agents and representatives of a great nation. with this understanding, every good government club, every municipal league, every chamber of commerce or board of trade must be an active civil service reform association. but more than this. every intelligent and unprejudiced citizen, when he candidly inquires into the developments which have brought about the present state of things, will understand that of the evils which have so alarmingly demoralized our political life, and so sadly lowered this republic in the respect of the world, many, if not most, had their origin, and find their sustenance, in that practice which treats the public offices as the plunder of victorious parties; that as, with the increase of our population, the growth of our wealth, and the multiplication of our public interests, the functions of government expand and become more complicated, those evils will grow and eventually destroy the very vitality of our free institutions, unless their prolific source be stopped; that this force can be effectually stopped not by mere occasional spasms of indignant virtue, but only by a systematic, thorough, and permanent reform. every patriotic citizen understanding this must be a civil service reformer. you may ask how far this understanding has penetrated our population. president cleveland answers this question in his recent message. listen to what he says: "the advantages to the public service of an adherence to the principles of civil service reform are constantly more apparent, and nothing is so encouraging to those in official life who honestly desire good government, as the increasing appreciation by our people of these advantages. a vast majority of the voters of the land are ready to insist that the time and attention of those they select to perform for them important public duties should not be distracted by doling out minor offices, and they are growing to be unanimous in regarding party organization as something that should be used in establishing party principles instead of dictating the distribution of public places as rewards for partisan activity." with gladness i welcome this cheering assurance, coming from so high an authority. if such is the sense of "a vast majority of the voters of the land, growing to be unanimous," it may justly be called the will of the people. if it is the will of the people, what reason--nay, what excuse--can there be for further hesitation? let the will of the people be done! let it be done without needless delay, and let the people's president lead in doing it! then no more spoils and plunder! no more removals not required by public interest! no more appointments for partisan reasons! continuance in office, regardless of any four-years rule, of meritorious public servants! superior merit the only title to preferment! no longer can this be airily waved aside as a demand of a mere sect of political philosophers, for now it is recognized as the people's demand. no longer can civil service reform be cried down by the so-called practical politicians as the nebulous dream of unpractical visionaries, for it has been grasped by the popular understanding as a practical necessity--not to enervate our political life, but to lift it to a higher moral plane; not to destroy political parties, but to restore them to their legitimate functions; not to make party government impossible, but to guard it against debasement, and to inspire it with higher ambitions; not pretending to be in itself the consummation of all reforms, but being the reform without which other reformatory efforts in government cannot be permanently successful. never, gentlemen, have we met under auspices more propitious. let no exertion be spared to make the voice of the people heard. for when it is heard in its strength it will surely be obeyed. american eloquence studies in american political history edited with introduction by alexander johnston reedited by james albert woodburn volume ii. (of ) contents: v.-the anti-slavery struggle. rufus king on the missouri struggle--united states senate, february and , . william pinkney on the missouri struggle--united states senate, february , . wendell phillips on the murder of lovejoy--faneuil hall, boston, december , . john quincy adams on the constitutional war power over slavery --house of representatives, may , . john c. calhoun on the slavery question--united states senate, march , . daniel webster on the constitution and the union--united states senate, march , . henry clay on the compromise of --united states senate, july , . wendell phillips on the philosophy of the abolition movement--before the massachusetts, anti-slavery society, boston, january , . charles sumner on the repeal of the fugitive slave law--united states senate, august , . list of portraits--volume ii. rufus king -- from a steel engraving. john q. adams -- from a painting by marchant. john c. calhoun -- from a daguerreotype by brady. daniel webster -- from a painting by r. m. staigg. henry clay -- from a crayon portrait. introduction to the revised volume ii. the second volume of the american eloquence is devoted exclusively to the slavery controversy. the new material of the revised edition includes rufus king and william pinkney on the missouri question; john quincy adams on the war power of the constitution over slavery; sumner on the repeal of the fugitive slave law. the addition of the new material makes necessary the reservation of the orations on the kansas-nebraska bill, and on the related subjects, for the third volume. in the anti-slavery struggle the missouri question occupied a prominent place. in the voluminous congressional material which the long debates called forth, the speeches of king and pinkney are the best representatives of the two sides to the controversy, and they are of historical interest and importance. john quincy adams' leadership in the dramatic struggle over the right of petition in the house of representatives, and his opinion on the constitutional power of the national government over the institution of slavery within the states, will always excite the attention of the historical student. in the decade before the war no subject was a greater cause of irritation and antagonism between the states than the fugitive slave law. sumner's speech on this subject is the most valuable of his speeches from the historical point of view; and it is not only a worthy american oration, but it is a valuable contribution to the history of the slavery struggle itself. it has been thought desirable to include in a volume of this character orations of permanent value on these themes of historic interest. a study of the speeches of a radical innovator like phillips with those of compromising conservatives like webster and clay, will lead the student into a comparison, or contrast, of these diverse characters. the volume retains the two orations of phillips, the two greatest of all his contributions to the anti-slavery struggle. it is believed that the list of orations, on the whole, presents to the reader a series of subjects of first importance in the great slavery controversy. the valuable introduction of professor johnston, on "the anti-slavery struggle," is re-printed entire. j. a. w. v. -- the anti-slavery struggle negro slavery was introduced into all the english colonies of north america as a custom, and not under any warrant of law. the enslavement of the negro race was simply a matter against which no white person chose to enter a protest, or make resistance, while the negroes themselves were powerless to resist or even protest. in due course of time laws were passed by the colonial assemblies to protect property in negroes, while the home government, to the very last, actively protected and encouraged the slave trade to the colonies. negro slavery in all the colonies had thus passed from custom to law before the american revolution broke out; and the course of the revolution itself had little or no effect on the system. from the beginning, it was evident that the course of slavery in the two sections, north and south, was to be altogether divergent. in the colder north, the dominant race found it easier to work than to compel negroes to work: in the warmer south, the case was exactly reversed. at the close of the revolution, massachusetts led the way in an abolition of slavery, which was followed gradually by the other states north of virginia; and in the ordinance of congress organizing the northwest territory made all the future states north of the ohio free states. "mason and dixon's line" and the ohio river thus seemed, in , to be the natural boundary between the free and the slave states. up to this point the white race in the two sections had dealt with slavery by methods which were simply divergent, not antagonistic. it was true that the percentage of slaves in the total population had been very rapidly decreasing in the north and not in the south, and that the gradual abolition of slavery was proceeding in the north alone, and that with increasing rapidity. but there was no positive evidence that the south was bulwarked in favor of slavery; there was no certainty but that the south would in its turn and in due time come to the point which the north had already reached, and begin its own abolition of slavery. the language of washington, jefferson, madison, henry, and mason, in regard to the evils or the wickedness of the system of slavery, was too strong to be heard with patience in the south of after years; and in this section it seems to have been true, that those who thought at all upon the subject hoped sincerely for the gradual abolition of slavery in the south. the hope, indeed, was rather a sentiment than a purpose, but there seems to have been no good reason, before , why the sentiment should not finally develop into a purpose. all this was permanently changed, and the slavery policy of the south was made antagonistic to, and not merely divergent from, that of the north, by the invention of whitney's saw gin for cleansing cotton in . it had been known, before that year, that cotton could be cultivated in the south, but its cultivation was made unprofitable, and checked by the labor required to separate the seeds from the cotton. whitney's invention increased the efficiency of this labor hundreds of times, and it became evident at once that the south enjoyed a practical monopoly of the production of cotton. the effect on the slavery policy of the south was immediate and unhappy. since , it has been found that the cotton monopoly of the south is even more complete under a free than under a slave labor system, but mere theory could never have convinced the southern people that such would be the case. their whole prosperity hinged on one product; they began its cultivation under slave labor; and the belief that labor and prosperity were equally dependent on the enslavement of the laboring race very soon made the dominant race active defenders of slavery. from that time the system in the south was one of slowly but steadily increasing rigor, until, just before , its last development took the form of legal enactments for the re-enslavement of free negroes, in default of their leaving the state in which they resided. parallel with this increase of rigor, there was a steady change in the character of the system. it tended very steadily to lose its original patriarchal character, and take the aspect of a purely commercial speculation. after , the commercial aspect began to be the rule in the black belt of the gulf states. the plantation knew only the overseer; so many slaves died to so many bales of cotton; and the slave population began to lose all human connection with the dominant race. the acquisition of louisiana in more than doubled the area of the united states, and far more than doubled the area of the slave system. slavery had been introduced into louisiana, as usual, by custom, and had then been sanctioned by spanish and french law. it is true that congress did not forbid slavery in the new territory of louisiana; but congress did even worse than this; under the guise of forbidding the importation of slaves into louisiana, by the act of march , , organizing the territory, the phrase "except by a citizen of the united states, removing into said territory for actual settlement, and being at the time of such removal bona fide owner of such slave or slaves," impliedly legitimated the domestic slave trade to louisiana, and legalized slavery wherever population should extend between the mississippi and the rocky mountains. the congress of - , which passed the act, should rightfully bear the responsibility for all the subsequent growth of slavery, and for all the difficulties in which it involved the south and the country. there were but two centres of population in louisiana, new orleans and st. louis. when the southern district, around new orleans, applied for admission as the slave state of louisiana, there seems to have been no surprise or opposition on this score; the federalist opposition to the admission is exactly represented by quincy's speech in the first volume. when the northern district, around st. louis, applied for admission as the slave state of missouri, the inevitable consequences of the act of became evident for the first time, and all the northern states united to resist the admission. the north controlled the house of representatives, and the south the senate; and, after a severe parliamentary struggle, the two bodies united in the compromise of . by its terms missouri was admitted as a slave state, and slavery was forever forbidden in the rest of louisiana territory, north of latitude ° ' (the line of the southerly boundary of missouri). the instinct of this first struggle against slavery extension seems to have been much the same as that of - the realization that a permission to introduce slavery by custom into the territories meant the formation of slave states exclusively, the restriction of the free states to the district between the mississippi and the atlantic, and the final conversion of the mass of the united states to a policy of enslavement of labor. but, on the surface, it was so entirely a struggle for the balance of power between the two sections, that it has not seemed worth while to introduce any of the few reported speeches of the time. the topic is more fully and fairly discussed in the subsequent debates on the kansas-nebraska act. in william lloyd garrison, a boston printer, opened the real anti-slavery struggle. up to this time the anti-slavery sentiment, north and south, had been content with the notion of "gradual abolition," with the hope that the south would, in some yet unsuspected manner, be brought to the northern policy. this had been supplemented, to some extent, by the colonization society for colonizing negroes on the west coast of africa; which had two aspects: at the south it was the means of ridding the country of the free negro population; at the north it was a means of mitigating, perhaps of gradually abolishing, slavery. garrison, through his newspaper, the liberator, called for "immediate abolition" of slavery, for the conversion of anti-slavery sentiment into anti-slavery purpose. this was followed by the organization of his adherents into the american anti-slavery society in , and the active dissemination of the immediate abolition principle by tracts, newspapers, and lecturers. the anti-slavery struggle thus begun, never ceased until, in , the liberator ceased to be published, with the final abolition of slavery. in its inception and in all its development the movement was a distinct product of the democratic spirit. it would not have been possible in , or in , or in . the man came with the hour; and every new mile of railroad or telegraph, every new district open to population, every new influence toward the growth of democracy, broadened the power as well as the field of the abolition movement. it was but the deepening, the application to an enslaved race of laborers, of the work which jeffersonian democracy had done, to remove the infinitely less grievous restraints upon the white laborer thirty year before. it could never have been begun until individualism at the north had advanced so far that there was a reserve force of mind--ready to reject all the influences of heredity and custom upon thought. outside of religion there was no force so strong at the north as the reverence for the constitution; it was significant of the growth of individualism, as well as of the anti-slavery sentiment, that garrison could safely begin his work with the declaration that the constitution itself was "a league with death and a covenant with hell." the garrisonian programme would undoubtedly have been considered highly objectionable by the south, even under to comparatively colorless slavery policy of . under the conditions to which cotton culture had advanced in , it seemed to the south nothing less than a proposal to destroy, root and branch, the whole industry of that section, and it was received with corresponding indignation. garrisonian abolitionists were taken and regarded as public enemies, and rewards were even offered for their capture. the germ of abolitionism in the border states found a new and aggressive public sentiment arrayed against it; and an attempt to introduce gradual abolition in virginia in - was hopelessly defeated. the new question was even carried into congress. a bill to prohibit the transportation of abolition documents by the post-office department was introduced, taken far enough to put leading men of both parties on the record, and then dropped. petitions for the abolition of slavery in the district of columbia were met by rules requiring the reference of such petitions without reading or action; but this only increased the number of petitions, by providing a new grievance to be petitioned against, and in the "gag rule" was rescinded. thence-forth the pro-slavery members of congress could do nothing, and could only become more exasperated under a system of passive resistance. even at the north, indifferent or politically hostile as it had hitherto shown itself to the expansion of slavery, the new doctrines were received with an outburst of anger which seems to have been primarily a revulsion against their unheard of individualism. if nothing, which had been the object of unquestioning popular reverence, from the constitution down or up to the church organizations, was to be sacred against the criticism of the garrisonians, it was certain that the innovators must submit for a time to a general proscription. thus the garrisonians were ostracised socially, and became the ishmalites of politics. their meetings were broken up by mobs, their halls were destroyed, their schools were attacked by all the machinery of society and legislation, their printing presses were silenced by force or fraud, and their lecturers came to feel that they had not done their work with efficiency if a meeting passed without the throwing of stones or eggs at the building or the orators. it was, of course, inevitable that such a process should bring strong minds to the aid of the garrisonians, at first from sympathy with persecuted individualism, and finally from sympathy with the cause itself; and in this way garrisonianism was in a great measure relieved from open mob violence about , though it never escaped it altogether until abolition meetings ceased to be necessary. one of the first and greatest reinforcements was the appearance of wendell phillips, whose speech at faneuil hall in was one of the first tokens of a serious break in the hitherto almost unanimous public opinion against garrisonianism. lovejoy, a western anti-slavery preacher and editor, who had been driven from one place to another in missouri and illinois, had finally settled at alton, and was there shot to death while defending his printing press against a mob. at a public meeting in faneuil hall, the attorney-general of massachusetts, james t. austin, expressing what was doubtless the general sentiment of the time as to such individual insurrection against pronounced public opinion, compared the alton mob to the boston "tea-party," and declared that lovejoy, "presumptuous and imprudent," had "died as the fool dieth." phillips, an almost unknown man, took the stand, and answered in the speech which opens this volume. a more powerful reinforcement could hardly have been looked for; the cause which could find such a defender was henceforth to be feared rather than despised. to the day of his death he was, fully as much as garrison, the incarnation of the anti-slavery spirit. for this reason his address on the philosophy of the abolition movement, in , has been assigned a place as representing fully the abolition side of the question, just before it was overshadowed by the rise of the republican party, which opposed only the extension of slavery to the territories. the history of the sudden development of the anti-slavery struggle in and the following years, is largely given in the speeches which have been selected to illustrate it. the admission of texas to the union in , and the war with mexico which followed it, resulted in the acquisition of a vast amount of new territory by the united states. from the first suggestion of such an acquisition, the wilmot proviso (so-called from david wilmot, of pennsylvania, who introduced it in congress), that slavery should be prohibited in the new territory, was persistently offered as an amendment to every bill appropriating money for the purchase of territory from mexico. it was passed by the house of representatives, but was balked in the senate; and the purchase was finally made without any proviso. when the territory came to be organized, the old question came up again: the wilmot proviso was offered as an amendment. as the territory was now in the possession of the united states, and as it had been acquired in a war whose support had been much more cordial at the south than at the north, the attempt to add the wilmot proviso to the territorial organization raised the southern opposition to an intensity which it had not known before. fuel was added to the flame by the application of california, whose population had been enormously increased by the discovery of gold within her limits, for admission as a free state. if new mexico should do the same, as was probable, the wilmot proviso would be practically in force throughout the best portion of the mexican acquisition. the two sections were now so strong and so determined that compromise of any kind was far more difficult than in ; and it was not easy to reconcile or compromise the southern demand that slavery should be permitted, and the northern demand that slavery should be forbidden, to enter the new territories. in the meantime, the presidential election of had come and gone. it had been marked by the appearance of a new party, the free soilers, an event which was at first extremely embarrassing to the managers of both the democratic and whig parties. on the one hand, the northern and southern sections of the whig party had always been very loosely joined together, and the slender tie was endangered by the least admission of the slavery issue. on the other hand, while the democratic national organization had always been more perfect, its northern section had always been much more inclined to active anti-slavery work than the northern whigs. its organ, the democratic review, habitually spoke of the slaves as "our black brethren"; and a long catalogue could be made of leaders like chase, hale, wilmot, bryant, and leggett, whose democracy was broad enough to include the negro. to both parties, therefore, the situation was extremely hazardous. the whigs had less to fear, but were able to resist less pressure. the democrats were more united, but were called upon to meet a greater danger. in the end, the whigs did nothing; their two sections drew further apart; and the presidential election of only made it evident that the national whig party was no longer in existence. the democratic managers evolved, as a solution of their problem, the new doctrine of "popular sovereignty," which calhoun re-baptized "squatter sovereignty." they asserted as the true democratic doctrine, that the question of slavery or freedom was to be left for decision of the people of the territory itself. to the mass of northern democrats, this doctrine was taking enough to cover over the essential nature of the struggle; the more democratic leaders of the northern democracy were driven off into the free-soil party; and douglas, the champion of "popular sovereignty," became the leading democrat of the north. clay had re-entered the senate in , for the purpose of compromising the sectional difficulties as he had compromised those of and of . his speech, as given, will show something of his motives; his success resulted in the "compromise of ." by its terms, california was admitted as a free state; the slave trade, but not slavery, was prohibited in the district of columbia; a more stringent fugitive slave law was enacted; texas was paid $ , , for certain claims to the territory of new mexico; and the territories of utah and new mexico, covering the mexican acquisition outside of california, were organized without mentioning slavery. the last-named feature was carefully designed to please all important factions. it could be represented to the webster whigs that slavery was excluded from the territories named by the operation of natural laws; to the clay whigs that slavery had already been excluded by mexican law which survived the cession; to the northern democrats, that the compromise was a formal endorsement of the great principle of popular sovereignty; and to the southern democrats that it was a repudiation of the wilmot proviso. in the end, the essence of the success went to the last-named party, for the legislatures of the two territories established slavery, and no bill to veto their action could pass both houses of congress until after . the supreme court had already decided that congress had exclusive power to enforce the fugitive slave clause of the constitution, though the fugitive slave law of had given a concurrent authority of execution to state officers. the law of , carrying the supreme court's decision further, gave the execution of the law to united states officers, and refused the accused a hearing. its execution at the north was therefore the occasion of a profound excitement and horror. cases of inhuman cruelty, and of false accusation to which no defence was permitted, were multiplied until a practical nullification of the law, in the form of "personal liberty laws," securing a hearing for the accused before state magistrates, was forced by public opinion upon the legislature of the exposed northern states. before the excitement had come to a head, the whig convention of met and endorsed the compromise of "in all its parts." overwhelmed in the election which followed, the whig party was popularly said to have "died of an attempt to swallow the fugitive-slave law"; it would have been more correct to have said that the southern section of the party had deserted in a body and gone over to the democratic party. national politics were thus left in an entirely anomalous condition. the democratic party was omnipotent at the south, though it was afterward opposed feebly by the american (or "know nothing ") organization, and was generally successful at the north, though it was still met by the northern whigs with vigorous opposition. such a state of affairs was not calculated to satisfy thinking men; and this period seems to have been one in which very few thinking men of any party were at all satisfied with their party positions. this was the hazardous situation into which the democratic managers chose to thrust one of the most momentous pieces of legislation in our political history-the kansas-nebraska bill. the responsibility for it is clearly on the shoulders of stephen a. douglas. the over-land travel to the pacific coast had made it necessary to remove the indian title to kansas and nebraska, and to organize them as territories, in order to afford protection to emigrants; and douglas, chairman of the senate committee on territories, introduced a bill for such organization in january, . both these prospective territories had been made free soil forever by the compromise of ; the question of slavery had been settled, so far as they were concerned; but douglas consented, after a show of opposition, to reopen pandora's box. his original bill did not abrogate the missouri compromise, and there seems to have been no general southern demand that it should do so. but douglas had become intoxicated by the unexpected success of his "popular sovereignty" make-shift in regard to the territories of ; and a notice of an amendment to be offered by a southern senator, abrogating the missouri compromise, was threat or excuse sufficient to bring him to withdraw the bill. a week later, it was re-introduced with the addition of "popular sovereignty": all questions pertaining to slavery in these territories, and in the states to be formed from them, were to be left to the decision of the people, through their representatives; and the missouri compromise of was declared "inoperative and void," as inconsistent with the principles of the territorial legislation of . it must be remembered that the "non-intervention" of had been confessedly based on no constitutional principle whatever, but was purely a matter of expediency; and that "non-intervention" in utah and new mexico was no more inconsistent with the prohibition of slavery in kansas and nebraska than "non-intervention" in the southwest territory, sixty years before, had been inconsistent with the prohibition of slavery in the northwest territory. whether douglas is to be considered as too scrupulous, or too timid, or too willing to be terrified, it is certain that his action was unnecessary. after a struggle of some months, the kansas-nebraska bill became law. the missouri compromise was abrogated, and the question of the extension of slavery to the territories was adrift again, never to be got rid of except through the abolition of slavery itself by war. the demands of the south had now come fully abreast with the proposal of douglas: that slavery should have permission to enter all the territories, if it could. the opponents of the extension of slavery, at first under the name of "anti-nebraska men," then of the republican party, carried the elections for representatives in congress in -' , and narrowly missed carrying the presidential election of . the percentage of democratic losses in the congressional districts of the north was sufficient to leave douglas with hardly any supporters in congress from his own section. the democratic party was converted at once into a solid south, with a northern attachment of popular votes which was not sufficient to control very many congressmen or electoral votes. immigration into kansas was organized at once by leading men of the two sections, with the common design of securing a majority of the voters of the territory and applying "popular sovereignty" for or against slavery. the first sudden inroad of missouri intruders was successful in securing a pro-slavery legislature and laws; but within two years the stream of free-state immigration had become so powerful,in spite of murder, outrage, and open civil war, that it was very evident that kansas was to be a free-state. its expiring territorial legislature endeavored to outwit its constituents by applying for admission as a slave state, under the lecompton constitution; but the douglas democrats could not support the attempt, and it was defeated. kansas, however, remained a territory until . the cruelties of this kansas episode could not but be reflected in the feelings of the two sections and in congress. in the former it showed too plainly that the divergence of the two sections, indicated in calhoun's speech of , had widened to an absolute separation in thought, feeling, and purpose. in the latter the debates assumed a virulence which is illustrated by the speeches on the sumner assault. the current of events had at least carried the sections far enough apart to give striking distance; and the excuse for action was supplied by the dred scott decision in . dred scott, a missouri slave, claiming to be a free man under the missouri compromise of , had sued his master, and the case had reached the supreme court. a majority of the justices agreed in dismissing the suit; but, as nearly every justice filed an opinion, and as nearly every opinion disagreed with the other opinions on one or more points, it is not easy to see what else is covered by the decision. nevertheless, the opinion of the chief justice, roger b. taney, attracted general attention by the strength of its argument and the character of its views. it asserted, in brief, that no slave could become a citizen of the united states, even by enfranchisement or state law; that the prohibition of slavery by the missouri compromise of was unconstitutional and void; that the constitution recognized property in slaves, and was framed for the protection of property; that congress had no rights or duties in the territories but such as were granted or imposed by the constitution; and that, therefore, congress was bound not merely not to forbid slavery, but to actively protect slavery in the territories. this was just the ground which had always been held by calhoun, though the south had not supported him in it. now the south, rejecting douglas and his "popular sovereignty," was united in its devotion to the decision of the supreme court, and called upon the north to yield unhesitating obedience to that body which webster in had styled the ultimate arbiter of constitutional questions. this, it was evident, could never be. no respectable authority at the north pretended to uphold the keystone of taney's argument, that slaves were regarded as property by the constitution. on the contrary, it was agreed everywhere by those whose opinions were looked to with respect, that slaves were regarded by the constitution as "persons held to service or labor" under the laws of the state alone; and that the laws of the state could not give such persons a fictitious legal character outside of the state's jurisdiction. even the douglas democrats, who expressed a willingness to yield to the supreme court's decision, did not profess to uphold taney's share in it. as the presidential election of drew near, the evidences of separation became more manifest. the absorption of northern democrats into the republican party increased until douglas, in , narrowly escaped defeat in his contest with lincoln for a re-election to the senate from illinois. in the republicans nominated lincoln for the presidency on a platform demanding prohibition of slavery in the territories. the southern delegates seceded from the democratic convention, and nominated breckenridge, on a platform demanding congressional protection of slavery in the territories. the remainder of the democratic convention nominated douglas, with a declaration of its willingness to submit to the decision of the supreme court on questions of constitutional law. the remnants of the former whig and american parties, under the name of the constitutional union party, nominated bell without any declaration of principles. lincoln received a majority of the electoral votes, and became president. his popular vote was a plurality. seward's address on the "irrepressible conflict," which closes this volume, is representative of the division between the two sections, as it stood just before the actual shock of conflict. labor systems are delicate things; and that which the south had adopted, of enslaving the laboring class, was one whose influence could not help being universal and aggressive. every form of energy and prosperity which tended to advance a citizen into the class of representative rulers tended also to make him a slave owner, and to shackle his official policy and purposes with considerations inseparable from his heavy personal interests. men might divide on other questions at the south; but on this question of slavery the action of the individual had to follow the decisions of a majority which, by the influence of ambitious aspirants for the lead, was continually becoming more aggressive. in constitutional countries, defections to the minority are a steady check upon an aggressive majority; but the southern majority was a steam engine without a safety valve. in this sense seward and lincoln, in , were correct; the labor system of the south was not only a menace to the whole country, but one which could neither decrease nor stand still. it was intolerable by the laws of its being; and it could be got rid of only by allowing a peaceable secession, or by abolishing it through war. the material prosperity which has followed the adoption of the latter alternative, apart from the moral aspects of the case, is enough to show that the south has gained more than all that slavery lost. [illustration: rufus king] rufus king, of new york. (born , died .) on the missouri bill--united states senate, february and , . the constitution declares "that congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property of the united states." under this power congress have passed laws for the survey and sale of the public lands; for the division of the same into separate territories; and have ordained for each of them a constitution, a plan of temporary government, whereby the civil and political rights of the inhabitants are regulated, and the rights of conscience and other natural rights are protected. the power to make all needful regulations, includes the power to determine what regulations are needful; and if a regulation prohibiting slavery within any territory of the united states be, as it has been, deemed needful, congress possess the power to make the same, and, moreover, to pass all laws necessary to carry this power into execution. the territory of missouri is a portion of louisiana, which was purchased of france, and belongs to the united states in full dominion; in the language of the constitution, missouri is their territory or property, and is subject like other territories of the united states, to the regulations and temporary government, which has been, or shall be prescribed by congress. the clause of the constitution which grants this power to congress, is so comprehensive and unambiguous, and its purpose so manifest, that commentary will not render the power, or the object of its establishment, more explicit or plain. the constitution further provides that "new states may be admitted by congress into this union." as this power is conferred without limitation, the time, terms, and circumstances of the admission of new states, are referred to the discretion of congress; which may admit new states, but are not obliged to do so--of right no new state can demand admission into the union, unless such demand be founded upon some previous engagement of the united states. when admitted by congress into the union, whether by compact or otherwise, the new state becomes entitled to the enjoyment of the same rights, and bound to perform the like duties as the other states; and its citizens will be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. the citizens of each state possess rights, and owe duties that are peculiar to, and arise out of the constitution and laws of the several states. these rights and duties differ from each other in the different states, and among these differences none is so remarkable or important as that which proceeds from the constitution and laws of the several states respecting slavery; the same being permitted in some states and forbidden in others. the question respecting slavery in the old thirteen states had been decided and settled before the adoption of the constitution, which grants no power to congress to interfere with, or to change what had been so previously settled. the slave states, therefore, are free to continue or to abolish slavery. since the year congress have possessed power to prohibit and have prohibited the further migration or importation of slaves into any of the old thirteen states, and at all times, under the constitution, have had power to prohibit such migration or importation into any of the new states or territories of the united states. the constitution contains no express provision respecting slavery in a new state that may be admitted into the union; every regulation upon this subject belongs to the power whose consent is necessary to the formation and admission of new states into the union. congress may, therefore, make it a condition of the admission of a new state, that slavery shall be forever prohibited within the same. we may, with the more confidence, pronounce this to be the true construction of the constitution, as it has been so amply confirmed by the past decisions of congress. although the articles of confederation were drawn up and approved by the old congress, in the year , and soon afterwards were ratified by some of the states, their complete ratification did not take place until the year . the states which possessed small and already settled territory, withheld their ratification, in order to obtain from the large states a cession to the united states of a portion of their vacant territory. without entering into the reasons on which this demand was urged, it is well known that they had an influence on massachusetts, connecticut, new york, and virginia, which states ceded to the united states their respective claims to the territory lying northwest of the river ohio. this cession was made on the express condition, that the ceded territory should be sold for the common benefit of the united states; that it should be laid out into states, and that the states so laid out should form distinct republican states, and be admitted as members of the federal union, having the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence as the other states. of the four states which made this cession, two permitted, and the other two prohibited slavery. the united states having in this manner become proprietors of the extensive territory northwest of the river ohio, although the confederation contained no express provision upon the subject, congress, the only representatives of the united states, assumed as incident to their office, the power to dispose of this territory; and for this purpose, to divide the same into distinct states, to provide for the temporary government of the inhabitants thereof, and for their ultimate admission as new states into the federal union. the ordinance for those purposes, which was passed by congress in , contains certain articles, which are called "articles of compact between the original states and the people and states within the said territory, for ever to remain unalterable, unless by common consent." the sixth of those unalterable articles provides, "that there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory." the constitution of the united states supplies the defect that existed in the articles of confederation, and has vested congress, as has been stated, with ample powers on this important subject. accordingly, the ordinance of , passed by the old congress, was ratified and confirmed by an act of the new congress during their first session under the constitution. the state of virginia, which ceded to the united states her claims to this territory, consented by her delegates in the old congress to this ordinance--not only virginia, but north carolina, south carolina, and georgia, by the unanimous votes of their delegates in the old congress, approved of the ordinance of , by which slavery is forever abolished in the territory northwest of the river ohio. without the votes of these states, the ordinance could not have passed; and there is no recollection of an opposition from any of these states to the act of confirmation, passed under the actual constitution. slavery had long been established in these states--the evil was felt in their institutions, laws, and habits, and could not easily or at once be abolished. but these votes so honorable to these states, satisfactorily demonstrate their unwillingness to permit the extension of slavery into the new states which might be admitted by congress into the union. the states of ohio, indiana, and illinois, on the northwest of the river ohio, have been admitted by congress into the union, on the condition and conformably to the article of compact, contained in the ordinance of , and by which it is declared that there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said states. although congress possess the power of making the exclusion of slavery a part or condition of the act admitting a new state into the union, they may, in special cases, and for sufficient reasons, forbear to exercise this power. thus kentucky and vermont were admitted as new states into the union, without making the abolition of slavery the condition of their admission. in vermont, slavery never existed; her laws excluding the same. kentucky was formed out of, and settled by, virginia, and the inhabitants of kentucky, equally with those of virginia, by fair interpretation of the constitution, were exempt from all such interference of congress, as might disturb or impair the security of their property in slaves. the western territory of north carolina and georgia, having been partially granted and settled under the authority of these states, before the cession thereof to the united states, and these states being original parties to the constitution which recognizes the existence of slavery, no measure restraining slavery could be applied by congress to this territory. but to remove all doubt on this head, it was made a condition of the cession of this territory to the united states, that the ordinance of , except the sixth article thereof, respecting slavery, should be applied to the same; and that the sixth article should not be so applied. accordingly, the states of tennessee, mississippi, and alabama, comprehending the territory ceded to the united states by north carolina and georgia, have been admitted as new states into the union, without a provision, by which slavery shall be excluded from the same. according to this abstract of the proceedings of congress in the admission of new states into the union, of the eight new states within the original limits of the united states, four have been admitted without an article excluding slavery; three have been admitted on the condition that slavery should be excluded; and one admitted without such condition. in the few first cases, congress were restrained from exercising the power to exclude slavery; in the next three, they exercised this power; and in the last, it was unnecessary to do so, slavery being excluded by the state constitution. the province of louisiana, soon after its cession to the united states, was divided into two territories, comprehending such parts thereof as were contiguous to the river mississippi, being the only parts of the province that were inhabited. the foreign language, laws, customs, and manners of the inhabitants, required the immediate and cautious attention of congress, which, instead of extending, in the first instance, to these territories the ordinance of , ordained special regulations for the government of the same. these regulations were from time to time revised and altered, as observation and experience showed to be expedient, and as was deemed most likely to encourage and promote those changes which would soonest qualify the inhabitants for self-government and admission into the union. when the united states took possession of the province of louisiana in , it was estimated to contain , white inhabitants, , slaves, and , free persons of color. more than four-fifths of the whites, and all the slaves, except about thirteen hundred, inhabited new orleans and the adjacent territory; the residue, consisting of less than ten thousand whites, and about thirteen hundred slaves, were dispersed throughout the country now included in the arkansas and missouri territories. the greater part of the thirteen hundred slaves were in the missouri territory, some of them having been removed thither from the old french settlements on the east side of the mississippi, after the passing of the ordinance of , by which slavery in those settlements was abolished. in , the territory of new orleans, to which the ordinance of , with the exception of certain parts thereof, had been previously extended, was permitted by congress to form a constitution and state government, and admitted as a new state into the union, by the name of louisiana. the acts of congress for these purposes, in addition to sundry important provisions respecting rivers and public lands, which are declared to be irrevocable unless by common consent, annex other terms and conditions, whereby it is established, not only that the constitution of louisiana should be republican, but that it should contain the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, that it should secure to the citizens the trial by jury in all criminal cases, and the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus according to the constitution of the united states; and after its admission into the union, that the laws which louisiana might pass, should be promulgated; its records of every description preserved; and its judicial and legislative proceedings conducted in the language in which the laws and judicial proceedings of the united states are published and conducted. * * * * * having annexed these new and extraordinary conditions to the act for the admission of louisiana into the union, congress may, if they shall deem it expedient, annex the like conditions to the act for the admission of missouri; and, moreover, as in the case of ohio, indiana, and illinois, provide by an article for that purpose, that slavery shall not exist within the same. admitting this construction of the constitution, it is alleged that the power by which congress excluded slavery from the states north-west of the river ohio, is suspended in respect to the states that may be formed in the province of louisiana. the article of the treaty referred to declares: "that the inhabitants of the territory shall be incorporated in the union of the united states, and admitted as soon as possible; according to the principles of the federal constitution, to the enjoyment of all rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the united states; and in the meantime, they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess." although there is want of precision in the article, its scope and meaning can not be misunderstood. it constitutes a stipulation by which the united states engage that the inhabitants of louisiana should be formed into a state or states, and as soon as the provisions of the constitution permit, that they should be admitted as new states into the union on the footing of the other states; and before such admission, and during their territorial government, that they should be maintained and protected by congress in the enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion. the first clause of this stipulation will be executed by the admission of missouri as a new state into the union, as such admission will impart to the inhabitants of missouri "all the rights, advantages, and immunities" which citizens of the united states derive from the constitution thereof; these rights may be denominated federal rights, are uniform throughout the union, and are common to all its citizens: but the rights derived from the constitution and laws of the states, which may be denominated state rights, in many particulars differ from each other. thus, while the federal rights of the citizens of massachusetts and virginia are the same, their state rights are dissimilar and different, slavery being forbidden in one, and permitted in the other state. this difference arises out of the constitutions and laws of the two states, in the same manner as the difference in the rights of the citizens of these states to vote for representatives in congress arises out of the state laws and constitution. in massachusetts, every person of lawful age, and possessing property of any sort, of the value of two hundred dollars, may vote for representatives to congress. in virginia, no person can vote for representatives to congress, unless he be a freeholder. as the admission of a new state into the union confers upon its citizens only the rights denominated federal, and as these are common to the citizens of all the states, as well of those in which slavery is prohibited, as of those in which it is allowed, it follows that the prohibition of slavery in missouri will not impair the federal rights of its citizens, and that such prohibition is not sustained by the clause of the treaty which has been cited. as all nations do not permit slavery, the term property, in its common and universal meaning, does not include or describe slaves. in treaties, therefore, between nations, and especially in those of the united states, whenever stipulations respecting slaves were to be made, the word "negroes," or "slaves," have been employed, and the omission of these words in this clause, increases the uncertainty whether, by the term property, slaves were intended to be included. but admitting that such was the intention of the parties, the stipulation is not only temporary, but extends no further than to the property actually possessed by the inhabitants of missouri, when it was first occupied by the united states. property since acquired by them, and property acquired or possessed by the new inhabitants of missouri, has in each case been acquired under the laws of the united states, and not during and under the laws of the province of louisiana. should, therefore, the future introduction of slaves into missouri be forbidden, the feelings of the citizens would soon become reconciled to their exclusion, and the inconsiderable number of slaves owned by the inhabitants at the date of the cession of louisiana, would be emancipated or sent for sale into states where slavery exists. it is further objected, that the article of the act of admission into the union, by which slavery should be excluded from missouri, would be nugatory, as the new state in virtue of its sovereignty would be at liberty to revoke its consent, and annul the article by which slavery is excluded. such revocation would be contrary to the obligations of good faith, which enjoins the observance of our engagements; it would be repugnant to the principles on which government itself is founded; sovereignty in every lawful government is a limited power, and can do only what it is lawful to do. sovereigns, like individuals, are bound by their engagements, and have no moral power to break them. treaties between nations repose on this principle. if the new state can revoke and annul an article concluded between itself and the united states, by which slavery is excluded from it, it may revoke and annul any other article of the compact; it may, for example, annul the article respecting public lands, and in virtue of its sovereignty, assume the right to tax and to sell the lands of the united states. there is yet a more satisfactory answer to this objection. the judicial power of the united states is co-extensive with their legislative power, and every question arising under the constitution or laws of the united states, is recognizable by the judiciary thereof. should the new state rescind any of the articles of compact contained in the act of admission into the union, that, for example, by which slavery is excluded, and should pass a law authorizing slavery, the judiciary of the united states on proper application, would immediately deliver from bondage, any person retained as a slave in said state. and, in like manner, in all instances affecting individuals, the judiciary might be employed to defeat every attempt to violate the constitution and laws of the united states. if congress possess the power to exclude slavery from missouri, it still remains to be shown that they ought to do so. the examination of this branch of the subject, for obvious reasons, is attended with peculiar difficulty, and cannot be made without passing over arguments which, to some of us, might appear to be decisive, but the use of which, in this place, would call up feelings, the influence of which would disturb, if not defeat, the impartial consideration of the subject. slavery, unhappily, exists within the united states. enlightened men, in the states where it is permitted, and everywhere out of them, regret its existence among us, and seek for the means of limiting and of mitigating it. the first introduction of slaves is not imputable to the present generation, nor even to their ancestors. before the year , the trade and ports of the colonies were open to foreigners equally as those of the mother country; and as early as , a few years only after the planting of the colony of virginia, and the same year in which the first settlement was made in the old colony of plymouth, a cargo of negroes was brought into and sold as slaves in virginia by a foreign ship. from this beginning, the importation of slaves was continued for nearly two centuries. to her honor, virginia, while a colony, opposed the importation of slaves, and was the first state to prohibit the same, by a law passed for this purpose in , thirty years before the general prohibition enacted by congress in . the laws and customs of the states in which slavery has existed for so long a period, must have had their influence on the opinions and habits of the citizens, which ought not to be disregarded on the present occasion. * * * * * when the general convention that formed the constitution took this subject into their consideration, the whole question was once more examined; and while it was agreed that all contributions to the common treasury should be made according to the ability of the several states to furnish the same, the old difficulty recurred in agreeing upon a rule whereby such ability should be ascertained, there being no simple standard by which the ability of individuals to pay taxes can be ascertained. a diversity in the selection of taxes has been deemed requisite to their equalization. between communities this difficulty is less considerable, and although the rule of relative numbers would not accurately measure the relative wealth of nations, in states in the circumstances of the united states, whose institutions, laws, and employments are so much alike, the rule of numbers is probably as near equal as any other simple and practical rule can be expected to be (though between the old and new states its equity is defective),--these considerations, added to the approbation which had already been given to the rule, by a majority of the states, induced the convention to agree that direct taxes should be apportioned among the states, according to the whole number of free persons, and three-fifths of the slaves which they might respectively contain. the rule for apportionment of taxes is not necessarily the most equitable rule for the apportionment of representatives among the states; property must not be disregarded in the composition of the first rule, but frequently is overlooked in the establishment of the second. a rule which might be approved in respect to taxes, would be disapproved in respect to representatives; one individual possessing twice as much property as another, might be required to pay double the taxes of such other; but no man has two votes to another's one; rich or poor, each has but a single vote in the choice of representatives. in the dispute between england and the colonies, the latter denied the right of the former to tax them, because they were not represented in the english parliament. they contended that, according to the law of the land, taxation and representation were inseparable. the rule of taxation being agreed upon by the convention, it is possible that the maxim with which we successfully opposed the claim of england may have had an influence in procuring the adoption of the same rule for the apportionment of representatives; the true meaning, however, of this principle of the english constitution is, that a colony or district is not to be taxed which is not represented; not that its number of representatives shall be ascertained by its quota of taxes. if three-fifths of the slaves are virtually represented, or their owners obtain a disproportionate power in legislation, and in the appointment of the president of the united states, why should not other property be virtually represented, and its owners obtain a like power in legislation, and in the choice of the president? property is not confined in slaves, but exists in houses, stores, ships, capital in trade, and manufactures. to secure to the owners of property in slaves greater political power than is allowed to the owners of other and equivalent property, seems to be contrary to our theory of the equality of personal rights, inasmuch as the citizens of some states thereby become entitled to other and greater political power than the citizens of other states. the present house of representatives consist of one hundred and eighty-one members, which are apportioned among the states in a ratio of one representative for every thirty-five thousand federal members, which are ascertained by adding to the whole number of free persons, three-fifths of the slaves. according to the last census, the whole number of slaves within the united was , , , which entitles the states possessing the same to twenty representatives, and twenty presidential electors more than they would be entitled to, were the slaves excluded. by the last census, virginia contained , free persons, and , slaves. in any of the states where slavery is excluded, , free persons would be entitled to elect only sixteen representatives, while in virginia, , free persons, by the addition of three-fifths of her slaves, become entitled to elect, and do in fact elect, twenty-three representatives, being seven additional ones on account of her slaves. thus, while , free persons are requisite to elect one representative in a state where slavery is prohibited, , free persons in virginia may and do elect a representative: so that five free persons in virginia have as much power in the choice of representatives to congress, and in the appointment of presidential electors, as seven free persons in any of the states in which slavery does not exist. this inequality in the apportionment of representatives was not misunderstood at the adoption of the constitution, but no one anticipated the fact that the whole of the revenue of the united states would be derived from indirect taxes (which cannot be supposed to spread themselves over the several states according to the rule for the apportionment of direct taxes), but it was believed that a part of the contribution to the common treasury would be apportioned among the states by the rule for the apportionment of representatives. the states in which slavery is prohibited, ultimately, though with reluctance, acquiesced in the disproportionate number of representatives and electors that was secured to the slaveholding states. the concession was, at the time, believed to be a great one, and has proved to have been the greatest which was made to secure the adoption of the constitution. great, however, as this concession was, it was definite, and its full extent was comprehended. it was a settlement between the original thirteen states. the considerations arising out of their actual condition, their past connection, and the obligation which all felt to promote a reformation in the federal government, were peculiar to the time and to the parties, and are not applicable to the new states, which congress may now be willing to admit into the union. the equality of rights, which includes an equality of burdens, is a vital principle in our theory of government, and its jealous preservation is the best security of public and individual freedom; the departure from this principle in the disproportionate power and influence, allowed to the slaveholding states, was a necessary sacrifice to the establishment of the constitution. the effect of this concession has been obvious in the preponderance which it has given to the slaveholding states over the other states. nevertheless, it is an ancient settlement, and faith and honor stand pledged not to disturb it. but the extension of this disproportionate power to the new states would be unjust and odious. the states whose power would be abridged, and whose burdens would be increased by the measure, cannot be expected to consent to it, and we may hope that the other states are too magnanimous to insist on it. * * * * * it ought not to be forgotten that the first and main object of the negotiation which led to the acquisition of louisiana, was the free navigation of the mississippi, a river that forms the sole passage from the western states to the ocean. this navigation, although of general benefit, has been always valued and desired, as of peculiar advantage to the western states, whose demands to obtain it were neither equivocal nor unreasonable. but with the river mississippi, by a sort of coercion, we acquired, by good or ill fortune, as our future measures shall determine, the whole province of louisiana. as this acquisition was made at the common expense, it is very fairly urged that the advantages to be derived from it should also be common. this, it is said, will not happen if slavery be excluded from missouri, as the citizens of the states where slavery is permitted will be shut out, and none but citizens of states where slavery is prohibited, can become inhabitants of missouri. but this consequence will not arise from the proposed exclusion of slavery. the citizens of states in which slavery is allowed, like all other citizens, will be free to become inhabitants of missouri, in like manner as they have become inhabitants of ohio, indiana, and illinois, in which slavery is forbidden. the exclusion of slaves from missouri will not, therefore, operate unequally among the citizens of the united states. the constitution provides, "that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to enjoy all the rights and immunities of citizens of the several states"; every citizen may, therefore, remove from one to another state, and there enjoy the rights and immunities of its citizens. the proposed provision excludes slaves, not citizens, whose rights it will not, and cannot impair. besides there is nothing new or peculiar in a provision for the exclusion of slavery; it has been established in the states north-west of the river ohio, and has existed from the beginning in the old states where slavery is forbidden. the citizens of states where slavery is allowed, may become inhabitants of missouri, but cannot hold slaves there, nor in any other state where slavery is prohibited. as well might the laws prohibiting slavery in the old states become the subject of complaint, as the proposed exclusion of slavery in missouri; but there is no foundation for such complaint in either case. it is further urged, that the admission of slaves into missouri would be limited to the slaves who are already within the united states; that their health and comfort would be promoted by their dispersion, and that their numbers would be the same whether they remain confined to the states where slavery exists, or are dispersed over the new states that may be admitted into the union. that none but domestic slaves would be introduced into missouri, and the other new and frontier states, is most fully disproved by the thousands of fresh slaves, which, in violation of our laws, are annually imported into alabama, louisiana, and mississippi. we may renew our efforts, and enact new laws with heavier penalties against the importation of slaves: the revenue cutters may more diligently watch our shores, and the naval force may be employed on the coast of africa, and on the ocean, to break up the slave trade--but these means will not put an end to it; so long as markets are open for the purchase of slaves, so long they will be supplied;--and so long as we permit the existence of slavery in our new and frontier states, so long slave markets will exist. the plea of humanity is equally inadmissible, since no one who has ever witnessed the experiment will believe that the condition of slaves is made better by the breaking up, and separation of their families, nor by their removal from the old states to the new ones; and the objection to the provision of the bill, excluding slavery from missouri, is equally applicable to the like prohibitions of the old states: these should be revoked, in order that the slaves now confined to certain states, may, for their health and comfort, and multiplication, be spread over the whole union. slavery cannot exist in missouri without the consent of congress; the question may therefore be considered, in certain lights, as a new one, it being the first instance in which an inquiry respecting slavery, in a case so free from the influence of the ancient laws, usages, and manners of the country, has come before the senate. the territory of missouri is beyond our ancient limits, and the inquiry whether slavery shall exist there, is open to many of the arguments that might be employed, had slavery never existed within the united states. it is a question of no ordinary importance. freedom and slavery are the parties which stand this day before the senate; and upon its decision the empire of the one or the other will be established in the new state which we are about to admit into the union. if slavery be permitted in missouri with the climate, and soil, and in the circumstances of this territory, what hope can be entertained that it will ever be prohibited in any of the new states that will be formed in the immense region west of the mississippi? will the co-extensive establishment of slavery and of the new states throughout this region, lessen the dangers of domestic insurrection, or of foreign aggression? will this manner of executing the great trust of admitting new states into the union, contribute to assimilate our manners and usages, to increase our mutual affection and confidence, and to establish that equality of benefits and burdens which constitutes the true basis of our strength and union? will the militia of the nation, which must furnish our soldiers and seamen, increase as slaves increase? will the actual disproportion in the military service of the nation be thereby diminished?--a disproportion that will be, as it has been, readily borne, as between the original states, because it arises out of their compact of union, but which may become a badge of inferiority, if required for the protection of those who, being free to choose, persist in the establishment of maxims, the inevitable effect of which will deprive them of the power to contribute to the common defence, and even of the ability to protect themselves. there are limits within which our federal system must stop; no one has supposed that it could be indefinitely extended--we are now about to pass our original boundary; if this can be done without affecting the principles of our free governments, it can be accomplished only by the most vigilant attention to plant, cherish, and sustain the principles of liberty in the new states, that may be formed beyond our ancient limits; with our utmost caution in this respect, it may still be justly apprehended that the general government must be made stronger as we become more extended. but if, instead of freedom, slavery is to prevail and spread, as we extend our dominion, can any reflecting man fail to see the necessity of giving to the general government greater powers, to enable it to afford the protection that will be demanded of it? powers that will be difficult to control, and which may prove fatal to the public liberties. william pinkney, of maryland. (born , died .) on the missouri question'--united states senate, february , . as i am not a very frequent speaker in this assembly, and have shown a desire, i trust, rather to listen to the wisdom of others than to lay claim to superior knowledge by undertaking to advise, even when advice, by being seasonable in point of time, might have some chance of being profitable, you will, perhaps, bear with me if i venture to trouble you once more on that eternal subject which has lingered here, until all its natural interest is exhausted, and every topic connected with it is literally worn to tatters. i shall, i assure you, sir, speak with laudable brevity--not merely on account of the feeble state of my health, and from some reverence for the laws of good taste which forbid me to speak otherwise, but also from a sense of justice to those who honor me with their attention. my single purpose, as i suggested yesterday, is to subject to a friendly, yet close examination, some portions of a speech, imposing, certainly, on account of the distinguished quarter from whence it came--not very imposing (if i may so say, without departing from that respect which i sincerely feel and intend to manifest for eminent abilities and long experience) for any other reason. * * * * * i confess to you, nevertheless, that some of the principles announced by the honorable gentleman from new york, with an explicitness that reflected the highest credit on his candor, did, when they were first presented, startle me not a little. they were not perhaps entirely new. perhaps i had seen them before in some shadowy and doubtful shape, "if shape it might be called, that shape had none, distinguishable in member, joint, or limb?" but in the honorable gentleman's speech they were shadowy and doubtful no longer. he exhibited them in forms so boldly and accurately--with contours so distinctly traced--with features so pronounced and striking that i was unconscious for a moment that they might be old acquaintances. i received them as a _novi hospites_ within these walls, and gazed upon them with astonishment and alarm. i have recovered, however, thank god, from this paroxysm of terror, although not from that of astonishment. i have sought and found tranquillity and courage in my former consolatory faith. my reliance is that these principles will obtain no general currency; for, if they should, it requires no gloomy imagination to sadden the perspective of the future. my reliance is upon the unsophisticated good sense and noble spirit of the american people. i have what i may be allowed to call a proud and patriotic trust, that they will give countenance to no principles which, if followed out to their obvious consequences, will not only shake the goodly fabric of the union to its foundations, but reduce it to a melancholy ruin. the people of this country, if i do not wholly mistake their character, are wise as well as virtuous. they know the value of that federal association which is to them the single pledge and guarantee of power and peace. their warm and pious affections will cling to it as to their only hope of prosperity and happiness, in defiance of pernicious abstractions, by whomsoever inculcated, or howsoever seductive or alluring in their aspect.' * * * * * sir, it was but the other day that we were forbidden, (properly forbidden i am sure, for the prohibition came from you,) to assume that there existed any intention to impose a prospective restraint on the domestic legislation of missouri--a restraint to act upon it contemporaneously with its origin as a state, and to continue adhesive to it through all the stages of its political existence. we are now, however, permitted to know that it is determined by a sort of political surgery to amputate one of the limbs of its local sovereignty, and thus mangled and disparaged, and thus only, to receive it into the bosom of the constitution. it is now avowed that, while maine is to be ushered into the union with every possible demonstration of studious reverence on our part, and on hers, with colors flying, and all the other graceful accompaniments of honorable triumph, this ill-conditioned upstart of the west, this obscure foundling of a wilderness that was but yesterday the hunting-ground of the savage, is to find her way into the american family as she can, with an humiliating badge of remediless inferiority patched upon her garments, with the mark of recent, qualified manumission upon her, or rather with a brand upon her forehead to tell the stogy of her territorial vassalage, and to perpetuate the memory of her evil propensities. it is now avowed that, while the robust district of maine is to be seated by the side of her truly respectable parent, co-ordinate in authority and honor, and is to be dandled into that power and dignity of which she does not stand in need, but which undoubtedly she deserves, the more infantine and feeble missouri is to be repelled with harshness, and forbidden to come at all, unless with the iron collar of servitude about her neck, instead of the civic crown of republican freedom upon her brows, and is to be doomed forever to leading-strings, unless she will exchange those leading-strings for shackles. i am told that you have the power to establish this odious and revolting distinction, and i am referred for the proofs of that power to various parts of the constitution, but principally to that part of it which authorizes the admission of new states into the union. i am myself of opinion that it is in that part only that the advocates for this restriction can, with any hope of success, apply for a license to impose it; and that the efforts which have been made to find it in other portions of that instrument, are too desperate to require to be encountered. i shall, however, examine those other portions before i have done, lest it should be supposed by those who have relied upon them, that what i omit to answer i believe to be unanswerable. the clause of the constitution which relates to the admission of new states is in these words: "the congress may admit new states into this union," etc., and the advocates for restriction maintain that the use of the word "may" imports discretion to admit or to reject; and that in this discretion is wrapped up another--that of prescribing the terms and conditions of admission in case you are willing to admit: "_cujus est dare ejus est disponere_." i will not for the present inquire whether this involved discretion to dictate the terms of admission belongs to you or not. it is fit that i should first look to the nature and extent of it. i think i may assume that if such a power be anything but nominal, it is much more than adequate to the present object--that it is a power of vast expansion, to which human sagacity can assign no reasonable limits--that it is a capacious reservoir of authority, from which you may take, in all time to come, as occasion may serve, the means of oppression as well as of benefaction. i know that it professes at this moment to be the chosen instrument of protecting mercy, and would win upon us by its benignant smiles; but i know, too, it can frown and play the tyrant, if it be so disposed. notwithstanding the softness which it now assumes, and the care with which it conceals its giant proportions beneath the deceitful drapery of sentiment, when it next appears before you it may show itself with a sterner countenance and in more awful dimensions. it is, to speak the truth, sir, a power of colossal size--if indeed it be not an abuse of language to call it by the gentle name of a power. sir, it is a wilderness of power, of which fancy in her happiest mood is unable to perceive the far distant and shadowy boundary. armed with such a power, with religion in one hand and philanthropy in the other, and followed with a goodly train of public and private virtues, you may achieve more conquests over sovereignties not your own than falls to the common lot of even uncommon ambition. by the aid of such a power, skilfully employed, you may "bridge your way" over the hellespont that separates state legislation from that of congress; and you may do so for pretty much the same purpose with which xerxes once bridged his way across the hellespont that separates asia from europe. he did so, in the language of milton, "the liberties of greece to yoke." you may do so for the analogous purpose of subjugating and reducing the sovereignties of states, as your taste or convenience may suggest, and fashioning them to your imperial will. there are those in this house who appear to think, and i doubt not sincerely, that the particular restraint now under consideration is wise, and benevolent, and good; wise as respects the union--good as respects missouri--benevolent as respects the unhappy victims whom with a novel kindness it would incarcerate in the south, and bless by decay and extirpation. let all such beware, lest in their desire for the effect which they believe the restriction will produce, they are too easily satisfied that they have the right to impose it. the moral beauty of the present purpose, or even its political recommendations (whatever they may be), can do nothing for a power like this, which claims to prescribe conditions _ad libitum_, and to be competent to this purpose, because it is competent to all. this restriction, if it be not smothered in its birth, will be but a small part of the progeny of the prolific power. it teems with a mighty brood, of which this may be entitled to the distinction of comeliness as well as of primogeniture. the rest may want the boasted loveliness of their predecessor, and be even uglier than "lapland witches". * * * * * i would not discourage authorized legislation upon those kindly, generous, and noble feelings which providence has given to us for the best of purposes; but when power to act is under discussion, i will not look to the end in view, lest i should become indifferent to the lawfulness of the means. let us discard from this high constitutional question all those extrinsic considerations which have been forced into its discussion. let us endeavor to approach it with a philosophic impartiality of temper--with a sincere desire to ascertain the boundaries of our authority, and a determination to keep our wishes in subjection to our allegiance to the constitution. slavery, we are told in many a pamphlet, memorial, and speech, with which the press has lately groaned, is a foul blot upon our otherwise immaculate reputation. let this be conceded--yet you are no nearer than before to the conclusion that you possess power which may deal with other subjects as effectually as with this. slavery, we are further told, with some pomp of metaphor, is a canker at the root of all that is excellent in this republican empire, a pestilent disease that is snatching the youthful bloom from its cheek, prostrating its honor and withering its strength. be it so--yet if you have power to medicine to it in the way proposed, and in virtue of the diploma which you claim, you have also power in the distribution of your political alexipharmics to present the deadliest drugs to every territory that would become a state, and bid it drink or remain a colony forever. slavery, we are also told, is now "rolling onward with a rapid tide towards the boundless regions of the west," threatening to doom them to sterility and sorrow, unless some potent voice can say to it,thus far shalt thou go, and no farther. slavery engenders pride and indolence in him who commands, and inflicts intellectual and moral degradation on him who serves. slavery, in fine, is unchristian and abominable. sir, i shall not stop to deny that slavery is all this and more; but i shall not think myself the less authorized to deny that it is for you to stay the course of this dark torrent, by opposing to it a mound raised up by the labors of this portentous discretion on the domain of others--a mound which you cannot erect but through the instrumentality of a trespass of no ordinary kind--not the comparatively innocent trespass that beats down a few blades of grass which the first kind sun or the next refreshing shower may cause to spring again--but that which levels with the ground the lordliest trees of the forest, and claims immortality for the destruction which it inflicts. i shall not, i am sure, be told that i exaggerate this power. it has been admitted here and elsewhere that i do not. but i want no such concession. it is manifest that as a discretionary power it is everything or nothing--that its head is in the clouds, or that it is a mere figment of enthusiastic speculation--that it has no existence, or that it is an alarming vortex ready to swallow up all such portions of the sovereignty of an infant state as you may think fit to cast into it as preparatory to the introduction into the union of the miserable residue. no man can contradict me when i say, that if you have this power, you may squeeze down a new-born sovereign state to the size of a pigmy, and then taking it between finger and thumb, stick it into some niche of the union, and still continue by way of mockery to call it a state in the sense of the constitution. you may waste it to a shadow, and then introduce it into the society of flesh and blood an object of scorn and derision. you may sweat and reduce it to a thing of skin and bone, and then place the ominous skeleton beside the ruddy and healthful members of the union, that it may have leisure to mourn the lamentable difference between itself and its companions, to brood over its disastrous promotion, and to seek in justifiable discontent an opportunity for separation, and insurrection, and rebellion. what may you not do by dexterity and perseverance with this terrific power? you may give to a new state, in the form of terms which it cannot refuse, (as i shall show you hereafter,) a statute book of a thousand volumes--providing not for ordinary cases only, but even for possibilities; you may lay the yoke, no matter whether light or heavy, upon the necks of the latest posterity; you may send this searching power into every hamlet for centuries to come, by laws enacted in the spirit of prophecy, and regulating all those dear relations of domestic concern which belong to local legislation, and which even local legislation touches with a delicate and sparing hand. this is the first inroad. but will it be the last? this provision is but a pioneer for others of a more desolating aspect. it is that fatal bridge of which milton speaks, and when once firmly built, what shall hinder you to pass it when you please for the purpose of plundering power after power at the expense of new states, as you will still continue to call them, and raising up prospective codes irrevocable and immortal, which shall leave to those states the empty shadows of domestic sovereignty, and convert them into petty pageants, in themselves contemptible, but rendered infinitely more so by the contrast of their humble faculties with the proud and admitted pretensions of those who having doomed them to the inferiority of vassals, have condescended to take them into their society and under their protection? "new states may be admitted by the congress into this union." it is objected that the word "may" imports power, not obligation--a right to decide--a discretion to grant or refuse. to this it might be answered that power is duty on many occasions. but let it be conceded that it is discretionary. what consequence follows? a power to refuse, in a case like this, does not necessarily involve a power to exact terms. you must look to the result which is the declared object of the power. whether you will arrive at it, or not, may depend on your will; but you cannot compromise with the result intended and professed. what then is the professed result? to admit a state into this union. what is that union? a confederation of states equal in sovereignty--capable of everything which the constitution does not forbid, or authorize congress to forbid. it is an equal union, between parties equally sovereign. they were sovereign independently of the union. the object of the union was common protection for the exercise of already existing sovereignty. the parties gave up a portion of that sovereignty to insure the remainder. as far as they gave it up by the common compact they have ceased to be sovereign. the union provides the means of defending the residue; and it is into that union that a new state is to come. by acceding to it, the new state is placed on the same footing with the original states. it accedes for the same purpose, i.e., protection for their unsurrendered sovereignty. if it comes in shorn of its beams--crippled and disparaged beyond the original states, it is not into the original union that it comes. for it is a different sort of union. the first was union _inter pares_. this is a union between "_disparates_"--between giants and a dwarf--between power and feebleness--between full proportioned sovereignties and a miserable image of power--a thing which that very union has shrunk and shrivelled from its just size, instead of preserving it in its true dimensions. it is into this union, i. e., the union of the federal constitution, that you are to admit, or refuse to admit. you can admit into no other. you cannot make the union, as to the new state, what it is not as to the old; for then it is not this union that you open for the entrance of a new party. if you make it enter into a new and additional compact, is it any longer the same union? we are told that admitting a state into the union is a compact. yes, but what sort of a compact? a compact that it shall be a member of the union, as the constitution has made it. you cannot new fashion it. you may make a compact to admit, but when admitted the original compact prevails. the union is a compact, with a provision of political power and agents for the accomplishment of its objects. vary that compact as to a new state--give new energy to that political power so as to make it act with more force upon a new state than upon the old--make the will of those agents more effectually the arbiter of the fate of a new state than of the old, and it may be confidently said that the new state has not entered into this union, but into another union. how far the union has been varied is another question. but that it has been varied is clear. if i am told that by the bill relative to missouri, you do not legislate upon a new state, i answer that you do; and i answer further that it is immaterial whether you do or not. but it is upon missouri, as a state, that your terms and conditions are to act. until missouri is a state, the terms and conditions are nothing. you legislate in the shape of terms and conditions, prospectively--and you so legislate upon it that when it comes into the union it is to be bound by a contract degrading and diminishing its sovereignty--and is to be stripped of rights which the original parties to the union did not consent to abandon, and which that union (so far as depends upon it) takes under its protection and guarantee. is the right to hold slaves a right which massachusetts enjoys? if it is, massachusetts is under this union in a different character from missouri. the compact of union for it, is different from the same compact of union for missouri. the power of congress is different--everything which depends upon the union is, in that respect, different. but it is immaterial whether you legislate for missouri as a state or not. the effect of your legislation is to bring it into the union with a portion of its sovereignty taken away. but it is a state which you are to admit. what is a state in the sense of the constitution? it is not a state in the general--but a state as you find it in the constitution. a state, generally, is a body politic or independent political society of men. but the state which you are to admit must be more or less than this political entity. what must it be? ask the constitution. it shows what it means by a state by reference to the parties to it. it must be such a state as massachusetts, virginia, and the other members of the american confederacy--a state with full sovereignty except as the constitution restricts it. * * * * * in a word, the whole amount of the argument on the other side is, that you may refuse to admit a new state, and that therefore if you admit, you may prescribe the terms. the answer to that argument is--that even if you can refuse, you can prescribe no terms which are inconsistent with the act you are to do. you can prescribe no conditions which, if carried into effect, would make the new state less a sovereign state than, under the union as it stands, it would be. you can prescribe no terms which will make the compact of union between it and the original states essentially different from that compact among the original states. you may admit, or refuse to admit: but if you admit, you must admit a state in the sense of the constitution--a state with all such sovereignty as belongs to the original parties: and it must be into this union that you are to admit it, not into a union of your own dictating, formed out of the existing union by qualifications and new compacts, altering its character and effect, and making it fall short of its protecting energy in reference to the new state, whilst it acquires an energy of another sort--the energy of restraint and destruction. * * * * * one of the most signal errors with which the argument on the other side has abounded, is this of considering the proposed restriction as if levelled at the introduction or establishment of slavery. and hence the vehement declamation, which, among other things, has informed us that slavery originated in fraud or violence. the truth is, that the restriction has no relation, real or pretended, to the right of making slaves of those who are free, or of introducing slavery where it does not already exist. it applies to those who are admitted to be already slaves, and who (with their posterity) would continue to be slaves if they should remain where they are at present; and to a place where slavery already exists by the local law. their civil condition will not be altered by their removal from virginia, or carolina, to missouri. they will not be more slaves than they now are. their abode, indeed, will be different, but their bondage the same. their numbers may possibly be augmented by the diffusion, and i think they will. but this can only happen because their hardships will be mitigated, and their comforts increased. the checks to population, which exist in the older states, will be diminished. the restriction, therefore does not prevent the establishment of slavery, either with reference to persons or place; but simply inhibits the removal from place to place (the law in each being the same) of a slave, or make his emancipation the consequence of that removal. it acts professedly merely on slavery as it exists, and thus acting restrains its present lawful effects. that slavery, like many other human institutions, originated in fraud or violence, may be conceded: but, however it originated, it is established among us, and no man seeks a further establishment of it by new importations of freemen to be converted into slaves. on the contrary, all are anxious to mitigate its evils, by all the means within the reach of the appropriate authority, the domestic legislatures of the different states. * * * * * of the declaration of our independence, which has also been quoted in support of the perilous doctrines now urged upon us, i need not now speak at large. i have shown on a former occasion how idle it is to rely upon that instrument for such a purpose, and i will not fatigue you by mere repetition. the self-evident truths announced in the declaration of independence are not truths at all, if taken literally; and the practical conclusions contained in the same passage of that declaration prove that they were never designed to be so received. the articles of confederation contain nothing on the subject; whilst the actual constitution recognizes the legal existence of slavery by various provisions. the power of prohibiting the slave trade is involved in that of regulating commerce, but this is coupled with an express inhibition to the exercise of it for twenty years. how then can that constitution which expressly permits the importation of slaves authorize the national government to set on foot a crusade against slavery? the clause respecting fugitive slaves is affirmative and active in its effects. it is a direct sanction and positive protection of the right of the master to the services of his slave as derived under the local laws of the states. the phraseology in which it is wrapped up still leaves the intention clear, and the words, "persons held to service or labor in one state under the laws thereof," have always been interpreted to extend to the case of slaves, in the various acts of congress which have been passed to give efficacy to the provision, and in the judicial application of those laws. so also in the clause prescribing the ratio of representation--the phrase, "three-fifths of all other persons," is equivalent to slaves, or it means nothing. and yet we are told that those who are acting under a constitution which sanctions the existence of slavery in those states which choose to tolerate it, are at liberty to hold that no law can sanction its existence. it is idle to make the rightfulness of an act the measure of sovereign power. the distinction between sovereign power and the moral right to exercise it has always been recognized. all political power may be abused, but is it to stop where abuse may begin? the power of declaring war is a power of vast capacity for mischief, and capable of inflicting the most wide-spread desolation. but it is given to congress without stint and without measure. is a citizen, or are the courts of justice to inquire whether that, or any other law, is just, before they obey or execute it? and are there any degrees of injustice which will withdraw from sovereign power the capacity of making a given law? * * * * * the power is "to admit new states into this union," and it may be safely conceded that here is discretion to admit or refuse. the question is, what must we do if we do anything? what must we admit, and into what? the answer is a state--and into this union. the distinction between federal rights and local rights, is an idle distinction. because the new state acquires federal rights, it is not, therefore, in this union. the union is a compact; and is it an equal party to that compact, because it has equal federal rights? how is the union formed? by equal contributions of power. make one member sacrifice more than another, and it becomes unequal. the compact is of two parts: . the thing obtained--federal rights. . the price paid--local sovereignty. you may disturb the balance of the union, either by diminishing the thing acquired, or increasing the sacrifice paid. what were the purposes of coming into the union among the original states? the states were originally sovereign without limit, as to foreign and domestic concerns. but being incapable of protecting themselves singly, they entered into the union to defend themselves against foreign violence. the domestic concerns of the people were not, in general, to be acted on by it. the security of the power, of managing them by domestic legislature, is one of the great objects of the union. the union is a means, not an end. by requiring greater sacrifices of domestic power, the end is sacrificed to the means. suppose the surrender of all, or nearly all, the domestic powers of legislation were required; the means would there have swallowed up the end. the argument that the compact may be enforced, shows that the federal predicament changed. the power of the union not only acts on persons or citizens, but on the faculty of the government, and restrains it in a way which the constitution nowhere authorizes. this new obligation takes away a right which is expressly "reserved to the people or the states," since it is nowhere granted to the government of the union. you cannot do indirectly what you cannot do directly. it is said that this union is competent to make compacts. who doubts it? but can you make this compact? i insist that you cannot make it, because it is repugnant to the thing to be done. the effect of such a compact would be to produce that inequality in the union, to which the constitution, in all its provisions, is adverse. everything in it looks to equality among the members of the union. under it you cannot produce inequality. nor can you get before-hand of the constitution, and do it by anticipation. wait until a state is in the union, and you cannot do it; yet it is only upon the state in the union that what you do begins to act. but it seems that, although the proposed restrictions may not be justified by the clause of the constitution which gives power to admit new states into the union, separately considered, there are other parts of the constitution which, combined with that clause, will warrant it. and first, we are informed that there is a clause in this instrument which declares that congress shall guarantee to every state a republican form of government; that slavery and such a form of government are incompatible; and, finally, as a conclusion from these premises, that congress not only have a right, but are bound to exclude slavery from a new state. here again, sir, there is an edifying inconsistency between the argument and the measure which it professes to vindicate. by the argument it is maintained that missouri cannot have a republican form of government, and at the same time tolerate negro slavery. by the measure it is admitted that missouri may tolerate slavery, as to persons already in bondage there, and be nevertheless fit to be received into the union. what sort of constitutional mandate is this which can thus be made to bend and truckle and compromise as if it were a simple rule of expediency that might admit of exceptions upon motives of countervailing expediency. there can be no such pliancy in the peremptory provisions of the constitution. they cannot be obeyed by moieties and violated in the same ratio. they must be followed out to their full extent, or treated with that decent neglect which has at least the merit of forbearing to render contumacy obtrusive by an ostentatious display of the very duty which we in part abandon. if the decalogue could be observed in this casuistical manner, we might be grievous sinners, and yet be liable to no reproach. we might persist in all our habitual irregularities, and still be spotless. we might, for example, continue to covet our neighbors' goods, provided they were the same neighbors whose goods we had before coveted--and so of all the other commandments. will the gentlemen tell us that it is the quantity of slaves, not the quality of slavery, which takes from a government the republican form? will they tell us (for they have not yet told us) that there are constitutional grounds (to say nothing of common sense) upon which the slavery which now exists in missouri may be reconciled with a republican form of government, while any addition to the number of its slaves (the quality of slavery remaining the same) from the other states, will be repugnant to that form, and metamorphose it into some nondescript government disowned by the constitution? they cannot have recourse to the treaty of for such a distinction, since independently of what i have before observed on that head, the gentlemen have contended that the treaty has nothing to do with the matter. they have cut themselves off from all chance of a convenient distinction in or out of that treaty, by insisting that slavery beyond the old united states is rejected by the constitution, and by the law of god as discoverable by the aid of either reason or revelation; and moreover that the treaty does not include the case, and if it did could not make it better. they have, therefore, completely discredited their own theory by their own practice, and left us no theory worthy of being seriously controverted. this peculiarity in reasoning of giving out a universal principle, and coupling with it a practical concession that it is wholly fallacious, has indeed run through the greater part of the arguments on the other side; but it is not, as i think, the more imposing on that account, or the less liable to the criticism which i have here bestowed upon it. * * * * * but let us proceed to take a rapid glance at the reasons which have been assigned for this notion that involuntary servitude and a republican form of government are perfect antipathies. the gentleman from new hampshire has defined a republican government to be that in which all the men participate in its power and privileges; from whence it follows that where there are slaves, it can have no existence. a definition is no proof, however, and even if it be dignified (as i think it was) with the name of a maxim, the matter is not much mended. it is lord bacon who says "that nothing is so easily made as a maxim"; and certainly a definition is manufactured with equal facility. a political maxim is the work of induction, and cannot stand against experience, or stand on anything but experience. but this maxim, or definition, or whatever else it may be, sets facts at defiance. if you go back to antiquity, you will obtain no countenance for this hypothesis; and if you look at home you will gain still less. i have read that sparta, and rome, and athens, and many others of the ancient family, were republics. they were so in form undoubtedly--the last approaching nearer to a perfect democracy than any other government which has yet been known in the world. judging of them also by their fruits, they were of the highest order of republics. sparta could scarcely be any other than a republic, when a spartan matron could say to her son just marching to battle, "return victorious, or return no more." it was the unconquerable spirit of liberty, nurtured by republican habits and institutions, that illustrated the pass of thermopylae. yet slavery was not only tolerated in sparta, but was established by one of the fundamental laws of lycurgus, having for its object the encouragement of that very spirit. attica was full of slaves--yet the love of liberty was its characteristic. what else was it that foiled the whole power of persia at marathon and salamis? what other soil than that which the genial sun of republican freedom illuminated and warmed, could have produced such men as leonidas and miltiades, themistocles and epaminondas? of rome it would be superfluous to speak at large. it is sufficient to name the mighty mistress of the world, before sylla gave the first stab to her liberties and the great dictator accomplished their final ruin, to be reminded of the practicability of union between civil slavery and an ardent love of liberty cherished by republican establishments. if we return home for instruction upon this point, we perceive that same union exemplified in many a state, in which "liberty has a temple in every house, an altar in every heart," while involuntary servitude is seen in every direction. is it denied that those states possess a republican form of government? if it is, why does our power of correction sleep? why is the constitutional guaranty suffered to be inactive? why am i permitted to fatigue you, as the representative of a slaveholding state, with the discussion of the "_nugae canorae_" (for so i think them) that have been forced into this debate contrary to all the remonstrances of taste and prudence? do gentlemen perceive the consequences to which their arguments must lead if they are of any value? do they reflect that they lead to emancipation in the old united states--or to an exclusion of delaware, maryland, and all the south, and a great portion of the west from the union? my honorable friend from virginia has no business here, if this disorganizing creed be anything but the production of a heated brain. the state to which i belong, must "perform a lustration"--must purge and purify herself from the feculence of civil slavery, and emulate the states of the north in their zeal for throwing down the gloomy idol which we are said to worship, before her senators can have any title to appear in this high assembly. it will be in vain to urge that the old united states are exceptions to the rule--or rather (as the gentlemen express it), that they have no disposition to apply the rule to them. there can be no exceptions by implication only, to such a rule; and expressions which justify the exemption of the old states by inference, will justify the like exemption of missouri, unless they point exclusively to them, as i have shown they do not. the guarded manner, too, in which some of the gentlemen have occasionally expressed themselves on this subject, is somewhat alarming. they have no disposition to meddle with slavery in the old united states. perhaps not--but who shall answer for their successors? who shall furnish a pledge that the principle once ingrafted into the constitution, will not grow, and spread, and fructify, and overshadow the whole land? it is the natural office of such a principle to wrestle with slavery, wheresoever it finds it. new states, colonized by the apostles of this principle, will enable it to set on foot a fanatical crusade against all who still continue to tolerate it, although no practicable means are pointed out by which they can get rid of it consistently with their own safety. at any rate, a present forbearing disposition, in a few or in many, is not a security upon which much reliance can be placed upon a subject as to which so many selfish interests and ardent feelings are connected with the cold calculations of policy. admitting, however, that the old united states are in no danger from this principle--why is it so? there can be no other answer (which these zealous enemies of slavery can use) than that the constitution recognizes slavery as existing or capable of existing in those states. the constitution, then, admits that slavery and a republican form of government are not incongruous. it associates and binds them up together and repudiates this wild imagination which the gentlemen have pressed upon us with such an air of triumph. but the constitution does more, as i have heretofore proved. it concedes that slavery may exist in a new state, as well as in an old one--since the language in which it recognizes slavery comprehends new states as well as actual. i trust then that i shall be forgiven if i suggest, that no eccentricity in argument can be more trying to human patience, than a formal assertion that a constitution, to which slave-holding states were the most numerous parties, in which slaves are treated as property as well as persons, and provision is made for the security of that property, and even for an augmentation of it by a temporary importation from africa, with a clause commanding congress to guarantee a republican form of government to those very states, as well as to others, authorizes you to determine that slavery and a republican form of government cannot coexist. but if a republican form of government is that in which all the men have a share in the public power, the slave-holding states will not alone retire from the union. the constitutions of some of the other states do not sanction universal suffrage, or universal eligibility. they require citizenship, and age, and a certain amount of property, to give a title to vote or to be voted for; and they who have not those qualifications are just as much disfranchised, with regard to the government and its power, as if they were slaves. they have civil rights indeed (and so have slaves in a less degree; ) but they have no share in the government. their province is to obey the laws, not to assist in making them. all such states must therefore be forisfamiliated with virginia and the rest, or change their system. for the constitution being absolutely silent on those subjects, will afford them no protection. the union might thus be reduced from an union to an unit. who does not see that such conclusions flow from false notions--that the true theory of a republican government is mistaken--and that in such a government rights, political and civil, may be qualified by the fundamental law, upon such inducements as the freemen of the country deem sufficient? that civil rights may be qualified as well as political, is proved by a thousand examples. minors, resident aliens, who are in a course of naturalization--the other sex, whether maids, or wives, or widows, furnish sufficient practical proofs of this. * * * * * we are next invited to study that clause of the constitution which relates to the migration or importation, before the year , of such persons as any of the states then existing should think proper to admit. it runs thus: "the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation not exceeding ten dollars for each person." it is said that this clause empowers congress, after the year , to prohibit the passage of slaves from state to state, and the word "migration" is relied upon for that purpose. * * * * * whatever may be the latitude in which the word "persons" is capable of being received, it is not denied that the word "importation" indicates a bringing in from a jurisdiction foreign to the united states. the two termini of the importation, here spoken of, are a foreign country and the american union--the first the _terminus a quo_, the second the _terminus ad quem_. the word migration stands in simple connexion with it, and of course is left to the full influence of that connection. the natural conclusion is, that the same termini belong to each, or, in other words, that if the importation must be abroad, so also must be the migration--no other termini being assigned to the one which are not manifestly characteristic of the other. this conclusion is so obvious, that to repel it, the word migration requires, as an appendage, explanatory phraseology, giving to it a different beginning from that of importation. to justify the conclusion that it was intended to mean a removal from state to state, each within the sphere of the constitution in which it is used, the addition of the words from one to another state in this union, were indispensable. by the omission of these words, the word "migration" is compelled to take every sense of which it is fairly susceptible from its immediate neighbor, "importation." in this view it means a coming, as "importation" means a bringing, from a foreign jurisdiction into the united states. that it is susceptible of this meaning, nobody doubts. i go further. it can have no other meaning in the place in which it is found. it is found in the constitution of this union--which, when it speaks of migration as of a general concern, must be supposed to have in view a migration into the domain which itself embraces as a general government. migration, then, even if it comprehends slaves, does not mean the removal of them from state to state, but means the coming of slaves from places beyond their limits and their power. and if this be so, the gentlemen gain nothing for their argument by showing that slaves were the objects of this term. an honorable gentleman from rhode island, whose speech was distinguished for its ability, and for an admirable force of reasoning, as well to as by the moderation and mildness of its spirit, informed us, with less discretion than in general he exhibited, that the word "migration" was introduced into this clause at the instance of some of the southern states, who wished by its instrumentality to guard against a prohibition by congress of the passage into those states of slaves from other states. he has given us no authority for this supposition, and it is, therefore, a gratuitous one. how improbable it is, a moment's reflection will convince him. the african slave trade being open during the whole of the time to which the entire clause in question referred, such a purpose could scarcely be entertained; but if it had been entertained, and there was believed to be a necessity for securing it, by a restriction upon the power of congress to interfere with it, is it possible that they who deemed it important, would have contented themselves with a vague restraint, which was calculated to operate in almost any other manner than that which they desired? if fear and jealousy, such as the honorable gentleman has described, had dictated this provision, a better term than that of "migration," simple and unqualified, and joined, too, with the word "importation," would have been found to tranquilize those fears and satisfy that jealousy. fear and jealousy are watchful, and are rarely seen to accept a security short of their object, and less rarely to shape that security, of their own accord, in such a way as to make it no security at all. they always seek an explicit guaranty; and that this is not such a guaranty this debate has proved, if it has proved nothing else. wendell phillips, of massachusetts. (born , died .) on the murder of lovejoy; faneuil hall, boston, december , mr. chairman: we have met for the freest discussion of these resolutions, and the events which gave rise to them. [cries of "question," "hear him," "go on," "no gagging," etc.] i hope i shall be permitted to express my surprise at the sentiments of the last speaker, surprise not only at such sentiments from such a man, but at the applause they have received within these walls. a comparison has been drawn between the events of the revolution and the tragedy at alton. we have heard it asserted here, in faneuil hall, that great britain had a right to tax the colonies, and we have heard the mob at alton, the drunken murderers of lovejoy, compared to those patriot fathers who threw the tea overboard! fellow citizens, is this faneuil hall doctrine? ["no, no."] the mob at alton were met to wrest from a citizen his just rights--met to resist the laws. we have been told that our fathers did the same; and the glorious mantle of revolutionary precedent has been thrown over the mobs of our day. to make out their title to such defence, the gentleman says that the british parliament had a right to tax these colonies. it is manifest that, without this, his parallel falls to the ground, for lovejoy had stationed himself within constitutional bulwarks. he was not only defending the freedom of the press, but he was under his own roof, in arms with the sanction of the civil authority. the men who assailed him went against and over the laws. the mob, as the gentleman terms it--mob, forsooth! certainly we sons of the tea-spillers are a marvellously patient generation!--the "orderly mob" which assembled in the old south to destroy the tea, were met to resist, not the laws, but illegal enactions. shame on the american who calls the tea tax and stamp act laws! our fathers resisted, not the king's prerogative, but the king's usurpation. to find any other account, you must read our revolutionary history upside down. our state archives are loaded with arguments of john adams to prove the taxes laid by the british parliament unconstitutional--beyond its power. it was not until this was made out that the men of new england rushed to arms. the arguments of the council chamber and the house of representatives preceded and sanctioned the contest. to draw the conduct of our ancestors into a precedent for mobs, for a right to resist laws we ourselves have enacted, is an insult to their memory. the difference between the excitements of those days and our own, which the gentleman in kindness to the latter has overlooked, is simply this: the men of that day went for the right, as secured by the laws. they were the people rising to sustain the laws and constitution of the province. the rioters of our days go for their own wills, right or wrong. sir, when i heard the gentleman lay down principles which place the murderers of alton side by side with otis and hancock, with quincy and adams, i thought those pictured lips [pointing to the portraits in the hall] would have broken into voice to rebuke the recreant american--the slanderer of the dead. the gentleman said that he should sink into insignificance if he dared to gainsay the principles of these resolutions. sir, for the sentiments he has uttered, on soil consecrated by the prayers of puritans and the blood of patriots, the earth should have yawned and swallowed him up. [by this time, the uproar in the hall had risen so high that the speech was suspended for a short time. applause and counter applause, cries of "take that back," "make him take back recreant," "he sha'n't go on till he takes it back," and counter cries of "phillips or nobody," continued until the pleadings of well-known citizens had somewhat restored order, when mr. phillips resumed.] fellow citizens, i cannot take back my words. surely the attorney-general, so long and so well known here, needs not the aid of your hisses against one so young as i am--my voice never before heard within these walls! * * * * * i must find some fault with the statement which has been made of the events at alton. it has been asked why lovejoy and his friends did not appeal to the executive--trust their defence to the police of the city? it has been hinted that, from hasty and ill-judged excitement, the men within the building provoked a quarrel, and that he fell in the course of it, one mob resisting another. recollect, sir, that they did act with the approbation and sanction of the mayor. in strict truth, there was no executive to appeal to for protection. the mayor acknowledged that he could not protect them. they asked him if it was lawful for them to defend themselves. he told them it was, and sanctioned their assembling in arms to do so. they were not, then, a mob; they were not merely citizens defending their own property; they were in some sense the _posse comitatus_, adopted for the occasion into the police of the city, acting under the order of a magistrate. it was civil authority resisting lawless violence. where, then, was the imprudence? is the doctrine to be sustained here that it is imprudent for men to aid magistrates in executing the laws? men are continually asking each other, had lovejoy a right to resist? sir, i protest against the question instead of answering it. lovejoy did not resist, in the sense they mean. he did not throw himself back on the natural right of self-defence. he did not cry anarchy, and let slip the dogs of civil war, careless of the horrors which would follow. sir, as i understand this affair, it was not an individual protecting his property; it was not one body of armed men resisting another, and making the streets of a peaceful city run blood with their contentions. it did not bring back the scenes in some old italian cities, where family met family, and faction met faction, and mutually trampled the laws under foot. no! the men in that house were regularly enrolled, under the sanction of the mayor. there being no militia in alton, about seventy men were enrolled with the approbation of the mayor. these relieved each other every other night. about thirty men were in arms on the night of the sixth, when the press was landed. the next evening, it was not thought necessary to summon more than half that number; among these was lovejoy. it was, therefore, you perceive, sir, the police of the city resisting rioters--civil government breasting itself to the shock of lawless men. here is no question about the right of self-defence. it is in fact simply this: has the civil magistrate a right to put down a riot? some persons seem to imagine that anarchy existed at alton from the commencement of these disputes. not at all. "no one of us," says an eyewitness and a comrade of lovejoy, "has taken up arms during these disturbances but at the command of the mayor." anarchy did not settle down on that devoted city till lovejoy breathed his last. till then the law, represented in his person, sustained itself against its foes. when he fell, civil authority was trampled under foot. he had "planted himself on his constitutional rights,"--appealed to the laws,--claimed the protection of the civil authority,--taken refuge under "the broad shield of the constitution. when through that he was pierced and fell, he fell but one sufferer in a common catastrophe." he took refuge under the banner of liberty--amid its folds; and when he fell, its glorious stars and stripes, the emblem of free institutions, around which cluster so many heart-stirring memories, were blotted out in the martyr's blood. it has been stated, perhaps inadvertently, that lovejoy or his comrades fired first. this is denied by those who have the best means of knowing. guns were first fired by the mob. after being twice fired on, those within the building consulted together and deliberately returned the fire. but suppose they did fire first. they had a right so to do; not only the right which every citizen has to defend himself, but the further right which every civil officer has to resist violence. even if lovejoy fired the first gun, it would not lessen his claim to our sympathy, or destroy his title to be considered a martyr in defence of a free press. the question now is, did he act within the constitution and the laws? the men who fell in state street, on the th of march, , did more than lovejoy is charged with. they were the first assailants upon some slight quarrel, they pelted the troops with every missile within reach. did this bate one jot of the eulogy with which hancock and warren hallowed their memory, hailing them as the first martyrs in the cause of american liberty? if, sir, i had adopted what are called peace principles, i might lament the circumstances of this case. but all you who believe as i do, in the right and duty of magistrates to execute the laws, join with me and brand as base hypocrisy the conduct of those who assemble year after year on the th of july to fight over the battles of the revolution, and yet "damn with faint praise" or load with obloquy, the memory of this man who shed his blood in defence of life, liberty, property, and the freedom of the press! throughout that terrible night i find nothing to regret but this, that, within the limits of our country, civil authority should have been so prostrated as to oblige a citizen to arm in his own defence, and to arm in vain. the gentleman says lovejoy was presumptuous and imprudent--he "died as the fool dieth." and a reverend clergyman of the city tells us that no citizen has a right to publish opinions disagreeable to the community! if any mob follows such publication, on him rests its guilt. he must wait, forsooth, till the people come up to it and agree with him! this libel on liberty goes on to say that the want of right to speak as we think is an evil inseparable from republican institutions! if this be so, what are they worth? welcome the despotism of the sultan, where one knows what he may publish and what he may not, rather than the tyranny of this many-headed monster, the mob, where we know not what we may do or say, till some fellow-citizen has tried it, and paid for the lesson with his life. this clerical absurdity chooses as a check for the abuses of the press, not the law, but the dread of a mob. by so doing, it deprives not only the individual and the minority of their rights, but the majority also, since the expression of their opinion may sometime provoke disturbances from the minority. a few men may make a mob as well as many. the majority then, have no right, as christian men, to utter their sentiments, if by any possibility it may lead to a mob! shades of hugh peters and john cotton, save us from such pulpits! imprudent to defend the liberty of the press! why? because the defence was unsuccessful? does success gild crime into patriotism, and the want of it change heroic self-devotion to imprudence? was hampden imprudent when he drew the sword and threw away the scabbard? yet he, judged by that single hour, was unsuccessful. after a short exile, the race he hated sat again upon the throne. imagine yourself present when the first news of bunker hill battle reached a new england town. the tale would have run thus: "the patriots are routed,--the redcoats victorious, warren lies dead upon the field." with what scorn would that tory have been received, who should have charged warren with imprudence! who should have said that, bred a physician, he was "out of place" in that battle, and "died as the fool dieth." how would the intimation have been received, that warren and his associates should have merited a better time? but if success be indeed the only criterion of prudence, _respice finem_,--wait till the end! _presumptuous_ to assert the freedom of the press on american ground! is the assertion of such freedom before the age? so much before the age as to leave one no right to make it because it displeases the community? who invents this libel on his country? it is this very thing which entitles lovejoy to greater praise. the disputed right which provoked the revolution--taxation without representation--is far beneath that for which he died. [here there was a general expression of strong disapprobation.] one word, gentlemen. as much as thought is better than money, so much is the cause in which lovejoy died nobler than a mere question of taxes. james otis thundered in this hall when the king did but touch his pocket. imagine, if you can, his indignant eloquence had england offered to put a gag upon his lips. the question that stirred the revolution touched our civil interests. this concerns us not only as citizens, but as immortal beings. wrapped up in its fate, saved or lost with it, are not only the voice of the statesman, but the instructions of the pulpit and the progress of our faith. the clergy, "marvellously out of place" where free speech is battled for--liberty of speech on national sins! does the gentleman remember that freedom to preach was first gained, dragging in its train freedom to print? i thank the clergy here present, as i reverence their predecessors, who did not so far forget their country in their immediate profession as to deem it duty to separate themselves from the struggle of ' --the mayhews and coopers, who remembered that they were citizens before they were clergymen. mr. chairman, from the bottom of my heart i thank that brave little band at alton for resisting. we must remember that lovejoy had fled from city to city,--suffered the destruction of three presses patiently. at length he took counsel with friends, men of character, of tried integrity, of wide views, of christian principle. they thought the crisis had come; it was full time to assert the laws. they saw around them, not a community like our own, of fixed habits, of character moulded and settled, but one "in the gristle, not yet hardened into the bone of manhood." the people there, children of our older states, seem to have forgotten the blood-tried principles of their fathers the moment they lost sight of our new england hills. something was to be done to show them the priceless value of the freedom of the press, to bring back and set right their wandering and confused ideas. he and his advisers looked out on a community, staggering like a drunken man, indifferent to their rights and confused in their feelings. deaf to argument, haply they might be stunned into sobriety. they saw that of which we cannot judge, the necessity of resistance. insulted law called for it. public opinion, fast hastening on the downward course, must be arrested. does not the event show they judged rightly? absorbed in a thousand trifles, how has the nation all at once come to a stand? men begin, as in and , to discuss principles, to weigh characters, to find out where they are. haply we may awake before we are borne over the precipice. i am glad, sir, to see this crowded house, it is good for us to be here. when liberty is in danger faneuil hall has the right, it is her duty, to strike the key-note for these united states. i am glad, for one reason, that remarks such as those to which i have alluded have been uttered here. the passage of these resolutions, in spite of this opposition, led by the attorney-general of the commonwealth, will show more clearly, more decisively, the deep indignation with which boston regards this outrage. [illustration: john q. adams] john quincy adams, of massachusetts. (born , died .) on the constitutional war power over slavery --house of representatives, may , . there are, then, mr. chairman, in the authority of congress and of the executive, two classes of powers, altogether different in their nature, and often incompatible with each other--the war power and the peace power. the peace power is limited by regulations and restricted by provisions, prescribed within the constitution itself. the war power is limited only by the laws and usages of nations. the power is tremendous; it is strictly constitutional, but it breaks down every barrier so anxiously erected for the protection of liberty, of property, and of life. this, sir, is the power which authorizes you to pass the resolution now before you, and, in my opinion, there is no other. and this, sir, is the reason which i was not permitted to give this morning for voting with only eight associates against the first resolution reported by the committee on the abolition petitions; not one word of discussion had been permitted on either of those resolutions. when called to vote upon the first of them, i asked only five minutes of the time of the house to prove that it was utterly unfounded, it was not the pleasure of the house to grant me those five minutes. sir, i must say that, in all the proceedings of the house upon that report, from the previous question, moved and inflexibly persisted in by a member of the committee itself which reported the resolutions, (mr. owens, of georgia,) to the refusal of the speaker, sustained by the majority of the house, to permit the other gentleman from georgia (mr. glascock) to record upon the journal his reasons for asking to be excused from voting on that same resolution, the freedom of debate has been stifled in this house to a degree far beyond any thing that ever happened since the existence of the constitution of the united states; nor is it a consolatory reflection to me how intensely we have been made to feel, in the process of that operation, that the speaker of this house is a slaveholder. and, sir, as i was not then permitted to assign my reasons for voting against that resolution before i gave the vote, i rejoice that the reason for which i shall vote for the resolution now before the committee is identically the same with that for which i voted against that. [mr. adams at this, and at many other passages of this speech, was interrupted by calls to order. the chairman of the committee (mr. a. h. shepperd, of north carolina,) in every instance, decided that he was not out of order, but at this passage intimated that he was approaching very close upon its borders; upon which mr. adams said, "then i am to under-stand, sir, that i am yet within the bounds of order, but that i may transcend them hereafter."] * * * * * and, now, sir, am i to be disconcerted and silenced, or admonished by the chair that i am approaching to irrelevant matter, which may warrant him to arrest me in my argument, because i say that the reason for which i shall vote for the resolution now before the committee, levying a heavy contribution upon the property of my constituents, is identically the same with the reason for which i voted against the resolution reported by the slavery committee, that congress have no authority to interfere, in any way, with slavery in any of the states of this union. sir, i was not allowed to give my reasons for that vote, and a majority of my constituents, perhaps proportionately as large as that of this house in favor of that resolution, may and probably will disapprove my vote against, unless my reasons for so voting should be explained to them. i asked but five minutes of the house to give those reasons, and was refused. i shall, therefore, take the liberty to give them now, as they are strictly applicable to the measure now before the committee, and are my only justification for voting in favor of this resolution. i return, then, to my first position, that there are two classes of powers vested by the constitution of the united states in their congress and executive government: the powers to be exercised in the time of peace, and the powers incidental to war. that the powers of peace are limited by provisions within the body of the constitution itself, but that the powers of war are limited and regulated only by the laws and usages of nations. there are, indeed, powers of peace conferred upon congress, which also come within the scope and jurisdiction of the laws of nations, such as the negotiation of treaties of amity and commerce, the interchange of public ministers and consuls, and all the personal and social intercourse between the individual inhabitants of the united states and foreign nations, and the indian tribes, which require the interposition of any law. but the powers of war are all regulated by the laws of nations, and are subject to no other limitation. it is by this power that i am justified in voting the money of my constituents for the immediate relief of their fellow-citizens suffering with extreme necessity even for subsistence, by the direct consequence of an indian war. upon the same principle, your consuls in foreign ports are authorized to provide for the subsistence of seamen in distress, and even for their passage to their own country. and it was upon that same principle that i voted against the resolution reported by the slavery committee, "that congress possess no constitutional authority to interfere, in any way, with the institution of slavery in any of the states of this confederacy," to which resolution most of those with whom i usually concur, and even my own colleagues in this house, gave their assent. i do not admit that there is even among the peace powers of congress no such authority; but in war there are many ways by which congress not only have the authority, but are bound to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states. the existing law prohibiting the importation of slaves into the united states from foreign countries, is itself an interference with the institution of slavery in the states. it was so considered by the founders of the constitution of the united states, in which it was stipulated that congress should not interfere, in that way, with the institution, prior to the year . during the late war with great britain the military and naval commanders of that nation issued proclamations inviting the slaves to repair to their standards, with promises of freedom and of settlement in some of the british colonial establishments. this, surely, was an interference with the institution of slavery in the states. by the treaty of peace, great britain stipulated to evacuate all the forts and places in the united states, without carrying away any slaves. if the government of the united states had no authority to interfere, in any way, with the institution of slavery in the states, they would not have had the authority to require this stipulation. it is well known that this engagement was not fulfilled by the british naval and military commanders; that, on the contrary, they did carry away all the slaves whom they had induced to join them, and that the british government inflexibly refused to restore any of them to their masters; that a claim of indemnity was consequently instituted in behalf of the owners of the slaves, and was successfully maintained. all that series of transactions was an interference by congress with the institution of slavery in the states in one way--in the way of protection and support. it was by the institution of slavery alone that the restitution of slaves enticed by proclamations into the british service could be claimed as property. but for the institution of slavery, the british commanders could neither have allured them to their standard, nor restored them otherwise than as liberated prisoners of war. but for the institution of slavery, there could have been no stipulation that they should not be carried away as property, nor any claim of indemnity for the violation of that engagement. but the war power of congress over the institution of slavery in the states is yet far more extensive. suppose the case of a servile war, complicated, as to some extent it is even now, with an indian war; suppose congress were called to raise armies, to supply money from the whole union, to suppress a servile insurrection: would they have no authority to interfere with the institution of slavery? the issue of a servile war may be disastrous. by war the slave may emancipate himself; it may become necessary for the master to recognize his emancipation by a treaty of peace; can it for an instant be pretended that congress, in such a contingency, would have no authority to interfere with the institution of slavery, in any way, in the states? why, it would be equivalent to saying that congress have no constitutional authority to make peace. [illustration: john c. calhoun] john c. calhoun, of south carolina (born , died .) on the slavery question, senate, march , i have, senators, believed from the first that the agitation of the subject of slavery would, if not prevented by some timely and effective measure, end in disunion. entertaining this opinion, i have, on all proper occasions, endeavored to call the attention of both the two great parties which divide the country to adopt some measure to prevent so great a disaster, but without success. the agitation has been permitted to proceed, with almost no attempt to resist it, until it has reached a point when it can no longer be disguised or denied that the union is in danger. you have thus had forced upon you the greatest and the gravest question that can ever come under your consideration: how can the union be preserved? to give a satisfactory answer to this mighty question, it is indispensable to have an accurate and thorough knowledge of the nature and the character of the cause by which the union is endangered. without such knowledge it is impossible to pronounce, with any certainty, by what measure it can be saved; just as it would be impossible for a physician to pronounce, in the case of some dangerous disease, with any certainty, by what remedy the patient could be saved, without similar knowledge of the nature and character of the cause which produced it. the first question, then, presented for consideration, in the investigation i propose to make, in order to obtain such knowledge, is: what is it that has endangered the union? to this question there can be but one answer: that the immediate cause is the almost universal discontent which pervades all the states composing the southern section of the union. this widely-extended discontent is not of recent origin. it commenced with the agitation of the slavery question, and has been increasing ever since. the next question, going one step further back, is: what has caused this widely-diffused and almost universal discontent? it is a great mistake to suppose, as is by some, that it originated with demagogues, who excited the discontent with the intention of aiding their personal advancement, or with the disappointed ambition of certain politicians, who resorted to it as a means of retrieving their fortunes. on the contrary, all the great political influences of the section were arrayed against excitement, and exerted to the utmost to keep the people quiet. the great mass of the people of the south were divided, as in the other section, into whigs and democrats. the leaders and the presses of both parties in the south were very solicitous to prevent excitement and to preserve quiet; because it was seen that the effects of the former would necessarily tend to weaken, if not destroy, the political ties which united them with their respective parties in the other section. those who know the strength of the party ties will readily appreciate the immense force which this cause exerted against agitation, and in favor of preserving quiet. but, great as it was, it was not sufficient to prevent the wide-spread discontent which now pervades the section. no; some cause, far deeper and more powerful than the one supposed, must exist, to account for discontent so wide and deep. the question then recurs: what is the cause of this discontent? it will be found in the belief of the people of the southern states, as prevalent as the discontent itself, that they cannot remain, as things now are, consistently with honor and safety, in the union. the next question to be considered is: what has caused this belief? one of the causes is, undoubtedly, to be traced to the long-continued agitation of the slavery question on the part of the north, and the many aggressions which they have made on the rights of the south during the time. i will not enumerate them at present, as it will be done hereafter in its proper place. there is another lying back of it--with which this is intimately connected--that may be regarded as the great and primary cause. this is to be found in the fact, that the equilibrium between the two sections, in the government as it stood when the constitution was ratified and the government put in action, has been destroyed. at that time there was nearly a perfect equilibrium between the two, which afforded ample means to each to protect itself against the aggression of the other; but, as it now stands, one section has the exclusive power of controlling the government, which leaves the other without any adequate means of protecting itself against its encroachment and oppression. to place this subject distinctly before you, i have, senators, prepared a brief statistical statement, showing the relative weight of the two sections in the government under the first census of , and the last census of . according to the former, the population of the united states, including vermont, kentucky, and tennessee, which then were in their incipient condition of becoming states, but were not actually admitted, amounted to , , . of this number the northern states had , , , and the southern , , , making a difference of only , in favor of the former states. the number of states, including vermont, kentucky, and tennessee, were sixteen; of which eight, including vermont, belonged to the northern section, and eight, including kentucky and tennessee, to the southern,--making an equal division of the states between the two sections, under the first census. there was a small preponderance in the house of representatives, and in the electoral college, in favor of the northern, owing to the fact that, according to the provisions of the constitution, in estimating federal numbers five slaves count but three; but it was too small to affect sensibly the perfect equilibrium which, with that exception, existed at the time. such was the equality of the two sections when the states composing them agreed to enter into a federal union. since then the equilibrium between them has been greatly disturbed. according to the last census the aggregate population of the united states amounted to , , , of which the northern section contained , , , and the southern , , , making a difference in round numbers, of , , . the number of states had increased from sixteen to twenty-six, making an addition of ten states. in the meantime the position of delaware had become doubtful as to which section she properly belonged. considering her as neutral, the northern states will have thirteen and the southern states twelve, making a difference in the senate of two senators in favor of the former. according to the apportionment under the census of , there were two hundred and twenty-three members of the house of representatives, of which the north-ern states had one hundred and thirty-five, and the southern states (considering delaware as neutral) eighty-seven, making a difference in favor of the former in the house of representatives of forty-eight. the difference in the senate of two members, added to this, gives to the north in the electoral college, a majority of fifty. since the census of , four states have been added to the union--iowa, wisconsin, florida, and texas. they leave the difference in the senate as it was when the census was taken; but add two to the side of the north in the house, making the present majority in the house in its favor fifty, and in the electoral college fifty-two. the result of the whole is to give the northern section a predominance in every department of the government, and thereby concentrate in it the two elements which constitute the federal government,--majority of states, and a majority of their population, estimated in federal numbers. whatever section concentrates the two in itself possesses the control of the entire government. but we are just at the close of the sixth decade, and the commencement of the seventh. the census is to be taken this year, which must add greatly to the decided preponderance of the north in the house of representatives and in the electoral college. the prospect is, also, that a great increase will be added to its present preponderance in the senate, during the period of the decade, by the addition of new states. two territories, oregon and minnesota, are already in progress, and strenuous efforts are making to bring in three additional states' from the territory recently conquered from mexico; which, if successful, will add three other states in a short time to the northern section, making five states; and increasing the present number of its states from fifteen to twenty, and of its senators from thirty to forty. on the contrary, there is not a single territory in progress in the southern section, and no certainty that any additional state will be added to it during the decade. the prospect then is, that the two sections in the senate, should the effort now made to exclude the south from the newly acquired territories succeed, will stand before the end of the decade, twenty northern states to fourteen southern (considering delaware as neutral), and forty northern senators to twenty-eight southern. this great increase of senators, added to the great increase of members of the house of representatives and the electoral college on the part of the north, which must take place under the next decade, will effectually and irretrievably destroy the equilibrium which existed when the government commenced. had this destruction been the operation of time, without the interference of government, the south would have had no reason to complain; but such was not the fact. it was caused by the legislation of this government, which was appointed as the common agent of all, and charged with the protection of the interests and security of all. the legislation by which it has been effected may be classed under three heads. the first is, that series of acts by which the south has been excluded from the common territory belonging to all the states as members of the federal union--which have had the effect of extending vastly the portion allotted to the northern section, and restricting within narrow limits the portion left the south. the next consists in adopting a system of revenue and disbursements, by which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed upon the south, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the north; and the last is a system of political measures, by which the original character of the government has been radically changed. i propose to bestow upon each of these, in the order they stand, a few remarks, with the view of showing that it is owing to the action of this government that the equilibrium between the two sections has been destroyed, and the whole powers of the system centered in a sectional majority. the first of the series of acts by which the south was deprived of its due share of the territories, originated with the confederacy which preceded the existence of this government. it is to be found in the provision of the ordinance of . its effect was to exclude the south entirely from that vast and fertile region which lies between the ohio and the mississippi rivers, now embracing five states and one territory. the next of the series is the missouri compromise, which excluded the south from that large portion of louisiana which lies north of ° ', excepting what is included in the state of missouri. the last of the series excluded the south from the whole of oregon territory. all these, in the slang of the day, were what are called slave territories,' and not free soil; that is, territories belonging to slaveholding powers and open to the emigration of masters with their slaves. by these several acts the south was excluded from one million two hundred and thirty-eight thousand and twenty-five square miles--an extent of country considerably exceeding the entire valley of the mississippi. to the south was left the portion of the territory of louisiana lying south of ° ', and the portion north of it included in the state of missouri, with the portion lying south of ° ' including the states of louisiana and arkansas, and the territory lying west of the latter, and south of ° ', called the indian country. these, with the territory of florida, now the state, make, in the whole, two hundred and eighty-three thousand five hundred and three square miles. to this must be added the territory acquired with texas. if the whole should be added to the southern section it would make an increase of three hundred and twenty-five thousand five hundred and twenty, which would make the whole left to the south six hundred and nine thousand and twenty-three. but a large part of texas is still in contest between the two sections, which leaves it uncertain what will be the real extent of the proportion of territory that may be left to the south. i have not included the territory recently acquired by the treaty with mexico. the north is making the most strenuous efforts to appropriate the whole to herself, by excluding the south from every foot of it. if she should succeed, it will add to that from which the south has already been excluded, , square miles, and would increase the whole which the north has appropriated to herself, to , , , not including the portion that she may succeed in excluding us from in texas. to sum up the whole, the united states, since they declared their independence, have acquired , , square miles of territory, from which the north will have excluded the south, if she should succeed in monopolizing the newly acquired territories, about three fourths of the whole, leaving to the south but about one fourth. such is the first and great cause that has destroyed the equilibrium between the two sections in the government. the next is the system of revenue and disbursements which has been adopted by the government. it is well known that the government has derived its revenue mainly from duties on imports. i shall not undertake to show that such duties must necessarily fall mainly on the exporting states, and that the south, as the great exporting portion of the union, has in reality paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue; because i deem it unnecessary, as the subject has on so many occasions been fully discussed. nor shall i, for the same reason, undertake to show that a far greater portion of the revenue has been disbursed at the north, than its due share; and that the joint effect of these causes has been, to transfer a vast amount from south to north, which, under an equal system of revenue and disbursements, would not have been lost to her. if to this be added, that many of the duties were imposed, not for revenue, but for protection,--that is, intended to put money, not in the treasury, but directly into the pockets of the manufacturers,--some conception may be formed of the immense amount which, in the long course of sixty years, has been transferred from south to north. there are no data by which it can be estimated with any certainty; but it is safe to say that it amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars. under the most moderate estimate, it would be sufficient to add greatly to the wealth of the north, and thus greatly increase her population by attracting emigration from all quarters to that section. this, combined with the great primary cause, amply explains why the north has acquired a preponderance in every department of the government by its disproportionate increase of population and states. the former, as has been shown, has increased, in fifty years, , , over that of the south. this increase of population, during so long a period, is satisfactorily accounted for, by the number of emigrants, and the increase of their descendants, which have been attracted to the northern section from europe and the south, in consequence of the advantages derived from the causes assigned. if they had not existed--if the south had retained all the capital which had been extracted from her by the fiscal action of the government; and, if it had not been excluded by the ordinance of and the missouri compromise, from the region lying between the ohio and the mississippi rivers, and between the mississippi and the rocky mountains north of ° '--it scarcely admits of a doubt, that it would have divided the emigration with the north, and by retaining her own people, would have at least equalled the north in population under the census of , and probably under that about to be taken. she would also, if she had retained her equal rights in those territories, have maintained an equality in the number of states with the north, and have preserved the equilibrium between the two sections that existed at the commencement of the government. the loss, then, of the equilibrium is to be attributed to the action of this government. but while these measures were destroying the equilibrium between the two sections, the action of the government was leading to a radical change in its character, by concentrating all the power of the system in itself. the occasion will not permit me to trace the measures by which this great change has been consummated. if it did, it would not be difficult to show that the process commenced at an early period of the government; and that it proceeded, almost without interruption, step by step, until it virtually absorbed its entire powers; but without going through the whole process to establish the fact, it may be done satisfactorily by a very short statement. that the government claims, and practically maintains, the right to decide in the last resort, as to the extent of its powers, will scarcely be denied by any one conversant with the political history of the country. that it also claims the right to resort to force to maintain whatever power it claims against all opposition is equally certain. indeed it is apparent, from what we daily hear, that this has become the prevailing and fixed opinion of a great majority of the community. now, i ask, what limitation can possibly be placed upon the powers of a government claiming and exercising such rights? and, if none can be, how can the separate governments of the states maintain and protect the powers reserved to them by the constitution--or the people of the several states maintain those which are reserved to them, and among others, the sovereign powers by which they ordained and established, not only their separate state constitutions and governments, but also the constitution and government of the united states? but, if they have no constitutional means of maintaining them against the right claimed by this government, it necessarily follows, that they hold them at its pleasure and discretion, and that all the powers of the system are in reality concentrated in it. it also follows, that the character of the government has been changed in consequence, from a federal republic, as it originally came from the hands of its framers, into a great national consolidated democracy. it has indeed, at present, all the characteristics of the latter, and not of the former, although it still retains its outward form. the result of the whole of those causes combined is, that the north has acquired a decided ascendency over every department of this government, and through it a control over all the powers of the system. a single section governed by the will of the numerical majority, has now, in fact, the control of the government and the entire powers of the system. what was once a constitutional federal republic, is now converted, in reality, into one as absolute as that of the autocrat of russia, and as despotic in its tendency as any absolute government that ever existed. as, then, the north has the absolute control over the government, it is manifest that on all questions between it and the south, where there is a diversity of interests, the interest of the latter will be sacrificed to the former, however oppressive the effects may be; as the south possesses no means by which it can resist, through the action of the government. but if there was no question of vital importance to the south, in reference to which there was a diversity of views between the two sections, this state of things might be endured without the hazard of destruction to the south. but such is not the fact. there is a question of vital importance to the southern section, in reference to which the views and feelings of the two sections are as opposite and hostile as they can possibly be. i refer to the relation between the two races in the southern section, which constitutes a vital portion of her social organization. every portion of the north entertains views and feelings more or less hostile to it. those most opposed and hostile, regard it as a sin, and consider themselves under the most sacred obligation to use every effort to destroy it. indeed, to the extent that they conceive that they have power, they regard themselves as implicated in the sin, and responsible for not suppressing it by the use of all and every means. those less opposed and hostile, regarded it as a crime--an offence against humanity, as they call it; and, although not so fanatical, feel themselves bound to use all efforts to effect the same object; while those who are least opposed and hostile, regard it as a blot and a stain on the character of what they call the nation, and feel themselves accordingly bound to give it no countenance or support. on the contrary, the southern section regards the relation as one which cannot be destroyed without subjecting the two races to the greatest calamity, and the section to poverty, desolation, and wretchedness; and accordingly they feel bound, by every consideration of interest and safety, to defend it. this hostile feeling on the part of the north toward the social organization of the south long lay dormant, and it only required some cause to act on those who felt most intensely that they were responsible for its continuance, to call it into action. the increasing power of this government, and of the control of the northern section over all its departments, furnished the cause. it was this which made the impression on the minds of many, that there was little or no restraint to prevent the government from doing whatever it might choose to do. this was sufficient of itself to put the most fanatical portion of the north in action, for the purpose of destroying the existing relation between the two races in the south. the first organized movement toward it commenced in . then, for the first time, societies were organized, presses established, lecturers sent forth to excite the people of the north, and incendiary publications scattered over the whole south, through the mail. the south was thoroughly aroused. meetings were held everywhere, and resolutions adopted, calling upon the north to apply a remedy to arrest the threatened evil, and pledging themselves to adopt measures for their own protection, if it was not arrested. at the meeting of congress, petitions poured in from the north, calling upon congress to abolish slavery in the district of columbia, and to prohibit, what they called, the internal slave trade between the states--announcing at the same time, that their ultimate object was to abolish slavery, not only in the district, but in the states and throughout the union. at this period, the number engaged in the agitation was small, and possessed little or no personal influence. neither party in congress had, at that time, any sympathy with them or their cause. the members of each party presented their petitions with great reluctance. nevertheless, small, and contemptible as the party then was, both of the great parties of the north dreaded them. they felt, that though small, they were organized in reference to a subject which had a great and commanding influence over the northern mind. each party, on that account, feared to oppose their petitions, lest the opposite party should take advantage of the one who might do so, by favoring them. the effect was, that both united in insisting that the petitions should be received, and that congress should take jurisdiction over the subject. to justify their course, they took the extraordinary ground, that congress was bound to receive petitions on every subject, however objectionable they might be, and whether they had, or had not, jurisdiction over the subject. those views prevailed in the house of representatives, and partially in the senate; and thus the party succeeded in their first movements, in gaining what they proposed--a position in congress, from which agitation could be extended over the whole union. this was the commencement of the agitation, which has ever since continued, and which, as is now acknowledged, has endangered the union itself. as for myself, i believed at that early period, if the party who got up the petitions should succeed in getting congress to take jurisdiction, that agitation would follow, and that it would in the end, if not arrested, destroy the union. i then so expressed myself in debate, and called upon both parties to take grounds against assuming jurisdiction; but in vain. had my voice been heeded, and had congress refused to take jurisdiction, by the united votes of all parties, the agitation which followed would have been prevented, and the fanatical zeal that gave impulse to the agitation, and which has brought us to our present perilous condition, would have become extinguished, from the want of fuel to feed the flame. that was the time for the north to have shown her devotion to the union; but, unfortunately, both of the great parties of that section were so intent on obtaining or retaining party ascendency, that all other considerations were overlooked or forgotten. what has since followed are but natural consequences. with the success of their first movement, this small fanatical party began to acquire strength; and with that, to become an object of courtship to both the great parties. the necessary consequence was, a further increase of power, and a gradual tainting of the opinions of both the other parties with their doctrines,until the infection has extended over both; and the great mass of the population of the north, who, whatever may be their opinion of the original abolition party, which still preserves its distinctive organization, hardly ever fail, when it comes to acting, to cooperate in carrying out their measures. with the increase of their influence, they extended the sphere of their action. in a short time after the commencement of their first movement, they had acquired sufficient influence to induce the legislatures of most of the northern states to pass acts, which in effect abrogated the clause of the constitution that provides for the delivery up of fugitive slaves. not long after, petitions followed to abolish slavery in forts, magazines, and dock-yards, and all other places where congress had exclusive power of legislation. this was followed by petitions and resolutions of legislatures of the northern states, and popular meetings, to exclude the southern states from all territories acquired, or to be acquired, and to prevent the admission of any state hereafter into the union, which, by its constitution, does not prohibit slavery. and congress is invoked to do all this, expressly with the view of the final abolition of slavery in the states. that has been avowed to be the ultimate object from the beginning of the agitation until the present time; and yet the great body of both parties of the north, with the full knowledge of the fact, although disavowing the abolitionists, have co-operated with them in almost all their measures. such is a brief history of the agitation, as far as it has yet advanced. now i ask, senators, what is there to prevent its further progress, until it fulfils the ultimate end proposed, unless some decisive measure should be adopted to prevent it? has any one of the causes, which has added to its increase from its original small and contemptible beginning until it has attained its present magnitude, diminished in force? is the original cause of the movement--that slavery is a sin, and ought to be suppressed--weaker now than at the commencement? or is the abolition party less numerous or influential, or have they less influence with, or less control over the two great parties of the north in elections? or has the south greater means of influencing or controlling the movements of this government now, than it had when the agitation commenced? to all these questions but one answer can be given: no, no, no. the very reverse is true. instead of being weaker, all the elements in favor of agitation are stronger now than they were in , when it first commenced, while all the elements of influence on the part of the south are weaker. unless something decisive is done, i again ask, what is to stop this agitation, before the great and final object at which it aims--the abolition of slavery in the states--is consummated? is it, then, not certain, that if something is not done to arrest it, the south will be forced to choose between abolition and secession? indeed, as events are now moving, it will not require the south to secede, in order to dissolve the union. agitation will of itself effect it, of which its past history furnishes abundant proof--as i shall next proceed to show. it is a great mistake to suppose that disunion can be effected by a single blow. the cords which bound these states together in one common union, are far too numerous and powerful for that. disunion must be the work of time. it is only through a long process, and successively, that the cords can be snapped, until the whole fabric falls asunder. already the agitation of the slavery question has snapped some of the most important, and has greatly weakened all the others, as i shall proceed to show. the cords that bind the states together are not only many, but various in character. some are spiritual or ecclesiastical; some political; others social. some appertain to the benefit conferred by the union, and others to the feeling of duty and obligation. the strongest of those of a spiritual and ecclesiastical nature, consisted in the unity of the great religious denominations, all of which originally embraced the whole union. all these denominations, with the exception, perhaps, of the catholics, were organized very much upon the principle of our political institutions. beginning with smaller meetings, corresponding with the political divisions of the country, their organization terminated in one great central assemblage, corresponding very much with the character of congress. at these meetings the principal clergymen and lay members of the respective denominations from all parts of the union, met to transact business relating to their common concerns. it was not confined to what appertained to the doctrines and discipline of the respective denominations, but extended to plans for disseminating the bible--establishing missions, distributing tracts--and of establishing presses for the publication of tracts, newspapers, and periodicals, with a view of diffusing religious information--and for the support of their respective doctrines and creeds. all this combined contributed greatly to strengthen the bonds of the union. the ties which held each denomination together formed a strong cord to hold the whole union together, but, powerful as they were, they have not been able to resist the explosive effect of slavery agitation. the first of these cords which snapped, under its explosive force, was that of the powerful methodist episcopal church. the numerous and strong ties which held it together, are all broken, and its unity is gone. they now form separate churches; and, instead of that feeling of attachment and devotion to the interests of the whole church which was formerly felt, they are now arrayed into two hostile bodies, engaged in litigation about what was formerly their common property. the next cord that snapped was that of the baptists--one of the largest and most respectable of the denominations. that of the presbyterian is not entirely snapped, but some of its strands have given way. that of the episcopal church is the only one of the four great protestant denominations which remains unbroken and entire. the strongest cord, of a political character, consists of the many and powerful ties that have held together the two great parties which have, with some modifications, existed from the beginning of the government. they both extended to every portion of the union, and strongly contributed to hold all its parts together. but this powerful cord has fared no better than the spiritual. it resisted, for a long time, the explosive tendency of the agitation, but has finally snapped under its force--if not entirely, in a great measure. nor is there one of the remaining cords which has not been greatly weakened. to this extent the union has already been destroyed by agitation, in the only way it can be, by sundering and weakening the cords which bind it together. if the agitation goes on, the same force, acting with increased intensity, as has been shown, will finally snap every cord, when nothing will be left to hold the states together except force. but, surely, that can, with no propriety of language, be called a union, when the only means by which the weaker is held connected with the stronger portion is force. it may, indeed, keep them connected; but the connection will partake much more of the character of subjugation, on the part of the weaker to the stronger, than the union of free, independent states, in one confederation, as they stood in the early stages of the government, and which only is worthy of the sacred name of union. having now, senators, explained what it is that endangers the union, and traced it to its cause, and explained its nature and character, the question again recurs, how can the union be saved? to this i answer, there is but one way by which it can be, and that is by adopting such measures as will satisfy the states belonging to the southern section, that they can remain in the union consistently with their honor and their safety. there is, again, only one way by which this can be effected, and that is by removing the causes by which this belief has been produced. do this, and discontent will cease, harmony and kind feelings between the sections be restored, and every apprehension of danger to the union be removed. the question, then, is, how can this be done? but, before i undertake to answer this question, i propose to show by what the union cannot be saved. it cannot, then, be saved by eulogies on the union, however splendid or numerous. the cry of "union, union, the glorious union!" can no more prevent disunion than the cry of "health, health, glorious health!" on the part of the physician, can save a patient lying dangerously ill. so long as the union, instead of being regarded as a protector, is regarded in the opposite character, by not much less than a majority of the states, it will be in vain to attempt to conciliate them by pronouncing eulogies on it. besides, this cry of union comes commonly from those whom we cannot believe to be sincere. it usually comes from our assailants. but we cannot believe them to be sincere; for, if they loved the union, they would necessarily be devoted to the constitution. it made the union,--and to destroy the constitution would be to destroy the union. but the only reliable and certain evidence of devotion to the constitution is to abstain, on the one hand, from violating it, and to repel, on the other, all attempts to violate it. it is only by faithfully performing these high duties that the constitution can be preserved, and with it the union. but how stands the profession of devotion to the union by our assailants, when brought to this test? have they abstained from violating the constitution? let the many acts passed by the northern states to set aside and annul the clause of the constitution providing for the delivery up of fugitive slaves answer. i cite this, not that it is the only instance (for there are many others), but because the violation in this particular is too notorious and palpable to be denied. again: have they stood forth faithfully to repel violations of the constitution? let their course in reference to the agitation of the slavery question, which was commenced and has been carried on for fifteen years, avowedly for the purpose of abolishing slavery in the states--an object all acknowledged to be unconstitutional,--answer. let them show a single instance, during this long period, in which they have denounced the agitators or their attempts to effect what is admitted to be unconstitutional, or a single measure which they have brought forward for that purpose. how can we, with all these facts before us, believe that they are sincere in their profession of devotion to the union, or avoid believing their profession is but intended to increase the vigor of their assaults and to weaken the force of our resistance? nor can we regard the profession of devotion to the union, on the part of those who are not our assailants, as sincere, when they pronounce eulogies upon the union, evidently with the intent of charging us with disunion, without uttering one word of denunciation against our assailants. if friends of the union, their course should be to unite with us in repelling these assaults, and denouncing the authors as enemies of the union. why they avoid this, and pursue the course they do, it is for them to explain. nor can the union be saved by invoking the name of the illustrious southerner whose mortal remains repose on the western bank of the potomac. he was one of us,--a slave-holder and a planter. we have studied his history, and find nothing in it to justify submission to wrong. on the contrary, his great fame rests on the solid foundation, that, while he was careful to avoid doing wrong to others, he was prompt and decided in repelling wrong. i trust that, in this respect, we profited by his example. nor can we find any thing in his history to deter us from seceding from the union, should it fail to fulfil the objects for which it was instituted, by being permanently and hopelessly converted into the means of oppressing instead of protecting us. on the contrary, we find much in his example to encourage us, should we be forced to the extremity of deciding between submission and disunion. there existed then, as well as now, a union--between the parent country and her colonies. it was a union that had much to endear it to the people of the colonies. under its protecting and superintending care, the colonies were planted and grew up and prospered, through a long course of years, until they be-came populous and wealthy. its benefits were not limited to them. their extensive agricultural and other productions, gave birth to a flourishing commerce, which richly rewarded the parent country for the trouble and expense of establishing and protecting them. washing-ton was born and grew up to manhood under that union. he acquired his early distinction in its service, and there is every reason to believe that he was devotedly attached to it. but his devotion was a national one. he was attached to it, not as an end, but as a means to an end. when it failed to fulfil its end, and, instead of affording protection, was converted into the means of oppressing the colonies, he did not hesitate to draw his sword, and head the great movement by which that union was forever severed, and the independence of these states established. this was the great and crowning glory of his life, which has spread his fame over the whole globe, and will transmit it to the latest posterity. nor can the plan proposed by the distinguished senator from kentucky, nor that of the administration, save the union. i shall pass by, without remark, the plan proposed by the senator. i, however, assure the distinguished and able senator, that, in taking this course, no disrespect whatever is intended to him or to his plan. i have adopted it because so many senators of distinguished abilities, who were present when he delivered his speech, and explained his plan, and who were fully capable to do justice to the side they support, have replied to him. * * * having now shown what cannot save the union, i return to the question with which i commenced, how can the union be saved? there is but one way by which it can with any certainty; and that is, by a full and final settlement, on the principle of justice, of all the questions at issue between the two sections. the south asks for justice, simple justice, and less she ought not to take. she has no compromise to offer, but the constitution; and no concession or surrender to make. she has already surrendered so much that she has little left to surrender. such a settlement would go to the root of the evil, and remove all cause of discontent, by satisfying the south that she could remain honorably and safely in the union, and thereby restore the harmony and fraternal feelings between the sections, which existed anterior to the missouri agitation. nothing else can, with any certainty, finally and forever settle the question at issue, terminate agitation, and save the union. but can this be done? yes, easily; not by the weaker party, for it can, of itself do nothing,--not even protect itself--but by the stronger. the north has only to will it to accomplish it--to do justice by conceding to the south an equal right in the acquired territory, and to do her duty by causing the stipulations relative to fugitive slaves to be faithfully fulfilled, to cease the agitation of the slave question, and to provide for the insertion of a provision in the constitution, by an amendment, which will restore to the south, in substance, the power she possessed of protecting herself, before the equilibrium between the sections was destroyed by the action of this government. there will be no difficulty in devising such a provision--one that will protect the south, and which, at the same time, will improve and strengthen the government, instead of impairing and weakening it. but will the north agree to this? it is for her to answer the question. but, i will say, she cannot refuse, if she has half the love for the union which she professes to have, or without justly exposing herself to the charge that her love of power and aggrandizement is far greater than her love of the union. at all events the responsibility of saving the union rests on the north, and not on the south. the south cannot save it by any act of hers, and the north may save it without any sacrifice whatever, unless to do justice, and to perform her duties under the constitution, should be regarded by her as a sacrifice. it is time, senators, that there should be an open and manly avowal on all sides, as to what is intended to be done. if the question is not now settled, it is uncertain whether it ever can hereafter be; and we, as the representatives of the states of this union, regarded as governments, should come to a distinct understanding as to our respective views, in order to ascertain whether the great questions at issue can be settled or not. if you, who represent the stronger portion, cannot agree to settle on the broad principle of justice and duty, say so; and let the states we both represent agree to separate and part in peace. if you are unwilling we should part in peace, tell us so, and we shall know what to do, when you reduce the question to submission or resistance. if you remain silent, you will compel us to infer by your acts what you intend. in that case, california will become the test question. if you admit her, under all the difficulties that oppose her admission, you compel us to infer that you intend to exclude us from the whole of the acquired territories, with the intention of destroying, irretrievably, the equilibrium between the two sections. we would be blind not to perceive in that case, that your real objects are power and aggrandizement, and infatuated, not to act accordingly. i have now, senators, done my duty in ex-pressing my opinions fully, freely and candidly, on this solemn occasion. in doing so, i have been governed by the motives which have governed me in all the stages of the agitation of the slavery question since its commencement. i have exerted myself, during the whole period, to arrest it, with the intention of saving the union, if it could be done; and if it could not, to save the section where it has pleased providence to cast my lot, and which i sincerely believe has justice and the constitution on its side. having faithfully done my duty to the best of my ability, both to the union and my section, throughout this agitation, i shall have the consolation, let what will come, that i am free from all responsibility. [illustration: daniel webster] daniel webster, of massachusetts. (born, , died, .) on the constitution and the union; senate of the united states, march , . mr. president: i wish to speak to-day, not as a massachusetts man, nor as a northern man, but as an american, and a member of the senate of the united states. it is fortunate that there is a senate of the united states; a body not yet moved from its propriety, nor lost to a just sense of its own dignity and its own high responsibilities, and a body to which the country looks, with confidence, for wise, moderate, patriotic, and healing counsels. it is not to be denied that we live in the midst of strong agitations and are surrounded by very considerable dangers to our institutions and government. the imprisoned winds are let loose. the east, the north, and the stormy south combine to throw the whole sea into commotion, to toss its billows to the skies, and disclose its profoundest depths. i do not affect to regard myself, mr. president, as holding, or fit to hold, the helm in this combat with the political elements; but i have a duty to perform, and i mean to perform it with fidelity, not without a sense of existing dangers, but not without hope. i have a part to act, not for my own security or safety, for i am looking out for no fragment upon which to float away from the wreck, if wreck there must be, but for the good of the whole, and the preservation of all; and there is that which will keep me to my duty during this struggle, whether the sun and the stars shall appear for many days. i speak to-day for the preservation of the union. "hear me for my cause." i speak to-day out of a solicitous and anxious heart, for the restoration to the country of that quiet and that harmony which make the blessings of this union so rich, and so dear to us all. these are the topics that i propose to myself to discuss; these are the motives, and the sole motives, that influence me in the wish to communicate my opinions to the senate and the country; and if i can do any thing, however little, for the promotion of these ends, i shall have accomplished all that i expect. * * * we all know, sir, that slavery has existed in the world from time immemorial. there was slavery in the earliest periods of history, among the oriental nations. there was slavery among the jews; the theocratic government of that people issued no injunction against it. there was slavery among the greeks. * * * at the introduction of christianity, the roman world was full of slaves, and i suppose there is to be found no injunction against that relation between man and man in the teachings of the gospel of jesus christ or of any of his apostles. * * * now, sir, upon the general nature and influence of slavery there exists a wide difference of opinion between the northern portion of this country and the southern. it is said on the one side, that, although not the subject of any injunction or direct prohibition in the new testament, slavery is a wrong; that it is founded merely in the right of the strongest; and that it is an oppression, like unjust wars, like all those conflicts by which a powerful nation subjects a weaker to its will; and that, in its nature, whatever may be said of it in the modifications which have taken place, it is not according to the meek spirit of the gospel. it is not "kindly affectioned"; it does not "seek another's, and not its own"; it does not "let the oppressed go free." these are sentiments that are cherished, and of late with greatly augmented force, among the people of the northern states. they have taken hold of the religious sentiment of that part of the country, as they have, more or less, taken hold of the religious feelings of a considerable portion of mankind. the south upon the other side, having been accustomed to this relation between the two races all their lives; from their birth, having been taught, in general, to treat the subjects of this bondage with care and kindness, and i believe, in general, feeling great kindness for them, have not taken the view of the subject which i have mentioned. there are thousands of religious men, with consciences as tender as any of their brethren at the north, who do not see the unlawfulness of slavery; and there are more thousands, perhaps, that, whatsoever they may think of it in its origin, and as a matter depending upon natural rights, yet take things as they are, and, finding slavery to be an established relation of the society in which they live, can see no way in which, let their opinions on the abstract question be what they may, it is in the power of this generation to relieve themselves from this relation. and candor obliges me to say, that i believe they are just as conscientious many of them, and the religious people, all of them, as they are at the north who hold different opinions. * * * there are men who, with clear perceptions, as they think, of their own duty, do not see how too eager a pursuit of one duty may involve them in the violation of others, or how too warm an embracement of one truth may lead to a disregard of other truths just as important. as i heard it stated strongly, not many days ago, these persons are disposed to mount upon some particular duty, as upon a war-horse, and to drive furiously on and upon and over all other duties that may stand in the way. there are men who, in reference to disputes of that sort, are of opinion that human duties may be ascertained with the exactness of mathematics. they deal with morals as with mathematics; and they think what is right may be distinguished from what is wrong with the precision of an algebraic equation. they have, therefore, none too much charity toward others who differ from them. they are apt, too, to think that nothing is good but what is perfect, and that there are no compromises or modifications to be made in consideration of difference of opinion or in deference to other men's judgment. if their perspicacious vision enables them to detect a spot on the face of the sun, they think that a good reason why the sun should be struck down from heaven. they prefer the chance of running into utter darkness to living in heavenly light, if that heavenly light be not absolutely without any imperfection. * * * but we must view things as they are. slavery does exist in the united states. it did exist in the states before the adoption of this constitution, and at that time. let us, therefore, consider for a moment what was the state of sentiment, north and south, in regard to slavery,--in regard to slavery, at the time this constitution was adopted. a remarkable change has taken place since; but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country think of slavery then? in what estimation did they hold it at the time when this constitution was adopted? it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no diversity of opinion between the north and the south upon the subject of slavery. it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. it will not be found that, either at the north or at the south, there was much, though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. the great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society became less strong and labor less productive; and therefore we find from all the eminent men of the time the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery is an evil. they ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. * * * you observe, sir, that the term slave, or slavery, is not used in the constitution. the constitution does not require that "fugitive slaves" shall be delivered up. it requires that persons held to service in one state, and escaping into another, shall be delivered up. mr. madison opposed the introduction of the term slave, or slavery, into the constitution; for he said, that he did not wish to see it recognized by the constitution of the united states of america that there could be property in men. * * * here we may pause. there was, if not an entire unanimity, a general concurrence of sentiment running through the whole community, and especially entertained by the eminent men of all parts of the country. but soon a change began, at the north and the south, and a difference of opinion showed itself; the north growing much more warm and strong against slavery, and the south growing much more warm and strong in its support. sir, there is no generation of mankind whose opinions are not subject to be influenced by what appear to them to be their present emergent and exigent interests. i impute to the south no particularly selfish view in the change which has come over her. i impute to her certainly no dishonest view. all that has happened has been natural. it has followed those causes which always influence the human mind and operate upon it. what, then, have been the causes which have created so new a feeling in favor of slavery in the south, which have changed the whole nomenclature of the south on that subject, so that, from being thought and described in the terms i have mentioned and will not repeat, it has now become an institution, a cherished institution, in that quarter; no evil, no scourge, but a great religious, social, and moral blessing, as i think i have heard it latterly spoken of? i suppose this, sir, is owing to the rapid growth and sudden extension of the cotton plantations of the south. so far as any motive consistent with honor, justice, and general judgment could act, it was the cotton interest that gave a new desire to promote slavery, to spread it, and to use its labor. i again say that this change was produced by causes which must always produce like effects. the whole interest of the south became connected, more or less, with the extension of slavery. if we look back to the history of the commerce of this country in the early years of this government, what were our exports? cotton was hardly, or but to a very limited extent, known. in the first parcel of cotton of the growth of the united states was exported, and amounted only to , pounds. it has gone on increasing rapidly, until the whole crop may now, perhaps, in a season of great product and high prices, amount to a hundred millions of dollars. in the years i have mentioned, there was more of wax, more of indigo, more of rice, more of almost every article of export from the south, than of cotton. when mr. jay negotiated the treaty of with england, it is evident from the twelfth article of the treaty, which was suspended by the senate, that he did not know that cotton was exported at all from the united states. * * * * * sir, there is not so remarkable a chapter in our history of political events, political parties, and political men as is afforded by this admission of a new slave-holding territory, so vast that a bird cannot fly over it in a week. new england, as i have said, with some of her own votes, supported this measure. three-fourths of the votes of liberty-loving connecticut were given for it in the other house, and one half here. there was one vote for it from maine but, i am happy to say, not the vote of the honorable member who addressed the senate the day before yesterday, and who was then a representative from maine in the house of representatives; but there was one vote from maine, ay, and there was one vote for it from massachusetts, given by a gentleman then representing, and now living in, the district in which the prevalence of free soil sentiment for a couple of years or so has defeated the choice of any member to represent it in congress. sir, that body of northern and eastern men who gave those votes at that time are now seen taking upon themselves, in the nomenclature of politics, the appellation of the northern democracy. they undertook to wield the destinies of this empire, if i may give that name to a republic, and their policy was, and they persisted in it, to bring into this country and under this government all the territory they could. they did it, in the case of texas, under pledges, absolute pledges, to the slave interest, and they afterwards lent their aid in bringing in these new conquests, to take their chance for slavery or freedom. my honorable friend from georgia, in march, , moved the senate to declare that the war ought not to be prosecuted for the conquest of territory, or for the dismemberment of mexico. the whole of the northern democracy voted against it. he did not get a vote from them. it suited the patriotic and elevated sentiments of the northern democracy to bring in a world from among the mountains and valleys of california and new mexico, or any other part of mexico, and then quarrel about it; to bring it in, and then endeavor to put upon it the saving grace of the wilmot proviso. there were two eminent and highly respectable gentlemen from the north and east, then leading gentlemen in the senate (i refer, and i do so with entire respect, for i entertain for both of those gentlemen, in general, high regard, to mr. dix of new york and mr. niles of connecticut), who both voted for the admission of texas. they would not have that vote any other way than as it stood; and they would have it as it did stand. i speak of the vote upon the annexation of texas. those two gentlemen would have the resolution of annexation just as it is, without amendment; and they voted for it just as it is, and their eyes were all open to its true character. the honorable member from south carolina who addressed us the other day was then secretary of state. his correspondence with mr. murphy, the charge d'affaires of the united states in texas, had been published. that correspondence was all before those gentlemen, and the secretary had the boldness and candor to avow in that correspondence, that the great object sought by the annexation of texas was to strengthen the slave interest of the south. why, sir, he said so in so many words. mr. calhoun. will the honorable senator permit me to interrupt him for a moment? mr. webster. certainly. mr. calhoun. i am very reluctant to interrupt the honorable gentleman; but, upon a point of so much importance, i deem it right to put myself _rectus in curia_. i did not put it upon the ground assumed by the senator. i put it upon this ground; that great britain had announced to this country, in so many words, that her object was to abolish slavery in texas, and, through texas, to accomplish the abolition of slavery in the united states and the world. the ground i put it on was, that it would make an exposed frontier, and, if great britain succeeded in her object, it would be impossible that that frontier could be secured against the aggressions of the abolitionists; and that this government was bound, under the guaranties of the constitution, to protect us against such a state of things. mr. webster. that comes, i suppose, sir, to exactly the same thing. it was, that texas must be obtained for the security of the slave interest of the south. mr. calhoun. another view is very distinctly given. mr. webster. that was the object set forth in the correspondence of a worthy gentleman not now living, who preceded the honorable member from south carolina in the department of state. there repose on the files of the department, as i have occasion to know, strong letters from mr. upshur to the united states minister in england, and i believe there are some to the same minister from the honorable senator himself, asserting to this effect the sentiments of this government; namely, that great britain was expected not to interfere to take texas out of the hands of its then existing government and make it a free country. but my argument, my suggestion, is this: that those gentlemen who composed the northern democracy when texas was brought into the union saw clearly that it was brought in as a slave country, and brought in for the purpose of being maintained as slave territory, to the greek kalends. i rather think the honorable gentleman who was then secretary of state might, in some of his correspondence with mr. murphy, have suggested that it was not expedient to say too much about this object, lest it should create some alarm. at any rate, mr. murphy wrote to him that england was anxious to get rid of the constitution of texas, because it was a constitution establishing slavery; and that what the united states had to do was to aid the people of texas in upholding their constitution; but that nothing should be said which should offend the fanatical men of the north. but, sir, the honorable member did avow this object himself, openly, boldly, and manfully; he did not disguise his conduct or his motives. mr. calhoun. never, never. mr. webster. what he means he is very apt to say. mr. calhoun. always, always. mr. webster. and i honor him for it. this admission of texas was in . then in , _flagrante bello_ between the united states and mexico, the proposition i have mentioned was brought forward by my friend from georgia, and the northern democracy voted steadily against it. their remedy was to apply to the acquisitions, after they should come in, the wilmot proviso. what follows? these two gentlemen, worthy and honorable and influential men (and if they had not been they could not have carried the measure), these two gentlemen, members of this body, brought in texas, and by their votes they also pre-vented the passage of the resolution of the honorable member from georgia, and then they went home and took the lead in the free soil party. and there they stand, sir! they leave us here, bound in honor and conscience by the resolutions of annexation; they leave us here, to take the odium of fulfilling the obligations in favor of slavery which they voted us into, or else the greater odium of violating those obligations, while they are at home making capital and rousing speeches for free soil and no slavery. and therefore i say, sir, that there is not a chapter in our history, respecting public measures and public men, more full of what would create surprise, and more full of what does create, in my mind, extreme mortification, than that of the conduct of the northern democracy on this subject. mr. president, sometimes when a man is found in a new relation to things around him and to other men, he says the world has changed, and that he is not changed. i believe, sir, that our self-respect leads us often to make this declaration in regard to ourselves when it is not exactly true. an individual is more apt to change, perhaps, than all the world around him. but under the present circumstances, and under the responsibility which i know i incur by what i am now stating here, i feel at liberty to recur to the various expressions and statements, made at various times, of my own opinions and resolutions respecting the admission of texas, and all that has followed. * * * on other occasions, in debate here, i have expressed my determination to vote for no acquisition, or cession, or annexation, north or south, east or west. my opinion has been, that we have territory enough, and that we should follow the spartan maxim: "improve, adorn what you have,"--seek no further. i think that it was in some observations that i made on the three million loan bill that i avowed this sentiment. in short, sir, it has been avowed quite as often in as many places, and before as many assemblies, as any humble opinions of mine ought to be avowed. but now that, under certain conditions, texas is in the union, with all her territory, as a slave state, with a solemn pledge also that, if she shall be divided into many states, those states may come in as slave states south of ° ', how are we to deal with this subject? i know no way of honest legislation, when the proper time comes for the enactment, but to carry into effect all that we have stipulated to do. * * * that is the meaning of the contract which our friends, the northern democracy, have left us to fulfil; and i, for one, mean to fulfil it, because i will not violate the faith of the government. what i mean to say is, that the time for the admission of new states formed out of texas, the number of such states, their boundaries, the requisite amount of population, and all other things connected with the admission, are in the free discretion of congress, except this: to wit, that when new states formed out of texas are to be admitted, they have a right, by legal stipulation and contract, to come in as slave states. now, as to california and new mexico, i hold slavery to be excluded from these territories by a law even superior to that which admits and sanctions it in texas. i mean the law of nature, of physical geography, the law of the formation of the earth. that law settles forever, with a strength beyond all terms of human enactment, that slavery cannot exist in california or new mexico. understand me, sir; i mean slavery as we regard it; the slavery of the colored race as it exists in the southern states. i shall not discuss the point, but leave it to the learned gentlemen who have undertaken to discuss it; but i suppose there is no slavery of that description in california now. i understand that peonism, a sort of penal servitude, exists there, or rather a sort of voluntary sale of a man and his offspring for debt, an arrangement of a peculiar nature known to the law of mexico. but what i mean to say is, that it is impossible that african slavery, as we see it among us, should find its way, or be introduced, into california and new mexico, as any other natural impossibility. california and new mexico are asiatic in their formation and scenery. they are composed of vast ridges of mountains of great height, with broken ridges and deep valleys. the sides of these mountains are entirely barren; their tops capped by perennial snow. there may be in california, now made free by its constitution, and no doubt there are, some tracts of valuable land. but it is not so in new mexico. pray, what is the evidence which every gentleman must have obtained on this subject, from information sought by himself or communicated by others? i have inquired and read all i could find, in order to acquire information on this important subject. what is there in new mexico that could, by any possibility, induce anybody to go there with slaves! there are some narrow strips of tillable land on the borders of the rivers; but the rivers themselves dry up before midsummer is gone. all that the people can do in that region is to raise some little articles, some little wheat for their tortillas, and that by irrigation. and who expects to see a hundred black men cultivating tobacco, corn, cotton, rice, or any thing else, on lands in new mexico, made fertile by irrigation? i look upon it, therefore, as a fixed fact, to use the current expression of the day, that both california and new mexico are destined to be free, so far as they are settled at all, which i believe, in regard to new mexico, will be but partially, for a great length of time; free by the arrangement of things ordained by the power above us. i have therefore to say, in this respect also, that this country is fixed for freedom, to as many persons as shall ever live in it, by a less repealable law than that which attaches to the right of holding slaves in texas; and i will say further, that, if a resolution or a bill were now before us, to provide a territorial government for new mexico, i would not vote to put any prohibition into it whatever. such a prohibition would be idle, as it respects any effect it would have upon the territory; and i would not take pains uselessly to reaffirm an ordinance of nature, nor to re-enact the will of god. i would put in no wilmot proviso for the mere purpose of a taunt or a reproach. i would put into it no evidence of the votes of superior power, exercised for no purpose but to wound the pride, whether a just and a rational pride, or an irrational pride, of the citizens of the southern states. i have no such object, no such purpose. they would think it a taunt, an indignity; they would think it to be an act taking away from them what they regard as a proper equality of privilege. whether they expect to realize any benefit from it or not, they would think it at least a plain theoretic wrong; that something more or less derogatory to their character and their rights had taken place. i propose to inflict no such wound upon anybody, unless something essentially important to the country, and efficient to the preservation of liberty and freedom, is to be effected. i repeat, therefore, sir, and, as i do not propose to address the senate often on this subject, i repeat it because i wish it to be distinctly understood, that, for the reasons stated, if a proposition were now here to establish a government for new mexico, and it was moved to insert a provision for a prohibition of slavery, i would not vote for it. * * * sir, we hear occasionally of the annexation of canada; and if there be any man, any of the northern democracy, or any of the free soil party, who supposes it necessary to insert a wilmot proviso in a territorial government for new mexico, that man would, of course, be of opinion that it is necessary to protect the ever-lasting snows of canada from the foot of slavery by the same overspreading wing of an act of congress. sir, wherever there is a substantive good to be done, wherever there is a foot of land to be prevented from becoming slave territory, i am ready to assert the principle of the exclusion of slavery. i am pledged to it from the year ; i have been pledged to it again and again; and i will perform these pledges; but i will not do a thing unnecessarily that wounds the feelings of others, or that does discredit to my own understanding. * * * mr. president, in the excited times in which we live, there is found to exist a state of crimination and recrimination between the north and south. there are lists of grievances produced by each; and those grievances, real or supposed, alienate the minds of one portion of the country from the other, exasperate the feelings, and subdue the sense of fraternal affection, patriotic love, and mutual regard. i shall bestow a little attention, sir, upon these various grievances existing on the one side and on the other. i begin with complaints of the south. i will not answer, further than i have, the general statements of the honorable senator from south carolina, that the north has prospered at the expense of the south in consequence of the manner of administering this government, in the collection of its revenues, and so forth. these are disputed topics, and i have no inclination to enter into them. but i will allude to other complaints of the south, and especially to one which has in my opinion, just foundation; and that is, that there has been found at the north, among individuals and among legislators, a disinclination to perform fully their constitutional duties in regard to the return of persons bound to service who have escaped into the free states. in that respect, the south, in my judgment, is right, and the north is wrong. every member of every northern legislature is bound by oath, like every other officer in the country, to support the constitution of the united states; and the article of the constitution which says to these states that they shall deliver up fugitives from service, is as binding in honor and conscience as any other article. no man fulfils his duty in any legislature who sets himself to find excuses, evasions, escapes from this constitutional obligation. i have always thought that the constitution addressed itself to the legislatures of the states or to the states themselves. it says that those persons escaping to other states "shall be delivered up," and i confess i have always been of the opinion that it was an injunction upon the states themselves. when it is said that a person escaping into another state, and coming therefore within the jurisdiction of that state, shall be delivered up, it seems to me the import of the clause is, that the state itself, in obedience to the constitution, shall cause him to be delivered up. that is my judgment. i have always entertained that opinion, and i entertain it now. but when the subject, some years ago, was before the supreme court of the united states, the majority of the judges held that the power to cause fugitives from service to be delivered up was a power to be exercised under the authority of this government. i do not know, on the whole, that it may not have been a fortunate decision. my habit is to respect the result of judicial deliberations and the solemnity of judicial decisions. as it now stands, the business of seeing that these fugitives are delivered up resides in the power of congress and the national judicature, and my friend at the head of the judiciary committee has a bill on the subject now before the senate, which, with some amendments to it, i propose to support, with all its provisions, to the fullest extent. and i desire to call the attention of all sober-minded men at the north, of all conscientious men, of all men who are not carried away by some fanatical idea or some false impression, to their constitutional obligations. i put it to all the sober and sound minds at the north as a question of morals and a question of conscience. what right have they, in their legislative capacity, or any other capacity, to endeavor to get round this constitution, or to embarrass the free exercise of the rights secured by the constitution, to the person whose slaves escape from them? none at all; none at all. neither in the forum of conscience, nor before the face of the constitution, are they, in my opinion, justified in such an attempt. of course it is a matter for their consideration. they probably, in the excitement of the times, have not stopped to consider this. they have followed what seemed to be the current of thought and of motives, as the occasion arose, and they have neglected to investigate fully the real question, and to consider their constitutional obligations; which, i am sure, if they did consider, they would fulfil with alacrity. i repeat, therefore, sir, that here is a well-founded ground of complaint against the north, which ought to be removed, which is now in the power of the different departments of this government to remove; which calls for the enactment of proper laws authorizing the judicature of this government, in the several states, to do all that is necessary for the recapture of fugitive slaves and for their restoration to those who claim them. wherever i go, and whenever i speak on the subject, and when i speak here i desire to speak to the whole north, i say that the south has been injured in this respect, and has a right to complain; and the north has been too careless of what i think the constitution peremptorily and emphatically enjoins upon her as a duty. complaint has been made against certain resolutions that emanate from legislatures at the north, and are sent here to us, not only on the subject of slavery in this district, but sometimes recommending congress to consider the means of abolishing slavery in the states. i should be sorry to be called upon to present any resolutions here which could not be referable to any committee or any power in congress; and therefore i should be unwilling to receive from the legislature of massachusetts any instructions to present resolutions expressive of any opinion whatever on the subject of slavery, as it exists at the present moment in the states, for two reasons: because i do not consider that i, as her representative here, have any thing to do with it. it has become, in my opinion, quite too common; and if the legislatures of the states do not like that opinion, they have a great deal more power to put it down than i have to uphold it; it has become, in my opinion, quite too common a practice for the state legislatures to present resolutions here on all subjects and to instruct us on all subjects. there is no public man that requires instruction more than i do, or who requires information more than i do, or desires it more heartily; but i do not like to have it in too imperative a shape. * * * then, sir, there are the abolition societies, of which i am unwilling to speak, but in regard to which i have very clear notions and opinions. i do not think them useful. i think their operations for the last twenty years have produced nothing good or valuable. at the same time, i believe thousands of their members to be honest and good men, perfectly well-meaning men. they have excited feelings; they think they must do something for the cause of liberty; and, in their sphere of action, they do not see what else they can do than to contribute to an abolition press, or an abolition society, or to pay an abolition lecturer. i do not mean to impute gross motives even to the leaders of these societies, but i am not blind to the consequences of their proceedings. i cannot but see what mischief their interference with the south has produced. and is it not plain to every man? let any gentleman who entertains doubts on this point, recur to the debates in the virginia house of delegates in , and he will see with what freedom a proposition made by mr. jefferson randolph, for the gradual abolition of slavery was discussed in that body. every one spoke of slavery as he thought; very ignominous and disparaging names and epithets were applied to it. the debates in the house of delegates on that occasion, i believe were all published. they were read by every colored man who could read, and to those who could not read, those debates were read by others. at that time virginia was not unwilling or afraid to discuss this question, and to let that part of her population know as much of the discussion as they could learn. that was in . as has been said by the honorable member from south carolina, these abolition societies commenced their course of action in . it is said, i do not know how true it may be, that they sent incendiary publications into the slave states; at any rate, they attempted to arouse, and did arouse, a very strong feeling; in other words, they created great agitation in the north against southern slavery. well, what was the result? the bonds of the slaves were bound more firmly than before, their rivets were more strongly fastened. public opinion, which in virginia had begun to be exhibited against slavery, and was opening out for the discussion of the question, drew back and shut itself up in its castle. i wish to know whether anybody in virginia can now talk openly, as mr. randolph, governor mcdowel, and others talked in , and sent their remarks to the press? we all know the fact, and we all know the cause; and every thing that these agitating people have done has been, not to enlarge, but to restrain, not to set free, but to bind faster, the slave population of the south. * * * there are also complaints of the north against the south. i need not go over them particularly. the first and gravest is, that the north adopted the constitution, recognizing the existence of slavery in the states, and recognizing the right, to a certain extent, of the representation of slaves in congress, under a state of sentiment and expectation which does not now exist; and that by events, by circumstances, by the eagerness of the south to acquire territory and extend her slave population, the north finds itself, in regard to the relative influence of the south and the north, of the free states and the slave states, where it never did expect to find itself when they agreed to the compact of the constitution. they complain, therefore, that, instead of slavery being regarded as an evil, as it was then, an evil which all hoped would be extinguished gradually, it is now regarded by the south as an institution to be cherished, and preserved, and extended; an institution which the south has already extended to the utmost of her power by the acquisition of new territory. well, then, passing from that, everybody in the north reads; and everybody reads whatsoever the newspapers contain; and the news-papers, some of them, especially those presses to which i have alluded, are careful to spread about among the people every reproachful sentiment uttered by any southern man bearing at all against the north; every thing that is calculated to exasperate and to alienate; and there are many such things, as everybody will admit, from the south, or from portions of it, which are disseminated among the reading people; and they do exasperate, and alienate, and produce a most mischievous effect upon the public mind at the north. sir, i would not notice things of this sort appearing in obscure quarters; but one thing has occurred in this debate which struck me very forcibly. an honorable member from louisiana addressed us the other day on this subject. i suppose there is not a more amiable and worthy gentleman in this chamber, nor a gentleman who would be more slow to give offence to any body, and he did not mean in his remarks to give offence. but what did he say? why, sir, he took pains to run a contrast between the slaves of the south and the laboring people of the north, giving the preference, in all points of condition, and comfort, and happiness to the slaves of the south. the honorable member, doubtless, did not suppose that he gave any offence, or did any injustice. he was merely expressing his opinion. but does he know how remarks of that sort will be received by the laboring people of the north? why, who are the laboring people of the north? they are the whole north. they are the people who till their own farms with their own hands; freeholders, educated men, independent men. let me say, sir, that five sixths of the whole property of the north is in the hands of the laborers of the north; they cultivate their farms, they educate their children, they provide the means of independence. if they are not freeholders, they earn wages; these wages accumulate, are turned into capital, into new freeholds, and small capitalists are created. such is the case, and such the course of things, among the industrious and frugal. and what can these people think when so respectable and worthy a gentleman as the member from louisiana undertakes to prove that the absolute ignorance and the abject slavery of the south are more in conformity with the high purposes and destiny of immortal, rational, human beings, than the educated, the independent free labor of the north? there is a more tangible and irritating cause of grievance at the north. free blacks are constantly employed in the vessels of the north, generally as cooks or stewards. when the vessel arrives at a southern port, these free colored men are taken on shore, by the police or municipal authority, imprisoned, and kept in prison till the vessel is again ready to sail. this is not only irritating, but exceedingly unjustifiable and oppressive. mr. hoar's mission, some time ago to south carolina, was a well-intended effort to remove this cause of complaint. the north thinks such imprisonments illegal and unconstitutional; and as the cases occur constantly and frequently they regard it as a grievance. now, sir, so far as any of these grievances have their foundation in matters of law, they can be redressed, and ought to be redressed; and so far as they have their foundation in matters of opinion, in sentiment, in mutual crimination and recrimination, all that we can do is to endeavor to allay the agitation, and cultivate a better feeling and more fraternal sentiments between the south and the north. mr. president, i should much prefer to have heard from every member on this floor declarations of opinion that this union could never be dissolved, than the declaration of opinion by anybody, that in any case, under the pressure of any circumstances, such a dissolution was possible. i hear with distress and anguish the word "secession," especially when it falls from the lips of those who are patriotic, and known to the country, and known all over the world for their political services. secession! peaceable secession! sir, your eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle. the dismemberment of this vast country without convulsion! the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep without ruffling the surface! who is so foolish--i beg everybody's pardon--as to expect to see any such thing? sir, he who sees these states, now revolving in harmony around a common centre, and expects to see them quit their places and fly off without convulsion, may look the next hour to see the heavenly bodies rush from their spheres, and jostle against each other in the realms of space, without causing the wreck of the universe. there can be no such thing as a peaceable secession. peaceable secession is an utter impossibility. is the great constitution under which we live, covering this whole country, is it to be thawed and melted away by secession, as the snows on the mountain melt under the influence of a vernal sun, disappear almost unobserved, and run off? no, sir! no, sir! i will not state what might produce the disruption of the union; but, sir, i see as plainly as i can see the sun in heaven what that disruption itself must produce; i see that it must produce war, and such a war as i will not describe, in its twofold character. peaceable secession! peaceable secession! the concurrent agreement of all the members of this great republic to separate! a voluntary separation, with alimony on one side and on the other. why, what would be the result? where is the line to be drawn? what states are to secede? what is to remain american? what am i to be? an american no longer? am i to become a sectional man, a local man, a separatist, with no country in common with the gentlemen who sit around me here, or who fill the other house of congress? heaven forbid! where is the flag of the republic to remain? where is the eagle still to tower? or is he to cower, and shrink, and fall to the ground? why, sir, our ancestors, our fathers and our grandfathers, those of them that are yet living amongst us with prolonged lives, would rebuke and reproach us; and our children and our grandchildren would cry out shame upon us, if we of this generation should dishonor these ensigns of the power of the government and the harmony of that union which is every day felt among us with so much joy and gratitude. what is to become of the army? what is to become of the navy? what is to become of the public lands? how is each of the thirty states to defend itself? i know, although the idea has not been stated distinctly, there is to be, or it is supposed possible that there will be, a southern confederacy. i do not mean, when i allude to this statement, that any one seriously contemplates such a state of things. i do not mean to say that it is true, but i have heard it suggested elsewhere, that the idea has been entertained, that, after the dissolution of this union, a southern confederacy might be formed. i am sorry, sir, that it has ever been thought of, talked of, in the wildest flights of human imagination. but the idea, so far as it exists, must be of a separation, assigning the slave states to one side, and the free states to the other. sir, i may express myself too strongly, perhaps, but there are impossibilities in the natural as well as in the physical world, and i hold the idea of the separation of these states, those that are free to form one government, and those that are slave-holding to form another, as such an impossibility. we could not separate the states by any such line, if we were to draw it. we could not sit down here to-day and draw a line of separation that would satisfy any five men in the country. there are natural causes that would keep and tie us together, and there are social and domestic relations which we could not break if we would, and which we should not if we could. sir, nobody can look over the face of this country at the present moment, nobody can see where its population is the most dense and growing, without being ready to admit, and compelled to admit, that erelong the strength of america will be in the valley of the mississippi. well, now, sir, i beg to inquire what the wildest enthusiast has to say on the possibility of cutting that river in two, and leaving free states at its source and on its branches, and slave states down near its mouth, each forming a separate government? pray, sir, let me say to the people of this country, that these things are worthy of their pondering and of their consideration. here, sir, are five millions of freemen in the free states north of the river ohio. can anybody suppose that this population can be severed, by a line that divides them from the territory of a foreign and alien government, down somewhere, the lord knows where, upon the lower banks of the mississippi? what would become of missouri? will she join the arrondissement of the slave states? shall the man from the yellowstone and the platte be connected, in the new republic, with the man who lives on the southern extremity of the cape of florida? sir, i am ashamed to pursue this line of remark. i dislike it, i have an utter disgust for it. i would rather hear of natural blasts and mildews, war, pestilence, and famine, than to hear gentlemen talk of secession. to break up this great government! to dismember this glorious country! to astonish europe with an act of folly such as europe for two centuries has never beheld in any government or any people! no, sir! no, sir! there will be no secession! gentlemen are not serious when they talk of secession. sir, i hear there is to be a convention held at nashville. i am bound to believe that if worthy gentlemen meet at nashville in convention, their object will be to adopt conciliatory counsels; to advise the south to forbearance and moderation, and to advise the north to forbearance and moderation; and to inculcate principles of brotherly love and affection, and attachment to the constitution of the country as it now is. i believe, if the convention meet at all, it will be for this purpose; for certainly, if they meet for any purpose hostile to the union, they have been singularly inappropriate in their selection of a place. i remember, sir, that, when the treaty of amiens was concluded between france and england, a sturdy englishman and a distinguished orator, who regarded the conditions of the peace as ignominious to england, said in the house of commons, that if king william could know the terms of that treaty, he would turn in his coffin! let me commend this saying to mr. windham, in all its emphasis and in all its force, to any persons who shall meet at nashville for the purpose of concerting measures for the overthrow of this union over the bones of andrew jackson. * * * and now, mr. president, instead of speaking of the possibility or utility of secession, instead of dwelling in those caverns of darkness, instead of groping with those ideas so full of all that is horrid and horrible, let us come out into the light of the day; let us enjoy the fresh air of liberty and union; let us cherish those hopes which belong to us; let us devote ourselves to those great objects that are fit for our consideration and our action; let us raise our conceptions to the magnitude and the importance of the duties that devolve upon us; let our comprehension be as broad as the country for which we act, our aspirations as high as its certain destiny; let us not be pigmies in a case that calls for men. never did there devolve on any generation of men higher trusts than now devolve upon us, for the preservation of this constitution and the harmony and peace of all who are destined to live under it. let us make our generation one of the strongest and brightest links in that golden chain which is destined, i fondly believe, to grapple the people of all the states to this constitution for ages to come. we have a great, popular, constitutional government, guarded by law and by judicature, and defended by the affections of the whole people. no monarchical throne presses these states together, no iron chain of military power encircles them; they live and stand under a government popular in its form, representative in its character, founded upon principles of equality, and so constructed, we hope, as to last forever. in all its history it has been beneficent; it has trodden down no man's liberty; it has crushed no state. its daily respiration is liberty and patriotism; its yet youthful veins are full of enterprise, courage, and honorable love of glory and renown. large before, the country has now, by recent events, become vastly larger. this republic now extends, with a vast breadth across the whole continent. the two great seas of the world wash the one and the other shore. we realize, on a mighty scale, the beautiful description of the ornamental border of the buckler of achilles: "now, the broad shield complete, the artist crowned with his last hand, and poured the ocean round; in living silver seemed the waves to roll, and beat the buckler's verge, and bound the whole." [illustration: henry clay] henry clay, of kentucky, (born , died .) on the compromise of ; united states senate, july , . mr. president: in the progress of this debate it has been again and again argued that perfect tranquillity reigns throughout the country, and that there is no disturbance threatening its peace, endangering its safety, but that which was produced by busy, restless politicians. it has been maintained that the surface of the public mind is perfectly smooth and undisturbed by a single billow. i most heartily wish i could concur in this picture of general tranquillity that has been drawn upon both sides of the senate. i am no alarmist; nor, i thank god, at the advanced age at which his providence has been pleased to allow me to reach, am i very easily alarmed by any human event; but i totally misread the signs of the times, if there be that state of profound peace and quiet, that absence of all just cause of apprehension of future danger to this confederacy, which appears to be entertained by some other senators. mr. president, all the tendencies of the times, i lament to say, are toward disquietude, if not more fatal consequences. when before, in the midst of profound peace with all the nations of the earth, have we seen a convention, representing a considerable portion of one great part of the republic, meet to deliberate about measures of future safety in connection with great interests of that quarter of the country? when before have we seen, not one, but more--some half a dozen legislative bodies solemnly resolving that if any one of these measures--the admission of california, the adoption of the wilmot proviso, the abolition of slavery in the district of columbia--should be adopted by congress, measures of an extreme character, for the safety of the great interests to which i refer, in a particular section of the country, would be resorted to? for years, this subject of the abolition of slavery, even within this district of columbia, small as is the number of slaves here, has been a source of constant irritation and disquiet. so of the subject of the recovery of fugitive slaves who have escaped from their lawful owners: not a mere border contest, as has been supposed--although there, undoubtedly, it has given rise to more irritation than in other portions of the union--but everywhere through-out the slave-holding country it has been felt as a great evil, a great wrong which required the intervention of congressional power. but these two subjects, unpleasant as has been the agitation to which they have given rise, are nothing in comparison to those which have sprung out of the acquisitions recently made from the republic of mexico. these are not only great and leading causes of just apprehension as respects the future, but all the minor circumstances of the day intimate danger ahead, whatever may be its final issue and consequence. * * * mr. president, i will not dwell upon other concomitant causes, all having the same tendency, and all well calculated to awaken, to arouse us--if, as i hope the fact is, we are all of us sincerely desirous of preserving this union--to rouse us to dangers which really exist, without underrating them upon the one hand, or magnifying them upon the other. * * * it has been objected against this measure that it is a compromise. it has been said that it is a compromise of principle, or of a principle. mr. president, what is a compromise? it is a work of mutual concession--an agreement in which there are reciprocal stipulations--a work in which, for the sake of peace and concord, one party abates his extreme demands in consideration of an abatement of extreme demands by the other party: it is a measure of mutual concession--a measure of mutual sacrifice. undoubtedly, mr. president, in all such measures of compromise, one party would be very glad to get what he wants, and reject what he does not desire, but which the other party wants. but when he comes to reflect that, from the nature of the government and its operations, and from those with whom he is dealing, it is necessary upon his part, in order to secure what he wants, to grant something to the other side, he should be reconciled to the concession which he has made, in consequence of the concession which he is to receive, if there is no great principle involved, such as a violation of the constitution of the united states. i admit that such a compromise as that ought never to be sanctioned or adopted. but i now call upon any senator in his place to point out from the beginning to the end, from california to new mexico, a solitary provision in this bill which is violative of the constitution of the united states. sir, adjustments in the shape of compromise may be made without producing any such consequences as have been apprehended. there may be a mutual forbearance. you forbear on your side to insist upon the application of the restriction denominated the wilmot proviso. is there any violation of principle there? the most that can be said, even assuming the power to pass the wilmot proviso, which is denied, is that there is a forbearance to exercise, not a violation of, the power to pass the proviso. so, upon the other hand, if there was a power in the constitution of the united states authorizing the establishment of slavery in any of the territories--a power, however, which is controverted by a large portion of this senate--if there was a power under the constitution to establish slavery, the forbearance to exercise that power is no violation of the constitution, any more than the constitution is violated by a forbearance to exercise numerous powers, that might be specified, that are granted in the constitution, and that remain dormant until they come to be exercised by the proper legislative authorities. it is said that the bill presents the state of coercion--that members are coerced, in order to get what they want, to vote for that which they disapprove. why, sir, what coercion is there? * * * can it be said upon the part of our northern friends, because they have not got the wilmot proviso incorporated in the territorial part of the bill, that they are coerced--wanting california, as they do, so much--to vote for the bill, if they do vote for it? sir, they might have imitated the noble example of my friend (senator cooper, of pennsylvania), from that state upon whose devotion to this union i place one of my greatest reliances for its preservation. what was the course of my friend upon this subject of the wilmot proviso? he voted for it; and he could go back to his constituents and say, as all of you could go back and say to your constituents, if you chose to do so--"we wanted the wilmot proviso in the bill; we tried to get it in; but the majority of the senate was against it." the question then came up whether we should lose california, which has got an interdiction in her constitution, which, in point of value and duration, is worth a thousand wilmot provisos; we were induced, as my honorable friend would say, to take the bill and the whole of it together, although we were disappointed in our votes with respect to the wilmot proviso--to take it, whatever omissions may have been made, on account of the superior amount of good it contains. * * * not the reception of the treaty of peace negotiated at ghent, nor any other event which has occurred during my progress in public life, ever gave such unbounded and universal satisfaction as the settlement of the missouri compromise. we may argue from like causes like effects. then, indeed, there was great excitement. then, indeed, all the legislatures of the north called out for the exclusion of missouri, and all the legislatures of the south called out for her admission as a state. then, as now, the country was agitated like the ocean in the midst of a turbulent storm. but now, more than then, has this agitation been increased. now, more than then, are the dangers which exist, if the controversy remains unsettled, more aggravated and more to be dreaded. the idea of disunion was then scarcely a low whisper. now, it has become a familiar language in certain portions of the country. the public mind and the public heart are becoming familiarized with that most dangerous and fatal of all events--the disunion of the states. people begin to contend that this is not so bad a thing as they had supposed. like the progress in all human affairs, as we approach danger it disappears, it diminishes in our conception, and we no longer regard it with that awful apprehension of consequences that we did before we came into contact with it. everywhere now there is a state of things, a degree of alarm and apprehension, and determination to fight, as they regard it, against the aggressions of the north. that did not so demonstrate itself at the period of the missouri compromise. it was followed, in consequence of the adoption of the measure which settled the difficulty of missouri, by peace, harmony, and tranquillity. so, now, i infer, from the greater amount of agitation, from the greater amount of danger, that, if you adopt the measures under consideration, they, too, will be followed by the same amount of contentment, satisfaction, peace, and tranquillity, which ensued after the missouri compromise. * * * the responsibility of this great measure passes from the hands of the committee, and from my hands. they know, and i know, that it is an awful and tremendous responsibility. i hope that you will meet it with a just conception and a true appreciation of its magnitude, and the magnitude of the consequences that may ensue from your decision one way or, the other. the alternatives, i fear, which the measure presents, are concord and increased discord; a servile civil war, originating in its causes on the lower rio grande, and terminating possibly in its consequences on the upper rio grande in the santa fe country, or the restoration of harmony and fraternal kindness. i believe from the bottom of my soul, that the measure is the reunion of this union. i believe it is the dove of peace, which, taking its aerial flight from the dome of the capitol, carries the glad tidings of assured peace and restored harmony to all the remotest extremities of this distracted land. i believe that it will be attended with all these beneficent effects. and now let us discard all resentment, all passions, all petty jealousies, all personal desires, all love of place, all hankerings after the gilded crumbs which fall from the table of power. let us forget popular fears, from whatever quarter they may spring. let us go to the limpid fountain of unadulterated patriotism, and, performing a solemn lustration, return divested of all selfish, sinister, and sordid impurities, and think alone of our god, our country, our consciences, and our glorious union--that union without which we shall be torn into hostile fragments, and sooner or later become the victims of military despotism, or foreign domination. mr. president, what is an individual man? an atom, almost invisible without a magnifying glass--a mere speck upon the surface of the immense universe; not a second in time, compared to immeasurable, never-beginning, and never-ending eternity; a drop of water in the great deep, which evaporates and is borne off by the winds; a grain of sand, which is soon gathered to the dust from which it sprung. shall a being so small, so petty, so fleeting, so evanescent, oppose itself to the onward march of a great nation, which is to subsist for ages and ages to come; oppose itself to that long line of posterity which, issuing from our loins, will endure during the existence of the world? forbid it, god. let us look to our country and our cause, elevate ourselves to the dignity of pure and disinterested patriots, and save our country from all impending dangers. what if, in the march of this nation to greatness and power, we should be buried beneath the wheels that propel it onward! what are we--what is any man--worth who is not ready and willing to sacrifice himself for the benefit of his country when it is necessary? * * * if this union shall become separated, new unions, new confederacies will arise. and with respect to this, if there be any--i hope there is no one in the senate--before whose imagination is flitting the idea of a great southern confederacy to take possession of the balize and the mouth of the mississippi, i say in my place never! never! never! will we who occupy the broad waters of the mississippi and its upper tributaries consent that any foreign flag shall float at the balize or upon the turrets of the crescent city--never! never! i call upon all the south. sir, we have had hard words, bitter words, bitter thoughts, unpleasant feelings toward each other in the progress of this great measure. let us forget them. let us sacrifice these feelings. let us go to the altar of our country and swear, as the oath was taken of old, that we will stand by her; that we will support her; that we will uphold her constitution; that we will preserve her union; and that we will pass this great, comprehensive, and healing system of measures, which will hush all the jarring elements, and bring peace and tranquillity to our homes. let me, mr. president, in conclusion, say that the most disastrous consequences would occur, in my opinion, were we to go home, doing nothing to satisfy and tranquillize the country upon these great questions. what will be the judgment of mankind, what the judgment of that portion of mankind who are looking upon the progress of this scheme of self-government as being that which holds the highest hopes and expectations of ameliorating the condition of mankind--what will their judgment be? will not all the monarchs of the old world pronounce our glorious republic a disgraceful failure? what will be the judgment of our constituents, when we return to them and they ask us: "how have you left your country? is all quiet--all happy? are all the seeds of distraction or division crushed and dissipated?" and, sir, when you come into the bosom of your family, when you come to converse with the partner of your fortunes, of your happiness, and of your sorrows, and when in the midst of the common offspring of both of you, she asks you: "is there any danger of civil war? is there any danger of the torch being applied to any portion of the country? have you settled the questions which you have been so long discussing and deliberating upon at washington? is all peace and all quiet?" what response, mr. president, can you make to that wife of your choice and those children with whom you have been blessed by god? will you go home and leave all in disorder and confusion--all unsettled--all open? the contentions and agitations of the past will be increased and augmented by the agitations resulting from our neglect to decide them. sir, we shall stand condemned by all human judgment below, and of that above it is not for me to speak. we shall stand condemned in our own consciences, by our own constituents, and by our own country. the measure may be defeated. i have been aware that its passage for many days was not absolutely certain. from the first to the last, i hoped and believed it would pass, because from the first to the last i believed it was founded on the principles of just and righteous concession of mutual conciliation. i believe that it deals unjustly by no part of the republic; that it saves their honor, and, as far as it is dependent upon congress, saves the interests of all quarters of the country. but, sir, i have known that the decision of its fate depended upon four or five votes in the senate of the united states, whose ultimate judgment we could not count upon the one side or the other with absolute certainty. its fate is now committed to the senate, and to those five or six votes to which i have referred. it may be defeated. it is possible that, for the chastisement of our sins and transgressions, the rod of providence may be still applied to us, may be still suspended over us. but, if defeated, it will be a triumph of ultraism and impracticability--a triumph of a most extraordinary conjunction of extremes; a victory won by abolitionism; a victory achieved by freesoilism; a victory of discord and agitation over peace and tranquillity; and i pray to almighty god that it may not, in consequence of the inauspicious result, lead to the most unhappy and disastrous consequences to our beloved country. mr. barnwell:--it is not my intention to reply to the argument of the senator from kentucky, but there were expressions used by him not a little disrespectful to a friend whom i hold very dear. * * * it is true that his political opinions differ very widely from those of the senator from kentucky. it may be true, that he, with many great statesmen, may believe that the wilmot proviso is a grievance to be resisted "to the utmost extremity" by those whose rights it destroys and whose honor it degrades. it is true that he may believe * * * that the admission of california will be the passing of the wilmot proviso, when we here in congress give vitality to an act otherwise totally dead, and by our legislation exclude slaveholders from that whole broad territory on the pacific; and, entertaining this opinion, he may have declared that the contingency will then have occurred which will, in the judgment of most of the slave-holding states, as expressed by their resolutions, justify resistance as to an intolerable aggression. if he does entertain and has expressed such sentiments, he is not to be held up as peculiarly a disunionist. allow me to say, in reference to this matter, i regret that you have brought it about, but it is true that this epithet "disunionist" is likely soon to have very little terror in it in the south. words do not make things. "rebel" was designed as a very odious term when applied by those who would have trampled on the rights of our ancestors, but i believe that the expression became not an ungrateful one to the ears of those who resisted them. it was not the lowest term of abuse to call those who were conscious that they were struggling against oppression; and let me assure gentlemen that the term disunionist is rapidly assuming at the south the meaning which rebel took when it was baptized in the blood of warren at bunker hill, and illustrated by the gallantry of jasper at fort moultrie. * * * mr. clay:--mr. president, i said nothing with respect to the character of mr. rhett, for i might as well name him. i know him personally, and have some respect for him. but, if he pronounced the sentiment attributed to him--of raising the standard of disunion and of resistance to the common government, whatever he has been, if he follows up that declaration by corresponding overt acts, he will be a traitor, and i hope he will meet the fate of a traitor. the president:--the chair will be under the necessity of ordering the gallery to be cleared if there is again the slightest interruption. he has once already given warning that he is under the necessity of keeping order. the senate chamber is not a theatre. mr. clay:--mr. president, i have heard with pain and regret a confirmation of the remark i made, that the sentiment of disunion is becoming familiar. i hope it is confined to south carolina. i do not regard as my duty what the honorable senator seems to regard as his. if kentucky to-morrow unfurls the banner of resistance unjustly, i never will fight under that banner. i owe a paramount allegiance to the whole union--a subordinate one to my own state. when my state is right--when it has a cause for resistance--when tyranny, and wrong, and oppression insufferable arise, i will then share her fortunes; but if she summons me to the battle-field, or to support her in any cause which is unjust, against the union, never, never will i engage with her in such cause. wendell phillips, of massaciusetts. (born , died .) on the philosophy of the abolition movement, before the massachusetts anti-slavery society, at boston, january , . mr. chairman: i have to present, from the business committee, the following resolution: resolved; that the object of this society is now, as it has always been, to convince our countrymen, by arguments addressed to their hearts and consciences, that slave-holding is a heinous crime, and that the duty, safety, and interest of all concerned demand its immediate abolition without expatriation. i wish, mr, chairman, to notice some objections that have been made to our course ever since mr. garrison began his career, and which have been lately urged again, with considerable force and emphasis, in the columns of the london leader, the able organ of a very respectable and influential class in england. * * * the charges to which i refer are these: that, in dealing with slave-holders and their apologists, we indulge in fierce denunciations, instead of appealing to their reason and common sense by plain statements and fair argument; that we might have won the sympathies and support of the nation, if we would have submitted to argue this question with a manly patience; but, instead of this, we have outraged the feelings of the community by attacks, unjust and unnecessarily severe, on its most valued institutions, and gratified our spleen by indiscriminate abuse of leading men, who were often honest in their intentions, however mistaken in their views; that we have utterly neglected the ample means that lay around us to convert the nation, submitted to no discipline, formed no plan, been guided by no foresight, but hurried on in childish, reckless, blind, and hot-headed zeal,--bigots in the narrowness of our views, and fanatics in our blind fury of invective and malignant judgment of other men's motives. there are some who come upon our platform, and give us the aid of names and reputations less burdened than ours with popular odium,who are perpetually urging us to exercise charity in our judgments of those about us, and to consent to argue these questions. these men are ever parading their wish to draw a line between themselves and us, because they must be permitted to wait,--to trust more to reason than feeling,--to indulge a generous charity,--to rely on the sure influence of simple truth, uttered in love, etc., etc. i reject with scorn all these implications that our judgments are uncharitable,--that we are lacking in patience,--that we have any other dependence than on the simple truth, spoken with christian frankness, yet with christian love. these lectures, to which you, sir, and all of us, have so often listened, would be impertinent, if they were not rather ridiculous for the gross ignorance they betray of the community, of the cause, and of the whole course of its friends. the article in the _leader_ to which i refer is signed "ion," and may be found in the _liberator_ of december , . * * * "ion" quotes mr garrison's original declaration in the _liberator_: "i am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? i _will_ be as harsh as truth and as uncompromising as justice. i am in earnest,--i will not equivocate,--i will not excuse,--i will not retreat a single inch,--and i will be heard. it is pretended that i am retarding the cause of emancipation by the coarseness of my invective and the precipitancy of my measures. the charge is not true. on this question, my influence, humble as it is, is felt at this moment to a considerable extent, and shall be felt in coming years, not perniciously, but beneficially; not as a curse, but as a blessing; and posterity will bear testimony that i was right. i desire to thank god that he enables me to disregard 'the fear of man which bringeth a snare,' and to speak his truth in its simplicity and power." * * * "ion's" charges are the old ones, that we abolitionists are hurting our own cause; that, instead of waiting for the community to come up to our views, and endeavoring to remove prejudice and enlighten ignorance by patient explanation and fair argument, we fall at once, like children, to abusing every thing and everybody; that we imagine zeal will supply the place of common sense; that we have never shown any sagacity in adapting our means to our ends; have never studied the national character, or attempted to make use of the materials which lay all about us to influence public opinion, but by blind, childish, obstinate fury and indiscriminate denunciation, have become "honestly impotent, and conscientious hinderances." i claim, before you who know the true state of the case, i claim for the antislavery movement with which this society is identified, that, looking back over its whole course, and considering the men connected with it in the mass, it has been marked by sound judgment, unerring foresight, the most sagacious adaptation of means to ends, the strictest self-discipline, the most thorough research, and an amount of patient and manly argument addressed to the conscience and intellect of the nation, such as no other cause of the kind, in england or this country, has ever offered. i claim, also, that its course has been marked by a cheerful surrender of all individual claims to merit or leadership,--the most cordial welcoming of the slightest effort, of every honest attempt, to lighten or to break the chain of the slave. i need not waste time by repeating the superfluous confession that we are men, and therefore do not claim to be perfect. neither would i be understood as denying that we use denunciation, and ridicule, and every other weapon that the human mind knows. we must plead guilty, if there be guilt in not knowing how to separate the sin from the sinner. with all the fondness for abstractions attributed to us, we are not yet capable of that. we are fighting a momentous battle at desperate odds,--one against a thousand. every weapon that ability or ignorance, wit, wealth, prejudice, or fashion can command, is pointed against us. the guns are shotted to their lips. the arrows are poisoned. fighting against such an array, we cannot afford to confine ourselves to any one weapon. the cause is not ours, so that we might, rightfully, postpone or put in peril the victory by moderating our demands, stifling our convictions, or filing down our rebukes, to gratify any sickly taste of our own, or to spare the delicate nerves of our neighbor. our clients are three millions of christian slaves, standing dumb suppliants at the threshold of the christian world. they have no voice but ours to utter their complaints, or to demand justice. the press, the pulpit, the wealth, the literature, the prejudices, the political arrangements, the present self-interest of the country, are all against us. god has given us no weapon but the truth, faithfully uttered, and addressed, with the old prophets' directness, to the conscience of the individual sinner. the elements which control public opinion and mould the masses are against us. we can but pick off here and there a man from the triumphant majority. we have facts for those who think, arguments for those who reason; but he who cannot be reasoned out of his prejudices must be laughed out of them; he who cannot be argued out of his selfishness must be shamed out of it by the mirror of his hateful self held up relentlessly before his eyes. we live in a land where every man makes broad his phylactery, inscribing thereon, "all men are created equal,"--"god hath made of one blood all nations of men." it seems to us that in such a land there must be, on this question of slavery, sluggards to be awakened, as well as doubters to be convinced. many more, we verily believe, of the first than of the last. there are far more dead hearts to be quickened, than confused intellects to be cleared up,--more dumb dogs to be made to speak, than doubting consciences to be enlightened. we have use, then, sometimes, for something beside argument. what is the denunciation with which we are charged? it is endeavoring, in our faltering human speech, to declare the enormity of the sin of making merchandize of men,--of separating husband and wife,--taking the infant from its mother and selling the daughter to prostitution,--of a professedly christian nation denying, by statute, the bible to every sixth man and woman of its population, and making it illegal for "two or three" to meet together, except a white man be present! what is this harsh criticism of motives with which we are charged? it is simply holding the intelligent and deliberate actor responsible for the character and consequences of his acts. is there any thing inherently wrong in such denunciation of such criticism? this we may claim,--we have never judged a man but out of his own mouth. we have seldom, if ever, held him to account, except for acts of which he and his own friends were proud. all that we ask the world and thoughtful men to note are the principles and deeds on which the american pulpit and american public men plume themselves. we always allow our opponents to paint their own pictures. our humble duty is to stand by and assure the spectators that what they would take for a knave or a hypocrite is really, in american estimation, a doctor of divinity or a secretary of state. the south is one great brothel, where half a million of women are flogged to prostitution, or, worse still, are degraded to believe it honorable. the public squares of half our great cities echo to the wail of families torn asunder at the auction-block; no one of our fair rivers that has not closed over the negro seeking in death a refuge from a life too wretched to bear; thousands of fugitives skulk along our highways, afraid to tell their names, and trembling at the sight of a human being; free men are kidnapped in our streets, to be plunged into that hell of slavery; and now and then one, as if by miracle, after long years returns to make men aghast with his tale. the press says, "it is all right"; and the pulpit cries, "amen." they print the bible in every tongue in which man utters his prayers; and they get the money to do so by agreeing never to give the book, in the language our mothers taught us, to any negro, free or bond, south of mason and dixon's line. the press says, "it is all right"; and the pulpit cries, "amen." the slave lifts up his imploring eyes, and sees in every face but ours the face of an enemy. prove to me now that harsh rebuke, indignant denunciation, scathing sarcasm, and pitiless ridicule are wholly and always unjustifiable; else we dare not, in so desperate a case, throw away any weapon which ever broke up the crust of an ignorant prejudice, roused a slumbering conscience, shamed a proud sinner, or changed in any way the conduct of a human being. our aim is to alter public opinion. did we live in a market, our talk should be of dollars and cents, and we would seek to prove only that slavery was an unprofitable investment. were the nation one great, pure church, we would sit down and reason of "righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come." had slavery fortified itself in a college, we would load our cannons with cold facts, and wing our arrows with arguments. but we happen to live in the world,--the world made up of thought and impulse, of self-conceit and self-interest, of weak men and wicked. to conquer, we must reach all. our object is not to make every man a christian or a philosopher, but to induce every one to aid in the abolition of slavery. we expect to accomplish our object long before the nation is made over into saints or elevated into philosophers. to change public opinion, we use the very tools by which it was formed. that is, all such as an honest man may touch. all this i am not only ready to allow, but i should be ashamed to think of the slave, or to look into the face of my fellow-man, if it were otherwise. it is the only thing which justifies us to our own consciences, and makes us able to say we have done, or at least tried to do, our duty. so far, however you distrust my philosophy, you will not doubt my statements. that we have denounced and rebuked with unsparing fidelity will not be denied. have we not also addressed ourselves to that other duty, of arguing our question thoroughly?--of using due discretion and fair sagacity in endeavoring to promote our cause? yes, we have. every statement we have made has been doubted. every principle we have laid down has been denied by overwhelming majorities against us. no one step has ever been gained but by the most laborious research and the most exhausting argument. and no question has ever, since revolutionary days, been so thoroughly investigated or argued here, as that of slavery. of that research and that argument, of the whole of it, the old-fashioned, fanatical, crazy garrisonian antislavery movement has been the author. from this band of men has proceeded every important argument or idea which has been broached on the antislavery question from to the present time. i am well aware of the extent of the claim i make. i recognize, as fully as any one can, the ability of the new laborers, the eloquence and genius with which they have recommended this cause to the nation, and flashed conviction home on the conscience of the community. i do not mean, either, to assert that they have in every instance borrowed from our treasury their facts and arguments. left to themselves, they would probably have looked up the one and originated the other. as a matter of fact, however, they have generally made use of the materials collected to their hands. * * * when once brought fully into the struggle, they have found it necessary to adopt the same means, to rely on the same arguments, to hold up the same men and the same measures to public reprobation, with the same bold rebuke and unsparing invective that we have used. all their conciliatory bearing, their painstaking moderation, their constant and anxious endeavor to draw a broad line between their camp and ours, have been thrown away. just so far as they have been effective laborers, they have found, as we have, their hands against every man, and every man's hand against them. the most experienced of them are ready to acknowledge that our plan has been wise, our course efficient, and that our unpopularity is no fault of ours, but flows necessarily and unavoidably from our position. "i should suspect," says old fuller, "that his preaching had no salt in it, if no galled horse did wince." our friends find, after all, that men do not so much hate us as the truth we utter and the light we bring. they find that the community are not the honest seekers after truth which they fancied, but selfish politicians and sectarian bigots, who shiver, like alexander's butler, whenever the sun shines on them. experience has driven these new laborers back to our method. we have no quarrel with them--would not steal one wreath of their laurels. all we claim is, that, if they are to be complimented as prudent, moderate, christian, sagacious, statesmanlike reformers, we deserve the same praise; for they have done nothing that we, in our measure, did not attempt before. i claim this, that the cause, in its recent aspect, has put on nothing but timidity. it has taken to itself no new weapons of recent years; it has become more compromising,--that is all! it has become neither more persuasive, more earnest, more christian, more charitable, nor more effective than for the twenty years pre-ceding. mr. hale, the head of the free soil movement, after a career in the senate that would do honor to any man,--after a six years' course which entitles him to the respect and confidence of the antislavery public, can put his name, within the last month, to an appeal from the city of washington, signed by a houston and a cass, for a monument to be raised to henry clay! if that be the test of charity and courtesy, we cannot give it to the world. some of the leaders of the free soil party of massachusetts, after exhausting the whole capacity of our language to paint the treachery of daniel webster to the cause of liberty, and the evil they thought he was able and seeking to do,--after that, could feel it in their hearts to parade themselves in the funeral procession got up to do him honor! in this we allow we cannot follow them. the deference which every gentleman owes to the proprieties of social life, that self-respect and regard to consistency which is every man's duty,--these, if no deeper feelings, will ever prevent us from giving such proofs of this newly invented christian courtesy. we do not play politics, antislavery is no half-jest with us; it is a terrible earnest, with life or death, worse than life or death, on the issue. it is no lawsuit, where it matters not to the good feeling of opposing counsel which way the verdict goes, and where advocates can shake hands after the decision as pleasantly as before. when we think of such a man as henry clay, his long life, his mighty influence cast always into the scale against the slave, of that irresistible fascination with which he moulded every one to his will; when we remember that, his conscience acknowledging the justice of our cause, and his heart open on every other side to the gentlest impulses, he could sacrifice so remorselessly his convictions and the welfare of millions to his low ambition; when we think how the slave trembled at the sound of his voice, and that, from a multitude of breaking hearts there went up nothing but gratitude to god when it pleased him to call that great sinner from this world, we cannot find it in our hearts, we could not shape our lips to ask any man to do him honor. no amount of eloquence, no sheen of official position, no loud grief of partisan friends, would ever lead us to ask monuments or walk in fine processions for pirates; and the sectarian zeal or selfish ambition which gives up, deliberately and in full knowledge of the facts, three million of human beings to hopeless ignorance, daily robbery, systematic prostitution, and murder, which the law is neither able nor undertakes to prevent or avenge, is more monstrous, in our eyes, than the love of gold which takes a score of lives with merciful quickness on the high seas. haynau on the danube is no more hateful to us than haynau on the potomac. why give mobs to one and monuments to the other? if these things be necessary to courtesy, i cannot claim that we are courteous. we seek only to be honest men, and speak the same of the dead as of the living. if the grave that hides their bodies could swallow also the evil they have done and the example they leave, we might enjoy at least the luxury of forgetting them. but the evil that men do lives after them, and example acquires tenfold authority when it speaks from the grave. history, also, is to be written. how shall a feeble minority, without weight or influence in the country, with no jury of millions to appeal to--denounced, vilified, and contemned,--how shall we make way against the overwhelming weight of some colossal reputation, if we do not turn from the idolatrous present, and appeal to the human race? saying to your idols of to-day: "here we are defeated; but we will write our judgment with the iron pen of a century to come, and it shall never be forgotten, if we can help it, that you were false in your generation to the claims of the slave!" * * * we are weak here,--out-talked, out-voted. you load our names with infamy, and shout us down. but our words bide their time. we warn the living that we have terrible memories, and their sins are never to be forgotten. we will gibbet the name of every apostate so black and high that his children's children shall blush to bear it. yet we bear no malice,--cherish no resentment. we thank god that the love of fame, "that last infirmity of noble minds," is shared by the ignoble. in our necessity, we seize this weapon in the slave's behalf, and teach caution to the living by meting out relentless justice to the dead. * * * "these, mr. chairman, are the reasons why, we take care that 'the memory of the wicked shall rot.'" i have claimed that the antislavery cause has, from the first, been ably and dispassionately argued, every objection candidly examined, and every difficulty or doubt anywhere honestly entertained treated with respect. let me glance at the literature of the cause, and try not so much, in a brief hour, to prove this assertion, as to point out the sources from which any one may satisfy himself of its truth. i will begin with certainly the ablest and perhaps the most honest statesman who has ever touched the slave question. any one who will examine john quincy adams' speech on texas, in , will see that he was only seconding the full and able exposure of the texas plot, prepared by benjamin lundy, to one of whose pamphlets dr. channing, in his "letter to henry clay," has confessed his obligation. every one acquainted with those years will allow that the north owes its earliest knowledge and first awakening on that subject to mr. lundy, who made long journeys and devoted years to the investigation. his labors have this attestation, that they quickened the zeal and strengthened the hands of such men as adams and channing. i have been told that mr. lundy prepared a brief for mr. adams, and furnished him the materials for his speech on texas. look next at the right of petition. long before any member of congress had opened his mouth in its defence, the abolition presses and lecturers had examined and defended the limits of this right with profound historical research and eminent constitutional ability. so thoroughly had the work been done, that all classes of the people had made up their minds about it long before any speaker of eminence had touched it in congress. the politicians were little aware of this. when mr. adams threw himself so gallantly into the breach, it is said he wrote anxiously home to know whether he would be supported in massachusetts, little aware of the outburst of popular gratitude which the northern breeze was even then bringing him, deep and cordial enough to wipe away the old grudge massachusetts had borne him so long. mr. adams himself was only in favor of receiving the petitions, and advised to refuse their prayer, which was the abolition of slavery in the district of columbia. he doubted the power of congress to abolish. his doubts were examined by mr. william goodell, in two letters of most acute logic, and of masterly ability. if mr. adams still retained his doubts, it is certain at least that he never expressed them afterward. when mr. clay paraded the same objections, the whole question of the power of congress over the district was treated by theodore d. weld in the fullest manner, and with the widest research,--indeed, leaving nothing to be added: an argument which dr. channing characterized as "demonstration," and pronounced the essay "one of the ablest pamphlets from the american press." no answer was ever attempted. the best proof of its ability is that no one since has presumed to doubt the power. lawyers and statesmen have tacitly settled down into its full acknowledgment. the influence of the colonization society on the welfare of the colored race was the first question our movement encountered. to the close logic, eloquent appeals, and fully sustained charges of mr. garrison's letters on that subject no answer was ever made. judge jay followed with a work full and able, establishing every charge by the most patient investigation of facts. it is not too much to say of these two volumes, that they left the colonization society hopeless at the north. it dares never show its face before the people, and only lingers in some few nooks of sectarian pride, so secluded from the influence of present ideas as to be almost fossil in their character. the practical working of the slave system, the slave laws, the treatment of slaves, their food, the duration of their lives, their ignorance and moral condition, and the influence of southern public opinion on their fate, have been spread out in a detail and with a fulness of evidence which no subject has ever received before in this country. witness the words of phelps, bourne, rankin, grimke, the _anti-slavery record_, and, above all, that encyclopaedia of facts and storehouse of arguments, the _thousand witnesses_ of mr. theodore d. weld. he also prepared that full and valuable tract for the world's convention called _slavery and the internal slave-trade_ in the united states, published in london in . unique in antislavery literature is mrs. child's _appeal_, one of the ablest of our weapons, and one of the finest efforts of her rare genius. _the princeton review_, i believe, first challenged the abolitionists to an investigation of the teachings of the bible on slavery. that field had been somewhat broken by our english predecessors. but in england the pro-slavery party had been soon shamed out of the attempt to drag the bible into their service, and hence the discussion there had been short and some-what superficial. the pro-slavery side of the question has been eagerly sustained by theological reviews and doctors of divinity without number, from the half-way and timid faltering of wayland up to the unblushing and melancholy recklessness of stuart. the argument on the other side has come wholly from the abolitionists; for neither dr. hague nor dr. barnes can be said to have added any thing to the wide research, critical acumen, and comprehensive views of theodore d. weld, beriah green, j. g. fee, and the old work of duncan. on the constitutional questions which have at various times arisen,--the citizenship of the colored man, the soundness of the "prigg" decision, the constitutionality of the old fugitive slave law, the true construction of the slave-surrender clause,--nothing has been added, either in the way of fact or argument, to the works of jay, weld, alvan stewart, e. g. loring, s. e. sewall, richard hildreth, w. i. bowditch, the masterly essays of the _emancipator_ at new york and the _liberator_ at boston, and the various addresses of the massachusetts and american societies for the last twenty years. the idea of the antislavery character of the constitution,--the opiate with which free soil quiets its conscience for voting under a pro-slavery government,--i heard first suggested by mr. garrison in . it was elaborately argued that year in all our antislavery gatherings, both here and in new york, and sustained with great ability by alvan stewart, and in part by t. d. weld. the antislavery construction of the constitution was ably argued in , in the _antislavery magazine_, by rev. samuel j. may, one of the very first to seek the side of mr. garrison, and pledge to the slave his life and efforts,--a pledge which thirty years of devoted labors have redeemed. if it has either merit or truth, they are due to no legal learning recently added to our ranks, but to some of the old and well-known pioneers. this claim has since received the fullest investigation from mr. lysander spooner, who has urged it with all his unrivalled ingenuity, laborious research, and close logic. he writes as a lawyer, and has no wish, i believe, to be ranked with any class of anti-slavery men. the influence of slavery on our government has received the profoundest philosophical investigation from the pen of richard hildreth, in his invaluable essay on _despotism in america_,--a work which deserves a place by the side of the ablest political disquisitions of any age. even the vigorous mind of rantoul, the ablest man, without doubt, of the democratic party, and perhaps the ripest politician in new england, added little or nothing to the store-house of antislavery argument. * * * his speeches on our question, too short and too few, are remarkable for their compact statement, iron logic, bold denunciation, and the wonderful light thrown back upon our history. yet how little do they present which was not familiar for years in our anti-slavery meetings! look, too, at the last great effort of the idol of so many thousands,--mr. senator sumner,--the discussion of a great national question, of which it has been said that we must go back to webster's reply to hayne, and fisher ames on the jay treaty, to find its equal in congress,--praise which we might perhaps qualify, if any adequate report were left us of some of the noble orations of adams. no one can be blind to the skilful use he has made of his materials, the consummate ability with which he has marshalled them, and the radiant glow which his genius has thrown over all. yet, with the exception of his reference to the antislavery debate in congress in , there is hardly a train of thought or argument, and no single fact in the whole speech, which has not been familiar in our meetings and essays for the last ten years. * * * the relations of the american church to slavery, and the duties of private christians, the whole casuistry of this portion of the question, so momentous among descendants of the puritans,--have been discussed with great acuteness and rare common-sense by messrs. garrison, goodell, gerrit smith, pillsbury, and foster. they have never attempted to judge the american church by any standard except that which she has herself laid down,--never claimed that she should be perfect, but have contented themselves by demanding that she should be consistent. they have never judged her except out of her own mouth, and on facts asserted by her own presses and leaders. the sundering of the methodist and baptist denominations, and the universal agitation of the religious world, are the best proof of the sagacity with which their measures have been chosen, the cogent arguments they have used, and the indisputable facts on which their criticisms have been founded. in nothing have the abolitionists shown more sagacity or more thorough knowledge of their countrymen than in the course they have pursued in relation to the church. none but a new-englander can appreciate the power which church organizations wield over all who share the blood of the puritans. the influence of each sect over its own members is overwhelming, often shutting out, or controlling, all other influences. we have popes here, all the more dangerous because no triple crown puts you on your guard. * * * in such a land, the abolitionists early saw, that, for a moral question like theirs, only two paths lay open: to work through the church; that failing, to join battle with it. some tried long, like luther, to be protestants, and yet not come out of catholicism; but their eyes were soon opened. since then we have been convinced that, to come out from the church, to hold her up as the bulwark of slavery, and to make her shortcomings the main burden of our appeals to the religious sentiment of the community, was our first duty and best policy. this course alienated many friends, and was a subject of frequent rebuke from such men as dr. channing. but nothing has ever more strengthened the cause, or won it more influence; and it has had the healthiest effect on the church itself. * * * unable to command a wide circulation for our books and journals, we have been obliged to bring ourselves into close contact with the people, and to rely mainly on public addresses. these have been our most efficient instrumentality. for proof that these addresses have been full of pertinent facts, sound sense, and able arguments, we must necessarily point to results, and demand to be tried by our fruits. within these last twenty years it has been very rare that any fact stated by our lecturers has been disproved, or any statement of theirs successfully impeached. and for evidence of the soundness, simplicity, and pertinency of their arguments we can only claim that our converts and co-laborers throughout the land have at least the reputation of being specially able "to give a reason for the faith that is in them." i remember that when, in , the present leaders of the free soil party, with daniel webster in their company, met to draw up the anti-texas address of the massachusetts convention, they sent to abolitionists for anti-slavery facts and history, for the remarkable testimonies of our revolutionary great men which they wished to quote. when, many years ago, the legislature of massachusetts wished to send to congress a resolution affirming the duty of immediate emancipation, the committee sent to william lloyd garrison to draw it up, and it stands now on our statute-book as he drafted it. how vigilantly, how patiently, did we watch the texas plot from its commencement! the politic south felt that its first move had been too bold, and thenceforward worked underground. for many a year men laughed at us for entertaining any apprehensions. it was impossible to rouse the north to its peril. david lee child was thought crazy because he would not believe there was no danger. his elaborate "_letters on texas annexation_" are the ablest and most valuable contribution that has been made toward a history of the whole plot. though we foresaw and proclaimed our conviction that annexation would be, in the end, a fatal step for the south, we did not feel at liberty to relax our opposition, well knowing the vast increase of strength it would give, at first, to the slave power. i remember being one of a committee which waited on abbott lawrence, a year or so only before annexation, to ask his countenance to some general movement, without distinction of party, against the texas scheme. he smiled at our fears, begged us to have no apprehensions; stating that his correspondence with leading men at washington enabled him to assure us annexation was impossible, and that the south itself was determined to defeat the project. a short time after, senators and representatives from texas took their seats in congress! many of these services to the slave were done before i joined his cause. in thus referring to them, do not suppose me merely seeking occasion of eulogy on my predecessors and present co-laborers. i recall these things only to rebut the contemptuous criticism which some about us make the excuse for their past neglect of the movement, and in answer to "ion's" representation of our course as reckless fanaticism, childish impatience, utter lack of good sense, and of our meetings as scenes only of excitement, of reckless and indiscriminate denunciation. i assert that every social, moral, economical, religious, political, and historical aspect of the question has been ably and patiently examined. and all this has been done with an industry and ability which have left little for the professional skill, scholarly culture, and historical learning of the new laborers to accomplish. if the people are still in doubt, it is from the inherent difficulty of the subject, or a hatred of light, not from want of it. * * * sir, when a nation sets itself to do evil, and all its leading forces, wealth, party, and piety, join in the career, it is impossible but that those who offer a constant opposition should be hated and maligned, no matter how wise, cautious, and well planned their course may be. we are peculiar sufferers in this way. the community has come to hate its reproving nathan so bitterly, that even those whom the relenting part of it are beginning to regard as standard-bearers of the antislavery host think it unwise to avow any connection or sympathy with him. i refer to some of the leaders of the political movement against slavery. they feel it to be their mission to marshal and use as effectively as possible the present convictions of the people. they cannot afford to encumber themselves with the odium which twenty years of angry agitation have engendered in great sects sore from unsparing rebuke, parties galled by constant defeat, and leading men provoked by unexpected exposure. they are willing to confess, privately, that our movement produced theirs, and that its continued existence is the very breath of their life. but, at the same time, they would fain walk on the road without being soiled by too close contact with the rough pioneers who threw it up. they are wise and honorable, and their silence is very expressive. when i speak of their eminent position and acknowledged ability, another thought strikes me. who converted these men and their distinguished associates? it is said we have shown neither sagacity in plans, nor candor in discussion, nor ability. who, then, or what converted burlingame and wilson, sumner and adams, palfrey and mann, chase and hale, and phillips and giddings? who taught the _christian register_, the _daily advertiser_, and that class of prints, that there were such things as a slave and a slave-holder in the land, and so gave them some more intelligent basis than their mere instincts to hate william lloyd garrison? what magic wand was it whose touch made the todying servility of the land start up the real demon that it was, and at the same time gathered into the slave's service the professional ability, ripe culture, and personal integrity which grace the free soil ranks? we never argue! these men, then, were converted by simple denunciation! they were all converted by the "hot," "reckless," "ranting," "bigoted," "fanatic" garrison, who never troubled himself about facts, nor stopped to argue with an opponent, but straightway knocked him down! my old and valued friend, mr. sumner, often boasts that he was a reader of the _liberator_ before i was. do not criticise too much the agency by which such men were converted. that blade has a double edge. our reckless course, our empty rant, our fanaticism, has made abolitionists of some of the best and ablest men in the land. we are inclined to go on, and see if, even with such poor tools, we cannot make some more. antislavery zeal and the roused conscience of the "godless comeouters" made the trembling south demand the fugitive slave law, and the fugitive slave law provoked mrs. stowe to the good work of "uncle tom." that is something! let me say, in passing, that you will nowhere find an earlier or more generous appreciation, or more flowing eulogy, of these men and their labors, than in the columns of the _liberator_. no one, however feeble, has ever peeped or muttered, in any quarter, that the vigilant eye of the _pioneer_ has not recognized him. he has stretched out the right hand of a most cordial welcome the moment any man's face was turned zionward. i do not mention these things to praise mr. garrison; i do not stand here for that purpose. you will not deny--if you do, i can prove it--that the movement of the abolitionists converted these men. their constituents were converted by it. the assault upon the right of petition, upon the right to print and speak of slavery, the denial of the right of congress over the district, the annexation of texas, the fugitive slave law, were measures which the anti-slavery movement provoked, and the discussion of which has made all the abolitionists we have. the antislavery cause, then, converted these men; it gave them a constituency; it gave them an opportunity to speak, and it gave them a public to listen. the antislavery cause gave them their votes, got them their offices, furnished them their facts, gave them their audience. if you tell me they cherished all these principles in their own breasts before mr. garrison appeared, i can only say, if the anti-slavery movement did not give them their ideas, it surely gave the courage to utter them. in such circumstances, is it not singular that the name of william lloyd garrison has never been pronounced on the floor of the united states congress linked with any epithet but that of contempt! no one of those men who owe their ideas, their station, their audience, to him, have ever thought it worth their while to utter one word in grateful recognition of the power which called them into being. when obliged, by the course of their argument, to treat the question historically, they can go across the water to clarkson and wilberforce--yes, to a safe salt-water distance. as daniel webster, when he was talking to the farmers of western new york, and wished to contrast slave labor and free labor, did not dare to compare new york with virginia--sister states, under the same government, planted by the same race, worshipping at the same altar, speaking the same language--identical in all respects, save that one in which he wished to seek the contrast; but no; he compared it with cuba--the contrast was so close! catholic--protestant; spanish--saxon; despotism--municipal institutions; readers of lope de vega and of shakespeare; mutterers of the mass--children of the bible! but virginia is too near home! so is garrison! one would have thought there was something in the human breast which would sometimes break through policy. these noble-hearted men whom i have named must surely have found quite irksome the constant practice of what dr. gardiner used to call "that despicable virtue, prudence." one would have thought, when they heard that name spoken with contempt, their ready eloquence would have leaped from its scabbard to avenge even a word that threatened him with insult. but it never came--never! i do not say i blame them. perhaps they thought they should serve the cause better by drawing a broad black line between themselves and him. perhaps they thought the devil could be cheated: i do not! * * * * * caution is not always good policy in a cause like ours. it is said that, when napoleon saw the day going against him, he used to throw away all the rules of war, and trust himself to the hot impetuosity of his soldiers. the masses are governed more by impulse than conviction, and even were it not so, the convictions of most men are on our side, and this will surely appear, if we can only pierce the crust of their prejudice or indifference. i observe that our free soil friends never stir their audience so deeply as when some individual leaps beyond the platform, and strikes upon the very heart of the people. men listen to discussions of laws and tactics with ominous patience. it is when mr. sumner, in faneuil hall, avows his determination to disobey the fugitive slave law, and cries out: "i was a man before i was a commissioner,"--when mr. giddings says of the fall of slavery, quoting adams: "let it come. if it must come in blood, yet i say let it come!"--that their associates on the platform are sure they are wrecking the party,--while many a heart beneath beats its first pulse of anti-slavery life. these are brave words. when i compare them with the general tone of free soil men in congress, i distrust the atmosphere of washington and of politics. these men move about, sauls and goliaths among us, taller by many a cubit. there they lose port and stature. mr. sumner's speech in the senate unsays no part of his faneuil hall pledge. but, though discussing the same topic, no one would gather from any word or argument that the speaker ever took such ground as he did in faneuil hall. it is all through, the law, the manner of the surrender, not the surrender itself, of the slave, that he objects to. as my friend mr. pillsbury so forcibly says, so far as any thing in the speech shows, he puts the slave behind the jury trial, behind the habeas corpus act, and behind the new interpretation of the constitution, and says to the slave claimant: "you must get through all these before you reach him; but, if you can get through all these, you may have him!" it was no tone like this which made the old hall rock! not if he got through twelve jury trials, and forty habeas corpus acts, and constitutions built high as yonder monument, would he permit so much as the shadow of a little finger of the slave claimant to touch the slave! at least so he was understood. * * * mr. mann, in his speech of february , , says: "the states being separated, i would as soon return my own brother or sister into bondage, as i would return a fugitive slave. before god, and christ, and all christian men, they are my brothers and sisters." what a condition! from the lips, too, of a champion of the higher law! whether the states be separate or united, neither my brother nor any other man's brother shall, with my consent, go back to bondage! so speaks the heart--mr. mann's version is that of the politician. this seems to me a very mistaken strain. whenever slavery is banished from our national jurisdiction, it will be a momentous gain, a vast stride. but let us not mistake the half-way house for the end of the journey. i need not say that it matters not to abolitionists under what special law slavery exists. their battle lasts while it exists anywhere, and i doubt not mr. sumner and mr. giddings feel themselves enlisted for the whole war. i will even suppose, what neither of these gentlemen states, that their plan includes not only that slavery shall be abolished in the district and territories but that the slave basis of representation shall be struck from the constitution, and the slave-surrender clause construed away. but even then does mr. giddings or mr. sumner really believe that slavery, existing in its full force in the states, "will cease to vex our national politics?" can they point to any state where a powerful oligarchy, possessed of immense wealth, has ever existed without attempting to meddle in the government? even now, does not manufacturing, banking, and commercial capital perpetually vex our politics? why should not slave capital exert the same influence? do they imagine that a hundred thousand men, possessed of two thousand millions of dollars, which they feel the spirit of the age is seeking to tear from their grasp, will not eagerly catch at all the support they can obtain by getting the control of the government? in a land where the dollar is almighty, "where the sin of not being rich is only atoned for by the effort to become so," do they doubt that such an oligarchy will generally succeed? besides, banking and manufacturing stocks are not urged by despair to seek a controlling influence in politics. they know they are about equally safe, whichever party rules--that no party wishes to legislate their rights away. slave property knows that its being allowed to exist depends on its having the virtual control of the government. its constant presence in politics is dictated, therefore, by despair, as well as by the wish to secure fresh privileges. money, however, is not the only strength of the slave power. that, indeed, were enough, in an age when capitalists are our feudal barons. but, though driven entirely from national shelter, the slave-holders would have the strength of old associations, and of peculiar laws in their own states, which give those states wholly into their hands. a weaker prestige, fewer privileges, and less comparative wealth, have enabled the british aristocracy to rule england for two centuries, though the root of their strength was cut at naseby. it takes ages for deeply-rooted institutions to die; and driving slavery into the states will hardly be our naseby. * * * and mr. sumner "knows no better aim, under the constitution, than to bring back the government to where it was in !" has the voyage been so very honest and prosperous a one, in his opinion, that his only wish is to start again with the same ship, the same crew, and the same sailing orders? grant all he claims as to the state of public opinion, the intentions of leading men, and the form of our institutions at that period; still, with all these checks on wicked men, and helps to good ones, here we are, in , according to his own showing, ruled by slavery, tainted to the core with slavery, and binding the infamous fugitive slave law like an honorable frontlet on our brows. the more accurate and truthful his glowing picture of the public virtue of , the stronger my argument. if even all those great patriots, and all that enthusiasm for justice and liberty, did not avail to keep us safe in such a union, what will? in such desperate circumstances, can his statesmanship devise no better aim than to try the same experiment over again, under precisely the same conditions? what new guaranties does he propose to prevent the voyage from being again turned into a piratical slave-trading cruise? none! have sixty years taught us nothing? in , the english thought, in recalling charles ii., that the memory of that scaffold which had once darkened the windows of whitehall would be guaranty enough for his good behavior. but, spite of the spectre, charles ii. repeated charles i., and james outdid him. wiser by this experience, when the nation in got another chance, they trusted to no guaranties, but so arranged the very elements of their government that william iii. could not repeat charles i. let us profit by the lesson. * * * if all i have said to you is untrue, if i have exaggerated, explain to me this fact. in , mr. garrison commenced a paper advocating the doctrine of immediate emancipation. he had against him the thirty thousand churches and all the clergy of the country,--its wealth, its commerce, its press. in , what was the state of things? there was the most entire ignorance and apathy on the slave question. if men knew of the existence of slavery, it was only as a part of picturesque virginia life. no one preached, no one talked, no one wrote about it. no whisper of it stirred the surface of the political sea. the church heard of it occasionally, when some colonization agent asked funds to send the blacks to africa. old school-books tainted with some antislavery selections had passed out of use, and new ones were compiled to suit the times. soon as any dissent from the prevailing faith appeared, every one set himself to crush it. the pulpits preached at it; the press denounced it; mobs tore down houses, threw presses into the fire and the stream, and shot the editors; religious conventions tried to smother it; parties arrayed themselves against it. daniel webster boasted in the senate, that he had never introduced the subject of slavery to that body, and never would. mr. clay, in , makes a speech for the presidency, in which he says, that to discuss the subject of slavery is moral treason, and that no man has a right to introduce the subject into congress. mr. benton, in , laid down his platform, and he not only denies the right, but asserts that he never has and never will discuss the subject. yet mr. clay, from down to his death, hardly made a remarkable speech of any kind, except on slavery. mr. webster, having indulged now and then in a little easy rhetoric, as at niblo's and elsewhere, opens his mouth in , generously contributing his aid to both sides, and stops talking about it only when death closes his lips. mr. benton's six or eight speeches in the united states senate have all been on the subject of slavery in the southwestern section of the country, and form the basis of whatever claim he has to the character of a statesman, and he owes his seat in the next congress somewhat, perhaps, to anti-slavery pretentions! the whig and democratic parties pledged themselves just as emphatically against the antislavery discussion,--against agitation and free speech. these men said: "it sha'n't be talked about; it won't be talked about!" these are your statesmen!--men who understand the present that is, and mould the future! the man who understands his own time, and whose genius moulds the future to his views, he is a statesman, is he not? these men devoted themselves to banks, to the tariff, to internal improvements, to constitutional and financial questions. they said to slavery: "back! no entrance here! we pledge ourselves against you." and then there came up a little printer-boy, who whipped them into the traces, and made them talk, like hotspur's starling, nothing but slavery. he scattered all these gigantic shadows,--tariff, bank, constitutional questions, financial questions; and slavery, like the colossal head in walpole's romance, came up and filled the whole political horizon! yet you must remember he is not a statesman! he is a "fanatic." he has no discipline,--mr. "ion" says so; he does not understand the "discipline that is essential to victory"! this man did not understand his own time, he did not know what the future was to be,--he was not able to shape it--he had no "prudence,"--he had no "foresight"! daniel webster says, "i have never introduced this subject, and never will,"--and dies broken-hearted because he had not been able to talk enough about it! benton says, "i will never speak of slavery,"--and lives to break with his party on this issue! clay says it is "moral treason" to introduce the subject into congress--and lives to see congress turned into an antislavery debating society, to suit the purpose of one "too powerful individual." * * * remember who it was that said in : "i am in earnest--i will not equivocate--i will not excuse--i will not retreat a single inch--and i will be heard!" that speaker has lived twenty-two years, and the complaint of twenty-three millions of people is, "shall we never hear of any thing but slavery?" * * * "well, it is all his fault" [pointing to mr. garrison]. * * * it seems to me that such men may point to the present aspect of the nation, to their originally avowed purpose, to the pledges and efforts of all your great men against them, and then let you determine to which side the credit of sagacity and statesmanship belongs. napoleon busied himself at st. helena in showing how wellington ought to have conquered at waterloo. the world has never got time to listen to the explanation. sufficient for it that the allies entered paris. it may sound strange to some, this claim for mr. garrison of a profound statesmanship. "men have heard him styled a mere fanatic so long that they are incompetent to judge him fairly." "the phrases men are accustomed," says goethe, "to repeat incessantly, end by becoming convictions, and ossify the organs of intelligence." i cannot accept you, therefore, as my jury. i appeal from festus to csar, from the prejudice of our streets to the common-sense of the world, and to your children. every thoughtful and unprejudiced mind must see that such an evil as slavery will yield only to the most radical treatment. if you consider the work we have to do, you will not think us needlessly aggressive, or that we dig down unnecessarily deep in laying the foundations of our enterprise. a money power of two thousand millions of dollars, as the prices of slaves now range, held by a small body of able and desperate men; that body raised into a political aristocracy by special constitutional provisions; cotton, the product of slave labor, forming the basis of our whole foreign commerce, and the commercial class thus subsidized; the press bought up, the pulpit reduced to vassalage, the heart of the common people chilled by a bitter prejudice against the black race; our leading men bribed, by ambition, either to silence or open hostility;--in such a land, on what shall an abolitionist rely? on a few cold prayers, mere lip-service, and never from the heart? on a church resolution, hidden often in its records, and meant only as a decent cover for servility in daily practice? on political parties, with their superficial influence at best, and seeking ordinarily only to use existing prejudices to the best advantage? slavery has deeper root here than any aristocratic institution has in europe; and politics is but the common pulse-beat, of which revolution is the fever-spasm. yet we have seen european aristocracy survive storms which seemed to reach down to the primal strata of european life. shall we, then, trust to mere politics, where even revolution has failed? how shall the stream rise above its fountain? where shall our church organizations or parties get strength to attack their great parent and moulder, the slave power? shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? the old jest of one who tried to lift himself in his own basket, is but a tame picture of the man who imagines that, by working solely through existing sects and parties, he can destroy slavery. mechanics say nothing, but an earthquake strong enough to move all egypt can bring down the pyramids. experience has confirmed these views. the abolitionists who have acted on them have a "short method" with all unbelievers. they have but to point to their own success, in contrast with every other man's failure. to waken the nation to its real state, and chain it to the consideration of this one duty, is half the work. so much we have done. slavery has been made the question of this generation. to startle the south to madness, so that every step she takes, in her blindness, is one step more toward ruin, is much. this we have done. witness texas and the fugitive slave law. to have elaborated for the nation the only plan of redemption, pointed out the only exodus from this "sea of troubles," is much. this we claim to have done in our motto of immediate, unconditional, emancipation on the soil. the closer any statesmanlike mind looks into the question, the more favor our plan finds with it. the christian asks fairly of the infidel, "if this religion be not from god, how do you explain its triumph, and the history of the first three centuries?" our question is similar. if our agitation has not been wisely planned and conducted, explain for us the history of the last twenty years! experience is a safe light to walk by, and he is not a rash man who expects success in future from the same means which have secured it in times past. charles sumner, of massachusetts. (born , died .) on the repeal of the fugitive slave law-- in the united states senate, august , . thursday, th august, .--the civil and diplomatic appropriation bill being under consideration, the following amendment was moved by mr. hunter, of virginia, on the recommendation of the committee on finance: "that, where the ministerial officers of the united states have or shall incur extraordinary expense in executing the laws thereof, the payment of which is not specifically provided for, the president of the united states is authorized to allow the payment thereof, under the special taxation of the district or circuit court of the district in which the said services have been or shall be rendered, to be paid from the appropriation for defraying the expenses of the judiciary." mr. sumner seized the opportunity for which he had been waiting, and at once moved the following amendment to the amendment: "provided, that no such allowance shall be authorized for any expenses incurred in executing the act of september , , for the surrender of fugitives from service or labor; which said act is hereby repealed." on this he took the floor, and spoke as follows: mr. president, here is a provision for extraordinary expense incurred in executing the laws of the united states. extraordinary expenses! sir, beneath these specious words lurks the very subject on which, by a solemn vote of this body, i was refused a hearing. here it is; no longer open to the charge of being an "abstraction," but actually presented for practical legislation; not introduced by me, but by the senator from virginia (mr. hunter), on the recommendation of an important committee of the senate; not brought forward weeks ago, when there was ample time for discussion, but only at this moment, without any reference to the late period of the session. the amendment which i offer proposes to remove one chief occasion of these extraordinary expenses. beyond all controversy or cavil it is strictly in order. and now, at last, among these final, crowded days of our duties here, but at this earliest opportunity, i am to be heard,--not as a favor, but as a right. the graceful usages of this body may be abandoned, but the established privileges of debate cannot be abridged. parliamentary courtesy may be forgotten, but parliamentary law must prevail. the subject is broadly before the senate. by the blessing of god it shall be discussed. sir, a severe lawgiver of early greece vainly sought to secure permanence for his imperfect institutions by providing that the citizen who at any time attempted their repeal or alteration should appear in the public assembly with a halter about his neck, ready to be drawn, if his proposition failed. a tyrannical spirit among us, in unconscious imitation of this antique and discarded barbarism, seeks to surround an offensive institution with similar safeguard. in the existing distemper of the public mind, and at this present juncture, no man can enter upon the service which i now undertake, with-out personal responsibility, such as can be sustained only by that sense of duty which, under god, is always our best support. that personal responsibility i accept. before the senate and the country let me be held accountable for this act and for every word which i utter. with me, sir, there is no alternative. painfully convinced of the unutterable wrong and woe of slavery,--profoundly believing, that, according to the true spirit of the constitution and the sentiments of the fathers, it can find no place under our national government,--that it is in every respect sectional, and in no respect national,--that it is always and everywhere creature and dependent of the states, and never anywhere creature or dependent of the nation,--and that the nation can never, by legislative or other act, impart to it any support, under the constitution of the united states,--with these convictions i could not allow this session to reach its close without making or seizing an opportunity to declare myself openly against the usurpation, injustice, and cruelty of the late intolerable enactment for the recovery of fugitive slaves. full well i know, sir, the difficulties of this discussion, arising from prejudices of opinion and from adverse conclusions strong and sincere as my own. full well i know that i am in a small minority, with few here to whom i can look for sympathy or support. full well i know that i must utter things unwelcome to many in this body, which i cannot do without pain. full well i know that the institution of slavery in our country, which i now proceed to consider, is as sensitive as it is powerful, possessing a power to shake the whole land, with a sensitiveness that shrinks and trembles at the touch. but while these things may properly prompt me to caution and reserve, they cannot change my duty, or my determination to perform it. for this i willingly forget myself and all personal consequences. the favor and good-will of my fellow-citizens, of my brethren of the senate, sir, grateful to me as they justly are, i am ready, if required, to sacrifice. whatever i am or may be i freely offer to this cause. here allow, for one moment, a reference to myself and my position. sir, i have never been a politician. the slave of principles, i call no party master. by sentiment, education, and conviction a friend of human rights in their utmost expansion, i have ever most sincerely embraced the democratic idea,--not, indeed, as represented or professed by any party, but according to its real significance, as transfigured in the declaration of independence and in the injunctions of christianity. in this idea i see no narrow advantage merely for individuals or classes, but the sovereignty of the people, and the greatest happiness of all secured by equal laws. amidst the vicissitudes of public affairs i shall hold fast always to this idea, and to any political party which truly embraces it. party does not constrain me; nor is my independence lessened by any relations to the office which gives me a title to be heard on this floor. here, sir, i speak proudly. by no effort, by no desire of my own, i find myself a senator of the united states. never before have i held public office of any kind. with the ample opportunities of private life i was content. no tombstone for me could bear a fairer inscription than this: "here lies one who, without the honors or emoluments of public station, did something for his fellowmen." from such simple aspirations i was taken away by the free choice of my native commonwealth, and placed at this responsible post of duty, without personal obligation of any kind, beyond what was implied in my life and published words. the earnest friends by whose confidence i was first designated asked nothing from me, and throughout the long conflict which ended in my election rejoiced in the position which i most carefully guarded. to all my language was uniform: that i did not desire to be brought forward; that i would do nothing to promote the result; that i had no pledges or promises to offer; that the office should seek me, and not i the office; and that it should find me in all respects an independent man, bound to no party and to no human being, but only, according to my best judgment, to act for the good of all. again, sir, i speak with pride, both for myself and others, when i add that these avowals found a sympathizing response. in this spirit i have come here, and in this spirit i shall speak to-day. rejoicing in my independence, and claiming nothing from party ties, i throw myself upon the candor and magnanimity of the senate. i ask your attention; i trust not to abuse it. i may speak strongly, for i shall speak openly and from the strength of my convictions. i may speak warmly, for i shall speak from the heart. but in no event can i forget the amenities which belong to debate, and which especially become this body. slavery i must condemn with my whole soul; but here i need only borrow the language of slaveholders; nor would it accord with my habits or my sense of justice to exhibit them as the impersonation of the institution--jefferson calls it the "enormity"--which they cherish. of them i do not speak; but without fear and without favor, as without impeachment of any person, i assail this wrong. again, sir, i may err; but it will be with the fathers. i plant myself on the ancient ways of the republic, with its grandest names, its surest landmarks, and all its original altar-fires about me. and now, on the very threshold, i encounter the objection, that there is a final settlement, in principle and substance, of the question of slavery, and that all discussion of it is closed. both the old political parties, by formal resolutions, in recent conventions at baltimore, have united in this declaration. on a subject which for years has agitated the public mind, which yet palpitates in every heart and burns on every tongue, which in its immeasurable importance dwarfs all other subjects, which by its constant and gigantic presence throws a shadow across these halls, which at this very time calls for appropriations to meet extraordinary expenses it has caused, they impose the rule of silence. according to them, sir, we may speak of everything except that alone which is most present in all our minds. to this combined effort i might fitly reply, that, with flagrant inconsistency, it challenges the very discussion it pretends to forbid. their very declaration, on the eve of an election, is, of course, submitted to the consideration and ratification of the people. debate, inquiry, discussion, are the necessary consequence. silence becomes impossible. slavery, which you profess to banish from public attention, openly by your invitation enters every political meeting and every political convention. nay, at this moment it stalks into this senate, crying, like the daughters of the horseleech, "give! give." but no unanimity of politicians can uphold the baseless assumption, that a law, or any conglomerate of laws, under the name of compromise, or howsoever called, is final. nothing can be plainer than this,--that by no parliamentary device or knot can any legislature tie the hands of a succeeding legislature, so as to prevent the full exercise of its constitutional powers. each legislature, under a just sense of its responsibility, must judge for itself; and if it think proper, it may revise, or amend, or absolutely undo the work of any predecessor. the laws of the medes and persians are said proverbially to have been unalterable; but they stand forth in history as a single example where the true principles of all law have been so irrationally defied. to make a law final, so as not to be reached by congress, is, by mere legislation, to fasten a new provision on the constitution. nay, more; it gives to the law a character which the very constitution does not possess. the wise fathers did not treat the country as a chinese foot, never to grow after infancy; but, anticipating progress, they declared expressly that their great act is not final. according to the constitution itself, there is not one of its existing provisions--not even that with regard to fugitives from labor--which may not at all times be reached by amendment, and thus be drawn into debate. this is rational and just. sir, nothing from man's hands, nor law, nor constitution, can be final. truth alone is final. inconsistent and absurd, this effort is tyrannical also. the responsibility for the recent slave act, and for slavery everywhere within the jurisdiction of congress, necessarily involves the right to discuss them. to separate these is impossible. like the twenty-fifth rule of the house of representatives against petitions on slavery,--now repealed and dishonored,--the compromise, as explained and urged, is a curtailment of the actual powers of legislation, and a perpetual denial of the indisputable principle, that the right to deliberate is coextensive with the responsibility for an act. to sustain slavery it is now proposed to trample on free speech. in any country this would be grievous; but here, where the constitution expressly provides against abridging freedom of speech, it is a special outrage. in vain do we condemn the despotisms of europe, while we borrow the rigors with which they repress liberty, and guard their own uncertain power. for myself, in no factious spirit, but solemnly and in loyalty to the constitution, as a senator of the united states, representing a free commonwealth, i protest against this wrong. on slavery, as on every other subject, i claim the right to be heard. that right i cannot, i will not abandon. "give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties"; these are glowing words, flashed from the soul of john milton in his struggles with english tyranny. with equal fervor they could be echoed now by every american not already a slave. but, sir, this effort is impotent as tyrannical. convictions of the heart cannot be repressed. utterances of conscience must be heard. they break forth with irrepressible might. as well attempt to check the tides of ocean, the currents of the mississippi, or the rushing waters of niagara. the discussion of slavery will proceed, wherever two or three are gathered together,--by the fireside, on the highway, at the public meeting, in the church. the movement against slavery is from the everlasting arm. even now it is gathering its forces, soon to be confessed everywhere. it may not be felt yet in the high places of office and power, but all who can put their ears humbly to the ground will hear and comprehend its incessant and advancing tread. the relations of the national government to slavery, though plain and obvious, are constantly misunderstood. a popular belief at this moment makes slavery a national institution, and of course renders its support a national duty. the extravagance of this error can hardly be surpassed. an institution which our fathers most carefully omitted to name in the constitution, which, according to the debates in the convention, they refused to cover with any "sanction," and which, at the original organization of the government, was merely sectional, existing nowhere on the national territory, is now, above all other things, blazoned as national. its supporters pride themselves as national. the old political parties, while upholding it, claim to be national. a national whig is simply a slavery whig, and a national democrat is simply a slavery democrat, in contradistinction to all who regard slavery as a sectional institution, within the exclusive control of the states and with which the nation has nothing to do. as slavery assumes to be national, so, by an equally strange perversion, freedom is degraded to be sectional, and all who uphold it, under the national constitution, are made to share this same epithet. honest efforts to secure its blessings everywhere within the jurisdiction of congress are scouted as sectional; and this cause, which the founders of our national government had so much at heart, is called sectionalism. these terms, now belonging to the common places of political speech, are adopted and misapplied by most persons without reflection. but here is the power of slavery. according to a curious tradition of the french language, louis xiv., the grand monarch, by an accidental error of speech, among supple courtiers, changed the gender of a noun. but slavery does more. it changes word for word. it teaches men to say national instead of sectional, and sectional instead of national. slavery national! sir, this is a mistake and absurdity, fit to have a place in some new collection of vulgar errors, by some other sir thomas browne, with the ancient, but exploded stories, that the toad has a gem in its head, and that ostriches digest iron. according to the true spirit of the constitution, and the sentiments of the fathers, slavery, and not freedom, is sectional, while freedom, and not slavery, is national. on this unanswerable proposition i take my stand, and here commences my argument. the subject presents itself under two principal heads: _first, the true relations of the national government to slavery_, wherein it will appear that there is no national fountain from which slavery can be derived, and no national power, under the constitution, by which it can be supported. enlightened by this general survey, we shall be prepared to consider, _secondly, the true nature of the provision for the rendition of fugitives from service_, and herein especially the unconstitutional and offensive legislation of congress in pursuance thereof. i. and now for the true relations of the national government to slavery. these are readily apparent, if we do not neglect well-established principles. if slavery be national, if there be any power in the national government to withhold this institution,--as in the recent slave act,--it must be by virtue of the constitution. nor can it be by mere inference, implication, or conjecture. according to the uniform admission of courts and jurists in europe, again and again promulgated in our country, slavery can be derived only from clear and special recognition. "the state of slavery," said lord mansfield, pronouncing judgment in the great case of sommersett, "is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law.... _it is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it but positive law_." * * * * * of course every power to uphold slavery must have an origin as distinct as that of slavery itself. every presumption must be as strong against such a power as against slavery. a power so peculiar and offensive, so hostile to reason, so repugnant to the law of nature and the inborn rights of man,--which despoils its victim of the fruits of labor,--which substitutes concubinage for marriage,--which abrogates the relation of parent and child,--which, by denial of education, abases the intellect, prevents a true knowledge of god, and murders the very soul,--which, amidst a plausible physical comfort, degrades man, created in the divine image, to the state of a beast,--such a power, so eminent, so transcendent, so tyrannical, so unjust, can find no place in any system of government, unless by virtue of positive sanction. it can spring from no doubtful phrase. it must be declared by unambiguous words, incapable of a double sense. * * * * * sir, such, briefly, are the rules of interpretation, which, as applied to the constitution, fill it with the breath of freedom,-- "driving far off each thing of sin and guilt." to the history and prevailing sentiments of the times we may turn for further assurance. in the spirit of freedom the constitution was formed. in this spirit our fathers always spoke and acted. in this spirit the national government was first organized under washington. and here i recall a scene, in itself a touch-stone of the period, and an example for us, upon which we may look with pure national pride, while we learn anew the relations of the national government to slavery. the revolution was accomplished. the feeble government of the confederation passed away. the constitution, slowly matured in a national convention, discussed before the people, defended by masterly pens, was adopted. the thirteen states stood forth a nation, where was unity without consolidation, and diversity without discord. the hopes of all were anxiously hanging upon the new order of things and the mighty procession of events. with signal unanimity washington was chosen president. leaving his home at mount vernon, he repaired to new york,--where the first congress had commenced its session,--to assume his place as chief of the republic. on the th of april, , the organization of the government was completed by his inauguration. entering the senate chamber, where the two houses were assembled, he was informed that they awaited his readiness to receive the oath of office. without delay, attended by the senators and representatives, with friends and men of mark gathered about him, he moved to the balcony in front of the edifice. a countless multitude, thronging the open ways, and eagerly watching this great espousal, "with reverence look on his majestic face, proud to be less, but of his godlike race." the oath was administered by the chancellor of new york. at such time, and in such presence, beneath the unveiled heavens, washington first took this vow upon his lips: "i do solemnly swear that i will faithfully execute the office of president of the united states, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the united states." over the president, on this new occasion, floated the national flag, with its stripes of red and white, its stars on a field of blue. as his patriot eye rested upon the glowing ensign, what currents must have rushed swiftly through his soul. in the early days of the revolution, in those darkest hours about boston, after the battle of bunker hill, and before the declaration of independence, the thirteen stripes had been first unfurled by him, as the emblem of union among the colonies for the sake of freedom. by him, at that time, they had been named the union flag. trial, struggle, and war were now ended, and the union, which they first heralded, was unalterably established. to every beholder these memories, must have been full of pride and consolation. but, looking back upon the scene, there is one circumstance which, more than all its other associations, fills the soul,--more even than the suggestions of union, which i prize so much. at this moment, when washington took his first oath to support the constitution of the united states, the national ensign, nowhere within the national territory, covered a single slave. then, indeed, was slavery sectional, and freedom national. on the sea an execrable piracy, the trade in slaves, to the national scandal, was still tolerated under the national flag. in the states, as a sectional institution, beneath the shelter of local laws, slavery unhappily found a home. but in the only terrritories at this time belonging to the nation, the broad region of the northwest, it was already made impossible, by the ordinance of freedom, even before the adoption of the constitution. the district of columbia, with its fatal dowry, was not yet acquired. the government thus organized was anti-slavery in character. washington was a slave-holder, but it would be unjust to his memory not to say that he was an abolitionist also. his opinions do not admit of question. * * * * * by the side of washington, as, standing beneath the national flag, he swore to support the constitution, were illustrious men, whose lives and recorded words now rise in judgment. there was john adams, the vice-president, great vindicator and final negotiator of our national independence, whose soul, flaming with freedom, broke forth in the early declaration, that "consenting to slavery is a sacrilegious breach of trust," and whose immitigable hostility to this wrong is immortal in his descendants. there was also a companion in arms and attached friend, of beautiful genius, the yet youthful and "incomparable" hamilton,--fit companion in early glories and fame with that darling of english history, sir philip sidney, to whom the latter epithet has been reserved,--who, as member of the abolition society of new york, had recently united in a solemn petition for those who, though "free by the laws of god; are held in slavery by the laws of this state." there, too, was a noble spirit, of spotless virtue, the ornament of human nature, who, like the sun, ever held an unerring course,--john jay. filling the important post of secretary for foreign affairs under the confederation, he found time to organize the "society for promoting the manumission of slaves" in new york, and to act as its president, until, by the nomination of washington, he became chief justice of the united states. in his sight slavery was an "iniquity," "a sin of crimson dye," against which ministers of the gospel should testify, and which the government should seek in every way to abolish. "till america comes into this measure," he wrote, "her prayers to heaven for liberty will be impious. this is a strong expression, but it is just. were i in your legislature, i would prepare a bill for the purpose with great care, and i would never cease moving it till it became a law or i ceased to be a member." such words as these, fitly coming from our leaders, belong to the true glories of the country: "while we such precedents can boast at home, keep thy fabricius and thy cato, rome!" they stood not alone. the convictions and earnest aspirations of the country were with them. at the north these were broad and general. at the south they found fervid utterance from slaveholders. by early and precocious efforts for "total emancipation," the author of the declaration of independence placed himself foremost among the abolitionists of the land. in language now familiar to all, and which can never die, he perpetually denounced slavery. he exposed its pernicious influence upon master as well as slave, declared that the love of justice and the love of country pleaded equally for the slave, and that "the abolition of domestic slavery was the greatest object of desire." he believed that "the sacred side was gaining daily recruits," and confidently looked to the young for the accomplishment of this good work. in fitful sympathy with jefferson was another honored son of virginia, the orator of liberty, patrick henry, who, while confessing that he was a master of slaves, said: "i will not, i cannot justify it. however culpable my conduct, i will so far pay my devoir to virtue as to own the excellence and rectitude of her precepts, and lament my want of conformity to them." at this very period, in the legislature of maryland, on a bill for the relief of oppressed slaves, a young man, afterwards by consummate learning and forensic powers acknowledged head of the american bar, william pinkney, in a speech of earnest, truthful eloquence,--better for his memory than even his professional fame,--branded slavery as "iniquitous and most dishonorable," "founded in a disgraceful traffic," "its continuance as shameful as its origin," and he openly declared, that "by the eternal principles of natural justice, no master in the state has a right to hold his slave in bondage for a single hour." * * * * * at the risk of repetition, but for the sake of clearness, review now this argument, and gather it together. considering that slavery is of such an offensive character that it can find sanction only in "positive law," and that it has no such "positive" sanction in the constitution,--that the constitution, according to its preamble, was ordained to "establish justice" and "secure the blessings of liberty,"--that, in the convention which framed it, and also elsewhere at the time, it was declared not to sanction slavery,--that, according to the declaration of independence, and the address of the continental congress, the nation was dedicated to "liberty," and the "rights of human nature,"--that, according to the principles of the common law, the constitution must be interpreted openly, actively, and perpetually for freedom,--that, according to the decision of the supreme court, it acts upon slaves, _not as property_, but as persons,--that, at the first organization of the national government under washington, slavery had no national favor, existed nowhere on the national territory, beneath the national flag, but was openly condemned by nation, church, colleges, and literature of the time,--and, finally, that, according to an amendment of the constitution, the national government can exercise only powers delegated to it, among which is none to support slavery,--considering these things, sir, it is impossible to avoid the single conclusion, that slavery is in no respect a national institution, and that the constitution nowhere upholds property in man. there is one other special provision of the constitution, which i have reserved to this stage, not so much from its superior importance, but because it fitly stands by itself. this alone, if practically applied, would carry freedom to all within its influence. it is an amendment proposed by the first congress, as follows: "no _person_ shall be deprived of life, _liberty_, or property, _without due process of law_." under this great aegis the liberty of every person within the national jurisdiction is unequivocally placed. i say every person. of this there can be no question. the word "person" in the constitution embraces every human being within its sphere, whether caucasian, indian, or african, from the president to the slave. show me a person within the national jurisdiction, and i confidently claim for him this protection, no matter what his condition or race or color. the natural meaning of the clause is clear, but a single fact of its history places it in the broad light of noon. as originally recommended by virginia, north carolina, and rhode island, it was restricted to the freeman. its language was, "no freeman ought to be deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the law of the land." in rejecting this limitation, the authors of the amendment revealed their purpose, that no person, under the national government, of whatever character, should be deprived of liberty without due process of law,--that is, without due presentment, indictment, or other judicial proceeding. but this amendment is nothing less than an express guaranty of personal liberty, and an express prohibition of its invasion anywhere, at least within the national jurisdiction. sir, apply these principles, and slavery will again be as when washington took his first oath as president. the union flag of the republic will become once more the flag of freedom, and at all points within the national jurisdiction will refuse to cover a slave. beneath its beneficent folds, wherever it is carried, on land or sea, slavery will disappear, like darkness under the arrows of the ascending sun,--like the spirit of evil before the angel of the lord. in all national territories slavery will be impossible. on the high seas, under the national flag, slavery will be impossible. in the district of columbia slavery will instantly cease. inspired by these principles, congress can give no sanction to slavery by the admission of new slave states. nowhere under the constitution can the nation, by legislation or otherwise, support slavery, hunt slaves, or hold property in man. such, sir, are my sincere convictions. according to the constitution, as i understand it, in the light of the past and of its true principles, there is no other conclusion which is rational or tenable, which does not defy authoritative rules of interpretation, does not falsify indisputable facts of history, does not affront the public opinion in which it had its birth, and does not dishonor the memory of the fathers. and yet politicians of the hour undertake to place these convictions under formal ban. the generous sentiments which filled the early patriots, and impressed upon the government they founded, as upon the coin they circulated, the image and superscription of liberty, have lost their power. the slave-masters, few in number, amounting to not more than three hundred and fifty thousand, according to the recent census, have succeeded in dictating the policy of the national government, and have written slavery on its front. the change, which began in the desire for wealth, was aggravated by the desire for political predominance. through slavery the cotton crop increased with its enriching gains; through slavery states became part of the slave power. and now an arrogant and unrelenting ostracism is applied, not only to all who express themselves against slavery, but to every man unwilling to be its menial. a novel test for office is introduced, which would have excluded all the fathers of the republic,--even washington, jefferson, and franklin! yes, sir! startling it may be, but indisputable. could these revered demigods of history once again descend upon earth and mingle in our affairs, not one of them could receive a nomination from the national convention of either of the two old political parties! out of the convictions of their hearts and the utterances of their lips against slavery they would be condemned. this single fact reveals the extent to which the national government has departed from its true course and its great examples. for myself, i know no better aim under the constitution than to bring the government back to the precise position on this question it occupied on the auspicious morning of its first organization by washington, "nunc retrorsum vela dare, atque iterare cursus . . . . . . relictos," that the sentiments of the fathers may again prevail with our rulers, and the national flag may nowhere shelter slavery. to such as count this aspiration unreasonable let me commend a renowned and life-giving precedent of english history. as early as the days of queen elizabeth, a courtier boasted that the air of england was too pure for a slave to breathe, and the common law was said to forbid slavery. and yet, in the face of this vaunt, kindred to that of our fathers, and so truly honorable, slaves were introduced from the west indies. the custom of slavery gradually prevailed. its positive legality was affirmed, in professional opinions, by two eminent lawyers, talbot and yorke, each afterwards lord chancellor. it was also affirmed on the bench by the latter as lord hardwicke. england was already a slave state. the following advertisement, copied from a london newspaper, _the public advertiser_, of november , , shows that the journals there were disfigured as some of ours, even in the district of columbia. "to be sold, a black girl, the property of j. b., eleven years of age, who is extremely handy, works at her needle tolerably, and speaks english perfectly well; is of an excellent temper and willing disposition. inquire of her owner at the angel inn, behind st. clement's church, in the strand." at last, in , only three years after this advertisement, the single question of the legality of slavery was presented to lord mansfield, on a writ of _habeas corpus_. a poor negro, named sommersett, brought to england as a slave, became ill, and, with an inhumanity disgraceful even to slavery, was turned adrift upon the world. through the charity of an estimable man, the eminent abolitionist, granville sharp, he was restored to health, when his unfeeling and avaricious master again claimed him as bondman. the claim was repelled. after elaborate and protracted discussion in westminster hall, marked by rarest learning and ability, lord mansfield, with discreditable reluctance, sullying his great judicial name, but in trembling obedience to the genius of the british constitution, pronounced a decree which made the early boast a practical verity, and rendered slavery forever impossible in england. more than fourteen thousand persons, at that time held as slaves, and breathing english air,--four times as many as are now found in this national metropolis,--stepped forth in the happiness and dignity of free men. with this guiding example i cannot despair. the time will yet come when the boast of our fathers will be made a practical verity also, and court or congress, in the spirit of this british judgment, will proudly declare that nowhere under the constitution can man hold property in man. for the republic such a decree will be the way of peace and safety. as slavery is banished from the national jurisdiction, it will cease to vex our national politics. it may linger in the states as a local institution; but it will no longer engender national animosities, when it no longer demands national support. ii. from this general review of the relations of the national government to slavery, i pass to the consideration of the true nature of the provision for the rendition of fugitives from service, embracing an examination of this provision in the constitution, and especially of the recent act of congress in pursuance thereof. as i begin this discussion, let me bespeak anew your candor. not in prejudice, but in the light of history and of reason, we must consider this subject. the way will then be easy and the conclusion certain. much error arises from the exaggerated importance now attached to this provision, and from assumptions with regard to its origin and primitive character. it is often asserted that it was suggested by some special difficulty, which had become practically and extensively felt, anterior to the constitution. but this is one of the myths or fables with which the supporters of slavery have surrounded their false god. in the articles of confederation, while provision is made for the surrender of fugitive criminals, nothing is said of fugitive slaves or servants; and there is no evidence in any quarter, until after the national convention, of hardship or solicitude on this account. no previous voice was heard to express desire for any provision on the subject. the story to the contrary is a modern fiction. i put aside, as equally fabulous, the common saying, that this provision was one of the original compromises of the constitution, and an essential condition of union. though sanctioned by eminent judicial opinions, it will be found that this statement is hastily made, without any support in the records of the convention, the only authentic evidence of the compromises; nor will it be easy to find any authority for it in any contemporary document, speech, published letter, or pamphlet of any kind. it is true that there were compromises at the formation of the constitution, which were the subject of anxious debate; but this was not one of them. there was a compromise between the small and large states, by which equality was secured to all the states in the senate. there was another compromise finally carried, under threats from the south, on the motion of a new england member, by which the slave states are allowed representatives according to the whole number of free persons and "three fifths of all other persons," thus securing political power on account of their slaves, in consideration that direct taxes should be apportioned in the same way. direct taxes have been imposed at only four brief intervals. the political power has been constant, and at this moment sends twenty-one members to the other house. there was a third compromise, not to be mentioned without shame. it was that hateful bargain by which congress was restrained until from the prohibition of the foreign slave-trade, thus securing, down to that period, toleration for crime. this was pertinaciously pressed by the south, even to the extent of absolute restriction on congress. john rutledge said: "if the convention thinks that north carolina, south carolina, and georgia will ever agree to the plan (the national constitution), unless their right to import slaves be untouched, the expectation is vain. the people of those states will never be such fools as to give up so important an interest." charles pinckney said: "south carolina can never receive the plan, if it prohibits the slave-trade." charles cotesworth pinckney "thought himself bound to declare candidly, that he did not think south carolina would stop her importations of slaves in any short time." the effrontery of the slave-masters was matched by the sordidness of the eastern members, who yielded again. luther martin, the eminent member of the convention, in his contemporary address to the legislature of maryland, described the compromise. "i found," he said, "the eastern states, notwithstanding their aversion to slavery, were very willing to indulge the southern states at least with a temporary liberty to prosecute the slave-trade, _provided the southern states would in their turn gratify them by laying no restriction on navigation acts_." the bargain was struck, and at this price the southern states gained the detestable indulgence. at a subsequent day congress branded the slave-trade as piracy, and thus, by solemn legislative act, adjudged this compromise to be felonious and wicked. such are the three chief original compromises of the constitution and essential conditions of union. the case of fugitives from service is not of these. during the convention it was not in any way associated with these. nor is there any evidence from the records of this body, that the provision on this subject was regarded with any peculiar interest. as its absence from the articles of confederation had not been the occasion of solicitude or de-sire, anterior to the national convention, so it did not enter into any of the original plans of the constitution. it was introduced tardily, at a late period of the convention, and adopted with very little and most casual discussion. a few facts show how utterly unfounded are recent assumptions. the national convention was convoked to meet at philadelphia on the second monday in may, . several members appeared at this time, but, a majority of the states not being represented, those present adjourned from day to day until the th, when the convention was organized by the choice of george washington as president. on the th a few brief rules and orders were adopted. on the next day, they commenced their great work. on the same day, edmund randolph, of slaveholding virginia, laid before the convention a series of fifteen resolutions, containing his plan for the establishment of a new national government. here was no allusion to fugitives slaves. also, on the same day, charles pinckney, of slaveholding south carolina, laid before the convention what was called "a draft of a federal government, to be agreed upon between the free and independent states of america," an elaborate paper, marked by considerable minuteness of detail. here are provisions, borrowed from the articles of confederation, securing to the citizens of each state equal privileges, in the several states, giving faith to the public records of the states, and ordaining the surrender of fugitives from justice. but this draft, though from the flaming guardian of the slave interest, contained no allusion to fugitive slaves. in the course of the convention other plans were brought forward: on the th of june, aseries of eleven propositions by mr. paterson, of new jersey, "so as to render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the union"; on the th june, eleven propositions by mr. hamilton, of new york, "containing his ideas of a suitable plan of government for the united states" and on the th june, mr. randolph's resolutions, originally offered on the th may, "as altered, amended, and agreed to in committee of the whole house." on the th july, twenty-three resolutions, already adopted on different days in the convention, were referred to a "committee of detail," for reduction to the form of a constitution. on the th august this committee reported the finished draft of a constitution. and yet in all these resolutions, plans, and drafts, seven in number, proceeding from eminent members and from able committees, no allusion is made to fugitive slaves. for three months the convention was in session, and not a word uttered on this subject. at last, on the th august, as the convention was drawing to a close, on the consideration of the article providing for the privileges of citizens in different states, we meet the first reference to this matter, in words worthy of note. "general (charles cotesworth) pinckney was not satisfied with it. he seemed to wish some provision should be included in favor of property in slaves." but he made no proposition. unwilling to shock the convention, and uncertain in his own mind, he only seemed to wish such a provision. in this vague expression of a vague desire this idea first appeared. in this modest, hesitating phrase is the germ of the audacious, unhesitating slave act. here is the little vapor, which has since swollen, as in the arabian tale, to the power and dimensions of a giant. the next article under discussion provided for the surrender of fugitives from justice. mr. butler and mr. charles pinckney, both from south carolina, now moved openly to require "fugitive slaves and servants to be delivered up like criminals." here was no disguise. with hamlet, it was now said in spirit, "seems, madam! nay it is. i know not seems." but the very boldness of the effort drew attention and opposition. mr. wilson, of pennsylvania, the learned jurist and excellent man, at once objected: "this would oblige the executive of the state to do it at the public expense." mr. sherman, of connecticut, "saw no more propriety in the public seizing and surrendering a slave or servant than a horse." under the pressure of these objections, the offensive proposition was withdrawn,--never more to be renewed. the article for the surrender of criminals was then unanimously adopted. on the next day, th august, profiting by the suggestions already made, mr. butler moved a proposition,--substantially like that now found in the constitution,--for the surrender, not of "fugitive slaves," as originally proposed, but simply of "persons bound to service or labor," which, without debate or opposition of any kind, was unanimously adopted.' here, palpably, was no labor of compromise, no adjustment of conflicting interest,--nor even any expression of solicitude. the clause finally adopted was vague and faint as the original suggestion. in its natural import it is not applicable to slaves. if supposed by some to be applicable, it is clear that it was supposed by others to be inapplicable. it is now insisted that the term "persons bound to service," or "held to service," as expressed in the final revision, is the equivalent or synonym for "slaves." this interpretation is rebuked by an incident to which reference has been already made, but which will bear repetition. on the th september--a little more than a fortnight after the clause was adopted, and when, if deemed to be of any significance, it could not have been forgotten--the very word "service," came under debate, and received a fixed meaning. it was unanimously adopted as a substitute for "servitude" in another part of the constitution, for the reason that it expressed "the obligations of free persons," while the other expressed "the condition of slaves." in the face of this authentic evidence, reported by mr. madison, it is difficult to see how the term "persons held to service" can be deemed to express anything beyond the "obligations of free persons." thus, in the light of calm inquiry, does this exaggerated clause lose its importance. the provision, showing itself thus tardily, and so slightly regarded in the national convention, was neglected in much of the contemporaneous discussion before the people. in the conventions of south carolina, north carolina,and virginia, it was commended as securing important rights, though on this point there was difference of opinion. in the virginia convention, an eminent character, mr. george mason, with others, expressly declared that there was "no security of property coming within this section." in the other conventions it was disregarded. massachusetts, while exhibiting peculiar sensitiveness at any responsibility for slavery, seemed to view it with unconcern. one of her leading statesmen, general heath, in the debates of the state convention, strenuously asserted, that, in ratifying the constitution, the people of massachusetts "would do nothing to hold the blacks in slavery." "_the federalist_," in its classification of the powers of congress, describes and groups a large number as "those which provide for the harmony and proper intercourse among the states," and therein speaks of the power over public records, standing next in the constitution to the provision concerning fugitives from service; but it fails to recognize the latter among the means of promoting "harmony and proper intercourse;" nor does its triumvirate of authors anywhere allude to the provision. the indifference thus far attending this subject still continued. the earliest act of congress, passed in , drew little attention. it was not suggested originally by any difficulty or anxiety touching fugitives from service, nor is there any contemporary record, in debate or otherwise, showing that any special importance was attached to its provisions in this regard. the attention of congress was directed to fugitives from justice, and, with little deliberation, it undertook, in the same bill, to provide for both cases. in this accidental manner was legislation on this subject first attempted. there is no evidence that fugitives were often seized under this act. from a competent inquirer we learn that twenty-six years elapsed before it was successfully enforced in any free state. it is certain, that, in a case at boston, towards the close of the last century, illustrated by josiah quincy as counsel, the crowd about the magistrate, at the examination, quietly and spontaneously opened a way for the fugitive, and thus the act failed to be executed. it is also certain, that, in vermont, at the beginning of the century, a judge of the supreme court of the state, on application for the surrender of an alleged slave, accompanied by documentary evidence, gloriously refused compliance, unless the master could show a bill of sale from the almighty. even these cases passed without public comment. in the subject was introduced in the house of representatives by an effort for another act, which, on consideration, was rejected. at a later day, in - , though still disregarded by the country, it seemed to excite a short-lived interest in congress. in the house of representatives, on motion of mr. pindall, of virginia, a committee was appointed to inquire into the expediency of "providing more effectually by law for reclaiming servants and slaves escaping from one state into an-other," and a bill reported by them to amend the act of , after consideration for several days in committee of the whole, was passed. in the senate, after much attention and warm debate, it passed with amendments. but on return to the house for adoption of the amendments, it was dropped. this effort, which, in the discussions of this subject, has been thus far unnoticed, is chiefly remarkable as the earliest recorded evidence of the unwarrantable assertion, now so common, that this provision was originally of vital importance to the peace and harmony of the country. at last, in , we have another act, passed by both houses of congress, and approved by the president, familiarly known as the fugitive slave bill. as i read this statute, i am filled with painful emotions. the masterly subtlety with which it is drawn might challenge admiration, if exerted for a benevolent purpose; but in an age of sensibility and refinement, a machine of torture, however skilful and apt, cannot be regarded without horror. sir, in the name of the constitution, which it violates, of my country, which it dishonors, of humanity, which it degrades, of christianity, which it offends, i arraign this enactment, and now hold it up to the judgment of the senate and the world. again, i shrink from no responsibility. i may seem to stand alone; but all the patriots and martyrs of history, all the fathers of the republic, are with me. sir, there is no attribute of god which does not take part against this act. but i am to regard it now chiefly as an infringement of the constitution. here its outrages, flagrant as manifold, assume the deepest dye and broadest character only when we consider that by its language it is not restricted to any special race or class, to the african or to the person with african blood, but that any inhabitant of the united states, of whatever complexion or condition, may be its victim. without discrimination of color even, and in violation of every presumption of freedom, the act surrenders all who may be claimed as "owing service or labor" to the same tyrannical proceeding. if there be any whose sympathies are not moved for the slave, who do not cherish the rights of the humble african, struggling for divine freedom, as warmly as the rights of the white man, let him consider well that the rights of all are equally assailed. "nephew," said algernon sidney in prison, on the night before his execution, "i value not my own life a chip; but what concerns me is, that the law which takes away my life may hang every one of you, whenever it is thought convenient." whilst thus comprehensive in its provisions, and applicable to all, there is no safeguard of human freedom which the monster act does not set at nought. it commits this great question--than which none is more sacred in the law--not to a solemn trial, but to summary proceedings. it commits this great question, not to one of the high tribunals of the land, but to the unaided judgment of a single petty magistrate. it commits this great question to a magistrate appointed, not by the president with the consent of the senate, but by the court,--holding office, not during good behavior, but merely during the will of the court,--and receiving, not a regular salary, but fees according to each individual case. it authorizes judgment on _ex parte_ evidence, by affidavit, without the sanction of cross-examination. it denies the writ of _habeas corpus_, ever known as the palladium of the citizen. contrary to the declared purposes of the framers of the constitution, it sends the fugitive back "at the public expense." adding meanness to violation of the constitution, it bribes the commissioner by a double stipend to pronounce against freedom. if he dooms a man to slavery, the reward is ten dollars; but saving him to freedom, his dole is five. the constitution expressly secures the "free exercise of religion"; but this act visits with unrelenting penalties the faithful men and women who render to the fugitive that countenance, succor, and shelter which in their conscience "religion" requires; and thus is practical religion directly assailed. plain commandments are broken; and are we not told that "whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven"? as it is for the public weal that there should be an end of suits, so by the consent of civilized nations these must be instituted within fixed limitations of time; but this act, exalting slavery above even this practical principle of universal justice, ordains proceedings against freedom without any reference to the lapse of time. glancing only at these points, and not stopping for argument, vindication, or illustration, i come at once upon two chief radical objections to this act, identical in principle with those triumphantly urged by our fathers against the british stamp act; first, that it is a usurpation by congress of powers not granted by the constitution, and an infraction of rights secured to the states; and, secondly, that it takes away trial by jury in a question of personal liberty and a suit at common law. either of these objections, if sustained, strikes at the very root of the act. that it is obnoxious to both is beyond doubt. here, at this stage, i encounter the difficulty, that these objections are already foreclosed by legislation of congress and decisions of the supreme court,--that as early as congress assumed power over this subject by an act which failed to secure trial by jury, and that the validity of this act under the constitution has been affirmed by the supreme court. on examination, this difficulty will disappear. the act of proceeded from a congress that had already recognized the united states bank, chartered by a previous congress, which, though sanctioned by the supreme court, has been since in high quarters pronounced unconstitutional. if it erred as to the bank, it may have erred also as to fugitives from service. but the act itself contains a capital error on this very subject, so declared by the supreme court, in pretending to vest a portion of the judicial power of the nation in state officers. this error takes from the act all authority as an interpretation of the constitution. i dismiss it. the decisions of the supreme court are entitled to great consideration, and will not be mentioned by me except with respect. among the memories of my youth are happy days when i sat at the feet of this tribunal, while marshall presided, with story by his side. the pressure now proceeds from the case of prigg v. pennsylvania ( peters, ), where is asserted the power of congress. without going into minute criticism of this judgment, or considering the extent to which it is extra-judicial, and therefore of no binding force,--all which has been done at the bar in one state, and by an able court in another,--but conceding to it a certain degree of weight as a rule to the judiciary on this particular point, still it does not touch the grave question which springs from the denial of trial by jury. this judgment was pronounced by mr. justice story. from the interesting biography of the great jurist, recently published by his son, we learn that the question of trial by jury was not considered as before the court; so that, in the estimation of the learned judge himself, it was still an open question. * * * * * ( ). _first of the power of congress over this subject_. the constitution contains _powers_ granted to congress, _compacts_ between the states, and _prohibitions_ addressed to the nation and to the states. a compact or prohibition may be accompanied by a power,--but not necessarily, for it is essentially distinct in nature. and here the single question arises, whether the constitution, by grant, general or special, confers upon congress any power to legislate on the subject of fugitives from service. * * * * * the framers of the constitution were wise and careful, having a reason for what they did, and understanding the language they employed. they did not, after discussion, incorporate into their work any superfluous provision; nor did they without design adopt the peculiar arrangement in which it appears. adding to the record compact an express grant of power, they testified not only their desire for such power in congress, but their conviction that without such express grant it would not exist. but if express grant was necessary in this case, it was equally necessary in all the other cases. _expressum facit cessare tacitum_. especially, in view of its odious character, was it necessary in the case of fugitives from service. abstaining from any such grant, and then grouping the bare compact with other similar compacts, separate from every grant of power, they testified their purpose most significantly. not only do they decline all addition to the compact of any such power, but, to render misapprehension impossible, to make assurance doubly sure, to exclude any contrary conclusion, they punctiliously arrange the clauses, on the principle of _noscitur a sociis_, so as to distinguish all the grants of power, but especially to make the new grant of power, in the case of public records, stand forth in the front by itself, severed from the naked compacts with which it was originally associated. thus the proceedings of the convention show that the founders understood the necessity of powers in certain cases, and, on consideration, jealously granted them. a closing example will strengthen the argument. congress is expressly empowered "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the united states." without this provision these two subjects would have fallen within the control of the states, leaving the nation powerless to establish a uniform rule thereupon. now, instead of the existing compact on fugitives from service, it would have been easy, had any such desire prevailed, to add this case to the clause on naturalization and bankruptcies, and to empower congress to establish a uniform rule for the surrender of fugitives from service throughout the united states. then, of course, whenever congress undertook to exercise the power, all state control of the subject would be superseded. the national government would have been constistuted, like nimrod, the mighty hunter, with power to gather the huntsmen, to halloo the pack, and to direct the chase of men, ranging at will, without regard to boundaries or jurisdictions, throughout all the states. but no person in the convention, not one of the reckless partisans of slavery, was so audacious as to make this proposition. had it been distinctly made, it would have been as distinctly denied. the fact that the provision on this subject was adopted unanimously, while showing the little importance attached to it in the shape it finally assumed, testifies also that it could not have been regarded as a source of national power for slavery. it will be remembered that among the members of the convention were gouverneur morris, who had said that he "never would concur in upholding domestic slavery,"--elbridge gerry, who thought we "ought to be careful not to give any sanction to it,"--roger sherman, who "was opposed to a tax on slaves imported, because it implied they were property,"--james madison, who "thought it wrong to admit in the constitution the idea that there could be property in men,"--and benjamin franklin, who likened american slaveholders to algerine corsairs. in the face of these unequivocal judgments, it is absurd to suppose that these eminent citizens consented unanimously to any provision by which the national government, the creature of their hands, dedicated to freedom, could become the most offensive agent of slavery. thus much for the evidence from the history of the convention. but the true principles of our political system are in harmony with this conclusion of history; and here let me say a word of state rights. it was the purpose of our fathers to create a national government, and to endow it with adequate powers. they had known the perils of imbecility, discord, and confusion, protracted through the uncertain days of the confederation, and they desired a government which should be a true bond of union and an efficient organ of national interests at home and abroad. but while fashioning this agency, they fully recognized the governments of the states. to the nation were delegated high powers, essential to the national interests, but specific in character and limited in number. to the states and to the people were reserved the powers, general in character and unlimited in number, not delegated to the nation or prohibited to the states. the integrity of our political system depends upon harmony in the operations of the nation and of the states. while the nation within its wide orbit is supreme, the states move with equal supremacy in their own. but, from the necessity of the case, the supremacy of each in its proper place excludes the other. the nation cannot exercise rights reserved to the states, nor can the states interfere with the powers of the nation. any such action on either side is a usurpation. these principles were distinctly declared by mr. jefferson in , in words often adopted since, and which must find acceptance from all parties. * * * * * i have already amply shown to-day that slavery is in no respect national--that it is not within the sphere of national activity,--that it has no "positive" support in the constitution,--and that any interpretation inconsistent with this principle would be abhorrent to the sentiments of its founders. slavery is a local institution, peculiar to the states, and under the guardianship of state rights. it is impossible, without violence to the spirit and letter of the constitution, to claim for congress any power to legislate either for its abolition in the states or its support anywhere. non-intervention is the rule prescribed to the nation. regarding the question in its more general aspects only, and putting aside, for the moment, the perfect evidence from the records of the convention, it is palpable that there is no national fountain out of which the existing slave act can possibly spring. but this act is not only an unwarrantable assumption of power by the nation, it is also an infraction of rights reserved to the states. everywhere within their borders the states are peculiar guardians of personal liberty. by jury and habeas corpus to save the citizen harmless against all assault is among their duties and rights. to his state the citizen, when oppressed, may appeal; nor should he find that appeal denied. but this act despoils him of rights, and despoils his state of all power to protect him. it subjects him to the wretched chance of false oaths, forged papers, and facile commissioners, and takes from him every safeguard. now, if the slaveholder has a right to be secure at home in the enjoyment of slavery, so also has the freeman of the north--and every person there is presumed to be a free man--an equal right to be secure at home in the enjoyment of freedom. the same principle of state rights by which slavery is protected in the slave states throws an impenetrable shield over freedom in the free states. and here, let me say, is the only security for slavery in the slave states, as for freedom in the free states. in the present fatal overthrow of state rights you teach a lesson which may return to plague the teacher. compelling the national government to stretch its briarean arms into the free states for the sake of slavery, you show openly how it may stretch these same hundred giant arms into the slave states for the sake of freedom. this lesson was not taught by our fathers. here i end this branch of the question. the true principles of our political system, the history of the national convention, the natural interpretation of the constitution, all teach that this act is a usurpation by congress of powers that do not belong to it, and an infraction of rights secured to the states. it is a sword, whose handle is at the national capital, and whose point is everywhere in the states. a weapon so terrible to personal liberty the nation has no power to grasp. ( ). and now of the denial of trial by jury. admitting, for the moment, that congress is intrusted with power over this subject, which truth disowns, still the act is again radically unconstitutional from its denial of trial by jury in a question of personal liberty and a suit of common law. since on the one side there is a claim of property, and on the other of liberty, both property and liberty are involved in the issue. to this claim on either side is attached trial by jury. to me, sir, regarding this matter in the light of the common law and in the blaze of free institutions, it has always seemed impossible to arrive at any other conclusion. if the language of the constitution were open to doubt, which it is not, still all the presumptions of law, all the leanings to freedom, all the suggestions of justice, plead angel-tongued for this right. nobody doubts that congress, if it legislates on this matter, may allow a trial by jury. but if it may, so overwhelming is the claim of justice, it must. beyond this, however, the question is determined by the precise letter of the constitution. several expressions in the provision for the surrender of fugitives from service show the essential character of the proceedings. in the first place, the person must be, not merely charged, as in the case of fugitives from justice, but actually held to service in the state which he escaped. in the second place, he must "be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." these two facts--that he was held to service, and that his service was due to his claimant--are directly placed in issue, and must be proved. two necessary incidents of the delivery may also be observed. first, it is made in the state where the fugitive is found; and, secondly, it restores to the claimant complete control over the person of the fugitive. from these circumstances it is evident that the proceedings cannot be regarded, in any just sense, as preliminary, or ancillary to some future formal trial, but as complete in themselves, final and conclusive. these proceedings determine on the one side the question of property, and on the other the sacred question of personal liberty in its most transcendent form,--liberty not merely for a day or a year, but for life, and the liberty of generations that shall come after, so long as slavery endures. to these questions the constitution, by two specific provisions, attaches trial by jury. one is the familiar clause, already adduced: "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,"--that is, without due proceeding at law, with trial by jury. not stopping to dwell on this, i press at once to the other provision, which is still more express: "in suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved." this clause, which does not appear in the constitution as first adopted, was suggested by the very spirit of freedom. at the close of the national convention, elbridge gerry refused to sign the constitution because, among other things, it established "a tribunal without juries, a star chamber as to civil cases." many united in his opposition, and on the recommendation of the first congress this additional safeguard was adopted as an amendment. opposing this act as doubly unconstitutional from the want of power in congress and from the denial of trial by jury, i find myself again encouraged by the example of our revolutionary fathers, in a case which is a landmark of history. the parallel is important and complete. in , the british parliament, by a notorious statute, attempted to draw money from the colonies through a stamp tax, while the determination of certain questions of forfeiture under the statute was delegated, not to the courts of common law, but to courts of admiralty without a jury. the stamp act, now execrated by all lovers of liberty, had this extent and no more. its passage was the signal for a general flame of opposition and indignation throughout the colonies. it was denounced as contrary to the british constitution, on two principal grounds--first, as a usurpation by parliament of powers not belonging to it, and an infraction of rights secured to the colonies; and, secondly, as a denial of trial by jury in certain cases of property. the public feeling was variously expressed. at boston, on the day the act was to take effect, the shops were closed, the bells of the churches tolled, and the flags of the ships hung at half-mast. at portsmouth, in new hampshire, the bells were tolled, and the friends of liberty were summoned to hold themselves in readiness for her funeral. at new york, the obnoxious act, headed "folly of england and ruin of america," was contemptuously hawked about the streets. bodies of patriots were organized everywhere under the name of "sons of liberty." the merchants, inspired then by liberty, resolved to import no more goods from england until the repeal of the act. the orators also spoke. james otis with fiery tongue appealed to magna charta. * * * * * sir, regarding the stamp act candidly and cautiously, free from animosities of the time, it is impossible not to see that, though gravely unconstitutional, it was at most an infringement of civil liberty only, not of personal liberty. there was an unjust tax of a few pence, with the chance of amercement by a single judge without a jury; but by no provision of this act was the personal liberty of any man assailed. no freeman could be seized under it as a slave. such an act, though justly obnoxious to every lover of constitutional liberty, cannot be viewed with the feelings of repugnance enkindled by a statute which assails the personal liberty of every man, and under which any freeman may be seized as a slave. sir, in placing the stamp act by the side of the slave act, i do injustice to that emanation of british tyranny. both infringe important rights: one, of property; the other, the vital right of all, which is to other rights as soul to body,--the right of a man to himself. both are condemned; but their relative condemnation must be measured by their relative characters. as freedom is more than property, as man is above the dollar that he owns, as heaven, to which we all aspire, is higher than earth, where every accumulation of wealth must ever remain, so are the rights assailed by an american congress higher than those once assailed by the british parliament. and just in this degree must history condemn the slave act more than the stamp act. sir, i might here stop. it is enough, in this place, and on this occasion, to show the unconstitutionality of this enactment. your duty commences at once. all legislation hostile to the fundamental law of the land should be repealed without delay. but the argument is not yet exhausted. even if this act could claim any validity or apology under the constitution, which it cannot, it lacks that essential support in the public conscience of the states, where it is to be enforced, which is the life of all law, and with-out which any law must become a dead letter. * * * * * with every attempt to administer the slave act, it constantly becomes more revolting, particularly in its influence on the agents it enlists. pitch cannot be touched without defilement, and all who lend themselves to this work seem at once and unconsciously to lose the better part of man. the spirit of the law passes into them, as the devils entered the swine. upstart commissioners, mere mushrooms of courts, vie and revie with each other. now by indecent speed, now by harshness of manner, now by denial of evidence, now by crippling the defense, and now by open, glaring wrong they make the odious act yet more odious. clemency, grace, and justice die in its presence. all this is observed by the world. not a case occurs which does not harrow the souls of good men, and bring tears of sympathy to the eyes, and those nobler tears which "patriots shed o'er dying laws." sir, i shall speak frankly. if there be an exception to this feeling, it will be found chiefly with a peculiar class. it is a sorry fact, that the "mercantile interest," in unpardonable selfishness, twice in english history, frowned upon endeavors to suppress the atrocity of algerine slavery, that it sought to baffle wilberforce's great effort for the abolition of the african slave-trade, and that, by a sordid compromise, at the formation of our constitution, it exempted the same detested, heaven-defying traffic from american judgment. and now representatives of this "interest," forgetful that commerce is born of freedom, join in hunting the slave. but the great heart of the people recoils from this enactment. it palpitates for the fugitive, and rejoices in his escape. sir, i am telling you facts. the literature of the age is all on his side. songs, more potent than laws, are for him. poets, with voices of melody, sing for freedom. who could tune for slavery? they who make the permanent opinion of the country, who mould our youth,whose words, dropped into the soul, are the germs of character, supplicate for the slave. and now, sir, behold a new and heavenly ally. a woman, inspired by christian genius, enters the lists, like another joan of arc, and with marvellous power sweeps the popular heart. now melting to tears, and now inspiring to rage, her work everywhere touches the conscience, and makes the slave-hunter more hateful. in a brief period, nearly one hundred thousand copies of uncle tom's cabin have been already circulated. but this extraordinary and sudden success, surpassing all other instances in the records of literature, cannot be regarded as but the triumph of genius. better far, it is the testimony of the people, by an unprecedented act, against the fugitive slave bill. these things i dwell upon as incentives and tokens of an existing public sentiment, rendering this act practically inoperative, except as a tremendous engine of horror. sir, the sentiment is just. even in the lands of slavery, the slave-trader is loathed as an ignoble character, from whom the countenance is turned away; and can the slave-hunter be more regarded, while pursuing his prey in a land of freedom? in early europe, in barbarous days, while slavery prevailed, a hunting master was held in aversion. nor was this all. the fugitive was welcomed in the cities, and protected against pursuit. sometimes vengeance awaited the hunter. down to this day, at revel, now a russian city, a sword is proudly preserved with which a hunting baron was beheaded, who, in violation of the municipal rights of the place, seized a fugitive slave. hostile to this act as our public sentiment may be, it exhibits no similar trophy. the state laws of massachusetts have been violated in the seizure of a fugitive slave; but no sword, like that of revel, now hangs at boston. and now, sir, let us review the field over which we have passed. we have seen that any compromise, finally closing the discussion of slavery under the constitution, is tyrannical, absurd, and impotent; that, as slavery can exist only by virtue of positive law, and as it has no such positive support in the constitution, it cannot exist within the national jurisdiction; that the constitution nowhere recognizes property in man, and that, according to its true interpretation, freedom and not slavery is national, while slavery and not freedom is sectional;that in this spirit the national government was first organized under washington, himself an abolitionist, surrounded by abolitionists, while the whole country, by its church, its colleges, its literature, and all its best voices, was united against slavery, and the national flag at that time nowhere within the national territory covered a single slave; still further, that the national government is a government of delegated powers, and, as among these there is no power to support slavery, this institution cannot be national, nor can congress in any way legislate in its behalf; and, finally, that the establishment of this principle is the true way of peace and safety for the republic. considering next the provision for the surrender of fugitives from service, we have seen that it was not one of the original compromises of the constitution; that it was introduced tardily and with hesitation, and adopted with little discussion, while then and for a long period thereafter it was regarded with comparative indifference; that the recent slave act, though many times unconstitutional, is especially so on two grounds, first, as a usurpation by congress of powers not granted by the constitution, and an infraction of rights secured to the states, and, secondly, as the denial of trial by jury, in a question of personal liberty and a suit at common law; that its glaring unconstitutionality finds a prototype in the british stamp act, which our fathers refused to obey as unconstitutional on two parallel grounds,--first, because it was a usurpation by parliament of powers not belonging to it under the british constitution, and an infraction of rights belonging to the colonies, and, secondly, because it was the denial of trial by jury in certain cases of property; that, as liberty is far above property, so is the outrage perpetrated by the american congress far above that perpetrated by the british parliament; and, finally, that the slave act has not that support, in the public sentiment of the states where it is to be executed, which is the life of all law, and which prudence and the precept of washington require. * * * * * mr. president, i have occupied much time; but the great subject still stretches before us. one other point yet remains, which i must not leave untouched, and which justly belongs to the close. the slave act violates the constitution, and shocks the public conscience. with modesty, and yet with firmness, let me add, sir,it offends against the divine law. no such enactment is entitled to support. as the throne of god is above every earthly throne, so are his laws and statutes above all the laws and statutes of man. to question these is to question god himself. but to assume that human laws are beyond question is to claim for their fallible authors infallibility. to assume that they are always in conformity with the laws of god is presumptuously and impiously to exalt man even to equality with god. clearly, human laws are not always in such conformity; nor can they ever be beyond question from each individual. where the conflict is open, as if congress should command the perpetration of murder, the office of conscience as final arbiter is undisputed. but in every conflict the same queenly office is hers. by no earthly power can she be dethroned. each person, after anxious examination, without haste, without passion, solemnly for himself must decide this great controversy. any other rule attributes infallibility to human laws, places them beyond question, and degrades all men to an unthinking, passive obedience. * * * * * the mandates of an earthly power are to be discussed; those of heaven must at once be performed; nor should we suffer ourselves to be drawn by any compact into opposition to god. such is the rule of morals. such, also, by the lips of judges and sages, is the proud declaration of english law, whence our own is derived. in this conviction, patriots have braved unjust commands, and martyrs have died. and now, sir, the rule is commended to us. the good citizen, who sees before him the shivering fugitive, guilty of no crime, pursued, hunted down like a beast, while praying for christian help and deliverance, and then reads the requirements of this act, is filled with horror. here is a despotic mandate "to aid and assist in the prompt and efficient execution of this law." again let me speak frankly. not rashly would i set myself against any requirement of law. this grave responsibility i would not lightly assume. but here the path of duty is clear. by the supreme law, which commands me to do no injustice, by the comprehensive christian law of brotherhood, by the constitution, which i have sworn to support, i am bound to disobey this act. never, in any capacity, can i render voluntary aid in its execution. pains and penalties i will endure, but this great wrong, i will not do. "where i cannot obey actively, there i am willing to lie down and to suffer what they shall do unto me"; such was the exclamation of him to whom we are indebted for the pilgrim's progress while in prison for disobedience to an earthly statute. better suffer injustice than do it. better victim than instrument of wrong. better even the poor slave returned to bondage than the wretched commissioner. there is, sir, an incident of history which suggests a parallel, and affords a lesson of fidelity. under the triumphant exertions of that apostolic jesuit, st. francis xavier, large numbers of japanese, amounting to as many as two hundred thousand,--among them princes, generals, and the flower of the nobility,--were converted to christianity. afterwards, amidst the frenzy of civil war, religious persecution arose, and the penalty of death was denounced against all who refused to trample upon the effigy of the redeemer. this was the pagan law of a pagan land. but the delighted historian records, that from the multitude of converts scarcely one was guilty of this apostasy. the law of man was set at naught. imprisonment, torture, death, were preferred. thus did this people refuse to trample on the painted image. sir, multitudes among us will not be less steadfast in refusing to trample on the living image of their redeemer. finally, sir, for the sake of peace and tranquility, cease to shock the public conscience; for the sake of the constitution, cease to exercise a power nowhere granted, and which violates inviolable rights expressly secured. leave this question where it was left by our fathers, at the formation of our national government,--in the absolute control of the states, the appointed guardians of personal liberty. repeal this enactment. let its terrors no longer rage through the land. mindful of the lowly whom it pursues, mindful of the good men perplexed by its requirements, in the name of charity, in the name of the constitution, repeal this enactment, totally and without delay. there is the example of washington, follow it. there also are words of oriental piety, most touching and full of warning, which speak to all mankind, and now especially to us: "beware of the groans of wounded souls, since the inward sore will at length break out. oppress not to the utmost a single heart; for a solitary sigh has power to overturn a whole world." proofreading team. conditions in utah. speech of hon. thomas kearns, of utah, in the senate of the united states, tuesday, february , . washington. . speech of hon. thomas kearns. * * * * * polygamous marriages and plural cohabitation. the president pro tempore. the chair lays before the senate the resolution submitted by the senator from idaho [mr. dubois], which will be read. the secretary read the resolution submitted yesterday by mr. dubois, as follows: _resolved_, that the committee on the judiciary be, and it is hereby, authorized and instructed to prepare and report to the senate within thirty days after the beginning of the next session of congress a joint resolution of the two houses of congress proposing to the several states amendments to the constitution of the united states which shall provide, in substance, for the prohibition and punishment of polygamous marriages and plural cohabitation contracted or practiced within the united states and in every place subject to the jurisdiction of the united states; and which shall, in substance, also require all persons taking office under the constitution or laws of the united states, or of any state, to take and subscribe an oath that he or she is not, and will not be, a member or adherent of any organization whatever the laws, rules, or nature of which organization require him or her to disregard his or her duty to support and maintain the constitution and laws of the united states and of the several states. mr. kearns. mr. president, i will not permit this occasion to pass without saying, with brevity and such clearness as i can command, what it seems to me should be said by a senator, under these circumstances, before leaving public life. something is due to the state which has honored me; something is due to the record which i have endeavored to maintain honorably before the world and something, by way of information, is due to the senate and the country. utah, the newest of the states, to me the best beloved of all the states, appears to be the only one concerning which there is a serious conflict with the country. i was not born in utah, but i have spent all the years of my manhood there, and i love the commonwealth and its people. in what i say there is malice toward none, and i hope to make it just to all. if the present day does not accept my statements and appreciate my motives, i can only trust that time will prove more gentle and that in the future those who care to revert to these remarks will know that they are animated purely by a hope to bring about a better understanding between utah and this great nation. utah was admitted to statehood after, and because of, a long series of pledges exacted from the mormon leaders, the like of which had never before been known in american history. except for those pledges, the sentiment of the united states would never have assented to utah's admission. except for the belief on the part of congress and the country that the extraordinary power which abides in that state would maintain these pledges, utah would not have been admitted. there is every reason to believe that the president who signed the bill would have vetoed it if he had not been convinced that the pledges made would be kept. the pledges. as a citizen of the state and a witness to the events and words which constitute those pledges, as a senator of the united states, i give my word of honor to you that i believed that these pledges consisted of the following propositions: first. that the mormon leaders would live within the laws pertaining to plural marriage and the continued plural marriage relation, and that they would enforce this obligation upon all of their followers, under penalty of disfellowship. second. that the leaders of the mormon church would no longer exercise political sway, and that their followers would be free and would exercise their freedom in politics, in business, and in social affairs. as a citizen and a senator i give my word of honor to you that i believed that these pledges would be kept in the spirit in which congress and the country accepted them, and that there would never be any violation, evasion, denial, or equivocation concerning them. i appeal to such members of this body as were in either house of congress during the years to , if it was not their belief at that time that the foregoing were the pledges and that they would be kept; and i respectfully insist that every senator here who was a member of either house at that time would have refused to vote for utah's admission unless he had firmly believed as i have stated. . utah, secured her statehood by a solemn compact made by the mormon leaders in behalf of themselves and their people. . that compact has been broken willfully and frequently. . no apostle of the mormon church has publicly protested against that violation. i know the gravity of the utterances that i have just made. i know what are the probable consequences to myself. but i have pondered long and earnestly upon the subject and have come to the conclusion that duty to the innocent people of my state and that obligation to the senate and the country require that i shall clearly define my attitude. religion not involved. this is no quarrel with religion. this is no assault upon any man's faith. this is rather the reverence toward the inherent right of all men to believe as they please, which separates religious faith from irreligious practice. the mormon people have a system of their own, somewhat complex, and gathered from the mysticisms of all the ages. it does not appeal to most men; but in its purely theological domain it is theirs, and i respect it as their religion and them as its believers. the trouble arises now, as it has frequently arisen in the past, from the fact that some of the accidental leaders of the movement since the first zealot founder have sought to make of this religion not only a system of morals, sometimes quite original in themselves, but also a system of social relation, a system of finance, a system of commerce, and a system of politics. the social aspect. i dismiss the religion with my profound respect; if it can comfort them, i would not, if i could, disturb it. coming to the social aspect of the society, it is apparent that the great founder sought first to establish equality among men, and then to draw from those equal ranks a special class, who were permitted to practice polygamy and to whom special privileges were accorded in their association with the consecrated temples and the administration of mystic ordinances therein. the polygamous group, or cult as it may be called, soon became the ruling factor in the organization; and it may be observed that ever since the founding of the church almost every man of prominence in the community has belonged to this order. it was so in the time of the martyrs, joseph and hyrum smith, who were killed at carthage jail in illinois, and both of whom were polygamists, although it was denied at the time. there were living until recently, and perhaps there are living now, women who testified that they were married in polygamy to one or the other of these two men, joseph having the larger number. it has been so ever since and is so to-day that nearly every man of the governing class has been or is a polygamist. brigham young succeeded joseph smith, and he set up a kind of kingly rulership, not unbecoming to a man of his vast empire-building power. the mormons have been taught to revere joseph smith as a direct prophet from god. he saw the face of the all father. he held communion with the son. the holy ghost was his constant companion. he settled every question, however trivial, by revelation from almighty god. but brigham was different. while claiming a divine right of leadership, he worked out his great mission by palpable and material means. i do not know that he ever pretended to have received a revelation from the time that he left nauvoo until he reached the shores of the dead sea, nor through all the thirty years of his leadership there. he seemed to regard his people as children who had to be led through their serious calamities by holding out to them the glittering thought of divine guardianship. so firmly did brigham establish the social order in utah that all of the people were equal, except the governing body. this may be said to consist of the president and his two counsellors, they three constituting the first presidency; the twelve apostles; the presiding bishopric, consisting of three men, the chief bishops of the church but much lower in rank than the apostles; the seven presidents of seventies, who are, under the apostles, the subordinate head of the missionary service of the church; and the presiding patriarch. these altogether constitute a body of twenty-six men. there are local authorities in the different stakes of zion, as they are called, corresponding to counties in a state, but with these it is not necessary to deal. practically all of these men under brigham young were polygamists. they constituted what one of their number once called the "elite class" of the community. to attain this rank one usually had to show ability, and attaining the rank he was quite certain to enter into or extend his already existing plural-marriage relations. these rulers were looked upon with great reverence. brigham young, besides being a prophet of god, as they believed, had led them through the greatest march of the ages. his nod became almost superhuman in its significance. his frown was as terrible to them as the wrath of god. he upheld all the members of the polygamistic and governing class by his favoritism toward them. he supremely, and they subordinately, ruled the community as if they were a king and a house of peers, with no house of commons. not elsewhere in the united states, and not in any foreign country where civilization dwells, has there been such a complete mastery of man over modern men. the subordinates and the mass would perform the slightest will of brigham young. when he was not present the mass would perform the will of any of the subordinates speaking in his name. below this privileged class stood the common mass. it had its various gradations of title, but, with the exception of rare instances of personal power, there was equality in the mass. for instance, as business was a part of their system, the local religious authority in some remote part might be the business subordinate of some other man of less ecclesiastical rank, with the result that this peculiar intermingling kept them all practically upon one level of social order; and the man who made adobes under the hot sun of the desert through all the week might still be the religious superior of the richest man in the local community, and they met on terms of equality and friendship. their children might intermarry, the difference in wealth being countervailed by a difference in ecclesiastical authority. it was a strange social system, this, with brigham young and his coterie of advisers, to the number of twenty-six, standing at the head, self-perpetuating, the chief being able to select constantly to fill the ranks as they might be depleted by death; and all these ruling over one solid mass of equal caste who thought that the rulers were animated by divine revelation, holding the right to govern in all things on earth and with authority extending into heaven. so firmly intrenched was their social system that when brigham young passed away his various successors who came in time to his place by accident of seniority of service found ample opportunity without difficulty to perpetuate this system and to maintain their social autocracy. as the matter has appeared so fully before the country, i will not speak further of the method of succession, but will merely call to your minds that after brigham young came john taylor, then wilford woodruff, then lorenzo snow, then joseph f. smith, the present ruler. under these several men the social autocracy has had its varying fortunes, but at the present time it is probably at as high a point as it ever reached under the original joseph or under brigham young. the president of the church, joseph f. smith, affects a regal state. his home consists of a series of villas, rather handsome in design, and surrounded by such ample grounds as to afford sufficient exclusiveness. in addition to this he has an official residence of historic character near to the office which he occupies as president. when he travels he is usually accompanied by a train of friends, who are really servitors. when he attends social functions he appears like a ruler among his subjects. and in this respect i am not speaking of mormon associations alone, for there are many gentiles in and out of utah who seem to take delight in paying this extraordinary deference. if i have seemed to speak at length upon this mere social phase it has not been without a definite purpose. i want you to know how this religion, claiming to recognize and secure the equality of men, immediately established and has maintained for the mass of its adherents that social equality, but has elevated a class of its rulers to regal authority and splendor. understanding how the chief among them has the dignity of a monarch in their social relations, you will better understand the business and political autocracy which he has been able to establish. in all this social system each apostle has his great part. he is inseparable from it. he wields now, as does a minister at court, such part of the power as the monarch may permit him to enjoy, and it is his hope and expectation that he will outlive those who are his seniors in rank in order that he may become the ruler. therefore, if there be evil in this social relation as i have portrayed it, every apostle is responsible for a part of that evil. they enjoy the honors of the social class; they help to exert the tyranny over the subjugated mass. those of you who do me the honor to follow my remarks will realize how close is the relation between the apostles and the president, and that the apostle is a responsible part of the governing power. while i may speak of the president of the church segregated from his associates and as the monarch, it must be understood constantly that he maintains his power by the support of the apostles, who keep the mass in order and in subjugation to his will, expressed through them. the business monopoly. whatever may have been its origin or excuse, the business power of the president of the church and of the select class which he admits into business relations with him is now a practical monopoly, or is rapidly becoming a monopoly, of everything that he touches. i want to call your attention to the extraordinary list of worldly concerns in which this spiritual leader holds official position. the situation is more amazing when you are advised that this man came to his presidency purely by accident, namely, the death of his seniors in rank; that he had never known any business ability, and that he comes to the presidency and the directorship of the various corporations solely because he is president of the church. he is already reputed to be a wealthy man, and his statement would seem to indicate that he has large holdings in the various corporations with which he is associated, although previous to his accession to the presidency of the church he made a kind of proud boast among his people of his poverty. he conducts railways, street-car lines, power and light companies, coal mines, salt works, sugar factories, shoe factories, mercantile houses, drug stores, newspapers, magazines, theaters, and almost every conceivable kind of business, and in all of these, inasmuch as he is the dominant factor by virtue of his being the prophet of god, he asserts indisputable sway. it is considered an evidence of deference to him, and good standing in the church, for his hundreds of thousands of followers to patronize exclusively the institutions which he controls. and this fact alone, without any business ability on his part, but with capable subordinate guidance for his enterprises, insures their success, and danger and possible ruin for every competitive enterprise. independent of these business concerns, he is in receipt of an income like unto that which a royal family derives from a national treasury. one-tenth of all the annual earnings of all the mormons in all the world flows to him. these funds amount to the sum of $ , , annually, or per cent upon $ , , , which is one-quarter of the entire taxable wealth of the state of utah. it is the same as if he owned, individually, in addition to all his visible enterprises, one-quarter of all the wealth of the state and derived from it per cent of income without taxation and without discount. the hopelessness of contending in a business way with this autocrat must be perfectly apparent to your minds. the original purpose of this vast tithe, as often stated by speakers for the church, was the maintenance of the poor, the building of meetinghouses, etc. to-day the tithes are transmuted, in the localities where they are paid, into cash, and they flow into the treasury of the head of the church. no account is made, or ever has been made, of these tithes. the president expends them according to his own will and pleasure, and with no examination of his accounts, except by those few men whom he selects for that purpose and whom he rewards for their zeal and secrecy. shortly after the settlement of the mormon church property question with the united states the church issued a series of bonds, amounting approximately to $ , , , which were taken by financial institutions. this was probably to wipe out a debt which had accumulated during a long period of controversy with the nation. but since, and including the year , which was about the time of the issue of the bonds, approximately $ , , have been paid as tithes. if any of the bonds are still outstanding, it is manifestly because the president of the church desires for reasons of his own to have an existing indebtedness. it will astound you to know that every dollar of united states money paid to any servant of the government who is a mormon is tithed for the benefit of this monarch. out of every $ , thus paid he gets $ to swell his grandeur. this is also true of money paid out of the public treasury of the state of utah to mormon officials. but what is worst of all, the monarch dips into the sacred public school fund and extracts from every mormon teacher one-tenth of his or her earnings and uses it for his unaccounted purposes; and, by means of these purposes and the power which they constitute, he defies the laws of his state, the sentiment of his country, and is waging war of nullification on the public school system, so dear to the american people. no right-thinking man will oppose any person as a servant of the nation or the state or as a teacher in the public schools on account of religious faith. as i have before remarked, this is no war upon the religion of the mormons; and i am only calling attention to the monstrous manner in which this monarch invades all the provinces of human life and endeavors to secure his rapacious ends. in all this there is no thought on my part of opposition to voluntary gifts by individuals for religious purposes or matters connected legitimately with religion. my comment and criticism are against the tyranny which misuses a sacred name to extract from individuals the moneys which they ought not to spare from family needs, and which they do not wish to spare; my comment and criticism relate to the power of a monarch whose tyranny is so effective as that not even the moneys paid by the government are considered the property of the government's servant until after this monarch shall have seized his arbitrary tribute, with or without the willing assent of the victim, so that the monarch may engage the more extensively in commercial affairs, which are not a part of either religion or charity. with an income of per cent upon one-quarter of the entire assessed valuation of the state of utah to-day, how long will it take this monarch, with his constantly increasing demands for revenue, to so absorb the productive power that he shall be receiving an income of per cent upon one-half the property, and then upon all of the property of the state? this is worse than the farming of taxes under the old french kings. will congress allow this awful calamity to continue? the view which the people of the united states entertained on this subject forty years ago was shown by the act of congress in , in which a provision, directed particularly against the mormon church, declared that no church in a territory of the united states should have in excess of $ , of wealth outside of the property used for purposes of worship. it is evident that as early as that time the pernicious effects of a system which used the name of god and the authority of religion to dominate in commerce and finance were fully recognized. this immense tithing fund is gathered directly from mormons, but the burden falls in some degree upon gentiles also. gentiles are in business and suffer by competition with tithe-supported business enterprises. gentiles are large employers of mormon labor; and as that labor must pay one-tenth of its earnings to support competitive concerns, the gentile employer must pay, indirectly at least, the tithe which may be utilized to compete with, and even ruin, him in business. and in return it should be noted that mormon institutions do not employ gentiles except in rare cases of necessity. the reason is obvious: gentiles do not take as kindly to the tithing system as do the mormons. the mormon citizen of utah has additional disadvantages. after paying one-tenth of all his earnings as a tithe offering, he is called upon to erect and maintain the meetinghouses and other edifices of the church; he is called upon to donate to the poor fund in his ward, through his local bishop; he is called upon to sustain the women's relief society, whose purpose is to care for the poor and to minister to the sick; he is called upon to pay his share of the expense for the , missionaries of the church who are constantly kept in the field without drawing upon, the general funds of the church. when all this is done, it is found that, in defiance of the old and deserved boast of the predecessors of the present president, there are some mormons in the poorhouses of utah, and these are sustained by the public taxes derived from the gentiles and mormons alike. broadly speaking, the gentiles compose per cent of the population and pay one-half of the taxes of utah. in the long run they carry their share of all these great charges. the almost unbearable community burden which is thus inflicted must be visible to your minds without argument from me. let it be sufficient on this point for me to say that all the property of utah is made to contribute to the grandeur of the president of the church, and that at his instance any industry, any institution, within the state, could be destroyed except the mining and smelting industry. even this industry his personal and church organ has attacked with a threat of extermination by the courts, or by additional legislation, if the smelters do not meet the view expressed by the church organ. mr. president, i ask to have read at this point an editorial from the deseret evening news of october , , which i send to the desk. the president pro tempore. the secretary will read as requested. the secretary read as follows: deseret evening news. [organ of the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints.] salt lake city, _october , _. away with the nuisance. the people of salt lake city are waking up to the realization of the trouble of which our cousins out in the country are complaining. the sulphurous fumes which have been tasted by many folks here, particularly late at night, are not only those of a partisan nature emanating from the smokestacks of the slanderers and maligners, but are treats bestowed upon our citizens by the smelters, and are samples of the goods, or rather evils, which farmers and horticulturists have been burdened with so long. complaints have come to us from some of the best people of the city, of different faiths and parties, that the air has been laden with sulphurous fumes that can net only be felt in the throat, but tasted in the mouth, and they rest upon the city at night, appearing like a thin fog. the fact is this smelter smoke will have to go; there is no mistake about that. if the smelters can not consume it, they will have to close up. this fair county must not be devastated and this city must not be rendered unhealthful by any such a nuisance as that which has been borne with now for a long time. the evasive policy that has been pursued, the tantalizing treatment toward the farmers who have vainly sought for redress, the destruction that has come upon vegetation and upon live stock, and now the choking fumes that reach this city all demand some practical remedy in place of the shilly-shally of the past. the deseret news has counseled peace, consideration for the smelter people in the difficulties that they have to meet, favor toward a valuable industry that should be encouraged on proper lines, and arbitration instead of litigation. but it really seems now as though an aggressive policy will have to be pursued, or ruin will come to the agricultural pursuits of salt lake county, while the city will not escape from the ravages of the smelter fiend. if the companies that control those works will not or can not dispose of the poisonous metallic fumes that pour out of their smokestacks, the fires will have to he banked and the nuisance suppressed. we do not believe the latter is the necessary alternative. we are of opinion that the evil can be disposed of, and we are sure that efforts ought to be made to effect it without further delay. it looks as if the courts will have to be appealed to to obtain compensation for damages already inflicted. also that they will have to be applied to for injunctions against the continuance of the cause of the trouble. we think there is law enough now to proceed under. but if that is not the case, then legislation must be had to fully cover the ground. litigation will have to come first, legislation afterwards. however that may be, temporizing with the evil will not do. patience has ceased to be a virtue in this matter. the conviction is fastening itself upon the public mind that no active steps are intended by the responsible parties, but simply a policy of delay. they must be taught that this will not answer the purpose, and that the injured people will not be fooled in that way. the smelter smoke must go. and it must not go in the old way. the proposition to put the matter in the hands of experts chosen by the complainants is not to be seriously considered. the onus is upon the smelter men; they are the offenders, and they must take the steps necessary to remove the cause of complaint, and also reimburse those who have been injured. we do not ask anything unreasonable. we join with those of our citizens who intend that this beautiful part of our lovely state shall not be laid waste, even if the only cure is the suppression of the destroying cause. this may as well be understood first as last. useless practical measures are adopted to abate the evil, active proceedings will have to be taken and pushed to the utmost to remove entirely the root and branch and trunk and body of this tree of destruction. the people affected are deeply in earnest, and they certainly mean business. mr. kearns. mr. president, i must not burden you with too many details, but in order for you to see how complete is the business power of this man i will cite you to one case. the great salt lake is estimated to contain , , , tons of salt. probably salt can be made cheaper on the shores of this lake than anywhere else in the world. nearly all its shore line is adaptable for salt gardens. the president of the church is interested in a large salt monopoly which has gathered in the various smaller enterprises. he is president of a railroad which runs from the salt gardens to salt lake city, connecting there with trunk lines. it costs to manufacture the salt and place it on board the cars cents per ton. he receives for it $ and $ per ton. his company and its subsidiary corporation are probably capitalized at three-quarters of a million dollars, and upon this large sum he is able to pay dividends of or per cent. not long since two men, who for many years had been tithe payers and loyal members of the church, undertook to establish a salt garden along the line of a trunk railway. one of them was a large dealer in salt, and proposed to extend his trade by making the salt and reaching territory prohibited to him by the church price of salt; the other was the owner of the land upon which it was proposed to establish the salt garden. these men formed a corporation, put in pumping stations and flumes, and the corporation became indebted to one of the financial institutions over which the church exercised considerable influence. then the president of the church sent for them. there is scarcely an instance on record where a message of this kind failed of its purpose. these men went to meet the prophet, seer, and revelator of god, as they supposed, but he had laid aside his robes of sanctity for the moment and he was a plain, unadorned, aggressive, if not an able, business man. he first denounced them for interfering with a business which he had made peculiarly his own; and, when they protested that they had no intention to interfere with his trade, but were seeking new markets, he declared in a voice of thunderous passion that if they did not cease with their projected enterprise, he would crush them. they escaped from his presence feeling like courtiers repulsed from the foot of a king's throne, and then surveyed their enterprise. if they stopped, they would lose all the money invested and their enterprise would possibly be sold out to their creditors; if they went on and invested more money, the president had the power, as he had threatened, to crush them. not only could he ruin their enterprise, but he could ostracise them socially and could make of them marked and shunned men in the community where they had always been respected. is there menace in this system? to me it seems like a great danger to all the people who are now affected, and therefore of great danger to the people of the united states, because the power of this monarchy within the republic is constantly extending. if it be an evil, every apostle is in part responsible for this tyrannical course. he helped to elect the president; he does the president's bidding, and shares in the advantages of that tyranny. i did not call the social system a violation of the pledges to the country, but i do affirm that the business tyranny of mormon leaders is an express violation of the covenant made, for they do not leave their followers free in secular affairs. they tyrannize over them, and their tyranny spreads even to the gentiles. in all this i charge that every apostle is a party to the wrong and to the violation. although i speak of the president of the church as the leader, the monarch in fact, every apostle is one of his ministers, one of his creators, and also one of his creatures, and possibly his successor; and the whole system depends upon the manner in which the apostles and the other leaders shall support the chief leader. as no apostle has ever protested against this system, but has, by every means in his power, encouraged it, he can not escape his share of the responsibility for it. it is an evil; they aid it. it is a violation of the pledge upon which statehood was granted; they profit by it. the political autocracy. i pass now to the political aspect of this hierarchy, as some call it, but this monarchy as i choose to term it. i have previously called your attention to the social and business powers, monopolies, autocracies, exercised by the leaders. through these channels of social and business relations they can spread the knowledge of their political desires without appearing obtrusively in politics. when the end of their desire is accomplished, they affect to wash their hands of all responsibility by denying that they engaged in political activities. superficial persons, and those desiring to accept this argument, are convinced by it. but never, in the palmy days of brigham young, was there a more complete political tyranny than is exercised by the present president of the mormon church and his apostles, who are merely awaiting the time when by the death of their seniors in rank they may become president, and select some other man to hold the apostleship in their place--as they now hold it in behalf of the ruling monarch. in this statement i merely call your attention to what a perfect system of ecclesiastical government is maintained by these presidents and apostles; and i do not need to more than indicate to you what a wonderous aid their ecclesiastical government can be, and is, in accomplishing their political purposes. parties are nothing to these leaders, except as parties may be used by them. so long as there is republican administration and congress, they will lead their followers to support republican tickets; but if, by any chance, the democratic party should control this government, with a prospect of continuance in power, you would see a gradual veering around under the direction of the mormon leaders. when republicans are in power the republican leaders of the mormon people are in evidence and the democratic leaders are in retirement. if the democracy were in power, the republican leaders of the mormon people would go into retirement and democrats would appear in their places. no man can be elected to either house of congress against their wish. i will not trespass upon your patience long enough to recite the innumerable circumstances that prove this assertion, but will merely refer to enough instances to illustrate the method. in , at the session of the legislature which was to elect a senator, and which was composed of sixty democrats and three republicans, moses thacher was the favored candidate of the democracy in the state. he had been an apostle of the mormon church, but had been deposed because he was out of harmony with the leaders. the hon. jos. l. rawlins was a rival candidate, but not strongly so at first. he was encouraged by the church leaders in every way; and finally, when his strength had been advanced sufficiently to need but one vote, a mormon republican was promptly moved over into the democratic column and he was elected by the joint assembly. i do not charge that hon. joseph l. rawlins, who occupied a seat with distinguished honor in this great body for six years, had any improper bargain with the church, or any knowledge of the secret methods by which his election was being compassed; but he was elected under the direction of the leaders of the church because they desired to defeat and further humiliate a deposed apostle. i will not ignore my own case. during nearly three years i have waited this great hour of justice in which i could answer the malignant falsehood and abuse which has been heaped upon a man who is dead and can not answer, and upon myself, a living man willing to wait the time for answer. lorenzo snow, a very aged man, was president of the church when i was elected to the senate. he had reached that advanced time of life, being over eighty, when men abide largely in the thoughts of their youth. he was my friend in that distant way which sometimes exists without close acquaintanceship, our friendship (if i may term it such) having arisen from the events attendant upon utah's struggle for statehood. for some reason he did not oppose my election to the senate. every other candidate for the place had sought his favor; it came to me without price or solicitation on my part. the friends and mouthpieces of some of the present leaders have been base enough to charge that i bought the senatorship from lorenzo snow, president of their own church. here and now i denounce the calumny against that old man, whose unsought and unbought favor came to me in that contest. that i ever paid him one dollar of money, or asked him to influence legislators of his faith, is as cruel a falsehood as ever came from human lips. so far as i am concerned he held his power with clean hands, and i would protect the memory of this dead man against all the abuse and misrepresentation which might be heaped upon him by those who were his adherents during life, but who now attack his fame in order that they may pay the greater deference to the present king. you must know that in that day we were but five years old as a state. our political conditions were and had been greatly unsettled. the purpose of the church to rule in politics had not yet been made so manifest and determined. lorenzo snow held his office for a brief time--about two years. what he did in that office pertaining to my election i here and now distinctly assume as my burden, for no man shall with impunity use his hatred of me to defame lorenzo snow and dishonor his memory to his living and loving descendants. as for myself, i am willing to take the senate and the country into my confidence, and make a part of the eternal records of the senate, for such of my friends as may care to read, the vindication of my course to my posterity. i had an ambition, and not an improper one, to sit in the senate of the united states. my competitors had longer experience in polities and may have understood more of the peculiar situation in the state. they sought what is known as church influence. i sought to obtain this place by purely political means. i was elected. after all their trickery my opponents were defeated, and to some extent by the very means which they had basely invoked. i have served with you four years, and have sought in a modest way to make a creditable record here. i have learned something of the grandeur and dignity of the senate, something of its ideals, which i could not know before coming here. i say to you, my fellow senators, that this place of power is infinitely more magnificent than i dreamed when i first thought of occupying a seat here. but were it thrice as great as i now know it to be, and were i back in that old time of struggle in utah, when i was seeking for this honor, i would not permit the volunteered friendship of president snow to bestow upon me, even as an innocent recipient, one atom of the church monarch's favor. my ideals have grown with my term of service in this body, and i believe that the man who would render here the highest service to his country must be careful to attain to this place by the purest civic path that mortal feet can tread. i have said enough to indicate that for my own part i never countenanced, nor knowingly condoned, the intrusion of the church monarchy into secular affairs. and i have said enough to those who know me to prove for all time that, so far as i am concerned, my election here was as honorable as that of any man who sits in this chamber; and yet i have said enough that all men may know that rather than have a dead man's memory defamed on my account, i will make his cause my own and will fight for the honor which he is not on earth to defend. this will not suit the friends and mouthpieces of the present rulers, but i have no desire to satisfy or conciliate them; and in leaving this part of the question, i avenge president snow sufficiently by saying that these men did not dare to offend his desire nor dispute his will while he was living, and only grew brave when they could cry: "lorenzo, the king, is dead! long live joseph, the king!" as a senator i have sought to fulfill my duty to the people of this country. i am about to retire from this place of dignity. no man can retain this seat from utah and retain his self-respect after he discovers the methods by which his election is procured and the objects which the church monarchy intends to achieve. some of my critics will say that i relinquished that which i could not hold. i will not pause to discuss that point further than to say that if i had chosen to adopt the policy with the present monarch of the church, which his friends and mouthpieces say i did adopt with the king who is dead, it might have been possible to retain this place of honor with dishonor. every apostle is a part of this terrible power, which can make and unmake at its mysterious will and pleasure. early in warning had been publicly uttered in the state against the continued manifestation of church power in politics. the period of unsettled conditions during which i was elected had ended and we had opportunity to see the manner in which the church monarch was resuming his forbidden sway; and we had occasion to know the indignant feelings entertained by the people of the united states when they contemplated the flagrant breaking of the pledge given to the country to secure the admission of utah. i myself, after conference with distinguished men at washington, journeyed to utah and presented a solemn protest and warning to the leaders of the church against the dangerous exercise of their political power. i did it to repay a debt which i owed to utah, and not for any selfish reason. i knew that from the day i uttered that warning the leaders of the mormon church would hate and pursue me for the purpose of wreaking their vengeance. but as the consequences of their misconduct, their pledge breaking would fall upon all of the people of the state, upon the innocent more severely than upon the guilty, i felt that i must assert my love and gratitude to the state, even though my warning should lead to my own destruction by these autocrats. if there had been one desire in my heart to effect a conjunction with this church monarchy, if i had been willing to retain office as its gift, i would not have taken this step, for i knew its consequences. i began in that hour my effort to restore to the people of utah the safety and the political freedom which are their right, and i shall continue it while i live until the fight is won. the disdain with which that message was received was final proof of the contempt in which that church monarchy holds the senate and the people of the united states, and of the disregard in which the church monarchy holds the pledges which it made in order to obtain the power of statehood. they do not need to utter explicit instructions in order to assert their demand. the methods of conveying information of their desire are numerous and sufficiently effective, as is proved by results. to show how completely all ordinary political conditions, as they obtain elsewhere in the united states, are without account in utah, i have but to cite you to the fact that after the recent election, which gave members out of on joint ballot to the republican party, and when the question of my successor became a matter of great anxiety to numerous aspirants for this place, the discussion was not concerning the fitness of candidates, nor the political popularity of the various gentlemen who composed that waiting list, nor the pledges of the legislators, but was limited to the question as to who could stand best with the church monarchy; as to whom it would like to use in this position; as to who would make for the extension of its ambitions and power in the united states. the mormon marriage relation. and now i come to a subject concerning which the people of the united states are greatly aroused. it is known that there have been plural marriages among the mormon people, by sanction of high authorities in this church monarchy, since the solemn promise was made to the country that plural marriages should end. it is well known that the plural marriage relations have been continued defiantly, according to the will and pleasure of those who had formerly violated the law, and for whose obedience to law the church monarchy pledged the faith and honor of its leaders and followers alike in order to obtain statehood. the pledge was made repeatedly, as stated in an earlier part of these remarks, that all of the mormon people would come within the law. they have not done so. the church monarch is known to be living in defiance of the laws of god and man, and in defiance of the covenant made with the country, upon which amnesty by the president, and statehood by the president and the congress, were granted. i charge that every apostle is in large part responsible for this condition, so deplorable in its effects upon the people of utah and so antagonistic to the institutions of this country. every apostle is directed by the law-breaking church monarch. every apostle teaches by example and precept to the mormon people that this church monarch is a prophet of god, to offend or criticise whom is a sin in the sight of the almighty. every apostle helps to appoint to office and sustain the seven presidents of seventies, who are below them in dignity, and they are directly responsible for them and their method of life. it is quite evident that the church monarchy is endeavoring to reestablish the rule of a polygamous class over the mass of the mormon people. of the apostles not practicing polygamy there is at most only three or four men constituting the quorum of which this could be truthfully said. special reasons may exist in some particular case why a man in this class has not entered into such relation. the general situation. briefly reviewing the matters which i have offered here, and the logical deductions therefrom, i maintain the following propositions: we set aside the religion of the mormon people as sacred from assault. outside of religion the mormons as a community are ruled by a special privileged class, constituting what i call the church monarchy. this monarchy pledged the country that there would be no more violations of law and no more defiance of the sentiment of the united states regarding polygamy and the plural marriage relation. this monarchy pledged the united states that it would refrain from controlling its subjects in secular affairs. every member of this monarchy is responsible for the system of government and for the acts of the monarchy, since (as shown in the cases of the deposed apostle, moses thatcher, and others) the man who is not in accord with the system is dropped from the ruling class. this monarchy sets up a regal social order within this republic. this monarchy monopolizes the business of one commonwealth and is rapidly reaching into others. this monarchy takes practically all the surplus product of the toil of its subjects for its own purpose, and makes no account to anyone on earth of its immense secret fund. this monarchy rules all politics in utah, and is rapidly extending its dominion into other states and territories. this monarchy permits its favorites to enter into polygamy and to maintain polygamous relations, and it protects them from prosecution by its political power. lately no effort has been made to punish any of these people by the local law. on the contrary, the ruling monarch has continued to grow in power, wealth, and importance. he sits upon innumerable boards of directors, among others that of the union pacific railway, where he joins upon terms of fraternity with the great financial and transportation magnates of the united states, who hold him in their councils because his power to benefit or to injure their possessions must be taken into account. i charge that no apostle has ever protested publicly against the continuation of this sovereign authority over the mormon kingdom. within a few months past the last apostle elected to the quorum was a polygamist--charles w. penrose--and his law-breaking career is well known. previous to penrose was living publicly with three wives. under false pretenses to president cleveland he obtained amnesty for his past offenses. he represented that he had but two wives, and that he married his second wife in , while it was generally known that he took a third wife just prior to . he promised to obey the law in the future, and to urge others to do so; yet after that amnesty, obtained by concealing his third marriage from president cleveland, he continued living with his three wives. his action in this matter has been notorious. he has publicly defended this kind of lawbreaking on the false pretense that there was a tacit understanding with the american congress and people, when utah was admitted, that these polygamists might continue to live as they had been living. and it was this traitor to his country's laws, this unrepentant knave and cheat of the nation's mercy, this defamer of congress and the people, that was elected to the apostleship to help govern the church, and through the church the state. is it not demonstrated that utah is an abnormal state? our problem is vast and complex. i have endeavored to simplify it so that the senate and the country may readily grasp the questions at issue. the remedy. will this great body, will the government of the united states, go on unheedingly while this church monarchy multiplies its purposes and multiplies its power? has the nation so little regard for its own dignity and the safety of its institutions and its people that it will permit a church monarch like joseph f. smith to defy the laws of the country, and to override the law and to overrule the administrators of the law in his own state of utah? what shall the americans of that commonwealth do if the people of the united states do not heed their cry? the vast majority of the mormon people are law-abiding, industrious, sober, and thrifty. they make good citizens in every respect except as they are dominated by this monarchy, which speaks to them in the name of god and governs them in the spirit of mammon. any remedy for existing evils which would injure the mass of the mormon people would be most deplorable. i believe that they would loosen the chains which they wear if it were possible. i think that many of them pay blood-money tithes simply to avoid social ostracism and business destruction. i believe that many of them do the political will of the church monarch because they are led to believe that the safety of the church monarchy is necessary in order that the mass may preserve the right to worship god according to the dictates of their conscience. the church monopoly, by its various agencies, is usually able to uprear the injured and innocent mass of the mormon people as a barrier to protect the members of that monarchy from public vengeance. it is the duty of this great body--the senate of the united states--to serve notice on this church monarch and his apostles that they must live within the law; that the nation is supreme; that the institutions of this country must prevail throughout the land; and that the compact upon which statehood was granted must be preserved inviolate. may heaven grant that this may be effective and that the church monarchy in utah may be taught that it must relinquish its grasp. i would not, for my life, that injury should come to the innocent mass of the people of utah; i would not that any right of theirs should be lost, but that the right of all should be preserved to all. if the senate will apply this remedy and the alien monarchy still proves defiant, it will be for others than myself to suggest a course of action consistent with the dignity of the country. in the meantime we of utah who have no sympathy with the now clearly defined purpose of this church monopoly will wage our battle for individual freedom; to lift the state to a proud position in the sisterhood, to preserve the compact which was made with the country, believing that behind the brave citizens in utah who are warring against this alien monarchy stands the sentiment and power of eighty-two millions of our fellow-citizens. [transcriber's note: the following typographical errors were corrected: tryanny to tyranny, autocracts to autocrats, monorchy to monarchy.] american eloquence studies in american political history edited with introduction by alexander johnston reedited by james albert woodburn volume i (of ) contents. preface introductory i--colonialism. the formation of the constitution james otis patrick henry samuel adams alexander hamilton james madison ii--constitutional government. albert gallatin fisher ames john nicholas iii.-the rise of democracy. thomas jefferson john randolph josiah quincy henry clay iv.--the rise of nationality. robert y. hayne daniel webster john c. calhoun thomas h. benton list of portraits. vol. i. alexander hamilton -- frontispiece from a painting by col. j. trumbull. patrick henry from a painting by james b. longacre. samuel adams from a steel engraving. james madison from a painting by gilbert stuart. fisher ames from a painting by gilbert stuart. thomas jefferson from a painting by gilbert stuart. john randolph. preface to the revised edition. in offering to the public a revised edition of professor johnston's american eloquence, a brief statement may be permitted of the changes and additions involved in the revision. in consideration of the favor with which the compilation of professor johnston had been received, and of its value to all who are interested in the study of american history, the present editor has deemed it wise to make as few omissions as possible from the former volumes. the changes have been chiefly in the way of additions. the omission, from the first volume, of washington's inaugural and president nott's oration on the death of hamilton is the result, not of a depreciation of the value of these, but of a desire to utilize the space with selections and subjects which are deemed more directly valuable as studies in american political history. madison's speech on the adoption of the constitution, made before the virginia convention, is substituted for one of patrick henry's on the same occasion. madison's is a much more valuable discussion of the issues and principles involved, and, besides, the volume has the advantage of henry's eloquence when he was at his best, at the opening of the american revolution. in compensation for the omissions there are added selections, one each from otis, samuel adams, gallatin, and benton. the completed first volume, therefore, offers to the student of american political history chapters from the life and work of sixteen representative orators and statesmen of america. in addition to the changes made in the selections, the editor has added brief biographical sketches, references, and textual and historical notes which, it is hoped, will add to the educational value of the volumes, as well as to the interest and intelligence with which the casual reader may peruse the speeches. as a teacher of american history, i have found no more luminous texts on our political history than the speeches of the great men who have been able, in their discussions of public questions, to place before us a contemporary record of the history which they themselves were helping to make. to the careful student the secondary authorities can never supply the place of the great productions, the messages and speeches, which historic occasions have called forth. the earnest historical reader will approach these orations, not with the design of regarding then merely as specimens of eloquence or as studies in language, but as indicating the great subjects and occasions of our political history and the spirit and motives of the great leaders of that history. the orations lead the student to a review of the great struggles in which the authors were engaged, and to new interest in the science of government from the utterances and permanent productions of master participants in great political controversies. certainly, there is no text-book in political science more valuable than the best productions of great statesmen, as reflecting the ideas of those who have done most to make political history. with these ideas in mind, the editor has added rather extensive historical notes, with the purpose of suggesting the use of the speeches as the basis of historical study, and of indicating other similar sources for investigation. these notes, together with explanations of any obscurities in the text, and other suggestions for study, will serve to indicate the educational value of the volumes; and it is hoped that they may lead many teachers and students to see in these orations a text suitable as a guide to valuable studies in american political history. the omissions of parts of the speeches, made necessary by the exigencies of space, consist chiefly of those portions which were but of temporary interest and importance, and which would not be found essential to an understanding of the subject in hand. the omissions, however, have always been indicated so as not to mislead the reader, and in most instances the substance of the omissions has been indicated in the notes. the general division of the work has been retained: . colonialism, to . constitutional government, to . . the rise of democracy, to . . the rise of nationality, to . . the slavery struggle, to . . secession and civil war, to . the extension of the studies covering these periods, by the addition of much new material has made necessary the addition of a fourth volume, which embraces the general subjects, ( ) reconstruction; ( ) free trade and protection; ( ) finance; ( ) civil-service reform. professor johnston's valuable introductions to the several sections have been substantially retained. by the revision, the volumes will be confined entirely to political oratory. literature and religion have, each in its place, called forth worthy utterances in american oratory. these, certainly, have an important place in the study of our national life. but it has been deemed advisable to limit the scope of these volumes to that field of history which mr. freeman has called "past politics,"--to the process by which americans, past and present, have built and conducted their state. the study of the state, its rise, its organization, and its development, is, after all, the richest field for the student and reader of history. "history." says professor seeley, "may be defined as the biography of states. to study history thus is to study politics at the same time. if history is not merely eloquent writing, but a serious scientific investigation, and if we are to consider that it is not mere anthropology or sociology, but a science of states, then the study of history is absolutely the study of politics." it is into this great field of history that these volumes would direct the reader. no american scholar had done more, before his untimely death, than the original editor of these orations, to cultivate among americans an intelligent study of our politics and political history. these volumes, which he designed, are a worthy memorial of his appreciation of the value to american students of the best specimens of our political oratory. j. a. w. introductory. all authorities are agreed that the political history of the united states, beyond much that is feeble or poor in quality, has given to the english language very many of its most finished and most persuasive specimens of oratory. it is natural that oratory should be a power in a republic; but, in the american republic, the force of institutions has been reinforced by that of a language which is peculiarly adapted to the display of eloquence. collections of american orations have been numerous and useful, but the copiousness of the material has always proved a source of embarrassment. where the supply is so abundant, it is exceedingly difficult to make selections on any exact system, and yet impossible to include all that has a fair claim to the distinctive stamp of oratory. the results have been that our collections of public speeches have proved either unsatisfactory or unreasonably voluminous. the design which has controlled the present collection has been to make such selections from the great orations of american history as shall show most clearly the spirit and motives which have actuated its leaders, and to connect them by a thread of commentary which shall convey the practical results of the conflicts of opinion revealed in the selections. in the execution of such a work much must be allowed for personal limitations; that which would seem representative to one would not seem at all representative to others. it will not be difficult to mark omissions, some of which may seem to mar the completeness of the work very materially; the only claim advanced is that the work has been done with a consistent desire to show the best side of all lines of thought which have seriously modified the course of american history. some great names will be missed from the list of orators, and some great addresses from the list of orations; the apology for their omission is that they have not seemed to be so closely related to the current of american history or so operative upon its course as to demand their insertion. any errors under this head have occurred in spite of careful consideration and anxious desire to be scrupulously impartial. very many of the orations selected have been condensed by the omission of portions which had no relevancy to the purpose in hand, or were of only a temporary interest and importance. such omissions have been indicated, so that the reader need not be misled, while the effort has been made to so manage the omissions as to maintain a complete logical connection among the parts which have been put to use. a tempting method of preserving such a connection is, of course, the insertion of words or sentences which the speaker might have used, though he did not; but such a method seemed too dangerous and possibly too misleading, and it has been carefully avoided. none of the selections contain a word of foreign matter, with the exception of one of randolph's speeches and mr. beecher's liverpool speech, where the matter inserted has been taken from the only available report, and is not likely to mislead the reader. for very much the same reason, footnotes have been avoided, and the speakers have been left to speak for themselves. such a process of omission will reveal to any one who undertakes it an underlying characteristic of our later, as distinguished from our earlier, oratory. the careful elaboration of the parts, the restraint of each topic treated to its appropriate part, and the systematic development of the parts into a symmetrical whole, are as markedly present in the latter as they are absent in the former. the process of selection has therefore been progressively more difficult as the subject-matter has approached contemporary times. in our earlier orations, the distinction and separate treatment of the parts is so carefully observed that it has been comparatively an easy task to seize and appropriate the parts especially desirable. in our later orations, with some exceptions, there is an evidently decreasing attention to system. the whole is often a collection of _disjecta membra_ of arguments, so interdependent that omissions of any sort are exceedingly dangerous to the meaning of the speaker. to do justice to his meaning, and give the whole oration, would be an impossible strain on the space available; to omit any portion is usually to lose one or more buttresses of some essential feature in his argument. the distinction is submitted without any desire to explain it on theory, but only as a suggestion of a practical difficulty in a satisfactory execution of the work. the general division of the work has been into ( ) colonialism, to ; ( ) constitutional government, to ; ( ) the rise of democracy, to ; ( ) the rise of nationality, to ; ( ) the slavery struggle, to ; ( ) secession and reconstruction, to ; ( ) free trade and protection. in such a division, it has been found necessary to include, in a few cases, orations which have not been strictly within the time limits of the topic, but have had a close logical connection with it. it is hoped, however, that all such cases will show their own necessity too clearly for any need of further ex-planation or excuse. i. colonialism. the formation of the constitution. it has been said by an excellent authority that the constitution was "extorted from the grinding necessities of a reluctant people." the truth of the statement is very quickly recognized by even the most surface student of american politics. the struggle which began in - was the direct outcome of the spirit of independence. rather than submit to a degrading government by the arbitrary will of a foreign parliament, the massachusetts people chose to enter upon an almost unprecedented war of a colony against the mother country. rather than admit the precedent of the oppression of a sister colony, the other colonies chose to support massachusetts in her resistance. resistance to parliament involved resistance to the crown, the only power which had hitherto claimed the loyalty of the colonists; and one evil feature of the revolution was that the spirit of loyalty disappeared for a time from american politics. there were, without doubt, many individual cases of loyalty to "continental interests"; but the mass of the people had merely unlearned their loyalty to the crown, and had learned no other loyalty to take its place. their nominal allegiance to the individual colony was weakened by their underlying consciousness that they really were a part of a greater nation; their national allegiance had never been claimed by any power. the weakness of the confederation was apparent even before its complete ratification. the articles of confederation were proposed by the continental congress, nov. , . they were ratified by eleven states during the year , and delaware ratified in . maryland alone held out and refused to ratify for two years longer. her long refusal was due to her demand for a national control of the western territory, which many of the states were trying to appropriate. it was not until there was positive evidence that the western territory was to be national property that maryland acceded to the articles, and they went into operation. the interval had given time for study of them, and their defects were so patent that there was no great expectation among thinking men of any other result than that which followed. the national power which the confederation sought to create was an entire nonentity. there was no executive power, except committees of congress, and these had no powers to execute. congress had practically only the power to recommend to the states. it had no power to tax, to support armies or navies, to provide for the interest or payment of the public debt, to regulate commerce or internal affairs, or to perform any other function of an efficient national government. it was merely a convenient instrument of repudiation for the states; congress was to borrow money and incur debts, which the states could refuse or neglect to provide for. under this system affairs steadily drifted from bad to worse for some six years after the formal ratification of the articles. there seemed to be no remedy in the forms of law, for the articles expressly provided that no alteration was to be made except by the assent of every state. congress proposed alterations, such as the temporary grant to congress of power to levy duties on imports; but these proposals were always vetoed by one or more states. in , in a private letter, hamilton had suggested a convention of the states to revise the articles, and as affairs grew worse the proposition was renewed by others. the first attempt to hold such a convention, on the call of virginia, was a failure; but five states sent delegates to annapolis, and these wisely contented themselves with recommending another convention in the following year. congress was persuaded to endorse this summons; twelve of the states chose delegates, and the convention met at philadelphia, may, , . a quorum was obtained, may th, and the deliberations of the convention lasted until sept. th, when the constitution was reported to congress. the difficulties which met the convention were mainly the results of the division of the states into large and small states. massachusetts, connecticut, virginia, north carolina, and georgia, the states which claimed to extend to the mississippi on the west and cherished indefinite expectations of future growth, were the "large" states. they desired to give as much power as possible to the new national government, on condition that the government should be so framed that they should have control of it. the remaining states were properly "small" states, and desired to form a government which would leave as much power as possible to the states. circumstances worked strongly in favor of a reasonable result. there never were more than eleven states in the convention. rhode island, a small state, sent no delegates. the new hampshire delegates did not appear until the new york delegates (except hamilton) had lost patience and retired from the convention. pennsylvania was usually neutral. the convention was thus composed of five large, five small, and one neutral state; and almost all its decisions were the outcome of judicious compromise. the large states at first proposed a congress in both of whose houses the state representation should be proportional. they would thus have had a clear majority in both houses, and, as congress was to elect the president, and other officers, the government would thus have been a large state government. when "the little states gained their point," by forcing through the equal representation of the states in the senate, the unsubstantial nature of the "national" pretensions of the large states at once became apparent. the opposition to the whole scheme centred in the large states, with very considerable assistance from new york, which was not satisfied with the concessions which the small states had obtained in the convention. the difficulty of ratification may be estimated from the final votes in the following state conventions: massachusetts, to ; new hampshire, to ; virginia, to , and new york, to . it should also be noted that the last two ratifications were only made after the ninth state (new hampshire) had ratified, and when it was certain that the constitution would go into effect with or with-out the ratification of virginia or new york. north carolina did not ratify until , and rhode island not until . the division between north and south also appeared in the convention. in order to carry over the southern states to the support of the final compromise, it was necessary to insert a guarantee of the slave trade for twenty years, and a provision that three fifths of the slaves should be counted in estimating the population for state representation in congress. but these provisions, so far as we can judge from the debates of the time, had no influence against the ratification of the constitution; the struggle turned on the differences between the national leaders, aided by the satisfied small states, on one side, and the leaders of the state party, aided by the dissatisfied states, large and small, on the other. the former, the federalists, were successful, though by very narrow majorities in several of the states. washington was unanimously elected the first president of the republic; and the new government was inaugurated at new york, march , . the speech of henry in the virginia house of delegates has been chosen as perhaps the best representative of the spirit which impelled and guided the american revolution. it is fortunate that the ablest of the national leaders was placed in the very focus of opposition to the constitution, so that we may take hamilton's argument in the new york convention and madison's in the virginia convention, as the most carefully stated conclusions of the master-minds of the national party. james otis of massachusetts. (born , died .) on the writs of assistance--before the superior court of massachusetts, february, . may it please your honors: i was desired by one of the court to look into the books, and consider the question now before them concerning writs of assistance. i have accordingly considered it, and now appear not only in obedience to your order, but likewise in behalf of the inhabitants of this town, who have presented another petition, and out of regard to the liberties of the subject. and i take this opportunity to declare, that whether under a fee or not (for in such a cause as this i despise a fee), i will to my dying day oppose with all the powers and faculties god has given me, all such instruments of slavery on the one hand, and villainy on the other, as this writ of assistance is. it appears to me the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of english liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an english law-book. i must therefore beg your honors' patience and attention to the whole range of an argument, that may perhaps appear uncommon in many things, as well as to points of learning that are more remote and unusual: that the whole tendency of my design may the more easily be perceived, the conclusions better descend, and the force of them be better felt. i shall not think much of my pains in this cause, as i engaged in it from principle. i was solicited to argue this cause as advocate-general; and because i would not, i have been charged with desertion from my office. to this charge i can give a very sufficient answer. i renounced that office, and i argue this cause from the same principle; and i argue it with the greater pleasure, as it is in favor of british liberty, at a time when we hear the greatest monarch upon earth declaring from his throne that he glories in the name of briton, and that the privileges of his people are dearer to him than the most valuable prerogatives of his crown; and as it is in opposition to a kind of power, the exercise of which in former periods of history cost one king of england his head, and another his throne. i have taken more pains in this cause than i ever will take again, although my engaging in this and another popular cause has raised much resentment. but i think i can sincerely, declare, that i cheerfully submit myself to every odious name for conscience' sake; and from my soul i despise all those whose guilt, malice, or folly has made them my foes. let the consequences be what they will, i am determined to proceed. the only principles of public conduct, that are worthy of a gentleman or a man, are to sacrifice estate, ease, health, and applause, and even life, to the sacred calls of his country. these manly sentiments, in private life, make the good citizens; in public life, the patriot and the hero. i do not say that, when brought to the test, i shall be invincible. i pray god i may never be brought to the melancholy trial, but if ever i should, it will be then known how far i can reduce to practice principles which i know to be founded in truth. in the meantime i will proceed to the subject of this writ. your honors will find in the old books concerning the office of a justice of the peace, precedents of general warrants to search suspected houses. but in more modern books, you will find only special warrants to search such and such houses, specially named, in which the complainant has before sworn that he suspects his goods are concealed; and will find it adjudged, that special warrants only are legal. in the same manner i rely on it, that the writ prayed for in this petition, being general, is illegal. it is a power that places the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer. i say i admit that special writs of assistance, to search special places, may be granted to certain persons on oath; but i deny that the writ now prayed for can be granted, for i beg leave to make some observations on the writ itself, before i proceed to other acts of parliament. in the first place, the writ is universal, being directed "to all and singular justices, sheriffs, constables, and all other officers and subjects"; so that, in short, it is directed to every subject in the king's dominions. every one with this writ may be a tyrant; if this commission be legal, a tyrant in a legal manner, also, may control, imprison, or murder anyone within the realm. in the next place, it is perpetual, there is no return. a man is accountable to no person for his doings. every man may reign secure in his petty tyranny, and spread terror and desolation around him, until the trump of the archangel shall excite different emotions in his soul. in the third place, a person with this writ, in the daytime, may enter all houses, shops, etc., at will, and command all to assist him. fourthly, by this writ, not only deputies, etc., but even their menial servants, are allowed to lord it over us. what is this but to have the curse of canaan with a witness on us: to be the servant of servants, the most despicable of god's creation? now one of the most essential branches of english liberty is the freedom of one's house. a man's house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. this writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. bare suspicion without oath is sufficient. this wanton exercise of this power is not a chimerical suggestion of a heated brain. i will mention some facts. mr. pew had one of these writs, and when mr. ware succeeded him, he endorsed this writ over to mr. ware; so that these writs are negotiable from one officer to another; and so your honors have no opportunity of judging the persons to whom this vast power is delegated. another instance is this: mr. justice walley had called this same mr. ware before him, by a constable, to answer for a breach of the sabbath-day acts, or that of profane swearing. as soon as he had finished, mr. ware asked him if he had done. he replied, "yes." "well then," said mr. ware, "i will show you a little of my power. i command you to permit me to search your house for uncustomed goods"; and went on to search the house from the garret to the cellar; and then served the constable in the same manner! but to show another absurdity in this writ: if it should be established, i insist upon it every person, by the th charles second, has this power as well as the custom-house officers. the words are: "it shall be lawful for any person or persons authorized," etc. what a scene does this open! every man prompted by revenge, ill-humor, or wantonness to inspect the inside of his neighbor's house, may get a writ of assistance. others will ask it from self-defence; one arbitrary exertion will provoke another, until society be involved in tumult and in blood: patrick henry of virginia. (born , died ) convention of delegates, march , mr. president: no man thinks more highly than i do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. but different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, i hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as i do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, i shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. this is no time for ceremony. the question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. for my own part i consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. it is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to god and our country. should i keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, i should consider myself as guilty of treason toward my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which i revere above all earthly-kings. mr. president, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. we are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that syren, till she transforms us into beasts. is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? for my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, i am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and to provide for it. i have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. i know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. and judging by the past, i wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the british ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the house? is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? let us not deceive ourselves, sir. these are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. i ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array. if its purpose be not to force us to submission? can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? has great britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? no, sir, she has none. they are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. they are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the british ministry have been so long forging. and what have we to oppose to them? shall we try argument? sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. have we any thing new to offer on the subject? nothing. we have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? what terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? let us not, i beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer. sir, we have done every thing that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. we have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated: we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and parliament. our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. in vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. there is no longer any room for hope. if we wish to be free--if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! i repeat it, sir, we must fight! an appeal to arms and to the god of hosts is all that is left us! they tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. but when shall we be stronger? will it be the next week, or the next year? will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a british guard shall be stationed in every house? shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the god of nature bath placed in our power. three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. there is a just god who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. the battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. besides. sir, we have no election. if we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. there is no retreat, but in submission and slavery! our chains are forged! their clanking may be heard on the plains of boston! the war is inevitable--and let it come! i repeat it, sir, let it come! it is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. gentlemen may cry peace, peace--but there is no peace. the war is actually begun! the next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms. our brethren are already in the field! why stand we here idle? what is it that gentlemen wish? what would they have? is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? forbid it, almighty god! i know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death! samuel adams of massachusetts (born , died .) on american independence--in philadelphia, august i, . countrymen and brethren: i would gladly have declined an honor, to which i find myself unequal. i have not the calmness and impartiality which the infinite importance of this occasion demands. i will not deny the charge of my enemies, that resentment for the accumulated injuries of our country, and an ardor for her glory, rising to enthusiasm, may deprive me of that accuracy of judgment and expression which men of cooler passions may possess. let me beseech you then, to hear me with caution, to examine without prejudice, and to correct the mistakes into which i may be hurried by my zeal. truth loves an appeal to the common sense of mankind. your unperverted understandings can best determine on subjects of a practical nature. the positions and plans which are said to be above the comprehension of the multitude may be always suspected to be visionary and fruitless. he who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all. our forefathers threw off the yoke of popery in religion; for you is reserved the honor of levelling the popery of politics. they opened the bible to all, and maintained the capacity of every man to judge for himself in religion. are we sufficient for the comprehension of the sublimest spiritual truths, and unequal to material and temporal ones? heaven hath trusted us with the management of things for eternity, and man denies us ability to judge of the present, or to know from our feelings the experience that will make us happy. "you can discern," say they, "objects distant and remote, but cannot perceive those within your grasp. let us have the distribution of present goods, and cut out and manage as you please the interests of futurity." this day, i trust, the reign of political protestantism will commence. we have explored the temple of royalty, and found that the idol we have bowed down to, has eyes which see not, ears that hear not our prayers, and a heart like the nether millstone. we have this day restored the sovereign, to whom alone men ought to be obedient. he reigns in heaven, and with a propitious eye beholds his subjects assuming that freedom of thought and dignity of self-direction which he bestowed on them. from the rising to the setting sun, may his kingdom come. men who content themselves with the semblance of truth, and a display of words, talk much of our obligations to great britain for protection. had she a single eye to our advantage? a nation of shopkeepers are very seldom so disinterested. let us not be so amused with words; the extension of her commerce was her object. when she defended our coasts, she fought for her customers, and convoyed our ships loaded with wealth, which we had acquired for her by our industry. she has treated us as beasts of burthen, whom the lordly masters cherish that they may carry a greater load. let us inquire also against whom she has protected us? against her own enemies with whom we had no quarrel, or only on her account, and against whom we always readily exerted our wealth and strength when they were required. were these colonies backward in giving assistance to great britain, when they were called upon in , to aid the expedition against carthagena? they at that time sent three thousand men to join the british army, although the war commenced without their consent. but the last war, 't is said, was purely american. this is a vulgar error, which, like many others, has gained credit by being confidently repeated. the dispute between the courts of great britain and france, related to the limits of canada and nova scotia. the controverted territory was not claimed by any in the colonies, but by the crown of great britain. it was therefore their own quarrel. the infringement of a right which england had, by the treaty of utrecht, of trading in the indian country of ohio, was another cause of the war. the french seized large quantities of british manufactures, and took possession of a fort which a company of british merchants and factors had erected for the security of their commerce. the war was therefore waged in defence of lands claimed by the crown, and for the protection of british property. the french at that time had no quarrel with america; and, as appears by letters sent from their commander-in-chief, to some of the colonies, wished to remain in peace with us. the part therefore which we then took, and the miseries to which we exposed ourselves, ought to be charged to our affection for britain. these colonies granted more than their proportion to the support of the war. they raised, clothed, and maintained nearly twenty-five thousand men, and so sensible were the people of england of our great exertions, that a message was annually sent to the house of commons purporting: "that his majesty, being highly satisfied of the zeal and vigor with which his faithful subjects in north america had exerted themselves in defence of his majesty's just rights and possessions, recommend it to the house, to take the same into consideration, and enable him to give them a proper compensation." but what purpose can arguments of this kind answer? did the protection we received annul our rights as men, and lay us under an obligation of being miserable? who among you, my countrymen, that is a father, would claim authority to make your child a slave because you had nourished him in his infancy? 't is a strange species of generosity which requires a return infinitely more valuable than anything it could have bestowed; that demands as a reward for a defence of our property, a surrender of those inestimable privileges, to the arbitrary will of vindictive tyrants, which alone give value to that very property. courage, then, my countrymen! our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth, for civil and religious liberty? dismissing, therefore, the justice of our cause as incontestable, the only question is, what is best for us to pursue in our present circumstances? the doctrine of dependence on great britain is, i believe, generally exploded; but as i would attend to the honest weakness of the simplest of men, you will pardon me if i offer a few words on that subject. we are now on this continent, to the astonishment of the world, three millions of souls united in one common cause. we have large armies, well disciplined and appointed, with commanders inferior to none in military skill, and superior in activity and zeal. we are furnished with arsenals and stores beyond our most sanguine expectations, and foreign nations are waiting to crown our success by their alliances. there are instances of, i would say, an almost astonishing providence in our favor; our success has staggered our enemies, and almost given faith to infidels; so that we may truly say it is not our own arm which has saved us. the hand of heaven appears to have led us on to be, perhaps, humble instruments and means in the great providential dispensation which is completing. we have fled from the political sodom; let us not look back, lest we perish and become a monument of infamy and derision to the world! for can we ever expect more unanimity and a better preparation for defence; more infatuation of counsel among our enemies, and more valor and zeal among ourselves? the same force and resistance which are sufficient to procure us our liberties, will secure us a glorious independence and support us in the dignity of free, imperial states. we can not suppose that our opposition has made a corrupt and dissipated nation more friendly to america, or created in them a greater respect for the rights of mankind. we can therefore expect a restoration and establishment of our privileges, and a compensation for the injuries we have received from their want of power, from their fears, and not from their virtues. the unanimity and valor, which will effect an honorable peace, can render a future contest for our liberties unnecessary. he who has strength to chain down the wolf, is a mad-man if he lets him loose without drawing his teeth and paring his nails. from the day on which an accommodation takes place between england and america, on any other terms than as independent states, i shall date the ruin of this country. a politic minister will study to lull us into security, by granting us the full extent of our petitions. the warm sunshine of influence would melt down the virtue, which the violence of the storm rendered more firm and unyielding. in a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war, and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our resistance formidable. when the spirit of liberty which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin, and render us easier victims to tyranny. ye abandoned minions of an infatuated ministry, if peradventure any should yet remain among us!--remember that a warren and a montgomery are numbered among the dead. contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, what should be the reward of such sacrifices? bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood, and hunt us from the face of the earth? if ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom--go from us in peace. we ask not your counsels or arms. crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. may your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity, forget that ye were our countrymen. to unite the supremacy of great britain and the liberty of america, is utterly impossible. so vast a continent and of such a distance from the seat of empire, will every day grow more unmanageable. the motion of so unwieldy a body cannot be directed with any dispatch and uniformity, without committing to the parliament of great britain, powers inconsistent with our freedom. the authority and force which would be absolutely necessary for the preservation of the peace and good order of this continent, would put all our valuable rights within the reach of that nation. * * * * * * * some who would persuade us that they have tender feelings for future generations, while they are insensible to the happiness of the present, are perpetually foreboding a train of dissensions under our popular system. such men's reasoning amounts to this--give up all that is valuable to great britain, and then you will have no inducements to quarrel among yourselves; or suffer yourselves to be chained down by your enemies, that you may not be able to fight with your friends. this is an insult on your virtue as well as your common sense. your unanimity this day and through the course of the war is a decisive refutation of such invidious predictions. our enemies have already had evidence that our present constitution contains in it the justice and ardor of freedom, and the wisdom and vigor of the most absolute system. when the law is the will of the people, it will be uniform and coherent; but fluctuation, contradiction, and inconsistency of councils must be expected under those governments where every revolution in the ministry of a court produces one in the state. such being the folly and pride of all ministers, that they ever pursue measures directly opposite to those of their predecessors. we shall neither be exposed to the necessary convulsions of elective monarchies, nor to the want of wisdom, fortitude, and virtue, to which hereditary succession is liable. in your hands it will be to perpetuate a prudent, active, and just legislature, and which will never expire until you yourselves lose the virtues which give it existence. and, brethren and fellow-countrymen, if it was ever granted to mortals to trace the designs of providence, and interpret its manifestations in favor of their cause, we may, with humility of soul, cry out, "not unto us, not unto us, but to thy name be the praise." the confusion of the devices among our enemies, and the rage of the elements against them, have done almost as much towards our success as either our councils or our arms. the time at which this attempt on our liberties was made, when we were ripened into maturity, had acquired a knowledge of war, and were free from the incursions of enemies in this country, the gradual advances of our oppressors enabling us to prepare for our defence, the unusual fertility of our lands and clemency of the seasons, the success which at first attended our feeble arms, producing unanimity among our friends and reducing our internal foes to acquiescence,--these are all strong and palpable marks and assurances, that providence is yet gracious unto zion, that it will turn away the captivity of jacob. we have now no other alternative than independence, or the most ignominious and galling servitude. the legions of our enemies thicken on our plains; desolation and death mark their bloody career; whilst the mangled corpses of our countrymen seem to cry out to us as a voice from heaven: "will you permit our posterity to groan under the galling chains of our murderers? has our blood been expended in vain? is the only reward which our constancy, till death, has obtained for our country, that it should be sunk into a deeper and more ignominious vassalage?" recollect who are the men that demand your submission; to whose decrees you are invited to pay obedience! men who, unmindful of their relation to you as brethren, of your long implicit submission to their laws; of the sacrifice which you and your forefathers made of your natural advantages for commerce to their avarice,--formed a deliberate plan to wrest from you the small pittance of property which they had permitted you to acquire. remember that the men who wish to rule over you are they who, in pursuit of this plan of despotism, annulled the sacred contracts which had been made with your ancestors; conveyed into your cities a mercenary soldiery to compel you to submission by insult and murder--who called your patience, cowardice; your piety, hypocrisy. countrymen! the men who now invite you to surrender your rights into their hands are the men who have let loose the merciless savages to riot in the blood of their brethren--who have dared to establish popery triumphant in our land--who have taught treachery to your slaves, and courted them to assassinate your wives and children. these are the men to whom we are exhorted to sacrifice the blessings which providence holds out to us--the happiness, the dignity of uncontrolled freedom and independence. let not your generous indignation be directed against any among us who may advise so absurd and madd'ning a measure. their number is but few and daily decreased; and the spirit which can render them patient of slavery, will render them contemptible enemies. our union is now complete; our constitution composed, established, and approved. you are now the guardians of your own liberties. we may justly address you, as the _decemviri_ did the romans, and say: "nothing that we propose, can pass into a law without your consent. be yourselves, o americans, the authors of those laws on which your happiness depends." you have now, in the field, armies sufficient to repel the whole force of your enemies, and their base and mercenary auxiliaries. the hearts of your soldiers beat high with the spirit of freedom--they are animated with the justice of their cause, and while they grasp their swords, can look up to heaven for assistance. your adversaries are composed of wretches who laugh at the rights of humanity, who turn religion into derision, and would, for higher wages, direct their swords against their leaders or their country. go on, then, in your generous enterprise, with gratitude to heaven for past success, and confidence of it in the future. for my own part, i ask no greater blessing than to share with you the common danger and common glory. if i have a wish dearer to my soul, than that my ashes may be mingled with those of a warren and a montgomery, it is--that these american states may never cease to be free and independent! alexander hamilton, of new york. (born , died .) on the expediency of adopting the federal constitution --convention of new york, june , . i am persuaded, mr. chairman, that i in my turn shall be indulged, in addressing the committee. we all, in equal sincerity, profess to be anxious for the establishment of a republican government, on a safe and solid basis. it is the object of the wishes of every honest man in the united states, and i presume that i shall not be disbelieved, when i declare, that it is an object of all others, the nearest and most dear to my own heart. the means of accomplishing this great purpose become the most important study which can interest mankind. it is our duty to examine all those means with peculiar attention, and to choose the best and most effectual. it is our duty to draw from nature, from reason, from examples, the best principles of policy, and to pursue and apply them in the formation of our government. we should contemplate and compare the systems, which, in this examination, come under our view; distinguish, with a careful eye, the defects and excellencies of each, and discarding the former, incorporate the latter, as far as circumstances will admit, into our constitution. if we pursue a different course and neglect this duty, we shall probably disappoint the expectations of our country and of the world. in the commencement of a revolution, which received its birth from the usurpations of tyranny, nothing was more natural, than that the public mind should be influenced by an extreme spirit of jealousy. to resist these encroachments, and to nourish this spirit, was the great object of all our public and private institutions. the zeal for liberty became predominant and excessive. in forming our confederation, this passion alone seemed to actuate us, and we appear to have had no other view than to secure ourselves from despotism. the object certainly was a valuable one, and deserved our utmost attention. but, sir, there is another object equally important, and which our enthusiasm rendered us little capable of regarding: i mean a principle of strength and stability in the organization of our government, and vigor in its operations. this purpose can never be accomplished but by the establishment of some select body, formed peculiarly upon this principle. there are few positions more demonstrable than that there should be in every republic, some permanent body to correct the prejudices, check the intemperate passions, and regulate the fluctuations of a popular assembly. it is evident, that a body instituted for these purposes, must be so formed as to exclude as much as possible from its own character, those infirmities and that mutability which it is designed to remedy. it is therefore necessary that it should be small, that it should hold its authority during a considerable period, and that it should have such an independence in the exercise of its powers, as will divest it as much as possible of local prejudices. it should be so formed as to be the centre of political knowledge, to pursue always a steady line of conduct, and to reduce every irregular propensity to system. without this establishment, we may make experiments without end, but shall never have an efficient government. it is an unquestionable truth, that the body of the people in every country desire sincerely its prosperity; but it is equally unquestionable, that they do not possess the discernment and stability necessary for systematic government. to deny that they are frequently led into the grossest errors by misinformation and passion, would be a flattery which their own good sense must despise. that branch of administration especially, which involves our political relations with foreign states, a community will ever be incompetent to. these truths are not often held up in public assemblies: but they cannot be unknown to any who hear me. from these principles it follows, that there ought to be two distinct bodies in our government: one, which shall be immediately constituted by and peculiarly represent the people, and possess all the popular features; another, formed upon the principle, and for the purposes, before explained. such considerations as these induced the convention who formed your state constitution, to institute a senate upon the present plan. the history of ancient and modern republics had taught them, that many of the evils which these republics had suffered, arose from the want of a certain balance and mutual control indispensable to a wise administration; they were convinced that popular assemblies are frequently misguided by ignorance, by sudden impulses, and the intrigues of ambitious men; and that some firm barrier against these operations was necessary; they, therefore, instituted your senate, and the benefits we have experienced have fully justified their conceptions. gentlemen, in their reasoning, have placed the interests of the several states, and those of the united states in contrast; this is not a fair view of the subject; they must necessarily be involved in each other. what we apprehend is, that some sinister prejudice, or some prevailing passion, may assume the form of a genuine interest. the influence of these is as powerful as the most permanent conviction of the public good; and against this influence we ought to provide. the local interests of a state ought in every case to give way to the interests of the union; for when a sacrifice of one or the other is necessary, the former becomes only an apparent, partial interest, and should yield, on the principle that the small good ought never to oppose the great one. when you assemble from your several counties in the legislature, were every member to be guided only by the apparent interests of his county, government would be impracticable. there must be a perpetual accommodation and sacrifice of local advantages to general expediency; but the spirit of a mere popular assembly would rarely be actuated by this important principle. it is therefore absolutely necessary that the senate should be so formed, as to be unbiased by false conceptions of the real interests, or undue attachment to the apparent good of their several states. gentlemen indulge too many unreasonable apprehensions of danger to the state governments; they seem to suppose that the moment you put men into a national council, they become corrupt and tyrannical, and lose all their affection for their fellow-citizens. but can we imagine that the senators will ever be so insensible of their own advantage, as to sacrifice the genuine interest of their constituents? the state governments are essentially necessary to the form and spirit of the general system. as long, therefore, as congress has a full conviction of this necessity, they must, even upon principles purely national, have as firm an attachment to the one as to the other. this conviction can never leave them, unless they become madmen. while the constitution continues to be read, and its principle known, the states must, by every rational man, be considered as essential, component parts of the union; and therefore the idea of sacrificing the former to the latter is wholly inadmissible. the objectors do not advert to the natural strength and resources of state governments, which will ever give them an important superiority over the general government. if we compare the nature of their different powers, or the means of popular influence which each possesses, we shall find the advantage entirely on the side of the states. this consideration, important as it is, seems to have been little attended to. the aggregate number of representatives throughout the states may be two thousand. their personal influence will, therefore, be proportionably more extensive than that of one or two hundred men in congress. the state establishments of civil and military officers of every description, infinitely surpassing in number any possible correspondent establishments in the general government, will create such an extent and complication of attachments, as will ever secure the predilection and support of the people. whenever, therefore, congress shall meditate any infringement of the state constitutions, the great body of the people will naturally take part with their domestic representatives. can the general government withstand such an united opposition? will the people suffer themselves to be stripped of their privileges? will they suffer their legislatures to be reduced to a shadow and a name? the idea is shocking to common-sense. from the circumstances already explained, and many others which might be mentioned, results a complicated, irresistible check, which must ever support the existence and importance of the state governments. the danger, if any exists, flows from an opposite source. the probable evil is, that the general government will be too dependent on the state legislatures, too much governed by their prejudices, and too obsequious to their humors; that the states, with every power in their hands, will make encroachments on the national authority, till the union is weakened and dissolved. every member must have been struck with an observation of a gentleman from albany. do what you will, says he, local prejudices and opinions will go into the government. what! shall we then form a constitution to cherish and strengthen these prejudices? shall we confirm the distemper, instead of remedying it. it is undeniable that there must be a control somewhere. either the general interest is to control the particular interests, or the contrary. if the former, then certainly the government ought to be so framed, as to render the power of control efficient to all intents and purposes; if the latter, a striking absurdity follows; the controlling powers must be as numerous as the varying interests, and the operations of the government must therefore cease; for the moment you accommodate these different interests, which is the only way to set the government in motion, you establish a controlling power. thus, whatever constitutional provisions are made to the contrary, every government will be at last driven to the necessity of subjecting the partial to the universal interest. the gentlemen ought always, in their reasoning, to distinguish between the real, genuine good of a state, and the opinions and prejudices which may prevail respecting it; the latter may be opposed to the general good, and consequently ought to be sacrificed; the former is so involved in it, that it never can be sacrificed. there are certain social principles in human nature from which we may draw the most solid conclusions with respect to the conduct of individuals and of communities. we love our families more than our neighbors; we love our neighbors more than our countrymen in general. the human affections, like the solar heat, lose their intensity as they depart from the centre, and become languid in proportion to the expansion of the circle on which they act. on these principles, the attachment of the individual will be first and forever secured by the state governments; they will be a mutual protection and support. another source of influence, which has already been pointed out, is the various official connections in the states. gentlemen endeavor to evade the force of this by saying that these offices will be insignificant. this is by no means true. the state officers will ever be important, because they are necessary and useful. their powers are such as are extremely interesting to the people; such as affect their property, their liberty, and life. what is more important than the administration of justice and the execution of the civil and criminal laws? can the state governments become insignificant while they have the power of raising money independently and without control? if they are really useful; if they are calculated to promote the essential interests of the people; they must have their confidence and support. the states can never lose their powers till the whole people of america are robbed of their liberties. these must go together; they must support each other, or meet one common fate. on the gentleman's principle, we may safely trust the state governments, though we have no means of resisting them; but we cannot confide in the national government, though we have an effectual constitutional guard against every encroachment. this is the essence of their argument, and it is false and fallacious beyond conception. with regard to the jurisdiction of the two governments, i shall certainly admit that the constitution ought to be so formed as not to prevent the states from providing for their own existence; and i maintain that it is so formed; and that their power of providing for themselves is sufficiently established. this is conceded by one gentleman, and in the next breath the concession is retracted. he says congress has but one exclusive right in taxation--that of duties on imports; certainly, then, their other powers are only concurrent. but to take off the force of this obvious conclusion, he immediately says that the laws of the united states are supreme; and that where there is one supreme there cannot be a concurrent authority; and further, that where the laws of the union are supreme, those of the states must be subordinate; because there cannot be two supremes. this is curious sophistry. that two supreme powers cannot act together is false. they are inconsistent only when they are aimed at each other or at one indivisible object. the laws of the united states are supreme, as to all their proper, constitutional objects; the laws of the states are supreme in the same way. these supreme laws may act on different objects without clashing; or they may operate on different parts of the same common object with perfect harmony. suppose both governments should lay a tax of a penny on a certain article; has not each an independent and uncontrollable power to collect its own tax? the meaning of the maxim, there cannot be two supremes, is simply this--two powers cannot be supreme over each other. this meaning is entirely perverted by the gentlemen. but, it is said, disputes between collectors are to be referred to the federal courts. this is again wandering in the field of conjecture. but suppose the fact is certain; is it not to be presumed that they will express the true meaning of the constitution and the laws? will they not be bound to consider the concurrent jurisdiction; to declare that both the taxes shall have equal operation; that both the powers, in that respect, are sovereign and co-extensive? if they transgress their duty, we are to hope that they will be punished. sir, we can reason from probabilities alone. when we leave common-sense, and give ourselves up to conjecture, there can be no certainty, no security in our reasonings. i imagine i have stated to the committee abundant reasons to prove the entire safety of the state governments and of the people. i would go into a more minute consideration of the nature of the concurrent jurisdiction, and the operation of the laws in relation to revenue; but at present i feel too much indisposed to proceed. i shall, with leave of the committee, improve another opportunity of expressing to them more fully my ideas on this point. i wish the committee to remember that the constitution under examination is framed upon truly republican principles; and that, as it is expressly designed to provide for the common protection and the general welfare of the united states, it must be utterly repugnant to this constitution to subvert the state governments or oppress the people. james madison, of virginia. (born , died .) on the expediency of adopting the federal constitution--convention of virginia, june , . mr. chairman: in what i am about to offer to this assembly, i shall not attempt to make impressions by any ardent professions of zeal for the public welfare. we know that the principles of every man will be, and ought to be, judged not by his professions and declarations, but by his conduct. by that criterion, i wish, in common with every other member, to be judged; and even though it should prove unfavorable to my reputation, yet it is a criterion from which i by no means would depart, nor could if i would. comparisons have been made between the friends of this constitution and those who oppose it. although i disapprove of such comparisons, i trust that in everything that regards truth, honor, candor, and rectitude of motives, the friends of this system, here and in other states, are not inferior to its opponents. but professions of attachment to the public good, and comparisons of parties, at all times invidious, ought not to govern or influence us now. we ought, sir, to examine the constitution exclusively on its own merits. we ought to inquire whether it will promote the public happiness; and its aptitude to produce that desirable object ought to be the exclusive subject of our researches. in this pursuit, we ought to address our arguments not to the feelings and passions, but to those understandings and judgments which have been selected, by the people of this country, to decide that great question by a calm and rational investigation. i hope that gentlemen, in displaying their abilities on this occasion, will, instead of giving opinions and making assertions, condescend to prove and demonstrate, by fair and regular discussion. it gives me pain to hear gentlemen continually distorting the natural construction of language. assuredly, it is sufficient if any human production can stand a fair discussion. before i proceed to make some additions to the reasons which have been adduced by my honorable friend over the way, i must take the liberty to make some observations on what was said by another gentleman (mr. henry). he told us that this constitution ought to be rejected, because, in his opinion, it endangered the public liberty in many instances. give me leave to make one answer to that observation--let the dangers with which this system is supposed to be replete, be clearly pointed out. if any dangerous and unnecessary powers be given to the general legislature, let them be plainly demonstrated, and let us not rest satisfied with general assertions of dangers, without proof, without examination. if powers be necessary, apparent danger is not a sufficient reason against conceding them. he has suggested, that licentiousness has seldom produced the loss of liberty; but that the tyranny of rulers has almost always effected it. since the general civilization of mankind, i believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations; but on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions which, in republics, have, more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. if we go over the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes. if we consider the peculiar situation of the united states, and go to the sources of that diversity of sentiment which pervades its inhabitants, we shall find great danger to fear that the same causes may terminate here in the same fatal effects which they produced in those republics. this danger ought to be wisely guarded against. in the progress of this discussion, it will perhaps appear, that the only possible remedy for those evils, and the only certain means of preserving and protecting the principles of republicanism, will be found in that very system which is now exclaimed against as the parent of oppression. i must confess that i have not been able to find his usual consistency in the gentleman's arguments on this occasion. he informs us that the people of this country are at perfect repose; that every man enjoys the fruits of his labor peaceably and securely, and that everything is in perfect tranquillity and safety. i wish sincerely, sir, this were true. but if this be really their situation, why has every state acknowledged the contrary? why were deputies from all the states sent to the general convention? why have complaints of national and individual distresses been echoed and re-echoed throughout the continent? why has our general government been so shamefully disgraced, and our constitution violated? wherefore have laws been made to authorize a change, and wherefore are we now assembled here? a federal government is formed for the protection of its individual members. ours was itself attacked with impunity. its authority has been boldly disobeyed and openly despised. i think i perceive a glaring inconsistency in another of his arguments. he complains of this constitution, because it requires the consent of at least three fourths of the states to introduce amendments which shall be necessary for the happiness of the people. the assent of so many, he considers as too great an obstacle to the admission of salutary amendments, which he strongly insists ought to be at the will of a bare majority, and we hear this argument at the very moment we are called upon to assign reasons for proposing a constitution which puts it in the power of nine states to abolish the present inadequate, unsafe, and pernicious confederation! in the first case, he asserts that a majority ought to have the power of altering the government, when found to be inadequate to the security of public happiness. in the last case, he affirms that even three fourths of the community have not a right to alter a government which experience has proved to be subversive of national felicity; nay, that the most necessary and urgent alterations cannot be made without the absolute unanimity of all the states. does not the thirteenth article of the confederation expressly require, that no alteration shall be made without the unanimous consent of all the states? can any thing in theory be more perniciously improvident and injudicious than this submission of the will of the majority to the most trifling minority? have not experience and practice actually manifested this theoretical inconvenience to be extremely impolitic? let me mention one fact, which i conceive must carry conviction to the mind of any one,--the smallest state in the union has obstructed every attempt to reform the government; that little member has repeatedly disobeyed and counteracted the general authority; nay, has even supplied the enemies of its country with provisions. twelve states had agreed to certain improvements which were proposed, being thought absolutely necessary to preserve the existence of the general government; but as these improvements, though really indispensable, could not, by the confederation, be introduced into it without the consent of every state, the refractory dissent of that little state prevented their adoption. the inconveniences resulting from this requisition of unanimous concurrence in alterations of the confederation, must be known to every member in this convention; it is therefore needless to remind them of them. is it not self-evident, that a trifling minority ought not to bind the majority? would not foreign influence be exerted with facility over a small minority? would the honorable gentleman agree to continue the most radical defects in the old system, because the petty state of rhode island would not agree to remove them? he next objects to the exclusive legislation over the district where the seat of the government may be fixed. would he submit that the representatives of this state should carry on their deliberations under the control of any one member of the union? if any state had the power of legislation over the place where congress should fix the general government, it would impair the dignity and hazard the safety of congress. if the safety of the union were under the control of any particular state, would not foreign corruption probably prevail in such a state, to induce it to exert its controlling influence over the members of the general government? gentlemen cannot have forgotten the disgraceful insult which congress received some years ago. and, sir, when we also reflect, that the previous cession of particular states is necessary, before congress can legislate exclusively anywhere, we must, instead of being alarmed at this part, heartily approve of it. but the honorable member sees great danger in the provision concerning the militia. now, sir, this i conceive to be an additional security to our liberties, without diminishing the power of the states in any considerable degree; it appears to me so highly expedient, that i should imagine it would have found advocates even in the warmest friends of the present system. the authority of training the militia and appointing the officers is reserved to the states. but congress ought to have the power of establishing a uniform system of discipline throughout the states; and to provide for the execution of the laws, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions. these are the only cases wherein they can interfere with the militia; and the obvious necessity of their having power over them in these cases must flash conviction on any reflecting mind. without uniformity of discipline, military bodies would be incapable of action; without a general controlling power to call forth the strength of the union, for the purpose of repelling invasions, the country might be overrun and conquered by foreign enemies. without such a power to suppress insurrections, our liberties might be destroyed by intestine faction, and domestic tyranny be established. give me leave to say something of the nature of the government, and to show that it is perfectly safe and just to vest it with the power of taxation. there are a number of opinions; but the principal question is, whether it be a federal or a consolidated government. in order to judge properly of the question before us, we must consider it minutely, in its principal parts. i myself conceive that it is of a mixed nature; it is, in a manner, unprecedented. we cannot find one express prototype in the experience of the world: it stands by itself. in some respects, it is a government of a federal nature; in others, it is of a consolidated nature. even if we attend to the manner in which the constitution is investigated, ratified, and made the act of the people of america, i can say, notwithstanding what the honorable gentleman has alleged, that this government is not completely consolidated; nor is it entirely federal. who are the parties to it? the people--not the people as composing one great body, but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties. were it, as the gentleman asserts, a consolidated government, the assent of a majority of the people would be sufficient for its establishment, and as a majority have adopted it already, the remaining states would be bound by the act of the majority, even if they unanimously reprobated it. were it such a government as is suggested, it would be now binding on the people of this state, without having had the privilege of deliberating upon it; but, sir, no state is bound by it, as it is, without its own consent. should all the states adopt it, it will be then a government established by the thirteen states of america, not through the intervention of the legislatures, but by the people at large. in this particular respect, the distinction between the existing and proposed governments is very material. the existing system has been derived from the dependent, derivative authority of the legislatures of the states; whereas this is derived from the superior power of the people. if we look at the manner in which alterations are to be made in it, the same idea is in some degree attended to. by the new system, a majority of the states cannot introduce amendments; nor are all the states required for that purpose; three fourths of them must concur in alterations; in this there is a departure from the federal idea. the members to the national house of representatives are to be chosen by the people at large, in proportion to the numbers in the respective districts. when we come to the senate, its members are elected by the states in their equal and political capacity; but had the government been completely consolidated, the senate would have been chosen by the people, in their individual capacity, in the same manner as the members of the other house. thus it is of complicated nature, and this complication, i trust, will be found to exclude the evils of absolute consolidation, as well as of a mere confederacy. if virginia were separated from all the states, her power and authority would extend to all cases; in like manner, were all powers vested in the general government, it would be a consolidated government; but the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases: it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction. but the honorable member has satirized, with peculiar acrimony, the powers given to the general government by this constitution. i conceive that the first question on this subject is, whether these powers be necessary; if they be, we are reduced to the dilemma of either submitting to the inconvenience, or losing the union. let us consider the most important of these reprobated powers; that of direct taxation is most generally objected to. with respect to the exigencies of government, there is no question but the most easy mode of providing for them will be adopted. when, therefore, direct taxes are not necessary, they will not be recurred to. it can be of little advantage to those in power, to raise money in a manner oppressive to the people. to consult the conveniences of the people, will cost them nothing, and in many respects will be advantageous to them. direct taxes will only be recurred to for great purposes. what has brought on other nations those immense debts, under the pressure of which many of them labor? not the expenses of their governments, but war. if this country should be engaged in war, (and i conceive we ought to provide for the possibility of such a case,) how would it be carried on? by the usual means provided from year to year? as our imports will be necessary for the expenses of government, and other common exigencies, how are we to carry on the means of defence? how is it possible a war could be supported without money or credit? and would it be possible for government to have credit, without having the power of raising money? no, it would be impossible for any government, in such a case, to defend itself. then, i say, sir, that it is necessary to establish funds for extraordinary exigencies, and give this power to the general government; for the utter inutility of previous requisitions on the states is too well known. would it be possible for those countries, whose finances and revenues are carried to the highest perfection, to carry on the operations of government on great emergencies, such as the maintenance of a war, without an uncontrolled power of raising money? has it not been necessary for great britain, notwithstanding the facility of the collection of her taxes, to have recourse very often to this and other extraordinary methods of procuring money? would not her public credit have been ruined, if it was known that her power to raise money was limited? has not france been obliged, on great occasions, to recur to unusual means, in order to raise funds? it has been the case in many countries, and no government can exist unless its powers extend to make provisions for every contingency. if we were actually attacked by a powerful nation, and our general government had not the power of raising money, but depended solely on requisitions, our condition would be truly deplorable: if the revenues of this commonwealth were to depend on twenty distinct authorities, it would be impossible for it to carry on its operations. this must be obvious to every member here: i think, therefore, that it is necessary for the preservation of the union, that this power should be given to the general government. but it is urged, that its consolidated nature, joined to the power of direct taxation, will give it a tendency to destroy all subordinate authority; that its increasing influence will speedily enable it to absorb the state governments. i cannot bring myself to think that this will be the case. if the general government were wholly independent of the governments of the particular states, then indeed, usurpation might be expected to the fullest extent: but, sir, on whom does this general government depend? it derives its authority from these governments, and from the same sources from which their authority is derived. the members of the federal government are taken from the same men from whom those of the state legislatures are taken. if we consider the mode in which the federal representatives will be chosen, we shall be convinced, that the general never will destroy the individual governments; and this conviction must be strengthened by an attention to the construction of the senate. the representatives will be chosen, probably under the influence of the state legislatures: but there is not the least probability that the election of the latter will be influenced by the former. one hundred and sixty members representing this commonwealth in one branch of the legislature, are drawn from the people at large, and must ever possess more influence than the few men who will be elected to the general legislature. those who wish to become federal representatives, must depend on their credit with that class of men who will be the most popular in their counties, who generally represent the people in the state governments: they can, therefore, never succeed in any measure contrary to the wishes of those on whom they depend. so that, on the whole, it is almost certain that the deliberations of the members of the federal house of representatives will be directed to the interests of the people of america. as to the other branch, the senators will be appointed by the legislatures, and, though elected for six years, i do not conceive they will so soon forget the source whence they derive their political existence. this election of one branch of the federal, by the state legislatures, secures an absolute independence of the former on the latter. the biennial exclusion of one third will lessen the facility of a combination, and preclude all likelihood of intrigues. i appeal to our past experience, whether they will attend to the interests of their constituent states. have not those gentlemen who have been honored with seats in congress often signalized themselves by their attachment to their states? sir, i pledge myself that this government will answer the expectations of its friends, and foil the apprehensions of its enemies. i am persuaded that the patriotism of the people will continue, and be a sufficient guard to their liberties, and that the tendency of the constitution will be, that the state governments will counteract the general interest, and ultimately prevail. the number of the representatives is yet sufficient for our safety, and will gradually increase; and if we consider their different sources of information, the number will not appear too small. sir, that part of the proposed constitution which gives the general government the power of laying and collecting taxes, is indispensable and essential to the existence of any efficient, or well organized system of government: if we consult reason, and be ruled by its dictates, we shall find its justification there: if we review the experience we have had, or contemplate the history of nations, there too we shall find ample reasons to prove its expediency. it would be preposterous to depend for necessary supplies on a body which is fully possessed of the power of withholding them. if a government depends on other governments for its revenues; if it must depend on the voluntary contributions of its members, its existence must be precarious. a government that relies on thirteen independent sovereignties for the means of its existence, is a solecism in theory, and a mere nullity in practice. is it consistent with reason, that such a government can promote the happiness of any people? it is subversive of every principle of sound policy, to trust the safety of a community with a government totally destitute of the means of protecting itself or its members. can congress, after the repeated unequivocal proofs it has experienced of the utter inutility and inefficacy of requisitions, reasonably expect that they would be hereafter effectual or productive? will not the same local interests, and other causes, militate against a compliance? whoever hopes the contrary must for ever be disappointed. the effect, sir, cannot be changed without a removal of the cause. let each county in this commonwealth be supposed free and independent: let your revenues depend on requisitions of proportionate quotas from them: let application be made to them repeatedly, and then ask yourself, is it to be presumed that they would comply, or that an adequate collection could be made from partial compliances? it is now difficult to collect the taxes from them: how much would that difficulty be enhanced, were you to depend solely on their generosity? i appeal to the reason of every gentleman here, and to his candor, to say whether he is not persuaded that the present confederation is as feeble as the government of virginia would be in that case; to the same reason i appeal, whether it be compatible with prudence to continue a government of such manifest and palpable weakness and inefficiency. ii. -- constitutional government. constitutional government in the united states began, in its national phase, with the inauguration of washington, but the experiment was for a long time a doubtful one. of the two parties, the federal and the anti-federal parties, which had faced one another on the question of the adoption of the constitution, the latter had disappeared. its conspicuous failure to achieve the fundamental object of its existence, and the evident hopelessnesss of reversing its failure in future, blotted it out of existence. there was left but one party, the federal party; and it, strong as it appeared, was really in almost as precarious a position as its former opponent, because of the very completeness of its success in achieving its fundamental object. hamilton and jefferson, two of its representative members, were opposed in almost all the political instincts of their natures; the former chose the restraints of strong government as instinctively as the latter clung to individualism. they had been accidentally united for the time in desiring the adoption of the constitution, though hamilton considered it only a temporary shift for something stronger, while jefferson wished for a bill of rights to weaken the force of some of its implications. now that the constitution was ratified, what tie was there to hold these two to any united action for the future? nothing but a shadow--the name of a party not yet two years old. as soon, therefore, as the federal party fairly entered upon a secure tenure of power, the divergent instincts of the two classes represented by hamilton and jefferson began to show themselves more distinctly until there was no longer any pretence of party unity, and the democratic (or republican) party assumed its place, in - , as the recognized opponent of the party in power. it would be beside the purpose to attempt to enumerate the points in which the natural antagonism of the federalists and the republicans came to the surface during the decade of contest which ended in the downfall of the federal party in - . in all of them, in the struggles over the establishment of the bank of the united states and the assumption of the state debts, in the respective sympathy for france and great britain, in the strong federalist legislation forced through during the war feeling against france in , the controlling sympathy of the republicans for individualism and of the federalists for a strong national government is constantly visible, if looked for. the difficulty is that these permanent features are often so obscured by the temporary media in which they appear that the republicans are likely to be taken as a merely state-rights party, and the federalists as a merely commercial party. to adopt either of these notions would be to take a very erroneous idea of american political history. the whole policy of the republicans was to forward the freedom of the individual; their leader seems to have made all other points subordinate to this. there is hardly any point in which the action of the individual american has been freed from governmental restraints, from ecclesiastical government, from sumptuary laws, from restrictions on suffrage, from restrictions on commerce, production, and exchange, for which he is not indebted in some measure to the work and teaching of jefferson between the years of and . he and his party found the states in existence, understood well that they were convenient shields for the individual against the possible powers of the new federal government for evil, and made use of them. the state sovereignty of jefferson was the product of individualism; that of calhoun was the product of sectionalism. on the other hand, if jeffersonian democracy was the representative of all the individualistic tendencies of the later science of political economy, hamiltonian federalism represented the necessary corrective force of law. it was in many respects a strong survival of colonialism. together with some of the evil features of colonialism, its imperative demands for submission to class government, its respect for the interests and desires of the few, and its contempt for those of the many, it had brought into american constitutional life a very high ratio of that respect for law which alone can render the happiness and usefulness of the individual a permanent and secure possession. it was impossible for federalism to resist the individualistic tendency of the country for any length of time; it is the monument of the party that it secured, before it fell, abiding guaranties for the security of the individual under freedom. the genius of the federalists was largely practical. it was shown in their masterly organization of the federal government when it was first entrusted to their hands, an organization which has since been rather developed than disturbed in any of its parts. but the details of the work absorbed the attention of the leaders so completely that it would be impossible to fix on any public address as entirely representative of the party. fisher ames' speech on the jay treaty, which was considered by the federalists the most effective piece of oratory in their party history, has been taken as a substitute. the question was to the federalists partly of commercial and partly of national importance. john jay had secured the first commercial treaty with great britain in . it not only provided for the security of american commerce during the european wars to which great britain was a party, and obtained the surrender of the military posts in the present states of ohio and michigan; it also gave the united states a standing in the family of nations which it was difficult to claim elsewhere while great britain continued to refuse to treat on terms of equality. the senate therefore ratified the treaty, and it was constitutionally complete. the democratic majority in the house of representatives, objecting to the treaty as a surrender of previous engagements with france, and as a failure to secure the rights of individuals against great britain, particularly in the matter of impressment, raised the point that the house was not bound to vote money for carrying into effect a treaty with which it was seriously dissatisfied. the speech of gallatin has been selected to represent the republican view. it is a strong reflection of the opposition to the treaty. the reply of ames is a forcible presentation of both the national and the commercial aspects of his party; it had a very great influence in securing, though by a very narrow majority, the vote of the house in favor of the appropriation. there is some difficulty in fixing on any completely representative oration to represent the republican point of view covering this period. gallatin's speech on the jay treaty together with nicholas' argument for the repeal of the sedition law may serve this purpose. the speech of nicholas shows the instinctive sympathy of the party for the individual rather than for the government. it shows the force with which this sympathy drove the party into a strict construction of the constitution. it seems also to bear the strongest internal indications that it was inspired, if not entirely written, by the great leader of the party, jefferson. the federalists had used the popular war feeling against france in , not only to press the formation of an army and a navy and the abrogation of the old and trouble-some treaties with france, but to pass the alien and sedition laws as well. the former empowered the president to expel from the country or imprison any alien whom he should consider dangerous to the peace and safety of the united states. the latter forbade, under penalty of fine and imprisonment, the printing or publishing of any "false, scandalous, or malicious writings" calculated to bring the government, congress, or the president into disrepute, or to excite against them the hatred of the good people of the united states, or to stir up sedition. it was inevitable that the republicans should oppose such laws, and that the people should support them in their opposition. at the election of , the federal party was overthrown, and the lost ground was never regained. with jefferson's election to the presidency, began the democratic period of the united states; but it has always been colored strongly and naturally by the federal bias toward law and order. albert gallatin, of pennsylvania. (born , died .) on the british treaty --house of representatives, april , . mr. chairman: i will not follow some of the gentlemen who have preceded me, by dwelling upon the discretion of the legislature; a question which has already been the subject of our deliberations, and been decided by a solemn vote. gentle-men who were in the minority on that question may give any construction they please to the declaratory resolution of the house; they may again repeat that to refuse to carry the treaty into effect is a breach of the public faith which they conceive as being pledged by the president and senate. this has been the ground on which a difference of opinion has existed since the beginning of the discussion. it is because the house thinks that the faith of the nation cannot, on those subjects submitted to the power of congress, be pledged by any constituted authority other than the legislature, that they resolved that in all such cases it is their right and duty to consider the expediency of carrying a treaty into effect. if the house think the faith of the nation already pledged they can not claim any discretion; there is no room left to deliberate upon the expediency of the thing. the resolution now under consideration is merely "that it is expedient to carry the british treaty into effect," and not whether we are bound by national faith to do it. i will therefore consider the question of expediency alone; and thinking as i do that the house has full discretion on this subject, i conceive that there is as much responsibility in deciding in the affirmative as in rejecting the resolution, and that we shall be equally answerable for the consequences that may follow from either. it is true, however, that there was a great difference between the situation of this country in the year , when a negotiator was appointed, and that in which we are at present; and that consequences will follow the refusal to carry into effect the treaty in its present stage, which would not have attended a refusal to negotiate and to enter into such a treaty. the question of expediency, therefore, assumes before us a different and more complex shape than when before the negotiator, the senate, or the president. the treaty, in itself and abstractedly considered, may be injurious; it may be such an instrument as in the opinion of the house ought not to have been adopted by the executive; and yet such as it is we may think it expedient under the present circumstances to carry it into effect. i will therefore first take a view of the provisions of the treaty itself, and in the next place, supposing it is injurious, consider, in case it is not carried into effect, what will be the natural consequences of such refusal. the provisions of the treaty relate either to the adjustment of past differences, or to the future intercourse of the two nations. the differences now existing between great britain and this country arose either from non-execution of some articles of the treaty of peace or from the effects of the present european war. the complaints of great britain in relation to the treaty of were confined to the legal impediments thrown by the several states in the way of the recovery of british debts. the late treaty provides adequate remedy on that subject; the united states are bound to make full and complete compensation for any losses arising from that source, and every ground of complaint on the part of great britain is removed. having thus done full justice to the other nation, america has a right to expect that equal attention shall be paid to her claims arising from infractions of the treaty of peace, viz., compensation for the negroes carried away by the british; restoration of the western posts, and indemnification for their detention. on the subject of the first claim, which has been objected to as groundless, i will observe that i am not satisfied that the construction given by the british government to that article of the treaty is justified even by the letter of the article. that construction rests on the supposition that slaves come under the general denomination of booty, and are alienated the moment they fall into possession of an enemy, so that all those who were in the hands of the british when the treaty of peace was signed, must be considered as british and not as american property, and are not included in the article. it will, however, appear by recurring to vattel when speaking of the right of "postliminium," that slaves cannot be considered as a part of the booty which is alienated by the act of capture, and that they are to be ranked rather with real property, to the profits of which only the captors are entitled. be that as it may, there is no doubt that the construction given by america is that which was understood by the parties at the time of making the treaty. the journals of mr. adams, quoted by a gentleman from connecticut, mr. coit, prove this fully; for when he says that the insertion of this article was alone worth the journey of mr. laurens from london, can it be supposed that he would have laid so much stress on a clause, which, according to the new construction now attempted to be given, means only that the british would commit no new act of hostility--would not carry away slaves at that time in possession of americans? congress recognized that construction by adopting the resolution which has been already quoted, and which was introduced upon the motion of mr. alexander hamilton; and it has not been denied that the british ministry during mr. adams' embassy also agreed to it. but when our negotiator had, for the sake of peace, waived that claim; when he had also abandoned the right which america had to demand an indemnification for the detention of the posts, although he had conceded the right of a similar nature, which great britain had for the detention of debts; when he had thus given up everything which might be supposed to be of a doubtful nature, it might have been hoped that our last claim--a claim on which there was not and there never had been any dispute--the western posts should have been restored according to the terms of the treaty of peace. upon what ground the british insisted, and our negotiator conceded, that this late restitution should be saddled with new conditions, which made no part of the original contract, i am at a loss to know. british traders are allowed by the new treaty to remain within the posts without becoming citizens of the united states; and to carry on trade and commerce with the indians living within our boundaries without being subject to any control from our government. in vain is it said that if that clause had not been inserted we would have found it to our interest to effect it by our own laws. of this we are alone competent judges; if that condition is harmless at present it is not possible to foresee whether, under future circumstances, it will not prove highly injurious; and whether harmless or not, it is not less a permanent and new condition imposed upon us. but the fact is, that by the introduction of that clause, by obliging us to keep within our jurisdiction, as british subjects, the very men who have been the instruments used by great britain to promote indian wars on our frontiers; by obliging us to suffer those men to continue their commerce with the indians living in our territory, uncontrolled by those regulations which we have thought necessary in order to restrain our own citizens in their intercourse with these tribes, great britain has preserved her full influence with the indian nations. by a restoration of the posts under that condition we have lost the greatest advantage that was expected from their possession, viz.: future security against the indians. in the same manner have the british preserved the commercial advantages which result from the occupancy of those posts, by stipulating as a permanent condition, a free passage for their goods across our portages without paying any duty. another article of the new treaty which is connected with the provisions of the treaty of deserves consideration; i mean what relates to the mississippi. at the time when the navigation of that river to its mouth was by the treaty of peace declared to be common to both nations, great britain communicated to america a right which she held by virtue of the treaty of , and as owner of the floridas; but since that cession to the united states, england has ceded to spain her claim on the floridas, and does not own at the present time an inch of ground, either on the mouth or on any part of that river. spain now stands in the place of great britain, and by virtue of the treaty of it is to spain and america, and not to england and america, that the navigation of the mississippi is at present to be common. yet, notwithstanding this change of circumstances, we have repeated that article of the former treaty in the late one, and have granted to great britain the additional privilege of using our ports on the eastern side of the river, without which, as they own no land thereon, they could not have navigated it. nor is this all. upon a supposition that the mississippi does not extend so far northward as to be intersected by a line drawn due west from the lake of the woods, or, in other words, upon a supposition that great britain has not a claim even to touch the mississippi, we have agreed, not upon what will be the boundary line, but that we will hereafter negotiate to settle that line. thus leaving to future negotiation what should have been finally settled by the treaty itself, in the same manner as all other differences were, is calculated for the sole purpose, either of laying the foundation of future disputes, or of recognizing a claim in great britain on the waters of the mississippi, even if their boundary line leaves to the southward the sources of that river. had not that been the intention of great britain the line would have been settled at once by the treaty, according to either of the two only rational ways of doing it in conformity to the treaty of , that is to say, by agreeing that the line should run from the northernmost sources of the mississippi, either directly to the western extremity of the lake of the woods, or northwardly till it intersected the line to be drawn due west from that lake. but by repeating the article of the treaty of ; by conceding the free use of our ports on the river, and by the insertion of the fourth article, we have admitted that great britain, in all possible events, has still a right to navigate that river from its source to its mouth. what may be the future effects of these provisions, especially as they regard our intercourse with spain, it is impossible at present to say; but although they can bring us no advantage, they may embroil us with that nation: and we have already felt the effect of it in our late treaty with spain, since we were obliged, on account of that clause of the british treaty, to accept as a gift and a favor the navigation of that river which we had till then claimed as a right. but if, leaving commercial regulations, we shall seek in the treaty for some provisions securing to us the free navigation of the ocean against any future aggressions on our trade, where are they to be found? i can add nothing to what has been said on the subject of contraband articles: it is, indeed, self-evident, that, connecting our treaty with england on that subject with those we have made with other nations, it amounts to a positive compact to supply that nation exclusively with naval stores whenever they may be at war. had the list of contraband articles been reduced--had naval stores and provisions, our two great staple commodities, been declared not to be contra-band, security would have been given to the free exportation of our produce; but instead of any provision being made on that head, an article of a most doubtful nature, and on which i will remark hereafter, has been introduced. but i mean, for the present, to confine my observations to the important question of free bottoms making free goods. it was with the utmost astonishment that i heard the doctrine advanced on this floor, that such a provision, if admitted, would prove injurious to america, inasmuch as in case of war between this country and any other nation, the goods of that nation might be protected by the english flag. it is not to a state of war that the benefits of this provision would extend; but it is the only security which neutral nations can have against the legal plundering on the high seas, so often committed by belligerent powers. it is not for the sake of protecting an enemy's property; it is not for the sake of securing an advantageous carrying trade; but it is in order effectually to secure ourselves against sea aggressions, that this provision is necessary. spoliations may arise from unjust orders, given by the government of a belligerent nation to their officers and cruisers, and these may be redressed by application to and negotiation with that order. but no complaints, no negotiations, no orders of government itself, can give redress when those spoliations are grounded on a supposition, that the vessels of the neutral nation have an enemy's property on board, as long as such property is not protected by the flag of the neutral nation; as long as it is liable to be captured, it is not sufficient, in order to avoid detention and capture, to have no such property on board. every privateer, under pretence that he suspects an enemy's goods to be part of a cargo, may search, vex, and capture a vessel; and if in any corner of the dominions of the belligerent power, a single judge can be found inclined, if not determined, to condemn, at all events, before his tribunal, all vessels so captured will be brought there, and the same pretence which caused the capture will justify a condemnation. the only nation who persists in the support of this doctrine, as making part of the law of nations, is the first maritime power of europe, whom their interest, as they are the strongest, and as there is hardly a maritime war in which they are not involved, leads to wish for a continuation of a custom which gives additional strength to their overbearing dominion over the seas. all the other nations have different sentiments and a different interest. during the american war, in the year , so fully convinced were the neutral nations of the necessity of introducing that doctrine of free bottoms making free goods, that all of them, excepting portugal, who was in a state of vassalage to, and a mere appendage of, great britain, united in order to establish the principle, and formed for that purpose the alliance known by the name of the armed neutrality. all the belligerent powers, except england, recognized and agreed to the doctrine. england itself was obliged, in some measure, to give, for a while, a tacit acquiescence. america, at the time, fully admitted the principle, although then at war. since the year , every nation, so far as my knowledge goes, has refused to enter into a treaty of commerce with england, unless that provision was inserted. russia, for that reason, would not renew their treaty, which had expired in ; although i believe that, during the present war, and in order to answer the ends of the war, they formed a temporary convention, which i have not seen, but which, perhaps, does not include that provision. england consented to it in her treaty with france, in , and we are the first neutral nation who has abandoned the common cause, given up the claim, and by a positive declaration inserted in our treaty, recognized the contrary doctrine. it has been said that, under the present circumstances, it could not be expected that great britain would give up the point; perhaps so; but the objection is not, that our negotiator has not been able to obtain that principle, but that he has consented to enter into a treaty of commerce which we do not want, and which has no connection with an adjustment of our differences with great britain, without the principle contended for making part of that treaty. unless we can obtain security for our navigation, we want no treaty; and the only provision which can give us that security, should have been the _sine qua non_ of a treaty. on the contrary, we have disgusted all the other neutral nations of europe, without whose concert and assistance there is but little hope that we shall ever obtain that point; and we have taught great britain that we are disposed to form the most intimate connections with her, even at the expense of recognizing a principle the most fatal to the liberty of commerce and to the security of our navigation. but, if we could not obtain anything which might secure us against future aggressions, should we have parted, without receiving any equivalent, with those weapons of self-defence, which, although they could not repel, might, in some degree, prevent any gross attacks upon our trade--any gross violation of our rights as a neutral nation? we have no fleet to oppose or to punish the insults of great britain; but, from our commercial relative situation, we have it in our power to restrain her aggressions, by restrictions on her trade, by a total prohibition of her manufactures, or by a sequestration of the debts due to her. by the treaty, not satisfied with receiving nothing, not satisfied with obtaining no security for the future, we have, of our own accord, surrendered those defensive arms, for fear they might be abused by ourselves. we have given up the two first, for the whole time during which we might want them most, the period of the present war; and the last, the power of sequestration, we have abandoned for ever: every other article of the treaty of commerce is temporary; this perpetual. i shall not enter into a discussion of the immorality of sequestering private property. what can be more immoral than war; or plundering on the high seas, legalized under the name of privateering? yet self-defence justifies the first, and the necessity of the case may, at least in some instances, and where it is the only practicable mode of warfare left to a nation, apologize even for the last. in the same manner, the power of sequestration may be resorted to, as the last weapon of self-defence, rather than to seek redress by an appeal to arms. it is the last peace measure that can be taken by a nation; but the treaty, by declaring, that in case of national differences it shall not be resorted to, has deprived us of the power of judging of its propriety, has rendered it an act of hostility, and has effectually taken off that restraint, which a fear of its exercise laid upon great britain. thus it appears that by the treaty we have promised full compensation to england for every possible claim they may have against us, that we have abandoned every claim of a doubtful nature, and that we have consented to receive the posts, our claim to which was not disputed, under new conditions and restrictions never before contemplated; that after having obtained by those concessions an adjustment of past differences, we have entered into a new agreement, unconnected with those objects, which have heretofore been subjects of discussion between the two nations; and that by this treaty of commerce and navigation, we have obtained no commercial advantage which we did not enjoy before, we have obtained no security against future aggressions, no security in favor of the freedom of our navigation, and we have parted with every pledge we had in our hands, with every power of restriction, with every weapon of self-defence which is calculated to give us any security. from the review i have taken of the treaty, and the opinions i have expressed, it is hardly necessary for me to add, that i look upon the instrument as highly injurious to the interests of the united states, and that i earnestly wish it never had been made; but whether in its present stage the house ought to refuse to carry it into effect, and what will be the probable consequences of a refusal, is a question which requires the most serious attention, and which i will now attempt to investigate. should the treaty be finally defeated, either new negotiations will be more successful or great britain will refuse to make a new arrangement, and leave things in the situation in which they now are, or war will be the consequence. i will, in the course of my observations, make some remarks on the last supposition. i do not think that the first will be very probable at present, and i am of opinion that, under the present circumstances, and until some change takes place in our own or in the relative political situation of the european nations, it is to be apprehended that, in such a case, new negotiations will either be rejected or prove unsuccessful. such an event might have perhaps followed a rejection of the treaty even by the senate or by the president. after the negotiator employed by the united states had once affixed his signature it must have become very problematical, unless he had exceeded his powers, whether a refusal to sanction the contract he had made would not eventually defeat, at least for a time, the prospect of a new treaty. i conceive that the hopes of obtaining better conditions by a new negotiation are much less in the present stage of the business than they were when the treaty was in its inchoate form before the executive; and in order to form a just idea of the consequences of a rejection at present, i will contemplate them upon this supposition, which appears to me most probable, to wit, that no new treaty will take place for a certain period of time. in mentioning my objections to the treaty itself, i have already stated the advantages which in my opinion would result to the united states from the non-existence of that instrument; i will not repeat, but proceed at once to examine what losses may accrue that can be set off against those advantages. the further detention of the posts, the national stain that will result from receiving no reparation for the spoliations on our trade, and the uncertainty of a final adjustment of our differences with great britain, are the three evils which strike me as resulting from a rejection of the treaty; and when to those considerations i add that of the present situation of this country, of the agitation of the public mind, and of the advantages that will arise from union of sentiments, however injurious and unequal i conceive the treaty to be, however repugnant it may be to my feelings, and perhaps to my prejudices, i feel induced to vote for it, and will not give my assent to any proposition which will imply its rejection. but the conduct of great britain since the treaty was signed, the impressment of our seamen, and their uninterrupted spoliations on our trade, especially by seizing our vessels laden with provisions, a proceeding which they may perhaps justify by one of the articles of the treaty, are such circumstances as may induce us to pause awhile, in order to examine whether it is proper, immediately and without having obtained any explanation thereon, to adopt the resolution on the table, and to pass, at present, all the laws necessary to carry the treaty into effect. whatever evils may follow a rejection of the treaty, they will not attend a postponement. to suspend our proceedings will not throw us into a situation which will require new negotiations, new arrangements on the points already settled and well understood by both parties. it will be merely a delay, until an explanation of the late conduct of the british towards us may be obtained, or until that conduct may be altered. if, on the contrary, we consent to carry the treaty into effect, under the present circumstances, what will be our situation in future? it is by committing the most wanton and the most unprovoked aggressions on our trade; it is by seizing a large amount of our property as a pledge for our good behavior, that great britain has forced the nation into the present treaty. if by threatening new hostilities, or rather by continuing her aggressions, even after the treaty is made, she can force us also to carry it into effect, our acquiescence will be tantamount to a declaration that we mean to submit in proportion to the insults that are offered to us; and this disposition being once known, what security have we against new insults, new aggressions, new spoliations, which probably will lay the foundation of some additional sacrifices on ours? it has been said, and said with truth, that to put up with the indignities we have received without obtaining any reparation, which will probably be the effect of defeating the treaty, is highly dishonorable to the nation. in my opinion it is still more so not only tamely to submit to a continuation of these national insults, but while they thus continue uninterrupted, to carry into effect the instrument we have consented to accept as a reparation for former ones. when the general conduct of great britain towards us from the beginning of the present war is considered; when the means by which she has produced the treaty are reflected on, a final compliance on our part while she still persists in that conduct, whilst the chastening rod of that nation is still held over us, is in my opinion a dereliction of national interest, of national honor, of national independence. but it is said, that war must be the consequence of our delaying to carry the treaty into effect. do the gentlemen mean, that if we reject the treaty, if we do not accept the reparation there given to us, in order to obtain redress, we have no alternative left but war? if we must go to war in order to obtain reparation for insults and spoliations on our trade, we must do it, even if we carry the present treaty into effect; for this treaty gives us no reparation for the aggressions committed since it was ratified, has not produced a discontinuance of those acts of hostility, and gives us no security that they shall be discontinued. but the arguments of those gentlemen, who suppose that america must go to war, apply to a final rejection of the treaty, and not to a delay. i do not propose to refuse the reparation offered by the treaty, and to put up with the aggressions committed; i have agreed that that reparation, such as it is, is a valuable article of the treaty; i have agreed, that under the present circumstances, a greater evil will follow a total rejection of, than an acquiescence in, the treaty. the only measure which has been mentioned, in preference to the one now under discussion, is a suspension, a postponement, whilst the present spoliations continue, in hopes to obtain for them a similar reparation, and assurances that they shall cease. but is it meant to insinuate that it is the final intention of those who pretend to wish only for a postponement, to involve this country in a war? there has been no period during the present european war, at which it would not have been equally weak and wicked to adopt such measures as must involve america in the contest, unless forced into it for the sake of self-defence; but, at this time, to think of it would fall but little short of madness. the whole american nation would rise in opposition to the idea; and it might at least have been recollected, that war can not be declared, except by congress, and that two of the branches of government are sufficient to check the other in any supposed attempt of this kind. if there is no necessity imposed upon america to go to war, if there is no apprehension she will, by her own conduct, involve herself in one, the danger must arise from great britain, and the threat is, that she will make war against us if we do not comply. gentlemen first tell us that we have made the best possible bargain with that nation; that she has conceded everything, without receiving a single iota in return, and yet they would persuade us, that she will make war against us in order to force us to accept that contract so advantageous to us, and so injurious to herself. it will not be contended that a delay, until an amicable explanation is obtained, could afford even a pretence to great britain for going to war; and we all know that her own interest would prevent her. if another campaign takes place, it is acknowledged, that all her efforts are to be exerted against the west indies. she has proclaimed her own scarcity of provisions at home, and she must depend on our supplies to support her armament. it depends upon us to defeat her whole scheme, and this is a sufficient pledge against open hostility, if the european war continues. if peace takes place, there will not be even the appearance of danger; the moment when a nation is happy enough to emerge from one of the most expensive, bloody, and dangerous wars in which she ever has been involved, will be the last she would choose to plunge afresh into a similar calamity. but to the cry of war, the alarmists do not fail to add that of confusion; and they have declared, even on this floor, that if the resolution is not adopted government will be dissolved. government dissolved in case a postponement takes place! the idea is too absurd to deserve a direct answer. but i will ask those gentlemen, by whom is government to be dissolved? certainly not by those who may vote against the resolution; for although they are not perhaps fortunate enough to have obtained the confidence of the gentlemen who voted against them, still it must be agreed, that those who succeed in their wishes, who defeat a measure they dislike, will not wish to destroy that government, which they hold so far in their hands as to be able to carry their own measures. for them to dissolve government, would be to dissolve their own power. by whom, then, i again ask, is the government to be dissolved? the gentlemen must answer--by themselves--or they must declare that they mean nothing but to alarm. is it really the language of those men, who profess to be, who distinguish themselves by the self-assumed appellation of friends to order, that if they do not succeed in all their measures they will overset government--and have all their professions been only a veil to hide their love of power, a pretence to cover their ambition? do they mean, that the first event which shall put an end to their own authority shall be the last act of government? as to myself, i do not believe that they have such intentions; i have too good an opinion of their patriotism to allow myself to admit such an idea a single moment; but i think myself justifiable in entertaining a belief, that some amongst them, in order to carry a favorite, and what they think to be an advantageous measure, mean to spread an alarm which they do not feel; and i have no doubt, that many have contracted such a habit of carrying every measure of government as they please, that they really think that every thing must be thrown into confusion the moment they are thwarted in a matter of importance. i hope that experience will in future cure their fears. but, at all events, be the wishes and intentions of the members of this house what they may, it is not in their power to dissolve the government. the people of the united states, from one end of the continent to the other, are strongly attached to their constitution; they would restrain and punish the excesses of any party, of any set of men in government, who would be guilty of the attempt; and on them i will rest as a full security against every endeavor to destroy our union, our constitution, or our government. if the people of the united states wish this house to carry the treaty into effect immediately, and notwithstanding the continued aggressions of the british, if their will was fairly and fully expressed, i would immediately acquiesce; but since an appeal has been made to them, it is reasonable to suspend a decision until their sentiments are known. till then i must follow my own judgment; and as i cannot see that any possible evils will follow a delay, i shall vote against the resolution before the committee, in order to make room, either for that proposed by my colleague, mr. maclay, or for any other, expressed in any manner whatever, provided it embraces the object i have in view, to wit, the suspension of the final vote--a postponement of the laws necessary to carry the treaty into effect, until satisfactory assurances are obtained that great britain means, in future, to show us that friendly disposition which it is my earnest wish may at all times be cultivated by america towards all other nations. fisher ames, of massachusetts. (born , died .) on the british treaty, house of representatives, april , . it would be strange, that a subject, which has aroused in turn all the passions of the country, should be discussed without the interference of any of our own. we are men, and therefore not exempt from those passions; as citizens and representatives, we feel the interests that must excite them. the hazard of great interests cannot fail to agitate strong passions. we are not disinterested; it is impossible we should be dispassionate. the warmth of such feelings may becloud the judgment, and, for a time, pervert the understanding. but the public sensibility, and our own, has sharpened the spirit of inquiry, and given an animation to the debate. the public attention has been quickened to mark the progress of the discussion, and its judgment, often hasty and erroneous on first impressions, has become solid and enlightened at last. our result will, i hope, on that account, be safer and more mature, as well as more accordant with that of the nation. the only constant agents in political affairs are the passions of men. shall we complain of our nature--shall we say that man ought to have been made otherwise? it is right already, because he, from whom we derive our nature, ordained it so; and because thus made and thus acting, the cause of truth and the public good is more surely promoted. the treaty is bad, fatally bad, is the cry. it sacrifices the interest, the honor, the independence of the united states, and the faith of our engagements to france. if we listen to the clamor of party intemperance, the evils are of a number not to be counted, and of a nature not to be borne, even in idea. the language of passion and exaggeration may silence that of sober reason in other places, it has not done it here. the question here is, whether the treaty be really so very fatal as to oblige the nation to break its faith. i admit that such a treaty ought not to be executed. i admit that self-preservation is the first law of society, as well as of individuals. it would, perhaps, be deemed an abuse of terms to call that a treaty, which violates such a principle. i waive also, for the present, any inquiry, what departments shall represent the nation, and annul the stipulations of a treaty. i content myself with pursuing the inquiry, whether the nature of this compact be such as to justify our refusal to carry it into effect. a treaty is the promise of a nation. now, promises do not always bind him that makes them. but i lay down two rules, which ought to guide us in this case. the treaty must appear to be bad, not merely in the petty details, but in its character, principle, and mass. and in the next place, this ought to be ascertained by the decided and general concurrence of the enlightened public. i confess there seems to be something very like ridicule thrown over the debate by the discussion of the articles in detail. the undecided point is, shall we break our faith? and while our country and enlightened europe, await the issue with more than curiosity, we are employed to gather piecemeal, and article by article, from the instrument, a justification for the deed by trivial calculations of commercial profit and loss. this is little worthy of the subject, of this body, or of the nation. if the treaty is bad, it will appear to be so in its mass. evil to a fatal extreme, if that be its tendency, requires no proof; it brings it. extremes speak for themselves and make their own law. what if the direct voyage of american ships to jamaica with horses or lumber, might net one or two per centum more than the present trade to surinam; would the proof of the fact avail any thing in so grave a question as the violation of the public engagements? why do they complain, that the west indies are not laid open? why do they lament, that any restriction is stipulated on the commerce of the east indies? why do they pretend, that if they reject this, and insist upon more, more will be accomplished? let us be explicit--more would not satisfy. if all was granted, would not a treaty of amity with great britain still be obnoxious? have we not this instant heard it urged against our envoy, that he was not ardent enough in his hatred of great britain? a treaty of amity is condemned because it was not made by a foe, and in the spirit of one. the same gentleman, at the same instant, repeats a very prevailing objection, that no treaty should be made with the enemy of france. no treaty, exclaim others, should be made with a monarch or a despot; there will be no naval security while those sea-robbers domineer on the ocean; their den must be destroyed; that nation must be extirpated. i like this, sir, because it is sincerity. with feelings such as these, we do not pant for treaties. such passions seek nothing, and will be content with nothing, but the destruction of their object. if a treaty left king george his island, it would not answer; not if he stipulated to pay rent for it. it has been said, the world ought to rejoice if britain was sunk in the sea; if where there are now men and wealth and laws and liberty, there was no more than a sand bank for sea monsters to fatten on; a space for the storms of the ocean to mingle in conflict. what is patriotism? is it a narrow affection for the spot where a man was born? are the very clods where we tread entitled to this ardent preference because they are greener? no, sir, this is not the character of the virtue, and it soars higher for its object. it is an extended self-love, mingling with all the enjoyments of life, and twisting itself with the minutest filaments of the heart. it is thus we obey the laws of society, because they are the laws of virtue. in their authority we see, not the array of force and terror, but the venerable image of our country's honor. every good citizen makes that honor his own, and cherishes it not only as precious, but as sacred. he is willing to risk his life in its defence, and is conscious that he gains protection while he gives it. for, what rights of a citizen will be deemed inviolable when a state renounces the principles that constitute their security? or if his life should not be invaded, what would its enjoyments be in a country odious in the eyes of strangers and dishonored in his own? could he look with affection and veneration to such a country as his parent? the sense of having one would die within him; he would blush for his patriotism, if he retained any, and justly, for it would be a vice. he would be a banished man in his native land. i see no exception to the respect that is paid among nations to the law of good faith. if there are cases in this enlightened period when it is violated, there are none when it is decried. it is the philosophy of politics, the religion of governments. it is observed by barbarians--a whiff of tobacco smoke, or a string of beads, gives not merely binding force but sanctity to treaties. even in algiers, a truce may be bought for money, but when ratified, even algiers is too wise, or too just, to disown and annul its obligation. thus we see, neither the ignorance of savages, nor the principles of an association for piracy and rapine, permit a nation to despise its engagements. if, sir, there could be a resurrection from the foot of the gallows, if the victims of justice could live again, collect together and form a society, they would, however loath, soon find themselves obliged to make justice, that justice under which they fell, the fundamental law of their state. they would perceive, it was their interest to make others respect, and they would therefore soon pay some respect themselves, to the obligations of good faith. it is painful, i hope it is superfluous, to make even the supposition, that america should furnish the occasion of this opprobrium. no, let me not even imagine, that a republican government, sprung, as our own is, from a people enlightened and uncorrupted, a government whose origin is right, and whose daily discipline is duty, can, upon solemn debate, make its option to be faithless--can dare to act what despots dare not avow, what our own example evinces, the states of barbary are unsuspected of. no, let me rather make the supposition, that great britain refuses to execute the treaty, after we have done every thing to carry it into effect. is there any language of reproach pungent enough to express your commentary on the fact? what would you say, or rather what would you not say? would you not tell them, wherever an englishman might travel, shame would stick to him--he would disown his country. you would exclaim, england, proud of your wealth, and arrogant in the possession of power--blush for these distinctions, which become the vehicles of your dishonor. such a nation might truly say to corruption, thou art my father, and to the worm, thou art my mother and my sister. we should say of such a race of men, their name is a heavier burden than their debt. the refusal of the posts (inevitable if we reject the treaty) is a measure too decisive in its nature to be neutral in its consequences. from great causes we are to look for great effects. a plain and obvious one will be, the price of the western lands will fall. settlers will not choose to fix their habitation on a field of battle. those who talk so much of the interest of the united states, should calculate how deeply it will be affected by rejecting the treaty; how vast a tract of wild land will almost cease to be property. this loss, let it be observed, will fall upon a fund expressly devoted to sink the national debt. what then are we called upon to do? however the form of the vote and the protestations of many may disguise the proceeding, our resolution is in substance, and it deserves to wear the title of a resolution to prevent the sale of the western lands and the discharge of the public debt. will the tendency to indian hostilities be contested by any one? experience gives the answer. the frontiers were scourged with war till the negotiation with great britain was far advanced, and then the state of hostility ceased. perhaps the public agents of both nations are innocent of fomenting the indian war, and perhaps they are not. we ought not, however, to expect that neighboring nations, highly irritated against each other, will neglect the friendship of the savages; the traders will gain an influence and will abuse it; and who is ignorant that their passions are easily raised, and hardly restrained from violence? their situation will oblige them to choose between this country and great britain, in case the treaty should be rejected. they will not be our friends, and at the same time the friends of our enemies. but am i reduced to the necesity of proving this point? certainly the very men who charged the indian war on the detention of the posts, will call for no other proof than the recital of their own speeches. it is remembered with what emphasis, with what acrimony, they expatiated on the burden of taxes, and the drain of blood and treasure into the western country, in consequence of britain's holding the posts. until the posts are restored, they exclaimed, the treasury and the frontiers must bleed. if any, against all these proofs, should maintain that the peace with the indians will be stable without the posts, to them i urge another reply. from arguments calculated to produce conviction, i will appeal directly to the hearts of those who hear me, and ask, whether it is not already planted there? i resort especially to the convictions of the western gentlemen, whether supposing no posts and no treaty, the settlers will remain in security? can they take it upon them to say, that an indian peace, under these circumstances, will prove firm? no, sir, it will not be peace, but a sword; it will be no better than a lure to draw victims within the reach of the tomahawk. on this theme my emotions are unutterable. if i could find words for them, if my powers bore any proportion to my zeal, i would swell my voice to such a note of remonstrance, it should reach every log-house beyond the mountains. i would say to the inhabitants, wake from your false security; your cruel dangers, your more cruel apprehensions are soon to be renewed; the wounds, yet unhealed, are to be torn open again; in the daytime, your path through the woods will be ambushed; the darkness of midnight will glitter with the blaze of your dwellings. you are a father--the blood of your sons shall fatten your cornfield; you are a mother--the war-whoop shall wake the sleep of the cradle. on this subject you need not suspect any deception on your feelings. it is a spectacle of horror, which cannot be overdrawn. if you have nature in your hearts, it will speak a language, compared with which all i have said or can say will be poor and frigid. will it be whispered that the treaty has made me a new champion for the protection of the frontiers? it is known that my voice as well as vote have been uniformly given in conformity with the ideas i have expressed. protection is the right of the frontiers; it is our duty to give it. who will accuse me of wandering out of the subject? who will say that i exaggerate the tendencies of our measures? will any one answer by a sneer, that all this is idle preaching? will any one deny, that we are bound, and i would hope to good purpose, by the most solemn sanctions of duty for the vote we give? are despots alone to be reproached for unfeeling indifference to the tears and blood of their subjects? have the principles on which you ground the reproach upon cabinets and kings no practical influence, no binding force? are they merely themes of idle declamation introduced to decorate the morality of a newspaper essay, or to furnish petty topics of harangue from the windows of that state-house? i trust it is neither too presumptuous nor too late to ask. can you put the dearest interest of society at risk without guilt and without remorse. it is vain to offer as an excuse, that public men are not to be reproached for the evils that may happen to ensue from their measures. this is very true where they are unforeseen or inevitable. those i have depicted are not unforeseen; they are so far from inevitable, we are going to bring them into being by our vote. we choose the consequences, and become as justly answerable for them as for the measures that we know will produce them. by rejecting the posts we light the savage fires--we bind the victims. this day we undertake to render account to the widows and orphans whom our decision will make, to the wretches that will be roasted at the stake, to our country, and i do not deem it too serious to say, to conscience and to god. we are answerable, and if duty be any thing more than a word of imposture, if conscience be not a bug-bear, we are preparing to make ourselves as wretched as our country. there is no mistake in this case--there can be none. experience has already been the prophet of events, and the cries of future victims have already reached us. the western inhabitants are not a silent and uncomplaining sacrifice. the voice of humanity issues from the shade of their wilderness. it exclaims that, while one hand is held up to reject this treaty, the other grasps a tomahawk. it summons our imagination to the scenes that will open. it is no great effort of the imagination to conceive that events so near are already begun. i can fancy that i listen to the yells of savage vengeance, and the shrieks of torture. already they seem to sigh in the west wind-already they mingle with every echo from the mountains. it is not the part of prudence to be inattentive to the tendencies of measures. where there is any ground to fear that these will prove pernicious, wisdom and duty forbid that we should underrate them. if we reject the treaty, will our peace be as safe as if we executed it with good faith? i do honor to the intrepid spirits of those who say it will. it was formerly understood to constitute the excellence of a man's faith to believe without evidence and against it. but, as opinions on this article are changed, and we are called to act for our country, it becomes us to explore the dangers that will attend its peace, and to avoid them if we can. is there any thing in the prospect of the interior state of the country to encourage us to aggravate the dangers of a war? would not the shock of that evil produce another, and shake down the feeble and then unbraced structure of our government? is this a chimera? is it going off the ground of matter of fact to say, the rejection of the appropriation proceeds upon the doctrine of a civil war of the departments? two branches have ratified a treaty, and we are going to set it aside. how is this disorder in the machine to be rectified? while it exists its movements must stop, and when we talk of a remedy, is that any other than the formidable one of a revolutionary one of the people? and is this, in the judgment even of my opposers, to execute, to preserve the constitution and the public order? is this the state of hazard, if not of convulsion, which they can have the courage to contemplate and to brave, or beyond which their penetration can reach and see the issue? they seem to believe, and they act as if they believed, that our union, our peace, our liberty, are invulnerable and immortal--as if our happy state was not to be disturbed by our dissentions, and that we are not capable of falling from it by our unworthiness. some of them have, no doubt, better nerves and better discernment than mine. they can see the bright aspects and the happy consequences of all this array of horrors. they can see intestine discords, our government disorganized, our wrongs aggravated, multiplied, and unredressed, peace with dishonor, or war without justice, union, or resources, in "the calm lights of mild philosophy." but whatever they may anticipate as the next measure of prudence and safety, they have explained nothing to the house. after rejecting the treaty, what is to be the next step? they must have foreseen what ought to be done; they have doubtless resolved what to propose. why then are they silent? dare they not avow their plan of conduct, or do they wait till our progress toward confusion shall guide them in forming it? let me cheer the mind, weary, no doubt, and ready to despond on this prospect, by presenting another, which it is yet in our power to realize. is it possible for a real american to look at the prosperity of this country without some desire for its continuance--without some respect for the measures which, many will say, produced, and all will confess, have preserved, it? will he not feel some dread that a change of system will reverse the scene? the well-grounded fears of our citizens in were removed by the treaty, but are not forgotten. then they deemed war nearly inevitable, and would not this adjustment have been considered, at that day, as a happy escape from the calamity? the great interest and the general desire of our people, was to enjoy the advantages of neutrality. this instrument, however misrepresented, affords america that inestimable security. the causes of our disputes are either cut up by the roots, or referred to a new negotiation after the end of the european war. this was gaining everything, because it confirmed our neutrality, by which our citizens are gaining everything. this alone would justify the engagements of the government. for, when the fiery vapors of the war lowered in the skirts of our horizon, all our wishes were concentred in this one, that we might escape the desolation of the storm. this treaty, like a rainbow on the edge of the cloud, marked to our eyes the space where it was raging, and afforded, at the same time, the sure prognostic of fair weather. if we reject it, the vivid colors will grow pale,--it will be a baleful meteor portending tempest and war. let us not hesitate, then, to agree to the appropriation to carry it into faithful execution. thus we shall save the faith of our nation, secure its peace, and diffuse the spirit of confidence and enterprise that will augment its prosperity. the progress of wealth and improvement is wonderful, and, some will think, too rapid. the field for exertion is fruitful and vast, and if peace and good government should be preserved, the acquisitions of our citizens are not so pleasing as the proofs of their industry--as the instruments of their future success. the rewards of exertion go to augment its power. profit is every hour becoming capital. the vast crop of our neutrality is all seed-wheat, and is sown again to swell, almost beyond calculation, the future harvest of prosperity. and in this progress, what seems to be fiction is found to fall short of experience. i rose to speak under impressions that i would have resisted if i could. those who see me will believe that the reduced state of my health has unfitted me, almost equally for much exertion of body or mind. unprepared for debate, by careful reflection in my retirement, or by long attention here, i thought the resolution i had taken to sit silent, was imposed by necesity, and would cost me no effort to maintain. with a mind thus vacant of ideas, and sinking, as i really am, under a sense of weakness, i imagined the very desire of speaking was extinguished by the persuasion that i had nothing to say. yet, when i come to the moment of deciding the vote, i start back with dread from the edge of the pit into which we are plunging. in my view, even the minutes i have spent in expostulation have their value, because they protract the crisis, and the short period in which alone we may resolve to escape it. i have thus been led, by my feelings, to speak more at length than i intended. yet i have, perhaps, as little personal interest in the event as any one here. there is, i believe, no member who will not think his chance to be a witness of the consequences greater than mine. if, however, the vote shall pass to reject, and a spirit should rise, as it will, with the public disorders, to make confusion worse confounded, even i, slender and almost broken as my hold upon life is, may outlive the government and constitution of my country. john nicholas on the proposed repeal of the sedition law --house of representatives, feb. , mr. chairman: the select committee had very truly stated that only the second and third sections of the act are complained of; that the part of the law which punishes seditious acts is acquiesced in, and that the part which goes to restrain what are called seditious writings is alone the object of the petitions. this part of the law is complained of as being unwarranted by the constitution, and destructive of the first principles of republican government. it is always justifiable, in examining the principle of a law, to inquire what other laws can be passed with equal reason, and to impute to it all the mischiefs for which it may be used as a precedent. in this case, little inquiry is left for us to make, the arguments in favor of the law carrying us immediately and by inevitable consequence to absolute power over the press. it is not pretended that the constitution has given any express authority, which they claim, for passing this law, and it is claimed only as implied in that clause of the constitution which says: "congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the united states, or in any department or officer thereof." it is clear that this clause was intended to be merely an auxiliary to the powers specially enumerated in the constitution; and it must, therefore, be so construed as to aid them, and at the same time to leave the boundaries between the general government and the state governments untouched. the argument by which the select committee have endeavored to establish the authority of congress over the press is the following: "congress has power to punish seditious combinations to resist the laws, and therefore congress must have the power to punish false, scandalous, and malicious writings; because such writings render the administration odious and contemptible among the people, and by doing so have a tendency to produce opposition to the laws." to make it support the construction of the committee, it should say that "congress shall have power over all acts which are likely to produce acts which hinder the execution of," etc. our construction confines the power of congress to such acts as immediately interfere with the execution of the enumerated powers of congress, because the power can only be necessary as well as proper when the acts would really hinder the execution. the construction of the committee extends the power of congress to all acts which have a relation, ever so many degrees removed, to the enumerated powers, or rather to the acts which would hinder their execution. by our construction, the constitution remains defined and limited, according to the plain intent and meaning of its framers; by the construction of the committee, all limitation is lost, and it may be extended over the different actions of life as speculative politicians may think fit. what has a greater tendency to fit men for insurrection and resistance to government than dissolute, immoral habits, at once destroying love of order, and dissipating the fortune which gives an interest in society? the doctrine that congress can punish any act which has a tendency to hinder the execution of the laws, as well as acts which do hinder it, will, therefore, clearly entitle them to assume a general guardianship over the morals of the people of the united states. again, nothing can have a greater tendency to ensure obedience to law, and nothing can be more likely to check every propensity to resistance to government, than virtuous and wise education; therefore congress must have power to subject all the youth of the united states to a certain system of education. it would be very easy to connect every sort of authority used by any government with the well-being of the general government, and with as much reason as the committee had for their opinion, to assign the power to congress, although the consequence must be the prostration of the state governments. but enough has been said to show the necessity of adhering to the common meaning of the word "necessary" in the clause under consideration, which is, that the power to be assumed must be one without which some one of the enumerated powers cannot exist or be maintained. it cannot escape notice, however, that the doctrine contended for, that the administration must be protected against writings which are likely to bring it into contempt, as tending to opposition, will apply with more force to truth than falsehood. it cannot be denied that the discovery of maladministration will bring more lasting discredit on the government of a country than the same charges would if untrue. this is not an alarm founded merely on construction, for the governments which have exercised control over the press have carried it the whole length. this is notoriously the law of england, whence this system has been drawn; for there truth and falsehood are alike subject to punishment, if the publication brings contempt on the officers of government. the law has been current by the fair pretence of punishing nothing but falsehood, and by holding out to the accused the liberty of proving the truth of the writing; but it was from the first apprehended, and it seems now to be adjudged (the doctrine has certainly been asserted on this floor), that matters of opinion, arising on notorious facts, come under the law. if this is the case, where is the advantage of the law requiring that the writing should be false before a man shall be liable to punishment, or of his having the liberty of proving the truth of his writing? of the truth of facts there is an almost certain test; the belief of honest men is certain enough to entitle it to great confidence; but their opinions have no certainty at all. the trial of the truth of opinions, in the best state of society, would be altogether precarious; and perhaps a jury of twelve men could never be found to agree in any one opinion. at the present moment, when, unfortunately, opinion is almost entirely governed by prejudice and passion, it may be more decided, but nobody will say it is more respectable. chance must determine whether political opinions are true or false, and it will not unfrequently happen that a man will be punished for publishing opinions which are sincerely his, and which are of a nature to be extremely interesting to the public, merely because accident or design has collected a jury of different sentiments. is the power claimed proper for congress to possess? it is believed not, and this will readily be admitted if it can be proved, as i think it can, that the persons who administer the government have an interest in the power to be confided opposed to that of the community. it must be agreed that the nature of our government makes a diffusion of knowledge of public affairs necessary and proper, and that the people have no mode of obtaining it but through the press. the necessity for their having this information results from its being their duty to elect all the parts of the government, and, in this way, to sit in judgment over the conduct of those who have been heretofore employed. the most important and necessary information for the people to receive is that of the misconduct of the government, because their good deeds, although they will produce affection and gratitude to public officers, will only confirm the existing confidence, and will, therefore, make no change in the conduct of the people. the question, then, whether the government ought to have control over the persons who alone can give information throughout a country is nothing more than this, whether men, interested in suppressing information necessary for the people to have, ought to be entrusted with the power, or whether they ought to have a power which their personal interest leads to the abuse of. i am sure no candid man will hesitate about the answer; and it may also safely be left with ingenuous men to say whether the misconduct which we sometimes see in the press had not better be borne with, than to run the risk of confiding the power of correction to men who will be constantly urged by their own feelings to destroy its usefulness. how long can it be desirable to have periodical elections for the purpose of judging of the conduct of our rulers, when the channels of information may be choked at their will? but, sir, i have ever believed this question as settled by an amendment to the constitution, proposed with others for declaring and restricting its powers, as the preamble declares, at the request of several of the states, made at the adoption of the constitution, in order to prevent their misconstruction and abuse. this amendment is in the following words: "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances." there can be no doubt about the effect of this amendment, unless the "freedom of the press" means something very different from what it seems; or unless there was some actual restraint upon it, under the constitution of the united states, at the time of the adoption of this amendment, commensurate with that imposed by this law. both are asserted, viz., that the "freedom of the press" has a defined, limited meaning, and that the restraints of the common law were in force under the united states, and are greater than those of the act of congress, and that, therefore, either way the "freedom of the press" is not abridged. it is asserted by the select committee, and by everybody who has gone before them in this discussion, that the "freedom of the press," according to the universally received acceptation of the expression, means only an exemption from all previous restraints on publication, but not an exemption from any punishment government pleases to inflict for what is published. this definition does not at all distinguish between publications of different sorts, but leaves all to the regulation of the law, only forbidding government to interfere until the publication is really made. the definition, if true, so reduces the effect of the amendment that the power of congress is left unlimited over the productions of the press, and they are merely deprived of one mode of restraint. the amendment was certainly intended to produce some limitation to legislative discretion, and it must be construed so as to produce such an effect, if it is possible. to give it such a construction as will bring it to a mere nullity would violate the strongest injunctions of common-sense and decorum, and yet that appears to me to be the effect of the construction adopted by the committee. the effect of the amendment, say the committee, is to prevent government taking the press from its owner; but how is their power lessened by this, when they may take the printer from his press and imprison him for any length of time, for publishing what they choose to prohibit, although it maybe ever so proper for public information? the result is that government may forbid any species of writing, true as well as false, to be published; may inflict the heaviest punishments they can devise for disobedience, and yet we are very gravely assured that this is the "freedom of the press." a distinction is very frequently relied on between the freedom and the licentiousness of the press, which it is proper to examine. this seems to me to refute every other argument which is used on this subject; it amounts to an admission that there are some acts of the press which congress ought not to have power to restrain, and that by the amendment they are prohibited to restrain these acts. nov, to justify any act of congress, they ought to show the boundary between what is prohibited and what is permitted, and that the act is not within the prohibited class. the constitution has fixed no such boundary, therefore they can pretend to no power over the press, without claiming the right of defining what is freedom and what is licentiousness, and that would be to claim a right which would defeat the constitution; for every congress would have the same right, and the freedom of the press would fluctuate according to the will of the legislature. this is, therefore, only a new mode of claiming absolute power over the press. it is said there is a common law which makes part of the law of the united states, which restrained the press more than the act of congress has done, and that therefore there is no abridgment of its freedom. what this common law is i cannot conceive, nor have i seen anybody who could explain himself when he was talking of it. it certainly is not a common law of the united states, acquired, as that of england was, by immemorial usage. the standing of the government makes this impossible. it cannot be a code of laws adopted because they were universally in use in the states, for the states had no uniform code; and, if they had, it could hardly become, by implication, part of the code of a government of limited powers, from which every thing is expressly retained which is not given. is it the law of england, at any particular period, which is adopted? but the nature of the law of england makes it impossible that it should have been adopted in the lump into such a government as this is, because it was a complete system for the management of all the affairs of a country. it regulated estates, punished all crimes, and, in short, went to all things for which laws were necessary. but how was this law adopted? was it by the constitution? if so, it is immutable and incapable of amendment. in what part of the constitution is it declared to be adopted? was it adopted by the courts? from whom do they derive their authority? the constitution, in the clause first cited, relies on congress to pass all laws necessary to enable the courts to carry their powers into execution; it cannot, therefore, have been intended to give them a power not necessary to their declared powers. there does not seem to me the smallest pretext for so monstrous an assumption; on the contrary, while the constitution is silent about it, every fair inference is against it. upon the whole, therefore, i am fully satisfied that no power is given by the constitution to control the press, and that such laws are expressly prohibited by the amendment. i think it inconsistent with the nature of our government that its administration should have power to restrain animadversions on public measures, and for protection from private injury from defamation the states are fully competent. it is to them that our officers must look for protection of persons, estates, and every other personal right; and, therefore, i see no reason why it is not proper to rely upon it for defence against private libels. the rise of democracy. the inaugural address of president jefferson has been given the first place under this period, notwithstanding the fact that it was not at all an oration. the inaugural addresses of presidents washington and adams were really orations, although written, depending for much of their effect on the personal presence of him who delivered the address; that of jefferson was altogether a business document, sent to be read by the two houses of congress for their information, and without any of the adjuncts of the orator. it is impossible, nevertheless, to spare the inaugural address of the first democratic president, for it is pervaded by a personality which, if quieter in its operation, was more potent in results than the most burning eloquence could have been. the spirit of modern democracy, which has become, for good or evil, the common characteristic of all american parties and leaders, was here first put into living words. triumphant in national politics, this spirit now had but one field of struggle, the politics of the states, and here its efforts were for years bent to the abolition of every remnant of limitation on individual liberty. outside of new england, the change was accomplished as rapidly as the forms of law could be put into the necessary direction; remnants of ecclesiastical government, ecclesiastical taxes of even the mildest description, restrictions on manhood suffrage, state electoral systems, were the immediate victims of the new spirit, and the first term of mr. jefferson saw most of the states under democratic governments. inside of new england, the change was stubbornly resisted, and, for a time, with success. for about twenty years, the general rule was that new england and delaware were federalist, and the rest of the country was democratic. but even in new england, a strong democratic minority was growing up, and about the last barriers of federalism gave way; connecticut, the federalist "land of steady habits," accepted a new and democratic constitution; massachusetts modified hers; and the new and reliably democratic state of maine was brought into existence. the "era of good feeling" signalized the extinction of the federal party and the universal reign of democracy. the length of this period of contest is the strongest testimony to the stubbornness of the new england fibre. estimated by states, the success of democracy was about as complete in as in ; but it required fifteen years of persistent struggle to convince the smallest section of the union that it was hopelessly defeated. the whole period was a succession of great events. the acquisition of louisiana, stretching from the mississippi to the rocky mountains, laid, in , the foundations of that imperial domain which the steamboat and railroad were to convert to use in after-years. the continental empire of napoleon and the island empire of great britain drifted into a struggle for life or death which hardly knew a breathing space until the last charge at waterloo, and from the beginning it was conducted by both combatants with a reckless disregard of international public opinion and neutral rights which is hardly credible but for the official records. every injury inflicted on neutral commerce by one belligerent was promptly imitated or exceeded by the other, and the two were perfectly in accord in insisting on the convenient doctrine of international law, that, unless neutral rights were enforced by the neutral against one belligerent, the injury became open to the imitation of the other. in the process of imitation, each belligerent took care to pass at least a little beyond the precedent; and thus, beginning with a paper blockade of the northern coast of the continent by the british government, the process advanced, by alternate "retaliations," to a british proclamation specifying the ports of the world to which american vessels were to be allowed to trade, stopping in england or its dependencies to pay taxes en route. these two almost contemporary events, the acquisition of louisiana and the insolent pretensions of the european belligerents, were the central points of two distinct influences which bore strongly on the development of the united states. the dominant party, the republicans, had a horror of a national debt which almost amounted to a mania. the associations of the term, derived from their reading of english history, all pointed to a condition of affairs in which the rise of a strong aristocracy was inevitable; and, to avoid the latter, they were determined to pay off the former. the payment for louisiana precluded, in their opinion, the support of a respectable navy; and the remnants of colonialism in their party predisposed them to adopt an ostrich policy instead. the embargo act was passed in , forbidding all foreign commerce. the evident failure of this act to influence the belligerents brought about its repeal in , and the substitution of the non-intercourse act. this prohibited commercial intercourse with england and france until either should revoke its injurious edicts. napoleon, by an empty and spurious revocation in , induced congress to withdraw the act in respect to france, keeping it alive in respect to england. england refused to admit the sincerity of the french revocation, to withdraw her orders in council, or to cease impressing american seamen. the choice left to the united states was between war and submission. the federalist leaders saw that, while their party strength was confined to a continually decreasing territory, the opposing democracy not only had gained the mass of the original united states, but was swarming toward and beyond the mississippi. they dropped to the level of a mere party of opposition; they went further until the only article of their political creed was state sovereignty; some of them went one step further, and dabbled in hopeless projects for secession and the formation of a new england republic of five states. it is difficult to perceive any advantage to public affairs in the closing years of the federal party, except that, by impelling the democratic leaders to really national acts and sympathies, it unwittingly aided in the development of nationality from democracy. if the essential characteristic of colonialism is the sense of dependence and the desire to imitate, democracy, at least in its earlier phases, begets the opposite qualities. the congressional elections of - showed that the people had gone further in democracy than their leaders. "submission men" were generally defeated in the election; new leaders, like clay, calhoun, and crawford, made the dominant party a war party, and forced the president into their policy; and the war of was begun. its early defeats on land, its startling successes at sea, its financial straits, the desperation of the contest after the fall of napoleon, and the brilliant victory which crowned its close, all combined to raise the national feeling to the highest pitch; and the federalists, whose stock object of denunciation was "mr. madison's war," though mr. madison was about the most unwilling participant in it, came out of it under the ban of every national sympathy. the speech of mr. quincy, in many points one of the most eloquent of our political history, will show the brightest phase of federalism at its lowest ebb. one can hardly compare it with that of mr. clay, which follows it, without noticing the national character of the latter, as contrasted with the lack of nationality of the former. it seems, also, that mr. clay's speech carries, in its internal characteristics, sufficient evidence of the natural forces which tended to make democracy a national power, and not a mere adjunct of state sovereignty, wherever the oblique influence of slavery was absent. for this reason, it has been taken as a convenient introduction to the topic which follows, the rise of nationality. thomas jefferson, of virginia, (born , died .) inaugural address of thomas jefferson, as president of the united states, march , friends and fellow-citizens: called upon to undertake the duties of the first executive office of our country, i avail myself of the presence of that portion of my fellow-citizens which is here assembled, to express my grateful thanks for the favor with which they have been pleased to look toward me, to declare a sincere consciousness, that the task is above my talents, and that i approach it with those anxious and awful presentiments, which the greatness of the charge, and the weakness of my powers, so justly inspire. a rising nation, spread over a wide and fruitful land, traversing all the seas with the rich productions of their industry, engaged in commerce with nations who feel power and forget right, advancing rapidly to destinies beyond the reach of mortal eye; when i contemplate these transcendent objects, and see the honor, the happiness, and the hopes of this beloved country committed to the issue and the auspices of this day, i shrink from the contemplation, and humble myself before the magnitude of the undertaking. utterly, indeed, should i despair, did not the presence of many, whom i see here, remind me, that, in the other high authorities provided by our constitution, i shall find resources of wisdom, of virtue, and of zeal, on which to rely under all difficulties. to you, then, gentlemen, who are charged with the sovereign functions of legislation, and to those associated with you, i look with encouragement for that guidance and support which may enable us to steer with safety the vessel in which we are all embarked, amidst the conflicting elements of a troubled world. during the contest of opinion through which we have passed, the animation of discussions and of exertions has sometimes worn an aspect which might impose on strangers unused to think freely, and to speak and to write what they think; but this being now decided by the voice of the nation, announced according to the rules of the constitution, all will of course arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good. all too will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression. let us then, fellow-citizens, unite with one heart and one mind, let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. and let us reflect, that having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little, if we countenance a political intolerance, as despotic, as wicked, and as capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. during the throes and convulsions of the ancient world, during the agonizing spasms of infuriated man, seeking through blood and slaughter his long-lost liberty, it was not wonderful that the agitation of the billows should reach even this distant and peaceful shore; that this should be more felt and feared by some, and less by others, and should divide opinions as to measures of safety; but every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. we have called by different names brethren of the same principle. we are all republicans; we are all federalists. if there be any among us who wish to dissolve this union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it. i know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a republican government cannot be strong; that this government is not strong enough. but would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm, on the theoretic and visionary fear, that this government, the world's best hope, may, by possibility, want energy to preserve itself? i trust not. i believe this, on the contrary, the strongest government on earth. i believe it the only one where every man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern. sometimes it is said, that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. can he then be trusted with the government of others? or, have we found angels in the form of kings, to govern him? let history answer this question. let us then, with courage and confidence, pursue our own federal and republican principles; our attachment to union and representative government. kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high-minded to endure the degradation of the others, possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation, entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisition of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions and their sense of them, enlightened by a benign religion, professed indeed and practised in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man, acknowledging and adoring an overruling providence, which, by all its dispensations, proves that it delights in the happiness of man here, and his greater happiness hereafter; with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? still one thing more, fellow-citizens, a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. this is the sum of good government; and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities. about to enter, fellow-citizens, upon the exercise of duties which comprehend every thing dear and valuable to you, it is proper you should understand what i deem the essential principles of our government, and consequently, those which ought to shape its administration. i will compress them within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the general principle, but not all its limitations. equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none; the support of the state governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns, and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies; the preservation of the general government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet-anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad; a jealous care of the right of election by the people, a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which there is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; a well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace, and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them; the supremacy of the civil over the military authority; economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burdened; the honest payment of our debts, and sacred preservation of the public faith; encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid; the diffusion of information, and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason; freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of person, under the protection of the _habeas corpus_, and trial by juries impartially selected. these principles form the bright constellation, which has gone before us, and guided our steps through an age of revolution and reformation. the wisdom of our sages, and blood of our heroes, have been devoted to their attainment; they should be the creed of our political faith, the text of civic instruction, the touchstone by which to try the services of those we trust; and should we wander from them in moments of error or of alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps, and to regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety. i repair, then, fellow-citizens, to the post you have assigned me. with experience enough in subordinate offices to have seen the difficulties of this, the greatest of all, i have learned to expect that it will rarely fall to the lot of imperfect man, to retire from this station with the reputation and the favor which bring him into it. without pretensions to that high confidence you reposed in our first and greatest revolutionary character, whose pre-eminent services had entitled him to the first place in his country's love, and destined for him the fairest page in the volume of faithful history, i ask so much confidence only as may give firmness and effect to the legal administration of your affairs. i shall often go wrong through defect of judgment. when right, i shall often be thought wrong by those whose positions will not command a view of the whole ground. i ask your indulgence for my own errors, which will never be intentional; and your support against the errors of others, who may condemn what they would not, if seen in all its parts. the approbation implied by your suffrage, is a great consolation to me for the past; and my future solicitude will be, to retain the good opinion of those who have bestowed it in advance, to conciliate that of others, by doing them all the good in my power, and to be instrumental to the happiness and freedom of all. relying then on the patronage of your good-will, i advance with obedience to the work, ready to retire from it whenever you become sensible how much better choices it is in your power to make. and may that infinite power which rules the destinies of the universe, lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity. john randolph, --of virginia' (born , died .) on the militia bill--house of representatives, dec. , . mr. speaker: this is a question, as it has been presented to this house, of peace or war. in that light it has been argued; in no other light can i consider it, after the declarations made by members of the committee of foreign relations. the committee of foreign relations have, indeed, decided that the subject of arming the militia (which has been pressed upon them as indispensable to the public security) does not come within the scope of their authority. on what ground, i have been, and still am, unable to see, they have felt themselves authorized to recommend the raising of standing armies, with a view (as has been declared) of immediate war--a war not of defence, but of conquest, of aggrandizement, of ambition--a war foreign to the interests of this country; to the interests of humanity itself. * * * i cannot refrain from smiling at the liberality of the gentleman in giving canada to new york in order to strengthen the northern balance of power; while, at the same time, he forewarns her that the western scale must preponderate. i can almost fancy that i see the capitol in motion toward the falls of ohio; after a short sojourn, taking its flight to the mississippi, and finally alighting at darien; which, when the gentleman's dreams are realized, will be a most eligible seat of government for the new republic (or empire) of the two americas! but it seems that in we talked and acted foolishly, and to give some color of consistency to that folly we must now commit a greater. i hope we shall act a wise part; take warning by our follies since we have become sensible of them, and resolve to talk and act foolishly no more. it is, indeed, high time to give over such preposterous language and proceedings. this war of conquest, a war for the acquisition of territory and subjects, is to be a new commentary on the doctrine that republicans are destitute of ambition; that they are addicted to peace, wedded to the happiness and safety of the great body of their people. but it seems this is to be a holiday campaign; there is to be no expense of blood, or of treasure on our part; canada is to conquer herself; she is to be subdued by the principles of fraternity! the people of that country are first to be seduced from their allegiance and converted into traitors, as preparatory to making them good citizens! although i must acknowledge that some of our flaming patriots were thus manufactured, i do not think the process would hold good with a whole community. it is a dangerous experiment. we are to succeed in the french mode, by the system of fraternization--all is french. but how dreadfully it might be retorted on the southern and western slave-holding states. i detest this subornation of treason. no; if we must have them, let them fall by the valor of our arms; by fair, legitimate conquest; not become the victims of treacherous seduction. i am not surprised at the war spirit which is manifesting itself in gentlemen from the south. in the year - , in a struggle for the carrying trade of belligerent colonial produce, this country was most unwisely brought into collision with the great powers of europe. by a series of most impolitic and ruinous measures, utterly incomprehensible to every rational, sober-minded man, the southern planters, by their own votes, have succeeded in knocking down the price of cotton to seven cents, and of tobacco (a few choice crops excepted) to nothing; and in raising the price of blankets (of which a few would not be amiss in a canadian campaign), coarse woollens, and every article of first necessity, three or four hundred per centum. and now, that by our own acts, we have brought ourselves into this unprecedented condition, we must get out of it in any way, but by an acknowledgment of our own want of wisdom and forecast. but is war the true remedy? who will profit by it? speculators; a few lucky merchants, who draw prizes in the lottery; commissaries and contractors. who must suffer by it? the people. it is their blood, their taxes that must flow to support it. i am gratified to find gentlemen acknowledging the demoralizing and destructive consequences of the non-importation law; confessing the truth of all that its opponents foretold, when it was enacted. and will you plunge yourselves in war, because you have passed a foolish and ruinous law, and are ashamed to repeal it? but our good friend, the french emperor, stands in the way of its repeal, and we cannot go too far in making sacrifices to him, who has given such demonstration of his love for the americans; we must, in point of fact, become parties to his war. who can be so cruel as to refuse him that favor? my imagination shrinks from the miseries of such a connection. i call upon the house to reflect, whether they are not about to abandon all reclamation for the unparalleled outrages, "insults, and injuries" of the french government; to give up our claim for plundered millions; and i ask what reparation or atonement they can expect to obtain in hours of future dalliance, after they shall have made a tender of their person to this great deflowerer of the virginity of republics. we have, by our own wise (i will not say wiseacre) measures, so increased the trade and wealth of montreal and quebec, that at last we begin to cast a wistful eye at canada. having done so much toward its improvement, by the exercise of "our restrictive energies," we begin to think the laborer worthy of his hire, and to put in a claim for our portion. suppose it ours, are we any nearer to our point? as his minister said to the king of epirus, "may we not as well take our bottle of wine before as after this exploit?" go march to canada! leave the broad bosom of the chesapeake and her hundred tributary rivers; the whole line of sea-coast from machias to st. mary's, unprotected! you have taken quebec--have you conquered england? will you seek for the deep foundations of her power in the frozen deserts of labrador? "her march is on the mountain wave, her home is on the deep!" will you call upon her to leave your ports and harbors untouched only just till you can return from canada, to defend them? the coast is to be left defenceless, while men of the interior are revelling in conquest and spoil. * * * no sooner was the report laid on the table, than the vultures were flocking around their prey--the carcass of a great military establishment. men of tainted reputation, of broken fortune (if they ever had any), and of battered constitutions, "choice spirits tired of the dull pursuits of civil life," were seeking after agencies and commissions, willing to doze in gross stupidity over the public fire; to light the public candle at both ends. honorable men undoubtedly there are ready to serve their country; but what man of spirit, or of self-respect, will accept a commission in the present army? the gentleman from tennessee (mr. grundy) addressed himself yesterday exclusively to the "republicans of the house." i know not whether i may consider myself as entitled to any part of the benefit of the honorable gentleman's discourse. it belongs not, however, to that gentleman to decide. if we must have an exposition of the doctrines of republicanism, i shall receive it from the fathers of the church, and not from the junior apprentices of the law. i shall appeal to my worthy friends from carolina (messrs. macon and stanford), "men with whom i have measured my strength," by whose side i have fought during the reign of terror; for it was indeed an hour of corruption, of oppression, of pollution. it was not at all to my taste--that sort of republicanism which was supported, on this side of the atlantic, by the father of the sedition law, john adams, and by peter porcupine on the other. republicanism! of john adams and william cobbett! * * * gallant crusaders in the holy cause of republicanism. such republicanism does, indeed, mean any thing or nothing. our people will not submit to be taxed for this war of conquest and dominion. the government of the united states was not calculated to wage offensive foreign war; it was instituted for the common defence and the general welfare; and whosoever should embark it in a war of offence, would put it to a test which it is by no means calculated to endure. make it out that great britain has instigated the indians on a late occasion, and i am ready for battle, but not for dominion. i am unwilling, however, under present circumstances, to take canada, at the risk of the constitution, to embark in a common cause with france, and be dragged at the wheels of the car of some burr or bonaparte. for a gentleman from tennessee, or genesee, or lake champlain, there may be some prospect of advantage. their hemp would bear a great price by the exclusion of foreign supply. in that, too, the great importers are deeply interested. the upper country of the hudson and the lakes would be enriched by the supplies for the troops, which they alone could furnish. they would have the exclusive market; to say nothing of the increased preponderance from the acquisition of canada and that section of the union, which the southern and western states have already felt so severely in the apportionment bill. * * * permit me now, sir, to call your attention to the subject of our black population. i will touch this subject as tenderly as possible. it is with reluctance that i touch it at all; but in cases of great emergency, the state physician must not be deterred by a sickly, hysterical humanity, from probing the wound of his patient; he must not be withheld by a fastidious and mistaken delicacy from representing his true situation to his friends, or even to the sick man himself, when the occasion calls for it. what is the situation of the slave-holding states? during the war of the revolution, so fixed were their habits of subordination, that while the whole country was overrun by the enemy, who invited them to desert, no fear was ever entertained of an insurrection of the slaves. during a war of seven years, with our country in possession of the enemy, no such danger was ever apprehended. but should we, therefore, be unobservant spectators of the progress of society within the last twenty years; of the silent but powerful change wrought, by time and chance, upon its composition and temper? when the fountains of the great deep of abomination were broken up, even the poor slaves did not escape the general deluge. the french revolution has polluted even them. * * * men, dead to the operation of moral causes, have taken away from the poor slave his habit of loyalty and obedience to his master, which lightened his servitude by a double operation; beguiling his own cares and disarming his master's suspicions and severity; and now, like true empirics in politics, you are called upon to trust to the mere physical strength of the fetter which holds him in bondage. you have deprived him of all moral restraint; you have tempted him to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, just enough to perfect him in wickedness; you have opened his eyes to his nakedness; you have armed his nature against the hand that has fed, that has clothed him, that has cherished him in sickness; that hand which before he became a pupil of your school, he had been accustomed to press with respectful affection. you have done all this--and then show him the gibbet and the wheel, as incentives to a sullen, repugnant obedience. god forbid, sir, that the southern states should ever see an enemy on their shores, with these infernal principles of french fraternity in the van. while talking of taking canada, some of us are shuddering for our own safety at home. i speak from facts, when i say, that the night-bell never tolls for fire in richmond, that the mother does not hug her infant more closely to her bosom. i have been a witness of some of the alarms in the capital of virginia. * * * against whom are these charges brought? against men, who in the war of the revolution were in the councils of the nation, or fighting the battles of your country. and by whom are they made? by runaways chiefly from the british dominions, since the breaking out of the french troubles. it is insufferable. it cannot be borne. it must and ought, with severity, to be put down in this house; and out of it to meet the lie direct. we have no fellow-feeling for the suffering and oppressed spaniards! yet even them we do not reprobate. strange! that we should have no objection to any other people or government, civilized or savage, in the whole world! the great autocrat of all the russias receives the homage of our high consideration. the dey of algiers and his divan of pirates are very civil, good sort of people, with whom we find no difficulty in maintaining the relations of peace and amity. "turks, jews, and infidels"; melimelli or the little turtle; barbarians and savages of every clime and color, are welcome to our arms. with chiefs of banditti, negro or mulatto, we can treat and trade. name, however, but england, and all our antipathies are up in arms against her. against whom? against those whose blood runs in our veins; in common with whom, we claim shakespeare, and newton, and chatham, for our countrymen; whose form of government is the freest on earth, our own only excepted; from whom every valuable principle of our own institutions has been borrowed: representation, jury trial, voting the supplies, writ of habeas corpus, our whole civil and criminal jurisprudence; against our fellow protestants, identified in blood, in language, in religion, with ourselves. in what school did the worthies of our land, the washingtons, henrys, hancocks, franklins, rutledges of america, learn those principles of civil liberty which were so nobly asserted by their wisdom and valor? american resistance to british usurpation has not been more warmly cherished by these great men and their compatriots; not more by washington, hancock, and henry, than by chatham and his illustrious associates in the british parliament. it ought to be remembered, too, that the heart of the english people was with us. it was a selfish and corrupt ministry, and their servile tools, to whom we were not more opposed than they were. i trust that none such may ever exist among us; for tools will never be wanting to subserve the purposes, however ruinous or wicked, of kings and ministers of state. i acknowledge the influence of a shakespeare and a milton upon my imagination, of a locke upon my understanding, of a sidney upon my political principles, of a chatham upon qualities which, would to god i possessed in common with that illustrious man! of a tillotson, a sherlock, and a porteus upon my religion. this is a british influence which i can never shake off. i allow much to the just and honest prejudices growing out of the revolution. but by whom have they been suppressed, when they ran counter to the interests of my country? by washington. by whom, would you listen to them, are they most keenly felt? by felons escaped from the jails of paris, newgate, and kilmainham, since the breaking out of the french revolution; who, in this abused and insulted country, have set up for political teachers, and whose disciples give no other proof of their progress in republicanism, except a blind devotion to the most ruthless military despotism that the world ever saw. these are the patriots, who scruple not to brand with the epithet of tory, the men (looking toward the seat of col. stewart) by whose blood your liberties have been cemented. these are they, who hold in such keen remembrance the outrages of the british armies, from which many of them are deserters. ask these self-styled patriots where they were during the american war (for they are, for the most part, old enough to have borne arms), and you strike them dumb; their lips are closed in eternal silence. if it were allowable to entertain partialities, every consideration of blood, language, religion, and interest, would incline us toward england: and yet, shall they alone be extended to france and her ruler, whom we are bound to believe a chastening god suffers as the scourge of a guilty world! on all other nations he tramples; he holds them in contempt; england alone he hates; he would, but he cannot, despise her; fear cannot despise; and shall we disparage our ancestors? but the outrages and injuries of england--bred up in the principles of the revolution--i can never palliate, much less defend them. i well remember flying, with my mother and her new-born child, from arnold and philips; and we were driven by tarleton and other british pandours from pillar to post, while her husband was fighting the battles of his country. the impression is indelible on my memory; and yet (like my worthy old neighbor, who added seven buckshot to every cartridge at the battle of guilford, and drew fine sight at his man) i must be content to be called a tory by a patriot of the last importation. let us not get rid of one evil (supposing it possible) at the expense of a greater; _mutatis mutandis_, suppose france in possession of the british naval power--and to her the trident must pass should england be unable to wield it--what would be your condition? what would be the situation of your seaports, and their seafaring inhabitants? ask hamburg, lubec! ask savannah! * * * shall republicans become the instruments of him who has effaced the title of attila to the "scourge of god!" yet, even attila, in the falling fortunes of civilization, had, no doubt, his advocates, his tools, his minions, his parasites, in the very countries that he overran; sons of that soil whereon his horse had trod; where grass could never after grow. if perfectly fresh, instead of being as i am, my memory clouded, my intellect stupefied, my strength and spirits exhausted, i could not give utterance to that strong detestation which i feel toward (above all other works of the creation) such characters as gengis, tamerlane, kouli-khan, or bonaparte. my instincts involuntarily revolt at their bare idea. malefactors of the human race, who have ground down man to a mere machine of their impious and bloody ambition! yet under all the accumulated wrongs, and insults, and robberies of the last of these chieftains, are we not, in point of fact, about to become a party to his views, a partner in his wars? * * * i call upon those professing to be republicans to make good the promises, held out by their republican predecessors, when they came into power; promises which, for years afterward, they honestly, faithfully fulfilled. we have vaunted of paying off the national debt, of retrenching useless establishments; and yet have now become as infatuated with standing armies, loans, taxes, navies, and war as ever were the essex junto! admission of louisiana. josiah quincy, --of massachusetts.' (born , died .) on the admission of louisiana--house of representatives, jan. , . mr. speaker: i address you, sir, with anxiety and distress of mind, with me, wholly unprecedented. the friends of this bill seem to consider it as the exercise of a common power; as an ordinary affair; a mere municipal regulation, which they expect to see pass without other questions than those concerning details. but, sir, the principle of this bill materially affects the liberties and rights of the whole people of the united states. to me it appears that it would justify a revolution in this country; and that, in no great length of time it may produce it. when i see the zeal and perseverance with which this bill has been urged along its parliamentary path, when i know the local interests and associated projects which combine to promote its success, all opposition to it seems manifestly unavailing. i am almost tempted to leave, without a struggle, my country to its fate. but, sir, while there is life, there is hope. so long as the fatal shaft has not yet sped, if heaven so will, the bow may be broken and the vigor of the mischief-meditating arm withered. if there be a man in this house or nation, who cherishes the constitution, under which we are assembled, as the chief stay of his hope, as the light which is destined to gladden his own day, and to soften even the gloom of the grave, by the prospects it sheds over his children, i fall not behind him in such sentiments. i will yield to no man in attachment to this constitution, in veneration for the sages who laid its foundations, in devotion to those principles which form its cement and constitute its proportions. what then must be my feelings; what ought to be the feelings of a man, cherishing such sentiments, when he sees an act contemplated which lays ruin at the foot of all these hopes? when he sees a principle of action about to be usurped, before the operation of which the bands of this constitution are no more than flax before the fire, or stubble before the whirlwind? when this bill passes, such an act is done; and such a principle is usurped. mr. speaker, there is a great rule of human conduct, which he who honestly observes, cannot err widely from the path of his sought duty. it is, to be very scrupulous concerning the principles you select as the test of your rights and obligations; to be very faithful in noticing the result of their application; and to be very fearless in tracing and exposing their immediate effects and distant consequences. under the sanction of this rule of conduct, i am compelled to declare it as my deliberate opinion, that, if this bill passes, the bonds of this union are, virtually, dissolved; that the states which compose it are free from their moral obligations, and that as it will be the right of all, so it will be the duty of some, to prepare, definitely, for a separation: amicably, if they can; _violently, if they must_. (mr. quincy was here called to order by mr. poindexter, delegate from the mississippi territory, for the words in italics. after it was decided, upon an appeal to the house, that mr. quincy was in order, he proceeded.) i rejoice, mr. speaker, at the result of this appeal. not from any personal consideration, but from the respect paid to the essential rights of the people, in one of their representatives. when i spoke of the separation of the states, as resulting from the violation of the constitution contemplated in this bill, i spoke of it as a necessity, deeply to be deprecated; but as resulting from causes so certain and obvious as to be absolutely inevitable, when the effect of the principle is practically experienced. it is to preserve, to guard the constitution of my country, that i denounce this attempt. i would rouse the attention of gentlemen from the apathy with which they seem beset. these observations are not made in a corner; there is no low intrigue; no secret machination. i am on the people's own ground; to them i appeal concerning their own rights, their own liberties, their own intent, in adopting this constitution. the voice i have uttered, at which gentlemen startle with such agitation, is no unfriendly voice. i intended it as a voice of warning. by this people, and by the event, if this bill passes, i am willing to be judged, whether it be not a voice of wisdom. the bill which is now proposed to be passed has this assumed principle for its basis; that the three branches of this national government, without recurrence to conventions of the people in the states, or to the legislatures of the states, are authorized to admit new partners to a share of the political power, in countries out of the original limits of the united states. now, this assumed principle, i maintain to be altogether without any sanction in the constitution. i declare it to be a manifest and atrocious usurpation of power; of a nature, dissolving, according to undeniable principles of moral law, the obligations of our national compact; and leading to all the awful con-sequences which flow from such a state of things. concerning this assumed principle, which is the basis of this bill, this is the general position, on which i rest my argument; that if the authority, now proposed to be exercised, be delegated to the three branches of the government by virtue of the constitution, it results either from its general nature, or from its particular provisions. i shall consider distinctly both these sources, in relation to this pretended power. touching the general nature of the instrument called the constitution of the united states there is no obscurity; it has no fabled descent, like the palladium of ancient troy, from the heavens. its origin is not confused by the mists of time, or hidden by the darkness of passed, unexplored ages; it is the fabric of our day. some now living, had a share in its construction; all of us stood by, and saw the rising of the edifice. there can be no doubt about its nature. it is a political compact. by whom? and about what? the preamble to the instrument will answer these questions. "we, the people of the united states, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution, for the united states of america." it is, we the people of the united states, for ourselves and our posterity; not for the people of louisiana; nor for the people of new orleans or of canada. none of these enter into the scope of the instrument; it embraces only "the united states of america." who these are, it may seem strange in this place to inquire. but truly, sir, our imaginations have, of late, been so accustomed to wander after new settlements to the very ends of the earth, that it will not be time ill spent to inquire what this phrase means, and what it includes. these are not terms adopted at hazard; they have reference to a state of things existing anterior to the constitution. when the people of the present united states began to contemplate a severance from their parent state, it was a long time before they fixed definitely the name by which they would be designated. in , they called themselves "the colonies and provinces of north america." in , "the representatives of the united colonies of north america." in the declaration of independence, "the representatives of the united states of america." and finally, in the articles of confederation, the style of the confederacy is declared to be "the united states of america." it was with reference to the old articles of confederation, and to preserve the identity and established individuality of their character, that the preamble to this constitution, not content, simply, with declaring that it is "we the people of the united states," who enter into this compact, adds that it is for "the united states of america." concerning the territory contemplated by the people of the united states, in these general terms, there can be no dispute; it is settled by the treaty of peace, and included within the atlantic ocean, the st. croix, the lakes, and more precisely, so far as relates to the frontier, having relation to the present argument, within "a line to be drawn through the middle of the river mississippi, until it intersect the northernmost part of the thirty-first degree of north latitude, thence within a line drawn due east on this degree of latitude to the river apalachicola, thence along the middle of this river to its junction with the flint river, thence straight to the head of the st. mary's river, and thence down the st. mary's to the atlantic ocean." i have been thus particular to draw the minds of gentlemen, distinctly, to the meaning of the terms used in the preamble; to the extent which "the united states" then included; and to the fact, that neither new orleans, nor louisiana, was within the comprehension of the terms of this instrument. it is sufficient for the present branch of my argument to say, that there is nothing, in the general nature of this compact, from which the power, contemplated to be exercised in this bill, results. on the contrary, as the introduction of a new associate in political power implies, necessarily, a new division of power, and consequent diminution of the relative proportion of the former proprietors of it, there can, certainly, be nothing more obvious, than that from the general nature of the instrument no power can result to diminish and give away, to strangers, any proportion of the rights of the original partners. if such a power exist, it must be found, then, in the particular provisions in the constitution. the question now arising is, in which of these provisions is given the power to admit new states, to be created in territories beyond the limits of the old united states. if it exist anywhere, it is either in the third section of the fourth article of the constitution, or in the treaty-making power. if it result from neither of these, it is not pretended to be found anywhere else. that part of the third section of the fourth article, on which the advocates of this bill rely, is the following: "new states may be admitted by the congress, into this union; but no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state, nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned, as well as of the congress." i know, mr. speaker, that the first clause of this paragraph has been read, with all the superciliousness of a grammarian's triumph--"new states may be admitted by the congress into this union,"--accompanied with this most consequential inquiry: "is not this a new state to be admitted? and is there not here an express authority?" i have no doubt this is a full and satisfactory argument to every one who is content with the mere colors and superficies of things. and if we were now at the bar of some stall-fed justice, the inquiry would insure the victory to the maker of it, to the manifest delight of the constables and suitors of his court. but, sir, we are now before the tribunal of the whole american people; reasoning concerning their liberties, their rights, their constitution. these are not to be made the victims of the inevitable obscurity of general terms; nor the sport of verbal criticism. the question is concerning the intent of the american people, the proprietors of the old united states, when they agreed to this article. dictionaries and spelling-books are here of no authority. neither johnson, nor walker, nor webster, nor dilworth, has any voice in this matter. sir, the question concerns the proportion of power reserved, by this constitution, to every state in this union. have the three branches of this government a right, at will, to weaken and out-weigh the influence, respectively secured to each state in this compact, by introducing, at pleasure, new partners, situate beyond the old limits of the united states? the question has not relation merely to new orleans. the great objection is to the principle of the bill. if this principle be admitted, the whole space of louisiana, greater, it is said, than the entire extent of the old united states, will be a mighty theatre, in which this government assumes the right of exercising this unparalleled power. and it will be; there is no concealment, it is intended to be exercised. nor will it stop until the very name and nature of the old partners be overwhelmed by new-corners into the confederacy. sir, the question goes to the very root of the power and influence of the present members of this union. the real intent of this article, is, therefore, an injury of most serious import; and is to be settled only by a recurrence to the known history and known relations of this people and their constitution. these, i maintain, support this position, that the terms "new states," in this article, do not intend new political sovereignties, with territorial annexations, to be created without the original limits of the united states. * * * but there is an argument stronger even than all those which have been produced, to be drawn from the nature of the power here proposed to be exercised. is it possible that such a power, if it had been intended to be given by the people, should be left dependent upon the effect of general expressions, and such, too, as were obviously applicable to another subject, to a particular exigency contemplated at that time? sir, what is this power we propose now to usurp? nothing less than a power changing all the proportions of the weight and influence possessed by the potent sovereignties composing this union. a stranger is to be introduced to an equal share without their consent. upon a principle pretended to be deduced from the constitution, this government, after this bill passes, may and will multiply foreign partners in power at its own mere motion; at its irresponsible pleasure; in other words, as local interests, party passions, or ambitious views may suggest. it is a power that from its nature never could be delegated; never was delegated; and as it breaks down all the proportions of power guaranteed by the constitution to the states, upon which their essential security depends, utterly annihilates the moral force of this political conduct. would this people, so wisely vigilant concerning their rights, have transferred to congress a power to balance, at its will, the political weight of any one state, much more of all the states, by authorizing it to create new states, at its pleasure, in foreign countries, not pretended to be within the scope of the constitution, or the conception of the people at the time of passing it? this is not so much a question concerning the exercise of sovereignty, as it is who shall be sovereign--whether the proprietors of the good old united states shall manage their own affairs in their own way; or whether they, and their constitution, and their political rights, shall be trampled under foot by foreigners, introduced through a breach of the constitution. the proportion of the political weight of each sovereign state constituting this union depends upon the number of the states which have voice under the compact. this number the constitution permits us to multiply at pleasure within the limits of the original united states, observing only the expressed limitations in the constitution. but when, in order to increase your power of augmenting this number, you pass the old limits, you are guilty of a violation of the constitution in a fundamental point; and in one, also, which is totally inconsistent with the intent of the contract and the safety of the states which established the association. what is the practical difference to the old partners whether they hold their liberties at the will of a master, or whether by admitting exterior states on an equal footing with the original states, arbiters are constituted, who, by availing themselves of the contrariety of interests and views, which in such a confederacy necessarily will arise, hold the balance among the parties which exist and govern us by throwing themselves into the scale most comformable to their purpose? in both cases there is an effective despotism. but the last is the more galling, as we carry the chain in the name and gait of freemen. i have thus shown, and whether fairly, i am willing to be judged by the sound discretion of the american people, that the power proposed to be usurped in this bill, results neither from the general nature nor the particular provisions of the federal constitution; and that it is a palpable violation of it in a fundamental point; whence flow all the consequences i have indicated. "but," says the gentleman from tennessee (mr. rhea), "these people have been seven years citizens of the united states." i deny it, sir. as citizens of new orleans, or of louisiana, they never have been, and by the mode proposed they never will be, citizens of the united states. they may girt upon us for a moment, but no real cement can grow from such an association. what the real situation of the inhabitants of those foreign countries is, i shall have occasion to show presently. "but," says the same gentleman: "if i have a farm, have not i a right to purchase another farm, in my neighborhood, and settle my sons upon it, and in time admit them to a share in the management of my household?" doubtless, sir. but are these cases parallel? are the three branches of this government owners of this farm, called the united states? i desire to thank heaven they are not. i hold my life, liberty, and property, and the people of the state from which i have the honor to be a representative hold theirs, by a better tenure than any this national government can give. sir, i know your virtue. and i thank the great giver of every good gift, that neither the gentleman from tennessee, nor his comrades, nor any, nor all the members of this house, nor of the other branch of the legislature, nor the good gentleman who lives in the palace yonder, nor all combined, can touch these my essential rights, and those of my friends and constituents, except in a limited and prescribed form. no, sir. we hold these by the laws, customs, and principles of the commonwealth of massachusetts. behind her ample shield, we find refuge, and feel safety. i beg gentlemen not to act upon the principle, that the commonwealth of massachusetts is their farm. "but," the gentleman adds, "what shall we do, if we do not admit the people of louisiana into our union? our children are settling that country." sir, it is no concern of mine what he does. because his children have run wild and uncovered into the woods, is that a reason for him to break into my house, or the houses of my friends, to filch our children's clothes, in order to cover his children's nakedness. this constitution never was, and never can be, strained to lap over all the wilderness of the west, without essentially affecting both the rights and convenience of its real proprietors. it was never constructed to form a covering for the inhabitants of the missouri and red river country. and whenever it is attempted to be stretched over them, it will rend asunder. i have done with this part of my argument. it rests upon this fundamental principle, that the proportion of political power, subject only to internal modifications, permitted by the constitution, is an unalienable, essential, intangible right. when it is touched, the fabric is annihilated; for, on the preservation of these proportions, depend our rights and liberties. if we recur to the known relations existing among the states at the time of the adoption of this constitution, the same conclusions will result. the various interests, habits, manners, prejudices, education, situation, and views, which excited jealousies and anxieties in the breasts of some of our most distinguished citizens, touching the result of the proposed constitution, were potent obstacles to its adoption. the immortal leader of our revolution, in his letter to the president of the old congress, written as president of the convention which formed this compact, thus speaks on this subject: "it is at all times difficult to draw, with precision, the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be reserved; and on the present occasion this difficulty was increased by a difference among the several states, as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests." the debates of that period will show that the effect of the slave votes upon the political influence of this part of the country, and the anticipated variation of the weight of power to the west, were subjects of great and just jealousy to some of the best patriots in the northern and eastern states. suppose, then, that it had been distinctly foreseen that, in addition to the effect of this weight, the whole population of a world beyond the mississippi was to be brought into this and the other branch of the legislature, to form our laws, control our rights, and decide our destiny. sir, can it be pretended that the patriots of that day would for one moment have listened to it? they were not madmen. they had not taken degrees at the hospital of idiocy. they knew the nature of man, and the effect of his combinations in political societies. they knew that when the weight of particular sections of a confederacy was greatly unequal, the resulting power would be abused; that it was not in the nature of man to exercise it with moderation. the very extravagance of the intended use is a conclusive evidence against the possibility of the grant of such a power as is here proposed. why, sir, i have already heard of six states, and some say there will be, at no great distance of time, more. i have also heard that the mouth of the ohio will be far to the east of the centre of the contemplated empire. if the bill is passed, the principle is recognized. all the rest are mere questions of expediency. it is impossible such a power could be granted. it was not for these men that our fathers fought. it was not for them this constitution was adopted. you have no authority to throw the rights and liberties and property of this people into "hotch-pot" with the wild men on the missouri, nor with the mixed, though more respectable, race of anglo-hispano-gallo-americans, who bask on the sands in the mouth of the mississippi. i make no objection to these from their want of moral qualities or political light. the inhabitants of new orleans are, i suppose, like those of all other countries, some good, some bad, some indifferent.* * * i will add only a few words, in relation to the moral and political consequences of usurping this power. i have said that it would be a virtual dissolution of the union; and gentlemen express great sensibility at the expression. but the true source of terror is not the declaration i have made, but the deed you propose. is there a moral principle of public law better settled, or more conformable to the plainest suggestions of reason, than that the violation of a contract by one of the parties may be considered as exempting the other from its obligations? suppose, in private life, thirteen form a partnership, and ten of them undertake to admit a new partner without the concurrence of the other three, would it not be at their option to abandon the partnership, after so palpable an infringement of their rights? how much more, in the political partnership, where the admission of new associates, without previous authority, is so pregnant with obvious dangers and evils! again, it is settled as a principle of morality, among writers on public law, that no person can be obliged, beyond his intent at the time of contract. now who believes, who dare assert, that it was the intention of the people, when they adopted this constitution, to assign, eventually, to new orleans and louisiana, a portion of their political power; and to invest all the people those extensive regions might hereafter contain, with an authority over themselves and their descendants? when you throw the weight of louisiana into the scale, you destroy the political equipoise contemplated at the time of forming the contract. can any man venture to affirm that the people did intend such a comprehension as you now, by construction, give it? or can it be concealed that, beyond its fair and acknowledged intent, such a compact has no moral force? if gentlemen are so alarmed at the bare mention of the consequences, let them abandon a measure which, sooner or later, will produce them. how long before the seeds of discontent will ripen, no man can foretell. but it is the part of wisdom not to multiply or scatter them. do you suppose the people of the northern and atlantic states will, or ought to, look on with patience and see representatives and senators, from the red river and missouri, pouring themselves upon this and the other floor, managing the concerns of a sea-board fifteen hundred miles, at least, from their residence; and having a preponderancy in councils, into which, constitutionally, they could never have been admitted? i have no hesitation upon this point. they neither will see it, nor ought to see it, with content. it is the part of a wise man to foresee danger and to hide himself. this great usurpation, which creeps into this house, under the plausible appearance of giving content to that important point, new orleans, starts up a gigantic power to control the nation. upon the actual condition of things, there is, there can be, no need of concealment. it is apparent to the blindest vision. by the course of nature, and conformable to the acknowledged principles of the constitution, the sceptre of power, in this country, is passing toward the northwest. sir, there is to this no objection. the right belongs to that quarter of the country. enjoy it; it is yours. use the powers granted as you please. but take care, in your haste after effectual dominion, not to overload the scale by heaping it with these new acquisitions. grasp not too eagerly at your purpose. in your speed after uncontrolled sway, trample not down this constitution. * * * new states are intended to be formed beyond the mississippi. there is no limit to men's imaginations, on this subject, short of california and columbia river. when i said that the bill would justify a revolution and would produce it, i spoke of its principle and its practical consequences. to this principle and those consequences i would call the attention of this house and nation. if it be about to introduce a condition of things absolutely insupportable, it becomes wise and honest men to anticipate the evil, and to warn and prepare the people against the event. i have no hesitation on the subject. the extension of this principle to the states contemplated beyond the mississippi, cannot, will not, and ought not to be borne. and the sooner the people contemplate the unavoidable result the better; the more hope that the evils may be palliated or removed. mr. speaker, what is this liberty of which so much is said? is it to walk about this earth, to breathe this air, to partake the common blessings of god's providence? the beasts of the field and the birds of the air unite with us in such privileges as these. but man boasts a purer and more ethereal temperature. his mind grasps in its view the past and future, as well as the present. we live not for ourselves alone. that which we call liberty is that principle on which the essential security of our political condition depends. it results from the limitations of our political system, prescribed in the constitution. these limitations, so long as they are faithfully observed, maintain order, peace, and safety. when they are violated, in essential particulars, all the concurrent spheres of authority rush against each other; and disorder, derangement, and convulsion are, sooner or later, the necessary consequences. with respect to this love of our union, concerning which so much sensibility is expressed, i have no fears about analyzing its nature. there is in it nothing of mystery. it depends upon the qualities of that union, and it results from its effects upon our and our country's happiness. it is valued for "that sober certainty of waking bliss" which it enables us to realize. it grows out of the affections, and has not, and cannot be made to have, any thing universal in its nature. sir, i confess it: the first public love of my heart is the commonwealth of massachusetts. there is my fireside; there are the tombs of my ancestors. "low lies that land, yet blest with fruitful stores, strong are her sons, though rocky are her shores; and none, ah! none, so lovely to my sight, of all the lands which heaven o'erspreads with light." the love of this union grows out of this attachment to my native soil, and is rooted in it. i cherish it, because it affords the best external hope of her peace, her prosperity, her independence. i oppose this bill from no animosity to the people of new orleans; but from the deep conviction that it contains a principle incompatible with the liberties and safety of my country. i have no concealment of my opinion. the bill, if it passes, is a death-blow to the constitution. it may, afterward, linger; but, lingering, its fate will, at no very distant period, be consummated. henry clay --of kentucky. (born , died .) on the war of --house of representatives, jan. , . sir, gentlemen appear to me to forget that they stand on american soil; that they are not in the british house of commons, but in the chamber of the house of representatives of the united states; that we have nothing to do with the affairs of europe, the partition of territory and sovereignty there, except so far as these things affect the interests of our own country. gentlemen transform themselves into the burkes, chathams, and pitts of another country, and, forgetting, from honest zeal, the interests of america, engage with european sensibility in the discussion of european interests. if gentlemen ask me whether i do not view with regret and horror the concentration of such vast power in the hands of bonaparte, i reply that i do. i regret to see the emperor of china holding such immense sway over the fortunes of millions of our species. i regret to see great britain possessing so uncontrolled a command over all the waters of the globe. if i had the ability to distribute among the nations of europe their several portions of power and of sovereignty, i would say that holland should be resuscitated and given the weight she enjoyed in the days of her de witts. i would confine france within her natural boundaries, the alps, pyrenees, and the rhine, and make her a secondary naval power only. i would abridge the british maritime power, raise prussia and austria to their original condition, and preserve the integrity of the empire of russia. but these are speculations. i look at the political transactions of europe, with the single exception of their possible bearing upon us, as i do at the history of other countries and other times. i do not survey them with half the interest that i do the movements in south america. our political relation with them is much less important than it is supposed to be. i have no fears of french or english subjugation. if we are united we are too powerful for the mightiest nation in europe or all europe combined. if we are separated and torn asunder, we shall become an easy prey to the weakest of them. in the latter dreadful contingency our country will not be worth preserving. next to the notice which the opposition has found itself called upon to bestow upon the french emperor, a distinguished citizen of virginia, formerly president of the united states, has never for a moment failed to receive their kindest and most respectful attention. an honorable gentleman from massachusetts (mr. quincy), of whom i am sorry to say it becomes necessary for me, in the course of my remarks, to take some notice, has alluded to him in a remarkable manner. neither his retirement from public office, his eminent services, nor his advanced age, can exempt this patriot from the coarse assaults of party malevolence. no, sir. in he snatched from the rude hand of usurpation the violated constitution of his country, and that is his crime. he preserved that instrument, in form, and substance, and spirit, a precious inheritance for generations to come, and for this he can never be forgiven. how vain and impotent is party rage, directed against such a man. he is not more elevated by his lofty residence, upon the summit of his own favorite mountain, than he is lifted, by the serenity of his mind, and the consciousness of a well-spent life, above the malignant passions and bitter feelings of the day. no! his own beloved monticello is not less moved by the storms that beat against its sides than is this illustrious man by the howlings of the whole british pack, set loose from the essex kennel. when the gentleman to whom i have been compelled to allude shall have mingled his dust with that of his abused ancestors, when he shall have been consigned to oblivion, or, if he lives at all, shall live only in the treasonable annals of a certain junto, the name of jefferson will be hailed with gratitude, his memory honored and cherished as the second founder of the liberties of the people, and the period of his administration will be looked back to as one of the happiest and brightest epochs of american history; an oasis in the midst of a sandy desert. but i beg the gentleman's pardon; he has already secured to himself a more imperishable fame than i had supposed; i think it was about four years that he submitted to the house of representatives an initiative proposition for the impeachment of mr. jefferson. the house condescended to consider it. the gentleman debated it with his usual temper, moderation, and urbanity. the house decided upon it in the most solemn manner, and, although the gentleman had somehow obtained a second, the final vote stood one for, and one hundred and seventeen against, the proposition. * * * but sir, i must speak of another subject, which i never think of but with feelings of the deepest awe. the gentleman from massachusetts, in imitation of some of his predecessors of , has entertained us with a picture of cabinet plots, presidential plots, and all sorts of plots, which have been engendered by the diseased state of the gentleman's imagination. i wish, sir, that another plot, of a much more serious and alarming character--a plot that aims at the dismemberment of our union--had only the same imaginary existence. but no man, who has paid any attention to the tone of certain prints and to transactions in a particular quarter of the union, for several years past, can doubt the existence of such a plot. it was far, very far from my intention to charge the opposition with such a design. no, i believe them generally incapable of it. but i cannot say as much for some who have been unworthily associated with them in the quarter of the union to which i have referred. the gentleman cannot have forgotten his own sentiment, uttered even on the floor of this house, "peaceably if we can, forcibly if we must," nearly at the very time henry's mission was undertaken. the flagitiousness of that embassy had been attempted to be concealed by directing the public attention to the price which, the gentleman says, was given for the disclosure. as if any price could change the atrociousness of the attempt on the part of great britain, or could extenuate, in the slightest degree, the offence of those citizens, who entertained and deliberated on a proposition so infamous and unnatural * * * but, sir, i will quit this unpleasant subject. * * * the war was declared because great britain arrogated to herself the pretension of regulating our foreign trade, under the delusive name of retaliatory orders in council--a pretension by which she undertook to proclaim to american enterprise, "thus far shalt thou go, and no further"--orders which she refused to revoke after the alleged cause of their enactment had ceased; because she persisted in the practice of impressing american seamen; because she had instigated the indians to commit hostilities against us; and because she refused indemnity for her past injuries upon our commerce. i throw out of the question other wrongs. so undeniable were the causes of the war, so powerfully did they address themselves to the feelings of the whole american people, that when the bill was pending before this house, gentlemen in the opposition, although provoked to debate, would not, or could not, utter one syllable against it. it is true, they wrapped themselves up in sullen silence, pretending they did not choose to debate such a question in secret session. while speaking of the proceedings on that occasion i beg to be permitted to advert to another fact which transpired--an important fact, material for the nation to know, and which i have often regretted had not been spread upon our journals. my honorable colleague (mr. mckee) moved, in committee of the whole, to comprehend france in the war; and when the question was taken upon the proposition, there appeared but ten votes in support of it, of whom seven belonged to this side of the house, and three only to the other. * * * it is not to the british principle (of allegiance), objectionable as it is, that we are alone to look; it is to her practice, no matter what guise she puts on. it is in vain to assert the inviolability of the obligation of allegiance. it is in vain to set up the plea of necessity, and to allege that she cannot exist without the impressment of her seamen. the naked truth is, she comes, by her press-gangs, on board of our vessels, seizes our native as well as naturalized seamen, and drags them into her service. it is the case, then, of the assertion of an erroneous principle, and of a practice not conformable to the asserted principle--a principle which, if it were theoretically right, must be forever practically wrong--a practice which can obtain countenance from no principle whatever, and to submit to which, on our part, would betray the most abject degradation. we are told, by gentlemen in the opposition, that government has not done all that was incumbent on it to do, to avoid just cause of complaint on the part of great britain; that in particular the certificates of protection, authorized by the act of , are fraudulently used. sir, government has done too much in granting those paper protections. i can never think of them without being shocked. they resemble the passes which the master grants to his negro slave: "let the bearer, mungo, pass and repass without molestation." what do they imply? that great britain has a right to seize all who are not provided with them. from their very nature, they must be liable to abuse on both sides. if great britain desires a mark, by which she can know her own subjects, let her give them an ear-mark. the colors that float from the mast-head should be the credentials of our seamen. there is no safety to us, and the gentlemen have shown it, but in the rule that all who sail under the flag (not being enemies), are protected by the flag. it is impossible that this country should ever abandon the gallant tars who have won for us such splendid trophies. let me suppose that the genius of columbia should visit one of them in his oppressor's prison, and attempt to reconcile him to his forlorn and wretched condition. she would say to him, in the language of gentlemen on the other side: "great britain intends you no harm; she did not mean to impress you, but one of her own subjects; having taken you by mistake, i will remonstrate, and try to prevail upon her, by peaceable means, to release you; but i cannot, my son, fight for you." if he did not consider this mere mockery, the poor tar would address her judgment and say: "you owe me, my country, protection; i owe you, in return, obedience. i am no british subject; i am a native of old massachusetts, where lived my aged father, my wife, my children. i have faithfully discharged my duty. will you refuse to do yours?" appealing to her passions, he would continue: "i lost this eye in fighting under truxton, with the insurgence; i got this scar before tripoli; i broke this leg on board the constitution, when the guerriere struck." * * * i will not imagine the dreadful catastrophe to which he would be driven by an abandonment of him to his oppressor. it will not be, it cannot be, that his country will refuse him protection. * * * an honorable peace is attainable only by an efficient war. my plan would be to call out the ample resources of the country, give them a judicious direction, prosecute the war with the utmost vigor, strike wherever we can reach the enemy, at sea or on land, and negotiate the terms of a peace at quebec or at halifax. we are told that england is a proud and lofty nation, which, disdaining to wait for danger, meets it half way. haughty as she is we triumphed over her once, and, if we do not listen to the counsels of timidity and despair, we shall again prevail. in such a cause, with the aid of providence, we must come out crowned with success; but, if we fail, let us fail like men, lash ourselves to our gallant tars, and expire together in one common struggle, fighting for free trade and seamen's rights. iv. -- the rise of nationality. in spite of execrable financial management, of the criminal blunders of political army officers, and of consequent defeats on land, and quite apart from brilliant sea-fights and the new orleans victory, the war of was of incalculable benefit to the united states. it marks more particularly the point at which the already established democracy began to shade off into a real nationality. the democratic party began its career as a states-rights party. possession of national power had so far modified the practical operation of its tenets that it had not hesitated to carry out a national policy, and even wage a desperate war, in flat opposition to the will of one section of the union, comprising five of its most influential states; and, when the hartford convention was suspected of a design to put the new england opposition to the war into a forcible veto, there were many indications that the dominant party was fully prepared to answer by a forcible materialization of the national will. in the north and west, at least, the old states-rights formulas never carried a real vitality beyond the war of . men still spoke of "sovereign states," and prided themselves on the difference between the "voluntary union of states" and the effete despotisms of europe; but the ghost of the hartford convention had laid very many more dangerous ghosts in the section in which it had appeared. the theatre of the war, now filled with comfortable farms and populous cities, was then less known than any of our territories in . there were no roads, and the transportation of provisions for the troops, of guns, ammunition, and stores for the lake navies, was one of the most difficult of the problems which the national government was called upon to solve. it cannot be said that the solution was successfully reached, for the blunders in transportation were among the most costly, exasperating, and dangerous of the war. but the efforts to reach it provided the impulse which soon after resulted in the settlement of western new york, the appearance of the germs of such flourishing cities as buffalo, rochester, and syracuse, the opening up of the southwest territory, between tennessee and new orleans, and the rapid admission of the new states of indiana, illinois, mississippi, and missouri. but the impulse did not stop here. the inconveniences and dangers arising from the possession of a vast territory with utterly inadequate means of communication had been brought so plainly to public view by the war that the question of communication influenced politics in every direction. in new york it took shape in the construction of the erie canal (finished in ). in states farther west and south, the loaning of the public credit to enterprises of the nature of the erie canal increased until the panic of introduced "repudiation" into american politics. in national politics, the necessity of a general system of canals and roads, as a means of military defence, was at first admitted by all, even by calhoun, was gradually rejected by the stricter constructionists of the constitution, and finally became a tenet of the national republican party, headed by john quincy adams and clay ( - ), and of its greater successor the whig party, headed by clay. this idea of internal improvements at national expense, though suggested by gallatin and clay in - , only became a political question when the war had forced it upon public attention; and it has not yet entirely disappeared. the maintenance of such a system required money, and a high tariff of duties on imports was a necessary concomitant to internal improvements. the germ of this system was also a product of the war of . hamilton had proposed it twenty years before; and the first american tariff act had declared that its object was the encouragement of american manufactures. but the system had never been effectively introduced until the war and the blockade had forced american manufactures into existence. peace brought competition with british manufacturers, and the american manufacturers began to call for protection. the tariff of contained the principle of protection, but only carried it into practice far enough to induce the manufacturers to rely on the dominant party for more of it. this expectation, rather than the federalist opposition to the war, is the explanation of the immediate and rapid decline of the federal party in new england. continued effort brought about the tariff of , which was more protective; the tariff of , which was still more protective; and the tariff of , which reduced the protective element to a system. the two sections, north and south, had been very much alike until the war called the principle of growth into activity. the slave system of labor, which had fallen in the north and had survived and been made still more profitable in the south by whitney's invention of the cotton gin in , shut the south off from almost all share in the new life. that section had a monopoly of the cotton culture, and the present profit of slave labor blinded it to the ultimate consequences of it. the slave was fit for rude agriculture alone; he could not be employed in manufactures, or in any labor which required intelligence; and the slave-owner, while he desired manufactures, did not dare to cultivate the necessary intelligence in his own slaves. the south could therefore find no profit in protection, and yet it could not with dignity admit that its slave system precluded it from the advantages of protection, or base its opposition to protection wholly on economic grounds. its only recourse was the constitutional ground of the lack of power of congress to pass a protective tariff, and this brought up again the question which had evolved the kentucky resolutions of - . calhoun, with pitiless logic, developed them into a scheme of constitutional nullification. under his lead, south carolina, in , declared through her state convention that the protective tariff acts were no law, nor binding on the state, its officers or citizens. president jackson, while he was ready and willing to suppress any such rebellion by force, was not sorry to see his adherents in congress make use of it to overthrow protection; and a "compromise tariff," to which the protectionists agreed, was passed in . it reduced the duties by an annual percentage for ten years. the nullifiers claimed this as a triumph, and formally repealed the ordinance of nullification, as if it had accomplished its object. but, in its real intent, it had failed wretchedly. it had asserted state sovereignty through the state's proper voice of a convention. when the time fixed for the execution of the ordinance arrived, jackson's intention of taking the state's sovereignty by the throat had become so evident that an unofficial meeting of nullifiers suspended the ordinance until the passage of the compromise tariff had made it unnecessary. for the first time, the force of a state and the national force had approached threateningly near collision, and no state ever tried it again. when the tariff of reintroduced the principle of protection, no one thought of taking the broken weapon of nullification from its resting-place; and secession was finally attempted only as a sectional movement, not as the expression of the will of a state, but as a concerted revolution by a number of states. it seems certain that nationality had attained force enough, even in , to have put state sovereignty forever under its feet; and that but for the cohesive sectional force of slavery and its interests, the development of nationality would have been undisputed for the future. new conditions were increasing the growth of the north and west, and their separation from the south in national life, even when nullification was in its death struggle. the acquisition of louisiana in had been followed in by fulton's invention of the steamboat, the most important factor in carrying immigration into the new territories and opening them up to settlement. but the steamboat could not quite bridge over the gap between the alleghanies and the mississippi. internal improvements, canals, and improved roads were not quite the instrument that was needed. it was found at last in the introduction of the railway into the united states in - . this proved to be an agent which could solve every difficulty except its own. it could bridge over every gap; it could make profit of its own, and make profitable that which had before been unprofitable. it placed immigrants where the steamboat, canal, and road could at last be of the highest utility to them; it developed the great west with startling rapidity; it increased the sale of government lands so rapidly that in a few years the debt of the united states was paid off, and the surplus became, for the first time, a source of political embarrassment. in a few years further, aided by revolutionary troubles in europe, immigration became a great stream, which poured into and altered the conditions of every part of the north and west. the stream was altogether nationalizing in its nature. the immigrant came to the united states, not to a particular state. to him, the country was greater than any state; even that of his adoption. labor conditions excluded the south from this element of progress also. not only were the railroads of the south hampered in every point by the old difficulty of slave labor; immigration and free labor shunned slave soil as if the plague were there prevalent. year after year the north and west became more national in their prejudices and modes of thought and action; while the south remained little changed, except by a natural reactionary drift toward a more extreme colonialism. the natural result, in the next period was the development of a quasi nationality in the south itself. the introduction of the railway had brought its own difficulties, though these were not felt severely until after years. in the continent of europe, the governments carefully retained their powers of eminent domain when the new system was introduced. the necessary land was loaned to the railways for a term of years, at the expiration of which the railway was to revert to the state; and railway troubles were non-existent, or comparatively tractable. in the united states, as in great britain, free right of incorporation was supplemented by what was really a gift of the power of eminent domain. the necessary land became the property of the corporations in fee, and it has been found almost equally difficult to revoke the gift or to introduce a railway control. democracy took a new and extreme line of development under its alliance with nationality. as the dominant party, about - , became divided into two parties, the new parties felt the democratic influence as neither of their predecessors had felt it. nominations, which had been made by cliques of legislators or congressmen, began to be made by popular delegate conventions about . before , national, state, and local conventions had been united into parties of the modern type. with them came the pseudo-democratic idea of "rotation in office," introduced into national politics by president jackson, in , and adopted by succeeding administrations. there were also some attempts to do away with the electoral system, and to make the federal judiciary elective, or to impose on it some other term of office than good behavior; but these had neither success nor encouragement. the financial errors of the war of had fairly compelled the re-establishment of the bank of the united states in , with a charter for twenty years, and the control of the deposits of national revenue. soon after jackson's inauguration, the managers of the new democratic party came into collision with the bank on the appointment of a subordinate agent. it very soon became evident that the bank could not exist in the new political atmosphere. it was driven into politics; a new charter was vetoed in ; and after one of the bitterest struggles of our history, the bank ceased to exist as a government institution in . the reason for its fall, however disguised by attendant circumstances, was really its lack of harmony with the national-democratic environment which had overtaken it. benton's speech presents a review of this bank struggle and of accompanying political controversies. the anti-slavery agitation, which began in , was as evidently a product of the new phase of democracy, but will fall more naturally under the next period. webster's reply to hayne has been taken as the best illustration of that thoroughly national feeling which was impossible before the war of , and increasingly more common after it. it has been necessary to preface it with hayne's speech, in order to have a clear understanding of parts of webster's; but it has not been possible to omit calhoun's speech, as a defence of his scheme of nullification, and as an exemplification of the reaction toward colonialism with which the south met the national development. it has not seemed necessary to include other examples of the orations called forth by the temporary political issues of the time. robert y. hayne, ---of south carolina. (born , died .) on mr. foot's resolution in the united states senate, jan. , mr. speaker: mr. hayne said, when he took occasion, two days ago, to throw out some ideas with respect to the policy of the government in relation to the public lands, nothing certainly could have been further from his thoughts than that he should have been compelled again to throw himself upon the indulgence of the senate. little did i expect, said mr. h., to be called upon to meet such an argument as was yesterday urged by the gentleman from massachusetts (mr. webster). sir, i question no man's opinions; i impeach no man's motives; i charged no party, or state, or section of country with hostility to any other, but ventured, as i thought, in a becoming spirit, to put forth my own sentiments in relation to a great national question of public policy. such was my course. the gentleman from missouri (mr. benton), it is true, had charged upon the eastern states an early and continued hostility toward the west, and referred to a number of historical facts and documents in support of that charge. now, sir, how have these different arguments been met? the honorable gentleman from massachusetts, after deliberating a whole night upon his course, comes into this chamber to vindicate new england; and instead of making up his issue with the gentleman from missouri, on the charges which he had preferred, chooses to consider me as the author of those charges, and losing sight entirely of that gentleman, selects me as his adversary, and pours out all the vials of his mighty wrath upon my devoted head. nor is he willing to stop there. he goes on to assail the institutions and policy of the south, and calls in question the principles and conduct of the state which i have the honor to represent. when i find a gentleman of mature age and experience, of acknowledged talents and profound sagacity, pursuing a course like this, declining the contest offered from the west, and making war upon the unoffending south, i must believe, i am bound to believe, he has some object in view which he has not ventured to disclose. mr. president, why is this? has the gentleman discovered in former controversies with the gentleman from missouri, that he is overmatched by that senator? and does he hope for an easy victory over a more feeble adversary? has the gentleman's distempered fancy been disturbed by gloomy forebodings of "new alliances to be formed," at which he hinted? has the ghost of the murdered coalition come back, like the ghost of banquo, to "sear the eyeballs" of the gentleman, and will not down at his bidding? are dark visions of broken hopes, and honors lost forever, still floating before his heated imagination? sir, if it be his object to thrust me between the gentleman from missouri and himself, in order to rescue the east from the contest it has provoked with the west, he shall not be gratified. sir, i will not be dragged into the defence of my friend from missouri. the south shall not be forced into a conflict not its own. the gentleman from missouri is able to fight his own battles. the gallant west needs no aid from the south to repel any attack which may be made upon them from any quarter. let the gentleman from massachusetts controvert the facts and arguments of the gentleman from missouri, if he can--and if he win the victory, let him wear the honors; i shall not deprive him of his laurels. * * * sir, any one acquainted with the history of parties in this country will recognize in the points now in dispute between the senator from massachusetts and myself the very grounds which have, from the beginning, divided the two great parties in this country, and which (call these parties by what names you will, and amalgamate them as you may) will divide them forever. the true distinction between those parties is laid down in a celebrated manifesto issued by the convention of the federalists of massachusetts, assembled in boston, in february, , on the occasion of organizing a party opposition to the reelection of governor eustis. the gentleman will recognize this as "the canonical book of political scripture"; and it instructs us that, when the american colonies redeemed themselves from british bondage, and became so many independent nations, they proposed to form a national union (not a federal union, sir, but a national union). those who were in favor of a union of the states in this form became known by the name of federalists; those who wanted no union of the states, or disliked the proposed form of union, became known by the name of anti-federalists. by means which need not be enumerated, the anti-federalists became (after the expiration of twelve years) our national rulers, and for a period of sixteen years, until the close of mr. madison's administration in , continued to exercise the exclusive direction of our public affairs. here, sir, is the true history of the origin, rise, and progress of the party of national republicans, who date back to the very origin of the government, and who then, as now, chose to consider the constitution as having created not a federal, but a national, union; who regarded "consolidation" as no evil, and who doubtless consider it "a consummation to be wished" to build up a great "central government," "one and indivisible." sir, there have existed, in every age and every country, two distinct orders of men--the lovers of freedom and the devoted advocates of power. the same great leading principles, modified only by the peculiarities of manners, habits, and institutions, divided parties in the ancient republics, animated the whigs and tories of great britain, distinguished in our own times the liberals and ultras of france, and may be traced even in the bloody struggles of unhappy spain. sir, when the gallant riego, who devoted himself and all that he possessed to the liberties of his country, was dragged to the scaffold, followed by the tears and lamentations of every lover of freedom throughout the world, he perished amid the deafening cries of "long live the absolute king!" the people whom i represent, mr. president, are the descendants of those who brought with them to this country, as the most precious of their possessions, "an ardent love of liberty"; and while that shall be preserved, they will always be found manfully struggling against the consolidation of the government as the worst of evils. * * * who, then, mr. president, are the true friends of the union? those who would confine the federal government strictly within the limits prescribed by the constitution; who would preserve to the states and the people all powers not expressly delegated; who would make this a federal and not a national union, and who, administering the government in a spirit of equal justice, would make it a blessing, and not a curse. and who are its enemies? those who are in favor of consolidation; who are constantly stealing power from the states, and adding strength to the federal government; who, assuming an unwarrantable jurisdiction over the states and the people, undertake to regulate the whole industry and capital of the country. but, sir, of all descriptions of men, i consider those as the worst enemies of the union, who sacrifice the equal rights which belong to every member of the confederacy to combinations of interested majorities for personal or political objects. but the gentleman apprehends no evil from the dependence of the states on the federal government; he can see no danger of corruption from the influence of money or patronage. sir, i know that it is supposed to be a wise saying that "patronage is a source of weakness"; and in support of that maxim it has been said that "every ten appointments make a hundred enemies." but i am rather inclined to think, with the eloquent and sagacious orator now reposing on his laurels on the banks of the roanoke, that "the power of conferring favors creates a crowd of dependents"; he gave a forcible illustration of the truth of the remark, when he told us of the effect of holding up the savory morsel to the eager eyes of the hungry hounds gathered around his door. it mattered not whether the gift was bestowed on "towzer" or "sweetlips," "tray," "blanche," or "sweetheart"; while held in suspense, they were all governed by a nod, and when the morsel was bestowed, the expectation of the favors of to-morrow kept up the subjection of to-day. the senator from massachusetts, in denouncing what he is pleased to call the carolina doctrine, has attempted to throw ridicule upon the idea that a state has any constitutional remedy by the exercise of its sovereign authority, against "a gross, palpable, and deliberate violation of the constitution." he calls it "an idle" or "a ridiculous notion," or something to that effect, and added, that it would make the union a "mere rope of sand." now, sir, as the gentleman has not condescended to enter into any examination of the question, and has been satisfied with throwing the weight of his authority into the scale, i do not deem it necessary to do more than to throw into the opposite scale the authority on which south carolina relies; and there, for the present, i am perfectly willing to leave the controversy. the south carolina doctrine, that is to say, the doctrine contained in an exposition reported by a committee of the legislature in december, , and published by their authority, is the good old republican doctrine of ' --the doctrine of the celebrated "virginia resolutions" of that year, and of "madison's report" of ' . it will be recollected that the legislature of virginia, in december, ' , took into consideration the alien and sedition laws, then considered by all republicans as a gross violation of the constitution of the united states, and on that day passed, among others, the following resolution: "the general assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact, the states who are the parties there-to have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them." in addition to the above resolution, the general assembly of virginia "appealed to the other states, in the confidence that they would concur with that commonwealth, that the acts aforesaid (the alien and sedition laws) are unconstitutional, and that the necessary and proper measures would be taken by each for cooperating with virginia in maintaining unimpaired the authorities, rights, and liberties reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." * * * but, sir, our authorities do not stop here. the state of kentucky responded to virginia, and on the th of november, , adopted those celebrated resolutions, well known to have been penned by the author of the declaration of american independence. in those resolutions, the legislature of kentucky declare, "that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the power delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress." * * * sir, at that day the whole country was divided on this very question. it formed the line of demarcation between the federal and republican parties; and the great political revolution which then took place turned upon the very questions involved in these resolutions. that question was decided by the people, and by that decision the constitution was, in the emphatic language of mr. jefferson, "saved at its last gasp." i should suppose, sir, it would require more self-respect than any gentleman here would be willing to assume, to treat lightly doctrines derived from such high sources. resting on authority like this, i will ask, gentlemen, whether south carolina has not manifested a high regard for the union, when, under a tyranny ten times more grievous than the alien and sedition laws, she has hitherto gone no further than to petition, remonstrate, and to solemnly protest against a series of measures which she believes to be wholly unconstitutional and utterly destructive of her interests. sir, south carolina has not gone one step further than mr. jefferson himself was disposed to go, in relation to the present subject of our present complaints--not a step further than the statesmen from new england were disposed to go under similar circumstances; no further than the senator from massachusetts himself once considered as within "the limits of a constitutional opposition." the doctrine that it is the right of a state to judge of the violations of the constitution on the part of the federal government, and to protect her citizens from the operations of unconstitutional laws, was held by the enlightened citizens of boston, who assembled in faneuil hall, on the th of january, . they state, in that celebrated memorial, that "they looked only to the state legislature, which was competent to devise relief against the unconstitutional acts of the general government. that your power (say they) is adequate to that object, is evident from the organization of the confederacy." * * * thus it will be seen, mr. president, that the south carolina doctrine is the republican doctrine of ' ,--that it was promulgated by the fathers of the faith,--that it was maintained by virginia and kentucky in the worst of times,--that it constituted the very pivot on which the political revolution of that day turned,--that it embraces the very principles, the triumph of which, at that time, saved the constitution at its last gasp, and which new england statesmen were not unwilling to adopt when they believed themselves to be the victims of unconstitutional legislation. sir, as to the doctrine that the federal government is the exclusive judge of the extent as well as the limitations of its power, it seems to me to be utterly subversive of the sovereignty and independence of the states. it makes but little difference, in my estimation, whether congress or the supreme court are invested with this power. if the federal government, in all, or any, of its departments, is to prescribe the limits of its own authority, and the states are bound to submit to the decision, and are not to be allowed to examine and decide for themselves when the barriers of the constitution shall be overleaped, this is practically "a government without limitation of powers." the states are at once reduced to mere petty corporations, and the people are entirely at your mercy. i have but one word more to add. in all the efforts that have been made by south carolina to resist the unconstitutional laws which congress has extended over them, she has kept steadily in view the preservation of the union, by the only means by which she believes it can be long preserved--a firm, manly, and steady resistance against usurpation. the measures of the federal government have, it is true, prostrated her interests, and will soon involve the whole south in irretrievable ruin. but even this evil, great as it is, is not the chief ground of our complaints. it is the principle involved in the contest--a principle which, substituting the discretion of congress for the limitations of the constitution, brings the states and the people to the feet of the federal government, and leaves them nothing they can call their own. sir, if the measures of the federal government were less oppressive, we should still strive against this usurpation. the south is acting on a principle she has always held sacred--resistance to unauthorized taxation. these, sir, are the principles which induced the immortal hampden to resist the payment of a tax of twenty shillings. would twenty shillings have ruined his fortune? no! but the payment of half of twenty shillings, on the principle on which it was demanded, would have made him a slave. sir, if acting on these high motives--if animated by that ardent love of liberty which has always been the most prominent trait in the southern character, we would be hurried beyond the bounds of a cold and calculating prudence; who is there, with one noble and generous sentiment in his bosom, who would not be disposed, in the language of burke, to exclaim, "you must pardon something to the spirit of liberty?" daniel webster, --of massachusetts. (born , died .) in reply to hayne, in the united states senate, january , . mr. president: when the mariner has been tossed for many days in thick weather, and on an unknown sea, he naturally avails himself of the first pause in the storm, the earliest glance of the sun, to take his latitude, and ascertain how far the elements have driven him from his true course. let us imitate this prudence, and before we float further on the waves of this debate, refer to the point from which we departed, that we may at least be able to conjecture where we now are. i ask for the reading of the resolution before the senate. (the secretary read the resolution, as follows:) "resolved, that the committee on public lands be instructed to inquire and report the quantity of public land remaining unsold within each state and territory, and whether it be expedient to limit for a certain period the sales of the public lands to such lands only as have heretofore been offered for sale, and are now subject to entry at the minimum price. and, also, whether the office of surveyor-general, and some of the land offices, may not be abolished without detriment to the public interest; or whether it be expedient to adopt measures to hasten the sales and extend more rapidly the surveys of the public lands." we have thus heard, sir, what the resolution is which is actually before us for consideration; and it will readily occur to everyone, that it is almost the only subject about which something has not been said in the speech, running through two days, by which the senate has been entertained by the gentleman from south carolina. every topic in the wide range of our public affairs, whether past or present--every thing, general or local, whether belonging to national politics or party politics--seems to have attracted more or less of the honorable member's attention, save only the resolution before the senate. he has spoken of every thing but the public lands; they have escaped his notice. to that subject, in all his excursions, he has not paid even the cold respect of a passing glance. when this debate, sir, was to be resumed, on thursday morning, it so happened that it would have been convenient for me to be elsewhere. the honorable member, however, did not incline to put off the discussion to another day. he had a shot, he said, to return, and he wished to discharge it. that shot, sir, which he thus kindly informed us was coming, that we might stand out of the way, or prepare ourselves to fall by it and die with decency, has now been received. under all advantages, and with expectation awakened by the tone which preceded it, it has been discharged, and has spent its force. it may become me to say no more of its effect, than that, if nobody is found, after all, either killed or wounded, it is not the first time in the history of human affairs, that the vigor and success of the war have not quite come up to the lofty and sounding phrase of the manifesto. the gentleman, sir, in declining to postpone the debate, told the senate, with the emphasis of his hand upon his heart, that there was something rankling here, which he wished to relieve. (mr. hayne rose, and disclaimed having used the word rankling.) it would not, mr. president, be safe for the honorable member to appeal to those around him, upon the question whether he did in fact make use of that word. but he may have been unconscious of it. at any rate, it is enough that he disclaims it. but still, with or without the use of that particular word, he had yet something here, he said, of which he wished to rid himself by an immediate reply. in this respect, sir, i have a great advantage over the honorable gentleman. there is nothing here, sir, which gives me the slightest uneasiness; neither fear, nor anger, nor that which is sometimes more troublesome than either, the consciousness of having been in the wrong. there is nothing, either originating here, or now received here by the gentleman's shot. nothing originating here, for i had not the slightest feeling of unkindness toward the honorable member. some passages, it is true, had occurred since our acquaintance in this body, which i could have wished might have been otherwise; but i had used philosophy and forgotten them. i paid the honorable member the attention of listening with respect to his first speech; and when he sat down, though surprised, and i must even say astonished, at some of his opinions, nothing was farther from my intention than to commence any personal warfare. through the whole of the few remarks i made in answer, i avoided, studiously and carefully, every thing which i thought possible to be construed into disrespect. and, sir, while there is thus nothing originating here which i have wished at any time, or now wish, to discharge, i must repeat, also, that nothing has been received here which rankles, or in any way gives me annoyance. i will not accuse the honorable member of violating the rules of civilized war; i will not say that he poisoned his arrows. but whether his shafts were, or were not, dipped in that which would have caused rankling if they had reached their destination, there was not, as it happened, quite strength enough in the bow to bring them to their mark. if he wishes now to gather up those shafts, he must look for them elsewhere; they will not be found fixed and quivering in the object at which they were aimed. the honorable member complained that i slept on his speech. i must have slept on it, or not slept at all. the moment the honorable member sat down, his friend from missouri rose, and, with much honeyed commendation of the speech, suggested that the impressions which it had produced were too charming and delightful to be disturbed by other sentiments or other sounds, and proposed that the senate should adjourn. would it have been quite amiable in me, sir, to interrupt this excellent good feeling? must i not have been absolutely malicious, if i could have thrust myself forward, to destroy sensations thus pleasing? was it not much better and kinder, both to sleep upon them myself, and to allow others also the pleasure of sleeping upon them? but if it be meant, by sleeping upon his speech, that i took time to prepare a reply to it, it is quite a mistake. owing to other engagements, i could not employ even the interval between the adjournment of the senate and its meeting the next morning, in attention to the subject of this debate. nevertheless, sir, the mere matter of fact is undoubtedly true. i did sleep on the gentleman's speech, and slept soundly. and i slept equally well on his speech of yesterday, to which i am now replying. it is quite possible that in this respect, also, i possess some advantage over the honorable member, attributable, doubtless, to a cooler temperament on my part; for, in truth, i slept upon his speeches remarkably well. but the gentleman inquires why he was made the object of such a reply. why was he singled out? if an attack has been made on the east, he, he assures us, did not begin it; it was made by the gentleman from missouri. sir, i answered the gentleman's speech because i happened to hear it; and because, also, i choose to give an answer to that speech, which, if unanswered, i thought most likely to produce injurious impressions. i did not stop to inquire who was the original drawer of the bill. i found a responsible indorser before me, and it was my purpose to hold him liable, and to bring him to his just responsibility without delay. but, sir, this interrogatory of the honorable member was only introductory to another. he proceeded to ask me whether i had turned upon him in this debate, from the consciousness that i should find an overmatch, if i ventured on a contest with his friend from missouri. if, sir, the honorable member, _modestiae gratia_, had chosen thus to defer to his friend, and to pay him compliments, without intentional disparagement to others, it would have been quite according to the friendly courtesies of debate, and not at all ungrateful to my own feelings. i am not one of those, sir, who esteem any tribute of regard, whether light and occasional, or more serious and deliberate, which may be bestowed on others, as so much unjustly withholden from themselves. but the tone and the manner of the gentleman's question forbid me thus to interpret it. i am not at liberty to consider it as nothing more than a civility to his friend. it had an air of taunt and disparagement, something of the loftiness of asserted superiority, which does not allow me to pass it over without notice. it was put as a question for me to answer, and so put as if it were difficult for me to answer whether i deemed the member from missouri an overmatch for myself in debate here. it seems to me, sir, that this is extraordinary language, and an extraordinary tone, for the discussions of this body. matches and overmatches! those terms are more applicable elsewhere than here, and fitter for other assemblies than this. sir, the gentleman seems to forget where and what we are. this is a senate, a senate of equals, of men of individual honor and personal character, and of absolute independence. we know no masters, we acknowledge no dictators. this is a hall for mutual consultation and discussion; not an arena for the exhibition of champions. i offer myself, sir, as a match for no man; i throw the challenge of debate at no man's feet. but then, sir, since the honorable member has put the question in a manner that calls for an answer, i will give him an answer; and i tell him, that, holding myself to be the humblest of the members here, i yet know nothing in the arm of his friend from missouri, either alone or when aided by the arm of his friend from south carolina, that need deter even me from espousing whatever opinions i may choose to espouse, from debating whenever i may choose to debate, or from speaking whatever i may see fit to say, on the floor of the senate. sir, when uttered as matter of commendation or compliment, i should dissent from nothing which the honorable member might say of his friend. still less do i put forth any pretensions of my own. but when put to me as a matter of taunt, i throw it back, and say to the gentleman, that he could possibly say nothing less likely than such a comparison to wound my pride of personal character. the anger of its tone rescued the remark from intentional irony, which otherwise, probably, would have been its general acceptation. but, sir, if it be imagined by this mutual quotation and commendation; if it be supposed that, by casting the characters of the drama, assigning to each his part, to one the attack, to another the cry of onset; or if it be thought that, by a loud and empty vaunt of anticipated victory, any laurels are to be won here; if it be imagined, especially, that any, or all of these things will shake any purpose of mine, i can tell the honorable member, once for all, that he is greatly mistaken, and that he is dealing with one of whose temper and character he has yet much to learn. sir, i shall not allow myself, on this occasion, i hope on no occasion, to be betrayed into any loss of temper; but if provoked, as i trust i never shall be, into crimination and recrimination, the honorable member may, perhaps, find that in that contest, there will be blows to take as well as blows to give; that others can state comparisons as significant, at least, as his own, and that his impunity may possibly demand of him whatever powers of taunt and sarcasm he may possess. i commend him to a prudent husbandry of his resources. on yet another point, i was still more unaccountably misunderstood. the gentlemen had harangued against "consolidation." i told him, in reply, that there was one kind of consolidation to which i was attached, and that was the consolidation of our union; that this was precisely that consolidation to which i feared others were not attached, and that such consolidation was the very end of the constitution, the leading object, as they had informed us themselves, which its framers had kept in view. i turned to their communication, and read their very words, "the consolidation of the union," and expressed my devotion to this sort of consolidation. i said, in terms, that i wished not in the slightest degree to augment the powers of this government; that my object was to preserve, not to enlarge; and that by consolidating the union i understood no more than the strengthening of the union, and perpetuating it. having been thus explicit, having thus read from the printed book the precise words which i adopted, as expressing my own sentiments, it passes comprehension how any man could understand me as contending for an extension of the powers of the government, or for consolidation in that odious sense in which it means an accumulation, in the federal government, of the powers properly belonging to the states. i repeat, sir, that, in adopting the sentiments of the framers of the constitution, i read their language audibly, and word for word; and i pointed out the distinction, just as fully as i have now done, between the consolidation of the union and that other obnoxious consolidation which i disclaim. and yet the honorable member misunderstood me. the gentleman had said that he wished for no fixed revenue,--not a shilling. if by a word he could convert the capitol into gold, he would not do it. why all this fear of revenue? why, sir, because, as the gentleman told us, it tends to consolidation. now this can mean neither more nor less than that a common revenue is a common interest, and that all common interests tend to preserve the union of the states. i confess i like that tendency; if the gentleman dislikes it, he is right in deprecating a shilling of fixed revenue. so much, sir, for consolidation. * * * professing to be provoked by what he chose to consider a charge made by me against south carolina, the honorable member, mr. president, has taken up a crusade against new england. leaving altogether the subject of the public lands, in which his success, perhaps, had been neither distinguished nor satisfactory, and letting go, also, of the topic of the tariff, he sallied forth in a general assault on the opinions, politics, and parties of new england, as they have been exhibited in the last thirty years. new england has, at times, so argues the gentleman, held opinions as dangerous as those which he now holds. suppose this were so; how should he therefore abuse new england? if he find himself countenanced by acts of hers, how is it that, while he relies on these acts, he covers, or seeks to cover, their authors with reproach? but, sir, if in the course of forty years, there have been undue effervescences of party in new england, has the same thing happened nowhere else? party animosity and party outrage, not in new england, but elsewhere, denounced president washington, not only as a federalist, but as a tory, a british agent, a man who in his high office sanctioned corruption. but does the honorable member suppose, if i had a tender here who should put such an effusion of wickedness and folly into my hand, that i would stand up and read it against the south? parties ran into great heats again in and . what was said, sir, or rather what was not said, in those years, against john adams, one of the committee that drafted the declaration of independence, and its admitted ablest defender on the floor of congress? if the gentleman wishes to increase his stores of party abuse and frothy violence, if he has a determined proclivity to such pursuits, there are treasures of that sort south of the potomac, much to his taste, yet untouched. i shall not touch them. * * * the gentleman's purveyors have only catered for him among the productions of one side. i certainly shall not supply the deficiency by furnishing him samples of the other. i leave to him, and to them, the whole concern. it is enough for me to say, that if, in any part of their grateful occupation, if, in all their researches, they find any thing in the history of massachusetts, or of new england, or in the proceedings of any legislative or other public body, disloyal to the union, speaking slightingly of its value, proposing to break it up, or recommending non-intercourse with neighboring states, on account of difference in political opinion, then, sir, i give them all up to the honorable gentleman's unrestrained rebuke; expecting, however, that he will extend his buffetings in like manner, to all similar proceedings, wherever else found. * * * mr. president, in carrying his warfare, such as it is, into new england, the honorable gentleman all along professes to be acting on the defensive. he chooses to consider me as having assailed south carolina, and insists that he comes forth only as her champion, and in her defence. sir, i do not admit that i made any attack whatever on south carolina. nothing like it. the honorable member, in his first speech, expressed opinions, in regard to revenue and some other topics, which i heard with both pain and surprise. i told the gentleman i was aware that such sentiments were entertained out of the government, but had not expected to find them advanced in it; that i knew there were persons in the south who speak of our union with indifference or doubt, taking pains to magnify its evils, and to say nothing of its benefits; that the honorable member himself, i was sure, could never be one of these; and i regretted the expression of such opinions as he had avowed, because i thought their obvious tendency was to encourage feelings of disrespect to the union, and to impair its strength. this, sir, is the sum and substance of all i said on the abject. and this constitutes the attack which called on the chivalry of the gentleman, in his own opinion, to harry us with such a foray among the party pamphlets and party proceedings in massachusetts! if he means that i spoke with dissatisfaction or disrespect of the ebullitions of individuals in south carolina, it is true. but if he means that i assailed the character of the state, her honor, or patriotism, that i reflected on her history or her conduct, he has not the slightest grounds for any such assumption. * * * i shall not acknowledge that the honorable member goes before me in regard for whatever of distinguished talent or distinguished character south carolina has produced. i claim part of the honor, i partake in the pride of her great names. i claim them for my countrymen, one and all, the laurenses, the rutledges, the pinckneys, the sumpters, the marions,--americans all, whose fame is no more to be hemmed in by state lines than their talents and patriotism were capable of being circumscribed within the same narrow limits. in their day and generation they served and honored the country, and the whole country; and their renown is of the treasures of the whole country. him whose honored name the gentleman himself bears--does he esteem me less capable of gratitude for his patriotism, or sympathy for his sufferings, than if his eyes had first opened upon the light of massachusetts, instead of south carolina? sir, does he suppose it in his power to exhibit a carolina name so bright as to produce envy in my bosom? no, sir; increased gratification and delight, rather. i thank god that, if i am gifted with little of the spirit which is able to raise mortals to the skies, i have yet none, as i trust, of that other spirit which would drag angels down. when i shall be found, sir, in my place here in the senate, or elsewhere, to sneer at public merit, because it happens to spring up beyond the little limits of my own state or neighborhood; when i refuse, for any such cause, or for any cause, the homage due to american talent, to elevated patriotism, to sincere devotion to liberty and the country; or, if i see an uncommon endowment of heaven, if i see extraordinary capacity and virtue, in any son of the south; and if, moved by local prejudices or gangrened by state jealousy, i get up here to abate the tithe of a hair from his just character and just fame, may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth! sir, let me recur to pleasing recollections; let me indulge in refreshing remembrances of the past; let me remind you that, in early times, no states cherished greater harmony, both of principle and feeling, than massachusetts and south carolina. would to god that harmony might again return! shoulder to shoulder they went through the revolution, hand in hand they stood round the administration of washington, and felt his own great arm lean on them for support. unkind feeling, if it exist, alienation, and distrust, are the growth, unnatural to such soils, of false principles since sown. they are weeds, the seeds of which that same great arm never scattered. mr. president, i shall enter upon no encomium of massachusetts; she needs none. there she is. behold her, and judge for yourselves. there is her history; the world knows it by heart. the past, at least, is secure. there is boston, and concord, and lexington, and bunker hill; and there they will remain for ever. the bones of her sons, falling in the great struggle for independence, now lie mingled with the soil of every state from new england to georgia, and there they will lie forever. and, sir, where american liberty raised its first voice, and where its youth was nurtured and sustained, there it still lives, in the strength of its manhood, and full of its original spirit. if discord and disunion shall wound it, if party strife and blind ambition shall hawk and tear it, if folly and madness, if uneasiness under salutary and necessary restraint shall succeed in separating it from that union, by which alone its existence is made sure, it will stand, in the end, by the side of that cradle in which its infancy was rocked; it will stretch forth its arm with whatever of vigor it may still retain, over the friends who gather round it; and it will fall at last, if fall it must, amidst the profoundest monuments of its own glory, and on the very spot of its origin. there yet remains to be performed, mr. president, by far the most grave and important duty which i feel to be devolved upon me by this occasion. it is to state, and to defend, what i conceive to be the true principles of the constitution under which we are here assembled. i might well have desired that so weighty a task should have fallen into other and abler hands. i could have wished that it should have been executed by those whose character and experience give weight and influence to their opinions, such as cannot possibly belong to mine. but, sir, i have met the occasion, not sought it; and i shall proceed to state my own sentiments, without challenging for them any particular regard, with studied plainness, and as much precision as possible. i understand the honorable gentleman from south carolina to maintain that it is a right of the state legislatures to interfere whenever, in their judgment, this government transcends its constitutional limits, and to arrest the operation of its laws. i understand him to maintain this right, as a right existing under the constitution, not as a right to overthrow it on the ground of extreme necessity, such as would justify violent revolution. i understand him to maintain an authority on the part of the states, thus to interfere, for the purpose of correcting the exercise of power by the general government, of checking it and of compelling it to conform to their opinion of the extent of its powers. i understand him to maintain, that the ultimate power of judging of the constitutional extent of its own authority is not lodged exclusively in the general government, or any branch of it; but that, on the contrary, the states may lawfully decide for themselves, and each state for itself, whether, in a given case, the act of the general government transcends its power. i understand him to insist, that, if the exigencies of the case, in the opinion of any state government, require it, such state government may, by its own sovereign authority, annul an act of the general government which it deems plainly and palpably unconstitutional. this is the sum of what i understand from him to be the south carolina doctrine, and the doctrine which he maintains. i propose to consider it, and compare it with the constitution. allow me to say, as a preliminary remark, that i call this the south carolina doctrine only because the gentleman himself has so denominated it. i do not feel at liberty to say that south carolina, as a state, has ever advanced these sentiments. i hope she has not, and never may. that a great majority of her people are opposed to the tariff laws, is doubtless true. that a majority, somewhat less than that just mentioned, conscientiously believe these laws unconstitutional, may probably also be true. but that any majority holds to the right of direct state interference at state discretion, the right of nullifying acts of congress by acts of state legislation, is more than i know, and what i shall be slow to believe. that there are individuals besides the honorable gentleman who do maintain these opinions, is quite certain. i recollect the recent expression of a sentiment, which circumstances attending its utterance and publication justify us in supposing was not unpremeditated. "the sovereignty of the state,--never to be controlled, construed, or decided on, but by her own feelings of honorable justice." [mr. hayne here rose and said, that, for the purpose of being clearly understood, he would state that his proposition was in the words of the virginia resolution as follows: "that this assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no farther valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact. the states that are parties thereto have the right, and are in duty bound to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them." mr. webster resumed:] i am quite aware, mr. president, of the existence of the resolution which the gentleman read, and has now repeated, and that he relies on it as his authority. i know the source, too, from which it is understood to have proceeded. i need not say that i have much respect for the constitutional opinions of mr. madison; they would weigh greatly with me always. but before the authority of his opinion be vouched for the gentleman's proposition, it will be proper to consider what is the fair interpretation of that resolution, to which mr. madison is understood to have given his sanction. as the gentleman construes it, it is an authority for him. possibly, he may not have adopted the right construction. that resolution declares, that, in the case of the dangerous exercise of powers not granted by the general government, the states may interpose to arrest the progress of the evil. but how interpose, and what does this declaration purport? does it mean no more than that there may be extreme cases, in which the people, in any mode of assembling, may resist usurpation, and relieve themselves from a tyrannical government? no one will deny this. such resistance is not only acknowledged to be just in america, but in england also. blackstone admits as much, in the theory, and practice, too, of the english constitution. we, sir, who oppose the carolina doctrine, do not deny that the people may, if they choose, throw off any government when it becomes oppressive and intolerable, and erect a better in its stead. we all know that civil institutions are established for the public benefit, and that when they cease to answer the ends of their existence they may be changed. but i do not understand the doctrine now contended for to be that, which, for the sake of distinction, we may call the right of revolution. i understand the gentleman to maintain, that, without revolution, without civil commotion, without rebellion, a remedy for supposed abuse and transgression of the powers of the general government lies in a direct appeal to the interference of the state governments. [mr. hayne here arose and said: he did not contend for the mere right of revolution, but for the right of constitutional resistance. what he maintained was, that in a case of plain, palpable violation of the constitution by the general government, a state may interpose; and that this interposition is constitutional. mr. webster resumed:] so, sir, i understood the gentleman, and am happy to find that i did not misunderstand him. what he contends for is, that it is constitutional to interrupt the administration of the constitution itself, in the hands of those who are chosen and sworn to administer it, by the direct interference, in form of law, of the states, in virtue of their sovereign capacity. the inherent right in the people to reform their government i do not deny; and they have another right, and that is, to resist unconstitutional laws, without overturning the government. it is no doctrine of mine that unconstitutional laws bind the people. the great question is, whose prerogative is it to decide on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the laws? on that, the main debate hinges. the proposition, that, in case of a supposed violation of the constitution by congress, the states have a constitutional right to interfere and annul the law of congress is the proposition of the gentleman. i do not admit it. if the gentleman had intended no more than to assert the right of revolution for justifiable cause, he would have said only what all agree to. but i cannot conceive that there can be a middle course, between submission to the laws, when regularly pronounced constitutional, on the one hand, and open resistance, which is revolution or rebellion, on the other. i say, the right of a state to annul a law of congress cannot be maintained, but on the ground of the inalienable right of man to resist oppression; that is to say, upon the ground of revolution. i admit that there is an ultimate violent remedy, above the constitution and in defiance of the constitution, which may be resorted to when a revolution is to be justified. but i do not admit, that, under the constitution and in conformity with it, there is any mode in which a state government, as a member of the union, can interfere and stop the progress of the general government, by force of her own laws, under any circumstances whatever. this leads us to inquire into the origin of this government and the source of its power. whose agent is it? is it the creature of the state legislatures, or the creature of the people? if the government of the united states be the agent of the state governments, then they may control it, provided they can agree in the manner of controlling it; if it be the agent of the people, then the people alone can control it, restrain it, modify, or reform it. it is observable enough, that the doctrine for which the honorable gentleman contends leads him to the necessity of maintaining, not only that this general government is the creature of the states, but that it is the creature of each of the states, severally, so that each may assert the power for itself of determining whether it acts within the limits of its authority. it is the servant of four-and-twenty masters, of different wills and different purposes, and yet bound to obey all. this absurdity (for it seems no less) arises from a misconception as to the origin of this government and its true character. it is, sir, the people's constitution, the people's government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people. the people of the united states have declared that this constitution shall be supreme law. we must either admit the proposition, or deny their authority. the states are, unquestionably, sovereign, so far as their sovereignty is not affected by this supreme law. but the state legislatures, as political bodies, however sovereign, are yet not sovereign over the people. so far as the people have given power to the general government, so far the grant is unquestionably good, and the government holds of the people, and not of the state governments. we are all agents of the same supreme power, the people. the general government and the state governments derive their authority from the same source. neither can, in relation to the other, be called primary, though one is definite and restricted, and the other general and residuary. the national government possesses those powers which it can be shown the people have conferred on it, and no more. all the rest belongs to the state governments, or to the people themselves. so far as the people have restrained state sovereignty by the expression of their will, in the constitution of the united states, so far, it must be admitted, state sovereignty is effectually controlled. i do not contend that it is, or ought to be, controlled farther. the sentiment to which i have referred propounds that state sovereignty is only to be controlled by its own "feeling of justice"--that is to say, it is not to be controlled at all, for one who is to follow his own feelings is under no legal control. now, however men may think this ought to be, the fact is that the people of the united states have chosen to impose control on state sovereignties. there are those, doubtless, who wish they had been left without restraint; but the constitution has ordered the matter differently. to make war, for instance, is an exercise of sovereignty; but the constitution declares that no state shall make war. to coin money is another exercise of sovereign power; but no state is at liberty to coin money. again, the constitution says that no sovereign state shall be so sovereign as to make a treaty. these prohibitions, it must be confessed, are a control on the state sovereignty of south carolina, as well as of the other states, which does not arise "from her own feelings of honorable justice." the opinion referred to, therefore, is in defiance of the plainest provisions of the constitution. there are other proceedings of public bodies which have already been alluded to, and to which i refer again, for the purpose of ascertaining more fully what is the length and breadth of that doctrine denominated the carolina doctrine, which the honorable member has now stood up on this floor to maintain. in one of them i find it resolved, that "the tariff of , and every other tariff designed to promote one branch of industry at the expense of others, is contrary to the meaning and intention of the federal compact, and such a dangerous, palpable, and deliberate usurpation of power, by a determined majority, wielding the general government beyond the limits of its delegated powers, as calls upon the states which compose the suffering minority, in their sovereign capacity, to exercise the powers which, as sovereigns, necessarily devolve upon them when their contract is violated." observe, sir, that this resolution holds the tariff of , and every other tariff designed to promote one branch of industry at the expense of another, to be such a dangerous, palpable, and deliberate usurpation of power, as calls upon the states, in their sovereign capacity, to interfere by their own authority. this denunciation, mr. president, you will please to observe, includes our old tariff of , as well as all others; because that was established to promote the interest of the manufacturers of cotton, to the manifest and admitted injury of the calcutta cotton trade. observe, again, that all the qualifications are here rehearsed and charged upon the tariff, which are necessary to bring the case within the gentleman's proposition. the tariff is a usurpation; it is a dangerous usurpation; it is a palpable usurpation; it is a deliberate usurpation. it is such a usurpation, therefore, as calls upon the states to exercise their right of interference. here is a case, then, within the gentleman's principles, and all his qualifications of his principles. it is a case for action. the constitution is plainly, dangerously, palpably, and deliberately violated; and the states must interpose their own authority to arrest the law. let us suppose the state of south carolina to express the same opinion, by the voice of her legislature. that would be very imposing; but what then? it so happens that, at the very moment, when south carolina resolves that the tariff laws are unconstitutional, pennsylvania and kentucky resolve exactly the reverse. they hold those laws to be both highly proper and strictly constitutional. and now, sir, how does the honorable member propose to deal with this case? how does he relieve us from this difficulty upon any principle of his? his construction gets us into it; how does he propose to get us out? in carolina the tariff is a palpable, deliberate usurpation; carolina, therefore, may nullify it, and refuse to pay the duties. in pennsylvania it is both clearly constitutional and highly expedient; and there the duties are to be paid. and yet we live under a government of uniform laws, and under a constitution, too, which contains an express provision, as it happens, that all duties shall be equal in all states. does not this approach absurdity? if there be no power to settle such questions, independent of either of the states, is not the whole union a rope of sand? are we not thrown back again precisely upon the old confederation? it is too plain to be argued. four-and-twenty interpreters of constitutional law, each with a power to decide for itself, and none with authority to bind any body else, and this constitutional law the only bond of their union! what is such a state of things but a mere connection during pleasure, or to use the phraseology of the times, during feeling? and that feeling, too, not the feeling of the people, who established the constitution, but the feeling of the state governments. in another of the south carolina addresses, having premised that the crisis requires "all the concentrated energy of passion," an attitude of open resistance to the laws of the union is advised. open resistance to the laws, then, is the constitutional remedy, the conservative power of the state, which the south carolina doctrines teach for the redress of political evils, real or imaginary. and its authors further say, that, appealing with confidence to the constitution itself, to justify their opinions, they cannot consent to try their accuracy by the courts of justice. in one sense, indeed, sir, this is assuming an attitude of open resistance in favor of liberty. but what sort of liberty? the liberty of establishing their own opinions, in defiance of the opinions of all others; the liberty of judging and deciding exclusively themselves, in a matter in which others have as much right to judge and decide as they; the liberty of placing their own opinion above the judgment of all others, above the laws, and above the constitution. this is their liberty, and this is the fair result of the proposition contended for by the honorable gentleman. or, it may be more properly said, it is identical with it, rather than a result from it. * * * sir, the human mind is so constituted, that the merits of both sides of a controversy appear very clear, and very palpable, to those who respectively espouse them; and both sides usually grow clearer as the controversy advances. south carolina sees unconstitutionality in the tariff; she sees oppression there also, and she sees danger. pennsylvania, with a vision not less sharp, looks at the same tariff, and sees no such thing in it; she sees it all constitutional, all useful, all safe. the faith of south carolina is strengthened by opposition, and she now not only sees, but resolves, that the tariff is palpably unconstitutional, oppressive, and dangerous; but pennsylvania, not to be behind her neighbors, and equally willing to strengthen her own faith by a confident asseveration resolves, also, and gives to every warm affirmative of south carolina, a plain, downright, pennsylvania negative. south carolina, to show the strength and unity of her opinion, brings her assembly to a unanimity, within seven voices; pennsylvania, not to be outdone in this respect any more than in others, reduces her dissentient fraction to a single vote. now, sir, again, i ask the gentleman, what is to be done? are these states both right? is he bound to consider them both right? if not, which is in the wrong? or, rather, which has the best right to decide? and if he, and if i, are not to know what the constitution means, and what it is, till those two state legislatures, and the twenty-two others, shall agree in its construction, what have we sworn to, when we have sworn to maintain it? i was forcibly struck, sir, with one reflection, as the gentleman went on in his speech. he quoted mr. madison's resolutions, to prove that a state may interfere, in a case of deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of a power not granted. the honorable member supposes the tariff law to be such an exercise of power; and that consequently a case has arisen in which the state may, if it see fit, interfere by its own law. now it so happens, nevertheless, that mr. madison deems this same tariff law quite constitutional. instead of a clear and palpable violation, it is, in his judgment, no violation at all. so that, while they use his authority in a hypothetical case, they reject it in the very case before them. all this, sir, shows the inherent futility, i had almost used a stronger word, of conceding this power of interference to the state, and then attempting to secure it from abuse by imposing qualifications of which the states themselves are to judge. one of two things is true; either the laws of the union are beyond the discretion and beyond the control of the states; or else we have no constitution of general government, and are thrust back again to the days of the confederation. * * * i must now beg to ask, sir, whence is this supposed right of the states derived? where do they find the power to interfere with the laws of the union? sir, the opinion which the honorable gentleman maintains, is a notion founded in a total misapprehension, in my judgment, of the origin of this government, and of the foundation on which it stands. i hold it to be a popular government, erected by the people; those who administer it, responsible to the people; and itself capable of being amended and modified, just as the people may choose it should be. it is as popular, just as truly emanating from the people, as the state governments. it is created for one purpose; the state governments for another. it has its own powers; they have theirs. there is no more authority with them to arrest the operation of a law of congress, than with congress to arrest the operation of their laws. we are here to administer a constitution emanating immediately from the people, and trusted by them to our administration. it is not the creature of the state governments. this government, sir, is the independent off-spring of the popular will. it is not the creature of state legislatures; nay, more, if the whole truth must be told, the people brought it into existence, established it, and have hitherto supported it, for the very purpose amongst others, of imposing certain salutary restraints on state sovereignties. the states cannot now make war; they cannot contract alliances; they cannot make, each for itself, separate regulations of commerce; they cannot lay imposts; they cannot coin money. if this constitution, sir, be the creature of state legislatures, it must be admitted that it has obtained a strange control over the volitions of its creators. the people, then, sir, erected this government. they gave it a constitution, and in that constitution they have enumerated the powers which they bestow on it. they have made it a limited government. they have defined its authority. they have restrained it to the exercise of such powers as are granted; and all others, they declare, are reserved to the states, or the people. but, sir, they have not stopped here. if they had, they would have accomplished but half their work. no definition can be so clear as to avoid the possibility of doubt; no limitation so precise, as to exclude all uncertainty. who, then, shall construe this grant of the people? who shall interpret their will, where it may be supposed they have left it doubtful? with whom do they repose this ultimate right of deciding on the powers of the government? sir, they have settled all this in the fullest manner. they have left it with the government itself, in its appropriate branches. sir, the very chief end, the main design, for which the whole constitution was framed and adopted, was to establish a government that should not be obliged to act through state agency, or depend on state opinion or state discretion. the people had had quite enough of that kind of government under the confederation. under that system, the legal action, the application of law to individuals, belonged exclusively to the states. congress could only recommend; their acts were not of binding force, till the states had adopted and sanctioned them. are we in that condition still? are we yet at the mercy of state discretion and state construction? sir, if we are, then vain will be our attempt to maintain the constitution under which we sit. but, sir, the people have wisely provided, in the constitution itself, a proper, suitable mode and tribunal for settling questions of constitutional law. there are in the constitution grants of powers to congress, and restrictions on these powers. there are also prohibitions on the states. some authority must, therefore, necessarily exist, having the ultimate jurisdiction to fix and ascertain the interpretation of these grants, restrictions, and prohibitions. the constitution has itself pointed out, ordained, and established that authority. how has it accomplished this great and essential end? by declaring, sir, that "the constitution and the laws of the united states made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." this, sir, was the first great step. by this the supremacy of the constitution and the laws of the united states is declared. the people so will it. no state law is to be valid which comes in conflict with the constitution, or any law of the united states passed in pursuance of it. but who shall decide this question of interference? to whom lies the last appeal? this, sir, the constitution itself decides also, by declaring, "that the judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the united states." these two provisions cover the whole ground. they are, in truth, the keystone of the arch! with these it is a government, without them a confederation. in pursuance of these clear and express provisions, congress established, at its very first session, in the judicial act, a mode for carrying them into full effect, and for bringing all questions of constitutional power to the final decision of the supreme court. it then, sir, became a government. it then had the means of self-protection; and but for this, it would, in all probability, have been now among things which are past. having constituted the government, and declared its powers, the people have further said, that, since somebody must decide on the extent of these powers, the government shall itself decide; subject, always, like other popular governments, to its responsibility to the people. and now, sir, i repeat, how is it that a state legislature acquires any power to interfere? who, or what gives them the right to say to the people: "we, who are your agents and servants for one purpose, will undertake to decide, that your other agents and servants, appointed by you for another purpose, have transcended the authority you gave them!" the reply would be, i think, not impertinent: "who made you a judge over another's servants? to their own masters they stand or fall." sir, i deny this power of state legislatures altogether. it cannot stand the test of examination. gentlemen may say, that, in an extreme case, a state government may protect the people from intolerable oppression. sir, in such a case the people might protect themselves without the aid of the state governments. such a case warrants revolution. it must make, when it comes, a law for itself. a nullifying act of a state legislature cannot alter the case, nor make resistance any more lawful. in maintaining these sentiments, sir, i am but asserting the rights of the people. i state what they have declared, and insist on their right to declare it. they have chosen to repose this power in the general government, and i think it my duty to support it like other constitutional powers. for myself, sir, i do not admit the competency of south carolina or any other state to prescribe my constitutional duty; or to settle, between me and the people the validity of laws of congress for which i have voted. i decline her umpirage. i have not sworn to support the constitution according to her construction of the clauses. i have not stipulated by my oath of office or otherwise, to come under any responsibility, except to the people, and those whom they have appointed to pass upon the question, whether laws, supported by my votes, conform to the constitution of the country. and, sir, if we look to the general nature of the case, could any thing have been more preposterous than to make a government for the whole union, and yet leave its powers subject, not to one interpretation, but to thirteen or twenty-four interpretations? instead of one tribunal, established by all, responsible to all, with power to decide for all, shall constitutional questions be left to four-and-twenty popular bodies, each at liberty to decide for itself, and none bound to respect the decisions of others; and each at liberty, too, to give a new constitution on every new election of its own members? would any thing, with such a principle in it, or rather with such a destitution of all principle be fit to be called a government? no, sir. it should not be denominated a constitution. it should be called, rather, a collection of topics for everlasting controversy; heads of debate for a disputatious people. it would not be a government. it would not be adequate to any practical good, or fit for any country to live under. to avoid all possibility of being misunderstood, allow me to repeat again in the fullest manner, that i claim no powers for the government by forced or unfair construction. i admit that it is a government of strictly limited powers; of enumerated, specified, and particularized powers; and that whatsoever is not granted is withheld. but notwithstanding all this, and however the grant of powers may be expressed, its limit and extent may yet, in some cases, admit of doubt; and the general government would be good for nothing, it would be incapable of long existing, if some mode had not been provided in which those doubts as they should arise, might be peaceably but authoritatively solved. and now, mr. president, let me run the honorable gentleman's doctrine a little into its practical application. let us look at his probable _modus operandi_. if a thing can be done, an ingenious man can tell how it is to be done, and i wish to be informed how this state interference is to be put in practice, without violence, bloodshed, and rebellion. we will take the existing case of the tariff law. south carolina is said to have made up her opinion upon it. if we do not repeal it (as we probably shall not), she will then apply to the case the remedy of her doctrine. she will, we must suppose, pass a law of her legislature, declaring the several acts of congress, usually called the tariff laws, null and void, so far as they respect south carolina, or the citizens thereof. so far, all is a paper transaction, and easy enough. but the collector at charleston is collecting the duties imposed by these tariff laws. he, therefore, must be stopped. the collector will seize the goods if the tariff duties are not paid. the state authorities will undertake their rescue, the marshal, with his posse, will come to the collector's aid, and here the contest begins. the militia of the state will be called out to sustain the nullifying act. they will march, sir, under a very gallant leader; for i believe the honorable member himself commands the militia of that part of the state. he will raise the nullifying act on his standard, and spread it out as his banner! it will have a preamble, setting forth, that the tariff laws are palpable, deliberate, and dangerous violations of the constitution! he will proceed, with this banner flying, to the custom-house in charleston, "all the while, sonorous metal blowing martial sounds." arrived at the custom-house, he will tell the collector that he must collect no more duties under any of the tariff laws. this he will be somewhat puzzled to say, by the way, with a grave countenance, considering what hand south carolina herself had in that of . but, sir, the collector would not, probably, desist at his bidding. he would show him the law of congress, the treasury instruction, and his own oath of office. he would say, he should perform his duty, come what come might. here would ensue a pause; for they say that a certain stillness precedes the tempest. the trumpeter would hold his breath awhile, and before all this military array should fall on the custom-house, collector, clerks, and all, it is very probable some of those composing it would request of their gallant commander-in-chief to be informed upon a little point of law; for they have doubtless, a just respect for his opinions as a lawyer, as well as for his bravery as a soldier. they know he has read blackstone and the constitution, as well as turenne and vauban. they would ask him, therefore, somewhat concerning their rights in this matter. they would inquire whether it was not somewhat dangerous to resist a law of the united states. what would be the nature of their offence, they would wish to learn, if they, by military force and array, resisted the execution in carolina of a law of the united states, and it should turn out, after all, that the law was constitutional? he would answer, of course, treason. no lawyer could give any other answer. john fries, he would tell them, had learned that some years ago. "how, then," they would ask, "do you propose to defend us? we are not afraid of bullets, but treason has a way of taking people off that we do not much relish. how do you propose to defend us?" "look at my floating banner," he would reply; "see there the nullifying law!" "is it your opinion, gallant commander," they would then say, "that, if we should be indicted for treason, that same floating banner of yours would make a good plea in bar?" "south carolina is a sovereign state," he would reply. "that is true; but would the judge admit our plea?" "these tariff laws," he would repeat, "are unconstitutional, palpably, deliberately, dangerously." "that may all be so; but if the tribunal should not happen to be of that opinion, shall we swing for it? we are ready to die for our country, but it is rather an awkward business, this dying without touching the ground! after all, that is a sort of hemp tax worse than any part of the tariff." mr. president, the honorable gentleman would be in a dilemma, like that of another great general. he would have a knot before him which he could not untie. he must cut it with his sword. he must say to his followers, "defend yourselves with your bayonets"; and this is war--civil war. direct collision, therefore, between force and force, is the unavoidable result of that remedy for the revision of unconstitutional laws which the gentleman contends for. it must happen in the very first case to which it is applied. is not this the plain result? to resist by force the execution of a law, generally, is treason. can the courts of the united states take notice of the indulgence of a state to commit treason? the common saying, that a state cannot commit treason herself, is nothing to the purpose. can she authorize others to do it? if john fries had produced an act of pennsylvania, annulling the law of congress, would it have helped his case? talk about it as we will, these doctrines go the length of revolution. they are incompatible with any peaceable administration of the government. they lead directly to disunion and civil commotion; and therefore it is, that at their commencement, when they are first found to be maintained by respectable men, and in a tangible form, i enter my public protest against them all. the honorable gentleman argues that, if this government be the sole judge of the extent of its own powers, whether that right of judging be in congress or the supreme court, it equally subverts state sovereignty. this the gentleman sees, or thinks he sees, although he cannot perceive how the right of judging, in this matter, if left to the exercise of state legislatures, has any tendency to subvert the government of the union. the gentleman's opinion may be, that the right ought not to have been lodged with the general government; he may like better such a constitution as we should have had under the right of state interference; but i ask him to meet me on the plain matter of fact. i ask him to meet me on the constitution itself. i ask him if the power is not found there, clearly and visibly found there? but, sir, what is this danger, and what are the grounds of it? let it be remembered that the constitution of the united states is not unalterable. it is to continue in its present form no longer than the people who established it shall choose to continue it. if they shall become convinced that they have made an injudicious or inexpedient partition and distribution of power between the state governments and the general government, they can alter that distribution at will. if any thing be found in the national constitution, either by original provision or subsequent interpretation, which ought not to be in it, the people know how to get rid of it. if any construction, unacceptable to them, be established so as to become practically a part of the constitution, they will amend it, at their own sovereign pleasure. but while the people choose to maintain it as it is, while they are satisfied with it, and refuse to change it, who has given, or who can give, to the legislatures a right to alter it, either by interference, construction, or otherwise? gentlemen do not seem to recollect that the people have any power to do any thing for themselves. they imagine there is no safety for them, any longer than they are under the close guardianship of the state legislatures. sir, the people have not trusted their safety, in regard to the general constitution, to these hands. they have required other security, and taken other bonds. they have chosen to trust themselves, first, to the plain words of the instrument, and to such construction as the government themselves, in doubtful cases, should put on their powers, under their oaths of office, and subject to their responsibility to them, just as the people of a state trust to their own governments with a similar power. secondly, they have reposed their trust in the efficacy of frequent elections, and in their own power to remove their own servants and agents whenever they see cause. thirdly, they have reposed trust in the judicial power, which, in order that it might be trustworthy, they have made as respectable, as disinterested, and as independent as was practicable. fourthly, they have seen fit to rely, in case of necessity, or high expediency, on their known and admitted power to alter or amend the constitution, peaceably and quietly, whenever experience shall point out defects or imperfections. and, finally, the people of the united states have at no time, in no way, directly or indirectly, authorized any state legislature to construe or interpret their high instrument of government; much less to interfere, by their own power, to arrest its course and operation. if, sir, the people in these respects had done otherwise than they have done, their constitution could neither have been preserved, nor would it have been worth preserving. and if its plain provisions shall now be disregarded, and these new doctrines interpolated in it, it will become as feeble and helpless a being as its enemies, whether early or more recent, could possibly desire. it will exist in every state but as a poor dependent on state permission. it must borrow leave to be; and will be, no longer than state pleasure, or state discretion, sees fit to grant the indulgence, and to prolong its poor existence. but, sir, although there are fears, there are hopes also. the people have preserved this, their own chosen constitution, for forty years, and have seen their happiness, prosperity, and renown grow with its growth, and strengthen with its strength. they are now, generally, strongly attached to it. overthrown by direct assault, it cannot be; evaded, undermined, nullified, it will not be, if we, and those who shall succeed us here, as agents and representatives of the people, shall conscientiously and vigilantly discharge the two great branches of our public trust, faithfully to preserve and wisely to administer it. mr. president, i have thus stated the reasons of my dissent to the doctrines which have been advanced and maintained. i am conscious of having detained you and the senate much too long. i was drawn into the debate with no previous deliberation, such as is suited to the discussion of so grave and important a subject. but it is a subject of which my heart is full, and i have not been willing to suppress the utterance of its spontaneous sentiments. i cannot, even now, persuade myself to relinquish it, without expressing, once more my deep conviction, that, since it respects nothing less than the union of the states, it is of most vital and essential importance to the public happiness. i profess, sir, in my career hitherto, to have kept steadily in view the prosperity and honor of the whole country, and the preservation of our federal union. it is to that union we owe our safety at home, and our consideration and dignity abroad. it is to that union that we are chiefly indebted for whatever makes us most proud of our country. that union we reached only by the discipline of our virtues in the severe school of adversity. it had its origin in the necessities of disordered finance, prostrate commerce, and ruined credit. under its benign influences, these great interests immediately awoke, as from the dead, and sprang forth with newness of life. every year of its duration has teemed with fresh proofs of its utility and its blessings; and although our territory has stretched out wider and wider, and our population spread farther and farther, they have not outrun its protection or its benefits. it has been to us all a copious fountain of national, social, and personal happiness. i have not allowed myself, sir, to look beyond the union, to see what might lie hidden in the dark recess behind. i have not coolly weighed the chances of preserving liberty when the bonds that unite us together shall be broken asunder. i have not accustomed myself to hang over the precipice of disunion, to see whether, with my short sight, i can fathom the depth of the abyss below; nor could i regard him as a safe counsellor in the affairs of this government, whose thoughts should be mainly bent on considering, not how the union may be best preserved, but how tolerable might be the condition of the people when it should be broken up and destroyed. while the union lasts we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us, for us and our children. beyond that i seek not to penetrate the veil. god grant that in my day at least that curtain may not rise! god grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind! when my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may i not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious union, on states dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! let their last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the republic, now known and honored through-out the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in their original lustre, not a stripe erased or polluted, not a single star obscured, bearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogotary as "what is all this worth?" nor those other words of delusion and folly, "liberty first and union afterward"; but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true american heart,--liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable! john c. calhoun --of south carolina. (born , died .) on nullification and the force bill, in the united states senate, feb. , . mr. president: at the last session of congress, it was avowed on all sides that the public debt, as to all practical purposes, was in fact paid, the small surplus remaining being nearly covered by the money in the treasury and the bonds for duties which had already accrued; but with the arrival of this event our last hope was doomed to be disappointed. after a long session of many months, and the most earnest effort on the part of south carolina and the other southern states to obtain relief, all that could be effected was a small reduction in the amount of the duties, but a reduction of such a character that, while it diminished the amount of burden, it distributed that burden more unequally than even the obnoxious act of ; reversing the principle adopted by the bill of , of laying higher duties on the unprotected than the protected articles, by repealing almost entirely the duties laid upon the former, and imposing the burden almost entirely on the latter. it was thus that, instead of relief--instead of an equal distribution of burdens and benefits of the government, on the payment of the debt, as had been fondly anticipated,--the duties were so arranged as to be, in fact, bounties on one side and taxation on the other; thus placing the two great sections of the country in direct conflict in reference to its fiscal action, and thereby letting in that flood of political corruption which threatens to sweep away our constitution and our liberty. this unequal and unjust arrangement was pronounced, both by the administration, through its proper organ, the secretary of the treasury, and by the opposition, to be a permanent adjustment; and it was thus that all hope of relief through the action of the general government terminated; and the crisis so long apprehended at length arrived, at which the state was compelled to choose between absolute acquiescence in a ruinous system of oppression, or a resort to her reserved powers--powers of which she alone was the rightful judge, and which only, in this momentous juncture, could save her. she determined on the latter. the consent of two thirds of her legislature was necessary for the call of a convention, which was considered the only legitimate organ through which the people, in their sovereignty, could speak. after an arduous struggle the states-right party succeeded; more than two thirds of both branches of the legislature favorable to a convention were elected; a convention was called--the ordinance adopted. the convention was succeeded by a meeting of the legislature, when the laws to carry the ordinance into execution were enacted--all of which have been communicated by the president, have been referred to the committee on the judiciary, and this bill is the result of their labor. having now corrected some of the prominent misrepresentations as to the nature of this controversy, and given a rapid sketch of the movement of the state in reference to it, i will next proceed to notice some objections connected with the ordinance and the proceedings under it. the first and most prominent of these is directed against what is called the test oath, which an effort has been made to render odious. so far from deserving the denunciation that has been levelled against it, i view this provision of the ordinance as but the natural result of the doctrines entertained by the state, and the position which she occupies. the people of carolina believe that the union is a union of states, and not of individuals; that it was formed by the states, and that the citizens of the several states were bound to it through the acts of their several states; that each state ratified the constitution for itself, and that it was only by such ratification of a state that any obligation was imposed upon its citizens. thus believing, it is the opinion of the people of carolina that it belongs to the state which has imposed the obligation to declare, in the last resort, the extent of this obligation, as far as her citizens are concerned; and this upon the plain principles which exist in all analogous cases of compact between sovereign bodies. on this principle the people of the state, acting in their sovereign capacity in convention, precisely as they did in the adoption of their own and the federal constitution, have declared, by the ordinance, that the acts of congress which imposed duties under the authority to lay imposts, were acts not for revenue, as intended by the constitution, but for protection, and therefore null and void. the ordinance thus enacted by the people of the state themselves, acting as a sovereign community, is as obligatory on the citizens of the state as any portion of the constitution. in prescribing, then, the oath to obey the ordinance, no more was done than to prescribe an oath to obey the constitution. it is, in fact, but a particular oath of allegiance, and in every respect similar to that which is prescribed, under the constitution of the united states, to be administered to all the officers of the state and federal governments; and is no more deserving the harsh and bitter epithets which have been heaped upon it than that or any similar oath. it ought to be borne in mind that, according to the opinion which prevails in carolina, the right of resistance to the unconstitutional acts of congress belongs to the state, and not to her individual citizens; and that, though the latter may, in a mere question of _meum_ and _tuum_, resist through the courts an unconstitutional encroachment upon their rights, yet the final stand against usurpation rests not with them, but with the state of which they are members; and such act of resistance by a state binds the conscience and allegiance of the citizen. but there appears to be a general misapprehension as to the extent to which the state has acted under this part of the ordinance. instead of sweeping every officer by a general proscription of the minority, as has been represented in debate, as far as my knowledge extends, not a single individual has been removed. the state has, in fact, acted with the greatest tenderness, all circumstances considered, toward citizens who differed from the majority; and, in that spirit, has directed the oath to be administered only in the case of some official act directed to be performed in which obedience to the ordinance is involved. * * *' it is next objected that the enforcing acts, have legislated the united states out of south carolina. i have already replied to this objection on another occasion, and will now but repeat what i then said: that they have been legislated out only to the extent that they had no right to enter. the constitution has admitted the jurisdiction of the united states within the limits of the several states only so far as the delegated powers authorize; beyond that they are intruders, and may rightfully be expelled; and that they have been efficiently expelled by the legislation of the state through her civil process, as has been acknowledged on all sides in the debate, is only a confirmation of the truth of the doctrine for which the majority in carolina have contended. the very point at issue between the two parties there is, whether nullification is a peaceful and an efficient remedy against an unconstitutional act of the general government, and may be asserted, as such, through the state tribunals. both parties agree that the acts against which it is directed are unconstitutional and oppressive. the controversy is only as to the means by which our citizens may be protected against the acknowledged encroachments on their rights. this being the point at issue between the parties, and the very object of the majority being an efficient protection of the citizens through the state tribunals, the measures adopted to enforce the ordinance, of course received the most decisive character. we were not children, to act by halves. yet for acting thus efficiently the state is denounced, and this bill reported, to overrule, by military force, the civil tribunal and civil process of the state! sir, i consider this bill, and the arguments which have been urged on this floor in its support, as the most triumphant acknowledgment that nullification is peaceful and efficient, and so deeply intrenched in the principles of our system, that it cannot be assailed but by prostrating the constitution, and substituting the supremacy of military force in lieu of the supremacy of the laws. in fact, the advocates of this bill refute their own argument. they tell us that the ordinance is unconstitutional; that it infracts the constitution of south carolina, although, to me, the objection appears absurd, as it was adopted by the very authority which adopted the constitution itself. they also tell us that the supreme court is the appointed arbiter of all controversies between a state and the general government. why, then, do they not leave this controversy to that tribunal? why do they not confide to them the abrogation of the ordinance, and the laws made in pursuance of it, and the assertion of that supremacy which they claim for the laws of congress? the state stands pledged to resist no process of the court. why, then, confer on the president the extensive and unlimited powers provided in this bill? why authorize him to use military force to arrest the civil process of the state? but one answer can be given: that, in a contest between the state and the general government, if the resistance be limited on both sides to the civil process, the state, by its inherent sovereignty, standing upon its reserved powers, will prove too powerful in such a controversy, and must triumph over the federal government, sustained by its delegated and limited authority; and in this answer we have an acknowledgment of the truth of those great principles for which the state has so firmly and nobly contended. * * * notwithstanding all that has been said, i may say that neither the senator from delaware (mr. clayton), nor any other who has spoken on the same side, has directly and fairly met the great question at issue: is this a federal union? a union of states, as distinct from that of individuals? is the sovereignty in the several states, or in the american people in the aggregate? the very language which we are compelled to use when speaking of our political institutions, affords proof conclusive as to its real character. the terms union, federal, united, all imply a combination of sovereignties, a confederation of states. they never apply to an association of individuals. who ever heard of the united state of new york, of massachusetts, or of virginia? who ever heard the term federal or union applied to the aggregation of individuals into one community? nor is the other point less clear--that the sovereignty is in the several states, and that our system is a union of twenty-four sovereign powers, under a constitutional compact, and not of a divided sovereignty between the states severally and the united states? in spite of all that has been said, i maintain that sovereignty is in its nature indivisible. it is the supreme power in a state, and we might just as well speak of half a square, or half of a triangle, as of half a sovereignty. it is a gross error to confound the exercise of sovereign powers with sovereignty itself, or the delegation of such powers with the surrender of them. a sovereign may delegate his powers to be exercised by as many agents as he may think proper, under such conditions and with such limitations as he may impose; but to surrender any portion of his sovereignty to another is to annihilate the whole. the senator from delaware (mr. clayton) calls this metaphysical reasoning, which he says he cannot comprehend. if by metaphysics he means that scholastic refinement which makes distinctions without difference, no one can hold it in more utter contempt than i do; but if, on the contrary, he means the power of analysis and combination--that power which reduces the most complex idea into its elements, which traces causes to their first principle, and, by the power of generalization and combination, unites the whole in one harmonious system--then, so far from deserving contempt, it is the highest attribute of the human mind. it is the power which raises man above the brute--which distinguishes his faculties from mere sagacity, which he holds in common with inferior animals. it is this power which has raised the astronomer from being a mere gazer at the stars to the high intellectual eminence of a newton or a laplace, and astronomy itself from a mere observation of insulated facts into that noble science which displays to our admiration the system of the universe. and shall this high power of the mind, which has effected such wonders when directed to the laws which control the material world, be forever prohibited, under a senseless cry of metaphysics, from being applied to the high purposes of political science and legislation? i hold them to be subject to laws as fixed as matter itself, and to be as fit a subject for the application of the highest intellectual power. denunciation may, indeed fall upon the philosophical inquirer into these first principles, as it did upon galileo and bacon, when they first unfolded the great discoveries which have immortalized their names; but the time will come when truth will prevail in spite of prejudice and denunciation, and when politics and legislation will be considered as much a science as astronomy and chemistry. in connection with this part of the subject, i understood the senator from virginia (mr. rives) to say that sovereignty was divided, and that a portion remained with the states severally, and that the residue was vested in the union. by union, i suppose the senator meant the united states. if such be his meaning--if he intended to affirm that the sovereignty was in the twenty-four states, in whatever light he may view them, our opinions will not disagree; but according to my conception, the whole sovereignty is in the several states, while the exercise of sovereign power is divided--a part being exercised under compact, through this general government, and the residue through the separate state governments. but if the senator from virginia (mr. rives) means to assert that the twenty-four states form but one community, with a single sovereign power as to the objects of the union, it will be but the revival of the old question, of whether the union is a union between states, as distinct communities, or a mere aggregate of the american people, as a mass of individuals; and in this light his opinions would lead directly to consolidation. * * * disguise it as you may, the controversy is one between power and liberty; and i tell the gentlemen who are opposed to me, that, as strong as may be the love of power on their side, the love of liberty is still stronger on ours. history furnishes many instances of similar struggles, where the love of liberty has prevailed against power under every disadvantage, and among them few more striking than that of our own revolution; where, as strong as was the parent country, and feeble as were the colonies, yet, under the impulse of liberty, and the blessing of god, they gloriously triumphed in the contest. there are, indeed, many striking analogies between that and the present controversy. they both originated substantially in the same cause--with this difference--in the present case, the power of taxation is converted into that of regulating industry; in the other, the power of regulating industry, by the regulation of commerce, was attempted to be converted into the power of taxation. were i to trace the analogy further, we should find that the perversion of the taxing power, in the one case, has given precisely the same control to the northern section over the industry of the southern section of the union, which the power to regulate commerce gave to great britain over the industry of the colonies in the other; and that the very articles in which the colonies were permitted to have a free trade, and those in which the mother-country had a monopoly, are almost identically the same as those in which the southern states are permitted to have a free trade by the act of , and in which the northern states have, by the same act, secured a monopoly. the only difference is in the means. in the former, the colonies were permitted to have a free trade with all countries south of cape finisterre, a cape in the northern part of spain; while north of that, the trade of the colonies was prohibited, except through the mother-country, by means of her commercial regulations. if we compare the products of the country north and south of cape finisterre, we shall find them almost identical with the list of the protected and unprotected articles contained in the list of last year. nor does the analogy terminate here. the very arguments resorted to at the commencement of the american revolution, and the measures adopted, and the motives assigned to bring on that contest (to enforce the law), are almost identically the same. but to return from this digression to the consideration of the bill. whatever difference of opinion may exist upon other points, there is one on which i should suppose there can be none; that this bill rests upon principles which, if carried out, will ride over state sovereignties, and that it will be idle for any advocates hereafter to talk of state rights. the senator from virginia (mr. rives) says that he is the advocate of state rights; but he must permit me to tell him that, although he may differ in premises from the other gentlemen with whom he acts on this occasion, yet, in supporting this bill, he obliterates every vestige of distinction between him and them, saving only that, professing the principles of ' , his example will be more pernicious than that of the most open and bitter opponent of the rights of the states. i will also add, what i am compelled to say, that i must consider him (mr. rives) as less consistent than our old opponents, whose conclusions were fairly drawn from their premises, while his premises ought to have led him to opposite conclusions. the gentleman has told us that the new-fangled doctrines, as he chooses to call them, have brought state rights into disrepute. i must tell him, in reply, that what he calls new-fangled are but the doctrines of ' ; and that it is he (mr. rives), and others with him, who, professing these doctrines, have degraded them by explaining away their meaning and efficacy. he (mr. r.) has disclaimed, in behalf of virginia, the authorship of nullification. i will not dispute that point. if virginia chooses to throw away one of her brightest ornaments, she must not hereafter complain that it has become the property of another. but while i have, as a representative of carolina, no right to complain of the disavowal of the senator from virginia, i must believe that he (mr. r.) has done his native state great injustice by declaring on this floor, that when she gravely resolved, in ' , that "in cases of deliberate and dangerous infractions of the constitution, the states, as parties to the compact, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose to arrest the progress of the evil, and to maintain within their respective limits the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them," she meant no more than to proclaim the right to protest and to remonstrate. to suppose that, in putting forth so solemn a declaration, which she afterward sustained by so able and elaborate an argument, she meant no more than to assert what no one had ever denied, would be to suppose that the state had been guilty of the most egregious trifling that ever was exhibited on so solemn an occasion. thomas h. benton, of missouri. (born , died .) on the expunging resolution --united states senate, january , mr. president: it is now near three years since the resolve was adopted by the senate, which it is my present motion to expunge from the journal. at the moment that this resolve was adopted, i gave notice of my intention to move to expunge it; and then expressed my confident belief that the motion would eventually prevail. that expression of confidence was not an ebullition of vanity, or a presumptuous calculation, intended to accelerate the event it affected to foretell. it was not a vain boast, or an idle assumption, but was the result of a deep conviction of the injustice done president jackson, and a thorough reliance upon the justice of the american people. i felt that the president had been wronged; and my heart told me that this wrong would be redressed! the event proves that i was not mistaken. the question of expunging this resolution has been carried to the people, and their decision has been had upon it. they decide in favor of the expurgation; and their decision has been both made and manifested, and communicated to us in a great variety of ways. a great number of states have expressly instructed their senators to vote for this expurgation. a very great majority of the states have elected senators and representatives to congress, upon the express ground of favoring this expurgation. the bank of the united states, which took the initiative in the accusation against the president, and furnished the material, and worked the machinery which was used against him, and which was then so powerful on this floor, has become more and more odious to the public mind, and musters now but a slender phalanx of friends in the two houses of congress. the late presidential election furnishes additional evidence of public sentiment. the candidate who was the friend of president jackson, the supporter of his administration, and the avowed advocate for the expurgation, has received a large majority of the suffrages of the whole union, and that after an express declaration of his sentiments on this precise point. the evidence of the public will, exhibited in all these forms, is too manifest to be mistaken, too explicit to require illustration, and too imperative to be disregarded. omitting details and specific enumeration of proofs, i refer to our own files for the instructions to expunge,--to the complexion of the two houses for the temper of the people,--to the denationalized condition of the bank of the united states for the fate of the imperious accuser,--and to the issue of the presidential election for the answer of the union. all these are pregnant proofs of the public will, and the last preeminently so: because, both the question of the expurgation, and the form of the process, were directly put in issue upon it. * * * assuming, then, that we have ascertained the will of the people on this great question, the inquiry presents itself, how far the expression of that will ought to be conclusive of our action here. i hold that it ought to be binding and obligatory upon us; and that, not only upon the principles of representative government, which requires obedience to the known will of the people, but also in conformity to the principles upon which the proceeding against president jackson was conducted when the sentence against him was adopted. then everything was done with especial reference to the will of the people. their impulsion was assumed to be the sole motive to action; and to them the ultimate verdict was expressly referred. the whole machinery of alarm and pressure--every engine of political and moneyed power--was put in motion, and worked for many months, to excite the people against the president; and to stir up meetings, memorials, petitions, travelling committees, and distress deputations against him; and each symptom of popular discontent was hailed as an evidence of public will, and quoted here as proof that the people demanded the condemnation of the president. not only legislative assemblies, and memorials from large assemblies, were then produced here as evidence of public opinion, but the petitions of boys under age, the remonstrances of a few signers, and the results of the most inconsiderable elections were ostentatiously paraded and magnified, as the evidence of the sovereign will of our constituents. thus, sir, the public voice was everything, while that voice, partially obtained through political and pecuniary machinations, was adverse to the president. then the popular will was the shrine at which all worshipped. now, when that will is regularly, soberly, repeatedly, and almost universally expressed through the ballot-boxes, at the various elections, and turns out to be in favor of the president, certainly no one can disregard it, nor otherwise look at it than as the solemn verdict of the competent and ultimate tribunal upon an issue fairly made up, fully argued, and duly submitted for decision. as such verdict, i receive it. as the deliberate verdict of the sovereign people, i bow to it. i am content. i do not mean to reopen the case nor to re-commence the argument. i leave that work to others, if any others choose to perform it. for myself, i am content; and, dispensing with further argument, i shall call for judgment, and ask to have execution done, upon that unhappy journal, which the verdict of millions of freemen finds guilty of bearing on its face an untrue, illegal, and unconstitutional sentence of condemnation against the approved president of the republic. but, while declining to reopen the argument of this question, and refusing to tread over again the ground already traversed, there is another and a different task to perform; one which the approaching termination of president jackson's administration makes peculiarly proper at this time, and which it is my privilege, and perhaps my duty, to execute, as being the suitable conclusion to the arduous contest in which we have been so long engaged. i allude to the general tenor of his administration, and to its effect, for good or for evil, upon the condition of his country. this is the proper time for such a view to be taken. the political existence of this great man now draws to a close. in little more than forty days he ceases to be an object of political hope to any, and should cease to be an object of political hate, or envy, to all. whatever of motive the servile and time-serving might have found in his exalted station for raising the altar of adulation, and burning the incense of praise before him, that motive can no longer exist. the dispenser of the patronage of an empire, the chief of this great confederacy of states, is soon to be a private individual, stripped of all power to reward, or to punish. his own thoughts, as he has shown us in the concluding paragraph of that message which is to be the last of its kind that we shall ever receive from him, are directed to that beloved retirement from which he was drawn by the voice of millions of freemen, and to which he now looks for that interval of repose which age and infirmities require. under these circumstances, he ceases to be a subject for the ebullition of the passions, and passes into a character for the contemplation of history. historically, then, shall i view him; and limiting this view to his civil administration, i demand, where is there a chief magistrate of whom so much evil has been predicted, and from whom so much good has come? never has any man entered upon the chief magistracy of a country under such appalling predictions of ruin and woe! never has any one been so pursued with direful prognostications! never has any one been so beset and impeded by a powerful combination of political and moneyed confederates! never has any one in any country where the administration of justice has risen above the knife or the bowstring, been so lawlessly and shamelessly tried and condemned by rivals and enemies, without hearing, without defence, without the forms of law and justice! history has been ransacked to find examples of tyrants sufficiently odious to illustrate him by comparison. language has been tortured to find epithets sufficiently strong to paint him in description. imagination has been exhausted in her efforts to deck him with revolting and inhuman attributes. tyrant, despot, usurper; destroyer of the liberties of his country; rash, ignorant, imbecile; endangering the public peace with all foreign nations; destroying domestic prosperity at home; ruining all industry, all commerce, all manufactures; annihilating confidence between man and man; delivering up the streets of populous cities to grass and weeds, and the wharves of commercial towns to the encumbrance of decaying vessels; depriving labor of all reward; depriving industry of all employment; destroying the currency; plunging an innocent and happy people from the summit of felicity to the depths of misery, want, and despair. such is the faint outline, followed up by actual condemnation, of the appalling denunciations daily uttered against this one man, from the moment he became an object of political competition, down to the concluding moment of his political existence. the sacred voice of inspiration has told us that there is a time for all things. there certainly has been a time for every evil that human nature admits of to be vaticinated of president jackson's administration; equally certain the time has now come for all rational and well-disposed people to compare the predictions with the facts, and to ask themselves if these calamitous prognostications have been verified by events? have we peace, or war, with foreign nations? certainly, we have peace with all the world! peace with all its benign, and felicitous, and beneficent influences! are we respected, or despised abroad? certainly the american name never was more honored throughout the four quarters of the globe than in this very moment. do we hear of indignity or outrage in any quarter? of merchants robbed in foreign ports? of vessels searched on the high seas? of american citizens impressed into foreign service? of the national flag insulted anywhere? on the contrary, we see former wrongs repaired; no new ones inflicted. france pays twenty-five millions of francs for spoliations committed thirty years ago; naples pays two millions one hundred thousand ducats for wrongs of the same date; denmark pays six hundred and fifty thousand rix-dollars for wrongs done a quarter of a century ago; spain engages to pay twelve millions of reals vellon for injuries of fifteen years' date; and portugal, the last in the list of former aggressors, admits her liability and only waits the adjustment of details to close her account by adequate indemnity. so far from war, insult, contempt, and spoliation from abroad, this denounced administration has been the season of peace and good will and the auspicious era of universal reparation. so far from suffering injury at the hands of foreign powers, our merchants have received indemnities for all former injuries. it has been the day of accounting, of settlement, and of retribution. the total list of arrearages, extending through four successive previous administrations, has been closed and settled up. the wrongs done to commerce for thirty years back, and under so many different presidents, and indemnities withheld from all, have been repaired and paid over under the beneficent and glorious administration of president jackson. but one single instance of outrage has occurred, and that at the extremities of the world, and by a piratical horde, amenable to no law but the law of force. the malays of sumatra committed a robbery and massacre upon an american vessel. wretches! they did not then know that jackson was president of the united states! and that no distance, no time, no idle ceremonial of treating with robbers and assassins, was to hold back the arm of justice. commodore downes went out. his cannon and his bayonets struck the outlaws in their den. they paid in terror and in blood for the outrage which was committed; and the great lesson was taught to these distant pirates--to our antipodes themselves,--that not even the entire diameter of this globe could protect them, and that the name of american citizen, like that of roman citizen in the great days of the republic and of the empire, was to be the inviolable passport of all that wore it throughout the whole extent of the habitable world. * * * from president jackson, the country has first learned the true theory and practical intent of the constitution, in giving to the executive a qualified negative on the legislative power of congress. far from being an odious, dangerous, or kingly prerogative, this power, as vested in the president, is nothing but a qualified copy of the famous veto power vested in the tribunes of the people among the romans, and intended to suspend the passage of a law until the people themselves should have time to consider it? the qualified veto of the president destroys nothing; it only delays the passage of a law, and refers it to the people for their consideration and decision. it is the reference of a law, not to a committee of the house, or of the whole house, but to the committee of the whole union. it is a recommitment of the bill to the people, for them to examine and consider; and if, upon this examination, they are content to pass it, it will pass at the next session. the delay of a few months is the only effect of a veto, in a case where the people shall ultimately approve a law; where they do not approve it, the interposition of the veto is the barrier which saves them the adoption of a law, the repeal of which might afterwards be almost impossible. the qualified negative is, therefore, a beneficent power, intended as general hamilton expressly declares in the federalist, to protect, first, the executive department from the encroachments of the legislative department; and, secondly, to preserve the people from hasty, dangerous, or criminal legislation on the part of their representatives. this is the design and intention of the veto power; and the fear expressed by general hamilton was, that presidents, so far from exercising it too often, would not exercise it as often as the safety of the people required; that they might lack the moral courage to stake themselves in opposition to a favorite measure of the majority of the two houses of congress; and thus deprive the people, in many instances, of their right to pass upon a bill before it becomes a final law. the cases in which president jackson has exercised the veto power have shown the soundness of these observations. no ordinary president would have staked himself against the bank of the united states and the two houses of congress in . it required president jackson to confront that power--to stem that torrent--to stay the progress of that charter, and to refer it to the people for their decision. his moral courage was equal to the crisis. he arrested the charter until it could be got to the people, and they have arrested it forever. had he not done so, the charter would have become law, and its repeal almost impossible. the people of the whole union would now have been in the condition of the people of pennsylvania, bestrode by the monster, in daily conflict with him, and maintaining a doubtful contest for supremacy between the government of a state and the directory of a moneyed corporation. sir, i think it right, in approaching the termination of this great question, to present this faint and rapid sketch of the brilliant, beneficent, and glorious administration of president jackson. it is not for me to attempt to do it justice; it is not for ordinary men to attempt its history. his military life, resplendent with dazzling events, will demand the pen of a nervous writer; his civil administration, replete with scenes which have called into action so many and such various passions of the human heart, and which has given to native sagacity so many victories over practised politicians, will require the profound, luminous, and philosophical conceptions of a livy, a plutarch, or a sallust. this history is not to be written in our day. the contemporaries of such events are not the hands to describe them. time must first do its office--must silence the passions, remove the actors, develop consequences, and canonize all that is sacred to honor, patriotism, and glory. in after ages the historic genius of our america shall produce the writers which the subject demands--men far removed from the contests of this day, who will know how to estimate this great epoch, and how to acquire an immortality for their own names by painting, with a master's hand, the immortal events of the patriot president's life. and now, sir, i finish the task which, three years ago, i imposed on myself. solitary and alone, and amidst the jeers and taunts of my opponents, i put this ball in motion. the people have taken it up, and rolled it forward, and i am no longer anything but a unit in the vast mass which now propels it. in the name of that mass i speak. i demand the execution of the edict of the people; i demand the expurgation of that sentence which the voice of a few senators, and the power of their confederate, the bank of the united states, has caused to be placed on the journal of the senate; and which the voice of millions of freemen has ordered to be expunged from it. american eloquence studies in american political history edited with introduction by alexander johnston reedited by james albert woodburn volume iii. (of ) v. --the anti-slavery struggle (continued from vol. ii.) vi.--secession. contents. introduction salmon portland chase on the kansas-nebraska bill --united states senate, february , . edward everett on the kansas-nebraska bill --united states senate, february , . stephen arnold douglas on the kansas-nebraska bill --united states senate, march , . charles sumner on the crime against kansas --united states senate, may , . preston s. brooks on the sumner assault --house of representatives, july , . judah p. benjamin on the property doctrine and slavery in the territories --united states senate, march , . abraham lincoln on the dred scott decision --springfield, ills., june , . abraham lincoln on his nomination to the united states senate --at the republican state convention, june , . the lincoln-douglas debate douglas in reply to lincoln--freeport, ills., august , . william h. seward on the irrepressible conflict--rochester, n. y., october , . vi.-secession. john parker hale on secession; moderate republican opinion --united states senate, december , . alfred iverson on secession; secessionist opinion --united states senate, december , . benjamin wade on secession, and the state of the union; radical republican opinion--united states senate, december , . john jordon crittenden on the crittenden compromise; border state unionist opinion--united states senate, december , . robert toombs on secession; secessionist opinion --united states senate, january , . samuel sullivan cox on secession; douglas democratic opinion --house of representatives, january , . jefferson davis on withdrawal from the union; secessionist opinion --united states senate, january , . list of portraits william h. seward -- frontispiece from a photograph. salmon p. chase -- from a daguerreotype, engraved by f. e. jones. edward everett -- from a painting by r. m. staigg. stephen a. douglass -- from a steel engraving. jefferson davis -- from a photograph. introduction to the revised volume. the third volume of the american eloquence is devoted to the continuation of the slavery controversy and to the progress of the secession movement which culminated in civil war. to the speeches of the former edition of the volume have been added: everett on the nebraska bill; benjamin on the property doctrine and slavery in the territories; lincoln on the dred scott decision; wade on secession and the state of the union; crittenden on the crittenden compromise; and jefferson davis's notable speech in which he took leave of the united state senate, in january, . judged by its political consequences no piece of legislation in american history is of greater historical importance than the kansas-nebraska bill. by that act the missouri compromise was repealed and the final conflict entered upon with the slave power. in addition to the speeches of douglas and chase, representing the best word on the opposing sides of the famous nebraska controversy, the new volume includes the notable contribution by edward everett to the congressional debates on that subject. besides being an orator of high rank and of literary renown, everett represented a distinct body of political opinion. as a conservative whig he voiced the sentiment of the great body of the followers of webster and clay who had helped to establish the compromise of and who wished to leave that settlement undisturbed. the student of the congressional struggles of will be led by a speech like that of everett to appreciate that moderate and conservative spirit toward slavery which would not persist in any anti-slavery action having a tendency to disturb the harmony of the union. that this conservative opinion looked upon the repeal of the missouri compromise as an act of aggression in the interest of slavery is indicated by everett's speech, and this gives the speech its historic significance. judah p. benjamin may be said to have been the ablest legal defender of slavery in public life during the decade of - . his speech on the right of property in slaves and the right of slavery to national protection in the territories was probably the ablest on that side of the controversy. lincoln's speech on the dred scott decision has been substituted for one by john c. breckinridge on the same subject; this will serve to bring into his true proportions this great leader of the combined anti-slavery forces. no voice, in the beginnings of secession and disunion, could better reflect the positive and uncompromising republicanism of the northwest than that of wade. the speech from him which we have appropriated is in many ways worthy of the attention of the historical student. we may look to crittenden as the best expositor of the crittenden compromise, the leading attempt at compromise and conciliation in the memorable session of congress of - . crittenden's subject and personality add historical prominence to his speech. the crittenden compromise would probably have been accepted by southern leaders like davis and toombs if it had been acceptable to the republican leaders of the north. the failure of that compromise made disunion and war inevitable. jefferson davis' memorable farewell to the senate, following the assured failure of compromise, seems a fitting close to the period of our history which brings us to the eve of the civil war. the introduction of professor johnston on "secession" is retained as originally prepared. a study of the speeches, with this introduction and the appended notes, will give a fair idea of the political issues dividing the country in the important years immediately preceding the war. limitations of space prevent the publication of the full speeches from the exhaustive congressional debates, but in several instances where it has seemed especially desirable omissions from the former volume have been supplied with the purpose of more fully representing the subjects and the speakers. to the reader who is interested in historical politics in america these productions of great political leaders need no recommendation from the editor. j. a. w. salmon portland chase, of ohio. (born , died .) on the kansas-nebraska bill; senate, february , . the bill for the organization of the territories of nebraska and kansas being under consideration--mr. chase submitted the following amendment: strike out from section the words "was superseded by the principles of the legislation of , commonly called the compromise measures, and; so that the clause will read: "that the constitution, and all laws of the united states which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said territory of nebraska as elsewhere within the united states, except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of missouri into the union, approved march , , which is hereby declared inoperative." mr. chase said: mr. president, i had occasion, a few days ago to expose the utter groundlessness of the personal charges made by the senator from illinois (mr. douglas) against myself and the other signers of the independent democratic appeal. i now move to strike from this bill a statement which i will to-day demonstrate to be without any foundation in fact or history. i intend afterward to move to strike out the whole clause annulling the missouri prohibition. i enter into this debate, mr. president, in no spirit of personal unkindness. the issue is too grave and too momentous for the indulgence of such feelings. i see the great question before me, and that question only. sir, these crowded galleries, these thronged lobbies, this full attendance of the senate, prove the deep, transcendent interest of the theme. a few days only have elapsed since the congress of the united states assembled in this capitol. then no agitation seemed to disturb the political elements. two of the great political parties of the country, in their national conventions, had announced that slavery agitation was at an end, and that henceforth that subject was not to be discussed in congress or out of congress. the president, in his annual message, had referred to this state of opinion, and had declared his fixed purpose to maintain, as far as any responsibility attached to him, the quiet of the country. let me read a brief extract from that message: "it is no part of my purpose to give prominence to any subject which may properly be regarded as set at rest by the deliberate judgment of the people. but while the present is bright with promise, and the future full of demand and inducement for the exercise of active intelligence, the past can never be without useful lessons of admonition and instruction. if its dangers serve not as beacons, they will evidently fail to fulfil the object of a wise design. when the grave shall have closed over all those who are now endeavoring to meet the obligations of duty, the year will be recurred to as a period filled with anxious apprehension. a successful war had just terminated. peace brought with it a vast augmentation of territory. disturbing questions arose, bearing upon the domestic institutions of one portion of the confederacy, and involving the constitutional rights of the states. but, notwithstanding differences of opinion and sentiment, which then existed in relation to details and specific provisions, the acquiescence of distinguished citizens, whose devotion to the union can never be doubted, had given renewed vigor to our institutions, and restored a sense of repose and security to the public mind throughout the confederacy. that this repose is to suffer no shock during my official term, if i have power to avert it, those who placed me here may be assured." the agreement of the two old political parties, thus referred to by the chief magistrate of the country, was complete, and a large majority of the american people seemed to acquiesce in the legislation of which he spoke. a few of us, indeed, doubted the accuracy of these statements, and the permanency of this repose. we never believed that the acts of would prove to be a permanent adjustment of the slavery question. we believed no permanent adjustment of that question possible except by a return to that original policy of the fathers of the republic, by which slavery was restricted within state limits, and freedom, without exception or limitation, was intended to be secured to every person outside of state limits and under the exclusive jurisdiction of the general government. but, sir, we only represented a small, though vigorous and growing, party in the country. our number was small in congress. by some we were regarded as visionaries--by some as factionists; while almost all agreed in pronouncing us mistaken. and so, sir, the country was at peace. as the eye swept the entire circumference of the horizon and upward to mid-heaven not a cloud appeared; to common observation there was no mist or stain upon the clearness of the sky. but suddenly all is changed. rattling thunder breaks from the cloudless firmament. the storm bursts forth in fury. warring winds rush into conflict. "_eurus, notusque ruunt, creberque procellis africus_." yes, sir, "_creber procellis africus_"--the south wind thick with storm. and now we find ourselves in the midst of an agitation, the end and issue of which no man can foresee. now, sir, who is responsible for this renewal of strife and controversy? not we, for we have introduced no question of territorial slavery into congress--not we who are denounced as agitators and factionists. no, sir: the quietists and the finalists have become agitators; they who told us that all agitation was quieted, and that the resolutions of the political conventions put a final period to the discussion of slavery. this will not escape the observation of the country. it is slavery that renews the strife. it is slavery that again wants room. it is slavery, with its insatiate demands for more slave territory and more slave states. and what does slavery ask for now? why, sir, it demands that a time-honored and sacred compact shall be rescinded--a compact which has endured through a whole generation--a compact which has been universally regarded as inviolable, north and south--a compact, the constitutionality of which few have doubted, and by which all have consented to abide. it will not answer to violate such a compact without a pretext. some plausible ground must be discovered or invented for such an act; and such a ground is supposed to be found in the doctrine which was advanced the other day by the senator from illinois, that the compromise acts of "superseded "the prohibition of slavery north of ° ', in the act preparatory for the admission of missouri. ay,sir, "superseded" is the phrase--"superseded by the principles of the legislation of , commonly called the compromise measures." it is against this statement, untrue in fact, and without foundation in history, that the amendment which i have proposed is directed. sir, this is a novel idea. at the time when these measures were before congress in , when the questions involved in them were discussed from day to day, from week to week, and from month to month, in this senate chamber, who ever heard that the missouri prohibition was to be superseded? what man, at what time, in what speech, ever suggested the idea that the acts of that year were to affect the missouri compromise? the senator from illinois the other day invoked the authority of henry clay--that departed statesman, in respect to whom, whatever may be the differences of political opinion, none question that, among the great men of this country, he stood proudly eminent. did he, in the report made by him as the chairman of the committee of thirteen, or in any speech in support of the compromise acts, or in any conversation in the committee, or out of the committee, ever even hint at this doctrine of supersedure? did any supporter or any opponent of the compromise acts ever vindicate or condemn them on the ground that the missouri prohibition would be affected by them? well, sir, the compromise acts were passed. they were denounced north, and they were denounced south. did any defender of them at the south ever justify his support of them upon the ground that the south had obtained through them the repeal of the missouri prohibition? did any objector to them at the north ever even suggest as a ground of condemnation that that prohibition was swept away by them? no, sir! no man, north or south, during the whole of the discussion of those acts here, or in that other discussion which followed their enactment throughout the country, ever intimated any such opinion. now, sir, let us come to the last session of congress. a nebraska bill passed the house and came to the senate, and was reported from the committee on territories by the senator from illinois, as its chairman. was there any provision in it which even squinted toward this notion of repeal by supersedure? why, sir, southern gentlemen opposed it on the very ground that it left the territory under the operation of the missouri prohibition. the senator from illinois made a speech in defence of it. did he invoke southern support upon the ground that it superseded the missouri prohibition? not at all. was it opposed or vindicated by anybody on any such ground? every senator knows the contrary. the senator from missouri (mr. atchison), now the president of this body, made a speech upon the bill, in which he distinctly declared that the missouri prohibition was not repealed, and could not be repealed. i will send this speech to the secretary, and ask him to read the paragraphs marked. the secretary read as follows: "i will now state to the senate the views which induced me to oppose this proposition in the early part of this session. "i had two objections to it. one was that the indian title in that territory had not been extinguished, or, at least, a very small portion of it had been. another was the missouri compromise, or, as it is commonly called, the slavery restriction. it was my opinion at that time--and i am not now very clear on that subject--that the law of congress, when the state of missouri was admitted into the union, excluding slavery from the territory of louisiana north of ° ', would be enforced in that territory unless it was specially rescinded, and whether that law was in accordance with the constitution of the united states or not, it would do its work, and that work would be to preclude slave-holders from going into that territory. but when i came to look into that question, i found that there was no prospect, no hope, of a repeal of the missouri compromise excluding slavery from that territory. now, sir, i am free to admit, that at this moment, at this hour, and for all time to come, i should oppose the organization or the settlement of that territory unless my constituents, and the constituents of the whole south--of the slave states of the union,--could go into it upon the same footing, with equal rights and equal privileges, carrying that species of property with them as other people of this union. yes, sir, i acknowledge that that would have governed me, but i have no hope that the restriction will ever be repealed. "i have always been of opinion that the first great error committed in the political history of this country was the ordinance of , rendering the northwest territory free territory. the next great error was the missouri compromise. but they are both irremediable. there is no remedy for them. we must submit to them. i am prepared to do it. it is evident that the missouri compromise cannot be re-pealed. so far as that question is concerned, we might as well agree to the admission of this territory now as next year, or five or ten years hence."--_congressional globe_, second session, d cong., vol. xxvi., page . that, sir, is the speech of the senator from missouri (mr. atchison), whose authority, i think, must go for something upon this question. what does he say? "when i came to look into that question"--of the possible repeal of the missouri prohibition--that was the question he was looking into--"i found that there was no prospect, no hope, of a repeal of the missouri compromise excluding slavery from that territory." and yet, sir, at that very moment, according to this new doctrine of the senator from illinois, it had been repealed three years! well, the senator from missouri said further, that if he thought it possible to oppose this restriction successfully, he never would consent to the organization of the territory until it was rescinded. but, said he, "i acknowledge that i have no hope that the restriction will ever be repealed." then he made some complaint, as other southern gentlemen have frequently done, of the ordinance of , and the missouri prohibition; but went on to say: "they are both irremediable; there is no remedy for them; we must submit to them; i am prepared to do it; it is evident that the missouri compromise cannot be repealed." now, sir, when was this said? it was on the morning of the th of march, just before the close of the last session, when that nebraska bill, reported by the senator from illinois, which proposed no repeal, and suggested no supersedure, was under discussion. i think, sir, that all this shows pretty clearly that up to the very close of the last session of congress nobody had ever thought of a repeal by supersedure. then what took place at the commencement of the present session? the senator from iowa, early in december, introduced a bill for the organization of the territory of nebraska. i believe it was the same bill which was under discussion here at the last session, line for line, word for word. if i am wrong, the senator will correct me. did the senator from iowa, then, entertain the idea that the missouri prohibition had been superseded? no, sir, neither he nor any other man here, so far as could be judged from any discussion, or statement, or remark, had received this notion. well, on the th day of january, the committee on territories, through their chairman, the senator from illinois, made a report on the territorial organization of nebraska; and that report was accompanied by a bill. now, sir, on that th day of january, just thirty days ago, did the committee on territories entertain the opinion that the compromise acts of superseded the missouri prohibition? if they did, they were very careful to keep it to themselves. we will judge the committee by their own report. what do they say in that? in the first place they describe the character of the controversy, in respect to the territories acquired from mexico. they say that some believed that a mexican law prohibiting slavery was in force there, while others claimed that the mexican law became inoperative at the moment of acquisition, and that slave-holders could take their slaves into the territory and hold them there under the provisions of the constitution. the territorial compromise acts, as the committee tell us, steered clear of these questions. they simply provided that the states organized out of these territories might come in with or without slavery, as they should elect, but did not affect the question whether slaves could or could not be introduced before the organization of state governments. that question was left entirely to judicial decision. well, sir, what did the committee propose to do with the nebraska territory? in respect to that, as in respect to the mexican territory, differences of opinion exist in relation to the introduction of slaves. there are southern gentlemen who contend that notwithstanding the missouri prohibition, they can take their slaves into the territory covered by it, and hold them there by virtue of the constitution. on the other hand the great majority of the american people, north and south, believe the missouri prohibition to be constitutional and effectual. now, what did the committee pro-pose? did they propose to repeal the prohibition? did they suggest that it had been superseded? did they advance any idea of that kind? no, sir. this is their language: "under this section, as in the case of the mexican law in new mexico and utah, it is a disputed point whether slavery is prohibited in the nebraska country by valid enactment. the decision of this question involves the constitutional power of congress to pass laws prescribing and regulating the domestic institutions of the various territories of the union. in the opinion of those eminent statesmen who hold that congress is invested with no rightful authority to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the territories, the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of missouri is null and void, while the prevailing sentiment in a large portion of the union sustains the doctrine that the constitution of the united states secures to every citizen an inalienable right to move into any of the territories with his property, of whatever kind and description, and to hold and enjoy the same under the sanction of law. your committee do not feel themselves called upon to enter into the discussion of these controverted questions. they involve the same grave issues which produced the agitation, the sectional strife, and the fearful struggle of ." this language will bear repetition: "your committee do not feel themselves called upon to enter into the discussion of these controverted questions. they involve the same grave issues which produced the agitation, the sectional strife, and the fearful struggle of ." and they go on to say: "congress deemed it wise and prudent to refrain from deciding the matters in controversy then, either by affirming or repealing the mexican laws, or by an act declaratory of the true intent of the constitution and the extent of the protection afforded by it to slave property in the territories; so your committee are not prepared now to recommend a departure from the course pursued on that memorable occasion, either by affirming or repealing the eighth section of the missouri act, or by any act declaratory of the meaning of the constitution in respect to the legal points in dispute." mr. president, here are very remarkable facts. the committee on territories declared that it was not wise, that it was not prudent, that it was not right, to renew the old controversy, and to arouse agitation. they declared that they would abstain from any recommendation of a repeal of the prohibition, or of any provision declaratory of the construction of the constitution in respect to the legal points in dispute. mr. president, i am not one of those who suppose that the question between mexican law and the slave-holding claims was avoided in the utah and new mexico act; nor do i think that the introduction into the nebraska bill of the provisions of those acts in respect to slavery would leave the question between the missouri prohibition and the same slave-holding claims entirely unaffected.' i am of a very different opinion. but i am dealing now with the report of the senator from illinois, as chairman of the committee, and i show, beyond all controversy, that that report gave no countenance whatever to the doctrine of repeal by supersedure. well, sir, the bill reported by the committee was printed in the washington sentinel on saturday, january th. it contained twenty sections; no more, no less. it contained no provisions in respect to slavery, except those in the utah and new mexico bills. it left those provisions to speak for themselves. this was in harmony with the report of the committee. on the th of january--on tuesday--the act appeared again in the sentinel; but it had grown longer during the interval. it appeared now with twenty-one sections. there was a statement in the paper that the twenty-first section had been omitted by a clerical error. but, sir, it is a singular fact that this twenty-first section is entirely out of harmony with the committee's report. it undertakes to determine the effect of the provision in the utah and new mexico bills. it declares, among other things, that all questions pertaining to slavery in the territories, and in the new states to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein, through their appropriate representatives. this provision, in effect, repealed the missouri prohibition, which the committee, in their report, declared ought not to be done. is it possible, sir, that this was a mere clerical error? may it not be that this twenty-first section was the fruit of some sunday work, between saturday the th, and tuesday the th? but, sir, the addition of this section, it seems, did not help the bill. it did not, i suppose, meet the approbation of southern gentlemen, who contended that they have a right to take their slaves into the territories, notwithstanding any prohibition, either by congress or by a territorial legislature. i dare say it was found that the votes of these gentlemen could not be had for the bill with that clause in it. it was not enough that the committee had abandoned their report, and added this twenty-first section, in direct contravention of its reasonings and principles. the twenty-first section itself must be abandoned, and the repeal of the missouri prohibition placed in a shape which would not deny the slave-holding claim. the senator from kentucky (mr. dixon), on the th of january, submitted an amendment which came square up to repeal, and to the claim. that amendment, probably, produced some fluttering and some consultation. it met the views of southern senators, and probably determined the shape which the bill has finally assumed. of the various mutations which it has undergone, i can hardly be mistaken in attributing the last to the amendment of the senator from kentucky. that there is no effect without a cause, is among our earliest lessons in physical philosophy, and i know of no causes which will account for the remarkable changes which the bill underwent after the th of january, other than that amendment, and the determination of southern senators to support it, and to vote against any provision recognizing the right of any territorial legislature to prohibit the introduction of slavery. it was just seven days, mr. president, after the senator from kentucky had offered his amendment, that a fresh amendment was reported from the committee on territories, in the shape of a new bill, enlarged to forty sections. this new bill cuts off from the proposed territory half a degree of latitude on the south, and divides the residue into two territories--the southern territory of kansas, and the northern territory of nebraska. it applies to each all the provisions of the utah and new mexico bills; it rejects entirely the twenty-first clerical-error section, and abrogates the missouri prohibition by the very singular provision, which i will read: "the constitution and all laws of the united states which are not locally inapplicable shall have the same force and effect within the said territory of nebraska as elsewhere within the united states, except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of missouri into the union, approved march , , which was superseded by the principles of the legislation of , commonly called the compromise measures, and is therefore declared inoperative." doubtless, mr. president, this provision operates as a repeal of the prohibition. the senator from kentucky was right when he said it was in effect the equivalent of his amendment. those who are willing to break up and destroy the old compact of can vote for this bill with full assurance that such will be its effect. but i appeal to them not to vote for this supersedure clause. i ask them not to incorporate into the legislation of the country a declaration which every one knows to be wholly untrue. i have said that this doctrine of supersedure is new. i have now proved that it is a plant of but ten days' growth. it was never seen or heard of until the d day of january, . it was upon that day that this tree of upas was planted; we already see its poison fruits. * * * the truth is, that the compromise acts of were not intended to introduce any principles of territorial organization applicable to any other territory except that covered by them. the professed object of the friends of the compromise acts was to compose the whole slavery agitation. there were various matters of complaint. the non-surrender of fugitives from service was one. the existence of slavery and the slave-trade here in this district and elsewhere, under the exclusive jurisdiction of congress, was another. the apprehended introduction of slavery into the territories furnished other grounds of controversy. the slave states complained of the free states, and the free states complained of the slave states. it was supposed by some that this whole agitation might be stayed, and finally put at rest by skilfully adjusted legislation. so, sir, we had the omnibus bill, and its appendages the fugitive-slave bill and the district slave-trade suppression bill. to please the north--to please the free states--california was to be admitted, and the slave depots here in the district were to be broken up. to please the slave states, a stringent fugitive-slave act was to be passed, and slavery was to have a chance to get into the new territories. the support of the senators and representatives from texas was to be gained by a liberal adjustment of boundary, and by the assumption of a large portion of their state debt. the general result contemplated was a complete and final adjustment of all questions relating to slavery. the acts passed. a number of the friends of the acts signed a compact pledging themselves to support no man for any office who would in any way renew the agitation. the country was required to acquiesce in the settlement as an absolute finality. no man concerned in carrying those measures through congress, and least of all the distinguished man whose efforts mainly contributed to their success, ever imagined that in the territorial acts, which formed a part of the series, they were planting the germs of a new agitation. indeed, i have proved that one of these acts contained an express stipulation which precludes the revival of the agitation in the form in which it is now thrust upon the country, without manifest disregard of the provisions of those acts themselves. i have thus proved beyond controversy that the averment of the bill, which my amendment proposes to strike out, is untrue. senators, will you unite in a statement which you know to be contradicted by the history of the country? will you incorporate into a public statute an affirmation which is contradicted by every event which attended or followed the adoption of the compromise acts? will you here, acting under your high responsibility as senators of the states, assert as a fact, by a solemn vote, that which the personal recollection of every senator who was here during the discussion of those compromise acts disproves? i will not believe it until i see it. if you wish to break up the time-honored compact embodied in the missouri compromise, transferred into the joint resolution for the annexation of texas, preserved and affirmed by these compromise acts themselves, do it openly--do it boldly. repeal the missouri prohibition. repeal it by a direct vote. do not repeal it by indirection. do not "declare" it "inoperative," "because superseded by the principles of the legislation of ." mr. president, three great eras have marked the history of this country in respect to slavery. the first may be characterized as the era of enfranchisement. it commenced with the earliest struggles for national independence. the spirit which inspired it animated the hearts and prompted the efforts of washington, of jefferson, of patrick henry, of wythe, of adams, of jay, of hamilton, of morris--in short, of all the great men of our early history. all these hoped for, all these labored for, all these believed in, the final deliverance of the country from the curse of slavery. that spirit burned in the declaration of independence, and inspired the provisions of the constitution, and the ordinance of . under its influence, when in full vigor, state after state provided for the emancipation of the slaves within their limits, prior to the adoption of the constitution. under its feebler influence at a later period, and during the administration of mr. jefferson, the importation of slaves was prohibited into mississippi and louisiana, in the faint hope that those territories might finally become free states. gradually that spirit ceased to influence our public councils, and lost its control over the american heart and the american policy. another era succeeded, but by such imperceptible gradations that the lines which separate the two cannot be traced with absolute precision. the facts of the two eras meet and mingle as the currents of confluent streams mix so imperceptibly that the observer cannot fix the spot where the meeting waters blend. this second era was the era of conservatism. its great maxim was to preserve the existing condition. men said: let things remain as they are; let slavery stand where it is; exclude it where it is not; refrain from disturbing the public quiet by agitation; adjust all difficulties that arise, not by the application of principles, but by compromises. it was during this period that the senator tells us that slavery was maintained in illinois, both while a territory and after it became a state, in despite of the provisions of the ordinance. it is true, sir, that the slaves held in the illinois country, under the french law, were not regarded as absolutely emancipated by the provisions of the ordinance. but full effect was given to the ordinance in excluding the introduction of slaves, and thus the territory was preserved from eventually becoming a slave state. the few slave-holders in the territory of indiana, which then included illinois, succeeded in obtaining such an ascendency in its affairs, that repeated applications were made not merely by conventions of delegates, but by the territorial legislature itself, for a suspension of the clause in the ordinance prohibiting slavery. these applications were reported upon by john randolph, of virginia, in the house, and by mr. franklin in the senate. both the reports were against suspension. the grounds stated by randolph are specially worthy of being considered now. they are thus stated in the report: "that the committee deem it highly dangerous and inexpedient to impair a provision wisely calculated to promote the happiness and prosperity of the northwestern country, and to give strength and security to that extensive frontier. in the salutary operation of this sagacious and benevolent restraint, it is believed that the inhabitants of indiana will, at no very distant day, find ample remuneration for a temporary privation of labor and of emigration." sir, these reports, made in and , and the action of congress upon them, in conformity with their recommendation, saved illinois, and perhaps indiana, from becoming slave states. when the people of illinois formed their state constitution, they incorporated into it a section providing that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall hereafter be introduced into this state. the constitution made provision for the continued service of the few persons who were originally held as slaves, and then bound to service under the territorial laws, and for the freedom of their children, and thus secured the final extinction of slavery. the senator thinks that this result is not attributable to the ordinance. i differ from him. but for the ordinance, i have no doubt slavery would have been introduced into indiana, illinois, and ohio. it is something to the credit of the era of conservatism, uniting its influences with those of the expiring era of enfranchisement, that it maintained the ordinance of in the northwest. the era of conservatism passed, also by imperceptible gradations, into the era of slavery propagandism. under the influences of this new spirit we opened the whole territory acquired from mexico, except california, to the ingress of slavery. every foot of it was covered by a mexican prohibition; and yet, by the legislation of , we consented to expose it to the introduction of slaves. some, i believe, have actually been carried into utah and new mexico. they may be few, perhaps, but a few are enough to affect materially the probable character of their future governments. under the evil influences of the same spirit, we are now called upon to reverse the original policy of the republic; to support even a solemn compact of the conservative period, and open nebraska to slavery. sir, i believe that we are upon the verge of another era. that era will be the era of reaction. the introduction of this question here, and its discussion, will greatly hasten its advent. we, who insist upon the denationalization of slavery, and upon the absolute divorce of the general government from all connection with it, will stand with the men who favored the compromise acts, and who yet wish to adhere to them, in their letter and in their spirit, against the repeal of the missouri prohibition. but you may pass it here. you may send it to the other house. it may become a law. but its effect will be to satisfy all thinking men that no compromises with slavery will endure, except so long as they serve the interests of slavery; and that there is no safe and honorable ground for non-slaveholders to stand upon, except that of restricting slavery within state limits, and excluding it absolutely from the whole sphere of federal jurisdiction. the old questions between political parties are at rest. no great question so thoroughly possesses the public mind as this of slavery. this discussion will hasten the inevitable reorganization of parties upon the new issues which our circumstances suggest. it will light up a fire in the country which may, perhaps, consume those who kindle it. * * * edward everett, of massachusetts. (born , died .) on the kansas-nebraska bill; senate of the united states, february , i will not take up the time of the senate by going over the somewhat embarrassing and perplexed history of the bill, from its first entry into the senate until the present time. i will take it as it now stands, as it is printed on our tables, and with the amendment which was offered by the senator from illinois (mr. douglas) yesterday, and which, ii suppose, is now printed, and on our tables; and i will state, as briefly as i can, the difficulties which i have found in giving my support to this bill, either as it stands, or as it will stand when the amendment shall be adopted. my chief objections are to the provisions on the subject of slavery, and especially to the exception which is contained in the th section, in the following words: "except the th section of the act preparatory to the admission of missouri into the union, approved march , , which was superseded by the principles of the legislation of , commonly called the compromise measures, and is hereby declared inoperative." on the day before yesterday the chairman of the committee on territories proposed to change the words "superseded by" to "inconsistent with," as expressing more distinctly all that he meant to convey by that impression. yesterday, however, he brought in an amendment drawn up with great skill and care, on notice given the day before, which is to strike out the words "which was superseded by the principles of the legislation of , commonly called the compromise measures, and is hereby declared inoperative," and to insert in lieu of them the following: "which being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by congress with slavery in the states and territories, as recognized by the legislation of , commonly called the compromise measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the united states." * * * * * now, sir, i think, in the first place, that the language of this proposed enactment, being obscure, is of somewhat doubtful import, and for that reason, unsatisfactory. i should have preferred a little more directness. what is the condition of an enactment which is declared by a subsequent act of congress to be "inoperative and void?" does it remain in force? i take it, not. that would be a contradiction in terms, to say that an enactment which had been declared by act of congress inoperative and void is still in force. then, if it is not in force, if it is not only inoperative and void, as it is to be declared, but is not in force, it is of course repealed. if it is to be repealed, why not say so? i think it would have been more direct and more parliamentary to say "shall be and is hereby repealed." then we should know precisely, so far as legal and technical terms go, what the amount of this new legislative provision is. if the form is somewhat objectionable, i think the substance is still more so. the amendment is to strike out the words "which was superseded by," and to insert a provision that the act of is inconsistent with the principle of congressional non-intervention, and is therefore inoperative and void. i do not quite understand how much is conveyed in this language. the missouri restriction of , it is said, is inconsistent with the principle of the legislation of . if anything more is meant by "the principle" of the legislation of , than the measures which were adopted at that time in reference to the territories of new mexico and utah--for i may assume that those are the legislative measures referred to--if anything more is meant than that a certain measure was adopted, and enacted in reference to those territories, i take issue on that point. i do not know that it could be proved that, even in reference to those territories, a principle was enacted at all. a certain measure, or, if you please, a course of measures, was enacted in reference to the territories of new mexico and utah; but i do not know that you can call this enacting a principle. it is certainly not enacting a principle which is to carry with it a rule for other territories lying in other parts of the country, and in a different legal position. as to the principle of non-intervention on the part of congress in the question of slavery, i do not find that, either as principle or as measure, it was enacted in those territorial bills of . i do not, unless i have greatly misread them, find that there is anything at all which comes up to that. every legislative act of those territorial governments must come before congress for allowance or disallowance, and under those bills without repealing them, without departing from them in the slightest degree, it would be competent for congress to-morrow to pass any law on that subject. how then can it be said that the principle of non-intervention on the part of congress in the subject of slavery was enacted and established by the compromise measures of ? but, whether that be so or not, how can you find, in a simple measure applying in terms to these individual territories, and to them alone, a rule which is to govern all other territories with a retrospective and with a prospective action? is it not a mere begging of the question to say that those compromise measures, adopted in this specific case, amount to such a general rule? but, let us try it in a parallel case. in the earlier land legislation of the united states, it was customary, without exception, when a territory became a state, to require that there should be a stipulation in their state constitution that the public lands sold within their borders should be exempted from taxation for five years after the sale. this, i believe, continued to be the uniform practice down to the year , when the state of missouri was admitted. she was admitted under the stipulation. if i mistake not, the next state which was admitted into the union--but it is not important whether it was the next or not--came in without that stipulation, and they were left free to tax the public lands the moment when they were sold. here was a principle; as much a principle as it is contended was established in the utah and new mexico territorial bill; but did any one suppose that it acted upon the other territories? i believe the whole system is now abolished under the operation of general laws, and the influence of that example may have led to the change. but, until it was made by legislation, the mere fact that public lands sold in arkansas were immediately subject to taxation, could not alter the law in regard to the public lands sold in missouri, or in any other to where they were they were exempt. there is a case equally analogous to the very matter we are now considering--the prohibition or permission of slavery. the ordinance of prohibited slavery in the territory northwest of the ohio. in congress passed an act accepting the cession which the state of north carolina had made of the western part of her territory, with the proviso, that in reference to the territory thus ceded congress should pass no laws "tending to the emancipation of the slaves." here was a precisely parallel case. here was a territory in which, in , slavery was prohibited. here was a territory ceded by north carolina, which became the territory of the united states south of the ohio, in reference to which it was stipulated with north carolina, that congress should pass no laws tending to the emancipation of slaves. but i believe it never occurred to any one that the legislation of acted back upon the ordinance of , or furnished a rule by which any effect could be produced upon the state of things existing under that ordinance, in the territory to which it applied. i certainly intend to do the distinguished chairman of the committee no injustice; and i am not sure that i fully comprehend his argument in this respect; but i think his report sustains the view which i now take of the subject: that is, that the legislation of did not establish a principle which was designed to have any such effect as he intimates. that report states how matters stood in those new mexican territories. it was alleged on the one hand that by the mexican _lex loci_ slavery was prohibited. on the other hand that was denied, and it was maintained that the constitution of the united states secures to every citizen the right to go there and take with him any property recognized as such by any of the states of the union. the report considers that a similar state of things now exists in nebraska--that the validity of the eighth section of the missouri act, by which slavery is prohibited in that territory, is doubtful, and that it is maintained by many distinguished statesmen that congress has no power to legislate on the subject. then, in this state of the controversy, the report maintains that the legislation of congress in did not undertake to decide these questions. surely, if they did not undertake to decide them, they could not settle the principle which is at stake in them; and, unless they did decide them, the measures then adopted must be considered as specific measures, relating only to those case and not establishing a principle of general operation. this seems to me to be as direct and conclusive as anything can be. at all events, these are not impressions which are put forth by me under the exigencies of the present debate or of the present occasion. i have never entertained any other opinion. i was called upon for a particular purpose, of a literary nature, to which i will presently allude more distinctly, shortly after the close of the session of , to draw up a narrative of the events that had taken place relative to the passage of the compromise measures of that year. i had not, i own, the best sources of information. i was not a member of congress, and had not heard the debates, which is almost indispensable to come to a thorough understanding of questions of this nature; but i inquired of those who had heard them, i read the reports, and i had an opportunity of personal intercourse with some who had taken a prominent part in all those measures. i never formed the idea--i never received the intimation until i got it from this report of the committee--that those measures were intended to have any effect beyond the territories of utah and new mexico, for which they were enacted. i cannot but think that if it was intended that they should have any larger application, if it was intended that they should furnish the rule which is now supposed, it would have been a fact as notorious as the light of day. * * * * * and now, sir, having alluded to the speech of mr. webster, of the th march, , allow me to dwell upon it for a moment. i was in a position the next year--having been requested by that great and lamented man to superintend the publication of his works--to know very particularly the comparative estimate which he placed upon his own parliamentary efforts. he told me more than once that he thought his second speech on foot's resolution was that in which he had best succeeded as a senatorial effort, and as a specimen of parliamentary dialectics; but he added, with an emotion which even he was unable to suppress, "the speech of the th of march, , much as i have been reviled for it, when i am dead, will be allowed to be of the greatest importance to the country." sir, he took the greatest interest in that speech. he wished it to go forth with a specific title; and, after considerable deliberation, it was called, by his own direction, "a speech for the constitution and the union." he inscribed it to the people of massachusetts, in a dedication of the most emphatic tenderness, and he prefixed to it that motto--which you all remember--from livy, the most appropriate and felicitous quotation, perhaps, that was ever made: "true things rather than pleasant things"--_vera progratis:_ and with that he sent it forth to the world. in that speech his gigantic intellect brought together all that it could gather from the law of nature, from the constitution of the united states, from our past legislation, and from the physical features of the region, to strengthen him in that plan of conciliation and peace, in which he feared that he might not carry along with him the public sentiment of the whole of that, portion of the country which he particularly represented here. at its close, when he dilated upon the disastrous effects of separation, he rose to a strain of impassioned eloquence which had never been surpassed within these walls. every topic, every argument, every fact, was brought to bear upon the point; and he felt that all his vast popularity was at stake on the issue. let me commend to the attention of senators, and let me ask them to consider what weight is due to the authority of such a man, speaking under such circumstances, and on such an occasion, when he tells you that the condition of every foot of land in the country, for slavery or non-slavery, is fixed by some irrepealable law. and you are now about to repeal the principal law which ascertained and fixed that condition. and, sir, if the senate will take any heed of the opinion of one so humble as myself, i will say that i believe mr. webster, in that speech, went to the very verge of the public sentiment in the non-slaveholding states, and that to have gone a hair's-breadth further, would have been a step too bold even for his great weight of character. * * * * * i conclude, therefore, sir, that the compromise measures of ended where they began, with the territories of utah and new mexico, to which they specifically referred; at any rate, that they established no principle which was to govern in other cases; that they had no prospective action to the organization of territories in all future time; and certainly no retrospective action upon lands subject to the restriction of , and to the positive enactment that you now propose to declare inoperative and void. i trust that nothing which i have now said will be taken in derogation of the compromises of . i adhere to them; i stand by them. i do so for many reasons. one is respect for the memory of the great men who were the authors of them--lights and ornaments of the country, but now taken from its service. i would not so soon, if it were in my power, undo their work, if for no other reason. but beside this, i am one of those--i am not ashamed to avow it--who believed at that time, and who still believe, that at that period the union of these states was in great danger, and that the adoption of the compromise measures of contributed materially to avert that danger; and therefore, sir, i say, as well out of respect to the memory of the great men who were the authors of them, as to the healing effect of the measures themselves, i would adhere to them. they are not perfect. i suppose that nobody, either north or south, thinks them perfect. they contain some provisions not satisfactory to the south, and other provisions contrary to the public sentiment of the north; but i believed at the time they were the wisest, the best, the most effective measures which, under the circumstances, could be adopted. but you do not strengthen them, you do not show your respect for them, by giving them an application which they were never intended to bear. * * * * * a single word, sir, in respect to this supposed principle of non-intervention on the part of congress in the subject of slavery in the territories. i confess i am surprised to find this brought forward, and stated with so much confidence, as an established principle of the government. i know that distinguished gentlemen hold the opinion. the very distinguished senator from michigan (mr. cass) holds it, and has propounded it; and i pay all due respect and deference to his authority, which i conceive to be very high. but i was not aware that any such principle was considered a settled principle of the territorial policy of this country. why, sir, from the first enactment in , down to the bill before us, there is no such principle in our legislation. as far as i can see it would be perfectly competent even now for congress to pass any law that they pleased on the subject in the territories under this bill. but however that may be, even by this bill, there is not a law which the territories can pass admitting or excluding slavery, which it is of in the power of this congress to disallow the next day. this is not a mere _brutum fulmen_. it is not an unexpected power. your statute-book shows case after case. i believe, in reference to a single territory, that there have been fifteen or twenty cases where territorial legislation has been disallowed by congress. how, then, can it be said that this principle of non-intervention in the government of the territories is now to be recognized as an established principle in the public policy of the congress of the united states? do gentlemen recollect the terms, almost of disdain, with which this supposed established principle of our constitutional policy is treated in that last valedictory speech of mr. calhoun, which, unable to pronounce it himself, he was obliged to give to the senate through the medium of his friend, the senator from virginia. he reminded the senate that the occupants of a territory were not even called the people--but simply the inhabitants--till they were allowed by congress to call a convention and form a state constitution. * * * * * a word more, sir, and i have done. with reference to the great question of slavery--that terrible question--the only one on which the north and south of this great republic differ irreconcilably--i have not, on this occasion, a word to say. my humble career is drawing near its close, and i shall end it as i began, with using no other words on that subject than those of moderation, conciliation, and harmony between the two great sections of the country. i blame no one who differs from me in this respect. i allot to others, what i claim for myself, the credit of honesty and purity of motive. but for my own part, the rule of my life, as far as circumstances have enabled me to act up to it, has been, to say nothing that would tend to kindle unkind feeling on this subject. i have never known men on this, or any other subject, to be convinced by harsh epithets or denunciation. i believe the union of these states is the greatest possible blessing--that it comprises within itself all other blessings, political, national, and social; and i trust that my eyes may close long before the day shall come--if it ever shall come--when that union shall be at an end. sir, i share the opinions and the sentiments of the part of the country where i was born and educated, where my ashes will be laid, and where my children will succeed me. but in relation to my fellow-citizens in other parts of the country, i will treat their constitutional and their legal rights with respect, and their characters and their feelings with tenderness. i believe them to be as good christians, as good patriots, as good men, as we are, and i claim that we, in our turn, are as good as they. i rejoiced to hear my friend from kentucky, (mr. dixon), if he will allow me to call him so--i concur most heartily in the sentiment--utter the opinion that a wise and gracious providence, in his own good time, will find the ways and the channels to remove from the land what i consider this great evil, but i do not expect that what has been done in three centuries and a half is to be undone in a day or a year, or a few years; and i believe that, in the mean time, the desired end will be retarded rather than promoted by passionate sectional agitation. i believe, further, that the fate of the great and interesting continent in the elder world, africa, is closely intertwined and wrapped up with the fortunes of her children in all the parts of the earth to which they have been dispersed, and that at some future time, which is already in fact beginning, they will go back to the land of their fathers, the voluntary missionaries of civilization and christianity; and finally, sir, i doubt not that in his own good time the ruler of all will vindicate the most glorious of his prerogatives, "from seeming evil still educing good." stephen arnold douglas, of illinois. (born , died .) on the kansas-nebraska bill; senate, march , . it has been urged in debate that there is no necessity for these territorial organizations; and i have been called upon to point out any public and national considerations which require action at this time. senators seem to forget that our immense and valuable possessions on the pacific are separated from the states and organized territories on this side of the rocky mountains by a vast wilderness, filled by hostile savages--that nearly a hundred thousand emigrants pass through this barbarous wilderness every year, on their way to california and oregon--that these emigrants are american citizens, our own constituents, who are entitled to the protection of law and government, and that they are left to make their way, as best they may, without the protection or aid of law or government. the united states mails for new mexico and utah, and official communications between this government and the authorities of those territories, are required to be carried over these wild plains, and through the gorges of the mountains, where you have made no provisions for roads, bridges, or ferries to facilitate travel, or forts or other means of safety to protect life. as often as i have brought forward and urged the adoption of measures to remedy these evils, and afford security against the damages to which our people are constantly exposed, they have been promptly voted down as not being of sufficient importance to command the favorable consideration of congress. now, when i propose to organize the territories, and allow the people to do for themselves what you have so often refused to do for them, i am told that there are not white inhabitants enough permanently settled in the country to require and sustain a government. true; there is not a very large population there, for the very reason that your indian code and intercourse laws exclude the settlers, and forbid their remaining there to cultivate the soil. you refuse to throw the country open to settlers, and then object to the organization of the territories, upon the ground that there is not a sufficient number of inhabitants. * * * i will now proceed to the consideration of the great principle involved in the bill, without omitting, however, to notice some of those extraneous matters which have been brought into this discussion with the view of producing another anti-slavery agitation. we have been told by nearly every senator who has spoken in opposition to this bill, that at the time of its introduction the people were in a state of profound quiet and repose, that the anti-slavery agitation had entirely ceased, and that the whole country was acquiescing cheerfully and cordially in the compromise measures of as a final adjustment of this vexed question. sir, it is truly refreshing to hear senators, who contested every inch of ground in opposition to those measures, when they were under discussion, who predicted all manner of evils and calamities from their adoption, and who raised the cry of appeal, and even resistance, to their execution, after they had become the laws of the land--i say it is really refreshing to hear these same senators now bear their united testimony to the wisdom of those measures, and to the patriotic motives which induced us to pass them in defiance of their threats and resistance, and to their beneficial effects in restoring peace, harmony, and fraternity to a distracted country. these are precious confessions from the lips of those who stand pledged never to assent to the propriety of those measures, and to make war upon them, so long as they shall remain upon the statute-book. i well understand that these confessions are now made, not with the view of yielding their assent to the propriety of carrying those enactments into faithful execution, but for the purpose of having a pretext for charging upon me, as the author of this bill, the responsibility of an agitation which they are striving to produce. they say that i, and not they, have revived the agitation. what have i done to render me obnoxious to this charge? they say that i wrote and introduced this nebraska bill. that is true; but i was not a volunteer in the transaction. the senate, by a unanimous vote, appointed me chairman of the territorial committee, and associated five intelligent and patriotic senators with me, and thus made it our duty to take charge of all territorial business. in like manner, and with the concurrence of these complaining senators, the senate referred to us a distinct proposition to organize this nebraska territory, and required us to report specifically upon the question. i repeat, then, we were not volunteers in this business. the duty was imposed upon us by the senate. we were not unmindful of the delicacy and responsibility of the position. we were aware that, from to , the abolition doctrine of congressional interference with slavery in the territories and new states had so far prevailed as to keep up an incessant slavery agitation in congress, and throughout the country, whenever any new territory was to be acquired or organized. we were also aware that, in , the right of the people to decide this question for themselves, subject only to the constitution, was submitted for the doctrine of congressional intervention. this first question, therefore, which the committee were called upon to decide, and indeed the only question of any material importance in framing this bill, was this: shall we adhere to and carry out the principle recognized by the compromise measures of , or shall we go back to the old exploded doctrine of congressional interference, as established in , in a large portion of the country, and which it was the object of the wilmot proviso to give a universal application, not only to all the territory which we then possessed, but all which we might hereafter acquire? there are no alternatives. we were compelled to frame the bill upon the one or the other of these two principles. the doctrine of or the doctrine of must prevail. in the discharge of the duty imposed upon us by the senate, the committee could not hesitate upon this point, whether we consulted our own individual opinions and principles, or those which were known to be entertained and boldly avowed by a large majority of the senate. the two great political parties of the country stood solemnly pledged before the world to adhere to the compromise measures of , "in principle and substance." a large majority of the senate--indeed, every member of the body, i believe, except the two avowed abolitionists (mr. chase and mr. sumner)--profess to belong to one or the other of these parties, and hence were supposed to be under a high moral obligation to carry out "the principle and substance" of those measures in all new territorial organizations. the report of the committee was in accordance with this obligation. i am arraigned, therefore, for having endeavored to represent the opinions and principles of the senate truly--for having performed my duty in conformity with parliamentary law--for having been faithful to the trust imposed in me by the senate. let the vote this night determine whether i have thus faithfully represented your opinions. when a majority of the senate shall have passed the bill--when the majority of the states shall have endorsed it through their representatives upon this floor--when a majority of the south and a majority of the north shall have sanctioned it--when a majority of the whig party and a majority of the democratic party shall have voted for it--when each of these propositions shall be demonstrated by the vote this night on the final passage of the bill, i shall be willing to submit the question to the country, whether, as the organ of the committee, i performed my duty in the report and bill which have called down upon my head so much denunciation and abuse. mr. president, the opponents of this measure have had much to say about the mutations and modifications which this bill has undergone since it was first introduced by myself, and about the alleged departure of the bill, in its present form, from the principle laid down in the original report of the committee as a rule of action in all future territorial organizations. fortunately there is no necessity, even if your patience would tolerate such a course of argument at this late hour of the night, for me to examine these speeches in detail, and reply to each charge separately. each speaker seems to have followed faithfully in the footsteps of his leader in the path marked out by the abolition confederates in their manifesto, which i took occasion to expose on a former occasion. you have seen them on their winding way, meandering the narrow and crooked path in indian file, each treading close upon the heels of the other, and neither venturing to take a step to the right or left, or to occupy one inch of ground which did not bear the footprint of the abolition champion. to answer one, therefore, is to answer the whole. the statement to which they seem to attach the most importance, and which they have repeated oftener, perhaps, than any other, is, that, pending the compromise measures of , no man in or out of congress ever dreamed of abrogating the missouri compromise; that from that period down to the present session nobody supposed that its validity had been impaired, or any thing done which endered it obligatory upon us to make it inoperative hereafter; that at the time of submitting the report and bill to the senate, on the fourth of january last, neither i nor any member of the committee ever thought of such a thing; and that we could never be brought to the point of abrogating the eighth section of the missouri act until after the senator from kentucky introduced his amendment to my bill. mr. president, before i proceed to expose the many misrepresentations contained in this complicated charge, i must call the attention of the senate to the false issue which these gentlemen are endeavoring to impose upon the country, for the purpose of diverting public attention from the real issue contained in the bill. they wish to have the people believe that the abrogation of what they call the missouri compromise was the main object and aim of the bill, and that the only question involved is, whether the prohibition of slavery north of ° ' shall be repealed or not? that which is a mere incident they choose to consider the principle. they make war on the means by which we propose to accomplish an object, instead of openly resisting the object itself. the principle which we propose to carry into effect by the bill is this: that congress shall neither legislate slavery into any territories or state, nor out of the same; but the people shall be left free to regulate their domestic concerns in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the united states. in order to carry this principle into practical operation, it becomes necessary to remove whatever legal obstacles might be found in the way of its free exercise. it is only for the purpose of carrying out this great fundamental principle of self-government that the bill renders the eighth section of the missouri act inoperative and void. now, let me ask, will these senators who have arraigned me, or any one of them, have the assurance to rise in his place and declare that this great principle was never thought of or advocated as applicable to territorial bills, in ; that from that session until the present, nobody ever thought of incorporating this principle in all new territorial organizations; that the committee on territories did not recommend it in their report; and that it required the amendment of the senator from kentucky to bring us up to that point? will any one of my accusers dare to make this issue, and let it be tried by the record? i will begin with the compromises of , any senator who will take the trouble to examine our journals, will find that on the th of march of that year i reported from the committee on territories two bills including the following measures; the admission of california, a territorial government for new mexico, and the adjustment of the texas boundary. these bills proposed to leave the people of utah and new mexico free to decide the slavery question for themselves, in the precise language of the nebraska bill now under discussion. a few weeks afterward the committee of thirteen took those two bills and put a wafer between them, and reported them back to the senate as one bill, with some slight amendments. one of these amendments was, that the territorial legislatures should not legislate upon the subject of african slavery. i objected to that provision upon the ground that it subverted the great principle of self-government upon which the bill had been originally framed by the territorial committee. on the first trial, the senate refused to strike it out, but subsequently did so, after full debate, in order to establish that principle as the rule of action in territorial organizations. * * * but my accusers attempt to raise up a false issue, and thereby divert public attention from the real one, by the cry that the missouri compromise is to be repealed or violated by the passage of this bill. well, if the eighth section of the missouri act, which attempted to fix the destinies of future generations in those territories for all time to come, in utter disregard of the rights and wishes of the people when they should be received into the union as states, be inconsistent with the great principles of self-government and the constitution of the united states. it ought to be abrogated. the legislation of abrogated the missouri compromise, so far as the country embraced within the limits of utah and new mexico was covered by the slavery restriction. it is true, that those acts did not in terms and by name repeal the act of , as originally adopted, or as extended by the resolutions annexing texas in , any more than the report of the committee on territories proposed to repeal the same acts this session. but the acts of did authorize the people of those territories to exercise "all rightful powers of legislation consistent with the constitution," not excepting the question of slavery; and did provide that, when those territories should be admitted into the union, they should be received with or without slavery as the people thereof might determine at the date of their admission. these provisions were in direct conflict with a clause in the former enactment, declaring that slavery should be forever prohibited in any portion of said territories, and hence rendered such clause inoperative and void to the extent of such conflict. this was an inevitable consequence, resulting from the provisions in those acts, which gave the people the right to decide the slavery question for themselves, in conformity with the constitution. it was not necessary to go further and declare that certain previous enactments, which were incompatible with the exercise of the powers conferred in the bills, are hereby repealed. the very act of granting those powers and rights has the legal effect of removing all obstructions to the exercise of them by the people, as prescribed in those territorial bills. following that example, the committee on territories did not consider it necessary to declare the eighth section of the missouri act repealed. we were content to organize nebraska in the precise language of the utah and new mexico bills. our object was to leave the people entirely free to form and regulate their domestic institutions and internal concerns in their own way, under the constitution; and we deemed it wise to accomplish that object in the exact terms in which the same thing had been done in utah and new mexico by the acts of . this was the principle upon which the committee voted; and our bill was supposed, and is now believed, to have been in accordance with it. when doubts were raised whether the bill did fully carry out the principle laid down in the report, amendments were made from time to time, in order to avoid all misconstruction, and make the true intent of the act more explicit. the last of these amendments was adopted yesterday, on the motion of the distinguished senator from north carolina (mr. badger), in regard to the revival of any laws or regulations which may have existed prior to . that amendment was not intended to change the legal effect of the bill. its object was to repel the slander which had been propagated by the enemies of the measure in the north--that the southern supporters of the bill desired to legislate slavery into these territories. the south denies the right of congress either to legislate slavery into any territory or state, or out of any territory or state. non-intervention by congress with slavery in the states or territories is the doctrine of the bill, and all the amendments which have been agreed to have been made with the view of removing all doubt and cavil as to the true meaning and object of the measure. * * * well, sir, what is this missouri compromise, of which we have heard so much of late? it has been read so often that it is not necessary to occupy the time of the senate in reading it again. it was an act of congress, passed on the th of march, , to authorize the people of missouri to form a constitution and a state government, preparatory to the admission of such state into the union. the first section provided that missouri should be received into the union "on an equal footing with the original states in all respects whatsoever." the last and eighth section provided that slavery should be "forever prohibited" in all the territory which had been acquired from france north of ° ', and not included within the limits of the state of missouri. there is nothing in the terms of the law that purports to be a compact, or indicates that it was any thing more than an ordinary act of legislation. to prove that it was more than it purports to be on its face, gentlemen must produce other evidence, and prove that there was such an understanding as to create a moral obligation in the nature of a compact. have they shown it? now, if this was a compact, let us see how it was entered into. the bill originated in the house of representatives, and passed that body without a southern vote in its favor. it is proper to remark, however, that it did not at that time contain the eighth section, prohibiting slavery in the territories; but in lieu of it, contained a provision prohibiting slavery in the proposed state of missouri. in the senate, the clause prohibiting slavery in the state was stricken out, and the eighth section added to the end of the bill, by the terms of which slavery was to be forever prohibited in the territory not embraced in the state of missouri north of ° '. the vote on adding this section stood in the senate, in the affirmative, and in the negative. of the northern senators, voted for it, and against it. on the question of ordering the bill to a third reading as amended, which was the test vote on its passage, the vote stood yeas and nays. of the northern senators, only voted in the affirmative, and in the negative. thus it will be seen that if it was intended to be a compact, the north never agreed to it. the northern senators voted to insert the prohibition of slavery in the territories; and then, in the proportion of more than four to one, voted against the passage of the bill. the north, therefore, never signed the compact, never consented to it, never agreed to be bound by it. this fact becomes very important in vindicating the character of the north for repudiating this alleged compromise a few months afterward. the act was approved and became a law on the th of march, . in the summer of that year, the people of missouri formed a constitution and state government preparatory to admission into the union in conformity with the act. at the next session of congress the senate passed a joint resolution declaring missouri to be one of the states of the union, on an equal footing with the original states. this resolution was sent to the house of representatives, where it was rejected by northern votes, and thus missouri was voted out of the union, instead of being received into the union under the act of the th of march, , now known as the missouri compromise. now, sir, what becomes of our plighted faith, if the act of the th of march, , was a solemn compact, as we are now told? they have all rung the changes upon it, that it was a sacred and irrevocable compact, binding in honor, in conscience, and morals, which could not be violated or repudiated without perfidy and dishonor! * * * sir, if this was a compact, what must be thought of those who violated it almost immediately after it was formed? i say it is a calumny upon the north to say that it was a compact. i should feel a flush of shame upon my cheek, as a northern man, if i were to say that it was a compact, and that the section of the country to which i belong received the consideration, and then repudiated the obligation in eleven months after it was entered into. i deny that it was a compact, in any sense of the term. but if it was, the record proves that faith was not observed--that the contract was never carried into effect--that after the north had procured the passage of the act prohibiting slavery in the territories, with a majority in the house large enough to prevent its repeal, missouri was refused admission into the union as a slave-holding state, in conformity with the act of march , . if the proposition be correct, as contended for by the opponents of this bill--that there was a solemn compact between the north and the south that, in consideration of the prohibition of slavery in the territories, missouri was to be admitted into the union, in conformity with the act of --that compact was repudiated by the north, and rescinded by the joint action of the two parties within twelve months from its date. missouri was never admitted under the act of the th of march, . she was refused admission under that act. she was voted out of the union by northern votes, notwithstanding the stipulation that she should be received; and, in consequence of these facts, a new compromise was rendered necessary, by the terms of which missouri was to be admitted into the union conditionally--admitted on a condition not embraced in the act of , and, in addition, to a full compliance with all the provisions of said act. if, then, the act of , by the eighth section of which slavery was prohibited in missouri, was a compact, it is clear to the comprehension of every fair-minded man that the refusal of the north to admit missouri, in compliance with its stipulations, and without further conditions, imposes upon us a high, moral obligation to remove the prohibition of slavery in the territories, since it has been shown to have been procured upon a condition never performed. * * * mr. president, i did not wish to refer to these things. i did not understand them fully in all their bearings at the time i made my first speech on this subject; and, so far as i was familiar with them, i made as little reference to them as was consistent with my duty; because it was a mortifying reflection to me, as a northern man, that we had not been able, in consequence of the abolition excitement at the time, to avoid the appearance of bad faith in the observance of legislation, which has been denominated a compromise. there were a few men then, as there are now, who had the moral courage to perform their duty to the country and the constitution, regardless of consequences personal to themselves. there were ten northern men who dared to perform their duty by voting to admit missouri into the union on an equal footing with the original states, and with no other restriction than that imposed by the constitution. i am aware that they were abused and denounced as we are now--that they were branded as dough-faces--traitors to freedom, and to the section of country whence they came. * * * i think i have shown that if the act of , called the missouri compromise, was a compact, it was violated and repudiated by a solemn vote of the house of representatives in , within eleven months after it was adopted. it was repudiated by the north by a majority vote, and that repudiation was so complete and successful as to compel missouri to make a new compromise, and she was brought into the union under the new compromise of , and not under the act of . this reminds me of another point made in nearly all the speeches against this bill, and, if i recollect right, was alluded to in the abolition manifesto; to which, i regret to say, i had occasion to refer so often. i refer to the significant hint that mr. clay was dead before any one dared to bring forward a proposition to undo the greatest work of his hands. the senator from new york (mr. seward) has seized upon this insinuation and elaborated, perhaps, more fully than his compeers; and now the abolition press, suddenly, and, as if by miraculous conversion, teems with eulogies upon mr. clay and his missouri compromise of . now, mr. president, does not each of these senators know that mr. clay was not the author of the act of ? do they not know that he disclaimed it in in this body? do they not know that the missouri restriction did not originate in the house, of which he was a member? do they not know that mr. clay never came into the missouri controversy as a compromiser until after the compromise of was repudiated, and it became necessary to make another? i dislike to be compelled to repeat what i have conclusively proven, that the compromise which mr. clay effected was the act of , under which missouri came into the union, and not the act of . mr. clay made that compromise after you had repudiated the first one. how, then, dare you call upon the spirit of that great and gallant statesman to sanction your charge of bad faith against the south on this question? * * * now, mr. president, as i have been doing justice to mr. clay on this question, perhaps i may as well do justice to another great man, who was associated with him in carrying through the great measures of , which mortified the senator from new york so much, because they defeated his purpose of carrying on the agitation. i allude to mr. webster. the authority of his great name has been quoted for the purpose of proving that he regarded the missouri act as a compact, an irrepealable compact. evidently the distinguished senator from massachusetts (mr. everett) supposed he was doing mr. webster entire justice when he quoted the passage which he read from mr. webster's speech of the th of march, , when he said that he stood upon the position that every part of the american continent was fixed for freedom or for slavery by irrepealable law. the senator says that by the expression "irrepealable law," mr. webster meant to include the compromise of . now, i will show that that was not mr. webster's meaning--that he was never guilty of the mistake of saying that the missouri act of was an irrepealable law. mr. webster said in that speech that every foot of territory in the united states was fixed as to its character for freedom or slavery by an irrepealable law. he then inquired if it was not so in regard to texas? he went on to prove that it was; because, he said, there was a compact in express terms between texas and the united states. he said the parties were capable of contracting and that there was a valuable consideration; and hence, he contended, that in that case there was a contract binding in honor and morals and law; and that it was irrepealable without a breach of faith. he went on to say: "now, as to california and new mexico, i hold slavery to be excluded from these territories by a law even superior to that which admits and sanctions it in texas--i mean the law of nature--of physical geography--the law of the formation of the earth." that was the irrepealable law which he said prohibited slavery in the territories of utah and new mexico. he went on to speak of the prohibition of slavery in oregon, and he said it was an "entirely useless and, in that connection, senseless proviso." he went further, and said: "that the whole territory of the states of the united states, or in the newly-acquired territory of the united states, has a fixed and settled character, now fixed and settled by law, which cannot be repealed in the case of texas without a violation of public faith, and cannot be repealed by any human power in regard to california or new mexico; that, under one or other of these laws, every foot of territory in the states or in the territories has now received a fixed and decided character." what irrepealable laws? one or the other of those which he had stated. one was the texas compact; the other, the law of nature and physical geography; and he contended that one or the other fixed the character of the whole american continent for freedom or for slavery. he never alluded to the missouri compromise, unless it was by the allusion to the wilmot proviso in the oregon bill, and therein said it was a useless and, in that connection, senseless thing. why was it a useless and senseless thing? because it was reenacting the law of god; because slavery had already been prohibited by physical geography. sir, that was the meaning of mr. webster's speech. * * * mr. president, i have occupied a good deal of time in exposing the cant of these gentlemen about the sanctity of the missouri compromise, and the dishonor attached to the violation of plighted faith. i have exposed these matters in order to show that the object of these men is to withdraw from public attention the real principle involved in the bill. they well know that the abrogation of the missouri compromise is the incident and not the principle of the bill. they well understand that the report of the committee and the bill propose to establish the principle in all territorial organizations, that the question of slavery shall be referred to the people to regulate for themselves, and that such legislation should be had as was necessary to remove all legal obstructions to the free exercise of this right by the people. the eighth section of the missouri act standing in the way of this great principle must be rendered inoperative and void, whether expressly repealed or not, in order to give the people the power of regulating their own domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution. now, sir, if these gentlemen have entire confidence in the correctness of their own position, why do they not meet the issue boldly and fairly, and controvert the soundness of this great principle of popular sovereignty in obedience to the constitution? they know full well that this was the principle upon which the colonies separated from the crown of great britain, the principle upon which the battles of the revolution were fought, and the principle upon which our republican system was founded. they cannot be ignorant of the fact that the revolution grew out of the assertion of the right on the part of the imperial government to interfere with the internal affairs and domestic concerns of the colonies. * * * the declaration of independence had its origin in the violation of that great fundamental principle which secured to the colonies the right to regulate their own domestic affairs in their own way; and the revolution resulted in the triumph of that principle, and the recognition of the right asserted by it. abolitionism proposes to destroy the right and extinguish the principle for which our forefathers waged a seven years' bloody war, and upon which our whole system of free government is founded. they not only deny the application of this principle to the territories, but insist upon fastening the prohibition upon all the states to be formed out of those territories. therefore, the doctrine of the abolitionists--the doctrine of the opponents of the nebraska and kansas bill, and the advocates of the missouri restriction--demands congressional interference with slavery not only in the territories, but in all the new states to be formed therefrom. it is the same doctrine, when applied to the territories and new states of this union, which the british government attempted to enforce by the sword upon the american colonies. it is this fundamental principle of self-government which constitutes the distinguishing feature of the nebraska bill. the opponents of the principle are consistent in opposing the bill. i do not blame them for their opposition. i only ask them to meet the issue fairly and openly, by acknowledging that they are opposed to the principle which it is the object of the bill to carry into operation. it seems that there is no power on earth, no intellectual power, no mechanical power, that can bring them to a fair discussion of the true issue. if they hope to delude the people and escape detection for any considerable length of time under the catch-words "missouri compromise" and "faith of compacts," they will find that the people of this country have more penetration and intelligence than they have given them credit for. mr. president, there is an important fact connected with this slavery regulation, which should never be lost sight of. it has always arisen from one and the same cause. whenever that cause has been removed, the agitation has ceased; and whenever the cause has been renewed, the agitation has sprung into existence. that cause is, and ever has been, the attempt on the part of congress to interfere with the question of slavery in the territories and new states formed therefrom. is it not wise then to confine our action within the sphere of our legitimate duties, and leave this vexed question to take care of itself in each state and territory, according to the wishes of the people thereof, in conformity to the forms, and in subjection to the provisions, of the constitution? the opponents of the bill tell us that agitation is no part of their policy; that their great desire is peace and harmony; and they complain bitterly that i should have disturbed the repose of the country by the introduction of this measure! let me ask these professed friends of peace, and avowed enemies of agitation, how the issue could have been avoided. they tell me that i should have let the question alone; that is, that i should have left nebraska unorganized, the people unprotected, and the indian barrier in existence, until the swelling tide of emigration should burst through, and accomplish by violence what it is the part of wisdom and statesmanship to direct and regulate by law. how long could you have postponed action with safety? how long could you maintain that indian barrier, and restrain the onward march of civilization, christianity, and free government by a barbarian wall? do you suppose that you could keep that vast country a howling wilderness in all time to come, roamed over by hostile savages, cutting off all safe communication between our atlantic and pacific possessions? i tell you that the time for action has come, and cannot be postponed. it is a case in which the "let-alone" policy would precipitate a crisis which must inevitably result in violence, anarchy, and strife. you cannot fix bounds to the onward march of this great and growing country. you cannot fetter the limbs of the young giant. he will burst all your chains. he will expand, and grow, and increase, and extend civilization, christianity, and liberal principles. then, sir, if you cannot check the growth of the country in that direction, is it not the part of wisdom to look the danger in the face, and provide for an event which you cannot avoid? i tell you, sir, you must provide for lines of continuous settlement from the mississippi valley to the pacific ocean. and in making this provision, you must decide upon what principles the territories shall be organized; in other words, whether the people shall be allowed to regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, according to the provisions of this bill, or whether the opposite doctrine of congressional interference is to prevail. postpone it, if you will; but whenever you do act, this question must be met and decided. the missouri compromise was interference; the compromise of was non-interference, leaving the people to exercise their rights under the constitution. the committee on territories were compelled to act on this subject. i, as their chairman, was bound to meet the question. i chose to take the responsibility regardless of consequences personal to myself. i should have done the same thing last year, if there had been time; but we know, considering the late period at which the bill then reached us from the house, that there was not sufficient time to consider the question fully, and to prepare a report upon the subject. i was, therefore, persuaded by my friends to allow the bill to be reported to the senate, in order that such action might be taken as should be deemed wise and proper. the bill was never taken up for action--the last night of the session having been exhausted in debate on a motion to take up the bill. this session, the measure was introduced by my friend from iowa (mr. dodge), and referred to the territorial committee during the first week of the session. we have abundance of time to consider the subject; it is a matter of pressing necessity, and there was no excuse for not meeting it directly and fairly. we were compelled to take our position upon the doctrine either of intervention or non-intervention. we chose the latter for two reasons: first, because we believed that the principle was right; and, second, because it was the principle adopted in , to which the two great political parties of the country were solemnly pledged. there is another reason why i desire to see this principle recognized as a rule of action in all time to come. it will have the effect to destroy all sectional parties and sectional agitations. if, in the language of the report of the committee, you withdraw the slavery question from the halls of congress and the political arena, and commit it to the arbitrament of those who are immediately interested in and alone responsible for its consequences, there is nothing left out of which sectional parties can be organized. it never was done, and never can be done on the bank, tariff, distribution, or any party issue which has existed, or may exist, after this slavery question is withdrawn from politics. on every other political question these have always supporters and opponents in every portion of the union--in each state, county, village, and neighborhood--residing together in harmony and good fellowship, and combating each other's opinions and correcting each other's errors in a spirit of kindness and friendship. these differences of opinion between neighbors and friends, and the discussions that grow out of them, and the sympathy which each feels with the advocates of his own opinions in every portion of this widespread republic, add an overwhelming and irresistible moral weight to the strength of the confederacy. affection for the union can never be alienated or diminished by any other party issues than those which are joined upon sectional or geographical lines. when the people of the north shall all be rallied under one banner, and the whole south marshalled under another banner, and each section excited to frenzy and madness by hostility to the institutions of the other, then the patriot may well tremble for the perpetuity of the union. withdraw the slavery question from the political arena, and remove it to the states and territories, each to decide for itself, such a catastrophe can never happen. then you will never be able to tell, by any senator's vote for or against any measure, from what state or section of the union he comes. why, then, can we not withdraw this vexed question from politics? why can we not adopt the principle of this bill as a rule of action in all new territorial organizations? why can we not deprive these agitators of their vocation and render it impossible for senators to come here upon bargains on the slavery question? i believe that the peace, the harmony, and perpetuity of the union require us to go back to the doctrines of the revolution, to the principles of the constitution, to the principles of the compromise of , and leave the people, under the constitution, to do as they may see proper in respect to their own internal affairs. mr. president, i have not brought this question forward as a northern man or as a southern man. i am unwilling to recognize such divisions and distinctions. i have brought it forward as an american senator, representing a state which is true to this principle, and which has approved of my action in respect to the nebraska bill. i have brought it forward not as an act of justice to the south more than to the north. i have presented it especially as an act of justice to the people of those territories and of the states to be formed therefrom, now and in all time to come. i have nothing to say about northern rights or southern rights. i know of no such divisions or distinctions under the constitution. the bill does equal and exact justice to the whole union, and every part of it; it violates the right of no state or territory; but places each on a perfect equality, and leaves the people thereof to the free enjoyment of all their rights under the constitution. now, sir, i wish to say to our southern friends that if they desire to see this great principle carried out, now is their time to rally around it, to cherish it, preserve it, make it the rule of action in all future time. if they fail to do it now, and thereby allow the doctrine of interference to prevail, upon their heads the consequences of that interference must rest. to our northern friends, on the other hand, i desire to say, that from this day henceforward they must rebuke the slander which has been uttered against the south, that they desire to legislate slavery into the territories. the south has vindicated her sincerity, her honor, on that point by bringing forward a provision negativing, in express terms, any such effect as a result of this bill. i am rejoiced to know that while the proposition to abrogate the eighth section of the missouri act comes from a free state, the proposition to negative the conclusion that slavery is thereby introduced, comes from a slave-holding state. thus, both sides furnish conclusive evidence that they go for the principle, and the principle only, and desire to take no advantage of any possible misconstruction. mr. president, i feel that i owe an apology to the senate for having occupied their attention so long, and a still greater apology for having discussed the question in such an incoherent and desultory manner. but i could not forbear to claim the right of closing this debate. i thought gentlemen would recognize its propriety when they saw the manner in which i was assailed and misrepresented in the course of this discussion, and especially by assaults still more disreputable in some portions of the country. these assaults have had no other effect upon me than to give me courage and energy for a still more resolute discharge of duty. i say frankly that, in my opinion, this measure will be as popular at the north as at the south, when its provisions and principles shall have been fully developed, and become well understood. the people at the north are attached to the principles of self-government, and you cannot convince them that that is self-government which deprives a people of the right of legislating for themselves, and compels them to receive laws which are forced upon them by a legislature in which they are not represented. we are willing to stand upon this great principle of self-government every-where; and it is to us a proud reflection that, in this whole discussion, no friend of the bill has urged an argument in its favor which could not be used with the same propriety in a free state as in a slave state, and vice versed. no enemy of the bill has used an argument which would bear repetition one mile across mason and dixon's line. our opponents have dealt entirely in sectional appeals. the friends of the bill have discussed a great principle of universal application, which can be sustained by the same reasons, and the same arguments, in every time and in every corner of the union. charles sumner, of massachusetts.' (born , died .) on the crime against kansas; senate, may - , . mr. president: you are now called to redress a great transgression. seldom in the history of nations has such a question been presented. tariffs, army bills, navy bills, land bills, are important, and justly occupy your care; but these all belong to the course of ordinary legislation. as means and instruments only, they are necessarily subordinate to the conservation of government itself. grant them or deny them, in greater or less degree, and you will inflict no shock. the machinery of government will continue to move. the state will not cease to exist. far otherwise is it with the eminent question now before you, involving, as it does, liberty in a broad territory, and also involving the peace of the whole country, with our good name in history forever more. take down your map, sir, and you will find that the territory of kansas, more than any other region, occupies the middle spot of north america, equally distant from the atlantic on the east, and the pacific on the west; from the frozen waters of hudson's bay on the north, and the tepid gulf stream on the south, constituting the precise territorial centre of the whole vast continent. to such advantages of situation, on the very highway between two oceans, are added a soil of unsurpassed richness, and a fascinating, undulating beauty of surface, with a health-giving climate, calculated to nurture a powerful and generous people, worthy to be a central pivot of american institutions. a few short months only have passed since this spacious and mediterranean country was open only to the savage who ran wild in its woods and prairies; and now it has already drawn to its bosom a population of freemen larger than athens crowded within her historic gates, when her sons, under miltiades, won liberty for man-kind on the field of marathon; more than sparta contained when she ruled greece, and sent forth her devoted children, quickened by a mother's benediction, to return with their shields, or on them; more than rome gathered on her seven hills, when, under her kings, she commenced that sovereign sway, which afterward embraced the whole earth; more than london held, when, on the fields of crecy and agincourt, the english banner was carried victoriously over the chivalrous hosts of france. against this territory, thus fortunate in position and population, a crime has been committed, which is without example in the records of the past. not in plundered provinces or in the cruelties of selfish governors will you find its parallel; and yet there is an ancient instance, which may show at least the path of justice. in the terrible impeachment by which the great roman orator has blasted through all time the name of verres, amidst charges of robbery and sacrilege, the enormity which most aroused the indignant voice of his accuser, and which still stands forth with strongest distinctness, arresting the sympathetic indignation of all who read the story, is, that away in sicily he had scourged a citizen of rome--that the cry, "i am a roman citizen," had been interposed in vain against the lash of the tyrant governor. other charges were, that he had carried away productions of art, and that he had violated the sacred shrines. it was in the presence of the roman senate that this arraignment proceeded; in a temple of the forum; amidst crowds--such as no orator had ever before drawn together--thronging the porticos and colonnades, even clinging to the house-tops and neighboring slopes--and under the anxious gaze of witnesses summoned from the scene of crime. but an audience grander far--of higher dignity--of more various people, and of wider intelligence--the countless multitude of succeeding generations, in every land, where eloquence has been studied, or where the roman name has been recognized,--has listened to the accusation, and throbbed with condemnation of the criminal. sir, speaking in an age of light, and a land of constitutional liberty, where the safeguards of elections are justly placed among the highest triumphs of civilization, i fearlessly assert that the wrongs of much-abused sicily, thus memorable in history, were small by the side of the wrongs of kansas, where the very shrines of popular institutions, more sacred than any heathen altar, have been desecrated; where the ballot-box, more precious than any work, in ivory or marble, from the cunning hand of art, has been plundered; and where the cry, "i am an american citizen," has been interposed in vain against outrage of every kind, even upon life itself. are you against sacrilege? i present it for your execration. are you against;robbery? i hold it up to your scorn. are you for the protection of american citizens? i show you how their dearest rights have been cloven down, while a tyrannical usurpation has sought to install itself on their very necks! but the wickedness which i now begin to expose is immeasurably aggravated by the motive which prompted it. not in any common lust for power did this uncommon tragedy have its origin. it is the rape of a virgin territory, compelling it to the hateful embrace of slavery; and it may be clearly traced to a depraved longing for a new slave state, the hideous off-spring of such a crime, in the hope of adding to the power of slavery in the national government. yes, sir, when the whole world, alike christian and turk, is rising up to condemn this wrong, and to make it a hissing to the nations, here in our republic, force--ay, sir, force--has been openly employed in compelling kansas to this pollution, and all for the sake of political power. there is the simple fact, which you will in vain attempt to deny, but which in itself presents an essential wickedness that makes other public crimes seem like public virtues. but this enormity, vast beyond comparison, swells to dimensions of wickedness which the imagination toils in vain to grasp, when it is understood that for this purpose are hazarded the horrors of intestine feud not only in this distant territory, but everywhere throughout the country. already the muster has begun. the strife is no longer local, but national. even now, while i speak, portents hang on all the arches of the horizon threatening to darken the broad land, which already yawns with the mutterings of civil war. the fury of the propagandists of slavery, and the calm determination of their opponents, are now diffused from the distant territory over widespread communities, and the whole country, in all its extent--marshalling hostile divisions, and foreshadowing a strife which, unless happily averted by the triumph of freedom, will become war--fratricidal, parricidal war--with an accumulated wickedness beyond the wickedness of any war in human annals; justly provoking the avenging judgment of providence and the avenging pen of history, and constituting a strife, in the language of the ancient writer, more than foreign, more than social, more than civil; but something compounded of all these strifes, and in itself more than war; _sal potius commune quoddam ex omnibus, et plus quam bellum_. such is the crime which you are to judge. but the criminal also must be dragged into day, that you may see and measure the power by which all this wrong is sustained. from no common source could it proceed. in its perpetration was needed a spirit of vaulting ambition which would hesitate at nothing; a hardihood of purpose which was insensible to the judgment of mankind; a madness for slavery which would disregard the constitution, the laws, and all the great examples of our history; also a consciousness of power such as comes from the habit of power; a combination of energies found only in a hundred arms directed by a hundred eyes; a control of public opinion through venal pens and a prostituted press; an ability to subsidize crowds in every vocation of life--the politician with his local importance, the lawyer with his subtle tongue, and even the authority of the judge on the bench; and a familiar use of men in places high and low, so that none, from the president to the lowest border postmaster, should decline to be its tool; all these things and more were needed, and they were found in the slave power of our republic. there, sir, stands the criminal, all unmasked before you--heartless, grasping, and tyrannical--with an audacity beyond that of verres, a subtlety beyond that of machiavel, a meanness beyond that of bacon, and an ability beyond that of hastings. justice to kansas can be secured only by the prostration of this influence; for this the power behind--greater than any president--which succors and sustains the crime. nay, the proceedings i now arraign derive their fearful consequences only from this connection. in now opening this great matter, i am not insensible to the austere demands of the occasion; but the dependence of the crime against kansas upon the slave power is so peculiar and important, that i trust to be pardoned while i impress it with an illustration, which to some may seem trivial. it is related in northern mythology that the god of force, visiting an enchanted region, was challenged by his royal entertainer to what seemed an humble feat of strength--merely, sir, to lift a cat from the ground. the god smiled at the challenge, and, calmly placing his hand under the belly of the animal, with superhuman strength strove, while the back of the feline monster arched far up-ward, even beyond reach, and one paw actually forsook the earth, until at last the discomfited divinity desisted; but he was little surprised at his defeat when he learned that this creature, which seemed to be a cat, and nothing more, was not merely a cat, but that it belonged to and was a part of the great terrestrial serpent, which, in its innumerable folds, encircled the whole globe. even so the creature, whose paws are now fastened upon kansas, whatever it may seem to be, constitutes in reality a part of the slave power, which, in its loathsome folds, is now coiled about the whole land. thus do i expose the extent of the present contest, where we encounter not merely local resistance, but also the unconquered sustaining arm behind. but out of the vastness of the crime attempted, with all its woe and shame, i derive a well-founded assurance of a commensurate vastness of effort against it by the aroused masses of the country, determined not only to vindicate right against wrong, but to redeem the republic from the thraldom of that oligarchy which prompts, directs, and concentrates the distant wrong. such is the crime, and such the criminal, which it is my duty in this debate to expose, and, by the blessing of god, this duty shall be done completely to the end. * * *' but, before entering upon the argument, i must say something of a general character, particularly in response to what has fallen from senators who have raised themselves to eminence on this floor in championship of human wrongs. i mean the senator from south carolina (mr. butler), and the senator from illinois (mr. douglas), who, though unlike as don quixote and sancho panza, yet, like this couple, sally forth together in the same adventure. i regret much to miss the elder senator from his seat; but the cause, against which he has run a tilt, with such activity of animosity, demands that the opportunity of exposing him should not be lost; and it is for the cause that i speak. the senator from south carolina has read many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous knight, with sentiments of honor and courage. of course he has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight--i mean the harlot, slavery. for her, his tongue is always profuse in words. let her be impeached in character, or any proposition made to shut her out from the extension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of manner or hardihood of assertion is then too great for this senator. the frenzy of don quixote, in behalf of his wench, dulcinea del toboso, is all surpassed. the asserted rights of slavery, which shock equality of all kinds, are cloaked by a fantastic claim of equality. if the slave states cannot enjoy what, in mockery of the great fathers of the republic, he misnames equality under the constitution--in other words, the full power in the national territories to compel fellow-men to unpaid toil, to separate husband and wife, and to sell little children at the auction block--then, sir, the chivalric senator will conduct the state of south carolina out of the union! heroic knight! exalted senator! a second moses come for a second exodus!! but not content with this poor menace, which we have been twice told was "measured," the senator in the unrestrained chivalry of his nature, has undertaken to apply opprobrious words to those who differ from him on this floor. he calls them "sectional and fanatical;" and opposition to the usurpation in kansas he denounces as "an uncalculating fanaticism." to be sure these charges lack all grace of originality, and all sentiment of truth; but the adventurous senator does not hesitate. he is the uncompromising, unblushing representative on this floor of a flagrant sectionalism, which now domineers over the republic, and yet with a ludicrous ignorance of his own position--unable to see himself as others see him--or with an effrontery which even his white head ought not to protect from rebuke, he applies to those here who resist his sectionalism the very epithet which designates himself. the men who strive to bring back the government to its original policy, when freedom and not slavery was sectional, he arraigns as sectional. this will not do. it involves too great a perversion of terms. i tell that senator that it is to himself, and to the "organization" of which he is the "committed advocate," that this epithet belongs. i now fasten it upon them. for myself, i care little for names; but since the question has been raised here, i affirm that the republican party of the union is in no just sense sectional, but, more than any other party, national; and that it now goes forth to dislodge from the high places of the government the tyrannical sectionalism of which the senator from south carolina is one of the maddest zealots. * * * as the senator from south carolina, is the don quixote, the senator from illinois (mr. douglas) is the squire of slavery, its very sancho panza, ready to do all its humiliating offices. this senator, in his labored address, vindicating his labored report--piling one mass of elaborate error upon another mass--constrained himself, as you will remember, to unfamiliar decencies of speech. of that address i have nothing to say at this moment, though before i sit down i shall show something of its fallacies. but i go back now to an earlier occasion, when, true to his native impulses, he threw into this discussion, "for a charm of powerful trouble," personalities most discreditable to this body. i will not stop to repel the imputations which he cast upon myself; but i mention them to remind you of the "sweltered venom sleeping got," which, with other poisoned ingredients, he cast into the caldron of this debate. of other things i speak. standing on this floor, the senator issued his rescript, requiring submission to the usurped power of kansas; and this was accompanied by a manner--all his own--such as befits the tyrannical threat. very well. let the senator try. i tell him now that he cannot enforce any such submission. the senator, with the slave power at his back, is strong; but he is not strong enough for this purpose. he is bold. he shrinks from nothing. like danton, he may cry, "l'audace! l'audace! toujours l'au-dace!" but even his audacity cannot compass this work. the senator copies the british officer who, with boastful swagger, said that with the hilt of his sword he would cram the "stamps" down the throats of the american people, and he will meet a similar failure. he may convulse this country with a civil feud. like the ancient madman, he may set fire to this temple of constitutional liberty, grander than the ephesian dome; but he cannot enforce obedience to that tyrannical usurpation. the senator dreams that he can subdue the north. he disclaims the open threat, but his conduct still implies it. how little that senator knows himself or the strength of the cause which he persecutes! he is but a mortal man; against him is an immortal principle. with finite power he wrestles with the infinite, and he must fall. against him are stronger battalions than any marshalled by mortal arm--the inborn, ineradicable, invincible sentiments of the human heart; against him is nature in all her subtle forces; against him is god. let him try to subdue these. * * * with regret, i come again upon the senator from south carolina (mr. butler), who, omnipresent in this debate, overflowed with rage at the simple suggestion that kansas had applied for admission as a state; and, with incoherent phrases, discharged the loose expectoration of his speech, now upon her representative, and then upon her people. there was no extravagance of the ancient parliamentary debate, which he did not repeat; nor was there any possible deviation from truth which he did not make, with so much of passion, i am glad to add, as to save him from the suspicion of intentional aberration. but the senator touches nothing which he does not disfigure--with error, sometimes of principle, sometimes of fact. he shows an incapacity of accuracy, whether in stating the constitution, or in stating the law, whether in the details of statistics or the diversions of scholarship. he cannot ope his mouth, but out there flies a blunder. surely he ought to be familiar with the life of franklin; and yet he referred to this household character, while acting as agent of our fathers in england, as above suspicion; and this was done that he might give point to a false contrast with the agent of kansas--not knowing that, however they may differ in genius and fame, in this experience they are alike: that franklin, when entrusted with the petition of massachusetts bay, was assaulted by a foul-mouthed speaker, where he could not be heard in defence, and denounced as a "thief," even as the agent of kansas has been assaulted on this floor, and denounced as a "forger." and let not the vanity of the senator be inspired by the parallel with the british statesman of that day; for it is only in hostility to freedom that any parallel can be recognized. but it is against the people of kansas that the sensibilities of the senator are particularly aroused. coming, as he announces, "from a state"--ay, sir, from south carolina--he turns with lordly disgust from this newly-formed community, which he will not recognize even as a "body politic." pray, sir, by what title does he indulge in this egotism? has he read the history of "the state" which he represents? he cannot surely have forgotten its shameful imbecility from slavery, confessed throughout the revolution, followed by its more shameful assumptions for slavery since. he cannot have forgotten its wretched persistence in the slave-trade as the very apple of its eye, and the condition of its participation in the union. he cannot have forgotten its constitution, which is republican only in name, confirming power in the hands of the few, and founding the qualifications of its legislators on "a settled freehold estate and ten negroes." and yet the senator, to whom that "state" has in part committed the guardianship of its good name, instead of moving, with backward treading steps, to cover its nakedness, rushes forward in the very ecstasy of madness, to expose it by provoking a comparison with kansas. south carolina is old; kansas is young. south carolina counts by centuries; where kansas counts by years. but a beneficent example may be born in a day; and i venture to say, that against the two centuries of the older "state," may be already set the two years of trial, evolving corresponding virtue, in the younger community. in the one, is the long wail of slavery; in the other, the hymns of freedom. and if we glance at special achievements, it will be difficult to find any thing in the history of south carolina which presents so much of heroic spirit in an heroic cause as appears in that repulse of the missouri invaders by the beleaguered town of lawrence, where even the women gave their effective efforts to freedom. the matrons of rome, who poured their jewels into the treasury for the public defence--the wives of prussia, who, with delicate fingers, clothed their defenders against french invasion--the mothers of our own revolution, who sent forth their sons, covered with prayers and blessings, to combat for human rights, did nothing of self-sacrifice truer than did these women on this occasion. were the whole history of south carolina blotted out of existence, from its very beginning down to the day of the last election of the senator to his present seat on this floor, civilization might lose--i do not say how little; but surely less than it has already gained by the example of kansas, in its valiant struggle against oppression, and in the development of a new science of emigration. already, in lawrence alone, there are newspapers and schools, including a high school, and throughout this infant territory there is more mature scholarship far, in proportion to its inhabitants, than in all south carolina. ah, sir, i tell the senator that kansas, welcomed as a free state, will be a "ministering angel" to the republic, when south carolina, in the cloak of darkness which she hugs, "lies howling." the senator from illinois (mr. douglas) naturally joins the senator from south carolina in this warfare, and gives to it the superior intensity of his nature. he thinks that the national government has not completely proved its power, as it has never hanged a traitor; but, if the occasion requires, he hopes there will be no hesitation; and this threat is directed at kansas, and even at the friends of kansas throughout the country. again occurs the parallel with the struggle of our fathers, and i borrow the language of patrick henry, when, to the cry from the senator, of "treason," "treason," i reply, "if this be treason, make the most of it." sir, it is easy to call names; but i beg to tell the senator that if the word "traitor" is in any way applicable to those who refuse submission to a tyrannical usurpation, whether in kansas or elsewhere, then must some new word, of deeper color, be invented, to designate those mad spirits who could endanger and degrade the republic, while they betray all the cherished sentiments of the fathers and the spirit of the constitution, in order to give new spread to slavery. let the senator proceed. it will not be the first time in history, that a scaffold erected for punishment has become a pedestal of honor. out of death comes life, and the "traitor" whom he blindly executes will live immortal in the cause. "for humanity sweeps onward; where to-day the martyr stands, on the morrow crouches judas, with the silver in his hands; while the hooting mob of yesterday in silent awe return, to glean up the scattered ashes into history's golden urn." among these hostile senators, there is yet another, with all the prejudices of the senator from south carolina, but without his generous impulses, who, on account of his character before the country, and the rancor of his opposition, deserves to be named. i mean the senator from virginia (mr. mason), who, as the author of the fugitive-slave bill, has associated himself with a special act of inhumanity and tyranny. of him i shall say little, for he has said little in this debate, though within that little was compressed the bitterness of a life absorbed in the support of slavery. he holds the commission of virginia; but he does not represent that early virginia, so dear to our hearts, which gave to us the pen of jefferson, by which the equality of men was declared, and the sword of washington, by which independence was secured; but he represents that other virginia, from which washington and jefferson now avert their faces, where human beings are bred as cattle for the shambles, and where a dungeon rewards the pious matron who teaches little children to relieve their bondage by reading the book of life. it is proper that such a senator, representing such a state, should rail against free kansas. senators such as these are the natural enemies of kansas, and i introduce them with reluctance, simply that the country may understand the character of the hostility which must be overcome. arrayed with them, of course, are all who unite, under any pretext or apology, in the propagandism of human slavery. to such, indeed, the time-honored safeguards of popular rights can be a name only, and nothing more. what are trial by jury, habeas corpus, the ballot-box, the right of petition, the liberty of kansas, your liberty, sir, or mine, to one who lends himself, not merely to the support at home, but to the propagandism abroad, of that preposterous wrong, which denies even the right of a man to himself! such a cause can be maintained only by a practical subversion of all rights. it is, therefore, merely according to reason that its partisans should uphold the usurpation in kansas. to overthrow this usurpation is now the special, importunate duty of congress, admitting of no hesitation or postponement. to this end it must lift itself from the cabals of candidates, the machinations of party, and the low level of vulgar strife. it must turn from that slave oligarchy which now controls the republic, and refuse to be its tool. let its power be stretched forth toward this distant territory, not to bind, but to unbind; not for the oppression of the weak, but for the subversion of the tyrannical; not for the prop and maintenance of a revolting usurpation, but for the confirmation of liberty. "these are imperial arts and worthy thee!" let it now take its stand between the living and dead, and cause this plague to be stayed. all this it can do; and if the interests of slavery did not oppose, all this it would do at once, in reverent regard for justice, law, and order, driving away all the alarms of war; nor would it dare to brave the shame and punishment of this great refusal. but the slave power dares anything; and it can be conquered only by the united masses of the people. from congress to the people i appeal. * * * the contest, which, beginning in kansas, has reached us, will soon be transferred from congress to a broader stage, where every citizen will be not only spectator, but actor; and to their judgment i confidently appeal. to the people, now on the eve of exercising the electoral franchise, in choosing a chief magistrate of the republic, i appeal, to vindicate the electoral franchise in kansas. let the ballot-box of the union, with multitudinous might, protect the ballot-box in that territory. let the voters everywhere, while rejoicing in their own rights, help to guard the equal rights of distant fellow-citizens; that the shrines of popular institutions, now desecrated, may be sanctified anew; that the ballot-box, now plundered, may be restored; and that the cry, "i am an american citizen," may not be sent forth in vain against outrage of every kind. in just regard for free labor in that territory, which it is sought to blast by unwelcome association with slave labor; in christian sympathy with the slave, whom it is proposed to task and sell there; in stern condemnation of the crime which has been consummated on that beautiful soil; in rescue of fellow-citizens now subjugated to a tyrannical usurpation; in dutiful respect for the early fathers, whose aspirations are now ignobly thwarted; in the name of the constitution, which has been outraged--of the laws trampled down--of justice banished--of humanity degraded--of peace destroyed--of freedom crushed to earth; and, in the name of the heavenly father, whose service is perfect freedom, i make this last appeal. may , . mr. douglas:--i shall not detain the senate by a detailed reply to the speech of the senator from massachusetts. indeed, i should not deem it necessary to say one word, but for the personalities in which he has indulged, evincing a depth of malignity that issued from every sentence, making it a matter of self-respect with me to repel the assaults which have been made. as to the argument, we have heard it all before. not a position, not a fact, not an argument has he used, which has not been employed on the same side of the chamber, and replied to by me twice. i shall not follow him, therefore, because it would only be repeating the same answer which i have twice before given to each of his positions. he seems to get up a speech as in yankee land they get up a bedquilt. they take all the old calico dresses of various colors, that have been in the house from the days of their grandmothers, and invite the young ladies of the neighborhood in the afternoon, and the young men to meet them at a dance in the evening. they cut up these pieces of old dresses and make pretty figures, and boast of what beautiful ornamental work they have made, although there was not a new piece of material in the whole quilt. thus it is with the speech which we have had re-hashed here to-day, in regard to matters of fact, matters of law, and matters of argument--every thing but the personal assaults and the malignity. * * * his endeavor seems to be an attempt to whistle to keep up his courage by defiant assaults upon us all. i am in doubt as to what can be his object. he has not hesitated to charge three fourths of the senate with fraud, with swindling, with crime, with infamy, at least one hundred times over in his speech. is it his object to provoke some of us to kick him as we would a dog in the street, that he may get sympathy upon the just chastisement? what is the object of this denunciation against the body of which we are members? a hundred times he has called the nebraska bill a "swindle," an act of crime, an act of infamy, and each time went on to illustrate the complicity of each man who voted for it in perpetrating the crime. he has brought it home as a personal charge to those who passed the nebraska bill, that they were guilty of a crime which deserved the just indignation of heaven, and should make them infamous among men. who are the senators thus arraigned? he does me the honor to make me the chief. it was my good luck to have such a position in this body as to enable me to be the author of a great, wise measure, which the senate has approved, and the country will endorse. that measure was sustained by about three fourths of all the members of the senate. it was sustained by a majority of the democrats and a majority of the whigs in this body. it was sustained by a majority of senators from the slave-holding states, and a majority of senators from the free states. the senator, by his charge of crime, then, stultifies three fourths of the whole body, a majority of the north, nearly the whole south, a majority of whigs, and a majority of democrats here. he says they are infamous. if he so believed, who could suppose that he would ever show his face among such a body of men? how dare he approach one of those gentlemen to give him his hand after that act? if he felt the courtesies between men he would not do it. he would deserve to have himself spit in the face for doing so. * * * the attack of the senator from massachusetts now is not on me alone. even the courteous and the accomplished senator from south carolina (mr. butler) could not be passed by in his absence. mr. mason:--advantage was taken of it. mr. douglas:--it is suggested that advantage is taken of his absence. i think that this is a mistake. i think the speech was written and practised, and the gestures fixed; and, if that part had been stricken out the senator would not have known how to repeat the speech. all that tirade of abuse must be brought down on the head of the venerable, the courteous, and the distinguished senator from south carolina. i shall not defend that gentleman here. every senator who knows him loves him. the senator from massachusetts may take every charge made against him in his speech, and may verify by his oath, and by the oath of every one of his confederates, and there is not an honest man in this chamber who will not repel it as a slander. your oaths cannot make a senator feel that it was not an outrage to assail that honorable gentleman in the terms in which he has been attacked. he, however, will be here in due time to speak for himself, and to act for himself too. i know what will happen. the senator from massachusetts will go to him, whisper a secret apology in his ear, and ask him to accept that as satisfaction for a public outrage on his character! i know the senator from massachusetts is in the habit of doing those things. i have had some experience of his skill in that respect. * * * why these attacks on individuals by name, and two thirds of the senate collectively? is it the object to drive men here to dissolve social relations with political opponents? is it to turn the senate into a bear garden, where senators cannot associate on terms which ought to prevail between gentlemen? these attacks are heaped upon me by man after man. when i repel them, it is intimated that i show some feeling on the subject. sir, god grant that when i denounce an act of infamy i shall do it with feeling, and do it under the sudden impulses of feeling, instead of sitting up at night writing out my denunciation of a man whom i hate, copying it, having it printed, punctuating the proof-sheets, and repeating it before the glass, in order to give refinement to insult, which is only pardonable when it is the outburst of a just indignation. mr. president, i shall not occupy the time of the senate. i dislike to be forced to repel these attacks upon myself, which seem to be repeated on every occasion. it appears that gentlemen on the other side of the chamber think they would not be doing justice to their cause if they did not make myself a personal object of bitter denunciation and malignity. i hope that the debate on this bill may be brought to a close at as early a day as possible. i shall do no more in these side discussions than vindicate myself and repel unjust attacks, but i shall ask the senate to permit me to close the debate, when it shall close, in a calm, kind summary of the whole question, avoiding personalities. mr. sumner: mr. president, to the senator from illinois, i should willingly leave the privilege of the common scold--the last word; but i will not leave to him, in any discussion with me, the last argument, or the last semblance of it. he has crowned the audacity of this debate by venturing to rise here and calumniate me. he said that i came here, took an oath to support the constitution, and yet determined not to support a particular clause in that constitution. to that statement i give, to his face, the flattest denial. when it was made on a former occasion on this floor by the absent senator from south carolina (mr. butler), i then repelled it. i will read from the debate of the th of june, , as published in the globe, to show what i said in response to that calumny when pressed at that hour. here is what i said to the senator from south carolina: "this senator was disturbed, when to his inquiry, personally, pointedly, and vehemently addressed to me, whether i would join in returning a fellow-man to slavery? i exclaimed, 'is thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing?'" you will observe that the inquiry of the senator from south carolina, was whether i would join in returning a fellow-man to slavery. it was not whether i would support any clause of the constitution of the united states--far from that. * * * sir, this is the senate of the united states, an important body, under the constitution, with great powers. its members are justly supposed, from age, to be above the intemperance of youth, and from character to be above the gusts of vulgarity. they are supposed to have something of wisdom, and something of that candor which is the handmaid of wisdom. let the senator bear these things in mind, and let him remember hereafter that the bowie-knife and bludgeon are not the proper emblems of senatorial debate. let him remember that the swagger of bob acres and the ferocity of the malay cannot add dignity to this body. the senator has gone on to infuse into his speech the venom which has been sweltering for months--ay, for years; and he has alleged facts that are entirely without foundation, in order to heap upon me some personal obloquy. i will not go into the details which have flowed out so naturally from his tongue. i only brand them to his face as false. i say, also, to that senator, and i wish him to bear it in mind, that no person with the upright form of man can be allowed--(hesitation.) mr. douglas:--say it. mr. sumner:--i will say it--no person with the upright form of man can be allowed, without violation to all decency, to switch out from his tongue the perpetual stench of offensive personality. sir, that is not a proper weapon of debate, at least, on this floor. the noisome, squat, and nameless animal, to which i now refer, is not a proper model for an american senator. will the senator from illinois take notice? mr. douglas:--i will; and therefore will not imitate you, sir. mr. sumner:--i did not hear the senator. mr. douglas:--i said if that be the case i would certainly never imitate you in that capacity, recognizing the force of the illustration. mr. sumner:--mr. president, again the senator has switched his tongue, and again he fills the senate with its offensive odor. * * * mr. douglas:--i am not going to pursue this subject further. i will only say that a man who has been branded by me in the senate, and convicted by the senate of falsehood, cannot use language requiring a reply, and therefore i have nothing more to say. preston s. brooks, of south carolina. (born , died .) on the sumner assault; house of representatives, july , . mr. speaker: some time since a senator from massachusetts allowed himself, in an elaborately prepared speech, to offer a gross insult to my state, and to a venerable friend, who is my state representative, and who was absent at the time. not content with that, he published to the world, and circulated extensively, this uncalled-for libel on my state and my blood. whatever insults my state insults me. her history and character have commanded my pious veneration; and in her defence i hope i shall always be prepared, humbly and modestly, to perform the duty of a son. i should have forfeited my own self-respect, and perhaps the good opinion of my countrymen, if i had failed to resent such an injury by calling the offender in question to a personal account. it was a personal affair, and in taking redress into my own hands i meant no disrespect to the senate of the united states or to this house. nor, sir, did i design insult or disrespect to the state of massachusetts. i was aware of the personal responsibilities i incurred, and was willing to meet them. i knew, too, that i was amenable to the laws of the country, which afford the same protection to all, whether they be members of congress or private citizens. i did not, and do not now believe, that i could be properly punished, not only in a court of law, but here also, at the pleasure and discretion of the house. i did not then, and do not now, believe that the spirit of american freemen would tolerate slander in high places, and permit a member of congress to publish and circulate a libel on another, and then call upon either house to protect him against the personal responsibilities which he had thus incurred. but if i had committed a breach of privilege, it was the privilege of the senate, and not of this house, which was violated. i was answerable there, and not here. they had no right, as it seems to me, to prosecute me in these halls, nor have you the right in law or under the constitution, as i respectfully submit, to take jurisdiction over offences committed against them. the constitution does not justify them in making such a request, nor this house in granting it. if, unhappily, the day should ever come when sectional or party feeling should run so high as to control all other considerations of public duty or justice, how easy it will be to use such precedents for the excuse of arbitrary power, in either house, to expel members of the minority who may have rendered themselves obnoxious to the prevailing spirit in the house to which they belong. matters may go smoothly enough when one house asks the other to punish a member who is offensive to a majority of its own body; but how will it be when, upon a pretence of insulted dignity, demands are made of this house to expel a member who happens to run counter to its party predilections, or other demands which it may not be so agreeable to grant? it could never have been designed by the constitution of the united states to expose the two houses to such temptations to collision, or to extend so far the discretionary power which was given to either house to punish its own members for the violation of its rules and orders. discretion has been said to be the law of the tyrant, and when exercised under the color of the law, and under the influence of party dictation, it may and will become a terrible and insufferable despotism. this house, however, it would seem, from the unmistakable tendency of its proceedings, takes a different view from that which i deliberately entertain in common with many others. so far as public interests or constitutional rights are involved, i have now exhausted my means of defence. i may, then, be allowed to take a more personal view of the question at issue. the further prosecution of this subject, in the shape it has now assumed, may not only involve my friends, but the house itself, in agitations which might be unhappy in their consequences to the country. if these consequences could be confined to myself individually, i think i am prepared and ready to meet them, here or elsewhere; and when i use this language i mean what i say. but others must not suffer for me. i have felt more on account of my two friends who have been implicated,than for myself, for they have proven that "there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother." i will not constrain gentlemen to assume a responsibility on my account, which possibly they would not run on their own. sir, i cannot, on any own account, assume the responsibility, in the face of the american people, of commencing a line of conduct which in my heart of hearts i believe would result in subverting the foundations of this government, and in drenching this hall in blood. no act of mine, on my personal account, shall inaugurate revolution; but when you, mr. speaker, return to your own home, and hear the people of the great north--and they are a great people--speak of me as a bad man, you will do me the justice to say that a blow struck by me at this time would be followed by revolution--and this i know. (applause and hisses in the gallery.) mr. brooks (resuming):--if i desired to kill the senator, why did not i do it? you all admit that i had him in my power. let me tell the member from new jersey that it was expressly to avoid taking life that i used an ordinary cane, presented to me by a friend in baltimore, nearly three months before its application to the "bare head" of the massachusetts senator. i went to work very deliberately, as i am charged--and this is admitted,--and speculated somewhat as to whether i should employ a horsewhip or a cowhide; but knowing that the senator was my superior in strength, it occurred to me that he might wrest it from my hand, and then--for i never attempt anything i do not perform--i might have been compelled to do that which i would have regretted the balance of my natural life. the question has been asked in certain newspapers, why i did not invite the senator to personal combat in the mode usually adopted. well, sir, as i desire the whole truth to be known about the matter, i will for once notice a newspaper article on the floor of the house, and answer here. my answer is, that the senator would not accept a message; and having formed the unalterable determination to punish him, i believed that the offence of "sending a hostile message," superadded to the indictment for assault and battery, would subject me to legal penalties more severe than would be imposed for a simple assault and battery. that is my answer. now, mr. speaker, i have nearly finished what i intended to say. if my opponents, who have pursued me with unparalleled bitterness, are satisfied with the present condition of this affair, i am. i return my thanks to my friends, and especially to those who are from nonslave-owning states, who have magnanimously sustained me, and felt that it was a higher honor to themselves to be just in their judgment of a gentleman than to be a member of congress for life. in taking my leave, i feel that it is proper that i should say that i believe that some of the votes that have been cast against me have been extorted by an outside pressure at home, and that their votes do not express the feelings or opinions of the members who gave them. to such of these as have given their votes and made their speeches on the constitutional principles involved, and without indulging in personal vilification, i owe my respect. but, sir, they have written me down upon the history of the country as worthy of expulsion, and in no unkindness i must tell them that for all future time my self-respect requires that i shall pass them as strangers. and now, mr. speaker, i announce to you and to this house, that i am no longer a member of the thirty-fourth congress. (mr. brooks then walked out of the house of representatives.) judah p. benjamin, of louisiana. (born , died .) on the property doctrine, or the right of property in slaves; senate of the united states, march , . mr. president, the whole subject of slavery, so far as it is involved in the issue now before the country, is narrowed down at last to a controversy on the solitary point, whether it be competent for the congress of the united states, directly or indirectly, to exclude slavery from the territories of the union. the supreme court of the united states have given a negative answer to this proposition, and it shall be my first effort to support that negation by argument, independently of the authority of the decision. it seems to me that the radical, fundamental error which underlies the argument in affirmation of this power, is the assumption that slavery is the creature of the statute law of the several states where it is established; that it has no existence outside of the limits of those states; that slaves are not property beyond those limits; and that property in slaves is neither recognized nor protected by the constitution of the united states, nor by international law. i controvert all these propositions, and shall proceed at once to my argument. mr. president, the thirteen colonies, which on the th of july, , asserted their independence, were british colonies, governed by british laws. our ancestors in their emigration to this country brought with them the common law of england as their birthright. they adopted its principles for their government so far as it was not incompatible with the peculiarities of their situation in a rude and unsettled country. great britain then having the sovereignty over the colonies, possessed undoubted power to regulate their institutions, to control their commerce, and to give laws to their intercourse, both with the mother and the other nations of the earth. if i can show, as i hope to be able to establish to the satisfaction of the senate, that the nation thus exercising sovereign power over these thirteen colonies did establish slavery in them, did maintain and protect the institution, did originate and carry on the slave trade, did support and foster that trade, that it forbade the colonies permission either to emancipate or export their slaves, that it prohibited them from inaugurating any legislation in diminution or discouragement of the institution--nay, sir, more, if, at the date of our revolution i can show that african slavery existed in england as it did on this continent, if i can show that slaves were sold upon the slave mart, in the exchange and other public places of resort in the city of london as they were on this continent, then i shall not hazard too much in the assertion that slavery was the common law of the thirteen states of the confederacy at the time they burst the bonds that united them to the mother country. * * * * * this legislation, mr. president, as i have said before, emanating from the mother country, fixed the institution upon the colonies. they could not resist it. all their right was limited to petition, to remonstrance, and to attempts at legislation at home to diminish the evil. every such attempt was sternly repressed by the british crown. in , south carolina passed an act prohibiting the further importation of african slaves. the act was rejected by the crown; the governor was reprimanded; and a circular was sent to all the governors of all the colonies, warning them against presuming to countenance such legislation. in , a similar bill was twice read in the assembly of jamaica. the news reached great britain before its final passage. instructions were sent out to the royal governor; he called the house of assembly before him, communicated his instructions, and forbade any further progress of the bill. in , in spite of this discountenancing action of the mother government, two bills passed the legislative assembly of jamaica; and the earl of dartmouth, then secretary of state, wrote to sir basil keith, the governor of the colony, that "these measures had created alarm to the merchants of great britain engaged in that branch of commerce;" and forbidding him, "on pain of removal from his government, to assent to such laws." finally, in --mark the date-- --after the revolutionary struggle had commenced, whilst the continental congress was in session, after armies had been levied, after crown point and ticonderoga had been taken possession of by the insurgent colonists, and after the first blood shed in the revolution had reddened the spring sod upon the green at lexington, this same earl of dartmouth, in remonstrance from the agent of the colonies, replied: "we cannot allow the colonies to check or discourage in any degree a traffic so beneficial to the nation." i say, then, that down to the very moment when our independence was won, slavery, by the statute law of england, was the common law of the old thirteen colonies. but, sir, my task does not end here. i desire to show you that by her jurisprudence, that by the decisions of her judges, and the answers of her lawyers to questions from the crown and from public bodies, this same institution was declared to be recognized by the common law of england; and slaves were declared to be, in their language, merchandise, chattels, just as much private property as any other merchandise or any other chattel. a short time prior to the year , a contract had been formed between spain and a certain company, called the royal guinea company, that had been established in france. this contract was technically called in those days an _assiento_. by the treaty of utrecht of the th of april, , great britain, through her diplomatists, obtained a transfer of that contract. she yielded considerations for it. the obtaining of that contract was greeted in england with shouts of joy. it was considered a triumph of diplomacy. it was followed in the month of may, , by a new contract in form, by which the british government undertook, for the term of thirty years then next to come, to transport annually slaves to the spanish american colonies, at a fixed price. almost immediately after this new contract, a question arose in the english council as to what was the true legal character of the slaves thus to be exported to the spanish american colonies; and, according to the forms of the british constitution, the question was submitted by the crown in council to the twelve judges of england. i have their answer here; it is in these words: "in pursuance of his majesty's order in council, hereunto annexed, we do humbly certify our opinion to be that negroes are merchandise." signed by lord chief-justice holt, judge pollexfen, and eight other judges of england. mr. mason. what is the date of that? mr. benjamin. it was immediately after the treaty of utrecht, in . very soon afterwards the nascent spirit of fanaticism began to obtain a foothold in england; and although large numbers of negro slaves were owned in great britain, and, as i said before, were daily sold on the public exchange in lon-don, questions arose as to the right of the owners to retain property in their slaves; and the merchants of london, alarmed, submitted the question to sir philip yorke, who afterwards became lord hardwicke, and to lord talbot, who were then the solicitor and attorney-general of the kingdom. the question was propounded to them, "what are the rights of a british owner of a slave in england?" and this is the answer of those two legal functionaries. they certified that "a slave coming from the west indies to england with or without his master, doth not become free; and his master's property in him is not thereby determined nor varied, and the master may legally compel him to return to the plantations." and, in , the same question again came up before sir philip yorke, then lord chancellor of england, under the title of lord hardwicke, and, by a decree in chancery in the case before him, he affirmed the doctrine which he had uttered when he was attorney-general of great britain. things thus stood in england until the year , when the spirit of fanaticism, to which i have adverted, acquiring strength, finally operated upon lord mansfield, who, by a judgment rendered in a case known as the celebrated sommersett case, subverted the common law of england by judicial legislation, as i shall prove in an instant. i say it not on my own authority. i would not be so presumptuous. the senator from maine (mr. fessenden) need not smile at my statement. i will give him higher authority than anything i can dare assert. i say that in lord mansfield subverted the common law of england in the sommersett case, and decided, not that a slave carried to england from the west indies by his master thereby became free, but that by the law of england, if the slave resisted the master, there was no remedy by which the master could exercise his control; that the colonial legislation which afforded the master means of controlling his property had no authority in england, and that england by her laws had provided no substitute for that authority. that was what lord mansfield decided. i say this was judicial legislation. i say it subverted the entire previous jurisprudence of great britain. i have just adverted to the authorities for that position. lord mansfield felt it. the case was argued before him over and over again, and he begged the parties to compromise. they said they would not. "why," said he, "i have known six of these cases already, and in five out of the six there was a compromise; you had better compromise this matter"; but the parties said no, they would stand on the law; and then, after holding the case up two terms, lord mansfield mustered up courage to say just what i have asserted to be his decision; that there was no law in england affording the master control over his slave; and that therefore the master's putting him on board of a vessel in irons, being unsupported by authority derived from english law, and the colonial law not being in force in england, he would discharge the slave from custody on _habeas corpus_, and leave the master to his remedy as best he could find one. mr. fessenden. decided so unwillingly. mr. benjamin. the gentleman is right--very unwillingly. he was driven to the decision by the paramount power which is now perverting the principles, and obscuring the judgment of the people of the north; and of which i must say there is no more striking example to be found than its effect on the clear and logical intellect of my friend from maine. mr. president, i make these charges in relation to that judgment, because in them i am supported by an intellect greater than mansfield's; by a judge of resplendent genius and consummate learning; one who, in all questions of international law, on all subjects not dependent upon the peculiar municipal technical common law of england, has won for himself the proudest name in the annals of her jurisprudence--the gentleman knows well that i refer to lord stowell. as late as , twenty years after great britain had abolished the slave trade, six years before she was brought to the point of confiscating the property of her colonies which she had forced them to buy, a case was brought before that celebrated judge; a case known to all lawyers by the name of the slave grace. it was pretended in the argument that the slave grace was free, because she had been carried to england, and it was said, under the authority of lord mansfield's decision in the sommersett case, that, having once breathed english air, she was free; that the atmosphere of that favored kingdom was too pure to be breathed by a slave. lord stowell, in answering that legal argument, said that after painful and laborious research into historical records, he did not find anything touching the peculiar fitness of the english atmosphere for respiration during the ten centuries that slaves had lived in england. * * * * * after that decision had been rendered, lord stowell, who was at that time in correspondence with judge story, sent him a copy of it, and wrote to him upon the subject of his judgment. no man will doubt the anti-slavery feelings and proclivities of judge story. he was asked to take the decision into consideration and give his opinion about it. here is his answer: "i have read, with great attention, your judgment in the slave case. upon the fullest consideration which i have been able to give the subject, i entirely concur in your views. if i had been called upon to pronounce a judgment in a like case, i should have certainly arrived at the same result." that was the opinion of judge story in ; but, sir, whilst contending, as i here contend, as a proposition, based in history, maintained by legislation, supported by judicial authority of the greatest weight, that slavery, as an institution, was protected by the common law of these colonies at the date of the declaration of independence, i go further, though not necessary to my argument, and declare that it was the common law of north and south america alike. * * * * * thus, mr. president, i say that even if we admit for the moment that the common law of the nations which colonized this continent, the institution of slavery at the time of our independence, was dying away by the manumissions either gratuitous or for a price of those who held the people as slaves, yet, so far as the continent of america was concerned, north and south, there did not breathe a being who did not know that a negro, under the common law of the continent, was merchandise, was property, was a slave, and that he could only extricate himself from that status, stamped upon him by the common law of the country, by positive proof of manumission. no man was bound to show title to his negro slave. the slave was bound to show manumission under which he had acquired his freedom, by the common law of every colony. why, sir, can any man doubt, is there a gentleman here, even the senator from maine, who doubts that if, after the revolution, the different states of this union had not passed laws upon the subject to abolish slavery, to subvert this common law of the continent, every one of these states would be slave states yet? how came they free states? did not they have this institution of slavery imprinted upon them by the power of the mother country? how did they get rid of it? all, all must admit that they had to pass positive acts of legislation to accomplish this purpose. without that legislation they would still be slave states. what, then, becomes of the pretext that slavery only exists in those states where it was established by positive legislation, that it has no inherent vitality out of those states, and that slaves are not considered as property by the constitution of the united states? when the delegates of the several colonies which had thus asserted their independence of the british crown met in convention, the decision of lord mansfield in the sommersett case was recent, was known to all. at the same time, a number of the northern colonies had taken incipient steps for the emancipation of their slaves. here permit me to say, sir, that, with a prudent regard to what the senator from maine (mr. hamlin) yesterday called the "sensitive pocket-nerve," they all made these provisions prospective. slavery was to be abolished after a certain future time--just enough time to give their citizens convenient opportunity for selling the slaves to southern planters, putting the money in their pockets, and then sending to us here, on this floor, representatives who flaunt in robes of sanctimonious holiness; who make parade of a cheap philanthropy, exercised at our expense; and who say to all men: "look ye now, how holy, how pure we are; you are polluted by the touch of slavery; we are free from it." * * * * * now, sir, because the supreme court of the united states says--what is patent to every man who reads the constitution of the united states--that it does guaranty property in slaves,it has been attacked with vituperation here, on this floor, by senators on all sides. some have abstained from any indecent, insulting remarks in relation to the court. some have confined themselves to calm and legitimate argument. to them i am about to reply. to the others, i shall have something to say a little later. what says the senator from maine (mr. fessenden)? he says: "had the result of that election been otherwise, and had not the (democratic) party triumphed on the dogma which they had thus introduced, we should never have heard of a doctrine so utterly at variance with all truth; so utterly destitute of all legal logic; so founded on error, and unsupported by anything like argument, as is the opinion of the supreme court." he says, further: "i should like, if i had time, to attempt to demonstrate the fallacy of that opinion. i have examined the view of the supreme court of the united states on the question of the power of the constitution to carry slavery into free territory belonging to the united states, and i tell you that i believe any tolerably respectable lawyer in the united states can show, beyond all question, to any fair and unprejudiced mind, that the decision has nothing to stand upon except assumption, and bad logic from the assumptions made. the main proposition on which that decision is founded, the corner-stone of it, without which it is nothing, without which it fails entirely to satisfy the mind of any man, is this: that the constitution of the united states recognizes property in slaves, and protects it as such. i deny it. it neither recognizes slaves as property, nor does it protect slaves as property." the senator here, you see, says that the whole decision is based on that assumption, which is false. he says that the constitution does not recognize slaves as property, nor protect them as property, and his reasoning, a little further on, is somewhat curious. he says: "on what do they found the assertion that the constitution recognizes slavery as property? on the provision of the constitution by which congress is prohibited from passing a law to prevent the african slave trade for twenty years; and therefore they say the constitution recognizes slaves as property." i should think that was a pretty fair recognition of it. on this point the gentleman declares: "will not anybody see that this constitutional provision, if it works one way, must work the other? if, by allowing the slave trade for twenty years, we recognize slaves as property, when we say that at the end of twenty years we will cease to allow it, or may cease to do so, is not that denying them to be property after that period elapses?" that is the argument. nothing but my respect for the logical intellect of the senator from maine could make me treat this argument as serious, and nothing but having heard it myself would make me believe that he ever uttered it. what, sir! the constitution of our country says to the south, "you shall count as the basis of your representation five slaves as being three white men; you may be protected in the natural increase of your slaves; nay, more, as a matter of compromise you may increase their number if you choose, for twenty years, by importation; when these twenty years are out, you shall stop." the supreme court of the united states says, "well; is not this a recognition of slavery, of property in slaves?" "oh, no," says the gentleman, "the rule must work both ways; there is a converse to the proposition." now, sir, to an ordinary, uninstructed intellect, it would seem that the converse of the proposition was simply that at the end of twenty years you should not any longer increase your numbers by importation; but the gentleman says the converse of the proposition is that at the end of the twenty years, after you have, under the guarantee of the constitution, been adding by importation to the previous number of your slaves, then all those that you had before, and all those that, under that constitution, you have imported, cease to be recognized as property by the constitution, and on this proposition he assails the supreme court of the united states--a proposition which he says will occur to anybody. mr. fessenden. will the senator allow me? mr. benjamin. i should be very glad to enter into this debate now, but i fear it is so late that i shall not be able to get through to-day. mr. fessenden. i suppose it is of no consequence. mr. benjamin. what says the senator from vermont (mr. collamer), who also went into this examination somewhat extensively. i read from his printed speech: "i do not say that slaves are never property. i do not say that they are, or are not. within the limits of a state which declares them to be property, they are property, because they are within the jurisdiction of that government which makes the declaration; but i should wish to speak of it in the light of a member of the united states senate, and in the language of the united states constitution. if this be property in the states, what is the nature and extent of it? i insist that the supreme court has often decided, and everybody has understood, that slavery is a local institution, existing by force of state law; and of course that law can give it no possible character beyond the limits of that state." i shall no doubt find the idea better expressed in the opinion of judge nelson, in this same dred scott decision. i prefer to read his language. * * * * * "here is the law; and under it exists the law of slavery in the different states. by virtue of this very principle it cannot extend one inch beyond its own territorial limits. a state cannot regulate the relation of master and slave, of owner and property, the manner and title of descent, or anything else, one inch beyond its territory. then you cannot, by virtue of the law of slavery, if it makes slaves property in a state, if you please, move that property out of the state. it ends whenever you pass from that state. you may pass into another state that has a like law; and if you do, you hold it by virtue of that law; but the moment you pass beyond the limits of the slaveholding states, all title to the property called property in slaves, there ends. under such a law slaves cannot be carried as property into the territories, or anywhere else beyond the states authorizing it. it is not property anywhere else. if the constitution of the united states gives any other and further character than this to slave property, let us acknowledge it fairly and end all strife about it. if it does not, i ask in all candor, that men on the other side shall say so, and let this point be settled. what is the point we are to inquire into? it is this: does the constitution of the united states make slaves property beyond the jurisdiction of the states authorizing slavery? if it only acknowledges them as property within that jurisdiction, it has not extended the property one inch beyond the state line; but if, as the supreme court seems to say, it does recognize and protect them as property further than state limits, and more than the state laws do, then, indeed, it becomes like other property. the supreme court rests this claim upon this clause of the constitution: 'no person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.' now the question is, does that guaranty it? does that make it the same as other property? the very fact that this clause makes provision on the subject of persons bound to service, shows that the framers of the constitution did not regard it as other property. it was a thing that needed some provision; other property did not. the insertion of such a provision shows that it was not regarded as other property. if a man's horse stray from delaware into pennsylvania, he can go and get it. is there any provision in the constitution for it? no. how came this to be there, if a slave is property? if it is the same as other property, why have any provision about it?'" it will undoubtedly have struck any person, in hearing this passage read from the speech of the senator from vermont, whom i regret not to see in his seat to-day, that the whole argument, ingeniously as it is put, rests upon this fallacy--if i may say so with due respect to him--that a man cannot have title in property wherever the law does not give him a remedy or process for the assertion of his title; or, in other words, his whole argument rests upon the old confusion of ideas which considers a man's right and his remedy to be one and the same thing. i have already shown to you, by the passages i have cited from the opinions of lord stowell and of judge story, how they regard this subject. they say that the slave who goes to england, or goes to massachusetts, from a slave state, is still a slave, that he is still his master's property; but that his master has lost control over him, not by reason of the cessation of his property, but because those states grant no remedy to the master by which he can exercise his control. there are numerous illustrations upon this point--illustrations furnished by the copyright laws, illustrations furnished by patent laws. let us take a case, one that appeals to us all. there lives now a man in england who from time to time sings to the enchanted ear of the civilized world strains of such melody that the charmed senses seem to abandon the grosser regions of earth, and to rise to purer and serener regions above. god has created that man a poet. his inspiration is his; his songs are his by right divine; they are his property so recognized by human law; yet here in these united states men steal tennyson's works and sell his property for their profit; and this because, in spite of the violated conscience of the nation, we refuse to give him protection for his property. examine your constitution; are slaves the only species of property there recognized as requiring peculiar protection? sir, the inventive genius of our brethren of the north is a source of vast wealth to them and vast benefit to the nation. i saw a short time ago in one of the new york journals, that the estimated value of a few of the patents now before us in this capital for renewal, was $ , , . i cannot believe that the entire capital, invested in inventions of this character in the united states can fall short of one hundred and fifty or two hundred million dollars. on what protection does this vast property rest? just upon that same constitutional protection which gives a remedy to the slave owner when his property is, also found outside of the limits of the state in which he lives. without this protection, what would be the condition of the northern inventor? why, sir, the vermont inventor protected by his own law would come to massachusetts, and there say to the pirate who had stolen his property, "render me up my property or pay me value for its use." the senator from vermont would receive for answer, if he were the counsel of the vermont inventor, "sir, if you want protection for your property go to your own state; property is governed by the laws of the state within whose jurisdiction it is found; you have no property in your invention outside of the limits of your state; you cannot go an inch beyond it." would not this be so? does not every man see at once that the right of the inventor to his discovery, that the right of the poet to his inspiration, depends upon those principles of eternal justice which god has implanted in the heart of man, and that wherever he cannot exercise them it is because man, faithless to the trust that he has received from god, denies them the protection to which they are entitled?' sir, follow out the illustration which the senator from vermont himself has given; take his very case of the delaware owner of a horse riding him across the line into pennsylvania. the senator says: "now, you see that slaves are not property like other property; if slaves were property like other property, why have you this special clause in your constitution to protect a slave? you have no clause to protect the horse, because horses are recognized as property everywhere." mr. president, the same fallacy lurks at the bottom of this argument, as of all the rest. let pennsylvania exercise her undoubted jurisdiction over persons and things within her own boundary; let her do as she has a perfect right to do--declare that hereafter, within the state of pennsylvania, there shall be no property in horses, and that no man shall maintain a suit in her courts for the recovery of property in a horse; and where will your horse-owner be then? just where the english poet is now; just where the slaveholder and the inventor would be if the constitution, foreseeing a difference of opinion in relation to rights in these subject-matters, had not provided the remedy in relation to such property as might easily be plundered. slaves, if you please, are not property like other property in this: that you can easily rob us of them; but as to the right in them, that man has to overthrow the whole history of the world, he has to overthrow every treatise on jurisprudence, he has to ignore the common sentiment of mankind, he has to repudiate the authority of all that is considered sacred with man, ere he can reach the conclusion that the person who owns a slave, in a country where slavery has been established for ages, has no other property in that slave than the mere title which is given by the statute law of the land where it is found. * * * abraham lincoln, of illinois. (born , died .) on the dred scott decision, springfield, illinois, june , . and now as to the dred scott decision. that decision declares two propositions--first, that a negro cannot sue in the united states courts; and secondly, that congress cannot prohibit slavery in the territories. it was made by a divided court--dividing differently on the different points. judge douglas does not discuss the merits of the decision, and in that respect i shall follow his example, believing i could no more improve on mclean and curtis than he could on taney. he denounces all who question the correctness of that decision, as offering violent resistance to it. but who resists it? who has, in spite of the decision, declared dred scott free, and resisted the authority of his master over him? judicial decisions have two uses,--first, to absolutely determine the case decided; and secondly, to indicate to the public how other similar cases will be decided when they arise. for the latter use they are called "precedents" and "authorities." we believe as much as judge douglas (perhaps more) in obedience to, and respect for, the judicial department of government. we think its decisions on constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control not only the particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed only by amendments to the constitution as provided in that instrument itself. more than this would be revolution. but we think the dred scott decision is erroneous. we know the court that made it has often overruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it to overrule this. we offer no resistance to it. judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents according to circumstances. that this should be so accords both with common sense and the customary understanding of the legal profession. if this important decision had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without any apparent partisan bias, and in accordance with legal public expectation and with the steady practice of the departments throughout our history, and had been in no part based on assumed historical facts which are not really true; or, if wanting in some of these, it had been before the court more than once, and had there been affirmed and reaffirmed through a course of years, it then might be, perhaps would be, factious, nay, even revolutionary, not to acquiesce in it as a precedent. but when, as is true, we find it wanting in all these claims to the public confidence, it is not factious, it is not even disrespectful, to treat it as not having yet quite established a settled doctrine for the country. but judge douglas considers this view awful. hear him: "the courts are the tribunals prescribed by the constitution and created by the authority of the people to determine, expound, and enforce the law. hence, whoever resists the final decision of the highest judicial tribunal aims a deadly blow at our whole republican system of government--a blow which, if successful, would place all our rights and liberties at the mercy of passion, anarchy, and violence. i repeat, therefore, that if resistance to the decisions of the supreme court of the united states, in a matter like the points decided in the dred scott case, clearly within their jurisdiction as defined by the constitution, shall be forced upon the country as a political issue, it will become a distinct and naked issue between the friends and enemies of the constitution--the friends and the enemies of the supremacy of the laws." i have said, in substance, that the dred scott decision was in part based on assumed historical facts which were not really true, and i ought not to leave the subject without giving some reasons for saying this; i therefore give an instance or two, which i think fully sustain me. chief-justice taney, in delivering the opinion of the majority of the court, insists at great length that the negroes were no part of the people who made, or for whom was made, the declaration of independence, or the constitution of the united states. on the contrary, judge curtis, in his dissenting opinion, shows that in five of the then thirteen states--to wit, new hampshire, massachusetts, new york, new jersey, and north carolina--free negroes were voters, and in proportion to their numbers had the same part in making the constitution that the white people had. he shows this with so much particularity as to leave no doubt of its truth; and as a sort of conclusion on that point, holds the following language: "the constitution was ordained and established by the people of the united states, through the action in each state, of those persons who were qualified by its laws to act thereon in behalf of themselves and all other citizens of the state. in some of the states, as we have seen, colored persons were among those qualified by law to act on the subject. these colored persons were not only included in the body of 'the people of the united states' by whom the constitution was ordained and established; but in at least five of the states they had the power to act, and doubtless, did act, by their suffrages, upon the question of its adoption." again, chief-justice taney says: "it is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion, in relation to that unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the declaration of independence, and when the constitution of the united states was framed and adopted." and again, after quoting from the declaration, he says: "the general words above quoted would seem to include the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day, would be so understood." in these the chief-justice does not directly assert, but plainly assumes, as a fact, that the public estimate of the black man is more favorable now than it was in the days of the revolution. this assumption is a mistake. in some trifling particulars the condition of that race has been ameliorated; but as a whole, in this country, the change between then and now is decidedly the other way; and their ultimate destiny has never appeared so hopeless as in the last three or four years. in two of the five states--new jersey and north carolina--that then gave the free negro the right of voting, the right has since been taken away, and in the third--new york--it has been greatly abridged; while it has not been extended, so far as i know, to a single additional state, though the number of the states has more than doubled. in those days, as i understand, masters could, at their own pleasure, emancipate their slaves; but since then such legal restraints have been made upon emancipation as to amount almost to prohibition. in those days legislatures held the unquestioned power to abolish slavery in their respective states, but now it is becoming quite fashionable for state constitutions to withhold that power from the legislatures. in those days, by common consent, the spread of the black man's bondage to the new countries was prohibited, but now congress decides that it will not continue the prohibition, and the supreme court decides that it could not if it would. in those days our declaration of independence was held sacred by all, and thought to include all; but now, to aid in making the bondage of the negro universal and eternal, it is assailed and sneered at and construed, and hawked at and torn, till, if its framers could rise from their graves, they could not at all recognize it. all the powers of earth seem rapidly combining against him. mammon is after him, ambition follows, philosophy follows, and the theology of the day is fast joining the cry. they have him in his prison-house; they have searched his person, and left no prying instrument with him. one after another they have closed the heavy iron doors upon him; and now they have him, as it were, bolted in with a lock of a hundred keys, which can never be unlocked without the concurrence of every key--the keys in the hands of a hundred different men, and they scattered to a hundred different and distant places; and they stand musing as to what invention, in all the dominions of mind and matter, can be produced to make the impossibility of his escape more complete than it is. it is grossly incorrect to say or assume that the public estimate of the negro is more favorable now than it was at the origin of the government. three years and a half ago, judge douglas brought forward his famous nebraska bill. the country was at once in a blaze. he scorned all opposition, and carried it through congress. since then he has seen himself superseded in a presidential nomination by one indorsing the general doctrine of his measure, but at the same time standing clear of the odium of its untimely agitation and its gross breach of national faith; and he has seen that successful rival constitutionally elected, not by the strength of friends, but by the division of adversaries, being in a popular minority of nearly four hundred thousand votes. he has seen his chief aids in his own state, shields and richardson, politically speaking, successively tried, convicted, and executed, for an offense not their own, but his. and now he sees his own case standing next on the docket for trial. there is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people at the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races; and judge douglas evidently is basing his chief hope upon the chances of his being able to appropriate the benefit of this disgust to himself. if he can, by much drumming and repeating, fasten the odium of that idea upon his adversaries, he thinks he can struggle through the storm. he therefore clings to this hope, as a drowning man to the last plank. he makes an occasion for lugging it in from the opposition to the dred scott decision. he finds the republicans insisting that the declaration of independence includes all men, black as well as white, and forthwith he boldly denies that it includes negroes at all, and proceeds to argue gravely that all who contend it does, do so only because they want to vote, and eat, and sleep, and marry with negroes. he will have it that they cannot be consistent else. now i protest against the counterfeit logic which concludes that, because i do not want a black woman for a slave i must necessarily want her for a wife. i need not have her for either. i can just leave her alone. in some respects she certainly is not my equal; but in her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands without asking leave of any one else, she is my equal, and the equal of all others. chief-justice taney, in his opinion in the dred scott case, admits that the language of the declaration is broad enough to include the whole human family, but he and judge douglas argue that the authors of that instrument did not intend to include negroes, by the fact that they did not at once actually place them on an equality with the whites. now this grave argument comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact that they did not at once, or ever afterward, actually place all white people on an equality with one another. and this is the staple argument of both the chief-justice and the senator for doing this obvious violence to the plain, unmistakable language of the declaration. i think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. they did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. they defined with tolerable distinctness in what respects they did consider all men created equal--equal with "certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." this they said, and this they meant. they did not mean to assert the obvious untruth that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. in fact, they had no power to confer such a boon. they meant simply to declare the right, so that enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit. they meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere. the assertion that "all men are created equal" was of no practical use in effecting our separation from great britain; and it was placed in the declaration not for that, but for future use. its authors meant it to be--as, thank god, it is now proving itself--a stumbling-block to all those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. they knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant when such should reappear in this fair land and commence their vocation, they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack. i have now briefly expressed my view of the meaning and object of that part of the declaration of independence which declares that "all men are created equal." now let us hear judge douglas's view of the same subject as i find it in the printed report of his late speech. here it is: "no man can vindicate the character, motives, and conduct of the signers of the declaration of independence, except upon the hypothesis that they referred to the white race alone, and not to the african, when they declared all men to have been created equal; that they were speaking of british subjects on this continent being equal to british subjects born and residing in great britain; that they were entitled to the same inalienable rights, and among them were enumerated life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. the declaration was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in withdrawing their allegiance from the british crown, and dissolving their connection with the mother country." my good friends, read that carefully over in some leisure hour, and ponder well upon it; see what a mere wreck--mangled ruin--it makes of our once glorious declaration. "they were speaking of british subjects on this continent being equal to british subjects born and residing in great britain." why, according to this, not only negroes but white people outside of great britain and america were not spoken of in that instrument. the english, irish, and scotch, along with white americans, were included, to be sure, but the french, germans, and other white people of the world are all gone to pot along with the judge's inferior races. i had thought the declaration promised something better than the condition of british subjects; but no, it only meant that we should be equal to them in their own oppressed and unequal condition. according to that, it gave no promise that, having kicked off the king and lords of great britain, we should not at once be saddled with a king and lords of our own. i had thought the declaration contemplated the progressive improvement in the condition of all men everywhere; but no, it merely "was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world, in withdrawing their allegiance from the british crown, and dissolving their connection with the mother country." why, that object having been effected some eighty years ago, the declaration is of no practical use now--mere rubbish--old wadding left to rot on the battle-field after the victory is won. i understand you are preparing to celebrate the "fourth," to-morrow week. what for? the doings of that day had no reference to the present; and quite half of you are not even descendants of those who were referred to at that day. but i suppose you will celebrate, and will even go so far as to read the declaration. suppose, after you read it once in the old-fashioned way, you read it once more with judge douglas's version. it will then run thus: "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all british subjects who were on this continent eighty-one years ago, were created equal to all british subjects born and then residing in great britain." and now i appeal to all--to democrats as well as others--are you really willing that the declaration shall thus be frittered away?--thus left no more, at most, than an interesting memorial of the dead past?--thus shorn of its vitality and practical value, and left without the germ or even the suggestion of the individual rights of man in it? abraham lincoln, of illinois. (born , died .) on his nomination to the united states senate, at the republican state convention, springfield, ills., june , . mr. president and gentlemen of the convention: if we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. we are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. under the operation of that policy, that agitation not only has not ceased, but has constantly augmented. in my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "a house divided against itself cannot stand." i believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. i do not expect the union to be dissolved; i do not expect the house to fall; but i do expect that it will cease to be divided. it will become all one thing, or all the other. either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new, north as well as south. have we no tendency to the latter condition? let any one who doubts carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination piece of machinery, so to speak--compounded of the nebraska doctrine and the dred scott decision. let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted, but also let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design and concert of action among its chief architects from the beginning. the new year of found slavery excluded from more than half the states by state constitutions, and from most of the national territory by congressional prohibition. four days later commenced the struggle which ended in repealing that congressional prohibition. this opened all the national territory to slavery, and was the first point gained. but, so far, congress only had acted, and an indorsement, by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable, to save the point already gained and give chance for more. this necessity had not been overlooked, but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of "squatter sovereignty," otherwise called "sacred right of self-government";--which latter phrase though expressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this: that, if any one man choose to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object. that argument was incorporated with the nebraska bill itself, in the language which follows: "it being the true intent and meaning of this act, not to legislate slavery into any territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the united states." then opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of "squatter sovereignty," and "sacred right of self-government." "but," said opposition members, "let us amend the bill so as to expressly declare that the people of the territory may exclude slavery." "not we," said the friends of the measure; and down they voted the amendment. while the nebraska bill was passing through congress, a law-case, involving the question of a negro's freedom, by reason of his owner having voluntarily taken him first into a free state, and then into a territory covered by the congressional prohibition, and held him as a slave for a long time in each, was passing through the united states circuit court for the district of missouri; and both nebraska bill and lawsuit were brought to a decision in the same month of may, . the negro's name was dred scott, which name now designates the decision finally made in the case. before the then next presidential election, the law-case came to, and was argued in, the supreme court of the united states; but the decision of it was deferred until after the election. still, before the election, senator trumbull, on the floor of the senate, requested the leading advocate of the nebraska bill to state his opinion whether the people of a territory can constitutionally exclude slavery from their limits; and the latter answers: "that is a question for the supreme court." the election came, mr. buchanan was elected, and the indorsement, such as it was, secured. that was the second point gained. the indorsement, however, fell short of a clear popular majority by nearly four hundred thousand votes, and so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly reliable and satisfactory. the outgoing president, in his last annual message, as impressively as possible, echoed back upon the people the weight and authority of the indorsement. the supreme court met again, did not announce their decision, but ordered a re-argument. the presidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the court; but the incoming president, in his inaugural address, fervently exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever it might be. then, in a few days, came the decision. the reputed author of the nebraska bill finds an early occasion to make a speech at this capital, indorsing the dred scott decision, and vehemently denouncing all opposition to it. the new president, too, seizes the early occasion of the silliman letter to indorse and strongly construe that decision, and to express his astonishment that any different view had ever been entertained. at length a squabble springs up between the president and the author of the nebraska bill, on the mere question of fact, whether the lecompton constitution was, or was not, in any just sense, made by the people of kansas; and in that quarrel the latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up.' i do not understand his declaration, that he cares not whether slavery be voted _down_ or voted _up_, to be intended by him other than as an apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the public mind--the principle for which he declares he has suffered so much, and is ready to suffer to the end. and well may he cling to that principle. if he has any parental feeling, well may he cling to it. that principle is the only shred left of his original nebraska doctrine. under the dred scott decision, squatter sovereignty squatted out of existence--tumbled down like temporary scaffolding--like the mould at the foundry, served through one blast, and fell back into loose sand,--helped to carry an election, and then was kicked to the winds. his late joint struggle with the republicans against the lecompton constitution involves nothing of the original nebraska doctrine. that struggle was made on a point--the right of a people to make their own constitution--upon which he and the republicans have never differed. the several points of the dred scott decision, in connection with senator douglas's "care-not" policy, constitute the piece of machinery in its present state of advancement. this was the third point gained. the working points of that machinery are: ( ) that no negro slave, imported as such from africa, and no descendant of such slave, can ever be a citizen of any state, in the sense of that term as used in the constitution of the united states. this point is made in order to deprive the negro, in every possible event, of the benefit of that provision of the united states constitution, which declares that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." ( ) that, "subject to the constitution of the united states," neither congress nor a territorial legislature can exclude slavery from any united states territory. this point is made in order that individual men may fill up the territories with slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and thus to enhance the chances of permanency to the institution through all the future. ( ) that whether the holding a negro in actual slavery in a free state makes him free, as against the holder, the united states courts will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave state the negro may be forced into by the master. this point is made, not to be pressed immediately; but, if acquiesced in for a while, and apparently indorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what dred scott's master might lawfully do with dred scott, in the state of illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one or one thousand slaves, in illinois, or in any other free state. auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mould public opinion, at least northern public opinion, not to care whether slavery is voted down or voted up. this shows exactly where we now are, and partially, also, whither we are tending. it will throw additional light on the latter to go back, and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. the people were to be left "perfectly free," "subject only to the constitution." what the constitution had to do with it, outsiders could not then see. plainly enough now, it was an exactly fitted niche for the dred scott decision to come in afterward, and declare the perfect freedom of the people to be just no freedom at all. why was the amendment expressly declaring the right of the people voted down? plainly enough now, the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the dred scott decision. why was the court decision held up? why even a senator's individual opinion withheld till after the presidential election? plainly enough now: the speaking out then would have damaged the "perfectly free" argument upon which the election was to be carried. why the outgoing president's felicitation on the indorsement? why the delay of a re-argument? why the incoming president's advance exhortation in favor of the decision? these things look like the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. and why the hasty after indorsement of the decision by the president and others? we cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. but when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places, and by different workmen--stephen, franklin, roger, and james, for instance,--and when we see these timbers joined together, and see that they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few--not omitting even scaffolding,--or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in,--in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that stephen and franklin and roger and james all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck. it should not be overlooked that, by the nebraska bill, the people of a state, as well as territory, were to be left "perfectly free," "subject only to the constitution." why mention a state? they were legislating for territories, and not for or about states. certainly, the people of a state are and ought to be subject to the constitution of the united states; but why is mention of this lugged into this merely territorial law? why are the people of a territory and the people of a state therein lumped together, and their relation to the constitution therein treated as being precisely the same? while the opinion of the court, by chief-justice taney, in the dred scott case, and the separate opinions of all the concurring judges, expressly declare that the constitution of the united states permits neither congress nor a territorial legislature to exclude slavery from any united states territory, they all omit to declare whether or not the same constitution permits a state, or the people of a state, to exclude it. possibly, this is a mere omission; but who can be quite sure, if mclean or curtis had sought to get into the opinion a declaration of unlimited power in the people of a state to exclude slavery from their limits, just as chase and mace sought to get such declaration, in behalf of the people of a territory, into the nebraska bill--i ask, who can be quite sure that it would not have been voted down in the one case as it had been in the other? the nearest approach to the point of declaring the power of a state over slavery is made by judge nelson. he approaches it more than once, using the precise idea, and almost the language, too, of the nebraska act. on one occasion, his exact language is: "except in cases when the power is restrained by the constitution of the united states, the law of the state is supreme over the subjects of slavery within its jurisdiction." in what cases the power of the states is so restrained by the united states constitution is left an open question, precisely as the same question, as to the restraint on the power of the territories, was left open in the nebraska act. put this and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another supreme court decision, declaring that the constitution of the united states does not permit a state to exclude slavery from its limits. and this may especially be expected if the doctrine of "care not whether slavery be voted down or voted up," shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can be maintained when made. such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the states. welcome or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and overthrown. we shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of missouri are on the verge of making their state free, and we shall awake to the reality, instead, that the supreme court has made illinois a slave state. to meet and overthrow that dynasty is the work before all those who would prevent that consummation. that is what we have to do. how can we best do it? there are those who denounce us openly to their own friends, and yet whisper us softly that senator douglas is the aptest instrument there is with which to effect that object. they wish us to infer all, from the fact that he now has a little quarrel with the present head of the dynasty; and that he has regularly voted with us on a single point, upon which he and we have never differed. they remind us that he is a great man, and that the largest of us are very small ones. let this be granted. "but a living dog is better than a dead lion." judge douglas, if not a dead lion, for this work, is at least a caged and toothless one. how can he oppose the advances of slavery? he don't care anything about it. his avowed mission is impressing the "public heart" to care nothing about it. a leading douglas democratic newspaper thinks douglas's superior talent will be needed to resist the revival of the african slave-trade. does douglas believe an effort to revive that trade is approaching? he has not said so. does he really think so? but if it is, how can he resist it? for years he has labored to prove it a sacred right of white men to take negro slaves into the new territories. can he possibly show that it is less a sacred right to buy them where they can be bought cheapest? and unquestionably they can be bought cheaper in africa than in virginia. he has done all in his power to reduce the whole question of slavery to one of a mere right of property; and as such, how can he oppose the foreign slave-trade? how can he refuse that trade in that "property" shall be "perfectly free," unless he does it as a protection to the home production? and as the home producers will probably ask the protection, he will be wholly without a ground of opposition. senator douglas holds, we know, that a man may rightfully be wiser to-day than he was yesterday--that he may rightfully change when he finds himself wrong. but can we, for that reason, run ahead, and infer that he will make any particular change, of which he himself has given no intimation? can we safely base our action upon any such vague inference? now, as ever, i wish not to misrepresent judge douglas's position, question his motives, or do aught that can be personally offensive to him. whenever, if ever, he and we can come together on principle, so that our cause may have assistance from his great ability, i hope to have interposed no adventitious obstacle. but, clearly, he is not now with us--he does not pretend to be, he does not promise ever to be. our cause, then, must be entrusted to, and conducted by its own undoubted friends--those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work--who do care for the result. two years ago the republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. we did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger. with every external circumstance against us, of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. did we brave all then, to falter now?--now, when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent! the result is not doubtful. we shall not fail--if we stand firm, we shall not fail. wise counsels may accelerate, or mistakes delay it; but, sooner or later, the victory is sure to come. stephen arnold douglas, of illinois. (born , died .) in reply to mr. lincoln; freeport, ills., august , . ladies and gentlemen: i am glad that at last i have brought mr. lincoln to the conclusion that he had better define his position on certain political questions to which i called his attention at ottawa. * * * in a few moments i will proceed to review the answers which he has given to these interrogatories; but, in order to relieve his anxiety, i will first respond to those which he has presented to me. mark you, he has not presented interrogatories which have ever received the sanction of the party with which i am acting, and hence he has no other foundation for them than his own curiosity. first he desires to know, if the people of kansas shall form a constitution by means entirely proper and unobjectionable, and ask admission as a state, before they have the requisite population for a member of congress, whether i will vote for that admission. well, now, i regret exceedingly that he did not answer that interrogatory himself before he put it to me, in order that we might understand, and not be left to infer, on which side he is. mr. trumbull, during the last session of congress, voted from the beginning to the end against the admission of oregon, although a free state, because she had not the requisite population for a member of congress. mr. trumbull would not consent, under any circumstances, to let a state, free or slave, come into the union until it had the requisite population. as mr. trumbull is in the field fighting for mr. lincoln, i would like to have mr. lincoln answer his own question and tell me whether he is fighting trumbull on that issue or not. but i will answer his question. * * * either kansas must come in as a free state, with whatever population she may have, or the rule must be applied to all the other territories alike. i therefore answer at once that, it having been decided that kansas has people enough for a slave state, i hold that she has enough for a free state. i hope mr. lincoln is satisfied with my answer; and now i would like to get his answer to his own interrogatory--whether or not he will vote to admit kansas before she has the requisite population. i want to know whether he will vote to admit oregon before that territory has the requisite population. mr. trumbull will not, and the same reason that commits mr. trumbull against the admission of oregon commits him against kansas, even if she should apply for admission as a free state. if there is any sincerity, any truth, in the argument of mr. trumbull in the senate against the admission of oregon, because she had not , people, although her population was larger than that of kansas, he stands pledged against the admission of both oregon and kansas until they have , inhabitants. i would like mr. lincoln to answer this question. i would like him to take his own medicine. if he differs with mr. trumbull, let him answer his argument against the admission of oregon, instead of poking questions at me. the next question propounded to me by mr. lincoln is, can the people of the territory in any lawful way, against the wishes of any citizen of the united states, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a state constitution? i answer emphatically, as mr. lincoln has heard me answer a hundred times from every stump in illinois, that in my opinion the people of a territory can, by lawful means, exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a state constitution. mr. lincoln knew that i had answered that question over and over again. he heard me argue the nebraska bill on that principle all over the state in , in , and in ; and he has no excuse for pretending to be in doubt as to my position on that question. it matters not what way the supreme court may hereafter decide as to the abstract question whether slavery may or may not go into a territory under the constitution; the people have the lawful means to introduce it or exclude it as they please, for the reason that slavery cannot exist a day or an hour anywhere unless it is supported by local police regulations. those police regulations can only be established by the local legislature; and, if the people are opposed to slavery, they will elect representatives to that body who will by unfriendly legislation effectually prevent the introduction of it into their midst. if, on the contrary, they are for it, their legislation will favor its extension. hence, no matter what the decision of the supreme court may be on that abstract question, still the right of the people to make a slave territory or a free territory is perfect and complete under the nebraska bill. i hope mr. lincoln deems my answer satisfactory on that point. in this connection, i will notice the charge which he has introduced in relation to mr. chase's amendment. i thought that i had chased that amendment out of mr. lincoln's brain at ottawa; but it seems that it still haunts his imagination, and that he is not yet satisfied. i had supposed that he would be ashamed to press that question further. he is a lawyer, and has been a member of congress, and has occupied his time and amused you by telling you about parliamentary proceedings. he ought to have known better than to try to palm off his miserable impositions upon this intelligent audience. the nebraska bill provided that the legislative power and authority of the said territory should extend to all rightful subjects of legislation, consistent with the organic act and the constitution of the united states. it did not make any exception as to slavery, but gave all the power that it was possible for congress to give, without violating the constitution, to the territorial legislature, with no exception or limitation on the subject of slavery at all. the language of that bill, which i have quoted, gave the full power and the fuller authority over the subject of slavery, affirmatively and negatively, to introduce it or exclude it, so far as the constitution of the united states would permit. what more could mr. chase give by his amendment? nothing! he offered his amendment for the identical purpose for which mr. lincoln is using it, to enable demagogues in the country to try and deceive the people. his amendment was to this effect. it provided that the legislature should have power to exclude slavery; and general cass suggested: "why not give the power to introduce as well as to exclude?" the answer was--they have the power already in the bill to do both. chase was afraid his amendment would be adopted if he put the alternative proposition, and so made it fair both ways, and would not yield. he offered it for the purpose of having it rejected. he offered it, as he has himself avowed over and over again, simply to make capital out of it for the stump. he expected that it would be capital for small politicians in the country, and that they would make an effort to deceive the people with it; and he was not mistaken, for lincoln is carrying out the plan admirably. * * * the third question which mr. lincoln presented is--if the supreme court of the united states shall decide that a state of this union cannot exclude slavery from its own limits, will i submit to it? i am amazed that mr. lincoln should ask such a question. mr. lincoln's object is to cast an imputation upon the supreme court. he knows that there never was but one man in america, claiming any degree of intelligence or decency, who ever for a moment pretended such a thing. it is true that the _washington union_, in an article published on the th of last december, did put forth that doctrine, and i denounced the article on the floor of the senate. * * * lincoln's friends, trumbull, and seward, and hale, and wilson, and the whole black republican side of the senate were silent. they left it to me to denounce it. and what was the reply made to me on that occasion? mr. toombs, of georgia, got up and undertook to lecture me on the ground that i ought not to have deemed the article worthy of notice, and ought not to have replied to it; that there was not one man, woman, or child south of the potomac, in any slave state, who did not repudiate any such pretension. mr. lincoln knows that reply was made on the spot, and yet now he asks this question! he might as well ask me--suppose mr. lincoln should steal a horse, would i sanction it; and it would be as genteel in me to ask him, in the event he stole a horse, what ought to be done with him. he casts an imputation upon the supreme court of the united states, by supposing that they would violate the constitution of the united states. i tell him that such a thing is not possible. it would be an act of moral treason that no man on the bench could ever descend to. mr. lincoln himself would never, in his partisan feelings, so far forget what was right as to be guilty of such an act. the fourth question of mr. lincoln is--are you in favor of acquiring additional territory in disregard as to how such acquisition may affect the union on the slavery question? this question is very ingeniously and cunningly put. the black republican crowd lays it down expressly that under no circumstances shall we acquire any more territory unless slavery is first prohibited in the country. i ask mr. lincoln whether he is in favor of that proposition? are you opposed to the acquisition of any more territory, under any circumstances, unless slavery is prohibited in it? that he does not like to answer. when i ask him whether he stands up to that article in the platform of his party, he turns, yankee fashion, and, without answering it, asks me whether i am in favor of acquiring territory without regard to how it may affect the union on the slavery question. i answer that, whenever it becomes necessary, in our growth and progress, to acquire more territory, i am in favor of it without reference to the question of slavery, and when we have acquired it, i will leave the people free to do as they please, either to make it slave or free territory, as they prefer. it is idle to tell me or you that we have territory enough. * * * with our natural increase, growing with a rapidity unknown in any other part of the globe, with the tide of emigration that is fleeing from despotism in the old world to seek refuge in our own, there is a constant torrent pouring into this country that requires more land, more territory upon which to settle; and just as fast as our interest and our destiny require additional territory in the north, in the south, or in the islands of the ocean, i am for it, and, when we acquire it, will leave the people, according to the nebraska bill, free to do as they please on the subject of slavery and every other question. i trust now that mr. lincoln will deem him-self answered on his four points. he racked his brain so much in devising these four questions that he exhausted himself, and had not strength enough to invent the others. as soon as he is able to hold a council with his advisers, love-joy, farnsworth, and fred douglas, he will frame and propound others ("good," "good!"). you black republicans who say "good," i have no doubt, think that they are all good men. i have reason to recollect that some people in this country think that fred douglas is a very good man. the last time i came here to make a speech, while talking from a stand to you, people of freeport, as i am doing to-day, i saw a carriage, and a magnificent one it was, drive up and take a position on the outside of the crowd; a beautiful young lady was sitting on the box seat, whilst fred douglas and her mother reclined inside, and the owner of the carriage acted as driver. i saw this in your own town. ("what of it?") all i have to say of it is this, that if you black republicans think that the negro ought to be on a social equality with your wives and daughters, and ride in a carriage with your wife, whilst you drive the team, you have a perfect right to do so. i am told that one of fred douglas' kinsmen, another rich black negro, is now travelling in this part of the state making speeches for his friend lincoln as the champion of black men. ("what have you to say against it?") all i have to say on that subject is, that those of you who believe that the negro is your equal, and ought to be on an equality with you socially, politically, and legally, have a right to entertain those opinions, and of course will vote for mr. lincoln. wm. h. seward, of new york. (born , died .) on the irrepressible conflict; rochester, october , . the unmistakable outbreaks of zeal which occur all around me, show that you are earnest men--and such a man am i. let us therefore, at least for a time, pass all secondary and collateral questions, whether of a personal or of a general nature, and consider the main subject of the present canvass. the democratic party, or, to speak more accurately, the party which wears that attractive name--is in possession of the federal government. the republicans propose to dislodge that party, and dismiss it from its high trust. the main subject, then, is, whether the democratic party deserves to retain the confidence of the american people. in attempting to prove it unworthy, i think that i am not actuated by prejudices against that party, or by pre-possessions in favor of its adversary; for i have learned, by some experience, that virtue and patriotism, vice and selfishness, are found in all parties, and that they differ less in their motives than in the policies they pursue. our country is a theatre, which exhibits, in full operation, two radically different political systems; the one resting on the basis of servile or slave labor, the other on voluntary labor of freemen. the laborers who are enslaved are all negroes, or persons more or less purely of african derivation. but this is only accidental. the principle of the system is, that labor in every society, by whomsoever performed, is necessarily unintellectual, grovelling and base; and that the laborer, equally for his own good and for the welfare of the state, ought to be enslaved. the white laboring man, whether native or foreigner, is not enslaved, only because he cannot, as yet, be reduced to bondage. you need not be told now that the slave system is the older of the two, and that once it was universal. the emancipation of our own ancestors, caucasians and europeans as they were, hardly dates beyond a period of five hundred years. the great melioration of human society which modern times exhibit, is mainly due to the incomplete substitution of the system of voluntary labor for the one of servile labor, which has already taken place. this african slave system is one which, in its origin and in its growth, has been altogether foreign from the habits of the races which colonized these states, and established civilization here. it was introduced on this continent as an engine of conquest, and for the establishment of monarchical power, by the portuguese and the spaniards, and was rapidly extended by them all over south america, central america, louisiana, and mexico. its legitimate fruits are seen in the poverty, imbecility, and anarchy which now pervade all portuguese and spanish america. the free-labor system is of german extraction, and it was established in our country by emigrants from sweden, holland, germany, great britain and ireland. we justly ascribe to its influences the strength, wealth, greatness, intelligence, and freedom, which the whole american people now enjoy. one of the chief elements of the value of human life is freedom in the pursuit of happiness. the slave system is not only intolerable, unjust, and inhuman, toward the laborer, whom, only because he is a laborer, it loads down with chains and converts into merchandise, but is scarcely less severe upon the freeman, to whom, only because he is a laborer from necessity, it denies facilities for employment, and whom it expels from the community because it cannot enslave and convert into merchandise also. it is necessarily improvident and ruinous, because, as a general truth, communities prosper and flourish, or droop and decline, in just the degree that they practise or neglect to practise the primary duties of justice and humanity. the free-labor system conforms to the divine law of equality, which is written in the hearts and consciences of man, and therefore is always and everywhere beneficent. the slave system is one of constant danger, distrust, suspicion, and watchfulness. it debases those whose toil alone can produce wealth and resources for defence, to the lowest degree of which human nature is capable, to guard against mutiny and insurrection, and thus wastes energies which otherwise might be employed in national development and aggrandizement. the free-labor system educates all alike, and by opening all the fields of industrial employment and all the departments of authority, to the unchecked and equal rivalry of all classes of men, at once secures universal contentment, and brings into the highest possible activity all the physical, moral, and social energies of the whole state. in states where the slave system prevails, the masters, directly or indirectly, secure all political power, and constitute a ruling aristocracy. in states where the free-labor system prevails, universal suffrage necessarily obtains, and the state inevitably becomes, sooner or later, a republic or democracy. russia yet maintains slavery, and is a despotism. most of the other european states have abolished slavery, and adopted the system of free labor. it was the antagonistic political tendencies of the two systems which the first napoleon was contemplating when he predicted that europe would ultimately be either all cossack or all republican. never did human sagacity utter a more pregnant truth. the two systems are at once perceived to be incongruous. but they are more than incongruous--they are incompatible. they never have permanently existed together in one country, and they never can. it would be easy to demonstrate this impossibility, from the irreconcilable contrast between their great principles and characteristics. but the experience of mankind has conclusively established it. slavery, as i have already intimated, existed in every state in europe. free labor has supplanted it everywhere except in russia and turkey. state necessities developed in modern times are now obliging even those two nations to encourage and employ free labor; and already, despotic as they are, we find them engaged in abolishing slavery. in the united states, slavery came into collision with free labor at the close of the last century, and fell before it in new england, new york, new jersey, and pennsylvania, but triumphed over it effectually, and excluded it for a period yet undetermined, from virginia, the carolinas, and georgia. indeed, so incompatible are the two systems, that every new state which is organized within our ever-extending domain makes its first political act a choice of the one and the exclusion of the other, even at the cost of civil war, if necessary. the slave states, without law, at the last national election, successfully forbade, within their own limits, even the casting of votes for a candidate for president of the united states supposed to be favorable to the establishment of the free-labor system in new states. hitherto, the two systems have existed in different states, but side by side within the american union. this has happened because the union is a confederation of states. but in another aspect the united states constitute only one nation. increase of population, which is filling the states out to their very borders, together with a new and extended network of railroads and other avenues, and an internal commerce which daily becomes more intimate, is rapidly bringing the states into a higher and more perfect social unity or consolidation. thus, these antagonistic systems are continually coming into closer contact, and collision results. shall i tell you what this collision means? they who think that it is accidental, unnecessary, the work of interested or fanatical agitators, and therefore ephemeral, mistake the case altogether. it is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces, and it means that the united states must and will, sooner or later, become either entirely a slave-holding nation, or entirely a free-labor nation. either the cotton- and rice-fields of south carolina and the sugar plantations of louisiana will ultimately be tilled by free-labor, and charleston and new orleans become marts of legitimate merchandise alone, or else the rye-fields and wheat-fields of massachusetts and new york must again be surrendered by their farmers to slave culture and to the production of slaves, and boston and new york become once more markets for trade in the bodies and souls of men. it is the failure to apprehend this great truth that induces so many unsuccessful attempts at final compromises between the slave and free states, and it is the existence of this great fact that renders all such pretended compromises, when made, vain and ephemeral. startling as this saying may appear to you, fellow-citizens, it is by no means an original or even a modern one. our forefathers knew it to be true, and unanimously acted upon it when they framed the constitution of the united states. they regarded the existence of the servile system in so many of the states with sorrow and shame, which they openly confessed, and they looked upon the collision between them, which was then just revealing itself, and which we are now accustomed to deplore, with favor and hope. they knew that one or the other system must exclusively prevail. unlike too many of those who in modern time invoke their authority, they had a choice between the two. they preferred the system of free labor, and they determined to organize the government, and so direct its activity, that that system should surely and certainly prevail. for this purpose, and no other, they based the whole structure of the government broadly on the principle that all men are created equal, and therefore free--little dreaming that, within the short period of one hundred years, their descendants would bear to be told by any orator, however popular, that the utterance of that principle was merely a rhetorical rhapsody; or by any judge, however venerated, that it was attended by mental reservation, which rendered it hypocritical and false. by the ordinance of , they dedicated all of the national domain not yet polluted by slavery to free labor immediately, thenceforth and forever; while by the new constitution and laws they invited foreign free labor from all lands under the sun, and interdicted the importation of african slave labor, at all times, in all places, and under all circumstances whatsoever. it is true that they necessarily and wisely modified this policy of freedom by leaving it to the several states, affected as they were by different circumstances, to abolish slavery in their own way and at their own pleasure, instead of confiding that duty to congress; and that they secured to the slave states, while yet retaining the system of slavery, a three-fifths representation of slaves in the federal government, until they should find themselves able to relinquish it with safety. but the very nature of these modifications fortifies my position, that the fathers knew that the two systems could not endure within the union, and expected within a short period slavery would disappear forever. moreover, in order that these modifications might not altogether defeat their grand design of a republic maintaining universal equality, they provided that two thirds of the states might amend the constitution. it remains to say on this point only one word, to guard against misapprehension. if these states are to again become universally slave-holding, i do not pretend to say with what violations of the constitution that end shall be accomplished. on the other hand, while i do confidently believe and hope that my country will yet become a land of universal freedom, i do not expect that it will be made so otherwise than through the action of the several states cooperating with the federal government, and all acting in strict conformity with their respective constitutions. the strife and contentions concerning slavery, which gently-disposed persons so habitually deprecate, are nothing more than the ripening of the conflict which the fathers themselves not only thus regarded with favor, but which they may be said to have instituted. * * * i know--few, i think, know better than i--the resources and energies of the democratic party, which is identical with the slave power. i do ample justice to its traditional popularity. i know further--few, i think, know better than i--the difficulties and disadvantages of organizing a new political force, like the republican party, and the obstacles it must encounter in laboring without prestige and without patronage. but, understanding all this, i know that the democratic party must go down, and that the republican party must rise into its place. the democratic party derived its strength, originally, from its adoption of the principles of equal and exact justice to all men. so long as it practised this principle faithfully, it was invulnerable. it became vulnerable when it renounced the principle, and since that time it has maintained itself, not by virtue of its own strength, or even of its traditional merits, but because there as yet had appeared in the political field no other party that had the conscience and the courage to take up, and avow, and practise the life-inspiring principle which the democratic party had surrendered. at last, the republican party has appeared. it avows, now, as the republican party of did, in one word, its faith and its works, "equal and exact justice to all men." even when it first entered the field, only half organized, it struck a blow which only just failed to secure complete and triumphant victory. in this, its second campaign, it has already won advantages which render that triumph now both easy and certain. the secret of its assured success lies in that very characteristic which, in the mouth of scoffers, constitutes its great and lasting imbecility and reproach. it lies in the fact that it is a party of one idea; but that is a noble one--an idea that fills and expands all generous souls; the idea of equality--the equality of all men before human tribunals and human laws, as they all are equal before the divine tribunal and divine laws. i know, and you know, that a revolution has begun. i know, and all the world knows, that revolutions never go backward. twenty senators and a hundred representatives proclaim boldly in congress to-day sentiments and opinions and principles of freedom which hardly so many men, even in this free state, dared to utter in their own homes twenty years ago. while the government of the united states, under the conduct of the democratic party, has been all that time surrendering one plain and castle after another to slavery, the people of the united states have been no less steadily and perseveringly gathering together the forces with which to recover back again all the fields and all the castles which have been lost, and to confound and overthrow, by one decisive blow, the betrayers of the constitution and freedom forever. vi. -- secession. from the beginning of our history it has been a mooted question whether we are to consider the united states as a political state or as a congeries of political states, as a _bundesstaat_ or as a _staatenbund_. the essence of the controversy seems to be contained in the very title of the republic, one school laying stress on the word united, as the other does on the word states. the phases of the controversy have been beyond calculation, and one of its consequences has been a civil war of tremendous energy and cost in blood and treasure. looking at the facts alone of our history, one would be most apt to conclude that the united states had been a political state from the beginning, its form being entirely revolutionary until the final ratification of the articles of confederation in , then under the very loose and inefficient government of the articles until , and thereafter under the very efficient national government of the constitution; that, in the final transformation of - , there were features which were also decidedly revolutionary; but that there was no time when any of the colonies had the prospect or the power of establishing a separate national existence of its own. the facts are not consistent with the theory that the states ever were independent political states, in any scientific sense. it cannot be said, however, that the actors in the history always had a clear perception of the facts as they took place. in the teeth of the facts, our early history presents a great variety of assertions of state independence by leading men, state legislatures, or state constitutions, which still form the basis of the argument for state sovereignty. the state constitutions declared the state to be sovereign and independent, even though the framers knew that the existence of the state depended on the issue of the national struggle against the mother country. the treaty of with great britain recognized the states separately and by name as "free, sovereign, and independent," even while it established national boundaries outside of the states, covering a vast western territory in which no state would have ventured to forfeit its interest by setting up a claim to practical freedom, sovereignty, or independence. all our early history is full of such contradictions between fact and theory. they are largely obscured by the undiscriminating use of the word "people." as used now, it usually means the national people; but many apparently national phrases as to the "sovereignty of the people," as they were used in - , would seem far less national if the phraseology could show the feeling of those who then used them that the "people" referred to was the people of the state. in that case the number of the contradictions would be indefinitely increased; and the phraseology of the constitution's preamble, "we, the people of the united states," would not be offered as a consciously nationalizing phrase of its framers. it is hardly to be doubted, from the current debates, that the conventions of massachusetts, new hampshire, rhode island, new york, virginia, north carolina, and south carolina, seven of the thirteen states, imagined and assumed that each ratified the constitution in -- by authority of the state's people alone, by the state's sovereign will; while the facts show that in each of these conventions a clear majority was coerced into ratification by a strong minority in its own state, backed by the unanimous ratifications of the other states. if ratification or rejection had really been open to voluntary choice, to sovereign will, the constitution would never have had a moment's chance of life; so far from being ratified by nine states as a condition precedent to going into effect, it would have been summarily rejected by a majority of the states. in the language of john adams, the constitution was "extorted from the grinding necessities of a reluctant people." the theory of state sovereignty was successfully contradicted by national necessities. the change from the articles of confederation to the constitution, though it could not help antagonizing state sovereignty, was carefully managed so as to do so as little as possible. as soon as the plans by which the federal party, under hamilton's leadership, proposed to develop the national features of the constitution became evident, the latent state feeling took fire. its first symptom was the adoption of the name republican by the new opposition party which took form in - under jefferson's leadership. up to this time the states had been the only means through which americans had known any thing of republican government; they had had no share in the government of the mother country in colonial times, and no efficient national government to take part in under the articles of confederation. the claim of an exclusive title to the name of republican does not seem to have been fundamentally an implication of monarchical tendencies against the federalists so much as an implication that they were hostile to the states, the familiar exponents of republican government. when the federalist majority in congress forced through, in the war excitement against france in , the alien and sedition laws, which practically empowered the president to suppress all party criticism of and opposition to the dominant party, the legislatures of kentucky and virginia, in - , passed series of resolutions, prepared by jefferson and madison respectively, which for the first time asserted in plain terms the sovereignty of the states. the two sets of resolutions agreed in the assertion that the constitution was a "compact," and that the states were the "parties" which had formed it. in these two propositions lies the gist of state sovereignty, of which all its remotest consequences are only natural developments. if it were true that the states, of their sovereign will, had formed such a compact; if it were not true that the adoption of the constitution was a mere alteration of the form of a political state already in existence; it would follow, as the kentucky resolutions asserted, that each state had the exclusive right to decide for itself when the compact had been broken, and the mode and measure of redress. it followed, also, that, if the existence and force of the constitution in a state were due solely to the sovereign will of the state, the sovereign will of the state was competent, on occasion, to oust the constitution from the jurisdiction covered by the state. in brief, the union was wholly voluntary in its formation and in its continuance; and each state reserved the unquestionable right to secede, to abandon the union, and assume an independent existence whenever due reason, in the exclusive judgment of the state, should arise. these latter consequences, not stated in the kentucky resolutions, and apparently not contemplated by the virginia resolutions, were put into complete form by professor tucker, of the university of virginia, in , in the notes to his edition of "blackstone's commentaries." thereafter its statements of american constitutional law controlled the political training of the south. madison held a modification of the state sovereignty theory, which has counted among its adherents the mass of the ability and influence of american authorities on constitutional law. holding that the constitution was a compact, and that the states were the parties to it, he held that one of the conditions of the compact was the abandonment of state sovereignty; that the states were sovereign until - , but thereafter only members of a political state, the united states. this seems to have been the ground taken by webster, in his debates with hayne and calhoun. it was supported by the instances in which the appearance of a sovereignty in each state was yielded in the fourteen years before ; but, unfortunately for the theory, calhoun was able to produce instances exactly parallel after . if the fact that each state predicated its own sovereignty as an essential part of the steps preliminary to the convention of be a sound argument for state sovereignty before , the fact that each state predicated its sovereignty as an essential part of the ratification of the constitution must be taken as an equally sound argument for state sovereignty under the constitution; and it seems difficult, on the madison theory, to resist calhoun's triumphant conclusion that, if the states went into the convention as sovereign states, they came out of it as sovereign states, with, of course, the right of secession. calhoun himself had a sincere desire to avoid the exercise of the right of secession, and it was as a substitute for it that he evolved his doctrine of nullification, which has been placed in the first volume. when it failed in , the exercise of the right of secession was the only remaining remedy for an asserted breach of state sovereignty. the events which led up to the success of the republican party in electing mr. lincoln to the presidency in are so intimately connected with the anti-slavery struggle that they have been placed in the preceding volume. they culminated in the first organized attempt to put the right of secession to a practical test. the election of lincoln, the success of a "sectional party," and the evasion of the fugitive-slave law through the passage of "personal-liberty laws" by many of the northern states, are the leading reasons assigned by south carolina for her secession in . these were intelligible reasons, and were the ones most commonly used to influence the popular vote. but all the evidence goes to show that the leaders of secession were not so weak in judgment as to run the hazards of war by reason of "injuries" so minute as these. their apprehensions were far broader, if less calculated to influence a popular vote. in the proportions of population and wealth in the two sections were very nearly equal. the slave system of labor had hung as a clog upon the progress of the south, preventing the natural development of manufactures and commerce, and shutting out immigration. as the numerical disproportion between the two sections increased, southern leaders ceased to attempt to control the house of representatives, contenting themselves with balancing new northern with new southern states, so as to keep an equal vote in the senate. since this resource had failed. five free states, iowa, wisconsin, california, minnesota, and oregon, had been admitted, with no new slave states; kansas was calling almost imperatively for admission; and there was no hope of another slave state in future. when the election of demonstrated that the progress of the antislavery struggle had united all the free states, it was evident that it was but a question of time when the republican party would control both branches of congress and the presidency, and have the power to make laws according to its own interpretation of the constitutional powers of the federal government. the peril to slavery was not only the probable prohibition of the inter-state slave-trade, though this itself would have been an event which negro slavery in the south could hardly have long survived. the more pressing danger lay in the results of such general republican success on the supreme court. the decision of that court in the dred scott case had fully sustained every point of the extreme southern claims as to the status of slavery in the territories; it had held that slaves were property in the view of the constitution; that congress was bound to protect slave-holders in this property right in the territories, and, still more, bound not to prohibit slavery or allow a territorial legislature to prohibit slavery in the territories, and that the missouri compromise of was unconstitutional and void. the southern democrats entered the election of with this distinct decision of the highest judicial body of the country to back them. the republican party had refused to admit that the decision of the dred scott case was law or binding. given a republican majority in both houses and a republican president, there was nothing to hinder the passage of a law increasing the number of supreme court justices to any desired extent, and the new appointments would certainly be of such a nature as to make the reversal of the dred scott decision an easy matter. the election of had brought only a republican president; the majority in both houses was to be against him until at least. but the drift in the north and west was too plain to be mistaken, and it was felt that --would be the last opportunity for the gulf states to secede with dignity and with the prestige of the supreme court's support. finally, there seems to have been a strong feeling among the extreme secessionists, who loved the right of secession for its own sake, that the accelerating increase in the relative power of the north would soon make secession, on any grounds, impossible. unless the right was to be forfeited by non-user, it must be established by practical exercise, and at once. until about - presidential electors were chosen in most of the states by the legislature. after that period the old practice was kept up only in south carolina. on election day of november, , the south carolina legislature was in session for the purpose of choosing electors, but it continued its session after this duty was performed. as soon as lincoln's election was assured, the legislature called a state convention for dec. th, took the preliminary steps toward putting the state on a war footing, and adjourned. the convention met at the state capital, adjourned to charleston, and here, dec. , , passed unanimously an ordinance of secession. by its terms the people of south carolina, in convention assembled, repealed the ordinance of may , , by which the constitution had been ratified, and all acts of the legislature ratifying amendments to the constitution, and declared the union between the state and other states, under the name of the united states of america, to be dissolved. by a similar process, similar ordinances were adopted by the state conventions of mississippi (jan. th), florida (jan. th), alabama (jan. th), georgia (jan. th), louisiana (jan. th), and texas (feb. st),--seven states in all. outside of south carolina, the struggle in the states named turned on the calling of the convention; and in this matter the opposition was unexpectedly strong. we have the testimony of alexander h. stephens that the argument most effective in overcoming the opposition to the calling of a convention was: "we can make better terms out of the union than in it." the necessary implication was that secession was not to be final; that it was only to be a temporary withdrawal until terms of compromise and security for the fugitive-slave law and for slavery in the territories could be extorted from the north and west. the argument soon proved to be an intentional sham. there has always been a difference between the theory of the state convention at the north and at the south. at the north, barring a few very exceptional cases, the rule has been that no action of a state convention is valid until confirmed by popular vote. at the south, in obedience to the strictest application of state sovereignty, the action of the state convention was held to be the voice of the people of the state, which needed no popular ratification. there was, therefore, no remedy when the state conventions, after passing the ordinances of secession, went on to appoint delegates to a confederate congress, which met at montgomery, feb. , , adopted a provisional constitution feb. th, and elected a president and vice-president feb. th. the conventions ratified the provisional constitution and adjourned, their real object having been completely accomplished; and the people of the several seceding states, by the action of their omnipotent state conventions, and without their having a word to say about it, found themselves under a new government, totally irreconcilable with the jurisdiction of the united states, and necessarily hostile to it. the only exception was texas, whose state convention had been called in a method so utterly revolutionary that it was felt to be necessary to condone its defects by a popular vote. no declaration had ever been made by any authority that the erection of such hostile power within the national boundaries of the united states would be followed by war; such a declaration would hardly seem necessary. the recognition of the original national boundaries of the united states had been extorted from great britain by successful warfare. they had been extended by purchase from france and spain in and , and again by war from mexico in . the united states stood ready to guarantee their integrity by war against all the rest of the world; was an ordinance of south carolina, or the election of a _de facto_ government within southern borders, likely to receive different treatment than was given british troops at bunker hill, or santa anna's lancers at buena vista? men forgot that the national boundaries had been so drawn as to include vermont before vermont's admission and without vermont's consent; that unofficial propositions to divide rhode island between connecticut and massachusetts, to embargo commerce with north carolina, and demand her share of the confederation debt, had in - been a sufficient indication that it was easier for a state to get into the american union than to get out of it. it was a fact, nevertheless, that the national power to enforce the integrity of the union had never been formally declared; and the mass of men in the south, even though they denied the expediency, did not deny the right of secession, or acknowledge the right of coercion by the federal government. to reach the original area of secession with land-forces, it was necessary for the federal government to cross the border states, whose people in general were no believers in the right of coercion. the first attempt to do so extended the secession movement by methods which were far more openly revolutionary than the original secessions. north carolina and arkansas seceded in orthodox fashion as soon as president lincoln called for volunteers after the capture of fort sumter. the state governments of virginia and tennessee concluded "military leagues" with the confederacy, allowed confederate troops to take possession of their states, and then submitted an ordinance of secession to the form of a popular vote. the state officers of missouri were chased out of the state before they could do more than begin this process. in maryland, the state government arrayed itself successfully against secession. in selecting the representative opinions for this period, all the marked shades of opinion have been respected, both the union and the anti-coercion sentiment of the border states, the extreme secession spirit of the gulf states, and, from the north, the moderate and the extreme republican, and the orthodox democratic, views. the feeling of the so-called "peace democrats" of the north differed so little from those of toombs or iverson that it has not seemed advisable to do more than refer to vallandigham's speech in opposition to the war, under the next period. john parker hale, of new hampshire (born , died .) on secession; moderate republican opinion; in the united states senate, december , . mr. president: i was very much in hopes when the message was presented that it would be a document which would commend itself cordially to somebody. i was not so sanguine about its pleasing myself, but i was in hopes that it would be one thing or another. i was in hopes that the president would have looked in the face the crisis in which he says the country is, and that his message would be either one thing or another. but, sir, i have read it somewhat carefully. i listened to it as it was read at the desk; and, if i understand it--and i think i do--it is this: south carolina has just cause for seceding from the union; that is the first proposition. the second is, that she has no right to secede. the third is, that we have no right to prevent her from seceding. that is the president's message, substantially. he goes on to represent this as a great and powerful country, and that no state has a right to secede from it; but the power of the country, if i understand the president, consists in what dickens makes the english constitution to be--a power to do nothing at all. now, sir, i think it was incumbent upon the president of the united states to point out definitely and recommend to congress some rule of action, and to tell us what he recommended us to do. but, in my judgment, he has entirely avoided it. he has failed to look the thing in the face. he has acted like the ostrich, which hides her head and thereby thinks to escape danger. sir, the only way to escape danger is to look it in the face. i think the country did expect from the president some exposition of a decided policy; and i confess that, for one, i was rather indifferent as to what that policy was that he recommended; but i hoped that it would be something; that it would be decisive. he has utterly failed in that respect. i think we may as well look this matter right clearly in the face; and i am not going to be long about doing it. i think that this state of affairs looks to one of two things: it looks to absolute submission, not on the part of our southern friends and the southern states, but of the north, to the abandonment of their position,--it looks to a surrender of that popular sentiment which has been uttered through the constituted forms of the ballot-box, or it looks to open war. we need not shut our eyes to the fact. it means war, and it means nothing else; and the state which has put herself in the attitude of secession, so looks upon it. she has asked no council, she has considered it as a settled question, and she has armed herself. as i understand the aspect of affairs, it looks to that, and it looks to nothing else except unconditional submission on the part of the majority. i did not read the paper--i do not read many papers--but i understand that there was a remedy suggested in a paper printed, i think, in this city, and it was that the president and the vice-president should be inaugurated (that would be a great concession!) and then, being inaugurated, they should quietly resign! well, sir, i am not entirely certain that that would settle the question. i think that after the president and vice-president-elect had resigned, there would be as much difficulty in settling who was to take their places as there was in settling it before. i do not wish, sir, to say a word that shall increase any irritation; that shall add any feeling of bitterness to the state of things which really exists in the country, and i would bear and forbear before i would say any thing which would add to this bitterness. but i tell you, sir, the plain, true way is to look this thing in the face--see where we are. and i avow here--i do not know whether or not i shall be sustained by those who usually act with me--if the issue which is presented is that the constitutional will of the public opinion of this country, expressed through the forms of the constitution, will not be submitted to, and war is the alternative, let it come in any form or in any shape. the union is dissolved and it cannot be held together as a union, if that is the alternative upon which we go into an election. if it is pre-announced and determined that the voice of the majority, expressed through the regular and constituted forms of the constitution, will not be submitted to, then, sir, this is not a union of equals; it is a union of a dictatorial oligarchy on one side, and a herd of slaves and cowards on the other. that is it, sir; nothing more, nothing less. * * * alfred iverson, of georgia. (born , died .) on secession; secessionist opinion; in the united states senate, december , i do not rise, mr. president, for the purpose of entering,at any length into this discussion, or to defend the president's message, which has been attacked by the senator from new hampshire.* i am not the mouth-piece of the president. while i do not agree with some portions of the message, and some of the positions that have been taken by the president, i do not perceive all the inconsistencies in that document which the senator from new hampshire has thought proper to present. it is true, that the president denies the constitutional right of a state to secede from the union; while, at the same time, he also states that this federal government has no constitutional right to enforce or to coerce a state back into the union which may take upon itself the responsibility of secession. i do not see any inconsistency in that. the president may be right when he asserts the fact that no state has a constitutional right to secede from the union. i do not myself place the right of a state to secede from the union upon constitutional grounds. i admit that the constitution has not granted that power to a state. it is exceedingly doubtful even whether the right has been reserved. certainly it has not been reserved in express terms. i therefore do not place the expected action of any of the southern states, in the present contingency, upon the constitutional right of secession; and i am not prepared to dispute therefore, the, position which the president has taken upon that point. i rather agree with the president that the secession of a state is an act of revolution taken through that particular means or by that particular measure. it withdraws from the federal compact, disclaims any further allegiance to it, and sets itself up as a separate government, an independent state. the state does it at its peril, of course, because it may or may not be cause of war by the remaining states composing the federal government. if they think proper to consider it such an act of disobedience, or if they consider that the policy of the federal government be such that it cannot submit to this dismemberment, why then they may or may not make war if they choose upon the seceding states. it will be a question of course for the federal government or the remaining states to decide for themselves, whether they will permit a state to go out of the union, and remain as a separate and independent state, or whether they will attempt to force her back at the point of the bayonet. that is a question, i presume, of policy and expediency, which will be considered by the remaining states composing the federal government, through their organ, the federal government, whenever the contingency arises. but, sir, while a state has no power, under the constitution, conferred upon it to secede from the federal government or from the union, each state has the right of revolution, which all admit. whenever the burdens of the government under which it acts become so onerous that it cannot bear them, or if anticipated evil shall be so great that the state believes it would be better off--even risking the perils of secession--out of the union than in it, then that state, in my opinion, like all people upon earth has the right to exercise the great fundamental principle of self-preservation, and go out of the union--though, of course, at its own peril--and bear the risk of the consequences. and while no state may have the constitutional right to secede from the union, the president may not be wrong when he says the federal government has no power under the constitution to compel the state to come back into the union. it may be a _casus omissus_ in the constitution; but i should like to know where the power exists in the constitution of the united states to authorize the federal government to coerce a sovereign state. it does not exist in terms, at any rate, in the constitution. i do not think there is any inconsistency, therefore, between the two positions of the president in the message upon these particular points. the only fault i have to find with the message of the president, is the inconsistency of another portion. he declares that, as the states have no power to secede, the federal government is in fact a consolidated government; that it is not a voluntary association of states. i deny it. it was a voluntary association of states. no state was ever forced to come into the federal union. every state came voluntarily into it. it was an association, a voluntary association of states; and the president's position that it is not a voluntary association is, in my opinion, altogether wrong. but whether that be so or not, the president declares and assumes that this government is a consolidated government to this extent: that all the laws of the federal government are to operate directly upon each individual of the states, if not upon the states themselves, and must be enforced; and yet, at the same time, he says that the state which secedes is not to be coerced. he says that the laws of the united states must be enforced against every individual of a state. of course, the state is composed of individuals within its limits, and if you enforce the laws and obligations of the federal government against each and every individual of the state, you enforce them against a state. while, therefore, he says that a state is not to be coerced, he declares, in the same breath, his determination to enforce the laws of the union, and therefore to coerce the state if a state goes out. there is the inconsistency, according to my idea, which i do not see how the president or anybody else can reconcile. that the federal government is to enforce its laws over the seceding state, and yet not coerce her into obedience, is to me incomprehensible. but i did not rise, mr. president, to discuss these questions in relation to the message; i rose in behalf of the state that i represent, as well as other southern states that are engaged in this movement, to accept the issue which the senator from new hampshire has seen fit to tender--that is, of war. sir, the southern states now moving in this matter are not doing it without due consideration. we have looked over the whole field. we believe that the only security for the institution to which we attach so much importance is secession and a southern confederacy. we are satisfied, notwithstanding the disclaimers upon the part of the black republicans to the contrary, that they intend to use the federal power, when they get possession of it, to put down and extinguish the institution of slavery in the southern states. i do not intend to enter upon the discussion of that point. that, however, is my opinion. it is the opinion of a large majority of those with whom i associate at home, and i believe of the southern people. believing that this is the intention and object, the ultimate aim and design, of the republican party, the abolitionists of the north, we do not intend to stay in this union until we shall become so weak that we shall not be able to resist when the time comes for resistance. our true policy is the one which we have made up our minds to follow. our true policy is to go out of this union now, while we have strength to resist any attempt on the part of the federal government to coerce us. * * * we intend, mr. president, to go out peaceably if we can, forcibly if we must; but i do not believe, with the senator from new hampshire, that there is going to be any war. if five or eight states go out, they will necessarily draw all the other southern states after them. that is a consequence that nothing can prevent. if five or eight states go out of this union, i should like to see the man that would propose a declaration of war against them, or attempt to force them into obedience to the federal government at the point of the bayonet or the sword. sir, there has been a good deal of vaporing on this subject. a great many threats have been thrown out. i have heard them on this floor, and upon the floor of the other house of congress; but i have also perceived this: they come from those who would be the very last men to attempt to put their threats into execution. men talk sometimes about their eighteen million who are to whip us; and yet we have heard of cases in which just such men had suffered themselves to be switched in the face, and trembled like sheep-stealing dogs, expecting to be shot every minute. these threats generally come from men who would be the last to execute them. some of these northern editors talk about whipping the southern states like spaniels. brave words; but i venture to assert none of those men would ever volunteer to command an army to be sent down south to coerce us into obedience to federal power. * * * but, sir, i apprehend that when we go out and form our confederacy--as i think and hope we shall do very shortly--the northern states, or the federal government, will see its true policy to be to let us go in peace and make treaties of commerce and amity with us, from which they will derive more advantages than from any attempt to coerce us. they cannot succeed in coercing us. if they allow us to form our government without difficulty, we shall be very willing to look upon them as a favored nation and give them all the advantages of commercial and amicable treaties. i have no doubt that both of us--certainly the southern states--would live better, more happily, more prosperously, and with greater friendship, than we live now in this union. sir, disguise the fact as you will, there is an enmity between the northern and southern people that is deep and enduring, and you never can eradicate it--never! look at the spectacle exhibited on this floor. how is it? there are the republican northern senators upon that side. here are the southern senators on this side. how much social intercourse is there between us? you sit upon your side, silent and gloomy; we sit upon ours with knit brows and portentous scowls. yesterday i observed that there was not a solitary man on that side of the chamber came over here even to extend the civilities and courtesies of life; nor did any of us go over there. here are two hostile bodies on this floor; and it is but a type of the feeling that exists between the two sections. we are enemies as much as if we were hostile states. i believe that the northern people hate the south worse than ever the english people hated france; and i can tell my brethren over there that there is no love lost upon the part of the south. in this state of feeling, divided as we are by interest, by a geographical feeling, by every thing that makes two people separate and distinct, i ask why we should remain in the same union together? we have not lived in peace; we are not now living in peace. it is not expected or hoped that we shall ever live in peace. my doctrine is that whenever even man and wife find that they must quarrel, and cannot live in peace, they ought to separate; and these two sections--the north and south--manifesting, as they have done and do now, and probably will ever manifest, feelings of hostility, separated as they are in interests and objects, my own opinion is they can never live in peace; and the sooner they separate the better. sir, these sentiments i have thrown out crudely i confess, and upon the spur of the occasion. i should not have opened my mouth but that the senator from new hampshire seemed to show a spirit of bravado, as if he intended to alarm and scare the southern states into a retreat from their movements. he says that war is to come, and you had better take care, therefore. that is the purport of his language; of course those are not his words; but i understand him very well, and everybody else, i apprehend, understands him that war is threatened, and therefore the south had better look out. sir, i do not believe that there will be any war; but if war is to come, let it come. we will meet the senator from new hampshire and all the myrmidons of abolitionism and black republicanism everywhere, upon our own soil; and in the language of a distinguished member from ohio in relation to the mexican war, we will "welcome you with bloody hands to hospitable graves." benjamin wade, of ohio, (born , died .) on secession, and the state of the union; republican opinion; senate of the united states, december , . mr. president: at a time like this, when there seems to be a wild and unreasoning excitement in many parts of the country, i certainly have very little faith in the efficacy of any argument that may be made; but at the same time, i must say, when i hear it stated by many senators in this chamber, where we all raised our hands to heaven, and took a solemn oath to support the constitution of the united states, that we are on the eve of a dissolution of this union, and that the constitution is to be trampled under foot--silence under such circumstances seems to me akin to treason itself. i have listened to the complaints on the other side patiently, and with an ardent desire to ascertain what was the particular difficulty under which they were laboring. many of those who have supposed themselves aggrieved have spoken; but i confess that i am now totally unable to understand precisely what it is of which they complain. why, sir, the party which lately elected their president, and are prospectively to come into power, have never held an executive office under the general government, nor has any individual of them. it is most manifest, therefore, that the party to which i belong have as yet committed no act of which anybody can complain. if they have fears as to the course that we may hereafter pursue, they are mere apprehensions--a bare suspicion; arising, i fear, out of their unwarrantable prejudices, and nothing else. i wish to ascertain at the outset whether we are right; for i tell gentlemen that, if they can convince me that i am holding any political principle that is not warranted by the constitution under which we live, or that trenches upon their rights, they need not ask me to compromise it. i will be ever ready to grant redress, and to right myself whenever i am wrong. no man need approach me with a threat that the government under which i live is to be destroyed; because i hope i have now, and ever shall have, such a sense of justice that, when any man shows me that i am wrong, i shall be ready to right it without price or compromise. now, sir, what is it of which gentlemen complain? when i left my home in the west to come to this place, all was calm, cheerful, and contented. i heard of no discontent. i apprehended that there was nothing to interrupt the harmonious course of our legislation. i did not learn that, since we adjourned from this place at the end of the last session, there had been any new fact intervening that should at all disturb the public mind. i do not know that there has been any encroachment upon the rights of any section of the country since that time; i came here, therefore, expecting to have a very harmonious session. it is very true, sir, that the great republican party which has been organized ever since you repealed the missouri compromise, and who gave you, four years ago, full warning that their growing strength would probably result as it has resulted, have carried the late election; but i did not suppose that would disturb the equanimity of this body. i did suppose that every man who was observant of the signs of the times might well see that things would result as they have resulted. nor do i understand now that anything growing out of that election is the cause of the present excitement that pervades the country. why, mr. president, this is a most singular state of things. who is it that is complaining? they that have been in a minority? they that have been the subjects of an oppressive and aggressive government? no, sir. let us suppose that when the leaders of the old glorious revolution met at philadelphia eighty-four years ago to draw up a bill of indictment against a wicked king and his ministers, they had been at a loss what they should set forth as the causes of their complaint. they had no difficulty in setting them forth so that the great article of impeachment will go down to all posterity as a full justification of all the acts they did. but let us suppose that, instead of its being these old patriots who had met there to dissolve their connection with the british government, and to trample their flag under foot, it had been the ministers of the crown, the leading members of the british parliament, of the dominant party that had ruled great britain for thirty years previous: who would not have branded every man of them as a traitor? it would be said: "you who have had the government in your own hands: you who have been the ministers of the crown, advising everything that has been done, set up here that you have been oppressed and aggrieved by the action of that very government which you have directed yourselves." instead of a sublime revolution, the uprising of an oppressed people, ready to battle against unequal power for their rights, it would have been an act of treason. how is it with the leaders of this modern revolution? are they in a position to complain of the action of this government for years past? why, sir, they have had more than two-thirds of the senate for many years past, and until very recently, and have almost that now. you--who complain, i ought to say--represent but a little more than one-fourth of the free people of these united states, and yet your counsels prevail, and have prevailed all along for at least ten years past. in the cabinet, in the senate of the united states, in the supreme court, in every department of the government, your officers, or those devoted to you, have been in the majority, and have dictated all the policies of this government. is it not strange, sir, that they who now occupy these positions should come here and complain that their rights are stricken down by the action of the government? but what has caused this great excitement that undoubtedly prevails in a portion of our country? if the newspapers are to be credited, there is a reign of terror in all the cities and large towns in the southern portion of this community that looks very much like the reign of terror in paris during the french revolution. there are acts of violence that we read of almost every day, wherein the rights of northern men are stricken down, where they are sent back with indignities, where they are scourged, tarred, feathered, and murdered, and no inquiry made as to the cause. i do not suppose that the regular government, in times of excitement like these, is really responsible for such acts. i know that these outbreaks of passion, these terrible excitements that sometimes pervade the community, are entirely irrepressible by the law of the country. i suppose that is the case now; because if these outrages against northern citizens were really authorized by the state authorities there, were they a foreign government, everybody knows, if it were the strongest government on earth, we should declare war upon her in one day. but what has caused this great excitement? sir, i will tell you what i suppose it is. i do not (and i say it frankly) so much blame the people of the south; because they believe, and they are led to believe by all the information that ever comes before them, that we, the dominant party to-day, who have just seized upon the reins of this government, are their mortal enemies, and stand ready to trample their institutions under foot. they have been told so by our enemies at the north. their misfortune, or their fault, is that they have lent a too easy ear to the insinuations of those who are our mortal enemies, while they would not hear us. now i wish to inquire, in the first place, honestly, candidly, and fairly, whether the southern gentlemen on the other side of the chamber that complain so much, have any reasonable grounds for that complaint--i mean when they are really informed as to our position. northern democrats have sometimes said that we had personal liberty bills in some few of the states of the north, which somehow trenched upon the rights of the south under the fugitive bill to recapture their runaway slaves; a position that in not more than two or three cases, so far as i can see, has the slightest foundation in fact; and even if those where it is most complained of, if the provisions of their law are really repugnant to that of the united states, they are utterly void, and the courts would declare them so the moment you brought them up. thus it is that i am glad to hear the candor of those gentlemen on the other side, that they do not complain of these laws. the senator from georgia (mr. iverson) himself told us that they had never suffered any injury, to his knowledge and belief, from those bills, and they cared nothing about them. the senator from virginia (mr. mason) said the same thing; and, i believe, the senator from mississippi (mr. brown). you all, then, have given up this bone of contention, this matter of complaint which northern men have set forth as a grievance more than anybody else. mr. mason. will the senator indulge me one moment. mr. wade. certainly. mr. mason. i know he does not intend to misrepresent me or other gentlemen. what i said was, that the repeal of those laws would furnish no cause of satisfaction to the southern states. our opinions of those laws we gave freely. we said the repeal of those laws would give no satisfaction. mr. wade. mr. president, i do not intend to misrepresent anything. i understood those gentlemen to suppose that they had not been injured by them. i understood the senator from virginia to believe that they were enacted in a spirit of hostility to the institutions of the south, and to object to them not because the acts themselves had done them any hurt, but because they were really a stamp of degradation upon southern men, or something like that--i do not quote his words. the other senators that referred to it probably intended to be understood in the same way; but they did acquit these laws of having done them injury to their knowledge or belief. i do not believe that these laws were, as the senator supposed, enacted with a view to exasperate the south, or to put them in a position of degradation. why, sir, these laws against kidnapping are as old as the common law itself, as that senator well knows. to take a freeman and forcibly carry him out of the jurisdiction of the state, has ever been, by all civilized countries, adjudged to be a great crime; and in most of them, wherever i have understood anything about it, they have penal laws to punish such an offence. i believe the state of virginia has one to-day as stringent in all its provisions as almost any other of which you complain. i have not looked over the statute-books of the south; but i do not doubt that there will be found this species of legislation upon all your statute-books. here let me say, because the subject occurs to me right here, the senator from virginia seemed not so much to point out any specific acts that northern people had done injurious to your property as, what he took to be a dishonor and a degradation. i think i feel as sensitive upon that subject as any other man. if i know myself, i am the last man that would be the advocate of any law or any act that would humiliate or dishonor any section of this country, or any individual in it; and, on the other hand, let me tell these gentlemen i am exceedingly sensitive upon that same point, whatever they may think about it. i would rather sustain an injury than an insult or dishonor; and i would be as unwilling to inflict it upon others as i would be to submit to it myself. i never will do either the one or the other if i know it. * * * * * i know that charges have been made and rung in our ears, and reiterated over and over again, that we have been unfaithful in the execution of your fugitive bill. sir, that law is exceedingly odious to any free people. it deprives us of all the old guarantees of liberty that the anglo-saxon race everywhere have considered sacred--more sacred than anything else. * * * * * mr. president, the gentleman says, if i understood him, that these fugitives might be turned over to the authorities of the state from whence they came. that would be a very poor remedy for a free man in humble circumstances who was taken under the provisions of this bill in a summary way, to be carried--where? where he came from? there is no law that requires that he should be carried there. sir, if he is a free man he may be carried into the market-place anywhere in a slave state; and what chance has he, a poor, ignorant individual, and a stranger, of asserting any rights there, even if there were no prejudices or partialities against him? that would be mere mockery of justice and nothing else, and the senator well knows it. sir, i know that from the stringent, summary provisions of this bill, free men have been kidnapped and carried into captivity and sold into everlasting slavery. will any man who has a regard to the sovereign rights of the state rise here and complain that a state shall not make a law to protect her own people against kidnapping and violent seizures from abroad? of all men, i believe those who have made most of these complaints should be the last to rise and deny the power of a sovereign state to protect her own citizens against any federal legislation whatever. these liberty bills, in my judgment, have been passed, not with a view of degrading the south, but with an honest purpose of guarding the rights of their own citizens from unlawful seizures and abductions. i was exceedingly glad to hear that the senators on the other side had arisen in their places and had said that the repeal of those laws would not relieve the case from the difficulties under which they now labor. * * * * * gentlemen, it will be very well for us all to take a view of all the phases of this controversy before we come to such conclusions as seem to have been arrived at in some quarters. i make the assertion here that i do not believe, in the history of the world, there ever was a nation or a people where a law repugnant to the general feeling was ever executed with the same faithfulness as has been your most savage and atrocious fugitive bill in the north. you yourselves can scarcely point out any case that has come before any northern tribunal in which the law has not been enforced to the very letter. you ought to know these facts, and you do know them. you all know that when a law is passed anywhere to bind any people, who feel, in conscience, or for any other reason, opposed to its execution, it is not in human nature to enforce it with the same certainty as a law that meets with the approbation of the great mass of the citizens. every rational man understands this, and every candid man will admit it. therefore it is that i do not violently impeach you for your unfaithfulness in the execution of many of your laws. you have in south carolina a law by which you take free citizens of massachusetts or any other maritime state, who visit the city of charleston, and lock them up in jail under the penalty, if they cannot pay the jail-fees, of eternal slavery staring them in the face--a monstrous law, revolting to the best feelings of humanity and violently in conflict with the constitution of the united states. i do not say this by way of recrimination; for the excitement pervading the country is now so great that i do not wish to add a single coal to the flame; but nevertheless i wish the whole truth to appear. * * * * * now, mr. president, i have shown, i think, that the dominant majority here have nothing to complain of in the legislation of congress, or in the legislation of any of the states, or in the practice of the people of the north, under the fugitive slave bill, except so far as they say certain state legislation furnishes some evidence of hostility to their institutions. and here, sir, i beg to make an observation. i tell the senator, and i tell all the senators, that the republican party of the northern states, so far as i know, and of my own state in particular, hold the same opinions with regard to this peculiar institution of yours that are held by all the civilized nations of the world. we do not differ from the public sentiment of england, of france, of germany, of italy, and every other civilized nation on god's earth; and i tell you frankly that you never found, and you never will find, a free community that are in love with your peculiar institution. the senator from texas (mr. wigfall) told us the other day that cotton was king, and that by its influence it would govern all creation. he did not say so in words, but that was the substance of his remark: that cotton was king, and that it had its subjects in europe who dared not rebel against it. here let me say to that senator, in passing, that it turns out that they are very rebellious subjects, and they are talking very disrespectfully at present of that king that he spoke of. they defy you to exercise your power over them. they tell you that they sympathize in this controversy with what you call the black republicans. therefore, i hope that, so far as europe is concerned at least, we shall hear no more of this boast that cotton is king; and that he is going to rule all the civilized nations of the world, and bring them to his footstool. sir, it will never be done. but, sir, i wish to inquire whether the southern people are injured by, or have any just right to complain of that platform of principles that we put out, and on which we have elected a president and vice-president. i have no concealments to make, and i shall talk to you, my southern friends, precisely as i would talk upon the stump on the subject. i tell you that in that platform we did lay it down that we would, if we had the power, prohibit slavery from another inch of free territory under this government. i stand on that position to-day. i have argued it probably to half a million people. they stand there, and have commissioned and enjoined me to stand there forever; and, so help me god, i will. i say to you frankly, gentlemen, that while we hold this doctrine, there is no republican, there is no convention of republicans, there is no paper that speaks for them, there is no orator that sets forth their doctrines, who ever pretends that they have any right in your states to interfere with your peculiar institution; but, on the other hand, our authoritative platform repudiates the idea that we have any right or any intention ever to invade your peculiar institution in your own states. now, what do you complain of? you are going to break up this government; you are going to involve us in war and blood, from a mere suspicion that we shall justify that which we stand everywhere pledged not to do. would you be justified in the eyes of the civilized world in taking so monstrous a position, and predicating it on a bare, groundless suspicion? we do not love slavery. did you not know that before to-day, before this session commenced? have you not a perfect confidence that the civilized world is against you on this subject of loving slavery or believing that it is the best institution in the world? why, sir, everything remains precisely as it was a year ago. no great catastrophe has occurred. there is no recent occasion to accuse us of anything. but all at once, when we meet here, a kind of gloom pervades the whole community and the senate chamber. gentlemen rise and tell us that they are on the eve of breaking up this government, that seven or eight states are going to break off their connection with the government, retire from the union, and set up a hostile government of their own, and they look imploringly over to us, and say to us: "you can prevent it; we can do nothing to prevent it; but it all lies with you." well, sir, what can we do to prevent it? you have not even condescended to tell us what you want; but i think i see through the speeches that i have heard from gentlemen on the other side. if we would give up the verdict of the people, and take your platform, i do not know but you would be satisfied with it. i think the senator from texas rather intimated, and i think the senator from georgia more than intimated, that if we would take what is exactly the charleston platform on which mr. breckenridge was placed, and give up that on which we won our victory, you would grumblingly and hesitatingly be satisfied. mr. iverson. i would prefer that the senator would look over my remarks before quoting them so confidently. i made no such statement as that. i did not say that i would be satisfied with any such thing. i would not be satisfied with it. mr. wade. i did not say that the senator said so; but by construction i gathered that from his speech. i do not know that i was right in it. mr. iverson. the senator is altogether wrong in his construction. mr. wade. well, sir, i have now found what the senator said on the other point to which he called my attention a little while ago. here it is: "nor do we suppose that there will be any overt acts upon the part of mr. lincoln. for one, i do not dread these overt acts. i do not propose to wait for them. why, sir, the power of this federal government could be so exercised against the institution of slavery in the southern states, as that, without an overt act, the institution would not last ten years. we know that, sir; and seeing the storm which is approaching, although it may be seemingly in the distance, we are determined to seek our own safety and security before it shall burst upon us and overwhelm us with its fury, when we are not in a situation to defend ourselves." that is what the senator said. mr. iverson. yes; that is what i said. mr. wade. well, then, you did not expect that mr. lincoln would commit any overt act against the constitution--that was not it--you were not going to wait for that, but were going to proceed on your supposition that probably he might; and that is the sense of what i said before. well, mr. president, i have disavowed all intention on the part of the republican party to harm a hair of your heads anywhere. we hold to no doctrine that can possibly work you an inconvenience. we have been faithful to the execution of all the laws in which you have any interest, as stands confessed on this floor by your own party, and as is known to me without their confessions. it is not, then, that mr. lincoln is expected to do any overt act by which you may be injured; you will not wait for any; but anticipating that the government may work an injury, you say you will put an end to it, which means simply, that you intend either to rule or ruin this government. that is what your complaint comes to; nothing else. we do not like your institution, you say. well, we never liked it any better than we do now. you might as well have dissolved the union at any other period as now, on that account, for we stand in relation to it precisely as we have ever stood; that is, repudiating it among ourselves as a matter of policy and morals, but nevertheless admitting that where it is out of our jurisdiction, we have no hold upon it, and no designs upon it. then, sir, as there is nothing in the platform on which mr. lincoln was elected of which you complain, i ask, is there anything in the character of the president-elect of which you ought to complain? has he not lived a blameless life? did he ever transgress any law? has he ever committed any violation of duty of which the most scrupulous can complain? why, then, your suspicions that he will? i have shown that you have had the government all the time until, by some misfortune or maladministration, you brought it to the very verge of destruction, and the wisdom of the people had discovered that it was high time that the scepter should depart from you, and be placed in more competent hands; i say that this being so, you have no constitutional right to complain; especially when we disavow any intention so to make use of the victory we have won as to injure you at all. this brings me, sir, to the question of compromises. on the first day of this session, a senator rose in his place and offered a resolution for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the evils that exist between the different sections, and to ascertain what can be done to settle this great difficulty. that is the proposition substantially. i tell the senator that i know of no difficulty; and as to compromises, i had supposed that we were all agreed that the day of compromises was at an end. the most solemn compromises we have ever made have been violated without a whereas. since i have had a seat in this body, one of considerable antiquity, that had stood for more than thirty years, was swept away from your statute-books. when i stood here in the minority arguing against it; when i asked you to withhold your hand; when i told you it was a sacred compromise between the sections, and that when it was removed we should be brought face to face with all that sectional bitterness that has intervened; when i told you that it was a sacred compromise which no man should touch with his finger, what was your reply? that it was a mere act of congress--nothing more, nothing less--and that it could be swept away by the same majority that passed it. that was true in point of fact, and true in point of law; but it showed the weakness of compromises. now, sir, i only speak for myself; and i say that, in view of the manner in which other compromises have been heretofore treated, i should hardly think any two of the democratic party would look each other in the face and say "compromise" without a smile. (laughter.) a compromise to be brought about by act of congress, after the experience we have had, is absolutely ridiculous. * * * * * i say, then, that so far as i am concerned, i will yield to no compromise. i do not come here begging, either. it would be an indignity to the people that i represent if i were to stand here parleying as to the rights of the party to which i belong. we have won our right to the chief magistracy of this nation in the way that you have always won your predominance; and if you are as willing to do justice to others as to exact it from them, you would never raise an inquiry as to a committee for compromises. here i beg, barely for myself, to say one thing more. many of you stand in an attitude hostile to this government; that is to say, you occupy an attitude where you threaten that, unless we do so and so, you will go out of this union and destroy the government. i say to you for myself, that, in my private capacity, i never yielded to anything by way of threat, and in my public capacity i have no right to yield to any such thing; and therefore i would not entertain a proposition for any compromise, for, in my judgment, this long, chronic controversy that has existed between us must be met, and met upon the principles of the constitution and laws, and met now. i hope it may be adjusted to the satisfaction of all; and i know no other way to adjust it, except that way which is laid down by the constitution of the united states. whenever we go astray from that, we are sure to plunge ourselves into difficulties. the old constitution of the united states, although commonly and frequently in direct opposition to what i could wish, nevertheless, in my judgment, is the wisest and best constitution that ever yet organized a free government; and by its provisions i am willing, and intend, to stand or fall. like the senator from mississippi, i ask nothing more. i ask no ingrafting upon it. i ask nothing to be taken away from it. under its provisions a nation has grown faster than any other in the history of the world ever did before in prosperity, in power, and in all that makes a nation great and glorious. it has ministered to the advantages of this people; and now i am unwilling to add or take away anything till i can see much clearer than i can now that it wants either any addition or lopping off. * * * * * the senator from texas says--it is not exactly his language--we will force you to an ignominious treaty up in faneuil hall. well, sir, you may. we know you are brave; we understand your prowess; we want no fight with you; but, nevertheless, if you drive us to that necessity, we must use all the powers of this government to maintain it intact in its integrity. if we are overthrown, we but share the fate of a thousand other governments that have been subverted. if you are the weakest then you must go to the wall; and that is all there is about it. that is the condition in which we stand, provided a state sets herself up in opposition to the general government. i say that is the way it seems to me, as a lawyer. i see no power in the constitution to release a senator from this position. sir, if there was any other, if there was an absolute right of secession in the constitution of the united states when we stepped up there to take our oath of office, why was there not an exception in that oath? why did it not run "that we would support the constitution of the united states unless our state shall secede before our term was out?" sir, there is no such immunity. there is no way by which this can be done that i can conceive of, except it is standing upon the constitution of the united states, demanding equal justice for all, and vindicating the old flag of the union. we must maintain it, unless we are cloven down by superior force. well, sir, it may happen that you can make your way out of the union, and that, by levying war upon the government, you may vindicate your right to independence. if you should do so, i have a policy in my mind. no man would regret more than myself that any portion of the people of these united states should think themselves impelled, by grievances or anything else, to depart out of this union, and raise a foreign flag and a hand against the general government. if there was any just cause on god's earth that i could see that was within my reach of honorable release from any such pretended grievance, they should have it; but they set forth none; i can see none. it is all a matter of prejudice, superinduced unfortunately, i believe, as i intimated before, more because you have listened to the enemies of the republican party and what they said of us, while, from your intolerance, you have shut out all light as to what our real principles are. we have been called and branded in the north and in the south and everywhere else, as john brown men, as men hostile to your institutions, as meditating an attack upon your institutions in your own states--a thing that no republican ever dreamed of or ever thought of, but has protested against as often as the question has been up; but your people believe it. no doubt they believe it because of the terrible excitement and reign of terror that prevails there. no doubt they think so, but it arises from false information, or the want of information--that is all. their prejudices have been appealed to until they have become uncontrolled and uncontrollable. well, sir, if it shall be so; if that "glorious union," as we call it, under which the government has so long lived and prospered, is now about to come to a final end, as perhaps it may, i have been looking around to see what policy we should adopt; and through that gloom which has been mentioned on the other side, if you will have it so, i still see a glorious future for those who stand by the old flag of the nation. but, sir, i am for maintaining the union of these states. i will sacrifice everything but honor to maintain it. that glorious old flag of ours, by any act of mine, shall never cease to wave over the integrity of this union as it is. but if they will not have it so, in this new, renovated government of which i have spoken, the th of july, with all its glorious memories, will never be repealed. the old flag of will be in our hands, and shall float over this nation forever; and this capital, that some gentlemen said would be reserved for the southern republic, shall still be the capital. it was laid out by washington; it was consecrated by him; and the old flag that he vindicated in the revolution shall still float from the capitol. i say, sir, i stand by the union of these states. washington and his compatriots fought for that good old flag. it shall never be hauled down, but shall be the glory of the government to which i belong, as long as my life shall continue. to maintain it, washington and his compatriots fought for liberty and the rights of man. and here i will add that my own father, although but a humble soldier, fought in the same great cause, and went through hardships and privations sevenfold worse than death, in order to bequeath it to his children. it is my inheritance. it was my protector in infancy, and the pride and glory of my riper years; and, mr. president, although it may be assailed by traitors on every side, by the grace of god, under its shadow i will die. john jordon crittenden, of kentucky. (born , died .) on the crittenden compromise; united states senate, december , . i am gratified, mr. president, to see in the various propositions which have been made, such a universal anxiety to save the country from the dangerous dissensions which now prevail; and i have, under a very serious view and without the least ambitious feeling whatever connected with it, prepared a series of constitutional amendments, which i desire to offer to the senate, hoping that they may form, in part at least, some basis for measures that may settle the controverted questions which now so much agitate our country. certainly, sir, i do not propose now any elaborate discussion of the subject. before presenting these resolutions, however, to the senate, i desire to make a few remarks explanatory of them, that the senate may understand their general scope. the questions of an alarming character are those which have grown out of the controversy between the northern and southern sections of our country in relation to the rights of the slave-holding states in the territories of the united states, and in relation to the rights of the citizens of the latter in their slaves. i have endeavored by these resolutions to meet all these questions and causes of discontent, and by amendments to the constitution of the united states, so that the settlement, if we happily agree on any, may be permanent, and leave no cause for future controversy. these resolutions propose, then, in the first place, in substance, the restoration of the missouri compromise, extending the line throughout the territories of the united states to the eastern border of california, recognizing slavery in all the territory south of that line, and prohibiting slavery in all the territory north of it; with a provision, however, that when any of those territories, north or south, are formed into states, they shall then be at liberty to exclude or admit slavery as they please; and that, in the one case or the other, it shall be no objection to their admission into the union. in this way, sir, i propose to settle the question, both as to territory and slavery, so far as it regards the territories of the united states. i propose, sir, also, that the constitution be so amended as to declare that congress shall have no power to abolish slavery in the district of columbia so long as slavery exists in the states of maryland and virginia; and that they shall have no power to abolish slavery in any of the places under their special jurisdiction within the southern states. these are the constitutional amendments which i propose, and embrace the whole of them in regard to the questions of territory and slavery. there are other propositions in relation to grievances, and in relation to controversies, which i suppose are within the jurisdiction of congress, and may be removed by the action of congress. i propose, in regard to legislative action, that the fugitive slave law, as it is commonly called, shall be declared by the senate to be a constitutional act, in strict pursuance of the constitution. i propose to declare that it has been decided by the supreme court of the united states to be constitutional, and that the southern states are entitled to a faithful and complete execution of that law, and that no amendment shall be made hereafter to it which will impair its efficiency. but, thinking that it would not impair its efficiency, i have proposed amendments to it in two particulars. i have understood from gentlemen of the north that there is objection to the provision giving a different fee where the commissioner decides to deliver the slave to the claimant, from that which is given where he decides to discharge the alleged slave; the law declares that in the latter case he shall have but five dollars, while in the other he shall have ten dollars--twice the amount in one case than in the other. the reason for this was very obvious. in case he delivers the servant to his claimant he is required to draw out a lengthy certificate, stating the principle and substantial grounds on which his decision rests, and to return him either to the marshal or to the claimant to remove him to the state from which he escaped. it was for that reason that a larger fee was given to the commissioner, where he had the largest service to perform. but, sir, the act being viewed unfavorably and with great prejudice, in a certain portion of our country, this was regarded as very obnoxious, because it seemed to give an inducement to the commissioner to return the slave to the master, as he thereby obtained the larger fee of ten dollars instead of the smaller one of five dollars. i have said, let the fee be the same in both cases. i have understood, furthermore, sir, that inasmuch as the fifth section of that law was worded somewhat vaguely, its general terms had admitted of the construction in the northern states that all the citizens were required, upon the summons of the marshal, to go with him to hunt up, as they express it, and arrest the slave; and this is regarded as obnoxious. they have said, "in the southern states you make no such requisition on the citizen"; nor do we, sir. the section, construed according to the intention of the framers of it, i suppose, only intended that the marshal should have the same right in the execution of process for the arrest of a slave that he has in all other cases of process that he is required to execute--to call on the _posse comitatus_ for assistance where he is resisted in the execution of his duty, or where, having executed his duty by the arrest, an attempt is made to rescue the slave. i propose such an amendment as will obviate this difficulty and limit the right of the master and the duty of the citizen to cases where, as in regard to all other process, persons may be called upon to assist in resisting opposition to the execution of the laws. i have provided further, sir, that the amendment to the constitution which i here propose, and certain other provisions of the constitution itself, shall be unalterable, thereby forming a permanent and unchangeable basis for peace and tranquillity among the people. among the provisions in the present constitution, which i have by amendment proposed to render unalterable, is that provision in the first article of the constitution which provides the rule for representation, including in the computation three-fifths of the slaves. that is to be rendered unchangeable. another is the provision for the delivery of fugitive slaves. that is to be rendered unchangeable. and with these provisions, mr. president, it seems to me we have a solid foundation upon which we may rest our hopes for the restoration of peace and good-will among all the states of this union, and all the people. i propose,sir, to enter into no particular discussion. i have explained the general scope and object of my proposition. i have provided further, which i ought to mention, that, there having been some difficulties experienced in the courts of the united states in the south in carrying into execution the laws prohibiting the african slave trade, all additions and amendments which may be necessary to those laws to render them effectual should be immediately adopted by congress, and especially the provision of those laws which prohibit the importation of african slaves into the united states. i have further provided it as a recommendation to all the states of this union, that whereas laws have been passed of an unconstitutional character, (and all laws are of that character which either conflict with the constitutional acts of congress, or which in their operation hinder or delay the proper execution of the acts of congress,) which laws are null and void, and yet, though null and void, they have been the source of mischief and discontent in the country, under the extraordinary circumstances in which we are placed; i have supposed that it would not be improper or unbecoming in congress to recommend to the states, both north and south, the repeal of all such acts of theirs as were intended to control, or intended to obstruct the operation of the acts of congress, or which in their operation and in their application have been made use of for the purpose of such hindrance and opposition, and that they will repeal these laws or make such explanations or corrections of them as to prevent their being used for any such mischievous purpose. i have endeavored to look with impartiality from one end of our country to the other; i have endeavored to search up what appeared to me to be the causes of discontent pervading the land; and, as far as i am capable of doing so, i have endeavored to propose a remedy for them. i am far from believing that, in the shape in which i present these measures, they will meet with the acceptance of the senate. it will be sufficiently gratifying if, with all the amendments that the superior knowledge of the senate may make to them, they shall, to any effectual extent, quiet the country. mr. president, great dangers surround us. the union of these states is dear to the people of the united states. the long experience of its blessings, the mighty hopes of the future, have made it dear to the hearts of the american people. whatever politicians may say, whatever of dissension may, in the heat of party politics, be created among our people, when you come down to the question of the existence of the constitution, that is a question beyond all politics; that is a question of life and death. the constitution and the union are the life of this great people--yes, sir, the life of life. we all desire to preserve them, north and south; that is the universal desire. but some of the southern states, smarting under what they conceive to be aggressions of their northern brethren and of the northern states, are not contented to continue this union, and are taking steps, formidable steps, towards a dissolution of the union, and towards the anarchy and the bloodshed, i fear, that are to follow. i say, sir, we are in the presence of great events. we must elevate ourselves to the level of the great occasion. no party warfare about mere party questions or party measures ought now to engage our attention. they are left behind; they are as dust in the balance. the life, the existence of our country, of our union, is the mighty question; and we must elevate ourselves to all those considerations which belong to this high subject. i hope, therefore, gentlemen will be disposed to bring the sincerest spirit of conciliation, the sincerest spirit and desire to adjust all these difficulties, and to think nothing of any little concessions of opinions that they may make, if thereby the constitution and the country can be preserved. the great difficulty here, sir--i know it; i recognize it as the difficult question, particularly with the gentlemen from the north--is the admission of this line of division for the territory, and the recognition of slavery on the one side, and the prohibition of it on the other. the recognition of slavery on the southern side of that line is the great difficulty, the great question with them. now, i beseech you to think, and you, mr. president, and all, to think whether, for such a comparative trifle as that, the union of this country is to be sacrificed. have we realized to ourselves the momentous consequences of such an event? when has the world seen such an event? this is a mighty empire. its existence spreads its influence throughout the civilized world. its overthrow will be the greatest shock that civilization and free government have received; more extensive in its consequences; more fatal to mankind and to the great principles upon which the liberty of mankind depends, than the french revolution with all its blood, and with all its war and violence. and all for what? upon questions concerning this line of division between slavery and freedom? why, mr. president, suppose this day all the southern states, being refused this right; being refused this partition; being denied this privilege, were to separate from the northern states, and do it peacefully, and then were to come to you peacefully and say, "let there be no war between us; let us divide fairly the territories of the united states"; could the northern section of the country refuse so just a demand? what would you then give them? what would be the fair proportion? if you allowed them their fair relative proportion, would you not give them as much as is now proposed to be assigned on the southern side of that line, and would they not be at liberty to carry their slaves there, if they pleased? you would give them the whole of that; and then what would be its fate? is it upon the general principle of humanity, then, that you (addressing republican senators) wish to put an end to slavery, or is it to be urged by you as a mere topic and point of party controversy to sustain party power? surely i give you credit for looking at it upon broader and more generous principles. then, in the worst event, after you have encountered disunion, that greatest of all political calamities to the people of this country, and the disunionists come, the separating states come, and demand or take their portion of the territories, they can take, and will be entitled to take, all that will now lie on the southern side of the line which i have proposed. then they will have a right to permit slavery to exist in it; and what do you gain for the cause of anti-slavery? nothing whatever. suppose you should refuse their demand, and claim the whole for yourselves, that would be a flagrant injustice which you would not be willing that i should suppose would occur. but if you did, what would be the consequence? a state north and a state south, and all the states, north and south, would be attempting to grasp at and seize this territory, and to get all of it that they could. that would be the struggle, and you would have war; and not only disunion, but all these fatal consequences would follow from your refusal now to permit slavery to exist, to recognize it as existing, on the southern side of the proposed line, while you give to the people there the right to exclude it when they come to form a state government, if such should be their will and pleasure. now, gentlemen, in view of this subject, in view of the mighty consequences, in view of the great events which are present before you, and of the mighty consequences which are just now to take effect, is it not better to settle the question by a division upon the line of the missouri compromise? for thirty years we lived quietly and peacefully under it. our people, north and south, were accustomed to look at it as a proper and just line. can we not do so again? we did it then to preserve the peace of the country. now you see this union in the most imminent danger. i declare to you that it is my solemn conviction that unless something be done, and something equivalent to this proposition, we shall be a separated and divided people in six months from this time. that is my firm conviction. there is no man here who deplores it more than i do; but it is my sad and melancholy conviction that that will be the consequence. i wish you to realize fully the danger. i wish you to realize fully the consequences which are to follow. you can give increased stability to this union; you can give it an existence, a glorious existence, for great and glorious centuries to come, by now setting it upon a permanent basis, recognizing what the south considers as its rights; and this is the greatest of them all; it is that you should divide the territory by this line, and allow the people south of it to have slavery when they are admitted into the union as states, and to have it during the existence of the territorial government. that is all. is it not the cheapest price at which such a blessing as this union was ever purchased? you think, perhaps, or some of you, that there is no danger, that it will but thunder and pass away. do not entertain such a fatal delusion. i tell you it is not so. i tell you that as sure as we stand here disunion will progress. i fear it may swallow up even old kentucky in its vortex--as true a state to the union as yet exists in the whole confederacy--unless something be done; but that you will have disunion, that anarchy and war will follow it, that all this will take place in six months, i believe as confidently as i believe in your presence. i want to satisfy you of the fact. * * * * * the present exasperation; the present feeling of disunion, is the result of a long-continued controversy on the subject of slavery and of territory. i shall not attempt to trace that controversy; it is unnecessary to the occasion, and might be harmful. in relation to such controversies, i will say, though, that all the wrong is never on one side, or all the right on the other. right and wrong, in this world, and in all such controversies, are mingled together. i forbear now any discussion or any reference to the right or wrong of the controversy, the mere party controversy; but in the progress of party, we now come to a point where party ceases to deserve consideration, and the preservation of the union demands our highest and our greatest exertions. to preserve the constitution of the country is the highest duty of the senate, the highest duty of congress--to preserve it and to perpetuate it, that we may hand down the glories which we have received to our children and to our posterity, and to generations far beyond us. we are, senators, in positions where history is to take notice of the course we pursue. history is to record us. is it to record that when the destruction of the union was imminent; when we saw it tottering to its fall; when we saw brothers arming their hands for hostility with one another, we stood quarrelling about points of party politics; about questions which we attempted to sanctify and to consecrate by appealing to our conscience as the source of them? are we to allow such fearful catastrophes to occur while we stand trifling away our time? while we stand thus, showing our inferiority to the great and mighty dead, showing our inferiority to the high positions which we occupy, the country may be destroyed and ruined; and to the amazement of all the world, the great republic may fall prostrate and in ruins, carrying with it the very hope of that liberty which we have heretofore enjoyed; carrying with it, in place of the peace we have enjoyed, nothing but revolution and havoc and anarchy. shall it be said that we have allowed all these evils to come upon our country, while we were engaged in the petty and small disputes and debates to which i have referred? can it be that our name is to rest in history with this everlasting stigma and blot upon it? sir, i wish to god it was in my power to preserve this union by renouncing or agreeing to give up every conscientious and other opinion. i might not be able to discard it from my mind; i am under no obligation to do that. i may retain the opinion, but if i can do so great a good as to preserve my country and give it peace, and its institutions and its union stability, i will forego any action upon my opinions. well, now, my friends (addressing the republican senators), that is all that is asked of you. consider it well, and i do not distrust the result. as to the rest of this body, the gentlemen from the south, i would say to them, can you ask more than this? are you bent on revolution, bent on disunion. god forbid it. i cannot believe that such madness possesses the american people. this gives reasonable satisfaction. i can speak with confidence only of my own state. old kentucky will be satisfied with it, and she will stand by the union and die by the union if this satisfaction be given. nothing shall seduce her. the clamor of no revolution, the seductions and temptations of no revolution, will tempt her to move one step. she has stood always by the side of the constitution; she has always been devoted to it, and is this day. give her this satisfaction, and i believe all the states of the south that are not desirous of disunion as a better thing than the union and the constitution, will be satisfied and will adhere to the union, and we shall go on again in our great career of national prosperity and national glory. but, sir, it is not necessary for me to speak to you of the consequences that will follow disunion. who of us is not proud of the greatness we have achieved? disunion and separation destroy that greatness. once disunited, we are no longer great. the nations of the earth who have looked upon you as a formidable power, and rising to untold and immeasurable greatness in the future, will scoff at you. your flag, that now claims the respect of the world, that protects american property in every port and harbor of the world, that protects the rights of your citizens everywhere, what will become of it? what becomes of its glorious influence? it is gone; and with it the protection of american citizens and property. to say nothing of the national honor which it displayed to all the world, the protection of your rights, the protection of your property abroad is gone with that national flag, and we are hereafter to conjure and contrive different flags for our different republics according to the feverish fancies of revolutionary patriots and disturbers of the peace of the world. no, sir; i want to follow no such flag. i want to preserve the union of my country. we have it in our power to do so, and we are responsible if we do not do it. i do not despair of the republic. when i see before me senators of so much intelligence and so much patriotism, who have been so honored by their country, sent here as the guardians of that very union which is now in question, sent here as the guardians of our national rights, and as guardians of that national flag, i cannot despair; i cannot despond. i cannot but believe that they will find some means of reconciling and adjusting the rights of all parties, by concessions, if necessary, so as to preserve and give more stability to the country and to its institutions. robert toombs, of georgia. (born --died .) on secession; secessionist opinion; in the united states senate, january , . mr. president and senators: the success of the abolitionists and their allies, under the name of the republican party, has produced its logical results already. they have for long years been sowing dragons' teeth, and have finally got a crop of armed men. the union, sir, is dissolved. that is an accomplished fact in the path of this discussion that men may as well heed. one of your confederates has already, wisely, bravely, boldly, confronted public danger, and she is only ahead of many of her sisters because of her greater facility for speedy action. the greater majority of those sister states, under like circumstances, consider her cause as their cause; and i charge you in their name to-day, "touch not saguntum." it is not only their cause, but it is a cause which receives the sympathy and will receive the support of tens and hundreds of thousands of honest patriotic men in the non-slave-holding states, who have hither-to maintained constitutional rights, and who respect their oaths, abide by compacts, and love justice. and while this congress, this senate, and this house of representatives, are debating the constitutionality and the expediency of seceding from the union, and while the perfidious authors of this mischief are showering down denunciations upon a large portion of the patriotic men of this country, those brave men are coolly and calmly voting what you call revolution--ay, sir, doing better than that: arming to defend it. they appealed to the constitution, they appealed to justice, they appealed to fraternity, until the constitution, justice, and fraternity were no longer listened to in the legislative halls of their country, and then, sir, they prepared for the arbitrament of the sword; and now you see the glittering bayonet, and you hear the tramp of armed men from your capitol to the rio grande. it is a sight that gladdens the eyes and cheers the heart of other millions ready to second them. inasmuch, sir, as i have labored earnestly, honestly, sincerely, with these men to avert this necessity so long as i deemed it possible, and inasmuch as i heartily approve their present conduct of resistance, i deem it my duty to state their case to the senate, to the country, and to the civilized world. senators, my countrymen have demanded no new government; they have demanded no new constitution. look to their records at home and here from the beginning of this national strife until its consummation in the disruption of the empire, and they have not demanded a single thing except that you shall abide by the constitution of the united states; that constitutional rights shall be respected, and that justice shall be done. sirs, they have stood by your constitution; they have stood by all its requirements; they have performed all its duties unselfishly, uncalculatingly, disinterestedly, until a party sprang up in this country which endangered their social system--a party which they arraign, and which they charge before the american people and all mankind, with having made proclamation of outlawry against four thousand millions of their property in the territories of the united states; with having put them under the ban of the empire in all the states in which their institutions exist, outside the protection of federal laws; with having aided and abetted insurrection from within and invasion from without, with the view of subverting those institutions, and desolating their homes and their firesides. for these causes they have taken up arms. i shall proceed to vindicate the justice of their demands, the patriotism of their conduct. i will show the injustice which they suffer and the rightfulness of their resistance. i shall not spend much time on the question that seems to give my honorable friend (mr. crittenden) so much concern--the constitutional right of a state to secede from this union. perhaps he will find out after a while that it is a fact accomplished. you have got it in the south pretty much both ways. south carolina has given it to you regularly, according to the approved plan. you are getting it just below there (in georgia), i believe, irregularly, outside of the law, without regular action. you can take it either way. you will find armed men to defend both. i have stated that the discontented states of this union have demanded nothing but clear, distinct, unequivocal, well-acknowledged constitutional rights; rights affirmed by the highest judicial tribunals of their country; rights older than the constitution; rights which are planted upon the immutable principles of natural justice; rights which have been affirmed by the good and the wise of all countries, and of all centuries. we demand no power to injure any man. we demand no right to injure our confederate states. we demand no right to interfere with their institutions, either by word or deed. we have no right to disturb their peace, their tranquillity, their security. we have demanded of them simply, solely--nothing else--to give us equality, security, and tranquillity. give us these, and peace restores itself. refuse them, and take what you can get. i will now read my own demands, acting under my own convictions, and the universal judgment of my countrymen. they are considered the demands of an extremist. to hold to a constitutional right now makes one considered as an extremist--i believe that is the appellation these traitors and villains, north and south, employ. i accept their reproach rather than their principles. accepting their designation of treason and rebellion, there stands before them as good a traitor, and as good a rebel as ever descended from revolutionary loins. what do the rebels demand? first, "that the people of the united states shall have an equal right to emigrate and settle in the present or any future acquired territories, with whatever property they may possess (including slaves), and be securely protected in its peaceable enjoyment until such territory may be admitted as a state into the union, with or without slavery, as she may determine, on an equality with all existing states." that is our territorial demand. we have fought for this territory when blood was its price. we have paid for it when gold was its price. we have not proposed to exclude you, though you have contributed very little of blood or money. i refer especially to new england. we demand only to go into those territories upon terms of equality with you, as equals in this great confederacy, to enjoy the common property of the whole union, and receive the protection of the common government, until the territory is capable of coming into the union as a sovereign state, when it may fix its own institutions to suit itself. the second proposition is, "that property in slaves shall be entitled to the same protection from the government of the united states, in all of its departments, everywhere, which the constitution confers the power upon it to extend to any other property, provided nothing herein contained shall be construed to limit or restrain the right now belonging to every state to prohibit, abolish, or establish and protect slavery within its limits." we demand of the common government to use its granted powers to protect our property as well as yours. for this protection we pay as much as you do. this very property is subject to taxation. it has been taxed by you and sold by you for taxes. the title to thousands and tens of thousands of slaves is derived from the united states. we claim that the government, while the constitution recognizes our property for the purposes of taxation, shall give it the same protection that it gives yours. ought it not to be so? you say no. every one of you upon the committee said no. your senators say no. your house of representatives says no. throughout the length and breadth of your conspiracy against the constitution, there is but one shout of no! this recognition of this right is the price of my allegiance. withhold it, and you do not get my obedience. this is the philosophy of the armed men who have sprung up in this country. do you ask me to support a government that will tax my property; that will plunder me; that will demand my blood, and will not protect me? i would rather see the population of my native state laid six feet beneath her sod than they should support for one hour such a government. protection is the price of obedience everywhere, in all countries. it is the only thing that makes government respectable. deny it and you cannot have free subjects or citizens; you may have slaves. we demand, in the next place, "that persons committing crimes against slave property in one state, and fleeing to another, shall be delivered up in the same manner as persons committing crimes against other property, and that the laws of the state from which such persons flee shall be the test of criminality." that is another one of the demands of an extremist and rebel. the constitution of the united states, article four, section two, says: "a person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice and be found in another state, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime." but the non-slave-holding states, treacherous to their oaths and compacts, have steadily refused, if the criminal only stole a negro, and that negro was a slave, to deliver him up. it was refused twice on the requisition of my own state as long as twenty-two years ago. it was refused by kent and by fairfield, governors of maine, and representing, i believe, each of the then federal parties. we appealed then to fraternity, but we submitted; and this constitutional right has been practically a dead letter from that day to this. the next case came up between us and the state of new york, when the present senior senator (mr. seward) was the governor of that state; and he refused it. why? he said it was not against the laws of new york to steal a negro, and therefore he would not comply with the demand. he made a similar refusal to virginia. yet these are our confederates; these are our sister states! there is the bargain; there is the compact. you have sworn to it. both these governors swore to it. the senator from new york swore to it. the governor of ohio swore to it when he was inaugurated. you cannot bind them by oaths. yet they talk to us of treason; and i suppose they expect to whip freemen into loving such brethren! they will have a good time in doing it! it is natural we should want this provision of the constitution carried out. the constitution says slaves are property; the supreme court says so; the constitution says so. the theft of slaves is a crime; they are a subject-matter of felonious asportation. by the text and letter of the constitution you agreed to give them up. you have sworn to do it, and you have broken your oaths. of course, those who have done so look out for pretexts. nobody expected them do otherwise. i do not think i ever saw a perjurer, however bald and naked, who could not invent some pretext to palliate his crime, or who could not, for fifteen shillings, hire an old bailey lawyer to invent some for him. yet this requirement of the constitution is another one of the extreme demands of an extremist and a rebel. the next stipulation is that fugitive slaves shall be surrendered under the provisions of the fugitive-slave act of , without being entitled either to a writ of _habeas corpus_, or trial by jury, or other similar obstructions of legislation, in the state to which he may flee. here is the constitution: "no person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into an-other, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." this language is plain, and everybody understood it the same way for the first forty years of your government. in , in washington's time, an act was passed to carry out this provision. it was adopted unanimously in the senate of the united states, and nearly so in the house of representatives. nobody then had invented pretexts to show that the constitution did not mean a negro slave. it was clear; it was plain. not only the federal courts, but all the local courts in all the states, decide that this was a constitutional obligation. how is it now? the north sought to evade it; following the instincts of their natural character, they commenced with the fraudulent fiction that fugitives were entitled to _habeas corpus_, entitled to trial by jury in the state to which they fled. they pretended to believe that our fugitive slaves were entitled to more rights than their white citizens; perhaps they were right, they know one another better than i do. you may charge a white man with treason, or felony, or other crime, and you do not require any trial by jury before he is given up; there is nothing to determine but that he is legally charged with a crime and that he fled, and then he is to be delivered up upon demand. white people are delivered up every day in this way; but not slaves. slaves, black people, you say, are entitled to trial by jury; and in this way schemes have been invented to defeat your plain constitutional obligations. * * * the next demand made on behalf of the south is, "that congress shall pass effective laws for the punishment of all persons in any of the states who shall in any manner aid and abet invasion or insurrection in any other state, or commit any other act against the laws of nations, tending to disturb the tranquillity of the people or government of any other state." that is a very plain principle. the constitution of the united states now requires, and gives congress express power, to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the laws of nations. when the honorable and distinguished senator from illinois (mr. douglas) last year introduced a bill for the purpose of punishing people thus offending under that clause of the constitution, mr. lincoln, in his speech at new york, which i have before me, declared that it was a "sedition bill "; his press and party hooted at it. so far from recognizing the bill as intended to carry out the constitution of the united states, it received their jeers and jibes. the black republicans of massachusetts elected the admirer and eulogist of john brown's courage as their governor, and we may suppose he will throw no impediments in the way of john brown's successors. the epithet applied to the bill of the senator from illinois is quoted from a deliberate speech delivered by lincoln in new york, for which, it was stated in the journals, according to some resolution passed by an association of his own party, he was paid a couple of hundred dollars. the speech should therefore have been deliberate. lincoln denounced that bill. he places the stamp of his condemnation upon a measure intended to promote the peace and security of confederate states. he is, therefore, an enemy of the human race, and deserves the execration of all mankind. we demand these five propositions. are they not right? are they not just? take them in detail, and show that they are not warranted by the constitution, by the safety of our people, by the principles of eternal justice. we will pause and consider them; but mark me, we will not let you decide the question for us. * * * senators, the constitution is a compact. it contains all our obligations and the duties of the federal government. i am content and have ever been content to sustain it. while i doubt its perfection, while i do not believe it was a good compact, and while i never saw the day that i would have voted for it as a proposition _de novo_, yet i am bound to it by oath and by that common prudence which would induce men to abide by established forms rather than to rush into unknown dangers. i have given to it, and intend to give to it, unfaltering support and allegiance, but i choose to put that allegiance on the true ground, not on the false idea that anybody's blood was shed for it. i say that the constitution is the whole compact. all the obligations, all the chains that fetter the limbs of my people, are nominated in the bond, and they wisely excluded any conclusion against them, by declaring that "the powers not granted by the constitution to the united states, or forbidden by it to the states, belonged to the states respectively or the people." now i will try it by that standard; i will subject it to that test. the law of nature, the law of justice, would say--and it is so expounded by the publicists--that equal rights in the common property shall be enjoyed. even in a monarchy the king cannot prevent the subjects from enjoying equality in the disposition of the public property. even in a despotic government this principle is recognized. it was the blood and the money of the whole people (says the learned grotius, and say all the publicists) which acquired the public property, and therefore it is not the property of the sovereign. this right of equality being, then, according to justice and natural equity, a right belonging to all states, when did we give it up? you say congress has a right to pass rules and regulations concerning the territory and other property of the united states. very well. does that exclude those whose blood and money paid for it? does "dispose of" mean to rob the rightful owners? you must show a better title than that, or a better sword than we have. but, you say, try the right. i agree to it. but how? by our judgment? no, not until the last resort. what then; by yours? no, not until the same time. how then try it? the south has always said, by the supreme court. but that is in our favor, and lincoln says he "will not stand that judgment." then each must judge for himself of the mode and manner of redress. but you deny us that privilege, and finally reduce us to accepting your judgment. the senator from kentucky comes to your aid, and says he can find no constitutional right of secession. perhaps not; but the constitution is not the place to look for state rights. if that right belongs to independent states, and they did not cede it to the federal government, it is reserved to the states, or to the people. ask your new commentator where he gets the right to judge for us. is it in the bond? the northern doctrine was, many years ago, that the supreme court was the judge. that was their doctrine in . they denounced madison for the report of , on the virginia resolutions; they denounced jefferson for framing the kentucky resolutions, because they were presumed to impugn the decisions of the supreme court of the united states; and they declared that that court was made, by the constitution, the ultimate and supreme arbiter. that was the universal judgment--the declaration of every free state in this union, in answer to the virginia resolutions of , or of all who did answer, even including the state of delaware, then under federal control. the supreme court have decided that, by the constitution, we have a right to go to the territories and be protected there with our property. you say, we cannot decide the compact for ourselves. well, can the supreme court decide it for us? mr. lincoln says he does not care what the supreme court decides, he will turn us out anyhow. he says this in his debate with the honorable member from illinois [mr. douglas]. i have it before me. he said he would vote against the decision of the supreme court. then you did not accept that arbiter. you will not take my construction; you will not take the supreme court as an arbiter; you will not take the practice of the government; you will not take the treaties under jefferson and madison; you will not take the opinion of madison upon the very question of prohibition in . what, then, will you take? you will take nothing but your own judgment; that is, you will not only judge for yourselves, not only discard the court, discard our construction, discard the practice of the government, but you will drive us out, simply because you will it. come and do it! you have sapped the foundations of society; you have destroyed almost all hope of peace. in a compact where there is no common arbiter, where the parties finally decide for themselves, the sword alone at last becomes the real, if not the constitutional, arbiter. your party says that you will not take the decision of the supreme court. you said so at chicago; you said so in committee; every man of you in both houses says so. what are you going to do? you say we shall submit to your construction. we shall do it, if you can make us; but not otherwise, or in any other manner. that is settled. you may call it secession, or you may call it revolution; but there is a big fact standing before you, ready to oppose you--that fact is, freemen with arms in their hands. the cry of the union will not disperse them; we have passed that point; they demand equal rights; you had better heed the demand. * * * samuel sullivan cox, of ohio. (born, -died, .) on secession; douglas democratic opinion; in the house of representatives, january , . mr. chairman: i speak from and for the capital of the greatest of the states of the great west. that potential section is beginning to be appalled at the colossal strides of revolution. it has immense interests at stake in this union, as well from its position as its power and patriotism. we have had infidelity to the union before, but never in such a fearful shape. we had it in the east during the late war with england. even so late as the admission of texas, massachusetts resolved herself out of the union. that resolution has never been repealed, and one would infer, from much of her conduct, that she did not regard herself as bound by our covenant. since , in the north, we have had infidelity to the union, more insidious infractions of the constitution than by open rebellion. now, sir, as a consequence, in part, of these very infractions, we have rebellion itself, open and daring, in terrific proportions, with dangers so formidable as to seem almost remediless. * * *' i would not exaggerate the fearful consequences of dissolution. it is the breaking up of a federative union, but it is not like the breaking up of society. it is not anarchy. a link may fall from the chain, and the link may still be perfect, though the chain have lost its length and its strength. in the uniformity of commercial regulations, in matters of war and peace, postal arrangements, foreign relations, coinage, copyrights, tariff, and other federal and national affairs, this great government may be broken; but in most of the essential liberties and rights which government is the agent to establish and protect, the seceding state has no revolution, and the remaining states can have none. this arises from that refinement of our polity which makes the states the basis of our instituted labor. greece was broken by the persian power, but her municipal institutions remained. hungary lost her national crown, but her home institutions remain. south carolina may preserve her constituted domestic authority, but she must be content to glimmer obscurely remote rather than shine and revolve in a constellated band. she even goes out by the ordinance of a so-called sovereign convention, content to lose by her isolation that youthful, vehement, exultant, progressive life, which is our nationality! she foregoes the hopes, the boasts, the flag, the music, all the emotions, all the traits, and all the energies which, when combined in our united states, have won our victories in war and our miracles of national advancement. her governor, colonel pickens, in his inaugural, regretfully "looks back upon the inheritance south carolina had in the common glories and triumphant power of this wonderful confederacy, and fails to find language to express the feelings of the human heart as he turns from the contemplation." the ties of brotherhood, interest, lineage, and history are all to be severed. no longer are we to salute a south carolinian with the "_idem sententiam de republica_," which makes unity and nationality. what a prestige and glory are here dimmed and lost in the contaminated reason of man! can we realize it? is it a masquerade, to last for a night, or a reality to be dealt with, with the world's rough passionate handling? it is sad and bad enough; but let us not over-tax our anxieties about it as yet. it is not the sanguinary regime of the french revolution; not the rule of assignats and guillotine; not the cry of "_vivent les rouges! a mort les gendarmes!_" but as yet, i hope i may say, the peaceful attempt to withdraw from the burdens and benefits of the republic. thus it is unlike every other revolution. still it is revolution. it may, according as it is managed, involve consequences more terrific than any revolution since government began. if the federal government is to be maintained, its strength must not be frittered away by conceding the theory of secession. to concede secession as a right, is to make its pathway one of roses and not of thorns. i would not make its pathway so easy. if the government has any strength for its own preservation, the people demand it should be put forth in its civil and moral forces. dealing, however, with a sensitive public sentiment, in which this strength reposes, it must not be rudely exercised. it should be the iron hand in the glove of velvet. firmness should be allied with kindness. power should assert its own prerogative, but in the name of law and love. if these elements are not thus blended in our policy, as the executive proposes, our government will prove either a garment of shreds or a coat of mail. we want neither. * * * before we enter upon a career of force, let us exhaust every effort at peace. let us seek to excite love in others by the signs of love in ourselves. let there be no needless provocation and strife. let every reasonable attempt at compromise be considered. otherwise we have a terrible alternative. war, in this age and in this country, sir, should be the _ultima ratio_. indeed, it may well be questioned whether there is any reason in it for war. what a war! endless in its hate, without truce and without mercy. if it ended ever, it would only be after a fearful struggle; and then with a heritage of hate which would forever forbid harmony. * * * small states and great states; new states and old states; slave states and free states; atlantic states and pacific states; gold and silver states; iron and copper states; grain states and lumber states; river states and lake states;--all having varied interests and advantages, would seek superiority in armed strength. pride, animosity, and glory would inspire every movement. god shield our country from such a fulfilment of the prophecy of the revered founders of the union! our struggle would be no short, sharp struggle. law, and even religion herself, would become false to their divine purpose. their voice would no longer be the voice of god, but of his enemy. poverty, ignorance, oppression, and its hand-maid, cowardice, breaking out into merciless cruelty; slaves false; freemen slaves, and society itself poisoned at the cradle and dishonored at the grave;--its life, now so full of blessings, would be gone with the life of a fraternal and united statehood. what sacrifice is too great to prevent such a calamity? is such a picture overdrawn? already its outlines appear. what means the inaugural of governor pickens, when he says: "from the position we may occupy toward the northern states, as well as from our own internal structure of society, the government may, from necessity, become strongly military in its organization"? what mean the minute-men of governor wise? what the southern boast that they have a rifle or shot-gun to each family? what means the pittsburgh mob? what this alacrity to save forts moultrie and pinckney? what means the boast of the southern men of being the best-armed people in the world, not counting the two hundred thousand stand of united states arms stored in southern arsenals? already georgia has her arsenals, with eighty thousand muskets. what mean these lavish grants of money by southern legislatures to buy more arms? what mean these rumors of arms and force on the mississippi? these few facts have already verified the prophecy of madison as to a disunited republic. mr. speaker, he alone is just to his country, he alone has a mind unwarped by section, and a memory unparalyzed by fear, who warns against precipitancy. he who could hurry this nation to the rash wager of battle is not fit to hold the seat of legislation. what can justify the breaking up of our institutions into belligerent fractions? better this marble capitol were levelled to the dust; better were this congress struck dead in its deliberations; better an immolation of every ambition and passion which here have met to shake the foundations of society than the hazard of these consequences! * * * i appeal to southern men,who contemplate a step so fraught with hazard and strife, to pause. clouds are about us! there is lightning in their frown! cannot we direct it harmlessly to the earth? the morning and evening prayer of the people i speak for in such weakness rises in strength to that supreme ruler who, in noticing the fall of a sparrow, cannot disregard the fall of a nation, that our states may continue to be as they have been--one; one in the unreserve of a mingled national being; one as the thought of god is one! jefferson davis, of mississippi. (born , died .) on withdrawal from the union; secessionist opinion; united states senate, january , . i rise, mr. president, for the purpose of announcing to the senate that i have satisfactory evidence that the state of mississippi, by a solemn ordinance of her people in convention assembled, has declared her separation from the united states. under these circumstances, of course my functions are terminated here. it has seemed to me proper, however, that i should appear in the senate to announce that fact to my associates, and i will say but very little more. the occasion does not invite me to go into argument, and my physical condition would not permit me to do so if it were otherwise; and yet it seems to become me to say something on the part of the state i here represent, on an occasion so solemn as this. it is known to senators who have served with me here, that i have for many years advocated, as an essential attribute of state sovereignty, the right of a state to secede from the union. therefore, if i had not believed there was justifiable cause; if i had thought that mississippi was acting without sufficient provocation, or without an existing necessity, i should still, under my theory of the government, because of my allegiance to the state of which i am a citizen, have been bound by her action. i, however, may be permitted to say that i do think that she has justifiable cause, and i approve of her act. i conferred with her people before that act was taken, counselled them then that if the state of things which they apprehended should exist when the convention met, they should take the action which they have now adopted. i hope none who hear me will confound this expression of mine with the advocacy of the right of a state to remain in the union, and to disregard its constitutional obligations by the nullification of the law. such is not my theory. nullification and secession, so often confounded, are indeed antagonistic principles. nullification is a remedy which it is sought to apply within the union, and against the agent of the states. it is only to be justified when the agent has violated his constitutional obligation, and a state, assuming to judge for itself, denies the right of the agent thus to act, and appeals to the other states of the union for a decision; but when the states themselves, and when the people of the states, have so acted as to convince us that they will not regard our constitutional rights, then, and then for the first time, arises the doctrine of secession in its practical application. a great man who now reposes with his fathers, and who has been often arraigned for a want of fealty to the union, advocated the doctrine of nullification, because it preserved the union. it was because of his deep-seated attachment to the union, his determination to find some remedy for existing ills short of a severance of the ties which bound south carolina to the other states, that mr. calhoun advocated the doctrine of nullification, which he proclaimed to be peaceful, to be within the limits of state power, not to disturb the union, but only to be a means of bringing the agent before the tribunal of the states for their judgment. secession belongs to a different class of remedies. it is to be justified upon the basis that the states are sovereign. there was a time when none denied it. i hope the time may come again, when a better comprehension of the theory of our government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the states, will prevent any one from denying that each state is a sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever. i therefore say i concur in the action of the people of mississippi, believing it to be necessary and proper, and should have been bound by their action if my belief had been otherwise; and this brings me to the important point which i wish on this last occasion to present to the senate. it is by this confounding of nullification and secession that the name of the great man, whose ashes now mingle with his mother earth, has been invoked to justify coercion against a seceded state. the phrase "to execute the laws," was an expression which general jackson applied to the case of a state refusing to obey the laws while yet a member of the union. that is not the case which is now presented. the laws are to be executed over the united states, and upon the people of the united states. they have no relation to any foreign country. it is a perversion of terms, at least it is a great misapprehension of the case, which cites that expression for application to a state which has withdrawn from the union. you may make war on a foreign state. if it be the purpose of gentlemen, they may make war against a state which has withdrawn from the union; but there are no laws of the united states to be executed within the limits of a seceded state. a state finding herself in the condition in which mississippi has judged she is, in which her safety requires that she should provide for the maintenance of her rights out of the union, surrenders all the benefits (and they are known to be many), deprives herself of the advantages (they are known to be great), severs all the ties of affection (and they are close and enduring) which have bound her to the union; and thus divesting herself of every benefit, taking upon herself every burden, she claims to be exempt from any power to execute the laws of the united states within her limits. i well remember an occasion when massachusetts was arraigned before the bar of the senate, and when then the doctrine of coercion was rife and to be applied against her because of the rescue of a fugitive slave in boston. my opinion then was the same that it is now. not in a spirit of egotism, but to show that i am not influenced in my opinion because the case is my own, i refer to that time and that occasion as containing the opinion which i then entertained, and on which my present conduct is based. i then said, if massachusetts, following her through a stated line of conduct, chooses to take the last step which separates her from the union, it is her right to go, and i will neither vote one dollar or one man to coerce her back; but will say to her, god speed, in memory of the kind associations which once existed between her and the other states. it has been a conviction of pressing necessity, it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought mississippi into her present decision. she has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred declaration of independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races. that declaration of independence is to be construed by the circumstances and purposes for which it was made. the communities were declaring their independence; the people of those communities were asserting that no man was born--to use the language of mr. jefferson--booted and spurred to ride over the rest of mankind; that men were created equal--meaning the men of the political community; that there was no divine right to rule; that no man inherited the right to govern; that there were no classes by which power and place descended to families, but that all stations were equally within the grasp of each member of the body-politic. these were the great principles they announced; these were the purposes for which they made their declaration; these were the end to which their enunciation was directed. they have no reference to the slave; else, how happened it that among the items of arraignment made against george iii. was that he endeavored to do just what the north had been endeavoring of late to do--to stir up insurrection among our slaves? had the declaration announced that the negroes were free and equal, how was the prince to be arraigned for stirring up insurrection among them? and how was this to be enumerated among the high crimes which caused the colonies to sever their connection with the mother country? when our constitution was formed, the same idea was rendered more palpable, for there we find provision made for that very class of persons as property; they were not put upon the footing of equality with white men--not even upon that of paupers and convicts; but, so far as representation was concerned, were discriminated against as a lower caste, only to be represented in the numerical proportion of three-fifths. then, senators, we recur to the compact which binds us together; we recur to the principles upon which our government was founded; and when you deny them, and when you deny to us the right to withdraw from a government which, thus perverted, threatens to be destructive of our rights, we but tread in the path of our fathers when we proclaim our independence, and take the hazard. this is done not in hostility to others, not to injure any section of the country, not even for our own pecuniary benefit; but from the high and solemn motive of defending and protecting the rights we inherited, and which it is our sacred duty to transmit unshorn to our children. i find in myself, perhaps, a type of the general feeling of my constituents towards yours. i am sure i feel no hostility to you, senators from the north. i am sure there is not one of you, whatever sharp discussion there may have been between us, to whom i cannot now say, in the presence of my god, i wish you well; and such, i am sure, is the feeling of the people whom i represent towards those whom you represent. i therefore feel that i but express their desire when i say i hope, and they hope, for peaceful relations with you, though we must part. they may be mutually beneficial to us in the future, as they have been in the past, if you so will it. the reverse may bring disaster on every portion of the country; and if you will have it thus, we will invoke the god of our fathers, who delivered them from the power of the lion, to protect us from the ravages of the bear; and thus, putting our trust in god, and in our own firm hearts and strong arms, we will vindicate the right as best we may. in the course of my service here, associated at different times with a great variety of senators, i see now around me some with whom i have served long; there have been points of collision; but whatever of offense there has been to me, i leave here; i carry with me no hostile remembrance. whatever offense i have given which has not been redressed, or for which satisfaction has not been demanded, i have, senators, in this hour of our parting to offer you my apology for any pain which, in heat of discussion, i have inflicted. i go hence unencumbered of the remembrance of any injury received, and having discharged the duty of making the only reparation in my power for any injury offered. mr. president, and senators, having made the announcement which the occasion seemed to me to require, it only remains for me to bid you a final adieu. none select speeches of daniel webster - with preface, introduction, and notes by a. j. george, a.m. instructor in rhetoric and english literature in the newton, mass., high school "the front of jove himself; an eye like mars to threaten and command; a combination and a form indeed, where every god did seem to set his seal, to give the world assurance of a man" boston, u.s.a. d.c. heath & co., publishers to the hon. george f. hoar, ll.d. a worthy successor of daniel webster in the senate of the united states blest statesman he, whose mind's unselfish will leaves him at ease among grand thoughts: whose eye sees that, apart from magnanimity, wisdom exists not; nor the humbler skill of prudence, disentangling good and ill with patient care. what tho' assaults run high, they daunt not him who holds his ministry, resolute, at all hazards, to fulfil its duties; prompt to move, but firm to wait; knowing, things rashly sought are rarely found; that, for the functions of an ancient state-- strong by her charters, free because imbound, servant of providence, not slave of fate-- perilous is sweeping change, all chance unsound. preface. burke and webster are models in the forensic literature of our own language as truly as are demosthenes and cicero in the language of the ancient classics. each has distinct and inimitable characteristics which give force and beauty to his work. the study of each should be ordered in such a way as to put one in touch with those qualities of mind and heart, of intellectual and moral manhood, by which each became a leader in political philosophy and a model in literary style. one who studies such authors in order to formulate a historical or a personal estimate merely, or to compare each as to certain externals of rhetorical form, has lost the true perspective of literary judgment. reading in the school and in the home is far too often pursued with a purpose to controvert and prove rather than to weigh and consider. reading which does not result in enlarging, stimulating, and refining one's nature is but a busy idleness. the schools must see to it that the desultory and dissipating methods of reading, so prevalent in the home, are not encouraged. pupils must be stimulated first of all to enjoy what is beautiful in nature and in art: for here is "a world of ready wealth, their minds and hearts to bless-- spontaneous wisdom breathed by health, truth breathed by cheerfulness." the wisdom of the classroom is too often "art tongue-tied by authority," and hence it is not wisdom at all, but a sham and a pretence. not until pupils rise to the spontaneity which betokens a genuine love for the work in hand do they secure the richest results. the publication of the masterpieces of the epic, the lyric, and the drama; of the novel, the essay, and the oration, in a convenient form and at such a price as to bring them within the reach of our schools, makes it inexcusable if pupils are allowed to be ignorant of the great literary, ethical, and artistic impulses which have touched and quickened the life of the past. burke's _american orations_ present him at his best as a statesman, an orator, and a stylist. when the edition of those speeches was prepared, a selection from webster's great speeches was contemplated as a companion volume. the present edition represents webster in the various and distinct fields in which his genius manifested itself so powerfully and so nobly. he is here seen before a jury, before the supreme court of the united states, on a great historical occasion, in the senate of the united states, in a great national canvass, and as a eulogist. had it not been for making the volume too large for school use i should have included the famous speech delivered in the senate on the th of march, . this speech has been considered by many as the _vulnus immedicabile_ of mr. webster's political life; it is certain that for it he was most rankly abused. "massachusetts," as hon. john d. long has said, "smote and broke the heart of webster, her idol, and then broke her own above his grave, and to-day writes his name highest upon her roll of statesmen." i find in this speech nothing but what is consistent with mr. webster's noble adherence to the constitution and the union; nothing but what is consistent with the solemn duty of a great man in a great national crisis. in his address at buffalo on the d of may, , he expressed himself very freely in regard to this speech, saying: "i felt that i had a duty to perform to my country, to my own reputation; for i flattered myself that a service of forty years had given me some character, on which i had a right to repose for my justification in the performance of a duty attended with some degree of local unpopularity. i thought it was my duty to pursue this course, and i did not care what was to be the consequence. and, gentlemen, allow me to say here to-day, that if the fate of john rogers had stared me in the face, if i had seen the stake, if i had heard the fagots already crackling, by the blessing of almighty god i would have gone on and discharged the duty which i thought my country called upon me to perform." does this seem the language of one who had abandoned his post and was merely "bidding for the presidency"? the address of hon. rufus choate, before the students of dartmouth college, commemorative of daniel webster, has a remark on this subject so just that i cannot refrain from quoting it. he says: "until the accuser who charges mr. webster with having 'sinned against his conscience' will assert that the conscience of a public man may not, must not, be instructed by profound knowledge of the vast subject-matter with which public life is conversant, and will assert that he is certain that the consummate science of our great statesman was _felt by himself to prescribe to his morality_ another conduct than that which he adopted, and that he thus consciously outraged that 'sense of duty which pursues us ever,'--is he not inexcusable, whoever he is, that so judges another?" at the meeting held in faneuil hall, oct. , , commemorative of mr. webster's life and work, mr. edward everett said: "whoever, in after time, shall write the history of the united states for the last forty years will write the life of daniel webster; and whoever writes the life of daniel webster as it ought to be written will write the history of the union from the time he took a leading part in its concerns." mr. choate, at a meeting of the supreme court of massachusetts, oct. , , said: "happier than the younger pliny, happier than cicero, he has found his historian, unsolicited, in his lifetime, and his countrymen have him all by heart." if this volume shall aid in bringing the young of this generation "to have him all by heart," to ascend his imaginative heights and sit under the shadow of his profound reflections on that which is fundamental in civil and religious liberty, its purpose will be accomplished. with few exceptions these selections are given entire. whenever they have been abridged, the continuity of the discourse has not been impaired. in the matter of annotation the purpose has been to furnish sufficient aid to the general reader, and at the same time to indicate to the special student lines along which he may study the speeches. in edward everett's memoir, found in the first volume of mr. webster's works; in the life of mr. webster by george tichnor curtis, and in henry cabot lodge's _daniel webster_, in the american statesman series, the student has exhaustive, scholarly, and judicious estimates of mr. webster's work. i am indebted to the hon. george f. hoar and the hon. edward j. phelps for assistance in the task of selecting representative speeches; and to the former for permission to associate his name with this edition of mr. webster's work. a. j. g. brookline, november, . introduction. mr. webster approaches as nearly to the _beau ideal_ of a republican senator as any man that i have ever seen in the course of my life; worthy of rome or venice rather than of our noisy and wrangling generation.--hallam. coleridge used to say that he had seldom known or heard of any great man who had not much of the woman in him. even so the large intellect of daniel webster seemed to be coupled with all softer feelings; and his countenance and bearing, at the very first, impressed me with this. a commanding brow, thoughtful eyes, and a mouth that seemed to respond to all humanities. he deserves his fame, i am sure.--john kenyon. he is a magnificent specimen. you might say to all the world, "this is our yankee englishman; such limbs we make in yankee-land!" as a parliamentary hercules one would incline to back him at first sight against all the extant world. the tanned complexion; that amorphous craglike face; the dull black eyes under the precipice of brows, like dull anthracite furnaces needing only to be _blown_; the mastiff mouth, accurately closed; i have not traced so much of _silent berserkir rage_ that i remember of in any other man.--thomas carlyle. when the historian shall look back upon the first century of the american republic, the two names that will shine with most unfading lustre and the serenest glory, high above all others, are washington and webster.--professor felton. consider the remarkable phenomenon of excellence in three unkindred, one might have thought incompatible, forms of public speech,--that of the forum, with its double audience of bench and jury, of the halls of legislation, and of the most thronged and tumultuous assemblies of the people. consider, further, that this multiform eloquence, exactly as his words fell, became at once so much accession to permanent literature in the strictest sense,--solid, attractive, rich,--and ask how often in the history of public life such a thing has been exemplified.--rufus choate. the noblest monument to daniel webster is in his works. as a repository of political truth and practical wisdom, applied to the affairs of government, i know not where we shall find their equal. the works of burke naturally suggest themselves to the mind, as the only writings in our language that can sustain the comparison.--edward everett. he writes like a man who is thinking of his subject, and not of his style, and thus he wastes no time upon the mere garb of his thoughts. his style is doric, not corinthian. his sentences are like shafts hewn from the granite of his own hills,--simple, massive, strong. we may apply to him what quinctilian says of cicero, that a relish for his writings is itself a mark of good taste.--george s. hillard. he taught the people of the united states, in the simplicity of common understanding, the principles of the constitution and government of the country, and he wrought for them, in a style of matchless strength and beauty, the literature of statesmanship. he made his language the very household words of a nation. they are the library of the people. they are the school-book of the citizen.--john d. long. take him for all in all, he was not only the greatest orator this country has ever known, but in the history of eloquence his name will stand with those of demosthenes and cicero, chatham and burke.--henry cabot lodge. it may be said that the style of webster is pre-eminently distinguished by manliness. the intellect and moral manliness of webster underlies all his great orations and speeches; and this plain force of manhood, this sturdy grapple with every question that comes before his understanding for settlement, leads him to reject all the meretricious aids and ornaments of mere rhetoric, and is prominent, among the many exceptional qualities of his large nature, which have given him a high position among the prose-writers of his country as a consummate master of english style.--edwin p. whipple. his broad, wise statesmanship is to be the ample and refreshing shade, his character the bright and breezy presence, in which all the members of this great and illustrious republic may meet and sit down and feast together.--h. n. hudson. contents. defence of the kennistons the dartmouth college case first settlement of new england the bunker hill monument the reply to hayne the murder of captain joseph white the constitution not a compact between sovereign states speech at saratoga eulogy on mr. justice story biographical notes defence of the kennistons. gentlemen of the jury,--it is true that the offence charged in the indictment in this case is not capital; but perhaps this can hardly be considered as favorable to the defendants. to those who are guilty, and without hope of escape, no doubt the lightness of the penalty of transgression gives consolation. but if the defendants are innocent, it is more natural for them to be thinking upon what they have lost by that alteration of the law which has left highway robbery no longer capital, than upon what the guilty might gain by it. they have lost those great privileges in their trial, which the law allows, in capital cases, for the protection of innocence against unfounded accusation. they have lost the right of being previously furnished with a copy of the indictment, and a list of the government witnesses. they have lost the right of peremptory challenge; and, notwithstanding the prejudices which they know have been excited against them, they must show legal cause of challenge, in each individual case, or else take the jury as they find it. they have lost the benefit of assignment of counsel by the court. they have lost the benefit of the commonwealth's process to bring in witnesses in their behalf. when to these circumstances it is added that they are strangers, almost wholly without friends, and without the means for preparing their defence, it is evident they must take their trial under great disadvantages. but without dwelling on these considerations, i proceed, gentlemen of the jury, to ask your attention to those circumstances which cannot but cast doubts on the story of the prosecutor. in the first place, it is impossible to believe that a robbery of this sort could have been committed by three or four men without previous arrangement and concert, and of course without the knowledge of the fact that goodridge would be there, and that he had money. they did not go on the highway, in such a place, in a cold december's night, for the general purpose of attacking the first passenger, running the chance of his being somebody who had money. it is not easy to believe that a gang of robbers existed, that they acted systematically, communicating intelligence to one another, and meeting and dispersing as occasion required, and that this gang had their head-quarters in such a place as newburyport. no town is more distinguished for the general correctness of the habits of its citizens; and it is of such a size that every man in it may be known to all the rest. the pursuits, occupations, and habits of every person within it are within the observation of his neighbors. a suspicious stranger would be instantly observed, and all his movements could be easily traced. this is not the place to be the general rendezvous of a gang of robbers. offenders of this sort hang on the skirts of large towns. from the commission of their crimes they hasten into the crowd, and hide themselves in the populousness of great cities. if it be wholly improbable that a gang existed in such a place for the purpose of general plunder, the next inquiry is, is there any reason to think that there was a special or particular combination, for the single purpose of robbing the prosecutor? now it is material to observe, that not only is there no evidence of any such combination, but also, that circumstances existed which render it next to impossible that the defendants could have been parties to such a combination, or even that they could have any knowledge of the existence of any such man as goodridge, or that any person, with money, was expected to come from the eastward, and to be near essex bridge, at or about nine o'clock, the evening when the robbery is said to have been committed. one of the defendants had been for some weeks in newburyport, the other passed the bridge from new hampshire at twelve o'clock on the th of december, . at this time, goodridge had not yet arrived at exeter, twelve or fourteen miles from the bridge. how, then, could either of the defendants know that he was coming? besides, he says that nobody, as far as he is aware, knew on the road that he had money, and nothing happened till he reached exeter, according to his account, from which it might be conjectured that such was the case. here, as he relates it, it became known that he had pistols; and he must wish you to infer that the plan to rob him was laid here, at exeter, by some of the persons who inferred that he had money from his being armed. who were these persons? certainly not the defendants, or either of them. certainly not taber. certainly not jackman. were they persons of suspicious characters? was he in a house of a suspicious character? on this point he gives us no information. he has either not taken the pains to inquire, or he chooses not to communicate the result of his inquiries. yet nothing could be more important, since he seems compelled to lay the scene of the plot against him at exeter, than to know who the persons were that he saw, or who saw him, at that place. on the face of the facts now proved, nothing could be more improbable than that the plan of robbery was concerted at exeter. if so, why should those who concerted it send forward to newburyport to engage the defendants, especially as they did not know that they were there? what should induce any persons so suddenly to apply to the defendants to assist in a robbery? there was nothing in their personal character or previous history that should induce this. nor was there time for all this. if the prosecutor had not lingered on the road, for reasons not yet discovered, he must have been in newburyport long before the time at which he states the robbery to have been committed. how, then, could any one expect to leave exeter, come to newburyport, fifteen miles, there look out for and find out assistants for a highway robbery, and get back two miles to a convenient place for the commission of the crime? that any body should have undertaken to act thus is wholly improbable; and, in point of fact, there is not the least proof of any body's travelling, that afternoon, from exeter to newburyport, or of any person who was at the tavern at exeter having left it that afternoon. in all probability, nothing of this sort could have taken place without being capable of detection and proof. in every particular, the prosecutor has wholly failed to show the least probability of a plan to rob him having been laid at exeter. but how comes it that goodridge was near or quite four hours and a half in travelling a distance which might have been travelled in two hours or two hours and a half. he says he missed his way, and went the salisbury road. but some of the jury know that this could not have delayed him more than five or ten minutes. he ought to be able to give some better account of this delay. failing, as he seems to do, to create any belief that a plan to rob him was arranged at exeter, the prosecutor goes back to alfred, and says he saw there a man whom taber resembles. but taber is proved to have been at that time, and at the time of the robbery, in boston. this is proved beyond question. it is so certain, that the solicitor-general has _nol prossed_ the indictment against him. there is an end, then, of all pretence of the adoption of a scheme of robbery at alfred. this leaves the prosecutor altogether unable to point out any manner in which it should become known that he had money, or in which a design to rob him should originate. it is next to be considered whether the prosecutor's story is either natural or consistent. but, on the threshold of the inquiry, every one puts the question, what motive had the prosecutor to be guilty of the abominable conduct of feigning a robbery? it is difficult to assign motives. the jury do not know enough of his character or circumstances. such things have happened, and may happen again. suppose he owed money in boston, and had it not to pay? who knows how high he might estimate the value of a plausible apology? some men have also a whimsical ambition of distinction. there is no end to the variety of modes in which human vanity exhibits itself. a story of this nature excites the public sympathy. it attracts general attention. it causes the name of the prosecutor to be celebrated as a man who has been attacked, and, after a manly resistance, overcome by robbers, and who has renewed his resistance as soon as returning life and sensation enabled him, and, after a second conflict, has been quite subdued, beaten and bruised out of all sense and sensation, and finally left for dead on the field. it is not easy to say how far such motives, trifling and ridiculous as most men would think them, might influence the prosecutor, when connected with any expectation of favor or indulgence, if he wanted such, from his creditors. it is to be remembered that he probably did not see all the consequences of his conduct, if his robbery be a pretence. he might not intend to prosecute any body. but he probably found, and indeed there is evidence to show, that it was necessary for him to do something to find out the authors of the alleged robbery. he manifested no particular zeal on this subject. he was in no haste. he appears rather to have been pressed by others to do that which, if he had really been robbed, we should suppose he would have been most earnest to do, the earliest moment. but could he so seriously wound himself? could he or would he shoot a pistol-bullet through his hand, in order to render the robbery probable, and to obtain belief in his story? all exhibitions are subject to accidents. whether they are serious or farcical, they may, in some particulars, not proceed exactly as they are designed to do. if we knew that this shot through the hand, if made by himself, must have been intentionally made by himself, it would be a circumstance of greater weight. the bullet went through the sleeve of his coat. he might have intended it should go through nothing else. it is quite certain he did not receive the wound in the way he described. he says he was pulling or thrusting aside the robber's pistol, and while his hand was on it, it was fired, and the contents passed through his hand. this could not have been so, because no part of the contents went through the hand, except the ball. there was powder on the sleeve of his coat, and from the appearance one would think the pistol to have been three or four feet from the hand when fired. the fact of the pistol-bullet being fired through the hand, is doubtless a circumstance of importance. it may not be easy to account for it; but it is to be weighed with other circumstances. it is most extraordinary, that, in the whole case, the prosecutor should prove hardly any fact in any way but by his own oath. he chooses to trust every thing on his own credit with the jury. had he the money with him which he mentions? if so, his clerks or persons connected with him in business must have known it; yet no witness is produced. nothing can be more important than to prove that he had the money. yet he does not prove it. why should he leave this essential fact without further support? he is not surprised with this defence, he knew what it would be. he knew that nothing could be more important than to prove that, in truth, he did possess the money which he says he lost; yet he does not prove it. all that he saw, and all that he did, and everything that occurred to him until the alleged robbery, rests solely on his own credit. he does not see fit to corroborate any fact by the testimony of any witness. so he went to new york to arrest jackman. he did arrest him. he swears positively that he found in his possession papers which he lost at the time of the robbery; yet he neither produces the papers themselves, nor the persons who assisted in the search. in like manner, he represents his intercourse with taber at boston. taber, he says, made certain confessions. they made a bargain for a disclosure or confession on one side, and a reward on the other. but no one heard these confessions except goodridge himself. taber now confronts him, and pronounces this part of his story to be wholly false; and there is nobody who can support the prosecutor. a jury cannot too seriously reflect on this part of the case. there are many most important allegations of fact, which, if true, could easily be shown by other witnesses, and yet are not so shown. how came mr. goodridge to set out from bangor, armed in this formal and formidable manner? how came he to be so apprehensive of a robbery? the reason he gives is completely ridiculous. as the foundation of his alarm, he tells a story of a robbery which he had heard of, but which, as far as appears, no one else ever heard of; and the story itself is so perfectly absurd, it is difficult to resist the belief that it was the product of his imagination at the moment. he seems to have been a little too confident that an attempt would be made to rob him. the manner in which he carried his money, as he says, indicated a strong expectation of this sort. his gold he wrapped in a cambric cloth, put it into a shot bag, and then into a portmanteau. one parcel of bills, of a hundred dollars in amount, he put into his pocket-book; another, of somewhat more than a thousand dollars, he carried next his person, underneath all his clothes. having disposed of his money in this way, and armed himself with two good pistols, he set out from bangor. the jury will judge whether this extraordinary care of his money, and this formal arming of himself to defend it, are not circumstances of a very suspicious character. he stated that he did not travel in the night; that he would not so much expose himself to robbers. he said that, when he came near alfred, he did not go into the village, but stopped a few miles short, because night was coming on, and he would not trust himself and his money out at night. he represents himself to have observed this rule constantly and invariably until he got to exeter. yet, when the time came for the robbery, he was found out at night. he left exeter about sunset, intending to go to newburyport, fifteen miles distant, that evening. when he is asked how this should happen, he says he had no fear of robbers after he left the district of maine. he thought himself quite safe when he arrived at exeter. yet he told the jury, that at exeter he thought it necessary to load his pistol afresh. he asked for a private room at the inn. he told the persons in attendance that he wished such a room for the purpose of changing his clothes. he charged them not to suffer him to be interrupted. but he now testifies that his object was not to change his dress, but to put new loading into his pistols. what sort of a story is this? he says he now felt himself out of all danger from robbers, and was therefore willing to travel at night. at the same time, he thought himself in very great danger from robbers, and therefore took the utmost pains to keep his pistols well loaded and in good order. to account for the pains he took about loading his pistols at exeter, he says it was his invariable practice, every day after he left bangor, to discharge and load again one or both of his pistols; that he never missed doing this; that he avoided doing it at the inns, lest he should create suspicion, but that he did it, while alone, on the road, every day. how far this is probable the jury will judge. it will be observed that he gave up his habits of caution as he approached the place of the robbery. he then loaded his pistols at the tavern, where persons might and did see him; and he then also travelled in the night. he passed the bridge over merrimack river a few minutes before nine o'clock. he was now at a part of his progress where he was within the observation of other witnesses, and something could be known of him besides what he told of himself. immediately after him passed the two persons with their wagons, shaw and keyser. close upon them followed the mail-coach. now, these wagons and the mail must have passed within three rods, at most, of goodridge, at the very time of the robbery. they must have been very near the spot, the very moment of the attack; and if he was under the robbers' hands as long as he represents, or if they staid on the spot long enough to do half what he says they did, they must have been there when the wagons and the stage passed. at any rate, it is next to impossible, by any computation of time, to put these carriages so far from the spot, that the drivers should not have heard the cry of murder, which he says he raised, or the report of the two pistols, which he says were discharged. in three quarters of an hour, or an hour, he returned, and repassed the bridge. the jury will next naturally look to the appearances exhibited on the field after the robbery. the portmanteau was there. the witnesses say, that the straps which fastened it to the saddle had been neither cut nor broken. they were carefully unbuckled. this was very considerate for robbers. it had been opened, and its contents were scattered about the field. the pocket-book, too, had been opened, and many papers it contained found on the ground. nothing valuable was lost but money. the robbers did not think it well to go off at once with the portmanteau and the pocket-book. the place was so secure, so remote, so unfrequented; they were so far from the highway, at least one full rod; there were so few persons passing, probably not more than four or five then in the road, within hearing of the pistols and the cries of goodridge; there being, too, not above five or six dwelling-houses, full of people, within the hearing of the report of a pistol; these circumstances were all so favorable to their safety, that the robbers sat down to look over the prosecutor's papers, carefully examined the contents of his pocket-book and portmanteau, and took only the things which they needed! there was money belonging to other persons. the robbers did not take it. they found out it was not the prosecutor's, and left it. it may be said to be favorable to the prosecutor's story, that the money which did not belong to him, and the plunder of which would seem to be the most probable inducement he could have to feign a robbery, was not taken. but the jury will consider whether this circumstance does not bear quite as strongly the other way, and whether they can believe that robbers could have left this money, either from accident or design. the robbers, by goodridge's account, were extremely careful to search his person. having found money in his portmanteau and in his pocket-book, they still forthwith stripped him to the skin, and searched until they found the sum which had been so carefully deposited under his clothes. was it likely, that, having found money in the places where it is ordinarily carried, robbers should proceed to search for more, where they had no reason to suppose more would be found? goodridge says that no person knew of his having put his bank-notes in that situation. on the first attack, however, they proceeded to open one garment after another, until they penetrated to the treasure, which was beneath them all. the testimony of mr. howard is material. he examined goodridge's pistol, which was found on the spot, and thinks it had not been fired at all. if this be so, it would follow that the wound through the hand was not made by this pistol; but then, as the pistol is now discharged, if it had not been fired, he is not correct in swearing that he fired it at the robbers, nor could it have been loaded at exeter, as he testified. in the whole case, there is nothing, perhaps, more deserving consideration, than the prosecutor's statement of the violence which the robbers used towards him. he says he was struck with a heavy club, on the back part of his head. he fell senseless to the ground. three or four rough-handed villains then dragged him to the fence, and through it or over it, with such force as to break one of the boards. they then plundered his money. presently he came to his senses; perceived his situation; saw one of the robbers sitting or standing near; he valiantly sprung upon, and would have overcome him, but the ruffian called out for his comrades, who returned, and all together they renewed their attack upon, subdued him, and redoubled their violence. they struck him heavy blows; they threw him violently to the ground; they kicked him in the side; they choked him; one of them, to use his own words, jumped upon his breast. they left him only when they supposed they had killed him. he went back to pearson's, at the bridge, in a state of delirium, and it was several hours before his recollection came to him. this is his account. now, in point of fact, it is certain that on no part of his person was there the least mark of this beating and wounding. the blow on the head, which brought him senseless to the ground, neither broke the skin, nor caused any tumor, nor left any mark whatever. he fell from his horse on the frozen ground, without any appearance of injury. he was drawn through or over the fence with such force as to break the rail, but not so as to leave any wound or scratch on him. a second time he is knocked down, kicked, stamped upon, choked, and in every way abused and beaten till sense had departed, and the breath of life hardly remained; and yet no wound, bruise, discoloration, or mark of injury was found to result from all this. except the wound in his hand, and a few slight punctures in his left arm, apparently made with his own penknife, which was found open on the spot, there was no wound or mark which the surgeons, upon repeated examinations, could anywhere discover. this is a story not to be believed. no matter who tells it, it is so impossible to be true, that all belief is set at defiance. no man can believe it. all this tale of blows which left no marks, and of wounds which could not be discovered, must be the work of imagination. if the jury can believe that he was robbed, it is impossible they can believe his account of the manner of it. with respect, next, to delirium. the jury have heard the physicians. two of them have no doubt it was all feigned. dr. spofford spoke in a more guarded manner, but it was very evident his opinion agreed with theirs. in the height of his raving, the physician who was present said to others, that he could find nothing the matter with the man, and that his pulse was perfectly regular. but consider the facts which dr. balch testifies. he suspected the whole of this illness and delirium to be feigned. he wished to ascertain the truth. while he or others were present, goodridge appeared to be in the greatest pains and agony from his wounds. he could not turn himself in bed, nor be turned by others, without infinite distress. his mind, too, was as much disordered as his body. he was constantly raving about robbery and murder. at length the physicians and others withdrew, and left him alone in the room. dr. balch returned softly to the door, which he had left partly open, and there he had a full view of his patient, unobserved by him. goodridge was then very quiet. his incoherent exclamations had ceased. dr. balch saw him turn over without inconvenience. pretty soon he sat up in bed, and adjusted his neckcloth and his hair. then, hearing footsteps on the staircase, he instantly sunk into the bed again; his pains all returned, and he cried out against robbers and murderers as loud as ever. now, these facts are all sworn to by an intelligent witness, who cannot be mistaken in them; a respectable physician, whose veracity or accuracy is in no way impeached or questioned. after this, it is difficult to retain any good opinion of the prosecutor. robbed or not robbed, this was his conduct; and such conduct necessarily takes away all claim to sympathy and respect. the jury will consider whether it does not also take away all right to be believed in anything. for if they should be of opinion that in any one point he has intentionally misrepresented facts, he can be believed in nothing. no man is to be convicted on the testimony of a witness whom the jury has found wilfully violating the truth in any particular. the next part of the case is the conduct of the prosecutor in attempting to find out the robbers, after he had recovered from his illness. he suspected mr. pearson, a very honest, respectable man, who keeps the tavern at the bridge. he searched his house and premises. he sent for a conjuror to come, with his metallic rods and witch-hazel, to find the stolen money. goodridge says now, that he thought he should find it, if the conjuror's instruments were properly prepared. he professes to have full faith in the art. was this folly, or fraud, or a strange mixture of both? pretty soon after the last search, gold pieces were actually found near mr. pearson's house, in the manner stated by the female witness. how came they there? did the robber deposit them there? that is not possible. did he accidentally leave them there? why should not a robber take as good care of his money as others? it is certain, too, that the gold pieces were not put there at the time of the robbery, because the ground was then bare; but when these pieces were found, there were several inches of snow below them. when goodridge searched here with his conjuror, he was on this spot, alone and unobserved, as he thought. whether he did not, at that time, drop his gold into the snow, the jury will judge. when he came to this search, he proposed something very ridiculous. he proposed that all persons about to assist in the search should be examined, to see that they had nothing which they could put into pearson's possession, for the purpose of being found there. but how was this examination to be made? why, truly, goodridge proposed that every man should examine himself, and that, among others, he would examine himself, till he was satisfied he had nothing in his pockets which he could leave at pearson's, with the fraudulent design of being afterwards found there, as evidence against pearson. what construction would be given to such conduct? as to jackman, goodridge went to new york and arrested him. in his room he says he found paper coverings of gold, with his own figures on them, and pieces of an old and useless receipt, which he can identify, and which he had in his possession at the time of the robbery. he found these things lying on the floor in jackman's room. what should induce the robbers, when they left all other papers, to take this receipt? and what should induce jackman to carry it to new york, and keep it, with the coverings of the gold, in a situation where it was likely to be found, and used as evidence against him? there is no end to the series of improbabilities growing out of the prosecutor's story. one thing especially deserves notice. wherever goodridge searches, he always finds something; and what he finds, he always can identify and swear to, as being his. the thing found has always some marks by which he knows it. yet he never finds much. he never finds the mass of his lost treasure. he finds just enough to be evidence, and no more. these are the circumstances which tend to raise doubts of the truth of the prosecutor's relation. it is for the jury to say, whether it would be safe to convict any man for this robbery until these doubts shall be cleared up. no doubt they are to judge him candidly; but they are not to make every thing yield to a regard to his reputation, or a desire to vindicate him from the suspicion of a fraudulent prosecution. he stands like other witnesses, except that he is a very interested witness; and he must hope for credit, if at all, from the consistency and general probability of the facts to which he testifies. the jury will not convict the prisoners to save the prosecutor from disgrace. he has had every opportunity of making out his case. if any person in the state could have corroborated any part of his story, that person he could have produced. he has had the benefit of full time, and good counsel, and of the commonwealth's process, to bring in his witnesses. more than all, he has had an opportunity of telling his own story, with the simplicity that belongs to truth, if it were true, and the frankness and earnestness of an honest man, if he be such. it is for the jury to say, under their oaths, how he has acquitted himself in these particulars, and whether he has left their minds free from doubt as to the truth of his narration. but if goodridge were really robbed, is there satisfactory evidence that the defendants had a hand in the commission of this offence? the evidence relied on is the finding of the money in their house. it appears that these defendants lived together, and, with a sister, constituted one family. their father lived in another part of the same house, and with his wife constituted another and distinct family. in this house, some six weeks after the robbery, the prosecutor made a search; and the result has been stated by the witnesses. now, if the money had been passed or used by the defendants it might have been conclusive. if found about their persons, it might have been very strong proof. but, under the circumstances of this case, the mere finding of money in their house, and that only in places where the prosecutor had previously been, is no evidence at all. with respect to the gold pieces, it is certainly true that they were found in goodridge's track. they were found only where he had been, and might have put them. when the sheriff was in the house and goodridge in the cellar, gold was found in the cellar. when the sheriff was up stairs and goodridge in the rooms below, the sheriff was called down to look for money where goodridge directed, and there money was found. as to the bank-note, the evidence is not quite so clear. mr. leavitt says he found a note in a drawer in a room in which none of the party had before been; that he thought it an uncurrent or counterfeit note, and not a part of goodridge's money, and left it where he found it, without further notice. an hour or two afterward, upton perceived a note in the same drawer, goodridge being then with or near him, and called to leavitt. leavitt told him that he had discovered that note before, but that it could not be goodridge's. it was then examined. leavitt says he looked at it, and saw writing on the back of it. upton says he looked at it, and saw writing on the back of it. he says also that it was shown to goodridge, who examined it in the same way that he and leavitt examined it. none of the party at this time suspected it to be goodridge's. it was then put into leavitt's pocket-book, where it remained till evening, when it was taken out at the tavern; and then it turns out to be, plainly and clearly, one of goodridge's notes, and has the name of "james poor, bangor," in goodridge's own handwriting, on the back of it. the first thing that strikes one in this account is, why was not this discovery made at the time? goodridge was looking for notes, as well as gold. he was looking for boston notes, for such he had lost. he was looking for ten-dollar notes, for such he had lost. he was looking for notes which he could recognize and identify. he would, therefore, naturally be particularly attentive to any writing or marks upon such as he might find. under these circumstances, a note is found in the house of the supposed robbers. it is a boston note, it is a ten-dollar note, it has writing on the back of it; that writing is the name of his town and the name of one of his neighbors; more than all, that writing is his own handwriting! notwithstanding all this, neither goodridge, nor upton, nor the sheriff, examined it so as to see whether it was goodridge's money. notwithstanding it so fully resembled, in all points, the money they were looking for, and notwithstanding they also saw writing on the back of it, which, they must know, if they read it, would probably have shown where it came from, neither of them did so far examine it as to see any proof of its being goodridge's. this is hardly to be believed. it must be a pretty strong faith in the prosecutor that could credit this story. in every part of it, it is improbable and absurd. it is much more easy to believe that the note was changed. there might have been, and there probably was, an uncurrent or counterfeit note found in the drawer by leavitt. he certainly did not at the time think it to be goodridge's, and he left it in the drawer where he found it. before he saw it again, the prosecutor had been in that room, and was in or near it when the sheriff was again called in, and asked to put that bill in his pocket-book. how do the jury know that this was the same note which leavitt had before seen? or suppose it was. leavitt carried it to coffin's; in the evening he produced it, and, after having been handed about for some time among the company, it turns out to be goodridge's note, and to have upon it infallible marks of identity. how do the jury know that a sleight of hand had not changed the note at coffin's? it is sufficient to say, the note might have been changed. it is not certain that this is the note which leavitt first found in the drawer, and this not being certain, it is not proof against the defendants. is it not extremely improbable, if the defendants are guilty, that they should deposit the money in the places where it was found? why should they put it in small parcels in so many places, for no end but to multiply the chances of detection? why, especially, should they put a doubloon in their father's pocket-book? there is no evidence, nor any ground of suspicion, that the father knew of the money being in his pocket-book. he swears he did not know it. his general character is unimpeached, and there is nothing against his credit. the inquiry at stratham was calculated to elicit the truth; and, after all, there is not the slightest reason to suspect that he knew that the doubloon was in his pocket-book. what could possibly induce the defendants to place it there? no man can conjecture a reason. on the other hand, if this is a fraudulent proceeding on the part of the prosecutor, this circumstance could be explained. he did not know that the pocket-book, and the garment in which it was found, did not belong to one of the defendants. he was as likely, therefore, to place it there as elsewhere. it is very material to consider that nothing was found in that part of the house which belonged to the defendants. every thing was discovered in the father's apartments. they were not found, therefore, in the possession of the defendants, any more than if they had been discovered in any other house in the neighborhood. the two tenements, it is true, were under the same roof; but they were not on that account the same tenements. they were as distinct as any other houses. now, how should it happen that the several parcels of money should all be found in the father's possession? he is not suspected, certainly there is no reason to suspect him, of having had any hand either in the commission of the robbery or the concealing of the goods. he swears he had no knowledge of any part of this money being in his house. it is not easy to imagine how it came there, unless it be supposed to have been put there by some one who did not know what part of the house belonged to the defendants and what part did not. the witnesses on the part of the prosecution have testified that the defendants, when arrested, manifested great agitation and alarm; paleness overspread their faces, and drops of sweat stood on their temples. this satisfied the witnesses of the defendants' guilt, and they now state the circumstances as being indubitable proof. this argument manifests, in those who use it, an equal want of sense and sensibility. it is precisely fitted to the feeling and the intellect of a bum-bailiff. in a court of justice it deserves nothing but contempt. is there nothing that can agitate the frame or excite the blood but the consciousness of guilt? if the defendants were innocent, would they not feel indignation at this unjust accusation? if they saw an attempt to produce false evidence against them, would they not be angry? and, seeing the production of such evidence, might they not feel fear and alarm? and have indignation, and anger, and terror, no power to affect the human countenance or the human frame? miserable, miserable, indeed, is the reasoning which would infer any man's guilt from his agitation when he found himself accused of a heinous offence; when he saw evidence which he might know to be false and fraudulent brought against him; when his house was filled, from the garret to the cellar, by those whom he might esteem as false witnesses; and when he himself, instead of being at liberty to observe their conduct and watch their motions, was a prisoner in close custody in his own house, with the fists of a catch-poll clenched upon his throat. the defendants were at newburyport the afternoon and evening of the robbery. for the greater part of the time they show where they were, and what they were doing. their proof, it is true, does not apply to every moment. but when it is considered that, from the moment of their arrest, they have been in close prison, perhaps they have shown as much as could be expected. few men, when called on afterwards, can remember, and fewer still can prove, how they have passed every half-hour of an evening. at a reasonable hour they both came to the house where laban had lodged the night before. nothing suspicious was observed in their manner or conversation. is it probable they would thus come unconcernedly into the company of others, from a field of robbery, and, as they must have supposed, of murder, before they could have ascertained whether the stain of blood was not on their garments? they remained in the place a part of the next day. the town was alarmed; a strict inquiry was made of all strangers, and of the defendants among others. nothing suspicious was discovered. they avoided no inquiry, nor did they leave the town in any haste. the jury has had an opportunity of seeing the defendants. does their general appearance indicate that hardihood which would enable them to act this cool, unconcerned part? is it not more likely they would have fled? from the time of the robbery to the arrest, five or six weeks, the defendants were engaged in their usual occupations. they are not found to have passed a dollar of money to any body. they continued their ordinary habits of labor. no man saw money about them, nor any circumstance that might lead to a suspicion that they had money. nothing occurred tending in any degree to excite suspicion against them. when arrested, and when all this array of evidence was brought against them, and when they could hope in nothing but their innocence, immunity was offered them again if they would confess. they were pressed, and urged, and allured, by every motive which could be set before them, to acknowledge their participation in the offence, and to bring out their accomplices. they steadily protested that they could confess nothing because they knew nothing. in defiance of all the discoveries made in their house, they have trusted to their innocence. on that, and on the candor and discernment of an enlightened jury, they still rely. if the jury are satisfied that there is the highest improbability that these persons could have had any previous knowledge of goodridge, or been concerned in any previous concert to rob him; if their conduct that evening and the next day was marked by no circumstances of suspicion; if from that moment until their arrest nothing appeared against them; if they neither passed money, nor are found to have had money; if the manner of the search of their house, and the circumstances attending it, excite strong suspicions of unfair and fraudulent practices; if, in the hour of their utmost peril, no promises of safety could draw from the defendants any confession affecting themselves or others, it will be for the jury to say whether they can pronounce them guilty. the dartmouth college case. the general question is, whether the acts of the legislature of new hampshire of the th of june, and of the th and th of december, , are valid and binding on the plaintiffs, _without their acceptance or assent_. the charter of created and established a corporation, to consist of twelve persons, and no more; to be called the "trustees of dartmouth college." after the institution thus created and constituted had existed, uninterruptedly and usefully, nearly fifty years, the legislature of new hampshire passed the acts in question. the first act makes the twelve trustees under the charter, and nine other individuals, to be appointed by the governor and council, a corporation, by a new name; and to this new corporation transfers all the _property, rights, powers, liberties, and privileges_ of the old corporation; with further power to establish new colleges and an institute, and to apply all or any part of the funds to these purposes; subject to the power and control of a board of twenty-five overseers, to be appointed by the governor and council. the second act makes further provisions for executing the objects of the first, and the last act authorizes the defendant, the treasurer of the plaintiffs, to retain and hold their property, against their will. if these acts are valid, the old corporation is abolished, and a new one created. the first act does, in fact, if it can have any effect, create a new corporation, and transfer to it all the property and franchises of the old. the two corporations are not the same in anything which essentially belongs to the existence of a corporation. they have different names, and different powers, rights, and duties. their organization is wholly different. the powers of the corporation are not vested in the same, or similar hands. in one, the trustees are twelve, and no more. in the other, they are twenty-one. in one, the power is in a single board. in the other, it is divided between two boards. although the act professes to include the old trustees in the new corporation, yet that was without their assent, and against their remonstrance; and no person can be compelled to be a member of such a corporation against his will. it was neither expected nor intended that they should be members of the new corporation. the act itself treats the old corporation as at an end, and, going on the ground that all its functions have ceased, it provides for the first meeting and organization of the new corporation. it expressly provides, also, that the new corporation shall have and hold all the property of the old; a provision which would be quite unnecessary upon any other ground, than that the old corporation was dissolved. but if it could be contended that the effect of these acts was not entirely to abolish the old corporation, yet it is manifest that they impair and invade the rights, property, and powers of the trustees under the charter, as a corporation, and the legal rights, privileges, and immunities which belong to them, as individual members of the corporation. the twelve trustees were the _sole_ legal owners of all the property acquired under the charter. by the acts, others are admitted, against _their_ will, to be joint owners. the twelve individuals who are trustees were possessed of all the franchises and immunities conferred by the charter. by the acts, _nine_ other trustees and _twenty-five_ overseers are admitted, against their will, to divide these franchises and immunities with them. if, either as a corporation or as individuals, they have any legal rights, this forcible intrusion of others violates those rights, as manifestly as an entire and complete ouster and dispossession. these acts alter the whole constitution of the corporation. they affect the rights of the whole body as a corporation, and the rights of the individuals who compose it. they revoke corporate powers and franchises. they alienate and transfer the property of the college to others. by the charter, the trustees had a right to fill vacancies in their own number. this is now taken away. they were to consist of twelve, and, by express provision, of no more. this is altered. they and their successors, appointed by themselves, were for ever to hold the property. the legislature has found successors for them, before their seats are vacant. the powers and privileges which the twelve were to exercise exclusively, are now to be exercised by others. by one of the acts, they are subjected to heavy penalties if they exercise their offices, or any of those powers and privileges granted them by charter, and which they had exercised for fifty years. they are to be punished for not accepting the new grant and taking its benefits. this, it must be confessed, is rather a summary mode of settling a question of constitutional right. not only are new trustees forced into the corporation, but new trusts and uses are created. the college is turned into a university. power is given to create new colleges, and, to authorize any diversion of the funds which may be agreeable to the new boards, sufficient latitude is given by the undefined power of establishing an institute. to these new colleges, and this institute, the funds contributed by the founder, dr. wheelock, and by the original donors, the earl of dartmouth and others, are to be applied, in plain and manifest disregard of the uses to which they were given. the president, one of the old trustees, had a right to his office, salary, and emoluments, subject to the twelve trustees alone. his title to these is now changed, and he is made accountable to new masters. so also all the professors and tutors. if the legislature can at pleasure make these alterations and changes in the rights and privileges of the plaintiffs, it may, with equal propriety, abolish these rights and privileges altogether. the same power which can do any part of this work can accomplish the whole. and, indeed, the argument on which these acts have been hitherto defended goes altogether on the ground, that this is such a corporation as the legislature may abolish at pleasure; and that its members have _no rights, liberties, franchises, property, or privileges_, which the legislature may not revoke, annul, alienate, or transfer to others, whenever it sees fit. it will be contended by the plaintiffs, that these acts are not valid and binding on them without their assent,-- . because they are against common right, and the constitution of new hampshire. . because they are repugnant to the constitution of the united states. i am aware of the limits which bound the jurisdiction of the court in this case, and that on this record nothing can be decided but the single question, whether these acts are repugnant to the constitution of the united states. yet it may assist in forming an opinion of their true nature and character to compare them with those fundamental principles introduced into the state governments for the purpose of limiting the exercise of the legislative power, and which the constitution of new hampshire expresses with great fulness and accuracy. it is not too much to assert, that the legislature of new hampshire would not have been competent to pass the acts in question, and to make them binding on the plaintiffs without their assent, even if there had been, in the constitution of new hampshire, or of the united states, no special restriction on their power, because these acts are not the exercise of a power properly legislative. their effect and object are to take away, from one, rights, property, and franchises, and to grant them to another. this is not the exercise of a legislative power. to justify the taking away of vested rights there must be a forfeiture, to adjudge upon and declare which is the proper province of the judiciary. attainder and confiscation are acts of sovereign power, not acts of legislation. the british parliament, among other unlimited powers, claims that of altering and vacating charters; not as an act of ordinary legislation, but of uncontrolled authority. it is theoretically omnipotent. yet, in modern times, it has very rarely attempted the exercise of this power. the legislature of new hampshire has no more power over the rights of the plaintiffs than existed somewhere, in some department of government, before the revolution. the british parliament could not have annulled or revoked this grant as an act of ordinary legislation. if it had done it at all, it could only have been in virtue of that sovereign power, called omnipotent, which does not belong to any legislature in the united states. the legislature of new hampshire has the same power over this charter which belonged to the king who granted it, and no more. by the law of england, the power to create corporations is a part of the royal prerogative. by the revolution, this power may be considered as having devolved on the legislature of the state, and it has accordingly been exercised by the legislature. but the king cannot abolish a corporation, or new-model it, or alter its powers, without its assent. this is the acknowledged and well-known doctrine of the common law. there are prohibitions in the constitution and bill of rights of new hampshire, introduced for the purpose of limiting the legislative power and protecting the rights and property of the citizens. one prohibition is, "that no person shall be deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out of the protection of the law, or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate, but by judgment of his peers or the law of the land." in the opinion, however, which was given in the court below, it is denied that the trustees under the charter had any property, immunity, liberty, or privilege in this corporation, within the meaning of this prohibition in the bill of rights. it is said that it is a public corporation and public property; that the trustees have no greater interest in it than any other individuals; that it is not private property, which they can sell or transmit to their heirs, and that therefore they have no interest in it; that their office is a public trust, like that of the governor or a judge, and that they have no more concern in the property of the college than the governor in the property of the state, or than the judges in the fines which they impose on the culprits at their bar; that it is nothing to them whether their powers shall be extended or lessened, any more than it is to their honors whether their jurisdiction shall be enlarged or diminished. it is necessary, therefore, to inquire into the true nature and character of the corporation which was created by the charter of . there are divers sorts of corporations; and it may be safely admitted that the legislature has more power over some than others. some corporations are for government and political arrangement; such, for example, as cities, counties, and towns in new england. these may be changed and modified as public convenience may require, due regard being always had to the rights of property. of such corporations, all who live within the limits are of course obliged to be members, and to submit to the duties which the law imposes on them as such. other civil corporations are for the advancement of trade and business, such as banks, insurance companies, and the like. these are created, not by general law, but usually by grant. their constitution is special. it is such as the legislature sees fit to give, and the grantees to accept. the corporation in question is not a civil, although it is a lay corporation. it is an eleemosynary corporation. it is a private charity, originally founded and endowed by an individual, with a charter obtained for it at his request, for the better administration of his charity. "the eleemosynary sort of corporations are such as are constituted for the perpetual distributions of the free alms or bounty of the founder of them, to such persons as he has directed. of this are all hospitals for the maintenance of the poor, sick, and impotent; and all colleges both in our universities and out of them." eleemosynary corporations are for the management of private property, according to the will of the donors. they are private corporations. a college is as much a private corporation as a hospital; especially a college founded, as this was, by private bounty. a college is a charity. "the establishment of learning," says lord hardwicke, "is a charity, and so considered in the statute of elizabeth. to devise to a college, for their benefit, is a laudable charity, and deserves encouragement." the legal signification of _a charity_ is derived chiefly from the statute eliz. ch. . "those purposes," says sir william grant, "are considered _charitable_ which that statute enumerates." colleges are enumerated as charities in that statute. the government, in these cases, lends its aid to perpetuate the beneficent intention of the donor, by granting a charter under which his private charity shall continue to be dispensed after his death. this is done either by incorporating the objects of the charity, as, for instance, the scholars in a college or the poor in a hospital, or by incorporating those who are to be governors or trustees of the charity. in cases of the first sort, the founder is, by the common law, visitor. in early times it became a maxim, that he who gave the property might regulate it in future. "cujus est dare, ejus est disponere." this right of visitation descended from the founder to his heir as a right of property, and precisely as his other property went to his heir; and in default of heirs it went to the king, as all other property goes to the king for the want of heirs. the right of visitation arises from the property. it grows out of the endowment. the founder may, if he please, part with it at the time when he establishes the charity, and may vest it in others. therefore, if he chooses that governors, trustees, or overseers should be appointed in the charter, he may cause it to be done, and his power of visitation may be transferred to them, instead of descending to his heirs. the persons thus assigned or appointed by the founder will be visitors, with all the powers of the founder, in exclusion of his heir. the right of visitation, then, accrues to them, as a matter of property, by the gift, transfer, or appointment of the founder. this is a private right, which they can assert in all legal modes, and in which they have the same protection of the law as in all other rights. as visitors they may make rules, ordinances, and statutes, and alter and repeal them, as far as permitted so to do by the charter. although the charter proceeds from the crown or the government, it is considered as the will of the donor. it is obtained at his request. he uses it as the rule which is to prevail in the dispensation of his bounty in all future times. the king or government which grants the charter is not thereby the founder, but he who furnishes the funds. the gift of the revenues is the foundation. the leading case on this subject is _phillips v. bury_. this was an ejectment brought to recover the rectory-house, &c. of exeter college in oxford. the question was whether the plaintiff or defendant was legal rector. exeter college was founded by an individual, and incorporated by a charter granted by queen elizabeth. the controversy turned upon the power of the visitor, and, in the discussion of the cause, the nature of college charters and corporations was very fully considered. lord holt's judgment is that that college was a _private corporation_, and that the founder had a right to appoint a visitor, and to give him such power as he saw fit. the learned bishop stillingfleet's argument in the same cause, as a member of the house of lords, when it was there heard, exhibits very clearly the nature of colleges and similar corporations. it is to the following effect. "that colleges, although founded by private persons, are yet incorporated by the king's charter; but although the kings by their charter made the colleges to be such in law, that is, to be legal corporations, yet they left to the particular founders authority to appoint what statutes they thought fit for the regulation of them. and not only the statutes, but the appointment of visitors, was left to them, and the manner of government, and the several conditions on which any persons were to be made or continue partakers of their bounty." these opinions received the sanction of the house of lords, and they seem to be settled and undoubted law. "there is nothing better established," says lord commissioner eyre, "than that this court does not entertain a general jurisdiction, or regulate and control charities _established by charter_. there the establishment is fixed and determined; and the court has no power to vary it. if the governors established for the regulation of it are not those who have the management of the revenue, this court has no jurisdiction, and if it is ever so much abused, as far as it respects the jurisdiction of this court it is without remedy; but if those established as governors have also the management of the revenues, this court does assume a jurisdiction of necessity, so far as they are to be considered as trustees of the revenue." "the foundations of colleges," says lord mansfield, "are to be considered in two views; namely, as they are _corporations_ and as they are _eleemosynary_. as eleemosynary, they are the creatures of the founder; he may delegate his power, either generally or specially; he may prescribe particular modes and manners, as to the exercise of part of it." in new england, and perhaps throughout the united states, eleemosynary corporations have been generally established by incorporating governors, or trustees, and vesting in them the right of visitation. the case before the court is clearly that of an eleemosynary corporation. it is, in the strictest legal sense, a private charity. in _king v. st. catherine's hall_, that college is called a private eleemosynary lay corporation. it was endowed by a private founder, and incorporated by letters patent. and in the same manner was dartmouth college founded and incorporated. dr. wheelock is declared by the charter to be its founder. it was established by him, or funds contributed and collected by himself. as such founder, he had a right of visitation, which he assigned to the trustees, and they received it by his consent and appointment, and held it under the charter. he appointed these trustees visitors, and in that respect to take place of his heir; as he might have appointed devisees, to take his estate instead of his heir. little, probably, did he think, at that time, that the legislature would ever take away this property and these privileges, and give them to others. little did he suppose that this charter secured to him and his successors no legal rights. little did the other donors think so. if they had, the college would have been, what the university is now, a thing upon paper, existing only in name. the numerous academies in new england have been established substantially in the same manner. they hold their property by the same tenure, and no other. nor has harvard college any surer title than dartmouth college. it may to-day have more friends; but to-morrow it may have more enemies. its legal rights are the same. so also of yale college; and, indeed, of all the others. when the legislature gives to these institutions, it may and does accompany its grants with such conditions as it pleases. the grant of lands by the legislature of new hampshire to dartmouth college, in , was accompanied with various conditions. when donations are made, by the legislature or others, to a charity already existing, without any condition, or the specification of any new use, the donation follows the nature of the charity. hence the doctrine, that all eleemosynary corporations are private bodies. they are founded by private persons, and on private property. the public cannot be charitable in these institutions. it is not the money of the public, but of private persons, which is dispensed. it may be public, that is general, in its uses and advantages; and the state may very laudably add contributions of its own to the funds; but it is still private in the tenure of the property, and in the right of administering the funds. the charter declares that the powers conferred on the trustees are "privileges, advantages, liberties, and immunities"; and that they shall be for ever holden by them and their successors. the new hampshire bill of rights declares that no one shall be deprived of his "property, privileges, or immunities," but by judgment of his peers, or the law of the land. the argument on the other side is, that, although these terms may mean something in the bill of rights, they mean nothing in this charter. they are equivalent with _franchises_. blackstone says that _franchise_ and _liberty_ are used as synonymous terms. the privilege, then, of being a member of a corporation, under a lawful grant, and of exercising the rights and powers of such member, is such a privilege, _liberty_, or _franchise_, as has been the object of legal protection, and the subject of a legal interest, from the time of magna charta to the present moment. the plaintiffs have such an interest in this corporation, individually, as they could assert and maintain in a court of law, not as agents of the public, but in their own right. each trustee has a _franchise_, and if he be disturbed in the enjoyment of it, he would have redress, on appealing to the law, as promptly as for any other injury. if the other trustees should conspire against any one of them to prevent his equal right and voice in the appointment of a president or professor, or in the passing of any statute or ordinance of the college, he would be entitled to his action, for depriving him of his franchise. it makes no difference, that this property is to be holden and administered, and these franchises exercised, for the purpose of diffusing learning. no principle and no case establishes any such distinction. the public may be benefited by the use of this property. but this does not change the nature of the property, or the rights of the owners. the object of the charter may be public good; so it is in all other corporations; and this would as well justify the resumption or violation of the grant in any other case as in this. in the case of an advowson, the use is public, and the right cannot be turned to any private benefit or emolument. it is nevertheless a legal private right, and the _property_ of the owner, as emphatically as his freehold. the rights and privileges of trustees, visitors, or governors of incorporated colleges, stand on the same foundation. they are so considered, both by lord holt and lord hardwicke. to contend that the rights of the plaintiffs may be taken away, because they derive from them no pecuniary benefit or private emolument, or because they cannot be transmitted to their heirs, or would not be assets to pay their debts, is taking an extremely narrow view of the subject. according to this notion, the case would be different, if, in the charter, they had stipulated for a commission on the disbursement of the funds; and they have ceased to have any interest in the property, because they have undertaken to administer it gratuitously. it cannot be necessary to say much in refutation of the idea, that there cannot be a legal interest, or ownership, in any thing which does not yield a pecuniary profit; as if the law regarded no rights but the rights of money, and of visible, tangible property. of what nature are all rights of suffrage? no elector has a particular personal interest; but each has a legal right, to be exercised at his own discretion, and it cannot be taken away from him. the exercise of this right directly and very materially affects the public; much more so than the exercise of the privileges of a trustee of this college. consequences of the utmost magnitude may sometimes depend on the exercise of the right of suffrage by one or a few electors. nobody was ever yet heard to contend, however, that on that account the public might take away the right, or impair it. this notion appears to be borrowed from no better source than the repudiated doctrine of the three judges in the aylesbury case. the doctrine having been exploded for a century, seems now for the first time to be revived. individuals have a right to use their own property for purposes of benevolence, either towards the public, or towards other individuals. they have a right to exercise this benevolence in such lawful manner as they may choose; and when the government has induced and excited it, by contracting to give perpetuity to the stipulated manner of exercising it, it is not law, but violence, to rescind this contract, and seize on the property. whether the state will grant these franchises, and under what conditions it will grant them, it decides for itself. but when once granted, the constitution holds them to be sacred, till forfeited for just cause. that all property, of which the use may be beneficial to the public, belongs therefore to the public, is quite a new doctrine. it has no precedent, and is supported by no known principle. dr. wheelock might have answered his purposes, in this case, by executing a private deed of trust. he might have conveyed his property to trustees, for precisely such uses as are described in this charter. indeed, it appears that he had contemplated the establishing of his school in that manner, and had made his will, and devised the property to the same persons who were afterwards appointed trustees in the charter. many literary and other charitable institutions are founded in that manner, and the trust is renewed, and conferred on other persons, from time to time, as occasion may require. in such a case, no lawyer would or could say, that the legislature might divest the trustees, constituted by deed or will, seize upon the property, and give it to other persons, for other purposes. and does the granting of a charter, which is only done to perpetuate the trust in a more convenient manner, make any difference? does or can this change the nature of the charity, and turn it into a public political corporation? happily, we are not without authority on this point. it has been considered and adjudged. lord hardwicke says, in so many words, "the charter of the crown cannot make a charity more or less public, but only more permanent than it would otherwise be." the granting of the corporation is but making the trust perpetual, and does not alter the nature of the charity. the very object sought in obtaining such charter, and in giving property to such a corporation, is to make and keep it private property, and to clothe it with all the security and inviolability of private property. the intent is, that there shall be a legal private ownership, and that the legal owners shall maintain and protect the property, for the benefit of those for whose use it was designed. who ever endowed the public? who ever appointed a legislature to administer his charity? or who ever heard, before, that a gift to a college, or a hospital, or an asylum, was, in reality, nothing but a gift to the state? the state of vermont is a principal donor to dartmouth college. the lands given lie in that state. this appears in the special verdict. is vermont to be considered as having intended a gift to the state of new hampshire in this case, as, it has been said, is to be the reasonable construction of all donations to the college? the legislature of new hampshire affects to represent the public, and therefore claims a right to control all property destined to public use. what hinders vermont from considering herself equally the representative of the public, and from resuming her grants, at her own pleasure? her right to do so is less doubtful than the power of new hampshire to pass the laws in question. i hope enough has been said to show that the trustees possessed vested liberties, privileges, and immunities, under this charter; and that such liberties, privileges, and immunities, being once lawfully obtained and vested, are as inviolable as any vested rights of property whatever. rights to do certain acts, such, for instance, as the visitation and superintendence of a college and the appointment of its officers, may surely be vested rights, to all legal intents, as completely as the right to possess property. a late learned judge of this court has said, "when i say that a _right_ is vested in a citizen, i mean that he has the power to do _certain actions_, or to possess _certain things_, according to the law of the land." if such be the true nature of the plaintiffs' interests under this charter, what are the articles in the new hampshire bill of rights which these acts infringe? they infringe the second article; which says, that the citizens of the state have a right to hold and possess property. the plaintiffs had a legal property in this charter; and they had acquired property under it. the acts deprive them of both. they impair and take away the charter; and they appropriate the property to new uses, against their consent. the plaintiffs cannot now hold the property acquired by themselves, and which this article says they have a right to hold. they infringe the twentieth article. by that article it is declared that, in questions of property, there is a right to trial. the plaintiffs are divested, without trial or judgment. they infringe the twenty-third article. it is therein declared that no retrospective laws shall be passed. this article bears directly on the case. these acts must be deemed to be retrospective, within the settled construction of that term. what a retrospective law is, has been decided, on the construction of this very article, in the circuit court for the first circuit, the learned judge of that circuit says: "every statute which takes away or impairs vested rights, acquired under existing laws, must be deemed retrospective." that all such laws are retrospective was decided also in the case of _dash v. van kleek_, where a most learned judge quotes this article from the constitution of new hampshire, with manifest approbation, as a plain and clear expression of those fundamental and unalterable principles of justice, which must lie at the foundation of every free and just system of laws. can any man deny that the plaintiffs had rights, under the charter, which were legally vested, and that by these acts those rights are impaired? "it is a principle in the english law," says chief justice kent, in the case last cited, "as ancient as the law itself, that a statute, even of its omnipotent parliament, is not to have a retrospective effect. 'nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet, et non praeteritis.' the maxim in bracton was taken from the civil law, for we find in that system the same principle, expressed substantially in the same words, that the law-giver cannot alter his mind to the prejudice of a vested right. 'nemo potest mutare concilium suum in alterius injuriam.'" these acts infringe also the thirty-seventh article of the constitution of new hampshire; which says, that the powers of government shall be kept separate. by these acts, the legislature assumes to exercise a judicial power. it declares a forfeiture, and resumes franchises, once granted, without trial or hearing. if the constitution be not altogether waste-paper, it has restrained the power of the legislature in these particulars. if it has any meaning, it is that the legislature shall pass no act directly and manifestly impairing private property and private privileges. it shall not judge by act. it shall not decide by act. it shall not deprive by act. but it shall leave all these things to be tried and adjudged by the law of the land. the fifteenth article has been referred to before. it declares that no one shall be "deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land." notwithstanding the light in which the learned judges in new hampshire viewed the rights of the plaintiffs under the charter, and which has been before adverted to, it is found to be admitted in their opinion, that those rights are privileges within the meaning of this fifteenth article of the bill of rights. having quoted that article, they say: "that the right to manage the affairs of this college is a privilege, within the meaning of this clause of the bill of rights, is not to be doubted." in my humble opinion, this surrenders the point. to resist the effect of this admission, however, the learned judges add: "but how a privilege can be protected from the operation of the law of the land by a clause in the constitution, declaring that it shall not be taken away but by the law of the land, is not very easily understood." this answer goes on the ground, that the acts in question are laws of the land, within the meaning of the constitution. if they be so, the argument drawn from this article is fully answered. if they be not so, it being admitted that the plaintiffs' rights are "privileges," within the meaning of the article, the argument is not answered, and the article is infringed by the acts. are, then, these acts of the legislature, which affect only particular persons and their particular privileges, laws of the land? lord coke citing and commenting on the celebrated twenty-ninth chapter of magna charta, says: "no man shall be disseized, &c., unless it be by the lawful judgment, that is, verdict of equals, or by the law of the land, that is (to speak it once for all), by the due course and process of law." have the plaintiffs lost their franchises by "due course and process of law"? on the contrary, are not these acts "particular acts of the legislature, which have no relation to the community in general, and which are rather sentences than laws"? by the law of the land is most clearly intended the general law; a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial. the meaning is, that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society. every thing which may pass under the form of an enactment is not therefore to be considered the law of the land. if this were so, acts of attainder, bills of pains and penalties, acts of confiscation, acts reversing judgments, and acts directly transferring one man's estate to another, legislative judgments, decrees, and forfeitures in all possible forms, would be the law of the land. such a strange construction would render constitutional provisions of the highest importance completely inoperative and void. it would tend directly to establish the union of all powers in the legislature. there would be no general, permanent law for courts to administer or men to live under. the administration of justice would be an empty form, an idle ceremony. judges would sit to execute legislative judgments and decrees; not to declare the law or to administer the justice of the country. that the power of electing and appointing the officers of this college is not only a right of the trustees as a corporation, generally, and in the aggregate, but that each individual trustee has also his own individual franchise in such right of election and appointment, is according to the language of all the authorities. lord holt says: "it is agreeable to reason and the rules of law, that a franchise should be vested in the corporation aggregate, and yet the benefit of it to redound to the particular members, and to be enjoyed by them in their private capacity. where the privilege of election is used by particular persons, _it is a particular right, vested in every particular man_." it is also to be considered, that the president and professors of this college have rights to be affected by these acts. their interest is similar to that of fellows in the english colleges; because they derive their living, wholly or in part, from the founders' bounty. the president is one of the trustees or corporators. the professors are not necessarily members of the corporation; but they are appointed by the trustees, are removable only by them, and have fixed salaries payable out of the general funds of the college. both president and professors have freeholds in their offices; subject only to be removed by the trustees, as their legal visitors, for good cause. all the authorities speak of fellowships in colleges as freeholds, notwithstanding the fellows may be liable to be suspended or removed, for misbehavior, by their constituted visitors. nothing could have been less expected, in this age, than that there should have been an attempt, by acts of the legislature, to take away these college livings, the inadequate but the only support of literary men who have devoted their lives to the instruction of youth. the president and professors were appointed by the twelve trustees. they were accountable to nobody else, and could be removed by nobody else. they accepted their offices on this tenure. yet the legislature has appointed other persons, with power to remove these officers and to deprive them of their livings; and those other persons have exercised that power. no description of private property has been regarded as more sacred than college livings. they are the estates and freeholds of a most deserving class of men; of scholars who have consented to forego the advantages of professional and public employments, and to devote themselves to science and literature and the instruction of youth in the quiet retreats of academic life. whether to dispossess and oust them; to deprive them of their office, and to turn them out of their livings; to do this, not by the power of their legal visitors or governors, but by acts of the legislature, and to do it without forfeiture and without fault; whether all this be not in the highest degree an indefensible and arbitrary proceeding, is a question of which there would seem to be but one side fit for a lawyer or a scholar to espouse. if it could be made to appear that the trustees and the president and professors held their offices and franchises during the pleasure of the legislature, and that the property holden belonged to the state, then indeed the legislature have done no more than they had a right to do. but this is not so. the charter is a charter of privileges and immunities; and these are holden by the trustees expressly against the state for ever. it is admitted that the state, by its courts of law, can enforce the will of the donor, and compel a faithful execution of the trust. the plaintiffs claim no exemption from legal responsibility. they hold themselves at all times answerable to the law of the land, for their conduct in the trust committed to them. they ask only to hold the property of which they are owners, and the franchises which belong to them, until they shall be found, by due course and process of law, to have forfeited them. it can make no difference whether the legislature exercise the power it has assumed by removing the trustees and the president and professors, directly and by name, or by appointing others to expel them. the principle is the same, and in point of fact the result has been the same. if the entire franchise cannot be taken away, neither can it be essentially impaired. if the trustees are legal owners of the property, they are sole owners. if they are visitors, they are sole visitors. no one will be found to say, that, if the legislature may do what it has done, it may not do any thing and every thing which it may choose to do, relative to the property of the corporation, and the privileges of its members and officers. if the view which has been taken of this question be at all correct, this was an eleemosynary corporation, a private charity. the property was private property. the trustees were visitors, and the right to hold the charter, administer the funds, and visit and govern the college, was a franchise and privilege, solemnly granted to them. the use being public in no way diminishes their legal estate in the property, or their title to the franchise. there is no principle, nor any case, which declares that a gift to such a corporation is a gift to the public. the acts in question violate property. they take away privileges, immunities, and franchises. they deny to the trustees the protection of the law; and they are retrospective in their operation. in all which respects they are against the constitution of new hampshire. the plaintiffs contend, in the second place, that the acts in question are repugnant to the tenth section of the first article of the constitution of the united states. the material words of that section are: "no state shall pass any bill of attainder, _ex post facto_ law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts." the object of these most important provisions in the national constitution has often been discussed, both here and elsewhere. it is exhibited with great clearness and force by one of the distinguished persons who framed that instrument. "bills of attainder, _ex post facto_ laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. the two former are expressly prohibited by the declarations prefixed to some of the state constitutions, and all of them are prohibited by the spirit and scope of these fundamental charters. our own experience has taught us, nevertheless, that additional fences against these dangers ought not to be omitted. very properly, therefore, have the convention added this constitutional bulwark, in favor of personal security and private rights; and i am much deceived, if they have not, in so doing, as faithfully consulted the genuine sentiments as the undoubted interests of their constituents. the sober people of america are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. they have seen with regret, and with indignation, that sudden changes, and legislative interferences in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more industrious and less informed part of the community. they have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the link of a long chain of repetitions; every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding." it has already been decided in this court, that a _grant_ is a contract, within the meaning of this provision; and that a grant by a state is also a contract, as much as the grant of an individual. in the case of _fletcher v. peck_, this court says: "a contract is a compact between two or more parties, and is either executory or executed. an executory contract is one in which a party binds himself to do, or not to do, a particular thing; such was the law under which the conveyance was made by the government. a contract executed is one in which the object of contract is performed; and this, says blackstone, differs in nothing from a grant. the contract between georgia and the purchasers was executed by the grant. a contract executed, as well as one which is executory, contains obligations binding on the parties. a grant, in its own nature, amounts to an extinguishment of the right of the grantor, and implies a contract not to reassert that right. if, under a fair construction of the constitution, grants are comprehended under the term contracts, is a grant from the state excluded from the operation of the provision? is the clause to be considered as inhibiting the state from impairing the obligation of contracts between two individuals, but as excluding from that inhibition contracts made with itself? the words themselves contain no such distinction. they are general, and are applicable to contracts of every description. if contracts made with the state are to be exempted from their operation, the exception must arise from the character of the contracting party, not from the words which are employed. whatever respect might have been felt for the state sovereignties, it is not to be disguised that the framers of the constitution viewed with some apprehension the violent acts which might grow out of the feelings of the moment; and that the people of the united states, in adopting that instrument, have manifested a determination to shield themselves and their property from the effects of those sudden and strong passions to which men are exposed. the restrictions on the legislative power of the states are obviously founded in this sentiment; and the constitution of the united states contains what may be deemed a bill of rights for the people of each state." it also has been decided that a grant by a state before the revolution is as much to be protected as a grant since. but the case of _terrett v. taylor_, before cited, is of all others most pertinent to the present argument. indeed, the judgment of the court in that case seems to leave little to be argued or decided in this. "a private corporation," say the court, "created by the legislature, may lose its franchises by a _misuser_ or a _nonuser_ of them; and they may be resumed by the government under a judicial judgment upon a _quo warranto_ to ascertain and enforce the forfeiture. this is the common law of the land, and is a tacit condition annexed to the creation of every such corporation. upon a change of government, too, it may be admitted, that such exclusive privileges attached to a private corporation as are inconsistent with the new government may be abolished. in respect, also, to _public_ corporations which exist only for public purposes, such as counties, towns, cities, and so forth, the legislature may, under proper limitations, have a right to change, modify, enlarge, or restrain them, securing, however, the property for the uses of those for whom and at whose expense it was originally purchased. but that the legislature can repeal statutes creating private corporations, or confirming to them property already acquired under the faith of previous laws, and by such repeal can vest the property of such corporations exclusively in the state, or dispose of the same to such purposes as they please, without the consent or default of the corporators, we are not prepared to admit; and we think ourselves standing upon the principles of natural justice, upon the fundamental laws of every free government, upon the spirit and letter of the constitution of the united states, and upon the decisions of most respectable judicial tribunals, in resisting such a doctrine." this court, then, does not admit the doctrine, that a legislature can repeal statutes creating private corporations. if it cannot repeal them altogether, of course it cannot repeal any part of them, or impair them, or essentially alter them, without the consent of the corporators. if, therefore, it has been shown that this college is to be regarded as a private charity, this case is embraced within the very terms of that decision. a grant of corporate powers and privileges is as much a contract as a grant of land. what proves all charters of this sort to be contracts is, that they must be accepted to give them force and effect. if they are not accepted, they are void. and in the case of an existing corporation, if a new charter is given it, it may even accept part and reject the rest. in _rex v. vice-chancellor of cambridge_, lord mansfield says: "there is a vast deal of difference between a new charter granted to a new corporation, (who must take it as it is given,) and a new charter given to a corporation already in being, and acting either under a former charter or under prescriptive usage. the latter, a corporation already existing, are not obliged to accept the new charter _in toto_, and to receive either all or none of it; they may act partly under it, and partly under their old charter or prescription. the validity of these new charters must turn upon the acceptance of them." in the same case mr. justice wilmot says: "it is the concurrence and acceptance of the university that gives the force to the charter of the crown." in the _king v. pasmore_, lord kenyon observes: "some things are clear: when a corporation exists capable of discharging its functions, the crown cannot obtrude another charter upon them; they may either accept or reject it." and because charters of incorporation are of the nature of contracts, they cannot be altered or varied but by consent of the original parties. if a charter be granted by the king, it may be altered by a new charter granted by the king, and accepted by the corporators. but if the first charter be granted by parliament, the consent of parliament must be obtained to any alteration. in _king v. miller_, lord kenyon says: "where a corporation takes its rise from the king's charter, the king by granting, and the corporation by accepting another charter, may alter it, because it is done with the consent of all the parties who are competent to consent to the alteration." there are, in this case, all the essential constituent parts of a contract. there is something to be contracted about, there are parties, and there are plain terms in which the agreement of the parties on the subject of the contract is expressed. there are mutual considerations and inducements. the charter recites, that the founder, on his part, has agreed to establish his seminary in new hampshire, and to enlarge it beyond its original design, among other things, for the benefit of that province; and thereupon a charter is given to him and his associates, designated by himself, promising and assuring to them, under the plighted faith of the state, the right of governing the college and administering its concerns in the manner provided in the charter. there is a complete and perfect grant to them of all the power of superintendence, visitation, and government. is not this a contract? if lands or money had been granted to him and his associates, for the same purposes, such grant could not be rescinded. and is there any difference, in legal contemplation, between a grant of corporate franchises and a grant of tangible property? no such difference is recognized in any decided case, nor does it exist in the common apprehension of mankind. it is therefore contended, that this case falls within the true meaning of this provision of the constitution, as expounded in the decisions of this court; that the charter of is a contract, a stipulation or agreement, mutual in its considerations, express and formal in its terms, and of a most binding and solemn nature. that the acts in question impair this contract, has already been sufficiently shown. they repeal and abrogate its most essential parts. a single observation may not be improper on the opinion of the court of new hampshire, which has been published. the learned judges who delivered that opinion have viewed this question in a very different light from that in which the plaintiffs have endeavored to exhibit it. after some general remarks, they assume that this college is a public corporation; and on this basis their judgment rests. whether all colleges are not regarded as private and eleemosynary corporations, by all law writers and all judicial decisions; whether this college was not founded by dr. wheelock; whether the charter was not granted at his request, the better to execute a trust, which he had already created; whether he and his associates did not become visitors, by the charter; and whether dartmouth college be not, therefore, in the strictest sense, a private charity, are questions which the learned judges do not appear to have discussed. it is admitted in that opinion, that, if it be a private corporation, its rights stand on the same ground as those of an individual. the great question, therefore, to be decided is, to which class of corporations do colleges thus founded belong? and the plaintiffs have endeavored to satisfy the court, that, according to the well-settled principles and uniform decisions of law, they are private, eleemosynary corporations. much has heretofore been said on the necessity of admitting such a power in the legislature as has been assumed in this case. many cases of possible evil have been imagined, which might otherwise be without remedy. abuses, it is contended, might arise in the management of such institutions, which the ordinary courts of law would be unable to correct. but this is only another instance of that habit of supposing extreme cases, and then of reasoning from them, which is the constant refuge of those who are obliged to defend a cause, which, upon its merits, is indefensible. it would be sufficient to say in answer, that it is not pretended that there was here any such case of necessity. but a still more satisfactory answer is, that the apprehension of danger is groundless, and therefore the whole argument fails. experience has not taught us that there is danger of great evils or of great inconvenience from this source. hitherto, neither in our own country nor elsewhere have such cases of necessity occurred. the judicial establishments of the state are presumed to be competent to prevent abuses and violations of trust, in cases of this kind, as well as in all others. if they be not, they are imperfect, and their amendment would be a most proper subject for legislative wisdom. under the government and protection of the general laws of the land, these institutions have always been found safe, as well as useful. they go on, with the progress of society, accommodating themselves easily, without sudden change or violence, to the alterations which take place in its condition, and in the knowledge, the habits, and pursuits of men. the english colleges were founded in catholic ages. their religion was reformed with the general reformation of the nation; and they are suited perfectly well to the purpose of educating the protestant youth of modern times. dartmouth college was established under a charter granted by the provincial government; but a better constitution for a college or one more adapted to the condition of things under the present government, in all material respects, could not now be framed. nothing in it was found to need alteration at the revolution. the wise men of that day saw in it one of the best hopes of future times, and commended it as it was, with parental care, to the protection and guardianship of the government of the state. a charter of more liberal sentiments, of wiser provisions, drawn with more care, or in a better spirit, could not be expected at any time or from any source. the college needed no change in its organization or government. that which it did need was the kindness, the patronage, the bounty of the legislature; not a mock elevation to the character of a university, without the solid benefit of a shilling's donation to sustain the character; not the swelling and empty authority of establishing institutes and other colleges. this unsubstantial pageantry would seem to have been in derision of the scanty endowment and limited means of an unobtrusive, but useful and growing seminary. least of all was there a necessity, or pretence of necessity, to infringe its legal rights, violate its franchises and privileges, and pour upon it these overwhelming streams of litigation. but this argument from necessity would equally apply in all other cases. if it be well founded, it would prove, that, whenever any inconvenience or evil is experienced from the restrictions imposed on the legislature by the constitution, these restrictions ought to be disregarded. it is enough to say, that the people have thought otherwise. they have, most wisely, chosen to take the risk of occasional inconvenience from the want of power, in order that there might be a settled limit to its exercise, and a permanent security against its abuse. they have imposed prohibitions and restraints; and they have not rendered these altogether vain and nugatory by conferring the power of dispensation. if inconvenience should arise which the legislature cannot remedy under the power conferred upon it, it is not answerable for such inconvenience. that which it cannot do within the limits prescribed to it, it cannot do at all. no legislature in this country is able, and may the time never come when it shall be able, to apply to itself the memorable expression of a roman pontiff: "licet hoc _de jure_ non possumus, volumus tamen _de plenitudine potestatis_." the case before the court is not of ordinary importance, nor of every-day occurrence. it affects not this college only, but every college, and all the literary institutions of the country. they have flourished hitherto, and have become in a high degree respectable and useful to the community. they have all a common principle of existence, the inviolability of their charters. it will be a dangerous, a most dangerous experiment, to hold these institutions subject to the rise and fall of popular parties, and the fluctuations of political opinions. if the franchise may be at any time taken away, or impaired, the property also may be taken away, or its use perverted. benefactors will have no certainty of effecting the object of their bounty; and learned men will be deterred from devoting themselves to the service of such institutions, from the precarious title of their offices. colleges and halls will be deserted by all better spirits, and become a theatre for the contentions of politics, party and faction will be cherished in the places consecrated to piety and learning. these consequences are neither remote nor possible only. they are certain and immediate. when the court in north carolina declared the law of the state, which repealed a grant to its university, unconstitutional and void, the legislature had the candor and the wisdom to repeal the law. this example, so honorable to the state which exhibited it, is most fit to be followed on this occasion. and there is good reason to hope that a state, which has hitherto been so much distinguished for temperate counsels, cautious legislation, and regard to law, will not fail to adopt a course which will accord with her highest and best interests, and in no small degree elevate her reputation. it was for many and obvious reasons most anxiously desired that the question of the power of the legislature over this charter should have been finally decided in the state court. an earnest hope was entertained that the judges of the court might have viewed the case in a light favorable to the rights of the trustees. that hope has failed. it is here that those rights are now to be maintained, or they are prostrated for ever. "omnia alia perfugia bonorum, subsidia, consilia, auxilia, jura ceciderunt. quem enim alium appellem? quem obtester? quern implorem? nisi hoc loco, nisi apud vos, nisi per vos, judices, salutem nostram, quae spe exigua extremaque pendet, tenuerimus; nihil est praeterea quo confugere possimus." [ ] this, sir, is my case. it is the case, not merely of that humble institution, it is the case of every college in the land. it is more. it is the case of every eleemosynary institution throughout our country--of all those great charities formed by the piety of our ancestors, to alleviate human misery, and scatter blessings along the pathway of life. it is more! it is, in some sense, the case of every man among us who has property, of which he may be stripped, for the question is simply this: shall our state legislatures be allowed to take that which is not their own, to turn it from its original use, and apply it to such ends or purposes as they in their discretion shall see fit? sir, you may destroy this little institution; it is weak; it is in your hands! i know it is one of the lesser lights in the literary horizon of our country. you may put it out. but, if you do so, you must carry through your work! you must extinguish, one after another, all those greater lights of science, which, for more than a century, have thrown their radiance over our land! it is, sir, as i have said, a small college, and yet there are those who love it. [ ] sir, i know not how others may feel (glancing at the opponents of the colleges before him), but for myself, when i see my alma mater surrounded, like caesar, in the senate house, by those who are reiterating stab after stab, i would not, for this right hand, have her turn to me, and say, _et tu quoque, mi fili! and thou too, my son!_ [ ] first settlement of new england. let us rejoice that we behold this day. let us be thankful that we have lived to see the bright and happy breaking of the auspicious morn, which commences the third century of the history of new england. auspicious, indeed,--bringing a happiness beyond the common allotment of providence to men,--full of present joy, and gilding with bright beams the prospect of futurity, is the dawn that awakens us to the commemoration of the landing of the pilgrims. living at an epoch which naturally marks the progress of the history of our native land, we have come hither to celebrate the great event with which that history commenced. for ever honored be this, the place of our fathers' refuge! for ever remembered the day which saw them, weary and distressed, broken in every thing but spirit, poor in all but faith and courage, at last secure from the dangers of wintry seas, and impressing this shore with the first footsteps of civilized man! it is a noble faculty of our nature which enables us to connect our thoughts, our sympathies, and our happiness with what is distant in place or time; and, looking before and after, to hold communion at once with our ancestors and our posterity. human and mortal although we are, we are nevertheless not mere insulated beings, without relation to the past or the future. neither the point of time, nor the spot of earth, in which we physically live, bounds our rational and intellectual enjoyments. we live in the past by a knowledge of its history; and in the future, by hope and anticipation. by ascending to an association with our ancestors; by contemplating their example and studying their character; by partaking their sentiments, and imbibing their spirit; by accompanying them in their toils, by sympathizing in their sufferings, and rejoicing in their successes and their triumphs; we seem to belong to their age, and to mingle our own existence with theirs. we become their contemporaries, live the lives which they lived, endure what they endured, and partake in the rewards which they enjoyed. and in like manner, by running along the line of future time, by contemplating the probable fortunes of those who are coming after us, by attempting something which may promote their happiness, and leave some not dishonorable memorial of ourselves for their regard, when we shall sleep with the fathers, we protract our own earthly being, and seem to crowd whatever is future, as well as all that is past, into the narrow compass of our earthly existence. as it is not a vain and false, but an exalted and religious imagination, which leads us to raise our thoughts from the orb, which, amidst this universe of worlds, the creator has given us to inhabit, and to send them with something of the feeling which nature prompts, and teaches to be proper among children of the same eternal parent, to the contemplation of the myriads of fellow-beings with which his goodness has peopled the infinite of space; so neither is it false or vain to consider ourselves as interested and connected with our whole race, through all time; allied to our ancestors; allied to our posterity; closely compacted on all sides with others; ourselves being but links in the great chain of being, which begins with the origin of our race, runs onward through its successive generations, binding together the past, the present, and the future, and terminating at last, with the consummation of all things earthly, at the throne of god. there may be, and there often is, indeed, a regard for ancestry, which nourishes only a weak pride; as there is also a care for posterity, which only disguises an habitual avarice, or hides the workings of a low and grovelling vanity. but there is also a moral and philosophical respect for our ancestors, which elevates the character and improves the heart. next to the sense of religious duty and moral feeling, i hardly know what should bear with stronger obligation on a liberal and enlightened mind, than a consciousness of alliance with excellence which is departed; and a consciousness, too, that in its acts and conduct, and even in its sentiments and thoughts, it may be actively operating on the happiness of those who come after it. poetry is found to have few stronger conceptions, by which it would affect or overwhelm the mind, than those in which it presents the moving and speaking image of the departed dead to the senses of the living. this belongs to poetry, only because it is congenial to our nature. poetry is, in this respect, but the handmaid of true philosophy and morality; it deals with us as human beings, naturally reverencing those whose visible connection with this state of existence is severed, and who may yet exercise we know not what sympathy with ourselves; and when it carries us forward, also, and shows us the long continued result of all the good we do, in the prosperity of those who follow us, till it bears us from ourselves, and absorbs us in an intense interest for what shall happen to the generations after us, it speaks only in the language of our nature, and affects us with sentiments which belong to us as human beings. standing in this relation to our ancestors and our posterity, we are assembled on this memorable spot, to perform the duties which that relation and the present occasion impose upon us. we have come to this rock, to record here our homage for our pilgrim fathers; our sympathy in their sufferings; our gratitude for their labors; our admiration of their virtues; our veneration for their piety; and our attachment to those principles of civil and religious liberty, which they encountered the dangers of the ocean, the storms of heaven, the violence of savages, disease, exile, and famine, to enjoy and to establish. and we would leave here, also, for the generations which are rising up rapidly to fill our places, some proof that we have endeavored to transmit the great inheritance unimpaired; that in our estimate of public principles and private virtue, in our veneration of religion and piety, in our devotion to civil and religious liberty, in our regard for whatever advances human knowledge or improves human happiness, we are not altogether unworthy of our origin. there is a local feeling connected with this occasion, too strong to be resisted; a sort of _genius of the place_, which inspires and awes us. we feel that we are on the spot where the first scene of our history was laid; where the hearths and altars of new england were first placed; where christianity, and civilization, and letters made their first lodgement, in a vast extent of country, covered with a wilderness, and peopled by roving barbarians. we are here, at the season of the year at which the event took place. the imagination irresistibly and rapidly draws around us the principal features and the leading characters in the original scene. we cast our eyes abroad on the ocean, and we see where the little bark, with the interesting group upon its deck, made its slow progress to the shore. we look around us, and behold the hills and promontories where the anxious eyes of our fathers first saw the places of habitation and of rest. we feel the cold which benumbed, and listen to the winds which pierced them. beneath us is the rock, on which new england received the feet of the pilgrims. we seem even to behold them, as they struggle with the elements, and, with toilsome efforts, gain the shore. we listen to the chiefs in council; we see the unexampled exhibition of female fortitude and resignation; we hear the whisperings of youthful impatience, and we see, what a painter of our own has also represented by his pencil [ ], chilled and shivering childhood, houseless, but for a mother's arms, couchless, but for a mother's breast, till our own blood almost freezes. the mild dignity of carver and of bradford; the decisive and soldier-like air and manner of standish; the devout brewster; the enterprising allerton; [ ] the general firmness and thoughtfulness of the whole band; their conscious joy for dangers escaped; their deep solicitude about dangers to come; their trust in heaven; their high religious faith, full of confidence and anticipation; all of these seem to belong to this place, and to be present upon this occasion, to fill us with reverence and admiration. the settlement of new england by the colony which landed here on the twenty-second [ ] of december, sixteen hundred and twenty, although not the first european establishment in what now constitutes the united states, was yet so peculiar in its causes and character, and has been followed and must still be followed by such consequences, as to give it a high claim to lasting commemoration. on these causes and consequences, more than on its immediately attendant circumstances, its importance, as an historical event, depends. great actions and striking occurrences, having excited a temporary admiration, often pass away and are forgotten, because they leave no lasting results, affecting the prosperity and happiness of communities. such is frequently the fortune of the most brilliant military achievements. of the ten thousand battles which have been fought, of all the fields fertilized with carnage, of the banners which have been bathed in blood, of the warriors who have hoped that they had risen from the field of conquest to a glory as bright and as durable as the stars, how few that continue long to interest mankind! the victory of yesterday is reversed by the defeat of to-day; the star of military glory, rising like a meteor, like a meteor has fallen; disgrace and disaster hang on the heels of conquest and renown; victor and vanquished presently pass away to oblivion, and the world goes on in its course, with the loss only of so many lives and so much treasure. but if this be frequently, or generally, the fortune of military achievements, it is not always so. there are enterprises, military as well as civil, which sometimes check the current of events, give a new turn to human affairs, and transmit their consequences through ages. we see their importance in their results, and call them great, because great things follow. there have been battles which have fixed the fate of nations. these come down to us in history with a solid and permanent interest, not created by a display of glittering armor, the rush of adverse battalions, the sinking and rising of pennons, the flight, the pursuit, and the victory; but by their effect in advancing or retarding human knowledge, in overthrowing or establishing despotism, in extending or destroying human happiness. when the traveller pauses on the plain of marathon, what are the emotions which most strongly agitate his breast? what is that glorious recollection, which thrills through his frame, and suffuses his eyes? not, i imagine, that grecian skill and grecian valor were here most signally displayed; but that greece herself was saved. it is because to this spot, and to the event which has rendered it immortal, he refers all the succeeding glories of the republic. it is because, if that day had gone otherwise, greece had perished. it is because he perceives that her philosophers and orators, her poets and painters, her sculptors and architects, her governments and free institutions, point backward to marathon, and that their future existence seems to have been suspended on the contingency, whether the persian or the grecian banner should wave victorious in the beams of that day's setting sun. and, as his imagination kindles at the retrospect, he is transported back to the interesting moment; he counts the fearful odds of the contending hosts; his interest for the result overwhelms him; he trembles, as if it were still uncertain, and seems to doubt whether he may consider socrates and plato, demosthenes, sophocles, and phidias, as secure, yet, to himself and to the world. "if we conquer," said the athenian commander on the approach of that decisive day, "if we conquer, we shall make athens the greatest city of greece." [ ] a prophecy how well fulfilled! "if god prosper us," might have been the more appropriate language of our fathers, when they landed upon this rock, "if god prosper us, we shall here begin a work which shall last for ages; we shall plant here a new society, in the principles of the fullest liberty and the purest religion; we shall subdue this wilderness which is before us; we shall fill this region of the great continent, which stretches almost from pole to pole, with civilization and christianity; the temples of the true god shall rise, where now ascends the smoke of idolatrous sacrifice; fields and gardens, the flowers of summer, and the waving and golden harvest of autumn, shall spread over a thousand hills, and stretch along a thousand valleys, never yet, since the creation, reclaimed to the use of civilized man. we shall whiten this coast with the canvas of a prosperous commerce; we shall stud the long and winding shore with a hundred cities. that which we sow in weakness shall be raised in strength. from our sincere, but houseless worship, there shall spring splendid temples to record god's goodness; from the simplicity of our social union, there shall arise wise and politic constitutions of government, full of the liberty which we ourselves bring and breathe; from our zeal for learning, institutions shall spring which shall scatter the light of knowledge throughout the land, and, in time, paying back where they have borrowed, shall contribute their part to the great aggregate of human knowledge; and our descendants, through all generations, shall look back to this spot, and to this hour, with unabated affection and regard." a brief remembrance of the causes which led to the settlement of this place; some account of the peculiarities and characteristic qualities of that settlement, as distinguished from other instances of colonization; a short notice of the progress of new england in the great interests of society, during the century which is now elapsed; with a few observations on the principles upon which society and government are established in this country: comprise all that can be attempted, and much more than can be satisfactorily performed, on the present occasion. of the motives which influenced the first settlers to a voluntary exile, induced them to relinquish their native country, and to seek an asylum in this then unexplored wilderness, the first and principal, no doubt, were connected with religion. they sought to enjoy a higher degree of religious freedom, and what they esteemed a purer form of religious worship, than was allowed to their choice, or presented to their imitation, in the old world. the love of religious liberty is a stronger sentiment, when fully excited, than an attachment to civil or political freedom. that freedom which the conscience demands, and which men feel bound by their hope of salvation to contend for, can hardly fail to be attained. conscience, in the cause of religion and the worship of the deity, prepares the mind to act and to suffer beyond almost all other causes. it sometimes gives an impulse so irresistible, that no fetters of power or of opinion can withstand it. history instructs us that this love of religious liberty, a compound sentiment in the breast of man, made up of the clearest sense of right and the highest conviction of duty, is able to look the sternest despotism in the face, and, with means apparently most inadequate, to shake principalities and powers. there is a boldness, a spirit of daring, in religious reformers, not to be measured by the general rules which control men's purposes and actions. if the hand of power be laid upon it, this only seems to augment its force and its elasticity, and to cause its action to be more formidable and violent. human invention has devised nothing, human power has compassed nothing, that can forcibly restrain it, when it breaks forth. nothing can stop it, but to give way to it; nothing can check it, but indulgence. it loses its power only when it has gained its object. the principle of toleration, to which the world has come so slowly, is at once the most just and the most wise of all principles. even when religious feeling takes a character of extravagance and enthusiasm, and seems to threaten the order of society and shake the columns of the social edifice, its principal danger is in its restraint. if it be allowed indulgence and expansion, like the elemental fires, it only agitates, and perhaps purifies, the atmosphere; while its efforts to throw off restraint would burst the world asunder. it is certain, that, although many of them were republicans in principle, we have no evidence that our new england ancestors would have emigrated, as they did, from their own native country, would have become wanderers in europe, and finally would have undertaken the establishment of a colony here, merely from their dislike of the political systems of europe. they fled not so much from the civil government, as from the hierarchy, and the laws which enforced conformity to the church establishment. mr. robinson had left england as early as , on account of the persecutions for non-conformity, and had retired to holland. he left england from no disappointed ambition in affairs of state, from no regrets at the want of preferment in the church, nor from any motive of distinction or of gain. uniformity in matters of religion was pressed with such extreme rigor, that a voluntary exile seemed the most eligible mode of escaping from the penalties of non-compliance. the accession of elizabeth had, it is true, quenched the fires of smithfield, and put an end to the easy acquisition of the crown of martyrdom. her long reign had established the reformation, but toleration was a virtue beyond her conception, and beyond the age. she left no example of it to her successor; and he was not of a character which rendered it probable that a sentiment either so wise or so liberal would originate with him. at the present period it seems incredible that the learned, accomplished, unassuming, and inoffensive robinson should neither be tolerated in his peaceable mode of worship in his own country, nor suffered quietly to depart from it. yet such was the fact. he left his country by stealth, that he might elsewhere enjoy those rights which ought to belong to men in all countries. the departure of the pilgrims for holland is deeply interesting, from its circumstances, and also as it marks the character of the times, independently of its connection with names now incorporated with the history of empire. [ ] the embarkation was intended to be made in such a manner that it might escape the notice of the officers of government. great pains had been taken to secure boats, which should come undiscovered to the shore, and receive the fugitives; and frequent disappointments had been experienced in this respect. at length the appointed time came, bringing with it unusual severity of cold and rain. an unfrequented and barren heath, on the shores of lincolnshire, was the selected spot, where the feet of the pilgrims were to tread, for the last time, the land of their fathers. the vessel which was to receive them did not come until the next day, and in the meantime the little band was collected, and men and women and children and baggage were crowded together, in melancholy and distressed confusion. the sea was rough, and the women and children were already sick, from their passage down the river to the place of embarkation on the sea. at length the wished-for boat silently and fearfully approaches the shore, and men and women and children, shaking with fear and with cold, as many as the small vessel could bear, venture off on a dangerous sea. immediately the advance of horses is heard from behind, armed men appear, and those not yet embarked are seized and taken into custody. in the hurry of the moment, the first parties had been sent on board without any attempt to keep members of the same family together, and on account of the appearance of the horsemen, the boat never returned for the residue. those who had got away, and those who had not, were in equal distress. a storm, of great violence and long duration, arose at sea, which not only protracted the voyage, rendered distressing by the want of all those accommodations which the interruption of the embarkation had occasioned, but also forced the vessel out of her course, and menaced immediate shipwreck; while those on shore, when they were dismissed from the custody of the officers of justice, having no longer homes or houses to retire to, and their friends and protectors being already gone, became objects of necessary charity, as well as of deep commiseration. as this scene passes before us, we can hardly forbear asking whether this be a band of malefactors and felons flying from justice. what are their crimes, that they hide themselves in darkness? to what punishment are they exposed, that, to avoid it, men, and women, and children, thus encounter the surf of the north sea and the terrors of a night storm? what induces this armed pursuit, and this arrest of fugitives, of all ages and both sexes? truth does not allow us to answer these inquiries in a manner that does credit to the wisdom or the justice of the times. this was not the flight of guilt, but of virtue. it was an humble and peaceable religion, flying from causeless oppression. it was conscience, attempting to escape from the arbitrary rule of the stuarts. it was robinson and brewster, leading off their little band from their native soil, at first to find shelter on the shore of the neighboring continent, but ultimately to come hither; and having surmounted all difficulties and braved a thousand dangers, to find here a place of refuge and of rest. thanks be to god, that this spot was honored as the asylum of religious liberty! may its standard, reared here, remain for ever! may it rise up as high as heaven, till its banner shall fan the air of both continents, and wave as a glorious ensign of peace and security to the nations! the peculiar character, condition, and circumstances of the colonies which introduced civilization and an english race into new england, afford a most interesting and extensive topic of discussion. on these, much of our subsequent character and fortune has depended. their influence has essentially affected our whole history, through the two centuries which have elapsed; and as they have become intimately connected with government, laws, and property, as well as with our opinions on the subjects of religion and civil liberty, that influence is likely to continue to be felt through the centuries which shall succeed. emigration from one region to another, and the emission of colonies to people countries more or less distant from the residence of the parent stock, are common incidents in the history of mankind; but it has not often, perhaps never, happened, that the establishment of colonies should be attempted under circumstances, however beset with present difficulties and dangers, yet so favorable to ultimate success, and so conducive to magnificent results, as those which attended the first settlements on this part of the american continent. in other instances, emigration has proceeded from a less exalted purpose, in periods of less general intelligence, or more without plan and by accident; or under circumstances, physical and moral, less favorable to the expectation of laying a foundation for great public prosperity and future empire. a great resemblance exists, obviously, between all the english colonies established within the present limits of the united states; but the occasion attracts our attention more immediately to those which took possession of new england, and the peculiarities of these furnish a strong contrast with most other instances of colonization. among the ancient nations, the greeks, no doubt, sent forth from their territories the greatest number of colonies. so numerous, indeed, were they, and so great the extent of space over which they were spread, that the parent country fondly and naturally persuaded herself, that by means of them she had laid a sure foundation for the universal civilization of the world. these establishments, from obvious causes, were most numerous in places most contiguous; yet they were found on the coasts of france, on the shores of the euxine sea, in africa, and even, as is alleged, on the borders of india. these emigrations appear to have been sometimes voluntary and sometimes compulsory; arising from the spontaneous enterprise of individuals, or the order and regulation of government. it was a common opinion with ancient writers, that they were undertaken in religious obedience to the commands of oracles, and it is probable that impressions of this sort might have had more or less influence; but it is probable, also, that on these occasions the oracles did not speak a language dissonant from the views and purposes of the state. political science among the greeks seems never to have extended to the comprehension of a system, which should be adequate to the government of a great nation upon principles of liberty. they were accustomed only to the contemplation of small republics, and were led to consider an augmented population as incompatible with free institutions. the desire of a remedy for this supposed evil, and the wish to establish marts for trade, led the governments often to undertake the establishment of colonies as an affair of state expediency. colonization and commerce, indeed, would naturally become objects of interest to an ingenious and enterprising people, inhabiting a territory closely circumscribed in its limits, and in no small part mountainous and sterile; while the islands of the adjacent seas, and the promontories and coasts of the neighboring continents, by their mere proximity, strongly solicited the excited spirit of emigration. such was this proximity, in many instances, that the new settlements appeared rather to be the mere extension of population over contiguous territory, than the establishment of distant colonies. in proportion as they were near to the parent state, they would be under its authority, and partake of its fortunes. the colony at marseilles might perceive lightly, or not at all, the sway of phocis; while the islands in the aegean sea could hardly attain to independence of their athenian origin. many of these establishments took place at an early age; and if there were defects in the governments of the parent states, the colonists did not possess philosophy or experience sufficient to correct such evils in their own institutions, even if they had not been, by other causes, deprived of the power. an immediate necessity, connected with the support of life, was the main and direct inducement to these undertakings, and there could hardly exist more than the hope of a successful imitation of institutions with which they were already acquainted, and of holding an equality with their neighbors in the course of improvement. the laws and customs, both political and municipal, as well as the religious worship of the parent city, were transferred to the colony; and the parent city herself, with all such of her colonies as were not too far remote for frequent intercourse and common sentiments, would appear like a family of cities, more or less dependent, and more or less connected. we know how imperfect this system was, as a system of general politics, and what scope it gave to those mutual dissensions and conflicts which proved so fatal to greece. but it is more pertinent to our present purpose to observe, that nothing existed in the character of grecian emigrations, or in the spirit and intelligence of the emigrants, likely to give a new and important direction to human affairs, or a new impulse to the human mind. their motives were not high enough, their views were not sufficiently large and prospective. they went not forth, like our ancestors, to erect systems of more perfect civil liberty, or to enjoy a higher degree of religious freedom. above all, there was nothing in the religion and learning of the age, that could either inspire high purposes, or give the ability to execute them. whatever restraints on civil liberty, or whatever abuses in religious worship, existed at the time of our fathers' emigration, yet even then all was light in the moral and mental world, in comparison with its condition in most periods of the ancient states. the settlement of a new continent, in an age of progressive knowledge and improvement, could not but do more than merely enlarge the natural boundaries of the habitable world. it could not but do much more even than extend commerce and increase wealth among the human race. we see how this event has acted, how it must have acted, and wonder only why it did not act sooner, in the production of moral effects, on the state of human knowledge, the general tone of human sentiments, and the prospects of human happiness. it gave to civilized man not only a new continent to be inhabited and cultivated, and new seas to be explored; but it gave him also a new range for his thoughts, new objects for curiosity, and new excitements to knowledge and improvement. roman colonization resembled, far less than that of the greeks, the original settlements of this country. power and dominion were the objects of rome, even in her colonial establishments. her whole exterior aspect was for centuries hostile and terrific. she grasped at dominion, from india to britain, and her measures of colonization partook of the character of her general system. her policy was military, because her objects were power, ascendency, and subjugation. detachments of emigrants from rome incorporated themselves with, and governed, the original inhabitants of conquered countries. she sent citizens where she had first sent soldiers; her law followed her sword. her colonies were a sort of military establishment; so many advanced posts in the career of her dominion. a governor from rome ruled the new colony with absolute sway, and often with unbounded rapacity. in sicily, in gaul, in spain, and in asia, the power of rome prevailed, not nominally only, but really and effectually. those who immediately exercised it were roman; the tone and tendency of its administration, roman. rome herself continued to be the heart and centre of the great system which she had established. [ ] extortion and rapacity, finding a wide and often rich field of action in the provinces, looked nevertheless to the banks of the tiber, as the scene in which their ill-gotten treasures should be displayed; or, if a spirit of more honest acquisition prevailed, the object, nevertheless, was ultimate enjoyment in rome itself. if our own history and our own times did not sufficiently expose the inherent and incurable evils of provincial government, we might see them portrayed, to our amazement, in the desolated and ruined provinces of the roman empire. we might hear them, in a voice that terrifies us, in those strains of complaint and accusation, which the advocates of the provinces poured forth in the roman forum:--"quas res luxuries in flagitiis, crudelitas in suppliciis, avaritia in rapinis, superbia in contumeliis, efficere potuisset, eas omnes sese pertulisse." as was to be expected, the roman provinces partook of the fortunes, as well as of the sentiments and general character, of the seat of empire. they lived together with her, they flourished with her, and fell with her. the branches were lopped away even before the vast and venerable trunk itself fell prostrate to the earth. nothing had proceeded from her which could support itself, and bear up the name of its origin, when her own sustaining arm should be enfeebled or withdrawn. it was not given to rome to see, either at her zenith or in her decline, a child of her own, distant, indeed, and independent of her control, yet speaking her language and inheriting her blood, springing forward to a competition with her own power, and a comparison with her own great renown. she saw not a vast region of the earth peopled from her stock, full of states and political communities, improving upon the models of her institutions, and breathing in fuller measure the spirit which she had breathed in the best periods of her existence; enjoying and extending her arts and her literature; rising rapidly from political childhood to manly strength and independence; her offspring, yet now her equal; unconnected with the causes which might affect the duration of her own power and greatness; of common origin, but not linked to a common fate; giving ample pledge, that her name should not be forgotten, that her language should not cease to be used among men; that whatsoever she had done for human knowledge and human happiness should be treasured up and preserved; that the record of her existence and her achievements should not be obscured, although, in the inscrutable purposes of providence, it might be her destiny to fall from opulence and splendor; although the time might come, when darkness should settle on all her hills; when foreign or domestic violence should overturn her altars and her temples; when ignorance and despotism should fill the places where laws, and arts, and liberty had flourished; when the feet of barbarism should trample on the tombs of her consuls, and the walls of her senate-house and forum echo only to the voice of savage triumph. she saw not this glorious vision, to inspire and fortify her against the possible decay or downfall of her power. happy are they who in our day may behold it, if they shall contemplate it with the sentiments which it ought to inspire! the new england colonies differ quite as widely from the asiatic establishments of the modern european nations, as from the models of the ancient states. the sole object of those establishments was originally trade; although we have seen, in one of them, the anomaly of a mere trading company attaining a political character, disbursing revenues, and maintaining armies and fortresses, until it has extended its control over seventy millions of people. differing from these, and still more from the new england and north american colonies, are the european settlements in the west india islands. it is not strange, that, when men's minds were turned to the settlement of america, different objects should be proposed by those who emigrated to the different regions of so vast a country. climate, soil, and condition were not equally favorable to all pursuits. in the west indies, the purpose of those who went thither was to engage in that species of agriculture, suited to the soil and climate, which seems to bear more resemblance to commerce than to the hard and plain tillage of new england. the great staples of these countries, being partly an agricultural and partly a manufactured product, and not being of the necessaries of life, become the object of calculation, with respect to a profitable investment of capital, like any other enterprise of trade or manufacture. the more especially, as, requiring, by necessity or habit, slave labor for their production, the capital necessary to carry on the work of this production is very considerable. the west indies are resorted to, therefore, rather for the investment of capital than for the purpose of sustaining life by personal labor. such as possess a considerable amount of capital, or such as choose to adventure in commercial speculations without capital, can alone be fitted to be emigrants to the islands. the agriculture of these regions, as before observed, is a sort of commerce; and it is a species of employment in which labor seems to form an inconsiderable ingredient in the productive causes, since the portion of white labor is exceedingly small, and slave labor is rather more like profit on stock or capital than _labor_ properly so called. the individual who undertakes an establishment of this kind takes into the account the cost of the necessary number of slaves, in the same manner as he calculates the cost of the land. the uncertainty, too, of this species of employment, affords another ground of resemblance to commerce. although gainful on the whole, and in a series of years, it is often very disastrous for a single year, and, as the capital is not readily invested in other pursuits, bad crops or bad markets not only affect the profits, but the capital itself. hence the sudden depressions which take place in the value of such estates. but the great and leading observation, relative to these establishments, remains to be made. it is, that the owners of the soil and of the capital seldom consider themselves _at home_ in the colony. a very great portion of the soil itself is usually owned in the mother country; a still greater is mortgaged for capital obtained there; and, in general, those who are to derive an interest from the products look to the parent country as the place for enjoyment of their wealth. the population is therefore constantly fluctuating. nobody comes but to return. a constant succession of owners, agents, and factors takes place. whatsoever the soil, forced by the unmitigated toil of slavery, can yield, is sent home to defray rents, and interest, and agencies, or to give the means of living in a better society. in such a state, it is evident that no spirit of permanent improvement is likely to spring up. profits will not be invested with a distant view of benefiting posterity. roads and canals will hardly be built; schools will not be founded; colleges will not be endowed. there will be few fixtures in society; no principles of utility or of elegance, planted now, with the hope of being developed and expanded hereafter. profit, immediate profit, must be the principal active spring in the social system. there may be many particular exceptions to these general remarks, but the outline of the whole is such as is here drawn.[ ] another most important consequence of such a state of things is, that no idea of independence of the parent country is likely to arise; unless, indeed, it should spring up in a form that would threaten universal desolation. the inhabitants have no strong attachment to the place which they inhabit. the hope of a great portion of them is to leave it; and their great desire, to leave it soon. however useful they may be to the parent state, how much soever they may add to the conveniences and luxuries of life, these colonies are not favored spots for the expansion of the human mind, for the progress of permanent improvement, or for sowing the seeds of future independent empire. different, indeed, most widely different, from all these instances, of emigration and plantation, were the condition, the purposes, and the prospects of our fathers, when they established their infant colony upon this spot. they came hither to a land from which they were never to return. hither they had brought, and here they were to fix, their hopes, their attachments, and their objects in life. some natural tears they shed, as they left the pleasant abodes of their fathers, and some emotions they suppressed, when the white cliffs of their native country, now seen for the last time, grew dim to their sight. they were acting, however, upon a resolution not to be daunted. with whatever stifled regrets, with whatever occasional hesitation, with whatever appalling apprehensions, which might sometimes arise with force to shake the firmest purpose, they had yet committed themselves to heaven and the elements; and a thousand leagues of water soon interposed to separate them for ever from the region which gave them birth. a new existence awaited them here; and when they saw these shores, rough, cold, barbarous, and barren, as then they were, they beheld their country. that mixed and strong feeling, which we call love of country, and which is, in general, never extinguished in the heart of man, grasped and embraced its proper object here. whatever constitutes _country_, except the earth and the sun, all the moral causes of affection and attachment which operate upon the heart, they had brought with them to their new abode. here were now their families and friends, their homes, and their property. before they reached the shore, they had established the elements of a social system,[ ] and at a much earlier period had settled their forms of religious worship. at the moment of their landing, therefore, they possessed institutions of government, and institutions of religion: and friends and families, and social and religious institutions, framed by consent, founded on choice and preference, how nearly do these fill up our whole idea of country! the morning that beamed on the first night of their repose saw the pilgrims already _at home_ in their country. there were political institutions, and civil liberty, and religious worship. poetry has fancied nothing, in the wanderings of heroes, so distinct and characteristic. here was man, indeed, unprotected, and unprovided for, on the shore of a rude and fearful wilderness; but it was politic, intelligent, and educated man. every thing was civilized but the physical world. institutions, containing in substance all that ages had done for human government, were organized in a forest.[ ] cultivated mind was to act on uncultivated nature; and, more than all, a government and a country were to commence, with the very first foundations laid under the divine light of the christian religion. happy auspices of a happy futurity! who would wish that his country's existence had otherwise begun? who would desire the power of going back to the ages of fable? who would wish for an origin obscured in the darkness of antiquity? who would wish for other emblazoning of his country's heraldry, or other ornaments of her genealogy, than to be able to say, that her first existence was with intelligence, her first breath the inspiration of liberty, her first principle the truth of divine religion? local attachments and sympathies would ere long spring up in the breasts of our ancestors, endearing to them the place of their refuge. whatever natural objects are associated with interesting scenes and high efforts obtain a hold on human feeling, and demand from the heart a sort of recognition and regard. this rock soon became hallowed in the esteem of the pilgrims, and these hills grateful to their sight. neither they nor their children were again to till the soil of england, nor again to traverse the seas which surround her. but here was a new sea, now open to their enterprise, and a new soil, which had not failed to respond gratefully to their laborious industry, and which was already assuming a robe of verdure. hardly had they provided shelter for the living, ere they were summoned to erect sepulchres for the dead. the ground had become sacred, by enclosing the remains of some of their companions and connections. a parent, a child, a husband, or a wife, had gone the way of all flesh, and mingled with the dust of new england. we naturally look with strong emotions to the spot, though it be a wilderness, where the ashes of those we have loved repose. where the heart has laid down what it loved most, there it is desirous of laying itself down. no sculptured marble, no enduring monument, no honorable inscription, no ever-burning taper that would drive away the darkness of the tomb, can soften our sense of the reality of death, and hallow to our feelings the ground which is to cover us, like the consciousness that we shall sleep, dust to dust, with the objects of our affections. in a short time other causes sprung up to bind the pilgrims with new cords to their chosen land. children were born, and the hopes of future generations arose, in the spot of their new habitation. the second generation found this the land of their nativity, and saw that they were bound to its fortunes. they beheld their fathers' graves around them, and while they read the memorials of their toils and labors, they rejoiced in the inheritance which they found bequeathed to them. under the influence of these causes, it was to be expected that an interest and a feeling should arise here, entirely different from the interest and feeling of mere englishmen; and all the subsequent history of the colonies proves this to have actually and gradually taken place. with a general acknowledgment of the supremacy of the british crown, there was, from the first, a repugnance to an entire submission to the control of british legislation. the colonies stood upon their charters, which, as they contended, exempted them from the ordinary power of the british parliament, and authorized them to conduct their own concerns by their own counsels. they utterly resisted the notion that they were to be ruled by the mere authority of the government at home, and would not endure even that their own charter governments should be established on the other side of the atlantic. it was not a controlling or protecting board in england, but a government of their own, and existing immediately within their limits, which could satisfy their wishes. it was easy to foresee, what we know also to have happened, that the first great cause of collision and jealousy would be, under the notion of political economy then and still prevalent in europe, an attempt on the part of the mother country to monopolize the trade of the colonies. whoever has looked deeply into the causes which produced our revolution has found, if i mistake not, the original principle far back in this claim, on the part of england, to monopolize our trade, and a continued effort on the part of the colonies to resist or evade that monopoly; if, indeed, it be not still more just and philosophical to go farther back, and to consider it decided, that an independent government must arise here, the moment it was ascertained that an english colony, such as landed in this place, could sustain itself against the dangers which surrounded it, and, with other similar establishments, overspread the land with an english population. accidental causes retarded at times, and at times accelerated, the progress of the controversy. the colonies wanted strength, and time gave it to them. they required measures of strong and palpable injustice, on the part of the mother country, to justify resistance; the early part of the late king's reign furnished them. they needed spirits of high order, of great daring, of long foresight, and of commanding power, to seize the favoring occasion to strike a blow, which should sever, for all time, the tie of colonial dependence; and these spirits were found, in all the extent which that or any crisis could demand, in otis, adams, hancock, and the other immediate authors of our independence. still, it is true that, for a century, causes had been in operation tending to prepare things for this great result. in the year the english act of navigation was passed; the first and grand object of which seems to have been, to secure to england the whole trade with her plantations. it was provided by that act, that none but english ships should transport american produce over the ocean, and that the principal articles of that produce should be allowed to be sold only in the markets of the mother country. three years afterwards another law was passed, which enacted, that such commodities as the colonies might wish to purchase should be bought only in the markets of the mother country. severe rules were prescribed to enforce the provisions of these laws, and heavy penalties imposed on all who should violate them. in the subsequent years of the same reign, other statutes were enacted to re-enforce these statutes, and other rules prescribed to secure a compliance with these rules. in this manner was the trade to and from the colonies restricted, almost to the exclusive advantage of the parent country. but laws, which rendered the interest of a whole people subordinate to that of another people, were not likely to execute themselves; nor was it easy to find many on the spot, who could be depended upon for carrying them into execution. in fact, these laws were more or less evaded or resisted, in all the colonies. to enforce them was the constant endeavor of the government at home; to prevent or elude their operation, the perpetual object here. "the laws of navigation," says a living british writer, "were nowhere so openly disobeyed and contemned as in new england." "the people of massachusetts bay," he adds, "were from the first disposed to act as if independent of the mother country, and having a governor and magistrates of their own choice, it was difficult to enforce any regulation which came from the english parliament, adverse to their interests." to provide more effectually for the execution of these laws, we know that courts of admiralty were afterwards established by the crown, with power to try revenue causes, as questions of admiralty, upon the construction given by the crown lawyers to an act of parliament; a great departure from the ordinary principles of english jurisprudence, but which has been maintained, nevertheless, by the force of habit and precedent, and is adopted in our own existing systems of government. "there lie," says another english writer, whose connection with the board of trade has enabled him to ascertain many facts connected with colonial history, "there lie among the documents in the board of trade and state-paper office, the most satisfactory proofs, from the epoch of the english revolution in , throughout every reign, and during every administration, of the settled purpose of the colonies to acquire direct independence and positive sovereignty." perhaps this may be stated somewhat too strongly; but it cannot be denied, that, from the very nature of the establishments here, and from the general character of the measures respecting their concerns early adopted and steadily pursued by the english government, a division of the empire was the natural and necessary result to which every thing tended. i have dwelt on this topic, because it seems to me, that the peculiar original character of the new england colonies, and certain causes coeval with their existence, have had a strong and decided influence on all their subsequent history, and especially on the great event of the revolution. whoever would write our history, and would understand and explain early transactions, should comprehend the nature and force of the feeling which i have endeavored to describe. as a son, leaving the house of his father for his own, finds, by the order of nature, and the very law of his being, nearer and dearer objects around which his affections circle, while his attachment to the parental roof becomes moderated, by degrees, to a composed regard and an affectionate remembrance; so our ancestors, leaving their native land, not without some violence to the feelings of nature and affection, yet, in time, found here a new circle of engagements, interests, and affections; a feeling, which more and more encroached upon the old, till an undivided sentiment, _that this was their country_, occupied the heart; and patriotism, shutting out from its embraces the parent realm, became _local_ to america. some retrospect of the century which has now elapsed is among the duties of the occasion. it must, however, necessarily be imperfect, to be compressed within the limits of a single discourse. i shall content myself, therefore, with taking notice of a few of the leading and most important occurrences which have distinguished the period. when the first century closed, the progress of the country appeared to have been considerable; notwithstanding that, in comparison with its subsequent advancement, it now seems otherwise. a broad and lasting foundation had been laid; excellent institutions had been established; many of the prejudices of former times had been removed; a more liberal and catholic spirit on subjects of religious concern had begun to extend itself, and many things conspired to give promise of increasing future prosperity. great men had arisen in public life, and the liberal professions. the mathers, father and son, were then sinking low in the western horizon; leverett, the learned, the accomplished, the excellent leverett, was about to withdraw his brilliant and useful light. in pemberton great hopes had been suddenly extinguished, but prince and colman were in our sky; and along the east had begun to flash the crepuscular light of a great luminary which was about to appear, and which was to stamp the age with his own name, as the age of franklin. the bloody indian wars, which harassed the people for a part of the first century; the restrictions on the trade of the colonies, added to the discouragements inherently belonging to all forms of colonial government; the distance from europe, and the small hope of immediate profit to adventurers, are among the causes which had contributed to retard the progress of population. perhaps it may be added, also, that during the period of the civil wars in england, and the reign of cromwell, many persons, whose religious opinions and religious temper might, under other circumstances, have induced them to join the new england colonists, found reasons to remain in england; either on account of active occupation in the scenes which were passing, or of an anticipation of the enjoyment, in their own country, of a form of government, civil and religious, accommodated to their views and principles. the violent measures, too, pursued against the colonies in the reign of charles the second, the mockery of a trial, and the forfeiture of the charters, were serious evils. and during the open violences of the short reign of james the second, and the tyranny of andros, as the venerable historian of connecticut observes, "all the motives to great actions, to industry, economy, enterprise, wealth, and population, were in a manner annihilated. a general inactivity and languishment pervaded the public body. liberty, property, and every thing which ought to be dear to men, every day grew more and more insecure." with the revolution in england, a better prospect had opened on this country, as well as on that. the joy had been as great at that event, and far more universal, in new than in old england. a new charter had been granted to massachusetts, which, although it did not confirm to her inhabitants all their former privileges, yet relieved them from great evils and embarrassments, and promised future security. more than all, perhaps, the revolution in england had done good to the general cause of liberty and justice. a blow had been struck in favor of the rights and liberties, not of england alone, but of descendants and kinsmen of england all over the world. great political truths had been established the champions of liberty had been successful in a fearful and perilous conflict. somers, and cavendish, and jekyl, and howard, had triumphed in one of the most noble causes ever undertaken by men. a revolution had been made upon principle. a monarch had been dethroned for violating the original compact between king and people. the rights of the people to partake in the government, and to limit the monarch by fundamental rules of government, had been maintained; and however unjust the government of england might afterwards be towards other governments or towards her colonies, she had ceased to be governed herself by the arbitrary maxims of the stuarts. new england had submitted to the violence of james the second not longer than old england. not only was it reserved to massachusetts, that on her soil should be acted the first scene of that great revolutionary drama, which was to take place near a century afterwards, but the english revolution itself, as far as the colonies were concerned, commenced in boston. the seizure and imprisonment of andros, in april, , were acts of direct and forcible resistance to the authority of james the second. the pulse of liberty beat as high in the extremities as at the heart. the vigorous feeling of the colony burst out before it was known how the parent country would finally conduct herself. the king's representative, sir edmund andros, was a prisoner in the castle at boston, before it was or could be known that the king himself had ceased to exercise his full dominion on the english throne. before it was known here whether the invasion of the prince of orange would or could prove successful, as soon as it was known that it had been undertaken, the people of massachusetts, at the imminent hazard of their lives and fortunes, had accomplished the revolution as far as respected themselves. it is probable that, reasoning on general principles and the known attachment of the english people to their constitution and liberties, and their deep and fixed dislike of the king's religion and politics, the people of new england expected a catastrophe fatal to the power of the reigning prince. yet it was neither certain enough, nor near enough, to come to their aid against the authority of the crown, in that crisis which had arrived, and in which they trusted to put themselves, relying on god and their own courage. there were spirits in massachusetts congenial with the spirits of the distinguished friends of the revolution in england. there were those who were fit to associate with the boldest asserters of civil liberty; and mather himself, then in england, was not unworthy to be ranked with those sons of the church, whose firmness and spirit in resisting kingly encroachments in matters of religion, entitled them to the gratitude of their own and succeeding ages. the second century opened upon new england under circumstances which evinced that much had already been accomplished, and that still better prospects and brighter hopes were before her. she had laid, deep and strong, the foundations of her society. her religious principles were firm, and her moral habits exemplary. her public schools had begun to diffuse widely the elements of knowledge; and the college, under the excellent and acceptable administration of leverett, had been raised to a high degree of credit and usefulness. the commercial character of the country, notwithstanding all discouragements, had begun to display itself, and _five hundred vessels_, then belonging to massachusetts, placed her, in relation to commerce, thus early at the head of the colonies. an author who wrote very near the close of the first century says:--"new england is almost deserving that _noble name_, so mightily hath it increased; and from a small settlement at first, is now become a very _populous_ and _flourishing_ government. the _capital city_, boston, is a place of _great wealth and trade_; and by much the largest of any in the english empire of america; and not exceeded but by few cities, perhaps two or three, in all the american world." but if our ancestors at the close of the first century could look back with joy and even admiration, at the progress of the country, what emotions must we not feel, when, from the point on which we stand, we also look back and run along the events of the century which has now closed! the country which then, as we have seen, was thought deserving of a "noble name,"--which then had "mightily increased," and become "very populous,"--what was it, in comparison with what our eyes behold it? at that period, a very great proportion of its inhabitants lived in the eastern section of massachusetts proper, and in plymouth colony. in connecticut, there were towns along the coast, some of them respectable, but in the interior all was a wilderness beyond hartford. on connecticut river, settlements had proceeded as far up as deerfield, and fort dummer had been built near where is now the south line of new hampshire. in new hampshire no settlement was then begun thirty miles from the mouth of piscataqua river, and in what is now maine the inhabitants were confined to the coast. the aggregate of the whole population of new england did not exceed one hundred and sixty thousand. its present amount ( ) is probably one million seven hundred thousand. instead of being confined to its former limits, her population has rolled backward, and filled up the spaces included within her actual local boundaries. not this only, but it has overflowed those boundaries, and the waves of emigration have pressed farther and farther toward the west. the alleghany has not checked it; the banks of the ohio have been covered with it. new england farms, houses, villages, and churches spread over and adorn the immense extent from the ohio to lake erie, and stretch along from the alleghany onwards, beyond the miamis, and towards the falls of st. anthony. two thousand miles westward from the rock where their fathers landed, may now be found the sons of the pilgrims, cultivating smiling fields, rearing towns and villages, and cherishing, we trust, the patrimonial blessings of wise institutions, of liberty, and religion. the world has seen nothing like this. regions large enough to be empires, and which, half a century ago, were known only as remote and unexplored wildernesses, are now teeming with population, and prosperous in all the great concerns of life; in good governments, the means of subsistence, and social happiness. it may be safely asserted, that there are now more than a million of people, descendants of new england ancestry, living, free and happy, in regions which scarce sixty years ago were tracts of unpenetrated forest. nor do rivers, or mountains, or seas resist the progress of industry and enterprise. erelong, the sons of the pilgrims will be on the shores of the pacific. the imagination hardly keeps pace with the progress of population, improvement, and civilization. it is now five-and-forty years since the growth and rising glory of america were portrayed in the english parliament, with inimitable beauty, by the most consummate orator of modern times. going back somewhat more than half a century, and describing our progress as foreseen from that point by his amiable friend lord bathurst, then living, he spoke of the wonderful progress which america had made during the period of a single human life. there is no american heart, i imagine, that does not glow, both with conscious, patriotic pride, and admiration for one of the happiest efforts of eloquence, so often as the vision of "that little speck, scarce visible in the mass of national interest, a small seminal principle, rather than a formed body," and the progress of its astonishing development and growth, are recalled to the recollection. but a stronger feeling might be produced, if we were able to take up this prophetic description where he left it, and, placing ourselves at the point of time in which he was speaking, to set forth with equal felicity the subsequent progress of the country. there is yet among the living a most distinguished and venerable name, a descendant of the pilgrims; one who has been attended through life by a great and fortunate genius; a man illustrious by his own great merits, and favored of heaven in the long continuation of his years. the time when the english orator was thus speaking of america preceded but by a few days the actual opening of the revolutionary drama at lexington. he to whom i have alluded, then at the age of forty, was among the most zealous and able defenders of the violated rights of his country. he seemed already to have filled a full measure of public service, and attained an honorable fame. the moment was full of difficulty and danger, and big with events of immeasurable importance. the country was on the very brink of a civil war, of which no man could foretell the duration or the result. something more than a courageous hope, or characteristic ardor, would have been necessary to impress the glorious prospect on his belief, if, at that moment, before the sound of the first shock of actual war had reached his ears, some attendant spirit had opened to him the vision of the future;--if it had said to him, "the blow is struck, and america is severed from england for ever!"--if it had informed him, that he himself, during the next annual revolution of the sun, should put his own hand to the great instrument of independence, and write his name where all nations should behold it and all time should not efface it; that erelong he himself should maintain the interests and represent the sovereignty of his new-born country in the proudest courts of europe; that he should one day exercise her supreme magistracy; that he should yet live to behold ten millions of fellow-citizens paying him the homage of their deepest gratitude and kindest affections; that he should see distinguished talent and high public trust resting where his name rested; that he should even see with his own unclouded eyes the close of the second century of new england, who had begun life almost with its commencement, and lived through nearly half the whole history of his country; and that on the morning of this auspicious day he should be found in the political councils of his native state, revising, by the light of experience, that system of government which forty years before he had assisted to frame and establish; and, great and happy as he should then behold his country, there should be nothing in prospect to cloud the scene, nothing to check the ardor of that confident and patriotic hope which should glow in his bosom to the end of his long protracted and happy life. it would far exceed the limits of this discourse even to mention the principal events in the civil and political history of new england during the century; the more so, as for the last half of the period that history has, most happily, been closely interwoven with the general history of the united states. new england bore an honorable part in the wars which took place between england and france. the capture of louisburg gave her a character for military achievement; and in the war which terminated with the peace of , her exertions on the frontiers were of most essential service, as well to the mother country as to all the colonies. in new england the war of the revolution commenced. i address those who remember the memorable th of april, ; who shortly after saw the burning spires of charlestown; who beheld the deeds of prescott, and heard the voice of putnam amidst the storm of war, and saw the generous warren fall, the first distinguished victim in the cause of liberty. it would be superfluous to say, that no portion of the country did more than the states of new england to bring the revolutionary struggle to a successful issue. it is scarcely less to her credit, that she saw early the necessity of a closer union of the states, and gave an efficient and indispensable aid to the establishment and organization of the federal government. perhaps we might safely say, that a new spirit and a new excitement began to exist here about the middle of the last century. to whatever causes it may be imputed, there seems then to have commenced a more rapid improvement. the colonies had attracted more of the attention of the mother country, and some renown in arms had been acquired. lord chatham was the first english minister who attached high importance to these possessions of the crown, and who foresaw any thing of their future growth and extension. his opinion was, that the great rival of england was chiefly to be feared as a maritime and commercial power, and to drive her out of north america and deprive her of her west indian possessions was a leading object in his policy. he dwelt often on the fisheries, as nurseries for british seamen, and the colonial trade, as furnishing them employment. the war, conducted by him with so much vigor, terminated in a peace, by which canada was ceded to england. the effect of this was immediately visible in the new england colonies; for, the fear of indian hostilities on the frontiers being now happily removed, settlements went on with an activity before that time altogether unprecedented, and public affairs wore a new and encouraging aspect. shortly after this fortunate termination of the french war, the interesting topics connected with the taxation of america by the british parliament began to be discussed, and the attention and all the faculties of the people drawn towards them. there is perhaps no portion of our history more full of interest than the period from to the actual commencement of the war. the progress of opinion in this period, though less known, is not less important than the progress of arms afterwards. nothing deserves more consideration than those events and discussions which affected the public sentiment and settled the revolution in men's minds, before hostilities openly broke out. internal improvement followed the establishment and prosperous commencement of the present government. more has been done for roads, canals, and other public works, within the last thirty years, than in all our former history. in the first of these particulars, few countries excel the new england states. the astonishing increase of their navigation and trade is known to every one, and now belongs to the history of our national wealth. we may flatter ourselves, too, that literature and taste have not been stationary, and that some advancement has been made in the elegant, as well as in the useful arts. the nature and constitution of society and government in this country are interesting topics, to which i would devote what remains of the time allowed to this occasion. of our system of government the first thing to be said is, that it is really and practically a free system. it originates entirely with the people, and rests on no other foundation than their assent. to judge of its actual operation, it is not enough to look merely at the form of its construction. the practical character of government depends often on a variety of considerations, besides the abstract frame of its constitutional organization. among these are the condition and tenure of property; the laws regulating its alienation and descent; the presence or absence of a military power; an armed or unarmed yeomanry; the spirit of the age, and the degree of general intelligence. in these respects it cannot be denied that the circumstances of this country are most favorable to the hope of maintaining the government of a great nation on principles entirely popular. in the absence of military power, the nature of government must essentially depend on the manner in which property is holden and distributed. there is a natural influence belonging to property, whether it exists in many hands or few; and it is on the rights of property that both despotism and unrestrained popular violence ordinarily commence their attacks. our ancestors began their system of government here under a condition of comparative equality in regard to wealth, and their early laws were of a nature to favor and continue this equality. a republican form of government rests not more on political constitutions, than on those laws which regulate the descent and transmission of property. governments like ours could not have been maintained, where property was holden according to the principles of the feudal system; nor, on the other hand, could the feudal constitution possibly exist with us. our new england ancestors brought hither no great capitals from europe; and if they had, there was nothing productive in which they could have been invested. they left behind them the whole feudal policy of the other continent. they broke away at once from the system of military service established in the dark ages, and which continues, down even to the present time, more or less to affect the condition of property all over europe. they came to a new country. there were, as yet, no lands yielding rent, and no tenants rendering service. the whole soil was unreclaimed from barbarism. they were themselves, either from their original condition, or from the necessity of their common interest, nearly on a general level in respect to property. their situation demanded a parcelling out and division of the lands, and it may be fairly said, that this necessary act _fixed the future frame and form of their government_. the character of their political institutions was determined by the fundamental laws respecting property. the laws rendered estates divisible among sons and daughters. the right of primogeniture, at first limited and curtailed, was afterwards abolished. the property was all freehold. the entailment of estates, long trusts, and the other processes for fettering and tying up inheritances, were not applicable to the condition of society, and seldom made use of. on the contrary, alienation of the land was every way facilitated, even to the subjecting of it to every species of debt. the establishment of public registries, and the simplicity of our forms of conveyance, have greatly facilitated the change of real estate from one proprietor to another. the consequence of all these causes has been a great subdivision of the soil, and a great equality of condition; the true basis, most certainly, of a popular government. "if the people," says harrington, "hold three parts in four of the territory, it is plain there can neither be any single person nor nobility able to dispute the government with them; in this case, therefore, _except force be interposed_, they govern themselves." the history of other nations may teach us how favorable to public liberty are the division of the soil into small freeholds, and a system of laws, of which the tendency is, without violence or injustice, to produce and to preserve a degree of equality of property. it has been estimated, if i mistake not, that about the time of henry the seventh four fifths of the land in england was holden by the great barons and ecclesiastics. the effects of a growing commerce soon afterwards began to break in on this state of things, and before the revolution, in , a vast change had been wrought. it may be thought probable, that, for the last half-century, the process of subdivision in england has been retarded, if not reversed; that the great weight of taxation has compelled many of the lesser freeholders to dispose of their estates, and to seek employment in the army and navy, in the professions of civil life, in commerce, or in the colonies. the effect of this on the british constitution cannot but be most unfavorable. a few large estates grow larger; but the number of those who have no estates also increases; and there may be danger, lest the inequality of property become so great, that those who possess it may be dispossessed by force; in other words, that the government may be overturned. a most interesting experiment of the effect of a subdivision of property on government is now making in france. it is understood, that the law regulating the transmission of property in that country, now divides it, real and personal, among all the children equally, both sons and daughters; and that there is, also, a very great restraint on the power of making dispositions of property by will. it has been supposed, that the effects of this might probably be, in time, to break up the soil into such small subdivisions, that the proprietors would be too poor to resist the encroachments of executive power. i think far otherwise. what is lost in individual wealth will be more than gained in numbers, in intelligence, and in a sympathy of sentiment. if, indeed, only one or a few landholders were to resist the crown, like the barons of england, they must, of course, be great and powerful landholders, with multitudes of retainers, to promise success. but if the proprietors of a given extent of territory are summoned to resistance, there is no reason to believe that such resistance would be less forcible, or less successful, because the number of such proprietors happened to be great. each would perceive his own importance, and his own interest, and would feel that natural elevation of character which the consciousness of property inspires. a common sentiment would unite all, and numbers would not only add strength, but excite enthusiasm. it is true, that france possesses a vast military force, under the direction of an hereditary executive government; and military power, it is possible, may overthrow any government. it is in vain, however, in this period of the world, to look for security against military power to the arm of the great landholders. that notion is derived from a state of things long since past; a state in which a feudal baron, with his retainers, might stand against the sovereign and his retainers, himself but the greatest baron. but at present, what could the richest landholder do, against one regiment of disciplined troops? other securities, therefore, against the prevalence of military power must be provided. happily for us, we are not so situated as that any purpose of national defence requires, ordinarily and constantly, such a military force as might seriously endanger our liberties. in respect, however, to the recent law of succession in france, to which i have alluded, i would, presumptuously perhaps, hazard a conjecture, that, if the government do not change the law, the law in half a century will change the government; and that this change will be, not in favor of the power of the crown, as some european writers have supposed, but against it. those writers only reason upon what they think correct general principles, in relation to this subject. they acknowledge a want of experience. here we have had that experience; and we know that a multitude of small proprietors, acting with intelligence, and that enthusiasm which a common cause inspires, constitute not only a formidable, but an invincible power. the true principle of a free and popular government would seem to be, so to construct it as to give to all, or at least to a very great majority, an interest in its preservation; to found it, as other things are founded, on men's interest. the stability of government demands that those who desire its continuance should be more powerful than those who desire its dissolution. this power, of course, is not always to be measured by mere numbers. education, wealth, talents, are all parts and elements of the general aggregate of power; but numbers, nevertheless, constitute ordinarily the most important consideration, unless, indeed, there be _a military force_ in the hands of the few, by which they can control the many. in this country we have actually existing systems of government, in the maintenance of which, it should seem, a great majority, both in numbers and in other means of power and influence, must see their interest. but this state of things is not brought about solely by written political constitutions, or the mere manner of organizing the government; but also by the laws which regulate the descent and transmission of property. the freest government, if it could exist, would not be long acceptable, if the tendency of the laws were to create a rapid accumulation of property in few hands, and to render the great mass of the population dependent and penniless. in such a case, the popular power would be likely to break in upon the rights of property, or else the influence of property to limit and control the exercise of popular power. universal suffrage, for example, could not long exist in a community where there was great inequality of property. the holders of estates would be obliged, in such case, in some way to restrain the right of suffrage, or else such right of suffrage would, before long, divide the property. in the nature of things, those who have not property, and see their neighbors possess much more than they think them to need, cannot be favorable to laws made for the protection of property. when this class becomes numerous, it grows clamorous. it looks on property as its prey and plunder, and is naturally ready, at all times, for violence and revolution. it would seem, then, to be the part of political wisdom to found government on property; and to establish such distribution of property, by the laws which regulate its transmission and alienation, as to interest the great majority of society in the support of the government. this is, i imagine, the true theory and the actual practice of our republican institutions. with property divided as we have it, no other government than that of a republic could be maintained, even were we foolish enough to desire it. there is reason, therefore, to expect a long continuance of our system. party and passion, doubtless, may prevail at times, and much temporary mischief be done. even modes and forms may be changed, and perhaps for the worse. but a great revolution in regard to property must take place, before our governments can be moved from their republican basis, unless they be violently struck off by military power. the people possess the property, more emphatically than it could ever be said of the people of any other country, and they can have no interest to overturn a government which protects that property by equal laws. let it not be supposed, that this state of things possesses too strong tendencies towards the production of a dead and uninteresting level in society. such tendencies are sufficiently counteracted by the infinite diversities in the characters and fortunes of individuals. talent, activity, industry, and enterprise tend at all times to produce inequality and distinction; and there is room still for the accumulation of wealth, with its great advantages, to all reasonable and useful extent. it has been often urged against the state of society in america, that it furnishes no class of men of fortune and leisure. this may be partly true, but it is not entirely so, and the evil, if it be one, would affect rather the progress of taste and literature, than the general prosperity of the people. but the promotion of taste and literature cannot be primary objects of political institutions; and if they could, it might be doubted whether, in the long course of things, as much is not gained by a wide diffusion of general knowledge, as is lost by diminishing the number of those who are enabled by fortune and leisure to devote themselves exclusively to scientific and literary pursuits. however this may be, it is to be considered that it is the spirit of our system to be equal and general, and if there be particular disadvantages incident to this, they are far more than counterbalanced by the benefits which weigh against them. the important concerns of society are generally conducted, in all countries, by the men of business and practical ability; and even in matters of taste and literature, the advantages of mere leisure are liable to be overrated. if there exist adequate means of education and a love of letters be excited, that love will find its way to the object of its desire, through the crowd and pressure of the most busy society. connected with this division of property, and the consequent participation of the great mass of people in its possession and enjoyments, is the system of representation, which is admirably accommodated to our condition, better understood among us, and more familiarly and extensively practised, in the higher and in the lower departments of government, than it has been by any other people. great facility has been given to this in new england by the early division of the country into townships or small districts, in which all concerns of local police are regulated, and in which representatives to the legislature are elected. nothing can exceed the utility of these little bodies. they are so many councils or parliaments, in which common interests are discussed, and useful knowledge acquired and communicated. the division of governments into departments, and the division, again, of the legislative department into two chambers, are essential provisions in our system. this last, although not new in itself, yet seems to be new in its application to governments wholly popular. the grecian republics, it is plain, knew nothing of it; and in rome, the check and balance of legislative power, such as it was, lay between the people and the senate. indeed, few things are more difficult than to ascertain accurately the true nature and construction of the roman commonwealth. the relative power of the senate and the people, of the consuls and the tribunes, appears not to have been at all times the same, nor at any time accurately defined or strictly observed. cicero, indeed, describes to us an admirable arrangement of political power, and a balance of the constitution, in that beautiful passage, in which he compares the democracies of greece with the roman commonwealth. "o morem preclarum, disciplinamque, quam a majoribus, accepimus, si quidem teneremus! sed nescio quo pacto jam de manibus elabitur. nullam enim illi nostri sapientissimi et sanctissimi viri vim concionis esse voluerunt, quae scisseret plebs, aut quae populus juberet; summota concione, distributis partibus, tributim et centuriatim descriptis ordinibus, classibus, aetatibus, auditis auctoribus, re multos dies promulgata et cognita, juberi vetarique voluerunt. graecorum autem totae respublicae sedentis concionis temeritate administrantur." [ ] but at what time this wise system existed in this perfection at rome, no proofs remain to show. her constitution, originally framed for a monarchy, never seemed to be adjusted in its several parts after the expulsion of the kings. liberty there was, but it was a disputatious, an uncertain, an ill-secured liberty. the patrician and plebeian orders, instead of being matched and joined, each in its just place and proportion, to sustain the fabric of the state, were rather like hostile powers, in perpetual conflict. with us, an attempt has been made, and so far not without success, to divide representation into chambers, and, by difference of age, character, qualification, or mode of election, to establish salutary checks, in governments altogether elective. having detained you so long with these observations, i must yet advert to another most interesting topic,--the free schools. in this particular, new england may be allowed to claim, i think, a merit of a peculiar character. she early adopted, and has constantly maintained the principle, that it is the undoubted right and the bounden duty of government to provide for the instruction of all youth. that which is elsewhere left to chance or to charity, we secure by law. [ ] for the purpose of public instruction, we hold every man subject to taxation in proportion to his property, and we look not to the question, whether he himself have, or have not, children to be benefited by the education for which he pays. we regard it as a wise and liberal system of police, by which property, and life, and the peace of society are secured. we seek to prevent in some measure the extension of the penal code, by inspiring a salutary and conservative principle of virtue and of knowledge in an early age. we strive to excite a feeling of respectability, and a sense of character, by enlarging the capacity and increasing the sphere of intellectual enjoyment. by general instruction, we seek, as far as possible, to purify the whole moral atmosphere; to keep good sentiments uppermost, and to turn the strong current of feeling and opinion, as well as the censures of the law and the denunciations of religion, against immorality and crime. we hope for a security beyond the law, and above the law, in the prevalence of an enlightened and well-principled moral sentiment. we hope to continue and prolong the time, when, in the villages and farm-houses of new england, there may be undisturbed sleep within unbarred doors. and knowing that our government rests directly on the public will, in order that we may preserve it we endeavor to give a safe and proper direction to that public will. we do not, indeed, expect all men to be philosophers or statesmen; but we confidently trust, and our expectation of the duration of our system of government rests on that trust, that, by the diffusion of general knowledge and good and virtuous sentiments, the political fabric may be secure, as well against open violence and overthrow, as against the slow, but sure, undermining of licentiousness. we know that, at the present time, an attempt is making in the english parliament to provide by law for the education of the poor, and that a gentleman of distinguished character (mr. brougham) has taken the lead in presenting a plan to government for carrying that purpose into effect. and yet, although the representatives of the three kingdoms listened to him with astonishment as well as delight, we hear no principles with which we ourselves have not been familiar from youth; we see nothing in the plan but an approach towards that system which has been established in new england for more than a century and a half. it is said that in england not more than _one child in fifteen_ possesses the means of being taught to read and write; in wales, _one in twenty_; in france, until lately, when some improvement was made, not more than _one in thirty-five_. now, it is hardly too strong to say, that in new england _every child possesses_ such means. it would be difficult to find an instance to the contrary, unless where it should be owing to the negligence of the parent; and, in truth, the means are actually used and enjoyed by nearly every one. a youth of fifteen, of either sex, who cannot both read and write, is very seldom to be found. who can make this comparison, or contemplate this spectacle, without delight and a feeling of just pride? does any history show property more beneficently applied? did any government ever subject the property of those who have estates to a burden, for a purpose more favorable to the poor, or more useful to the whole community? a conviction of the importance of public instruction was one of the earliest sentiments of our ancestors. no lawgiver of ancient or modern times has expressed more just opinions, or adopted wiser measures, than the early records of the colony of plymouth show to have prevailed here. assembled on this very spot, a hundred and fifty-three years ago, the legislature of this colony declared, "forasmuch as the maintenance of good literature doth much tend to the advancement of the weal and flourishing state of societies and republics, this court doth therefore order, that in whatever township in this government, consisting of fifty families or upwards, any meet man shall be obtained to teach a grammar school, such township shall allow at least twelve pounds, to be raised by rate on all the inhabitants." having provided that all youth should be instructed in the elements of learning by the institution of free schools, our ancestors had yet another duty to perform. men were to be educated for the professions and the public. for this purpose they founded the university, and with incredible zeal and perseverance they cherished and supported it, through all trials and discouragements.[ ] on the subject of the university, it is not possible for a son of new england to think without pleasure, or to speak without emotion. nothing confers more honor on the state where it is established, or more utility on the country at large. a respectable university is an establishment which must be the work of time. if pecuniary means were not wanting, no new institution could possess character and respectability at once. we owe deep obligation to our ancestors, who began, almost on the moment of their arrival, the work of building up this institution. although established in a different government, the colony of plymouth manifested warm friendship for harvard college. at an early period, its government took measures to promote a general subscription throughout all the towns in this colony, in aid of its small funds. other colleges were subsequently founded and endowed, in other places, as the ability of the people allowed; and we may flatter ourselves, that the means of education at present enjoyed in new england are not only adequate to the diffusion of the elements of knowledge among all classes, but sufficient also for respectable attainments in literature and the sciences. lastly, our ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. moral habits, they believed, cannot safely be trusted on any other foundation than religious principle, nor any government be secure which is not supported by moral habits. living under the heavenly light of revelation, they hoped to find all the social dispositions, all the duties which men owe to each other and to society, enforced and performed. whatever makes men good christians, makes them good citizens. our fathers came here to enjoy their religion free and unmolested; and, at the end of two centuries, there is nothing upon which we can pronounce more confidently, nothing of which we can express a more deep and earnest conviction, than of the inestimable importance of that religion to man, both in regard to this life and that which is to come. if the blessings of our political and social condition have not been too highly estimated, we cannot well overrate the responsibility and duty which they impose upon us. we hold these institutions of government, religion, and learning, to be transmitted, as well as enjoyed. we are in the line of conveyance, through which whatever has been obtained by the spirit and efforts of our ancestors is to be communicated to our children. we are bound to maintain public liberty, and, by the example of our own systems, to convince the world that order and law, religion and morality, the rights of conscience, the rights of persons, and the rights of property, may all be preserved and secured, in the most perfect manner, by a government entirely and purely elective. if we fail in this, our disaster will be signal, and will furnish an argument, stronger than has yet been found, in support of those opinions which maintain that government can rest safely on nothing but power and coercion. as far as experience may show errors in our establishments, we are bound to correct them; and if any practices exist contrary to the principles of justice and humanity within the reach of our laws or our influence, we are inexcusable if we do not exert ourselves to restrain and abolish them. i deem it my duty on this occasion to suggest, that the land is not yet wholly free from the contamination of a traffic, at which every feeling of humanity must forever revolt,--i mean the african slave-trade. neither public sentiment, nor the law, has hitherto been able entirely to put an end to this odious and abominable trade. at the moment when god in his mercy has blessed the christian world with a universal peace, there is reason to fear, that, to the disgrace of the christian name and character, new efforts are making for the extension of this trade by subjects and citizens of christian states, in whose hearts there dwell no sentiments of humanity or of justice, and over whom neither the fear of god nor the fear of man exercises a control. in the sight of our law, the african slave-trader is a pirate and a felon; and in the sight of heaven, an offender far beyond the ordinary depth of human guilt. there is no brighter page of our history, than that which records the measures which have been adopted by the government at an early day, and at different times since, for the suppression of this traffic; and i would call on all the true sons of new england to cooperate with the laws of man, and the justice of heaven. if there be, within the extent of our knowledge or influence, any participation in this traffic, let us pledge ourselves here, upon the rock of plymouth, to extirpate and destroy it. it is not fit that the land of the pilgrims should bear the shame longer. i hear the sound of the hammer, i see the smoke of the furnaces where manacles and fetters are still forged for human limbs. i see the visages of those who by stealth and at midnight labor in this work of hell, foul and dark, as may become the artificers of such instruments of misery and torture. let that spot be purified, or let it cease to be of new england. let it be purified or let it be set aside from the christian world; let it be put out of the circle of human sympathies and human regards, and let civilized man henceforth have no communion with it. i would invoke those who fill the seats of justice, and all who minister at her altar, that they execute the wholesome and necessary severity of the law. i invoke the ministers of our religion, that they proclaim its denunciation of these crimes, and add its solemn sanctions to the authority of human laws. if the pulpit be silent whenever or wherever there may be a sinner bloody with this guilt within the hearing of its voice, the pulpit is false to its trust. i call on the fair merchant, who has reaped his harvest upon the seas, that he assist in scourging from those seas the worst pirates that ever infested them. that ocean, which seems to wave with a gentle magnificence to waft the burden of an honest commerce, and to roll along its treasures with a conscious pride,--that ocean, which hardy industry regards, even when the winds have ruffled its surface, as a field of grateful toil,--what is it to the victim of this oppression, when he is brought to its shores, and looks forth upon it, for the first time, loaded with chains, and bleeding with stripes? what is it to him but a wide-spread prospect of suffering, anguish, and death? nor do the skies smile longer, nor is the air longer fragrant to him. the sun is cast down from heaven. an inhuman and accursed traffic has cut him off in his manhood, or in his youth, from every enjoyment belonging to his being, and every blessing which his creator intended for him. the christian communities send forth their emissaries of religion and letters, who stop, here and there, along the coast of the vast continent of africa, and with painful and tedious efforts make some almost imperceptible progress in the communication of knowledge, and in the general improvement of the natives who are immediately about them. not thus slow and imperceptible is the transmission of the vices and bad passions which the subjects of christian states carry to the land. the slave-trade having touched the coast, its influence and its evils spread, like a pestilence, over the whole continent, making savage wars more savage and more frequent, and adding new and fierce passions to the contests of barbarians. i pursue this topic no further, except again to say, that all christendom, being now blessed with peace, is bound by everything which belongs to its character, and to the character of the present age, to put a stop to this inhuman and disgraceful traffic. we are bound, not only to maintain the general principles of public liberty, but to support also those existing forms of government which have so well secured its enjoyment, and so highly promoted the public prosperity. it is now more than thirty years that these states have been united under the federal constitution, and whatever fortune may await them hereafter, it is impossible that this period of their history should not be regarded as distinguished by signal prosperity and success. they must be sanguine indeed, who can hope for benefit from change. whatever division of the public judgment may have existed in relation to particular measures of the government, all must agree, one should think, in the opinion, that in its general course it has been eminently productive of public happiness. its most ardent friends could not well have hoped from it more than it has accomplished; and those who disbelieved or doubted ought to feel less concern about predictions which the event has not verified, than pleasure in the good which has been obtained. whoever shall hereafter write this part of our history, although he may see occasional errors or defects, will be able to record no great failure in the ends and objects of government. still less will he be able to record any series of lawless and despotic acts, or any successful usurpation. his page will contain no exhibition of provinces depopulated, of civil authority habitually trampled down by military power, or of a community crushed by the burden of taxation. he will speak, rather, of public liberty protected, and public happiness advanced; of increased revenue, and population augmented beyond all example; of the growth of commerce, manufactures, and the arts; and of that happy condition, in which the restraint and coercion of government are almost invisible and imperceptible, and its influence felt only in the benefits which it confers. we can entertain no better wish for our country, than that this government may be preserved; nor have a clearer duty than to maintain and support it in the full exercise of all its just constitutional powers. the cause of science and literature also imposes upon us an important and delicate trust. the wealth and population of the country are now so far advanced, as to authorize the expectation of a correct literature and a well formed taste, as well as respectable progress in the abstruse sciences. the country has risen from a state of colonial subjection; it has established an independent government, and is now in the undisturbed enjoyment of peace and political security. the elements of knowledge are universally diffused, and the reading portion of the community is large. let us hope that the present may be an auspicious era of literature. if, almost on the day of their landing, our ancestors founded schools and endowed colleges, what obligations do not rest upon us, living under circumstances so much more favorable both for providing and for using the means of education? literature becomes free institutions. it is the graceful ornament of civil liberty, and a happy restraint on the asperities which political controversies sometimes occasion. just taste is not only an embellishment of society, but it rises almost to the rank of the virtues, and diffuses positive good throughout the whole extent of its influence. there is a connection between right feeling and right principles, and truth in taste is allied with truth in morality. with nothing in our past history to discourage us, and with something in our present condition and prospects to animate us, let us hope, that, as it is our fortune to live in an age when we may behold a wonderful advancement of the country in all its other great interests, we may see also equal progress and success attend the cause of letters. finally, let us not forget the religious character of our origin. our fathers were brought hither by their high veneration for the christian religion. they journeyed by its light, and labored in its hope. they sought to incorporate its principles with the elements of their society, and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions, civil, political, or literary. let us cherish these sentiments, and extend this influence still more widely; in the full conviction, that that is the happiest society which partakes in the highest degree of the mild and peaceful spirit of christianity. the hours of this day are rapidly flying, and this occasion will soon be passed. neither we nor our children can expect to behold its return. they are in the distant regions of futurity, they exist only in the all-creating power of god, who shall stand here a hundred years hence, to trace, through us, their descent from the pilgrims, and to survey, as we have now surveyed, the progress of their country, during the lapse of a century. we would anticipate their concurrence with us in our sentiments of deep regard for our common ancestors. we would anticipate and partake the pleasure with which they will then recount the steps of new england's advancement. on the morning of that day, although it will not disturb us in our repose, the voice of acclamation and gratitude, commencing on the rock of plymouth, shall be transmitted through millions of the sons of the pilgrims, till it lose itself in the murmurs of the pacific seas. we would leave for the consideration of those who shall then occupy our places, some proof that we hold the blessings transmitted from our fathers in just estimation; some proof of our attachment to the cause of good government, and of civil and religious liberty; some proof of a sincere and ardent desire to promote every thing which may enlarge the understandings and improve the hearts of men. and when, from the long distance of a hundred years, they shall look back upon us, they shall know, at least, that we possessed affections, which, running backward and warming with gratitude for what our ancestors have done for our happiness, run forward also to our posterity, and meet them with cordial salutation, ere yet they have arrived on the shore of being. advance, then, ye future generations! we would hail you, as you rise in your long succession, to fill the places which we now fill, and to taste the blessings of existence where we are passing, and soon shall have passed, our own human duration. we bid you welcome to this pleasant land of the fathers. we bid you welcome to the healthful skies and the verdant fields of new england. we greet your accession to the great inheritance which we have enjoyed. we welcome you to the blessings of good government and religious liberty. we welcome you to the treasures of science and the delights of learning. we welcome you to the transcendent sweets of domestic life, to the happiness of kindred, and parents, and children. we welcome you to the immeasurable blessings of rational existence, the immortal hope of christianity, and the light of everlasting truth! the bunker hill monument. this uncounted multitude before me and around me proves the feeling which the occasion has excited. these thousands of human faces, glowing with sympathy and joy, and from the impulses of a common gratitude turned reverently to heaven in this spacious temple of the firmament, proclaim that the day, the place, and the purpose of our assembling have made a deep impression on our hearts. if, indeed, there be anything in local association fit to affect the mind of man, we need not strive to repress the emotions which agitate us here. we are among the sepulchres of our fathers. we are on ground, distinguished by their valor, their constancy, and the shedding of their blood. we are here, not to fix an uncertain date in our annals, nor to draw into notice an obscure and unknown spot. if our humble purpose had never been conceived, if we ourselves had never been born, the th of june, , would have been a day on which all subsequent history would have poured its light, and the eminence where we stand a point of attraction to the eyes of successive generations. but we are americans. we live in what may be called the early age of this great continent; and we know that our posterity, through all time, are here to enjoy and suffer the allotments of humanity. we see before us a probable train of great events; we know that our own fortunes have been happily cast; and it is natural, therefore, that we should be moved by the contemplation of occurrences which have guided our destiny before many of us were born, and settled the condition in which we should pass that portion of our existence which god allows to men on earth. we do not read even of the discovery of this continent, without feeling something of a personal interest in the event; without being reminded how much it has affected our own fortunes and our own existence. it would be still more unnatural for us, therefore, than for others, to contemplate with unaffected minds that interesting, i may say that most touching and pathetic scene, when the great discoverer of america stood on the deck of his shattered bark, the shades of night falling on the sea, yet no man sleeping; tossed on the billows of an unknown ocean, yet the stronger billows of alternate hope and despair tossing his own troubled thoughts; extending forward his harassed frame, straining westward his anxious and eager eyes, till heaven at last granted him a moment of rapture and ecstasy, in blessing his vision with the sight of the unknown world. nearer to our times, more closely connected with our fates, and therefore still more interesting to our feelings and affections, is the settlement of our own country by colonists from england. we cherish every memorial of these worthy ancestors; we celebrate their patience and fortitude; we admire their daring enterprise; we teach our children to venerate their piety; and we are justly proud of being descended from men who have set the world an example of founding civil institutions on the great and united principles of human freedom and human knowledge. to us, their children, the story of their labors and sufferings can never be without its interest. we shall not stand unmoved on the shore of plymouth, while the sea continues to wash it; nor will our brethren in another early and ancient colony forget the place of its first establishment, till their river shall cease to flow by it. [ ] no vigor of youth, no maturity of manhood, will lead the nation to forget the spots where its infancy was cradled and defended. but the great event in the history of the continent, which we are now met here to commemorate, that prodigy of modern times, at once the wonder and the blessing of the world, is the american revolution. in a day of extraordinary prosperity and happiness, of high national honor, distinction, and power, we are brought together, in this place, by our love of country, by our admiration of exalted character, by our gratitude for signal services and patriotic devotion. the society whose organ i am [ ] was formed for the purpose of rearing some honorable and durable monument to the memory of the early friends of american independence. they have thought, that for this object no time could be more propitious than the present prosperous and peaceful period; that no place could claim preference over this memorable spot; and that no day could be more auspicious to the undertaking than the anniversary of the battle which was here fought. the foundation of that monument we have now laid. with solemnities suited to the occasion, with prayers to almighty god for his blessing, and in the midst of this cloud of witnesses, we have begun the work. we trust it will be prosecuted, and that, springing from a broad foundation, rising high in massive solidity and unadorned grandeur, it may remain as long as heaven permits the works of men to last, a fit emblem, both of the events in memory of which it is raised, and of the gratitude of those who have reared it. we know, indeed, that the record of illustrious actions is most safely deposited in the universal remembrance of mankind. we know, that if we could cause this structure to ascend, not only till it reached the skies, but till it pierced them, its broad surfaces could still contain but part of that which, in an age of knowledge, hath already been spread over the earth, and which history charges itself with making known to all future times. we know that no inscription on entablatures less broad than the earth itself can carry information of the events we commemorate where it has not already gone; and that no structure, which shall not outlive the duration of letters and knowledge among men, can prolong the memorial. but our object is, by this edifice, to show our own deep sense of the value and importance of the achievements of our ancestors; and, by presenting this work of gratitude to the eye, to keep alive similar sentiments, and to foster a constant regard for the principles of the revolution. human beings are composed, not of reason only, but of imagination also, and sentiment; and that is neither wasted nor misapplied which is appropriated to the purpose of giving right direction to sentiments, and opening proper springs of feeling in the heart. let it not be supposed that our object is to perpetuate national hostility, or even to cherish a mere military spirit. it is higher, purer, nobler. we consecrate our work to the spirit of national independence, and we wish that the light of peace may rest upon it forever. we rear a memorial of our conviction of that unmeasured benefit which has been conferred on our own land, and of the happy influences which have been produced, by the same events, on the general interests of mankind. we come, as americans, to mark a spot which must forever be dear to us and our posterity. we wish that whosoever, in all coming time, shall turn his eye hither, may behold that the place is not undistinguished where the first great battle of the revolution was fought. we wish that this structure may proclaim the magnitude and importance of that event to every class and every age. we wish that infancy may learn the purpose of its erection from maternal lips, and that weary and withered age may behold it, and be solaced by the recollections which it suggests. we wish that labor may look up here, and be proud, in the midst of its toil. we wish that, in those days of disaster, which, as they come upon all nations, must be expected to come upon us also, desponding patriotism may turn its eyes hitherward, and be assured that the foundations of our national power are still strong. we wish that this column, rising towards heaven among the pointed spires of so many temples dedicated to god, may contribute also to produce, in all minds, a pious feeling of dependence and gratitude. we wish, finally, that the last object to the sight of him who leaves his native shore, and the first to gladden his who revisits it, may be something which shall remind him of the liberty and the glory of his country. let it rise! let it rise, till it meet the sun in his coming; let the earliest light of the morning gild it, and parting day linger and play on its summit. we live in a most extraordinary age. events so various and so important that they might crowd and distinguish centuries are, in our times, compressed within the compass of a single life. when has it happened that history has had so much to record in the same term of years, as since the th of june, ? our own revolution, which, under other circumstances, might itself have been expected to occasion a war of half a century, has been achieved; twenty-four sovereign and independent states erected; and a general government established over them, so safe, so wise, so free, so practical, that we might well wonder its establishment should have been accomplished so soon, were it not far the greater wonder that it should have been established at all. two or three millions of people have been augmented to twelve, [ ] the great forests of the west prostrated beneath the arm of successful industry, and the dwellers on the banks of the ohio and the mississippi become the fellow-citizens and neighbors of those who cultivate the hills of new england. [ ] we have a commerce, that leaves no sea unexplored; navies, which take no law from superior force; revenues, adequate to all the exigencies of government, almost without taxation; and peace with all nations, founded on equal rights and mutual respect. europe, within the same period, has been agitated by a mighty revolution, which, while it has been felt in the individual condition and happiness of almost every man, has shaken to the centre her political fabric, and dashed against one another thrones which had stood tranquil for ages. on this, our continent, our own example has been followed, and colonies have sprung up to be nations. unaccustomed sounds of liberty and free government have reached us from beyond the track of the sun; and at this moment the dominion of european power in this continent, from the place where we stand to the south pole, is annihilated forever. in the mean time, both in europe and america, such has been the general progress of knowledge, such the improvement in legislation, in commerce, in the arts, in letters, and, above all, in liberal ideas and the general spirit of the age, that the whole world seems changed. yet, notwithstanding that this is but a faint abstract of the things which have happened since the day of the battle of bunker hill, we are but fifty years removed from it; and we now stand here to enjoy all the blessings of our own condition, and to look abroad on the brightened prospects of the world, while we still have among us some of those who were active agents in the scenes of , and who are now here, from every quarter of new england, to visit once more, and under circumstances so affecting, i had almost said so overwhelming, this renowned theatre of their courage and patriotism. venerable men! you have come down to us from a former generation. heaven has bounteously lengthened out your lives, that you might behold this joyous day. you are now where you stood fifty years ago, this very hour, with your brothers and your neighbors, shoulder to shoulder, in the strife for your country. behold, how altered! the same heavens are indeed over your heads; the same ocean rolls at your feet; but all else, how changed! you hear now no roar of hostile cannon, you see no mixed volumes of smoke and flame rising from burning charlestown. the ground strewed with the dead and the dying; the impetuous charge; the steady and successful repulse; the loud call to repeated assault; the summoning of all that is manly to repeated resistance; a thousand bosoms freely and fearlessly bared in an instant to whatever of terror there may be in war and death;--all these you have witnessed, but you witness them no more. all is peace. the heights of yonder metropolis, its towers and roofs, which you then saw filled with wives and children and countrymen in distress and terror, and looking with unutterable emotions for the issue of the combat, have presented you to-day with the sight of its whole happy population, come out to welcome and greet you with a universal jubilee. yonder proud ships, by a felicity of position appropriately lying at the foot of this mount, and seeming fondly to cling around it, are not means of annoyance to you, but your country's own means of distinction and defence.[ ] all is peace; and god has granted you the sight of your country's happiness, ere you slumber in the grave. he has allowed you to behold and to partake the reward of your patriotic toils; and he has allowed us, your sons and countrymen, to meet you here, and in the name of the present generation, in the name of your country, in the name of liberty, to thank you! [ ] but, alas! you are not all here! time and the sword have thinned your ranks. prescott, putnam, stark, brooks, read, pomeroy, bridge! our eyes seek for you in vain amid this broken band. you are gathered to your fathers, and live only to your country in her grateful remembrance and your own bright example. but let us not too much grieve, that you have met the common fate of men. you lived at least long enough to know that your work had been nobly and successfully accomplished. you lived to see your country's independence established, and to sheathe your swords from war. on the light of liberty you saw arise the light of peace, like "another morn, risen on mid-noon"; [ ] and the sky on which you closed your eyes was cloudless. but ah! him! the first great martyr in this great cause! him! the premature victim of his own self-devoting heart! him! the head of our civil councils, and the destined leader of our military bands, whom nothing brought hither but the unquenchable fire of his own spirit! him! cut off by providence in the hour of overwhelming anxiety and thick gloom; falling ere he saw the star of his country rise; pouring out his generous blood like water, before he knew whether it would fertilize a land of freedom or of bondage!--how shall i struggle with the emotions that stifle the utterance of thy name! our poor work may perish; but thine shall endure! [ ] this monument may moulder away; the solid ground it rests upon may sink down to a level with the sea; but thy memory shall not fail! wheresoever among men a heart shall be found that beats to the transports of patriotism and liberty, its aspirations shall be to claim kindred with thy spirit! but the scene amidst which we stand does not permit us to confine our thoughts or our sympathies to those fearless spirits who hazarded or lost their lives on this consecrated spot. we have the happiness to rejoice here in the presence of a most worthy representation of the survivors of the whole revolutionary army. veterans! you are the remnant of many a well-fought field. you bring with you marks of honor from trenton and monmouth, from yorktown, camden, bennington, and saratoga. veterans of half a century! when in your youthful days you put everything at hazard in your country's cause, good as that cause was, and sanguine as youth is, still your fondest hopes did not stretch onward to an hour like this! at a period to which you could not reasonably have expected to arrive, at a moment of national prosperity such as you could never have foreseen, you are now met here to enjoy the fellowship of old soldiers, and to receive the overflowings of a universal gratitude. but your agitated countenances and your heaving breasts inform me that even this is not an unmixed joy. i perceive that a tumult of contending feeling rushes upon you. the images of the dead, as well as the persons of the living, present themselves before you. the scene overwhelms you and i turn from it. may the father of all mercies smile upon your declining years, and bless them! and when you shall here have exchanged your embraces, when you shall once more have pressed the hands which have been so often extended to give succor in adversity, or grasped in the exultation of victory, then look abroad upon this lovely land which your young valor defended, and mark the happiness with which it is filled; yea, look abroad upon the whole earth, and see what a name you have contributed to give to your country, and what a praise you have added to freedom, and then rejoice in the sympathy and gratitude which beam upon your last days from the improved condition of mankind! the occasion does not require of me any particular account of the battle of the th of june, , nor any detailed narrative of the events which immediately preceded it. these are familiarly known to all. in the progress of the great and interesting controversy, massachusetts and the town of boston had become early and marked objects of the displeasure of the british parliament. this had been manifested in the act for altering the government of the province, and in that for shutting up the port of boston. nothing sheds more honor on our early history, and nothing better shows how little the feelings and sentiments of the colonies were known or regarded in england, than the impression which these measures everywhere produced in america. [ ] it had been anticipated, that, while the colonies in general would be terrified by the severity of the punishment inflicted on massachusetts, the other seaports would be governed by a mere spirit of gain; and that, as boston was now cut off from all commerce, the unexpected advantage which this blow on her was calculated to confer on other towns would be greedily enjoyed. how miserably such reasoners deceived themselves! how little they knew of the depth, and the strength, and the intenseness of that feeling of resistance to illegal acts of power, which possessed the whole american people! everywhere the unworthy boon was rejected with scorn. the fortunate occasion was seized everywhere, to show to the whole world that the colonies were swayed by no local interest, no partial interest, no selfish interest. the temptation to profit by the punishment of boston was strongest to our neighbors of salem. yet salem was precisely the place where this miserable proffer was spurned, in a tone of the most lofty self-respect and the most indignant patriotism. "we are deeply affected," said its inhabitants, "with the sense of our public calamities; but the miseries that are now rapidly hastening on our brethren in the capital of the province greatly excite our commiseration. by shutting up the port of boston, some imagine that the course of trade might be turned hither and to our benefit; but we must be dead to every idea of justice, lost to all feelings of humanity, could we indulge a thought to seize on wealth and raise our fortunes on the ruin of our suffering neighbors." these noble sentiments were not confined to our immediate vicinity. in that day of general affection and brotherhood, the blow given to boston smote on every patriotic heart from one end of the country to the other. virginia and the carolinas, as well as connecticut and new hampshire, felt and proclaimed the cause to be their own. the continental congress, then holding its first session in philadelphia, expressed its sympathy for the suffering inhabitants of boston, and addresses were received from all quarters, assuring them that the cause was a common one, and should be met by common efforts and common sacrifices. the congress of massachusetts responded to these assurances; and in an address to the congress at philadelphia, bearing the official signature, perhaps among the last, of the immortal warren, notwithstanding the severity of its suffering and the magnitude of the dangers which threatened it, it was declared, that this colony "is ready, at all times, to spend and to be spent in the cause of america." but the hour drew nigh which was to put professions to the proof, and to determine whether the authors of these mutual pledges were ready to seal them in blood. the tidings of lexington and concord had no sooner spread, than it was universally felt that the time was at last come for action. a spirit pervaded all ranks, not transient, not boisterous, but deep, solemn, determined, "totamque infusa per artus mens agitat molem, et magno se corpore miscet." [ ] war, on their own soil and at their own doors, was, indeed, a strange work to the yeomanry of new england; but their consciences were convinced of its necessity, their country called them to it, and they did not withhold themselves from the perilous trial. the ordinary occupations of life were abandoned; the plough was staid in the unfinished furrow; wives gave up their husbands, and mothers gave up their sons, to the battles of a civil war. death might come, in honor, on the field; it might come, in disgrace, on the scaffold. for either and for both they were prepared. the sentiment of quincy was full in their hearts. "blandishments," said that distinguished son of genius and patriotism, "will not fascinate us, nor will threats of a halter intimidate; for, under god, we are determined that, wheresoever, whensoever, or howsoever we shall be called to make our exit, we will die free men." the th of june saw the four new england colonies standing here, side by side, to triumph or to fall together; and there was with them from that moment to the end of the war, what i hope will remain with them forever: one cause, one country, one heart. the battle of bunker hill was attended with the most important effects beyond its immediate results as a military engagement. it created at once a state of open, public war. there could now be no longer a question of proceeding against individuals, as guilty of treason or rebellion. that fearful crisis was past. the appeal lay to the sword, and the only question was, whether the spirit and the resources of the people would hold out, till the object should be accomplished. nor were its general consequences confined to our own country. the previous proceedings of the colonies, their appeals, resolutions, and addresses, had made their cause known to europe. without boasting, we may say, that in no age or country has the public cause been maintained with more force of argument, more power of illustration, or more of that persuasion which excited feeling and elevated principle can alone bestow, than the revolutionary state papers exhibit. these papers will forever deserve to be studied, not only for the spirit which they breathe, but for the ability with which they were written. [ ] to this able vindication of their cause, the colonies had now added a practical and severe proof of their own true devotion to it, and given evidence also of the power which they could bring to its support. all now saw, that if america fell, she would not fall without a struggle. men felt sympathy and regard, as well as surprise, when they beheld these infant states, remote, unknown, unaided, encounter the power of england, and, in the first considerable battle, leave more of their enemies dead on the field, in proportion to the number of combatants, than had been recently known to fall in the wars of europe. information of these events, circulating throughout the world, at length reached the ears of one who now hears me.[ ] he has not forgotten the emotion which the fame of bunker hill, and the name of warren, excited in his youthful breast. sir, we are assembled to commemorate the establishment of great public principles of liberty, and to do honor to the distinguished dead. the occasion is too severe for eulogy of the living. but, sir, your interesting relation to this country, the peculiar circumstances which surround you and surround us, call on me to express the happiness which we derive from your presence and aid in this solemn commemoration. fortunate, fortunate man! with what measure of devotion will you not thank god for the circumstances of your extraordinary life! you are connected with both hemispheres and with two generations. heaven saw fit to ordain, that the electric spark of liberty should be conducted, through you, from the new world to the old; and we, who are now here to perform this duty of patriotism, have all of us long ago received it in charge from our fathers to cherish your name and your virtues. you will account it an instance of your good fortune, sir, that you crossed the seas to visit us at a time which enables you to be present at this solemnity. you now behold the field, the renown of which reached you in the heart of france, and caused a thrill in your ardent bosom. you see the lines of the little redoubt thrown up by the incredible diligence of prescott; defended, to the last extremity, by his lion-hearted valor; and within which the corner-stone of our monument has now taken its position. you see where warren fell, and where parker, gardner, mccleary, moore, and other early patriots, fell with him. those who survived that day, and whose lives have been prolonged to the present hour, are now around you. some of them you have known in the trying scenes of the war. behold! they now stretch forth their feeble arms to embrace you. behold! they raise their trembling voices to invoke the blessing of god on you and yours forever! sir, you have assisted us in laying the foundation of this structure. you have heard us rehearse, with our feeble commendation, the names of departed patriots. monuments and eulogy belong to the dead. we give them this day to warren and his associates. on other occasions they have been given to your more immediate companions in arms, to washington, to greene, to gates, to sullivan, and to lincoln. we have become reluctant to grant these, our highest and last honors, further. we would gladly hold them yet back from the little remnant of that immortal band. _serus in coelum redeas_. illustrious as are your merits, yet far, o very far distant be the day, when any inscription shall bear your name, or any tongue pronounce its eulogy! the leading reflection to which this occasion seems to invite us, respects the great changes which have happened in the fifty years since the battle of bunker hill was fought. and it peculiarly marks the character of the present age, that, in looking at these changes, and in estimating their effect on our condition, we are obliged to consider, not what has been done in our own country only, but in others also. in these interesting times, while nations are making separate and individual advances in improvement, they make, too, a common progress; like vessels on a common tide, propelled by the gales at different rates, according to their several structure and management, but all moved forward by one mighty current, strong enough to bear onward whatever does not sink beneath it. a chief distinction of the present day is a community of opinions and knowledge amongst men in different nations, existing in a degree heretofore unknown. knowledge has, in our time, triumphed, and is triumphing, over distance, over difference of languages, over diversity of habits, over prejudice, and over bigotry. the civilized and christian world is fast learning the great lesson, that difference of nation does not imply necessary hostility, and that all contact need not be war. the whole world is becoming a common field for intellect to act in. energy of mind, genius, power, wheresoever it exists, may speak out in any tongue, and the _world_ will hear it. a great cord of sentiment and feeling runs through two continents, and vibrates over both. every breeze wafts intelligence from country to country; every wave rolls it; all give it forth, and all in turn receive it. there is a vast commerce of ideas; there are marts and exchanges for intellectual discoveries, and a wonderful fellowship of those individual intelligences which make up the mind and opinion of the age. mind is the great lever of all things; human thought is the process by which human ends are ultimately answered; and the diffusion of knowledge, so astonishing in the last half-century, has rendered innumerable minds, variously gifted by nature, competent to be competitors or fellow-workers on the theatre of intellectual operation. from these causes important improvements have taken place in the personal condition of individuals. generally speaking, mankind are not only better fed and better clothed, but they are able also to enjoy more leisure; they possess more refinement and more self-respect. a superior tone of education, manners, and habits prevails. this remark, most true in its application to our own country, is also partly true when applied elsewhere. it is proved by the vastly augmented consumption of those articles of manufacture and of commerce which contribute to the comforts and the decencies of life; an augmentation which has far outrun the progress of population. and while the unexampled and almost incredible use of machinery would seem to supply the place of labor, labor still finds its occupation and its reward; so wisely has providence adjusted men's wants and desires to their condition and their capacity. any adequate survey, however, of the progress made during the last half-century in the polite and the mechanic arts, in machinery and manufactures, in commerce and agriculture, in letters and in science, would require volumes. i must abstain wholly from these subjects, and turn for a moment to the contemplation of what has been done on the great question of politics and government. this is the master topic of the age; and during the whole fifty years it has intensely occupied the thoughts of men. the nature of civil government, its ends and uses, have been canvassed and investigated; ancient opinions attacked and defended; new ideas recommended and resisted, by whatever power the mind of man could bring to the controversy. from the closet and the public halls the debate has been transferred to the field; and the world has been shaken by wars of unexampled magnitude, and the greatest variety of fortune. a day of peace has at length succeeded; and now that the strife has subsided, and the smoke cleared away, we may begin to see what has actually been done, permanently changing the state and condition of human society. and, without dwelling on particular circumstances, it is most apparent, that, from the before-mentioned causes of augmented knowledge and improved individual condition, a real, substantial, and important change has taken place, and is taking place, highly favorable, on the whole, to human liberty and human happiness. the great wheel of political revolution began to move in america. here its rotation was guarded, regular, and safe. transferred to the other continent, from unfortunate but natural causes, it received an irregular and violent impulse; it whirled along with a fearful celerity; till at length, like the chariot-wheels in the races of antiquity, it took fire from the rapidity of its own motion, and blazed onward, spreading conflagration and terror around. we learn from the result of this experiment, how fortunate was our own condition, and how admirably the character of our people was calculated for setting the great example of popular governments. the possession of power did not turn the heads of the american people, for they had long been in the habit of exercising a great degree of self-control. although the paramount authority of the parent state existed over them, yet a large field of legislation had always been open to our colonial assemblies. they were accustomed to representative bodies and the forms of free government; they understood the doctrine of the division of power among different branches, and the necessity of checks on each. the character of our countrymen, moreover, was sober, moral, and religious; and there was little in the change to shock their feelings of justice and humanity, or even to disturb an honest prejudice. we had no domestic throne to overturn, no privileged orders to cast down, no violent changes of property to encounter. in the american revolution, no man sought or wished for more than to defend and enjoy his own. none hoped for plunder or for spoil. rapacity was unknown to it; the axe was not among the instruments of its accomplishment; and we all know that it could not have lived a single day under any well-founded imputation of possessing a tendency adverse to the christian religion. it need not surprise us, that, under circumstances less auspicious, political revolutions elsewhere, even when well intended, have terminated differently. it is, indeed, a great achievement, it is the master-work of the world, to establish governments entirely popular on lasting foundations; nor is it easy, indeed, to introduce the popular principle at all into governments to which it has been altogether a stranger. it cannot be doubted, however, that europe has come out of the contest, in which she has been so long engaged, with greatly superior knowledge, and, in many respects, in a highly improved condition. whatever benefit has been acquired is likely to be retained, for it consists mainly in the acquisition of more enlightened ideas. and although kingdoms and provinces may be wrested from the hands that hold them, in the same manner they were obtained; although ordinary and vulgar power may, in human affairs, be lost as it has been won; yet it is the glorious prerogative of the empire of knowledge, that what it gains it never loses. on the contrary, it increases by the multiple of its own power; all its ends become means; all its attainments, helps to new conquests. its whole abundant harvest is but so much seed wheat, and nothing has limited, and nothing can limit, the amount of ultimate product. under the influence of this rapidly increasing knowledge, the people have begun, in forms of government, to think and to reason, on affairs of state. regarding government as an institution for the public good, they demand a knowledge of its operations, and a participation in its exercise. a call for the representative system, wherever it is not enjoyed, and where there is already intelligence enough to estimate its value, is perseveringly made. where men may speak out, they demand it; where the bayonet is at their throats, they pray for it. when louis the fourteenth said: "i am the state," he expressed the essence of the doctrine of unlimited power. by the rules of that system, the people are disconnected from the state; they are its subjects; it is their lord. these ideas, founded in the love of power, and long supported by the excess and the abuse of it, are yielding, in our age, to other opinions; and the civilized world seems at last to be proceeding to the conviction of that fundamental and manifest truth, that the powers of government are but a trust, and that they cannot be lawfully exercised but for the good of the community. as knowledge is more and more extended, this conviction becomes more and more general. knowledge, in truth, is the great sun in the firmament. life and power are scattered with all its beams. the prayer of the grecian champion, when enveloped in unnatural clouds and darkness, is the appropriate political supplication for the people of every country not yet blessed with free institutions:-- "dispel this cloud, the light of heaven restore, give me to see,--and ajax asks no more." [ ] we may hope that the glowing influence of enlightened sentiment will promote the permanent peace of the world. wars to maintain family alliances, to uphold or to cast down dynasties, and to regulate successions to thrones, which have occupied so much room in the history of modern times, if not less likely to happen at all, will be less likely to become general and involve many nations, as the great principle shall be more and more established, that the interest of the world is peace, and its first great statute, that every nation possesses the power of establishing a government for itself. but public opinion has attained also an influence over governments which do not admit the popular principle into their organization. a necessary respect for the judgment of the world operates, in some measure, as a control over the most unlimited forms of authority. it is owing, perhaps, to this truth, that the interesting struggle of the greeks has been suffered to go on so long, without a direct interference, either to wrest that country from its present masters, or to execute the system of pacification by force, and, with united strength, lay the neck of christian and civilized greek at the foot of the barbarian turk. [ ] let us thank god that we live in an age when something has influence besides the bayonet, and when the sternest authority does not venture to encounter the scorching power of public reproach. any attempt of the kind i have mentioned should be met by one universal burst of indignation; the air of the civilized world ought to be made too warm to be comfortably breathed by any one who would hazard it. it is, indeed, a touching reflection, that, while, in the fulness of our country's happiness, we rear this monument to her honor, we look for instruction in our undertaking to a country which is now in fearful contest, not for works of art or memorials of glory, but for her own existence. let her be assured that she is not forgotten in the world; that her efforts are applauded, and that constant prayers ascend for her success. and let us cherish a confident hope for her final triumph. if the true spark of religious and civil liberty be kindled, it will burn. human agency cannot extinguish it. like the earth's central fire, it may be smothered for a time; the ocean may overwhelm it; mountains may press it down; but its inherent and unconquerable force will heave both the ocean and the land, and at some time or other, in some place or other, the volcano will break out and flame up to heaven. among the great events of the half-century, we must reckon, certainly, the revolution of south america; and we are not likely to overrate the importance of that revolution, either to the people of the country itself or to the rest of the world. the late spanish colonies, now independent states, under circumstances less favorable, doubtless, than attended our own revolution, have yet successfully commenced their national existence. they have accomplished the great object of establishing their independence; they are known and acknowledged in the world; and although in regard to their systems of government, their sentiments on religious toleration, and their provisions for public instruction, they may have yet much to learn, it must be admitted that they have risen to the condition of settled and established states more rapidly than could have been reasonably anticipated. they already furnish an exhilarating example of the difference between free governments and despotic misrule. their commerce, at this moment, creates a new activity in all the great marts of the world. they show themselves able, by an exchange of commodities, to bear a useful part in the intercourse of nations. a new spirit of enterprise and industry begins to prevail; all the great interests of society receive a salutary impulse; and the progress of information not only testifies to an improved condition, but itself constitutes the highest and most essential improvement. when the battle of bunker hill was fought, the existence of south america was scarcely felt in the civilized world. the thirteen little colonies of north america habitually called themselves the "continent." borne down by colonial subjugation, monopoly, and bigotry, these vast regions of the south were hardly visible above the horizon. but in our day there has been, as it were, a new creation. the southern hemisphere emerges from the sea. its lofty mountains begin to lift themselves into the light of heaven; its broad and fertile plains stretch out, in beauty, to the eye of civilized man, and at the mighty bidding of the voice of political liberty the waters of darkness retire. and now, let us indulge an honest exultation in the conviction of the benefit which the example of our country has produced, and is likely to produce, on human freedom and human happiness. let us endeavor to comprehend in all its magnitude, and to feel in all its importance, the part assigned to us in the great drama of human affairs. we are placed at the head of the system of representative and popular governments. thus far our example shows that such governments are compatible, not only with respectability and power, but with repose, with peace, with security of personal rights, with good laws, and a just administration. we are not propagandists. wherever other systems are preferred, either as being thought better in themselves, or as better suited to existing condition, we leave the preference to be enjoyed. our history hitherto proves, however, that the popular form is practicable, and that with wisdom and knowledge men may govern themselves; and the duty incumbent on us is, to preserve the consistency of this cheering example, and take care that nothing may weaken its authority with the world. if, in our case, the representative system ultimately fail, popular governments must be pronounced impossible. no combination of circumstances more favorable to the experiment can ever be expected to occur. the last hopes of mankind, therefore, rest with us; and if it should be proclaimed, that our example had become an argument against the experiment, the knell of popular liberty would be sounded throughout the earth. these are excitements to duty; but they are not suggestions of doubt. our history and our condition, all that is gone before us, and all that surrounds us, authorize the belief, that popular governments, though subject to occasional variations, in form perhaps not always for the better, may yet, in their general character, be as durable and permanent as other systems. we know, indeed, that in our country any other is impossible. the _principle_ of free governments adheres to the american soil. it is bedded in it, immovable as its mountains. and let the sacred obligations which have devolved on this generation, and on us, sink deep into our hearts. those who established our liberty and our government are daily dropping from among us. the great trust now descends to new hands. let us apply ourselves to that which is presented to us, as our appropriate object. we can win no laurels in a war for independence. earlier and worthier hands have gathered them all. nor are there places for us by the side of solon, and alfred, and other founders of states. our fathers have filled them. but there remains to us a great duty of defence and preservation; and there is opened to us, also, a noble pursuit, to which the spirit of the times strongly invites us. our proper business is improvement. let our age be the age of improvement. in a day of peace, let us advance the arts of peace and the works of peace. let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests, and see whether we also, in our day and generation, may not perform something worthy to be remembered. let us cultivate a true spirit of union and harmony. in pursuing the great objects which our condition points out to us, let us act under a settled conviction, and an habitual feeling, that these twenty-four states are one country. let our conceptions be enlarged to the circle of our duties. let us extend our ideas over the whole of the vast field in which we are called to act. let our object be, our country, our whole country, and nothing but our country. and, by the blessing of god, may that country itself become a vast and splendid monument, not of oppression and terror, but of wisdom, of peace, and of liberty, upon which the world may gaze with admiration forever! the reply to hayne. mr. president,--when the mariner has been tossed for many days in thick weather, and on an unknown sea, he naturally avails himself of the first pause in the storm, the earliest glance of the sun, to take his latitude, and ascertain how far the elements have driven him from his true course. let us imitate this prudence, and, before we float farther on the waves of this debate, refer to the point from which we departed, that we may at least be able to conjecture where we now are. i ask for the reading of the resolution before the senate. [ ] the secretary read the resolution, as follows:-- "resolved, that the committee on public lands be instructed to inquire and report the quantity of public lands remaining unsold within each state and territory, and whether it be expedient to limit for a certain period the sales of the public lands to such lands only as have heretofore been offered for sale, and are now subject to entry at the minimum price. and, also, whether the office of surveyor-general, and some of the land offices, may not be abolished without detriment to the public interest; or whether it be expedient to adopt measures to hasten the sales and extend more rapidly the surveys of the public lands." we have thus heard, sir, what the resolution is which is actually before us for consideration; and it will readily occur to every one, that it is almost the only subject about which something has not been said in the speech, running through two days, by which the senate has been entertained by the gentleman from south carolina. every topic in the wide range of our public affairs, whether past or present,--every thing, general or local, whether belonging to national politics or party politics,--seems to have attracted more or less of the honorable member's attention, save only the resolution before the senate. he has spoken of every thing but the public lands; they have escaped his notice. to that subject, in all his excursions, he has not paid even the cold respect of a passing glance. when this debate, sir, was to be resumed, on thursday morning, it so happened that it would have been convenient for me to be elsewhere. the honorable member, however, did not incline to put off the discussion to another day. he had a shot, he said, to return, and he wished to discharge it. that shot, sir, which he thus kindly informed us was coming, that we might stand out of the way, or prepare ourselves to fall by it and die with decency, has now been received. under all advantages, and with expectation awakened by the tone which preceded it, it has been discharged, and has spent its force. it may become me to say no more of its effect, than that, if nobody is found, after all, either killed or wounded, it is not the first time, in the history of human affairs, that the vigor and success of the war have not quite come up to the lofty and sounding phrase of the manifesto. [ ] the gentleman, sir, in declining to postpone the debate, told the senate, with the emphasis of his hand upon his heart, that there was something rankling _here_, which he wished to relieve. [mr. hayne rose, and disclaimed having used the word _rankling_.] it would not, mr. president, be safe for the honorable member to appeal to those around him, upon the question whether he did in fact make use of that word. but he may have been unconscious of it. at any rate, it is enough that he disclaims it. but still, with or without the use of that particular word, he had yet something _here_, he said, of which he wished to rid himself by an immediate reply. in this respect, sir, i have a great advantage over the honorable gentleman. there is nothing _here_, sir, which gives me the slightest uneasiness; neither fear, nor anger, nor that which is sometimes more troublesome than either, the consciousness of having been in the wrong. there is nothing, either originating _here_, or now received _here_ by the gentleman's shot. nothing originating here, for i had not the slightest feeling of unkindness towards the honorable member. some passages, it is true, had occurred since our acquaintance in this body, which i could have wished might have been otherwise; but i had used philosophy and forgotten them. i paid the honorable member the attention of listening with respect to his first speech; and when he sat down, though surprised, and i must even say astonished, at some of his opinions, nothing was farther from my intention than to commence any personal warfare. through the whole of the few remarks i made in answer, i avoided, studiously and carefully, every thing which i thought possible to be construed into disrespect. and, sir, while there is thus nothing originating _here_ which i have wished at any time, or now wish, to discharge, i must repeat, also, that nothing has been received _here_ which _rankles_, or in any way gives me annoyance. i will not accuse the honorable member of violating the rules of civilized war; i will not say, that he poisoned his arrows. but whether his shafts were, or were not, dipped in that which would have caused rankling if they had reached their destination, there was not, as it happened, quite strength enough in the bow to bring them to their mark. if he wishes now to gather up those shafts, he must look for them elsewhere; they will not be found fixed and quivering in the object at which they were aimed. [ ] the honorable member complained that i had slept on his speech. i must have slept on it, or not slept at all. the moment the honorable member sat down, his friend from missouri rose, [ ] and, with much honeyed commendation of the speech, suggested that the impressions which it had produced were too charming and delightful to be disturbed by other sentiments or other sounds, and proposed that the senate should adjourn. would it have been quite amiable in me, sir, to interrupt this excellent good feeling? must i not have been absolutely malicious, is; i could have thrust myself forward, to destroy sensations thus pleasing? was it not much better and kinder, both to sleep upon them myself, and to allow others also the pleasure of sleeping upon them? but if it be meant, by sleeping upon his speech, that i took time to prepare a reply to it, it is quite a mistake. owing to other engagements, i could not employ even the interval between the adjournment of the senate and its meeting the next morning, in attention to the subject of this debate. [ ] nevertheless, sir, the mere matter of fact is undoubtedly true. i did sleep on the gentleman's speech, and slept soundly. and i slept equally well on his speech of yesterday, to which i am now replying. it is quite possible that in this respect, also, i possess some advantage over the honorable member, attributable, doubtless, to a cooler temperament on my part; for, in truth, i slept upon his speeches remarkably well. but the gentleman inquires why _he_ was made the object of such a reply. why was _he_ singled out? if an attack has been made on the east, he, he assures us, did not begin it; it was made by the gentleman from missouri. sir, i answered the gentleman's speech because i happened to hear it; and because, also, i chose to give an answer to that speech, which, if unanswered, i thought most likely to produce injurious impressions. i did not stop to inquire who was the original drawer of the bill. i found a responsible indorser before me, and it was my purpose to hold him liable, and to bring him to his just responsibility, without delay. but, sir, this interrogatory of the honorable member was only introductory to another. he proceeded to ask me whether i had turned upon him, in this debate, from the consciousness that i should find an overmatch, if i ventured on a contest with his friend from missouri. if, sir, the honorable member, _modestiae gratia_, had chosen thus to defer to his friend, and to pay him a compliment, without intentional disparagement to others, it would have been quite according to the friendly courtesies of debate, and not at all ungrateful to my own feelings. i am not one of those, sir, who esteem any tribute of regard, whether light and occasional, or more serious and deliberate, which may be bestowed on others, as so much unjustly withholden from themselves. but the tone and manner of the gentleman's question forbid me thus to interpret it. i am not at liberty to consider it as nothing more than a civility to his friend. it had an air of taunt and disparagement, something of the loftiness of asserted superiority, which does not allow me to pass it over without notice. it was put as a question for me to answer, and so put as if it were difficult for me to answer, whether i deemed the member from missouri an overmatch for myself in debate here. it seems to me, sir, that this is extraordinary language, and an extraordinary tone, for the discussions of this body. matches and overmatches! those terms are more applicable elsewhere than here, and fitter for other assemblies than this. sir, the gentleman seems to forget where and what we are. this is a senate, a senate of equals, of men of individual honor and personal character, and of absolute independence. we know no masters, we acknowledge no dictators. this is a hall for mutual consultation and discussion; not an arena for the exhibition of champions. i offer myself, sir, as a match for no man; i throw the challenge of debate at no man's feet. but then, sir, since the honorable member has put the question in a manner that calls for an answer, i will give him an answer; and i tell him, that, holding myself to be the humblest of the members here, i yet know nothing in the arm of his friend from missouri, either alone or when aided by the arm of _his_ friend from south carolina, that need deter even me from espousing whatever opinions i may choose to espouse, from debating whenever i may choose to debate, or from speaking whatever i may see fit to say, on the floor of the senate. sir, when uttered as matter of commendation or compliment, i should dissent from nothing which the honorable member might say of his friend. still less do i put forth any pretensions of my own. but when put to me as matter of taunt, i throw it back, and say to the gentleman, that he could possibly say nothing less [ ] likely than such a comparison to wound my pride of personal character. the anger of its tone rescued the remark from intentional irony, which otherwise, probably, would have been its general acceptation. but, sir, if it be imagined that by this mutual quotation and commendation; if it be supposed that, by casting the characters of the drama, assigning to each his part, to one the attack, to another the cry of onset; or if it be thought that, by a loud and empty vaunt of anticipated victory, any laurels are to be won here; if it be imagined, especially, that any or all these things will shake any purpose of mine,--i can tell the honorable member, once for all, that he is greatly mistaken, and that he is dealing with one of whose temper and character he has yet much to learn. sir, i shall not allow myself, on this occasion, i hope on no occasion, to be betrayed into any loss of temper; but if provoked, as i trust i never shall be, into crimination and recrimination, the honorable member may perhaps find, that, in that contest, there will be blows to take as well as blows to give; that others can state comparisons as significant, at least, as his own, and that his impunity may possibly demand of him whatever powers of taunt and sarcasm he may possess. i commend him to a prudent husbandry of his resources. but, sir, the coalition! [ ] the coalition! ay, "the murdered coalition!" the gentleman asks, if i were led or frighted into this debate by the spectre of the coalition. "was it the ghost of the murdered coalition," he exclaims, "which haunted the member from massachusetts; and which, like the ghost of banquo, would never down?" "the murdered coalition!" sir, this charge of a coalition, in reference to the late administration, is not original with the honorable member. it did not spring up in the senate. whether as a fact, as an argument, or as an embellishment, it is all borrowed. he adopts it, indeed, from a very low origin, and a still lower present condition. it is one of the thousand calumnies with which the press teemed, during an excited political canvass. it was a charge, of which there was not only no proof or probability, but which was in itself wholly impossible to be true. no man of common information ever believed a syllable of it. yet it was of that class of falsehoods, which, by continued repetition, through all the organs of detraction and abuse, are capable of misleading those who are already far misled, and of further fanning passion already kindling into flame. doubtless it served in its day, and in greater or less degree, the end designed by it. having done that, it has sunk into the general mass of stale and loathed calumnies. it is the very cast-off slough of a polluted and shameless press. incapable of further mischief, it lies in the sewer, lifeless and despised. it is not now, sir, in the power of the honorable member to give it dignity or decency, by attempting to elevate it, and to introduce it into the senate. he cannot change it from what it is, an object of general disgust and scorn. on the contrary, the contact, if he choose to touch it, is more likely to drag him down, down, to the place where it lies itself. but, sir, the honorable member was not, for other reasons, entirely happy in his allusion to the story of banquo's murder and banquo's ghost. it was not, i think, the friends, but the enemies of the murdered banquo, at whose bidding his spirit would not _down_. the honorable gentleman is fresh in his reading of the english classics, and can put me right if i am wrong; but, according to my poor recollection, it was at those who had begun with caresses and ended with foul and treacherous murder that the gory locks were shaken. the ghost of banquo, like that of hamlet, was an honest ghost. it disturbed no innocent man. it knew where its appearance would strike terror, and who would cry out, a ghost! it made itself visible in the right quarter, and compelled the guilty and the conscience-smitten, and none others, to start, with, "pr'ythee, see there! behold!--look! lo, if i stand here, i saw him!" their eyeballs were seared (was it not so, sir?) who had thought to shield themselves by concealing their own hand, and laying the imputation of the crime on a low and hireling agency in wickedness; who had vainly attempted to stifle the workings of their own coward consciences by ejaculating through white lips and chattering teeth, "thou canst not say i did it!" i have misread the great poet if those who had no way partaken in the deed of the death, either found that they were, or _feared that they should be_, pushed from their stools by the ghost of the slain, or exclaimed to a spectre created by their own fears and their own remorse, "avaunt! and quit our sight!" there is another particular, sir, in which the honorable member's quick perception of resemblances might, i should think, have seen something in the story of banquo, making it not altogether a subject of the most pleasant contemplation. those who murdered banquo, what did they win by it? substantial good? permanent power? or disappointment, rather, and sore mortification,--dust and ashes, the common fate of vaulting ambition overleaping itself? did not even-handed justice erelong commend the poisoned chalice to their own lips? did they not soon find that for another they had "filed their mind"? that their ambition, though apparently for the moment successful, had but put a barren sceptre in their grasp? [ ] ay, sir, "a barren sceptre in their gripe, _thence to be wrenched with an unlineal hand, no son of theirs succeeding_." sir, i need pursue the allusion no farther. i leave the honorable gentleman to run it out at his leisure, and to derive from it all the gratification it is calculated to administer. if he finds himself pleased with the associations, and prepared to be quite satisfied, though the parallel should be entirely completed, i had almost said, i am satisfied also; but that i shall think of. yes, sir, i will think of that. in the course of my observations the other day, mr. president, i paid a passing tribute of respect to a very worthy man, mr. dane of massachusetts. it so happened that he drew the ordinance of , for the government of the northwestern territory. a man of so much ability, and so little pretence; of so great a capacity to do good, and so unmixed a disposition to do it for its own sake; a gentleman who had acted an important part, forty years ago, in a measure the influence of which is still deeply felt in the very matter which was the subject of debate,--might, i thought, receive from me a commendatory recognition. but the honorable member was inclined to be facetious on the subject. he was rather disposed to make it matter of ridicule, that i had introduced into the debate the name of one nathan dane, of whom he assures us he had never before heard. sir, if the honorable member had never before heard of mr. dane, i am sorry for it. it shows him less acquainted with the public men of the country than i had supposed. let me tell him, however, that a sneer from him at the mention of the name of mr. dane is in bad taste. it may well be a high mark of ambition, sir, either with the honorable gentleman or myself, to accomplish as much to make our names known to advantage, and remembered with gratitude, as mr. dane has accomplished. but the truth is, sir, i suspect, that mr. dane lives a little too far north. he is of massachusetts, and too near the north star to be reached by the honorable gentleman's telescope. if his sphere had happened to range south of mason and dixon's line, he might, probably, have come within the scope of his vision. i spoke, sir, of the ordinance of , which prohibits slavery, in all future times, northwest of the ohio, as a measure of great wisdom and foresight, and one which had been attended with highly beneficial and permanent consequences. i supposed that, on this point, no two gentlemen in the senate could entertain different opinions. but the simple expression of this sentiment has led the gentleman, not only into a labored defence of slavery, in the abstract, and on principle, but also into a warm accusation against me, as having attacked the system of domestic slavery now existing in the southern states. for all this, there was not the slightest foundation, in anything said or intimated by me. i did not utter a single word which any ingenuity could torture into an attack on the slavery of the south. i said, only, that it was highly wise and useful, in legislating for the northwestern country while it was yet a wilderness, to prohibit the introduction of slaves; and i added, that i presumed there was no reflecting and intelligent person, in the neighboring state of kentucky, who would doubt that, if the same prohibition had been extended, at the same early period, over that commonwealth, her strength and population would, at this day, have been far greater than they are. if these opinions be thought doubtful, they are nevertheless, i trust, neither extraordinary nor disrespectful. they attack nobody and menace nobody. and yet, sir, the gentleman's optics have discovered, even in the mere expression of this sentiment, what he calls the very spirit of the missouri question! [ ] he represents me as making an onset on the whole south, and manifesting a spirit which would interfere with, and disturb, their domestic condition! sir, this injustice no otherwise surprises me, than as it is committed here, and committed without the slightest pretence of ground for it. i say it only surprises me as being done here; for i know full well, that it is, and has been, the settled policy of some persons in the south, for years, to represent the people of the north as disposed to interfere with them in their own exclusive and peculiar concerns. this is a delicate and sensitive point in southern feeling; and of late years it has always been touched, and generally with effect, whenever the object has been to unite the whole south against northern men or northern measures. this feeling, always carefully kept alive, and maintained at too intense a heat to admit discrimination or reflection, is a lever of great power in our political machine. it moves vast bodies, and gives to them one and the same direction. but it is without adequate cause, and the suspicion which exists is wholly groundless. there is not, and never has been, a disposition in the north to interfere with these interests of the south. such interference has never been supposed to be within the power of government; nor has it been in any way attempted. the slavery of the south has always been regarded as a matter of domestic policy, left with the states themselves, and with which the federal government had nothing to do. certainly, sir, i am, and ever have been, of that opinion. the gentleman, indeed, argues that slavery, in the abstract, is no evil. most assuredly i need not say i differ with him, altogether and most widely, on that point. i regard domestic slavery as one of the greatest evils, both moral and political. but whether it be a malady, and whether it be curable, and if so, by what means; or, on the other hand, whether it be the _vulnus immedicabile_ of the social system, i leave it to those whose right and duty it is to inquire and to decide. and this i believe, sir, is, and uniformly has been, the sentiment of the north. when it became necessary, or was thought so, by some political persons, to find an unvarying ground for the exclusion of northern men from confidence and from lead in the affairs of the republic, then, and not till then, the cry was raised, and the feeling industriously excited, that the influence of northern men in the public counsels would endanger the relation of master and slave. for myself, i claim no other merit than that this gross and enormous injustice towards the whole north has not wrought upon me to change my opinions or my political conduct. i hope i am above violating my principles, even under the smart of injury and false imputations. unjust suspicions and undeserved reproach, whatever pain i may experience from them, will not induce me, i trust, to overstep the limits of constitutional duty, or to encroach on the rights of others. the domestic slavery of the southern states i leave where i find it,--in the hands of their own governments. it is their affair, not mine. nor do i complain of the peculiar effect which the magnitude of that population has had in the distribution of power under this federal government. we know, sir, that the representation of the states in the other house is not equal. we know that great advantage in that respect is enjoyed by the slave-holding states; and we know, too, that the intended equivalent for that advantage, that is to say, the imposition of direct taxes in the same ratio, has become merely nominal, the habit of the government being almost invariably to collect its revenue from other sources and in other modes. nevertheless, i do not complain; nor would i countenance any movement to alter this arrangement of representation. it is the original bargain, the compact; let it stand; let the advantage of it be fully enjoyed. the union itself is too full of benefit to be hazarded in propositions for changing its original basis. i go for the constitution as it is, and for the union as it is. but i am resolved not to submit in silence to accusations, either against myself individually or against the north, wholly unfounded and unjust,--accusations which impute to us a disposition to evade the constitutional compact, and to extend the power of the government over the internal laws and domestic condition of the states. all such accusations, wherever and whenever made, all insinuations of the existence of any such purposes, i know and feel to be groundless and injurious. and we must confide in southern gentlemen themselves; we must trust to those whose integrity of heart and magnanimity of feeling will lead them to a desire to maintain and disseminate truth, and who possess the means of its diffusion with the southern public; we must leave it to them to disabuse that public of its prejudices. but in the mean time, for my own part, i shall continue to act justly, whether those towards whom justice is exercised receive it with candor or with contumely. having had occasion to recur to the ordinance of , in order to defend myself against the inferences which the honorable member has chosen to draw from my former observations on that subject, i am not willing now entirely to take leave of it without another remark. it need hardly be said, that that paper expresses just sentiments on the great subject of civil and religious liberty. such sentiments were common, and abound in all our state papers of that day. but this ordinance did that which was not so common, and which is not even now universal; that is, it set forth and declared it to be a high and binding duty of government itself to support schools and advance the means of education, on the plain reason that religion, morality, and knowledge are necessary to good government, and to the happiness of mankind. one observation further. the important provision incorporated into the constitution of the united states, and into several of those of the states, and recently, as we have seen, adopted into the reformed constitution of virginia, restraining legislative power in questions of private right, and from impairing the obligation of contracts, is first introduced and established, as far as i am informed, as matter of express written constitutional law, in this ordinance of . and i must add, also, in regard to the author of the ordinance, who has not had the happiness to attract the gentleman's notice heretofore, nor to avoid his sarcasm now, that he was chairman of that select committee of the old congress, whose report first expressed the strong sense of that body, that the old confederation was not adequate to the exigencies of the country, and recommended to the states to send delegates to the convention which formed the present constitution. an attempt has been made to transfer from the north to the south the honor of this exclusion of slavery from the northwestern territory. the journal, without argument or comment, refutes such attempts. the cession by virginia was made in march, . on the th of april following, a committee, consisting of messrs. jefferson, chase, and howell, reported a plan for a temporary government of the territory, in which was this article: "that, after the year , there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said states, otherwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been convicted." mr. spaight of north carolina moved to strike out this paragraph. the question was put, according to the form then practised, "shall these words stand as a part of the plan?" new hampshire, massachusetts, rhode island, connecticut, new york, new jersey, and pennsylvania, seven states, voted in the affirmative; maryland, virginia, and south carolina, in the negative. north carolina was divided. as the consent of nine states was necessary, the words could not stand, and were struck out accordingly. mr. jefferson voted for the clause, but was overruled by his colleagues. in march of the next year ( ), mr. king of massachusetts, seconded by mr. ellery of rhode island, proposed the formerly rejected article, with this addition: "and that this regulation shall be an article of compact, and remain a fundamental principle of the constitutions between the thirteen original states, and each of the states described in the resolve." on this clause, which provided the adequate and thorough security, the eight northern states at that time voted affirmatively, and the four southern states negatively. the votes of nine states were not yet obtained, and thus the provision was again rejected by the southern states. the perseverance of the north held out, and two years afterwards the object was attained. it is no derogation from the credit, whatever that may be, of drawing the ordinance, that its principles had before been prepared and discussed, in the form of resolutions. if one should reason in that way, what would become of the distinguished honor of the author of the declaration of independence? there is not a sentiment in that paper which had not been voted and resolved in the assemblies, and other popular bodies in the country, over and over again. but the honorable member has now found out that this gentleman, mr. dane, was a member of the hartford convention. [ ] however uninformed the honorable member may be of characters and occurrences at the north, it would seem that he has at his elbow, on this occasion, some highminded and lofty spirit, some magnanimous and true-hearted monitor, possessing the means of local knowledge, and ready to supply the honorable member with every thing, down even to forgotten and moth-eaten two-penny pamphlets, which may be used to the disadvantage of his own country. but as to the hartford convention, sir, allow me to say, that the proceedings of that body seem now to be less read and studied in new england than farther south. they appear to be looked to, not in new england, but elsewhere, for the purpose of seeing how far they may serve as a precedent. but they will not answer the purpose, they are quite too tame. the latitude in which they originated was too cold. other conventions, of more recent existence, have gone a whole bar's length beyond it. the learned doctors of colleton and abbeville have pushed their commentaries on the hartford collect so far, that the original text-writers are thrown entirely into the shade. i have nothing to do, sir, with the hartford convention. its journal, which the gentleman has quoted, i never read. so far as the honorable member may discover in its proceedings a spirit in any degree resembling that which was avowed and justified in those other conventions to which i have alluded, or so far as those proceedings can be shown to be disloyal to the constitution, or tending to disunion, as far i shall be as ready as any one to bestow on them reprehension and censure. having dwelt long on this convention, and other occurrences of that day, in the hope, probably, (which will not be gratified), that i should leave the course of this debate to follow him at length in those excursions, the honorable member returned, and attempted another object. he referred to a speech of mine in the other house, the same which i had occasion to allude to myself, the other day; and has quoted a passage or two from it, with a bold, though uneasy and laboring, air of confidence, as if he had detected in me an inconsistency. judging from the gentleman's manner, a stranger to the course of the debate and to the point in discussion would have imagined, from so triumphant a tone, that the honorable member was about to overwhelm me with a manifest contradiction. any one who heard him, and who had not heard what i had, in fact, previously said, must have thought me routed and discomfited, as the gentleman had promised. sir, a breath blows all this triumph away. there is not the slightest difference in the purport of my remarks on the two occasions. what i said here on wednesday is in exact accordance with the opinion expressed by me in the other house in . though the gentleman had the metaphysics of hudibras, though he were able "to sever and divide a hair 'twixt north and northwest side," he could yet not insert his metaphysical scissors between the fair reading of my remarks in , and what i said here last week. there is not only no contradiction, no difference, but, in truth, too exact a similarity, both in thought and language, to be entirely in just taste. i had myself quoted the same speech; had recurred to it, and spoke with it open before me; and much of what i said was little more than a repetition from it. i need not repeat at large the general topics of the honorable gentleman's speech. when he said yesterday that he did not attack the eastern states, he certainly must have forgotten, not only particular remarks, but the whole drift and tenor of his speech; unless he means by not attacking, that he did not commence hostilities, but that another had preceded him in the attack. he, in the first place, disapproved of the whole course of the government, for forty years, in regard to its disposition of the public lands; and then, turning northward and eastward, and fancying he had found a cause for alleged narrowness and niggardliness in the "accursed policy" of the tariff, to which he represented the people of new england as wedded, he went on for a full hour with remarks, the whole scope of which was to exhibit the results of this policy, in feelings and in measures unfavorable to the west. i thought his opinions unfounded and erroneous, as to the general course of the government, and ventured to reply to them. the gentleman had remarked on the analogy of other cases, and quoted the conduct of european governments towards their own subjects settling on this continent, as in point, to show that we had been harsh and rigid in selling, when we should have given the public lands to settlers without price. i thought the honorable member had suffered his judgment to be betrayed by a false analogy; that he was struck with an appearance of resemblance where there was no real similitude. i think so still. the first settlers of north america were enterprising spirits, engaged in private adventure, or fleeing from tyranny at home. when arrived here, they were forgotten by the mother country, or remembered only to be oppressed. carried away again by the appearance of anology, or struck with the eloquence of the passage, the honorable member yesterday observed, that the conduct of government towards the western emigrants, or my representation of it, brought to his mind a celebrated speech in the british parliament. it was, sir, the speech of colonel barre. on the question of the stamp act, or tea tax, i forget which, colonel barre had heard a member on the treasury bench argue, that the people of the united states, being british colonists, planted by the maternal care, nourished by the indulgence, and protected by the arms of england, would not grudge their mite to relieve the mother country from the heavy burden under which she groaned. the language of colonel barre, in reply to this, was: "they planted by your care? your oppression planted them in america. they fled from your tyranny, and grew by your neglect of them. so soon as you began to care for them, you showed your care by sending persons to spy out their liberties, misrepresent their character, prey upon them, and eat out their substance." and how does the honorable gentleman mean to maintain, that language like this is applicable to the conduct of the government of the united states towards the western emigrants, or to any representation given by me of that conduct? were the settlers in the west driven thither by our oppression? have they flourished only by our neglect of them? has the government done nothing but prey upon them, and eat out their substance? sir, this fervid eloquence of the british speaker, just when and where it was uttered, and fit to remain an exercise for the schools, is not a little out of place, when it is brought thence to be applied here to the conduct of our own country towards her own citizens. from america to england, it may be true; from americans to their own government, it would be strange language. let us leave it, to be recited and declaimed by our boys against a foreign nation; not introduce it here, to recite and declaim ourselves against our own. but i come to the point of the alleged contradiction. in my remarks on wednesday, i contended that we could not give away gratuitously all the public lands; that we held them in trust; that the government had solemnly pledged itself to dispose of them as a common fund for the common benefit, and to sell and settle them as its discretion should dictate. now, sir, what contradiction does the gentleman find to this sentiment in the speech of ? he quotes me as having then said, that we ought not to hug these lands as a very great treasure. very well, sir, supposing me to be accurately reported in that expression, what is the contradiction? i have not now said, that we should hug these lands as a favorite source of pecuniary income. no such thing. it is not my view. what i have said, and what i do say, is, that they are a common fund, to be disposed of for the common benefit, to be sold at low prices for the accommodation of settlers, keeping the object of settling the lands as much in view as that of raising money from them. this i say now, and this i have always said. is this hugging them as a favorite treasure? is there no difference between hugging and hoarding this fund, on the one hand, as a great treasure, and, on the other, of disposing of it at low prices, placing the proceeds in the general treasury of the union? my opinion is, that as much is to be made of the land as fairly and reasonably may be, selling it all the while at such rates as to give the fullest effect to settlement. this is not giving it all away to the states, as the gentleman would propose; nor is it hugging the fund closely and tenaciously, as a favorite treasure; but it is, in my judgment, a just and wise policy, perfectly according with all the various duties which rest on government. so much for my contradiction. and what is it? where is the ground of the gentleman's triumph? what inconsistency in word or doctrine has he been able to detect? sir, if this be a sample of that discomfiture with which the honorable gentleman threatened me, commend me to the word _discomfiture_ for the rest of my life. we approach, at length, sir, to a more important part of the honorable gentleman's observations. since it does not accord with my views of justice and policy to give away the public lands altogether, as a mere matter of gratuity, i am asked by the honorable gentleman on what ground it is that i consent to vote them away in particular instances. how, he inquires, do i reconcile with these professed sentiments, my support of measures appropriating portions of the lands to particular roads, particular canals, particular rivers, and particular institutions of education in the west? this leads, sir, to the real and wide difference in political opinion between the honorable gentleman and myself. on my part, i look upon all these objects as connected with the common good, fairly embraced in its object and its terms; he, on the contrary, deems them all, if good at all, only local good. this is our difference. the interrogatory which he proceeded to put at once explains this difference. "what interest," asks he, "has south carolina in a canal in ohio?" sir, this very question is full of significance. it develops the gentleman's whole political system; and its answer expounds mine. here we differ. i look upon a road over the alleghenies, a canal round the falls of the ohio, or a canal or railway from the atlantic to the western waters, as being an object large and extensive enough to be fairly said to be for the common benefit. the gentleman thinks otherwise, and this is the key to his construction of the powers of the government. he may well ask what interest has south carolina in a canal in ohio. on his system, it is true, she has no interest. on that system, ohio and carolina are different governments, and different countries; connected here, it is true, by some slight and ill-defined bond of union, but in all main respects separate and diverse. on that system, carolina has no more interest in a canal in ohio than in mexico. the gentleman, therefore, only follows out his own principles; he does no more than arrive at the natural conclusions of his own doctrines; he only announces the true results of that creed which he has adopted himself, and would persuade others to adopt, when he thus declares that south carolina has no interest in a public work in ohio. sir, we narrow-minded people of new england do not reason thus. our _notion_ of things is entirely different. we look upon the states, not as separated, but as united. we love to dwell on that union, and on the mutual happiness which it has so much promoted, and the common renown which it has so greatly contributed to acquire. in our contemplation, carolina and ohio are parts of the same country; states, united under the same general government, having interests, common, associated, intermingled. in whatever is within the proper sphere of the constitutional power of this government, we look upon the states as one. we do not impose geographical limits to our patriotic feeling or regard; we do not follow rivers and mountains, and lines of latitude, to find boundaries, beyond which public improvements do not benefit us. we who come here, as agents and representatives of these narrow-minded and selfish men of new england, consider ourselves as bound to regard with an equal eye the good of the whole, in whatever is within our powers of legislation. sir, if a railroad or canal beginning in south carolina and ending in south carolina, appeared to me to be of national importance and national magnitude, believing, as i do, that the power of government extends to the encouragement of works of that description, if i were to stand up here and ask, what interest has massachusetts in a railroad in south carolina? i should not be willing to face my constituents. [ ] these same narrow-minded men would tell me, that they had sent me to act for the whole country, and that one who possessed too little comprehension, either of intellect or feeling, one one who was not large enough, both in mind and in heart, to embrace the whole, was not fit to be intrusted with the interest of any part. sir, i do not desire to enlarge the powers of the government by unjustifiable construction, nor to exercise any not within a fair interpretation. but when it is believed that a power does exist, then it is, in my judgment, to be exercised for the general benefit of the whole. so far as respects the exercise of such a. power, the states are one. it was the very object of the constitution to create unity of interests to the extent of the powers of the general government. in war and peace we are one; in commerce, one; because the authority of the general government reaches to war and peace, and to the regulation of commerce. i have never seen any more difficulty in erecting light-houses on the lakes, than on the ocean; in improving the harbors of inland seas, than if they were within the ebb and flow of the tide; or in removing obstructions in the vast streams of the west, more than in any work to facilitate commerce on the atlantic coast. if there be any power for one, there is power also for the other; and they are all and equally for the common good of the country. there are other objects, apparently more local, or the benefit of which is less general, towards which, nevertheless, i have concurred with others, to give aid by donations of land. it is proposed to construct a road, in or through one of the new states, in which this government possesses large quantities of land. have the united states no right, or, as a great and untaxed proprietor, are they under no obligation to contribute to an object thus calculated to promote the common good of all the proprietors, themselves included? and even with respect to education, which is the extreme case, let the question be considered. in the first place, as we have seen, it was made matter of compact with these states, that they should do their part to promote education. in the next place, our whole system of land laws proceeds on the idea that education is for the common good; because, in every division, a certain portion is uniformly reserved and appropriated for the use of schools. and, finally, have not these new states singularly strong claims, founded on the ground already stated, that the government is a great untaxed proprietor, in the ownership of the soil? it is a consideration of great importance, that probably there is in no part of the country, or of the world, so great call for the means of education, as in these new states, owing to the vast number's of persons within those ages in which education and instruction are usually received, if received at all. this is the natural consequence of recency of settlement and rapid increase. the census of these states shows how great a proportion of the whole population occupies the classes between infancy and manhood. these are the wide fields, and here is the deep and quick soil for the seeds of knowledge and virtue; and this is the favored season, the very spring-time for sowing them. let them be disseminated without stint. let them be scattered with a bountiful hand, broadcast. whatever the government can fairly do towards these objects, in my opinion, ought to be done. these, sir, are the grounds, succinctly stated, on which my votes for grants of lands for particular objects rest; while i maintain, at the same time, that it is all a common fund, for the common benefit. and reasons like these, i presume, have influenced the votes of other gentlemen from new england. those who have a different view of the powers of the government, of course, come to different conclusions, on these, as on other questions. i observed, when speaking on this subject before, that if we looked to any measure, whether for a road, a canal, or any thing else, intended for the improvement of the west, it would be found that, if the new england _ayes_ were struck out of the lists of votes, the southern _noes_ would always have rejected the measure. the truth of this has not been denied, and cannot be denied. in stating this, i thought it just to ascribe it to the constitutional scruples of the south, rather than to any other less favorable or less charitable cause. but no sooner had i done this, than the honorable gentleman asks if i reproach him and his friends with their constitutional scruples. sir, i reproach nobody. i stated a fact, and gave the most respectful reason for it that occurred to me. the gentleman cannot deny the fact; he may, if he choose, disclaim the reason. it is not long since i had occasion, in presenting a petition from his own state, to account for its being intrusted to my hands, by saying, that the constitutional opinions of the gentleman and his worthy colleague prevented them from supporting it. sir, did i state this as matter of reproach? far from it. did i attempt to find any other cause than an honest one for these scruples? sir, i did not. it did not become me to doubt or to insinuate that the gentleman had either changed his sentiments, or that he had made up a set of constitutional opinions accommodated to any particular combination of political occurrences. had i done so, i should have felt, that, while i was entitled to little credit in thus questioning other people's motives, i justified the whole world in suspecting my own. but how has the gentleman returned this respect for others' opinions? his own candor and justice, how have they been exhibited towards the motives of others, while he has been at so much pains to maintain, what nobody has disputed, the purity of his own? why, sir, he has asked _when_, and _how_, and _why_ new england votes were found going for measures favorable to the west. he has demanded to be informed whether all this did not begin in , and while the election of president was still pending. sir, to these questions retort would be justified; and it is both cogent and at hand. nevertheless, i will answer the inquiry, not by retort, but by facts. i will tell the gentleman when, and how, and why new england has supported measures favorable to the west. i have already referred to the early history of the government, to the first acquisition of the lands, to the original laws for disposing of them, and for governing the territories where they lie; and have shown the influence of new england men and new england principles in all these leading measures. i should not be pardoned were i to go over that ground again. coming to more recent times, and to measures of a less general character, i have endeavored to prove that every thing of this kind, designed for western improvement, has depended on the votes of new england; all this is true beyond the power of contradiction. and now, sir, there are two measures to which i will refer, not so ancient as to belong to the early history of the public lands, and not so recent as to be on this side of the period when the gentleman charitably imagines a new direction may have been given to new england feeling and new england votes. these measures, and the new england votes in support of them, may be taken as samples and specimens of all the rest. in (observe, mr. president, in ) the people of the west besought congress for a reduction in the price of lands. in favor of that reduction, new england, with a delegation of forty members in the other house, gave thirty-three votes, and one only against it. the four southern states, with more than fifty members, gave thirty-two votes for it, and seven against it. again, in , (observe again, sir, the time,) the law passed for the relief of the purchasers of the public lands. this was a measure of vital importance to the west, and more especially to the southwest. it authorized the relinquishment of contracts for lands which had been entered into at high prices, and a reduction in other cases of not less than thirty-seven and a half per cent on the purchase-money. many millions of dollars, six or seven, i believe, probably much more, were relinquished by this law. on this bill, new england, with her forty members, gave more affirmative votes than the four southern states, with their fifty-two or fifty-three members. these two are far the most important general measures respecting the public lands which have been adopted within the last twenty years. they took place in and . that is the time _when_. as to the manner _how_, the gentleman already sees that it was by voting in solid column for the required relief; and, lastly, as to the cause _why_, i tell the gentleman it was because the members from new england thought the measures just and salutary; because they entertained towards the west neither envy, hatred, nor malice; because they deemed it becoming them, as just and enlightened public men, to meet the exigency which had arisen in the west with the appropriate measure of relief; because they felt it due to their own characters, and the characters of their new england predecessors in this government, to act towards the new states in the spirit of a liberal, patronizing, magnanimous policy. so much, sir, for the cause _why_; and i hope that by this time, sir, the honorable gentleman is satisfied; if not, i do not know _when_, or _how_, or _why_ he ever will be. having recurred to these two important measures, in answer to the gentleman's inquiries, i must now beg permission to go back to a period somewhat earlier, for the purpose of still further showing how much, or rather how little, reason there is for the gentleman's insinuation that political hopes or fears, or party associations, were the grounds of these new england votes. and after what has been said, i hope it may be forgiven me if i allude to some political opinions and votes of my own, of very little public importance certainly, but which, from the time at which they were given and expressed, may pass for good witnesses on this occasion. this government, mr. president, from its origin to the peace of , had been too much engrossed with various other important concerns to be able to turn its thoughts inward, and look to the development of its vast internal resources. in the early part of president washington's administration, it was fully occupied with completing its own organization, providing for the public debt, defending the frontiers, and maintaining domestic peace. before the termination of that administration, the fires of the french revolution blazed forth, as from a new-opened volcano, and the whole breadth of the ocean did not secure us from its effects. the smoke and the cinders reached us, though not the burning lava. difficult and agitating questions, embarrassing to government and dividing public opinion, sprung out of the new state of our foreign relations, and were succeeded by others, and yet again by others, equally embarrassing and equally exciting division and discord, through the long series of twenty years, till they finally issued in the war with england. down to the close of that war, no distinct, marked, and deliberate attention had been given, or could have been given, to the internal condition of the country, its capacities of improvement, or the constitutional power of the government in regard to objects connected with such improvement. the peace, mr. president, brought about an entirely new and a most interesting state of things; it opened to us other prospects and suggested other duties. we ourselves were changed, and the whole world was changed. the pacification of europe, after june, , assumed a firm and permanent aspect. the nations evidently manifested that they were disposed for peace. some agitation of the waves might be expected, even after the storm had subsided; but the tendency was, strongly and rapidly, towards settled repose. it so happened, sir, that i was at that time a member of congress, and, like others, naturally turned my thoughts to the contemplation of the recently altered condition of the country and of the world. it appeared plainly enough to me, as well as to wiser and more experienced men, that the policy of the government would naturally take a start in a new direction; because new directions would necessarily be given to the pursuits and occupations of the people. we had pushed our commerce far and fast, under the advantage of a neutral flag. but there were now no longer flags, either neutral or belligerent. the harvest of neutrality had been great, but we had gathered it all. with the peace of europe, it was obvious there would spring up in her circle of nations a revived and invigorated spirit of trade, and a new activity in all the business and objects of civilized life. hereafter, our commercial gains were to be earned only by success in a close and intense competition. other nations would produce for themselves, and carry for themselves, and manufacture for themselves, to the full extent of their abilities. the crops of our plains would no longer sustain european armies, nor our ships longer supply those whom war had rendered unable to supply themselves. it was obvious, that, under these circumstances, the country would begin to survey itself, and to estimate its own capacity of improvement. and this improvement,--how was it to be accomplished, and who was to accomplish it? we were ten or twelve millions of people, spread over almost half a world. we were more than twenty states, some stretching along the same seaboard, some along the same line of inland frontier, and others on opposite banks of the same vast rivers. two considerations at once presented themselves with great force, in looking at this state of things. one was, that that great branch of improvement which consisted in furnishing new facilities of intercourse necessarily ran into different states in every leading instance, and would benefit the citizens of all such states. no one state, therefore, in such cases, would assume the whole expense, nor was the co-operation of several states to be expected. take the instance of the delaware breakwater. it will cost several millions of money. would pennsylvania alone ever have constructed it? certainly never, while this union lasts, because it is not for her sole benefit. would pennsylvania, new jersey, and delaware have united to accomplish it at their joint expense? certainly not, for the same reason. it could not be done, therefore, but by the general government. the same may be said of the large inland undertakings, except that, in them, government, instead of bearing the whole expense, co-operates with others who bear a part. the other consideration is, that the united states have the means. they enjoy the revenues derived from commerce, and the states have no abundant and easy sources of public income. the custom-houses fill the general treasury, while the states have scanty resources, except by resort to heavy direct taxes. under this view of things, i thought it necessary to settle, at least for myself, some definite notions with respect to the powers of the government in regard to internal affairs. it may not savor too much of self-commendation to remark, that, with this object, i considered the constitution, its judicial construction, its contemporaneous exposition, and the whole history of the legislation of congress under it; and i arrived at the conclusion, that government had power to accomplish sundry objects, or aid in their accomplishment, which are now commonly spoken of as internal improvements. that conclusion, sir, may have been right, or it may have been wrong. i am not about to argue the grounds of it at large. i say only, that it was adopted and acted on even so early as in . yes, mr. president, i made up my opinion, and determined on my intended course of political conduct, on these subjects, in the fourteenth congress, in . and now, mr. president, i have further to say, that i made up these opinions, and entered on this course of political conduct, _teucro duce_. [ ] yes, sir, i pursued in all this a south carolina track on the doctrines of internal improvement. south carolina, as she was then represented in the other house, set forth in under a fresh and leading breeze, and i was among the followers. but if my leader sees new lights and turns a sharp corner, unless i see new lights also, i keep straight on in the same path. i repeat, that leading gentlemen from south carolina were first and foremost in behalf of the doctrines of internal improvements, when those doctrines came first to be considered and acted upon in congress. the debate on the bank question, on the tariff of , and on the direct tax, will show who was who, and what was what, at that time. the tariff of , (one of the plain cases of oppression and usurpation, from which, if the government does not recede, individual states may justly secede from the government,) is, sir, in truth, a south carolina tariff, supported by south carolina votes. but for those votes, it could not have passed in the form in which it did pass; whereas, if it had depended on massachusetts votes, it would have been lost. does not the honorable gentleman well know all this? there are certainly those who do, full well, know it all. i do not say this to reproach south carolina. i only state the fact; and i think it will appear to be true, that among the earliest and boldest advocates of the tariff, as a measure of protection, and on the express ground of protection, were leading gentlemen of south carolina in congress. i did not then, and cannot now, understand their language in any other sense. while this tariff of was under discussion in the house of representatives, an honorable gentleman from georgia, [ ] now of this house, moved to reduce the proposed duty on cotton. he failed, by four votes, south carolina giving three votes (enough to have turned the scale) against his motion. the act, sir, then passed, and received on its passage the support of a majority of the representatives of south carolina present and voting. this act is the first in the order of those now denounced as plain usurpations. we see it daily in the list, by the side of those of and , as a case of manifest oppression, justifying disunion. i put it home to the honorable member from south carolina, that his own state was not only "art and part" in this measure, but the _causa causans_. without her aid, this seminal principle of mischief, this root of upas, could not have been planted. i have already said, and it is true, that this act proceeded on the ground of protection. it interfered directly with existing interests of great value and amount. it cut up the calcutta cotton trade by the roots; but it passed, nevertheless, and it passed on the principle of protecting manufactures, on the principle against free trade, on the principle opposed to that _which lets us alone_. [ ] such, mr. president, were the opinions of important and leading gentlemen from south carolina, on the subject of internal improvement, in . i went out of congress the next year, and, returning again in , thought i found south carolina where i had left her. i really supposed that all things remained as they were, and that the south carolina doctrine of internal improvements would be defended by the same eloquent voices, and the same strong arms, as formerly. in the lapse of these six years, it is true, political associations had assumed a new aspect and new divisions. a strong party had arisen in the south hostile to the doctrine of internal improvements. anti-consolidation was the flag under which this party fought; and its supporters inveighed against internal improvements, much after the manner in which the honorable gentleman has now inveighed against them, as part and parcel of the system of consolidation. whether this party arose in south carolina itself, or in the neighborhood, is more than i know. i think the latter. however that may have been, there were those found in south carolina ready to make war upon it, and who did make intrepid war upon it. names being regarded as things in such controversies, they bestowed on the anti-improvement gentlemen the appellation of radicals. yes, sir, the appellation of radicals, as a term of distinction applicable and applied to those who denied the liberal doctrines of internal improvement, originated, according to the best of my recollection, somewhere between north carolina and georgia. well, sir, these mischievous radicals were to be put down, and the strong arm of south carolina was stretched out to put them down. about this time i returned to congress. the battle with the radicals had been fought, and our south carolina champions of the doctrines of internal improvement had nobly maintained their ground, and were understood to have achieved a victory. we looked upon them as conquerors. they had driven back the enemy with discomfiture, a thing, by the way, sir, which is not always performed when it is promised. a gentleman to whom i have already referred in this debate had come into congress, during my absence from it, from south carolina, and had brought with him a high reputation for ability. he came from a school with which we had been acquainted, _et noscitur a sociis_. i hold in my hand, sir, a printed speech of this distinguished gentleman,[ ] "on internal improvements," delivered about the period to which i now refer, and printed with a few introductory remarks upon _consolidation_; in which, sir, i think he quite consolidated the arguments of his opponents, the radicals, if to _crush_ be to consolidate. i give you a short but significant quotation from these remarks. he is speaking of a pamphlet, then recently published, entitled "consolidation"; and, having alluded to the question of renewing the charter of the former bank of the united states, he says:-- "moreover, in the early history of parties, and when mr. crawford advocated a renewal of the old charter, it was considered a federal measure; which internal improvement never was, as this author erroneously states. this latter measure originated in the administration of mr. jefferson, with the appropriation for the cumberland road; and was first proposed, _as a system_, by mr. calhoun, and carried through the house of representatives by a large majority of the republicans, including almost every one of the leading men who carried us through the late war." so, then, internal improvement is not one of the federal heresies. when i took my seat there as a member from massachusetts in , we had a bill before us, and passed it in that house, entitled, "an act to procure the necessary surveys, plans, and estimates upon the subject of roads and canals." it authorized the president to cause surveys and estimates to be made of the routes of such roads and canals as he might deem of national importance in a commercial or military point of view, or for the transportation of the mail, and appropriated thirty thousand dollars out of the treasury to defray the expense. this act, though preliminary in its nature, covered the whole ground. it took for granted the complete power of internal improvement, as far as any of its advocates had ever contended for it. having passed the other house, the bill came up to the senate, and was here considered and debated in april, . the honorable member from south carolina was a member of the senate at that time. while the bill was under consideration here, a motion was made to add the following proviso: "_provided_, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to affirm _or admit_ a power in congress, on their own authority, to make roads or canals within any of the states of the union." the yeas and nays were taken on this proviso, and the honorable member voted _in the negative!_ the proviso failed. a motion was then made to add this proviso, viz.: "_provided_, that the faith of the united states is hereby pledged, that no money shall ever be expended for roads or canals, except it shall be among the several states, and in the same proportion as direct taxes are laid and assessed by the provisions of the constitution." the honorable member voted _against this proviso_ also, and it failed. the bill was then put on its passage, and the honorable member voted _for it_, and it passed, and became a law. now, it strikes me, sir, that there is no maintaining these votes, but upon the power of internal improvement, in its broadest sense. in truth, these bills for surveys and estimates have always been considered as test questions; they show who is for and who against internal improvement. this law itself went the whole length, and assumed the full and complete power. the gentleman's votes sustained that power, in every form in which the various propositions to amend presented it. he went for the entire and unrestrained authority, without consulting the states, and without agreeing to any proportionate distribution. and now suffer me to remind you, mr. president, that it is this very same power, thus sanctioned, in every form, by the gentleman's own opinion, which is so plain and manifest a usurpation, that the state of south carolina is supposed to be justified in refusing submission to any laws carrying the power into effect. truly, sir, is not this a little too hard? may we not crave some mercy, under favor and protection of the gentleman's own authority? admitting that a road, or a canal, must be written down flat usurpation as was ever committed, may we find no mitigation in our respect for his place, and his vote, as one that knows the law? the tariff, which south carolina had an efficient hand in establishing, in , and this asserted power of internal improvement, advanced by her in the same year, and, as we have seen, approved and sanctioned by her representatives in ,--these two measures are the great grounds on which she is now thought to be justified in breaking up the union, if she sees fit to break it up! i may now safely say, i think, that we have had the authority of leading and distinguished gentlemen from south carolina in support of the doctrine of internal improvement. i repeat, that, up to , i for one followed south carolina; but when that star, in its ascension, veered off in an unexpected direction, i relied on its light no longer. i have thus, sir, perhaps not without some tediousness of detail, shown, if i am in error on the subject of internal improvement, how, and in what company, i fell into that error. if i am wrong, it is apparent who misled me. i go to other remarks of the honorable member; and i have to complain of an entire misapprehension of what i said on the subject of the national debt, though i can hardly perceive how any one could misunderstand me. what i said was, not that i wished to put off the payment of the debt, but, on the contrary, that i had always voted for every measure for its reduction, as uniformly as the gentleman himself. he seems to claim the exclusive merit of a disposition to reduce the public charge. i do not allow it to him. as a debt, i was, i am for paying it, because it is a charge on our finances, and on the industry of the country. but i observed, that i thought i perceived a morbid fervor on that subject, an excessive anxiety to pay off the debt, not so much because it is a debt simply, as because, while it lasts, it furnishes one objection to disunion. it is, while it continues, a tie of common interest. i did not impute such motives to the honorable member himself, but that there is such an opinion in existence i have not a particle of doubt. the most i said was, that, if one effect of the debt was to strengthen our union, that effect itself was not regretted by me, however much others might regret it. the gentleman has not seen how to reply to this, otherwise than by supposing me to have advanced the doctrine that a national debt is a national blessing. others, i must hope, will find much less difficulty in understanding me. i distinctly and pointedly cautioned the honorable member not to understand me as expressing an opinion favorable to the continuance of the debt. i repeated this caution, and repeated it more than once; but it was thrown away. on yet another point, i was still more unaccountably misunderstood. the gentleman had harangued against "consolidation." i told him, in reply, that there was one kind of consolidation to which i was attached, and that was the consolidation of our union; that this was precisely that consolidation to which i feared others were not attached, and that such consolidation was the very end of the constitution, the leading object, as they had informed us themselves, which its framers had kept in view. i turned to their communication,[ ] and read their very words, "the consolidation of the union," and expressed my devotion to this sort of consolidation. i said, in terms, that i wished not in the slightest degree to augment the powers of this government; that my object was to preserve, not to enlarge; and that by consolidating the union i understood no more than the strengthening of the union, and perpetuating it. having been thus explicit, having thus read from the printed book the precise words which i adopted, as expressing my own sentiments, it passes comprehension how any man could understand me as contending for an extension of the powers of the government, or for consolidation in that odious sense in which it means an accumulation, in the federal government, of the powers properly belonging to the states. i repeat, sir, that, in adopting the sentiment of the framers of the constitution, i read their language audibly, and word for word; and i pointed out the distinction, just as fully as i have now done, between the consolidation of the union and that other obnoxious consolidation which i disclaimed. and yet the honorable member misunderstood me. the gentleman had said that he wished for no fixed revenue,--not a shilling. if by a word he could convert the capitol into gold, he would not do it. why all this fear of revenue? why, sir, because, as the gentleman told us, it tends to consolidation. now this can mean neither more nor less than, that a common revenue is a common interest, and that all common interests tend to preserve the union of the states. i confess i like that tendency; if the gentleman dislikes it, he is right in deprecating a shilling of fixed revenue. so much, sir, for consolidation. as well as i recollect the course of his remarks, the honorable gentleman next recurred to the subject of the tariff. he did not doubt the word must be of unpleasant sound to me, and proceeded, with an effort neither new nor attended with new success, to involve me and my votes in inconsistency and contradiction. i am happy the honorable gentleman has furnished me an opportunity of a timely remark or two on that subject. i was glad he approached it, for it is a question i enter upon without fear from anybody. the strenuous toil of the gentleman has been to raise an inconsistency between my dissent to the tariff in , and my vote in . it is labor lost. he pays undeserved compliment to my speech in ; but this is to raise me high, that my fall, as he would have it, in , may be more signal. sir, there was no fall. between the ground i stood on in and that i took in , there was not only no precipice, but no declivity. it was a change of position to meet new circumstances, but on the same level. a plain tale explains the whole matter. in i had not acquiesced in the tariff, then supported by south carolina. to some parts of it, especially, i felt and expressed great repugnance. i held the same opinions in , at the meeting in faneuil hall, to which the gentleman has alluded. with a great majority of the representatives of massachusetts, i voted against the tariff of .[ ] my reasons were then given, and i will not now repeat them. but, notwithstanding our dissent, the great states of new york, pennsylvania, ohio, and kentucky went for the bill, in almost unbroken column, and it passed. congress and the president sanctioned it, and it became the law of the land. what, then, were we to do? our only option was, either to fall in with this settled course of public policy, and accommodate ourselves to it as well as we could, or to embrace the south carolina doctrine, and talk of nullifying the statute by state interference. this last alternative did not suit our principles, and of course we adopted the former. in , the subject came again before congress, on a proposition to afford some relief to the branch of wool and woollens. we looked upon the system of protection as being fixed and settled. the law of remained. it had gone into full operation, and, in regard to some objects intended by it, perhaps most of them, had produced all its expected effects. no man proposed to repeal it; no man attempted to renew the general contest on its principle. but, owing to subsequent and unforeseen occurrences, the benefit intended by it to wool and woollen fabrics had not been realized. events not known here when the law passed had taken place, which defeated its object in that particular respect. a measure was accordingly brought forward to meet this precise deficiency, to remedy this particular defect. it was limited to wool and woollens. was ever anything more reasonable? if the policy of the tariff laws had become established in principle, as the permanent policy of the government, should they not be revised and amended, and made equal, like other laws, as exigencies should arise, or justice require? because we had doubted about adopting the system, were we to refuse to cure its manifest defects, after it had been adopted, and when no one attempted its repeal? and this, sir, is the inconsistency so much bruited. i had voted against the tariff of , but it passed; and in and i voted to amend it, in a point essential to the interest of my constituents. where is the inconsistency? could i do otherwise? sir, does political consistency consist in always giving negative votes? does it require of a public man to refuse to concur in amending laws, because they passed against his consent? having voted against the tariff originally, does consistency demand that i should do all in my power to maintain an unequal tariff, burdensome to my own constituents in many respects, favorable in none? to consistency of that sort, i lay no claim. and there is another sort to which i lay as little, and that is, a kind of consistency by which persons feel themselves as much bound to oppose a proposition after it has become a law of the land as before. sir, as to the general subject of the tariff, i have little now to say. another opportunity may be presented. i remarked the other day, that this policy did not begin with us in new england; and yet, sir, new england is charged with vehemence as being favorable, or charged with equal vehemence as being unfavorable, to the tariff policy, just as best suits the time, place, and occasion for making some charge against her. the credulity of the public has been put to its extreme capacity of false impression relative to her conduct in this particular. through all the south, during the late contest, it was new england policy and a new england administration that were afflicting the country with a tariff beyond all endurance; while on the other side of the alleghanies even the act of itself, the very sublimated essence of oppression, according to southern opinions, was pronounced to be one of those blessings for which the west was indebted to the "generous south." with large investments in manufacturing establishments, and many and various interests connected with and dependent on them, it is not to be expected that new england, any more than other portions of the country, will now consent to any measure destructive or highly dangerous. the duty of the government, at the present moment, would seem to be to preserve, not to destroy; to maintain the position which it has assumed; and, for one, i shall feel it an indispensable obligation to hold it steady, as far as in my power, to that degree of protection which it has undertaken to bestow. no more of the tariff. professing to be provoked by what he chose to consider a charge made by me against south carolina, the honorable member, mr. president, has taken up a new crusade against new england. leaving altogether the subject of the public lands, in which his success, perhaps, had been neither distinguished nor satisfactory, and letting go, also, of the topic of the tariff, he sallied forth in a general assault on the opinions, politics, and parties of new england, as they have been exhibited in the last thirty years. this is natural. the "narrow policy" of the public lands had proved a legal settlement in south carolina, and was not to be removed. the "accursed policy" of the tariff, also, had established the fact of its birth and parentage in the same state. no wonder, therefore, the gentleman wished to carry the war, as he expressed it, into the enemy's country. prudently willing to quit these subjects, he was, doubtless, desirous of fastening on others, which could not be transferred south of mason and dixon's line. the politics of new england became his theme; and it was in this part of his speech, i think, that he menaced me with such sore discomfiture. discomfiture! why, sir, when he attacks anything which i maintain, and overthrows it, when he turns the right or left of any position which i take up, when he drives me from any ground i choose to occupy, he may then talk of discomfiture, but not till that distant day. what has he done? has he maintained his own charges? has he proved what he alleged? has he sustained himself in his attack on the government, and on the history of the north, in the matter of the public lands? has he disproved a fact, refuted a proposition, weakened an argument, maintained by me? has he come within beat of drum of any position of mine? o, no; but he has "carried the war into the enemy's country"! carried the war into the enemy's country! yes, sir, and what sort of a war has he made of it? why, sir, he has stretched a drag-net over the whole surface of perished pamphlets, indiscreet sermons, frothy paragraphs, and fuming popular addresses,--over whatever the pulpit in its moments of alarm, the press in its heats, and parties in their extravagance, have severally thrown off in times of general excitement and violence. he has thus swept together a mass of such things as, but that they are now old and cold, the public health would have required him rather to leave in their state of dispersion. for a good long hour or two, we had the unbroken pleasure of listening to the honorable member, while he recited with his usual grace and spirit, and with evident high gusto, speeches, pamphlets, addresses, and all the _et caeteras_ of the political press, such as warm heads produce in warm times; and such as it would be "discomfiture" indeed for any one, whose taste did not delight in that sort of reading, to be obliged to peruse. this is his war. this it is to carry the war into the enemy's country. it is in an invasion of this sort, that he flatters himself with the expectation of gaining laurels fit to adorn a senator's brow! mr. president, i shall not, it will not, i trust, be expected that i should, either now or at any time, separate this farrago into parts, and answer and examine its components. i shall barely bestow upon it all a general remark or two. in the run of forty years, sir, under this constitution, we have experienced sundry successive violent party contests. party arose, indeed, with the constitution itself, and, in some form or other, has attended it through the greater part of its history. whether any other constitution than the old articles of confederation was desirable, was itself a question on which parties divided; if a new constitution were framed, what powers should be given to it was another question; and when it had been formed, what was, in fact, the just extent of the powers actually conferred was a third. parties, as we know, existed under the first administration, as distinctly marked as those which have manifested themselves at any subsequent period. the contest immediately preceding the political change in , and that, again, which existed at the commencement of the late war, are other instances of party excitement, of something more than usual strength and intensity. in all these conflicts there was, no doubt, much of violence on both and all sides. it would be impossible, if one had a fancy for such employment, to adjust the relative _quantum_ of violence between these contending parties. there was enough in each, as must always be expected in popular governments. with a great deal of popular and decorous discussion, there was mingled a great deal, also, of declamation, virulence, crimination, and abuse. in regard to any party, probably, at one of the leading epochs in the history of parties, enough may be found to make out another inflamed exhibition, not unlike that with which the honorable member has edified us. for myself, sir, i shall not rake among the rubbish of bygone times, to see what i can find, or whether i cannot find something by which i can fix a blot on the escutcheon of any state, any party, or any part of the country. general washington's administration was steadily and zealously maintained, as we all know, by new england. it was violently opposed elsewhere. we know in what quarter he had the most earnest, constant, and persevering support, in all his great and leading measures. we know where his private and personal character was held in the highest degree of attachment and veneration; and we know, too, where his measures were opposed, his services slighted, and his character vilified. we know, or we might know, if we turned to the journals, who expressed respect, gratitude, and regret, when he retired from the chief magistracy, and who refused to express either respect, gratitude, or regret. i shall not open those journals. publications more abusive or scurrilous never saw the light, than were sent forth against washington, and all his leading measures, from presses south of new england. but i shall not look them up. i employ no scavengers, no one is in attendance on me, furnishing such means of retaliation; and if there were, with an ass's load of them, with a bulk as huge as that which the gentleman himself has produced, i would not touch one of them. i see enough of the violence of our own times, to be no way anxious to rescue from forgetfulness the extravagances of times past. besides, what is all this to the present purpose? it has nothing to do with the public lands, in regard to which the attack was begun; and it has nothing to do with those sentiments and opinions which, i have thought, tend to disunion and all of which the honorable member seems to have adopted himself, and undertaken to defend. new england has, at times, so argues the gentleman, held opinions as dangerous as those which he now holds. suppose this were so; why should _he_ therefore abuse new england? if he finds himself countenanced by acts of hers, how is it that, while he relies on these acts, he covers, or seeks to cover, their authors with reproach? but, sir, if, in the course of forty years, there have been undue effervescences of party in new england, has the same thing happened nowhere else? party animosity and party outrage, not in new england, but elsewhere, denounced president washington, not only as a federalist, but as a tory, a british agent, a man who, in his high office, sanctioned corruption. but does the honorable member suppose, if i had a tender here who should put such an effusion of wickedness and folly into my hand, that i would stand up and read it against the south? parties ran into great heats again in and . what was said, sir, or rather what was not said, in those years, against john adams, one of the committee that drafted the declaration of independence, and its admitted ablest defender on the floor of congress? if the gentleman wishes to increase his stores of party abuse and frothy violence, if he has a determined proclivity to such pursuits, there are treasures of that sort south of the potomac, much to his taste, yet untouched. i shall not touch them. the parties which divided the country at the commencement of the late war were violent. but then there was violence on both sides, and violence in every state. minorities and majorities were equally violent. there was no more violence against the war in new england, than in other states; nor any more appearance of violence, except that, owing to a dense population, greater facility of assembling, and more presses, there may have been more in quantity spoken and printed there than in some other places. in the article of sermons, too, new england is somewhat more abundant than south carolina; and for that reason the chance of finding here and there an exceptionable one may be greater. i hope, too, there are more good ones. opposition may have been more formidable in new england, as it embraced a larger portion of the whole population; but it was no more unrestrained in principle, or violent in manner. the minorities dealt quite as harshly with their own state governments as the majorities dealt with the administration here. there were presses on both sides, popular meetings on both sides, ay, and pulpits on both sides also. the gentleman's purveyors have only catered for him among the productions of one side. i certainly shall not supply the deficiency by furnishing samples of the other. i leave to him, and to them, the whole concern. it is enough for me to say, that if, in any part of this their grateful occupation, if, in all their researches, they find anything in the history of massachusetts, or new england, or in the proceedings of any legislative or other public body, disloyal to the union, speaking slightingly of its value, proposing to break it up, or recommending non-intercourse with neighboring states, on account of difference of political opinion, then, sir, i give them all up to the honorable gentleman's unrestrained rebuke; expecting, however, that he will extend his buffetings in like manner _to all similar proceedings, wherever else found_. the gentleman, sir, has spoken at large of former parties, now no longer in being, by their received appellations, and has undertaken to instruct us, not only in the knowledge of their principles, but of their respective pedigrees also. he has ascended to their origin, and run out their genealogies. with most exemplary modesty, he speaks of the party to which he professes to have himself belonged, as the true pure, the only honest, patriotic party, derived by regular descent, from father to son, from the time of the virtuous romans! spreading before us the _family tree_ of political parties, he takes especial care to show himself snugly perched on a popular bough! he is wakeful to the expediency of adopting such rules of descent as shall bring him in, to the exclusion of others, as an heir to the inheritance of all public virtue, and all true political principle. his party and his opinions are sure to be orthodox; heterodoxy is confined to his opponents. he spoke, sir, of the federalists, and i thought i saw some eyes begin to open and stare a little, when he ventured on that ground. i expected he would draw his sketches rather lightly, when he looked on the circle round him, and especially if he should cast his thoughts to the high places out of the senate. [ ] nevertheless, he went back to rome, _ad annum urbis condita_, and found the fathers of the federalists in the primeval aristocrats of that renowned--city! he traced the flow of federal blood down through successive ages and centuries, till he brought it into the veins of the american tories, of whom, by the way, there were twenty in the carolinas for one in massachusetts. from the tories he followed it to the federalists; and, as the federal party was broken up, and there was no possibility of transmitting it further on this side the atlantic, he seems to have discovered that it has gone off collaterally, though against all the canons of descent, into the ultras of france, and finally become extinguished, like exploded gas, among the adherents of don miguel! [ ] this, sir, is an abstract of the gentleman's history of federalism. i am not about to controvert it. it is not, at present, worth the pains of refutation; because, sir, if at this day any one feels the sin of federalism lying heavily on his conscience, he can easily procure remission. he may even obtain an indulgence, if he be desirous of repeating the same transgression. it is an affair of no difficulty to get into this same right line of patriotic descent. a man now-a-days is at liberty to choose his political parentage. he may elect his own father. federalist or not, he may, if he choose, claim to belong to the favored stock, and his claim will be allowed. he may carry back his pretensions just as far as the honorable gentleman himself; nay, he may make himself out the honorable gentleman's cousin, and prove, satisfactorily, that he is descended from the same political great-grandfather. all this is allowable. we all know a process, sir, by which the whole essex junto [footnote: ] could, in one hour, be all washed white from their ancient federalism, and come out, every one of them, original democrats, dyed in the wool! some of them have actually undergone the operation, and they say it is quite easy. the only inconvenience it occasions, as they tell us, is a slight tendency of the blood to the face, a soft suffusion, which, however, is very transient, since nothing is said by those whom they join calculated to deepen the red on the cheek, but a prudent silence is observed in regard to all the past. indeed, sir, some smiles of approbation have been bestowed, and some crumbs of comfort have fallen, not a thousand miles from the door of the hartford convention itself. and if the author of the ordinance of possessed the other requisite qualifications, there is no knowing, notwithstanding his federalism, to what heights of favor he might not yet attain. mr. president, in carrying his warfare, such as it is, into new england, the honorable gentleman all along professes to be acting on the defensive. he chooses to consider me as having assailed south carolina, and insists that he comes forth only as her champion, and in her defence. sir, i do not admit that i made any attack whatever on south carolina. nothing like it. the honorable member, in his first speech, expressed opinions, in regard to revenue and some other topics, which i heard both with pain and with surprise. i told the gentleman i was aware that such sentiments were entertained _out_ of the government, but had not expected to find them advanced in it; that i knew there were persons in the south who speak of our union with indifference or doubt, taking pains to magnify its evils, and to say nothing of its benefits; that the honorable member himself, i was sure, could never be one of these; and i regretted the expression of such opinions as he had avowed, because i thought their obvious tendency was to encourage feelings of disrespect to the union, and to impair its strength. this, sir, is the sum and substance of all i said on the subject. and this constitutes the attack which called on the chivalry of the gentleman, in his own opinion, to harry us with such a foray among the party pamphlets and party proceedings of massachusetts! if he means that i spoke with dissatisfaction or disrespect of the ebullitions of individuals in south carolina, it is true. but if he means that i assailed the character of the state, her honor, or patriotism, that i reflected on her history or her conduct, he has not the slightest ground for any such assumption. i did not even refer, i think, in my observations, to any collection of individuals. i said nothing of the recent conventions. i spoke in the most guarded and careful manner, and only expressed my regret for the publication of opinions, which i presumed the honorable member disapproved as much as myself. in this, it seems, i was mistaken. i do not remember that the gentleman has disclaimed any sentiment, or any opinion, of a supposed anti-union tendency, which on all or any of the recent occasions has been expressed. [ ] the whole drift of his speech has been rather to prove, that, in divers times and manners, sentiments equally liable to my objection have been avowed in new england. and one would suppose that his object, in this reference to massachusetts, was to find a precedent to justify proceedings in the south, were it not for the reproach and contumely with which he labors, all along, to load these his own chosen precedents. by way of defending south carolina from what he chooses to think an attack on her, he first quotes the example of massachusetts, and then denounces that example in good set terms. this twofold purpose, not very consistent, one would think, with itself, was exhibited more than once in the course of his speech. he referred, for instance, to the hartford convention. did he do this for authority, or for a topic of reproach? apparently for both, for he told us that he should find no fault with the mere fact of holding such a convention, and considering and discussing such questions as he supposes were then and there discussed; but what rendered it obnoxious was its being held at the time, and under the circumstances of the country then existing. we were in a war, he said, and the country needed all our aid; the hand of government required to be strengthened, not weakened; and patriotism should have postponed such proceedings to another day. the thing itself, then, is a precedent; the time and manner of it only, a subject of censure. now, sir, i go much further, on this point, than the honorable member. supposing, as the gentleman seems to do, that the hartford convention assembled for any such purpose as breaking up the union, because they thought unconstitutional laws had been passed, or to consult on that subject, or _to calculate the value of the union_; supposing this to be their purpose, or any part of it, then i say the meeting itself was disloyal, and was obnoxious to censure, whether held in time of peace or time of war, or under whatever circumstances. the material question is the _object_. is dissolution the _object_? if it be, external circumstances may make it a more or less aggravated case, but cannot affect the principle. i do not hold, therefore, sir, that the hartford convention was pardonable, even to the extent of the gentleman's admission, if its objects were really such as have been imputed to it. sir, there never was a time, under any degree of excitement, in which the hartford convention, or any other convention, could have maintained itself one moment in new england, if assembled for any such purpose as the gentleman says would have been an allowable purpose. to hold conventions to decide constitutional law! to try the binding validity of statutes by votes in a convention! sir, the hartford convention, i presume, would not desire that the honorable gentleman should be their defender or advocate, if he puts their case upon such untenable and extravagant grounds. then, sir, the gentleman has no fault to find with these recently promulgated south carolina opinions. and certainly he need have none; for his own sentiments, as now advanced, and advanced on reflection, as far as i have been able to comprehend them, go the full length of all these opinions. i propose, sir, to say something on these, and to consider how far they are just and constitutional. before doing that, however, let me observe that the eulogium pronounced by the honorable gentleman on the character of the state of south carolina, for her revolutionary and other merits, meets my hearty concurrence. i shall not acknowledge that the honorable member goes before me in regard for whatever of distinguished talent, or distinguished character, south carolina has produced. i claim part of the honor, i partake in the pride, of her great names. i claim them for countrymen, one and all, the laurenses, the rutledges, the pinckneys, the sumpters, the marions, americans all, whose fame is no more to be hemmed in by state lines, than their talents and patriotism were capable of being circumscribed within the same narrow limits. in their day and generation, they served and honored the country, and the whole country; and their renown is of the treasures of the whole country. him whose honored name the gentleman himself bears,--does he esteem me less capable of gratitude for his patriotism, or sympathy for his sufferings, than if his eyes had first opened upon the light of massachusetts, instead of south carolina? sir, does he suppose it in his power to exhibit a carolina name so bright as to produce envy in my bosom? no, sir, increased gratification and delight, rather. i thank god, that, if i am gifted with little of the spirit which is able to raise mortals to the skies, i have yet none, as i trust, of that other spirit, which would drag angels down. when i shall be found, sir, in my place here in the senate, or elsewhere, to sneer at public merit, because it happens to spring up beyond the little limits of my own state or neighborhood; when i refuse, for any such cause or for any cause, the homage due to american talent, to elevated patriotism, to sincere devotion to liberty and the country; or, if i see an uncommon endowment of heaven, if i see extraordinary capacity and virtue, in any son of the south, and if, moved by local prejudice or gangrened by state jealousy, i get up here to abate the tithe of a hair from his just character and just fame, may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth! sir, let me recur to pleasing recollections; let me indulge in refreshing remembrance of the past; let me remind you that, in early times, no states cherished greater harmony, both of principle and feeling, than massachusetts and south carolina. would to god that harmony might again return! shoulder to shoulder they went through the revolution, hand in hand they stood round the administration of washington, and felt his own great arm lean on them for support. unkind feeling, if it exist, alienation, and distrust are the growth, unnatural to such soils, of false principles since sown. they are weeds, the seeds of which that same great arm never scattered. mr. president, i shall enter on no encomium upon massachusetts; she needs none. there she is. behold her, and judge for yourselves. there is her history; the world knows it by heart. the past, at least, is secure. there is boston, and concord, and lexington, and bunker hill; and there they will remain for ever. the bones of her sons, falling in the great struggle for independence, now lie mingled with the soil of every state from new england to georgia; and there they will lie for ever. and, sir, where american liberty raised its first voice, and where its youth was nurtured and sustained, there it still lives, in the strength of its manhood and full of its original spirit. if discord and disunion shall wound it, if party strife and blind ambition shall hawk at and tear it, if folly and madness, if uneasiness under salutary and necessary restraint, shall succeed in separating it from that union, by which alone its existence is made sure, it will stand, in the end, by the side of that cradle in which its infancy was rocked; it will stretch forth its arm with whatever of vigor it may still retain over the friends who gather round it; and it will fall at last, if fall it must, amidst the proudest monuments of its own glory, and on the very spot of its origin. [ ] there yet remains to be performed, mr. president, by far the most grave and important duty, which i feel to be devolved on me by this occasion. it is to state, and to defend, what i conceive to be the true principles of the constitution under which we are here assembled. i might well have desired that so weighty a task should have fallen into other and abler hands. i could have wished that it should have been executed by those whose character and experience give weight and influence to their opinions, such as cannot possibly belong to mine. but, sir, i have met the occasion, not sought it; and i shall proceed to state my own sentiments, without challenging for them any particular regard, with studied plainness, and as much precision as possible. i understand the honorable gentleman from south carolina to maintain, that it is a right of the state legislatures to interfere, whenever, in their judgment, this government transcends its constitutional limits, and to arrest the operation of its laws. i understand him to maintain this right, as a right existing _under_ the constitution, not as a right to overthrow it on the ground of extreme necessity, such as would justify violent revolution. i understand him to maintain an authority, on the part of the states, thus to interfere, for the purpose of correcting the exercise of power by the general government, of checking it, and of compelling it to conform to their opinion of the extent of its powers. i understand him to maintain, that the ultimate power of judging of the constitutional extent of its own authority is not lodged exclusively in the general government, or any branch of it; but that, on the contrary, the states may lawfully decide for themselves, and each state for itself, whether, in a given case, the act of the general government transcends its power. i understand him to insist, that, if the exigency of the case, in the opinion of any state government, require it, such state government may, by its own sovereign authority, annul an act of the general government which it deems plainly and palpably unconstitutional. this is the sum of what i understand from him to be the south carolina doctrine, and the doctrine which he maintains. i propose to consider it, and compare it with the constitution. allow me to say, as a preliminary remark, that i call this the south carolina doctrine only because the gentleman himself has so denominated it. i do not feel at liberty to say that south carolina, as a state, has ever advanced these sentiments. i hope she has not, and never may. that a great majority of her people are opposed to the tariff laws, is doubtless true. that a majority, somewhat less than that just mentioned, conscientiously believe these laws unconstitutional, may probably also be true. but that any majority holds to the right of direct state interference at state discretion, the right of nullifying acts of congress by acts of state legislation, is more than i know, and what i shall be slow to believe. that there are individuals besides the honorable gentleman who do maintain these opinions, is quite certain. i recollect the recent expression of a sentiment, which circumstances attending its utterance and publication justify us in supposing was not unpremeditated. "the sovereignty of the state,--never to be controlled, construed, or decided on, but by her own feelings of honorable justice." [ ] we all know that civil institutions are established for the public benefit, and that when they cease to answer the ends of their existence they may be changed. but i do not understand the doctrine now contended for to be that, which, for the sake of distinction, we may call the right of revolution. i understand the gentleman to maintain, that it is constitutional to interrupt the administration of the constitution itself, in the hands of those who are chosen and sworn to administer it, by the direct interference, in form of law, of the states, in virtue of their sovereign capacity. the inherent right in the people to reform their government i do not deny; and they have another right, and that is, to resist unconstitutional laws, without overturning the government. it is no doctrine of mine that unconstitutional laws bind the people. the great question is, whose prerogative is it to decide on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the laws? on that, the main debate hinges. the proposition, that, in case of a supposed violation of the constitution by congress, the states have a constitutional right to interfere and annul the law of congress, is the proposition of the gentleman. i do not admit it. if the gentleman had intended no more than to assert the right of revolution for justifiable cause, he would have said only what all agree to. but i cannot conceive that there can be a middle course, between submission to the laws, when regularly pronounced constitutional, on the one hand, and open resistance, which is revolution or rebellion, on the other. this leads us to inquire into the origin of this government and the source of its power. whose agent is it? is it the creature of the state legislatures, or the creature of the people? if the government of the united states be the agent of the state governments, then they may control it, provided they can agree in the manner of controlling it; if it be the agent of the people, then the people alone can control it, restrain it, modify, or reform it. it is observable enough, that the doctrine for which the honorable gentleman contends leads him to the necessity of maintaining, not only that this general government is the creature of the states, but that it is the creature of each of the states severally, so that each may assert the power for itself of determining whether it acts within the limits of its authority. it is the servant of four-and-twenty masters, of different wills and different purposes, and yet bound to obey all. this absurdity (for it seems no less) arises from a misconception as to the origin of this government and its true character. it is, sir, the people's constitution, the people's government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people. the people of the united states have declared that this constitution shall be the supreme law. we must either admit the proposition, or dispute their authority. the states are, unquestionably, sovereign, so far as their sovereignty is not affected by the supreme law. but the state legislatures, as political bodies, however sovereign, are yet not sovereign over the people. so far as the people have given power to the general government, so far the grant is unquestionably good, and the government holds of the people, and not of the state governments. we are all agents of the same supreme power, the people. the general government and the state governments derive their authority from the same source. neither can, in relation to the other, be called primary, though one is definite and restricted, and the other general and residuary. the national government possesses those powers which it can be shown the people have conferred on it, and no more. all the rest belongs to the state governments, or to the people themselves. so far as the people have restrained state sovereignty, by the expression of their will, in the constitution of the united states, so far, it must be admitted, state sovereignty is effectually controlled. i do not contend that it is, or ought to be, controlled farther. the sentiment to which i have referred propounds that state sovereignty is only to be controlled by its own "feeling of justice"; that is to say, it is not to be controlled at all, for one who is to follow his own feelings is under no legal control. now, however men may think this ought to be, the fact is, that the people of the united states have chosen to impose control on state sovereignties. there are those, doubtless, who wish they had been left without restraint; but the constitution has ordered the matter differently. to make war, for instance, is an exercise of sovereignty; but the constitution declares that no state shall make war. to coin money is another exercise of sovereign power; but no state is at liberty to coin money. again, the constitution says that no sovereign state shall be so sovereign as to make a treaty. these prohibitions, it must be confessed, are a control on the state sovereignty of south carolina, as well as of the other states, which does not arise "from her own feelings of honorable justice." the opinion referred to, therefore, is in defiance of the plainest provisions of the constitution. there are other proceedings of public bodies which have already been alluded to, and to which i refer again for the purpose of ascertaining more fully what is the length and breadth of that doctrine, denominated the carolina doctrine, which the honorable member has now stood up on this floor to maintain. in one of them i find it resolved, that "the tariff of , and every other tariff designed to promote one branch of industry at the expense of others, is contrary to the meaning and intention of the federal compact; and such a dangerous, palpable, and deliberate usurpation of power, by a determined majority, wielding the general government beyond the limits of its delegated powers, as calls upon the states which compose the suffering minority, in their sovereign capacity, to exercise the powers which, as sovereigns, necessarily devolve upon them, when their compact is violated." observe, sir, that this resolution holds the tariff of , and every other tariff designed to promote one branch of industry at the expense of another, to be such a dangerous, palpable, and deliberate usurpation of power, as calls upon the states, in their sovereign capacity, to interfere by their own authority. this denunciation, mr. president, you will please to observe, includes our old tariff of , as well as all others; because that was established to promote the interest of the manufacturers of cotton, to the manifest and admitted injury of the calcutta cotton trade. observe, again, that all the qualifications are here rehearsed and charged upon the tariff, which are necessary to bring the case within the gentleman's proposition. the tariff is a usurpation; it is a dangerous usurpation; it is a palpable usurpation; it is a deliberate usurpation. it is such a usurpation, therefore, as calls upon the states to exercise their right of interference. here is a case, then, within the gentleman's principles, and all his qualifications of his principles. it is a case for action. the constitution is plainly, dangerously, palpably, and deliberately violated; and the states must interpose their own authority to arrest the law. let us suppose the state of south carolina to express this same opinion, by the voice of her legislature. that would be very imposing; but what then? is the voice of one state conclusive? it so happens that, at the very moment when south carolina resolves that the tariff laws are unconstitutional, pennsylvania and kentucky resolve exactly the reverse. _they_ hold those laws to be both highly proper and strictly constitutional. and now, sir, how does the honorable member propose to deal with this case? how does he relieve us from this difficulty, upon any principle of his? his construction gets us into it; how does he propose to get us out? in carolina, the tariff is a palpable, deliberate usurpation; carolina, therefore, may nullify it, and refuse to pay the duties. in pennsylvania, it is both clearly constitutional and highly expedient; and there the duties are to be paid. and yet we live under a government of uniform laws, and under a constitution too, which contains an express provision, as it happens, that all duties shall be equal in all the states. does not this approach absurdity? if there be no power to settle such questions, independent of either of the states, is not the whole union a rope of sand? are we not thrown back again, precisely, upon the old confederation? it is too plain to be argued. four-and-twenty interpreters of constitutional law, each with a power to decide for itself, and none with authority to bind anybody else, and this constitutional law the only bond of their union! what is such a state of things but a mere connection during pleasure, or, to use the phraseology of the times, _during feeling_? and that feeling, too, not the feeling of the people, who established the constitution, but the feeling of the state governments. in another of the south carolina addresses, having premised that the crisis requires "all the concentrated energy of passion," an attitude of open resistance to the laws of the union is advised. open resistance to the laws, then, is the constitutional remedy, the conservative power of the state, which the south carolina doctrines teach for the redress of political evils, real or imaginary. and its authors further say, that, appealing with confidence to the constitution itself, to justify their opinions, they cannot consent to try their accuracy by the courts of justice. in one sense, indeed, sir, this is assuming an attitude of open resistance in favor of liberty. but what sort of liberty? the liberty of establishing their own opinions, in defiance of the opinions of all others; the liberty of judging and of deciding exclusively themselves, in a matter in which others have as much right to judge and decide as they; the liberty of placing their own opinions above the judgment of all others, above the laws, and above the constitution. this is their liberty, and this is the fair result of the proposition contended for by the honorable gentleman. or, it may be more properly said, it is identical with it, rather than a result from it. resolutions, sir, have been recently passed by the legislature of south carolina. i need not refer to them; they go no farther than the honorable gentleman himself has gone, and i hope not so far. i content myself, therefore, with debating the matter with him. and now, sir, what i have first to say on this subject is, that at no time, and under no circumstances, has new england, or any state in new england, or any respectable body of persons in new england, or any public man of standing in new england, put forth such a doctrine as this carolina doctrine. the gentleman has found no case, he can find none, to support his own opinions by new england authority. new england has studied the constitution in other schools, and under other teachers. she looks upon it with other regards, and deems more highly and reverently both of its just authority and its utility and excellence. the history of her legislative proceedings may be traced. the ephemeral effusions of temporary bodies, called together by the excitement of the occasion, may be hunted up; they have been hunted up. the opinions and votes of her public men, in and out of congress, may be explored. it will all be in vain. the carolina doctrine can derive from her neither countenance nor support. she rejects it now; she always did reject it; and till she loses her senses, she always will reject it. the honorable member has referred to expressions on the subject of the embargo law, made in this place, by an honorable and venerable gentleman, now favoring us with his presence. [ ] he quotes that distinguished senator as saying, that, in his judgment, the embargo law was unconstitutional, and that therefore, in his opinion, the people were not bound to obey it. that, sir, is perfectly constitutional language. an unconstitutional law is not binding; _but then it does not rest with a resolution or a law of a state legislature to decide whether an act of congress be or be not constitutional_. an unconstitutional act of congress would not bind the people of this district, although they have no legislature to interfere in their behalf; and, on the other hand, a constitutional law of congress does bind the citizens of every state, although all their legislatures should undertake to annul it by act or resolution. the venerable connecticut senator is a constitutional lawyer, of sound principles and enlarged knowledge; a statesman practised and experienced, bred in the company of washington, and holding just views upon the nature of our governments. he believed the embargo unconstitutional, and so did others; but what then? who did he suppose was to decide that question? the state legislatures? certainly not. no such sentiment ever escaped his lips. let us follow up, sir, this new england opposition to the embargo laws; let us trace it, till we discern the principle which controlled and governed new england throughout the whole course of that opposition. we shall then see what similarity there is between the new england school of constitutional opinions, and this modern carolina school. the gentleman, i think, read a petition from some single individual addressed to the legislature of massachusetts, asserting the carolina doctrine; that is, the right of state interference to arrest the laws of the union. the fate of that petition shows the sentiment of the legislature. it met no favor. the opinions of massachusetts were very different. they had been expressed in , in answer to the resolutions of virginia, and she did not depart from them, nor bend them to the times. misgoverned, wronged, oppressed, as she felt herself to be, she still held fast her integrity to the union. the gentleman may find in her proceedings much evidence of dissatisfaction with the measures of government, and great and deep dislike to the embargo; all this makes the case so much the stronger for her; for, notwithstanding all this dissatisfaction and dislike, she still claimed no right to sever the bonds of the union. there was heat, and there was anger in her political feeling. be it so; but neither her heat nor her anger betrayed, her into infidelity to the government. the gentleman labors to prove that she disliked the embargo as much as south carolina dislikes the tariff, and expressed her dislike as strongly. be it so; but did she propose the carolina remedy? did she threaten to interfere, by state authority, to annul the laws of the union? that is the question for the gentleman's consideration. no doubt, sir, a great majority of the people of new england conscientiously believed the embargo law of unconstitutional; [ ] as conscientiously, certainly, as the people of south carolina hold that opinion of the tariff. they reasoned thus: congress has power to regulate commerce; but here is a law, they said, stopping all commerce, and stopping it indefinitely. the law is perpetual; that is, it is not limited in point of time, and must of course continue until it shall be repealed by some other law. it is as perpetual, therefore, as the law against treason or murder. now, is this regulating commerce, or destroying it? is it guiding, controlling, giving the rule to commerce, as a subsisting thing or is it putting an end to it altogether? nothing is more certain, than that a majority in new england deemed this law a violation of the constitution. the very case required by the gentleman to justify state interference had then arisen. massachusetts believed this law to be "a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of a power not granted by the constitution." deliberate it was, for it was long continued; palpable she thought it, as no words in the constitution gave the power, and only a construction, in her opinion most violent, raised it; dangerous it was, since it threatened utter ruin to her most important interests. here, then, was a carolina case. how did massachusetts deal with it? it was, as she thought, a plain, manifest, palpable violation of the constitution, and it brought ruin to her doors. thousands of families, and hundreds of thousands of individuals, were beggared by it. while she saw and felt all this, she saw and felt also, that, as a measure of national policy, it was perfectly futile; that the country was no way benefited by that which caused so much individual distress; that it was efficient only for the production of evil, and all that evil inflicted on ourselves. in such a case, under such circumstances, how did massachusetts demean herself? sir, she remonstrated, she memorialized, she addressed herself to the general government, not exactly "with the concentrated energy of passion," but with her own strong sense, and the energy of sober conviction. but she did not interpose the arm of her own power to arrest the law, and break the embargo. far from it. her principles bound her to two things; and she followed her principles, lead where they might. first, to submit to every constitutional law of congress, and secondly, if the constitutional validity of the law be doubted, to refer that question to the decision of the proper tribunals. the first principle is vain and ineffectual without the second. a majority of us in new england believed the embargo law unconstitutional; but the great question was, and always will be in such cases, who is to decide this? who is to judge between the people and the government? and, sir, it is quite plain, that the constitution of the united states confers on the government itself, to be exercised by its appropriate department, and under its own responsibility to the people, this power of deciding ultimately and conclusively upon the just extent of its own authority. if this had not been done, we should not have advanced a single step beyond the old confederation. being fully of the opinion that the embargo law was unconstitutional, the people of new england were yet equally clear in the opinion, (it was a matter they did doubt upon,) that the question, after all, must be decided by the judicial tribunals of the united states. before those tribunals, therefore, they brought the question. under the provisions of the law, they had given bonds to millions in amount, and which were alleged to be forfeited. they suffered the bonds to be sued, and thus raised the question. in the old-fashioned way of settling disputes, they went to law. the case came to hearing and solemn argument; and he who espoused their cause, and stood up for them against the validity of the embargo act, was none other than that great man, of whom the gentleman has made honorable mention, samuel dexter. he was then, sir, in the fulness of his knowledge, and the maturity of his strength. he had retired from long and distinguished public service here, to the renewed pursuit of professional duties, carrying with him all that enlargement and expansion, all the new strength and force, which an acquaintance with the more general subjects discussed in the national councils is capable of adding to professional attainment, in a mind of true greatness and comprehension. he was a lawyer, and he was also a statesman. he had studied the constitution, when he filled public station, that he might defend it; he had examined its principles that he might maintain them. more than all men, or at least as much as any man, he was attached to the general government and to the union of the states. his feelings and opinions all ran in that direction. a question of constitutional law, too, was, of all subjects, that one which was best suited to his talents and learning. aloof from technicality, and unfettered by artificial rule, such a question gave opportunity for that deep and clear analysis, that mighty grasp of principle, which so much distinguished his higher efforts. his very statement was argument; his inference seemed demonstration. the earnestness of his own conviction wrought conviction in others. one was convinced, and believed, and assented, because it was gratifying, delightful, to think, and feel, and believe, in unison with an intellect of such evident superiority. mr. dexter, sir, such as i have described him, argued the new england cause. he put into his effort his whole heart, as well as all the powers of his understanding; for he had avowed, in the most public manner, his entire concurrence with his neighbors on the point in dispute. he argued the cause; it was lost, and new england submitted. the established tribunals pronounced the law constitutional, and new england acquiesced. now, sir, is not this the exact opposite of the doctrine of the gentleman from south carolina? according to him, instead of referring to the judicial tribunals, we should have broken up the embargo by laws of our own; we should have repealed it, _quoad_ new england; for we had a strong, palpable, and oppressive case. sir, we believed the embargo unconstitutional; but still that was matter of opinion, and who was to decide it? we thought it a clear case; but, nevertheless, we did not take the law into our own hands, because we did not wish to bring about a revolution, nor to break up the union; for i maintain, that between submission to the decision of the constituted tribunals, and revolution, or disunion, there is no middle ground; there is no ambiguous condition, half allegiance and half rebellion. and, sir, how futile, how very futile it is, to admit the right of state interference, and then attempt to save it from the character of unlawful resistance, by adding terms of qualification to the causes and occasions, leaving all these qualifications, like the case itself, in the discretion of the state governments. it must be a clear case, it is said, a deliberate case, a palpable case, a dangerous case. but then the state is still left at liberty to decide for herself what is clear, what is deliberate, what is palpable, what is dangerous. do adjectives and epithets avail any thing? sir, the human mind is so constituted, that the merits of both sides of a controversy appear very clear, and very palpable, to those who respectively espouse them; and both sides usually grow clearer as the controversy advances. south carolina sees unconstitutionality in the tariff; she sees oppression there also, and she sees danger. pennsylvania, with a vision not less sharp, looks at the same tariff, and sees no such thing in it; she sees it all constitutional, all useful, all safe. the faith of south carolina is strengthened by opposition, and she now not only sees, but _resolves_, that the tariff is palpably unconstitutional, oppressive, and dangerous; but pennsylvania, not to be behind her neighbors, and equally willing to strengthen her own faith by a confident asseveration, _resolves_, also, and gives to every warm affirmative of south carolina, a plain, downright, pennsylvania negative. south carolina, to show the strength and unity of her opinion, brings her assembly to a unanimity, within seven voices; pennsylvania, not to be outdone in this respect any more than in others, reduces her dissentient fraction to a single vote. now, sir, again, i ask the gentleman, what is to be done? are these states both right? is he bound to consider them both right? if not, which is in the wrong? or rather, which has the best right to decide? and if he, and if i, are not to know what the constitution means, and what it is, till those two state legislatures, and the twenty-two others, shall agree in its construction, what have we sworn to, when we have sworn to maintain it? i was forcibly struck, sir, with one reflection, as the gentleman went on in his speech. he quoted mr. madison's resolutions, to prove that a state may interfere, in a case of deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of a power not granted. the honorable member supposes the tariff law to be such an exercise of power; and that consequently a case has arisen in which the state may, if it see fit, interfere by its own law. now it so happens, nevertheless, that mr. madison deems this same tariff law quite constitutional. instead of a clear and palpable violation, it is, in his judgment, no violation at all. so that, while they use his authority for a hypothetical case, they reject it in the very case before them. all this, sir, shows the inherent futility, i had almost used a stronger word, of conceding this power of inference to the state, and then attempting to secure it from abuse by imposing qualifications of which the states themselves are to judge. one of two things is true; either the laws of the union are beyond the discretion and beyond the control of the states; or else we have no constitution of general government, and are thrust back again to the days of the confederation. let me here say, sir, that if the gentleman's doctrine had been received and acted upon in new england, in the times of the embargo and non-intercourse, we should probably not now have been here. the government would very likely have gone to pieces, and crumbled into dust. no stronger case can ever arise than existed under those laws; no states can ever entertain a clearer conviction than the new england states then entertained; and if they had been under the influence of that heresy of opinion, as i must call it, which the honorable member espouses, this union would, in all probability, have been scattered to the four winds. i ask the gentleman, therefore, to apply his principles to that case; i ask him to come forth and declare, whether, in his opinion, the new england states would have been justified in interfering to break up the embargo system under the conscientious opinions which they held upon it? had they a right to annul that law? does he admit or deny? if what is thought palpably unconstitutional in south carolina justifies that state in arresting the progress of the law, tell me whether that which was thought palpably unconstitutional also in massachusetts would have justified her in doing the same thing? sir, i deny the whole doctrine. it has not a foot of ground in the constitution to stand on. no public man of reputation ever advanced it in massachusetts in the warmest times, or could maintain himself upon it there at any time. i must now beg to ask, sir, whence is this supposed right of the states derived? where do they find the power to interfere with the laws of the union? sir, the opinion which the honorable gentleman maintains is a notion founded in a total misapprehension, in my judgment, of the origin of this government, and of the foundation on which it stands. i hold it to be a popular government, erected by the people; those who administer it, responsible to the people; and itself capable of being amended and modified, just as the people may choose it should be. it is as popular, just as truly emanating from the people, as the state governments. it is created for one purpose; the state governments for another. it has its own powers; they have theirs. there is no more authority with them to arrest the operation of a law of congress, than with congress to arrest the operation of their laws. we are here to administer a constitution emanating immediately from the people, and trusted by them to our administration. it is not the creature of the state governments. it is of no moment to the argument, that certain acts of the state legislatures are necessary to fill our seats in this body. that is not one of their original state powers, a part of the sovereignty of the state. it is a duty which the people, by the constitution itself, have imposed on the state legislatures; and which they might have left to be performed elsewhere, if they had seen fit. so they have left the choice of president with electors; but all this does not affect the proposition that this whole government, president, senate, and house of representatives, is a popular government. it leaves it still all its popular character. the governor of a state (in some of the states) is chosen, not directly by the people, but by those who are chosen by the people, for the purpose of performing, among other duties, that of electing a governor. is the government of the state, on that account, not a popular government? this government, sir, is the independent offspring of the popular will. it is not the creature of state legislatures; nay, more, if the whole truth must be told, the people brought it into existence, established it, and have hitherto supported it, for the very purpose, amongst others, of imposing certain salutary restraints on state sovereignties. the states cannot now make war; they cannot contract alliances; they cannot make, each for itself, separate regulations of commerce; they cannot lay imposts; they cannot coin money. if this constitution, sir, be the creature of state legislatures, it must be admitted that it has obtained a strange control over the volitions of its creators. the people, then, sir, erected this government. they gave it a constitution, and in that constitution they have enumerated the powers which they bestow on it. they have made it a limited government. they have defined its authority. they have restrained it to the exercise of such powers as are granted; and all others, they declare, are reserved to the states or the people. but, sir, they have not stopped here. if they had, they would have accomplished but half their work. no definition can be so clear, as to avoid possibility of doubt; no limitation so precise as to exclude all uncertainty. who, then, shall construe this grant of the people? who shall interpret their will, where it may be supposed they have left it doubtful? with whom do they repose this ultimate right of deciding on the powers of the government? sir, they have settled all this in the fullest manner. they have left it with the government itself, in its appropriate branches. sir, the very chief end, the main design, for which the whole constitution was framed and adopted, was to establish a government that should not be obliged to act through state agency, or depend on state opinion and state discretion. the people had had quite enough of that kind of government under the confederation. under that system, the legal action, the application of law to individuals, belonged exclusively to the states. congress could only recommend; their acts were not of binding force, till the states had adopted and sanctioned them. are we in that condition still? are we yet at the mercy of state discretion and state construction? sir, if we are, then vain will be our attempt to maintain the constitution under which we sit. but, sir, the people have wisely provided, in the constitution itself, a proper, suitable mode and tribunal for settling questions of constitutional law. there are in the constitution grants of powers to congress, and restrictions on these powers. there are, also, prohibitions on the states. some authority must, therefore, necessarily exist, having the ultimate jurisdiction to fix and ascertain the interpretation of these grants, restrictions, and prohibitions. the constitution has itself pointed out, ordained, and established that authority. how has it accomplished this great and essential end? by declaring, sir, that "_the constitution, and the laws of the united states made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding_." this, sir, was the first great step. by this the supremacy of the constitution and laws of the united states is declared. the people so will it. no state law is to be valid which comes in conflict with the constitution, or any law of the united states passed in pursuance of it. but who shall decide this question of interference? to whom lies the last appeal? this, sir, the constitution itself decides also, by declaring, "_that the judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the united states_." these two provisions cover the whole ground. they are, in truth, the keystone of the arch! with these it is a government; without them it is a confederation. in pursuance of these clear and express provisions, congress established, at its very first session, in the judicial act, a mode for carrying them into full effect, and for bringing all questions of constitutional power to the final decision of the supreme court. it then, sir, became a government. it then had the means of self-protection; and but for this, it would, in all probability, have been now among things which are past. having constituted the government, and declared its powers, the people have further said, that, since somebody must decide on the extent of these powers, the government shall itself decide; subject, always, like other popular governments, to its responsibility to the people. and now, sir, i repeat, how is it that a state legislature acquires any power to interfere? who, or what, gives them the right to say to the people, "we, who are your agents and servants for one purpose, will undertake to decide, that your other agents and servants, appointed by you for another purpose, have transcended the authority you gave them!" the reply would be, i think, not impertinent, "who made you a judge over another's servants? to their own masters they stand or fall." sir, i deny this power of state legislatures altogether. it cannot stand the test of examination. gentlemen may say, that, in an extreme case, a state government might protect the people from intolerable oppression. sir, in such a case, the people might protect themselves, without the aid of the state governments. such a case warrants revolution. it must make, when it comes, a law for itself. a nullifying act of a state legislature cannot alter the case, nor make resistance any more lawful. in maintaining these sentiments, sir, i am but asserting the rights of the people. i state what they have declared, and insist on their right to declare it. they have chosen to repose this power in the general government, and i think it my duty to support it, like other constitutional powers. for myself, sir, i do not admit the competency of south carolina, or any other state, to prescribe my constitutional duty; or to settle, between me and the people, the validity of laws of congress for which i have voted. i decline her umpirage. i have not sworn to support the constitution according to her construction of its clauses. i have not stipulated, by my oath of office or otherwise, to come under any responsibility, except to the people, and those whom they have appointed to pass upon the question, whether laws, supported by my votes, conform to the constitution of the country. and, sir, if we look to the general nature of the case, could anything have been more preposterous, than to make a government for the whole union, and yet leave its powers subject, not to one interpretation, but to thirteen or twenty-four interpretations? instead of one tribunal, established by all, responsible to all, with power to decide for all, shall constitutional questions be left to four-and-twenty popular bodies, each at liberty to decide for itself, and none bound to respect the decisions of others,--and each at liberty, too, to give a new construction on every new election of its own members? would anything, with such a principle in it, or rather with such a destitution of all principle, be fit to be called a government? no, sir. it should not be denominated a constitution. it should be called, rather, a collection of topics for everlasting controversy; heads of debate for a disputatious people. it would not be a government. it would not be adequate to any practical good, or fit for any country to live under. to avoid all possibility of being misunderstood, allow me to repeat again, in the fullest manner, that i claim no powers for the government by forced or unfair construction. i admit that it is a government of strictly limited powers; of enumerated, specified, and particularized powers; and that whatsoever is not granted, is withheld. but notwithstanding all this, and however the grant of powers may be expressed, its limit and extent may yet, in some cases, admit of doubt; and the general government would be good for nothing, it would be incapable of long existing, if some mode had not been provided in which those doubts, as they should arise, might be peaceably, but authoritatively, solved. and now, mr. president, let me run the honorable gentleman's doctrine a little into its practical application. let us look at his probable _modus operandi_. if a thing can be done, an ingenious man can tell how it is to be done, and i wish to be informed how this state interference is to be put in practice, without violence, bloodshed, and rebellion. we will take the existing case of the tariff law. south carolina is said to have made up her opinion upon it. if we do not repeal it, (as we probably shall not,) she will then apply to the case the remedy of her doctrine. she will, we must suppose, pass a law of her legislature, declaring the several acts of congress usually called the tariff laws null and void, so far as they respect south carolina, or the citizens thereof. so far, all is a paper transaction, and easy enough. but the collector at charleston is collecting the duties imposed by these tariff laws. he, therefore, must be stopped. the collector will seize the goods if the tariff duties are not paid. the state authorities will undertake their rescue, the marshal, with his posse, will come to the collector's aid, and here the contest begins. the militia of the state will be called out to sustain the nullifying act. they will march, sir, under a very gallant leader; for i believe the honorable member himself commands the militia of that part of the state. he will raise the nullifying act on his standard, and spread it out as his banner! it will have a preamble, setting forth that the tariff laws are palpable, deliberate, and dangerous violations of the constitution! he will proceed, with this banner flying, to the custom-house in charleston, "all the while sonorous metal blowing martial sounds." [ ] arrived at the custom-house, he will tell the collector that he must collect no more duties under any of the tariff laws. this he will be somewhat puzzled to say, by the way, with a grave countenance, considering what hand south carolina herself had in that of . but, sir, the collector would not, probably, desist, at his bidding. he would show him the law of congress, the treasury instruction, and his own oath of office. he would say, he should perform his duty, come what come might. here would ensue a pause; for they say that a certain stillness precedes the tempest. the trumpeter would hold his breath awhile, and before all this military array should fall on the custom-house, collector, clerks, and all, it is very probable some of those composing it would request of their gallant commander-in-chief to be informed a little upon the point of law; for they have, doubtless, a just respect for his opinions as a lawyer, as well as for his bravery as a soldier. they know he has read blackstone and the constitution, as well as turenne and vauban. they would ask him, therefore, something concerning their rights in this matter. they would inquire, whether it was not somewhat dangerous to resist a law of the united states. what would be the nature of their offence, they would wish to learn, if they, by military force and array, resisted the execution in carolina of a law of the united states, and it should turn out, after all, that the law _was constitutional_? he would answer, of course, treason. no lawyer could give any other answer. john fries,[ ] he would tell them, had learned that, some years ago. how, then, they would ask, do you propose to defend us? we are not afraid of bullets, but treason has a way of taking people off that we do not much relish. how do you propose to defend us? "look at my floating banner," he would reply; "see there the _nullifying law!_" is it your opinion, gallant commander, they would then say, that, if we should be indicted for treason, that same floating banner of yours would make a good plea in bar? "south carolina is a sovereign state," he would reply. that is true; but would the judge admit our plea? "these tariff laws," he would repeat, "are unconstitutional, palpably, deliberately, dangerously." that may all be so; but if the tribunal should not happen to be of that opinion, shall we swing for it? we are ready to die for our country, but it is rather an awkward business, this dying without touching the ground! after all, that is a sort of hemp tax worse than any part of the tariff. mr. president, the honorable gentleman would be in a dilemma, like that of another great general. he would have a knot before him which he could not untie. he must cut it with his sword. he must say to his followers, "defend yourselves with your bayonets"; and this is war,--civil war. direct collision, therefore, between force and force, is the unavoidable result of that remedy for the revision of unconstitutional laws which the gentleman contends for. it must happen in the very first case to which it is applied. is not this the plain result? to resist by force the execution of a law, generally, is treason. can the courts of the united states take notice of the indulgence of a state to commit treason? the common saying, that a state cannot commit treason herself, is nothing to the purpose. can she authorize others to do it? if john fries had produced an act of pennsylvania, annulling the law of congress, would it have helped his case? talk about it as we will, these doctrines go the length of revolution. they are incompatible with any peaceable administration of the government. they lead directly to disunion and civil commotion; and therefore it is, that at their commencement, when they are first found to be maintained by respectable men, and in a tangible form, i enter my public protest against them all. the honorable gentleman argues, that, if this government be the sole judge of the extent of its own powers, whether that right of judging be in congress or the supreme court, it equally subverts state sovereignty. this the gentleman sees, or thinks he sees, although he cannot perceive how the right of judging, in this matter, if left to the exercise of state legislatures, has any tendency to subvert the government of the union. the gentleman's opinion may be, that the right ought not to have been lodged with the general government; he may like better such a constitution as we should have under the right of state interference; but i ask him to meet me on the plain matter of fact. i ask him to meet me on the constitution itself. i ask him if the power is not found there, clearly and visibly found there? but, sir, what is this danger, and what are the grounds of it? let it be remembered, that the constitution of the united states is not unalterable. it is to continue in its present form no longer than the people who established it shall choose to continue it. if they shall become convinced that they have made an injudicious or inexpedient partition and distribution of power between the state governments and the general government, they can alter that distribution at will. if anything be found in the national constitution, either by original provision or subsequent interpretation, which ought not to be in it, the people know how to get rid of it. if any construction, unacceptable to them, be established, so as to become practically a part of the constitution, they will amend it at their own sovereign pleasure. but while the people choose to maintain it as it is, while they are satisfied with it, and refuse to change it, who has given, or who can give, to the state legislatures a right to alter it, either by interference, construction, or otherwise? gentlemen do not seem to recollect that the people have any power to do anything for themselves. they imagine there is no safety for them, any longer than they are under the close guardianship of the state legislatures. sir, the people have not trusted their safety in regard to the general constitution to these hands. they have required other security, and taken other bonds. they have chosen to trust themselves, first, to the plain words of the instrument, and to such construction as the government themselves, in doubtful cases, should put on their own powers, under their oaths of office, and subject to their responsibility to them; just as the people of a state trust their own state governments with a similar power. secondly, they have reposed their trust in the efficacy of frequent elections, and in their own power to remove their own servants and agents whenever they see cause. thirdly, they have reposed trust in the judicial power, which, in order that it might be trustworthy, they have made as respectable, as disinterested, and as independent as was practicable. fourthly, they have seen fit to rely, in case of necessity, or high expediency, on their known and admitted power to alter or amend the constitution, peaceably and quietly, whenever experience shall point out defects or imperfections. and, finally, the people of the united states have at no time, in no way, directly or indirectly, authorized any state legislature to construe or interpret _their_ high instrument of government; much less to interfere, by their own power, to arrest its course and operation. if, sir, the people in these respects had done otherwise than they have done, their constitution could neither have been preserved, nor would it have been worth preserving. and if its plain provisions shall now be disregarded, and these new doctrines interpolated in it, it will become as feeble and helpless a being as its enemies, whether early or more recent, could possibly desire. it will exist in every state but as a poor dependent on state permission. it must borrow leave to be; and will be, no longer than state pleasure, or state discretion, sees fit to grant the indulgence, and to prolong its poor existence. but, sir, although there are fears, there are hopes also. the people have preserved this, their own chosen constitution, for forty years, and have seen their happiness, prosperity, and renown grow with its growth, and strengthen with its strength. they are now, generally, strongly attached to it. overthrown by direct assault, it cannot be; evaded, undermined, nullified, it will not be, if we and those who shall succeed us here as agents and representatives of the people shall conscientiously and vigilantly discharge the two great branches of our public trust, faithfully to preserve, and wisely to administer it. mr. president, i have thus stated the reasons of my dissent to the doctrines which have been advanced and maintained. i am conscious of having detained you and the senate much too long. i was drawn into the debate with no previous deliberation, such as is suited to the discussion of so grave and important a subject. but it is a subject of which my heart is full, and i have not been willing to suppress the utterance of its spontaneous sentiments. i cannot, even now, persuade myself to relinquish it, without expressing once more my deep conviction, that, since it respects nothing less than the union of the states, it is of most vital and essential importance to the public happiness. i profess, sir, in my career hitherto, to have kept steadily in view the prosperity and honor of the whole country, and the preservation of our federal union. it is to that union we owe our safety at home, and our consideration and dignity abroad. it is to that union that we are chiefly indebted for whatever makes us most proud of our country. that union we reached only by the discipline of our virtues in the severe school of adversity. it had its origin in the necessities of disordered finance, prostrate commerce, and ruined credit. under its benign influences, these great interests immediately awoke, as from the dead, and sprang forth with newness of life. every year of its duration has teemed with fresh proofs of its utility and its blessings; and although our territory has stretched out wider and wider, and our population spread farther and farther, they have not outrun its protection or its benefits. it has been to us all a copious fountain of national, social, and personal happiness. i have not allowed myself, sir, to look beyond the union, to see what might lie hidden in the dark recess behind. i have not coolly weighed the chances of preserving liberty when the bonds that unite us together shall be broken asunder. i have not accustomed myself to hang over the precipice of disunion, to see whether, with my short sight, i can fathom the depth of the abyss below; nor could i regard him as a safe counsellor in the affairs of this government, whose thoughts should be mainly bent on considering, not how the union may be best preserved, but how tolerable might be the condition of the people when it should be broken up and destroyed. while the union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us, for us and our children. beyond that i seek not to penetrate the veil. god grant that, in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise! god grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind! when my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may i not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious union; on states dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! let their last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the republic, now known and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in their original lustre, not a stripe erased or polluted, nor a single star obscured, bearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogatory as "what is all this worth?" nor those other words of delusion and folly, "liberty first and union afterwards"; but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true american heart,--liberty _and_ union, now and for ever, one and inseparable! [ ] the murder of captain joseph white. i am little accustomed, gentlemen, to the part which i am now attempting to perform. hardly more than once or twice has it happened to me to be concerned on the side of the government in any criminal prosecution whatever; and never, until the present occasion, in any case affecting life. but i very much regret that it should have been thought necessary to suggest to you that i am brought here to "hurry you against the law and beyond the evidence." i hope i have too much regard for justice, and too much respect for my own character, to attempt either; and were i to make such attempt, i am sure that in this court nothing can be carried against the law, and that gentlemen, intelligent and just as you are, are not, by any power, to be hurried beyond the evidence. though i could well have wished to shun this occasion, i have not felt at liberty to withhold my professional assistance, when it is supposed that i may be in some degree useful in investigating and discovering the truth respecting this most extraordinary murder. it has seemed to be a duty incumbent on me, as on every other citizen, to do my best and my utmost to bring to light the perpetrators of this crime. against the prisoner at the bar, as an individual, i cannot have the slightest prejudice. i would not do him the smallest injury or injustice. but i do not affect to be indifferent to the discovery and the punishment of this deep guilt. i cheerfully share in the opprobrium, how great soever it may be, which is cast on those who feel and manifest an anxious concern that all who had a part in planning, or a hand in executing, this deed of midnight assassination, may be brought to answer for their enormous crime at the bar of public justice. gentlemen, it is a most extraordinary case. in some respects, it has hardly a precedent anywhere; certainly none in our new england history. this bloody drama exhibited no suddenly excited, ungovernable rage. the actors in it were not surprised by any lion-like temptation springing upon their virtue, and overcoming it, before resistance could begin. nor did they do the deed to glut savage vengeance, or satiate long-settled and deadly hate. it was a cool, calculating, money-making murder. it was all "hire and salary, not revenge." it was the weighing of money against life; the counting out of so many pieces of silver against so many ounces of blood. an aged man, without an enemy in the world, in his own house, and in his own bed, is made the victim of a butcherly murder, for mere pay. truly, here is a new lesson for painters and poets. whoever shall hereafter draw the portrait of murder, if he will show it as it has been exhibited, where such example was last to have been looked for, in the very bosom of our new england society, let him not give it the grim visage of moloch, the brow knitted by revenge, the face black with settled hate, and the bloodshot eye emitting livid fires of malice. let him draw, rather, a decorous, smooth-faced, bloodless demon; a picture in repose, rather than in action; not so much an example of human nature in its depravity, and in its paroxysms of crime, as an infernal being, a fiend, in the ordinary display and development of his character. the deed was executed with a degree of self-possession and steadiness equal to the wickedness with which it was planned. the circumstances now clearly in evidence spread out the whole scene before us. deep sleep had fallen on the destined victim, and on all beneath his roof. a healthful old man, to whom sleep was sweet, the first sound slumbers of the night held him in their soft but strong embrace. the assassin enters, through the window already prepared, into an unoccupied apartment. with noiseless foot he paces the lonely hall, half lighted by the moon; he winds up the ascent of the stairs, and reaches the door of the chamber. of this, he moves the lock, by soft and continued pressure, till it turns on its hinges without noise; and he enters, and beholds his victim before him. the room is uncommonly open to the admission of light. the face of the innocent sleeper is turned from the murderer, and the beams of the moon, resting on the gray locks of his aged temple, show him where to strike. the fatal blow is given! and the victim passes, without a struggle or a motion, from the repose of sleep to the repose of death! it is the assassin's purpose to make sure work; and he plies the dagger, though it is obvious that life has been destroyed by the blow of the bludgeon. he even raises the aged arm, that he may not fail in his aim at the heart, and replaces it again over the wounds of the poinard! to finish the picture, he explores the wrist for the pulse! he feels for it, and ascertains that it beats no longer! it is accomplished. the deed is done. he retreats, retraces his steps to the window, passes out through it as he came in, and escapes. he has done the murder. no eye has seen him, no ear has heard him. the secret is his own, and it is safe! ah! gentlemen, that was a dreadful mistake. such a secret can be safe nowhere. the whole creation of god has neither nook nor corner where the guilty can bestow it, and say it is safe. not to speak of that eye which pierces all disguises, and beholds every thing as in the splendor of noon, such secrets of guilt are never safe from detection, even by men. true it is, generally speaking, that "murder will out." true it is, that providence hath so ordained, and doth so govern things, that those who break the great law of heaven by shedding man's blood seldom succeed in avoiding discovery. especially, in a case exciting so much attention as this, discovery must come, and will come, sooner or later. a thousand eyes turn at once to explore every man, every thing, every circumstance, connected with the time and place; a thousand ears catch every whisper; a thousand excited minds intensely dwell on the scene, shedding all their light, and ready to kindle the slightest circumstance into a blaze of discovery. meantime the guilty soul cannot keep its own secret. it is false to itself; or rather it feels an irresistible impulse of conscience to be true to itself. it labors under its guilty possession, and knows not what to do with it. the human heart was not made for the residence of such an inhabitant. it finds itself preyed on by a torment, which it dares not acknowledge to god or man. a vulture is devouring it, and it can ask no sympathy or assistance, either from heaven or earth. the secret which the murderer possesses soon comes to possess him; and, like the evil spirits of which we read, it overcomes him, and leads him whithersoever it will. he feels it beating at his heart, rising to his throat, and demanding disclosure. he thinks the whole world sees it in his face, reads it in his eyes, and almost hears its workings in the very silence of his thoughts. it has become his master. it betrays his discretion, it breaks down his courage, it conquers his prudence. when suspicions from without begin to embarrass him, and the net of circumstances to entangle him, the fatal secret struggles with still greater violence to burst forth. it must be confessed, it will be confessed; there is no refuge from confession but suicide, and suicide is confession.[ ] much has been said, on this occasion, of the excitement which has existed, and still exists, and of the extraordinary measures taken to discover and punish the guilty. no doubt there has been, and is, much excitement, and strange indeed it would be had it been otherwise. should not all the peaceable and well-disposed naturally feel concerned, and naturally exert themselves to bring to punishment the authors of this secret assassination? was it a thing to be slept upon or forgotten? did you, gentlemen, sleep quite as quietly in your beds after this murder as before? was it not a case for rewards, for meetings, for committees, for the united efforts of all the good, to find out a band of murderous conspirators, of midnight ruffians, and to bring them to the bar of justice and law? if this be excitement, is it an unnatural or an improper excitement? it seems to me, gentlemen, that there are appearances of another feeling, of a very different nature and character; not very extensive, i would hope, but still there is too much evidence of its existence. such is human nature, that some persons lose their abhorrence of crime in their admiration of its magnificent exhibitions. ordinary vice is reprobated by them, but extraordinary guilt, exquisite wickedness, the high flights and poetry of crime, seize on the imagination, and lead them to forget the depths of the guilt, in admiration of the excellence of the performance, or the unequalled atrocity of the purpose. there are those in our day who have made great use of this infirmity of our nature, and by means of it done infinite injury to the cause of good morals. they have affected not only the taste, but i fear also the principles, of the young, the heedless, and the imaginative, by the exhibition of interesting and beautiful monsters. they render depravity attractive, sometimes by the polish of its manners, and sometimes by its very extravagance; and study to show off crime under all the advantages of cleverness and dexterity. gentlemen, this is an extraordinary murder, but it is still a murder. we are not to lose ourselves in wonder at its origin, or in gazing on its cool and skilful execution. we are to detect and to punish it; and while we proceed with caution against the prisoner, and are to be sure that we do not visit on his head the offences of others, we are yet to consider that we are dealing with a case of most atrocious crime, which has not the slightest circumstance about it to soften its enormity. it is murder; deliberate, concerted, malicious murder. although the interest of this case may have diminished by the repeated investigation of the facts; still, the additional labor which it imposes upon all concerned is not to be regretted, if it should result in removing all doubts of the guilt of the prisoner. the learned counsel for the prisoner has said truly, that it is your individual duty to judge the prisoner; that it is your individual duty to determine his guilt or innocence; and that you are to weigh the testimony with candor and fairness. but much at the same time has been said, which, though it would seem to have no distinct bearing on the trial, cannot be passed over without some notice. a tone of complaint so peculiar has been indulged, as would almost lead us to doubt whether the prisoner at the bar, or the managers of this prosecution, are now on trial. great pains have been taken to complain of the manner of the prosecution. we hear of getting up a case; of setting in motion trains of machinery; of foul testimony; of combinations to overwhelm the prisoner; of private prosecutors; that the prisoner is hunted, persecuted, driven to his trial; that everybody is against him; and various other complaints, as if those who would bring to punishment the authors of this murder were almost as bad as they who committed it. in the course of my whole life, i have never heard before so much said about the particular counsel who happen to be employed; as if it were extraordinary that other counsel than the usual officers of the government should assist in the management of a case on the part of the government.[ ] in one of the last criminal trials in this county, that of jackman for the "goodridge robbery" (so called), i remember that the learned head of the suffolk bar, mr. prescott, came down in aid of the officers of the government. this was regarded as neither strange nor improper. the counsel for the prisoner, in that case, contented themselves with answering his arguments, as far as they were able, instead of carping at his presence. complaint is made that rewards were offered, in this case, and temptations held out to obtain testimony. are not rewards always offered, when great and secret offences are committed? rewards were offered in the case to which i have alluded; and every other means taken to discover the offenders, that ingenuity or the most persevering vigilance could suggest. the learned counsel have suffered their zeal to lead them into a strain of complaint at the manner in which the perpetrators of this crime were detected, almost indicating that they regard it as a positive injury to them to have found but their guilt. since no man witnessed it, since they do not now confess it, attempts to discover it are half esteemed as officious intermeddling and impertinent inquiry. it is said, that here even a committee of vigilance was appointed. this is a subject of reiterated remark. this committee are pointed at, as though they had been officiously intermeddling with the administration of justice. they are said to have been "laboring for months" against the prisoner. gentlemen, what must we do in such a case? are people to be dumb and still, through fear of overdoing? is it come to this, that an effort cannot be made, a hand cannot be lifted, to discover the guilty, without its being said there is a combination to overwhelm innocence? has the community lost all moral sense? certainly, a community that would not be roused to action upon an occasion such as this was, a community which should not deny sleep to their eyes, and slumber to their eyelids, till they had exhausted all the means of discovery and detection, must indeed be lost to all moral sense, and would scarcely deserve protection from the laws. the learned counsel have endeavored to persuade you, that there exists a prejudice against the persons accused of this murder. they would have you understand that it is not confined to this vicinity alone; but that even the legislature have caught this spirit. that through the procurement of the gentleman here styled private prosecutor, who is a member of the senate, a special session of this court was appointed for the trial of these offenders. that the ordinary movements of the wheels of justice were too slow for the purposes devised. but does not everybody see and know, that it was matter of absolute necessity to have a special session of the court? when or how could the prisoners have been tried without a special session? in the ordinary arrangement of the courts, but one week in a year is allotted for the whole court to sit in this county. in the trial of all capital offences a majority of the court, at least, is required to be present. in the trial of the present case alone, three weeks have already been taken up. without such special session, then, three years would not have been sufficient for the purpose. it is answer sufficient to all complaints on this subject to say, that the law was drawn by the late chief justice [ ] himself, to enable the court to accomplish its duties, and to afford the persons accused an opportunity for trial without delay. again, it is said that it was not thought of making francis knapp, the prisoner at the bar, a principal till after the death of richard crowningshield, jr.; that the present indictment is an afterthought; that "testimony was got up" for the occasion. it is not so. there is no authority for this suggestion. the case of the knapps had not then been before the grand jury. the officers of the government did not know what the testimony would be against them. they could not, therefore, have determined what course they should pursue. they intended to arraign all as principals who should appear to have been principals, and all as accessories who should appear to have been accessories. all this could be known only when the evidence should be produced. but the learned counsel for the defendant take a somewhat loftier flight still. they are more concerned, they assure us, for the law itself, than even for their client. your decision in this case, they say, will stand as a precedent. gentlemen, we hope it will. we hope it will be a precedent both of candor and intelligence, of fairness and of firmness; a precedent of good sense and honest purpose pursuing their investigation discreetly, rejecting loose generalities, exploring all the circumstances, weighing each, in search of truth, and embracing and declaring the truth when found. it is said, that "laws are made, not for the punishment of the guilty, but for the protection of the innocent." this is not quite accurate, perhaps, but if so, we hope they will be so administered as to give that protection. but who are the innocent whom the law would protect? gentlemen, joseph white was innocent. they are innocent who, having lived in the fear of god through the day, wish to sleep in his peace through the night, in their own beds. the law is established that those who live quietly may sleep quietly; that they who do no harm may feel none. the gentleman can think of none that are innocent except the prisoner at the bar, not yet convicted. is a proved conspirator to murder innocent? are the crowningshields and the knapps innocent? what is innocence? how deep stained with blood, how reckless in crime, how deep in depravity may it be, and yet remain innocence? the law is made, if we would speak with entire accuracy, to protect the innocent by punishing the guilty. but there are those innocent out of a court, as well as in; innocent citizens not suspected of crime, as well as innocent prisoners at the bar. the criminal law is not founded in a principle of vengeance. it does not punish that it may inflict suffering. the humanity of the law feels and regrets every pain it causes, every hour of restraint it imposes, and more deeply still every life it forfeits. but it uses evil as the means of preventing greater evil. it seeks to deter from crime by the example of punishment. this is its true, and only true main object. it restrains the liberty of the few offenders, that the many who do not offend may enjoy their liberty. it takes the life of the murderer, that other murders may not be committed. the law might open the jails, and at once set free all persons accused of offences, and it ought to do so if it could be made certain that no other offences would hereafter be committed, because it punishes, not to satisfy any desire to inflict pain, but simply to prevent the repetition of crimes. when the guilty, therefore, are not punished, the law has so far failed of its purpose; the safety of the innocent is so far endangered. every unpunished murder takes away something from the security of every man's life. whenever a jury, through whimsical and ill-founded scruples, suffer the guilty to escape, they make themselves answerable for the augmented danger of the innocent. we wish nothing to be strained against this defendant. why, then, all this alarm? why all this complaint against the manner in which the crime is discovered? the prisoner's counsel catch at supposed flaws of evidence, or bad character of witnesses, without meeting the case. do they mean to deny the conspiracy? do they mean to deny that the two crowningshields and the two knapps were conspirators? why do they rail against palmer, while they do not disprove, and hardly dispute, the truth of any one fact sworn to by him? instead of this, it is made matter of sentimentality that palmer has been prevailed upon to betray his bosom companions and to violate the sanctity of friendship. again i ask, why do they not meet the case? if the fact is out, why not meet it? do they mean to deny that captain white is dead? one would have almost supposed even that, from some remarks that have been made. do they mean to deny the conspiracy? or, admitting a conspiracy, do they mean to deny only that frank knapp, the prisoner at the bar, was abetting in the murder, being present, and so deny that he was a principal? if a conspiracy is proved, it bears closely upon every subsequent subject of inquiry. why do they not come to the fact? here the defence is wholly indistinct. the counsel neither take the ground, nor abandon it. they neither fly, nor light. they hover. but they must come to a closer mode of contest. they must meet the facts, and either deny or admit them. had the prisoner at the bar, then, a knowledge of this conspiracy or not? this is the question. instead of laying out their strength in complaining of the _manner_ in which the deed is discovered, of the extraordinary pains taken to bring the prisoner's guilt to light, would it not be better to show there was no guilt? would it not be better to show his innocence? they say, and they complain, that the community feel a great desire that he should be punished for his crimes. would it not be better to convince you that he has committed no crime? gentlemen, let us now come to the case. your first inquiry, on the evidence, will be, was captain white murdered in pursuance of a conspiracy, and was the defendant one of this conspiracy? if so, the second inquiry is, was he so connected with the murder itself as that he is liable to be convicted as a _principal_? the defendant is indicted as a _principal_. if not guilty _as such_, you cannot convict him. the indictment contains three distinct classes of counts. in the first, he is charged as having done the deed with his own hand; in the second, as an aider and abettor to richard crowningshield, jr., who did the deed; in the third, as an aider and abettor to some person unknown. if you believe him guilty on either of these counts, or in either of these ways, you must convict him. it may be proper to say, as a preliminary remark, that there are two extraordinary circumstances attending this trial. one is, that richard crowningshield, jr., the supposed immediate perpetrator of the murder, since his arrest, has committed suicide. he has gone to answer before a tribunal of perfect infallibility. the other is, that joseph knapp, the supposed originator and planner of the murder, having once made a full disclosure of the facts, under a promise of indemnity, is, nevertheless, not now a witness. notwithstanding his disclosure and his promise of indemnity, he now refuses to testify. he chooses to return to his original state, and now stands answerable himself, when the time shall come for his trial. these circumstances it is fit you should remember, in your investigation of the case. your decision may affect more than the life of this defendant. if he be not convicted as principal, no one can be. nor can any one be convicted of a participation in the crime as accessory. the knapps and george crowningshield will be again on the community. this shows the importance of the duty you have to perform, and serves to remind you of the care and wisdom necessary to be exercised in its performance. but certainly these considerations do not render the prisoner's guilt any clearer, nor enhance the weight of the evidence against him. no one desires you to regard consequences in that light. no one wishes any thing to be strained, or too far pressed against the prisoner. still, it is fit you should see the full importance of the duty which devolves upon you.[ ] . . . gentlemen, your whole concern should be to do your duty, and leave consequences to take care of themselves. you will receive the law from the court. your verdict, it is true, may endanger the prisoner's life, but then it is to save other lives. if the prisoner's guilt has been shown and proved beyond all reasonable doubt, you will convict him. if such reasonable doubts of guilt still remain, you will acquit him. you are the judges of the whole case. you owe a duty to the public, as well as to the prisoner at the bar. you cannot presume to be wiser than the law. your duty is a plain, straightforward one. doubtless we would all judge him in mercy. towards him, as an individual, the law inculcates no hostility; but towards him, if proved to be a murderer, the law, and the oaths you have taken, and public justice, demand that you do your duty. with consciences satisfied with the discharge of duty, no consequences can harm you. there is no evil that we cannot either face or fly from, but the consciousness of duty disregarded. a sense of duty pursues us ever. it is omnipresent, like the deity. if we take to ourselves the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, duty performed, or duty violated, is still with us, for our happiness or our misery. if we say the darkness shall cover us, in the darkness as in the light our obligations are yet with us. we cannot escape their power, nor fly from their presence. they are with us in this life, will be with us at its close; and in that scene of inconceivable solemnity, which lies yet further onward, we shall still find ourselves surrounded by the consciousness of duty, to pain us wherever it has been violated, and to console us so far as god may have given us grace to perform it. the constitution not a compact between sovereign states. mr. president,-the gentleman from south carolina has admonished us to be mindful of the opinions of those who shall come after us. we must take our chance, sir, as to the light in which posterity will regard us. i do not decline its judgment, nor withhold myself from its scrutiny. feeling that i am performing my public duty with singleness of heart and to the best of my ability, i fearlessly trust myself to the country, now and hereafter, and leave both my motives and my character to its decision. the gentleman has terminated his speech in a tone of threat and defiance towards this bill, even should it become a law of the land, altogether unusual in the halls of congress. but i shall not suffer myself to be excited into warmth by his denunciation of the measure which i support. among the feelings which at this moment fill my breast, not the least is that of regret at the position in which the gentleman has placed himself. sir, he does himself no justice. the cause which he has espoused finds no basis in the constitution, no succor from public sympathy, no cheering from a patriotic community. he has no foothold on which to stand while he might display the powers of his acknowledged talents. every thing beneath his feet is hollow and treacherous. he is like a strong man struggling in a morass: every effort to extricate himself only sinks him deeper and deeper. and i fear the resemblance may be carried still farther; i fear that no friend can safely come to his relief, that no one can approach near enough to hold out a helping hand, without danger of going down himself, also, into the bottomless depths of this serbonian bog. the honorable gentleman has declared, that on the decision of the question now in debate may depend the cause of liberty itself. i am of the same opinion; but then, sir, the liberty which i think is staked on the contest is not political liberty, in any general and undefined character, but our own well-understood and long-enjoyed _american_ liberty, sir, i love liberty no less ardently than the gentleman himself, in whatever form she may have appeared in the progress of human history. as exhibited in the master states of antiquity, as breaking out again from amidst the darkness of the middle ages, and beaming on the formation of new communities in modern europe, she has, always and everywhere, charms for me. yet, sir, it is our own liberty, guarded by constitutions and secured by union, it is that liberty which is our paternal inheritance, it is our established, dear-bought, peculiar american liberty, to which i am chiefly devoted, and the cause of which i now mean, to the utmost of my power, to maintain and defend. mr. president, if i considered the constitutional question now before us as doubtful as it is important, and if i supposed that its decision, either in the senate or by the country, was likely to be in any degree influenced by the manner in which i might now discuss it, this would be to me a moment of deep solicitude. such a moment has once existed. there has been a time, when, rising in this place, on the same question, i felt, i must confess, that something for good or evil to the constitution of the country might depend on an effort of mine. but circumstances are changed. since that day, sir, the public opinion has become awakened to this great question; it has grasped it; it has reasoned upon it, as becomes an intelligent and patriotic community, and has settled it, or now seems in the progress of settling it, by an authority which none can disobey, the authority of the people themselves. i shall not, mr. president, follow the gentleman, step by step, through the course of his speech. much of what he has said he has deemed necessary to the just explanation and defence of his own political character and conduct. on this i shall offer no comment. much, too, has consisted of philosophical remark upon the general nature of political liberty, and the history of free institutions; and upon other topics, so general in their nature as to possess, in my opinion, only a remote bearing on the immediate subject of this debate. but the gentleman's speech made some days ago, upon introducing his resolutions, those resolutions themselves, and parts of the speech now just concluded, may, i presume, be justly regarded as containing the whole south carolina doctrine. that doctrine it is my purpose now to examine, and to compare it with the constitution of the united states. i shall not consent, sir, to make any new constitution, or to establish another form of government. i will not undertake to say what a constitution for these united states ought to be. that question the people have decided for themselves; and i shall take the instrument as they have established it, and shall endeavor to maintain it, in its plain sense and meaning, against opinions and notions, which, in my judgment, threaten its subversion. the resolutions introduced by the gentleman were apparently drawn up with care, and brought forward upon deliberation. i shall not be in danger, therefore, of misunderstanding him, or those who agree with him, if i proceed at once to these resolutions, and consider them as an authentic statement of those opinions upon the great constitutional question by which the recent proceedings in south carolina are attempted to be justified. these resolutions are three in number. the third seems intended to enumerate, and to deny, the several opinions expressed in the president's proclamation, respecting the nature and powers of this government. of this third resolution, i purpose, at present, to take no particular notice. the first two resolutions of the honorable member affirm these propositions, viz.:-- . that the political system under which we live, and under which congress is now assembled, is a _compact_, to which the people of the several states, as separate and sovereign communities, are _the parties_. . that these sovereign parties have a right to judge, each for itself, of any alleged violation of the constitution by congress; and, in case of such violation, to choose, each for itself, its own mode and measure of redress. it is true, sir, that the honorable member calls this a "constitutional" compact; but still he affirms it to be a compact between sovereign states. what precise meaning, then, does he attach to the term _constitutional_? when applied to compacts between sovereign states, the term _constitutional_ affixes to the word _compact_ no definite idea. were we to hear of a constitutional league or treaty between england and france, or a constitutional convention between austria and russia, we should not understand what could be intended by such a league, such a treaty, or such a convention. in these connections, the word is void of all meaning; and yet, sir, it is easy, quite easy, to see why the honorable gentleman has used it in these resolutions. he cannot open the book, and look upon our written frame of government, without seeing that it is called a _constitution_. this may well be appalling to him. it threatens his whole doctrine of compact, and its darling derivatives, nullification and secession, with instant confutation. because, if he admits our instrument of government to be a _constitution_, then, for that very reason, it is not a compact between sovereigns; a constitution of government and a compact between sovereign powers being things essentially unlike in their very natures, and incapable of ever being the same. yet the word _constitution_ is on the very front of the instrument. he cannot overlook it. he seeks, therefore, to compromise the matter, and to sink all the substantial sense of the word, while he retains a resemblance of its sound. he introduces a new word of his own, viz. _compact_, as importing the principal idea, and designed to play the principal part, and degrades _constitution_ into an insignificant, idle epithet, attached to _compact_. the whole then stands as a _"constitutional compact"!_ and in this way he hopes to pass off a plausible gloss, as satisfying the words of the instrument. but he will find himself disappointed. sir, i must say to the honorable gentleman, that, in our american political grammar, constitution is a noun substantive; it imports a distinct and clear idea of itself; and it is not to lose its importance and dignity, it is not to be turned into a poor, ambiguous, senseless, unmeaning adjective, for the purpose of accommodating any new set of political notions. sir, we reject his new rules of syntax altogether. we will not give up our forms of political speech to the grammarians of the school of nullification. by the constitution, we mean, not a "constitutional compact," but, simply and directly, the constitution, the fundamental law; and if there be one word in the language which the people of the united states understand, this is that word. we know no more of a constitutional compact between sovereign powers, than we know of a _constitutional_ indenture of copartnership, a _constitutional_ deed of conveyance, or a _constitutional_ bill of exchange. but we know what the _constitution_ is; we know what the plainly written fundamental law is; we know what the bond of our union and the security of our liberties is; and we mean to maintain and to defend it, in its plain sense and unsophisticated meaning. the sense of the gentleman's proposition, therefore, is not at all affected, one way or the other, by the use of this word. that proposition still is, that our system of government is but a _compact_ between the people of separate and sovereign states. was it mirabeau, mr. president, or some other master of the human passions, who has told us that words are things? they are indeed things, and things of mighty influence, not only in addresses to the passions and high-wrought feelings of mankind, but in the discussion of legal and political questions also; because a just conclusion is often avoided, or a false one reached, by the adroit substitution of one phrase, or one word, for another. of this we have, i think, another example in the resolutions before us. the first resolution declares that the people of the several states _"acceded"_ to the constitution, or to the constitutional compact, as it is called. this word "accede," not found either in the constitution itself, or in the ratification of it by any one of the states, has been chosen for use here, doubtless, not without a well-considered purpose. the natural converse of _accession_ is _secession_; and, therefore, when it is stated that the people of the states acceded to the union, it may be more plausibly argued that they may secede from it. if, in adopting the constitution, nothing was done but acceding to a compact, nothing would seem necessary, in order to break it up, but to secede from the same compact. but the term is wholly out of place. _accession_, as a word applied to political associations, implies coming into a league, treaty, or confederacy, by one hitherto a stranger to it; and _secession_ implies departing from such league or confederacy. the people of the united states have used no such form of expression in establishing the present government. they do not say that they _accede_ to a league, but they declare that they _ordain_ and _establish_ a constitution. such are the very words of the instrument itself; and in all the states, without an exception, the language used by their conventions was, that they "_ratified the constitution_"; some of them employing the additional words "assented to" and "adopted," but all of them "ratifying." there is more importance than may, at first sight, appear, in the introduction of this new word, by the honorable mover of these resolutions. its adoption and use are indispensable to maintain those premises from which his main conclusion is to be afterwards drawn. but before showing that, allow me to remark, that this phraseology tends to keep out of sight the just view of a previous political history, as well as to suggest wrong ideas as to what was actually done when the present constitution was agreed to. in , and before this constitution was adopted, the united states had already been in a union, more or less close, for fifteen years. at least as far back as the meeting of the first congress, in , they had been in some measure, and for some national purposes, united together. before the confederation of , they had declared independence jointly, and had carried on the war jointly, both by sea and land; and this not as separate states, but as one people. when, therefore, they formed that confederation, and adopted its articles as articles of perpetual union, they did not come together for the first time; and therefore they did not speak of the states as _acceding_ to the confederation, although it was a league, and nothing but a league, and rested on nothing but plighted faith for its performance. yet, even then, the states were not strangers to each other; there was a bond of union already subsisting between them; they were associated, united states; and the object of the confederation was to make a stronger and better bond of union. their representatives deliberated together on these proposed articles of confederation, and being authorized by their respective states, finally "_ratified and confirmed_" them. inasmuch as they were already in union, they did not speak of _acceding_ to the new articles of confederation, but of _ratifying_ and _confirming_ them; and this language was not used inadvertently, because, in the same instrument, _accession_ is used in its proper sense, when applied to canada, which was altogether a stranger to the existing union. "canada," says the eleventh article, "_acceding_ to this confederation, and joining in the measures of the united states, shall be admitted into the union." having thus used the terms _ratify_ and _confirm_, even in regard to the old confederation, it would have been strange indeed, if the people of the united states, after its formation, and when they came to establish the present constitution, had spoken of the states, or the people of the states, as _acceding_ to this constitution. such language would have been ill-suited to the occasion. it would have implied an existing separation or disunion among the states, such as never has existed since . no such language, therefore, was used. the language actually employed is, _adopt, ratify, ordain, establish_. therefore, sir, since any state, before she can prove her right to dissolve the union, must show her authority to undo what has been done, no state is at liberty to _secede_, on the ground that she and other states have done nothing but _accede_. she must show that she has a right to _reverse_ what has been _ordained_, to _unsettle_ and _overthrow_ what has been _established_, to _reject_ what the people have _adopted_, and to breakup what have _ratified_; because these are the terms which express the transactions which have actually taken place. in other words, she must show her right to make a revolution. if, mr. president, in drawing these resolutions, the honorable member and confined himself to the use of constitutional language, there would have been a wide and awful _hiatus_ between his premises and his conclusion. leaving out the two words _compact_ and _accession_, which are not constitutional modes of expression, and stating the matter precisely as the truth is, his first resolution would have affirmed that _the people of the several states ratified this constitution, or form of government_. these are the very words of south carolina herself, in her act of ratification. let, then, his first resolution tell the exact truth; let it state the fact precisely as it exists; let it say that the people of the several states ratified a constitution, or form of government, and then, sir, what will become of his inference in his second resolution, which is in these words, viz. "that, as in all other cases of compact among sovereign parties, each has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of the infraction as of the mode and measure of redress"? it is obvious, is it not, sir? that this conclusion requires for its support quite other premises; it requires premises which speak of _accession_ and of _compact_ between sovereign powers; and, without such premises, it is altogether unmeaning. mr. president, if the honorable member will truly state what the people did in forming this constitution, and then state what they must do if they would now undo what they then did, he will unavoidably state a case of revolution. let us see if it be not so. he must state, in the first place, that the people of the several states adopted and ratified this constitution, or form of government; and, in the next place, he must state that they have a right to undo this; that is to say, that they have a right to discard the form of government which they have adopted, and to break up the constitution which they have ratified. now, sir, this is neither more nor less than saying that they have a right to make a revolution. to reject an established government, to break up a political constitution, is revolution. i deny that any man can state accurately what was done by the people, in establishing the present constitution, and then state accurately what the people, or any part of them, must now do to get rid of its obligations, without stating an undeniable case of the overthrow of government. i admit, of course, that the people may, if they choose, overthrow the government. but, then, that is revolution. the doctrine how contended for is, that, by _nullification_, or _secession_, the obligations and authority of the government may be set aside or rejected, without revolution. but that is what i deny; and what i say is, that no man can state the case with historical accuracy, and in constitutional language, without showing that the honorable gentleman's right, as asserted in his conclusion, is a revolutionary right merely; that it does not and cannot exist under the constitution, or agreeably to the constitution, but can come into existence only when the constitution is overthrown. this is the reason, sir, which makes it necessary to abandon the use of constitutional language for a new vocabulary, and to substitute, in the place of plain historical facts, a series of assumptions. this is the reason why it is necessary to give new names to things, to speak of the constitution, not as a constitution, but as a compact, and of the ratifications by the people, not as ratifications, but as acts of accession. sir, i intend to hold the gentlemen to the written record. in the discussion of a constitutional question, i intend to impose upon him the restraints of constitutional language. the people have ordained a constitution; can they reject it without revolution? they have established a form of government; can they overthrow it without revolution? these are the true questions. allow me now, mr. president, to inquire further into the extent of the propositions contained in the resolutions, and their necessary consequences. where sovereign communities are parties, there is no essential difference between a compact, a confederation, and a league. they all equally rest on the plighted faith of the sovereign party. a league, or confederacy, is but a subsisting or continuing treaty. the gentleman's resolutions, then, affirm, in effect, that these twenty-four united states are held together only by a subsisting treaty, resting for its fulfilment and continuance on no inherent power of its own, but on the plighted faith of each state; or, in other words, that our union is but a league; and, as a consequence from this proposition, they further affirm that, as sovereigns are subject to no superior power, the states must judge, each for itself, of any alleged violation of the league; and if such violation be supposed to have occurred, each may adopt any mode or measure of redress which it shall think proper. other consequences naturally follow, too, from the main proposition. if a league between sovereign powers have no limitation as to the time of its duration, and contain nothing making it perpetual, it subsists only during the good pleasure of the parties, although no violation be complained of. if, in the opinion of either party, it be violated, such party may say that he will no longer fulfil its obligations on his part, but will consider the whole league or compact at an end, although it might be one of its stipulations that it should be perpetual. upon this principle, the congress of the united states, in , declared null and void the treaty of alliance between the united states and france, though it professed to be a perpetual alliance. if the violation of the league be accompanied with serious injuries, the suffering party, being sole judge of his own mode and measure of redress, has a right to indemnify himself by reprisals on the offending members of the league; and reprisals, if the circumstances of the case require it, may be followed by direct, avowed, and public war. the necessary import of the resolution, therefore, is that the united states are connected only by a league; that it is in the good pleasure of every state to decide how long she will choose to remain a member of this league; that any state may determine the extent of her own obligations under it, and accept or reject what shall be decided by the whole; that she may also determine whether her rights have been violated, what is the extent of the injury done her, and what mode and measure of redress her wrongs may make it fit and expedient for her to adopt. the result of the whole is, that any state may secede at pleasure; that any state may resist a law which she herself may choose to say exceeds the power of congress; and that, as a sovereign power, she may redress her own grievances, by her own arm, at her own discretion. she may make reprisals; she may cruise against the property of other members of the league; she may authorize captures, and make open war. if, sir, this be our political condition, it is time the people of the united states understood it. let us look for a moment to the practical consequences of these opinions. one state, holding an embargo law unconstitutional, may declare her opinion, and withdraw from the union. _she_ secedes. another, forming and expressing the same judgment on a law laying duties on imports, may withdraw also. _she_ secedes. and as, in her opinion, money has been taken out of the pockets of her citizens illegally, under pretence of this law, and as she has power to redress their wrongs, she may demand satisfaction; and, if refused, she may take it with a strong hand. the gentleman has himself pronounced the collection of duties, under existing laws, to be nothing but robbery. robbers, of course, may be rightfully dispossessed of the fruits of their flagitious crimes; and therefore, reprisals, impositions on the commerce of other states, foreign alliances against them, or open war, are all modes of redress justly open to the discretion and choice of south carolina; for she is to judge of her own rights, and to seek satisfaction for her own wrongs, in her own way. but, sir, a _third_ state is of opinion, not only that these laws of imposts are constitutional, but that it is the absolute duty of congress to pass and to maintain such laws; and that, by omitting to pass and maintain them, its constitutional obligations would be grossly disregarded. she herself relinquished the power of protection, she might allege, and allege truly, and gave it up to congress, on the faith that congress would exercise it. if congress now refuse to exercise it, congress does, as she may insist, break the condition of the grant, and thus manifestly violate the constitution; and for this violation of the constitution, _she_ may threaten to secede also. virginia may secede, and hold the fortresses in the chesapeake. the western states may secede, and take to their own use the public lands. louisiana may secede, if she choose, form a foreign alliance, and hold the mouth of the mississippi. if one state may secede, ten may do so, twenty may do so, twenty-three may do so. sir, as these secessions go on, one after another, what is to constitute the united states? whose will be the army? whose the navy? who will pay the debts? who fulfil the public treaties? who perform the constitutional guaranties? who govern this district and the territories? who retain the public property? mr. president, every man must see that these are all questions which can arise only _after a revolution_. they presuppose the breaking up of the government. while the constitution lasts, they are repressed; they spring up to annoy and startle us only from its grave. the constitution does not provide for events which must be preceded by its own destruction. secession, therefore, since it must bring these consequences with it, is revolutionary, and nullification is equally revolutionary. what is revolution? why, sir, that is revolution which overturns, or controls, or successfully resists, the existing public authority; that which arrests the exercise of the supreme power; that which introduces a new paramount authority into the rule of the state. now, sir, this is the precise object of nullification. it attempts to supersede the supreme legislative authority. it arrests the arm of the executive magistrate. it interrupts the exercise of the accustomed judicial power. under the name of an ordinance, it declares null and void, within the state, all the revenue laws of the united states. is not this revolutionary? sir, so soon as this ordinance shall be carried into effect, a _revolution_ will have commenced in south carolina. she will have thrown off the authority to which her citizens have heretofore been subject. she will have declared her own opinions and her own will to be above the laws and above the power of those who are intrusted with their administration. if she makes good these declarations, she is revolutionized. as to her, it is as distinctly a change of the supreme power as the american revolution of . that revolution did not subvert government in all its forms. it did not subvert local laws and municipal administrations. it only threw off the dominion of a power claiming to be superior, and to have a right, in many important respects, to exercise legislative authority. thinking this authority to have been usurped or abused, the american colonies, now the united states, bade it defiance, and freed themselves from it by means of a revolution. but that revolution left them with their own municipal laws still, and the forms of local government. if carolina now shall effectually resist the laws of congress; if she shall be her own judge, take her remedy into her own hands, obey the laws of the union when she pleases and disobey them when she pleases, she will relieve herself from a paramount power as distinctly as the american colonies did the same thing in . in other words, she will achieve, as to herself, a revolution. but, sir, while practical nullification in south carolina would be, as to herself, actual and distinct revolution, its necessary tendency must also be to spread revolution, and to break up the constitution, as to all the other states. it strikes a deadly blow at the vital principle of the whole union. to allow state resistance to the laws of congress to be rightful and proper, to admit nullification in some states, and yet not expect to see a dismemberment of the entire government, appears to me the wildest illusion, and the most extravagant folly. the gentleman seems not conscious of the direction or the rapidity of his own course. the current of his opinions sweeps him along, he knows not whither. to begin with nullification, with the avowed intent, nevertheless, not to proceed to secession, dismemberment, and general revolution, is as if one were to take the plunge of niagara, and cry out that he would stop half-way down. in the one case, as in the other, the rash adventurer must go to the bottom of the dark abyss below, were it not that that abyss has no discovered bottom. nullification, if successful, arrests the power of the law, absolves citizens from their duty, subverts the foundation both of protection and obedience, dispenses with oaths and obligations of allegiance, and elevates another authority to supreme command. is not this revolution? and it raises to supreme command four-and-twenty distinct powers, each professing to be under a general government, and yet each setting its laws at defiance at pleasure. is not this anarchy, as well as revolution? sir, the constitution of the united states was received as a whole, and for the whole country. if it cannot stand altogether, it cannot stand in parts; and if the laws cannot be executed everywhere, they cannot long be executed anywhere. the gentleman very well knows that all duties and imposts must be uniform throughout the country. he knows that we cannot have one rule or one law for south carolina, and another for other states. he must see, therefore, and does see, and every man sees, that the only alternative is a repeal of the laws throughout the whole union, or their execution in carolina as well as elsewhere. and this repeal is demanded because a single state interposes her veto, and threatens resistance! the result of the gentleman's opinion, or rather the very text of his doctrine, is, that no act of congress can bind all the states, the constitutionality of which is not admitted by all; or, in other words, that no single state is bound, against its own dissent, by a law of imposts. this is precisely the evil experienced under the old confederation, and for remedy of which this constitution was adopted. the leading object in establishing this government, an object forced on the country by the conditions of the times and the absolute necessity of the law, was to give to congress power to lay and collect imposts _without the consent of particular states_. the revolutionary debt remained unpaid; the national treasury was bankrupt; the country was destitute of credit; congress issued its requisitions on the states, and the states neglected them; there was no power of coercion but war, congress could not lay imposts, or other taxes, by its own authority; the whole general government, therefore, was little more than a name. the articles of confederation, as to purposes of revenue and finance, were nearly a dead letter. the country sought to escape from this condition, at once feeble and disgraceful, by constituting a government which should have power, of itself, to lay duties and taxes, and to pay the public debt, and provide for the general welfare; and to lay these duties and taxes in all the states, without asking the consent of the state governments. this was the very power on which the new constitution was to depend for all its ability to do good; and without it, it can be no government, now or at any time. yet, sir, it is precisely against this power, so absolutely indispensable to the very being of the government, that south carolina directs her ordinance. she attacks the government in its authority to raise revenue, the very mainspring of the whole system; and if she succeed, every movement of that system must inevitably cease. it is of no avail that she declares that she does not resist the law as a revenue law, but as a law for protecting manufacturers. it is a revenue law; it is the very law by force of which the revenue is collected; if it be arrested in any state, the revenue ceases in that state; it is, in a word, the sole reliance of the government for the means of maintaining itself and performing its duties. mr. president, the alleged right of a state to decide constitutional questions for herself necessarily leads to force because other states must have the same right, and because different states will decide differently; and when these questions arise between states, if there be no superior power, they can be decided only by the law of force. on entering into the union, the people of each state gave up a part of their own power to make laws for themselves, in consideration, that, as to common objects, they should have a part in making laws for other states. in other words, the people of all the states agreed to create a common government, to be conducted by common counsels. pennsylvania, for example, yielded the right of laying imposts in her own ports, in consideration that the new government, in which she was to have a share, should possess the power of laying imposts on all the states. if south carolina now refuses to submit to this power, she breaks the condition on which other states entered into the union. she partakes of the common counsels, and therein assists to bind others, while she refuses to be bound herself. it makes no difference in the case whether she does all this without reason or pretext, or whether she sets up as a reason, that, in her judgment, the acts complained of are unconstitutional. in the judgment of other states, they are not so. it is nothing to them that she offers some reason or some apology for her conduct, if it be one which they do not admit. it is not to be expected that any state will violate her duty without some plausible pretext. that would be too rash a defiance of the opinion of mankind. but if it be a pretext which lies in her own breast, if it be no more than an opinion which she says she has formed, how can other states be satisfied with this? how can they allow her to be judge of her own obligations? or, if she may judge of her obligations, may they not judge of their rights also? may not the twenty-three entertain an opinion as well as the twenty-fourth? and if it be their right, in their own opinion, as expressed in the common council, to enforce the law against her, how is she to say that her right and her opinion are to be every thing, and their right and their opinion nothing? mr. president, if we are to receive the constitution as the text, and then to lay down in its margin the contradictory commentaries which have been, and which may be, made by different states, the whole page would be a polyglot indeed. it would speak with as many tongues as the builders of babel, and in dialects as much confused, and mutually as unintelligible. the very instance now before us presents a practical illustration. the law of the last session is declared unconstitutional in south carolina, and in obedience to it is refused. in other states, it is admitted to be strictly constitutional. you walk over the limit of its authority, therefore, when you pass a state line. on one side it is law, on the other side a nullity; and yet it is passed by a common government, having the same authority in all the states. such, sir, are the inevitable results of this doctrine. beginning with the original error, that the constitution of the united states is nothing but a compact between sovereign states; asserting, in the next step, that each state has a right to be its own sole judge of the extent of its own obligations, and consequently of the constitutionality of laws of congress; and, in the next, that it may oppose whatever it sees fit to declare unconstitutional, and that it decides for itself on the mode and measure of redress,--the argument arrives at once at the conclusion, that what a state dissents from, it may nullify; what it opposes, it may oppose by force; what it decides for itself, it may execute by its own power; and that, in short, it is itself supreme over the legislation of congress, and supreme over the decisions of the national judicature; supreme over the constitution of the country, supreme over the supreme law of the land. however it seeks to protect itself against these plain inferences, by saying that an unconstitutional law is no law, and that it only opposes such laws as are unconstitutional, yet this does not in the slightest degree vary the result; since it insists on deciding this question for itself; and, in opposition to reason and argument, in opposition to practice and experience, in opposition to the judgment of others, having an equal right to judge, it says, only, "such is my opinion, and my opinion shall be my law, and i will support it by my own strong hand. i denounce the law; i declare it unconstitutional; that is enough; it shall not be executed. men in arms are ready to resist its execution. an attempt to enforce it shall cover the land with blood. elsewhere it may be binding; but here it is trampled under foot." this, sir, is practical nullification. and now, sir, against all these theories and opinions, i maintain,-- . that the constitution of the united states is not a league, confederacy, or compact between the people of the several states in their sovereign capacities; but a government proper, founded on the adoption of the people, and creating direct relations between itself and individuals. . that no state authority has power to dissolve these relations; that nothing can dissolve them but revolution; and that, consequently, there can be no such thing as secession without revolution. . that there is a supreme law, consisting of the constitution of the united states, and acts of congress passed in pursuance of it, and treaties; and that, in cases not capable of assuming the character of a suit in law or equity, congress must judge of, and finally interpret, this supreme law so often as it has occasion to pass acts of legislation; and in cases capable of assuming, and actually assuming, the character of a suit, the supreme court of the united states is the final interpreter. . that an attempt by a state to abrogate, annul, or nullify an act of congress, or to arrest its operation within her limits, on the ground that, in her opinion, such law is unconstitutional, is a direct usurpation on the just powers of the general government, and on the equal rights of other states; a plain violation of the constitution, and a proceeding essentially revolutionary in its character and tendency. whether the constitution be a compact between states in their sovereign capacities, is a question which must be mainly argued from what is contained in the instrument itself. we all agree that it is an instrument which has been in some way clothed with power. we all admit that it speaks with authority. the first question then is, what does it say of itself? what does it purport to be? does it style itself a league, confederacy, or compact between sovereign states? it is to be remembered, sir, that the constitution began to speak only after its adoption. until it was ratified by nine states, it was but a proposal, the mere draught of an instrument. it was like a deed drawn, but not executed. the convention had framed it; sent it to congress, then sitting under the confederation; congress had transmitted it to the state legislatures; and by these last it was laid before conventions of the people in the several states. all this while it was inoperative paper. it had received no stamp of authority, no sanction; it spoke no language. but when ratified by the people in their respective conventions, then it had a voice, and spoke authentically. every word in it had then received the sanction of the popular will, and was to be received as the expression of that will. what the constitution says of itself, therefore, is as conclusive as what it says on any other point. does it call itself a "compact"? certainly not. it uses the word _compact_ but once, and that is when it declares that the states shall enter into no compact. does it call itself a "league," a "confederacy," a "subsisting treaty between the states"? certainly not. there is not a particle of such language in all its pages. but it declares itself a constitution. what is a _constitution_? certainly not a league, compact, or confederacy, but a _fundamental law_. that fundamental regulation which determines the manner in which the public authority is to be executed, is what forms the _constitution_ of a state. those primary rules which concern the body itself, and the very being of the political society, the form of government, and the manner in which power is to be exercised,--all, in a word, which form together the _constitution of a state_,--these are the fundamental laws. this, sir, is the language of the public writers. but do we need to be informed, in this country, what a _constitution_ is? is it not an idea perfectly familiar, definite, and settled? we are at no loss to understand what is meant by the constitution of one of the states; and the constitution of the united states speaks of itself as being an instrument of the same nature. it says this _constitution_ shall be the law of the land, anything in any state _constitution_ to the contrary notwithstanding. and it speaks of itself, too, in plain contradistinction from a confederation; for it says that all debts contracted, and all engagements entered into, by the united states, shall be as valid under this _constitution_ as under the _confederation_. it does not say, as valid under this _compact_, or this league, or this confederation, as under the former confederation, but as valid under this _constitution_. this, then, sir, is declared to be a _constitution_. a constitution is the fundamental law of the state; and this is expressly declared to be the supreme law. it is as if the people had said, "we prescribe this fundamental law," or "this supreme law," for they do say that they establish this constitution, and that it shall be the supreme law. they say that they _ordain and establish_ it. now, sir, what is the common application of these words? we do not speak of ordaining leagues and compacts. if this was intended to be a compact or league, and the states to be parties to it, why was it not so said? why is there found no one expression in the whole instrument indicating such intent? the old confederation was expressly called a _league_, and into this league it was declared that the states, as states, severally entered. why was not similar language used in the constitution, if a similar intention had existed? why was it not said, "the states enter into this new league," "the states form this new confederation," or "the states agree to this new compact"? or why was it not said, in the language of the gentleman's resolution, that the people of the several states acceded to this compact in their sovereign capacities? what reason is there for supposing that the framers of the constitution rejected expressions appropriate to their own meaning, and adopted others wholly at war with that meaning? again, sir, the constitution speaks of that political system which is established as "the government of the united states." is it not doing strange violence to language to call a league or a compact between sovereign powers a _government_? the government of a state is that organization in which the political power resides. it is the political being created by the constitution or fundamental law. the broad and clear difference between a government and a league or compact is, that a government is a body politic; it has a will of its own; and it possesses powers and faculties to execute its own purposes. every compact looks to some power to enforce its stipulations. even in a compact between sovereign communities, there always exists this ultimate reference to a power to insure its execution; although, in such case, this power is but the force of one party against the force of another; that is to say, the power of war. but a _government_ executes its decisions by its own supreme authority. its use of force in compelling obedience to its own enactments is not war. it contemplates no opposing party having a right of resistance. it rests on its own power to enforce its own will; and when it ceases to possess this power, it is no longer a government. mr. president, i concur so generally to the very able speech of the gentleman from virginia near me [ ], that it is not without diffidence and regret that i venture to differ with him on any point. his opinions, sir, are redolent of the doctrines of a very distinguished school, for which i have the highest regard, of whose doctrines i can say, what i can also say of the gentleman's speech, that, while i concur in the results, i must be permitted to hesitate about some of the premises. i do not agree that the constitution is a compact between states in their sovereign capacities. i do not agree, that, in strictness of language, it is a compact at all. but i do agree that it is founded on consent or agreement, or on compact, if the gentleman prefers that word, and means no more by it than voluntary consent or agreement. the constitution, sir, is not a contract, but the result of a contract; meaning by contract no more than assent. founded on consent, it is a government proper. adopted by the agreement of the people of the united states, when adopted, it has become a constitution. the people have agreed to make a constitution; but when made, that constitution becomes what its name imports. it is no longer a mere agreement. our laws, sir, have their foundation in the agreement or consent of the two houses of congress. we say, habitually, that one house proposes a bill, and the other agrees to it; but the result of this agreement is not a compact, but a law. the law, the statute, is not the agreement, but something created by the agreement; and something which, when created, has a new character, and acts by its own authority. so the constitution of the united states, founded in or on the consent of the people, may be said to rest on compact or consent; but it is not itself the compact, but its result. when the people agree to erect a government, and actually erect it, the thing is done, and the agreement is at an end. the compact is executed, and the end designed by it attained. henceforth, the fruit of the agreement exists, but the agreement itself is merged in its own accomplishment; since there can be no longer a subsisting agreement or compact _to form_ a constitution or government, after that constitution or government has been actually formed and established. it appears to me, mr. president, that the plainest account of the establishment of this government presents the most just and philosophical view of its foundation. the people of the several states had their separate state governments; and between the states there also existed a confederation. with this condition of things the people were not satisfied, as the confederation had been found not to fulfil its intended objects. it was _proposed_, therefore, to erect a new, common government, which should possess certain definite powers, such as regarded the prosperity of the people of all the states, and to be formed upon the general model of american constitutions. this proposal was assented to, and an instrument was presented to the people of the several states for their consideration. they approved it, and agreed to adopt it, as a constitution. they executed that agreement; they adopted the constitution as a constitution, and henceforth it must stand as a constitution until it shall be altogether destroyed. now, sir, is not this the truth of the whole matter? and is not all that we have heard of compact between sovereign states the mere effect of a theoretical and artificial mode of reasoning upon the subject? a mode of reasoning which disregards plain facts for the sake of hypothesis? mr. president, the nature of sovereignty or sovereign power has been extensively discussed by gentlemen on this occasion, as it generally is when the origin of our government is debated. but i confess myself not entirely satisfied with arguments and illustrations drawn from that topic. the sovereignty of government is an idea belonging to the other side of the atlantic. no such thing is known in north america. our governments are all limited. in europe, sovereignty is of feudal origin, and imports no more than the state of the sovereign. it comprises his rights, duties, exemptions, prerogatives, and powers. but with us, all power is with the people. they alone are sovereign; and they erect what governments they please, and confer on them such powers as they please. none of these governments is sovereign, in the european sense of the word, all being restrained by written constitutions. it seems to me, therefore, that we only perplex ourselves when we attempt to explain the relations existing between the general government and the several state governments according to those ideas of sovereignty which prevail under systems essentially different from our own. but, sir, to return to the constitution itself; let me inquire what it relies upon for its own continuance and support. i hear it often suggested, that the states, by refusing to appoint senators and electors, might bring this government to an end. perhaps that is true; but the same may be said of the state governments themselves. suppose the legislature of a state, having the power to appoint the governor and the judges, should omit that duty, would not the state government remain unorganized? no doubt, all elective governments may be broken up by a general abandonment on the part of those intrusted with political powers of their appropriate duties. but one popular government has, in this respect, as much security as another. the maintenance of this constitution does not depend on the plighted faith of the states, as states, to support it; and this again shows that it is not a league. it relies on individual duty and obligation. the constitution of the united states creates direct relations between this government and individuals. this government may punish individuals for treason, and all other crimes in the code, when committed against the united states. it has power also to tax individuals, in any mode and to any extent; and it possesses the further power of demanding from individuals military service. nothing, certainly, can more clearly distinguish a government from a confederation of states than the possession of these powers. no closer relations can exist between individuals and any government. on the other hand, the government owes high and solemn duties to every citizen of the country. it is bound to protect him in his most important rights and interests. it makes war for his protection, and no other government in the country can make war. it makes peace for his protection, and no other government can make peace. it maintains armies and navies for his defence and security, and no other government is allowed to maintain them. he goes abroad beneath its flag, and carries over all the earth a national character imparted to him by this government, and which no other government can impart. in whatever relates to war, to peace, to commerce, he knows no other government. all these, sir, are connections as dear and as sacred as can bind individuals to any government on earth. it is not, therefore, a compact between states, but a government proper, operating directly upon individuals, yielding to them protection on the one hand, and demanding from them obedience on the other. there is no language in the whole constitution applicable to a confederation of states. if the states be parties, as states, what are their rights, and what their respective covenants and stipulations? and where are their rights, covenants, and stipulations expressed? the states engage for nothing, they promise nothing. in the articles of confederation, they did make promises, and did enter into engagements, and did plight the faith of each state for their fulfilment; but in the constitution there is nothing of that kind. the reason is, that, in the constitution, it is the _people_ who speak, and not the states. the people ordain the constitution, and therein address themselves to the states, and to the legislatures of the states, in the language of injunction and prohibition. the constitution utters its behests in the name and by authority of the people, and it does not exact from states any plighted public faith to maintain it. on the contrary, it makes its own preservation depend on individual duty and individual obligation. sir, the states cannot omit to appoint senators and electors. it is not a matter resting in state discretion or state pleasure. the constitution has taken better care of its own preservation. it lays its hand on individual conscience and individual duty. it incapacitates any man to sit in the legislature of a state who shall not first have taken his solemn oath to support the constitution of the united states. from the obligation of this oath no state power can discharge him. all the members of all the state legislatures are as religiously bound to support the constitution of the united states as they are to support their own state constitution. nay, sir, they are as solemnly sworn to support it as we ourselves are, who are members of congress. no member of a state legislature can refuse to proceed, at the proper time, to elect senators to congress, or to provide for the choice of electors of president and vice-president, any more than the members of this senate can refuse, when the appointed day arrives, to meet the members of the other house, to count the votes for those officers, and ascertain who are chosen. in both cases, the duty binds, and with equal strength, the conscience of the individual member, and it is imposed on all by an oath in the same words. let it then never be said, sir, that it is a matter of discretion with the states whether they will continue the government, or break it up by refusing to appoint senators and to elect electors. they have no discretion in the matter. the members of their legislatures cannot avoid doing either, so often as the time arrives, without a direct violation of their duty and their oaths; such a violation as would break up any other government. looking still further to the provisions of the constitution itself, in order to learn its true character, we find its great apparent purpose to be, to unite the people of all the states under one general government, for certain definite objects, and, to the extent of this union, to restrain the separate authority of the states. congress only can declare war; therefore, when one state is at war with a foreign nation, all must be at war. the president and the senate only can make peace; when peace is made for one state, therefore, it must be made for all. can anything be conceived more preposterous, than that any state should have power to nullify the proceedings of the general government respecting peace and war? when war is declared by a law of congress, can a single state nullify that law, and remain at peace? and yet she may nullify that law as well as any other. if the president and senate make peace, may one state, nevertheless, continue the war? and yet, if she can nullify a law, she may quite as well nullify a treaty. the truth is, mr. president, and no ingenuity of argument, no subtilty of distinction can evade it, that, as to certain purposes, the people of the united states are one people. they are one in making war, and one in making peace; they are one in regulating commerce, and one in laying duties of imposts. the very end and purpose of the constitution was, to make them one people in these particulars; and it has effectually accomplished its object. all this is apparent on the face of the constitution itself. i have already said, sir, that to obtain a power of direct legislation over the people, especially in regard to imposts, was always prominent as a reason for getting rid of the confederation, and forming a new constitution. among innumerable proofs of this, before the assembling of the convention, allow me to refer only to the report of the committee of the old congress, july, . but, sir, let us go to the actual formation of the constitution; let us open the journal of the convention itself, and we shall see that the very first resolution which the convention adopted was, "that a national government ought to be established, consisting of a supreme legislature, judiciary, and executive." this itself completely negatives all idea of league, and compact, and confederation. terms could not be chosen more fit to express an intention to establish a national government, and to banish for ever all notion of a compact between sovereign states. this resolution was adopted on the th of may, . afterwards, the style was altered, and, instead of being called a national government, it was called the government of the united states; but the substance of this resolution was retained, and was at the head of that list of resolutions which was afterwards sent to the committee who were to frame the instrument. it is true, there were gentlemen in the convention, who were for retaining the confederation, and amending its articles; but the majority was against this, and was for a national government. mr. patterson's propositions, which were for continuing the articles of confederation with additional powers, were submitted to the convention on the th of june, and referred to the committee of the whole. the resolutions forming the basis of a national government, which had once been agreed to in the committee of the whole, and reported, were recommitted to the same committee, on the same day. the convention, then, in committee of the whole, on the th of june, had both these plans before them; that is to say, the plan of a confederacy, or compact, between states, and the plan of a national government. both these plans were considered and debated, and the committee reported, "that they do not agree to the propositions offered by the honorable mr. patterson, but that they again submit the resolutions formerly reported." if, sir, any historical fact in the world be plain and undeniable, it is that the convention deliberated on the expediency of continuing the confederation, with some amendments, and rejected that scheme, and adopted the plan of a national government, with a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary of its own. they were asked to preserve the league; they rejected the proposition. they were asked to continue the existing compact between states; they rejected it. they rejected compact, league, and confederation, and set themselves about framing the constitution of a national government; and they accomplished what they undertook. if men will open their eyes fairly to the lights of history, it is impossible to be deceived on this point. the great object was to supersede the confederation by a regular government; because, under the confederation, congress had power only to make requisitions on states; and if states declined compliance, as they did, there was no remedy but war against such delinquent states. it would seem, from mr. jefferson's correspondence, in and , that he was of opinion that even this remedy ought to be tried. "there will be no money in the treasury," said he, "till the confederacy shows its teeth"; and he suggests that a single frigate would soon levy, on the commerce of a delinquent state, the deficiency of its contribution. but this would be war; and it was evident that a confederacy could not long hold together, which should be at war with its members. the constitution was adopted to avoid this necessity. it was adopted that there might be a government which should act directly on individuals, without borrowing aid from the state governments. this is clear as light itself on the very face of the provisions of the constitution, and its whole history tends to the same conclusion. its framers gave this very reason for their work in the most distinct terms. allow me to quote but one or two proofs, out of hundreds. that state, so small in territory, but so distinguished for learning and talent, connecticut, had sent to the general convention, among other members, samuel johnston and oliver ellsworth. the constitution having been framed, it was submitted to a convention of the people of connecticut for ratification on the part of that state; and mr. johnston and mr. ellsworth were also members of this convention. on the first day of the debates, being called on to explain the reasons which led the convention at philadelphia to recommend such a constitution, after showing the insufficiency of the existing confederacy, inasmuch as it applied to states, as states, mr. johnston proceeded to say:-- "the convention saw this imperfection in attempting to legislate for states in their political capacity, that the coercion of law can be exercised by nothing but a military force. they have, therefore, gone upon entirely new ground. they have formed one new nation out of the individual states. the constitution vests in the general legislature a power to make laws in matters of national concern; to appoint judges to decide upon these laws; and to appoint officers to carry them into execution. this excludes the idea of an armed force. the power which is to enforce these laws is to be a legal power, vested in proper magistrates. the force which is to be employed is the energy of law; and this force is to operate only upon individuals who fail in their duty to their country. this is the peculiar glory of the constitution, that it depends upon the mild and equal energy of the magistracy for the execution of the laws." in the further course of the debate, mr. ellsworth said:-- "in republics, it is a fundamental principle, that the majority govern, and that the minority comply with the general voice. how contrary, then, to republican principles, how humiliating, is our present situation! a single state can rise up, and put a veto upon the most important public measures. we have seen this actually take place; a single state has controlled the general voice of the union; a minority, a very small minority, has governed us. so far is this from being consistent with republican principles, that it is, in effect, the worst species of monarchy. "hence we see how necessary for the union is a coercive principle. no man pretends the contrary. we all see and feel this necessity. the only question is, shall it be a coercion of law, or a coercion of arms? there is no other possible alternative. where will those who oppose a coercion of law come out? where will they end? a necessary consequence of their principles is a war of the states one against another. i am for coercion by law; that coercion which acts only upon delinquent individuals. this constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, states, in their political capacity. no coercion is applicable to such bodies, but that of an armed force. if we should attempt to execute the laws of the union by sending an armed force against a delinquent state, it would involve the good and bad, the innocent and guilty, in the same calamity. but this legal coercion singles out the guilty individual, and punishes him for breaking the laws of the union." indeed, sir, if we look to all contemporary history, to the numbers of the federalist, to the debates in the conventions, to the publications of friends and foes, they all agree, that a change had been made from a confederacy of states to a different system; they all agree, that the convention had formed a constitution for a national government. with this result some were satisfied, and some were dissatisfied; but all admitted that the thing had been done. in none of these various productions and publications did any one intimate that the new constitution was but another compact between states in their sovereign capacities. i do not find such an opinion advanced in a single instance. everywhere, the people were told that the old confederation was to be abandoned, and a new system to be tried; that a proper government was proposed, to be founded in the name of the people, and to have a regular organization of its own. everywhere, the people were told that it was to be a government with direct powers to make laws over individuals, and to lay taxes and imposts without the consent of the states. everywhere, it was understood to be a popular constitution. it came to the people for their adoption, and was to rest on the same deep foundation as the state constitutions themselves. its most distinguished advocates, who had been themselves members of the convention, declared that the very object of submitting the constitution to the people was, to preclude the possibility of its being regarded as a mere compact. "however gross a heresy," say the writers of the federalist, "it may be to maintain that a party to a _compact_ has a right to revoke that _compact_, the doctrine itself has had respectable advocates. the possibility of a question of this nature proves the necessity of laying the foundations of our national government deeper than in the mere sanction of delegated authority. the fabric of american empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent of the people." such is the language, sir, addressed to the people, while they yet had the constitution under consideration. the powers conferred on the new government were perfectly well understood to be conferred, not by any state, or the people of any state, but by the people of the united states. virginia is more explicit, perhaps, in this particular, than any other state. her convention, assembled to ratify the constitution, "in the name and behalf of the people of virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the constitution, _being derived from the people of the united states_, may be resumed by them whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." is this language which describes the formation of a compact between states? or language describing the grant of powers to a new government, by the whole people of the united states? among all the other ratifications, there is not one which speaks of the constitution as a compact between states. those of massachusetts and new hampshire express the transaction, in my opinion, with sufficient accuracy. they recognize the divine goodness "in affording the people of the united states an opportunity of entering into an explicit and solemn compact with each other _by assenting to and ratifying a new constitution_." you will observe, sir, that it is the people, and not the states, who have entered into this compact; and it is the people of all the united states. these conventions, by this form of expression, meant merely to say, that the people of the united states had, by the blessing of providence, enjoyed the opportunity of establishing a new constitution, _founded in the consent of the people_. this consent of the people has been called, by european writers, the _social compact_; and, in conformity to this common mode of expression, these conventions speak of that assent, on which the new constitution was to rest, as an explicit and solemn compact, not which the states had entered into with each other, but which the _people_ of the united states had entered into. finally, sir, how can any man get over the words of the constitution itself?--"we, the people of the united states, do ordain and establish this constitution." these words must cease to be a part of the constitution, they must be obliterated from the parchment on which they are written, before any human ingenuity or human argument can remove the popular basis on which that constitution rests, and turn the instrument into a mere compact between sovereign states. the second proposition, sir, which i propose to maintain, is, that no state authority can dissolve the relations subsisting between the government of the united states and individuals; that nothing can dissolve these relations but revolution; and that, therefore, there can be no such thing as _secession_ without revolution. all this follows, as it seems to me, as a just consequence, if it be first proved that the constitution of the united states is a government proper, owing protection to individuals, and entitled to their obedience. the people, sir, in every state, live under two governments. they owe obedience to both. these governments, though distinct, are not adverse. each has its separate sphere, and its peculiar powers and duties. it is not a contest between two sovereigns for the same power, like the wars of the rival houses of england; nor is it a dispute between a government _de facto_ and a government _de jure_. it is the case of a division of powers between two governments, made by the people, to whom both are responsible. neither can dispense with the duty which individuals owe to the other; neither can call itself master of the other; the people are masters of both. this division of power, it is true, is in a great measure unknown in europe. it is the peculiar system of america; and, though new and singular, it is not incomprehensible. the state constitutions are established by the people of the states. this constitution is established by the people of all the states. how, then, can a state secede? how can a state undo what the whole people have done? how can she absolve her citizens from their obedience to the laws of the united states? how can she annul their obligations and oaths? how can the members of her legislature renounce their own oaths? sir, secession, as a revolutionary right, is intelligible; as a right to be proclaimed in the midst of civil commotions, and asserted at the head of armies, i can understand it. but as a practical right, existing under the constitution, and in conformity with its provisions, it seems to me to be nothing but a plain absurdity; for it supposes resistance to government, under the authority of government itself; it supposes dismemberment, without violating the principles of union; it supposes opposition to law, without crime; it supposes the violation of oaths, without responsibility; it supposes the total overthrow of government, without revolution. the constitution, sir, regards itself as perpetual and immortal. it seeks to establish a union among the people of the states, which shall last through all time. or, if the common fate of things human must be expected at some period to happen to it, yet that catastrophe is not anticipated. the instrument contains ample provisions for its amendment, at all times; none for its abandonment at any time. it declares that new states may come into the union, but it does not declare that old states may go out. the union is not a temporary partnership of states. it is the association of the people, under a constitution of government, uniting their power, joining together their highest interests, cementing their present enjoyments, and blending, in one indivisible mass, all their hopes for the future. whatsoever is steadfast in just political principles; whatsoever is permanent in the structure of human society; whatsoever there is which can derive an enduring character from being founded on deep-laid principles of constitutional liberty and on the broad foundations of the public will,--all these unite to entitle this instrument to be regarded as a permanent constitution of government. in the next place, mr. president, i contend that there is a supreme law of the land, consisting of the constitution, acts of congress passed in pursuance of it, and the public treaties. this will not be denied, because such are the very words of the constitution. but i contend, further, that it rightfully belongs to congress, and to the courts of the united states, to settle the construction of this supreme law, in doubtful cases. this is denied; and here arises the great practical question, _who is to construe finally the constitution of the united states_? we all agree that the constitution is the supreme law; but who shall interpret that law? in our system of the division of powers between different governments, controversies will necessarily sometimes arise, respecting the extent of the powers of each. who shall decide these controversies? does it rest with the general government, in all or any of its departments, to exercise the office of final interpreter? or may each of the states, as well as the general government, claim this right of ultimate decision? the practical result of this whole debate turns on this point. the gentleman contends that each state may judge for itself of any alleged violation of the constitution, and may finally decide for itself, and may execute its own decisions by its own power. all the recent proceedings in south carolina are founded on this claim of right. her convention has pronounced the revenue laws of the united states unconstitutional; and this decision she does not allow any authority of the united states to overrule or reverse. of course she rejects the authority of congress, because the very object of the ordinance is to reverse the decision of congress; and she rejects, too, the authority of the courts of the united states, because she expressly prohibits all appeal to those courts. it is in order to sustain this asserted right of being her own judge, that she pronounces the constitution of the united states to be but a compact, to which she is a party, and a sovereign party. if this be established, then the inference is supposed to follow, that, being sovereign, there is no power to control her decision; and her own judgment on her own compact is, and must be, conclusive. i have already endeavored, sir, to point out the practical consequences of this doctrine, and to show how utterly inconsistent it is with all ideas of regular government, and how soon its adoption would involve the whole country in revolution and absolute anarchy. i hope it is easy now to show, sir, that a doctrine bringing such consequences with it is not well founded; that it has nothing to stand on but theory and assumption; and that it is refuted by plain and express constitutional provisions. i think the government of the united states does possess, in its appropriate departments, the authority of final decision on questions of disputed power. i think it possesses this authority, both by necessary implication and by express grant. it will not be denied, sir, that this authority naturally belongs to all governments. they all exercise it from necessity, and as a consequence of the exercise of other powers. the state governments themselves possess it, except in that class of questions which may arise between them and the general government, and in regard to which they have surrendered it, as well by the nature of the case as by clear constitutional provisions. in other and ordinary cases, whether a particular law be in conformity to the constitution of the state is a question which the state legislature or the state judiciary must determine. we all know that these questions arise daily in the state governments, and are decided by those governments; and i know no government which does not exercise a similar power. upon general principles, then, the government of the united states possesses this authority; and this would hardly be denied were it not that there are other governments. but since there are state governments, and since these, like other governments, ordinarily construe their own powers, if the government of the united states construes its own powers also, which construction is to prevail in the case of opposite constructions? and again, as in the case now actually before us, the state governments may undertake, not only to construe their own powers, but to decide directly on the extent of the powers of congress. congress has passed a law as being within its just powers; south carolina denies that this law is within its just powers, and insists that she has the right so to decide this point, and that her decision is final. how are these questions to be settled? in my opinion, sir, even if the constitution of the united states had made no express provision for such cases, it would yet be difficult to maintain, that, in a constitution existing over four-and-twenty states, with equal authority over all, one could claim a right of construing it for the whole. this would seem a manifest impropriety; indeed, an absurdity. if the constitution is a government existing over all the states, though with limited powers, it necessarily follows, that, to the extent of those powers, it must be supreme. if it be not superior to the authority of a particular state, it is not a national government. but as it is a government, as it has a legislative power of its own, and a judicial power coextensive with the legislative, the inference is irresistible that this government, thus created _by_ the whole and _for_ the whole, must have an authority superior to that of the particular government of any one part. congress is the legislature of all the people of the united states; the judiciary of the general government is the judiciary of all the people of the united states. to hold, therefore, that this legislature and this judiciary are subordinate in authority to the legislature and judiciary of a single state, is doing violence to all common sense, and overturning all established principles. congress must judge of the extent of its own powers so often as it is called on to exercise them, or it cannot act at all; and it must also act independent of state control, or it cannot act at all. the right of state interposition strikes at the very foundation of the legislative power of congress. it possesses no effective legislative power, if such right of state interposition exists; because it can pass no law not subject to abrogation. it cannot make laws for the union, if any part of the union may pronounce its enactments void and of no effect. its forms of legislation would be an idle ceremony, if, after all, any one of four-and-twenty states might bid defiance to its authority. without express provision in the constitution, therefore, sir, this whole question is necessarily decided by those provisions which create a legislative power and a judicial power. if these exist in a government intended for the whole, the inevitable consequence is, that the laws of this legislative power and the decisions of this judicial power must be binding on and over the whole. no man can form the conception of a government existing over four-and-twenty states, with a regular legislative and judicial power, and of the existence at the same time of an authority, residing elsewhere, to resist, at pleasure or discretion, the enactments and the decisions of such a government. i maintain, therefore, sir, that, from the nature of the case, and as an inference wholly unavoidable, the acts of congress and the decisions of the national courts must be of higher authority than state laws and state decisions. if this be not so, there is, there can be, no general government. but, mr. president, the constitution has not left this cardinal point without full and explicit provisions. first, as to the authority of congress. having enumerated the specific powers conferred on congress, the constitution adds, as a distinct and substantive clause, the following, viz.: "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the united states, or in any department or officer thereof." if this means anything, it means that congress may judge of the true extent and just interpretation of the specific powers granted to it, and may judge also of what is necessary and proper for executing those powers. if congress is to judge of what is necessary for the execution of its powers, it must, of necessity, judge of the extent and interpretation of those powers. and in regard, sir, to the judiciary, the constitution is still more express and emphatic. it declares that the judicial power shall extend to all _cases_ in law or equity arising under the constitution, laws of the united states, and treaties; that there shall be _one_ supreme court, and that this supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction of all these cases, subject to such exceptions as congress may make. it is impossible to escape from the generality of these words. if a case arises under the constitution, that is, if a case arises depending on the construction of the constitution, the judicial power of the united states extends to it. it reaches _the case, the question_; it attaches the power of the national judicature to the _case_ itself, in whatever court it may arise or exist; and in this _case_ the supreme court has appellate jurisdiction over all courts whatever. no language could provide with more effect and precision than is here done, for subjecting constitutional questions to the ultimate decision of the supreme court. and, sir, this is exactly what the convention found it necessary to provide for, and intended to provide for. it is, too, exactly what the people were universally told was done when they adopted the constitution. one of the first resolutions adopted by the convention was in these words, viz.: "that the jurisdiction of the national judiciary shall extend to cases which respect _the collection of the national revenue_, and questions which involve the national peace and harmony." now, sir, this either had no sensible meaning at all, or else it meant that the jurisdiction of the national judiciary should extend to these questions, _with a paramount authority_. it is not to be supposed that the convention intended that the power of the national judiciary should extend to these questions, and that the power of the judicatures of the states should also extend to them, _with equal power of final decision_. this would be to defeat the whole object of the provision. there were thirteen judicatures already in existence. the evil complained of, or the danger to be guarded against, was contradiction and repugnance in the decisions of these judicatures. if the framers of the constitution meant to create a fourteenth, and yet not to give it power to revise and control the decisions of the existing thirteen, then they only intended to augment the existing evil and the apprehended danger by increasing still further the chances of discordant judgments. why, sir, has it become a settled axiom in politics that every government must have a judicial power coextensive with its legislative power? certainly, there is only this reason, namely, that the laws may receive a uniform interpretation and a uniform execution. this object cannot be otherwise attained. a statute is what it is judicially interpreted to be; and if it be construed one way in new hampshire, and another way in georgia, there is no uniform law. one supreme court, with appellate and final jurisdiction, is the natural and only adequate means, in any government, to secure this uniformity. the convention saw all this clearly; and the resolution which i have quoted, never afterwards rescinded, passed through various modifications, till it finally received the form which the article now bears in the constitution. it is undeniably true, then, that the framers of the constitution intended to create a national judicial power, which should be paramount on national subjects. and after the constitution was framed, and while the whole country was engaged in discussing its merits, one of its most distinguished advocates, mr. madison, told the people that it _was true, that, in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide is to be established under the general government_. mr. martin, who had been a member of the convention, asserted the same thing to be the legislature of maryland, and urged it as a reason for rejecting the constitution. mr. pinckney, himself also a leading member of the convention, declared it to the people of south carolina. everywhere it was admitted, by friends and foes, that this power was in the constitution. by some it was thought dangerous, by most it was thought necessary; but by all it was agreed to be a power actually contained in the instrument. the convention saw the absolute necessity of some control in the national government over state laws. different modes of establishing this control were suggested and considered. at one time, it was proposed that the laws of the states should, from time to time, be laid before congress, and that congress should possess a negative over them. but this was thought inexpedient and inadmissible; and in its place, and expressly as a substitute for it, the existing provision was introduced; that is to say, a provision by which the federal courts should have authority to overrule such state laws as might be in manifest contravention of the constitution. the writers of the federalist, in explaining the constitution, while it was yet pending before the people, and still unadopted, give this account of the matter in terms, and assign this reason for the article as it now stands. by this provision congress escaped the necessity of any revision of state laws, left the whole sphere of state legislation quite untouched, and yet obtained a security against any infringement of the constitutional power of the general government. indeed, sir, allow me to ask again, if the national judiciary was not to exercise a power of revision on constitutional questions over the judicatures of the states, why was any national judicature erected at all? can any man give a sensible reason for having a judicial power in this government, unless it be for the sake of maintaining a uniformity of decision on questions arising under the constitution and laws of congress, and insuring its execution? and does not this very idea of uniformity necessarily imply that the construction given by the national courts is to be the prevailing construction? how else, sir, is it possible that uniformity can be preserved? gentlemen appear to me, sir, to look at but one side of the question. they regard only the supposed danger of trusting a government with the interpretation of its own powers. but will they view the question in its other aspect? will they show us how it is possible for a government to get along with four-and-twenty interpreters of its laws and powers? gentlemen argue, too, as if, in these cases, the state would be always right, and the general government always wrong. but suppose the reverse,--suppose the state wrong (and, since they differ, some of them must be wrong),--are the most important and essential operations of the government to be embarrassed and arrested, because one state holds the contrary opinion? mr. president, every argument which refers the constitutionality of acts of congress to state decision appeals from the majority to the minority; it appeals from the common interest to a particular interest; from the counsels of all to the counsel of one; and endeavors to supersede the judgment of the whole by the judgment of a part. i think it is clear, sir, that the constitution, by express provision, by definite and unequivocal words, as well as by necessary implication, has constituted the supreme court of the united states the appellate tribunal in all cases of a constitutional nature which assume the shape of a suit, in law or equity. and i think i cannot do better than to leave this part of the subject by reading the remarks made upon it in the convention of connecticut, by mr. ellsworth; a gentleman, sir, who has left behind him, on the records of the government of his country, proofs of the clearest intelligence and the deepest sagacity, as well as of the utmost purity and integrity of character. "this constitution," says he, "defines the extent of the powers of the general government. if the general legislature should, at any time, overleap their limits, the judicial department is a constitutional check. if the united states go beyond their powers, if they make a law which the constitution does not authorize, it is void; and the judiciary power, the national judges, who, to secure their impartiality, are to be made independent, will declare it to be void. on the other hand, if the states go beyond their limits, if they make a law which is a usurpation upon the general government, the law is void; and upright, independent judges will declare it to be so." nor did this remain merely matter of private opinion. in the very first session of the first congress, with all these well-known objects, both of the convention and the people, full and fresh in his mind, mr. ellsworth, as is generally understood, reported the bill for the organization of the judicial department, and in that bill made provision for the exercise of this appellate power of the supreme court, in all the proper cases, in whatsoever court arising; and this appellate power has now been exercised for more than forty years, without interruption, and without doubt. as to the cases, sir, which do not come before the courts, those political questions which terminate with the enactments of congress, it is of necessity that these should be ultimately decided by congress itself. like other legislatures, it must be trusted with this power. the members of congress are chosen by the people, and they are answerable to the people; like other public agents, they are bound by oath to support the constitution. these are the securities that they will not violate their duty, nor transcend their powers. they are the same securities that prevail in other popular governments; nor is it easy to see how grants of power can be more safely guarded, without rendering them nugatory. if the case cannot come before the courts, and if congress be not trusted with its decision, who shall decide it? the gentleman says, each state is to decide it for herself. if so, then, as i have already urged, what is law in one state is not law in another. or, if the resistance of one state compels an entire repeal of the law, then a minority, and that a small one, governs the whole country. sir, those who espouse the doctrines of nullification reject, as it seems to me, the first great principle of all republican liberty; that is, that the majority _must_ govern. in matters of common concern, the judgment of a majority _must_ stand as the judgment of the whole. this is a law imposed on us by the absolute necessity of the case; and if we do not act upon it, there is no possibility of maintaining any government but despotism. we hear loud and repeated denunciations against what is called _majority government_. it is declared, with much warmth, that a majority government cannot be maintained in the united states. what, then, do gentlemen wish? do they wish to establish a _minority_ government? do they wish to subject the will of the many to the will of the few? the honorable gentleman from south carolina has spoken of absolute majorities and majorities concurrent; language wholly unknown to our constitution, and to which it is not easy to affix definite ideas. as far as i understand it, it would teach us that the absolute majority may be found in congress, but the majority concurrent must be looked for in the states; that is to say, sir, stripping the matter of this novelty of phrase, that the dissent of one or more states, as states, renders void the decision of a majority of congress, so far as that state is concerned. and so this doctrine, running but a short career, like other dogmas of the day, terminates in nullification. if this vehement invective against _majorities_ meant no more than that, in the construction of government, it is wise to provide checks and balances, so that there should be various limitations on the power of the mere majority, it would only mean what the constitution of the united states has already abundantly provided. it is full of such checks and balances. in its very organization, it adopts a broad and most effective principle in restraint of the power of mere majorities. a majority of the people elects the house of representatives, but it does not elect the senate. the senate is elected by the states, each state having, in this respect, an equal power. no law, therefore, can pass, without the assent of the representatives of the people, and a majority of the representatives of the states also. a majority of the representatives of the people must concur, and a majority of the states must concur, in every act of congress; and the president is elected on a plan compounded of both these principles. but having composed one house of representatives chosen by the people in each state, according to their numbers, and the other of an equal number of members from every state, whether larger or smaller, the constitution gives to majorities in these houses thus constituted the full and entire power of passing laws, subject always to the constitutional restrictions and to the approval of the president. to subject them to any other power is clear usurpation. the majority of one house may be controlled by the majority of the other; and both may be restrained by the president's negative. these are checks and balances provided by the constitution, existing in the government itself, and wisely intended to secure deliberation and caution in legislative proceedings. but to resist the will of the majority in both houses, thus constitutionally exercised; to insist on the lawfulness of interposition by an extraneous power; to claim the right of defeating the will of congress, by setting up against it the will of a single state,--is neither more nor less, as it strikes me, than a plain attempt to overthrow the government. the constituted authorities of the united states are no longer a government, if they be not masters of their own will; they are no longer a government, if an external power may arrest their proceedings; they are no longer a government, if acts passed by both houses, and approved by the president, may be nullified by state vetoes or state ordinances. does any one suppose it could make any difference, as to the binding authority of an act of congress, and of the duty of a state to respect it, whether it passed by a mere majority of both houses, or by three fourths of each, or the unanimous vote of each? within the limits and restrictions of the constitution, the government of the united states, like all other popular governments, acts by majorities. it can act no otherwise. whoever, therefore, denounces the government of majorities, denounces the government of his own country, and denounces all free governments. and whoever would restrain these majorities, while acting within their constitutional limits, by an external power, whatever he may intend, asserts principles which, if adopted, can lead to nothing else than the destruction of the government itself. does not the gentleman perceive, sir, how his argument against majorities might here be retorted upon him? does he not see how cogently he might be asked, whether it be the character of nullification to practise what it preaches? look to south carolina, at the present moment. how far are the rights of minorities there respected? i confess, sir, i have not known, in peaceable times, the power of the majority carried with a higher hand, or upheld with more relentless disregard of the rights, feelings, and principles of the minority;--a minority embracing, as the gentleman himself will admit, a large portion of the worth and respectability of the state;--a minority comprehending in its numbers men who have been associated with him, and with us, in these halls of legislation; men who have served their country at home and honored it abroad; men who would cheerfully lay down their lives for their native state, in any cause which they could regard as the cause of honor and duty; men above fear, and above reproach, whose deepest grief and distress spring from the conviction, that the present proceedings of the state must ultimately reflect discredit upon her. how is this minority, how are these men, regarded? they are enthralled and disfranchised by ordinances and acts of legislation; subjected to tests and oaths incompatible, as they conscientiously think, with oaths already taken, and obligations already assumed; they are proscribed and denounced as recreants to duty and patriotism, and slaves to a foreign power. both the spirit which pursues them, and the positive measures which emanate from that spirit, are harsh and proscriptive beyond all precedent within my knowledge, except in periods of professed revolution. it is not, sir, one would think, for those who approve these proceedings to complain of the power of majorities. mr. president, all popular governments rest on two principles, or two assumptions:-- first, that there is so far a common interest among those over whom the government extends, as that it may provide for the defence, protection, and good government of the whole, without injustice or oppression to parts; and secondly, that the representatives of the people, and especially the people themselves, are secure against general corruption, and may be trusted, therefore, with the exercise of power. whoever argues against these principles argues against the practicability of all free governments. and whoever admits these, must admit, or cannot deny, that power is as safe in the hands of congress as in those of other representative bodies. congress is not irresponsible. its members are agents of the people, elected by them, answerable to them, and liable to be displaced or superseded, at their pleasure; and they possess as fair a claim to the confidence of the people, while they continue to deserve it, as any other public political agents. if, then, sir, the manifest intention of the convention, and the contemporary admission of both friends and foes, prove anything; if the plain text of the instrument itself, as well as the necessary implication from other provisions, prove anything; if the early legislation of congress, the course of judicial decisions, acquiesced in by all the states for forty years, prove any thing,--then it is proved that there is a supreme law, and a final interpreter. my fourth and last proposition, mr. president, was, that any attempt by a state to abrogate or nullify acts of congress is a usurpation on the powers of the general government and on the equal rights of other states, a violation of the constitution, and a proceeding essentially revolutionary. this is undoubtedly true, if the preceding propositions be regarded as proved. if the government of the united states be trusted with the duty, in any department, of declaring the extent of its own powers, then a state ordinance, or act of legislation, authorizing resistance to an act of congress, on the alleged ground of its unconstitutionality, is manifestly a usurpation upon its powers. if the states have equal rights in matters concerning the whole, then for one state to set up her judgment against the judgment of the rest, and to insist on executing that judgment by force, is also a manifest usurpation on the rights of other states. if the constitution of the united states be a government proper, with authority to pass laws, and to give them a uniform interpretation and execution, then the interposition of a state, to enforce her own construction, and to resist, as to herself, that law which binds the other states, is a violation of the constitution. if that be revolutionary which arrests the legislative, executive, and judicial power of government, dispenses with existing oaths and obligations of obedience, and elevates another power to supreme dominion, then nullification is revolutionary. or if that be revolutionary the natural tendency and practical effect of which are to break the union into fragments, to sever all connection among the people of the respective states, and to prostrate this general government in the dust, then nullification is revolutionary. nullification, sir, is as distinctly revolutionary as secession; but i cannot say that the revolution which it seeks is one of so respectable a character. secession would, it is true, abandon the constitution altogether; but then it would profess to abandon it. whatever other inconsistencies it might run into, one, at least, it would avoid. it would not belong to a government, while it rejected its authority. it would not repel the burden, and continue to enjoy the benefits. it would not aid in passing laws which others are to obey, and yet reject their authority as to itself. it would not undertake to reconcile obedience to public authority with an asserted right of command over that same authority. it would not be in the government, and above the government, at the same time. but though secession may be a more respectable mode of attaining the object than nullification, it is not more truly revolutionary. each, and both, resist the constitutional authorities; each, and both, would sever the union and subvert the government. mr. president, having detained the senate so long already, i will not now examine at length the ordinance and laws of south carolina. these papers are well drawn for their purpose. their authors understood their own objects. they are called a peaceable remedy, and we have been told that south carolina, after all, intends nothing but a lawsuit. a very few words, sir, will show the nature of this peaceable remedy, and of the lawsuit which south carolina contemplates. in the first place, the ordinance declares the law of last july, and all other laws of the united states laying duties, to be absolutely null and void, and makes it unlawful for the constituted authorities of the united states to enforce the payment of such duties. it is therefore, sir, an indictable offence, at this moment, in south carolina, for any person to be concerned in collecting revenue under the laws of the united states. it being declared, by what is considered a fundamental law of the state, unlawful to collect these duties, an indictment lies, of course, against any one concerned in such collection; and he is, on general principles, liable to be punished by fine and imprisonment. the terms, it is true, are, that it is unlawful "to enforce the payment of duties"; but every custom-house officer enforces payment while he detains the goods in order to obtain such payment. the ordinance, therefore, reaches everybody concerned in the collection of the duties. this is the first step in the prosecution of the peaceable remedy. the second is more decisive. by the act commonly called _replevin_ law, any person whose goods are seized or detained by the collector for the payment of duties may sue out a writ of replevin, and, by virtue of that writ, the goods are to be restored to him. a writ of replevin is a writ which the sheriff is bound to execute, and for the execution of which he is bound to employ force, if necessary. he may call out the _posse_, and must do so, if resistance be made. this _posse_ may be armed or unarmed. it may come forth with military array, and under the lead of military men. whatever number of troops may be assembled in charleston, they may be summoned, with the governor, or commander-in-chief, at their head, to come in aid of the sheriff. it is evident, then, sir, that the whole military power of the state is to be employed, if necessary, in dispossessing the custom-house officers, and in seizing and holding the goods, without paying the duties. this is the second step in the peaceable remedy. sir, whatever pretences may be set up to the contrary, this is the direct application of force, and of military force. it is unlawful, in itself, to replevy goods in the custody of the collectors. but this unlawful act is to be done, and it is to be done by force. here is a plain interposition, by physical force, to resist the laws of the union. the legal mode of collecting duties is to detain the goods till such duties are paid or secured. but force comes, and overpowers the collector and his assistants, and takes away the goods, leaving the duties unpaid. there cannot be a clearer case of forcible resistance to law. and it is provided that the goods thus seized shall be held against any attempt to retake them, by the same force which seized them. having thus dispossessed the officers of the government of the goods, without payment of duties, and seized and secured them by the strong arm of the state, only one thing more remains to be done, and that is, to cut off all possibility of legal redress; and that, too, is accomplished, or thought to be accomplished. the ordinance declares, _that all judicial proceedings founded on the revenue laws_ (including, of course, proceedings in the courts of the united states), _shall be null and void_. this nullifies the judicial power of the united states. then comes the test-oath act. this requires all state judges and jurors in the state courts to swear that they will execute the ordinance, and all acts of the legislature passed in pursuance thereof. the ordinance declares, that no appeal shall be allowed from the decision of the state courts to the supreme court of the united states; and the replevin act makes it an indictable offence for any clerk to furnish a copy of the record, for the purpose of such appeal. the two principal provisions on which south carolina relies, to resist the laws of the united states, and nullify the authority of this government, are, therefore, these:-- . a forcible seizure of goods, before duties are paid or secured, by the power of the state, civil and military. . the taking away, by the most effectual means in her power, of all legal redress in the courts of the united states; the confining of judicial proceedings to her own state tribunals; and the compelling of her judges and jurors of these her own courts to take an oath, beforehand, that they will decide all cases according to the ordinance, and the acts passed under it; that is, that they will decide the cause one way. they do not swear to _try_ it, on its own merits; they only swear to _decide_ it as nullification requires. the character, sir, of these provisions defies comment. their object is as plain as their means are extraordinary. they propose direct resistance, by the whole power of the state, to laws of congress, and cut off, by methods deemed adequate, any redress by legal and judicial authority. they arrest legislation, defy the executive, and banish the judicial power of this government. they authorize and command acts to be done, and done by force, both of numbers and of arms, which, if done, and done by force, are clearly acts of rebellion and treason. such, sir, are the laws of south carolina; such, sir, is the peaceable remedy of nullification. has not nullification reached, sir, even thus early, that point of direct and forcible resistance to law to which i intimated, three years ago, it plainly tended? and now, mr. president, what is the reason for passing laws like these? what are the oppressions experienced under the union, calling for measures which thus threaten to sever and destroy it? what invasions of public liberty, what ruin to private happiness, what long list of rights violated, or wrongs unredressed, is to justify to the country, to posterity, and to the world, this assault upon the free constitution of the united states, this great and glorious work of our fathers? at this very moment, sir, the whole land smiles in peace, and rejoices in plenty. a general and a high prosperity pervades the country; and, judging by the common standard, by increase of population and wealth, or judging by the opinions of that portion of her people not embarked in these dangerous and desperate measures, this prosperity overspreads south carolina herself. thus happy at home, our country, at the same time, holds high the character of her institutions, her power, her rapid growth, and her future destiny, in the eyes of all foreign states. one danger only creates hesitation; one doubt only exists, to darken the otherwise unclouded brightness of that aspect which she exhibits to the view and to the admiration of the world. need i say, that that doubt respects the permanency of our union? and need i say, that that doubt is now caused, more than any thing else, by these very proceedings of south carolina? sir, all europe is, at this moment, beholding us, and looking for the issue of this controversy; those who hate free institutions, with malignant hope; those who love them, with deep anxiety and shivering fear. the cause, then, sir, the cause! let the world know the cause which has thus induced one state of the union to bid defiance to the power of the whole, and openly to talk secession. sir, the world will scarcely believe that this whole controversy, and all the desperate measures which its support requires, have no other foundation than a difference of opinion upon a provision of the constitution, between a majority of the people of south carolina, on one side, and a vast majority of the whole people of the united states, on the other. it will not credit the fact, it will not admit the possibility, that, in an enlightened age, in a free, popular republic, under a constitution where the people govern, as they must always govern under such systems, by majorities, at a time of unprecedented prosperity, without practical oppression, without evils such as may not only be pretended, but felt and experienced,--evils not slight or temporary, but deep, permanent, and intolerable,--a single state should rush into conflict with all the rest, attempt to put down the power of the union by her own laws, and to support those laws by her military power, and thus break up and destroy the world's last hope. and well the world may be incredulous. we, who see and hear it, can ourselves hardly yet believe it. even after all that had preceded it this ordinance struck the country with amazement. it was incredible and inconceivable that south carolina should plunge headlong into resistance to the laws on a matter of opinion and on a question in which the preponderance of opinion, both of the present day and of all past time, was so overwhelmingly against her. the ordinance declares that congress has exceeded its just power by laying duties on imports, intended for the protection of manufactures. this is the opinion of south carolina; and on the strength of that opinion she nullifies the laws. yet has the rest of the country no right to its opinion also? is one state to sit sole arbitress? she maintains that those laws are plain, deliberate, and palpable violations of the constitution; that she has a sovereign right to decide this matter; and that, having so decided, she is authorized to resist their execution by her own sovereign power; and she declares that she will resist it, though such resistance should shatter the union into atoms. mr. president, i do not intend to discuss the propriety of these laws at large; but i will ask, how are they shown to be thus plainly and palpably unconstitutional? have they no countenance at all in the constitution itself? are they quite new in the history of the government? are they a sudden and violent usurpation on the rights of the states? sir, what will the civilized world say, what will posterity say, when they learn that similar laws have existed from the very foundation of the government, that for thirty years the power was never questioned, and that no state in the union has more freely and unequivocally admitted it than south carolina herself? to lay and collect duties and imposts is an _express power_ granted by the constitution to congress. it is, also, an _exclusive power_; for the constitution as expressly prohibits all the states from exercising it themselves. this express and exclusive power is unlimited in the terms of the grant, but is attended with two specific restrictions: first, that all duties and imposts shall be equal in all the states; second, that no duties shall be laid on exports. the power, then, being granted, and being attended with these two restrictions, and no more, who is to impose a third restriction on the general words of the grant? if the power to lay duties, as known among all other nations, and as known in all our history, and as it was perfectly understood when the constitution was adopted, includes a right of discriminating while exercising the power, and of laying some duties heavier and some lighter, for the sake of encouraging our own domestic products, what authority is there for giving to the words used in the constitution a new, narrow, and unusual meaning? all the limitations which the constitution intended, it has expressed; and what it has left unrestricted is as much a part of its will as the restraints which it has imposed. but these laws, it is said, are unconstitutional on account of the _motive_. how, sir, can a law be examined on any such ground? how is the motive to be ascertained? one house, or one member, may have one motive; the other house, or another member, another. one motive may operate to-day, and another to-morrow. upon any such mode of reasoning as this, one law might be unconstitutional now, and another law, in exactly the same words, perfectly constitutional next year. besides, articles may not only be taxed for the purpose of protecting home products, but other articles may be left free, for the same purpose and with the same motive. a law, therefore, would become unconstitutional from what it omitted, as well as from what it contained. mr. president, it is a settled principle, acknowledged in all legislative halls, recognized before all tribunals, sanctioned by the general sense and understanding of mankind, that there can be no inquiry into the motives of those who pass laws, for the purpose of determining on their validity. if the law be within the fair meaning of the words in the grant of the power, its authority must be admitted until it is repealed. this rule, everywhere acknowledged, everywhere admitted, is so universal and so completely without exception, that even an allegation of fraud, in the majority of a legislature, is not allowed as a ground to set aside a law. but, sir, is it true that the motive for these laws is such as is stated? i think not. the great object of all these laws is, unquestionably, revenue. if there were no occasion for revenue, the laws would not have been passed; and it is notorious that almost the entire revenue of the country is derived from them. and as yet we have collected none too much revenue. the treasury has not been more reduced for many years than it is at the present moment. all that south carolina can say is, that, in passing the laws which she now undertakes to nullify, _particular imparted articles were taxed, from a regard to the protection of certain articles of domestic manufacture, higher than they would have been had no such regard been entertained_. and she insists, that, according to the constitution, no such discrimination can be allowed; that duties should be laid for revenue, and revenue only; and that it is unlawful to have reference, in any case, to protection. in other words, she denies the power of discrimination. she does not, and cannot, complain of excessive taxation; on the contrary, she professes to be willing to pay any amount for revenue, merely as revenue; and up to the present moment there is no surplus of revenue. her grievance, then, that plain and palpable violation of the constitution which she insists has taken place, is simply the exercise of the power of discrimination. now, sir, is the exercise of this power of discrimination plainly and palpably unconstitutional? i have already said, the power to lay duties is given by the constitution in broad and general terms. there is also conferred on congress the whole power of regulating commerce, in another distinct provision. is it clear and palpable, sir, can any man say it is a case beyond doubt, that, under these two powers, congress may not justly _discriminate_, in laying duties, _for the purpose of countervailing the policy of foreign nations, or of favoring our own home productions?_ sir, what ought to conclude this question for ever, as it would seem to me, is, that the regulation of commerce and the imposition of duties are, in all commercial nations, powers avowedly and constantly exercised for this very end. that undeniable truth ought to settle the question; because the constitution ought to be considered, when it uses well-known language, as using it in its well-known sense. but it is equally undeniable, that it has been, from the very first, fully believed that this power of discrimination was conferred on congress; and the constitution was itself recommended, urged upon the people, and enthusiastically insisted on in some of the states, for that very reason. not that, at that time, the country was extensively engaged in manufactures, especially of the kinds now existing. but the trades and crafts of the seaport towns, the business of the artisans and manual laborers,--those employments, the work in which supplies so great a portion of the daily wants of all classes,--all these looked to the new constitution as a source of relief from the severe distress which followed the war. it would, sir, be unpardonable, at so late an hour, to go into details on this point; but the truth is as i have stated. the papers of the day, the resolutions of public meetings, the debates in the conventions, all that we open our eyes upon in the history of the times, prove it. sir, the honorable gentleman from south carolina has referred to two incidents connected with the proceedings of the convention at philadelphia, which he thinks are evidence to show that the power of protecting manufactures by laying duties, and by commercial regulations, was not intended to be given to congress. the first is, as he says, that a power to protect manufactures was expressly proposed, but not granted. i think, sir, the gentleman is quite mistaken in relation to this part of the proceedings of the convention. the whole history of the occurrence to which he alludes is simply this. towards the conclusion of the convention, after the provisions of the constitution had been mainly agreed upon, after the power to lay duties and the power to regulate commerce had both been granted, a long list of propositions was made and referred to the committee, containing various miscellaneous powers, some or all of which it was thought might be properly vested in congress. among these was a power to establish a university; to grant charters of incorporation; to regulate stage-coaches on the post-roads; and also the power to which the gentleman refers, and which is expressed in these words: "to establish public institutions, rewards, and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, commerce, trades, and manufactures." the committee made no report on this or various other propositions in the same list. but the only inference from this omission is, that neither the committee nor the convention thought it proper to authorize congress "to establish public institutions, rewards, and immunities," for the promotion of manufactures, and other interests. the convention supposed it had done enough,--at any rate, it had done all it intended,--when it had given to congress, in general terms, the power to lay imposts and the power to regulate trade. it is not to be argued, from its omission to give more, that it meant to take back what it had already given. it had given the impost power; it had given the regulation of trade; and it did not deem it necessary to give the further and distinct power of establishing public institutions. the other fact, sir, on which the gentleman relies, is the declaration of mr. martin to the legislature of maryland. the gentleman supposes mr. martin to have urged against the constitution, that it did not contain the power of protection. but if the gentleman will look again at what mr. martin said, he will find, i think, that what mr. martin complained of was, that the constitution, by its prohibitions on the states, had taken away from the states themselves the power of protecting their own manufactures by duties on imports. this is undoubtedly true; but i find no expression of mr. martin intimating that the constitution had not conferred on congress the same power which it had thus taken from the states. but, sir, let us go to the first congress; let us look in upon this and the other house, at the first session of their organization. we see, in both houses, men distinguished among the framers, friends, and advocates of the constitution. we see in both, those who had drawn, discussed, and matured the instrument in the convention, explained and defended it before the people, and were now elected members of congress, to put the new government into motion, and to carry the powers of the constitution into beneficial execution. at the head of the government was washington himself, who had been president of the convention; and in his cabinet were others most thoroughly acquainted with the history of the constitution, and distinguished for the part taken in its discussion. if these persons were not acquainted with the meaning of the constitution, if they did not undergo stand the work of their own hands, who can understand it, or who shall now interpret it to us? sir, the volume which records the proceedings and debates of the first session of the house of representatives lies before me. i open it, and i find that, having provided for the administration of the necessary oaths, the very first measure proposed for consideration is, the laying of imposts; and in the very first committee of the whole into which the house of representatives ever resolved itself, on this its earliest subject, and in this its very first debate, the duty of so laying the imposts as to encourage manufactures was advanced and enlarged upon by almost every speaker, and doubted or denied by none. the first gentleman who suggests this as the clear duty of congress, and as an object necessary to be attended to, is mr. fitzsimons, of pennsylvania; the second, mr. white, of virginia; the third, mr. tucker, of south carolina. but the great leader, sir, on this occasion, was mr. madison. was _he_ likely to know the intentions of the convention and the people? was _he_ likely to understand the constitution? at the second sitting of the committee, mr. madison explained his own opinions of the duty of congress, fully and explicitly. i must not detain you, sir, with more than a few short extracts from these opinions, but they are such as are clear, intelligible, and decisive. "the states," says he, "that are most advanced in population, and ripe for manufacturers, ought to have their particular interest attended to, in some degree. while these states retained the power of making regulations of trade, they had the power to cherish such institutions. by adopting the present constitution, they have thrown the exercise of this power into other hands; they must have done this with an expectation that those interests would not be neglected here." in another report of the same speech, mr. madison is represented as using still stronger language; as saying that, the constitution having taken this power away from the states and conferred it on congress, it would be a _fraud_ on the states and on the people were congress to refuse to exercise it. mr. madison argues, sir, on this early and interesting occasion, very justly and liberally, in favor of the general principles of unrestricted commerce. but he argues, also, with equal force and clearness, for certain important exceptions to these general principles. the first, sir, respects those manufactures which had been brought forward under encouragement by the state governments. "it would be cruel," says mr. madison, "to neglect them, and to divert their industry into other channels; for it is not possible for the hand of man to shift from one employment to another without being injured by the change." again: "there may be some manufactures which, being once formed, can advance towards perfection without any adventitious aid; while others, for want of the fostering hand of government, will be unable to go on at all. legislative provision, therefore, will be necessary to collect the proper objects for this purpose; and this will form another exception to my general principle." and again: "the next exception that occurs is one on which great stress is laid by some well-informed men, and this with great plausibility; that each nation should have, within itself, the means of defence, independent of foreign supplies; that, in whatever relates to the operations of war, no state ought to depend upon a precarious supply from any part of the world. there may be some truth in this remark; and therefore it is proper for legislative attention." in the same debate, sir, mr. burk, from south carolina, supported a duty on hemp, for the express purpose of encouraging its growth on the strong lands of south carolina. "cotton," he said, "was also in contemplation among them, and, if good seed could be procured, he hoped might succeed." afterwards, sir, the cotton was obtained, its culture was protected, and it did succeed. mr. smith, a very distinguished member from the same state, observed: "it has been said, and justly, that the states which adopted this constitution expected its administration would be conducted with a favorable hand. the manufacturing states wished the encouragement of manufactures, the maritime states the encouragement of shipbuilding, and the agricultural states the encouragement of agriculture." sir, i will detain the senate by reading no more extracts from these debates. i have already shown a majority of the members of south carolina, in this very first session, acknowledging this power of protection, voting for its exercise, and proposing its extension to their own products. similar propositions came from virginia; and, indeed, sir, in the whole debate, at whatever page you open the volume, you find the power admitted, and you find it applied to the protection of particular articles, or not applied, according to the discretion of congress. no man denied the power, no man doubted it; the only questions were, in regard to the several articles proposed to be taxed, whether they were fit subjects for protection, and what the amount of that protection ought to be. will gentlemen, sir, now answer the argument drawn from these proceedings of the first congress? will they undertake to deny that that congress did act on the avowed principle of protection? or, if they admit it, will they tell us how those who framed the constitution fell, thus early, into this great mistake about its meaning? will they tell us how it should happen that they had so soon forgotten their own sentiments and their own purposes? i confess i have seen no answer to this argument, nor any respectable attempt to answer it. and, sir, how did this debate terminate? what law was passed? there it stands, sir, among the statutes, the second law in the book. it has a _preamble_, and that preamble expressly recites, that the duties which it imposes are laid "for the support of government, for the discharge of the debts of the united states, and _the encouragement and protection of manufactures_." until, sir, this early legislation, thus coeval with the constitution itself, thus full and explicit, can be explained away, no man can doubt of the meaning of that instrument in this respect. mr. president, this power of _discrimination_, thus admitted, avowed, and practised upon in the first revenue act, has never been denied or doubted until within a few years past. it was not at all doubted in , when it became necessary to adjust the revenue to a state of peace. on the contrary, the power was then exercised, not without opposition as to its expediency, but, as far as i remember or have understood, without the slightest opposition founded on any supposed want of constitutional authority. certainly, south carolina did not doubt it. the tariff of was introduced, carried through, and established, under the lead of south carolina. even the minimum policy is of south carolina origin. the honorable gentleman himself supported, and ably supported, the tariff of . he has informed us, sir, that his speech on that occasion was sudden and off-hand, he being called up by the request of a friend. i am sure the gentleman so remembers it, and that it was so; but there is, nevertheless, much method, arrangement, and clear exposition in that extempore speech. it is very able, very, very much to the point, and very decisive. and in another speech, delivered two months earlier, on the proposition to repeal the internal taxes, the honorable gentleman had touched the same subject, and had declared "_that a certain encouragement ought to be extended at least to our woollen and cotton manufactures_." i do not quote these speeches, sir, for the purpose of showing that the honorable gentleman has changed his opinion: my object is other and higher. i do it for the sake of saying that that cannot be so plainly and palpably unconstitutional as to warrant resistance to law, nullification, and revolution, which the honorable gentleman and his friends have heretofore agreed to and acted upon without doubt and without hesitation. sir, it is no answer to say that the tariff of was a revenue bill. so are they all revenue bills. the point is, and the truth is, that the tariff of , like the rest, _did discriminate_; it did distinguish one article from another; it did lay duties for protection. look to the case of coarse cottons under the minimum calculation: the duty on these was from sixty to eighty per cent. something beside revenue, certainly, was intended in this; and, in fact, the law cut up our whole commerce with india in that article. it is, sir, only within a few years that carolina has denied the constitutionality of these protective laws. the gentleman himself has narrated to us the true history of her proceedings on this point. he says, that, after the passing of the law of , despairing then of being able to abolish the system of protection, political men went forth among the people, and set up the doctrine that the system was unconstitutional. "_and the people_," says the honorable gentleman, "_received the doctrine_." this, i believe, is true, sir. the people did then receive the doctrine; they had never entertained it before. down to that period, the constitutionality of these laws had been no more doubted in south carolina than elsewhere. and i suspect it is true, sir, and i deem it a great misfortune, that, to the present moment, a great portion of the people of the state have never yet seen more than one side of the argument. i believe that thousands of honest men are involved in scenes now passing, led away by one-sided views of the question, and following their leaders by the impulses of an unlimited confidence. depend upon it, sir, if we can avoid the shock of arms, a day for reconsideration and reflection will come; truth and reason will act with their accustomed force, and the public opinion of south carolina will be restored to its usual constitutional and patriotic tone. but, sir, i hold south carolina to her ancient, her cool, her uninfluenced, her deliberate opinions. i hold her to her own admissions, nay, to her own claims and pretensions, in , in the first congress, and to her acknowledgments and avowed sentiments through a long series of succeeding years. i hold her to the principles on which she led congress to act in ; or, if she have changed her own opinions, i claim some respect for those who still retain the same opinions. i say she is precluded from asserting that doctrines, which she has herself so long and so ably sustained, are plain, palpable, and dangerous violations of the constitution. mr. president, if the friends of nullification should be able to propagate their opinions, and give them practical effect, they would, in my judgment, prove themselves the most skilful "architects of ruin," the most effectual extinguishers of high-raised expectation, the greatest blasters of human hopes, that any age has produced. they would stand up to proclaim, in tones which would pierce the ears of half the human race, that the last great experiment of representative government had failed. they would send forth sounds, at the hearing of which the doctrine of the divine right of kings would feel, even in its grave, a returning sensation of vitality and resuscitation. millions of eyes, of those who now feed their inherent love of liberty on the success of the american example, would turn away from beholding our dismemberment, and find no place on earth whereon to rest their gratified sight. amidst the incantations and orgies of nullification, secession, disunion, and revolution, would be celebrated the funeral rites of constitutional and republican liberty. but, sir, if the government do its duty, if it act with firmness and with moderation, these opinions cannot prevail. be assured, sir, be assured, that, among the political sentiments of this people, the love of union is still uppermost. they will stand fast by the constitution, and by those who defend it. i rely on no temporary expedients, on no political combination; but i rely on the true american feeling, the genuine patriotism of the people, and the imperative decision of the public voice. disorder and confusion, indeed, may arise; scenes of commotion and contest are threatened, and perhaps may come. with my whole heart, i pray for the continuance of the domestic peace and quiet of the country. i desire, most ardently, the restoration of affection and harmony to all its parts. i desire that every citizen of the whole country may look to this government with no other sentiments than those of grateful respect and attachment. but i cannot yield even to kind feelings the cause of the constitution, the true glory of the country, and the great trust which we hold in our hands for succeeding ages. if the constitution cannot be maintained without meeting these scenes of commotion and contest, however unwelcome, they must come. we cannot, we must not, we dare not, omit to do that which, in our judgment, the safety of the union requires. not regardless of consequences, we must yet meet consequences; seeing the hazards which surround the discharge of public duty, it must yet be discharged. for myself, sir, i shun no responsibility justly devolving on me, here or elsewhere, in attempting to maintain the cause. i am bound to it by indissoluble ties of affection and duty, and i shall cheerfully partake in its fortunes and its fate. i am ready to perform my own appropriate part, whenever and wherever the occasion may call on me, and to take my chance among those upon whom blows may fall first and fall thickest. i shall exert every faculty i possess in aiding to prevent the constitution from being nullified, destroyed, or impaired; and even should i see it fall, i will still, with a voice feeble, perhaps, but earnest as ever issued from human lips, and with fidelity and zeal which nothing shall extinguish, call on the people to come to its rescue. [ ] speech at saratoga. we are, my friends, in the midst of a great movement of the people. that a revolution in public sentiment on some important questions of public policy has begun, and is in progress, it is vain to attempt to conceal, and folly to deny. what will be the extent of this revolution, what its immediate effects upon political men and political measures, what ultimate influence it may have on the integrity of the constitution, and the permanent prosperity of the country, remains to be seen. meantime, no one can deny that an extraordinary excitement exists in the country, such as has not been witnessed for more than half a century; not local, nor confined to any two, or three, or ten states, but pervading the whole, from north to south, and from east to west, with equal force and intensity. for an effect so general, a cause of equal extent must exist. no cause, local or partial, can produce consequences so general and universal. in some parts of the country, indeed, local causes may in some degree add to the flame; but no local cause, nor any number of local causes, can account for the generally excited state of the public mind. in portions of the country devoted to agriculture and manufactures, we hear complaints of want of market and low prices. yet there are other portions of the country, which are consumers, and not producers, of food and manufactures; and, as purchasers, they should, it would seem, be satisfied with the low prices of which the sellers complain; but in these portions, too, of the country, there are dissatisfaction and discontent. everywhere we find complaining and a desire for change. there are those who think that this excitement among the people will prove transitory and evanescent. i am not of that opinion. so far as i can judge, attention to public affairs among the people of the united states, has increased, is increasing, and is not likely to be diminished; and this not in one part of the country, but all over it. this certainly is the fact, if we may judge from recent information. the breeze of popular excitement is blowing everywhere. it fans the air in alabama and the carolinas; and i am of opinion, that, when it shall cross the potomac, and range along the northern alleghanies, it will grow stronger and stronger, until, mingling with the gales of the empire state, and the mountain blasts of new england, it will blow a perfect hurricane. there are those, again, who think these vast popular meetings are got up by effort; but i say that no effort could get them up, and no effort can keep them down. there must, then, be some general cause that animates the whole country. what is that cause? it is upon this point i propose to give my opinion to-day. i have no design to offend the feelings of any, but i mean in perfect plainness to express my views to the vast multitude assembled around. i know there are among them many who from first to last supported general jackson. i know there are many who, if conscience and patriotism permitted, would support his successor; and i should ill repay the attention with which they may honor me by any reviling or denunciation. again, i come to play no part of oratory before you. if there have been times and occasions in my life when i might be supposed anxious to exhibit myself in such a light, that period has passed, and this is not one of the occasions. i come to dictate and prescribe to no man. if my experience, not now short, in the affairs of government, entitle my opinions to any respect, those opinions are at the service of my fellow-citizens. what i shall state as facts, i hold myself and my character responsible for; what i shall state as opinions, all are alike at liberty to reject or to receive. i ask such consideration for them only as the fairness and sincerity with which they are uttered may claim. what, then, has excited the whole land, from maine to georgia, and gives us assurance, that, while we are meeting here in new york in such vast numbers, other like meetings are holding throughout all the states? that this cause must be general is certain, for it agitates the whole country, and not parts only. when that fluid in the human system indispensable to life becomes disordered, corrupted, or obstructed in its circulation, not the head or the heart alone suffers; but the whole body--head, heart, and hand, all the members, and all the extremities--is affected with debility, paralysis, numbness, and death. the analogy between the human system and the social and political system is complete; and what the lifeblood is to the former, circulation, money, currency, is to the latter; and if that be disordered or corrupted, paralysis must fall on the system. the original, leading, main cause, then, of all our difficulties and disasters, is the disordered state of the circulation. this is, perhaps, not a perfectly obvious truth; and yet it is one susceptible of easy demonstration. in order to explain this the more readily, i wish to bring your minds to the consideration of the internal condition, and the vast domestic trade, of the united states. our country is not a small province or canton, but an empire, extending over a large and diversified surface, with a population of various conditions and pursuits. it is in this variety that consists its prosperity; for the different parts become useful one to the other, not by identity, but by difference, of production, and thus each by interchange contributes to the interest of the other. hence, our internal trade, that which carries on this exchange of the products and industry of the different portions of the united states, is one of our most important interests, i had almost said the most important. its operations are easy and silent, not always perceptible, but diffusing health and life throughout the system by the intercourse thus promoted, from neighborhood to neighborhood, and from state to state. this circuit of trade, in a country of such great extent as ours, demands, more than in any country under heaven, a uniform currency for the whole people; that what is money in carolina shall be so elsewhere; that what the kentucky drover receives, what the planter of alabama sells for, what the laborer in new york gets in pay for his work, and carries home to support his family, shall be of ascertained and uniform value. this is not the time nor the occasion for an essay or dissertation on money; but i mean distinctly to express the opinion, that until the general government shall take in hand the currency of the country, until that government shall devise some means, i say not what, of raising the whole currency to the level of gold and silver, there can be no prosperity. let us retrace briefly the history of the currency question in this country, a most important branch of the commercial question. i appeal to all who have studied the history of the times, and of the constitution, whether our fathers, in framing the constitution which should unite us in common rights and a common glory, had not also among their chief objects to provide a uniform system of commerce, including a uniform system of currency for the whole country. i especially invite the ingenuous youth of the country to go back to the history of those times, and particularly to the virginia resolutions of , and to the proceedings of the convention at annapolis, and they will there find that the prevailing motive for forming a general government was, to secure a uniform system of commerce, of customhouse duties, and a general regulation of the trade, external and internal, of the whole country. it was no longer to be the commerce of new york, or of massachusetts, but of the united states, to be carried on under that star-spangled banner, which was to bear to every shore, and over every sea, the glorious motto, _e pluribus unum_. at the second session, of the first congress, the united states bank was established. from the incorporation of the bank to the expiration of its charter,[ ] embracing a period of great commercial and political vicissitudes, the currency furnished by that bank was never objected to: it, indeed, surpassed the hopes and equalled the desires of everybody. of the hundreds here, possibly, who supported general jackson, not one dreamed that he was elected to put down established institutions and overthrow the currency of the country. who, among all those that, in the honest convictions of their hearts, cried, hurrah for jackson! believed or expected or desired that he would interfere with the bank of the united states, or destroy the circulating medium of the country? [here there arose a cry from the crowd, "none! none!"] i stand here upon the fact, and defy contradiction from any quarter, that there was no complaint then, anywhere, of the bank. there never before was a country, of equal extent, where exchanges and circulation were carried on so cheaply, so conveniently, and so securely. general jackson was inaugurated in march, , and pronounced an address upon that occasion, which i heard, as i did the oath which he took to support the constitution. in that address were enumerated various objects, requiring, as he said, reform; but among them was not the bank of the united states, nor the currency. this was in march, . in december, , general jackson came out with the declaration (than which none i have ever heard surprised me more), that "the constitutionality of the bank of the united states might be well questioned," and that it had failed to furnish a sound and uniform currency to the country. what produced this change of views? down to march of the same year, nothing of this sort was indicated or threatened. what, then, induced the change? [a voice from the crowd said, "martin van buren."] if that be so, it was the production of mighty consequences by a cause not at all proportioned. i will state, in connection with, and in elucidation of, this subject, certain transactions, which constitute one of those contingencies in human affairs, in which casual circumstances, acting upon the peculiar temper and character of a man of very decided temper and character, affect the fate of nations. a movement was made in the summer of , for the purpose of effecting a change of certain officers of the branch of the bank of the united states in portsmouth, new hampshire. mr. woodbury, then a senator from new hampshire, transmitted to the president of the bank at philadelphia a request; purporting to proceed from merchants and men of business of all parties, asking the removal of the president of that branch, _not on political grounds_, but as acceptable and advantageous to the business community. at the same time, mr. woodbury addressed a letter to the then secretary of the treasury, mr. ingham, suggesting that his department should, on _political grounds_, obtain from the mother bank the removal of the branch president. this letter was transmitted to the president of the mother bank, and reached him about the same time with the other, so that, looking upon this picture and upon that, upon one letter, which urged the removal on political grounds, and upon the other, which denied that political considerations entered into the matter at all, he concluded to let things remain as they were. appeals were then artfully made to the president of the united states. his feelings were enlisted, and it is well known that, when he had an object in view, his character was to go ahead.[ ] i mean to speak no evil nor disrespect of general jackson. he has passed off the stage to his retirement at the hermitage, which it would be as well, perhaps, that friends should not disturb, and where i sincerely wish he may, in tranquillity, pass the residue of his days. but general jackson's character was imperious; he took the back track never; and however his friends might differ, or whether they concurred or dissented, they were fain always to submit. general jackson put forth the pretension, that appointments by the bank should have regard to the wishes of the treasury; the matter was formally submitted to the directors of the bank, and they as formally determined that the treasury could not rightly or properly have any thing to say in the matter. a long and somewhat angry correspondence ensued; for general jackson found in the president of the bank a man who had something of his own quality. the result was that the bank resisted, and refused the required acquiescence in the dictation of the treasury. this happened in the summer and autumn of , and in december we had the message in which, for the first time, the bank was arraigned and denounced. then came the application of the bank for re-incorporation, the passage of a bill for that purpose through both houses, and the presidential veto.[ ] the bank of the united states being thus put down, a multitude of new state banks sprang up; and next came a law, adopting some of these as deposit banks. now, what i have to say in regard to general jackson in this matter is this: he said he could establish a better currency; and, whether successful or not in this, it is at least to be said in his favor and praise, that he never did renounce the obligation of the federal government to take care of the currency, paper as well as metallic, of the people. it was in furtherance of this duty, which he felt called on to discharge, of "providing a better currency," that he recommended the prohibition of small bills. why? because, as it was argued, it would improve the general mixed currency of the country; and although he did not as distinctly as mr. madison admit and urge the duty of the federal government to provide a currency for the people, _he never renounced it_, but, on the contrary, in his message of december, , held this explicit language:-- "by the use of the state banks, which do not derive their charters from the general government, and are not controlled by its authority, it is ascertained that the moneys of the united states can be collected and distributed without loss or inconvenience, and that all the wants of the community, in relation to exchange and currency, are supplied as well as they have ever been before." it is not here a question whether these banks did, or did not, effect the purpose which general jackson takes so much praise to himself for accomplishing through their agency, that of supplying the country with as good a currency as it ever enjoyed. but why, if this was not a duty of the federal government, is it mentioned at all? two months only after general jackson had retired, and when his vigorous hand was no longer there to uphold it, the league of state banks fell, and crumbled into atoms; and when mr. van buren had been only three months president, he convoked a special session of congress for the ensuing september. the country was in wide-spread confusion, paralyzed in its commerce, its currency utterly deranged.[ ] what was to be done? what would mr. van buren recommend? he could not go back to the bank of the united states, for he had committed himself against its constitutionality; nor could he, with any great prospect of success, undertake to reconstruct the league of deposit banks; for it had recently failed, and the country had lost confidence in it. what, then, was to be done? he could go neither backward nor forward. what did he do? i mean not to speak disrespectfully, but i say he--_escaped!_ afraid to touch the fragments of the broken banks, unable to touch the united states bank, he folded up his arms, and said, the government has nothing to do with providing a currency for the people. that i may do him no wrong, i will read his own language. his predecessors had all said, we _will not_ turn our backs upon this duty of government to provide a uniform currency; his language is, we _will_ turn our backs on this duty. he proposes nothing for the country, nothing for the relief of commerce, or the regulation of exchanges, but simply the means of getting money into the treasury without loss. in his first message to congress, he thus expresses himself:-- "it is not the province of our government to aid individuals in the transfer of their funds, otherwise than through the facilities of the post-office department. as justly might it be called on to provide for the transportation of their merchandise. "if, therefore, i refrain from suggesting to congress any specific plan for regulating the exchanges or the currency, relieving mercantile embarrassments, or interfering with the ordinary operations of foreign or domestic commerce, it is from a conviction that such are not within the constitutional province of the general government, and that their adoption would not promote the real and permanent welfare of those they might be designed to aid." i put it to you, my friends, if this is a statesman's argument. you can transport your merchandise yourselves; you can build ships, and make your own wagons; but can you make a currency? can you say what shall be money, and what shall not be money, and determine its value here and elsewhere? why, it would be as reasonable to say, that the people make war for themselves, and peace for themselves, as to say that they may exercise this other not less exclusive attribute of sovereignty, of making a currency for themselves. he insists that congress has no power to regulate currency or exchanges, none to mitigate the embarrassments of the country, none to relieve its prostrate industry, and even if the power did exist, it would be unwise, in his opinion, to exercise it! let us compare this declaration with that of one now numbered with the mighty dead; of one who has left behind a reputation excelled by that of no other man, as understanding thoroughly the constitution; of one taking a leading part in its inception, and closing his public career by administering its highest office; i need not name james madison.[ ] in his message to congress, in december, , when the war had closed, and the country was laboring under the disordered currency of that period, the president thus spoke:-- "it is essential to every modification of the finances, that the benefits of a uniform national currency should be restored to the community. the absence of the precious metals will, it is believed, be a temporary evil; but until they can again be rendered the general medium of exchange, it devolves on the wisdom of congress to provide a substitute, which shall equally engage the confidence and accommodate the wants of the citizens throughout the union." the new doctrine which the administration had set up is one vitally affecting the business and pursuits of the people at large, extending its efforts to the interests of every family, and of every individual; and you must determine for yourselves if it shall be the doctrine of the country. but, before determining, look well at the constitution, weigh all the precedents, and if names and authority are to be appealed to, contrast those of president van buren with those of the dead patriarch whose words i have just read to you, and decide accordingly. but mr. van buren's message contains a principle,--one altogether erroneous as a doctrine, and fatal in its operations,--the principle that the government has nothing to do with providing a currency for the country; in other words, proposing a separation between the money of the government and the money of the people. this is the great error, which cannot be compromised with, which is susceptible of no amelioration or modification, like a disease which admits no remedy and no palliative but the caustic which shall totally eradicate it. do we not know that there must always be bank paper? is there a man here who expects that he, or his children, or his children's children, shall see the day when only gold coin, glittering through silk purses, will be the currency of the country, to the entire exclusion of bank notes? not one. but we are told that the value of these notes is questionable. it is the neglect of government to perform its duties that makes them so. you here, in new york, have sound bank paper, redeemable in coin; and if you were surrounded by a chinese wall, it might be indifferent to you whether government looked after the currency elsewhere or not. but you have daily business relations with pennsylvania, and with the west, and east, and south, and you have a direct interest that their currency too shall be sound; for otherwise the very superiority of yours is, to a certain degree, an injury and loss to you, since you pay in the equivalent of specie for what you buy, and you sell for such money as may circulate in the states with which you deal. but new york cannot affect the general restoration of the currency, nor any one state, nor any number of states short of the whole, and hence the duty of the general government to superintend this interest. but what does the sub-treasury propose? [ ] its basis is a separation of the concerns of the treasury from those of the people. it directs that there shall be certain vaults, and safes, and rooms for deposit of the money of the government. but it has not been for want of adequate vaults and rooms that we have lost our money, but owing to the hands to which we have intrusted the keys. it is in the character of the officers, and not in the strength of bars and vaults, that we must look for the security of the public treasure. there are no securities under this new system of keeping the public moneys that we had not before; while many that did exist, in the personal character, high trusts, and diversified duties of the officers and directors of banks are removed. moreover, the number of receiving and disbursing officers is increased, and the danger to the public treasure is increased in proportion. the next provision is, that money once received into the treasury is not to be lent out. yet the practice of this government hitherto has always been opposed to this policy of locking up the money of the people, when and while it is not required for the public service. until this time the public deposits, like private deposits, were used by the banks in which they were placed, as some compensation for the trouble of safe-keeping, and in furtherance of the general convenience. the next provision is that requiring, after , all dues to the government to be paid in gold and silver. but what are we promised as the equivalent for all this inconvenience and oppression? why, that the government in its turn will pay its debts in specie, and that thus what it receives with one hand it will pay out with the other, and a metallic circulation will be established. i undertake to say, that no greater fallacy than this was ever uttered; the thing is impossible, and for this plain reason. the dues which the government collects come from individuals; each pays for himself. but it is far otherwise with the disbursements of government. they do not go down to individuals, and, seeking out the workmen and the laborers, pay to each his dues. government pays in large sums, to large contractors, and to these it may pay gold and silver. but do the gold and silver reach those whom the contractor employs? on the contrary, the contractors deal as they see fit, with those whom they employ, or of whom they purchase. i speak of what is in proof. a contractor came to washington last winter, and received a draft of $ , on a specie-paying bank in new york. this he sold at ten per cent premium, and with the avails purchased funds in the west, with which he paid the producer, the farmer, the laborer. this is the operation of specie payments. it gives to the government hard money, to the rich contractor hard money; but to the producer and the laborer it gives paper, and bad paper only. and yet this system is recommended as specially favoring the poor man, rather than the rich, and credit is claimed for this administration as the poor man's friend. let us look a little more nearly at this matter, and see whom, in truth, it does favor. who are the rich in this country? there is very little hereditary wealth among us; and large capitalists are not numerous. but some there are, nevertheless, who live upon the interest of their money; and these, certainly, do not suffer by this new doctrine; for their revenues are increased in amount, while the means of living are reduced in value. there is the money-lender, too, who suffers not by the reduction of prices all around him. who else are the rich in this country? why, the holders of office. he who has a fixed salary of from $ , to $ , finds prices falling; but does his salary fall? on the contrary, three fourths of that salary will now purchase more than the whole of it would purchase before; and he, therefore, is not dissatisfied with this new state of things. i live on the sea-coast of new england, and one of my nearest neighbors is the largest ship-owner, probably, in the united states. during the past year, he has made what might suffice for two or three fortunes of moderate size; and how has he made it? he sends his ships to alabama, louisiana, mississippi, to take freights of cotton. this staple, whatever may be the price abroad, cannot be suffered to rot at home; and therefore it is shipped. my friend tells his captain to provision his ship at natchez, for instance, where he buys flour and stores in the currency of that region, which is so depreciated that he is able to sell his bills on boston at forty-eight per cent premium! here, at once, it will be seen, he gets his provisions for half price, because prices do not always rise suddenly, as money depreciates. he delivers his freight in europe, and gets paid for it in good money. the disordered currency of the country to which he belongs does not follow and afflict him abroad. he gets his freight in good money, places it in the hands of his owner's banker, who again draws at a premium for it. the ship-owner, then, makes money, when all others are suffering, _because he can escape from the influence of the bad laws and bad currency of his own country_. now, i will contrast the story of this neighbor with that of another of my neighbors, not rich. he is a new england mechanic, hard-working, sober, and intelligent, a tool-maker by trade, who wields his own sledge-hammer. his particular business is the making of augers for the south and southwest. he has for years employed many hands, and been the support thereby of many families around him, himself, meanwhile, moderately prosperous until these evil times came on. annually, however, for some years, he has been going backwards. not less industrious, not less frugal, he has yet found, that, however good nominally the prices he might receive at the south and southwest for his tools, the cost of converting his southern or western funds into money current in new england was ruinous. he has persevered, however, always hoping for some change for the better, and contracting gradually the circle of his work and the number of his workmen, until at length, the little earnings of the past wasted, and the condition of the currency becoming worse and worse, he is reduced to bankruptcy; and he, and the twenty families that he supported, are beggared by no fault of their own. what was his difficulty? he _could not escape_ from the evils of bad laws and bad currency at home; and while his rich neighbor, who could and did, is made richer by these very causes, he, the honest and industrious mechanic, is crushed to the earth; and yet we are told that this is a system for promoting the interests of the poor! this leads me naturally to the great subject of _american labor_, which has hardly been considered or discussed as carefully as it deserves. what is _american labor_? it is best described by saying, _it is not_ european labor. nine tenths of the whole labor of this country is performed by those who cultivate the land they or their fathers own, or who, in their workshops, employ some little capital of their own, and mix it up with their manual toil. no such thing exists in other countries. look at the different departments of industry, whether agricultural, manufacturing, or mechanical, and you will find that, in almost all, the laborers mix up some little capital with the work of their hands. the laborer of the united states is the united states. strike out the laborers of the united states, including therein all who in some way or other belong to the industrious and working classes, and you reduce the population of the united states from sixteen millions to one million. the american laborer is expected to have a comfortable home, decent though frugal living, and to be able to clothe and educate his children, to qualify them to take part, as all are called to do, in the political affairs and government of their country. can this be said of any european laborer? does he take any share in the government of his country, or feel it an obligation to educate his children? in most parts of europe, nine tenths of the laborers have no interest in the soil they cultivate, nor in the fabrics they produce; no hope, under any circumstances, of rising themselves, or of raising their children, above the condition of a day-laborer at wages; and only know the government under which they live by the sense of its burdens, which they have no voice in mitigating. to compare such a state of labor with the labor of this country, or to reason from that to ours, is preposterous. and yet the doctrine now is, not of individuals only, but of the administration, that the wages of american labor must be brought down to the level of those of europe. i have said this is not the doctrine of a few individuals; and on that head i think injustice has been done to a senator from pennsylvania, who has been made to bear a large share of the responsibility of suggesting such a policy. if i mistake not, the same idea is thrown out in the president's message at the commencement of the last session, and in the treasury report. hear what mr. woodbury says:-- "should the states not speedily suspend more of their undertakings which are unproductive, but, by new loans or otherwise, find means to employ armies of laborers in consuming rather than raising crops, and should prices thus continue in many cases to be unnaturally inflated, as they have been of late years, in the face of a contracting currency, the effect of it on our finances would be still more to lessen exports, and, consequently, the prosperity and revenue of our foreign trade." he is for turning off from the public works these "armies of laborers," who consume without producing crops, and thus bring down prices, both of crops and labor. diminish the mouths that consume, and multiply the arms that produce, and you have the treasury prescription for mitigating distress and raising prices! how would that operate in this great state? you have, perhaps, some fifteen thousand men employed on your public works, works of the kind that the secretary calls "unproductive"; and, even with such a demand as they must produce for provisions, prices are very low. the secretary's remedy is to set them to raise provisions themselves, and thus augment the supply, while they diminish the demand. in this way, the wages of labor are to be reduced, as well as the prices of agricultural productions. but this is not all. i have in my hand an extract from a speech in the house of representatives of a zealous supporter, as it appears, of the administration, who maintains that, other things being reduced in proportion, you may reduce the wages of labor, without evil consequences. and where does he seek this example? on the shores of the mediterranean. he fixes upon corsica and sardinia. but what is the corsican laborer, that he should be the model upon which american labor is to be formed? does he know any thing himself? has he any education, or does he give any to his children? has he a home, a freehold, and the comforts of life around him? no: with a crust of bread and a handful of olives, his daily wants are satisfied. and yet, from such a state of society, the laborer of new england, the laborer of the united states, is to be taught submission to low wages. the extract before me states that the wages of corsica are, "for the male laborer, cents a day; and the female do. cents do.";-- both, i presume, finding their own food. and the honorable gentleman argues, that, owing to the greater cheapness of other articles, this is relatively as much as the american laborer gets; and he illustrates the fact by this bill of clothing for a corsican laborer:-- "jacket, lasting months, francs; cap, do. do. do. waistcoat, do. do. do. pantaloons, do. do. do. shirt, do. do. do. pair of shoes, do. do. do. --- francs." eight francs are equal to one dollar and sixty cents, and five francs to one dollar. now, what say you, my friends? what will the farmer of new york, of pennsylvania, or of new england say to the idea of walking on sunday to church, at the head of his family, in his jacket _two years old?_ what will the young man say, when, his work ended, he desires to visit the families of his neighbors, to the one pair of pantaloons, not quite two years old, indeed, but, as the farmers say of a colt, "coming two next grass," and which, for eighteen months, have every day done yeoman's service? away with it all! away with this plan of humbling and degrading the free, intelligent, well-educated, and well-paid laborer of the united states to the level of the almost brute laborer of europe! there is not much danger that schemes and doctrines such as these shall find favor with the people. they understand their own interest too well for that. gentlemen, i am a farmer, on the sea-shore, [ ] and have, of course, occasion to employ some degree of agricultural labor. i am sometimes also rowed out to sea, being, like other new england men, fond of occasionally catching a fish, and finding health and recreation, in warm weather, from the air of the ocean. for the few months during which i am able to enjoy this retreat from labor, public or professional, i do not often trouble my neighbors, or they me, with conversation on politics. it happened, however, about three weeks ago, that, on such an excursion as i have mentioned, with one man only with me, i mentioned this doctrine of the reduction of prices, and asked him his opinion of it. he said he did not like it. i replied, "the wages of labor, it is true, are reduced; but then flour and beef, and perhaps clothing, all of which you buy, are reduced also. what, then, can be your objections?" "why," said he, "it is true that flour is now low; but then it is an article that may rise suddenly, by means of a scanty crop in england, or at home; and if it should rise from five dollars to ten, i do not know for certain that it would fetch the price of my labor up with it. but while wages are high, then i am safe; and if produce chances to fall, so much the better for me. but there is another thing. i have but one thing to sell, that is, my labor; but i must buy many things, not only flour, and meat, and clothing, but also some articles that come from other countries,--a little sugar, a little coffee, a little tea, a little of the common spices, and such like. now, i do not see how these foreign articles will be brought down by reducing wages at home; and before the price is brought down of the only thing i have to sell, i want to be sure that the prices will fall also, not of a part, but of all the things which i must buy." now, gentlemen, though he will be astonished, or amused, that i should tell the story before such a vast and respectable assemblage as this, i will place the argument of _seth peterson_, sometimes farmer and sometimes fisherman on the coast of massachusetts, stated to me while pulling an oar with each hand, and with the sleeves of his red shirt rolled up above his elbows, against the reasonings, the theories, and the speeches of the administration and all its friends, in or out of congress, and take the verdict of the country, and of the civilized world, whether he has not the best of the argument. since i have adverted to this conversation, gentlemen, allow me to say that this neighbor of mine is a man fifty years of age, one of several sons of a poor man; that by his labor he has obtained some few acres, his own unencumbered freehold, has a comfortable dwelling, and plenty of the poor man's blessings. of these, i have known six, decently and cleanly clad, each with the book, the slate, and the map proper to its age, all going at the same time daily to enjoy the blessing of that which is the great glory of new england, the common free school. who can contemplate this, and thousands of other cases like it, not as pictures, but as common facts, without feeling how much our free institutions, and the policy hitherto pursued, have done for the comfort and happiness of the great mass of our citizens? where in europe, where in any part of the world out of our own country, shall we find labor thus rewarded, and the general condition of the people so good? nowhere; nowhere! away, then, with the injustice and the folly of reducing the cost of productions with us to what is called the common standard of the world! away, then, away at once and for ever, with the miserable policy which would bring the condition of a laborer in the united states to that of a laborer in russia or sweden, in france or germany, in italy or corsica! instead of following these examples, let us hold up our own, which all nations may well envy, and which, unhappily, in most parts of the earth, it is easier to envy than to imitate. but it is the cry and effort of the times to stimulate those who are called poor against those who are called rich; and yet, among those who urge this cry, and seek to profit by it, there is betrayed sometimes an occasional sneer at whatever savors of humble life. witness the reproach against a candidate now before the people for their highest honors, that a log cabin, with plenty of hard cider, is good enough for him! it appears to some persons, that a great deal too much use is made of the symbol of the log cabin. no man of sense supposes, certainly, that the having lived in a log cabin is any further proof of qualification for the presidency, than as it creates a presumption that any one who, rising from humble condition, or under unfavorable circumstances, has been able to attract a considerable degree of public attention, is possessed of reputable qualities, moral and intellectual. but it is to be remembered, that this matter of the log cabin originated, not with the friends of the whig candidate, but with his enemies. soon after his nomination at harrisburg, a writer for one of the leading administration papers spoke of his "log cabin," and his use of "hard cider," by way of sneer and reproach. as might have been expected, (for pretenders are apt to be thrown off their guard,) this taunt at humble life proceeded from the party which claims a monopoly of the purest democracy. the whole party appeared to enjoy it, or, at least, they countenanced it by silent acquiescence; for i do not know that, to this day, any eminent individual or any leading newspaper attached to the administration has rebuked this scornful jeering at the supposed humble condition or circumstances in life, past or present, of a worthy man and a war-worn soldier. but it touched a tender point in the public feeling. it naturally roused indignation. what was intended as reproach was immediately seized on as merit. "be it so! be it so!" was the instant burst of the public voice. "let him be the log cabin candidate. what you say in scorn, we will shout with all our lungs. from this day forward, we have our cry of rally; and we shall see whether he who has dwelt in one of the rude abodes of the west may not become the best house in the country!" all this is natural, and springs from sources of just feeling. other things, gentlemen, have had a similar origin. we all know that the term "whig" was bestowed in derision, two hundred years ago, on those who were thought too fond of liberty; and our national air of "yankee doodle" was composed by british officers, in ridicule of the american troops. yet, ere long, the last of the british armies laid down its arms at yorktown, while this same air was playing in the ears of officers and men. gentlemen, it is only shallow-minded pretenders who either make distinguished origin matter of personal merit, or obscure origin matter of personal reproach. taunt and scoffing at the humble condition of early life affect nobody, in this country, but those who are foolish enough to indulge in them, and they are generally sufficiently punished by public rebuke. a man who is not ashamed of himself need not be ashamed of his early condition. gentlemen, it did not happen to me to be born in a log cabin; but my elder brothers and sisters were born in a log cabin, raised amid the snow-drifts of new hampshire, at a period so early that, when the smoke first rose from its rude chimney, and curled over the frozen hills, there was no similar evidence of a white man's habitation between it and the settlements on the rivers of canada. its remains still exist. i make to it an annual visit. i carry my children to it, to teach them the hardships endured by the generations which have gone before them. i love to dwell on the tender recollections, the kindred ties, the early affections, and the touching narratives and incidents, which mingle with all i know of this primitive family abode. i weep to think that none of those who inhabited it are now among the living; and if ever i am ashamed of it, or if i ever fail in affectionate veneration for him who reared it, and defended it against savage violence and destruction, cherished all the domestic virtues beneath its roof, and, through the fire and blood of a seven years' revolutionary war, shrunk from no danger, no toil, no sacrifice, to serve his country, and to raise his children to a condition better than his own, may my name and the name of my posterity be blotted for ever from the memory of mankind! i have now frankly stated my opinions as to the nature of the present excitement, and have answered the question i propounded as to the causes of the revolution in public sentiment now in progress. will this revolution succeed? does it move the masses, or is it an ebullition merely on the surface? and who is it that opposes the change which seems to be going forward? [here some one in the crowd cried out, "none, hardly, but the office-holders, oppose it."] i hear one say that the office-holders oppose it; and that is true. if they were quiet, in my opinion, a change would take place almost by common consent. i have heard of an anecdote, perhaps hardly suited to the sobriety and dignity of this occasion, but which confirms the answer which my friend in the crowd has given to my question. it happened to a farmer's son, that his load of hay was blown over by a sudden gust, on an exposed plain. those near him, seeing him manifest a degree of distress, which such an accident would not usually occasion, asked him the reason; he said he should not _take on_ so much about it, only father was under the load. i think it very probable, gentlemen, that there are many now very active and zealous friends, who would not care much whether the wagon of the administration were blown over or not, if it were not for the fear that father, or son, or uncle, or brother, might be found under the load. indeed, it is remarkable how frequently the fire of patriotism glows in the breast of the holders of office. a thousand favored contractors shake with horrid fear, lest the proposed change should put the interests of the public in great danger. ten thousand post-offices, moved by the same apprehension, join in the cry of alarm, while a perfect earthquake of disinterested remonstrance proceeds from the custom-houses. patronage and favoritism tremble and quake, through every limb and every nerve, lest the people should be found in favor of a change, which might endanger the liberties of the country, or at least break down its present eminent and distinguished prosperity, by abandoning the measures, so wise, so beneficent, so successful, and so popular, which the present administration has pursued! fellow-citizens, we have all sober and important duties to perform. i have not addressed you to-day for the purpose of joining in a premature note of triumph, or raising a shout for anticipated victories. we are in the controversy, not through it. it is our duty to spare no pains to circulate information, and to spread the truth far and wide. let us persuade those who differ from us, if we can, to hear both sides. let us remind them that we are all embarked together, with a common interest and a common fate. and let us, without rebuke or unkindness, beseech them to consider what the good of the whole requires, what is best for them and for us. there are two causes which keep back thousands of honest men from joining those who wish for a change. the first of these is the fear of reproach from former associates, and the pain which party denunciation is capable of inflicting. but, surely, the manliness of the american character is superior to this! surely, no american citizen will feel himself chained to the wheels of any party, nor bound to follow it, against his conscience and his sense of the interest of the country. resolution and decision ought to dissipate such restraints, and to leave men free at once to act upon their own convictions. unless this can be done, party has entailed upon us a miserable slavery, by compelling us to act against our consciences on questions of the greatest importance. the other cause is the constant cry that the party of the administration is the true democratic party, or the more popular party in the government and in the country. the falsity of this claim has not been sufficiently exposed. it should have been met, and should be now met, not only by denial, but by proof. if they mean the new democracy,--the cry against credit, against industry, against labor, against a man's right to leave his own earnings to his own children,--why, then, doubtless, they are right; all this sort of democracy is theirs. but if by democracy they mean a conscientious and stern adherence to the true popular principles of the constitution and the government, then i think they have very little claim to it. is the augmentation of executive power a democratic principle? is the separation of the currency of the government from the currency of the people a democratic principle? is the imbodying a large military force, in time of peace, a democratic principle? let us entreat honest men not to take names for things, nor pretences for proofs. if democracy, in any constitutional sense, belongs to our adversaries, let them show their title and produce their evidence. let the question be examined; and let not intelligent and well-meaning citizens be kept to the support of measures which in their hearts and consciences they disapprove, because their authors put forth such loud claims to the sole possession of regard for the people. fellow-citizens of the county of saratoga, in taking leave of you, i cannot but remind you how distinguished a place your county occupies in the history of the country. i cannot be ignorant, that in the midst of you are many, at this moment, who saw in this neighborhood the triumph of republican arms in the surrender of general burgoyne. i cannot doubt that a fervent spirit of patriotism burns in their breasts and in the breasts of their children. they helped to save their country amidst the storms of war; they will help to save it, i am fully persuaded, in the present severe civil crisis. i verily believe it is true, that, of all that are left to us from the revolution, nine tenths are with us in the existing contest. if there be living a revolutionary officer, or soldier, who has joined in the attacks upon general harrison's military character, i have not met with him. it is not, therefore, in the county of saratoga, that a cause sustained by such means is likely to prevail. fellow-citizens, the great question is now before the country. if, with the experience of the past, the american people think proper to confirm power in the hands which now hold it, and thereby sanction the leading policy of the administration, it will be your duty and mine to bow, with submission, to the public will; but, for myself, i shall not believe it possible for me to be of service to the country, in any department of public life. i shall look on, with no less love of country than ever, but with fearful forebodings of what may be near at hand. but i do not at all expect that result. i fully believe the change is coming. if we all do our duty, we shall restore the government to its former policy, and the country to its former prosperity. and let us here, to-day, fellow-citizens, with full resolution and patriotic purpose of heart, give and take pledges, that, until this great controversy be ended, our time, our talents, our efforts, are all due, and shall all be faithfully given, to our country. mr. justice story. your solemn announcement, mr. chief justice, has confirmed the sad intelligence which had already reached us, through the public channels of information, and deeply afflicted us all. joseph story, one of the associate justices of the supreme court of the united states, and for many years the presiding judge of this circuit, died on wednesday evening last, at his house in cambridge, wanting only a few days for the completion of the sixty-sixth year of his age. this most mournful and lamentable event has called together the whole bar of suffolk, and all connected with the courts of law or the profession. it has brought you, mr. chief justice, and your associates of the bench of the supreme court of massachusetts, into the midst of us; and you have done us the honor, out of respect to the occasion, to consent to preside over us, while we deliberate on what is due, as well to our own afflicted and smitten feelings, as to the exalted character and eminent distinction of the deceased judge. the occasion has drawn from his retirement, also, that venerable man, whom we all so much respect and honor, (judge davis,) who was, for thirty years, the associate of the deceased upon the same bench. it has called hither another judicial personage, now in retirement, (judge putnam,) but long an ornament of that bench of which you are now the head, and whose marked good fortune it is to have been the professional teacher of mr. justice story, and the director of his early studies. he also is present to whom this blow comes near; i mean, the learned judge (judge sprague) from whose side it has struck away a friend and a highly venerated official associate. the members of the law school at cambridge, to which the deceased was so much attached, and who returned that attachment with all the ingenuousness and enthusiasm of educated and ardent youthful minds, are here also, to manifest their sense of their own severe deprivation, as well as their admiration of the bright and shining professional example which they have so loved to contemplate,--an example, let me say to them, and let me say to all, as a solace in the midst of their sorrows, which death hath not touched and which time cannot obscure. mr. chief justice, one sentiment pervades us all. it is that of the most profound and penetrating grief, mixed, nevertheless, with an assured conviction, that the great man whom we deplore is yet with us and in the midst of us. he hath not wholly died. he lives in the affections of friends and kindred, and in the high regard of the community. he lives in our remembrance of his social virtues, his warm and steady friendships, and the vivacity and richness of his conversation. he lives, and will live still more permanently, by his words of written wisdom, by the results of his vast researches and attainments, by his imperishable legal judgments, and by those juridical disquisitions which have stamped his name, all over the civilized world, with the character of a commanding authority. "vivit, enim, vivetque semper; atque etiam latius in memoria hominum et sermone versabitur, postquam ab oculis recessit." mr. chief justice, there are consolations which arise to mitigate our loss, and shed the influence of resignation over unfeigned and heart-felt sorrow. we are all penetrated with gratitude to god that the deceased lived so long; that he did so much for himself, his friends, the country, and the world; that his lamp went out, at last, without unsteadiness or flickering. he continued to exercise every power of his mind without dimness or obscuration, and every affection of his heart with no abatement of energy or warmth, till death drew an impenetrable veil between us and him. indeed, he seems to us now, as in truth he is, not extinguished or ceasing to be, but only withdrawn; as the clear sun goes down at its setting, not darkened, but only no longer seen. this calamity, mr. chief justice, is not confined to the bar or the courts of this commonwealth. it will be felt by every bar throughout the land, by every court, and indeed by every intelligent and well informed man in or out of the profession. it will be felt still more widely, for his reputation had a still wider range. in the high court of parliament, in every tribunal in westminster hall, in the judicatories of paris and berlin, of stockholm and st. petersburg, in the learned universities of germany, italy, and spain, by every eminent jurist in the civilized world, it will be acknowledged that a great luminary has fallen from the firmament of public jurisprudence.[ ] sir, there is no purer pride of country than that in which we may indulge when we see america paying back the great debt of civilization, learning, and science to europe. in this high return of light for light and mind for mind, in this august reckoning and accounting between the intellects of nations, joseph story was destined by providence to act, and did act, an important part. acknowledging, as we all acknowledge, our obligations to the original sources of english law, as well as of civil liberty, we have seen in our generation copious and salutary streams turning and running backward, replenishing their original fountains, and giving a fresher and a brighter green to the fields of english jurisprudence. by a sort of reversed hereditary transmission, the mother, without envy or humiliation, acknowledges that she has received a valuable and cherished inheritance from the daughter. the profession in england admits with frankness and candor, and with no feeling but that of respect and admiration, that he whose voice we have so recently heard within these walls, but shall now hear no more, was of all men who have yet appeared, most fitted by the comprehensiveness of his mind, and the vast extent and accuracy of his attainments, to compare the codes of nations, to trace their differences to difference of origin, climate, or religious or political institutions, and to exhibit, nevertheless, their concurrence in those great principles upon which the system of human civilization rests. justice, sir, is the great interest of man on earth. it is the ligament which holds civilized beings and civilized nations together. wherever her temple stands, and so long as it is duly honored, there is a foundation for social security, general happiness, and the improvement and progress of our race. and whoever labors on this edifice with usefulness and distinction, whoever clears its foundations, strengthens its pillars, adorns its entablatures, or contributes to raise its august dome still higher in the skies, connects himself, in name, and fame, and character, with that which is and must be as durable as the frame of human society. all know, mr. chief justice, the pure love of country which animated the deceased, and the zeal, as well as the talent, with which he explained and defended her institutions. his work on the constitution of the united states is one of his most eminently successful labors. but all his writings, and all his judgments, all his opinions, and the whole influence of his character, public and private, leaned strongly and always to the support of sound principles, to the restraint of illegal power, and to the discouragement and rebuke of licentious and disorganizing sentiments. "ad rempublicam firmandam, et ad stabiliendas vires, et sanandum populum, omnis ejus pergebat institutio." but this is not the occasion, sir, nor is it for me to consider and discuss at length the character and merits of mr. justice story, as a writer or a judge. the performance of that duty, with which this bar will no doubt charge itself, must be deferred to another opportunity, and will be committed to abler hands. but in the homage paid to his memory, one part may come with peculiar propriety and emphasis from ourselves. we have known him in private life. we have seen him descend from the bench, and mingle in our friendly circles. we have known his manner of life, from his youth up. we can bear witness to the strict uprightness and purity of his character, his simplicity and unostentatious habits, the ease and affability of his intercourse, his remarkable vivacity amidst severe labors, the cheerful and animating tones of his conversation, and his fast fidelity to friends. some of us, also, can testify to his large and liberal charities, not ostentatious or casual, but systematic and silent, --dispensed almost without showing the hand, and falling and distilling comfort and happiness, like the dews of heaven. but we can testify, also, that in all his pursuits and employments, in all his recreations, in all his commerce with the world, and in his intercourse with the circle of his friends, the predominance of his judicial character was manifest. he never forgot the ermine which he wore. the judge, the judge, the useful and distinguished judge, was the great picture which he kept constantly before his eyes, and to a resemblance of which all his efforts, all his thoughts, all his life, were devoted. we may go the world over, without finding a man who shall present a more striking realization of the beautiful conception of d'aguesseau: "c'est en vain que l'on cherche a distinguer en lui la personne privée et la personne publique; un même esprit les anime, un même objet les réunit; l'homme, le père de famille, le citoyen, tout est en lui consacré à la gloire du magistrat." mr. chief justice, one may live as a conqueror, a king, or a magistrate; but he must die as a man. the bed of death brings every human being to his pure individuality; to the intense contemplation of that deepest and most solemn of all relations, the relation between the creature and his creator. here it is that fame and renown cannot assist us; that all external things must fail to aid us; that even friends, affection, and human love and devotedness, cannot succor us. this relation, the true foundation of all duty, a relation perceived and felt by conscience and confirmed by revelation, our illustrious friend, now deceased, always acknowledged. he reverenced the scriptures of truth, honored the pure morality which they teach, and clung to the hopes of future life which they impart. he beheld enough in nature, in himself, and in all that can be known of things seen, to feel assured that there is a supreme power, without whose providence not a sparrow falleth to the ground. to this gracious being he entrusted himself for time and for eternity; and the last words of his lips ever heard by mortal ears were a fervent supplication to his maker to take him to himself. [ ] biographical. first period: law and politics in new hampshire. born at salisbury, new hampshire, january . early education. enters dartmouth college. admitted to the bar, . practises in boscawen. removes to portsmouth, new hampshire. elected to congress from portsmouth. - the hartford convention. second period: leader at the bar and in the forum. removes to boston, massachusetts. "the defence of the kennistons." "the dartmouth college case." massachusetts convention. third period: expounder and defender of the constitution. elected to the senate from massachusetts. "the reply to hayne." "the constitution not a compact between sovereign states." - removal of the deposits from the united states bank. rise of the whig party. nominated to the presidency by the whigs of massachusetts. reception in new york. visits england. presidential canvass. - secretary of state. ashburton treaty. resigns the department of state. re-elected to the senate from massachusetts. "eulogy on justice story." annexation of texas. banquet in philadelphia. seventh of march speech. secretary of state under president fillmore. public reception in boston. last illness and death. notes. _defence of the kennistons_ april, . mr. webster had been elected to congress from portsmouth, new hampshire, in , and his term expired in march, . in august of that year ( ) he removed his family to boston, and decided to devote himself exclusively to the profession of the law. he had won a high position both in law and politics in new hampshire. the change of residence marks an era in the life of mr. webster. mr. lodge says that there is a tradition that the worthies of the puritan city were disposed at first to treat the newcomer somewhat cavalierly, but that they soon learned that it was worse than useless to attempt such a course with a man whose magnificent physical and intellectual bearing won the admiration of all who met him. he now began a career of great professional distinction, and took a place at the boston bar even more conspicuous than his friends had anticipated--that of an equal of the most famous of its members. his cases called him before the massachusetts supreme court, the circuit court of the united states, and the united states supreme court. among the first cases which came to him on his retirement from political life was the goodridge robbery case, the argument in which was addressed to the jury at the term of the supreme judicial court of massachusetts held at ipswich in april, . the singularly dramatic story of the prosecutor, the almost universal belief in the guilt of the accused, both by the public and by the members of the essex bar, and the impossibility of accounting for the motive (self-robbery) assumed by the defence, make this exhibition of mr. webster's "acute, penetrating, and terrifying" power of cross-examination,--by which such a complicated and ingenious story was unravelled,--one of the most memorable in the history of the massachusetts bar. it is a model of close, simple, unadorned argument, adapted to the minds of the jurymen. in it there are no attempts to carry the jury off their feet by lofty appeals to their sense of justice, nor to cover the weak points in the case by fine oratory. the oft-repeated, "it is for the jury to determine," illustrates mr. webster's respect for the common sense of the jurymen before him and his reliance upon evidence to win the case. the following are the facts relating to the case:--major goodridge of bangor, maine, professed to have been robbed of a large sum of money at nine o'clock on the night of dec. , , while travelling on horseback, near the bridge between exeter and newburyport. in the encounter with the robbers he received a pistol wound in his left hand; he was then dragged from his horse into a field, beaten until insensible, and robbed. on recovering, he procured the assistance of several persons, and with a lantern returned to the place of the robbery and found his watch and some papers. the next day he went to newburyport, and remained ill for several weeks, suffering from delirium caused by the shock. when he recovered he set about the discovery of the robbers. his story seemed so probable that he had the sympathy of all the country-folk. he at once charged with the crime levi and laban kenniston, two poor men, who lived in an obscure part of the town of newmarket, new hampshire, and finding some of his money (which he had previously marked) in their cellar, he had them arrested, and held for trial. by and by a few of the people began to doubt the story of goodridge; this led him to renewed efforts, and he arrested the toll gatherer, mr. pearson, in whose house, by the aid of a conjurer, he found some of his money. on examination by the magistrate, pearson was discharged. it now became necessary to find some accomplice of the kennistons, and he arrested one taber of boston, whom he had seen (he said) on his way up, and from whom he had obtained his information against the kennistons. in taber's house was found some of the money; he was accordingly bound over for trial with the kennistons. as none of these men lived near the scene of the robbery, mr. jackman, who, soon after the robbery, had gone to new york, was arrested, his house searched, and some of the money found in the garret. the guilt of these men seemed so conclusive that no eminent member of the essex bar would undertake their defence. a few of those who mistrusted goodridge determined to send to suffolk county for counsel. mr. webster had been well known in new hampshire, and his services were at once secured; without having time to examine any of the details of the case--as he had arrived at ipswich on the night before the trial--he at once undertook the defence of the kennistons and secured their acquittal. the indictment against taber was _nol prossed_. later, he defended jackman and secured his acquittal. mr. pearson brought action against goodridge for malicious prosecution, and was awarded $ , but goodridge took the poor debtor's oath and left the state. cf. curtis's _life of webster_, ch. viii.; everett's _memoir of webster_, in vol. i. of webster's works. * * * * * _the dartmouth college case_. march, . within a year after the defence of the kennistons, mr. webster was called upon to defend his alma mater against the acts of the legislature of his native state. the case was one of the most interesting ever argued before the supreme court of the united states, because there were involved in it certain constitutional questions which had never been tested. "mr. webster by his management of this case," says edward everett, "took the lead in establishing what might almost be called a new school of constitutional law." not until within a few years has the complete history of the case been accessible. in , a volume of "dartmouth college causes" was published by mr. john m. shirley, and in it we have, for the first time, a clear statement of all the points relating to the origin and development of the case. dartmouth college was originally a charity school, and was founded by eleazor wheelock at lebanon, connecticut, in . afterwards private subscriptions were solicited in england, and the earl of dartmouth was a large donor and became one of the trustees. the site was soon moved to hanover, new hampshire, where large grants of land had been made by the proprietors. it was chartered by the crown in , and was created a perpetual corporation, with dr. wheelock as founder and president; he was empowered to name his own successor subject to the approval of the trustees, to whom was given power to fill vacancies in their own body and to make laws for the college subject to the crown. it seems that in his early days dr. wheelock had a controversy on religious matters with dr. bellamy. these men were graduates of yale; the former was a presbyterian, and the latter a congregationalist. this religious war was carried on by the successors of these men, the son of dr. wheelock, and president of the college, and a pupil of dr. bellamy, who had been elected a trustee; it soon, however, became a political contest between factions of the trustees, one of which objected to what it called the "family dynasty." in this faction became a majority and opposed the other so vigorously that in the wheelock party set forth its case in a lengthy pamphlet. much ink was shed upon both sides as a result. wheelock then sent a memorial to the legislature charging the trustees with violation of trust and religious intolerance, and prayed for an investigation by a committee of the legislature. the trustees were federalists and congregationalists, the ruling power in state and church. mr. mason, mr. webster's old antagonist at the new hampshire bar, was secured as counsel for the trustees. the wheelock party made advances to mr. webster, but he saw that the case was fast assuming a political tone, and he declined the offer. contrary to mr. mason's advice, the trustees removed president wheelock, and appointed rev. francis brown in his place. as a result all the democrats and all religious orders, other than the congregational, united against the trustees--and the political die was cast. at the next election the democrats carried the state, and the governor in his message took occasion to declare against the trustees. the legislature, in june, , passed an act to reorganize the college, and under this law the new trustees were chosen; thus the college became a state institution. woodward, the secretary of the old board, had been removed, and became the secretary of the newly constituted board. suit was brought against him by the old board, for the college seal and other property, and the case in charge of mr. mason and judge smith came up for trial in may, ; it was argued and then went over to the september term of the same year at exeter. it was at this stage of the proceedings that mr. webster joined the counsel for the college. he made the closing argument of such force and pathos as to draw tears from the crowd in the court-room. the decision was against the college. in mr. mason's brief we find that there were three points made against the acts of the legislature: ( ) that they were not within the power of that body; ( ) that they violated the constitution of new hampshire; and ( ) that they violated the constitution of the united states, or the right of private contracts. the third point was not, however, pressed by the counsel, and was not considered as very important; they based their case mostly upon the first point: that the college was founded by private parties, for special purposes, and that any quarrel of the trustees was a question for the courts to settle, and not for the legislature. when it was decided against them, they removed the case to the supreme court of the united states on this one point, that the acts impaired the obligation of contracts. the friends of the college now desired mr. webster to take entire charge of the case; he consented, and selected as his assistant, mr. hopkinson, of philadelphia. mr. holmes of maine and mr. wirt conducted the defence. the case was heard on march , , and was opened by mr. webster. with the notes and minutes of the previous counsel mr. webster was familiar, and he said that the credit of the legal points and theories he set forth was due to them; he was only the arranger and reciter of what they had prepared. mr. webster had a remarkable power of selecting and using the material of other men, but he was always ready to give them the credit due. with a skill and judgment which chief justice marshall said he never saw equalled, mr. webster outlined the question at issue, and by his marvellous adroitness in arranging, and clearness in presenting the facts, together with that wealth of legal and historical illustration with which he was always so well endowed, he seemed to carry with him every man in the court-room. such was the ease, grace, and fascination of his argument, that justice story, who sat, pen in hand, to take notes, was completely absorbed and forgot his pen and paper. [ ]p. , l. . i. here, the argument being ended, mr. webster stood still for some time before the court, while every eye was fixed upon him, and then addressing the chief justice, he proceeded with that noble peroration which has become one of the masterpieces of eloquence, and which is an expansion of the closing argument which he delivered at the previous trial in new hampshire. this does not appear in the printed argument; i have added it from the report of dr. goodrich. [ ]p. , l. . . i give the beautiful description which dr. goodrich wrote to mr. choate in . "here the feelings, which he had thus far succeeded in keeping down, broke forth. his lips quivered; his firm cheeks trembled with emotion; his eyes were filled with tears; his voice choked, and he seemed struggling to the utmost simply to gain that mastery over himself which might save him from an unmanly burst of feeling. i will not attempt to give you the few broken words of tenderness in which he went on to speak of his attachment for the college. the whole seemed to be mingled throughout with recollections of father, mother, brother, and all the privations and trials through which he had made his way into life. every one saw that it was wholly unpremeditated, a pressure on his heart, which sought relief in words and tears." the court-room during these two or three minutes presented an extraordinary spectacle. chief justice marshall, with his tall and gaunt figure, bent over as if to catch the slightest whisper, the deep furrows of his cheek expanded with emotion, and his eyes suffused with tears; mr. justice washington at his side, with his small and emaciated frame, and countenance more like marble than i ever saw on any other human being--leaning forward with an eager troubled look; and the remainder of the court at the two extremities, pressing, as it were, toward a single point, while the audience below were wrapping themselves around in closer folds beneath the bench, to catch each look and every feature of the speaker's face. if a painter could give us the scene on canvas,--those forms and countenances, and daniel webster as he there stood in their midst,--it would be one of the most touching pictures in the history of eloquence. one thing it taught me, that the _pathetic_ depends not merely on the words uttered, but still more on the estimate we put upon him who utters them. there was not one among the strong-minded men of that assembly who could think it unmanly to weep, when he saw standing before him the man who had made such an argument, melted into the tenderness of a child. mr. webster had now recovered his composure, and, fixing his keen eye on the chief justice, in that deep tone with which he sometimes thrilled the heart of an audience, continued."[ ] l. . . when mr. webster sat down, there was a stillness as of death in the court-room, and when the audience had slowly recovered itself the replies of the opposing counsel were made, but seemed weak indeed in comparison to what had just been heard. on the conclusion of the arguments, the chief justice announced that the court could not agree, and that the case must be continued to the next term. during the interim, the utmost effort was used by the friends of the college, the press, and the federalists, to bring the matter before the public, and to impress the judges with the condition of the public mind. the defence prepared to renew the contest, and able counsel was secured. at the next term, however, the chief justice ruled that the acts of the legislature were void, as they impaired the right of private contract. of this argument mr. justice story said: "for the first hour we listened with perfect astonishment; for the second hour with perfect delight; and for the third hour with perfect conviction." mr. lodge says: "from the day when it was announced, to the present time, the doctrine of marshall in the dartmouth college case has continued to exert an enormous influence." after the trial mr. hopkinson wrote to the president of the college and said: "i would have an inscription over the door of your building: 'founded by eleazor wheelock, refounded by daniel webster.'" cf. curtis's _life of webster_, ch. viii.; lodge's _webster_, ch. iii.; everett's _memoir_, in vol. i. of webster's works; shirley's _dartmouth college causes; correspondence of webster_, vol. i., pp. - ; magruder's _life of john marshall_. * * * * * _first settlement of new england_. december, . the "old colony club," formed for social intercourse in , was the first to celebrate forefathers' day. although the club was dissolved in , the anniversary celebrations were continued until ; between this time and , when the "pilgrim society" was founded, they were held with but few interruptions. the foundation of the "pilgrim society" in gave a new impetus to the celebrations, and in that year mr. webster was chosen to give the address. [ ]p. , l. . . the allusion is to the painting by sargent; it was presented by him to the society in . [ ]l. . . cf. collections of the massachusetts historical society. [ ]l. . . cf. the report of the pilgrim society on the correct date of the landing of the pilgrims. the st is now considered to be the date. [ ]p. , l. . . cf. _herodotus_, ch. vi., § . [ ]p. , l. . . cf. "the start from delfshaven," by rev. d. van pelt, in the _new england magazine_, november, . for a through treatment of the whole subject read chapter ii., "the puritan exodus" in _beginnings of new england_, by john fiske. [ ]p. , l. . . cf. _beginnings of new england_, by john fiske, pp. - , "the roman method of nation-making." [ ]p. , l. . . cf. _beginnings of new england_, pp. - , "the english method of nation-making." [ ]p. , l. . . cf. hutchinson's _history_, vol. ii., app. i. "the men who wrote in the cabin of the _mayflower_ the first charter of freedom, were a little band of protestants against every form of injustice and tyranny. the leaven of their principles made possible the declaration of independence, liberated the slaves, and founded the free commonwealths which form the republic of the united states."--c. m. depew, columbian oration. [ ]p. , l. . . cf. _germanic origin of new england towns_, h. b. adams. [ ]p. , l. . . cf. cicero's _oratio pro flacco_, § . [ ]l. . . the first free public school established by law in plymouth colony was in . [ ]p. , l. . . cf. _beginnings of new england_, p. , "founding of harvard college." lowell's "harvard anniversary." in the colony of massachusetts bay passed the law requiring every town of one hundred families to set up a grammar school which should prepare youth for the university. if mr. webster by his handling of the dartmouth college case founded a new school of constitutional law, by the plymouth oration he founded a new school of oratory. this field of occasional oratory was a new and peculiar one for him. he had never before spoken upon a great historical subject demanding not only wealth of imagination, but the peculiar quality of mind and heart which unites dignity and depth of thought with ease and grace of manner. but he was equal to the task. the simplicity and beauty of the thought, the grand and inspiring manner of presentation, gave evidence of commanding genius, and gave mr. webster a place in the front rank of orators and stylists. "i never saw him," says mr. ticknor, "when he seemed to me to be more conscious of his own powers, or to have a more true and natural enjoyment from their possession." john adams, who had heard pitt and fox, burke and sheridan, says: "it is the effort of a great mind, richly stored with every species of information. if there be an american who can read it without tears, i am not that american. mr. burke is no longer entitled to the praise--the most consummate orator of modern times. what can i say of what regards myself? to my humble name '_exegisti monumentum ære perennius_.' the oration ought to be read at the end of every century." "it is doubtful," says edward everett, "whether any extra-professional literary effort by a public man has attained equal celebrity." cf. curtis's _life of webster_, ch. ix.; lodge's _webster_, ch. iv.; de tocqueville's _democracy in america_, vol. i.; whipple's _american literature_, "webster as a master of english style"; bancroft's _history of the united states_, vol. i., chs. xii., xiii., xiv.; burke's _orations on the american war_, edited by a. j. george; fiske's _beginnings of new england_. * * * * * _the bunker hill monument._ june, . as early as , the massachusetts lodge of masons, over which general warren had presided, asked the government of massachusetts for permission to take up his remains, which were buried on the hill the day after the battle, and bury them with the usual solemnities. the request was granted on condition that the government of the colony should be permitted to erect a monument to his memory. the ceremonies of burial were performed, but no steps were taken to build the monument. general warren was, at the time of his death, grand master of the masonic lodges of america, and as nothing had been done toward erecting a memorial, king solomon's lodge of charlestown voted to erect a monument. the land was purchased, and a monument dedicated by the lodge dec. , . it was a wooden pillar of tuscan order, eighteen feet high, raised on a pedestal ten feet in height. the pillar was surmounted by a gilt urn. an appropriate inscription was placed on the south side of the pedestal. the half-century from the date of the battle was at hand, and, despite a resolution of congress and the efforts of a committee of the legislature of massachusetts, no suitable monument had been erected by the people. it was then that, at the suggestion of william tudor, the matter was taken up in earnest and an association was formed known as the bunker hill monument association. ground was broken for the monument june , . on the morning of the th of june, , the ceremonies of laying the corner-stone of the monument took place. it was a typical june day, and thousands flocked to see the pageant and to hear the greatest orator in the land. the procession started from the state house at ten o'clock. the military led the van. about two hundred veterans of the revolution rode in carriages, and among them were forty survivors of the battle. some wore their old uniform, others various decorations of their service, and some bore the scars of honorable wounds. following the patriots came the monument association, and then the masonic fraternity to the number of thousands. then came the noble frenchman, lafayette, the admiration of all eyes. following him were numerous societies with banners and music. the head of the procession touched charlestown bridge before the rear had left the state house, and the march was a continual ovation. arriving at breed's hill, the grand master of the masons, lafayette, and the president of the monument association laid the corner-stone, and then moved to the spacious amphitheatre on the northern side of the hill, where the address was delivered by mr. webster. [ ]p. , l. . . an account of the voyage of the emigrants to the maryland colony is given by the report of father white, written soon after the landing at st. mary's. the original in latin is still preserved by the jesuits at rome. the _ark_ and the _dove_ occupy the same place of interest in the memory of the descendants of the colony as does the _mayflower_ with us. [ ]l. . . mr. webster was at this time president of the monument association. [ ]p. , l. . . even the poetical nature of webster would not have been equal to the conception, that within the century the number would reach sixty million. [ ]l. . . "the first railroad on the continent was constructed for the purpose of accelerating the erection of this monument."--everett. [ ]p. , l. . . the allusion is, of course, to the ships about the charlestown navy yard, which is located at the base of breed's hill. [ ]l. . . this magnificent address to the "venerable men" was composed while mr. webster was fishing in marshpee brook. [ ]p. , l. . . milton's _paradise lost_, v. [ ]l. . . cf. bancroft's _history of the united states_, vol. iv., p. . a prelude to warren's patriotism at bunker hill is well illustrated in his oration at the old south meeting house, commemorating the boston massacre; in the presence of british soldiers he said: "our streets are again filled with armed men, our harbour is crowded with ships of war; but these cannot intimidate us; my fellow-citizens, you will maintain your rights or perish in the generous struggle." [ ]p. , l. . . cf. burke's _orations on the american war_, edited by a. j. george. [ ]p. , l. . . virgil's _aeneid_, vi. . compare burke's use of this same quotation in his speech on american taxation, page , line . edited by a. j. george. [ ]p. , l. . . cf. bancroft's _history of the united states_, vol. iv., ch. xiv. [ ]l. . . general lafayette had arranged his progress through the other states so that he might be present on the th. [ ]p. , l. . . homer's _iliad_, book xvii. [ ]p. , l. . . cf. account of webster's speech on the revolution in greece, made on the th of january, , in everett's _memoir_, vol. i. of webster's works. great as the plymouth oration was acknowledged by all to be, the bunker hill address was a distinct advance upon it, both in the scope of the ideas and in the skill with which they are wrought into an organic whole. it is more compact, more picturesque, more vigorous, more finished. in this field of oratory he probably has never had any equal in the english-speaking world. mr. everett said of the address: "from such an orator as mr. webster, on such a platform, on such a theme, in the flower of his age, and the maturity of his faculties, discoursing upon an occasion of transcendent interest, and kindling with the enthusiasm of the day and the spot, it might well be regarded as an intellectual treat of the highest order. happy the eyes that saw that most glorious gathering! happy the ears that heard that heart-stirring strain!" lafayette wrote to webster on the th of december, , from la grange, saying: "your bunker hill has been translated into french, and other languages, to the very great profit of european readers." mr. hillard, in his eulogy on webster, says: "his occasional discourses rise above the rest of their class, as the bunker hill monument soars above the objects around it." mr. choate, in his address to the students of dartmouth college in , in that sublime paragraph in which he reviews the history of oratory and contrasts the eloquence of despair with the eloquence of hope, says: "let the downward age of america find its orators, and poets, and artists, to erect its spirit, or grace and soothe its dying; be it ours to go up with webster to the rock, the monument, the capitol, and bid the distant generations hail." cf. curtis's _life of webster_, ch. xi.; everett's _memoir_, in vol. i. of webster's works; lodge's _webster_, ch. iv.; memorial of webster; mr. hillard's and mr. choate's address; j. fiske's _the american revolution_. * * * * * _the reply to hayne_. january, . the third period of mr. webster's life and work may be said to begin with his new honor--his election to the united states senate in , and his changed attitude toward the question of the tariff as seen in his great speech on the tariff of . to understand mr. webster's position on the question of the tariff, one must remember that he insisted upon the principle that the question of the tariff was purely a business question, and that it was to be determined by the conditions affecting business. up to this time webster had opposed protection, but now as the business of new england required assistance, he boldly stood forth as the champion of a protective tariff. it was in connection with the tariff legislation of , , and that the monster nullification--carefully disguised until --had its birth. in this year it was found stalking abroad, and in the halls of congress menacing the bulwark of our liberties--the constitution of the country. it fell to the lot of mr. webster to grapple with this monster and to strangle it in his giant grasp. on the th of december, , senator foot of connecticut moved a resolution in regard to the public lands, and a long and weary discussion followed until mr. hayne, a senator from south carolina, on june , , took part and introduced a new element into the discussion by making an elaborate attack on the new england states. mr. webster had taken no special interest in the question, and on the day in which mr. hayne began his speech he was engaged in the supreme court, but came into the senate in season to hear the closing paragraphs. thinking that such an attack upon new england required a reply, mr. webster at once rose, but yielded to a motion to adjourn. on the next day, the th, mr. webster proceeded with his reply, in which he showed the absurdity of hayne's accusations and by which he completely shattered his whole elaborate argument. there was hardly an allusion in mr. webster's speech to the question of the tariff as it concerned south carolina, but so aroused was hayne by webster's defence of new england, that on the following day he spoke a second time and in a tone of even greater severity and bitterness than that which marked his previous speech; he indulged in personal allusion to mr. webster, and strove to bring odium upon him and the state which he represented; he openly espoused the cause of nullification and declared war upon the tariff. before he concluded the senate adjourned until the th, when he completed his speech; mr. webster immediately rose to reply, but as it was late yielded to a motion to adjourn. mr. hayne's speech had caused the greatest alarm throughout the north; many were afraid that it was unanswerable. this was an evidence that the true nature of the constitution was not thoroughly understood. "it is a critical moment," said mr. bell of new hampshire to mr. webster on the morning of the th, "and it is time, it is high time, that the people of this country should know what this constitution _is_." "then," said mr. webster, "by the blessing of heaven, they shall learn, this day, before the sun goes down, what i understand it to be." with this utterance upon his lips, he entered the senate chamber, which was already crowded. every seat on the floor and in the galleries was occupied; the house of representatives was deserted; the lobbies and staircases were packed. the vast audience was composed, on the one hand, of those who feared and trembled lest the rushing tide of hostility to the constitution and the union should sweep over the country; and on the other, of those who believed that new england had no champion strong enough to stand in the breach. this scene in the senate chamber is rivalled only by that in the house of commons, when burke, in , stood forth as the defender of the american colonies. such was the anxiety to hear the speech that all the ordinary preliminaries of senatorial action were postponed, and mr. webster began his "second speech on foot's resolution," better known as "the reply to hayne." [ ]p. , l. . . mr. webster rose with great calmness, and in the majesty of that personal presence which could cause the english navvy to shout as he saw him, "by jove, there goes a king!" with a confidence in his own resources which was the result of experience, in a clear, calm, and firm tone pronounced this magnificent exordium which was such a piece of consummate art that its effect was electric; all who feared, and all who hated, knew that he was master of the situation. [ ] p. , l. . . when on the st mr. chambers asked that there be a delay to enable mr. webster, who had engagements out of the house, to be present, mr. hayne was unwilling to grant the request, saying that the gentleman (mr. webster) has discharged his fire in the presence of the senate, and he wanted an opportunity to return it. mr. webster said, "let the discussion proceed: i am ready now to receive the gentleman's fire." [ ] p. , l. . . the notes, covering only five sheets of ordinary letter paper, from which webster developed the entire speech of seventy pages, contain no hint of the exordium, but begin with "no man hurt. if his 'rankling' is relieved, glad of it." "i have no 'rankling' fear, anger, consciousness of refutation." "no 'rankling,' original, or received--bow not strong enough." [ ]l. . . mr. benton. [ ]l. . . mr. webster's preparation for this reply lay in the nature of his thought and reading from his first entrance into public life, and especially from the nature of the constitutional questions which he has argued before the supreme court of the united states. [ ]p. , l. . . should not this be "_more_"? [ ]l. . . this was a political cry raised against president adams, who was elected by the house of representatives. clay had been a candidate, and because adams gave him a seat in his cabinet, a cry went up that they had made a bargain, by which mr. clay's friends were to vote for adams in the house, and in return clay was to receive a cabinet position. this was a piece of political clap-trap. cf. _american politics_, johnston, ch. xi. [ ]p. , l. . . if there had been a coalition and it was killed, it was killed by calhoun, who threw all his influence against adams and for jackson. but at the time of this speech calhoun was treated somewhat cavalierly by jackson, and had not much reward in party succession. [ ]p. , l. . . "the missouri compromise." cf. _american politics_, johnston, ch. viii. [ ]p. , l. . . this convention of was composed of men of the old federal party, strongly opposed to war with great britain. cf. _american politics_, johnston, ch. viii. [ ]p. , l. . . the "south carolina canal & railroad company" had on jan. , , asked mr. webster to present its claims to government assistance. [ ]p. , l. . . calhoun, vice-president, and president of senate. [ ]p. , l. . . mr. forsyth. [ ]l. . . cf. calhoun's speech in the house of representatives in april, . [ ]p. , l. . . mr. mcduffie. [ ]p. , l. . . letter of the federal convention to the congress of the confederation transmitting the plan of the constitution. [ ]p. , l. . . cf. lodge's _webster_, ch. vi. [ ]p. , l. . . president jackson, who had been an avowed federalist all his life. [ ]l. . . a portuguese prince, who led the revolutionists against the constitutional government. [ ]p. , l. . . a body of federalists in essex county, massachusetts, strongly opposing the embargo of , and the war of . [ ]p. , l. . . after the passage of the tariff of , the legislature of south carolina set forth a "protest" asserting the principle of nullification. [ ]p. , l. . . "at the conclusion of this paragraph there was scarcely a dry eye in the senate, the massachusetts men shed tears like girls," _reminiscence of congress_, march. [ ]p. , l. . . a toast proposed at a democratic dinner, april , , in new york, in honor of jefferson's birthday. [ ]p. , l. . . senator hillhouse of connecticut. [ ]p. , l. . . the purpose of this embargo was to retaliate on both great britain and france. in the commercial war waged by those two countries, the foreign trade of the united states was cut off. the embargo fell with crushing weight upon new england. [ ]p. , l. . . _paradise lost_, bk. i., l. . [ ]p. , l. . . the leader of the whiskey rebellion in pennsylvania. [ ]p. , l. . . this celebrated peroration was entirely unpremeditated, there is no allusion to it in the "notes" of mr. webster. mr. march says, "the exulting rush of feeling with which he went through the peroration threw a glow over his countenance like inspiration. eye, brow, each feature, every line of the face, seemed touched as with celestial fire.... his voice penetrated every recess or corner of the senate,--penetrated even the anterooms and stairways." mr. webster himself said: "i never spoke in the presence of an audience so eager and so sympathetic." mr. everett says: "of the effectiveness of mr. webster's manner in many parts, it would be in vain to attempt to give any one not present the faintest idea. it has been my fortune to hear some of the ablest speeches of the greatest living orators on both sides of the water, but i must confess i never heard anything which so completely realized my conception of what demosthenes was when he delivered the oration for the crown." mr. lodge in his excellent review of the speech says: "the speech as a whole has all the qualities which made mr. webster a great orator. an analysis of the reply to hayne, therefore, gives us all the conditions necessary to forming a correct idea of mr. webster's eloquence, of its characteristics, and its value." cf. ch. vi., _webster_, american statesman series. this book should be a constant companion of the student while reading these selections. dr. francis lieber wrote: "to test webster's oratory, i read a portion of my favorite speeches of demosthenes, and then read, always aloud, parts of webster; then returned to the athenian; and webster stood the test." as a result of this great effort, mr. webster was overwhelmed with congratulations from all parts of the land. the speech was the universal theme of conversation, and there was a general demand for the printed copy. probably no speech in history has had so many readers as the reply to hayne. cf. healey's historical painting of the scene of this great debate, in faneuil hall; curtis's _life of webster_, ch. xvi.; everett's _memoir_, vol. i. of webster's works; _correspondence of webster_, vol. i., p. . * * * * * _the murder of captain joseph white_. august, . almost immediately after the reply to hayne, mr. webster was engaged with the attorney-general of massachusetts in one of the most remarkable criminal cases on record, and on august d made the argument in the trial of john francis knapp for the murder of captain joseph white. the following is a summary of the facts: on the night of the th of april, , the town of salem was visited by a desperado who entered the house of joseph white, a wealthy and respectable citizen, and murdered him in his bed. the citizens formed a vigilance committee and worked without avail until there came a rumor that a prisoner in the new bedford jail knew something of the affair. he was accordingly brought up before the grand jury, and on his testimony richard crowningshield, of danvers, was indicted. a few weeks later captain joseph knapp, a shipmaster of good character, received a strange note from belfast, maine, which was signed by charles grant, jr. this note threatened exposure unless money was forwarded. knapp could not understand it. he showed it to his sons, francis and joseph, jr., who resided in wenham. the wife of the latter was a niece of the late mr. white, and was his housekeeper prior to the murder. when joseph saw the letter he said it contained trash, and told his father to hand it to the vigilance committee. when they received the letter they sent to belfast to find the writer. this proved to be one palmer, who had been in state prison and who was intimate with crowningshield. he said he saw, on the nd of april, frank knapp and a man, allen, in company with crowningshield, and that he heard the latter say that frank knapp wished them to kill mr. white, and that joseph knapp would pay them one thousand dollars. after the murder the knapps reported that, on the th of april, they had been attacked by robbers on their way from salem to wenham. the purpose of this will be seen in what follows. on the testimony of palmer the knapps were held for investigation, and on the third day joseph made a full confession of the murder and of the fabrication of the robbery story. he had found that mr. white intended to leave his (knapp's) wife but fifteen thousand dollars by will, and he thought that if he died intestate she would come in for one-half of the estate, as the sole representative of mr. white's sister. under this impression he determined to destroy the will. frank agreed to hire the assassin, and he (joseph) was to pay one thousand dollars for the deed. crowningshield was hired; he entered the house by a window and committed the murder. so cool was he that, as he said, he paused to feel the pulse of the old man to be sure he was dead. frank was waiting the issue, while joseph, who had got the will, was in wenham at his home. when crowningshield heard that the knapps were in custody, and that joseph had confessed, he committed suicide in his cell. at a special term of the supreme court at salem, july th, indictments for murder were found against francis knapp as principal, and joseph knapp and george crowningshield (a companion of richard) as accessories. the trial of francis took place august d, with mr. franklin dexter and mr. w. h. gardner for the defence, and mr. webster assisting the attorney-general in the prosecution. [ ]p. , l. . . mr. lodge says that this account of the murder and analysis of the workings of a mind, haunted with the remembrance of the horrid crime, must be placed among the very finest masterpieces of modern oratory. "i have studied this famous exordium," he says, "with extreme care, and i have sought diligently in the works of all the great modern orators, and of some of the ancient as well, for similar passages of higher merit. my quest has been in vain." [ ]p. , l. . . mr. webster's appearance for the prosecution gave rise to some complaints on the part of the defence, who intimated that he was in the interest of mr. stephen white, a residuary legatee of the murdered man. the fact was that both the attorney-general and the solicitor-general were old men, and had asked for mr. webster's assistance. [ ]p. , l. . . chief justice parker. [ ]p. , l. . . mr. webster's presentation of the evidence is omitted. cf. webster's complete works, vol. vi., p. . knapp was convicted as principal and sentenced to death. at the november term joseph was convicted as accessory and sentenced to share the same fate. george crowningshield proved an _alibi_, and was acquitted. the argument in the goodridge case stands in marked contrast to this; and it must be conceded that, as a presentation of the law and the evidence, with no attempt to work upon the feelings of the jurymen, it is a work of higher quality. as a specimen of eloquence, of dramatic setting forth of the horror of such a deed, of the experiences of the criminal, and of the certainty that "murder will out," the argument has no equal in the language. for a remarkable analysis of mr. webster's career as a lawyer, see rufus choate's address before the students of dartmouth college in in "memorial of daniel webster from the city of boston." * * * * * _the constitution not a compact_. february, . mr. webster had intimated in his reply to hayne that south carolina was playing a high game. there were some at that time who thought that he had sounded the note of alarm in too loud a strain; but when in november, , the state convention, assembled at columbia, south carolina, adopted an ordinance declaring the revenue laws of the united states null and void, the voice of the croakers ceased to be heard in the general excitement that filled the country. the legislature assembled on the th, and the governor in his message said that "the die has been at last cast," and that the legislature was called upon to make "such enactments as would make it utterly impossible to collect within our limits the duties imposed by the protective tariffs thus nullified." the legislature passed acts providing that any one who should attempt to collect the revenue should be punished, and made it lawful to use the military force of the state to resist any attempt of the united states to enforce the tariff laws. mr. webster now had a very difficult and delicate task before him; he was bound to criticise the general tone of the administration of jackson, for he believed that it had not met the needs of the country, and yet he was equally bound not to put himself in such antagonism as to prevent him from aiding the administration, should his aid be sought, against those who were determined to destroy the laws of the land. in the then impending presidental canvass he took the ground that president jackson was in hostility to the idea of protection, and that therefore he could not be safely trusted with the executive power. but president jackson, whatever had been his record on the question of the tariff, showed that he had no desire to shirk his duty, for he at once issued a proclamation, which embodied the principles maintained by mr. webster in his reply to hayne, and warned the authorities of south carolina that all opposition to the laws of the united states would be put down. he thus served notice that treason was not to win by default of the president. calhoun had resigned the vice-presidency and had taken his seat in the senate, and it was known that such an act meant the attempt to raise the flag of nullification high in the senate-chamber. mr. webster was on his way to washington when he heard of the prompt and decisive action of the president. at philadelphia he met mr. clay, who told him that he had a plan for settling the difficulty by gradually reducing the tariff, and for levying duties "without regard to protection or encouragement of any branch of domestic industry." when mr. clay brought in his bill, it was not so strong as the one he had submitted to mr. webster a short time before, but yet mr. webster could not think of taking any step at such a time that would look like concession. the first thing to be done was to enforce the existing laws and sustain the administration by suitable legislation. there was to be no surrender of constitutional power. at the opening of the session the president asked congress for the power to use the land and naval forces if necessary to enforce the laws. the committee to which the message was referred reported what is known as the "force bill," which granted the president the powers asked for. some of the senators doubted that the president had such "daring effrontery" as to ask for such power. mr. webster said, "i will tell you gentlemen that the president _has_ had the 'daring effrontery' to ask for these powers, no matter how high may be the offence." president jackson had used very strong language against the leaders of nullification, and this made many of the (southern) administration senators hostile to the measures of the "force bill." when it was found that the president had called for the assistance of mr. webster, mr. calhoun became very uneasy, and at once sought for mr. clay, who promised to bring in his bill for reducing the tariff. on the th of february, mr. clay introduced the measure and claimed that its purpose was to save the tariff, which he considered to be in imminent danger. mr. webster, as was expected, opposed the bill and introduced a series of resolutions. on the two following days he was prevented from addressing the senate on his resolutions because of the discussion of the "force bill," when mr. calhoun took the opportunity to expound the theory and practice of nullification. the speech was in mr. calhoun's very best style of close, logical argument, with but little that made for eloquence. calhoun was a master of logical method, and such was his skill in dovetailing together the elements of his speculations that he was a powerful antagonist. he had waited until most of the senators in opposition had spoken and then broke upon them and tore their arguments into shreds. it was an able supplement to the speech of hayne and was likely to produce quite as much alarm, unless its position could be turned. here were sown the seeds of secession which grew into that frightful civil war. by establishing the principle of the union as but a confederacy of states the right of secession was assured. mr. webster felt the importance of the occasion; he saw clearly the direction in which such appeals were sure to lead the people, and he at once determined to throw himself into the conflict. the doctrines which he had maintained in the reply to hayne had now taken strong hold of the people of the central and western states, and of many of the strongest public men of both parties; it was from this vantage ground that (on the th) he began his great speech known as "the constitution not a compact between sovereign states." [ ]p. , l. . . mr. rives. [ ]p. , l. . . "the vital question went to the great popular jury. the world knows what the verdict was, and will never forget that it was largely due to the splendid eloquence of daniel webster when he defended the cause of nationality against the slave-holding separatists of south carolina."--henry cabot lodge. "whoever," says mr. curtis, "would understand that theory of the constitution of the united states which regards it as the enactment of a fundamental law must go to this speech to find the best and clearest exposition." "then and there," says dr. hudson, "it was that real battles of the union were fought and won. for the cause had to be tried in the courts of legislative reason before it could come to trial on field of battle." this speech is much less rhetorical than the reply to hayne. the subject was not a new one, nor was the condition of the public mind so feverish as in ; consequently the case required not so much an appeal to the emotions as to the reason. it has always been considered as the most compact, close, logical, and convincing of all mr. webster's speeches. the people have relied upon it from that day to this to teach them the principles of the constitution: in it they find the origin, the history, and the purpose of our great national fabric. by this speech webster placed himself upon the highest pinnacle of fame, and added to his title of first orator that of the greatest statesman of his time, winning the proud distinction of "expounder, commentator, and defender of the constitution." on the th of october, , the citizens of boston presented to mr. webster a massive silver vase in testimony of their gratitude for his services in defence of the constitution against south carolina nullification. it contained the following inscription:-- presented to daniel webster, the defender of the constitution, by the citizens of boston, oct. , . in reply to the address of presentation mr. webster said:-- "in one respect, gentlemen, your present oppresses me. it assigns to me a character of which i feel i am not worthy. 'the defender of the constitution' is a title quite too high for me. he who shall prove himself the ablest among the able men of the country, he who shall serve it longest among those who may serve it long, he on whose labors all the stars of benignant fortune shall shed their selectest influence, will have praise enough, and reward enough, if, at the end of his political and earthly career, though that career may have been as bright as the track of the sun across the sky, the marble under which he sleeps, and that much better record, the grateful breasts of his living countrymen, shall pronounce him 'the defender of the constitution.' it is enough for me, gentlemen, to be connected, in the most humble manner, with the defence and maintenance of this great wonder of modern times, and this certain wonder of all future times. it is enough for me to stand in the ranks, and only to be counted as one of its defenders." cf. curtis's _life of webster_, ch. xix.; lodge's _webster_, ch. vii.; address of dr. hudson on the hundredth anniversary of the birth of daniel webster, june , . * * * * * _speech at saratoga_. august, . mr. webster had been in almost continual public service since , and during that period the two great questions which demanded the attention of statesmen were the tariff and the currency. the history of the former is to be found in the reply to hayne and the reply to calhoun; the history of the latter, in that memorable series of speeches during the session of - on the policy of president jackson regarding the united states bank. out of this great controversy the whig party arose, and its first nominee for the presidency was william henry harrison in , but the friends of jackson were strong, and van buren was elected. he continued the financial policy of his predecessor, or at least made no effort to remedy the evils which it had brought upon the country. mr. webster gave himself to the task of exposing the financial heresies of the administration and of preventing further injurious legislation. in the summer of he visited england for rest, and was everywhere received with the honor due to his high position and his distinguished attainments; he received courtesies usually confined to ambassadors and foreign ministers. on his return he found that the whigs had again nominated harrison. although he had reason to expect his own nomination, for this was the desire of _the people_, he at once threw himself into the campaign in support of the nominee. the people from all sections of the country wished to hear and see the man who had done such noble service for them in congress. his speeches during this campaign are a fit supplement to those which he had just completed on the subject of the bank. the theme was essentially the same, but the audience was in many respects a more difficult one to reach. in the familiarity with financial questions mr. webster had shown himself second only to hamilton himself, and in presenting the subject to a popular audience he reached the high-water mark of political oratory; there is no cant, no bluster, no personal abuse, but the dignity and simplicity of the simple and dignified friend of the people. on the th of august, , he addressed the citizens of new york in a mass meeting at saratoga. of all the great speeches of this campaign this best represents the mind and art of mr. webster, and is especially interesting in this year ( ) when essentially the same questions--the tariff and the currency--are before the people, and when the nominee of the party, which is the child of the old whig party, is benjamin harrison. [ ]p. , l. . . the history of banking in the united states is interesting as a chapter in the general history of banking. it began with that great financier, alexander hamilton. when secretary of the treasury he conceived the plan of a great national bank, which should take charge of the disbursement of the revenues, and which should furnish a paper circulation,--founded on national resources,--which should be current all over the country. after a prolonged opposition by the anti-federalists, who claimed that the establishment of such a bank would be unconstitutional, he prevailed upon washington to sign the bill of incorporation, and in the bank began its work. it continued its existence until , when the anti-federalists refused to recharter it. owing to the disordered currency resulting from the war of , mr. madison brought the matter before congress in his message, and in the second bank of the united states was established. [ ]p. , l. . . cf. sumner's _life of andrew jackson_, chs. xiii., xiv. [ ]p. , l. . . in the session of - the bank applied for a new charter, and here began the great struggle with president jackson. the bill to recharter the bank passed both houses in , and was vetoed by the president. mr. webster made a notable speech against the veto, and at once took the lead as an authority on questions of finance. the following year the president struck his hardest blow against the bank, by ordering the removal of the deposits. the senate passed resolutions condemning the act, and mr. webster, on presenting resolutions to the same effect from boston, made a most powerful speech in which he depicted the great commercial distress resulting from the removal and from the institution of state banks. between the time of this speech and the close of the session he spoke on the subject of the bank and national finance over sixty times. no other such exhibition of intellectual power and grasp of intricate problems, united with commanding eloquence, has ever been made in our history. as a result of the censure by the senate, the president sent a protest in which he argued that the senate had exceeded its power. mr. webster replied to this in what is now considered the greatest of all his speeches during the great struggle. [ ]p. , l. . . after the removal of the deposits, effected by jackson, state banks were formed in large numbers, and certain of these became deposit banks. the notes of state banks were used for the purchase of public lands from the united states, and the treasury was thus accumulating paper currency of doubtful value. the secretary of the treasury ( ) issued the so-called "specie circular," ordering the government agents to receive in future only gold and silver. only those banks which held government revenue deposits could furnish coin, and widespread bankruptcy was the result. [ ]p. , l. . . cf. gay's _life of james madison_. [ ]p. , l. , . jackson had never questioned the right of the government to regulate the currency, but had asserted it when he made certain state banks banks of deposit. van buren was obliged either to return to the policy of a national bank, or to renounce all rights of the government to regulate the currency. he chose the latter, and by means of the "sub-treasury scheme" completed the separation of "bank and state." the speech of mr. webster on the "sub-treasury" is the most complete and convincing of all his speeches on the right of the government to regulate the currency. [ ]p. , l. . . mr. webster was living at this time at marshfield, massachusetts. cf. curtis's _life of webster_, chs. xix.-xxiii.; lodge's _webster_, ch. vii.; _works of daniel webster_, vols. iii., iv.; _private correspondence of daniel webster_, vol. ii., p. . * * * * * _mr. justice story_. september, . of the many friends of webster during his long political career, there was no one more constant in his attentions, more sympathetic in his judgments, or more helpful in his counsels than was mr. justice story. ever since they had acted together in the massachusetts convention in they had maintained for each other's character and attainments the most generous and cordial enthusiasm. the death of mr. story on the th of september, , was a great affliction to mr. webster, and cast a gloom over his marshfield home, where they had passed so many delightful hours together. at a meeting of the suffolk bar held in the circuit court room, on the morning of the th of september, the day of the funeral, chief justice shaw having taken the chair and announced the object of the meeting, mr. webster pronounced the following noble and beautiful eulogium. the following letter of dedication to the mother of judge story accompanied these remarks in the original edition:-- "boston, september , . "venerable madam,--i pray you to allow me to present to you the brief remarks which i made before the suffolk bar, on the instant, at a meeting occasioned by the sudden and afflicting death of your distinguished son. i trust, dear madam, that as you enjoyed through his whole life constant proofs of his profound respect and ardent filial affection, so you may yet live long to enjoy the remembrance of his virtue and his exalted reputation. "i am with very great regard, your obedient servant, "daniel webster. "to madam story." [ ]p. , l. . . cf. _life and works of judge story_. [ ]p. , l. . . the following inscription, which mr. webster wrote with his own hand a short time before his death, and which he desired to have placed on his monument, is interesting in connection with these closing words of the eulogy:-- "lord, i believe; help thou mine unbelief." philosophical argument, especially that drawn from the vastness of the universe, in comparison with the apparent insignificance of this globe, has some- times shaken my reason for the faith which is in me; but my heart has always assured and reassured me, that the gospel of jesus christ must be a divine reality. the sermon on the mount cannot be a merely human production. this belief enters into the very depth of my conscience. the whole history of man proves it. daniel webster. when he wrote the above, he said to a friend: "if i get well and write a book on christianity, about which we have talked, we can attend more fully to this matter; but if i should be taken away suddenly, i do not wish to leave any duty of this kind unperformed. i want to leave somewhere a declaration of my belief in christianity." it was not mr. webster's custom to make a parade of his religious beliefs; he was simple, sincere, and unaffected in his religious life. that he was a lover and student of our english bible, no one familiar with his thought and style needs to be told. mr. choate, in speaking of webster's models in the matter of style, mentions cicero, virgil, our english bible, shakespeare, addison, and burke. for the latest estimates of webster's work the student should consult the following: the proceedings of the webster centennial, dartmouth college ( ). address of hon. henry cabot lodge at the unveiling of the webster memorial in washington, in the volume _the fighting frigate_ and other essays. john b. mcmaster's life of daniel webster. speeches & letters of abraham lincoln - edited by merwin roe london: published by j. m. dent & sons ltd and in new york by e.p. dutton & co first issue of this edition ; reprinted , , mr. bryce's introduction to 'lincoln's speeches' is printed from plates made and type set by the university press, cambridge, mass., u.s.a. taken by permission from 'the complete works of abraham lincoln,' century company, [illustration: when he sent his great voice forth out of his breast, & his words fell like the winter snows, nor then would any mortal contend with ulysses--homer. iliad.] introduction no man since washington has become to americans so familiar or so beloved a figure as abraham lincoln. he is to them the representative and typical american, the man who best embodies the political ideals of the nation. he is typical in the fact that he sprang from the masses of the people, that he remained through his whole career a man of the people, that his chief desire was to be in accord with the beliefs and wishes of the people, that he never failed to trust in the people and to rely on their support. every native american knows his life and his speeches. his anecdotes and witticisms have passed into the thought and the conversation of the whole nation as those of no other statesman have done. he belongs, however, not only to the united states, but to the whole of civilized mankind. it is no exaggeration to say that he has, within the last thirty years, grown to be a conspicuous figure in the history of the modern world. without him, the course of events not only in the western hemisphere but in europe also would have been different, for he was called to guide at the greatest crisis of its fate a state already mighty, and now far more mighty than in his days, and the guidance he gave has affected the march of events ever since. a life and a character such as his ought to be known to and comprehended by europeans as well as by americans. among europeans, it is especially englishmen who ought to appreciate him and understand the significance of his life, for he came of an english stock, he spoke the english tongue, his action told upon the progress of events and the shaping of opinion in all british communities everywhere more than it has done upon any other nation outside america itself. this collection of lincoln's speeches seeks to make him known by his words as readers of history know him by his deeds. in popularly-governed countries the great statesman is almost of necessity an orator, though his eminence as a speaker may be no true measure either of his momentary power or of his permanent fame, for wisdom, courage and tact bear little direct relation to the gift for speech. but whether that gift be present in greater or in lesser degree, the character and ideas of a statesman are best studied through his own words. this is particularly true of lincoln, because he was not what may be called a professional orator. there have been famous orators whose speeches we may read for the beauty of their language or for the wealth of ideas they contain, with comparatively little regard to the circumstances of time and place that led to their being delivered. lincoln is not one of these. his speeches need to be studied in close relation to the occasions which called them forth. they are not philosophical lucubrations or brilliant displays of rhetoric. they are a part of his life. they are the expression of his convictions, and derive no small part of their weight and dignity from the fact that they deal with grave and urgent questions, and express the spirit in which he approached those questions. few great characters stand out so clearly revealed by their words, whether spoken or written, as he does. accordingly lincoln's discourses are not like those of nearly all the men whose eloquence has won them fame. when we think of such men as pericles, demosthenes, Æschines, cicero, hortensius, burke, sheridan, erskine, canning, webster, gladstone, bright, massillon, vergniaud, castelar, we think of exuberance of ideas or of phrases, of a command of appropriate similes or metaphors, of the gifts of invention and of exposition, of imaginative flights, or outbursts of passion fit to stir and rouse an audience to like passion. we think of the orator as gifted with a powerful or finely-modulated voice, an imposing presence, a graceful delivery. or if--remembering that lincoln was by profession a lawyer and practised until he became president of the united states--we think of the special gifts which mark the forensic orator, we should expect to find a man full of ingenuity and subtlety, one dexterous in handling his case in such wise as to please and capture the judge or the jury whom he addresses, one skilled in those rhetorical devices and strokes of art which can be used, when need be, to engage the listener's feelings and distract his mind from the real merits of the issue. of all this kind of talent there was in lincoln but little. he was not an artful pleader; indeed, it was said of him that he could argue well only those cases in the justice of which he personally believed, and was unable to make the worse appear the better reason. for most of the qualities which the world admires in cicero or in burke we should look in vain in lincoln's speeches. they are not fine pieces of exquisite diction, fit to be declaimed as school exercises or set before students as models of composition. what, then, are their merits? and why do they deserve to be valued and remembered? how comes it that a man of first-rate powers was deficient in qualities appertaining to his own profession which men less remarkable have possessed? to answer this question, let us first ask what were the preparation and training abraham lincoln had for oratory, whether political or forensic. born in rude and abject poverty, he had never any education, except what he gave himself, till he was approaching manhood. not even books wherewith to inform and train his mind were within his reach. no school, no university, no legal faculty had any part in training his powers. when he became a lawyer and a politician, the years most favourable to continuous study had already passed, and the opportunities he found for reading were very scanty. he knew but few authors in general literature, though he knew those few thoroughly. he taught himself a little mathematics, but he could read no language save his own, and can have had only the faintest acquaintance with european history or with any branch of philosophy. the want of regular education was not made up for by the persons among whom his lot was cast. till he was a grown man, he never moved in any society from which he could learn those things with which the mind of an orator or a statesman ought to be stored. even after he had gained some legal practice, there was for many years no one for him to mix with except the petty practitioners of a petty town, men nearly all of whom knew little more than he did himself. schools gave him nothing, and society gave him nothing. but he had a powerful intellect and a resolute will. isolation fostered not only self-reliance but the habit of reflection, and, indeed, of prolonged and intense reflection. he made all that he knew a part of himself. he thought everything out for himself. his convictions were his own--clear and coherent. he was not positive or opinionated, and he did not deny that at certain moments he pondered and hesitated long before he decided on his course. but though he could keep a policy in suspense, waiting for events to guide him, he did not waver. he paused and reconsidered, but it was never his way either to go back upon a decision once made, or to waste time in vain regrets that all he expected had not been attained. he took advice readily, and left many things to his ministers; but he did not lean upon his advisers. without vanity or ostentation, he was always independent, self-contained, prepared to take full responsibility for his acts. that he was keenly observant of all that passed under his eyes, that his mind played freely round everything it touched, we know from the accounts of his talk, which first made him famous in the town and neighbourhood where he lived. his humour, and his memory for anecdotes which he could bring out to good purpose, at the right moment, are qualities which europe deems distinctively american, but no great man of action in the nineteenth century, even in america, possessed them in the same measure. seldom has so acute a power of observation been found united to so abundant a power of sympathy. these remarks may seem to belong to a study of his character rather than of his speeches, yet they are not irrelevant, because the interest of his speeches lies in their revelation of his character. let us, however, return to the speeches and to the letters, some of which, given in this volume, are scarcely less noteworthy than are the speeches. what are the distinctive merits of these speeches and letters? there is less humour in them than his reputation as a humorist would have led us to expect. they are serious, grave, practical. we feel that the man does not care to play over the surface of the subject, or to use it as a way of displaying his cleverness. he is trying to get right down to the very foundation of the matter and tell us what his real thoughts about it are. in this respect he sometimes reminds us of bismarck's speeches, which, in their rude, broken, forth-darting way, always go straight to their destined aim; always hit the nail on the head. so too, in their effort to grapple with fundamental facts, lincoln's bear a sort of likeness to cromwell's speeches, though cromwell has far less power of utterance, and always seems to be wrestling with the difficulty of finding language to convey to others what is plain, true and weighty to himself. this difficulty makes the great protector, though we can usually see what he is driving at, frequently confused and obscure. lincoln, however, is always clear. simplicity, directness and breadth are the notes of his thought. aptness, clearness, and again, simplicity, are the notes of his diction. the american speakers of his generation, like most of those of the preceding generation, but unlike those of that earlier generation to which alexander hamilton, john adams, marshall and madison belonged, were generally infected by a floridity which made them a by-word in europe. even men of brilliant talent, such as edward everett, were by no means free from this straining after effect by highly-coloured phrases and theatrical effects. such faults have to-day virtually vanished from the united states, largely from a change in public taste, to which perhaps the example set by lincoln himself may have contributed. in the forties and fifties florid rhetoric was rampant, especially in the west and south, where taste was less polished than in the older states. that lincoln escaped it is a striking mark of his independence as well as of his greatness. there is no superfluous ornament in his orations, nothing tawdry, nothing otiose. for the most part, he addresses the reason of his hearers, and credits them with desiring to have none but solid arguments laid before them. when he does appeal to emotion, he does it quietly, perhaps even solemnly. the note struck is always a high note. the impressiveness of the appeal comes not from fervid vehemence of language, but from the sincerity of his own convictions. sometimes one can see that through its whole course the argument is suffused by the speaker's feeling, and when the time comes for the feeling to be directly expressed, it glows not with fitful flashes, but with the steady heat of an intense and strenuous soul. the impression which most of the speeches leave on the reader is that their matter has been carefully thought over even when the words have not been learnt by heart. but there is an anecdote that on one occasion, early in his career, lincoln went to a public meeting not in the least intending to speak, but presently being called for by the audience, rose in obedience to the call, and delivered a long address so ardent and thrilling that the reporters dropped their pencils and, absorbed in watching him, forgot to take down what he said. it has also been stated, on good authority, that on his way in the railroad cars, to the dedication of the monument on the field of gettysburg, he turned to a pennsylvanian gentleman who was sitting beside him and remarked, "i suppose i shall be expected to say something this afternoon; lend me a pencil and a bit of paper," and that he thereupon jotted down the notes of a speech which has become the best known and best remembered of all his utterances, so that some of its words and sentences have passed into the minds of all educated men everywhere. that famous gettysburg speech is the best example one could desire of the characteristic quality of lincoln's eloquence. it is a short speech. it is wonderfully terse in expression. it is quiet, so quiet that at the moment it did not make upon the audience, an audience wrought up by a long and highly-decorated harangue from one of the prominent orators of the day, an impression at all commensurate to that which it began to make as soon as it was read over america and europe. there is in it not a touch of what we call rhetoric, or of any striving after effect. alike in thought and in language it is simple, plain, direct. but it states certain truths and principles in phrases so aptly chosen and so forcible, that one feels as if those truths could have been conveyed in no other words, and as if this deliverance of them were made for all time. words so simple and so strong could have come only from one who had meditated so long upon the primal facts of american history and popular government that the truths those facts taught him had become like the truths of mathematics in their clearness, their breadth, and their precision. the speeches on slavery read strange to us now, when slavery as a living system has been dead for forty years, dead and buried hell deep under the detestation of mankind. it is hard for those whose memory does not go back to to realize that down till then it was not only a terrible fact, but was defended--defended by many otherwise good men, defended not only by pseudo-scientific anthropologists as being in the order of nature, but by ministers of the gospel, out of the sacred scriptures, as part of the ordinances of god. lincoln's position, the position of one who had to induce slave-owning fellow-citizens to listen to him and admit persuasion into their heated and prejudiced minds, did not allow him to denounce it with horror, as we can all so easily do to-day. but though his language is calm and restrained, he never condescends to palter with slavery. he shows its innate evils and dangers with unanswerable force. the speech on the dred scott decision is a lucid, close and cogent piece of reasoning which, in its wide view of constitutional issues, sometimes reminds one of webster, sometimes even of burke, though it does not equal the former in weight nor the latter in splendour of diction. among the letters, perhaps the most impressive is that written to mrs. bixley, the mother of five sons who had died fighting for the union in the armies of the north. it is short, and it deals with a theme on which hundreds of letters are written daily. but i do not know where the nobility of self-sacrifice for a great cause, and of the consolation which the thought of a sacrifice so made should bring, is set forth with such simple and pathetic beauty. deep must be the fountains from which there issues so pure a stream. the career of lincoln is often held up to ambitious young americans as an example to show what a man may achieve by his native strength, with no advantages of birth or environment or education. in this there is nothing improper, nothing fanciful. the moral is one which may well be drawn, and in which those on whose early life fortune has not smiled may find encouragement. but the example is, after all, no great encouragement to ordinary men, for lincoln was an extraordinary man. he triumphed over the adverse conditions of his early years because nature had bestowed on him high and rare powers. superficial observers who saw his homely aspect and plain manners, and noted that his fellow-townsmen, when asked why they so trusted him, answered that it was for his common-sense, failed to see that his common-sense was a part of his genius. what is common-sense but the power of seeing the fundamentals of any practical question, and of disengaging them from the accidental and transient features that may overlie these fundamentals--the power, to use a familiar expression, of getting down to bed rock? one part of this power is the faculty for perceiving what the average man will think and can be induced to do. this is what keeps the superior mind in touch with the ordinary mind, and this is perhaps why the name of "common-sense" is used, because the superior mind seems in its power of comprehending others to be itself a part of the general sense of the community. all men of high practical capacity have this power. it is the first condition of success. but in men who have received a philosophical or literary education there is a tendency to embellish, for purposes of persuasion, or perhaps for their own gratification, the language in which they recommend their conclusions, or to state those conclusions in the light of large general principles, a tendency which may, unless carefully watched, carry them too high above the heads of the crowd. lincoln, never having had such an education, spoke to the people as one of themselves. he seemed to be saying not only what each felt, but expressing the feeling just as each would have expressed it. in reality, he was quite as much above his neighbours in insight as was the polished orator or writer, but the plain directness of his language seemed to keep him on their level. his strength lay less in the form and vesture of the thought than in the thought itself, in the large, simple, practical view which he took of the position. and thus, to repeat what has been said already, the sterling merit of these speeches of his, that which made them effective when they were delivered and makes them worth reading to-day, is to be found in the justness of his conclusions and their fitness to the circumstances of the time. when he rose into higher air, when his words were clothed with stateliness and solemnity, it was the force of his conviction and the emotion that thrilled through his utterance, that printed the words deep upon the minds and drove them home to the hearts of the people. what is a great man? common speech, which after all must be our guide to the sense of the terms which the world uses, gives this name to many sorts of men. how far greatness lies in the power and range of the intellect, how far in the strength of the will, how far in elevation of view and aim and purpose,--this is a question too large to be debated here. but of abraham lincoln it may be truly said that in his greatness all three elements were present. he had not the brilliance, either in thought or word or act, that dazzles, nor the restless activity that occasionally pushes to the front even persons with gifts not of the first order. he was a patient, thoughtful, melancholy man, whose intelligence, working sometimes slowly but always steadily and surely, was capacious enough to embrace and vigorous enough to master the incomparably difficult facts and problems he was called to deal with. his executive talent showed itself not in sudden and startling strokes, but in the calm serenity with which he formed his judgments and laid his plans, in the undismayed firmness with which he adhered to them in the face of popular clamour, of conflicting counsels from his advisers, sometimes, even, of what others deemed all but hopeless failure. these were the qualities needed in one who had to pilot the republic through the heaviest storm that had ever broken upon it. but the mainspring of his power, and the truest evidence of his greatness, lay in the nobility of his aims, in the fervour of his conviction, in the stainless rectitude which guided his action and won for him the confidence of the people. without these things neither the vigour of his intellect nor the firmness of his will would have availed. there is a vulgar saying that all great men are unscrupulous. of him it may rather be said that the note of greatness we feel in his thinking and his speech and his conduct had its source in the loftiness and purity of his character. lincoln's is one of the careers that refute this imputation on human nature. james bryce the following is a list of lincoln's published works: selections.--letters on questions of national policy, etc., ; dedicatory speech of president lincoln, etc., at the consecration of gettysburg cemetery, nov. th, , ; the last address of president lincoln to the american people, ; the martyr's monument, ; in memoriam, ; gems from a. lincoln, ; the president's words, ; emancipation proclamation--second inaugural address--gettysburg speech, ; two inaugural addresses and gettysburg speech, ; the gettysburg speech and other papers, with an essay on lincoln by j.r. lowell (riverside literature series, ), ; the table talk of abraham lincoln, ed. w.o. stoddard, ; political debates between abraham lincoln and stephen a. douglas in the celebrated campaign of in illinois, etc. also the two great speeches of abraham lincoln at ohio in , ; political speeches and debates of abraham lincoln and s.a. douglas, - , edited by a.t. jones, ; lincoln, passages from his speeches and letters, with introduction by r.w. gilder, . complete editions of works, letters, and speeches.--h.j. raymond, history of the administration of abraham lincoln (speeches, letters, etc.), ; abraham lincoln, pen and voice, being a complete compilation of his letters, public addresses, messages to congress, ed. g.m. van buren, etc., ; complete works, ed. j.g. nicolay and j. hay, vols., ; enlarged edition, with introduction by r.w. gilder, etc., , etc.; a. lincoln's speeches, compiled by l.e. chittenden, ; the writings of a. lincoln, ed. a.b. lapsley, with an introduction by theodore roosevelt, and a life by noah brooks, etc. (federal edition), ; etc. life.--h.j. raymond; the life and public services of a.l., etc., with anecdotes and personal reminiscences, by f.b. carpenter, ; j.h. barrett, ; j.g. holland, ; w.h. lamon, ; w.o. stoddard, ; i.n. arnold, ; j.g. nicolay and j. hay, ; condensed edition, ; recollections of president lincoln and his administration, ; c.c. coffin, ; j.t. morse, ; j. hay (the presidents of the united states), ; c.a. dana, lincoln and his cabinet, etc., ; j.h. choate, ; address delivered before the edinburgh philosophical institution, nov. , ; i.m. tarbell, ; w.e. curtis, the true abraham lincoln, ; j.h. barrett, a. lincoln and his presidency, ; j. baldwin, . a. rothschild, lincoln, master of men, ; f.t. hill, lincoln the lawyer, . among those who have written short lives are: mrs. h. beecher stowe, d.w. bartlett, c.g. leland, j.c. power, etc. contents lincoln's first public speech--from an address to the people of sangamon county, march , letter to col. robert allen, june , from a letter published in the sangamon "journal," june , from his address before the young men's lyceum of springfield, jan. , letter to mrs. o.h. browning, springfield, april , from a political debate, springfield, dec, letter to w.g. anderson, lawrenceville, ill., oct. , extract from a letter to john t. stuart, springfield, ill., jan. , from his address before the springfield washingtonian temperance society, feb. , from a circular of the whig committee, march , from a letter to martin m. morris, springfield, ill., march , from a letter to joshua f. speed, springfield, ill., oct. , from a letter to wm. h. herndon, washington, jan. , from a letter to wm. h. herndon, washington, june , from a letter to wm. h. herndon, washington, july , letter to john d. johnston, jan. , letter to john d. johnston, shelbyville, nov. , note for law lecture--written about july , a fragment--written about july , a fragment on slavery, july from his reply to senator douglas, peoria, oct. , from a letter to the hon. geo. robertson, lexington, ky.; springfield, ill., aug. , from a letter to joshua f. speed, aug. , lincoln's "lost speech," may , speech on the dred scott case, springfield, ill., june , the "divided house" speech, springfield, ill., june , from his speech at chicago in reply to the speech of judge douglas, july , from a speech at springfield, ill., july , from lincoln's reply to douglas in the first joint debate, ottawa, ill., aug. , from lincoln's rejoinder to judge douglas at freeport, ill., aug. , from lincoln's reply to douglas at jonesboro', sept. , from lincoln's reply to douglas at charleston, ill., sept. , from lincoln's reply to judge douglas at galesburg, ill., oct. , notes for speeches--written about oct. , from lincoln's reply to douglas in the seventh and last joint debate, at alton, ill., oct. , from speech at columbus, ohio, sept. , from speech at cincinnati, ohio, sept. , from a letter to j.w. fell, dec. , from the address at cooper institute, n.y., feb. , lincoln's farewell to the citizens of springfield, ill., feb. , letter to hon. geo. ashmun, accepting the nomination for presidency, may , letter to miss grace bedell, springfield, ill., oct. , from his address to the legislature at indianapolis, feb. , from his address to the legislature at columbus, ohio, feb. , from his remarks at pittsburgh, pa., feb. , from his address at trenton, n.j., feb. , address in independence hall, philadelphia, feb. , his reply to the mayor of washington, d.c., feb. , first inaugural address, march , address at utica, n.y., feb. , from his first message to congress, at the special session, july , from his message to congress at its regular session, dec. , letter to gen. g.b. mcclellan, washington, feb. , proclamation revoking gen. hunter's order setting the slaves free, may , appeal to the border states in behalf of compensated emancipation, july , from letter to cuthbert bullitt, july , letter to august belmont, july , letter to horace greeley, aug. , from his reply to the chicago committee of united religious denominations, sept. , from the annual message to congress, dec. , emancipation proclamation, jan. , letter to general grant, july , letter to ---- moulton, washington, july , letter to mrs. lincoln, washington, aug. , letter to james h. hackett, washington, aug. , note to secretary stanton, washington, nov. , letter to james c. conkling, aug. , his proclamation for a day of thanksgiving, oct. , remarks at the dedication of the national cemetery at gettysburg, nov. , from his annual message to congress, dec. , letter to secretary stanton, washington, march , letter to governor michael hahn, washington, march , address at a sanitary fair, march , letter to a.g. hodges, april , address at a sanitary fair at baltimore, april , letter to general grant, april , from address to the th ohio regiment, aug. , reply to a serenade, nov. , letter to mrs. bixley, nov. , letter to general grant, washington, jan. , second inaugural address, march , letter to thurlow weed, march , from an address to an indiana regiment, march , his last public address, april , appendix anecdotes publishers' note for permission to use extracts from "the complete works of abraham lincoln," edited by john g. nicolay and john hay, the publishers wish to thank the century company. they also wish to thank mr. william h. lambert, the owner of the copyright, and mrs. sarah a. whitney for their courtesy in allowing them to publish "lincoln's lost speech." lincoln's speeches and letters _lincoln's first public speech. from an address to the people of sangamon county. march , _ upon the subject of education, not presuming to dictate any plan or system respecting it, i can only say that i view it as the most important subject which we, as a people, can be engaged in. that every man may receive at least a moderate education, and thereby be enabled to read the histories of his own and other countries, by which he may duly appreciate the value of our free institutions, appears to be an object of vital importance, even on this account alone, to say nothing of the advantages and satisfaction to be derived from all being able to read the scriptures and other works, both of a religious and moral nature, for themselves. for my part, i desire to see the time when education--and by its means morality, sobriety, enterprise, and industry--shall become much more general than at present; and should be gratified to have it in my power to contribute something to the advancement of any measure which might have a tendency to accelerate that happy period. with regard to existing laws, some alterations are thought to be necessary. many respectable men have suggested that our estray laws--the law respecting the issuing of executions, the road law, and some others--are deficient in their present form, and require alterations. but considering the great probability that the framers of those laws were wiser than myself, i should prefer not meddling with them, unless they were first attacked by others, in which case i should feel it both a privilege and a duty to take that stand which, in my view, might tend to the advancement of justice. but, fellow-citizens, i shall conclude. considering the great degree of modesty which should always attend youth, it is probable i have already been more presuming than becomes me. however, upon the subjects of which i have treated, i have spoken as i have thought. i may be wrong in regard to any or all of them; but, holding it a sound maxim that it is better only to be sometimes right than at all times wrong, so soon as i discover my opinions to be erroneous i shall be ready to renounce them. every man is said to have his peculiar ambition. whether it be true or not, i can say, for one, that i have no other so great as that of being truly esteemed of my fellow-men by rendering myself worthy of their esteem. how far i shall succeed in gratifying this ambition is yet to be developed. i am young and unknown to many of you; i was born and have ever remained in the most humble walks of life. i have no wealthy or popular relations or friends to recommend me. my case is thrown exclusively upon the independent voters of the county, and if elected, they will have conferred a favour upon me for which i shall be unremitting in my labours to compensate. but if the good people in their wisdom shall see fit to keep me in the background, i have been too familiar with disappointments to be very much chagrined. your friend and fellow-citizen, a. lincoln. _letter to colonel robert allen. june , _ dear colonel, i am told that during my absence last week you passed through this place, and stated publicly that you were in possession of a fact or facts which, if known to the public, would entirely destroy the prospects of n.w. edwards and myself at the ensuing election; but that, through favour to us, you should forbear to divulge them. no one has needed favours more than i, and, generally, few have been less unwilling to accept them; but in this case favour to me would be injustice to the public, and therefore i must beg your pardon for declining it. that i once had the confidence of the people of sangamon, is sufficiently evident; and if i have since done anything, either by design or misadventure, which if known would subject me to a forfeiture of that confidence, he that knows of that thing, and conceals it, is a traitor to his country's interest. i find myself wholly unable to form any conjecture of what fact or facts, real or supposed, you spoke; but my opinion of your veracity will not permit me for a moment to doubt that you at least believed what you said. i am flattered with the personal regard you manifested for me; but i do hope that, on more mature reflection, you will view the public interest as a paramount consideration, and therefore determine to let the worst come. i here assure you that the candid statement of facts on your part, however low it may sink me, shall never break the tie of personal friendship between us. i wish an answer to this, and you are at liberty to publish both, if you choose. _lincoln's opinion on universal suffrage. from a letter published in the sangamon "journal." june , _ i go for all sharing the privileges of the government who assist in bearing its burdens: consequently i go for admitting all whites to the right of suffrage who pay taxes or bear arms [by no means excluding females]. _from an address before the young men's lyceum of springfield, illinois. january , _ as a subject for the remarks of the evening "the perpetuation of our political institutions" is selected. in the great journal of things happening under the sun, we, the american people, find our account running under the date of the nineteenth century of the christian era. we find ourselves in the peaceful possession of the fairest portion of the earth, as regards extent of territory, fertility of soil, and salubrity of climate. we find ourselves under the government of a system of political institutions conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty, than any of which the history of former times tells us. we, when remounting the stage of existence, found ourselves the legal inheritors of these fundamental blessings. we toiled not in the acquirement or the establishment of them; they are a legacy bequeathed to us by a once hardy, brave, and patriotic, but now lamented and departed race of ancestors. theirs was the task (and nobly they performed it) to possess themselves, and through themselves us, of this goodly land, and to rear upon its hills and valleys a political edifice of liberty and equal rights; 'tis ours only to transmit these,--the former unprofaned by the foot of the invader; the latter undecayed by lapse of time. this, our duty to ourselves and to our posterity, and love for our species in general, imperatively require us to perform. how, then, shall we perform it? at what point shall we expect the approach of danger? by what means shall we fortify against it? shall we expect some transatlantic military giant to step across the ocean and crush us at a blow? never. all the armies of europe, asia and africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a bonaparte for a commander, could not, by force, take a drink from the ohio, or make a track on the blue ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. at what point, then, is the approach of danger to be expected? i answer, if it ever reaches us, it must spring up among us. it cannot come from abroad. if destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. as a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide. there is even now something of ill omen among us. i mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute wild and furious passions in lieu of the sober judgment of courts; and the worse than savage mobs for the executive ministers of justice. this disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that it now exists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit, it would be a violation of truth and an insult to our intelligence to deny. * * * * * i know the american people are _much_ attached to their government. i know they would suffer _much_ for its sake. i know they would endure evils long and patiently before they would ever think of exchanging it for another. yet, notwithstanding all this, if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons and property are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their affection for the government is the natural consequence, and to that sooner or later it must come. here, then, is one point at which danger may be expected. the question recurs, how shall we fortify against it? the answer is simple. let every american, every lover of liberty, every well-wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the revolution never to violate in the least particular the laws of the country, and never to tolerate their violation by others. as the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the declaration of independence, so to the support of the constitution and the laws let every american pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honour; let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the charter of his own and his children's liberty. let reverence for the laws be breathed by every american mother to the lisping babe that prattles on her lap. let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges. let it be written in primers, spelling-books, and in almanacs. let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. and, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation. when i so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying that there are no bad laws, or that grievances may not arise for the redress of which no legal provisions have been made. i mean to say no such thing. but i do mean to say that although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still, while they continue in force, for the sake of example they should be religiously observed. so also in unprovided cases. if such arise, let proper legal provisions be made for them with the least possible delay, but till then let them, if not too intolerable, be borne with. there is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law. in any case that may arise, as, for instance, the promulgation of abolitionism, one of two positions is necessarily true--that is, the thing is right within itself, and therefore deserves the protection of all law and all good citizens, or it is wrong, and therefore proper to be prohibited by legal enactments; and in neither case is the interposition of mob law either necessary, justifiable, or excusable.... they (histories of the revolution) were pillars of the temple of liberty; and now that they have crumbled away, that temple must fall unless we, their descendants, supply their places with other pillars, hewn from the solid quarry of sober reason. passion has helped us, but can do so no more. it will in future be our enemy. reason--cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason--must furnish all the materials for our future support and defence. let those materials be moulded into general intelligence, sound morality, and, in particular, a reverence for the constitution and laws; and that we improved to the last, that we remained free to the last, that we revered his name to the last, that during his long sleep we permitted no hostile foot to pass over or desecrate his resting-place, shall be that which to learn the last trump shall awaken our washington. upon these let the proud fabric of freedom rest, as the rock of its basis; and as truly as has been said of the only greater institution, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." many great and good men, sufficiently qualified for any task they should undertake, may ever be found, whose ambition would aspire to nothing beyond a seat in congress, a gubernatorial or a presidential chair. but such belong not to the family of the lion or the brood of the eagle. what? think you these places would satisfy an alexander, a cæsar, or a napoleon? never! towering genius disdains a beaten path. it seeks regions hitherto unexplored. it sees no distinction in adding story to story upon the monuments of fame erected to the memory of others. it denies that it is glory enough to serve under any chief. it scorns to tread in the footsteps of any predecessor, however illustrious. it thirsts and burns for distinction; and, if possible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slaves, or enslaving free men. is it unreasonable, then, to expect that some men, possessed of the loftiest genius, coupled with ambition sufficient to push it to its utmost stretch, will at some time spring up among us? and when such a one does, it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his design. distinction will be his paramount object, and although he would as willingly, perhaps more so, acquire it by doing good as harm, yet that opportunity being passed, and nothing left to be done in the way of building up, he would sit down boldly to the task of pulling down. here, then, is a probable case, highly dangerous, and such a one as could not well have existed heretofore. * * * * * all honour to our revolutionary ancestors, to whom we are indebted for these institutions. they will not be forgotten. in history we hope they will be read of, and recounted, so long as the bible shall be read. but even granting that they will, their influence cannot be what it heretofore has been. even then, they cannot be so universally known, nor so vividly felt, as they were by the generation just gone to rest. at the close of that struggle, nearly every adult male had been a participator in some of its scenes. the consequence was, that of those scenes, in the form of a husband, a father, a son, or a brother, a living history was to be found in every family,--a history bearing the indubitable testimonies to its own authenticity in the limbs mangled, in the scars of wounds received in the midst of the very scenes related; a history, too, that could be read and understood alike by all, the wise and the ignorant, the learned and the unlearned. but those histories are gone. they can be read no more for ever. they were a fortress of strength; but what the invading foemen could never do, the silent artillery of time has done,--the levelling of its walls. they are gone. they were a forest of giant oaks; but the resistless hurricane has swept over them, and left only here and there a lonely trunk, despoiled of its verdure, shorn of its foliage, unshading and unshaded, to murmur in a few more gentle breezes, and to combat with its mutilated limbs a few more ruder storms, and then to sink and be no more. humorous account of his experiences with a lady he was requested to marry _a letter to mrs. o.h. browning. springfield, illinois. april , _ dear madam, without apologising for being egotistical, i shall make the history of so much of my life as has elapsed since i saw you the subject of this letter. and, by the way, i now discover that in order to give a full and intelligible account of the things i have done and suffered since i saw you, i shall necessarily have to relate some that happened before. it was, then, in the autumn of that a married lady of my acquaintance, and who was a great friend of mine, being about to pay a visit to her father and other relatives residing in kentucky, proposed to me that on her return she would bring a sister of hers with her on condition that i would engage to become her brother-in-law with all convenient dispatch. i, of course, accepted the proposal, for you know i could not have done otherwise had i really been averse to it; but privately, between you and me, i was most confoundedly well pleased with the project. i had seen the said sister some three years before, thought her intelligent and agreeable, and saw no good objection to plodding life through hand-in-hand with her. time passed on, the lady took her journey, and in due time returned, sister in company, sure enough. this astonished me a little, for it appeared to me that her coming so readily showed that she was a trifle too willing, but on reflection it occurred to me that she might have been prevailed on by her married sister to come, without anything concerning me having been mentioned to her, and so i concluded that if no other objection presented itself, i would consent to waive this. all this occurred to me on hearing of her arrival in the neighbourhood--for, be it remembered, i had not yet seen her, except about three years previous, as above mentioned. in a few days we had an interview, and, although i had seen her before, she did not look as my imagination had pictured her. i knew she was over-size, but she now appeared a fair match for falstaff. i knew she was called an "old maid," and i felt no doubt of the truth of at least half of the appellation, but now, when i beheld her, i could not for my life avoid thinking of my mother; and this, not from withered features,--for her skin was too full of fat to permit of its contracting into wrinkles--but from her want of teeth, weather-beaten appearance in general, and from a kind of notion that ran in my head that nothing could have commenced at the size of infancy and reached her present bulk in less than thirty-five or forty years; and, in short, i was not at all pleased with her. but what could i do? i had told her sister that i would take her for better or for worse, and i made a point of honour and conscience in all things to stick to my word, especially if others had been induced to act on it, which in this case i had no doubt they had, for i was now fairly convinced that no other man on earth would have her, and hence the conclusion that they were bent on holding me to my bargain. "well," thought i, "i have said it, and, be the consequences what they may, it shall not be my fault if i fail to do it." at once i determined to consider her my wife, and this done, all my powers of discovery were put to work in search of perfections in her which might be fairly set off against her defects. i tried to imagine her handsome, which, but for her unfortunate corpulency, was actually true. exclusive of this, no woman that i have ever seen has a finer face. i also tried to convince myself that the mind was much more to be valued than the person, and in this she was not inferior, as i could discover, to any with whom i had been acquainted. shortly after this, without attempting to come to any positive understanding with her, i set out for vandalia, when and where you first saw me. during my stay there i had letters from her which did not change my opinion of either her intellect or intention, but, on the contrary, confirmed it in both. all this while, although i was fixed "firm as the surge-repelling rock" in my resolution, i found i was continually repenting the rashness which had led me to make it. through life i have been in no bondage, either real or imaginary, from the thraldom of which i so much desired to be free. after my return home i saw nothing to change my opinion of her in any particular. she was the same, and so was i. i now spent my time in planning how i might get along in life after my contemplated change of circumstances should have taken place, and how i might procrastinate the evil day for a time, which i really dreaded as much, perhaps more, than an irishman does the halter. after all my sufferings upon this deeply interesting subject, here i am, wholly, unexpectedly, completely out of the "scrape," and i now want to know if you can guess how i got out of it--out, clear, in every sense of the term--no violation of word, honour, or conscience. i don't believe you can guess, and so i might as well tell you at once. as the lawyer says, it was done in the manner following, to wit: after i had delayed the matter as long as i thought i could in honour do (which, by the way, had brought me round into the last fall), i concluded i might as well bring it to a consummation without further delay, and so i mustered my resolution and made the proposal to her direct; but, shocking to relate, she answered, no. at first i supposed she did it through an affectation of modesty, which i thought but ill became her under the peculiar circumstances of the case, but on my renewal of the charge i found she repelled it with greater firmness than before. i tried it again and again, but with the same success, or rather with the same want of success. i finally was forced to give it up, at which i very unexpectedly found myself mortified almost beyond endurance. i was mortified, it seemed to me, in a hundred different ways. my vanity was deeply wounded by the reflection that i had so long been too stupid to discover her intentions, and at the same time never doubting that i understood them perfectly; and also that she, whom i had taught myself to believe nobody else would have, had actually rejected me with all my fancied greatness. and, to cap the whole, i then for the first time began to suspect that i was really a little in love with her. but let it all go! i'll try and outlive it. others have been made fools of by the girls, but this can never in truth be said of me. i most emphatically, in this instance, made a fool of myself. i have now come to the conclusion never again to think of marrying, and for this reason--i can never be satisfied with any one who would be blockhead enough to have me. when you receive this, write me a long yarn about something to amuse me. give my respects to mr. browning. _from a debate between lincoln, e.d. baker, and others against douglas, lamborn, and others. springfield. december _ * * * * * ... mr. lamborn insists that the difference between the van buren party and the whigs is, that although the former sometimes err in practice, they are always correct in principle, whereas the latter are wrong in principle; and the better to impress this proposition, he uses a figurative expression in these words: "the democrats are vulnerable in the heel, but they are sound in the heart and in the head." the first branch of the figure--that is, that the democrats are vulnerable in the heel--i admit is not merely figuratively but literally true. who that looks but for a moment at their swartwouts, their prices, their harringtons, and their hundreds of others, scampering away with the public money to texas, to europe, and to every spot of the earth where a villain may hope to find refuge from justice, can at all doubt that they are most distressingly affected in their heels with a species of running fever? it seems that this malady of their heels operates on the sound-headed and honest-hearted creatures very much like the cork leg in the song did on its owner, which, when he had once got started on it, the more he tried to stop it, the more it would run away. at the hazard of wearing this point threadbare, i will relate an anecdote which seems to be too strikingly in point to be omitted. a witty irish soldier who was always boasting of his bravery when no danger was near, but who invariably retreated without orders at the first charge of the engagement, being asked by his captain why he did so, replied, "captain, i have as brave a heart as julius cæsar ever had; but somehow or other, whenever danger approaches, my cowardly legs will run away with it." so it is with mr. lamborn's party. they take the public money into their hands for the most laudable purpose that wise heads and honest hearts can dictate, but before they can possibly get it out again, their rascally vulnerable heels will run away with them.... _letter to w.g. anderson. lawrenceville, illinois. october , _ dear sir, your note of yesterday is received. in the difficulty between us of which you speak, you say you think i was the aggressor. i do not think i was. you say my "words imported insult." i meant them as a fair set-off to your own statements, and not otherwise; and in that light alone i now wish you to understand them. you ask for my present "feelings on the subject." i entertain no unkind feelings to you, and none of any sort upon the subject, except a sincere regret that i permitted myself to get into such an altercation. _extract from a letter to john t. stuart. springfield illinois. january , _ for not giving you a general summary of news, you must pardon me; it is not in my power to do so. i am now the most miserable man living. if what i feel were equally distributed to the whole human family, there would not be one cheerful face on earth. whether i shall ever be better, i cannot tell; i awfully forebode i shall not. to remain as i am is impossible; i must die or be better, it appears to me. the matter you speak of on my account you may attend to as you say, unless you shall hear of my condition forbidding it. i say this because i fear i shall be unable to attend to any business here, and a change of scene might help me. if i could be myself, i would rather remain at home with judge logan. i can write no more. _from an address before the washingtonian temperance society. springfield, illinois. february , _ although the temperance cause has been in progress for nearly twenty years, it is apparent to all that it is just now being crowned with a degree of success hitherto unparalleled. the list of its friends is daily swelled by the additions of fifties, of hundreds, and of thousands. the cause itself seems suddenly transformed from a cold abstract theory to a living, breathing, active and powerful chieftain, going forth conquering and to conquer. the citadels of his great adversary are daily being stormed and dismantled; his temples and his altars, where the rites of his idolatrous worship have long been performed, and where human sacrifices have long been wont to be made, are daily desecrated and deserted. the trump of the conqueror's fame is sounding from hill to hill, from sea to sea, and from land to land, and calling millions to his standard at a blast. * * * * * "but," say some, "we are no drunkards, and we shall not acknowledge ourselves such by joining a reform drunkard's society, whatever our influence might be." surely no christian will adhere to this objection. if they believe, as they profess, that omnipotence condescended to take on himself the form of sinful man, and, as such, to die an ignominious death for their sakes, surely they will not refuse submission to the infinitely lesser condescension for the temporal and perhaps eternal salvation of a large, erring, and unfortunate class of their fellow-creatures; nor is the condescension very great. in my judgment, such of us as have never fallen victims have been spared more from the absence of appetite, than from any mental or moral superiority over those who have. indeed i believe, if we take habitual drunkards as a class, their heads and their hearts will bear an advantageous comparison with those of any other class. there seems ever to have been a proneness in the brilliant and warm-blooded to fall into this vice. the demon of intemperance ever seems to have delighted in sucking the blood of genius and generosity. what one of us but can call to mind some relative more promising in youth than all his fellows, who has fallen a sacrifice to his rapacity? he ever seems to have gone forth like the egyptian angel of death, commissioned to slay, if not the first, the fairest born of every family. shall he now be arrested in his desolating career? in that arrest all can give aid that will; and who shall be excused that can and will not? far around as human breath has ever blown, he keeps our fathers, our brothers, our sons, and our friends prostrate in the chains of moral death.... when the conduct of men is designed to be influenced, persuasion, kind, unassuming persuasion, should ever be adopted. it is an old and a true maxim "that a drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall." so with men. if you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend. therein is a drop of honey that catches his heart, which, say what you will, is the great high-road to his reason, and which, when once gained, you will find but little trouble in convincing his judgment of the justice of your cause, if indeed that cause really be a just one. on the contrary, assume to dictate to his judgment, or to command his action, or to mark him as one to be shunned and despised, and he will retreat within himself, close all the avenues to his head and his heart; and though your cause be naked truth itself, transformed to the heaviest lance, harder than steel, and sharper than steel can be made, and though you throw it with more than herculean force and precision, you shall be no more able to pierce him than to penetrate the hard shell of a tortoise with a rye straw. such is man, and so must he be understood by those who would lead him, even to his own best interests.... another error, as it seems to me, into which the old reformers fell, was the position that all habitual drunkards were utterly incorrigible, and therefore must be turned adrift and damned without remedy in order that the grace of temperance might abound, to the temperate then, and to all mankind some hundreds of years thereafter. there is in this something so repugnant to humanity, so uncharitable, so cold-blooded and feelingless, that it never did, nor never can enlist the enthusiasm of a popular cause. we could not love the man who taught it--we could not hear him with patience. the heart could not throw open its portals to it, the generous man could not adopt it--it could not mix with his blood. it looked so fiendishly selfish, so like throwing fathers and brothers overboard to lighten the boat for our security, that the noble-minded shrank from the manifest meanness of the thing. and besides this, the benefits of a reformation to be effected by such a system were too remote in point of time to warmly engage many in its behalf. few can be induced to labour exclusively for posterity; and none will do it enthusiastically. posterity has done nothing for us; and theorize on it as we may, practically we shall do very little for it, unless we are made to think we are at the same time doing something for ourselves. what an ignorance of human nature does it exhibit, to ask or expect a whole community to rise up and labour for the temporal happiness of others, after themselves shall be consigned to the dust, a majority of which community take no pains whatever to secure their own eternal welfare at no more distant day! great distance in either time or space has wonderful power to lull and render quiescent the human mind. pleasures to be enjoyed, or pains to be endured, after we shall be dead and gone, are but little regarded even in our own cases, and much less in the cases of others. still, in addition to this there is something so ludicrous in promises of good or threats of evil a great way off as to render the whole subject with which they are connected easily turned into ridicule. "better lay down that spade you are stealing, paddy; if you don't you'll pay for it at the day of judgment." "be the powers, if ye'll credit me so long i'll take another jist." _from the circular of the whig committee. an address to the people of illinois. march , _ ... the system of loans is but temporary in its nature, and must soon explode. it is a system not only ruinous while it lasts, but one that must soon fail and leave us destitute. as an individual who undertakes to live by borrowing soon finds his original means devoured by interest, and next, no one left to borrow from, so must it be with a government. we repeat, then, that a tariff sufficient for revenue, or a direct tax, must soon be resorted to; and, indeed, we believe this alternative is now denied by no one. but which system shall be adopted? some of our opponents in theory admit the propriety of a tariff sufficient for revenue, but even they will not in practice vote for such a tariff; while others boldly advocate direct taxation. inasmuch, therefore, as some of them boldly advocate direct taxation, and all the rest--or so nearly all as to make exceptions needless--refuse to adopt the tariff, we think it is doing them no injustice to class them all as advocates of direct taxation. indeed, we believe they are only delaying an open avowal of the system till they can assure themselves that the people will tolerate it. let us, then, briefly compare the two systems. the tariff is the cheaper system, because the duties, being collected in large parcels, at a few commercial points, will require comparatively few officers in their collection; while by the direct tax system the land must be literally covered with assessors and collectors, going forth like swarms of egyptian locusts, devouring every blade of grass and other green thing. and, again, by the tariff system the whole revenue is paid by the consumers of foreign goods, and those chiefly the luxuries and not the necessaries of life. by this system, the man who contents himself to live upon the products of his own country pays nothing at all. and surely that country is extensive enough, and its products abundant and varied enough, to answer all the real wants of its people. in short, by this system the burden of revenue falls almost entirely on the wealthy and luxurious few, while the substantial and labouring many, who live at home and upon home products, go entirely free. by the direct tax system, none can escape. however strictly the citizen may exclude from his premises all foreign luxuries, fine cloths, fine silks, rich wines, golden chains, and diamond rings,--still, for the possession of his house, his barn, and his homespun he is to be perpetually haunted and harassed by the tax-gatherer. with these views, we leave it to be determined whether we or our opponents are more truly democratic on the subject. _from a letter to martin m. morris. springfield, illinois. march , _ it is truly gratifying to me to learn that while the people of sangamon have cast me off, my old friends of menard, who have known me longest and best, stick to me. it would astonish, if not amuse, the older citizens to learn that i (a stranger, friendless, uneducated, penniless boy, working on a flatboat at ten dollars per month) have been put down here as the candidate of pride, wealth, and aristocratic family distinction. yet so, chiefly, it was. there was, too, the strangest combination of church influence against me. baker is a campbellite; and therefore, as i suppose, with few exceptions, got all that church. my wife has some relations in the presbyterian churches, and some with the episcopal churches; and therefore, wherever it would tell, i was set down as either the one or the other, while it was everywhere contended that no christian ought to go for me, because i belonged to no church, was suspected of being a deist, and had talked about fighting a duel. with all these things, baker, of course, had nothing to do. nor do i complain of them. as to his own church going for him, i think that was right enough, and as to the influences i have spoken of in the other, though they were very strong, it would be grossly untrue and unjust to charge that they acted upon them in a body, or were very near so. i only mean that those influences levied a tax of a considerable per cent. upon my strength throughout the religious controversy. but enough of this. _from a letter to joshua f. speed. springfield. october , _ we have another boy, born the th of march. he is very much such a child as bob was at his age, rather of a longer order. bob is "short and low," and i expect always will be. he talks very plainly--almost as plainly as anybody. he is quite smart enough. i sometimes fear that he is one of the little rare-ripe sort that are smarter at about five than ever after. he has a great deal of that sort of mischief that is the offspring of such animal spirits. since i began this letter, a messenger came to tell me bob was lost; but by the time i reached the house his mother had found him and had him whipped, and by now, very likely, he is run away again. _from a letter to william h. herndon. washington. january , _ dear william, your letter of december th was received a day or two ago. i am much obliged to you for the trouble you have taken, and promise to take in my little business there. as to speech-making, by way of getting the hang of the house, i made a little speech two or three days ago on a post-office question of no general interest. i find speaking here and elsewhere about the same thing. i was about as badly scared, and no worse, as i am when i speak in court. i expect to make one within a week or two, in which i hope to succeed well enough to wish you to see it. it is very pleasant to learn from you that there are some who desire that i should be re-elected. i most heartily thank them for their partiality; and i can say, as mr. clay said of the annexation of texas, that "personally i would not object" to a re-election, although i thought at the time, and still think, it would be quite as well for me to return to the law at the end of a single term. i made the declaration that i would not be a candidate again, more from a wish to deal fairly with others, to keep peace among our friends, and to keep the district from going to the enemy, than for any cause personal to myself; so that, if it should so happen that nobody else wishes to be elected, i could refuse the people the right of sending me again. but to enter myself as a competitor of others, or to authorize any one so to enter me, is what my word and honour forbid. _from a letter to william h. herndon. washington. june , _ as to the young men. you must not wait to be brought forward by the older men. for instance, do you suppose that i should ever have got into notice if i had waited to be hunted up and pushed forward by older men? you young men get together and form a "rough and ready club," and have regular meetings and speeches. take in everybody you can get. harrison grimsley, l.a. enos, lee kimball and c.w. matheny will do to begin the thing; but as you go along gather up all the shrewd, wild boys about town, whether just of age or a little under age--chris. logan, reddick ridgley, lewis zwizler, and hundreds such. let every one play the part he can play best,--some speak, some sing, and all "holler." your meetings will be of evenings; the older men, and the women, will go to hear you; so that it will not only contribute to the election of "old zach," but will be an interesting pastime, and improving to the intellectual faculties of all engaged. don't fail to do this. _from a letter to william h. herndon. washington, july , _ the way for a young man to rise is to improve himself every way he can, never suspecting that anybody wishes to hinder him. allow me to assure you that suspicion and jealousy never did help any man in any situation. there may sometimes be ungenerous attempts to keep a young man down; and they will succeed, too, if he allows his mind to be diverted from its true channel to brood over the attempted injury. cast about, and see if this feeling has not injured every person you have ever known to fall into it. _letter to john d. johnston. january , _ dear johnston, your request for eighty dollars i do not think it best to comply with now. at the various times when i have helped you a little you have said to me, "we can get along very well now"; but in a very short time i find you in the same difficulty again. now, this can only happen by some defect in your conduct. what that defect is, i think i know. you are not lazy, and still you are an idler. i doubt whether, since i saw you, you have done a good whole day's work in any one day. you do not very much dislike to work, and still you do not work much, merely because it does not seem to you that you could get much for it. this habit of uselessly wasting time is the whole difficulty; it is vastly important to you, and still more so to your children, that you should break the habit. it is more important to them, because they have longer to live, and can keep out of an idle habit before they are in it, easier than they can get out after they are in. you are now in need of some money; and what i propose is, that you shall go to work, "tooth and nail," for somebody who will give you money for it. let father and your boys take charge of your things at home, prepare for a crop, and make the crop, and you go to work for the best money wages, or in discharge of any debt you owe, that you can get; and, to secure you a fair reward for your labour, i now promise you, that for every dollar you will, between this and the first of may, get for your own labour, either in money or as your own indebtedness, i will then give you one other dollar. by this, if you hire yourself at ten dollars a month, from me you will get ten more, making twenty dollars a month for your work. in this i do not mean you shall go off to st. louis, or the lead mines, or the gold mines in california, but i mean for you to go at it for the best wages you can get close to home in coles county. now, if you will do this, you will be soon out of debt, and, what is better, you will have a habit that will keep you from getting in debt again. but, if i should now clear you out of debt, next year you would be just as deep in as ever. you say you would almost give your place in heaven for seventy or eighty dollars. then you value your place in heaven very cheap, for i am sure you can, with the offer i make, get the seventy or eighty dollars for four or five months' work. you say if i will furnish you the money you will deed me the land, and, if you don't pay the money back, you will deliver possession. nonsense! if you can't now live with the land, how will you then live without it? you have always been kind to me, and i do not mean to be unkind to you. on the contrary, if you will but follow my advice, you will find it worth more than eighty times eighty dollars to you. _letter to john d. johnston. shelbyville. november , _ dear brother, when i came into charleston day before yesterday, i learned that you are anxious to sell the land where you live and move to missouri. i have been thinking of this ever since, and cannot but think such a notion is utterly foolish. what can you do in missouri better than here? is the land any richer? can you there, any more than here, raise corn and wheat and oats without work? will anybody there, any more than here, do your work for you? if you intend to go to work, there is no better place than right where you are; if you do not intend to go to work, you cannot get along anywhere. squirming and crawling about from place to place can do no good. you have raised no crop this year; and what you really want is to sell the land, get the money, and spend it. part with the land you have, and, my life upon it, you will never after own a spot big enough to bury you in. half you will get for the land you will spend in moving to missouri, and the other half you will eat, drink, and wear out, and no foot of land will be bought. now, i feel it my duty to have no hand in such a piece of foolery. i feel that it is so even on your own account, and particularly on mother's account. the eastern forty acres i intend to keep for mother while she lives; if you will not cultivate it, it will rent for enough to support her--at least, it will rent for something. her dower in the other two forties she can let you have, and no thanks to me. now, do not misunderstand this letter; i do not write it in any unkindness. i write it in order, if possible, to get you to face the truth, which truth is, you are destitute because you have idled away all your time. your thousand pretences for not getting along better are all nonsense; they deceive nobody but yourself. go to work is the only cure for your case. a word to mother. chapman tells me he wants you to go and live with him. if i were you i would try it awhile. if you get tired of it (as i think you will not), you can return to your own home. chapman feels very kindly to you, and i have no doubt he will make your situation very pleasant. _note for law lecture. written about july , _ i am not an accomplished lawyer. i find quite as much material for a lecture in those points wherein i have failed, as in those wherein i have been moderately successful. the leading rule for a lawyer, as for the man of every other calling, is diligence. leave nothing for to-morrow which can be done to-day. never let your correspondence fall behind. whatever piece of business you have in hand, before stopping, do all the labour pertaining to it which can then be done. when you bring a common law-suit, if you have the facts for doing so, write the declaration at once. if a law point be involved, examine the books, and note the authority you rely on upon the declaration itself, where you are sure to find it when wanted. the same of defences and pleas. in business not likely to be litigated,--ordinary collection cases, foreclosures, partitions, and the like,--make all examinations of titles, and note them and even draft orders and decrees in advance. the course has a triple advantage; it avoids omissions and neglect, saves your labour when once done, performs the labour out of court when you have leisure, rather than in court when you have not. extemporaneous speaking should be practised and cultivated. it is the lawyer's avenue to the public. however able and faithful he may be in other respects, people are slow to bring him business if he cannot make a speech. and yet there is not a more fatal error to young lawyers than relying too much on speech-making. if any one, upon his rare powers of speaking, shall claim an exemption from the drudgery of the law, his case is a failure in advance. discourage litigation. persuade your neighbours to compromise whenever you can. point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser--in fees, expenses, and waste of time. as a peace-maker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. there will still be business enough. never stir up litigation. a worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this. who can be more nearly a fiend than he who habitually overhauls the register of deeds in search of defects in titles, whereon to stir up strife, and put money in his pocket? a moral tone ought to be infused into the profession which should drive such men out of it. the matter of fees is important, far beyond the mere question of bread and butter involved. properly attended to, fuller justice is done to both lawyer and client. an exorbitant fee should never be claimed. as a general rule, never take your whole fee in advance, nor any more than a small retainer. when fully paid beforehand, you are more than a common mortal if you can feel the same interest in the case as if something was still in prospect for you, as well as for your client. and when you lack interest in the case the job will very likely lack skill and diligence in the performance. settle the amount of fee and take a note in advance. then you will feel that you are working for something, and you are sure to do your work faithfully and well. never sell a fee-note--at least not before the consideration service is performed. it leads to negligence and dishonesty--negligence by losing interest in the case, and dishonesty in refusing to refund when you have allowed the consideration to fail. there is a vague popular belief that lawyers are necessarily dishonest. i say vague, because when we consider to what extent confidence and honours are reposed in and conferred upon lawyers by the people, it appears improbable that their impression of dishonesty is very distinct and vivid. yet the impression is common, almost universal. let no young man choosing the law for a calling for a moment yield to the popular belief. resolve to be honest at all events; and if in your own judgment you cannot be an honest lawyer, resolve to be honest without being a lawyer. choose some other occupation, rather than one in the choosing of which you do, in advance, consent to be a knave. _a fragment. written about july , _ equality in society alike beats inequality, whether the latter be of the british aristocratic sort or of the domestic slavery sort. we know southern men declare that their slaves are better off than hired labourers amongst us. how little they know whereof they speak! there is no permanent class of hired labourers amongst us. twenty-five years ago i was a hired labourer. the hired labourer of yesterday labours on his own account to-day, and will hire others to labour for him to-morrow. advancement--improvement in condition--is the order of things in a society of equals. as labour is the common burden of our race, so the effort of some to shift their share of the burden on to the shoulders of others is the great durable curse of the race. originally a curse for transgression upon the whole race, when, as by slavery, it is concentrated on a part only, it becomes the double-refined curse of god upon his creatures. free labour has the inspiration of hope; pure slavery has no hope. the power of hope upon human exertion and happiness is wonderful. the slave-master himself has a conception of it, and hence the system of tasks among slaves. the slave whom you cannot drive with the lash to break seventy-five pounds of hemp in a day, if you will task him to break a hundred, and promise him pay for all he does over, he will break you a hundred and fifty. you have substituted hope for the rod. and yet perhaps it does not occur to you that, to the extent of your gain in the case, you have given up the slave system and adopted the free system of labour. _a fragment on slavery. july _ if a can prove, however conclusively, that he may of right enslave b, why may not b snatch the same argument and prove equally that he may enslave a? you say a is white and b is black. it is colour, then; the lighter having the right to enslave the darker? take care. by this rule you are to be slave to the first man you meet with a fairer skin than your own. you do not mean colour exactly? you mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and therefore have the right to enslave them? take care again. by this rule you are to be slave to the first man you meet with an intellect superior to your own. but, say you, it is a question of interest, and if you make it your interest you have the right to enslave another. very well. and if he can make it his interest he has the right to enslave you. _lincoln's reply to senator douglas at peoria, illinois. the origin of the wilmot proviso. october , _ ... our war with mexico broke out in . when congress was about adjourning that session, president polk asked them to place two millions of dollars under his control, to be used by him in the recess, if found practicable and expedient, in negotiating a treaty of peace with mexico, and acquiring some part of her territory. a bill was duly gotten up for the purpose, and was progressing swimmingly in the house of representatives, when a democratic member from pennsylvania by the name of david wilmot moved as an amendment, "provided, that in any territory thus acquired there shall never be slavery." _this is the origin of the far-famed wilmot proviso._ it created a great flutter; but it stuck like wax, was voted into the bill, and the bill passed with it through the house. the senate, however, adjourned without final action on it, and so both the appropriation and the proviso were lost for the time. ... this declared indifference, but, as i must think, real, covert zeal, for the spread of slavery, i cannot but hate. i hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. i hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world, enables the enemies of free institutions with plausibility to taunt us as hypocrites, causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty, criticizing the declaration of independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest. before proceeding let me say that i think i have no prejudice against the southern people. they are just what we would be in their situation. if slavery did not now exist among them, they would not introduce it. if it did now exist among us, we should not instantly give it up. this i believe of the masses north and south. doubtless there are individuals on both sides who would not hold slaves under any circumstances, and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew if it were out of existence. we know that some southern men do free their slaves, go north and become tip-top abolitionists, while some northern ones go south and become most cruel slave-masters. when southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we are, i acknowledge the fact. when it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it in any satisfactory way, i can understand and appreciate the saying. i surely will not blame them for not doing what i should not know how to do myself. if all earthly power were given me, i should not know what to do as to the existing institution. my first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to liberia, to their own native land. but a moment's reflection would convince me that whatever of high hope (as i think there is) there may be in this in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. if they were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough to carry them there in many times ten days. what then? free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? is it quite certain that this betters their condition? i think i would not hold one in slavery at any rate, yet the point is not clear enough for me to denounce people upon. what next? free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? my own feelings will not admit of this, and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of whites will not. whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment is not the sole question, if indeed it is any part of it. a universal feeling, whether well or ill founded, cannot be safely disregarded. we cannot then make them equals. it does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted, but for their tardiness in this i will not undertake to judge our brethren of the south. equal justice to the south, it is said, requires us to consent to the extension of slavery to new countries. that is to say, that inasmuch as you do not object to my taking my hog to nebraska, therefore i must not object to your taking your slave. now, i admit that this is perfectly logical, if there is no difference between hogs and slaves. but while you thus require me to deny the humanity of the negro, i wish to ask whether you of the south, yourselves, have ever been willing to do as much? it is kindly provided that of all those who come into the world, only a small percentage are natural tyrants. that percentage is no larger in the slave states than in the free. the great majority, south as well as north, have human sympathies, of which they can no more divest themselves than they can of their sensibility to physical pain. these sympathies in the bosoms of the southern people manifest in many ways their sense of the wrong of slavery, and their consciousness that, after all, there is humanity in the negro. if they deny this let me address them a few plain questions. in you joined the north almost unanimously in declaring the african slave-trade piracy, and in annexing to it the punishment of death. why did you do this? if you did not feel that it was wrong, why did you join in providing that men should be hung for it? the practice was no more than bringing wild negroes from africa to such as would buy them. but you never thought of hanging men for catching and selling wild horses, wild buffaloes, or wild bears. again, you have among you a sneaking individual of the class of native tyrants known as the _slave-dealer_. he watches your necessities, and crawls up to buy your slave at a speculating price. if you cannot help it, you sell to him; but if you can help it, you drive him from your door. you despise him utterly; you do not recognize him as a friend, or even as an honest man. your children must not play with his; they may rollick freely with the little negroes, but not with the slave-dealer's children. if you are obliged to deal with him, you try to get through the job without so much as touching him. it is common with you to join hands with the men you meet; but with the slave-dealer you avoid the ceremony,--instinctively shrinking from the snaky contact. if he grows rich and retires from business, you still remember him, and still keep up the ban of non-intercourse upon him and his family. now, why is this? you do not so treat the man who deals in cotton, corn, or tobacco. and yet again. there are in the united states and territories, including the district of columbia, over four hundred and thirty thousand free blacks. at five hundred dollars per head, they are worth over two hundred millions of dollars. how comes this vast amount of property to be running about without owners? we do not see free horses or free cattle running at large. how is this? all these free blacks are the descendants of slaves, or have been slaves themselves; and they would be slaves now but for something that has operated on their white owners, inducing them at vast pecuniary sacrifice to liberate them. what is that something? is there any mistaking it? in all these cases it is your sense of justice and human sympathy continually telling you that the poor negro has some natural right to himself,--that those who deny it and make mere merchandise of him deserve kickings, contempt, and death. and now why will you ask us to deny the humanity of the slave, and estimate him as only the equal of the hog? why ask us to do what you will not do yourselves? why ask us to do for nothing what two hundred millions of dollars could not induce you to do? but one great argument in support of the repeal of the missouri compromise is still to come. that argument is "the sacred right of self-government." ... some poet has said,-- "fools rush in where angels fear to tread." at the hazard of being thought one of the fools of this quotation, i meet that argument,--i rush in,--i take that bull by the horns.... my faith in the proposition that each man should do precisely as he pleases with all which is exclusively his own, lies at the foundation of the sense of justice there is in me. i extend the principle to communities of men as well as to individuals. i so extend it because it is politically wise as well as naturally just,--politically wise in saving us from broils about matters which do not concern us. here, or at washington, i would not trouble myself with the oyster laws of virginia, or the cranberry laws of indiana. the doctrine of self-government is right,--absolutely and internally right; but it has no just application as here attempted. or perhaps i should rather say that whether it has any application here depends upon whether a negro is not or is a man. if he is not a man, in that case he who is a man may, as a matter of self-government, do just what he pleases with him. but if the negro is a man, is it not to that extent a total destruction of self-government to say that he, too, shall not govern himself? when the white man governs himself, that is self-government; but when he governs himself and also governs another man, that is more than self-government,--that is despotism. if the negro is a man, then my ancient faith teaches me that "all men are created equal," and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another. judge douglas frequently, with bitter irony and sarcasm, paraphrases our argument by saying: "the white people of nebraska are good enough to govern themselves, but they are not good enough to govern a few miserable negroes!" well, i doubt not that the people of nebraska are and will continue to be as good as the average of people elsewhere. i do not say the contrary. what i do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. i say this is the leading principle,--the sheet-anchor of american republicanism. slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature,--opposition to it in his love of justice. these principles are in eternal antagonism, and when brought into collision so fiercely as slavery extension brings them, shocks and throes and convulsions must ceaselessly follow. repeal the missouri compromise; repeal all compromises; repeal the declaration of independence; repeal all past history,--you still cannot repeal human nature. it still will be the abundance of man's heart that slavery extension is wrong, and out of the abundance of his heart his mouth will continue to speak.... the missouri compromise ought to be restored. slavery may or may not be established in nebraska. but whether it be or not, we shall have repudiated--discarded from the councils of the nation--the spirit of compromise; for who, after this, will ever trust in a national compromise? the spirit of mutual concession--that spirit which first gave us the constitution, and has thrice saved the union--we shall have strangled and cast from us for ever. and what shall we have in lieu of it? the south flushed with triumph and tempted to excess; the north betrayed, as they believed, brooding on wrong and burning for revenge. one side will provoke, the other resent. the one will taunt, the other defy; one aggresses, the other retaliates. already a few in the north defy all constitutional restraints, resist the execution of the fugitive slave law, and even menace the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. already a few in the south claim the constitutional right to take and hold slaves in the free states, demand the revival of the slave-trade, and demand a treaty with great britain by which fugitive slaves may be reclaimed from canada. as yet they are but few on either side. it is a grave question for lovers of the union, whether the final destruction of the missouri compromise, and with it the spirit of all compromise, will or will not embolden and embitter each of these, and fatally increase the number of both. ... some men, mostly whigs, who condemn the repeal of the missouri compromise, nevertheless hesitate to go for its restoration, lest they be thrown in company with the abolitionists. will they allow me, as an old whig, to tell them good-humouredly that i think this is very silly? stand with anybody that stands right. stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong. stand with the abolitionist in restoring the missouri compromise, and stand against him when he attempts to repeal the fugitive slave law. in the latter case you stand with the southern disunionist. what of that? you are still right. in both cases you are right in both cases you expose the dangerous extremes. in both you stand on the middle ground and hold the ship level and steady. in both you are national, and nothing less than national. this is the good old whig ground. to desert such ground because of any company is to be less than a whig, less than a man, less than an american. i particularly object to the new position which the avowed principle of this nebraska law gives to slavery in the body politic. i object to it because it assumes that there can be moral right in the enslaving of one man by another. i object to it as a dangerous dalliance for free people--a sad evidence that, feeling over-prosperity, we forget right; that liberty as a principle we have ceased to revere. i object to it because the fathers of the republic eschewed and rejected it. the argument of "necessity" was the only argument they ever admitted in favour of slavery, and so far, and so far only as it carried them, did they ever go. they found the institution existing among us, which they could not help, and they cast the blame on the british king for having permitted its introduction. thus we see the plain, unmistakable spirit of their age towards slavery was hostility to the principle, and toleration only by necessity. but now it is to be transformed into a _sacred right_.... henceforth it is to be the chief jewel of the nation,--the very figure-head of the ship of state. little by little, but steadily as man's march to the grave, we have been giving up the old for the new faith. near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for some men to enslave others is a sacred right of self-government. these principles cannot stand together. they are as opposite as god and mammon; and whoever holds to the one must despise the other.... our republican robe is soiled and trailed in the dust. let us purify it. let us turn and wash it white in the spirit if not the blood of the revolution. let us turn slavery from its claims of moral right, back upon its existing legal rights and its arguments of necessity. let us return it to the position our fathers gave it, and there let it rest in peace. let us re-adopt the declaration of independence, and with it the practices and policy which harmonize with it. let north and south, let all americans, let all lovers of liberty everywhere, join in the great and good work. if we do this, we shall not only have saved the union, but we shall have so saved it as to make and to keep it for ever worthy of the saving. _from letter to the hon. geo. robertson, lexington, kentucky. springfield, illinois. august , _ my dear sir, ... you are not a friend of slavery in the abstract. in that speech you spoke of "the peaceful extinction of slavery" and used other expressions indicating your belief that the thing was, at some time, to have an end. since then we have had thirty-six years of experience; and this experience has demonstrated, i think, that there is no peaceful extinction of slavery in prospect for us. the signal failure of henry clay and other good and great men, in , to effect anything in favour of gradual emancipation in kentucky, together with a thousand other signs, extinguishes that hope utterly. on the question of liberty, as a principle, we are not what we have been. when we were the political slaves of king george, and wanted to be free, we called the maxim that "all men are created equal" a self-evident truth; but now when we have grown fat, and have lost all dread of being slaves ourselves, we have become so greedy to be _masters_ that we call the same maxim "a self-evident lie." the fourth of july has not quite dwindled away; it is still a great day for burning fire-crackers! that spirit which desired the peaceful extinction of slavery has itself become extinct with the _occasion_ and the _men_ of the revolution. under the impulse of that occasion, nearly half the states adopted systems of emancipation at once; and it is a significant fact that not a single state has done the like since. so far as peaceful, voluntary emancipation is concerned, the condition of the negro slave in america, scarcely less terrible to the contemplation of the free mind, is now as fixed and hopeless of change for the better as that of the lost souls of the finally impenitent. the autocrat of all the russias will resign his crown and proclaim his subjects free republicans, sooner than will our american masters voluntarily give up their slaves. our political problem now is, "can we as a nation continue together _permanently--for ever_--half slave, and half free?" the problem is too mighty for me. may god in his mercy superintend the solution. your much obliged friend, and humble servant, a. lincoln. _extracts from letter to joshua f. speed. august , _ you suggest that in political action now, you and i would differ. i suppose we would; not quite so much, however, as you may think. you know i dislike slavery, and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it. so far there is no cause of difference. but you say that sooner than yield your legal right to the slave, especially at the bidding of those who are not themselves interested, you would see the union dissolved. i am not aware that any one is bidding you yield that right; very certainly i am not. i leave that matter entirely to yourself. i also acknowledge your rights and my obligations under the constitution in regard to your slaves. i confess i hate to see the poor creatures hunted down and caught and carried back to their stripes and unrequited toil; but i bite my lips and keep quiet. in , you and i had together a tedious low-water trip on a steamboat, from louisville to st. louis. you may remember, as i well do, that from louisville to the mouth of the ohio, there were on board ten or a dozen slaves shackled together with irons. that sight was a continued torment to me, and i see something like it every time i touch the ohio or any other slave border. it is not fair for you to assume that i have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. you ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the northern people do crucify their feelings in order to maintain their loyalty to the constitution and the union. i do oppose the extension of slavery, because my judgment and feeling so prompt me, and i am under no obligations to the contrary. if for this you and i must differ, differ we must. you say if you were president, you would send an army and hang the leaders of the missouri outrages upon the kansas elections; still, if kansas fairly votes herself a slave state she must be admitted, or the union must be dissolved. but how if she votes herself a slave state unfairly; that is, by the very means for which you say you would hang men? must she still be admitted, or the union dissolved? that will be the phase of the question when it first becomes a practical one. in your assumption that there may be a fair decision of the slavery question in kansas, i plainly see that you and i would differ about the nebraska law. i look upon that enactment, not as a law, but as a violence from the beginning. it was conceived in violence, is maintained in violence, and is being executed in violence. i say it was conceived in violence, because the destruction of the missouri compromise, under the circumstances, was nothing less than violence. it was passed in violence, because it could not have passed at all but for the votes of many members in violence of the known will of their constituents. it is maintained in violence, because the elections since clearly demand its repeal, and the demand is openly disregarded. you say men ought to be hung for the way they are executing the law; i say that the way it is being executed is quite as good as any of its antecedents. it is being executed in the precise way which was intended from the first, else why does no nebraska man express astonishment or condemnation? poor reeder is the only public man who has been silly enough to believe that anything like fairness was ever intended, and he has been bravely undeceived. that kansas will form a slave constitution, and with it ask to be admitted into the union, i take to be already a settled question, and so settled by the very means you so pointedly condemn. by every principle of law ever held by any court north or south, every negro taken to kansas _is_ free; yet in utter disregard of this--in the spirit of violence merely--that beautiful legislature gravely passes a law to hang any man who shall venture to inform a negro of his legal rights. this is the subject and real object of the law. if, like haman, they should hang upon the gallows of their own building, i shall not be among the mourners for their fate. in my humble sphere, i shall advocate the restoration of the missouri compromise so long as kansas remains a territory; and when, by all these foul means, it seeks to come into the union as a slave state, i shall oppose it. i am very loath in any case to withhold my assent to the enjoyment of property acquired or located in good faith; but i do not admit that good faith in taking a negro to kansas to be held in slavery is a probability with any man. any man who has sense enough to be the controller of his own property has too much sense to misunderstand the outrageous character of the whole nebraska business. but i digress. in my opposition to the admission of kansas, i shall have some company, but we may be beaten. if we are, i shall not, on that account, attempt to dissolve the union. i think it probable, however, we shall be beaten. standing as a unit among yourselves, you can, directly and indirectly, bribe enough of our men to carry the day, as you could on the open proposition to establish a monarchy. get hold of some man in the north whose position and ability are such that he can make the support of your measure, whatever it may be, a democratic-party necessity, and the thing is done. apropos of this, let me tell you an anecdote. douglas introduced the nebraska bill in january. in february afterward, there was a called session of the illinois legislature. of the one hundred members composing the two branches of that body, about seventy were democrats. these latter held a caucus, in which the nebraska bill was talked of, if not formally discussed. it was thereby discovered that just three, and no more, were in favour of the measure. in a day or two douglas's orders came on to have resolutions passed approving the bill; and they were passed by large majorities! the truth of this is vouched for by a bolting democratic member. the masses too, democratic as well as whig, were even nearer unanimous against it; but as soon as the party necessity of supporting it became apparent, the way the democrats began to see the wisdom and justice of it was perfectly astonishing. you say that if kansas fairly votes herself a free state, as a christian you will rejoice at it. all decent slaveholders talk that way, and i do not doubt their candour; but they never vote that way. although in a private letter or conversation you will express your preference that kansas should be free, you would vote for no man for congress who would say the same thing publicly. no such man could be elected from any district in a slave state. you think stringfellow and company ought to be hung.... the slave-breeders and slave-traders are a small, odious, and detested class among you; and yet in politics they dictate the course of all of you, and are as completely your masters as you are the master of your own negroes. you inquire where i now stand. that is a disputed point. i think i am a whig; but others say there are no whigs, and that i am an abolitionist. when i was at washington, i voted for the wilmot proviso as good as forty times; and i never heard of any one attempting to unwhig me for that. i now do no more than oppose the extension of slavery. i am not a know-nothing; that is certain. how could i be? how can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes be in favour of degrading classes of white people? our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. as a nation, we began by declaring that _all men are created equal_. we now practically read it, _all men are created equal except negroes_. when the know-nothings get control, it will read, _all men are created equal except negroes_ and foreigners and catholics. when it comes to this, i shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty--to russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.... my kindest regards to mrs. speed. on the leading subject of this letter i have more of her sympathy than i have of yours; and yet let me say i am your friend for ever. a. lincoln. _mr. lincoln's speech. may , _ mr. chairman and gentlemen, i was over at [cries of "platform!" "take the platform!"]--i say, that while i was at danville court, some of our friends of anti-nebraska got together in springfield and elected me as one delegate to represent old sangamon with them in this convention, and i am here certainly as a sympathizer in this movement and by virtue of that meeting and selection. but we can hardly be called delegates strictly, inasmuch as, properly speaking, we represent nobody but ourselves. i think it altogether fair to say that we have no anti-nebraska party in sangamon, although there is a good deal of anti-nebraska feeling there; but i say for myself, and i think i may speak also for my colleagues, that we who are here fully approve of the platform and of all that has been done [a voice: "yes!"]; and even if we are not regularly delegates, it will be right for me to answer your call to speak. i suppose we truly stand for the public sentiment of sangamon on the great question of the repeal, although we do not yet represent many numbers who have taken a distinct position on the question. we are in a trying time--it ranges above mere party--and this movement to call a halt and turn our steps backward needs all the help and good counsels it can get; for unless popular opinion makes itself very strongly felt, and a change is made in our present course, _blood will flow on account of nebraska, and brother's hand will be raised against brother_! [the last sentence was uttered in such an earnest, impressive, if not, indeed, tragic, manner, as to make a cold chill creep over me. others gave a similar experience.] i have listened with great interest to the earnest appeal made to illinois men by the gentleman from lawrence [james s. emery] who has just addressed us so eloquently and forcibly. i was deeply moved by his statement of the wrongs done to free-state men out there. i think it just to say that all true men north should sympathize with them, and ought to be willing to do any possible and needful thing to right their wrongs. but we must not promise what we ought not, lest we be called on to perform what we cannot; we must be calm and moderate, and consider the whole difficulty, and determine what is possible and just. we must not be led by excitement and passion to do that which our sober judgments would not approve in our cooler moments. we have higher aims; we will have more serious business than to dally with temporary measures. we are here to stand firmly for a principle--to stand firmly for a right. we know that great political and moral wrongs are done, and outrages committed, and we denounce those wrongs and outrages, although we cannot, at present, do much more. but we desire to reach out beyond those personal outrages and establish a rule that will apply to all, and so prevent any future outrages. we have seen to-day that every shade of popular opinion is represented here, with _freedom_ or rather _free-soil_ as the basis. we have come together as in some sort representatives of popular opinion against the extension of slavery into territory now free in fact as well as by law, and the pledged word of the statesmen of the nation who are now no more. we come--we are here assembled together--to protest as well as we can against a great wrong, and to take measures, as well as we now can, to make that wrong right; to place the nation, as far as it may be possible now, as it was before the repeal of the missouri compromise; and the plain way to do this is to restore the compromise, and to demand and determine that _kansas shall be free!_ [immense applause.] while we affirm, and reaffirm, if necessary, our devotion to the principles of the declaration of independence, let our practical work here be limited to the above. we know that there is not a perfect agreement of sentiment here on the public questions which might be rightfully considered in this convention, and that the indignation which we all must feel cannot be helped; but all of us must give up something for the good of the cause. there is one desire which is uppermost in the mind, one wish common to us all--to which no dissent will be made; and i counsel you earnestly to bury all resentment, to sink all personal feeling, make all things work to a common purpose in which we are united and agreed about, and which all present will agree is absolutely necessary--which _must_ be done by any rightful mode if there be such: _slavery must be kept out of kansas_! [applause.] the test--the pinch--is right there. if we lose kansas to freedom, an example will be set which will prove fatal to freedom in the end. we, therefore, in the language of the _bible_, must "lay the axe to the root of the tree." temporizing will not do longer; now is the time for decision--for firm, persistent, resolute action. [applause.] the nebraska bill, or rather nebraska law, is not one of wholesome legislation, but was and is an act of legislative usurpation, whose result, if not indeed intention, is to make slavery national; and unless headed off in some effective way, we are in a fair way to see this land of boasted freedom converted into a land of slavery in fact. [sensation.] just open your two eyes, and see if this be not so. i need do no more than state, to command universal approval, that almost the entire north, as well as a large following in the border states, is radically opposed to the planting of slavery in free territory. probably in a popular vote throughout the nation nine-tenths of the voters in the free states, and at least one-half in the border states, if they could express their sentiments freely, would vote no on such an issue; and it is safe to say that two-thirds of the votes of the entire nation would be opposed to it. and yet, in spite of this overbalancing of sentiment in this free country, we are in a fair way to see kansas present itself for admission as a slave state. indeed, it is a felony, by the local law of kansas, to deny that slavery exists there even now. by every principle of law, a negro in kansas is free; yet the _bogus_ legislature makes it an infamous crime to tell him that he is free! the party lash and the fear of ridicule will overawe justice and liberty; for it is a singular fact, but none the less a fact, and well known by the most common experience, that men will do things under the terror of the party lash that they would not on any account or for any consideration do otherwise; while men who will march up to the mouth of a loaded cannon without shrinking, will run from the terrible name of "abolitionist," even when pronounced by a worthless creature whom they, with good reason, despise. for instance--to press this point a little--judge douglas introduced his anti-nebraska bill in january; and we had an extra session of our legislature in the succeeding february, in which were seventy-five democrats; and at a party caucus, fully attended, there were just three votes out of the whole seventy-five, for the measure. but in a few days orders came on from washington, commanding them to approve the measure; the party lash was applied, and it was brought up again in caucus, and passed by a large majority. the masses were against it, but party necessity carried it; and it was passed through the lower house of congress against the will of the people, for the same reason. here is where the greatest danger lies--that, while we profess to be a government of law and reason, law will give way to violence on demand of this awful and crushing power. like the great juggernaut--i think that is the name--the great idol, it crushes everything that comes in its way, and makes a--or as i read once, in a black-letter law book, "a slave is a human being who is legally not a _person_, but a _thing_." and if the safeguards to liberty are broken down, as is now attempted, when they have made _things_ of all the free negroes, how long, think you, before they will begin to make _things_ of poor white men? [applause.] be not deceived. revolutions do not go backward. the founder of the democratic party declared that _all_ men were created equal. his successor in the leadership has written the word "white" before men, making it read "all _white_ men are created equal." pray, will or may not the know-nothings, if they should get in power, add the word "protestant," making it read "_all protestant white men_"? meanwhile the hapless negro is the fruitful subject of reprisals in other quarters. john pettit, whom tom benton paid his respects to, you will recollect, calls the immortal declaration "a self-evident lie;" while at the birth-place of freedom--in the shadow of bunker hill and of the "cradle of liberty," at the home of the adamses and warren and otis--choate, from our side of the house, dares to fritter away the birthday promise of liberty by proclaiming the declaration to be "a string of glittering generalities;" and the southern whigs, working hand in hand with pro-slavery democrats, are making choate's theories practical. thomas jefferson, a slaveholder, mindful of the moral element in slavery, solemnly declared that he "trembled for his country when he remembered that god is just;" while judge douglas, with an insignificant wave of the hand, "don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted down." now, if slavery is right, or even negative, he has a right to treat it in this trifling manner. but if it is a moral and political wrong, as all christendom considers it to be, how can he answer to god for this attempt to spread and fortify it? [applause.] but no man, and judge douglas no more than any other, can maintain a negative, or merely neutral, position on this question; and, accordingly, he avows that the union was made _by_ white men and _for_ white men and their descendants. as matter of fact, the first branch of the proposition is historically true; the government was made by white men, and they were and are the superior race. this i admit. but the corner-stone of the government, so to speak, was the declaration that "_all_ men are created equal," and all entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." [applause.] and not only so, but the framers of the constitution were particular to keep out of that instrument the word "slave," the reason being that slavery would ultimately come to an end, and they did not wish to have any reminder that in this free country human beings were ever prostituted to slavery. [applause.] nor is it any argument that we are superior and the negro inferior--that he has but one talent while we have ten. let the negro possess the little he has in independence; if he has but one talent, he should be permitted to keep the little he has. [applause.] but slavery will endure no test of reason or logic; and yet its advocates, like douglas, use a sort of bastard logic, or noisy assumption, it might better be termed, like the above, in order to prepare the mind for the gradual, but none the less certain, encroachments of the moloch of slavery upon, the fair domain of freedom. but however much you may argue upon it, or smother it in soft phrases, slavery can only be maintained by force--by violence. the repeal of the missouri compromise was by violence. it was a violation of both law and the sacred obligations of honour, to overthrow and trample underfoot a solemn compromise, obtained by the fearful loss to freedom of one of the fairest of our western domains. congress violated the will and confidence of its constituents in voting for the bill; and while public sentiment, as shown by the elections of , demanded the restoration of this compromise, congress violated its trust by refusing, simply because it had the force of numbers to hold on to it. and murderous violence is being used now, in order to force slavery on to kansas; for it cannot be done in any other way. [sensation.] the necessary result was to establish the rule of violence--force, instead of the rule of law and reason; to perpetuate and spread slavery, and, in time, to make it general. we see it at both ends of the line. in washington, on the very spot where the outrage was started, the fearless sumner is beaten to insensibility, and is now slowly dying; while senators who claim to be gentlemen and christians stood by, countenancing the act, and even applauding it afterward in their places in the senate. even douglas, our man, saw it all and was within helping distance, yet let the murderous blows fall unopposed. then, at the other end of the line, at the very time sumner was being murdered, lawrence was being destroyed for the crime of freedom. it was the most prominent stronghold of liberty in kansas, and must give way to the all-dominating power of slavery. only two days ago, judge trumbull found it necessary to propose a bill in the senate to prevent a general civil war and to restore peace in kansas. we live in the midst of alarms; anxiety beclouds the future; we expect some new disaster with each newspaper we read. are we in a healthful political state? are not the tendencies plain? do not the signs of the times point plainly the way in which we are going? [sensation.] in the early days of the constitution slavery was recognized, by south and north alike, as an evil, and the division of sentiment about it was not controlled by geographical lines or considerations of climate, but by moral and philanthropic views. petitions for the abolition of slavery were presented to the very first congress by virginia and massachusetts alike. to show the harmony which prevailed, i will state that a fugitive slave law was passed in , with no dissenting voice in the senate, and but seven dissenting votes in the house. it was, however, a wise law, moderate, and, under the constitution, a just one. twenty-five years later, a more stringent law was proposed and defeated; and thirty-five years after that, the present law, drafted by mason of virginia, was passed by northern votes. i am not, just now, complaining of this law, but i am trying to show how the current sets; for the proposed law of was far less offensive than the present one. in the continental congress pledged itself, without a dissenting vote, to wholly discontinue the slave trade, and to neither purchase nor import any slave: and less than three months before the passage of the declaration of independence, the same congress which adopted that declaration unanimously resolved "that _no slave be imported into any of the thirteen united colonies_." [great applause.] on the second day of july, , the draft of a declaration of independence was reported to congress by the committee, and in it the slave trade was characterized as "an execrable commerce," as "a piratical warfare," as the "opprobrium of infidel powers," and as "a cruel war against human nature." [applause.] all agreed on this except south carolina and georgia, and in order to preserve harmony, and from the necessity of the case, these expressions were omitted. indeed, abolition societies existed as far south as virginia; and it is a well-known fact that washington, jefferson, madison, lee, henry, mason, and pendleton were qualified abolitionists, and much more radical on that subject than we of the whig and democratic parties claim to be to-day. on march , , virginia ceded to the confederation all its lands lying northwest of the ohio river. jefferson, chase of maryland, and howell of rhode island, as a committee on that and territory thereafter _to be ceded_, reported that no slavery should exist after the year . had this report been adopted, not only the northwest, but kentucky, tennessee, alabama, and mississippi also would have been free; but it required the assent of nine states to ratify it. north carolina was divided, and thus its vote was lost; and delaware, georgia, and new jersey refused to vote. in point of fact, as it was, it was assented to by six states. three years later, on a square vote to exclude slavery from the northwest, only one vote, and that from new york, was against it. and yet, thirty-seven years later, five thousand citizens of illinois out of a voting mass of less than twelve thousand, deliberately, after a long and heated contest, voted to introduce slavery in illinois; and, to-day, a large party in the free state of illinois are willing to vote to fasten the shackles of slavery on the fair domain of kansas, notwithstanding it received the dowry of freedom long before its birth as a political community. i repeat, therefore, the question, is it not plain in what direction we are tending? [sensation.] in the colonial time, mason, pendleton, and jefferson were as hostile to slavery in virginia as otis, ames, and the adamses were in massachusetts; and virginia made as earnest an effort to get rid of it as old massachusetts did. but circumstances were against them and they failed; but not that the good-will of its leading men was lacking. yet within less than fifty years virginia changed its tune, and made negro-breeding for the cotton and sugar states one of its leading industries. [laughter and applause.] in the constitutional convention, george mason of virginia made a more violent abolition speech than my friends lovejoy or codding would desire to make here to-day--a speech which could not be safely repeated anywhere on southern soil in this enlightened year. but while there were some differences of opinion on this subject even then, discussion was allowed; but as you see by the kansas slave code, which, as you know, is the missouri slave code, merely ferried across the river, it is a felony to even express an opinion hostile to that foul blot in the land of washington and the declaration of independence. [sensation.] in kentucky--my state--in , on a test vote, the mighty influence of henry clay and many other good men there could not get a symptom of expression in favour of gradual emancipation on a plain issue of marching toward the light of civilization with ohio and illinois; but the state of boone and hardin and henry clay, with a _nigger_ under each arm, took the black trail toward the deadly swamps of barbarism. is there--can there be--any doubt about this thing? and is there any doubt that we must all lay aside our prejudices and march, shoulder to shoulder, in the great army of freedom? [applause.] every fourth of july our young orators all proclaim this to be "the land of the _free_ and the home of the brave!" well, now, when you orators get that off next year, and, may be, this very year, how would you like some old grizzled farmer to get up in the grove and deny it? [laughter.] how would you like that? but suppose kansas comes in as a slave state, and all the "border ruffians" have barbecues about it, and free-state men come trailing back to the dishonoured north, like whipped dogs with their tails between their legs, it is--ain't it?--evident that this is no more the "land of the free;" and if we let it go so, we won't dare to say "home of the brave" out loud. [sensation and confusion.] can any man doubt that, even in spite of the people's will, slavery will triumph through violence, unless that will be made manifest and enforced? even governor reeder claimed at the outset that the contest in kansas was to be fair, but he got his eyes open at last; and i believe that, as a result of this moral and physical violence, kansas will soon apply for admission as a slave state. and yet we can't mistake that the people don't want it so, and that it is a land which is free both by natural and political law. _no law is free law!_ such is the understanding of all christendom. in the somerset case, decided nearly a century ago, the great lord mansfield held that slavery was of such a nature that it must take its rise in _positive_ (as distinguished from _natural_) law; and that in no country or age could it be traced back to any other source. will some one please tell me where is the _positive_ law that establishes slavery in kansas? [a voice: "the _bogus_ laws."] aye, the _bogus_ laws! and, on the same principle, a gang of missouri horse-thieves could come into illinois and declare horse-stealing to be legal [laughter], and it would be just as legal as slavery is in kansas. but by express statute, in the land of washington and jefferson, we may soon be brought face to face with the discreditable fact of showing to the world by our acts that we prefer slavery to freedom--darkness to light! [sensation.] it is, i believe, a principle in law that when one party to a contract violates it so grossly as to chiefly destroy the object for which it is made, the other party may rescind it. i will ask browning if that ain't good law. [voices: "yes!"] well, now if that be right, i go for rescinding the whole, entire missouri compromise and thus turning missouri into a free state; and i should like to know the difference--should like for any one to point out the difference--between _our_ making a free state of missouri and _their_ making a slave state of kansas. [great applause.] there ain't one bit of difference, except that our way would be a great mercy to humanity. but i have never said--and the whig party has never said--and those who oppose the nebraska bill do not as a body say, that they have any intention of interfering with slavery in the slave states. our platform says just the contrary. we allow slavery to exist in the slave states--not because slavery is right or good, but from the necessities of our union. we grant a fugitive slave law because it is so "nominated in the bond;" because our fathers so stipulated--had to--and we are bound to carry out this agreement. but they did not agree to introduce slavery in regions where it did not previously exist. on the contrary, they said by their example and teachings that they did not deem it expedient--did not consider it right--to do so; and it is wise and right to do just as they did about it [voices: "good!"], and that is what we propose--not to interfere with slavery where it exists (we have never tried to do it), and to give them a reasonable and efficient fugitive slave law. [a voice: "no!"] i say yes! [applause.] it was part of the bargain, and i'm for living up to it; but i go no further; i'm not bound to do more, and i won't agree any further. [great applause.] we, here in illinois, should feel especially proud of the provision of the missouri compromise excluding slavery from what is now kansas; for an illinois man, jesse b. thomas, was its father. henry clay, who is credited with the authorship of the compromise in general terms, did not even vote for that provision, but only advocated the ultimate admission by a second compromise; and, thomas was, beyond all controversy, the real author of the "slavery restriction" branch of the compromise. to show the generosity of the northern members toward the southern side; on a test vote to exclude slavery from missouri, ninety voted not to exclude, and eighty-seven to exclude, every vote from the slave states being ranged with the former and fourteen votes from the free states, of whom seven were from new england alone; while on a vote to exclude slavery from what is now kansas, the vote was one hundred and thirty-four _for_ to forty-two _against_. the scheme, as a whole, was, of course, a southern triumph. it is idle to contend otherwise, as is now being done by the nebraskaites; it was so shown by the votes and quite as emphatically by the expressions of representative men. mr. lowndes of south carolina was never known to commit a political mistake; his was the great judgment of that section; and he declared that this measure "would restore tranquillity to the country--a result demanded by every consideration of discretion, of moderation, of wisdom, and of virtue." when the measure came before president monroe for his approval, he put to each member of his cabinet this question: "has congress the constitutional power to prohibit slavery in a territory?" and john c. calhoun and william h. crawford from the south, equally with john quincy adams, benjamin rush, and smith thompson from the north, alike answered, "_yes!_" without qualification or equivocation; and this measure, of so great consequence to the south, was passed; and missouri was, by means of it, finally enabled to knock at the door of the republic for an open passage to its brood of slaves. and, in spite of this, freedom's share is about to be taken by violence--by the force of misrepresentative votes, not called for by the popular will. what name can i, in common decency, give to this wicked transaction? [sensation.] but even then the contest was not over; for when the missouri constitution came before congress for its approval, it forbade any free negro or mulatto from entering the state. in short, our illinois "black laws" were hidden away in their constitution [laughter], and the controversy was thus revived. then it was that mr. clay's talents shone out conspicuously, and the controversy that shook the union to its foundation was finally settled to the satisfaction of the conservative parties on both sides of the line, though not to the extremists on either, and missouri was admitted by the small majority of six in the lower house. how great a majority, do you think, would have been given had kansas also been secured for slavery? [a voice: "a majority the other way."] "a majority the other way," is answered. do you think it would have been safe for a northern man to have confronted his constituents after having voted to consign both missouri and kansas to hopeless slavery? and yet this man douglas, who misrepresents his constituents, and who has exerted his highest talents in that direction, will be carried in triumph through the state, and hailed with honour while applauding that act. [three groans for "_dug_!"] and this shows whither we are tending. this thing of slavery is more powerful than its supporters--even than the high priests that minister at its altar. it debauches even our greatest men. it gathers strength, like a rolling snow-ball, by its own infamy. monstrous crimes are committed in its name by persons collectively which they would not dare to commit as individuals. its aggressions and encroachments almost surpass belief. in a despotism, one might not wonder to see slavery advance steadily and remorselessly into new dominions; but is it not wonderful, is it not even alarming, to see its steady advance in a land dedicated to the proposition that "all men are created equal"? [sensation.] it yields nothing itself; it keeps all it has, and gets all it can besides. it really came dangerously near securing illinois in ; it did get missouri in . the first proposition was to admit what is now arkansas _and_ missouri as one slave state. but the territory was divided, and arkansas came in, without serious question, as a slave state; and afterward missouri, not as a sort of equality, _free_, but also as a slave state. then we had florida and texas; and now kansas is about to be forced into the dismal procession. [sensation.] and so it is wherever you look. we have not forgotten--it is but six years since--how dangerously near california came to being a slave state. texas is a slave state, and four other slave states may be carved from its vast domain. and yet, in the year , slavery was abolished throughout that vast region by a royal decree of the then sovereign of mexico. will you please tell me by what _right_ slavery exists in texas to-day? by the same right as, and no higher or greater than, slavery is seeking dominion in kansas: by political force--peaceful, if that will suffice; by the torch (as in kansas) and the bludgeon (as in the senate chamber), if required. and so history repeats itself; and even as slavery has kept its course by craft, intimidation, and violence in the past, so it will persist, in my judgment, until met and dominated by the will of a people bent on its restriction. we have, this very afternoon, heard bitter denunciations of brooks in washington, and titus, stringfellow, atchison, jones, and shannon in kansas--the battle-ground of slavery. i certainly am not going to advocate or shield them; but they and their acts are but the necessary outcome of the nebraska law. we should reserve our highest censure for the authors of the mischief, and not for the catspaws which they use. i believe it was shakespeare who said, "where the offence lies, there let the axe fall;" and, in my opinion, this man douglas and the northern men in congress who advocate "nebraska" are more guilty than a thousand joneses and stringfellows, with all their murderous practices, can be. [applause.] we have made a good beginning here to-day. as our methodist friends would say, "i feel it is good to be here." while extremists may find some fault with the moderation of our platform, they should recollect that "the battle is not always to the strong, nor the race to the swift." in grave emergencies, moderation is generally safer than radicalism: and as this struggle is likely to be long and earnest, we must not, by our action, repel any who are in sympathy with us in the main, but rather win all that we can to our standard. we must not belittle nor overlook the facts of our condition--that we are new and comparatively weak, while our enemies are entrenched and relatively strong. they have the administration and the political power; and, right or wrong, at present they have the numbers. our friends who urge an appeal to arms with so much force and eloquence, should recollect that the government is arrayed against us, and that the numbers are now arrayed against us as well; or, to state it nearer to the truth, they are not yet expressly and affirmatively for us; and we should repel friends rather than gain them by anything savouring of revolutionary methods. as it now stands, we must appeal to the sober sense and patriotism of the people. we will make converts day by day; we will grow strong by calmness and moderation; we will grow strong by the violence and injustice of our adversaries. and, unless truth be a mockery and justice a hollow lie, we will be in the majority after a while, and then the revolution which we will accomplish will be none the less radical from being the result of pacific measures. the battle of freedom is to be fought out on principle. slavery is a violation of the eternal right. we have temporized with it from the necessities of our condition; but _as sure as god reigns and school children read_, that black foul lie can never be consecrated into god's hallowed truth! [immense applause lasting some time.] one of our greatest difficulties is, that men who _know_ that slavery is a detestable crime and ruinous to the nation, are compelled, by our peculiar condition and other circumstances, to advocate it concretely, though damning it in the raw. henry clay was a brilliant example of this tendency; others of our purest statesmen are compelled to do so; and thus slavery secures actual support from those who detest it at heart. yet henry clay perfected and forced through the compromise which secured to slavery a great state as well as a political advantage. not that he hated slavery less, but that he loved the whole union more. as long as slavery profited by his great compromise, the hosts of pro-slavery could not sufficiently cover him with praise; but now that this compromise stands in their way-- "...they never mention him, his name is never heard: their lips are now forbid to speak that once familiar word." they have slaughtered one of his most cherished measures, and his ghost would arise to rebuke them. [great applause.] now, let us harmonize, my friends, and appeal to the moderation and patriotism of the people: to the sober second thought; to the awakened public conscience. the repeal of the sacred missouri compromise has installed the weapons of violence: the bludgeon, the incendiary torch, the death-dealing rifle, the bristling cannon--the weapons of kingcraft, of the inquisition, of ignorance, of barbarism, of oppression. we see its fruits in the dying bed of the heroic sumner; in the ruins of the "free state" hotel; in the smoking embers of the _herald of freedom_; in the free-state governor of kansas chained to a stake on freedom's soil like a horse-thief, for the crime of freedom. [applause.] we see it in christian statesmen, and christian newspapers, and christian pulpits, applauding _the cowardly act of a low bully_, who crawled upon his victim behind his back and dealt the deadly blow. [sensation and applause.] we note our political demoralization in the catch-words that are coming into such common use; on the one hand, "freedom-shriekers," and sometimes "freedom-screechers" [laughter]; and, on the other hand, "border ruffians," and that fully deserved. and the significance of catch-words cannot pass unheeded, for they constitute a sign of the times. everything in this world "jibes" in with everything else, and all the fruits of this nebraska bill are like the poisoned source from which they come. i will not say that we may not sooner or later be compelled to meet force by force; but the time has not yet come, and if we are true to ourselves, may never come. do not mistake that the ballot is stronger than the bullet. therefore let the legions of slavery use bullets; but let us wait patiently till november, and fire ballots at them in return; and by that peaceful policy, i believe we shall ultimately win. [applause.] it was by that policy that here in illinois the early fathers fought the good fight and gained the victory. in the free men of our state, led by governor coles (who was a native of maryland and president madison's private secretary), determined that those beautiful groves should never re-echo the dirge of one who has no title to himself. by their resolute determination, the winds that sweep across our broad prairies shall never cool the parched brow, nor shall the unfettered streams that bring joy and gladness to our free soil water the tired feet, of a _slave_; but so long as those heavenly breezes and sparkling streams bless the land, or the groves and their fragrance or their memory remain, the humanity to which they minister shall be for ever free! [great applause.] palmer, yates, williams, browning, and some more in this convention came from kentucky to illinois (instead of going to missouri), not only to better their conditions, but also to get away from slavery. they have said so to me, and it is understood among us kentuckians that we don't like it one bit. now, can we, mindful of the blessings of liberty which the early men of illinois left to us, refuse a like privilege to the free men who seek to plant freedom's banner on our western outposts? ["no! no!"] should we not stand by our neighbours who seek to better their conditions in kansas and nebraska? ["yes! yes!"] can we as christian men, and strong and free ourselves, wield the sledge or hold the iron which is to manacle anew an already oppressed race? ["no! no!"] "woe unto them," it is written, "that decree unrighteous decrees and that write grievousness which they have prescribed." can we afford to sin any more deeply against human liberty? ["no! no!"] one great trouble in the matter is, that slavery is an insidious and crafty power, and gains equally by open violence of the brutal as well as by sly management of the peaceful. even after the ordinance of , the settlers in indiana and illinois (it was all one government then) tried to get congress to allow slavery temporarily, and petitions to that end were sent from kaskaskia, and general harrison, the governor, urged it from vincennes the capital. if that had succeeded, good-bye to liberty here. but john randolph of virginia made a vigorous report against it; and although they persevered so well as to get three favourable reports for it, yet the united states senate, with the aid of some slave states, finally _squelched_ it for good. [applause.] and that is why this hall is to-day a temple for free men instead of a negro livery stable. [great applause and laughter.] once let slavery get planted in a locality, by ever so weak or doubtful a title, and in ever so small numbers, and it is like the canada thistle or bermuda grass--you can't root it out. you yourself may detest slavery; but your neighbour has five or six slaves, and he is an excellent neighbour, or your son has married his daughter, and they beg you to help save their property, and you vote against your interest and principles to accommodate a neighbour, hoping that your vote will be on the losing side. and others do the same; and in those ways slavery gets a sure foothold. and when that is done the whole mighty union--the force of the nation--is committed to its support. and that very process is working in kansas to-day. and you must recollect that the slave property is worth a billion of dollars ($ , , , ); while free-state men must work for sentiment alone. then there are "blue lodges"--as they call them--everywhere doing their secret and deadly work. it is a very strange thing, and not solvable by any moral law that i know of, that if a man loses his horse, the whole country will turn out to help hang the thief; but if a man but a shade or two darker than i am is himself stolen, the same crowd will hang one who aids in restoring him to liberty. such are the inconsistencies of slavery, where a horse is more sacred than a man; and the essence of _squatter_ or popular sovereignty--i don't care how you call it--is that if one man chooses to make a slave of another, no third man shall be allowed to object. and if you can do this in free kansas, and it is allowed to stand, the next thing you will see is ship-loads of negroes from africa at the wharf at charleston; for one thing is as truly lawful as the other; and these are the bastard notions we have got to stamp out, else they will stamp us out. [sensation and applause.] two years ago, at springfield, judge douglas avowed that illinois came into the union as a slave state, and that slavery was weeded out by the operation of his great, patent, everlasting principle of "popular sovereignty." [laughter.] well, now, that argument must be answered, for it has a little grain of truth at the bottom. i do not mean that it is true in essence, as he would have us believe. it could not be essentially true if the ordinance of ' was valid. but, in point of fact, there were some degraded beings called slaves in kaskaskia and the other french settlements when our first state constitution was adopted; that is a fact, and i don't deny it. slaves were brought here as early as , and were kept here in spite of the ordinance of against it. but slavery did not thrive here. on the contrary, under the influence of the ordinance, the number _decreased_ fifty-one from to ; while under the influence of _squatter_ sovereignty, right across the river in missouri, they _increased_ seven thousand two hundred and eleven in the same time; and slavery finally faded out in illinois, under the influence of the law of freedom, while it grew stronger and stronger in missouri, under the law or practice of "popular sovereignty." in point of fact there were but one hundred and seventeen slaves in illinois one year after its admission, or one to every four hundred and seventy of its population; or, to state it in another way, if illinois was a slave state in , so were new york and new jersey much greater slave states from having had greater numbers, slavery having been established there in very early times. but there is this vital difference between all these states and the judge's kansas experiment: that they sought to disestablish slavery which had been already established, while the judge seeks, so far as he can, to disestablish freedom, which had been established there by the missouri compromise. [voices: "good!"] the union is undergoing a fearful strain; but it is a stout old ship, and has weathered many a hard blow, and "the stars in their courses," aye, an invisible power, greater than the puny efforts of men, will fight for us. but we ourselves must not decline the burden of responsibility, nor take counsel of unworthy passions. whatever duty urges us to do or to omit, must be done or omitted; and the recklessness with which our adversaries break the laws, or counsel their violation, should afford no example for us. therefore, let us revere the declaration of independence; let us continue to obey the constitution and the laws; let us keep step to the music of the union. let us draw a cordon, so to speak, around the slave states, and the hateful institution, like a reptile poisoning itself, will perish by its own infamy. [applause.] but we cannot be free men if this is, by our national choice, to be a land of slavery. those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just god, cannot long retain it. [loud applause.] did you ever, my friends, seriously reflect upon the speed with which we are tending downward? within the memory of men now present the leading statesmen of virginia could make genuine, red-hot abolitionist speeches in old virginia; and, as i have said, now even in "free kansas" it is a crime to declare that it is "free kansas." the very sentiments that i and others have just uttered would entitle us, and each of us, to the ignominy and seclusion of a dungeon; and yet i suppose that, like paul, we were "free born." but if this thing is allowed to continue, it will be but one step further to impress the same rule in illinois. [sensation.] the conclusion of all is, that we must restore the missouri compromise. we must highly resolve that _kansas must be free_! [great applause.] we must reinstate the birthday promise of the republic; we must reaffirm the declaration of independence; we must make good in essence as well as in form madison's vowal that "the word _slave_ ought not to appear in the constitution;" and we must even go further, and decree that only local law, and not that time-honoured instrument, shall shelter a slave-holder. we must make this a land of liberty in fact, as it is in name. but in seeking to attain these results--so indispensable if the liberty which is our pride and boast shall endure--we will be loyal to the constitution and to the "flag of our union," and no matter what our grievance--even though kansas shall come in as a slave state; and no matter what theirs--even if we shall restore the compromise--we will say to the southern disunionists, we won't go out of the union, and you shan't!!! [this was the climax; the audience rose to its feet _en masse_, applauded, stamped, waved handkerchiefs, threw hats in the air, and ran riot for several minutes. the arch-enchanter who wrought this transformation looked, meanwhile, like the personification of political justice.] but let us, meanwhile, appeal to the sense and patriotism of the people, and not to their prejudices; let us spread the floods of enthusiasm here aroused all over these vast prairies, so suggestive of freedom. let us commence by electing the gallant soldier governor (colonel) bissell who stood for the honour of our state alike on the plains and amidst the chaparral of mexico and on the floor of congress, while he defied the southern hotspur; and that will have a greater moral effect than all the border ruffians can accomplish in all their raids on kansas. there is both a power and a magic in popular opinion. to that let us now appeal; and while, in all probability, no resort to force will be needed, our moderation and forbearance will stand us in good stead when, if ever, we must make an appeal to battle and to the god of hosts!! [immense applause and a rush for the orator.] this speech has been called lincoln's "lost speech," because all the reporters present were so carried away by his eloquence that they one and all forgot to take any notes. if it had not been for a young lawyer, a mr. h.c. whitney, who kept his head sufficiently to take notes, we would have no record of it. mr. whitney wrote out the speech for mcclure's magazine in . it was submitted to several people who were present at the bloomington convention, and they said it was remarkably accurate considering that it was not taken down stenographically. _from his speech on the dred scott decision. springfield, illinois. june , _ ... and now as to the dred scott decision. that decision declares two propositions,--first, that a negro cannot sue in the united states courts; and secondly, that congress cannot prohibit slavery in the territories. it was made by a divided court,--dividing differently on the different points. judge douglas does not discuss the merits of the decision, and in that respect i shall follow his example, believing i could no more improve on mclean and curtis than he could on taney. he denounces all who question the correctness of that decision, as offering violent resistance to it. but who resists it? who has, in spite of the decision, declared dred scott free, and resisted the authority of his master over him? judicial decisions have two uses: first, to absolutely determine the case decided; and secondly, to indicate to the public how other similar cases will be decided when they arise. for the latter use, they are called "precedents" and "authorities." we believe as much as judge douglas (perhaps more) in obedience to and respect for the judicial department of government. we think its decisions on constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control not only the particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed only by amendments of the constitution, as provided in that instrument itself. more than this would be revolution. but we think the dred scott decision is erroneous. we know the court that made it has often overruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it overrule this. we offer no resistance to it. judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents according to circumstances. that this should be so, accords both with common-sense and the customary understanding of the legal profession. if this important decision had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without any apparent partisan bias, and in accordance with legal public expectation, and with the steady practice of the departments throughout our history, and had been in no part based on assumed historical facts, which are not really true; or if wanting in some of these, it had been before the court more than once, and had there been affirmed and reaffirmed through a course of years,--it then might be, perhaps would be factious, nay, even revolutionary, not to acquiesce in it as a precedent. but when, as is true, we find it wanting in all these claims to the public confidence, it is not resistance, it is not factious, it is not even disrespectful to treat it as not having yet quite established a settled doctrine for the country. i have said in substance, that the dred scott decision was in part based on assumed historical facts which were not really true, and i ought not to leave the subject without giving some reasons for saying this, i therefore give an instance or two, which i think fully sustain me. chief justice taney, in delivering the opinion of the majority of the court, insists at great length that negroes were no part of the people who made, or for whom was made, the declaration of independence, or the constitution of the united states. on the contrary, judge curtis, in his dissenting opinion, shows that in five of the then thirteen states--to wit, new hampshire, massachusetts, new york, new jersey, and north carolina--free negroes were voters, and in proportion to their numbers had the same part in making the constitution that the white people had. he shows this with so much particularity as to leave no doubt of its truth; and as a sort of conclusion on that point, holds the following language: "the constitution was ordained and established by the people of the united states, through the action, in each state, of those persons who were qualified by its laws to act thereon in behalf of themselves and all other citizens of the state. in some of the states, as we have seen, coloured persons were among those qualified by law to act on the subject. these coloured persons were not only included in the body of 'the people of the united states' by whom the constitution was ordained and established; but in at least five of the states they had the power to act, and doubtless did act, by their suffrages, upon the question of its adoption." again, chief justice taney says: "it is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion, in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the declaration of independence, and when the constitution of the united states was framed and adopted." and again, after quoting from the declaration, he says: "the general words above quoted would seem to include the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day, would be so understood." in these the chief justice does not directly assert, but plainly assumes as a fact, that the public estimate of the black man is more favourable now than it was in the days of the revolution. this assumption is a mistake. in some trifling particulars the condition of that race has been ameliorated; but as a whole, in this country, the change between then and now is decidedly the other way; and their ultimate destiny has never appeared so hopeless as in the last three or four years. in two of the five states--new jersey and north carolina--that then gave the free negro the right of voting, the right has since been taken away; and in a third--new york--it has been greatly abridged: while it has not been extended, so far as i know, to a single additional state, though the number of the states has more than doubled. in those days, as i understand, masters could, at their own pleasure, emancipate their slaves; but since then such legal restraints have been made upon emancipation as to amount almost to prohibition. in those days legislatures held the unquestioned power to abolish slavery in their respective states; but now it is becoming quite fashionable for state constitutions to withhold that power from the legislatures. in those days, by common consent, the spread of the black man's bondage to the new countries was prohibited; but now congress decides that it will not continue the prohibition, and the supreme court decides that it could not if it would. in those days our declaration of independence was held sacred by all, and thought to include all; but now, to aid in making the bondage of the negro universal and eternal, it is assailed and sneered at, and construed, and hawked at, and torn, till, if its framers could rise from their graves, they could not at all recognize it. all the powers of earth seem rapidly combining against him. mammon is after him; ambition follows, philosophy follows, and the theology of the day is fast joining in the cry. they have him in his prison-house; they have searched his person, and left no prying instrument with him. one after another they have closed the heavy iron doors upon him; and now they have him, as it were, bolted in with a lock of a hundred keys, which can never be unlocked without the concurrence of every key; the keys in the hands of a hundred different men, and they scattered to a hundred different and distant places; and they stand musing as to what invention, in all the dominions of mind and matter, can be produced to make the impossibility of escape more complete than it is. it is grossly incorrect to say or assume that the public estimate of the negro is more favourable now than it was at the origin of the government. ... there is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people at the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races; and judge douglas evidently is basing his chief hope upon the chances of his being able to appropriate the benefit of this disgust to himself. if he can, by much drumming and repeating, fasten the odium of that idea upon his adversaries, he thinks he can struggle through the storm. he therefore clings to this hope as a drowning man to the last plank. he makes an occasion for lugging it in from the opposition to the dred scott decision. he finds the republicans insisting that the declaration of independence includes _all_ men, black as well as white; and forthwith he boldly denies that it includes negroes at all, and proceeds to argue gravely that all who contend it does, do so only because they want to vote, and eat, and sleep, and marry with negroes! he will have it that they cannot be consistent else. now i protest against the counterfeit logic which concludes that because i do not want a black woman for a slave, i must necessarily want her for a wife. i need not have her for either. i can just leave her alone. in some respects she certainly is not my equal; but in her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands without asking leave of any one else, she is my equal, and the equal of all others. chief justice taney, in his opinion in the dred scott case, admits that the language of the declaration is broad enough to include the whole human family; but he and judge douglas argue that the authors of that instrument did not intend to include negroes, by the fact that they did not at once actually place them on an equality with the whites. now this grave argument comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact that they did not at once, nor ever afterward, actually place all white people on an equality with one another. and this is the staple argument of both the chief justice and the senator, for doing this obvious violence to the plain, unmistakable language of the declaration. i think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include _all_ men, but they did not intend to declare all men equal _in all respects_. they did not mean to say that all were equal in colour, size, intellect, moral developments, or social capacity. they defined with tolerable distinctness in what respects they did consider all men created equal,--equal with "certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." this they said, and this they meant. they did not mean to assert the obvious untruth that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. in fact, they had no power to confer such a boon. they meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit. they meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all and revered by all,--constantly looked to, constantly laboured for, and, even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colours everywhere. the assertion that "all men are created equal," was of no practical use in effecting our separation from great britain; and it was placed in the declaration, not for that, but for future use. its authors meant it to be as, thank god, it is now proving itself, a stumbling-block to all those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back into the hateful paths of despotism. they knew the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants, and they meant, when such should reappear in this fair land and commence their vocation, that they should find left for them at least one hard nut to crack. i have now briefly expressed my view of the meaning and object of that part of the declaration of independence which declares that all men are created equal. now let us hear judge douglas's view of the same subject, as i find it in the printed report of his late speech. here it is: "no man can vindicate the character, motives and conduct of the signers of the declaration of independence except upon the hypothesis that they referred to the white race alone, and not to the african, when they declared all men to have been created equal; that they were speaking of british subjects on this continent being equal to british subjects born and residing in great britain; that they were entitled to the same inalienable rights, and among them were enumerated life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. the declaration was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in withdrawing their allegiance from the british crown, and dissolving their connection with the mother-country." my good friends, read that carefully over some leisure hour, and ponder well upon it; see what a mere wreck and mangled ruin judge douglas makes of our once glorious declaration. he says "they were speaking of british subjects on this continent being equal to british subjects born and residing in great britain!" why, according to this, not only negroes but white people outside of great britain and america were not spoken of in that instrument. the english, irish, and scotch, along with white americans, were included, to be sure; but the french, germans, and other white people of the world are all gone to pot along with the judge's inferior races! i had thought that the declaration promised something better than the condition of british subjects; but no, it only meant that we should be equal to them in their own oppressed and unequal condition. according to that, it gave no promise that, having kicked off the king and lords of great britain, we should not at once be saddled with a king and lords of our own. i had thought the declaration contemplated the progressive improvement in the condition of all men, everywhere; but no, it merely "was adopted for the purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in withdrawing their allegiance from the british crown, and dissolving their connection with the mother-country." why, that object having been effected some eighty years ago, the declaration is of no practical use now--mere rubbish--old wadding, left to rot on the battle-field after the victory is won. i understand you are preparing to celebrate the "fourth," to-morrow week. what for? the doings of that day had no reference to the present; and quite half of you are not even descendants of those who were referred to at that day. but i suppose you will celebrate, and will even go so far as to read the declaration. suppose, after you read it once in the old-fashioned way, you read it once more with judge douglas's version. it will then run thus: "we told these truths to be self-evident, that all british subjects who were on this continent eighty-one years ago, were created equal to all british subjects born and then residing in great britain!" ... the very dred scott case affords a strong test as to which party most favours amalgamation, the republicans or the dear union-saving democracy. dred scott, his wife and two daughters, were all involved in the suit. we desired the court to have held that they were citizens, so far at least as to entitle them to a hearing as to whether they were free or not; and then also, that they were in fact and in law really free. could we have had our way, the chances of these black girls ever mixing their blood with that of white people would have been diminished at least to the extent that it could not have been without their consent. but judge douglas is delighted to have them decided to be slaves, and not human enough to have a hearing, even if they were free, and thus left subject to the forced concubinage of their masters, and liable to become the mothers of mulattoes in spite of themselves,--the very state of the case that produces nine-tenths of all the mulattoes, all the mixing of the blood of the nation. _"a house divided against itself cannot stand." on lincoln's nomination to the united states senate. springfield, illinois. june , _ if we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. we are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. in my opinion it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "a house divided against itself cannot stand." i believe this government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free. i do not expect the union to be dissolved,--i do not expect the house to fall; but i do expect it will cease to be divided. it will become all one thing, or all the other. either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new, north as well as south. have we no tendency to the latter condition? let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination--piece of machinery, so to speak--compounded of the nebraska doctrine and the dred scott decision. let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; but also let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design and concert of action among its chief architects from the beginning. the new year of found slavery excluded from more than half the states by state constitutions, and from most of the national territory by congressional prohibition. four days later commenced the struggle which ended in repealing that congressional prohibition. this opened all the national territory to slavery, and was the first point gained. but so far, congress only had acted; and an indorsement by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable to save the point already gained and give chance for more. this necessity had not been overlooked, but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of _squatter sovereignty_, otherwise called _sacred right of self-government_, which latter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it, as to amount to just this: that if any one man choose to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object. that argument was incorporated into the nebraska bill itself, in the language which follows: "it being the true intent and meaning of this act, not to legislate slavery into any territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the united states." then opened the roar of loose declamation in favour of _squatter sovereignty_ and _sacred right of self-government_. "but," said opposition members, "let us amend the bill so as to expressly declare that the people of the territory may exclude slavery." "not we," said the friends of the measure, and down they voted the amendment. while the nebraska bill was passing through congress, a _law case_, involving the question of a negro's freedom, by reason of his owner having voluntarily taken him first into a free state and then into a territory covered by the congressional prohibition, and held him as a slave for a long time in each, was passing through the united states circuit court for the district of missouri; and both nebraska bill and law-suit were brought to a decision, in the same month of may, . the negro's name was "dred scott," which name now designates the decision finally rendered in the case. before the then next presidential election, the law case came to, and was argued, in the supreme court of the united states; but the decision of it was deferred until after the election. still, before the election, senator trumbull, on the floor of the senate, requested the leading advocate of the nebraska bill to state _his opinion_ whether the people of a territory can constitutionally exclude slavery from their limits, and the latter answers: "that is a question for the supreme court." the election came. mr. buchanan was elected, and the indorsement, such as it was, secured. that was the second point gained. the indorsement, however, fell short of a clear popular majority by nearly four hundred thousand votes, and so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly reliable and satisfactory. the outgoing president, in his last annual message, as impressively as possible echoed back upon the people the weight and authority of the indorsement. the supreme court met again; did not announce their decision, but ordered a reargument. the presidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the court; but the incoming president in his inaugural address fervently exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever it might be. then, in a few days, came the decision. the reputed author of the nebraska bill finds an early occasion to make a speech at this capitol, indorsing the dred scott decision, and vehemently denouncing all opposition to it. the new president, too, seizes the early occasion of the silliman letter to indorse and strongly construe that decision, and to express his astonishment that any different view had ever been entertained! at length a squabble springs up between the president and the author of the nebraska bill, on the mere question of _fact_ whether the lecompton constitution was, or was not, in any just sense, made by the people of kansas; and in that quarrel, the latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether slavery be voted _down_ or _voted up_. i do not understand his declaration that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up, to be intended by him other than as an apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the public mind,--the principle for which he declares he has suffered so much, and is ready to suffer to the end. and well may he cling to that principle. if he has any parental feeling, well may he cling to it. that principle is the only shred left of his original nebraska doctrine. under the dred scott decision, "squatter sovereignty" squatted out of existence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding; like the mould at the foundry, it served through one blast, and fell back into loose sand,--helped to carry an election, and then was kicked to the winds. his late joint struggle with the republicans against the lecompton constitution, involves nothing of the original nebraska doctrine. that struggle was made on a point--the right of the people to make their own constitution--upon which he and the republicans have never differed. the several points of the dred scott decision in connection with senator douglas's "care not" policy, constitute the piece of machinery in its present state of advancement. this was the third point gained. the working points of that machinery are: _first._ that no negro slave, imported as such from africa, and no descendant of such slave, can ever be a citizen of any state, in the sense of that term as used in the constitution of the united states. this point is made in order to deprive the negro, in every possible event, of the benefit of that provision of the united states constitution which declares that "citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." _secondly._ that "subject to the constitution of the united states," neither congress nor a territorial legislature can exclude slavery from any united states territory. this point is made in order that individual men may fill up the territories with slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and thus enhance the chances of permanency to the institution through all the future. _thirdly._ that whether the holding a negro in actual slavery in a free state makes him free as against the holder, the united states courts will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave state the negro may be forced into by the master. this point is made, not to be pressed immediately; but if acquiesced in for a while, and apparently indorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what dred scott's master might lawfully do with dred scott in the free state of illinois, every other master may lawfully do, with any other one, or one thousand slaves in illinois, or in any other free state. auxiliary to all this, and working hand-in-hand with it, the nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mould public opinion not to care whether slavery is voted down or voted up. this shows exactly where we now are, and partially, also, whither we are tending. it will throw additional light on the latter, to go back, and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. the people were to be left "perfectly free," "subject only to the constitution." what the constitution had to do with it, outsiders could not then see. plainly enough now: it was an exactly fitted niche for the dred scott decision to afterwards come in, and declare the perfect freedom of the people to be just no freedom at all. why was the amendment expressly declaring the right of the people voted down? plainly enough now: the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the dred scott decision. why was the court decision held up? why even a senator's individual opinion withheld till after the presidential election? plainly enough now: the speaking out then would have damaged the perfectly free argument upon which the election was to be carried. why the outgoing president's felicitation on the indorsement? why the delay of a reargument? why the incoming president's advance exhortation in favour of the decision? these things look like the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse, preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. and why the hasty after-indorsement of the decision by the president and others? we cannot absolutely know that all these adaptations are the result of preconcert. but when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places, and by different workmen--stephen, franklin, roger, and james, for instance (douglas, pierce, taney, buchanan),--and when we see those timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, not omitting even scaffolding--or if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in,--in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that stephen and franklin and roger and james all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft, drawn up before the first blow was struck. it should not be overlooked that by the nebraska bill the people of a state as well as territory were to be left "perfectly free," "subject only to the constitution." why mention a state? they were legislating for territories, and not for or about states. certainly the people of a state are and ought to be subject to the constitution of the united states; but why is mention of this lugged into this merely territorial law? why are the people of a territory and the people of a state therein lumped together, and their relation to the constitution therein treated as being precisely the same? while the opinion of the court by chief justice taney, in the dred scott case, and the separate opinions of all the concurring judges, expressly declare that the constitution of the united states neither permits congress nor a territorial legislature to exclude slavery from any united states territory, they all omit to declare whether or not the same constitution permits a state or the people of a state to exclude it. _possibly_ this is a mere omission; but who can be quite sure if mclean or curtis had sought to get into the opinion a declaration of unlimited power in the people of a state to exclude slavery from their limits,--just as chase and mace sought to get such declaration in behalf of the people of a territory, into the nebraska bill,--i ask, who can be quite sure that it would not have been voted down in the one case as it had been in the other? the nearest approach to the point of declaring the power of a state over slavery is made by judge nelson. he approaches it more than once, using the precise idea, and almost the language too, of the nebraska act. on one occasion his exact language is "except in cases where the power is restrained by the constitution of the united states, the law of the state is supreme over the subject of slavery within its jurisdiction." in what cases the power of the state is so restrained by the united states constitution is left an open question, precisely as the same question, as to the restraint on the power of the territories, was left open in the nebraska act. put this and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another supreme court decision, declaring that the constitution of the united states does not permit _a state_ to exclude slavery from its limits. and this may especially be expected if the doctrine of "care not whether slavery be voted down or voted up" shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can be maintained when made. such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the states. welcome or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and overthrown. we shall lie down, pleasantly dreaming that the people of missouri are on the verge of making their state free, and we shall awake to the reality instead, that the supreme court has made illinois a slave state. to meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation. that is what we have to do. how can we best do it? there are those who denounce us openly to their own friends, and yet whisper to us softly that senator douglas is the aptest instrument there is with which to effect that object. they wish us to _infer_ all from the fact that he now has a little quarrel with the present head of that dynasty, and that he has regularly voted with us on a single point, upon which he and we have never differed. they remind us that he is a great man and that the largest of us are very small ones. let this be granted. but "a living dog is better than a dead lion." judge douglas, if not a dead lion, for this work is at least a caged and toothless one. how can he oppose the advances of slavery? he don't care anything about it. his avowed mission is impressing the "public heart" to _care nothing about it_. a leading douglas democratic newspaper thinks douglas's superior talent will be needed to resist the revival of the african slave-trade. does douglas believe an effort to revive that trade is approaching? he has not said so. does he really think so? but if it is, how can he resist it? for years he has laboured to prove it a sacred right of white men to take negro slaves into the new territories. can he possibly show that it is a less sacred right to buy them where they can be bought cheapest? and unquestionably they can be bought cheaper in africa than in virginia. he has done all in his power to reduce the whole question of slavery to one of a mere right of property: and, as such, how can he oppose the foreign slave-trade?--how can he refuse that trade in that property shall be "perfectly free," unless he does it as a protection to home production? and as the home producers will probably not ask the protection, he will be wholly without a ground of opposition. senator douglas holds, we know, that a man may rightfully be wiser to-day than he was yesterday--that he may rightfully change when he finds himself wrong. but can we, for that reason, run ahead, and infer that he will make any particular change, of which he himself has given no intimation? can we safely base our action upon any such vague inference? now, as ever, i wish not to misrepresent judge douglas's position, question his motives, or do aught that can be personally offensive to him. whenever, if ever, he and we can come together on principle, so that our cause may have assistance from his great ability, i hope to have interposed no adventitious obstacle. but, clearly, he is not now with us--he does not pretend to be--he does not promise ever to be. our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by, its own undoubted friends--those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work, who do care for the result. two years ago the republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. we did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us. of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. did we brave all then to falter now?--now, when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent? the result is not doubtful. we shall not fail. if we stand firm, we shall not fail. wise counsels may accelerate or mistakes delay it; but sooner or later the victory is sure to come. _lincoln's reply to judge douglas at chicago on popular sovereignty, the nebraska bill, etc. july , _ ... popular sovereignty! everlasting popular sovereignty! let us for a moment inquire into this vast matter of popular sovereignty. what is popular sovereignty? we recollect that at an early period in the history of this struggle, there was another name for the same thing,--_squatter sovereignty_. it was not exactly popular sovereignty, but squatter sovereignty. what do these terms mean? what do those terms mean when used now? and vast credit is taken by our friend, the judge, in regard to his support of it, when he declares the last years of his life have been, and all the future years of his life shall be, devoted to this matter of popular sovereignty. what is it? why, it is the sovereignty of the people! what was squatter sovereignty? i suppose, if it had any signification at all, it was the right of the people to govern themselves, to be sovereign in their own affairs, while they were squatted down in a country not their own,--while they had squatted on a territory that did not belong to them, in the sense that a state belongs to the people who inhabit it,--when it belonged to the nation; such right to govern themselves was called "squatter sovereignty." now, i wish you to mark, what has become of that squatter sovereignty? what has become of it? can you get anybody to tell you now that the people of a territory have any authority to govern themselves, in regard to this mooted question of slavery, before they form a state constitution? no such thing at all, although there is a general running fire, and although there has been a hurrah made in every speech on that side, assuming that policy had given to the people of a territory the right to govern themselves upon this question; yet the point is dodged. to-day it has been decided--no more than a year ago it was decided by the supreme court of the united states, and is insisted upon to-day--that the people of a territory have no right to exclude slavery from a territory; that if any one man chooses to take slaves into a territory, all the rest of the people have no right to keep them out. this being so, and this decision being made, one of the points that the judge approved, and one in the approval of which he says he means to keep me down,--_put_ me down i should not say, for i have never been up! he says he is in favour of it, and sticks to it, and expects to win his battle on that decision, which says that there is no such thing as squatter sovereignty, but that any one man may take slaves into a territory, and all the other men in the territory may be opposed to it, and yet by reason of the constitution they cannot prohibit it. when that is so, how much is left of this vast matter of squatter sovereignty, i should like to know? when we get back, we get to the point of the right of the people to make a constitution. kansas was settled, for example, in . it was a territory yet, without having formed a constitution, in a very regular way, for three years. all this time negro slavery could be taken in by any few individuals, and by that decision of the supreme court, which the judge approves, all the rest of the people cannot keep it out; but when they come to make a constitution they may say they will not have slavery. but it is there; they are obliged to tolerate it in some way, and all experience shows it will be so,--for they will not take the negro slaves and absolutely deprive the owners of them. all experience shows this to be so. all that space of time that runs from the beginning of the settlement of the territory until there is a sufficiency of people to make a state constitution,--all that portion of time popular sovereignty is given up. the seal is absolutely put down upon it by the court decision, and judge douglas puts his own upon the top of that; yet he is appealing to the people to give him vast credit for his devotion to popular sovereignty. again, when we get to the question of the right of the people to form a state constitution as they please, to form it with slavery or without slavery,--if that is anything new i confess i don't know it. has there ever been a time when anybody said that any other than the people of a territory itself should form a constitution? what is now in it that judge douglas should have fought several years of his life, and pledge himself to fight all the remaining years of his life for? can judge douglas find anybody on earth that said that anybody else should form a constitution for a people?... it is enough for my purpose to ask, whenever a republican said anything against it? they never said anything against it, but they have constantly spoken for it; and whosoever will undertake to examine the platform and the speeches of responsible men of the party, and of irresponsible men, too, if you please, will be unable to find one word from anybody in the republican ranks opposed to that popular sovereignty which judge douglas thinks he has invented. i suppose that judge douglas will claim in a little while that he is the inventor of the idea that the people should govern themselves; that nobody ever thought of such a thing until he brought it forward. we do not remember that in that old declaration of independence it is said that "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." there is the origin of popular sovereignty. who, then, shall come in at this day and claim that he invented it? the lecompton constitution connects itself with this question, for it is in this matter of the lecompton constitution that our friend judge douglas claims such vast credit. i agree that in opposing the lecompton constitution, so far as i can perceive, he was right. i do not deny that at all; and, gentlemen, you will readily see why i could not deny it, even if i wanted to. but i do not wish to, for all the republicans in the nation opposed it, and they would have opposed it just as much without judge douglas's aid as with it. they had all taken ground against it long before he did. why, the reason that he urges against that constitution i urged against him a year before. i have the printed speech in my hand. the argument that he makes why that constitution should not be adopted, that the people were not fairly represented nor allowed to vote, i pointed out in a speech a year ago, which i hold in my hand now, that no fair chance was to be given to the people. ... a little more now as to this matter of popular sovereignty and the lecompton constitution. the lecompton constitution, as the judge tells us, was defeated. the defeat of it was a good thing, or it was not. he thinks the defeat of it was a good thing, and so do i; and we agree in that. who defeated it? [a voice: "judge douglas."] yes, he furnished himself; and if you suppose he controlled the other democrats that went with him, he furnished three votes, while the republicans furnished twenty. that is what he did to defeat it. in the house of representatives he and his friends furnished some twenty votes, and the republicans furnished ninety odd. now, who was it that did the work? [a voice: "douglas."] why, yes, douglas did it? to be sure he did! let us, however, put that proposition another way. the republicans could not have done it without judge douglas. could he have done it without them? which could have come the nearest to doing it without the other? ground was taken against it by the republicans long before douglas did it. the proposition of opposition to that measure is about five to one. [a voice: "why don't they come out on it?"] you don't know what you are talking about, my friend; i am quite willing to answer any gentleman in the crowd who asks an intelligent question. now, who in all this country has ever found any of our friends of judge douglas's way of thinking, and who have acted upon this main question, that have ever thought of uttering a word in behalf of judge trumbull? i defy you to show a printed resolution passed in a democratic meeting. i take it upon myself to defy any man to show a printed resolution, large or small, of a democratic meeting in favour of judge trumbull, or any of the five to one republicans who beat that bill. everything must be for the democrats! they did everything, and the five to the one that really did the thing, they snub over, and they do not seem to remember that they have an existence upon the face of the earth. gentlemen, i fear that i shall become tedious. i leave this branch of the subject to take hold of another. i take up that part of judge douglas's speech in which he respectfully attended to me. judge douglas made two points upon my recent speech at springfield. he says they are to be the issues of this campaign. the first one of these points he bases upon the language in a speech which i delivered at springfield, which i believe i can quote correctly from memory. i said that "we are now far into the fifth year since a policy was instituted for the avowed object and with the confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation; under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. i believe it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. 'a house divided against itself cannot stand.' i believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. i do not expect the union to be dissolved,"--i am quoting from my speech,--"i do not expect the house to fall, but i do expect it will cease to be divided. it will become all one thing or all the other. either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new; north as well as south." that is the paragraph! in this paragraph which i have quoted in your hearing, and to which i ask the attention of all, judge douglas thinks he discovers great political heresy. i want your attention particularly to what he has inferred from it. he says i am in favour of making all the states of this union uniform in all their internal regulations; that in all their domestic concerns i am in favour of making them entirely uniform. he draws this inference from the language i have quoted to you. he says that i am in favour of making war by the north upon the south for the extinction of slavery; that i am also in favour of inviting (as he expresses it) the south to a war upon the north for the purpose of nationalizing slavery. now, it is singular enough, if you will carefully read that passage over, that i did not say that i was in favour of anything in it. i only said what i expected would take place. i made a prediction only,--it may have been a foolish one, perhaps. i did not even say that i desired that slavery should be put in course of ultimate extinction. i do say so now, however; so there need be no longer any difficulty about that. it may be written down in the great speech. gentlemen, judge douglas informed you that this speech of mine was probably carefully prepared. i admit that it was. i am not master of language; i have not a fine education; i am not capable of entering into a disquisition upon dialectics, as i believe you call it; but i do not believe the language i employed bears any such construction as judge douglas puts upon it. but i don't care about a quibble in regard to words. i know what i meant, and i will not leave this crowd in doubt, if i can explain it to them, what i really meant in the use of that paragraph. i am not, in the first place, unaware that this government has endured eighty-two years, half slave and half free. i know that. i am tolerably well acquainted with the history of the country, and i know that it has endured eighty-two years, half slave and half free. i believe--and that is what i meant to allude to there--i believe it has endured, because, during all that time, until the introduction of the nebraska bill, the public mind did rest all the time in the belief that slavery was in course of ultimate extinction. that was what gave us the rest that we had through that period of eighty-two years; at least, so i believe. i have always hated slavery, i think, as much as any abolitionist,--i have been an old-line whig,--i have always hated it, but i have always been quiet about it until this new era of the introduction of the nebraska bill began. i always believed that everybody was against it, and that it was in course of ultimate extinction.... they had reason so to believe. the adoption of the constitution and its attendant history led the people to believe so, and that such was the belief of the framers of the constitution itself. why did those old men, about the time of the adoption of the constitution, decree that slavery should not go into the new territory where it had not already gone? why declare that within twenty years the african slave-trade, by which slaves are supplied, might be cut off by congress? why were all these acts? i might enumerate more of these acts; but enough. what were they but a clear indication that the framers of the constitution intended and expected the ultimate extinction of that institution? and now when i say,--as i said in my speech that judge douglas has quoted from,--when i say that i think the opponents of slavery will resist the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, i only mean to say that they will place it where the founders of this government originally placed it. i have said a hundred times, and i have now no inclination to take it back, that i believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination in the people of the free states, to enter into the slave states and interfere with the question of slavery at all. i have said that always; judge douglas has heard me say it. and when it is said that i am in favour of interfering with slavery where it exists, i know it is unwarranted by anything i have ever intended, and, as i believe, by anything i have ever said. if by any means i have ever used language which could fairly be so construed (as, however, i believe i never have), i now correct it. so much, then, for the inference that judge douglas draws, that i am in favour of setting the sections at war with one another. i know that i never meant any such thing, and i believe that no fair mind can infer any such thing from anything i have said. now, in relation to his inference that i am in favour of a general consolidation of all the local institutions of the various states.... i have said very many times in judge douglas's hearing that no man believed more than i in the principle of self-government; that it lies at the bottom of all my ideas of just government from beginning to end. i have denied that his use of that term applies properly. but for the thing itself i deny that any man has ever gone ahead of me in his devotion to the principle, whatever he may have done in efficiency in advocating it. i think that i have said it in your hearing, that i believe each individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruit of his labour, so far as it in no wise interferes with any other man's rights; that each community, as a state, has a right to do exactly as it pleases with all the concerns within that state that interfere with the right of no other state; and that the general government upon principle has no right to interfere with anything other than that general class of things that does concern the whole. i have said that at all times; i have said as illustrations that i do not believe in the right of illinois to interfere with the cranberry laws of indiana, the oyster laws of virginia, or the liquor laws of maine. how is it, then, that judge douglas infers, because i hope to see slavery put where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, that i am in favour of illinois going over and interfering with the cranberry laws of indiana? what can authorize him to draw any such inference? i suppose there might be one thing that at least enabled him to draw such an inference, that would not be true with me or many others; that is, because he looks upon all this matter of slavery as an exceedingly little thing,--this matter of keeping one-sixth of the population of the whole nation in a state of oppression and tyranny unequalled in the world. he looks upon it as being an exceedingly little thing, only equal to the question of the cranberry laws of indiana; as something having no moral question in it; as something on a par with the question of whether a man shall pasture his land with cattle or plant it with tobacco; so little and so small a thing that he concludes, if i could desire that anything should be done to bring about the ultimate extinction of that little thing, i must be in favour of bringing about an amalgamation of all the other little things in the union. now, it so happens--and there, i presume, is the foundation of this mistake--that the judge thinks thus; and it so happens that there is a vast portion of the american people that do not look upon that matter as being this very little thing. they look upon it as a vast moral evil; they can prove it as such by the writings of those who gave us the blessings of liberty which we enjoy, and that they so looked upon it, and not as an evil merely confining itself to the states where it is situated; and while we agree that by the constitution we assented to, in the states where it exists we have no right to interfere with it, because it is in the constitution, we are both by duty and inclination to stick by that constitution in all its letter and spirit from beginning to end. so much, then, as to my disposition, my wish, to have all the state legislatures blotted out and to have one consolidated government and a uniformity of domestic regulations in all the states; by which i suppose it is meant, if we raise corn here we must make sugar-cane grow here too, and we must make those things which grow north grow in the south. all this i suppose he understands i am in favour of doing. now, so much for all this nonsense--for i must call it so. the judge can have no issue with me on a question of establishing uniformity in the domestic regulations of the states. a little now on the other point,--the dred scott decision. another of the issues, he says, that is to be made with me is upon his devotion to the dred scott decision and my opposition to it. i have expressed heretofore, and i now repeat, my opposition to the dred scott decision; but i should be allowed to state the nature of that opposition, and i ask your indulgence while i do so. what is fairly implied by the term judge douglas has used, "resistance to the decision"? i do not resist it. if i wanted to take dred scott from his master i would be interfering with property, and that terrible difficulty that judge douglas speaks of, of interfering with property, would arise. but i am doing no such thing as that; all that i am doing is refusing to obey it as a political rule. if i were in congress, and a vote should come up on a question whether slavery should be prohibited in a new territory, in spite of the dred scott decision, i would vote that it should. that is what i would do. judge douglas said last night that before the decision he might advance his opinion, and it might be contrary to the decision when it was made; but after it was made he would abide by it until it was reversed. just so! we let this property abide by the decision, but we will try to reverse that decision. we will try to put it where judge douglas would not object, for he says he will obey it until it is reversed. somebody has to reverse that decision, since it is made; and we mean to reverse it, and we mean to do it peaceably. what are the uses of decisions of courts? they have two uses. first, they decide upon the question before the court. they decide in this case that dred scott is a slave. nobody resists that. not only that, but they say to everybody else that persons standing just as dred scott stands are as he is. that is, they say that when a question comes up upon another person it will be so decided again, unless the court decides another way, unless the court overrules its decision. well, we mean to do what we can to have the court decide the other way. that is one thing we mean to try to do. the sacredness that judge douglas throws around this decision is a degree of sacredness that has never been before thrown around any other decision. i have never heard of such a thing. why, decisions apparently contrary to that decision, or that good lawyers thought were contrary to that decision, have been made by that very court before. it is the first of its kind; it is an astonisher in legal history; it is a new wonder of the world; it is based upon falsehood in the main as to the facts,--allegations of facts upon which it stands are not facts at all in many instances,--and no decision made on any question--the first instance of a decision made under so many unfavourable circumstances--thus placed, has ever been held by the profession as law, and it has always needed confirmation before the lawyers regarded it as settled law; but judge douglas will have it that all hands must take this extraordinary decision made under these extraordinary circumstances and give their vote in congress in accordance with it, yield to it, and obey it in every possible sense. circumstances alter cases. do not gentlemen here remember the case of that same supreme court some twenty-five or thirty years ago, deciding that a national bank was constitutional? i ask if somebody does not remember that a national bank was declared to be constitutional? such is the truth, whether it be remembered or not. the bank charter ran out, and a re-charter was granted by congress. that re-charter was laid before general jackson. it was urged upon him, when he denied the constitutionality of the bank, that the supreme court had decided that it was constitutional; and general jackson then said that the supreme court had no right to lay down a rule to govern a coordinate branch of the government, the members of which had sworn to support the constitution,--that each member had sworn to support the constitution as he understood it. i will venture here to say that i have heard judge douglas say that he approved of general jackson for that act. what has now become of all his tirade against "resistance to the supreme court"? my fellow-citizens, getting back a little,--for i pass from these points,--when judge douglas makes his threat of annihilation upon the "alliance," he is cautious to say that that warfare of his is to fall upon the leaders of the republican party. almost every word he utters and every distinction he makes has its significance. he means for the republicans who do not count themselves as leaders to be his friends; he makes no fuss over them, it is the leaders that he is making war upon. he wants it understood that the mass of the republican party are really his friends. it is only the leaders that are doing something, that are intolerant, and require extermination at his hands. as this is clearly and unquestionably the light in which he presents that matter, i want to ask your attention, addressing myself to republicans here, that i may ask you some questions as to where you, as the republican party, would be placed if you sustained judge douglas in his present position by a re-election? i do not claim, gentlemen, to be unselfish; i do not pretend that i would not like to go to the united states senate,--i make no such hypocritical pretence; but i do say to you, that in this mighty issue it is nothing to you, nothing to the mass of the people of the nation, whether or not judge douglas or myself shall ever be heard of after this night. it may be a trifle to either of us; but in connection with this mighty question, upon which hang the destinies of the nation, perhaps, it is absolutely nothing. but where will you be placed if you reindorse judge douglas? don't you know how apt he is, how exceedingly anxious he is, at all times to seize upon anything and everything to persuade you that something he has done you did yourselves? why, he tried to persuade you last night that our illinois legislature instructed him to introduce the nebraska bill. there was nobody in that legislature ever thought of it; but still he fights furiously for the proposition; and that he did it because there was a standing instruction to our senators to be always introducing nebraska bills. he tells you he is for the cincinnati platform; he tells you he is for the dred scott decision; he tells you--not in his speech last night, but substantially in a former speech--that he cares not if slavery is voted up or down; he tells you the struggle on lecompton is past,--it may come up again or not, and if it does, he stands where he stood when, in spite of him and his opposition, you built up the republican party. if you indorse him, you tell him you do not care whether slavery be voted up or down, and he will close, or try to close, your mouths with his declaration, repeated by the day, the week, the month, and the year. i think, in the position in which judge douglas stood in opposing the lecompton constitution, he was right; he does not know that it will return, but if it does we may know where to find him; and if it does not, we may know where to look for him, and that is on the cincinnati platform. now, i could ask the republican party, after all the hard names judge douglas has called them by, ... all his declarations of black republicanism--(by the way, we are improving, the black has got rubbed off), but with all that, if he be indorsed by republican votes, where do you stand? plainly, you stand ready saddled, bridled, and harnessed, and waiting to be driven over to the slavery-extension camp of the nation,--just ready to be driven over, tied together in a lot,--to be driven over, every man with a rope around his neck, that halter being held by judge douglas. that is the question. if republican men have been in earnest in what they have done, i think they had better not do it; but i think the republican party is made up of those who, as far as they can peaceably, will oppose the extension of slavery, and who will hope for its ultimate extinction. if they believe it is wrong in grasping up the new lands of the continent, and keeping them from the settlement of free white labourers, who want the land to bring up their families upon; if they are in earnest,--although they may make a mistake, they will grow restless, and the time will come when they will come back again and reorganize, if not by the same name, at least upon the same principles as their party now has. it is better, then, to save the work while it is begun. you have done the labour; maintain it, keep it. if men choose to serve you, go with them; but as you have made up your organization upon principle, stand by it; for, as surely as god reigns over you, and has inspired your minds and given you a sense of propriety and continues to give you hope, so surely will you still cling to these ideas, and you will at last come back again after your wanderings, merely to do your work over again. we were often,--more than once, at least,--in the course of judge douglas's speech last night, reminded that this government was made for white men,--that he believed it was made for white men. well, that is putting it into a shape in which no one wants to deny it; but the judge then goes into his passion for drawing inferences that are not warranted. i protest, now and for ever, against that counterfeit logic which presumes that, because i do not want a negro woman for a slave, i do necessarily want her for a wife. my understanding is, that i need not have her for either; but, as god made us separate, we can leave one another alone, and do one another much good thereby. there are white men enough to marry all the white women, and enough black men to marry all the black women; and in god's name let them be so married. the judge regales us with the terrible enormities that take place by the mixture of races; that the inferior race bears the superior down. why, judge, if we do not let them get together in the territories, they won't mix there. i should say at least that that was a self-evident truth. now, it happens that we meet together once every year, somewhere about the th of july, for some reason or other. these th of july gatherings, i suppose, have their uses. if you will indulge me, i will state what i suppose to be some of them. we are now a mighty nation: we are thirty, or about thirty, millions of people, and we own and inhabit about one-fifteenth part of the dry land of the whole earth. we run our memory back over the pages of history for about eighty-two years, and we discover that we were then a very small people in point of numbers, vastly inferior to what we are now, with a vastly less extent of country, with vastly less of everything we deem desirable among men. we look upon the change as exceedingly advantageous to us and to our posterity, and we fix upon something that happened away back, as in some way or other being connected with this rise of prosperity. we find a race of men living in that day whom we claim as our fathers and grandfathers; they were iron men; they fought for the principle that they were contending for, and we understand that by what they then did, it has followed that the degree of prosperity which we now enjoy has come to us. we hold this annual celebration to remind ourselves of all the good done in this process of time,--of how it was done, and who did it, and how we are historically connected with it; and we go from these meetings in better humour with ourselves,--we feel more attached the one to the other, and more firmly bound to the country we inhabit. in every way we are better men, in the age and race and country in which we live, for these celebrations. but after we have done all this, we have not yet reached the whole. there is something else connected with it. we have, besides these men--descended by blood from our ancestors--among us, perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men; they are men who have come from europe,--german, irish, french, and scandinavian,--men that have come from europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equal in all things. if they look back through this history, to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none: they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us; but when they look through that old declaration of independence, they find that those old men say that "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh, of the men who wrote that declaration; and so they are. that is the electric cord in that declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together; that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world. now, sirs, for the purpose of squaring things with this idea of "don't care if slavery is voted up or voted down"; for sustaining the dred scott decision; for holding that the declaration of independence did not mean anything at all,--we have judge douglas giving his exposition of what the declaration of independence means, and we have him saying that the people of america are equal to the people of england. according to his construction, you germans are not connected with it. now, i ask you in all soberness, if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmed and indorsed, if taught to our children and repeated to them, do not tend to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to transform this government into a government of some other form? those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow,--what are these arguments? they are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. you will find that all the arguments in favour of kingcraft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people,--not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. that is their argument; and this argument of the judge is the same old serpent, that says, "you work, and i eat; you toil, and i will enjoy the fruits of it." turn in whatever way you will,--whether it come from the mouth of a king, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race,--it is all the same old serpent; and i hold, if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that we should not care about this, should be granted, it does not stop with the negro. i should like to know--taking this old declaration of independence, which declares that all men are equal, upon principle, and making exceptions to it--where will it stop? if one man says it does not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man? if that declaration is not the truth, let us get the statute-book in which we find it, and tear it out! who is so bold as to do it? if it is not true, let us tear it out. [cries of "no! no!"] let us stick to it, then; let us stand firmly by it, then. it may be argued that there are certain conditions that make necessities and impose them upon us, and to the extent that a necessity is imposed upon a man, he must submit to it. i think that was the condition in which we found ourselves when we established this government. we had slaves among us; we could not get our constitution unless we permitted them to remain in slavery; we could not secure the good we did secure, if we grasped for more; but, having by necessity submitted to that much, it does not destroy the principle that is the charter of our liberties. let that charter stand as our standard. my friend has said to me that i am a poor hand to quote scripture. i will try it again, however. it is said in one of the admonitions of our lord, "be ye [therefore] perfect even as your father which is in heaven is perfect." the saviour, i suppose, did not expect that any human creature could be perfect as the father in heaven; but he said: "as your father in heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect." he set that up as a standard, and he who did most toward reaching that standard attained the highest degree of moral perfection. so i say in relation to the principle that all men are created equal, let it be as nearly reached as we can. if we cannot give freedom to every creature, let us do nothing that will impose slavery upon any other creature. let us, then, turn this government back into the channel in which the framers of the constitution originally placed it. let us stand firmly by each other. if we do not do so, we are tending in the contrary direction, that our friend judge douglas proposes,--not intentionally,--working in the traces that tend to make this one universal slave nation. he is one that runs in that direction, and as such i resist him. my friends, i have detained you about as long as i desired to do, and i have only to say, let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man, this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position. let us discard all these things, and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal. my friends, i could not, without launching off upon some new topic, which would detain you too long, continue to-night. i thank you for this most extensive audience that you have furnished me to-night. i leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal. _from a speech at springfield, illinois. july , _ ... there is still another disadvantage under which we labour, and to which i will ask your attention. it arises out of the relative positions of the two persons who stand before the state as candidates for the senate. senator douglas is of world-wide renown. all the anxious politicians of his party, or who have been of his party for years past, have been looking upon him as certainly, at no distant day, to be the president of the united states. they have seen, in his round, jolly, fruitful face, post-offices, land-offices, marshalships, and cabinet appointments, chargéships and foreign missions, bursting and sprouting out in wonderful exuberance, ready to be laid hold of by their greedy hands. and as they have been gazing upon this attractive picture so long, they cannot, in the little distraction that has taken place in the party, bring themselves to give up the charming hope. but with greedier anxiety they rush about him, sustain him, and give him marches, triumphal entries, and receptions, beyond what, even in the days of his highest prosperity, they could have brought about in his favour. on the contrary, nobody has ever expected me to be president. in my poor, lean, lank face, nobody has ever seen that any cabbages were sprouting out. these are disadvantages, all taken together, that the republicans labour under. we have to fight this battle upon principle, and upon principle alone. i am in a certain sense made the standard-bearer in behalf of the republicans. i was made so merely because there had to be some one so placed,--i being in no wise preferable to any other one of the twenty-five, perhaps a hundred, we have in the republican ranks. then i say, i wish it to be distinctly understood and borne in mind, that we have to fight this battle without many--perhaps without any--of the external aids which are brought to bear against us. so i hope those with whom i am surrounded have principle enough to nerve themselves for the task, and leave nothing undone that can fairly be done to bring about the right result. as appears by two speeches i have heard him deliver since his arrival in illinois, he gave special attention to the speech of mine delivered on the sixteenth of june. he says that he carefully read that speech. he told us that at chicago a week ago last night, and he repeated it at bloomington last night.... he says it was evidently prepared with great care. i freely admit it was prepared with care.... but i was very careful not to put anything in that speech as a matter of fact, or make any inferences which did not appear to me to be true and fully warrantable. if i had made any mistake i was willing to be corrected; if i had drawn any inference in regard to judge douglas or any one else, which was not warranted, i was fully prepared to modify it as soon as discovered. i planted myself upon the truth and the truth only, so far as i knew it, or could be brought to know it. having made that speech with the most kindly feelings toward judge douglas, as manifested therein, i was gratified when i found that he had carefully examined it, and had detected no error of fact, nor any inference against him, nor any misrepresentations, of which he thought fit to complain.... he seizes upon the doctrines he supposes to be included in that speech, and declares that upon them will turn the issues of the campaign. he then quotes, or attempts to quote, from my speech. i will not say that he wilfully misquotes, but he does fail to quote accurately. his attempt at quoting is from a passage which i believe i can quote accurately from memory. i shall make the quotation now, with some comments upon it, as i have already said, in order that the judge shall be left entirely without excuse for misrepresenting me. i do so now, as i hope, for the last time. i do this in great caution, in order that if he repeats his misrepresentation, it shall be plain to all that he does so wilfully. if, after all, he still persists, i shall be compelled to reconstruct the course i have marked out for myself, and draw upon such humble resources as i have for a new course, better suited to the real exigencies of the case. i set out in this campaign with the intention of conducting it strictly as a gentleman, in substance at least, if not in the outside polish. the latter i shall never be, but that which constitutes the inside of a gentleman i hope i understand, and am not less inclined to practise than others. it was my purpose and expectation that this canvass would be conducted upon principle, and with fairness on both sides, and it shall not be my fault if this purpose and expectation shall be given up. he charges, in substance, that i invite a war of sections; that i propose all local institutions of the different states shall become consolidated and uniform. what is there in the language of that speech which expresses such purpose or bears such construction? i have again and again said that i would not enter into any one of the states to disturb the institution of slavery. judge douglas said at bloomington that i used language most able and ingenious for concealing what i really meant; and that while i had protested against entering into the slave states, i nevertheless did mean to go on the banks of the ohio and throw missiles into kentucky, to disturb them in their domestic institutions. ... i have said that i do not understand the declaration to mean that all men were created equal in all respects. the negroes are not our equals in colour; but i suppose it does mean to declare that all men are equal in some respects; they are equal in their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." certainly the negro is not our equal in colour, perhaps not in many other respects. still, in the right to put into his mouth the bread that his own hands have earned, he is the equal of every other man, white or black. in pointing out that more has been given you, you cannot be justified in taking away the little which has been given him. all i ask for the negro is, that if you do not like him, let him alone. if god gave him but little, that little let him enjoy. ... one more point on this springfield speech, which judge douglas says he has read so carefully. i expressed my belief in the existence of a conspiracy to perpetuate and nationalize slavery. i did not profess to know it, nor do i now. i showed the part judge douglas had played in the string of facts, constituting to my mind the proof of that conspiracy. i showed the parts played by others. i charged that the people had been deceived into carrying the last presidential election, by the impression that the people of the territories might exclude slavery if they chose, when it was known in advance by the conspirators that the court was to decide that neither congress nor the people could so exclude slavery. these charges are more distinctly made than anything else in the speech. judge douglas has carefully read and re-read that speech. he has not, so far as i know, contradicted those charges. in the two speeches which i heard he certainly did not. on his own tacit admission i renew that charge. i charge him with having been a party to that conspiracy and to that deception, for the sole purpose of nationalizing slavery. _from lincoln's reply to douglas in the first joint debate at ottawa, illinois. august , _ when a man bears himself somewhat misrepresented, it provokes him--at least, i find it so with myself; but when misrepresentation becomes very gross and palpable, it is more apt to amuse him.... [after stating the charge of an arrangement between himself and judge trumbull.] now, all i have to say upon that subject is, that i think no man--not even judge douglas--can prove it, because it is not true. i have no doubt he is "conscientious" in saying it. as to those resolutions that he took such a length of time to read, as being the platform of the republican party in , i say i never had anything to do with them, and i think trumbull never had. judge douglas cannot show that either of us ever had anything to do with them.... now, about this story that judge douglas tells of trumbull bargaining to sell out the old democratic party, and lincoln agreeing to sell out the old whig party, i have the means of knowing about that; judge douglas cannot have; and i know there is no substance to it whatever.... a man cannot prove a negative, but he has a right to claim that when a man makes an affirmative charge, he must offer some proof to show the truth of what he says. i certainly cannot introduce testimony to show the negative about things, but i have a right to claim that if a man says he knows a thing, then he must show how he knows it. i always have a right to claim this; and it is not satisfactory to me that he may be "conscientious" on the subject. ... anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. i will say here, while upon this subject, that i have no purpose, either directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. i believe i have no lawful right to do so, and i have no inclination to do so. i have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. there is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably for ever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, i, as well as judge douglas, am in favour of the race to which i belong having the superior position. i have never said anything to the contrary; but i hold, that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the declaration of independence,--the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. i hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. i agree with judge douglas, he is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in colour, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. but in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody, which his own hand earns, he is my equal, and the equal of judge douglas, and the equal of any living man. ... as i have not used up so much of my time as i had supposed, i will dwell a little longer upon one or two of these minor topics upon which the judge has spoken. he has read from my speech at springfield, in which i say that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." does the judge say it can stand? i don't know whether he does or not. the judge does not seem to be attending to me just now, but i would like to know if it is his opinion that a house divided against itself can stand? if he does, then there is a question of veracity, not between him and me, but between the judge and an authority of a somewhat higher character. now, my friends, i ask your attention to this matter for the purpose of saying something seriously, i know that the judge may readily enough agree with me that the maxim which was put forth by the saviour is true, but he may allege that i misapply it; and the judge has a right to urge that in my application i do misapply it, and then i have a right to show that i do not misapply it. when he undertakes to say that because i think this nation, so far as the question of slavery is concerned, will all become one thing or all the other, i am in favour of bringing about a dead uniformity in the various states, in all their institutions, he argues erroneously. the great variety of local institutions in the states, springing from differences in the soil, differences in the face of the country, and in the climate, are bonds of union. they do not make "a house divided against itself," but they make a house united. if they produce in one section of the country what is called for by the wants of another section, and this other section can supply the wants of the first, they are not matters of discord, but bonds of union, true bonds of union. but can this question of slavery be considered as among these varieties in the institutions of the country? i leave it for you to say, whether in the history of our government, this institution of slavery has not always failed to be a bond of union, and, on the contrary, been an apple of discord and an element of division in the house. i ask you to consider whether so long as the moral constitution of men's minds shall continue to be the same, after this generation and assemblage shall sink into the grave, and another race shall arise with the same moral and intellectual development we have--whether, if that institution is standing in the same irritating position in which it now is, it will not continue an element of division? if so, then i have a right to say that, in regard to this question, the union is a house divided against itself; and when the judge reminds me that i have often said to him that the institution of slavery has existed for eighty years in some states, and yet it does not exist in some others, i agree to the fact, and i account for it by looking at the position in which our fathers originally placed it,--restricting it from the new territories where it had not gone, and legislating to cut off its source by the abrogation of the slave-trade, thus putting the seal of legislation against its spread. the public mind did rest in the belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. but lately, i think,--and in this i charge nothing on the judge's motives,--lately, i think that he and those acting with him have placed that institution on a new basis, which looks to the perpetuity and nationalization of slavery. and while it is placed on this new basis, i say, and i have said, that i believe we shall not have peace upon the question, until the opponents of slavery arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or, on the other hand, that its advocates will push it forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new, north as well as south. now, i believe if we could arrest the spread, and place it where washington and jefferson and madison placed it, it would be in the course of ultimate extinction, and the public mind would, as for eighty years past, believe that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. the crisis would be past, and the institution might be let alone for a hundred years--if it should live so long--in the states where it exists, yet it would be going out of existence in the way best for both the black and the white races. [a voice: "then do you repudiate popular sovereignty?"] well, then, let us talk about popular sovereignty. what is popular sovereignty? is it the right of the people to have slavery or not to have it, as they see fit, in the territories? i will state--and i have an able man to watch me--my understanding is that popular sovereignty, as now applied to the question of slavery, does allow the people of a territory to have slavery if they want to, but does not allow them not to have it if they do not want it. i do not mean that if this vast concourse of people were in a territory of the united states, any one of them would be obliged to have a slave if he did not want one; but i do say that, as i understand the dred scott decision, if any one man wants slaves, all the rest have no way of keeping that one man from holding them. when i made my speech at springfield, of which the judge complains, and from which he quotes, i really was not thinking of the things which he ascribes to me at all. i had no thought in the world that i was doing anything to bring about a war between the free and slave states. i had no thought in the world that i was doing anything to bring about a political and social equality of the black and white races. it never occurred to me that i was doing anything or favouring anything to reduce to a dead uniformity all the local institutions of the various states. but i must say, in all fairness to him, if he thinks i am doing something which leads to these bad results, it is none the better that i did not mean it. it is just as fatal to the country, if i have any influence in producing it, whether i intend it or not. but can it be true that placing this institution upon the original basis--the basis upon which our fathers placed it--can have any tendency to set the northern and the southern states at war with one another, or that it can have any tendency to make the people of vermont raise sugar-cane, because they raise it in louisiana, or that it can compel the people of illinois to cut pine logs on the grand prairie, where they will not grow, because they cut pine logs in maine, where they do grow? the judge says this is a new principle started in regard to this question. does the judge claim that he is working on the plan of the founders of the government? i think he says in some of his speeches--indeed, i have one here now--that he saw evidence of a policy to allow slavery to be south of a certain line, while north of it it should be excluded, and he saw an indisposition on the part of the country to stand upon that policy, and, therefore, he set about studying the subject upon original principles, and upon original principles he got up the nebraska bill! i am fighting it upon these "original principles"--fighting it in the jeffersonian, washingtonian, madisonian fashion.... if i have brought forward anything not a fact, if he (judge douglas) will point it out, it will not even ruffle me to take it back. but if he will not point out anything erroneous in the evidence, is it not rather for him to show by a comparison of the evidence that i have reasoned falsely, than to call the "kind, amiable, intelligent gentleman" a liar? i want to ask your attention to a portion of the nebraska bill which judge douglas has quoted: "it being the true intent and meaning of this act, not to legislate slavery into any territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the united states." thereupon judge douglas and others began to argue in favour of "popular sovereignty,"--the right of the people to have slaves if they wanted them, and to exclude slavery if they did not want them. "but," said, in substance, a senator from ohio (mr. chase, i believe), "we more than suspect that you do not mean to allow the people to exclude slavery if they wish to; and if you do mean it, accept an amendment which i propose, expressly authorizing the people to exclude slavery." i believe i have the amendment here before me, which was offered, and under which the people of the territory, through their proper representatives, might, if they saw fit, prohibit the existence of slavery therein. and now i state it as a fact, to be taken back if there is any mistake about it, that judge douglas and those acting with him voted that amendment down. i now think that those who voted it down had a real reason for doing so. they know what that reason was. it looks to us, since we have seen the dred scott decision pronounced, holding that "under the constitution" the people cannot exclude slavery--i say it looks to outsiders, poor, simple, "amiable, intelligent gentlemen," as though the niche was left as a place to put that dred scott decision in, a niche that would have been spoiled by adopting the amendment. and now i say again, if this was not the reason, it will avail the judge much more to calmly and good-humouredly point out to these people what that other reason was for voting the amendment down, than swelling himself up to vociferate that he may be provoked to call somebody a liar. again, there is in that same quotation from the nebraska bill this clause: "it being the true intent and meaning of this bill not to legislate slavery into any territory or state." i have always been puzzled to know what business the word "state" had in that connection. judge douglas knows--he put it there. he knows what he put it there for. we outsiders cannot say what he put it there for. the law they were passing was not about states, and was not making provision for states. what was it placed there for? after seeing the dred scott decision, which holds that the people cannot exclude slavery from a territory, if another dred scott decision shall come, holding that they cannot exclude it from a state, we shall discover that when the word was originally put there, it was in view of something that was to come in due time; we shall see that it was the other half of something. i now say again, if there was any different reason for putting it there, judge douglas, in a good-humoured way, without calling anybody a liar, can tell what the reason was.... now, my friends, ... i ask the attention of the people here assembled, and elsewhere, to the course that judge douglas is pursuing every day as bearing upon this question of making slavery national. not going back to the records, but taking the speeches he makes, the speeches he made yesterday and the day before, and makes constantly, all over the country, i ask your attention to them. in the first place, what is necessary to make the institution national? not war: there is no danger that the people of kentucky will shoulder their muskets and ... march into illinois to force the blacks upon us. there is no danger of our going over there, and making war upon them. then what is necessary for the nationalization of slavery? it is simply the next dred scott decision. it is merely for the supreme court to decide that no state under the constitution can exclude it, just as they have already decided that under the constitution neither congress nor the territorial legislature can do it. when that is decided and acquiesced in, the whole thing is done. this being true and this being the way, as i think, that slavery is to be made national, let us consider what judge douglas is doing every day to that end. in the first place, let us see what influence he is exerting on public sentiment. in this and like communities, public sentiment is everything. with public sentiment nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed. consequently he who moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. he makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed. this must be borne in mind, as also the additional fact that judge douglas is a man of vast influence, so great that it is enough for many men to profess to believe anything when they once find out that judge douglas professes to believe it. consider also the attitude he occupies at the head of a large party,--a party which he claims has a majority of all the voters in the country. this man sticks to a decision which forbids the people of a territory to exclude slavery, and he does so not because he says it is right in itself,--he does not give any opinion on that,--but because it has been decided by the court, and, being decided by the court, he is, and you are, bound to take it in your political action as law,--not that he judges at all of its merits, but because a decision of the court is to him a "thus saith the lord." he places it on that ground alone, and you will bear in mind that thus committing himself unreservedly to this decision, commits himself just as firmly to the next one as to this. he did not commit himself on account of the merit or demerit of the decision, but it is a "thus saith the lord." the next decision as much as this will be a "thus saith the lord." there is nothing that can divert or turn him away from this decision. it is nothing that i point out to him that his great prototype, general jackson, did not believe in the binding force of decisions. it is nothing to him that jefferson did not so believe. i have said that i have often heard him approve of jackson's course in disregarding the decision of the supreme court pronouncing a national bank constitutional. he says i did not hear him say so. he denies the accuracy of my recollection. i say he ought to know better than i, but i will make no question about this thing, though it still seems to me that i heard him say it twenty times. i will tell him, though, that he now claims to stand on the cincinnati platform, which affirms that congress cannot charter a national bank in the teeth of that old standing decision that congress can charter a bank. and i remind him of another piece of illinois history on the question of respect for judicial decisions, and it is a piece of illinois history belonging to a time when a large party to which judge douglas belonged, were displeased with a decision of the supreme court of illinois, because they had decided that a governor could not remove a secretary of state, and i know that judge douglas will not deny that he was then in favour of over-slaughing that decision, by the mode of adding five new judges, so as to vote down the four old ones. not only so, but it ended in the judge's sitting down on the very bench as one of the five new judges to break down the four old ones. it was in this way precisely that he got his title of judge. now, when the judge tells me that men appointed conditionally to sit as members of a court will have to be catechized beforehand upon some subject, i say, "you know, judge; you have tried it!" when he says a court of this kind will lose the confidence of all men, will be prostituted and disgraced by such a proceeding, i say, "you know best, judge; you have been through the mill." but i cannot shake judge douglas's teeth loose from the dred scott decision. like some obstinate animal (i mean no disrespect) that will hang on when he has once got his teeth fixed--you may cut off a leg, or you may tear away an arm, still he will not relax his hold. and so i may point out to the judge, and say that he is bespattered all over, from the beginning of his political life to the present time, with attacks upon judicial decisions,--i may cut off limb after limb of his public record, and strive to wrench from him a single dictum of the court, yet i cannot divert him from it. he hangs to the last to the dred scott decision.... henry clay, my beau ideal of a statesman, ... once said of a class of men who would repress all tendencies to liberty and ultimate emancipation, that they must, if they would do this, go back to the era of our independence, and muzzle the cannon that thunders its annual joyous return; that they must blow out the moral lights around us; they must penetrate the human soul, and eradicate there the love of liberty; and then, and not till then, could they perpetuate slavery in this country! to my thinking, judge douglas is, by his example and vast influence, doing that very thing in this community when he says that the negro has nothing in the declaration of independence. henry clay plainly understood the contrary. judge douglas is going back to the era of our revolution, and, to the extent of his ability, muzzling the cannon which thunders its annual joyous return. when he invites any people, willing to have slavery, to establish it, he is blowing out the moral lights around us. when he says he "cares not whether slavery is voted down or voted up,"--that it is a sacred right of self-government,--he is, in my judgment, penetrating the human soul and eradicating the light of reason and the love of liberty in this american people. and now i will only say, that when, by all these means and appliances, judge douglas shall succeed in bringing public sentiment to an exact accordance with his own views; when these vast assemblages shall echo back all these sentiments; when they shall come to repeat his views and avow his principles, and to say all that he says on these mighty questions,--then it needs only the formality of a second dred scott decision, which he indorses in advance, to make slavery alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new, north as well as south. _lincoln's reply to judge douglas in the second joint debate. freeport, illinois. august , _ ... the plain truth is this. at the introduction of the nebraska policy, we believed there was a new era being introduced in the history of the republic, which tended to the spread and perpetuation of slavery. but in our opposition to that measure we did not agree with one another in everything. the people in the north end of the state were for stronger measures of opposition than we of the southern and central portions of the state, but we were all opposed to the nebraska doctrine. we had that one feeling and one sentiment in common. you at the north end met in your conventions, and passed your resolutions. we in the middle of the state and further south did not hold such conventions and pass the same resolutions, although we had in general a common view and a common sentiment. so that these meetings which the judge has alluded to, and the resolutions he has read from, were local, and did not spread over the whole state. we at last met together in , from all parts of the state, and we agreed upon a common platform. you who held more extreme notions, either yielded those notions, or if not wholly yielding them, agreed to yield them practically, for the sake of embodying the opposition to the measures which the opposite party were pushing forward at that time. we met you then, and if there was anything yielded, it was for practical purposes. we agreed then upon a platform for the party throughout the entire state of illinois, and now we are all bound as a party to that platform. and i say here to you, if any one expects of me in the case of my election, that i will do anything not signified by our republican platform and my answers here to-day, i tell you very frankly, that person will be deceived. i do not ask for the vote of any one who supposes that i have secret purposes or pledges that i dare not speak out.... if i should never be elected to any office, i trust i may go down with no stain of falsehood upon my reputation, notwithstanding the hard opinions judge douglas chooses to entertain of me. _from lincoln's reply at jonesboro'. september , _ ladies and gentlemen, there is very much in the principles that judge douglas has here enunciated that i most cordially approve, and over which i shall have no controversy with him. in so far as he insisted that all the states have the right to do exactly as they please about all their domestic relations, including that of slavery, i agree entirely with him. he places me wrong in spite of all i tell him, though i repeat it again and again, insisting that i have made no difference with him upon this subject. i have made a great many speeches, some of which have been printed, and it will be utterly impossible for him to find anything that i have ever put in print contrary to what i now say on the subject. i hold myself under constitutional obligations to allow the people in all the states, without interference, direct or indirect, to do exactly as they please, and i deny that i have any inclination to interfere with them, even if there were no such constitutional obligation. i can only say again that i am placed improperly--altogether improperly, in spite of all that i can say--when it is insisted that i entertain any other view or purpose in regard to that matter. while i am upon this subject, i will make some answers briefly to certain propositions that judge douglas has put. he says, "why can't this union endure permanently half slave and half free?" i have said that i supposed it could not, and i will try, before this new audience, to give briefly some of the reasons for entertaining that opinion. another form of his question is, "why can't we let it stand as our fathers placed it?" that is the exact difficulty between us. i say that judge douglas and his friends have changed it from the position in which our fathers originally placed it. i say in the way our fathers originally left the slavery question, the institution was in the course of ultimate extinction. i say when this government was first established, it was the policy of its founders to prohibit the spread of slavery into the new territories of the united states where it had not existed. but judge douglas and his friends have broken up that policy, and placed it upon a new basis, by which it is to become national and perpetual. all i have asked or desired anywhere is that it should be placed back again upon the basis that the fathers of our government originally placed it upon. i have no doubt that it would become extinct for all time to come, if we had but readopted the policy of the fathers by restricting it to the limits it has already covered--restricting it from the new territories. i do not wish to dwell on this branch of the subject at great length at this time, but allow me to repeat one thing that i have stated before. brooks, the man who assaulted senator sumner on the floor of the senate, and who was complimented with dinners and silver pitchers and gold-headed canes, and a good many other things for that feat, in one of his speeches declared that when this government was originally established, nobody expected that the institution of slavery would last until this day. that was but the opinion of one man, but it is such an opinion as we can never get from judge douglas or anybody in favour of slavery in the north at all. you can sometimes get it from a southern man. he said at the same time that the framers of our government did not have the knowledge that experience has taught us--that experience and the invention of the cotton gin have taught us that the perpetuation of slavery is a necessity. he insisted therefore upon its being changed from the basis upon which the fathers of the government left it to the basis of perpetuation and nationalization. i insist that this is the difference between judge douglas and myself--that judge douglas is helping the change along. i insist upon this government being placed where our fathers originally placed it. ... when he asks me why we cannot get along with it [slavery] in the attitude where our fathers placed it, he had better clear up the evidences that he has himself changed it from that basis; that he has himself been chiefly instrumental in changing the policy of the fathers. any one who will read his speech of the twenty-second of march last, will see that he there makes an open confession, showing that he set about fixing the institution upon an altogether different set of principles.... now, fellow-citizens, in regard to this matter about a contract between myself and judge trumbull, and myself and all that long portion of judge douglas's speech on this subject. i wish simply to say, what i have said to him before, that he cannot know whether it is true or not, and i do know that there is not a word of truth in it. and i have told him so before. i don't want any harsh language indulged in, but i do not know how to deal with this persistent insisting on a story that i know to be utterly without truth. it used to be the fashion amongst men that when a charge was made, some sort of proof was brought forward to establish it, and if no proof was found to exist, it was dropped. i don't know how to meet this kind of an argument. i don't want to have a fight with judge douglas, and i have no way of making an argument up into the consistency of a corn-cob and stopping his mouth with it. all i can do is good-humouredly to say, that from the beginning to the end of all that story about a bargain between judge trumbull and myself, there is not a word of truth in it.... when that compromise [of ] was made, it did not repeal the old missouri compromise. it left a region of united states territory half as large as the present territory of the united states, north of the line of ° ', in which slavery was prohibited by act of congress. this compromise did not repeal that one. it did not affect nor propose to repeal it. but at last it became judge douglas's duty, as he thought (and i find no fault with him), as chairman of the committee on territories, to bring in a bill for the organization of a territorial government--first of one, then of two territories north of that line. when he did so, it ended in his inserting a provision substantially repealing the missouri compromise. that was because the compromise of had not repealed it. and now i ask why he could not have left that compromise alone? we were quiet from the agitation of the slavery question. we were making no fuss about it. all had acquiesced in the compromise measures of . we never had been seriously disturbed by any abolition agitation before that period.... i close this part of the discussion on my part by asking him the question again, why, when we had peace under the missouri compromise, could you not have let it alone? * * * * * he tries to persuade us that there must be a variety in the different institutions of the states of the union; that that variety necessarily proceeds from the variety of soil, climate, of the face of the country, and the difference of the natural features of the states. i agree to all that. have these very matters ever produced any difficulty amongst us? not at all. have we ever had any quarrel over the fact that they have laws in louisiana designed to regulate the commerce that springs from the production of sugar, or because we have a different class relative to the production of flour in this state? have they produced any differences? not at all. they are the very cements of this union. they don't make the house a house divided against itself. they are the props that hold up the house and sustain the union. but has it been so with this element of slavery? have we not always had quarrels and difficulties over it? and when will we cease to have quarrels over it? like causes produce like effects. it is worth while to observe that we have generally had comparative peace upon the slavery question, and that there has been no cause for alarm until it was excited by the effort to spread it into new territory. whenever it has been limited to its present bounds, and there has been no effort to spread it, there has been peace. all the trouble and convulsion has proceeded from efforts to spread it over more territory. it was thus at the date of the missouri compromise. it was so again with the annexation of texas; so with the territory acquired by the mexican war; and it is so now. whenever there has been an effort to spread it, there has been agitation and resistance. now, i appeal to this audience (very few of whom are my political friends), as rational men, whether we have reason to expect that the agitation in regard to this subject will cease while the causes that tend to reproduce agitation are actively at work? will not the same cause that produced agitation in , when the missouri compromise was formed,--that which produced the agitation upon the annexation of texas, and at other times,--work out the same results always? do you think that the nature of man will be changed; that the same causes that produced agitation at one time will not have the same effect at another? this has been the result so far as my observation of the slavery question and my reading in history extend. what right have we then to hope that the trouble will cease, that the agitation will come to an end, until it shall either be placed back where it originally stood, and where the fathers originally placed it, or, on the other hand, until it shall entirely master all opposition? this is the view i entertain, and this is the reason why i entertained it, as judge douglas has read from my springfield speech. ... at freeport i answered several interrogatories that had been propounded to me by judge douglas at the ottawa meeting.... at the same time i propounded four interrogatories to him, claiming it as a right that he should answer as many for me as i did for him, and i would reserve myself for a future instalment when i got them ready. the judge, in answering me upon that occasion, put in what i suppose he intends as answers to all four of my interrogatories. the first one of these i have before me, and it is in these words: _question ._ if the people of kansas shall by means entirely unobjectionable in all other respects, adopt a state constitution and ask admission into the union under it, before they have the requisite number of inhabitants according to the english bill--some , --will you vote to admit them? as i read the judge's answer in the newspaper, and as i remember it as pronounced at the time, he does not give any answer which is equivalent to yes or no,--i will or i won't. he answers at very considerable length, rather quarrelling with me for asking the question, and insisting that judge trumbull had done something that i ought to say something about; and finally, getting out such statements as induce me to infer that he means to be understood, he will, in that supposed case, vote for the admission of kansas. i only bring this forward now, for the purpose of saying that, if he chooses to put a different construction upon his answer, he may do it. but if he does not, i shall from this time forward assume that he will vote for the admission of kansas in disregard of the english bill. he has the right to remove any misunderstanding i may have. i only mention it now, that i may hereafter assume this to have been the true construction of his answer, if he does not now choose to correct me. the second interrogatory i propounded to him was this: _question ._ can the people of a united states territory in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of the united states, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the formation of a state constitution? to this judge douglas answered that they can lawfully exclude slavery from the territory prior to the formation of a constitution. he goes on to tell us how it can be done. as i understand him, he holds that it can be done by the territorial legislature refusing to make any enactments for the protection of slavery in the territory, and especially by adopting unfriendly legislation to it. for the sake of clearness, i state it again: that they can exclude slavery from the territory,--first, by withholding what he assumes to be an indispensable assistance to it in the way of legislation; and second, by unfriendly legislation. if i rightly understand him, i wish to ask your attention for a while to his position. in the first place, the supreme court of the united states has decided that any congressional prohibition of slavery in the territories is unconstitutional: they have reached this proposition as a conclusion from their former proposition that the constitution of the united states expressly recognizes property in slaves; and from that other constitutional provision that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law. hence they reach the conclusion that as the constitution of the united states expressly recognizes property in slaves, and prohibits any person from being deprived of property without due process of law, to pass an act of congress by which a man who owned a slave on one side of a line would be deprived of him if he took him on the other side, is depriving him of that property without due process of law. that i understand to be the decision of the supreme court. i understand also that judge douglas adheres most firmly to that decision; and the difficulty is, how is it possible for any power to exclude slavery from the territory unless in violation of that decision? that is the difficulty. in the senate of the united states, in , judge trumbull in a speech, substantially if not directly, put the same interrogatory to judge douglas, as to whether the people of a territory had the lawful power to exclude slavery prior to the formation of a constitution? judge douglas then answered at considerable length, and his answer will be found in the "congressional globe," under date of june , . the judge said that whether the people could exclude slavery prior to the formation of a constitution or not, was a question to be decided by the supreme court. he put that proposition, as will be seen by the "congressional globe," in a variety of forms, all running to the same thing in substance,--that it was a question for the supreme court. i maintain that when he says, after the supreme court has decided the question, that the people may yet exclude slavery by any means whatever, he does virtually say that it is not a question for the supreme court. he shifts his ground. i appeal to you whether he did not say it was a question for the supreme court? has not the supreme court decided that question? when he now says that the people may exclude slavery, does he not make it a question for the people? does he not virtually shift his ground and say that it is not a question for the court, but for the people? this is a very simple proposition,--a very plain and naked one. it seems to me that there is no difficulty in deciding it. in a variety of ways he said that it was a question for the supreme court. he did not stop then to tell us that, whatever the supreme court decides, the people can by withholding necessary "police regulations" keep slavery out. he did not make any such answer. i submit to you now, whether the new state of the case has not induced the judge to sheer away from his original ground? would not this be the impression of every fair-minded man? i hold that the proposition that slavery cannot enter a new country without police regulations is historically false. it is not true at all. i hold that the history of this country shows that the institution of slavery was originally planted upon this continent without these "police regulations" which the judge now thinks necessary for the actual establishment of it. not only so, but is there not another fact,--how came this dred scott decision to be made? it was made upon the case of a negro being taken and actually held in slavery in minnesota territory, claiming his freedom because the act of congress prohibited his being so held there. will the judge pretend that dred scott was not held there without police regulations? there is at least one matter of record as to his having been held in slavery in the territory, not only without police regulations, but in the teeth of congressional legislation supposed to be valid at the time. this shows that there is vigour enough in slavery to plant itself in a new country, even against unfriendly legislation. it takes not only law, but the enforcement of law to keep it out. that is the history of this country upon the subject. i wish to ask one other question. it being understood that the constitution of the united states guarantees property in slaves in the territories, if there is any infringement of the right of that property, would not the united states courts, organized for the government of the territory, apply such remedy as might be necessary in that case? it is a maxim held by the courts that there is no wrong without its remedy; and the courts have a remedy for whatever is acknowledged and treated as a wrong. again: i will ask you, my friends, if you were elected members of the legislature, what would be the first thing you would have to do before entering upon your duties? swear to support the constitution of the united states. suppose you believe as judge douglas does, that the constitution of the united states guarantees to your neighbour the right to hold slaves in that territory,--that they are his property,--how can you clear your oaths unless you give him such legislation as is necessary to enable him to enjoy that property? what do you understand by supporting the constitution of a state or of the united states? is it not to give such constitutional helps to the rights established by that constitution as may be practically needed? can you, if you swear to support the constitution and believe that the constitution establishes a right, clear your oath without giving it support? do you support the constitution if, knowing or believing there is a right established under it which needs specific legislation, you withhold that legislation? do you not violate and disregard your oath? i can conceive of nothing plainer in the world. there can be nothing in the words "support the constitution," if you may run counter to it by refusing support to any right established under the constitution. and what i say here will hold with still more force against the judge's doctrine of "unfriendly legislation." how could you, having sworn to support the constitution, and believing that it guaranteed the right to hold slaves in the territories, assist in legislation intended to defeat that right? that would be violating your own view of the constitution. not only so, but if you were to do so, how long would it take the courts to hold your votes unconstitutional and void? not a moment. lastly, i would ask, is not congress itself under obligation to give legislative support to any right that is established under the united states constitution? i repeat the question, is not congress itself bound to give legislative support to any right that is established in the united states constitution? a member of congress swears to support the constitution of the united states, and if he sees a right established by that constitution which needs specific legislative protection, can he clear his oath without giving that protection? let me ask you why many of us, who are opposed to slavery upon principle, give our acquiescence to a fugitive-slave law? why do we hold ourselves under obligations to pass such a law, and abide by it when passed? because the constitution makes provision that the owners of slaves shall have the right to reclaim them. it gives the right to reclaim slaves; and that right is, as judge douglas says, a barren right, unless there is legislation that will enforce it. the mere declaration, "no person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due," is powerless without specific legislation to enforce it. now, on what ground would a member of congress who is opposed to slavery in the abstract, vote for a fugitive law, as i would deem it my duty to do? because there is a constitutional right which needs legislation to enforce it. and, although it is distasteful to me, i have sworn to support the constitution; and, having so sworn, i cannot conceive that i do support it if i withhold from that right any necessary legislation to make it practical. and if that is true in regard to a fugitive-slave law, is the right to have fugitive slaves reclaimed any better fixed in the constitution than the right to hold slaves in the territories? for this decision is a just exposition of the constitution, as judge douglas thinks. is the one right any better than the other? if i wished to refuse to give legislative support to slave property in the territories, if a member of congress, i could not do it, holding the view that the constitution establishes that right. if i did it at all, it would be because i deny that this decision properly construes the constitution. but if i acknowledge with judge douglas that this decision properly construes the constitution, i cannot conceive that i would be less than a perjured man if i should refuse in congress to give such protection to that property as in its nature it needed.... _from lincoln's reply to judge douglas at charleston, illinois. september , _ judge douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get from me an answer to the question whether i am in favour of negro citizenship. so far as i know, the judge never asked me the question before. he shall have no occasion ever to ask it again, for i tell him very frankly that i am not in favour of negro citizenship.... now my opinion is, that the different states have the power to make a negro a citizen under the constitution of the united states, if they choose. the dred scott decision decides that they have not that power. if the state of illinois had that power, i should be opposed to the exercise of it. that is all i have to say about it. judge douglas has told me that he heard my speeches north and my speeches south, ... and there was a very different cast of sentiment in the speeches made at the different points. i will not charge upon judge douglas that he wilfully misrepresents me, but i call upon every fair-minded man to take these speeches and read them, and i dare him to point out any difference between my speeches north and south. while i am here, perhaps i ought to say a word, if i have the time, in regard to the latter portion of the judge's speech, which was a sort of declamation in reference to my having said that i entertained the belief that this government would not endure, half slave and half free. i have said so, and i did not say it without what seemed to me good reasons. it perhaps would require more time than i have now to set forth those reasons in detail; but let me ask you a few questions. have we ever had any peace on this slavery question? when are we to have peace upon it if it is kept in the position it now occupies? how are we ever to have peace upon it? that is an important question. to be sure, if we will all stop and allow judge douglas and his friends to march on in their present career until they plant the institution all over the nation, here and wherever else our flag waves, and we acquiesce in it, there will be peace. but let me ask judge douglas how he is going to get the people to do that? they have been wrangling over this question for forty years. this was the cause of the agitation resulting in the missouri compromise; this produced the troubles at the annexation of texas, in the acquisition of the territory acquired in the mexican war. again, this was the trouble quieted by the compromise of , when it was settled "for ever," as both the great political parties declared in their national conventions. that "for ever" turned out to be just four years, when judge douglas himself reopened it. when is it likely to come to an end? he introduced the nebraska bill in , to put another end to the slavery agitation. he promised that it would finish it all up immediately, and he has never made a speech since, until he got into a quarrel with the president about the lecompton constitution, in which he has not declared that we are just at the end of the slavery agitation. but in one speech, i think last winter, he did say that he didn't quite see when the end of the slavery agitation would come. now he tells us again that it is all over, and the people of kansas have voted down the lecompton constitution. how is it over? that was only one of the attempts to put an end to the slavery agitation,--one of these "final settlements." is kansas in the union? has she formed a constitution that she is likely to come in under? is not the slavery agitation still an open question in that territory?... if kansas should sink to-day, and leave a great vacant space in the earth's surface, this vexed question would still be among us. i say, then, there is no way of putting an end to the slavery agitation amongst us, but to put it back upon the basis where our fathers placed it; no way but to keep it out of our new territories,--to restrict it for ever to the old states where it now exists. then the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction. that is one way of putting an end to the slavery agitation. the other way is for us to surrender, and let judge douglas and his friends have their way, and plant slavery over all the states,--cease speaking of it as in any way a wrong--regard slavery as one of the common matters of property, and speak of our negroes as we do of our horse and cattle. _from lincoln's reply to judge douglas at galesburg, illinois. october , _ ... the judge has alluded to the declaration of independence, and insisted that negroes are not included in that declaration; and that it is a slander on the framers of that instrument to suppose that negroes were meant therein; and he asks you, is it possible to believe that mr. jefferson, who penned that immortal paper, could have supposed himself applying the language of that instrument to the negro race, and yet held a portion of that race in slavery? would he not at once have freed them? i only have to remark upon this part of his speech (and that too, very briefly, for i shall not detain myself or you upon that point for any great length of time), that i believe the entire records of the world, from the date of the declaration of independence up to within three years ago, may be searched in vain for one single affirmation from one single man, that the negro was not included in the declaration of independence; i think i may defy judge douglas to show that he ever said so, that washington ever said so, that any president ever said so, that any member of congress ever said so, or that any living man upon the whole earth ever said so, until the necessities of the present policy of the democratic party in regard to slavery had to invent that affirmation. and i will remind judge douglas and this audience, that while mr. jefferson was the owner of slaves, as undoubtedly he was, in speaking on this very subject, he used the strong language that "he trembled for his country when he remembered that god was just;" and i will offer the highest premium in my power to judge douglas if he will show that he, in all his life, ever uttered a sentiment at all akin to that of jefferson. ... i want to call to the judge's attention an attack he made upon me in the first one of these debates.... in order to fix extreme abolitionism upon me, judge douglas read a set of resolutions which he declared had been passed by a republican state convention, in october , held at springfield, illinois, and he declared that i had taken a part in that convention. it turned out that although a few men calling themselves an anti-nebraska state convention had sat at springfield about that time, yet neither did i take any part in it, nor did it pass the resolutions or any such resolutions as judge douglas read. so apparent had it become that the resolutions that he read had not been passed at springfield at all, nor by any state convention in which i had taken part, that seven days later at freeport ... judge douglas declared that he had been misled ... and promised ... that when he went to springfield he would investigate the matter.... i have waited as i think a sufficient time for the report of that investigation. ... a fraud, an absolute forgery, was committed, and the perpetration of it was traced to the three,--lanphier, harris, and douglas.... whether it can be narrowed in any way, so as to exonerate any one of them, is what judge douglas's report would probably show. the main object of that forgery at that time was to beat yates and elect harris to congress, and that object was known to be exceedingly dear to judge douglas at that time. ... the fraud having been apparently successful upon that occasion, both harris and douglas have more than once since then been attempting to put it to new uses. as the fisherman's wife, whose drowned husband was brought home with his body full of eels, said, when she was asked what was to be done with him, 'take out the eels and set him again,' so harris and douglas have shown a disposition to take the eels out of that stale fraud by which they gained harris's election, and set the fraud again, more than once.... and now that it has been discovered publicly to be a fraud, we find that judge douglas manifests no surprise at all.... but meanwhile the three are agreed that each is a most honourable man. _notes for speeches. october _ suppose it is true that the negro is inferior to the white in the gifts of nature; is it not the exact reverse of justice that the white should for that reason take from the negro any part of the little which he has had given him? "give to him that is needy" is the christian rule of charity; but "take from him that is needy" is the rule of slavery. the sum of pro-slavery theology seems to be this: "slavery is not universally right, nor yet universally wrong; it is better for some people to be slaves; and, in such cases, it is the will of god that they be such." certainly there is no contending against the will of god; but still there is some difficulty in ascertaining and applying it to particular cases. for instance, we will suppose the rev. dr. ross has a slave named sambo, and the question is, "is it the will of god that sambo shall remain a slave, or be set free?" the almighty gives no audible answer to the question, and his revelation, the bible, gives none--or at most none but such as admits of a squabble as to its meaning; no one thinks of asking sambo's opinion on it. so at last it comes to this, that dr. ross is to decide the question; and while he considers it, he sits in the shade, with gloves on his hands, and subsists on the bread that sambo is earning in the burning sun. if he decides that god wills sambo to continue a slave, he thereby retains his own comfortable position; but if he decides that god wills sambo to be free, he thereby has to walk out of the shade, throw off his gloves, and delve for his own bread. will dr. ross be actuated by the perfect impartiality which has ever been considered most favourable to correct decisions? we have in this nation the element of domestic slavery. it is a matter of absolute certainty that it is a disturbing element. it is the opinion of all the great men who have expressed an opinion upon it, that it is a dangerous element. we keep up a controversy in regard to it. that controversy necessarily springs from difference of opinion, and if we can learn exactly--can reduce to the lowest elements--what that difference of opinion is, we perhaps shall be better prepared for discussing the different systems of policy that we would propose in regard to that disturbing element. i suggest that the difference of opinion, reduced to its lowest terms, is no other than the difference between the men who think slavery a wrong and those who do not think it wrong. the republican party think it wrong--we think it is a moral, a social, and a political wrong. we think it is a wrong not confining itself merely to the persons or the states where it exists, but that it is a wrong which in its tendency, to say the least, affects the existence of the whole nation. because we think it wrong, we propose a course of policy that shall deal with it as a wrong. we deal with it as with any other wrong, in so far as we can prevent its growing any larger, and so deal with it that in the run of time there may be some promise of an end to it we have a due regard to the actual presence of it amongst us, and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and all the constitutional obligations thrown about it. i suppose that in reference both to its actual existence in the nation, and to our constitutional obligations, we have no right at all to disturb it in the states where it exists, and we profess that we have no more inclination to disturb it than we have the right to do it. we go further than that: we don't propose to disturb it where, in one instance, we think the constitution would permit us. we think the constitution would permit us to disturb it in the district of columbia. still we do not propose to do that, unless it should be in terms which i don't suppose the nation is very likely soon to agree to--the terms of making the emancipation gradual and compensating the unwilling owners. where we suppose we have the constitutional right, we restrain ourselves in reference to the actual existence of the institution and the difficulties thrown about it. we also oppose it as an evil so far as it seeks to spread itself. we insist on the policy that shall restrict it to its present limits. we don't suppose that in doing this we violate anything due to the actual presence of the institution, or anything due to the constitutional guaranties thrown around it. we oppose the dred scott decision in a certain way, upon which i ought perhaps to address you in a few words. we do not propose that when dred scott has been decided to be a slave by the court, we, as a mob, will decide him to be free. we do not propose that, when any other one, or one thousand, shall be decided by that court to be slaves, we will in any violent way disturb the rights of property thus settled; but we nevertheless do oppose that decision as a political rule, which shall be binding on the voter to vote for nobody who thinks it wrong, which shall be binding on the members of congress or the president to favour no measure that does not actually concur with the principles of that decision. we do not propose to be bound by it as a political rule in that way, because we think it lays the foundation not merely of enlarging and spreading out what we consider an evil, but it lays the foundation for spreading that evil into the states themselves. we propose so resisting it as to have it reversed if we can, and a new judicial rule established upon this subject. i will add this, that if there be any man who does not believe that slavery is wrong in the three aspects which i have mentioned, or in any one of them, that man is misplaced and ought to leave us. while, on the other hand, if there be any man in the republican party who is impatient over the necessity springing from its actual presence, and is impatient of the constitutional guaranties thrown around it, and would act in disregard of these, he too is misplaced, standing with us. he will find his place somewhere else; for we have a due regard, so far as we are capable of understanding them, for all these things. this, gentlemen, as well as i can give it, is a plain statement of our principles in all their enormity. i will say now that there is a sentiment in the country contrary to me--a sentiment which holds that slavery is not wrong, and therefore goes for the policy that does not propose dealing with it as a wrong. that policy is the democratic policy, and that sentiment is the democratic sentiment. if there be a doubt in the mind of any one of this vast audience that this is really the central idea of the democratic party, in relation to this subject, i ask him to bear with me while i state a few things tending, as i think, to prove that proposition. in the first place, the leading man,--i think i may do my friend judge douglas the honour of calling him such,--advocating the present democratic policy, never himself says it is wrong. he has the high distinction, so far as i know, of never having said slavery is either right or wrong. almost everybody else says one or the other, but the judge never does. if there be a man in the democratic party who thinks it is wrong, and yet clings to that party, i suggest to him in the first place that his leader don't talk as he does, for he never says that it is wrong. in the second place, i suggest to him that if he will examine the policy proposed to be carried forward, he will find that he carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in it. if you will examine the arguments that are made on it, you will find that every one carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in slavery. perhaps that democrat who says he is as much opposed to slavery as i am will tell me that i am wrong about this. i wish him to examine his own course in regard to this matter a moment, and then see if his opinion will not be changed a little. you say it is wrong; but don't you constantly object to anybody else saying so? do you not constantly argue that this is not the right place to oppose it? you say it must not be opposed in the free states, because slavery is not there; it must not be opposed in the slave states, because it is there; it must not be opposed in politics, because that will make a fuss; it must not be opposed in the pulpit, because it is not religion. then where is the place to oppose it? there is no suitable place to oppose it. there is no plan in the country to oppose this evil overspreading the continent, which you say yourself is coming. frank blair and gratz brown tried to get up a system of gradual emancipation in missouri, had an election in august, and got beat; and you, mr. democrat, threw up your hat and hallooed, "hurrah for democracy!" so i say again, that in regard to the arguments that are made, when judge douglas says he "don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted down," whether he means that as an individual expression of sentiment, or only as a sort of statement of his views on national policy, it is alike true to say that he can thus argue logically if he don't see anything wrong in it; but he cannot say so logically if he admits that slavery is wrong. he cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down. when judge douglas says that whoever or whatever community wants slaves, they have a right to have them, he is perfectly logical if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong. when he says that slave property and horse and hog property are alike to be allowed to go into the territories, upon the principles of equality, he is reasoning truly if there is no difference between them as property; but if the one is property, held rightfully, and the other is wrong, then there is no equality between the right and wrong; so that, turn it in any way you can, in all the arguments sustaining the democratic policy, and in that policy itself, there is a careful, studied exclusion of the idea that there is anything wrong in slavery. let us understand this. i am not, just here, trying to prove that we are right and they are wrong. i have been stating where we and they stand, and trying to show what is the real difference between us; and i now say that whenever we can get the question distinctly stated,--can get all these men who believe that slavery is in some of these respects wrong, to stand and act with us in treating it as a wrong,--then, and not till then, i think, will we in some way come to an end of this slavery agitation. _mr. lincoln's reply to judge douglas in the seventh and last debate. alton, illinois. october , _ ... but is it true that all the difficulty and agitation we have in regard to this institution of slavery springs from office-seeking,--from the mere ambition of politicians? is that the truth? how many times have we had danger from this question? go back to the day of the missouri compromise. go back to the nullification question, at the bottom of which lay this same slavery question. go back to the time of the annexation of texas. go back to the troubles that led to the compromise of . you will find that every time, with the single exception of the nullification question, they sprung from an endeavour to spread this institution. there never was a party in the history of this country, and there probably never will be, of sufficient strength to disturb the general peace of the country. parties themselves may be divided and quarrel on minor questions, yet it extends not beyond the parties themselves. but does not this question make a disturbance outside of political circles? does it not enter into the churches and rend them asunder? what divided the great methodist church into two parts, north and south? what has raised this constant disturbance in every presbyterian general assembly that meets? what disturbed the unitarian church in this very city two years ago? what has jarred and shaken the great american tract society recently,--not yet splitting it, but sure to divide it in the end? is it not this same mighty, deep-seated power, that somehow operates on the minds of men, exciting and stirring them up in every avenue of society, in politics, in religion, in literature, in morals, in all the manifold relations of life? is this the work of politicians? is that irresistible power which for fifty years has shaken the government and agitated the people, to be stilled and subdued by pretending that it is an exceedingly simple thing, and we ought not to talk about it? if you will get everybody else to stop talking about it, i assure you that i will quit before they have half done so. but where is the philosophy or statesmanship which assumes that you can quiet that disturbing element in our society, which has disturbed us for more than half a century, which has been the only serious danger that has threatened our institutions? i say where is the philosophy or the statesmanship, based on the assumption that we are to quit talking about it, and that the public mind is all at once to cease being agitated by it? yet this is the policy here in the north that douglas is advocating,--that we are to care nothing about it! i ask you if it is not a false philosophy? is it not a false statesmanship that undertakes to build up a system of policy upon the basis of caring nothing about the very thing that everybody does care the most about,--a thing which all experience has shown we care a very great deal about? ... the judge alludes very often in the course of his remarks to the exclusive right which the states have to decide the whole thing for themselves. i agree with him very readily.... our controversy with him is in regard to the new territories. we agree that when states come in as states they have the right and power to do as they please.... we profess constantly that we have no more inclination than belief in the power of the government to disturb it; yet we are driven constantly to defend ourselves from the assumption that we are warring upon the rights of the states. what i insist upon is, that the new territories shall be kept free from it while in the territorial condition ... ... these are false issues, upon which judge douglas has tried to force the controversy.... the real issue in this controversy--the one dressing upon every mind--is the sentiment on the part of one class that looks upon the institution of slavery as a wrong, and of another class that does not look upon it as a wrong. the sentiment that contemplates the institution of slavery in this country as a wrong is the sentiment of the republican party. it is the sentiment around which all their actions, all their arguments, circle; from which all their propositions radiate. they look upon it as being a moral, social, and political wrong; and while they contemplate it as such, they nevertheless have due regard for its actual existence among us, and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations thrown about it. yet, having a due regard for these, they desire a policy in regard to it that looks to its not creating any more danger. they insist that it, as far as may be, be treated as a wrong; and one of the methods of treating it as a wrong is to make provision that it shall grow no larger. they also desire a policy that looks to a peaceful end of slavery some time, as being a wrong. these are the views they entertain in regard to it, as i understand them; and all their sentiments, all their arguments and propositions are brought within this range, i have said, and i here repeat it, that if there be a man amongst us who does not think that the institution of slavery is wrong in any one of the aspects of which i have spoken, he is misplaced, and ought not to be with us. and if there be a man amongst us who is so impatient of it as a wrong as to disregard its actual presence among us, and the difficulty of getting rid of it suddenly in a satisfactory way, and to disregard the constitutional obligations thrown about it, that man is misplaced if he is on our platform. we disclaim sympathy with him in practical action. he is not placed properly with us. on this subject of treating it as a wrong and limiting its spread, let me say a word. has anything ever threatened the existence of this union save and except this very institution of slavery? what is it that we hold most dear amongst us? our own liberty and prosperity. what has ever threatened our liberty and prosperity save and except this institution of slavery? if this is true, how do you propose to improve the condition of things by enlarging slavery,--by spreading it out and making it bigger? you may have a wen or a cancer upon your person, and not be able to cut it out lest you bleed to death; but surely it is no way to cure it, to engraft it and spread it over your whole body. that is no proper way of treating what you regard as a wrong. you see this peaceful way of dealing with it as a wrong,--restricting the spread of it, and not allowing it to go into new countries where it has not already existed. that is the peaceful way--the old-fashioned way--the way in which the fathers themselves set us the example. on the other hand, i have said there is a sentiment which treats it as not being wrong. that is the democratic sentiment of this day. i do not mean to say that every man who stands within that range positively asserts that it is right. that class will include all who positively assert that it is right, and all who, like judge douglas, treat it as indifferent, and do not say it is either right or wrong. these two classes of men fall within the general class of those who do not look upon it as a wrong. and if there be among you anybody who supposes that he, as a democrat, can consider himself "as much opposed to slavery as anybody," i would like to reason with him. you never treat it _as_ a wrong. what other thing that you consider a wrong do you deal with as you deal with that? perhaps you say it is wrong, but your leader never does, and you quarrel with anybody who says it is wrong. although you pretend to say so yourself, you can find no fit place to deal with it as a wrong. you must not say anything about it in the free states, because it is not here. you must not say anything about it in the slave states, because it is there. you must not say anything about it in the pulpit, because that is religion, and has nothing to do with it. you must not say anything about it in politics, because that will disturb the security of "my place." there is no place to talk about it as being a wrong, although you say yourself it is a wrong. but, finally, you will screw yourself up to the belief that if the people of the slave states should adopt a system of gradual emancipation on the slavery question, you would be in favour of it. you would be in favour of it! you say that is getting it in the right place, and you would be glad to see it succeed. but you are deceiving yourself. you all know that frank blair and gratz brown, down there in st. louis, undertook to introduce that system in missouri. they fought as valiantly as they could for the system of gradual emancipation, which you pretend you would be glad to see succeed. now i will bring you to the test. after a hard fight they were beaten; and when the news came over here, you threw up your hats and hurrahed for democracy! more than that; take all the argument made in favour of the system you have proposed, and it carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in the institution of slavery. the arguments to sustain that policy carefully exclude it. even here to-day, you heard judge douglas quarrel with me, because i uttered a wish that it might sometime come to an end. although henry clay could say he wished every slave in the united states was in the country of his ancestors, i am denounced by those who pretend to respect henry clay, for uttering a wish that it might sometime, in some peaceful way, come to an end. the democratic policy in regard to that institution will not tolerate the merest breath, the slightest hint, of the least degree of wrong about it. try it by some of judge douglas's arguments. he says he "don't care whether it is voted up or voted down in the territories." i do not care myself in dealing with that expression whether it is intended to be expressive of his individual sentiments on the subject or only of the national policy he desires to have established. but no man can logically say it who does see a wrong in it; because no man can logically say he don't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down.... any man can say that who does not see anything wrong in slavery.... but if it is a wrong, he cannot say that people have a right to do wrong. he says that, upon the score of equality, slaves should be allowed to go into a new territory like other property. this is strictly logical if there is no difference between it and other property.... but if you insist that one is wrong and the other right, there is no use to institute a comparison between right and wrong.... the democratic policy everywhere carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in it. that is the real issue. that is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of judge douglas and myself shall be silent. it is the eternal struggle between these two principles--right and wrong--throughout the world. they are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. the one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings. it is the same principle in whatever shape it develops itself. it is the same spirit that says, "you toil and work and earn bread, and i'll eat it." no matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king, who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labour, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race,--it is the same tyrannical principle.... whenever the issue can be distinctly made, and all extraneous matter thrown out, so that men can fairly see the real difference between the parties, this controversy will soon be settled, and it will be done peaceably, too. there will be no war, no violence. it will be placed again where the wisest and best men of the world placed it. _from a speech at columbus, ohio, on the slave trade, popular sovereignty, etc. september , _ ... the republican party, as i understand its principles and policy, believes that there is great danger of the institution of slavery being spread out and extended, until it is ultimately made alike lawful in all the states of this union; so believing, to prevent that incidental and ultimate consummation is the original and chief purpose of the republican organization. i say "chief purpose" of the republican organization; for it is certainly true that if the national house shall fall into the hands of the republicans, they will have to attend to all the matters of national house-keeping as well as this. the chief and real purpose of the republican party is eminently conservative. it proposes nothing save and except to restore this government to its original tone in regard to this element of slavery, and there to maintain it, looking for no further change in reference to it than that which the original framers of the government themselves expected and looked forward to. the chief danger to this purpose of the republican party is not just now the revival of the african slave-trade, or the passage of a congressional slave-code ... but the most imminent danger that now threatens that purpose is that insidious douglas popular sovereignty. this is the miner and sapper. while it does not propose to revive the african slave-trade, nor to pass a slave-code, nor to make a second dred scott decision, it is preparing us for the onslaught and charge of these ultimate enemies when they shall be ready to come on, and the word of command for them to advance shall be given. i say this _douglas_ popular sovereignty--for there is a broad distinction, as i now understand it, between that article and a genuine popular sovereignty. i believe there is a genuine popular sovereignty. i think a definition of genuine popular sovereignty in the abstract would be about this: that each man shall do precisely as he pleases with himself, and with all those things which exclusively concern him. applied to governments, this principle would be, that a general government shall do all those things which pertain to it; and all the local governments shall do precisely as they please in respect to those matters which exclusively concern them. i understand that this government of the united states under which we live, is based upon this principle; and i am misunderstood if it is supposed that i have any war to make upon that principle. now, what is judge douglas's popular sovereignty? it is, as a principle, no other than that if one man chooses to make a slave of another man, neither that other man nor anybody else has a right to object. applied in government, as he seeks to apply it, it is this: if, in a new territory into which a few people are beginning to enter for the purpose of making their homes, they choose to either exclude slavery from their limits or to establish it there, however one or the other may affect the persons to be enslaved, or the infinitely greater number of persons who are afterward to inhabit that territory, or the other members of the families of communities of which they are but an incipient member, or the general head of the family of states as parent of all,--however their action may affect one or the other of these, there is no power or right to interfere. that is douglas popular sovereignty applied. ... i cannot but express my gratitude that this true view of this element of discord among us, as i believe it is, is attracting more and more attention. i do not believe that governor seward uttered that sentiment because i had done so before, but because he reflected upon this subject, and saw the truth of it. nor do i believe, because governor seward or i uttered it, that mr. hickman of pennsylvania, in different language, since that time, has declared his belief in the utter antagonism which exists between the principles of liberty and slavery. you see we are multiplying. now, while i am speaking of hickman, let me say, i know but little about him. i have never seen him, and know scarcely anything about the man; but i will say this much about him: of all the anti-lecompton democracy that have been brought to my notice, he alone has the true, genuine ring of the metal. ... judge douglas ... proceeds to assume, without proving it, that slavery is one of those little, unimportant, trivial matters which are of just about as much consequence as the question would be to me, whether my neighbour should raise horned cattle or plant tobacco; that there is no moral question about it, but that it is altogether a matter of dollars and cents; that when a new territory is opened for settlement, the first man who goes into it may plant there a thing which, like the canada thistle or some other of those pests of the soil, cannot be dug out by the millions of men who will come thereafter; that it is one of those little things that is so trivial in its nature that it has no effect upon anybody save the few men who first plant upon the soil; that it is not a thing which in any way affects the family of communities composing these states, nor any way endangers the general government. judge douglas ignores altogether the very well-known fact that we have never had a serious menace to our political existence except it sprang from this thing, which he chooses to regard as only upon a par with onions and potatoes. ... did you ever, five years ago, hear of anybody in the world saying that the negro had no share in the declaration of national independence; that it did not mean negroes at all; and when "all men" were spoken of, negroes were not included? ... then i suppose that all now express the belief that the declaration of independence never did mean negroes. i call upon one of them to say that he said it five years ago. if you think that now, and did not think it then, the next thing that strikes me is to remark that there has been a _change_ wrought in you, and a very significant change it is, being no less than changing the negro, in your estimation, from the rank of a man to that of a brute.... is not this change wrought in your minds a very important change? public opinion in this country is everything. in a nation like ours this popular sovereignty and squatter sovereignty have already wrought a change in the public mind to the extent i have stated.... ... now, if you are opposed to slavery honestly, i ask you to note that fact (the popular-sovereignty of judge douglas), and the like of which is to follow, to be plastered on, layer after layer, until very soon you are prepared to deal with the negro everywhere as with the brute. if public sentiment has not been debauched already to this point, a new turn of the screw in that direction is all that is wanting; and this is constantly being done by the teachers of this insidious popular sovereignty. you need but one or two turns further, until your minds, now ripening under these teachings, will be ready for all these things, and you will receive and support or submit to the slave-trade, revived with all its horrors,--a slave-code enforced in our territories,--and a new dred scott decision to bring slavery up into the very heart of the free north. ... i ask attention to the fact that in a pre-eminent degree these popular sovereigns are at this work: blowing out the moral lights around us; teaching that the negro is no longer a man, but a brute; that the declaration has nothing to do with him; that he ranks with the crocodile and the reptile; that man with body and soul is a matter of dollars and cents. i suggest to this portion of the ohio republicans, or democrats, if there be any present, the serious consideration of this fact, that there is now going on among you a steady process of debauching public opinion on this subject. with this, my friends, i bid you adieu. _from a speech at cincinnati, ohio, on the intentions of "black republicans," the relation of labour and capital, etc. september , _ ... i say, then, in the first place to the kentuckians that i am what they call, as i understand it, a "black republican." i think slavery is wrong, morally and politically. i desire that it should be no further spread in these united states, and i should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole union. while i say this for myself, i say to you, kentuckians, that i understand you differ radically with me upon this proposition; that you believe slavery is a good thing; that slavery is right; that it ought to be extended and perpetuated in this union. now, there being this broad difference between us, i do not pretend, in addressing myself to you, kentuckians, to attempt proselyting you. that would be a vain effort. i do not enter upon it. i only propose to try to show you that you ought to nominate for the next presidency, at charleston, my distinguished friend, judge douglas. in all that, there is no real difference between you and him; i understand he is as sincerely for you, and more wisely for you than you are for yourselves. i will try to demonstrate that proposition. in kentucky perhaps--in many of the slave states certainly--you are trying to establish the rightfulness of slavery by reference to the bible. you are trying to show that slavery existed in the bible times by divine ordinance. now, douglas is wiser than you, for your own benefit, upon that subject. douglas knows that whenever you establish that slavery was right by the bible, it will occur that that slavery was the slavery of the white man,--of men without reference to colour,--and he knows very well that you may entertain that idea in kentucky as much as you please, but you will never win any northern support upon it. he makes a wiser argument for you. he makes the argument that the slavery of the black man--the slavery of the man who has a skin of a different colour from your own--is right. he thereby brings to your support northern voters, who could not for a moment be brought by your own argument of the bible right of slavery. ... at memphis he [judge douglas] declared that in all contests between the negro and the white man, he was for the white man, but that in all questions between the negro and the crocodile, he was for the negro. he did not make that declaration accidentally ... he made it a great many times. the first inference seems to be that if you do not enslave the negro, you are wronging the white man in some way or other; and that whoever is opposed to the negro being enslaved is in some way or other against the white man. is not that a falsehood? if there was a necessary conflict between the white man and the negro, i should be for the white man as much as judge douglas; but i say there is no such necessary conflict. i say there is room enough for us all to be free, and that it not only does not wrong the white man that the negro should be free, but it positively wrongs the mass of the white men that the negro should be enslaved,--that the mass of white men are really injured by the effects of slave labour in the vicinity of the fields of their own labour.... there is one other thing that i will say to you in this relation. it is but my opinion; i give it to you without a fee. it is my opinion that it is for you to take him or be defeated; and that if you do take him you may be beaten. you will surely be beaten if you do not take him. we, the republicans and others forming the opposition of the country, intend "to stand by our guns," to be patient and firm, and in the long run to beat you, whether you take him or not. we know that before we fairly beat you, we have to beat you both together. we know that "you are all of a feather," and that we have to beat you all together, and we expect to do it. we don't intend to be very impatient about it. we mean to be as deliberate and calm about it as it is possible to be, but as firm and resolved as it is possible for men to be. when we do as we say, beat you, you perhaps want to know what we will do with you. i will tell you, so far as i am authorized to speak for the opposition, what we mean to do with you. we mean to treat you, as near as we possibly can, as washington, jefferson, and madison treated you. we mean to leave you alone, and in no way to interfere with your institution; to abide by all and every compromise of the constitution, and, in a word, coming back to the original proposition, to treat you, so far as degenerate men (if we have degenerated) may, according to the example of those noble fathers--washington, jefferson, and madison. we mean to remember that you are as good as we; that there is no difference between us other than the difference of circumstances. we mean to recognize and bear in mind always, that you have as good hearts in your bosoms as other people, or as we claim to have, and to treat you accordingly. we mean to marry your girls when we have a chance--the white ones, i mean, and i have the honour to inform you that i once did have a chance in that way. i have told you what we mean to do. i want to know, now, when that thing takes place, what do you mean to do? i often hear it intimated that you mean to divide the union whenever a republican, or anything like it, is elected president of the united states. [a voice: "that is so."] "that is so," one of them says; i wonder if he is a kentuckian? [a voice: "he is a douglas man."] well, then, i want to know what you are going to do with your half of it. are you going to split the ohio down through, and push your half off a piece? or are you going to keep it right alongside of us outrageous fellows? or are you going to build up a wall some way between your country and ours, by which that movable property of yours can't come over here any more, to the danger of your losing it? do you think you can better yourselves on that subject by leaving us here under no obligation whatever to return those specimens of your movable property that come hither? you have divided the union because we would not do right with you, as you think, upon that subject; when we cease to be under obligation to do anything for you, how much better off do you think you will be? will you make war upon us and kill us all? why, gentlemen, i think you are as gallant and as brave men as live; that you can fight as bravely in a good cause, man for man, as any other people living; that you have shown yourselves capable of this upon various occasions; but man for man, you are not better than we are, and there are not so many of you as there are of us. you will never make much of a hand at whipping us. if we were fewer in numbers than you, i think that you could whip us; if we were equal it would likely be a drawn battle; but being inferior in numbers, you will make nothing by attempting to master us.... labour is the great source from which nearly all, if not all, human comforts and necessities are drawn. there is a difference in opinion about the elements of labour in society. some men assume that there is a necessary connection between capital and labour, and that connection draws within it the whole of the labour of the community. they assume that nobody works unless capital excites them to work. they begin next to consider what is the best way. they say there are but two ways,--one is to hire men and to allure them to labour by their consent; the other is to buy the men, and drive them to it, and that is slavery. having assumed that, they proceed to discuss the question of whether the labourers themselves are better off in the condition of slaves or of hired labourers, and they usually decide that they are better off in the condition of slaves. in the first place, i say the whole thing is a mistake. that there is a certain relation between capital and labour, i admit. that it does exist, and rightfully exist, i think is true. that men who are industrious and sober and honest in the pursuit of their own interests should after a while accumulate capital, and after that should be allowed to enjoy it in peace, and also if they should choose, when they have accumulated it, to use it to save themselves from actual labour, and hire other people to labour for them,--is right. in doing so, they do not wrong the man they employ, for they find men who have not their own land to work upon, or shops to work in, and who are benefited by working for others,--hired labourers, receiving their capital for it. thus a few men that own capital hire a few others, and these establish the relation of capital and labour rightfully--a relation of which i make no complaint. but i insist that that relation, after all, does not embrace more than one-eighth of the labour of the country. there are a plenty of men in the slave states that are altogether good enough for me, to be either president or vice-president, provided they will profess their sympathy with our purpose, and will place themselves on such ground that our men upon principle can vote for them. there are scores of them--good men in their character for intelligence, for talent and integrity. if such an one will place himself upon the right ground, i am for his occupying one place upon the next republican or opposition ticket. i will go heartily for him. but unless he does so place himself, i think it is perfect nonsense to attempt to bring about a union upon any other basis; that if a union be made, the elements will so scatter that there can be no success for such a ticket. the good old maxims of the bible are applicable, and truly applicable, to human affairs; and in this, as in other things, we may say that he who is not for us is against us; he who gathereth not with us, scattereth. i should be glad to have some of the many good and able and noble men of the south place themselves where we can confer upon them the high honour of an election upon one or the other end of our ticket. it would do my soul good to do that thing. it would enable us to teach them that inasmuch as we select one of their own number to carry out our principles, we are free from the charge that we mean more than we say.... _from a letter to j.w. fell. december , _ i was born february , , in hardin county, kentucky. my parents were both born in virginia, of undistinguished families--second families, perhaps i should say. my mother, who died in my tenth year, was of a family of the name of hanks, some of whom now reside in adams, and others in macon county, illinois. my paternal grandfather, abraham lincoln, emigrated from rockingham county, virginia, to kentucky about or , where a year or two later he was killed by the indians, not in battle, but by stealth, when he was labouring to open a farm in the forest. his ancestors, who were quakers, went to virginia from berks county, pennsylvania. an effort to identify them with the new england family of the same name ended in nothing more definite than a similarity of christian names in both families, such as enoch, levi, mordecai, solomon, abraham, and the like. my father, at the death of his father, was but six years of age, and he grew up literally without education. he removed from kentucky to what is now spencer county, indiana, in my eighth year. we reached our new home about the time the state came into the union. it was a wild region, with many bears and other wild animals still in the woods. there i grew up. there were some schools, so called, but no qualification was ever required of a teacher beyond "readin', writin', and cipherin'" to the rule of three. if a straggler supposed to understand latin happened to sojourn in the neighbourhood, he was looked upon as a wizard. there was absolutely nothing to excite ambition for education. of course, when i came of age i did not know much. still, somehow, i could read, write, and cipher to the rule of three, but that was all. i have not been to school since. the little advance i now have upon this store of education i have picked up from time to time under the pressure of necessity. i was raised to farm work, which i continued till i was twenty-two. at twenty-one i came to illinois, macon county. then i got to new salem, at that time in sangamon, now in menard county, where i remained a year as a sort of clerk in a store. then came the black hawk war; and i was elected a captain of volunteers, a success which gave me more pleasure than any i have had since. i went the campaign, was elated, ran for the legislature the same year ( ), and was beaten--the only time i ever have been beaten by the people. the next and three succeeding biennial elections i was elected to the legislature. i was not a candidate afterward. during this legislative period i had studied law, and removed to springfield to practise it. in i was once elected to the lower house of congress. was not a candidate for re-election. from to , both inclusive, practised law more assiduously than ever before. always a whig in politics; and generally on the whig electoral tickets, making active canvasses. i was losing interest in politics when the repeal of the missouri compromise aroused me again. what i have done since then is pretty well known. if any personal description of me is thought desirable, it may be said i am, in height, six feet four inches, nearly; lean in flesh, weighing on an average one hundred and eighty pounds; dark complexion, with coarse black hair and gray eyes. no other marks or brands recollected. _from an address delivered at cooper institute, new york. february , _ ... now, and hear, let me guard a little against being misunderstood. i do not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did. to do so, would be to discard all the lights of current experience--to reject all progress, all improvement. what i do say is, that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we should do so on evidence so conclusive, and argument so clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand; and most surely not in a case whereof we ourselves declare they understood the question better than we. if any man at this day sincerely believes that the proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the constitution, forbids the federal government to control as to slavery in the federal territories, he is right to say so, and to enforce his position by all truthful evidence and fair argument he can. but he has no right to mislead others who have less access to history, and less leisure to study it, into the false belief that "our fathers who framed the government under which we live" were of the same opinion--thus substituting falsehood and deception for truthful evidence and fair argument. if any man at this day sincerely believes "our fathers who framed the government under which we live" used and applied principles, in other cases, which ought to have led them to understand that a proper division of local from federal authority, or some part of the constitution, forbids the federal government to control as to slavery in the federal territories, he is right to say so. but he should, at the same time, have the responsibility of declaring that, in his opinion, he understands their principles better than they did themselves; and especially should he not shirk the responsibility by asserting that they understood the question just as well and even better than we do now. but enough! let all who believe that "our fathers who framed the government under which we live understood this question just as well, and even better than we do now," speak as they spoke, and act as they acted upon it. this is all republicans ask, all republicans desire, in relation to slavery. as those fathers marked it, so let it again be marked, as an evil not to be extended, but to be tolerated and protected only because of and so far as its actual presence among us makes that toleration and protection a necessity. let all the guaranties those fathers gave it be not grudgingly, but fully and fairly maintained. for this republicans contend, and with this, so far as i know or believe, they will be content. and now, if they would listen,--as i suppose they will not,--i would address a few words to the southern people. i would say to them: you consider yourselves a reasonable and a just people; and i consider that in the general qualities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any other people. still, when you speak of us republicans, you do so only to denounce us as reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. you will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to "black republicans." in all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of "black republicanism" as the first thing to be attended to. indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite--license, so to speak--among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all. now, can you or not be prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? bring forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify. you say we are sectional. we deny it. that makes an issue; and the burden of proof is upon you. you produce your proof; and what is it? why, that our party has no existence in your section--gets no votes in your section. the fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? if it does, then, in case we should, without change of principle, begin to get votes in your section, we should thereby cease to be sectional. you cannot escape this conclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide by it? if you are, you will probably soon find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall get votes in your section this very year. you will then begin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof does not touch the issue. the fact that we get no votes in your section is a fact of your making, and not of ours. and if there be fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains so until you show that we repel you by some wrong principle or practice. if we do repel you by any wrong principle or practice, the fault is ours; but this brings you to where you ought to have started--to a discussion of the right or wrong of our principle. if our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for any other object, then our principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are justly opposed and denounced as such. meet us, then, on the question of whether our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section; and so meet us as if it were possible that something may be said on our side. do you accept the challenge? no! then you really believe that the principle which "our fathers who framed the government under which we live" thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again and again, upon their official oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as to demand your condemnation without a moment's consideration. some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against sectional parties given by washington in his farewell address. less than eight years before washington gave that warning he had, as president of the united states, approved and signed an act of congress enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the northwestern territory, which act embodied the policy of the government upon that subject up to and at the very moment he penned that warning; and about one year after he penned it, he wrote lafayette that he considered that prohibition a wise measure, expressing in the same connection his hope that we should at some time have a confederacy of free states. bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, or in our hands against you? could washington himself speak, would he cast the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon you, who repudiate it? we respect that warning of washington, and we commend it to you, together with his example pointing to the right application of it. but you say you are conservative,--eminently conservative,--while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. what is conservatism? is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? we stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the government under which we live"; while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. true, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. you are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. some of you are for reviving the foreign slave-trade; some for a congressional slave-code for the territories; some for congress forbidding the territories to prohibit slavery within their limits; some for maintaining slavery in the territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called "popular sovereignty"; but never a man among you is in favour of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the government under which we live." not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our government originated. consider, then, whether your claim for conservatism for yourselves, and your charge of destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations. again, you say we have made the slavery question more prominent than it formerly was. we deny it. we admit that it is more prominent, but we deny that we made it so. it was not we, but you, who discarded the old policy of the fathers. we resisted, and still resist, your innovation; and thence comes the greater prominence of the question. would you have that question reduced to its former proportions? go back to that old policy. what has been will be again, under the same conditions. if you would have the peace of the old times, readopt the precepts and policy of the old times. you charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. we deny it; and what is your proof? harper's ferry! john brown! john brown was no republican; and you have failed to implicate a single republican in his harper's ferry enterprise. if any member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know it, or you do not know it. if you do know it, you are inexcusable for not designating the man and proving the fact. if you do not know it, you are inexcusable for asserting it, and especially for persisting in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make the proof. you need not be told that persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true is simply malicious slander. some of you admit that no republican designedly aided or encouraged the harper's ferry affair, but still insist that our doctrines and declarations necessarily lead to such results. we do not believe it. we know we hold no doctrine, and make no declaration, which were not held to and made by "our fathers who framed the government under which we live." you never dealt fairly by us in relation to this affair. when it occurred, some important state elections were near at hand, and you were in evident glee with the belief that, by charging the blame upon us, you could get an advantage of us in those elections. the elections came, and your expectations were not quite fulfilled. every republican man knew that, as to himself at least, your charge was a slander, and he was not much inclined by it to cast his vote in your favour. republican doctrines and declarations are accompanied with a continual protest against any interference whatever with your slaves, or with you about your slaves. surely this does not encourage them to revolt. true, we do, in common with "our fathers who framed the government under which we live," declare our belief that slavery is wrong; but the slaves do not hear us declare even this. for anything we say or do, the slaves would scarcely know there is a republican party. i believe they would not, in fact, generally know it but for your misrepresentations of us in their hearing. in your political contests among yourselves, each faction charges the other with sympathy with black republicanism; and then, to give point to the charge, defines black republicanism to simply be insurrection, blood, and thunder among the slaves. slave insurrections are no more common now than they were before the republican party was organized. what induced the southampton insurrection, twenty-eight years ago, in which at least three times as many lives were lost as at harper's ferry? you can scarcely stretch your very elastic fancy to the conclusion that southampton was "got up by black republicanism." in the present state of things in the united states, i do not think a general, or even a very extensive, slave insurrection is possible. the indispensable concert of action cannot be attained. the slaves have no means of rapid communication; nor can incendiary freemen, black or white, supply it. the explosive materials are everywhere in parcels; but there neither are, nor can be supplied, the indispensable connecting trains. much is said by southern people about the affection of slaves for their masters and mistresses; and a part of it, at least, is true. a plot for an uprising could scarcely be devised and communicated to twenty individuals before some one of them, to save the life of a favourite master or mistress, would divulge it. this is the rule; and the slave revolution in haiti was not an exception to it, but a case occurring under peculiar circumstances. the gunpowder plot of british history, though not connected with slaves, was more in point. in that case, only about twenty were admitted to the secret; and yet one of them, in his anxiety to save a friend, betrayed the plot to that friend, and, by consequence, averted the calamity. occasional poisonings from the kitchen, and open or stealthy assassinations in the field, and local revolts extending to a score or so, will continue to occur as the natural results of slavery; but no general insurrection of slaves, as i think, can happen in this country for a long time. whoever much fears, or much hopes, for such an event, will be alike disappointed. in the language of mr. jefferson, uttered many years ago, "it is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably, and in such slow degrees as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their places be, _pari passu_, filled up by free white labourers. if, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up." mr. jefferson did not mean to say, nor do i, that the power of emancipation is in the federal government. he spoke of virginia; and, as to the power of emancipation, i speak of the slaveholding states only. the federal government, however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the extension of the institution--the power to insure that a slave insurrection shall never occur on any american soil which is now free from slavery. john brown's effort was peculiar. it was not a slave insurrection. it was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves, in which the slaves refused to participate. in fact, it was so absurd that the slaves, with all their ignorance, saw plainly enough it could not succeed. that affair, in its philosophy, corresponds with the many attempts, related in history, at the assassination of kings and emperors. an enthusiast broods over the oppression of a people till he fancies himself commissioned by heaven to liberate them. he ventures the attempt, which ends in little else than his own execution. orsini's attempt on louis napoleon, and john brown's attempt at harper's ferry, were, in their philosophy, precisely the same. the eagerness to cast blame on old england in the one case, and on new england in the other, does not disprove the sameness of the two things. and how much would it avail you if you could, by the use of john brown, helper's book, and the like, break up the republican organization? human action can be modified to some extent, but human nature cannot be changed. there is a judgment and a feeling against slavery in this nation, which cast at least a million and a half of votes. you cannot destroy that judgment and feeling--that sentiment--by breaking up the political organization which rallies around it. you can scarcely scatter and disperse an army which has been formed into order in the face of your heaviest fire; but if you could, how much would you gain by forcing the sentiment which created it out of the peaceful channel of the ballot-box into some other channel? what would that other channel probably be? would the number of john browns be lessened or enlarged by the operation? but you will break up the union rather than submit to a denial of your constitutional rights. that has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would be palliated, if not fully justified, were we proposing, by the mere force of numbers, to deprive you of some right plainly written down in the constitution. but we are proposing no such thing. when you make these declarations you have a specific and well-understood allusion to an assumed constitutional right of yours to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. but no such right is specifically written in the constitution. that instrument is literally silent about any such right. we, on the contrary, deny that such a right has any existence in the constitution, even by implication. your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the government, unless you be allowed to construe and force the constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. you will rule or ruin in all events. this, plainly stated, is your language. perhaps you will say the supreme court has decided the disputed constitutional question in your favour. not quite so. but waiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum and decision, the court has decided the question for you in a sort of way. the court has substantially said, it is your constitutional right to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. when i say the decision was made in a sort of way, i mean it was made in a divided court, by a bare majority of the judges, and they not quite agreeing with one another in the reasons for making it; that it is so made as that its avowed supporters disagree with one another about its meaning, and that it was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact--the statement in the opinion that "the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the constitution." an inspection of the constitution will show that the right of property in a slave is not "distinctly and expressly affirmed" in it. bear in mind, the judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that such right is impliedly affirmed in the constitution; but they pledge their veracity that it is "distinctly and expressly" affirmed there--"distinctly," that is, not mingled with anything else; "expressly," that is, in words meaning just that, without the aid of any inference, and susceptible of no other meaning. if they had only pledged their judicial opinion that such right is affirmed in the instrument by implication, it would be open to others to show that neither the word "slave" nor "slavery" is to be found in the constitution, nor the word "property," even, in any connection with language alluding to the things slave or slavery; and that wherever in that instrument the slave is alluded to, he is called a "person"; and wherever his master's legal right in relation to him is alluded to, it is spoken of as "service or labour which may be due"--as a debt payable in service or labour. also it would be open to show, by contemporaneous history, that this mode of alluding to slaves and slavery, instead of speaking of them, was employed on purpose to exclude from the constitution the idea that there could be property in man. to show all this is easy and certain. when this obvious mistake of the judges shall be brought to their notice, is it not reasonable to expect that they will withdraw the mistaken statement, and reconsider the conclusion based upon it? and then it is to be remembered that "our fathers who framed the government under which we live"--the men who made the constitution--decided this same constitutional question in our favour long ago; decided it without division among themselves when making the decision; without division among themselves about the meaning of it after it was made, and, so far as any evidence is left, without basing it upon any mistaken statement of facts. under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this government unless such a court decision as yours is shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? but you will not abide the election of a republican president! in that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! that is cool. a highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "stand and deliver, or i shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!" to be sure, what the robber demanded of me--my money--was my own; and i had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote is my own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in principle. * * * * * wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the national territories, and to overrun us here in these free states? if our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty fearlessly and effectively. let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belaboured,--contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man; such as a policy of "don't care," on a question about which all true men do care; such as union appeals beseeching true union men to yield to disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance; such as invocations to washington, imploring men to unsay what washington said, and undo what washington did. neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the government, nor of dungeons to ourselves. let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith let us to the end dare to do our duty as we understand it. _lincoln's farewell address at springfield, illinois. february , _ my friends, no one not in my situation can appreciate my feeling of sadness at this parting. to this place, and the kindness of these people, i owe everything. here i have lived a quarter of a century, and have passed from a young to an old man. here my children have been born, and one is buried. i now leave, not knowing when or whether ever i may return, with a task before me greater than that which rested upon washington. without the assistance of that divine being who ever attended him i cannot succeed. with that assistance i cannot fail. trusting in him, who can go with me and remain with you, and be everywhere for good, let us confidently hope that all will yet be well. to his care commending you, as i hope in your prayers you will commend me, i bid you an affectionate farewell. _a letter to the hon. geo. ashmun accepting his nomination for the presidency. may , _ i accept the nomination tendered me by the convention over which you presided, and of which i am formally apprized in the letter of yourself and others, acting as a committee of the convention for that purpose. the declaration of principles and sentiments which accompanies your letter, meets my approval; and it shall be my care not to violate or disregard it in any part. imploring the assistance of divine providence, and with due regard to the views and feelings of all who were represented in the convention; to the rights of all the states and territories and people of the nation; to the inviolability of the constitution; and the perpetual union, harmony, and prosperity of all,--i am most happy to co-operate for the practical success of the principles declared by the convention. your obliged friend and fellow-citizen, a. lincoln. _letter to miss grace bedell. springfield, illinois. october , _ my dear little miss, your very agreeable letter of the th is received. i regret the necessity of saying i have no daughter. i have three sons--one seventeen, one nine, and one seven years of age. they, with their mother, constitute my whole family. as to the whiskers, having never worn any, do you not think people would call it a piece of silly affectation if i were to begin it now? _from an address to the legislature at indianapolis, indiana. february , _ fellow-citizens of the state of indiana, i am here to thank you much for this magnificent welcome, and still more for the generous support given by your state to that political cause which i think is the true and just cause of the whole country and the whole world. solomon says "there is a time to keep silence," and when men wrangle by the mouth with no certainty that they mean the same thing while using the same word, it perhaps were as well if they would keep silence. the words "coercion" and "invasion" are much used in these days, and often with some temper and hot blood. let us make sure, if we can, that we do not misunderstand the meaning of those who use them. let us get exact definitions of these words, not from dictionaries, but from the men themselves, who certainly deprecate the things they would represent by the use of words. what then is _coercion_? what is _invasion_? would the marching of an army into south carolina, without the consent of her people and with hostile intent towards them, be invasion? i certainly think it would; and it would be coercion also, if the south carolinians were forced to submit. but if the united states should merely retake and hold its own forts and other property, and collect the duties on foreign importations, or even withhold the mails from places where they were habitually violated, would any or all these things be invasion or coercion? do our professed lovers of the union, but who spitefully resolve that they will resist coercion and invasion, understand that such things as these, on the part of the united states, would be coercion or invasion of a state? if so, their idea of means to preserve the object of their affection would seem exceedingly thin and airy. if sick, the little pills of the homoeopathist would be much too large for them to swallow. in their view, the union as a family relation would seem to be no regular marriage, but a sort of free-love arrangement to be maintained only on _passional attraction_. by the way, in what consists the special sacredness of a state? i speak not of the position assigned to a state in the union by the constitution; for that, by the bond, we all recognize. that position, however, a state cannot carry out of the union with it. i speak of that assumed primary right of a state to rule all which is _less_ than itself, and ruin all which is larger than itself. if a state and a county in a given case should be equal in extent of territory, and equal in number of inhabitants, in what, as a matter of principle, is the state better than the county? would an exchange of _names_ be an exchange of _rights_ upon principle? on what rightful principle may a state, being not more than one-fiftieth part of the nation in soil and population, break up the nation, and then coerce a proportionally larger subdivision of itself in the most arbitrary way? what mysterious right to play tyrant is conferred on a district of country, with its people, by merely calling it a state? fellow-citizens, i am not asserting anything: i am merely asking questions for you to consider. and now allow me to bid you farewell. _from his address to the legislature at columbus, ohio. february , _ it is true, as has been said by the president of the senate, that a very great responsibility rests upon me in the position to which the votes of the american people have called me. i am deeply sensible of that weighty responsibility. i cannot but know, what you all know, that without a name, perhaps without a reason why i should have a name, there has fallen upon me a task such as did not rest even upon the father of his country; and so feeling, i cannot but turn and look for that support without which it will be impossible for me to perform that great task. i turn then, and look to the great american people, and to that god who has never forsaken them. allusion has been made to the interest felt in relation to the policy of the new administration. in this i have received from some a degree of credit for having kept silence, and from others, some deprecation. i still think i was right. in the varying and repeatedly shifting scenes of the present, and without a precedent which could enable me to judge by the past, it has seemed fitting that before speaking upon the difficulties of the country, i should have gained a view of the whole field, being at liberty to modify and change the course of policy as future events may make a change necessary. i have not maintained silence from any want of real anxiety. it is a good thing that there is no more than anxiety, for there is nothing going wrong. it is a consoling circumstance that when we look out, there is nothing that really hurts anybody. we entertain different views upon political questions, but nobody is suffering anything. this is a most consoling circumstance, and from it we may conclude that all we want is time, patience, and a reliance on that god who has never forsaken this people. _from his remarks at pittsburgh, pennsylvania. february , _ ... the condition of the country is an extraordinary one, and fills the mind of every patriot with anxiety. it is my intention to give this subject all the consideration i possibly can, before specially deciding in regard to it, so that when i do speak, it may be as nearly right as possible. when i do speak, i hope i may say nothing in opposition to the spirit of the constitution, contrary to the integrity of the union, or which will prove inimical to the liberties of the people or to the peace of the whole country. and furthermore, when the time arrives for me to speak on this great subject, i hope i may say nothing to disappoint the people generally throughout the country, especially if the expectation has been based upon anything which i have heretofore said. ... if the great american people only keep their temper on both sides of the line, the troubles will come to an end, and the question which now distracts the country will be settled, just as surely as all other difficulties of a like character which have originated in this government have been adjusted. let the people on both sides keep their self-possession, and just as other clouds have cleared away in due time, so will this great nation continue to prosper as heretofore. ... it is often said that the tariff is the specialty of pennsylvania. assuming that direct taxation is not to be adopted, the tariff question must be as durable as the government itself. it is a question of national house-keeping. it is to the government what replenishing the meal-tub is to the family. ever-varying circumstances will require frequent modifications as to the amount needed and the sources of supply. so far there is little difference of opinion among the people. it is only whether, and how far, duties on imports shall be adjusted to favour home productions. in the home market that controversy begins. one party insists that too much protection oppresses one class for the advantage of another; while the other party argues that, with all its incidents, in the long run all classes are benefited. in the chicago platform there is a plank upon this subject, which should be a general law to the incoming administration. we should do neither more nor less than we gave the people reason to believe we would when they gave us their votes. that plank is as i now read: "that while providing revenue for the support of the general government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imposts as will encourage the development of the industrial interest of the whole country; and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to working-men liberal wages, to agriculture remunerating prices, to mechanics and manufacturers adequate reward for their skill, labour, and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence." ... my political education strongly inclines me against a very free use of any of the means by the executive to control the legislation of the country. as a rule, i think it better that congress should originate as well as perfect its measures without external bias. i therefore would rather recommend to every gentleman who knows he is to be a member of the next congress, to take an enlarged view, and post himself thoroughly, so as to contribute his part to such an adjustment of the tariff as shall provide a sufficient revenue, and in its other bearings, so far as possible, be just and equal to all sections of the country and classes of the people. _from his speech at trenton to the senate of new jersey. february , _ ... i cannot but remember the place that new jersey holds in our early history. in the early revolutionary struggle few of the states among the old thirteen had more of the battle-fields of the country within their limits than old new jersey. may i be pardoned if, upon this occasion, i mention that away back in my childhood, the earliest days of my being able to read, i got hold of a small book, such a one as few of the younger members have ever seen,--"weems's life of washington." i remember all the accounts there given of the battle-fields and struggles for the liberties of the country, and none fixed themselves upon my imagination so deeply as the struggle here at trenton, new jersey. the crossing of the river, the contest with the hessians, the great hardships endured at that time,--all fixed themselves upon my memory more than any single revolutionary event; and you all know, for you have all been boys, how those early impressions last longer than any others. i recollect thinking then, boy even though i was, that there must have been something more than common that these men struggled for. i am exceedingly anxious that that thing--that something even more than national independence; that something that held out a great promise to all the people of the world for all time to come,--i am exceedingly anxious that this union, the constitution, and the liberties of the people shall be perpetuated in accordance with the original idea for which the struggle was made, and i shall be most happy indeed if i shall be an humble instrument in the hands of the almighty, and of this, his most chosen people, for perpetuating the object of that great struggle. _address in independence hall, philadelphia. february , _ i am filled with deep emotion at finding myself standing in this place, where were collected together the wisdom, the patriotism, the devotion to principle, from which sprang the institutions under which we live. you have kindly suggested to me that in my hands is the task of restoring peace to our distracted country. i can say in return, sir, that all the political sentiments i entertain have been drawn, so far as i have been able to draw them, from the sentiments which originated in and were given to the world from this hall. i have never had a feeling, politically, that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the declaration of independence. i have often pondered over the dangers which were incurred by the men who assembled here and framed and adopted that declaration. i have pondered over the toils that were endured by the officers and soldiers of the army who achieved that independence. i have often inquired of myself what great principle or idea it was that kept this confederacy so long together. it was not the mere matter of separation of the colonies from the motherland, but that sentiment in the declaration of independence which gave liberty not alone to the people of this country, but hope to all the world, for all future time. it was that which gave promise that in due time the weights would be lifted from the shoulders of all men, and that all should have an equal chance. this is the sentiment embodied in the declaration of independence. now, my friends, can this country be saved on that basis? if it can, i will consider myself one of the happiest men in the world if i can help to save it. if it cannot be saved upon that principle, it will be truly awful. but if this country cannot be saved without giving up that principle, i was about to say i would rather be assassinated on this spot than surrender it. now, in my view of the present aspect of affairs, there is no need of bloodshed and war. there is no necessity for it. i am not in favour of such a course; and i may say in advance that there will be no bloodshed unless it is forced upon the government. the government will not use force unless force is used against it. my friends, this is wholly an unprepared speech. i did not expect to be called on to say a word when i came here. i supposed i was merely to do something toward raising a flag. i may, therefore, have said something indiscreet. but i have said nothing but what i am willing to live by, and, if it be the pleasure of almighty god, to die by. _reply to the mayor of washington, d.c. february , _ mr. mayor, i thank you, and through you the municipal authorities of this city who accompany you, for this welcome. and as it is the first time in my life, since the present phase of politics has presented itself in this country, that i have said anything publicly within a region of country where the institution of slavery exists, i will take this occasion to say that i think very much of the ill-feeling that has existed and still exists between the people in the section from which i came and the people here, is dependent upon a misunderstanding of one another. i therefore avail myself of this opportunity to assure you, mr. mayor, and all the gentlemen present, that i have not now, and never have had, any other than as kindly feelings towards you as to the people of my own section. i have not now and never have had any disposition to treat you in any respect otherwise than as my own neighbours. i have not now any purpose to withhold from you any of the benefits of the constitution under any circumstances, that i would not feel myself constrained to withhold from my own neighbours; and i hope, in a word, that when we become better acquainted,--and i say it with great confidence,--we shall like each other the more. i thank you for the kindness of this reception. _first inaugural address. march , _ fellow-citizens of the united states, in compliance with a custom as old as the government itself, i appear before you to address you briefly, and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the constitution of the united states to be taken by the president "before he enters on the execution of his office." i do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement. apprehension seems to exist among the people of the southern states that by the accession of a republican administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. there has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. it is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. i do but quote from one of those speeches when i declare that "i have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. i believe i have no lawful right to do so, and i have no inclination to do so." those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that i had made this and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. and, more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which i now read:-- "_resolved_, that the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of each state to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any state or territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes." i now reiterate these sentiments; and, in doing so, i only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming administration. i add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the states when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause--as cheerfully to one section as to another. there is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labour. the clause i now read is as plainly written in the constitution as any other of its provisions:-- "no person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due." it is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. all members of congress swear their support to the whole constitution--to this provision as much as to any other. to the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up," their oaths are unanimous. now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath? there is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by state authority; but surely that difference is not a very material one. if the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. and should any one in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept? again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not, in any case, surrendered as a slave? and might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the constitution which guarantees that "the citizen of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states"? i take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations, and with no purpose to construe the constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules. and while i do not choose now to specify particular acts of congress as proper to be enforced, i do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed, than to violate any of them, trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional. it is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a president under our national constitution. during that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have, in succession, administered the executive branch of the government they have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. yet, with all this scope of precedent, i now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. a disruption of the federal union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted. i hold that, in contemplation of universal law and of the constitution, the union of these states is perpetual. perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. it is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. continue to execute all the express provisions of our national constitution, and the union will endure for ever--it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself. again, if the united states be not a government proper, but an association of states in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? one party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the union itself. the union is much older than the constitution. it was formed, in fact, by the articles of association in . it was matured and continued by the declaration of independence in . it was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen states expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the articles of confederation in . and, finally, in one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the constitution was "to form a more perfect union." but if the destruction of the union by one or by a part only of the states be lawfully possible, the union is less perfect than before the constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. it follows from these views that no state upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any state or states, against the authority of the united states, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. i therefore consider that, in view of the constitution and the laws, the union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability i shall take care, as the constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the union be faithfully executed in all the states. doing this i deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and i shall perform it so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the american people, shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. i trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself. in doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. the power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. where hostility to the united states, in any interior locality, shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. while the strict legal right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable withal, that i deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices. the mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the union. so far as possible, the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favourable to calm thought and reflection. the course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised according to circumstances actually existing, and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections. that there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the union at all events, and are glad of any pretext to do it, i will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, i need address no word to them. to those, however, who really love the union may i not speak? before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from--will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake? all profess to be content in the union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in the constitution, has been denied? i think not. happily the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the constitution has ever been denied. if by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution--certainly would if such a right were a vital one. but such is not our case. all the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them. but no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. no foresight can anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain, express provisions for all possible questions. shall fugitives from labour be surrendered by national or by state authority? the constitution does not expressly say. _may_ congress prohibit slavery in the territories? the constitution does not expressly say. _must_ congress protect slavery in the territories? the constitution does not expressly say. from questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. if the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease. there is no other alternative; for continuing the government is acquiescence on one side or the other. if a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. for instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present union now claim to secede from it? all who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this. is there such perfect identity of interests among the states to compose a new union, as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed secession? plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. a majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. whoever rejects it does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left. i do not forget the position, assumed by some, that constitutional questions are to be decided by the supreme court; nor do i deny that such decisions must be binding, in any case, upon the parties to a suit, as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. and while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. at the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the supreme court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. it is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes. one section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. this is the only substantial dispute. the fugitive-slave clause of the constitution, and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave-trade, are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. the great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. this, i think, cannot be perfectly cured; and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. the foreign slave-trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived, without restriction, in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other. physically speaking, we cannot separate. we cannot remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. a husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. they cannot but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions as to terms of intercourse are again upon you. this country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. i cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the national constitution amended. while i make no recommendation of amendments, i fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and i should, under existing circumstances, favour rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. i will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. i understand a proposed amendment to the constitution--which amendment, however, i have not seen--has passed congress, to the effect that the federal government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the states, including that of persons held to service. to avoid misconstruction of what i have said, i depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, i have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable. the chief magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have conferred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the states. the people themselves can do this also if they choose; but the executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. his duty is to administer the present government, as it came to his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor. why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? is there any better or equal hope in the world? in our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? if the almighty ruler of nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the north, or on yours of the south, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the american people. by the frame of the government under which we live, this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief; and have, with equal wisdom, provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. while the people retain their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years. my countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. if there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. if it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. intelligence, patriotism, christianity, and a firm reliance on him who has never yet forsaken this favoured land, are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty. in your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. the government will not assail you. you can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. you have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while i shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it." i am loath to close. we are not enemies, but friends. we must not be enemies. though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. the mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the union when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature. _address at utica, new york. february , _ ladies and gentlemen, i have no speech to make to you, and no time to speak in. i appear before you that i may see you, and that you may see me; and i am willing to admit, that, so far as the ladies are concerned, i have the best of the bargain, though i wish it to be understood that i do not make the same acknowledgment concerning the men. _from his first message to congress, at the special session. july , _ ... it is thus seen that the assault upon and reduction of fort sumter was in no sense a matter of self-defence on the part of the assailants. they well knew that the garrison in the fort could by no possibility commit aggression upon them. they knew--they were expressly notified--that the giving of bread to the few brave and hungry men of the garrison was all which would on that occasion be attempted, unless themselves, by resisting so much, should provoke more. they knew that this government desired to keep the garrison in the fort, not to assail them, but merely to maintain visible possession, and thus to preserve the union from actual and immediate dissolution,--trusting, as hereinbefore stated, to time, discussion, and the ballot-box, for final adjustment; and they assailed and reduced the fort for precisely the reverse object,--to drive out the visible authority of the federal union, and thus force it to immediate dissolution.... that this was their object the executive well understood; and having said to them in the inaugural address, "you can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors," he took pains not only to keep this declaration good, but also to keep the case so free from the power of ingenious sophistry that the world should not be able to misunderstand it.... by the affair at fort sumter, with its surrounding circumstances, that point was reached. then and thereby the assailants of the government began the conflict of arms, without a gun in sight, or in expectancy to return their fire, save only the few in the fort sent to that harbour years before for their own protection, and still ready to give that protection in whatever was lawful. in this act, discarding all else, they have forced upon the country the distinct issue, "immediate dissolution or blood." and this issue embraces more than the fate of these united states. it presents to the whole family of man the question whether a constitutional republic or democracy--a government of the people by the same people--can or cannot maintain its territorial integrity against its own domestic foes. it presents the question whether discontented individuals, too few in numbers to control administration according to organic law in any case, can always, upon the pretences made in this case or any other pretences, or arbitrarily without any pretence, break up their government, and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth. it forces us to ask: "is there, in all republics, this inherent and fatal weakness?" "must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?" so viewing the issue, no choice was left but to call out the war power of the government, and so to resist force employed for its destruction by force for its preservation. the call was made, and the response of the country was most gratifying, surpassing in unanimity and spirit the most sanguine expectation. ... the people of virginia have thus allowed this giant insurrection to make its nest within her borders,--and this government has no choice left but to deal with it where it finds it. and it has the less regret, as the loyal citizens have in due form claimed its protection. those loyal citizens this government is bound to recognize and protect, as being virginia. in the border states, so called,--in fact, the middle states,--there are those who favour a policy which they call "armed neutrality;" that is, an arming of those states to prevent the union forces passing one way, or the disunion the other, over their soil. this would be disunion completed. figuratively speaking, it would be the building of an impassable wall along the line of separation,--and yet not quite an impassable one, for under the guise of neutrality, it would tie the hands of union men, and freely pass supplies from among them to the insurrectionists, which it could not do as an open enemy. at a stroke, it would take all the trouble off the hands of secession, except only what proceeds from the external blockade. it would do for the disunionists that which of all things they most desire,--feed them well and give them disunion without a struggle of their own. it recognizes no fidelity to the constitution, no obligation to maintain the union; and while very many who have favoured it are doubtless loyal citizens, it is, nevertheless, very injurious in effect. ... the forbearance of this government had been so extraordinary and so long continued, as to lead some foreign nations to shape their action as if they supposed the early destruction of our national union was probable. while this, on discovery, gave the executive some concern, he is now happy to say that the sovereignty and rights of the united states are now everywhere practically respected by foreign powers, and a general sympathy with the country is manifested throughout the world. ... it is now recommended that you give the legal means for making this contest a short and decisive one; that you place at the control of the government for the work, at least four hundred thousand men, and $ , , . that number of men is about one-tenth of those of proper ages within the regions where, apparently, all are willing to engage; and the sum is less than a twenty-third part of the money value owned by the men who seem ready to devote the whole. ... a right result at this time, will be worth more to the world than ten times the men and ten times the money. the evidences reaching us from the country leaves no doubt that the material for the work is abundant, and that it needs only the hand of legislation to give it legal sanction, and the hand of the executive to give it practical shape and efficiency. one of the greatest perplexities of the government is to avoid receiving troops faster than it can provide for them. in a word, the people will save their government, if the government itself will do its part only indifferently well. it might seem at first thought to be of little difference whether the present movement at the south be called _secession_ or _rebellion_. the movers, however, well understand the difference. at the beginning they knew they could never raise their treason to any respectable magnitude by any name which implies violation of law. they knew their people possessed as much of moral sense, as much of devotion to law and order, and as much pride in and reverence for the history and government of their common country as any other civilized and patriotic people. they knew they could make no advancement directly in the teeth of these strong and noble sentiments. accordingly, they commenced by an insidious debauching of the public mind. they invented an ingenious sophism which, if conceded, was followed by perfectly logical steps, through all the incidents, to the complete destruction of the union. the sophism itself is that any state of the union may consistently with the national constitution, and therefore lawfully and peacefully, withdraw from the union without the consent of the union or of any other state. the little disguise that the supposed right is to be exercised only for just cause, themselves to be the sole judges of its justice, is too thin to merit any notice. with rebellion thus _sugar-coated_ they have been drugging the public mind of their section for more than thirty years, and until at length they have brought many good men to a willingness to take up arms against the government the day after some assemblage of men have enacted the farcical pretence of taking their state out of the union, who could have been brought to no such thing the day before. this sophism derives much, perhaps the whole of its currency from the assumption that there is some omnipotent and sacred supremacy pertaining to a state--to each state of our federal union. our states have neither more nor less power than that reserved to them in the union by the constitution, no one of them ever having been a state out of the union. the original ones passed into the union even before they cast off their british colonial dependence, and the new ones each came into the union directly from a condition of dependence, excepting texas. and even texas in its temporary independence was never designated a state. the new ones only took the designation of states on coming into the union, while that name was first adopted for the old ones in and by the declaration of independence. therein the "united colonies" were declared to be "free and independent states;" but even then the object plainly was, not to declare their independence of one another or of the union, but directly the contrary, as their mutual pledges and their mutual action before, at the time, and afterward abundantly show. the express plighting of faith by each and all of the original thirteen in the articles of confederation two years later, that the union shall be perpetual, is most conclusive. having never been states, either in substance or name, outside of the union, whence this magical omnipotence of "state-rights," asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the union itself? much is said about the "sovereignty" of the states; but the word is not in the national constitution, nor, as is believed, in any of the state constitutions. what is _sovereignty_ in the political sense of the term? would it be far wrong to define it "a political community without a political superior?" tested by this, no one of our states, except texas, ever was a sovereignty. and even texas gave up the character on coming into the union, by which act she acknowledged the constitution of the united states, and the laws and treaties of the united states made in pursuance of the constitution, to be for her the supreme law of the land. the states have their status in the union, and they have no other legal status. if they break from this, they can only do so against law and by revolution. the union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence and their liberty. by conquest or purchase, the union gave each of them whatever of independence or liberty it has. the union is older than any of the states, and, in fact, it created them as states. originally some dependent colonies made the union, and in turn the union threw off their old dependence for them, and made them states, such as they are. not one of them ever had a state constitution independent of the union. of course it is not forgotten that all the new states framed their constitutions before they entered the union,--nevertheless, dependent upon and preparatory to coming into the union. unquestionably the states have the powers and the rights reserved to them in and by the national constitution; but among these, surely, are not included all conceivable powers, however mischievous or destructive; but, at most, such only as were known in the world at the time, as governmental powers; and, certainly, a power to destroy the government itself had never been known as a governmental--as a merely administrative power. this relative matter of national power and states rights, as a principle, is no other than the principle of generality and locality. whatever concerns the whole world should be confided to the whole--to the general government; while whatever concerns only the state should be left exclusively to the state. this is all there is of original principle about it.... what is now combated, is the position that secession is consistent with the constitution--is lawful and peaceful. it is not contended that there is any express law for it; and nothing should ever be implied as law which leads to unjust or absurd consequences. the nation purchased with money the countries out of which several of these states were formed; is it just that they shall go off without leave and without refunding? the nation paid very large sums (in the aggregate, i believe, nearly a hundred millions) to relieve florida of the aboriginal tribes; is it just that she shall now be off without consent, or without making any return? the nation is now in debt for money applied to the benefit of these so-called seceding states in common with the rest; is it just that the creditors shall go unpaid, or the remaining states pay the whole?... again, if one state may secede, so may another; and when all shall have seceded, none is left to pay the debts. is this quite just to the creditors? did we notify them of this sage view of ours when we borrowed their money? if we now recognize this doctrine by allowing the seceders to go in peace, it is difficult to see what we can do if others choose to go, or to extort terms upon which they will promise to remain. the seceders insist that our constitution admits of secession. they have assumed to make a national constitution of their own, in which, of necessity, they have either discarded or retained the right of secession, as they insist it exists in ours. if they have discarded it, they thereby admit that, on principle, it ought not to be in ours. if they have retained it, by their own construction of ours, they show that to be consistent they must secede from one another whenever they shall find it the easiest way of settling their debts, or effecting any other or selfish or unjust object. the principle itself is one of disintegration, and upon which no government can stand. if all the states save one should assert the power to drive that one out of the union, it is presumed the whole class of seceder politicians would at once deny the power, and denounce the act as the greatest outrage upon state rights. but suppose that precisely the same act, instead of being called "driving the one out," should be called "the seceding of the others from that one," it would be exactly what the seceders claim to do; unless, indeed, they make the point that the one, because it is a minority, may rightfully do what the others, because they are a majority, may not rightfully do.... it may be affirmed without extravagance that the free institutions we enjoy have developed the powers and improved the condition of our whole people, beyond any example in the world. of this we now have a striking and an impressive illustration. so large an army as the government has now on foot was never before known, without a soldier in it but who has taken his place there of his own free choice. but more than this, there are many single regiments, whose members, one and another, possess full practical knowledge of all the arts, sciences, and professions, and whatever else, whether useful or elegant, is known in the world; and there is scarcely one from which there could not be selected a president, a cabinet, a congress, and perhaps a court, abundantly competent to administer the government itself. nor do i say that this is not true also in the army of our late friends, now adversaries in this contest; but if it is, so much the better reason why the government which has conferred such benefits on both them and us should not be broken up. whoever in any section proposes to abandon such a government, would do well to consider in deference to what principle it is that he does it; what better he is likely to get in its stead; whether the substitute will give, or be intended to give, so much of good to the people? there are some foreshadowings on this subject. our adversaries have adopted some declarations of independence in which, unlike the good old one penned by jefferson, they omit the words, "all men are created equal." why? they have adopted a temporary national constitution, in the preamble of which, unlike our good old one signed by washington, they omit "we, the people," and substitute "we, the deputies of the sovereign and independent states." why? why this deliberate pressing out of view the rights of men and the authority of the people? this is essentially a people's contest. on the side of the union it is a struggle for maintaining in the world that form and substance of government whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men,--to lift artificial weights from all shoulders, to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all, to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of life. yielding to partial and temporary departures from necessity, this is the leading object of the government for the existence of which we contend. i am most happy to believe that the plain people understand and appreciate this. it is worthy of note that while in this, the government's hour of trial, large numbers of those in the army and navy who have been favoured with the offices have resigned and proved false to the hand which had pampered them, not one common soldier or common sailor is known to have deserted his flag. our popular government has often been called an experiment. two points in it our people have already settled,--the successful establishing and the successful administering of it. one still remains,--its successful maintenance against a formidable internal attempt to overthrow it. it is now for them to demonstrate to the world that those who can fairly carry an election can also suppress a rebellion; that ballots are the rightful and peaceful successors of bullets; and that when ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets; that there can be no successful appeal, except to ballots themselves, at succeeding elections. such will be a great lesson of peace; teaching men that what they cannot take by an election, neither can they take by a war; teaching all the folly of being the beginners of a war. _from his message to congress at its regular session. december , _ fellow-citizens of the senate and house of representatives, in the midst of unprecedented political troubles, we have cause of great gratitude to god for unusual good health and abundant harvests. you will not be surprised to learn that in the peculiar exigencies of the times, our intercourse with foreign nations has been attended with profound solicitude, chiefly turning upon our own domestic affairs. a disloyal portion of the american people have, during the whole year, been engaged in an attempt to divide and destroy the union. a nation which endures factious domestic division is exposed to disrespect abroad; and one party, if not both, is sure, sooner or later, to invoke foreign intervention. nations thus tempted to interfere are not always able to resist the counsels of seeming expediency and ungenerous ambition, although measures adopted under such influences seldom fail to be injurious and unfortunate to those adopting them. the disloyal citizens of the united states who have offered the ruin of our country in return for the aid and comfort which they have invoked abroad, have received less patronage and encouragement than they probably expected. if it were just to suppose, as the insurgents have seemed to assume, that foreign nations in this case, discarding all moral, social, and treaty obligations, would act solely and selfishly for the most speedy restoration of commerce, including especially the acquisition of cotton, those nations appear as yet not to have seen their way to their object more directly or clearly through the destruction than through the preservation of the union. if we could dare to believe that foreign nations are actuated by no higher principle than this, i am quite sure a sound argument could be made to show them that they can reach their aim more readily and easily by aiding to crush this rebellion than by giving encouragement to it. the principal lever relied on by the insurgents for exciting foreign nations to hostility against us, as already intimated, is the embarrassment of commerce. those nations, however, not improbably saw from the first that it was the union which made as well our foreign as our domestic commerce. they can scarcely have failed to perceive that the effort for disunion produces the existing difficulty; and that one strong nation promises a more durable peace and a more extensive, valuable, and reliable commerce than can the same nation broken into hostile fragments. * * * * * it continues to develop that the insurrection is largely, if not exclusively, a war upon the first principle of popular government,--the rights of the people. conclusive evidence of this is found in the most grave and maturely considered public documents, as well as in the general tone of the insurgents. in those documents we find the abridgment of the existing right of suffrage, and the denial to the people of all right to participate in the selection of public officers, except the legislative, boldly advocated, with laboured arguments to prove that large control of the people in government is the source of all political evil. monarchy itself is sometimes hinted at, as a possible refuge from the power of the people. in my present position, i could scarcely be justified were i to omit raising a warning voice against this approach of returning despotism. it is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favour of popular institutions; but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which i ask a brief attention. it is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labour, in the structure of government. it is assumed that labour is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labours, unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow, by the use of it, induces him to labour. this assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire labourers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. having proceeded thus far, it is naturally concluded that all labourers are either hired labourers, or what we call slaves. and further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired labourer is fixed in that condition for life. now, there is no such relation between capital and labour as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired labourer. both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless. labour is prior to and independent of capital. capital is only the fruit of labour, and could never have existed if labour had not first existed. labour is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labour and capital, producing mutual benefits. the error is in assuming that the whole labour of the community exists within that relation. a few men own capital, and that few avoid labour themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labour for them. a large majority belong to neither class,--neither work for others, nor have others working for them. in most of the southern states, a majority of the whole people, of all colours, are neither slaves nor masters; while in the northern, a majority are neither hirers nor hired. men with their families--wives, sons, and daughters--work for themselves, on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favours of capital on the one hand, nor of hired labourers or slaves on the other. it is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labour with capital--that is, they labour with their own hands, and also buy or hire others to labour for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. no principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class. again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free, hired labourer being fixed to that condition for life. many independent men, everywhere in these states, a few years back in their lives were hired labourers. the prudent, penniless beginner in the world labours for wages a while, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labours on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. this is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. no men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty, none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which, if surrendered, will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they, and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them, till all of liberty shall be lost. _letter to general g.b. mcclellan. washington. february , _ my dear sir, you and i have distinct and different plans for a movement of the army of the potomac--yours to be down the chesapeake, up the rappahannock to urbana and across land to the terminus of the railroad on the york river; mine to move directly to a point on the railroad southwest of manassas. if you will give me satisfactory answers to the following questions, i shall gladly yield my plan to yours. _first._ does not your plan involve a greatly larger expenditure of time and money than mine? _second._ wherein is a victory more certain by your plan than mine? _third._ wherein is a victory more valuable by your plan than mine? _fourth._ in fact, would it not be less valuable in this, that it would break no great line of the enemy's communications, while mine would? _fifth._ in case of disaster, would not a retreat be more difficult by your plan than mine? i have just assisted the secretary of war in framing part of a despatch to you, relating to army corps, which despatch of course will have reached you long before this will. i wish to say a few words to you privately on this subject. i ordered the army corps organization, not only on the unanimous opinion of the twelve generals whom you had selected and assigned as generals of division, but also on the unanimous opinion of every _military man_ i could get an opinion from (and every modern military book), yourself only excepted. of course i did not on my own judgment pretend to understand the subject. i now think it indispensable for you to know how your struggle against it is received in quarters which we cannot entirely disregard. it is looked upon as merely an effort to pamper one or two pets and to persecute and degrade their supposed rivals. i have had no word from sumner, heintzelman, or keyes. the commanders of these corps are of course the three highest officers with you, but i am constantly told that you have no consultation or communication with them,--that you consult and communicate with nobody but general fitz john porter, and perhaps general franklin. i do not say these complaints are true or just, but at all events it is proper you should know of their existence. do the commanders of corps disobey your orders in anything? ... are you strong enough--are you strong enough, even with my help--to set your foot upon the necks of sumner, heintzelman, and keyes, all at once? this is a practical and a very serious question for you. _lincoln's proclamation revoking general hunter's order setting the slaves free. may , _ ... general hunter nor any other commander or person has been authorized by the government of the united states to make proclamation declaring the slaves of any state free, and that the supposed proclamation now in question, whether genuine or false, is altogether void so far as respects such declaration.... on the sixth day of march last, by a special message, i recommended to congress the adoption of a joint resolution, to be substantially as follows:--_resolved, that the united states ought to co-operate with any state which may adopt a gradual abolishment of slavery, giving to such state earnest expression to compensate for its inconveniences, public and private, produced by such change of system_. the resolution in the language above quoted was adopted by large majorities in both branches of congress, and now stands an authentic, definite, and solemn proposal of the nation to the states and people most immediately interested in the subject-matter. to the people of those states i now earnestly appeal. i do not argue--i beseech you to make arguments for yourselves. you cannot, if you would, be blind to the signs of the times. i beg of you a calm and enlarged consideration of them, ranging, if it may be, far above personal and partisan politics. the proposal makes common cause for a common object, casting no reproaches upon any. it acts not the pharisee. the change it contemplates would come gently as the dews of heaven, not rending or wrecking anything. will you not embrace it? so much good has not been done by one effort in all past time as in the providence of god it is now your high privilege to do. may the vast future not have to lament that you have neglected it. _appeal to the border states in behalf of compensated emancipation. july , _ after the adjournment of congress, now near, i shall have no opportunity of seeing you for several months. believing that you of the border states hold more power for good than any other equal number of members, i feel it a duty which i cannot justifiably waive, to make this appeal to you. i do not speak of emancipation at once, but of a decision at once to emancipate gradually. room in south america for colonization can be obtained cheaply and in abundance, and when numbers shall be large enough to be company and encouragement for one another, the freed people will not be so reluctant to go. i am pressed with a difficulty not yet mentioned,--one which threatens division among those who, united, are none too strong. general hunter is an honest man. he was, and i hope still is, my friend. i valued him none the less for his agreeing with me in the general wish that all men everywhere could be free. he proclaimed all men free within certain states, and i repudiated the proclamation. he expected more good and less harm from the measure than i could believe would follow. yet in repudiating it, i gave dissatisfaction if not offence to many whose support the country cannot afford to lose. and this is not the end of it. the pressure in this direction is still upon me, and is increasing. by conceding what i now ask, you can relieve me, and, much more, can relieve the country, in this important point. upon these considerations i have again begged your attention to the message of march last. before leaving the capitol, consider and discuss it among yourselves. you are patriots and statesmen, and as such, i pray you, consider this proposition, and at the least commend it to the consideration of your states and people. as you would perpetuate popular government for the best people in the world, i beseech you that you do in no wise omit this. our common country is in great peril, demanding the loftiest views and boldest action to bring it speedy relief. once relieved, its form of government is saved to the world, its beloved history and cherished memories are vindicated, and its happy future fully assured and rendered inconceivably grand. i intend no reproach or complaint when i assure you that, in my opinion, if you all had voted for the resolution in the gradual-emancipation message of last march, the war would now be substantially ended. and the plan therein proposed is yet one of the most potent and swift means of ending it. let the states which are in rebellion see, definitely and certainly, that in no event will the states you represent ever join their proposed confederacy, and they cannot much longer maintain the contest. but you cannot divest them of their hope to ultimately have you with them, so long as you show a determination to perpetuate the institution within your own states. beat them at elections, as you have overwhelmingly done, and, nothing daunted, they still claim you as their own. you and i know what the lever of their power is. break that lever before their faces, and they can shake you no more for ever. most of you have treated me with kindness and consideration, and i trust you will not now think i improperly touch what is exclusively your own, when, for the sake of the whole country, i ask, can you, for your states, do better than to take the course i urge? discarding punctilio and maxims adapted to more manageable times, and looking only to the unprecedentedly stern facts of our case, can you do better in any possible event? you prefer that the constitutional relation of the states to the nation shall be practically restored without disturbance of the institution; and if this were done, my whole duty in this respect, under the constitution and my oath of office, would be performed. but it is not done, and we are trying to accomplish it by war. the incidents of the war cannot be avoided. if the war continues long, as it must if the object be not sooner attained, the institution in your states will be extinguished by mere friction and abrasion,--by the mere incidents of the war. it will be gone, and you will have nothing valuable in lieu of it. much of its value is gone already. how much better for you and for your people to take the step which at once shortens the war and secures substantial compensation for that which is sure to be wholly lost in any other event? how much better to thus save the money which else we sink for ever in the war! how much better to do it while we can, lest the war ere long render us pecuniarily unable to do it! how much better for you as seller, and the nation as buyer, to sell out and buy out that without which the war could never have been, than to sink both the thing to be sold and the price of it in cutting one another's throats! _from a letter to cuthbert bullitt. july , _ now, i think the true remedy is very different from that suggested by mr. durant. it does not lie in rounding the rough angles of the war, but in removing the necessity for the war. the people of louisiana who wish protection to person and property, have but to reach forth their hands and take it. let them in good faith reinaugurate the national authority, and set up a state government conforming thereto under the constitution. they know how to do it, and can have the protection of the army while doing it. the army will be withdrawn as soon as such government can dispense with its presence, and the people of the state can then, upon the old constitutional terms, govern themselves to their own liking. this is very simple and easy. if they will not do this, if they prefer to hazard all for the sake of destroying the government, it is for them to consider whether it is probable that i will surrender the government to save them from losing all. if they decline what i suggest, you will scarcely need to ask what i will do. what would you do in my position? would you drop the war where it is, or would you prosecute it in future with elder-stalk squirts charged with rose-water? would you deal lighter blows rather than heavier ones? would you give up the contest, leaving any available means untried? i am in no boastful mood. i shall not do more than i can; but i shall do all i can to save the government, which is my sworn duty as well as my personal inclination. i shall do nothing in malice. what i deal with is too vast for malicious dealing. _letter to august belmont. july , _ dear sir, you send to mr. w---- an extract from a letter written at new orleans the th instant, which is shown to me. you do not give the writer's name; but plainly he is a man of ability, and probably of some note. he says: "the time has arrived when mr. lincoln must take a decisive course. trying to please everybody, he will satisfy nobody. a vacillating policy in matters of importance is the very worst. now is the time, if ever, for honest men who love their country to rally to its support. why will not the north say officially that it wishes for the restoration of the union as it was?" and so, it seems, this is the point on which the writer thinks i have no policy. why will he not read and understand what i have said? the substance of the very declaration he desires is in the inaugural, in each of the two regular messages to congress, and in many, if not all, the minor documents issued by the executive since the inauguration. broken eggs cannot be mended; but louisiana has nothing to do now but to take her place in the union as it was, barring the already broken eggs. the sooner she does so, the smaller will be the amount of that which will be past mending. this government cannot much longer play a game in which it stakes all, and its enemies stake nothing. those enemies must understand that they cannot experiment for ten years trying to destroy the government, and if they fail still come back into the union unhurt. if they expect in any contingency to ever have the union as it was, i join with the writer in saying, "now is the time." how much better it would have been for the writer to have gone at this, under the protection of the army at new orleans, than to have sat down in a closet writing complaining letters northward. _his letter to horace greeley. august , _ i have just read yours of the th instant, addressed to myself through the "new york tribune." if there be in it any statements or assumptions of fact which i may know to be erroneous, i do not now and here controvert them. if there be in it any inferences which i may believe to be falsely drawn, i do not now and here argue against them. if there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, i waive it, in deference to an old friend whose heart i have always supposed to be right. as to the policy i "seem to be pursuing," as you say, i have not meant to leave any one in doubt. i would save the union. i would save it in the shortest way under the constitution. the sooner the national authority can be restored, the nearer the union will be,--the union as it was. if there be those who would not save the union unless they could at the same time save slavery, i do not agree with them. if there be those who would not save the union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, i do not agree with them. _my paramount object in this struggle is to save the union, and not either to save or to destroy slavery._ if i could save the union without freeing any slave, i would do it; if i could save it by freeing all the slaves, i would do it; and if i could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, i would also do that. what i do about slavery and the coloured race, i do because i believe it helps to save the union; and what i forbear, i forbear because i do not believe it would help to save the union. i shall do less whenever i shall believe that what i am doing hurts the cause; and i shall do more whenever i shall believe doing more will help the cause. i shall try to correct errors where shown to be errors, and i shall adopt new views as fast as they shall appear to be true views. i have here stated my purpose according to my views of official duty, and i intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free. _from his reply to the chicago committee of united religious denominations. september , _ the subject presented in the memorial is one upon which i have thought much for weeks past, and i may even say for months. i am approached with the most opposite opinions and advice, and that by religious men, who are equally certain that they represent the divine will. i am sure that either the one or the other class is mistaken in that belief, and perhaps, in some respects, both. i hope it will not be irreverent for me to say, that if it is probable that god would reveal his will to others, on a point so connected with my duty, it might be supposed that he would reveal it directly to me; for, unless i am more deceived in myself than i often am, it is my earnest desire to know the will of providence in this matter. and if i can learn what it is, i will do it. these are not, however, the days of miracles, and i suppose it will be granted that i am not to expect a direct revelation. i must study the plain, physical facts of the case, ascertain what is possible, and learn what appears to be wise and right. the subject is difficult, and good men do not agree. for instance, four gentlemen of standing and intelligence, from new york, called as a delegation on business connected with the war; but before leaving, two of them earnestly besought me to proclaim general emancipation, upon which the other two at once attacked them. you also know that the last session of congress had a decided majority of anti-slavery men, yet they could not unite on this policy. and the same is true of the religious people. why the rebel soldiers are praying with a great deal more earnestness, i fear, than our own troops, and expecting god to favour their side: for one of our soldiers who had been taken prisoner told senator wilson a few days since that he met nothing so discouraging as the evident sincerity of those he was among in their prayers. but we will talk over the merits of the case. what good would a proclamation of emancipation from me do, especially as we are now situated? i do not want to issue a document that the whole world will see must necessarily be inoperative, like the pope's bull against the comet! would my word free the slaves, when i cannot even enforce the constitution in the rebel states? is there a single court or magistrate or individual that would be influenced by it there? and what reason is there to think it would have any greater effect upon the slaves than the late law of congress, which i approved, and which offers protection and freedom to the slaves of rebel masters who come within our lines? yet i cannot learn that that law has caused a single slave to come over to us. and suppose they could be induced by a proclamation of freedom from me to throw themselves upon us, what should we do with them? how can we feed and care for such a multitude? general butler wrote me a few days since that he was issuing more rations to the slaves who have rushed to him than to all the white troops under his command. they eat, and that is all; though it is true general butler is feeding the whites also by the thousand, for it nearly amounts to a famine there. if now, the pressure of the war should call off our forces from new orleans to defend some other point, what is to prevent the masters from reducing the blacks to slavery again? for i am told that whenever the rebels take any black prisoners, free or slave, they immediately auction them off! they did so with those they took from a boat that was aground in the tennessee river a few days ago. and then i am very ungenerously attacked for it. for instance, when, after the late battles at and near bull run, an expedition went out from washington under a flag of truce to bury the dead and bring in the wounded, and the rebels seized the blacks who went along to help, and sent them into slavery, horace greeley said in his paper "that the government would probably do nothing about it." what could i do? now, then, tell me, if you please, what possible result of good would follow the issuing of such a proclamation as you desire? understand, i raise no objections against it on legal or constitutional grounds, for, as commander-in-chief of the army and navy, in time of war i suppose i have a right to take any measures which may best subdue the enemy; nor do i urge objections of a moral nature, in view of possible consequences of insurrection and massacre at the south. i view this matter as a practical war-measure, to be decided on according to the advantages or disadvantages it may offer to the suppression of the rebellion. [the committee had said that emancipation would secure us the sympathy of the world, slavery being the cause of the war. to which the president replied:] i admit that slavery is at the root of the rebellion, or at least its _sine qua non_. the ambition of politicians may have instigated them to act, but they would have been impotent without slavery as their instrument. i will also concede that emancipation would help us in europe, and convince them that we are incited by something more than ambition. i grant further, that it would help somewhat at the north, though not so much, i fear, as you and those you represent, imagine. still, some additional strength would be added in that way to the war,--and then, unquestionably, it would weaken the rebels by drawing off their labourers, which is of great importance; but i am not so sure that we could do much with the blacks. if we were to arm them, i fear that in a few weeks the arms would be in the hands of the rebels; and indeed, thus far, we have not had arms enough to equip our white troops. i will mention another thing, though it meet only your scorn and contempt. there are fifty thousand bayonets in the union armies from the border slave states. it would be a serious matter if, in consequence of a proclamation such as you desire, they should go over to the rebels. i do not think they all would,--not so many indeed, as a year ago, nor as six months ago; not so many to-day as yesterday. every day increases their union feeling. they are also getting their pride enlisted, and want to beat the rebels. let me say one thing more: i think you should admit that we already have an important principle to rally and unite the people, in the fact that constitutional government is at stake. this is a fundamental idea, going down about as deep as anything. do not misunderstand me because i have mentioned these objections. they indicate the difficulties that have thus far prevented my action in some such way as you desire. i have not decided against a proclamation of liberty to the slaves, but hold the matter under advisement. and i can assure you that the subject is on my mind by day and night, more than any other. whatever shall appear to be god's will, i will do. i trust that in the freedom with which i have canvassed your views, i have not in any respect injured your feelings. _from the annual message to congress. december , _ since your last annual assembling, another year of health and bountiful harvests has passed; and while it has not pleased the almighty to bless us with a return of peace, we can but press on, guided by the best light he gives us, trusting that in his own good time and wise way, all will yet be well. the correspondence, touching foreign affairs, which has taken place during the last year, is herewith submitted, in virtual compliance with a request to that effect made by the house of representatives near the close of the last session of congress. if the condition of our relations with other nations is less gratifying than it has usually been at former periods, it is certainly more satisfactory than a nation so unhappily distracted as we are, might reasonably have apprehended. in the month of june last, there were some grounds to expect that the maritime powers, which, at the beginning of our domestic difficulties, so unwisely and unnecessarily, as we think, recognized the insurgents as a belligerent, would soon recede from that position, which has proved only less injurious to themselves than to our own country. but the temporary reverses which afterward befell the national arms, and which were exaggerated by our own disloyal citizens abroad, have hitherto delayed that act of simple justice. the civil war, which has so radically changed for the moment the occupations and habits of the american people, has necessarily disturbed the social condition and affected very deeply the prosperity of the nations with which we have carried on a commerce that has been steadily increasing throughout a period of half a century. it has, at the same time, excited political ambitions and apprehensions which have produced a profound agitation throughout the civilized world. in this unusual agitation we have forborne from taking part in any controversy between foreign states, and between parties or factions in such states. we have attempted no propagandism and acknowledged no revolution. but we have left to every nation the exclusive conduct and management of its own affairs. our struggle has been, of course, contemplated by foreign nations with reference less to its own merits than to its supposed and often exaggerated effects and consequences resulting to those nations themselves. nevertheless, complaint on the part of this government, even if it were just, would certainly be unwise.... there is no line, straight or crooked, suitable for a national boundary, upon which to divide. trace through from east to west upon the line between the free and the slave country, and we shall find a little more than one-third of its length are rivers, easy to be crossed, and populated, or soon to be populated, thickly upon both sides; while nearly all its remaining length are merely surveyors' lines, over which people may walk back and forth without any consciousness of their presence. no part of this line can be made any more difficult to pass, by writing it down on paper or parchment as a national boundary. the fact of separation, if it comes, gives up, on the part of the seceding section, the fugitive-slave clause, along with all other constitutional obligations upon the section seceded from, while i should expect no treaty stipulation would be ever made to take its place. but there is another difficulty. the great interior region bounded east by the alleghanies, north by the british dominions, west by the rocky mountains, and south by the line along which the culture of corn and cotton meets, ... already has above ten millions of people, and will have fifty millions within fifty years, if not prevented by any political folly or mistake. it contains more than one-third of the country owned by the united states,--certainly more than one million of square miles. once half as populous as massachusetts already is, and it would have more than seventy-five millions of people. a glance at the map shows that, territorially speaking, it is the great body of the republic. the other parts are but marginal borders to it, the magnificent region sloping west from the rocky mountains to the pacific being the deepest, and also the richest, in undeveloped resources. in the production of provisions, grains, grasses, and all which proceed from them, this great interior region is naturally one of the most important in the world. ascertain from the statistics the small proportion of the region which has, as yet, been brought into cultivation, and also the large and rapidly increasing amount of its products, and we shall be overwhelmed with the magnitude of the prospect presented. and yet this region has no sea-coast, touches no ocean anywhere. as part of one nation, its people now find, and may for ever find, their way to europe by new york, to south america and africa by new orleans, and to asia by san francisco. but separate our common country into two nations, as designed by the present rebellion, and every man of this great interior region is thereby cut off from one or more of these outlets,--not perhaps by a physical barrier, but by embarrassing and onerous trade regulations. and this is true, wherever a dividing or boundary line may be fixed. place it between the now free and slave country, or place it south of kentucky, or north of ohio, and still the truth remains that none south of it can trade to any port or place north of it, except upon terms dictated by a government foreign to them. these outlets, east, west, and south, are indispensable to the well-being of the people inhabiting, and to inhabit, this vast interior region. which of the three may be the best, is no proper question. all are better than either; and all of right belong to that people and their successors for ever. true to themselves, they will not ask where a line of separation shall be, but will vow rather that there shall be no such line. nor are the marginal regions less interested in these communications to and through them to the great outside world. they too, and each of them, must have access to this egypt of the west, without paying toll at the crossing of any national boundary. our national strife springs not from our permanent part, not from the land we inhabit, not from our national homestead. there is no possible severing of this but would multiply and not mitigate evils among us. in all its adaptations and aptitudes, it demands union and abhors separation. in fact, it would ere long force reunion, however much of blood and treasure the separation might have cost.... fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. we of this congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. no personal significance or insignificance can spare one or another of us. the fiery trial through which we pass will light us down, in honour or dishonour, to the latest generation. we say we are for the union. the world will not forget that we say this. we know how to save the union. the world knows we do know how to save it. we, even we here, hold the power and bear the responsibility. in giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free,--honourable alike in what we give and what we preserve. we shall nobly save or meanly lose the last, best hope of earth. other means may succeed; this could not fail. the way is plain, peaceful, generous, just,--a way which, if followed, the world will for ever applaud, and god must for ever bless. _emancipation proclamation. january , _ whereas, on the twenty-second day of september, in the year of our lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the president of the united states, containing, among other things, the following, to wit: "that on the first day of january, in the year of our lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any state, or designated part of a state, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the united states, shall be then, thenceforward, and for ever free; and the executive government of the united states, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom. "that the executive will, on the first day of january aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the states and parts of states, if any, in which the people thereof respectively shall then be in rebellion against the united states; and the fact that any state, or the people thereof, shall on that day be in good faith represented in the congress of the united states by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such state shall have participated, shall in the absence of strong countervailing testimony be deemed conclusive evidence that such state and the people thereof are not then in rebellion against the united states." now, therefore, i, abraham lincoln, president of the united states, by virtue of the power in me vested as commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the united states, in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the united states, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of january, in the year of our lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the states and parts of states wherein the people thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellion against the united states, the following, to wit: arkansas, texas, louisiana (except the parishes of st. bernard, plaquemines, jefferson, st. john, st. charles, st. james, ascension, assumption, terrebonne, lafourche, st. mary, st. martin, and orleans, including the city of new orleans), mississippi, alabama, florida, georgia, south carolina, north carolina, and virginia (except the forty-eight counties designated as west virginia, and also the counties of berkeley, accomac, northampton, elizabeth city, york, princess anne, and norfolk, including the cities of norfolk and portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued. and by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, i do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated states and parts of states are, and henceforward shall be, free; and that the executive government of the united states, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons. and i hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and i recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labour faithfully for reasonable wages. and i further declare and make known that such persons of suitable condition will be received into the armed service of the united states to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service. and upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the constitution upon military necessity, i invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favour of almighty god. in witness whereof, i have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the united states to be affixed. [sidenote: l.s.] done at the city of washington, this first day of january, in the year of our lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the independence of the united states of america the eighty-seventh. abraham lincoln. by the president: william h. seward, secretary of state. _letter to general grant. july , _ my dear general, i do not remember that you and i ever met personally. i write this now as a grateful acknowledgment for the almost inestimable service you have done the country. i wish to say a word further. when you first reached the vicinity of vicksburg, i thought you should do what you finally did--march the troops across the neck, run the batteries with the transports, and thus go below; and i never had any faith, except a general hope that you knew better than i, that the yazoo pass expedition and the like could succeed. when you got below and took port gibson, grand gulf, and vicinity, i thought you should go down the river and join general banks, and when you turned northward, east of the big black, i feared it was a mistake. i now wish to make the personal acknowledgment that you were right and i was wrong. yours very truly, a. lincoln. _letter to ---- moulton. washington. july , _ my dear sir, there has been a good deal of complaint against you by your superior officers of the provost-marshal-general's department, and your removal has been strongly urged on the ground of "persistent disobedience of orders and neglect of duty." firmly convinced, as i am, of the patriotism of your motives, i am unwilling to do anything in your case which may seem unnecessarily harsh or at variance with the feelings of personal respect and esteem with which i have always regarded you. i consider your services in your district valuable, and should be sorry to lose them. it is unnecessary for me to state, however, that when differences of opinion arise between officers of the government, the ranking officer must be obeyed. you of course recognize as clearly as i do the importance of this rule. i hope you will conclude to go on in your present position under the regulations of the department. i wish you would write to me. _letter to mrs. lincoln. washington. august , _ my dear wife, all as well as usual, and no particular trouble anyway. i put the money into the treasury at five per cent., with the privilege of withdrawing it any time upon thirty days' notice. i suppose you are glad to learn this. tell dear tad poor "nanny goat" is lost, and mrs. cuthbert and i are in distress about it. the day you left nanny was found resting herself and chewing her little cud on the middle of tad's bed; but now she's gone! the gardener kept complaining that she destroyed the flowers, till it was concluded to bring her down to the white house. this was done, and the second day she had disappeared and has not been heard of since. this is the last we know of poor "nanny." _letter to james h. hackett. washington. august , _ my dear sir, months ago i should have acknowledged the receipt of your book and accompanying kind note; and i now have to beg your pardon for not having done so. for one of my age i have seen very little of the drama. the first presentation of falstaff i ever saw was yours here, last winter or spring. perhaps the best compliment i can pay is to say, as i truly can, i am very anxious to see it again. some of shakespeare's plays i have never read; while others i have gone over perhaps as frequently as any unprofessional reader. among the latter are _lear_, _richard iii._, _henry viii._, _hamlet_, and especially _macbeth_. i think nothing equals _macbeth_. it is wonderful. unlike you gentlemen of the profession, i think the soliloquy in _hamlet_ commencing "oh, my offence is rank," surpasses that commencing "to be or not to be." but pardon this small attempt at criticism. i should like to hear you pronounce the opening speech of richard iii. will you not soon visit washington again? if you do, please call and let me make your personal acquaintance. _note to secretary stanton. washington. november , _ dear sir, i personally wish jacob freese, of new jersey, to be appointed colonel of a coloured regiment, and this regardless of whether he can tell the exact shade of julius cæsar's hair. _the letter to james c. conkling. august , _ your letter inviting me to attend a mass meeting of unconditional union men, to be held at the capital of illinois on the third day of september, has been received. it would be very agreeable to me to thus meet my old friends at my own home, but i cannot just now be absent from here so long as a visit there would require. the meeting is to be of all those who maintain unconditional devotion to the union; and i am sure my old political friends will thank me for tendering, as i do, the nation's gratitude to those and other noble men whom no partisan malice or partisan hope can make false to the nation's life. there are those who are dissatisfied with me. to such i would say: you desire peace, and you blame me that we do not have it. but how can we attain it? there are but three conceivable ways. first, to suppress the rebellion by force of arms. this i am trying to do. are you for it? if you are, so far we are agreed. if you are not for it, a second way is to give up the union. i am against this. are you for it? if you are, you should say so plainly. if you are not for force, nor yet for dissolution, there only remains some imaginable compromise. i do not believe any compromise embracing the maintenance of the union is now possible. all i learn leads to a directly opposite belief. the strength of the rebellion is its military, its army. that army dominates all the country and all the people within its range. any offer of terms made by any man or men within that range, in opposition to that army, is simply nothing for the present, because such man or men have no power whatever to enforce their side of a compromise, if one were made with them. to illustrate: suppose refugees from the south and peace men of the north get together in convention, and frame and proclaim a compromise embracing a restoration of the union. in what way can that compromise be used to keep lee's army out of pennsylvania? meade's army can keep lee's out of pennsylvania, and, i think, can ultimately drive it out of existence. but no paper compromise, to which the controllers of lee's army are not agreed, can at all affect that army. in an effort at such compromise we should waste time which the enemy would improve to our disadvantage; and that would be all. a compromise, to be effective, must be made either with those who control the rebel army, or with the people first liberated from the domination of that army by the success of our own army. now, allow me to assure you that no word or intimation from that rebel army, or from any of the men controlling it, in relation to any peace compromise, has ever come to my knowledge or belief. all charges and insinuations to the contrary are deceptive and groundless. and i promise you that if any such proposition shall hereafter come, it shall not be rejected and kept a secret from you. i freely acknowledge myself the servant of the people, according to the bond of service,--the united states constitution,--and that, as such, i am responsible to them. but to be plain. you are dissatisfied with me about the negro. quite likely there is a difference of opinion between you and myself upon that subject. i certainly wish that all men could be free, while i suppose you do not. yet i have neither adopted nor proposed any measure which is not consistent with even your views, provided you are for the union. i suggested compensated emancipation, to which you replied, you wished not to be taxed to buy negroes. but i had not asked you to be taxed to buy negroes, except in such way as to save you from greater taxation to save the union exclusively by other means. you dislike the emancipation proclamation, and perhaps would have it retracted. you say it is unconstitutional. i think differently. i think the constitution invests its commander-in-chief with the law of war in time of war. the most that can be said--if so much--is that slaves are property. is there, has there ever been, any question that, by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed? and is it not needed whenever taking it helps us or hurts the enemy? armies the world over destroy enemies' property when they cannot use it, and even destroy their own to keep it from the enemy. civilized belligerents do all in their power to help themselves or hurt the enemy, except a few things regarded as barbarous or cruel. among the exceptions are the massacre of vanquished foes and non-combatants, male and female. but the proclamation, as law, either is valid or is not valid. if it is not valid, it needs no retraction. if it is valid, it cannot be retracted any more than the dead can be brought to life. some of you profess to think its retraction would operate favourably for the union. why better after the retraction than before the issue? there was more than a year and a half of trial to suppress the rebellion before the proclamation issued, the last one hundred days of which passed under an explicit notice that it was coming, unless averted by those in revolt returning to their allegiance. the war has certainly progressed as favourably for us since the issue of the proclamation as before. i know, as fully as one can know the opinions of others, that some of the commanders of our armies in the field who have given us our most important successes, believe the emancipation policy and the use of coloured troops constitute the heaviest blow yet dealt to the rebellion, and that at least one of these important successes could not have been achieved when it was but for the aid of black soldiers. among the commanders holding these views are some who have never had any affinity with what is called abolitionism or with republican party politics, but who hold them purely as military opinions. i submit these opinions as being entitled to some weight against the objections often urged, that emancipation and arming the blacks are unwise as military measures, and were not adopted as such in good faith. you say you will not fight to free negroes. some of them seem willing to fight for you; but no matter. fight you, then, exclusively to save the union. i issued the proclamation on purpose to aid you in saving the union. whenever you shall have conquered all resistance to the union, if i shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time then for you to declare you will not fight to free negroes. i thought that in your struggle for the union, to whatever extent the negroes should cease helping the enemy, to that extent it weakened the enemy in his resistance to you. do you think differently? i thought that whatever negroes could be got to do as soldiers leaves just so much less for white soldiers to do in saving the union. does it appear otherwise to you? but negroes, like other people, act upon motives. why should they do anything for us, if we will do nothing for them? if they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive, even the promise of freedom. and the promise being made, must be kept. the signs look better. the father of waters again goes unvexed to the sea. thanks to the great northwest for it. nor yet wholly to them. three hundred miles up they met new england, empire, keystone, and jersey hewing their way right and left. the sunny south, too, in more colours than one, also lent a hand. on the spot, their part of the history was jotted down in black and white. the job was a great national one, and let none be banned who bore an honourable part in it. and while those who cleared the great river may well be proud, even that is not all. it is hard to say that anything has been more bravely and well done than at antietam, murfreesboro, gettysburg, and on many fields of lesser note. nor must uncle sam's web-feet be forgotten. at all the watery margins they have been present. not only on the deep sea, the broad bay, and the rapid river, but also up the narrow, muddy bayou, and wherever the ground was a little damp, they have been and made their tracks. thanks to all,--for the great republic, for the principle it lives by and keeps alive, for man's vast future,--thanks to all. peace does not appear so distant as it did. i hope it will come soon, and come to stay; and so come as to be worth the keeping in all future time. it will then have been proved that among freemen there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet, and that they who take such appeal are sure to lose their case and pay the cost. and then there will be some black men who can remember that with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet, they have helped mankind on to this great consummation, while i fear there will be some white ones unable to forget that with malignant heart and deceitful speech they strove to hinder it. still, let us not be over-sanguine of a speedy, final triumph. let us be quite sober. let us diligently apply the means, never doubting that a just god, in his own good time, will give us the rightful result. _his proclamation for a day of thanksgiving. october , _ the year that is drawing toward its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. to these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever-watchful providence of almighty god. in the midst of a civil war of unequalled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign states to invite and provoke their aggressions, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere, except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the union. needful diversions of wealth and strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence have not arrested the plough, the shuttle, or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege, and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigour, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. no human counsel hath devised, nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. they are the gracious gifts of the most high god, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. it has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole american people. i do, therefore, invite, my fellow-citizens in every part of the united states, and also those who are at sea, and those sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last thursday of november next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent father who dwelleth in the heavens. and i recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners, or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the almighty hand to heal the wounds of the nation, and to restore it, as soon as may be consistent with the divine purposes, to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity, and union. _address at the dedication of the national cemetery at gettysburg. november , _ fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. we are met on a great battle-field of that war. we have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. it is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. but in a larger sense we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. the brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our power to add or detract. the world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. it is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. it is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us; that from these honoured dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under god, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth. _from the annual message to congress. december , _ ... when congress assembled a year ago, the war had already lasted nearly twenty months, and there had been many conflicts on both land and sea, with varying results. the rebellion had been pressed back into reduced limits; yet the tone of public feeling and opinion at home and abroad was not satisfactory. with other signs, the popular elections then just past indicated uneasiness among ourselves; while, amid much that was cold and menacing, the kindest words coming from europe were uttered in accents of pity that we were too blind to surrender a hopeless cause. our commerce was suffering greatly from a few vessels built upon and furnished from foreign shores, and we were threatened with such additions from the same quarter as would sweep our trade from the seas and raise our blockade. we had failed to elicit from european governments anything hopeful upon this subject. the preliminary emancipation proclamation, issued in september, was running its assigned period to the beginning of the new year. a month later the final proclamation came, including the announcement that coloured men of suitable condition would be received into the war service. the policy of emancipation and of employing black soldiers gave to the future a new aspect, about which hope and fear and doubt contended in uncertain conflict. according to our political system, as a matter of civil administration, the general government had no lawful power to effect emancipation in any state, and for a long time it had been hoped that the rebellion could be suppressed without resorting to it as a military measure. it was all the while deemed possible that the necessity for it might come and that, if it should, the crisis of the contest would then be presented. it came, and, as was anticipated, was followed by dark and doubtful days. eleven months having now passed, we are permitted to take another review. the rebel borders are pressed still farther back, and by the complete opening of the mississippi, the country dominated by the rebellion is divided into distinct parts, with no practical communication between them. tennessee and arkansas have been substantially cleared of insurgent control, and influential citizens in each, owners of slaves and advocates of slavery at the beginning of the rebellion, now declare openly for emancipation in their respective states. of those states not included in the emancipation proclamation, maryland and missouri, neither of which three years ago would tolerate any restraint upon the extension of slavery into new territories, only dispute now as to the best mode of removing it within their own limits. of those who were slaves at the beginning of the rebellion, full one hundred thousand are now in the united states military service, about one-half of which number actually bear arms in the ranks; thus giving the double advantage of taking so much labour from the insurgent cause and supplying the places which otherwise must be filled with so many white men. so far as tested, it is difficult to say they are not as good soldiers as any. no servile insurrection or tendency to violence or cruelty has marked the measures of emancipation and arming the blacks. these measures have been much discussed in foreign countries, and contemporary with such discussion the tone of public sentiment there is much improved. at home the same measures have been fully discussed, supported, criticized, and denounced, and the annual elections following are highly encouraging to those whose official duty it is to bear the country through this great trial. thus we have the new reckoning. the crisis which threatened to divide the friends of the union is passed. _letter to secretary stanton. washington. march , _ my dear sir, a poor widow, by the name of baird, has a son in the army, that for some offence has been sentenced to serve a long time without pay, or at most with very little pay. i do not like this punishment of withholding pay--it falls so very hard upon poor families. after he had been serving in this way for several months, at the tearful appeal of the poor mother, i made a direction that he be allowed to enlist for a new term, on the same condition as others. she now comes, and says she cannot get it acted upon. please do it. _letter to governor michael hahn. washington. march , _ my dear sir, i congratulate you on having fixed your name in history as the first free-state governor of louisiana. now you are about to have a convention, which, among other things, will probably define the elective franchise. i barely suggest for your private consideration, whether some of the coloured people may not be let in--as, for instance, the very intelligent, and especially those who have fought gallantly in our ranks. they would probably help, in some trying time to come, to keep the jewel of liberty within the family of freedom. but this is only a suggestion, not to the public, but to you alone. _an address at a fair for the sanitary commission. march , _ i appear to say but a word. this extraordinary war in which we are engaged falls heavily upon all classes of people, but the most heavily upon the soldier. for it has been said, "all that a man hath will he give for his life;" and while all contribute of their substance, the soldier puts his life at stake, and often yields it up in his country's cause. _the highest merit, then, is due to the soldier._ in this extraordinary war extraordinary developments have manifested themselves, such as have not been seen in former wars; and amongst these manifestations nothing has been more remarkable than these fairs for the relief of suffering soldiers and their families. and the chief agents in these fairs are the women of america. i am not accustomed to the language of eulogy. i have never studied the art of paying compliments to women. but i must say, that if all that has been said by orators and poets since the creation of the world in praise of women were applied to the women of america, it would not do them justice for their conduct during this war. i will close by saying, god bless the women of america! _letter to a.g. hodges, of kentucky. april , _ i am naturally anti-slavery. if slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. i cannot remember when i did not so think and feel, and yet i have never understood that the presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling. it was in the oath that i took, that i would, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the united states. i could not take office without taking the oath. nor was it my view that i might take an oath to get power, and break the oath in using the power. i understood, too, that in ordinary civil administration this oath even forbade me to practically indulge my primary abstract judgment on the moral question of slavery. i had publicly declared this many times and in many ways. and i aver that, to this day, i have done no official act in mere deference to my abstract feeling and judgment on slavery. i did understand, however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government--that nation--of which that constitution was the organic law. was it possible to lose the nation and yet preserve the constitution? by general law, life and limb must be protected, yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. i felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution through the preservation of the nation. right or wrong, i assumed this ground; and now avow it. i could not feel that, to the best of my ability, i had even tried to preserve the constitution, if, to save slavery or any minor matter, i should permit the wreck of government, country, and constitution, all together. when, early in the war, general fremont attempted military emancipation, i forbade it, because i did not then think it an indispensable necessity. when, a little later, general cameron, then secretary of war, suggested the arming of the blacks, i objected, because i did not think it an indispensable necessity. when, still later, general hunter attempted military emancipation, i again forbade it, because i did not yet think the indispensable necessity had come. when, in march and may and july, , i made earnest and successive appeals to the border states to favour compensated emancipation, i believed the indispensable necessity for military emancipation and arming the blacks would come, unless averted by that measure. they declined the proposition, and i was, in my best judgment, driven to the alternative of either surrendering the union, and with it the constitution, or laying strong hand upon the coloured element. i chose the latter. in choosing it, i hoped for greater gain than loss; but of this i was not entirely confident. more than a year of trial now shows no loss by it in our foreign relations, none in our home popular sentiment, none in our white military force,--no loss by it anyhow or anywhere. on the contrary, it shows a gain of quite one hundred and thirty thousand soldiers, seamen, and labourers. these are palpable facts, about which, as facts, there can be no cavilling. we have the men, and we could not have had them without the measure. and now let any union man who complains of the measure, test himself by writing down in one line that he is for subduing the rebellion by force of arms; and in the next, that he is for taking these hundred and thirty thousand men from the union side, and placing them where they would be but for the measure he condemns. if he cannot face his case so stated, it is only because he cannot face the truth. i add a word which was not in the verbal conversation. in telling this tale, i attempt no compliment to my own sagacity. i claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me. now, at the end of three years' struggle, the nation's condition is not what either party, or any man, devised or expected. god alone can claim it. whither it is tending seems plain. if god now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills also that we of the north, as well as you of the south, shall pay fairly for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice and goodness of god. _from an address at a sanitary fair in baltimore. april , _ ... the world has never had a good definition of the word "liberty," and the american people, just now, are much in want of one. we all declare for liberty; but in using the same word, we do not all mean the same thing. with some, the word "liberty" may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself and the product of his labour; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men and the product of other men's labour. here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name,--liberty. and it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names,--liberty and tyranny. the shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one. plainly, the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word "liberty;" and precisely the same difference prevails to-day, among us human creatures, even in the north, and all professing to love liberty. hence we behold the process by which thousands are daily passing from under the yoke of bondage hailed by some as the advance of liberty, and bewailed by others as the destruction of all liberty. recently, as it seems, the people of maryland have been doing something to define liberty, and thanks to them that, in what they have done, the wolf's dictionary has been repudiated. _letter to general grant. april , _ not expecting to see you again before the spring campaign opens, i wish to express in this way my entire satisfaction with what you have done up to this time, so far as i understand it. the particulars of your plans i neither know nor seek to know. you are vigilant and self-reliant; and, pleased with this, i wish not to obtrude any constraints nor restraints upon you. while i am very anxious that any great disaster or capture of our men in great numbers shall be avoided, i know these points are less likely to escape your attention than they would be mine. if there is anything wanting which is within my power to give, do not fail to let me know it. and now, with a brave army and a just cause, may god sustain you. _from an address to the th ohio regiment. august , _ i almost always feel inclined, when i happen to say anything to soldiers, to impress upon them, in a few brief remarks, the importance of success in this contest. it is not merely for to-day, but for all time to come, that we should perpetuate for our children's children that great and free government which we have enjoyed all our lives. i beg you to remember this, not merely for my sake, but for yours. i happen, temporarily, to occupy this white house. i am a living witness that any one of your children may look to come here as my father's child has. it is in order that each one of you may have, through this free government which we have enjoyed, an open field and a fair chance for your industry, enterprise, and intelligence; that you may all have equal privileges in the race of life, with all its desirable human aspirations. it is for this the struggle should be maintained, that we may not lose our birthright--not only for one, but for two or three years. the nation is worth fighting for, to secure such an inestimable jewel. _reply to a serenade. november , _ it has long been a grave question whether any government not too strong for the liberties of its people, can be strong enough to maintain its existence in great emergencies. on this point the present rebellion brought our republic to a severe test; and a presidential election, occurring in regular course during the rebellion, added not a little to the strain. if the loyal people united were put to the utmost of their strength by the rebellion, must they not fail when divided and partially paralyzed by a political war among themselves? but the election was a necessity. we cannot have free government without elections; and if the rebellion could force us to forego or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us. the strife of the election is but human nature practically applied to the facts of the case. what has occurred in this case must ever occur in similar cases. human nature will not change. in any future great national trial, compared with the men of this, we shall have as weak and as strong, as silly and as wise, as bad and as good. let us, therefore, study the incidents of this as philosophy to learn wisdom from, and none of them as wrongs to be revenged. but the election, along with its incidental and undesirable strife, has done good too. it has demonstrated that a people's government can sustain a national election in the midst of a great civil war. gold is good in its place, but living, brave, patriotic men are better than gold. but the rebellion continues; and now that the election is over, may not all having a common interest reunite in a common effort to save our common country? for my own part, i have striven and shall strive to avoid placing any obstacle in the way. so long as i have been here, i have not willingly planted a thorn in any man's bosom. while i am deeply sensible to the high compliment of a re-election, and duly grateful as i trust to almighty god for having directed my countrymen to a right conclusion, as i think, for their own good, it adds nothing to my satisfaction that any other man may be disappointed or pained by the result. may i ask those who have not differed with me, to join with me in this same spirit towards those who have? and now let me close by asking three hearty cheers for our brave soldiers and seamen, and their gallant and skilful commanders. _a letter to mrs. bixley, of boston. november , _ dear madam, i have been shown in the files of the war department a statement of the adjutant-general of massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle. i feel how weak and fruitless must be any words of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. but i cannot refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the republic they died to save. i pray that our heavenly father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom. yours very sincerely and respectfully, abraham lincoln. _letter to general grant. washington. january , _ please read and answer this letter as though i was not president, but only a friend. my son, now in his twenty-second year, having graduated at harvard, wishes to see something of the war before it ends. i do not wish to put him in the ranks, nor yet to give him a commission, to which those who have already served long are better entitled, and better qualified to hold. could he, without embarrassment to you or detriment to the service, go into your military family with some nominal rank, i, and not the public, furnishing his necessary means? if no, say so without the least hesitation, because i am as anxious and as deeply interested that you shall not be encumbered as you can be yourself. _the second inaugural address. march , _ fellow-countrymen, at this second appearance to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued, seemed fitting and proper. now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. the progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself; and it is, i trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. with high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured. on the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. all dreaded it,--all sought to avert it. while the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war,--seeking to dissolve the union, and divide effects, by negotiation. both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. and the war came. one-eighth of the whole population were coloured slaves, not distributed generally over the union, but localized in the southern part of it. these slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. all knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. to strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.... with malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as god gives us to see the right,--let us strive on to finish the work we are in: to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan; to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations. _a letter to thurlow weed. executive mansion, washington. march , _ dear mr. weed, every one likes a compliment. thank you for yours on my little notification speech and on the recent inaugural address. i expect the latter to wear as well as--perhaps better than--anything i have produced; but i believe it is not immediately popular. men are not flattered by being shown that there has been a difference of purpose between the almighty and them. to deny it, however, in this case, is to deny that there is a god governing the world. it is a truth which i thought needed to be told, and, as whatever of humiliation there is in it falls most directly on myself, i thought others might afford for me to tell it. truly yours, a. lincoln. _from an address to an indiana regiment. march , _ there are but few aspects of this great war on which i have not already expressed my views by speaking or writing. there is one--the recent effort of "our erring brethren," sometimes so called, to employ the slaves in their armies. the great question with them has been, "will the negro fight for them?" they ought to know better than we, and doubtless do know better than we. i may incidentally remark, that having in my life heard many arguments--or strings of words meant to pass for arguments--intended to show that the negro ought to be a slave,--if he shall now really fight to keep himself a slave, it will be a far better argument why he should remain a slave than i have ever before heard. he, perhaps, ought to be a slave if he desires it ardently enough to fight for it. or, if one out of four will, for his own freedom fight to keep the other three in slavery, he ought to be a slave for his selfish meanness. i have always thought that all men should be free; but if any should be slaves, it should be first those who desire it for themselves, and secondly those who desire it for others. whenever i hear any one arguing for slavery, i feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally. _from his reply to a serenade. lincoln's last public address. april , _ fellow-citizens, we meet this evening, not in sorrow but in gladness of heart. the evacuation of richmond and petersburg, and the surrender of the principal insurgent army, give the hope of a just and speedy peace, the joyous expression of which cannot be restrained. in all this joy, however, he from whom all blessings flow must not be forgotten. a call for a national thanksgiving is in the course of preparation, and will be duly promulgated. nor must those whose harder part give us the cause for rejoicing be overlooked. their honours must not be parcelled out with others. i, myself, was near the front, and had the high pleasure of transmitting much of the good news to you; but no part of the honour for plan or execution is mine. to general grant, his skilful officers and brave men, all belongs. the gallant navy stood ready, but was not in reach to take an active part. by these recent successes the reinauguration of the national authority,--reconstruction,--which has had a large share of thought from the first, is pressed much more closely upon our attention. it is fraught with great difficulty. unlike a case of war between independent nations, there is no organized organ for us to treat with,--no one man has authority to give up the rebellion for any other man. we simply must begin with and mould from disorganized and discordant elements. nor is it a small additional embarrassment that we, the loyal people, differ among ourselves as to the mode, manner, and measure of reconstruction. as a general rule i abstain from reading the reports of attacks upon myself, wishing not to be provoked by that to which i cannot properly offer an answer. in spite of this precaution, however, it comes to my knowledge that i am much censured for some supposed agency in setting up and seeking to sustain the new state government of louisiana. in this i have done just so much as, and no more than, the public knows. in the annual message of december , and in the accompanying proclamation, i presented a plan of reconstruction, as the phrase goes, which i promised, if adopted by any state, should be acceptable to and sustained by the executive government of the nation. i distinctly stated that this was not the only plan which might possibly be acceptable, and i also distinctly protested that the executive claimed no right to say when or whether members should be admitted to seats in congress from such states. this plan was in advance submitted to the then cabinet, and approved by every member of it.... when the message of , with the plan before mentioned, reached new orleans, general banks wrote me that he was confident that the people, with his military co-operation, would reconstruct substantially on that plan. i wrote him and some of them to try it. they tried it, and the result is known. such has been my only agency in getting up the louisiana government. as to sustaining it, my promise is out, as before stated. but as bad promises are better broken than kept, i shall treat this as a bad promise and break it, whenever i shall be convinced that keeping it is adverse to the public interest; but i have not yet been so convinced. i have been shown a letter on this subject, supposed to be an able one, in which the writer expresses regret that my mind has not seemed to be definitely fixed upon the question whether the seceded states, so called, are in the union or out of it. it would perhaps add astonishment to his regret were he to learn that since i have found professed union men endeavouring to answer that question, i have purposely forborne any public expression upon it.... we all agree that the seceded states, so called, are out of their proper practical relation with the union, and that the sole object of the government, civil and military, in regard to those states, is to again get them into that proper practical relation. i believe that it is not only possible, but in fact easier, to do this without deciding or even considering whether these states have ever been out of the union, than with it. finding themselves safely at home, it would be utterly immaterial whether they had ever been abroad. let us all join in doing the acts necessary to restoring the proper practical relations between these states and the union, and each for ever after innocently indulge his own opinion whether in doing the acts he brought the states from without into the union, or only gave them proper assistance, they never having been out of it. the amount of constituency, so to speak, on which the new louisiana government rests, would be more satisfactory to all if it contained forty thousand, or thirty thousand, or even twenty thousand, instead of only about twelve thousand as it does. it is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the coloured man. i would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers. still, the question is not whether the louisiana government, as it stands, is quite all that is desirable. the question is, will it be wiser to take it as it is and help to improve it, or to reject and disperse it? can louisiana be brought into proper practical relation with the union sooner by sustaining or by discarding her new state government? some twelve thousand voters in the heretofore slave state of louisiana have sworn allegiance to the union, assumed to be the rightful political power of the state, held elections, organized a state government, adopted a free-state constitution, giving the benefit of public schools equally to black and white, and empowering the legislature to confer the elective franchise upon the coloured man. their legislature has already voted to ratify the constitutional amendment recently passed by congress, abolishing slavery throughout the nation. these twelve thousand persons are thus fully committed to the union and to perpetual freedom in the state,--committed to the very things, and nearly all the things, the nation wants,--and they ask the nation's recognition and its assistance to make good their committal. if we reject and spurn them, we do our utmost to disorganize and disperse them. we, in effect, say to the white man: you are worthless or worse; we will neither help you, nor be helped by you. to the blacks, we say: this cup of liberty, which these, your old masters, hold to your lips, we will dash from you, and leave you to the chances of gathering the spilled and scattered contents in some vague and undefined when, where, and how. if this course, discouraging and paralyzing both white and black, has any tendency to bring louisiana into proper, practical relations with the union, i have so far been unable to perceive it. if, on the contrary, we recognize and sustain the new government of louisiana, the converse of all this is made true. we encourage the hearts and nerve the arms of twelve thousand to adhere to their work, and argue for it, and proselyte for it, and fight for it, and feed it, and grow it, and ripen it to a complete success. the coloured man, too, in seeing all united for him, is inspired with vigilance, and energy, and daring to the same end. grant that he desires the elective franchise, will he not attain it sooner by saving the already advanced steps towards it, than by running backward over them? ... i repeat the question, can louisiana be brought into proper practical relation with the union sooner by sustaining or by discarding her new state government? ... what has been said of louisiana will apply generally to other states. and yet so great peculiarities pertain to each state, and such important and sudden changes occur in the same state, and withal so new and unprecedented is the whole case, that no exclusive and inflexible plan can safely be prescribed as to details and collaterals. such exclusive and inflexible plan would surely become a new entanglement. important principles may and must be inflexible. in the present situation, as the phrase goes, it may be my duty to make some new announcement to the people of the south. i am considering, and shall not fail to act when satisfied that action will be proper. appendix anecdotes lincoln's entry into richmond the day after it was taken _as described at that time by a writer in the "atlantic monthly"_ they gathered around the president, ran ahead, hovered about the flanks of the little company, and hung like a dark cloud upon the rear. men, women and children joined the constantly-increasing throng. they came from all the by-streets, running in breathless haste, shouting and hallooing, and dancing with delight. the men threw up their hats, the women waved their bonnets and handkerchiefs, clapped their hands, and sang, "glory to god! glory, glory!" rendering all the praise to god, who had heard their wailings in the past, their moanings for wives, husbands, children, and friends sold out of their sight; had given them freedom, and after long years of waiting had permitted them thus unexpectedly to behold the face of their great benefactor. "i thank you, dear jesus, that i behold president linkum!" was the exclamation of a woman who stood upon the threshold of her humble home, and with streaming eyes and clasped hands gave thanks aloud to the saviour of men. another, more demonstrative in her joy, was jumping and striking her hands with all her might, crying, "bless de lord! bless de lord! bless de lord!" as if there could be no end to her thanksgiving. the air rang with a tumultuous chorus of voices. the street became almost impassable on account of the increasing multitude, till soldiers were summoned to clear the way.... the walk was long, and the president halted a moment to rest. "may de good lord bless you, president linkum!" said an old negro, removing his hat and bowing, with tears of joy rolling down his cheeks. the president removed his own hat, and bowed in silence; but it was a bow which upset the forms, laws, customs, and ceremonies of centuries. it was a death-shock to chivalry and a mortal wound to caste. "recognize a nigger! fough!" a woman in an adjoining house beheld it, and turned from the scene in unspeakable disgust. (the following nine anecdotes were related by frank b. carpenter, the painter, who, while executing his picture of the first reading in cabinet council of the emancipation proclamation, had the freedom of mr. lincoln's private office and saw much of the president while he posed, and whose relations with him became of an intimate character.) "you don't wear hoops--and i will ... pardon your brother" a distinguished citizen of ohio had an appointment with the president one evening at six o'clock. as he entered the vestibule of the white house, his attention was attracted by a poorly-clad young woman who was violently sobbing. he asked her the cause of her distress. she said she had been ordered away by the servants after vainly waiting many hours to see the president about her only brother, who had been condemned to death. her story was this:--she and her brother were foreigners, and orphans. they had been in this country several years. her brother enlisted in the army, but, through bad influences, was induced to desert. he was captured, tried and sentenced to be shot--the old story. the poor girl had obtained the signatures of some persons who had formerly known him, to a petition for a pardon, and alone had come to washington to lay the case before the president. thronged as the waiting-rooms always were, she had passed the long hours of two days trying in vain to get an audience, and had at length been ordered away. the gentleman's feelings were touched. he said to her that he had come to see the president, but did not know as _he_ should succeed. he told her, however, to follow him upstairs, and he would see what could be done for her. just before reaching the door, mr. lincoln came out, and meeting his friend said good-humouredly, "are you not ahead of time?" the gentleman showed him his watch, with the hand upon the hour of six. "well," returned mr. lincoln, "i have been so busy to-day that i have not had time to get a lunch. go in, and sit down; i will be back directly." the gentleman made the young woman accompany him into the office, and, when they were seated, said to her, "now, my good girl, i want you to muster all the courage you have in the world. when the president comes back, he will sit down in that arm-chair. i shall get up to speak to him, and as i do so you must force yourself between us, and insist upon the examination of your papers, telling him it is a case of life and death, and admits of no delay." these instructions were carried out to the letter. mr. lincoln was at first somewhat surprised at the apparent forwardness of the young woman, but observing her distressed appearance, he ceased conversation with his friend, and commenced an examination of the document she had placed in his hands. glancing from it to the face of the petitioner, whose tears had broken forth afresh, he studied its expression for a moment, and then his eye fell upon her scanty but neat dress. instantly his face lighted up. "my poor girl," said he, "you have come here with no governor, or senator, or member of congress, to plead your cause. you seem honest and truthful; _and you don't wear hoops_--and i will be whipped but i will pardon your brother." his joy in giving a pardon one night schuyler colfax left all other business to ask him to respite the son of a constituent, who was sentenced to be shot, at davenport, for desertion. he heard the story with his usual patience, though he was wearied out with incessant calls, and anxious for rest, and then replied:--"some of our generals complain that i impair discipline and subordination in the army by my pardons and respites, but it makes me rested, after a hard day's work, if i can find some good excuse for saving a man's life, and i go to bed happy as i think how joyous the signing of my name will make him and his family and his friends." and with a happy smile beaming over that care-furrowed face, he signed that name that saved that life. his simplicity and unostentatiousness the simplicity and absence of all ostentation on the part of mr. lincoln, is well illustrated by an incident which occurred on the occasion of a visit he made to commodore porter, at fortress monroe. noticing that the banks of the river were dotted with flowers, he said: "commodore, tad (the pet name for his youngest son, who had accompanied him on the excursion) is very fond of flowers; won't you let a couple of men take a boat and go with him for an hour or two, along the banks of the river, and gather the flowers?" look at this picture, and then endeavour to imagine the head of a european nation making a similar request, in this humble way, of one of his subordinates! a penitent man can be pardoned one day i took a couple of friends from new york upstairs, who wished to be introduced to the president. it was after the hour for business calls, and we found him alone, and, for _once_, at leisure. soon after the introduction, one of my friends took occasion to indorse, very decidedly, the president's amnesty proclamation, which had been severely censured by many friends of the administration. mr. s----'s approval touched mr. lincoln. he said, with a great deal of emphasis, and with an expression of countenance i shall never forget: "when a man is sincerely _penitent_ for his misdeeds, and gives satisfactory evidence of the same, he can safely be pardoned, and there is no exception to the rule!" "keep silence, and we'll get you safe across" at the white house one day some gentlemen were present from the west, excited and troubled about the commissions and omissions of the administration. the president heard them patiently, and then replied: "gentlemen, suppose all the property you were worth was in gold, and you had put it in the hands of blondin to carry across the niagara river on a rope, would you shake the cable, or keep shouting out to him, 'blondin, stand up a little straighter--blondin, stoop a little more--go a little faster--lean a little more to the north--lean a little more to the south?' no, you would hold your breath as well as your tongue, and keep your hands off until he was safe over. the government are carrying an immense weight. untold treasures are in their hands. they are doing the very best they can. don't badger them. keep silence, and we'll get you safe across." rebuff to a man with a small claim during a public "reception," a farmer, from one of the border counties of virginia, told the president that the union soldiers, in passing his farm, had helped themselves not only to hay, but his horse, and he hoped the president would urge the proper officer to consider his claim immediately. mr. lincoln said that this reminded him of an old acquaintance of his, "jack chase," who used to be a lumberman on the illinois, a steady, sober man, and the best raftsman on the river. it was quite a trick, twenty-five years ago, to take the logs over the rapids; but he was skilful with a raft, and always kept her straight in the channel. finally a steamer was put on, and jack was made captain of her. he always used to take the wheel going through the rapids. one day when the boat was plunging and wallowing along the boiling current, and jack's utmost vigilance was being exercised to keep her in the narrow channel, a boy pulled his coat-tail, and hailed him with: "say, mister captain! i wish you would just stop your boat a minute--i've lost my apple overboard!" the president's silence over criticisms the president was once speaking about an attack made on him by the committee on the conduct of the war for a certain alleged blunder, or something worse, in the southwest--the matter involved being one which had fallen directly under the observation of the officer to whom he was talking, who possessed official evidence completely upsetting all the conclusions of the committee. "might it not be well for me," queried the officer, "to set this matter right in a letter to some paper, stating the facts as they actually transpired?" "oh, no," replied the president, "at least, not now. if i were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. i do the very best i know how--the very best i can; and i mean to keep doing so until the end. if the end brings me out all right, what is said against me won't amount to anything. if the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing i was right would make no difference." "glad of it" on the occasion when the telegram from cumberland gap reached mr. lincoln that "firing was heard in the direction of knoxville," he remarked that he was "glad of it." some person present, who had the perils of burnside's position uppermost in his mind, could, not see _why_ mr. lincoln should be _glad_ of it, and so expressed himself. "why, you see," responded the president, "it reminds me of mistress sallie ward, a neighbour of mine, who had a very large family. occasionally one of her numerous progeny would be heard crying in some out-of-the-way place, upon which mrs. ward would exclaim, 'there's one of my children that isn't dead yet!'" his democratic bearing the evening before i left washington an incident occurred, illustrating very perfectly the character of the man. for two days my large painting had been on exhibition, upon its completion, in the east room, which had been thronged with visitors. late in the afternoon of the second day, the "black-horse cavalry" escort drew up as usual in front of the portico, preparatory to the president's leaving for the "soldiers' home," where he spent the midsummer nights. while the carriage was waiting, i looked around for him, wishing to say a farewell word, knowing that i should have no other opportunity. presently i saw him standing halfway between the portico and the gateway leading to the war department, leaning against the iron fence--one arm thrown over the railing, and one foot on the stone coping which supports it, evidently having been intercepted, on his way in from the war department, by a plain-looking man, who was giving him, very diffidently, an account of a difficulty which he had been unable to have rectified. while waiting, i walked out leisurely to the president's side. he said very little to the man, but was intently studying the expression of his face while he was narrating his trouble. when he had finished, mr. lincoln said to him, "have you a blank card?" the man searched his pockets, but finding none, a gentleman standing near, who had overheard the question, came forward, and said, "here is one, mr. president." several persons had, in the meantime, gathered around. taking the card and a pencil, mr. lincoln sat down upon the stone coping, which is not more than five or six inches above the pavement, presenting almost the appearance of sitting upon the pavement itself, and wrote an order upon the card to the proper official to "examine this man's case." while writing this, i observed several persons passing down the promenade, smiling at each other, at what i presume they thought the undignified appearance of the head of the nation, who, however, seemed utterly unconscious, either of any impropriety in the action, or of attracting any attention. to me it was not only a touching picture of the native goodness of the man, but of innate nobility of character, exemplified not so much by a disregard of conventionalities, as in unconsciousness that there _could_ be any breach of etiquette, or dignity, in the manner of an honest attempt to serve, or secure justice to a citizen of the republic, however humble he may be. [illustration: everyman, i will go with thee & be thy guide in thy most need to go by thy side.] speeches by daniel webster [illustration: daniel webster. _from a daguerreotype by t. d. jones. copyright, , by dartmouth college._] daniel webster for young americans comprising the greatest speeches of the defender of the constitution with notes by charles f. richardson professor of english in dartmouth college school edition illustrated boston little, brown, and company _copyright, , ,_ by little, brown, and company. _all rights reserved_ the eastern press co. boston, mass. contents page daniel webster, chronology ix the first settlement of new england the bunker hill monument the completion of the bunker hill monument adams and jefferson the murder of captain joseph white the reply to hayne executive patronage and removal from office the character of washington the constitution and the union the addition to the capitol index illustrations daniel webster _frontispiece_ from a daguerreotype by t. d. jones, in the possession of dartmouth college daniel webster _page_ vii from the crayon drawing by john martin, in the possession of mrs. richard w. grinnell birthplace of daniel webster, franklin (formerly salisbury), n. h. " viii the embarkation of the pilgrims from delfthaven _facing page_ the landing of the pilgrims " " the battle of bunker hill " " joseph warren _page_ marquis de lafayette " bunker hill monument " john tyler " faneuil hall " john adams " james otis " independence hall, philadelphia " thomas jefferson " the declaration of independence _facing page_ john hancock _page_ samuel adams " patrick henry " benjamin franklin " the reply to hayne _facing page_ thomas h. benton _page_ john quincy adams " robert y. hayne " the battle of lexington _facing page_ george washington _page_ the resignation of washington _facing page_ henry clay _page_ the capitol at washington " washington monument " millard fillmore " [illustration] daniel webster chronology born at salisbury, now franklin, new hampshire january , graduated at dartmouth college admitted to the bar practised law in boscawen, new hampshire - removed to portsmouth, new hampshire member of the united states house of representatives from new hampshire - removed to boston dartmouth college case, united states supreme court member of the massachusetts constitutional convention - oration at plymouth, massachusetts member of the united states house of representatives from massachusetts - gibbons _versus_ ogden case oration at the laying of the corner-stone of bunker hill monument eulogy on adams and jefferson senator from massachusetts - reply to hayne argument in white murder case, salem, massachusetts reply to calhoun: the constitution not a compact between sovereign states secretary of state under presidents harrison and tyler - webster-ashburton treaty between the united states and england oration on the completion of bunker hill monument senator from massachusetts - seventh of march speech for compromise between northern and southern states secretary of state under president fillmore - died at marshfield, massachusetts october , [illustration] daniel webster _for_ young americans the first settlement of new england a discourse delivered at plymouth, massachusetts, dec. , . [in the "pilgrim society" was formed by the citizens of plymouth, massachusetts, and the descendants of the pilgrims in other places, desirous of uniting "to commemorate the landing, and to honor the memory of the intrepid men who first set foot on plymouth rock." the foundation of this society gave a new impulse to the anniversary celebrations of the two hundredth anniversary of the landing of the pilgrims at plymouth. mr. webster was requested to deliver the public address on the d of december of that year, and the following discourse was pronounced by him, in the presence of a great gathering of people.] [sidenote: beginning of the third century of new england history.] let us rejoice that we behold this day. let us be thankful that we have lived to see the bright and happy breaking of the auspicious morn which commences the third century of the history of new england. auspicious, indeed,--bringing a happiness beyond the common allotment of providence to men,--full of present joy, and gilding with bright beams the prospect of futurity, is the dawn that awakens us to the commemoration of the landing of the pilgrims. living at an epoch which naturally marks the progress of the history of our native land, we have come hither to celebrate the great event with which that history commenced. forever honored be this, the place of our fathers' refuge! forever remembered the day which saw them, weary and distressed, broken in everything but spirit, poor in all but faith and courage, at last secure from the dangers of wintry seas, and impressing this shore with the first footsteps of civilized man! [sidenote: new england's ancestors.] it is a noble faculty of our nature which enables us to connect our thoughts, our sympathies, and our happiness with what is distant in place or time; and, looking before and after, to hold communion at once with our ancestors and our posterity. human and mortal although we are, we are nevertheless not mere insulated beings, without relation to the past or the future. neither the point of time, nor the spot of earth, in which we physically live, bounds our rational and intellectual enjoyments. we live in the past by a knowledge of its history; and in the future, by hope and anticipation. by ascending to an association with our ancestors, by contemplating their example and studying their character, by partaking their sentiments and imbibing their spirit, by accompanying them in their toils, by sympathizing in their sufferings, and rejoicing in their successes and their triumphs, we seem to belong to their age and to mingle our own existence with theirs. we become their contemporaries, live the lives which they lived, endure what they endured, and partake in the rewards which they enjoyed. and in like manner, by running along the line of future time, by contemplating the probable fortunes of those who are coming after us, by attempting something which may promote their happiness and leave some not dishonorable memorial of ourselves for their regard when we shall sleep with the fathers, we protract our own earthly being, and seem to crowd whatever is future, as well as all that is past, into the narrow compass of our earthly existence. as it is not a vain and false, but an exalted and religious imagination which leads us to raise our thoughts from the orb which, amidst this universe of worlds, the creator has given us to inhabit, and to send them with something of the feeling which nature prompts, and teaches to be proper among children of the same eternal parent, to the contemplation of the myriads of fellow-beings with which his goodness has peopled the infinite of space; so neither is it false or vain to consider ourselves as interested and connected with our whole race, through all time; allied to our ancestors; allied to our posterity; closely compacted on all sides with others; ourselves being but links in the great chain of being, which begins with the origin of our race, runs onward through its successive generations, binding together the past, the present, and the future, and terminating at last, with the consummation of all things earthly, at the throne of god. [sidenote: the pilgrim fathers.] we have come to this rock, to record here our homage for our pilgrim fathers;[ ] our sympathy in their sufferings; our gratitude for their labors; our admiration of their virtues; our veneration for their piety; and our attachment to those principles of civil and religious liberty which they encountered the dangers of the ocean, the storms of heaven, the violence of savages, disease, exile, and famine, to enjoy and to establish. and we would leave here, also, for the generations which are rising up rapidly to fill our places, some proof that we have endeavored to transmit the great inheritance unimpaired; that in our estimate of public principles and private virtue, in our veneration of religion and piety, in our devotion to civil and religious liberty, in our regard for whatever advances human knowledge or improves human happiness, we are not altogether unworthy of our origin. [sidenote: the genius of the place.] [sidenote: plymouth rock.] there is a local feeling connected with this occasion, too strong to be resisted; a sort of genius of the place, which inspires and awes us. we feel that we are on the spot where the first scene of our history was laid; where the hearths and altars of new england were first placed; where christianity and civilization and letters made their first lodgment, in a vast extent of country, covered with a wilderness, and peopled by roving barbarians. we are here at the season of the year at which the event took place. the imagination irresistibly and rapidly draws around us the principal features and the leading characters in the original scene. we cast our eyes abroad on the ocean, and we see where the little bark, with the interesting group upon its deck, made its slow progress to the shore. we look around us, and behold the hills and promontories where the anxious eyes of our fathers first saw the places of habitation and of rest. we feel the cold which benumbed, and listen to the winds which pierced them. beneath us is the rock on which new england received the feet of the pilgrims. we seem even to behold them as they struggle with the elements, and with toilsome efforts gain the shore. we listen to the chiefs in council; we see the unexampled exhibition of female fortitude and resignation; we hear the whisperings of youthful impatience; and we see what a painter of our own has also represented by his pencil,[ ] chilled and shivering childhood, houseless but for a mother's arms, couchless but for a mother's breast, till our own blood almost freezes. the mild dignity of carver and of bradford; the decisive and soldier-like air and manner of standish; the devout brewster; the enterprising allerton; the general firmness and thoughtfulness of the whole band; their conscious joy for dangers escaped; their deep solicitude about dangers to come; their trust in heaven; their high religious faith, full of confidence and anticipation,--all of these seem to belong to this place, and to be present upon this occasion, to fill us with reverence and admiration. [sidenote: importance of the landing at plymouth as an historical event.] the settlement of new england by the colony which landed here on the twenty-second[ ] of december, , although not the first european establishment in what now constitutes the united states, was yet so peculiar in its causes and character, and has been followed and must still be followed by such consequences, as to give it a high claim to lasting commemoration. on these causes and consequences, more than on its immediately attendant circumstances, its importance as an historical event depends. great actions and striking occurrences, having excited a temporary admiration, often pass away and are forgotten, because they leave no lasting results affecting the prosperity and happiness of communities. such is frequently the fortune of the most brilliant military achievements. of the ten thousand battles which have been fought, of all the fields fertilized with carnage, of the banners which have been bathed in blood, of the warriors who have hoped that they had risen from the field of conquest to a glory as bright and as durable as the stars, how few that continue long to interest mankind! the victory of yesterday is reversed by the defeat of to-day; the star of military glory, rising like a meteor, like a meteor has fallen; disgrace and disaster hang on the heels of conquest and renown; victor and vanquished presently pass away to oblivion, and the world goes on in its course, with the loss only of so many lives and so much treasure. [sidenote: the battle of marathon.] but if this be frequently, or generally, the fortune of military achievements, it is not always so. there are enterprises, military as well as civil, which sometimes check the current of events, give a new turn to human affairs, and transmit their consequences through ages. we see their importance in their results, and call them great, because great things follow. there have been battles which have fixed the fate of nations. these come down to us in history with a solid and permanent interest, not created by a display of glittering armor, the rush of adverse battalions, the sinking and rising of pennons, the flight, the pursuit, and the victory; but by their effect in advancing or retarding human knowledge, in overthrowing or establishing despotism, in extending or destroying human happiness. when the traveller pauses on the plain of marathon,[ ] what are the emotions which most strongly agitate his breast? what is that glorious recollection which thrills through his frame, and suffuses his eyes? not, i imagine, that grecian skill and grecian valor were here most signally displayed; but that greece herself was saved. it is because to this spot, and to the event which has rendered it immortal, he refers all the succeeding glories of the republic. it is because, if that day had gone otherwise, greece had perished. it is because he perceives that her philosophers and orators, her poets and painters, her sculptors and architects, her governments and free institutions, point backward to marathon, and that their future existence seems to have been suspended on the contingency whether the persian or the grecian banner should wave victorious in the beams of that day's setting sun. and, as his imagination kindles at the retrospect, he is transported back to the interesting moment; he counts the fearful odds of the contending hosts; his interest for the result overwhelms him; he trembles, as if it were still uncertain, and seems to doubt whether he may consider socrates and plato, demosthenes, sophocles, and phidias, as secure yet to himself and to the world. [sidenote: the high purpose of the pilgrim fathers.] "if we conquer," said the athenian commander on the approach of that decisive day, "if we conquer, we shall make athens the greatest city of greece." a prophecy how well fulfilled! "if god prosper us," might have been the more appropriate language of our fathers, when they landed upon this rock, "if god prosper us, we shall here begin a work which shall last for ages; we shall plant here a new society, in the principles of the fullest liberty and the purest religion; we shall subdue this wilderness which is before us; we shall fill this region of the great continent, which stretches almost from pole to pole, with civilization and christianity; the temples of the true god shall rise where now ascends the smoke of idolatrous sacrifice; fields and gardens, the flowers of summer, and the waving and golden harvest of autumn, shall spread over a thousand hills and stretch along a thousand valleys, never yet, since the creation, reclaimed to the use of civilized man. we shall whiten this coast with the canvas of a prosperous commerce; we shall stud the long and winding shore with a hundred cities. that which we sow in weakness shall be raised in strength. from our sincere but houseless worship there shall spring splendid temples to record god's goodness; from the simplicity of our social union there shall arise wise and politic constitutions of government, full of the liberty which we ourselves bring and breathe; from our zeal for learning, institutions shall spring which shall scatter the light of knowledge throughout the land, and in time, paying back where they have borrowed, shall contribute their part to the great aggregate of human knowledge; and our descendants, through all generations, shall look back to this spot and to this hour with unabated affection and regard. [sidenote: love of religious liberty the motive for the settlement of new england.] of the motives which influenced the first settlers to a voluntary exile, induced them to relinquish their native country, and to seek an asylum in this then unexplored wilderness, the first and principal, no doubt, were connected with religion. they sought to enjoy a higher degree of religious freedom, and what they esteemed a purer form of religious worship, than was allowed to their choice, or presented to their imitation, in the old world. the love of religious liberty is a stronger sentiment, when fully excited, than an attachment to civil or political freedom. that freedom which the conscience demands, and which men feel bound by their hope of salvation to contend for, can hardly fail to be attained. conscience, in the cause of religion and the worship of the deity, prepares the mind to act and to suffer beyond almost all other causes. it sometimes gives an impulse so irresistible that no fetters of power or of opinion can withstand it. history instructs us that this love of religious liberty, a compound sentiment in the breast of man, made up of the clearest sense of right and the highest conviction of duty, is able to look the sternest despotism in the face, and, with means apparently most inadequate, to shake principalities and powers. there is a boldness, a spirit of daring, in religious reformers, not to be measured by the general rules which control men's purposes and actions. if the hand of power be laid upon it, this only seems to augment its force and its elasticity, and to cause its action to be more formidable and violent. human invention has devised nothing, human power has compassed nothing, that can forcibly restrain it when it breaks forth. nothing can stop it, but to give way to it; nothing can check it, but indulgence. it loses its power only when it has gained its object. the principle of toleration, to which the world has come so slowly, is at once the most just and the most wise of all principles. even when religious feeling takes a character of extravagance and enthusiasm, and seems to threaten the order of society and shake the columns of the social edifice, its principal danger is in its restraint. if it be allowed indulgence and expansion, like the elemental fires, it only agitates, and perhaps purifies, the atmosphere; while its efforts to throw off restraint would burst the world asunder. [sidenote: religious persecutions in england.] it is certain, that, although many of them were republicans in principle, we have no evidence that our new england ancestors would have emigrated, as they did, from their own native country, would have become wanderers in europe, and finally would have undertaken the establishment of a colony here, merely from their dislike of the political systems of europe. they fled not so much from the civil government as from the hierarchy, and the laws which enforced conformity to the church establishment. mr. robinson[ ] had left england as early as , on account of the persecutions for non-conformity, and had retired to holland. he left england from no disappointed ambition in affairs of state, from no regrets at the want of preferment in the church, nor from any motive of distinction or of gain. uniformity in matters of religion was pressed with such extreme rigor that a voluntary exile seemed the most eligible mode of escaping from the penalties of non-compliance. the accession of elizabeth had, it is true, quenched the fires of smithfield,[ ] and put an end to the easy acquisition of the crown of martyrdom. her long reign had established the reformation, but toleration was a virtue beyond her conception and beyond the age. she left no example of it to her successor; and he was not of a character which rendered it probable that a sentiment either so wise or so liberal would originate with him. at the present period it seems incredible that the learned, accomplished, unassuming, and inoffensive robinson should neither be tolerated in his peaceable mode of worship in his own country, nor suffered quietly to depart from it. yet such was the fact. he left his country by stealth, that he might elsewhere enjoy those rights which ought to belong to men in all countries. the departure of the pilgrims for holland is deeply interesting, from its circumstances, and also as it marks the character of the times, independently of its connection with names now incorporated with the history of empire. the embarkation was intended to be made in such a manner that it might escape the notice of the officers of government. great pains had been taken to secure boats which should come undiscovered to the shore and receive the fugitives; and frequent disappointments had been experienced in this respect. [sidenote: the embarkation from lincolnshire.] [sidenote: the stormy voyage to holland.] at length the appointed time came, bringing with it unusual severity of cold and rain. an unfrequented and barren heath, on the shores of lincolnshire, was the selected spot where the feet of the pilgrims were to tread for the last time the land of their fathers. the vessel which was to receive them did not come until the next day, and in the mean time the little band was collected, and men and women and children and baggage were crowded together, in melancholy and distressed confusion. the sea was rough, and the women and children were already sick, from their passage down the river to the place of embarkation on the sea. at length the wished-for boat silently and fearfully approaches the shore, and men and women and children, shaking with fear and with cold, as many as the small vessel could bear, venture off on a dangerous sea. immediately the advance of horses is heard from behind, armed men appear, and those not yet embarked are seized and taken into custody. in the hurry of the moment, the first parties had been sent on board without any attempt to keep members of the same family together; and on account of the appearance of the horsemen, the boat never returned for the residue. those who had got away, and those who had not, were in equal distress. a storm, of great violence and long duration, arose at sea, which not only protracted the voyage, rendered distressing by the want of all those accommodations which the interruption of the embarkation had occasioned, but also forced the vessel out of her course, and menaced immediate shipwreck; while those on shore, when they were dismissed from the custody of the officers of justice, having no longer homes or houses to retire to, and their friends and protectors being already gone, became objects of necessary charity as well as of deep commiseration. [illustration: the embarkation of the pilgrims from delftshaven] as this scene passes before us, we can hardly forbear asking whether this be a band of malefactors and felons flying from justice. what are their crimes, that they hide themselves in darkness? to what punishment are they exposed, that, to avoid it, men and women and children thus encounter the surf of the north sea and the terrors of a night storm? what induces this armed pursuit and this arrest of fugitives, of all ages and both sexes? truth does not allow us to answer these inquiries in a manner that does credit to the wisdom or the justice of the times. this was not the flight of guilt, but of virtue. it was an humble and peaceable religion, flying from causeless oppression. it was conscience, attempting to escape from the arbitrary rule of the stuarts. it was robinson and brewster, leading off their little band from their native soil, at first to find shelter on the shore of the neighboring continent, but ultimately to come hither; and having surmounted all difficulties and braved a thousand dangers, to find here a place of refuge and of rest. thanks be to god, that this spot was honored as the asylum of religious liberty! may its standard, reared here, remain forever! may it rise up as high as heaven, till its banner shall fan the air of both continents, and wave as a glorious ensign of peace and security to the nations! [illustration: the landing of the pilgrims] [sidenote: the pilgrims sought a home, not a place of exile.] they came hither to a land from which they were never to return. hither they had brought, and here they were to fix, their hopes, their attachments, and their objects in life. some natural tears they shed, as they left the pleasant abodes of their fathers, and some emotions they suppressed, when the white cliffs of their native country, now seen for the last time, grew dim to their sight. they were acting, however, upon a resolution not to be daunted. with whatever stifled regrets, with whatever occasional hesitation, with whatever appalling apprehensions, which might sometimes arise with force to shake the firmest purpose, they had yet committed themselves to heaven and the elements; and a thousand leagues of water soon interposed to separate them forever from the region which gave them birth. a new existence awaited them here; and when, they saw these shores, rough, cold, barbarous, and barren, as then they were, they beheld their country. that mixed and strong feeling which we call love of country, and which is, in general, never extinguished in the heart of man, grasped and embraced its proper object here. whatever constitutes country, except the earth and the sun, all the moral causes of affection and attachment which operate upon the heart, they had brought with them to their new abode. here were now their families and friends, their homes and their property. before they reached the shore, they had established the elements of a social system, and at a much earlier period had settled their forms of religious worship. at the moment of their landing, therefore, they possessed institutions of government and institutions of religion; and friends and families, and social and religious institutions, framed by consent, founded on choice and preference, how nearly do these fill up our whole idea of country! the morning that beamed on the first night of their repose saw the pilgrims already at home in their country. there were political institutions, and civil liberty, and religious worship. poetry has fancied nothing, in the wanderings of heroes, so distinct and characteristic. here was man, indeed, unprotected, and unprovided for, on the shore of a rude and fearful wilderness; but it was politic, intelligent, and educated man. everything was civilized but the physical world. institutions, containing in substance all that ages had done for human government, were organized in a forest. cultivated mind was to act on uncultivated nature; and, more than all, a government and a country were to commence, with the very first foundations laid under the divine light of the christian religion. happy auspices of a happy futurity! who would wish that his country's existence had otherwise begun? who would desire the power of going back to the ages of fable? who would wish for an origin obscured in the darkness of antiquity? who would wish for other emblazoning of his country's heraldry, or other ornaments of her genealogy, than to be able to say, that her first existence was with intelligence, her first breath the inspiration of liberty, her first principle the truth of divine religion? local attachments and sympathies would erelong spring up in the breasts of our ancestors, endearing to them the place of their refuge. whatever natural objects are associated with interesting scenes and high efforts obtain a hold on human feeling, and demand from the heart a sort of recognition and regard. this rock soon became hallowed in the esteem of the pilgrims, and these hills grateful to their sight. neither they nor their children were again to till the soil of england, nor again to traverse the seas which surround her. but here was a new sea, now open to their enterprise, and a new soil, which had not failed to respond gratefully to their laborious industry, and which was already assuming a robe of verdure. hardly had they provided shelter for the living, ere they were summoned to erect sepulchres for the dead. the ground had become sacred, by enclosing the remains of some of their companions and connections. a parent, a child, a husband, or a wife had gone the way of all flesh, and mingled with the dust of new england. we naturally look with strong emotions to the spot, though it be a wilderness, where the ashes of those we have loved repose. where the heart has laid down what it loved most, there it is desirous of laying itself down. no sculptured marble, no enduring monument, no honorable inscription, no ever-burning taper that would drive away the darkness of the tomb, can soften our sense of the reality of death, and hallow to our feelings the ground which is to cover us, like the consciousness that we shall sleep, dust to dust, with the objects of our affections. [sidenote: their chosen land.] in a short time other causes sprung up to bind the pilgrims with new cords to their chosen land. children were born, and the hopes of future generations arose, in the spot of their new habitation. the second generation found this the land of their nativity, and saw that they were bound to its fortunes. they beheld their fathers' graves around them, and while they read the memorials of their toils and labors, they rejoiced in the inheritance which they found bequeathed to them. [sidenote: popular government in america.] the nature and constitution of society and government in this country are interesting topics, to which i would devote what remains of the time allowed to this occasion. of our system of government the first thing to be said is, that it is really and practically a free system. it originates entirely with the people, and rests on no other foundation than their assent. to judge of its actual operation, it is not enough to look merely at the form of its construction. the practical character of government depends often on a variety of considerations, besides the abstract frame of its constitutional organization. among these are the condition and tenure of property; the laws regulating its alienation and descent; the presence or absence of a military power; an armed or unarmed yeomanry; the spirit of the age, and the degree of general intelligence. in these respects it cannot be denied that the circumstances of this country are most favorable to the hope of maintaining the government of a great nation on principles entirely popular. in the absence of military power, the nature of government must essentially depend on the manner in which property is holden and distributed. there is a natural influence belonging to property, whether it exists in many hands or few; and it is on the rights of property that both despotism and unrestrained popular violence ordinarily commence their attacks. our ancestors began their system of government here under a condition of comparative equality in regard to wealth, and their early laws were of a nature to favor and continue this equality. [sidenote: the distribution of property in new england.] a republican form of government rests not more on political constitutions than on those laws which regulate the descent and transmission of property. governments like ours could not have been maintained where property was holden according to the principles of the feudal system; nor, on the other hand, could the feudal constitution possibly exist with us. our new england ancestors brought hither no great capitals from europe; and if they had, there was nothing productive in which they could have been invested. they left behind them the whole feudal policy of the other continent. they broke away at once from the system of military service established in the dark ages, and which continues, down even to the present time, more or less to affect the condition of property all over europe. they came to a new country. there were, as yet, no lands yielding rent, and no tenants rendering service. the whole soil was unreclaimed from barbarism. they were themselves, either from their original condition or from the necessity of their common interest, nearly on a general level in respect to property. their situation demanded a parcelling out and division of the lands, and it may be fairly said, that this necessary act fixed the future frame and form of their government. the character of their political institutions was determined by the fundamental laws respecting property. the laws rendered estates divisible among sons and daughters. the right of primogeniture, at first limited and curtailed, was afterwards abolished. the property was all freehold. the entailment of estates, long trusts, and the other processes for fettering and tying up inheritances, were not applicable to the condition of society, and seldom made use of. on the contrary, alienation of the land was every way facilitated, even to the subjecting of it to every species of debt. the establishment of public registries, and the simplicity of our forms of conveyance, have greatly facilitated the change of real estate from one proprietor to another. the consequence of all these causes has been a great subdivision of the soil, and a great equality of condition; the true basis, most certainly, of a popular government. "if the people," says harrington, "hold three parts in four of the territory, it is plain there can neither be any single person nor nobility able to dispute the government with them; in this case, therefore, except force be interposed, they govern themselves." [sidenote: the american system of government.] [sidenote: the roman commonwealth.] the division of governments into departments, and the division, again, of the legislative department into two chambers, are essential provisions in our system. this last, although not new in itself, yet seems to be new in its application to governments wholly popular. the grecian republics, it is plain, knew nothing of it; and in rome, the check and balance of legislative power, such as it was, lay between the people and the senate. indeed, few things are more difficult than to ascertain accurately the true nature and construction of the roman commonwealth. the relative power of the senate and the people, of the consuls and the tribunes, appears not to have been at all times the same, nor at any time accurately defined or strictly observed. cicero, indeed, describes to us an admirable arrangement of political power, and a balance of the constitution, in that beautiful passage in which he compares the democracies of greece with the roman commonwealth. but at what time this wise system existed in this perfection at rome, no proofs remain to show. her constitution, originally framed for a monarchy, never seemed to be adjusted in its several parts after the expulsion of the kings. liberty there was, but it was a disputatious, an uncertain, an ill-secured liberty. the patrician and plebeian orders, instead of being matched and joined, each in its just place and proportion, to sustain the fabric of the state, were rather like hostile powers, in perpetual conflict. with us, an attempt has been made, and so far not without success, to divide representation into chambers, and, by difference of age, character, qualification, or mode of election, to establish salutary checks, in governments altogether elective. [sidenote: education in new england.] having detained you so long with these observations, i must yet advert to another most interesting topic,--the free schools. in this particular new england may be allowed to claim, i think, a merit of a peculiar character. she early adopted, and has constantly maintained, the principle that it is the undoubted right and the bounden duty of government to provide for the instruction of all youth. that which is elsewhere left to chance or to charity, we secure by law. for the purpose of public instruction, we hold every man subject to taxation in proportion to his property, and we look not to the question, whether he himself have, or have not, children to be benefited by the education for which he pays. we regard it as a wise and liberal system of police, by which property, and life, and the peace of society are secured. we seek to prevent in some measure the extension of the penal code, by inspiring a salutary and conservative principle of virtue and of knowledge in an early age. we strive to excite a feeling of respectability, and a sense of character, by enlarging the capacity and increasing the sphere of intellectual enjoyment. by general instruction, we seek, as far as possible, to purify the whole moral atmosphere; to keep good sentiments uppermost, and to turn the strong current of feeling and opinion, as well as the censures of the law and the denunciations of religion, against immorality and crime. we hope for a security beyond the law, and above the law, in the prevalence of an enlightened and well-principled moral sentiment. we hope to continue and prolong the time when, in the villages and farm-houses of new england, there may be undisturbed sleep within unbarred doors. and knowing that our government rests directly on the public will, in order that we may preserve it we endeavor to give a safe and proper direction to that public will. we do not, indeed, expect all men to be philosophers or statesmen; but we confidently trust, and our expectation of the duration of our system of government rests on that trust, that, by the diffusion of general knowledge and good and virtuous sentiments, the political fabric may be secure, as well against open violence and overthrow as against the slow, but sure, undermining of licentiousness. a conviction of the importance of public instruction was one of the earliest sentiments of our ancestors. no lawgiver of ancient or modern times has expressed more just opinions, or adopted wiser measures, than the early records of the colony of plymouth show to have prevailed here. assembled on this very spot, a hundred and fifty-three years ago, the legislature of this colony declared, "forasmuch as the maintenance of good literature doth much tend to the advancement of the weal and flourishing state of societies and republics, this court doth therefore order, that in whatever township in this government, consisting of fifty families or upwards, any meet man shall be obtained to teach a grammar school, such township shall allow at least twelve pounds, to be raised by rate on all the inhabitants." [sidenote: harvard college.] having provided that all youth should be instructed in the elements of learning by the institution of free schools, our ancestors had yet another duty to perform. men were to be educated for the professions and the public. for this purpose they founded the university, and with incredible zeal and perseverance they cherished and supported it, through all trials and discouragements. on the subject of the university, it is not possible for a son of new england to think without pleasure, or to speak without emotion. nothing confers more honor on the state where it is established, or more utility on the country at large. a respectable university is an establishment which must be the work of time. if pecuniary means were not wanting, no new institution could possess character and respectability at once. we owe deep obligation to our ancestors, who began, almost on the moment of their arrival, the work of building up this institution. [illustration: _a view of harvard college._] although established in a different government, the colony of plymouth manifested warm friendship for harvard college. at an early period, its government took measures to promote a general subscription throughout all the towns in this colony, in aid of its small funds. other colleges were subsequently founded and endowed, in other places, as the ability of the people allowed; and we may flatter ourselves that the means of education at present enjoyed in new england are not only adequate to the diffusion of the elements of knowledge among all classes, but sufficient also for respectable attainments in literature and the sciences. [sidenote: religious influences.] lastly, our ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. moral habits, they believed, cannot safely be trusted on any other foundation than religious principle, nor any government be secure which is not supported by moral habits. living under the heavenly light of revelation, they hoped to find all the social dispositions, all the duties which men owe to each other and to society, enforced and performed. whatever makes men good christians, makes them good citizens. our fathers came here to enjoy their religion free and unmolested; and, at the end of two centuries, there is nothing upon which we can pronounce more confidently, nothing of which we can express a more deep and earnest conviction, than of the inestimable importance of that religion to man, both in regard to this life and that which is to come. [sidenote: the duty of the descendants of the pilgrims.] if the blessings of our political and social condition have not been too highly estimated, we cannot well overrate the responsibility and duty which they impose upon us. we hold these institutions of government, religion, and learning to be transmitted as well as enjoyed. we are in the lines of conveyance, through which whatever has been obtained by the spirit and efforts of our ancestors is to be communicated to our children. [sidenote: american constitutional history.] we are bound not only to maintain the general principles of public liberty, but to support also those existing forms of government which have so well secured its enjoyment, and so highly promoted the public prosperity. it is now more than thirty years that these states have been united under the federal constitution, and whatever fortune may await them hereafter, it is impossible that this period of their history should not be regarded as distinguished by signal prosperity and success. they must be sanguine, indeed, who can hope for benefit from change. whatever division of the public judgment may have existed in relation to particular measures of the government, all must agree, one should think, in the opinion that in its general course it has been eminently productive of public happiness. its most ardent friends could not well have hoped from it more than it has accomplished; and those who disbelieved or doubted ought to feel less concern about predictions which the event has not verified than pleasure in the good which has been obtained. whoever shall hereafter write this part of our history, although he may see occasional errors or defects, will be able to record no great failure in the ends and objects of government. still less will he be able to record any series of lawless and despotic acts, or any successful usurpation. his page will contain no exhibition of provinces depopulated, of civil authority habitually trampled down by military power, or of a community crushed by the burden of taxation. he will speak, rather, of public liberty protected, and public happiness advanced; of increased revenue, and population augmented beyond all example; of the growth of commerce, manufactures, and the arts; and of that happy condition in which the restraint and coercion of government are almost invisible and imperceptible, and its influence felt only in the benefits which it confers. we can entertain no better wish for our country than that this government may be preserved; nor have a clearer duty than to maintain and support it in the full exercise of all its just constitutional powers. [sidenote: american literature.] the cause of science and literature also imposes upon us an important and delicate trust. the wealth and population of the country are now so far advanced as to authorize the expectation of a correct literature and a well-formed taste, as well as respectable progress in the abstruse sciences. the country has risen from a state of colonial subjection; it has established an independent government, and is now in the undisturbed enjoyment of peace and political security. the elements of knowledge are universally diffused, and the reading portion of the community is large. let us hope that the present may be an auspicious era of literature. if, almost on the day of their landing, our ancestors founded schools and endowed colleges, what obligations do not rest upon us, living under circumstances so much more favorable both for providing and for using the means of education? literature becomes free institutions. it is the graceful ornament of civil liberty, and a happy restraint on the asperities which political controversies sometimes occasion. just taste is not only an embellishment of society, but it rises almost to the rank of the virtues, and diffuses positive good throughout the whole extent of its influence. there is a connection between right feeling and right principles, and truth in taste is allied with truth in morality. with nothing in our past history to discourage us, and with something in our present condition and prospects to animate us, let us hope that, as it is our fortune to live in an age when we may behold a wonderful advancement of the country in all its other great interests, we may see also equal progress and success attend the cause of letters. [sidenote: the influence of religion.] finally, let us not forget the religious character of our origin. our fathers were brought hither by their high veneration for the christian religion. they journeyed by its light, and labored in its hope. they sought to incorporate its principles with the elements of their society, and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions, civil, political, or literary. let us cherish these sentiments, and extend this influence still more widely, in the full conviction that that is the happiest society which partakes in the highest degree of the mild and peaceful spirit of christianity. [sidenote: the future progress of new england.] the hours of this day are rapidly flying, and this occasion will soon be passed. neither we nor our children can expect to behold its return. they are in the distant regions of futurity, they exist only in the all-creating power of god, who shall stand here a hundred years hence, to trace, through us, their descent from the pilgrims, and to survey, as we have now surveyed, the progress of their country during the lapse of a century. we would anticipate their concurrence with us in our sentiments of deep regard for our common ancestors. we would anticipate and partake the pleasure with which they will then recount the steps of new england's advancement. on the morning of that day, although it will not disturb us in our repose, the voice of acclamation and gratitude, commencing on the rock of plymouth, shall be transmitted through millions of the sons of the pilgrims, till it lose itself in the murmurs of the pacific seas. we would leave, for the consideration of those who shall then occupy our places, some proof that we hold the blessings transmitted from our fathers in just estimation; some proof of our attachment to the cause of good government, and of civil and religious liberty; some proof of a sincere and ardent desire to promote everything which may enlarge the understandings and improve the hearts of men. and when, from the long distance of a hundred years, they shall look back upon us, they shall know, at least, that we possessed affections which, running backward and warming with gratitude for what our ancestors have done for our happiness, run forward also to our posterity, and meet them with cordial salutation, ere yet they have arrived on the shore of being. advance, then, ye future generations! we would hail you, as you rise in your long succession, to fill the places which we now fill, and to taste the blessings of existence where we are passing, and soon shall have passed, our own human duration. we bid you welcome to this pleasant land of the fathers. we bid you welcome to the healthful skies and the verdant fields of new england. we greet your accession to the great inheritance which we have enjoyed. we welcome you to the blessings of good government and religious liberty. we welcome you to the treasures of science and the delights of learning. we welcome you to the transcendent sweets of domestic life, to the happiness of kindred and parents and children. we welcome you to the immeasurable blessings of rational existence, the immortal hope of christianity, and the light of everlasting truth! the bunker hill monument an address delivered at the laying of the corner-stone at charlestown, massachusetts, june , [ ] this uncounted multitude before me and around me proves the feeling which the occasion has excited. these thousands of human faces, glowing with sympathy and joy, and from the impulses of a common gratitude turned reverently to heaven in this spacious temple of the firmament, proclaim that the day, the place, and the purpose of our assembling have made a deep impression on our hearts. [illustration: the battle of bunker hill] [sidenote: the battle of bunker hill, june , .] if, indeed, there be anything in local association fit to affect the mind of man, we need not strive to repress the emotions which agitate us here. we are among the sepulchres of our fathers. we are on ground distinguished by their valor, their constancy, and the shedding of their blood. we are here, not to fix an uncertain date in our annals, nor to draw into notice an obscure and unknown spot. if our humble purpose had never been conceived, if we ourselves had never been born, the th of june, , would have been a day on which all subsequent history would have poured its light, and the eminence where we stand a point of attraction to the eyes of successive generations. but we are americans. we live in what may be called the early age of this great continent; and we know that our posterity, through all time, are here to enjoy and suffer the allotments of humanity. we see before us a probable train of great events; we know that our own fortunes have been happily cast; and it is natural, therefore, that we should be moved by the contemplation of occurrences which have guided our destiny before many of us were born, and settled the condition in which we should pass that portion of our existence which god allows to men on earth. [sidenote: the discovery of america.] we do not read even of the discovery of this continent, without feeling something of a personal interest in the event; without being reminded how much it has affected our own fortunes and our own existence. it would be still more unnatural for us, therefore, than for others, to contemplate with unaffected minds that interesting, i may say that most touching and pathetic scene, when the great discoverer of america stood on the deck of his shattered bark, the shades of night falling on the sea, yet no man sleeping; tossed on the billows of an unknown ocean, yet the stronger billows of alternate hope and despair tossing his own troubled thoughts; extending forward his harassed frame, straining westward his anxious and eager eyes, till heaven at last granted him a moment of rapture and ecstasy, in blessing his vision with the sight of the unknown world. [sidenote: the first settlement of new england.] nearer to our times, more closely connected with our fates, and therefore still more interesting to our feelings and affections, is the settlement of our own country by colonists from england. we cherish every memorial of these worthy ancestors; we celebrate their patience and fortitude; we admire their daring enterprise; we teach our children to venerate their piety; and we are justly proud of being descended from men who have set the world an example of founding civil institutions on the great and united principles of human freedom and human knowledge. to us, their children, the story of their labors and sufferings can never be without its interest. we shall not stand unmoved on the shore of plymouth, while the sea continues to wash it; nor will our brethren in another early and ancient colony forget the place of its first establishment, till their river shall cease to flow by it.[ ] no vigor of youth, no maturity of manhood, will lead the nation to forget the spots where its infancy was cradled and defended. [sidenote: the american revolution.] but the great event in the history of the continent, which we are now met here to commemorate, that prodigy of modern times, at once the wonder and the blessing of the world, is the american revolution. in a day of extraordinary prosperity and happiness, of high national honor, distinction, and power, we are brought together, in this place, by our love of country, by our admiration of exalted character, by our gratitude for signal services and patriotic devotion. [sidenote: the object of the monument.] the society whose organ i am was formed for the purpose of rearing some honorable and durable monument to the memory of the early friends of american independence. they have thought that for this object no time could be more propitious than the present prosperous and peaceful period, that no place could claim preference over this memorable spot, and that no day could be more auspicious to the undertaking than the anniversary of the battle which was here fought. the foundation of that monument we have now laid. with solemnities suited to the occasion, with prayers to almighty god for his blessing, and in the midst of this cloud of witnesses, we have begun the work. we trust it will be prosecuted, and that, springing from a broad foundation, rising high in massive solidity and unadorned grandeur, it may remain as long as heaven permits the works of man to last, a fit emblem, both of the events in memory of which it is raised, and of the gratitude of those who have reared it. we know, indeed, that the record of illustrious actions is most safely deposited in the universal remembrance of mankind. we know that if we could cause this structure to ascend, not only till it reached the skies, but till it pierced them, its broad surfaces could still contain but part of that which, in an age of knowledge, hath already been spread over the earth, and which history charges itself with making known to all future times. we know that no inscription on entablatures less broad than the earth itself can carry information of the events we commemorate where it has not already gone; and that no structure which shall not outlive the duration of letters and knowledge among men can prolong the memorial. but our object is, by this edifice, to show our own deep sense of the value and importance of the achievements of our ancestors; and, by presenting this work of gratitude to the eye, to keep alive similar sentiments, and to foster a constant regard for the principles of the revolution. human beings are composed, not of reason only, but of imagination also, and sentiment; and that is neither wasted nor misapplied which is appropriated to the purpose of giving right direction to sentiments, and opening proper springs of feeling in the heart. [sidenote: importance of the site.] let it not be supposed that our object is to perpetuate national hostility, or even to cherish a mere military spirit. it is higher, purer, nobler. we consecrate our work to the spirit of national independence, and we wish that the light of peace may rest upon it forever. we rear a memorial of our conviction of that unmeasured benefit which has been conferred on our own land, and of the happy influences which have been produced, by the same events, on the general interests of mankind. we come, as americans, to mark a spot which must forever be dear to us and our posterity. we wish that whosoever, in all coming time, shall turn his eye hither, may behold that the place is not undistinguished where the first great battle of the revolution was fought. we wish that this structure may proclaim the magnitude and importance of that event to every class and every age. we wish that infancy may learn the purpose of its erection from maternal lips, and that weary and withered age may behold it, and be solaced by the recollections which it suggests. we wish that labor may look up here, and be proud in the midst of its toil. we wish that, in those days of disaster which, as they come upon all nations, must be expected to come upon us also, desponding patriotism may turn its eyes hitherward, and be assured that the foundations of our national power are still strong. we wish that this column, rising towards heaven among the pointed spires of so many temples dedicated to god, may contribute also to produce, in all minds, a pious feeling of dependence and gratitude. we wish, finally, that the last object to the sight of him who leaves his native shore, and the first to gladden his who revisits it, may be something which shall remind him of the liberty and the glory of his country. let it rise! let it rise, till it meet the sun in his coming; let the earliest light of the morning gild it, and parting day linger and play on its summit. [sidenote: the survivors of .] we still have among us some of those who were active agents in the scenes of , and who are now here, from every quarter of new england, to visit once more, and under circumstances so affecting, i had almost said so overwhelming, this renowned theatre of their courage and patriotism. venerable men! you have come down to us from a former generation. heaven has bounteously lengthened out your lives, that you might behold this joyous day. you are now where you stood fifty years ago, this very hour, with your brothers and your neighbors, shoulder to shoulder, in the strife for your country. behold, how altered! the same heavens are indeed over your heads; the same ocean rolls at your feet; but all else how changed! you hear now no roar of hostile cannon, you see no mixed volumes of smoke and flame rising from burning charlestown. the ground strewed with the dead and the dying; the impetuous charge; the steady and successful repulse; the loud call to repeated assault; the summoning of all that is manly to repeated resistance; a thousand bosoms freely and fearlessly bared in an instant to whatever of terror there may be in war and death,--all these you have witnessed, but you witness them no more. all is peace. the heights of yonder metropolis, its towers and roofs, which you then saw filled with wives and children and countrymen in distress and terror, and looking with unutterable emotions for the issue of the combat, have presented you to-day with the sight of its whole happy population, come out to welcome and greet you with a universal jubilee. yonder proud ships, by a felicity of position appropriately lying at the foot of this mount, and seeming fondly to cling around it, are not means of annoyance to you, but your country's own means of distinction and defence. all is peace; and god has granted you this sight of your country's happiness, ere you slumber in the grave. he has allowed you to behold and to partake the reward of your patriotic toils; and he has allowed us, your sons and countrymen, to meet you here, and in the name of the present generation, in the name of your country, in the name of liberty, to thank you! [sidenote: the dead patriots.] but, alas! you are not all here! time and the sword have thinned your ranks. prescott, putnam, stark, brooks, read, pomeroy, bridge! our eyes seek for you in vain amid this broken band. you are gathered to your fathers, and live only to your country in her grateful remembrance and your own bright example. but let us not too much grieve that you have met the common fate of men. you lived at least long enough to know that your work had been nobly and successfully accomplished. you lived to see your country's independence established, and to sheathe your swords from war. on the light of liberty you saw arise the light of peace, like "another morn, risen on mid-noon;" and the sky on which you closed your eyes was cloudless. [illustration: _joseph warren._] but ah! him![ ] the first great martyr in this great cause! him! the premature victim of his own self-devoting heart! him! the lead of our civil councils, and the destined leader of our military bands, whom nothing brought hither but the unquenchable fire of his own spirit! him! cut off by providence in the hour of overwhelming anxiety and thick gloom; falling ere he saw the star of his country rise; pouring out his generous blood like water, before he knew whether it would fertilize a land of freedom or of bondage!--how shall i struggle with the emotions that stifle the utterance of thy name! our poor work may perish; but thine shall endure! this monument may moulder away; the soil ground it rests upon may sink down to a level with the sea; but thy memory shall not fail! wheresoever among men a heart shall be found that beats to the transports of patriotism and liberty, its aspirations shall be to claim kindred with thy spirit! but the scene amidst which we stand does not permit us to confine our thoughts or our sympathies to those fearless spirits who hazarded or lost their lives on this consecrated spot. we have the happiness to rejoice here in the presence of a most worthy representation of the survivors of the whole revolutionary army. [sidenote: the veterans of the revolution.] veterans! you are the remnant of many a well-fought field. you bring with you marks of honor from trenton and monmouth, from yorktown, camden, bennington, and saratoga. veterans of half a century! when in your youthful days you put everything at hazard in your country's cause, good as that cause was, and sanguine as youth is, still your fondest hopes did not stretch onward to an hour like this! at a period to which you could not reasonably have expected to arrive, at a moment of national prosperity such as you could never have foreseen, you are now met here to enjoy the fellowship of old soldiers, and to receive the overflowings of a universal gratitude. but your agitated countenances and your heaving breasts inform me that even this is not an unmixed joy. i perceive that a tumult of contending feelings rushes upon you. the images of the dead, as well as the persons of the living, present themselves before you. the scene overwhelms you, and i turn from it. may the father of all mercies smile upon your declining years, and bless them! and when you shall here have exchanged your embraces, when you shall once more have pressed the hands which have been so often extended to give succor in adversity, or grasped in the exultation of victory, then look abroad upon this lovely land which your young valor defended, and mark the happiness with which it is filled; yea, look abroad upon the whole earth, and see what a name you have contributed to give to your country, and what a praise you have added to freedom, and then rejoice in the sympathy and gratitude which beam upon your last days from the improved condition of mankind! [sidenote: tribute to lafayette.] sir, we are assembled to commemorate the establishment of great public principles of liberty, and to do honor to the distinguished dead. the occasion is too severe for eulogy of the living. but, sir, your interesting relation to this country, the peculiar circumstances which surround you and surround us, call on me to express the happiness which we derive from your presence and aid in this solemn commemoration.[ ] fortunate, fortunate man! with what measure of devotion will you not thank god for the circumstances of your extraordinary life! you are connected with both hemispheres and with two generations. heaven saw fit to ordain that the electric spark of liberty should be conducted, through you, from the new world to the old; and we, who are now here to perform this duty of patriotism, have all of us long ago received it in charge from our fathers to cherish your name and your virtues. you will account it an instance of your good fortune, sir, that you crossed the seas to visit us at a time which enables you to be present at this solemnity. you now behold the field, the renown of which reached you in the heart of france, and caused a thrill in your ardent bosom. you see the lines of the little redoubt thrown up by the incredible diligence of prescott; defended, to the last extremity, by his lion-hearted valor; and within which the corner-stone of our monument has now taken its position. you see where warren fell, and where parker, gardner, mccleary, moore, and other early patriots, fell with him. those who survived that day, and whose lives have been prolonged to the present hour, are now around you. some of them you have known in the trying scenes of the war. behold! they now stretch forth their feeble arms to embrace you. behold! they raise their trembling voices to invoke the blessing of god on you and yours forever. [illustration: _marquis de lafayette._] sir, you have assisted us in laying the foundation of this structure. you have heard us rehearse, with our feeble commendation, the names of departed patriots. monuments and eulogy belong to the dead. we give them this day to warren and his associates. on other occasions they have been given to your more immediate companions in arms, to washington, to greene, to gates, to sullivan, and to lincoln. we have become reluctant to grant these, our highest and last honors, further. we would gladly hold them yet back from the little remnant of that immortal band. _serus in coelum redeas._[ ] illustrious as are your merits, yet far, oh, very far distant be the day when any inscription shall bear your name, or any tongue pronounce its eulogy! [sidenote: the common progress of nations.] the leading reflection to which this occasion seems to invite us respects the great changes which have happened in the fifty years since the battle of bunker hill was fought. and it peculiarly marks the character of the present age, that, in looking at these changes, and in estimating their effect on our condition, we are obliged to consider, not what has been done in our own country only, but in others also. in these interesting times, while nations are making separate and individual advances in improvement, they make, too, a common progress; like vessels on a common tide, propelled by the gales at different rates, according to their several structure and management, but all moved forward by one mighty current, strong enough to bear onward whatever does not sink beneath it. a chief distinction of the present day is a community of opinions and knowledge amongst men in different nations, existing in a degree heretofore unknown. knowledge has, in our time, triumphed, and is triumphing, over distance, over difference of languages, over diversity of habits, over prejudice, and over bigotry. the civilized and christian world is fast learning the great lesson, that difference of nation does not imply necessary hostility, and that all contact need not be war. the whole world is becoming a common field for intellect to act in. energy of mind, genius, power, wheresoever it exists, may speak out in any tongue, and the world will hear it. a great chord of sentiment and feeling runs through two continents, and vibrates over both. every breeze wafts intelligence from country to country; every wave rolls it; all give it forth, and all in turn receive it. there is a vast commerce of ideas; there are marts and exchanges for intellectual discoveries, and a wonderful fellowship of those individual intelligences which make up the mind and opinion of the age. mind is the great lever of all things; human thought is the process by which human ends are ultimately answered; and the diffusion of knowledge, so astonishing in the last half-century, has rendered innumerable minds, variously gifted by nature, competent to be competitors or fellow-workers on the theatre of intellectual operation. [sidenote: influence of the american revolution upon europe.] the great wheel of political revolution began to move in america. here its rotation was guarded, regular, and safe. transferred to the other continent, from unfortunate but natural causes, it received an irregular and violent impulse; it whirled along with a fearful celerity; till at length, like the chariot-wheels in the races of antiquity, it took fire from the rapidity of its own motion, and blazed onward, spreading conflagration and terror around. we learn from the result of this experiment, how fortunate was our own condition, and how admirably the character of our people was calculated for setting the great example of popular governments. the possession of power did not turn the heads of the american people, for they had long been in the habit of exercising a great degree of self-control. although the paramount authority of the parent state existed over them, yet a large field of legislation had always been open to our colonial assemblies. they were accustomed to representative bodies and the forms of free government; they understood the doctrine of the division of power among different branches, and the necessity of checks on each. the character of our countrymen, moreover, was sober, moral, and religious; and there was little in the change to shock their feelings of justice and humanity, or even to disturb an honest prejudice. we had no domestic throne to overturn, no privileged orders to cast down, no violent changes of property to encounter. in the american revolution, no man sought or wished for more than to defend and enjoy his own. none hoped for plunder or for spoil. rapacity was unknown to it; the axe was not among the instruments of its accomplishment; and we all know that it could not have lived a single day under any well-founded imputation of possessing a tendency adverse to the christian religion. it need not surprise us, that, under circumstances less auspicious, political revolutions elsewhere, even when well intended, have terminated differently. it is, indeed, a great achievement, it is the master-work of the world, to establish governments entirely popular on lasting foundations; nor is it easy, indeed, to introduce the popular principle at all into governments to which it has been altogether a stranger. it cannot be doubted, however, that europe has come out of the contest, in which she has been so long engaged, with greatly superior knowledge, and, in many respects, in a highly improved condition. whatever benefit has been acquired is likely to be retained, for it consists mainly in the acquisition of more enlightened ideas. and although kingdoms and provinces may be wrested from the hands that hold them, in the same manner they were obtained; although ordinary and vulgar power may, in human affairs, be lost as it has been won; yet it is the glorious prerogative of the empire of knowledge, that what it gains it never loses. on the contrary, it increases by the multiple of its power; all its ends become means; all its attainments, helps to new conquests. its whole abundant harvest is but so much seed wheat, and nothing has limited, and nothing can limit the amount of ultimate product. [sidenote: the representative system of government.] under the influence of this rapidly increasing knowledge, the people have begun, in all forms of government, to think and to reason on affairs of state. regarding government as an institution for the public good, they demand a knowledge of its operations, and a participation in its exercise. a call for the representative system, wherever it is not enjoyed, and where there is already intelligence enough to estimate its value, is perseveringly made. where men may speak out, they demand it; where the bayonet is at their throats, they pray for it. [sidenote: respect for the judgment of the world.] we may hope that the growing influence of enlightened sentiment will promote the permanent peace of the world. wars to maintain family alliances, to uphold or to cast down dynasties, and to regulate successions to thrones, which have occupied so much room in the history of modern times, if not less likely to happen at all, will be less likely to become general and involve many nations, as the great principle shall be more and more established, that the interest of the world is peace, and its first great statute that every nation possesses the power of establishing a government for itself. but public opinion has attained also an influence over governments which do not admit the popular principle into their organization. a necessary respect for the judgment of the world operates, in some measure, as a control over the most unlimited forms of authority. it is owing, perhaps, to this truth, that the interesting struggle of the greeks has been suffered to go on so long, without a direct interference, either to wrest that country from its present masters, or to execute the system of pacification by force, and, with united strength, lay the neck of christian and civilized greek at the foot of the barbarian turk. let us thank god that we live in an age when something has influence besides the bayonet, and when the sternest authority does not venture to encounter the scorching power of public reproach. any attempt of the kind i have mentioned should be met by one universal burst of indignation; the air of the civilized world ought to be made too warm to be comfortably breathed by any one who would hazard it. [sidenote: the greek struggle for independence.] it is, indeed, a touching reflection, that, while, in the fulness of our country's happiness, we rear this monument to her honor, we look for instruction in our undertaking to a country which is now in fearful contest, not for works of art or memorials of glory, but for her own existence.[ ] let her be assured that she is not forgotten in the world; that her efforts are applauded, and that constant prayers ascend for her success. and let us cherish a confident hope for her final triumph. if the true spark of religious and civil liberty be kindled, it will burn. human agency cannot extinguish it. like the earth's central fire, it may be smothered for a time; the ocean may overwhelm it; mountains may press it down; but its inherent and unconquerable force will heave both the ocean and the land, and at some time or other, in some place or other, the volcano will break out and flame up to heaven. [sidenote: south american liberty.] when the battle of bunker hill was fought, the existence of south america was scarcely felt in the civilized world. the thirteen little colonies of north america habitually called themselves the "continent." borne down by colonial subjugation, monopoly, and bigotry, these vast regions of the south were hardly visible above the horizon. but in our day there has been, as it were, a new creation. the southern hemisphere emerges from the sea. its lofty mountains begin to lift themselves into the light of heaven; its broad and fertile plains stretch out, in beauty, to the eye of civilized man, and at the mighty bidding of the voice of political liberty the waters of darkness retire. [sidenote: the example of the republic of the united states.] and, now, let us indulge an honest exultation in the conviction of the benefit which the example of our country has produced, and is likely to produce, on human freedom and human happiness. let us endeavor to comprehend in all its magnitude, and to feel in all its importance, the part assigned to us in the great drama of human affairs. we are placed at the head of the system of representative and popular governments. thus far our example shows that such governments are compatible not only with respectability and power, but with repose, with peace, with security of personal rights, with good laws, and a just administration. we are not propagandists. wherever other systems are preferred, either as being thought better in themselves, or as better suited to existing condition, we leave the preference to be enjoyed. our history hitherto proves, however, that the popular form is practicable, and that with wisdom and knowledge men may govern themselves; and the duty incumbent on us is to preserve the consistency of this cheering example, and take care that nothing may weaken its authority with the world. if, in our case, the representative system ultimately fail, popular governments must be pronounced impossible. no combination of circumstances more favorable to the experiment can ever be expected to occur. the last hopes of mankind, therefore, rest with us; and if it should be proclaimed that our example had become an argument against the experiment, the knell of popular liberty would be sounded throughout the earth. these are excitements to duty; but they are not suggestions of doubt. our history and our condition, all that is gone before us, and all that surrounds us, authorize the belief that popular governments, though subject to occasional variations, in form perhaps not always for the better, may yet, in their general character, be as durable and permanent as other systems. we know, indeed, that in our country any other is impossible. the _principle_ of free governments adheres to the american soil. it is bedded in it, immovable as its mountains. [sidenote: the obligations of americans.] and let the sacred obligations which have devolved on this generation, and on us, sink deep into our hearts. those who established our liberty and our government are daily dropping from among us. the great trust now descends to new hands. let us apply ourselves to that which is presented to us, as our appropriate object. we can win no laurels in a war for independence. earlier and worthier hands have gathered them all. nor are there places for us by the side of solon, and alfred, and other founders of states. our fathers have filled them. but there remains to us a great duty of defence and preservation; and there is open to us, also, a noble pursuit, to which the spirit of the times strongly invites us. our proper business is improvement. let our age be the age of improvement. in a day of peace, let us advance the arts of peace and the works of peace. let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests, and see whether we also, in our day and generation, may not perform something worthy to be remembered. let us cultivate a true spirit of union and harmony. in pursuing the great objects which our condition points out to us, let us act under a settled conviction, and an habitual feeling, that these twenty-four states are one country. let our conceptions be enlarged to the circle of our duties. let us extend our ideas over the whole of the vast field in which we are called to act. let our object be, our country, our whole country, and nothing but our country. and, by the blessing of god, may that country itself become a vast and splendid monument, not of oppression and terror, but of wisdom, of peace, and of liberty, upon which the world may gaze with admiration forever! the completion of the bunker hill monument an address delivered june , [it was determined by the directors of the bunker hill monument association, that the completion of the work should be celebrated in a manner not less imposing than that in which the laying of the corner-stone had been celebrated, seventeen years before. the co-operation of mr. webster was again invited, and, notwithstanding the pressure of his engagements as secretary of state at washington, was again patriotically yielded. the president of the united states and his cabinet had accepted invitations to be present; and delegations of the descendants of new england attended from all parts of the union, including one hundred and eight surviving veterans of the revolution, among whom were some who were in the battle of bunker hill. according to the estimate of richard frothingham, one hundred thousand persons were gathered, and nearly half that number are supposed to have been within the reach of the orator's voice. the ground rises slightly between the platform and the monument square, so that the whole of this concourse, compactly crowded together, was within the full view of the speaker. when, after saying, "it is not from my lips, it could not be from any human lips, that that strain of eloquence is this day to flow most competent to move and excite the vast multitudes around me,--the powerful speaker stands motionless before us," mr. webster paused, and pointed to the monument, the audience burst into long and loud applause. it was some moments before he could go on with his address.] a duty has been performed. a work of gratitude and patriotism is completed. this structure, having its foundations in soil which drank deep of early revolutionary blood, has at length reached its destined height, and now lifts its summit to the skies. [illustration: _bunker hill monument._] [sidenote: the changes of eighteen years.] time and nature have had their course in diminishing the number of those whom we met here on the th of june, . most of the revolutionary characters then present have since deceased; and lafayette sleeps in his native land. yet the name and blood of warren are with us; the kindred of putnam are also here; and near me, universally beloved for his character and his virtues, and now venerable for his years, sits the son of the noble-hearted and daring prescott. [sidenote: the purpose of the monument.] the bunker hill monument is finished. here it stands.[ ] fortunate in the high natural eminence on which it is placed, higher, infinitely higher in its objects and purpose, it rises over the land and over the sea; and visible at their homes to three hundred thousand of the people of massachusetts, it stands a memorial of the last, and a monitor to the present, and to all succeeding generations. i have spoken of the loftiness of its purpose. if it had been without any other design than the creation of a work of art, the granite of which it is composed would have slept in its native bed. it has a purpose, and that purpose gives it its character. that purpose enrobes it with dignity and moral grandeur. that well-known purpose it is which causes us to look up to it with a feeling of awe. it is itself the orator of this occasion. it is not from my lips, it could not be from any human lips, that that strain of eloquence is this day to flow most competent to move and excite the vast multitudes around me. the powerful speaker stands motionless before us. it is a plain shaft. it bears no inscriptions, fronting to the rising sun, from which the future antiquary shall wipe the dust. nor does the rising sun cause tones of music to issue from its summit. but at the rising of the sun, and at the setting of the sun; in the blaze of noonday, and beneath the milder effulgence of lunar light; it looks, it speaks, it acts, to the full comprehension of every american mind, and the awakening of glowing enthusiasm in every american heart. its silent, but awful utterance; its deep pathos, as it brings to our contemplation the th of june, , and the consequences which have resulted to us, to our country, and to the world, from the events of that day, and which we know must continue to rain influence on the destinies of mankind to the end of time; the elevation with which it raises us high above the ordinary feelings of life,--surpass all that the study of the closet, or even the inspiration of genius, can produce. to-day it speaks to us. its future auditories will be the successive generations of men, as they rise up before it and gather around it. its speech will be of patriotism and courage; of civil and religious liberty; of free government; of the moral improvement and elevation of mankind; and of the immortal memory of those who, with heroic devotion, have sacrificed their lives for their country. [sidenote: the monuments of the past.] in the older world, numerous fabrics still exist, reared by human hands, but whose object has been lost in the darkness of ages. they are now monuments of nothing but the labor and skill which constructed them. the mighty pyramid itself, half buried in the sands of africa, has nothing to bring down and report to us but the power of kings and the servitude of the people. if it had any purpose beyond that of a mausoleum, such purpose has perished from history and from tradition. if asked for its moral object, its admonition, its sentiment, its instruction to mankind, or any high end in its erection, it is silent; silent as the millions which lie in the dust at its base, and in the catacombs which surround it. without a just moral object, therefore, made known to man, though raised against the skies, it excites only conviction of power, mixed with strange wonder. but if the civilization of the present race of men, founded, as it is, in solid science, the true knowledge of nature, and vast discoveries in art, and which is elevated and purified by moral sentiment and by the truths of christianity, be not destined to destruction before the final termination of human existence on earth, the object and purpose of this edifice will be known till that hour shall come. and even if civilization should be subverted, and the truths of the christian religion obscured by a new deluge of barbarism, the memory of bunker hill and the american revolution will still be elements and parts of the knowledge which shall be possessed by the last man to whom the light of civilization and christianity shall be extended. [illustration: _john tyler._] [sidenote: president tyler.] this celebration is honored by the presence of the chief executive magistrate of the union. an occasion so national in its object and character, and so much connected with that revolution from which the government sprang at the head of which he is placed, may well receive from him this mark of attention and respect. well acquainted with yorktown, the scene of the last great military struggle of the revolution, his eye now surveys the field of bunker hill, the theatre of the first of those important conflicts. he sees where warren fell, where putnam, and prescott, and stark, and knowlton, and brooks fought. he beholds the spot where a thousand trained soldiers of england were smitten to the earth, in the first effort of revolutionary war, by the arm of a bold and determined yeomanry, contending for liberty and their country. [sidenote: visitors present at the dedication.] banners and badges, processions and flags, announce to us, that amidst this uncounted throng are thousands of natives of new england now residents in other states. welcome, ye kindred names, with kindred blood! from the broad savannas of the south, from the newer regions of the west, from amidst the hundreds of thousands of men of eastern origin who cultivate the rich valley of the genesee or live along the chain of the lakes, from the mountains of pennsylvania, and from the thronged cities of the coast, welcome, welcome! wherever else you may be strangers, here you are all at home. you assemble at this shrine of liberty, near the family altars at which your earliest devotions were paid to heaven, near to the temples of worship first entered by you, and near to the schools and colleges in which your education was received. you come hither with a glorious ancestry of liberty. you bring names which are on the rolls of lexington, concord, and bunker hill. you come, some of you, once more to be embraced by an aged revolutionary father, or to receive another, perhaps a last, blessing, bestowed in love and tears by a mother yet surviving to witness and to enjoy your prosperity and happiness. but if family associations and the recollections of the past bring you hither with greater alacrity, and mingle with your greeting much of local attachment and private affection, greeting also be given, free and hearty greeting, to every american citizen who treads this sacred soil with patriotic feeling, and respires with pleasure in an atmosphere perfumed with the recollections of ! this occasion is respectable, nay, it is grand, it is sublime, by the nationality of its sentiment. among the seventeen millions of happy people who form the american community there is not one who has not an interest in this monument, as there is not one that has not a deep and abiding interest in that which it commemorates. [sidenote: the american union.] woe betide the man who brings to this day's worship feeling less than wholly american! woe betide the man who can stand here with the fires of local resentments burning, or the purpose of fomenting local jealousies and the strifes of local interests festering and rankling in his heart! union, established in justice, in patriotism, and the most plain and obvious common interest,--union, founded on the same love of liberty, cemented by blood shed in the same common cause,--union has been the source of all our glory and greatness thus far, and is the ground of all our highest hopes. this column stands on union. i know not that it might not keep its position, if the american union, in the mad conflict of human passions, and in the strife of parties and factions, should be broken up and destroyed. i know not that it would totter and fall to the earth, and mingle its fragments with the fragments of liberty and the constitution, when state should be separated from state, and faction and dismemberment obliterate forever all the hopes of the founders of our republic, and the great inheritance of their children. it might stand. but who, from beneath the weight of mortification and shame that would oppress him, could look up to behold it? whose eyeballs would not be seared by such a spectacle? for my part, should i live to such a time, i shall avert my eyes from it forever. [sidenote: importance of the battle of bunker hill.] it is not as a mere military encounter of hostile armies that the battle of bunker hill presents its principal claim to attention. yet even as a mere battle there were circumstances attending it extraordinary in character, and entitling it to peculiar distinction. it was fought on this eminence; in the neighborhood of yonder city; in the presence of many more spectators than there were combatants in the conflict. men, women, and children, from every commanding position, were gazing at the battle, and looking for its results with all the eagerness natural to those who knew that the issue was fraught with the deepest consequences to themselves, personally, as well as to their country. yet, on the th of june, , there was nothing around this hill but verdure and culture. there was, indeed, the note of awful preparation in boston. there was the provincial army at cambridge, with its right flank resting on dorchester, and its left on chelsea. but here all was peace. tranquillity reigned around. on the th, everything was changed. on this eminence had arisen, in the night, a redoubt, built by prescott, and in which he held command. perceived by the enemy at dawn, it was immediately cannonaded from the floating batteries in the river, and from the opposite shore. and then ensued the hurried movement in boston, and soon the troops of britain embarked in the attempt to dislodge the colonists. in an hour everything indicated an immediate and bloody conflict. love of liberty on one side, proud defiance of rebellion on the other, hopes and fears, and courage and daring, on both sides, animated the hearts of the combatants as they hung on the edge of battle. [sidenote: the motive for the engagement.] i suppose it would be difficult, in a military point of view, to ascribe to the leaders on either side any just motive for the engagement which followed. on the one hand, it could not have been very important to the americans to attempt to hem the british within the town, by advancing one single post a quarter of a mile; while, on the other hand, if the british found it essential to dislodge the american troops, they had it in their power at no expense of life. by moving up their ships and batteries, they could have completely cut off all communication with the mainland over the neck, and the forces in the redoubt would have been reduced to a state of famine in forty-eight hours. but that was not the day for any such consideration on either side! both parties were anxious to try the strength of their arms. the pride of england would not permit the rebels, as she termed them, to defy her to the teeth; and, without for a moment calculating the cost, the british general determined to destroy the fort immediately. on the other side, prescott and his gallant followers longed and thirsted for a decisive trial of strength and of courage. they wished a battle, and wished it at once. and this is the true secret of the movements on this hill. i will not attempt to describe that battle. the cannonading; the landing of the british; their advance; the coolness with which the charge was met; the repulse; the second attack; the second repulse; the burning of charlestown; and, finally, the closing assault, and the slow retreat of the americans,--the history of all these is familiar. [sidenote: the consequences of the battle.] but the consequences of the battle of bunker hill were greater than those of any ordinary conflict, although between armies of far greater force, and terminating with more immediate advantage on the one side or the other. it was the first great battle of the revolution; and not only the first blow, but the blow which determined the contest. it did not, indeed, put an end to the war, but in the then existing hostile state of feeling, the difficulties could only be referred to the arbitration of the sword. and one thing is certain: that after the new england troops had shown themselves able to face and repulse the regulars, it was decided that peace never could be established, but upon the basis of the independence of the colonies. when the sun of that day went down, the event of independence was no longer doubtful. in a few days washington heard of the battle, and he inquired if the militia had stood the fire of the regulars. when told that they had not only stood that fire, but reserved their own till the enemy was within eight rods, and then poured it in with tremendous effect, "then," exclaimed he, "the liberties of the country are safe!" [sidenote: the purposes of the pilgrims of plymouth.] the mayflower sought our shores under no high-wrought spirit of commercial adventure, no love of gold, no mixture of purpose warlike or hostile to any human being. like the dove from the ark she had put forth only to find rest. solemn supplications on the shore of the sea, in holland, had invoked for her, at her departure, the blessings of providence. the stars which guided her were the unobscured constellations of civil and religious liberty. her deck was the altar of the living god. fervent prayers on bended knees mingled, morning and evening, with the voices of ocean, and the sighing of the wind in her shrouds. every prosperous breeze which, gently swelling her sails, helped the pilgrims onward in their course, awoke new anthems of praise; and when the elements were wrought into fury, neither the tempest, tossing their fragile bark like a feather, nor the darkness and howling of the midnight storm, ever disturbed, in man or woman, the firm and settled purpose of their souls, to undergo all, and to do all, that the meekest patience, the boldest resolution, and the highest trust in god could enable human beings to suffer or to perform. [sidenote: english liberty and spanish greed.] the colonists of english america were of the people, and a people already free. they were of the middle, industrious, and already prosperous class, the inhabitants of commercial and manufacturing cities, among whom liberty first revived and respired, after a sleep of a thousand years in the bosom of the dark ages. spain descended on the new world in the armed and terrible image of her monarchy and her soldiery; england approached it in the winning and popular garb of personal rights, public protection, and civil freedom. england transplanted liberty to america; spain transplanted power. england, through the agency of private companies and the efforts of individuals, colonized this part of north america by industrious individuals, making their own way in the wilderness, defending themselves against the savages, recognizing their right to the soil, and with a general honest purpose of introducing knowledge as well as christianity among them. spain stooped on south america like a vulture on its prey. everything was force. territories were acquired by fire and sword. cities were destroyed by fire and sword. hundreds of thousands of human beings fell by fire and sword. even conversion to christianity was attempted by fire and sword. [sidenote: the consequences of the two principles.] behold, then, fellow-citizens, the difference resulting from the operation of the two principles! here, to-day, on the summit of bunker hill, and at the foot of this monument, behold the difference! i would that the fifty thousand voices present could proclaim it with a shout which should be heard over the globe. our inheritance was of liberty, secured and regulated by law, and enlightened by religion and knowledge; that of south america was of power, stern, unrelenting, tyrannical, military power. and now look to the consequences of the two principles on the general and aggregate happiness of the human race. behold the results in all the regions conquered by cortéz and pizarro, and the contrasted results here. i suppose the territory of the united states may amount to one-eighth, or one-tenth, of that colonized by spain on this continent; and yet in all that vast region there are but between one and two millions of people of european color and european blood, while in the united states there are fourteen millions who rejoice in their descent from the people of the more northern part of europe. [sidenote: the seeds of government sown by the colonists.] the great elements of the american system of government, originally introduced by the colonists, and which were early in operation, and ready to be developed, more and more, as the progress of events should justify or demand, were,-- escape from the existing political systems of europe, including its religious hierarchies, but the continued possession and enjoyment of its science and arts, its literature, and its manners; home government, or the power of making in the colony the municipal laws which were to govern it; equality of rights; representative assemblies, or forms of government founded on popular elections. [sidenote: american institutions.] few topics are more inviting, or more fit for philosophical discussion, than the effect on the happiness of mankind of institutions founded upon these principles; or, in other words, the influence of the new world upon the old. her obligations to europe for science and art, laws, literature, and manners, america acknowledges, as she ought, with respect and gratitude. the people of the united states, descendants of the english stock, grateful for the treasures of knowledge derived from their english ancestors, admit also, with thanks and filial regard, that among those ancestors, under the culture of hampden and sydney and other assiduous friends, that seed of popular liberty first germinated which on our soil has shot up to its full height, until its branches overshadow all the land. [sidenote: america's contributions to european welfare.] but america has not failed to make returns. if she has not wholly cancelled the obligation, or equalled it by others of like weight, she has, at least, made respectable advances towards repaying the debt. and she admits that, standing in the midst of civilized nations, and in a civilized age, a nation among nations, there is a high part which she is expected to act, for the general advancement of human interests and human welfare. american mines have filled the mints of europe with the precious metals. the productions of the american soil and climate have poured out their abundance of luxuries for the tables of the rich, and of necessaries for the sustenance of the poor. birds and animals of beauty and value have been added to the european stocks; and transplantations from the unequalled riches of our forests have mingled themselves profusely with the elms, and ashes, and druidical oaks of england. america has made contributions to europe far more important. who can estimate the amount, or the value, of the augmentation of the commerce of the world that has resulted from america? who can imagine to himself what would now be the shock to the eastern continent, if the atlantic were no longer traversable, or if there were no longer american productions or american markets? [sidenote: the american example.] but america exercises influences, or holds out examples, for the consideration of the old world, of a much higher, because they are of a moral and political character. america has furnished to europe proof of the fact that popular institutions, founded on equality and the principle of representation, are capable of maintaining governments able to secure the rights of person, property, and reputation. america has proved that it is practicable to elevate the mass of mankind,--that portion which in europe is called the laboring, or lower class;--to raise them to self-respect, to make them competent to act a part in the great right and great duty of self-government; and she has proved that this may be done by education and the diffusion of knowledge. she holds out an example, a thousand times more encouraging than ever was presented before, to those nine-tenths of the human race who are born without hereditary fortune or hereditary rank. [sidenote: the character of washington.] america has furnished to the world the character of washington! and if our american institutions had done nothing else, that alone would have entitled them to the respect of mankind. washington! "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen!" washington is all our own! the enthusiastic veneration and regard in which the people of the united states hold him, prove them to be worthy of such a countryman; while his reputation abroad reflects the highest honor on his country. i would cheerfully put the question to-day to the intelligence of europe and the world, what character of the century, upon the whole, stands out, in the relief of history, most pure, most respectable, most sublime; and i doubt not that, by a suffrage approaching to unanimity, the answer would be washington! the structure now standing before us, by its uprightness, its solidity, its durability, is no unfit emblem of his character. his public virtues and public principles were as firm as the earth on which it stands; his personal motives as pure as the serene heaven in which its summit is lost. but, indeed, though a fit, it is an inadequate emblem. towering high above the column which our hands have builded; beheld, not by the inhabitants of a single city or a single state, but by all the families of man, ascends the colossal grandeur of the character and life of washington. in all the constituents of the one, in all the acts of the other, in all its titles to immortal love, admiration, and renown, it is an american production. it is the embodiment and vindication of our transatlantic liberty. born upon our soil, of parents also born upon it; never for a moment having had sight of the old world; instructed, according to the modes of his time, only in the spare, plain, but wholesome elementary knowledge which our institutions provide for the children of the people; growing up beneath, and penetrated by, the genuine influences of american society; living from infancy to manhood and age amidst our expanding but not luxurious civilization; partaking in our great destiny of labor, our long contest with unreclaimed nature and uncivilized man, our agony of glory, the war of independence, our great victory of peace, the formation of the union, and the establishment of the constitution,--he is all, all our own! washington is ours. that crowded and glorious life,-- "where multitudes of virtues passed along, each pressing foremost, in the mighty throng ambitious to be seen, then making room for greater multitudes that were to come,"-- that life was the life of an american citizen. i claim him for america. in all the perils, in every darkened moment of the state, in the midst of the reproaches of enemies and the misgiving of friends, i turn to that transcendent name for courage and for consolation. to him who denies or doubts whether our fervid liberty can be combined with law, with order, with the security of property, with the pursuits and advancement of happiness; to him who denies that our forms of government are capable of producing exaltation of soul, and the passion of true glory; to him who denies that we have contributed anything to the stock of great lessons and great examples;--to all these i reply by pointing to washington! and now, friends and fellow-citizens, it is time to bring this discourse to a close. [sidenote: the obligations of americans.] we have indulged in gratifying recollections of the past, in the prosperity and pleasures of the present, and in high hopes for the future. but let us remember that we have duties and obligations to perform, corresponding to the blessings which we enjoy. let us remember the trust, the sacred trust, attaching to the rich inheritance which we have received from our fathers. let us feel our personal responsibility, to the full extent of our power and influence, for the preservation of the principles of civil and religious liberty. and let us remember that it is only religion, and morals, and knowledge, that can make men respectable and happy, under any form of government. let us hold fast the great truth, that communities are responsible, as well as individuals; that no government is respectable which is not just; that without unspotted purity of public faith, without sacred public principle, fidelity, and honor, no mere forms of government, no machinery of laws, can give dignity to political society. in our day and generation let us seek to raise and improve the moral sentiment, so that we may look not for a degraded, but for an elevated and improved future. and when both we and our children shall have been consigned to the house appointed for all living, may love of country and pride of country glow with equal fervor among those to whom our names and our blood shall have descended! and then, when honored and decrepit age shall lean against the base of this monument, and troops of ingenuous youth shall be gathered round it, and when the one shall speak to the other of its objects, the purposes of its construction, and the great and glorious events with which it is connected, there shall rise from every youthful breast the ejaculation, "thank god, i--i also--am an american!" adams and jefferson a discourse in commemoration of the lives and services of john adams and thomas jefferson; delivered in faneuil hall, boston, august , [since the death of washington, on the th of december, , the public mind had never been so powerfully affected by any similar event as by the death of john adams, on the th of july, . the news reached boston in the evening of that day. it acquired a singular interest from the year and the day on which it took place;--the th of july of the year completing the half-century from the declaration of independence, a measure in which mr. adams himself had taken so distinguished a part. the emotions of the public were greatly increased by the indications given by mr. adams in his last hours, that he was fully aware that the day was the anniversary of independence, and by his dying allusion to the supposed fact that his colleague, jefferson, survived him. when, in the course of a few days, the news arrived from virginia, that jefferson also had died on the same day and a few hours before mr. adams, the patriotic emotions of the country at large were touched beyond all example. the occurrence was justly deemed without a parallel in history. the various circumstances of association and coincidence which marked the characters and careers of these great men, and especially their simultaneous decease on the th of july, were dwelt upon with deep interest. the circles of private life, the press, public bodies, and the pulpit, were for some time almost engrossed with the topic; and exercises of commemoration were held throughout the country.] this is an unaccustomed spectacle. for the first time, fellow-citizens, badges of mourning shroud the columns and overhang the arches of this hall. these walls, which were consecrated, so long ago, to the cause of american liberty, which witnessed her infant struggles, and rung with the shouts of her earliest victories, proclaim, now, that distinguished friends and champions of that great cause have fallen. it is right that it should be thus. the tears which flow, and the honors that are paid, when the founders of the republic die, give hope that the republic itself may be immortal. it is fit that, by public assembly and solemn observance, by anthem and by eulogy, we commemorate the services of national benefactors, extol their virtues, and render thanks to god for eminent blessings, early given and long continued, through their agency, to our favored country. [illustration: _faneuil hall._] adams and jefferson are no more; and we are assembled, fellow-citizens, the aged, the middle-aged, and the young, by the spontaneous impulse of all, under the authority of the municipal government, with the presence of the chief magistrate of the commonwealth, and others its official representatives, the university, and the learned societies, to bear our part in those manifestations of respect and gratitude which pervade the whole land. adams and jefferson are no more. on our fiftieth anniversary, the great day of national jubilee, in the very hour of public rejoicing, in the midst of echoing and re-echoing voices of thanksgiving, while their own names were on all tongues, they took their flight together to the world of spirits. [sidenote: an epic consummation.] if it be true that no one can safely be pronounced happy while he lives, if that event which terminates life can alone crown its honors and its glory, what felicity is here! the great epic of their lives, how happily concluded! poetry itself has hardly terminated illustrious lives, and finished the career of earthly renown, by such a consummation. if we had the power, we could not wish to reverse this dispensation of the divine providence. the great objects of life were accomplished, the drama was ready to be closed. it has closed; our patriots have fallen; but so fallen, at such age, with such coincidence, on such a day, that we cannot rationally lament that the end has come which we knew could not be long deferred. neither of these great men, fellow-citizens, could have died, at any time, without leaving an immense void in our american society. they have been so intimately, and for so long a time, blended with the history of the country, and especially so united, in our thoughts and recollections, with the events of the revolution, that the death of either would have touched the chords of public sympathy. we should have felt that one great link connecting us with former times was broken; that we had lost something more, as it were, of the presence of the revolution itself, and of the act of independence, and were driven on, by another great remove from the days of our country's early distinction, to meet posterity, and to mix with the future. like the mariner, whom the currents of the ocean and the winds carry along, till he sees the stars which have directed his course and lighted his pathless way descend, one by one, beneath the rising horizon, we should have felt that the stream of time had borne us onward till another great luminary, whose light had cheered us and whose guidance we had followed, had sunk away from our sight. [sidenote: the remarkable similarity between adams and jefferson in their lives and in their deaths.] but the concurrence of their death on the anniversary of independence has naturally awakened stronger emotions. both had been presidents, both had lived to great age, both were early patriots, and both were distinguished and ever honored by their immediate agency in the act of independence. it cannot but seem striking and extraordinary that these two should live to see the fiftieth year from the date of that act; that they should complete that year; and that then, on the day which had fast linked forever their own fame with their country's glory, the heavens should open to receive them both at once. as their lives themselves were the gifts of providence, who is not willing to recognize in their happy termination, as well as in their long continuance, proofs that our country and its benefactors are objects of his care? [sidenote: their example.] adams and jefferson, i have said, are no more. as human beings, indeed, they are no more. they are no more, as in , bold and fearless advocates of independence; no more, as at subsequent periods, the head of the government; no more, as we have recently seen them, aged and venerable objects of admiration and regard. they are no more. they are dead. but how little is there of the great and good which can die! to their country they yet live, and live forever. they live in all that perpetuates the remembrance of men on earth; in the recorded proofs of their own great actions, in the offspring of their intellect, in the deep-engraved lines of public gratitude, and in the respect and homage of mankind. they live in their example; and they live, emphatically, and will live, in the influence which their lives and efforts, their principles and opinions, now exercise, and will continue to exercise, on the affairs of men, not only in their own country, but throughout the civilized world. a superior and commanding human intellect, a truly great man, when heaven vouchsafes so rare a gift, is not a temporary flame, burning brightly for a while, and then giving place to returning darkness. it is rather a spark of fervent heat, as well as radiant light, with power to enkindle the common mass of human mind; so that when it glimmers in its own decay, and finally goes out in death, no night follows; but it leaves the world all light, all on fire, from the potent contact of its own spirit. bacon died; but the human understanding, roused by the touch of his miraculous wand to a perception of the true philosophy and the just mode of inquiring after truth, has kept on its course successfully and gloriously. newton died; yet the courses of the spheres are still known, and they yet move on by the laws which he discovered, and in the orbits which he saw, and described for them, in the infinity of space. [sidenote: their work.] no two men now live, fellow-citizens, perhaps it may be doubted whether any two men have ever lived in one age, who, more than those we now commemorate, have impressed on mankind their own sentiments in regard to politics and government, infused their own opinions more deeply into the opinions of others, or given a more lasting direction to the current of human thought. their work doth not perish with them. the tree which they assisted to plant will flourish, although they water it and protect it no longer; for it has struck its roots deep, it has sent them to the very centre; no storm, not of force to burst the orb, can overturn it; its branches spread wide; they stretch their protecting arms broader and broader, and its top is destined to reach the heavens. we are not deceived. there is no delusion here. no age will come in which the american revolution will appear less than it is, one of the greatest events in human history. no age will come in which it shall cease to be seen and felt, on either continent, that a mighty step, a great advance, not only in american affairs, but in human affairs, was made on the th of july, . and no age will come, we trust, so ignorant or so unjust as not to see and acknowledge the efficient agency of those we now honor in producing that momentous event. we are not assembled, therefore, fellow-citizens, as men overwhelmed with calamity by the sudden disruption of the ties of friendship or affection, or as in despair for the republic by the untimely blighting of its hopes. death has not surprised us by an unseasonable blow. we have, indeed, seen the tomb close, but it has closed only over mature years, over long-protracted public service, over the weakness of age, and over life itself only when the ends of living had been fulfilled. these suns, as they rose slowly and steadily, amidst clouds and storms, in their ascendant, so they have not rushed from their meridian to sink suddenly in the west. like the mildness, the serenity, the continuing benignity of a summer's day, they have gone down with slow-descending, grateful, long-lingering light; and now that they are beyond the visible margin of the world, good omens cheer us from "the bright track of their fiery car"! [sidenote: their public services.] the occasion, fellow-citizens, requires some account of the lives and services of john adams and thomas jefferson. this duty must necessarily be performed with great brevity, and in the discharge of it i shall be obliged to confine myself, principally, to those parts of their history and character which belonged to them as public men. [sidenote: adams the chief advocate of the declaration of independence.] [sidenote: his education.] john adams was born at quincy, then part of the ancient town of braintree, on the nineteenth day of october (old style), .[ ] he was a descendant of the puritans, his ancestors having early emigrated from england, and settled in massachusetts. discovering in childhood a strong love of reading and of knowledge, together with marks of great strength and activity of mind, proper care was taken by his worthy father to provide for his education. he pursued his youthful studies in braintree, under mr. marsh, a teacher whose fortune it was that josiah quincy, jr., as well as the subject of these remarks, should receive from him his instruction in the rudiments of classical literature. having been admitted, in , a member of harvard college, mr. adams was graduated, in course, in ; and on the catalogue of that institution, his name, at the time of his death, was second among the living alumni, being preceded only by that of the venerable holyoke. with what degree of reputation he left the university is not now precisely known. we know only that he was distinguished in a class which numbered locke and hemmenway among its members. [illustration: _john adams._] [sidenote: studies law.] choosing the law for his profession, he commenced and prosecuted its studies at worcester, under the direction of samuel putnam, a gentleman whom he has himself described as an acute man, an able and learned lawyer, and as being in large professional practice at that time. in he was admitted to the bar, and entered upon the practice of the law in braintree. he is understood to have made his first considerable effort, or to have attained his first signal success, at plymouth, on one of those occasions which furnish the earliest opportunity for distinction to many young men of the profession, a jury trial, and a criminal cause. his business naturally grew with his reputation, and his residence in the vicinity afforded the opportunity, as his growing eminence gave the power, of entering on a larger field of practice in the capital. in he removed his residence to boston, still continuing his attendance on the neighboring circuits, and not unfrequently called to remote parts of the province. in his professional firmness was brought to a test of some severity, on the application of the british officers and soldiers to undertake their defence, on the trial of the indictments found against them on account of the transactions of the memorable th of march.[ ] he seems to have thought, on this occasion, that a man can no more abandon the proper duties of his profession, than he can abandon other duties. the event proved that as he judged well for his own reputation, so, too, he judged well for the interest and permanent fame of his country. the result of that trial proved that notwithstanding the high degree of excitement then existing in consequence of the measures of the british government, a jury of massachusetts would not deprive the most reckless enemies, even the officers of that standing army quartered among them, which they so perfectly abhorred, of any part of that protection which the law, in its mildest and most indulgent interpretation, affords to persons accused of crimes. [sidenote: an early prophecy.] without following mr. adams's professional course further, suffice it to say, that on the first establishment of the judicial tribunals under the authority of the state, in , he received an offer of the high and responsible station of chief justice of the supreme court of massachusetts. but he was destined for another and a different career. from early life the bent of his mind was toward politics; a propensity which the state of the times, if it did not create, doubtless very much strengthened. public subjects must have occupied the thoughts and filled up the conversation in the circles in which he then moved; and the interesting questions at that time just arising could not but seize on a mind like his, ardent, sanguine, and patriotic. a letter, fortunately preserved, written by him at worcester, so early as the th of october, , is a proof of very comprehensive views, and uncommon depth of reflection, in a young man not yet quite twenty. in this letter he predicted the transfer of power, and the establishment of a new seat of empire in america; he predicted, also, the increase of population in the colonies; and anticipated their naval distinction, and foretold that all europe combined could not subdue them. all this is said, not on a public occasion or for effect, but in the style of sober and friendly correspondence, as the result of his own thoughts. "i sometimes retire," said he, at the close of the letter, "and, laying things together, form some reflections pleasing to myself. the produce of one of these reveries you have read above." this prognostication so early in his own life, so early in the history of the country, of independence, of vast increase of numbers, of naval force, of such augmented power as might defy all europe, is remarkable. it is more remarkable that its author should live to see fulfilled to the letter what could have seemed to others, at the time, but the extravagance of youthful fancy. his earliest political feelings were thus strongly american, and from this ardent attachment to his native soil he never departed. [sidenote: james otis.] while still living at quincy, and at the age of twenty-four, mr. adams was present, in this town, at the argument before the supreme court respecting writs of assistance,[ ] and heard the celebrated and patriotic speech of james otis. unquestionably, that was a masterly performance. no flighty declamation about liberty, no superficial discussion of popular topics, it was a learned, penetrating, convincing, constitutional argument, expressed in a strain of high and resolute patriotism. he grasped the question then pending between england and her colonies with the strength of a lion; and if he sometimes sported, it was only because the lion himself is sometimes playful. its success appears to have been as great as its merits, and its impression was widely felt. mr. adams himself seems never to have lost the feeling it produced, and to have entertained constantly the fullest conviction of its important effects. "i do say," he observes, "in the most solemn manner, that mr. otis's oration against writs of assistance breathed into this nation the breath of life." [illustration: _james otis._] in mr. adams laid before the public, anonymously, a series of essays, afterwards collected in a volume in london, under the title of "a dissertation on the canon and feudal law." the object of this work was to show that our new england ancestors, in consenting to exile themselves from their native land, were actuated mainly by the desire of delivering themselves from the power of the hierarchy, and from the monarchical and aristocratical systems of the other continent; and to make this truth bear with effect on the politics of the times. its tone is uncommonly bold and animated for that period. he calls on the people, not only to defend, but to study and understand, their rights and privileges; urges earnestly the necessity of diffusing general knowledge; invokes the clergy and the bar, the colleges and academies, and all others who have the ability and the means to expose the insidious designs of arbitrary power, to resist its approaches, and to be persuaded that there is a settled design on foot to enslave all america. "be it remembered," says the author, "that liberty must, at all hazards, be supported. we have a right to it, derived from our maker. but if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood. and liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings and a desire to know. but, besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right, to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, i mean of the characters and conduct of their rulers. rulers are no more than attorneys, agents, and trustees for the people; and if the cause, the interest and trust, is insidiously betrayed, or wantonly trifled away, the people have a right to revoke the authority that they themselves have deputed, and to constitute abler and better agents, attorneys, and trustees." [sidenote: adams first public office.] the citizens of this town conferred on mr. adams his first political distinction, and clothed him with his first political trust, by electing him one of their representatives, in . before this time he had become extensively known throughout the province, as well by the part he had acted in relation to public affairs, as by the exercise of his professional ability. he was among those who took the deepest interest in the controversy with england, and, whether in or out of the legislature, his time and talents were alike devoted to the cause. in the years and he was chosen a councillor by the members of the general court, but rejected by governor hutchinson in the former of those years, and by governor gage in the latter. [illustration: _independence hall, philadelphia._] [sidenote: election to the congress of delegates.] the time was now at hand, however, when the affairs of the colonies urgently demanded united counsels throughout the country. an open rupture with the parent state appeared inevitable, and it was but the dictate of prudence that those who were united by a common interest and a common danger should protect that interest and guard against that danger by united efforts. a general congress of delegates from all the colonies having been proposed and agreed to, the house of representatives, on the th of june, , elected james bowdoin, thomas cushing, samuel adams, john adams, and robert treat paine delegates from massachusetts. this appointment was made at salem, where the general court had been convened by governor gage, in the last hour of the existence of a house of representatives under the provincial charter. while engaged in this important business, the governor, having been informed of what was passing, sent his secretary with a message dissolving the general court. the secretary, finding the door locked, directed the messenger to go in and inform the speaker that the secretary was at the door with a message from the governor. the messenger returned, and informed the secretary that the orders of the house were that the doors should be kept fast; whereupon the secretary soon after read upon the stairs a proclamation dissolving the general court. thus terminated, forever, the actual exercise of the political power of england in or over massachusetts. the four last-named delegates accepted their appointments, and took their seats in congress the first day of its meeting, the th of september, , in philadelphia. [sidenote: the first continental congress.] the proceedings of the first congress are well known, and have been universally admired. it is in vain that we would look for superior proofs of wisdom, talent, and patriotism. lord chatham said that, for himself, he must declare that he had studied and admired the free states of antiquity, the master states of the world, but that for solidity of reasoning, force of sagacity, and wisdom of conclusion, no body of men could stand in preference to this congress. it is hardly inferior praise to say that no production of that great man himself can be pronounced superior to several of the papers published as the proceedings of this most able, most firm, most patriotic assembly. there is, indeed, nothing superior to them in the range of political disquisition. they not only embrace, illustrate, and enforce everything which political philosophy, the love of liberty, and the spirit of free inquiry had antecedently produced, but they add new and striking views of their own, and apply the whole, with irresistible force, in support of the cause which had drawn them together. mr. adams was a constant attendant on the deliberations of this body, and bore an active part in its important measures. he was of the committee to state the rights of the colonies, and of that also which reported the address to the king. [sidenote: the author of the declaration of independence.] thomas jefferson, descended from ancestors who had been settled in virginia for some generations, was born near the spot on which he died, in the county of albemarle, on the d of april (old style), . his youthful studies were pursued in the neighborhood of his father's residence until he was removed to the college of william and mary, the highest honors of which he in due time received. having left the college with reputation, he applied himself to the study of the law under the tuition of george wythe, one of the highest judicial names of which that state can boast. at an early age he was elected a member of the legislature, in which he had no sooner appeared than he distinguished himself by knowledge, capacity, and promptitude. [illustration: _thomas jefferson._] mr. jefferson appears to have been imbued with an early love of letters and science, and to have cherished a strong disposition to pursue these objects. to the physical sciences, especially, and to ancient classic literature, he is understood to have had a warm attachment, and never entirely to have lost sight of them in the midst of the busiest occupations. but the times were times for action rather than for contemplation. the country was to be defended and to be saved, before it could be enjoyed. philosophic leisure and literary pursuits, and even the objects of professional attention, were all necessarily postponed to the urgent calls of the public service. the exigency of the country made the same demand on mr. jefferson that it made on others who had the ability and the disposition to serve it; and he obeyed the call. entering with all his heart into the cause of liberty, his ability, patriotism, and power with the pen naturally drew upon him a large participation in the most important concerns. wherever he was, there was found a soul devoted to the cause, power to defend and maintain it, and willingness to incur all its hazards. in he published a "summary view of the rights of british america," a valuable production among those intended to show the dangers which threatened the liberties of the country, and to encourage the people in their defence. in june, , he was elected a member of the continental congress, as successor to peyton randolph, who had resigned his place on account of ill health, and took his seat in that body on the st of the same month. [sidenote: the declaration of independence.] and now, fellow-citizens, without pursuing the biography of these illustrious men further, for the present, let us turn our attention to the most prominent act of their lives, their participation in the declaration of independence. preparatory to the introduction of that important measure, a committee, at the head of which was mr. adams, had reported a resolution, which congress adopted on the th of may, recommending, in substance, to all the colonies which had not already established governments suited to the exigencies of their affairs, _to adopt such government as would, in the opinion of the representatives of the people, best conduce to the happiness and safety of their constituents in particular, and america in general_. this significant vote was soon followed by the direct proposition which richard henry lee had the honor to submit to congress, by resolution, on the seventh day of june. the published journal does not expressly state it, but there is no doubt, i suppose, that this resolution was in the same words, when originally submitted by mr. lee, as when finally passed. having been discussed on saturday, the th, and monday, the th of june, this resolution was on the last-mentioned day postponed for further consideration to the first day of july; and at the same time it was voted, that a committee be appointed to prepare a declaration to the effect of the resolution. this committee was elected by ballot, on the following day, and consisted of thomas jefferson, john adams, benjamin franklin, roger sherman, and robert r. livingston. [illustration: the declaration of independence] [sidenote: the original draft.] it is usual, when committees are elected by ballot, that their members should be arranged in order, according to the number of votes which each has received. mr. jefferson, therefore, had received the highest, and mr. adams the next highest number of votes. the difference is said to have been but of a single vote. mr. jefferson and mr. adams, standing thus at the head of the committee, were requested by the other members to act as a subcommittee to prepare the draft; and mr. jefferson drew up the paper. the original draft, as brought by him from his study, and submitted to the other members of the committee, with interlineations in the handwriting of dr. franklin, and others in that of mr. adams, was in mr. jefferson's possession at the time of his death. the merit of this paper is mr. jefferson's. some changes were made in it at the suggestion of other members of the committee, and others by congress while it was under discussion. but none of them altered the tone, the frame, the arrangement, or the general character of the instrument. as a composition, the declaration is mr. jefferson's. it is the production of his mind, and the high honor of it belongs to him, clearly and absolutely. it has sometimes been said, as if it were a derogation from the merits of this paper, that it contains nothing new; that it only states grounds of proceeding, and presses topics of argument, which had often been stated and pressed before. but it was not the object of the declaration to produce anything new. it was not to invent reasons for independence, but to state those which governed the congress. for great and sufficient causes, it was proposed to declare independence; and the proper business of the paper to be drawn was to set forth those causes, and justify the authors of the measure, in any event of fortune, to the country and to posterity. the cause of american independence, moreover, was now to be presented to the world in such manner, if it might so be, as to engage its sympathy, to command its respect, to attract its admiration; and in an assembly of most able and distinguished men, thomas jefferson had the high honor of being the selected advocate of this cause. to say that he performed his great work well, would be doing him injustice. to say that he did excellently well, admirably well, would be inadequate and halting praise. let us rather say, that he so discharged the duty assigned him, that all americans may well rejoice that the work of drawing the title-deed of their liberties devolved upon him. [sidenote: the debate on the declaration.] the declaration having been reported to congress by the committee, the resolution itself was taken up and debated on the first day of july, and again on the d, on which last day it was agreed to and adopted, in these words:-- "_resolved_, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the british crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of great britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved." [sidenote: july , .] having thus passed the main resolution, congress proceeded to consider the reported draft of the declaration. it was discussed on the second and third and fourth days of the month in committee of the whole; and on the last of those days, being reported from that committee, it received the final approbation and sanction of congress. it was ordered, at the same time, that copies be sent to the several states, and that it be proclaimed at the head of the army. the declaration thus published did not bear the names of the members, for as yet it had not been signed by them. it was authenticated, like other papers of the congress, by the signatures of the president and secretary. on the th of july, as appears by the secret journal, congress "_resolved_, that the declaration, passed on the fourth, be fairly engrossed on parchment, with the title and style of 'the unanimous declaration of the thirteen united states of america;' and that the same, when engrossed, be signed by every member of congress." and on the second day of august following, "the declaration, being engrossed and compared at the table, was signed by the members." so that it happens, fellow-citizens, that we pay these honors to their memory on the anniversary of that day ( d of august) on which these great men actually signed their names to the declaration. the declaration was thus made, that is, it passed and was adopted as an act of congress, on the th of july; it was then signed, and certified by the president and secretary like other acts. the fourth of july, therefore, is the anniversary of the declaration. but the signatures of the members present were made to it, being then engrossed on parchment, on the second day of august. absent members afterwards signed, as they came in; and indeed it bears the names of some who were not chosen members of congress until after the th of july. the interest belonging to the subject will be sufficient, i hope, to justify these details. the congress of the revolution, fellow-citizens, sat with closed doors, and no report of its debates was ever made. the discussion, therefore, which accompanied this great measure, has never been preserved, except in memory and by tradition. but it is, i believe, doing no injustice to others to say, that the general opinion was, and uniformly has been, that in debate, on the side of independence, john adams had no equal. the great author of the declaration himself has expressed that opinion uniformly and strongly. "john adams," said he, in the hearing of him who has now the honor to address you, "john adams was our colossus on the floor. not graceful, not elegant, not always fluent, in his public addresses, he yet came out with a power, both of thought and of expression, which moved us from our seats." for the part which he was here to perform, mr. adams doubtless was eminently fitted. he possessed a bold spirit, which disregarded danger, and a sanguine reliance on the goodness of the cause, and the virtues of the people, which led him to overlook all obstacles. his character, too, had been formed in troubled times. he had been rocked in the early storms of the controversy, and had acquired a decision and a hardihood proportioned to the severity of the discipline which he had undergone. he not only loved the american cause devoutly, but had studied and understood it. it was all familiar to him. he had tried his powers on the questions which it involved, often and in various ways; and had brought to their consideration whatever of argument or illustration the history of his own country, the history of england, or the stores of ancient or of legal learning could furnish. every grievance enumerated in the long catalogue of the declaration had been the subject of his discussion, and the object of his remonstrance and reprobation. from the colonies, the rights of the colonies, the liberties of the colonies, and the wrongs inflicted on the colonies, had engaged his constant attention; and it has surprised those who have had the opportunity of witnessing it, with what full remembrance and with what prompt recollection he could refer, in his extreme old age, to every act of parliament affecting the colonies, distinguishing and stating their respective titles, sections, and provisions; and to all the colonial memorials, remonstrances, and petitions, with whatever else belonged to the intimate and exact history of the times from that year to . it was, in his own judgment, between these years that the american people came to a full understanding and thorough knowledge of their rights, and to a fixed resolution of maintaining them; and bearing himself an active part in all important transactions,--the controversy with england being then in effect the business of his life,--facts, dates, and particulars made an impression which was never effaced. he was prepared, therefore, by education and discipline, as well as by natural talent and natural temperament, for the part which he was now to act. [sidenote: the nature of true eloquence.] the eloquence of mr. adams resembled his general character, and formed, indeed, a part of it. it was bold, manly, and energetic; and such the crisis required. when public bodies are to be addressed on momentous occasions, when great interests are at stake, and strong passions excited, nothing is valuable in speech farther than as it is connected with high intellectual and moral endowments. clearness, force, and earnestness are the qualities which produce conviction. true eloquence, indeed, does not consist in speech. it cannot be brought from far. labor and learning may toil for it, but they will toil in vain. words and phrases may be marshalled in every way, but they cannot compass it. it must exist in the man, in the subject, and in the occasion. affected passion, intense expression, the pomp of declamation, all may aspire to it; they cannot reach it. it comes, if it come at all, like the outbreaking of a fountain from the earth, or the bursting forth of volcanic fires, with spontaneous, original, native force. the graces taught in the schools, the costly ornaments and studied contrivances of speech, shock and disgust men, when their own lives, and the fate of their wives, their children, and their country, hang on the decision of the hour. then words have lost their power, rhetoric is vain, and all elaborate oratory contemptible. even genius itself then feels rebuked and subdued, as in the presence of higher qualities. then patriotism is eloquent; then self-devotion is eloquent. the clear conception, outrunning the deductions of logic, the high purpose, the firm resolve, the dauntless spirit, speaking on the tongue, beaming from the eye, informing every feature, and urging the whole man onward, right onward to his object,--this, this is eloquence; or rather, it is something greater and higher than all eloquence,--it is action, noble, sublime, godlike action. in july, , the controversy had passed the stage of argument. an appeal had been made to force, and opposing armies were in the field. congress, then, was to decide whether the tie which had so long bound us to the parent state was to be severed at once, and severed forever. all the colonies had signified their resolution to abide by this decision, and the people looked for it with the most intense anxiety. and surely, fellow-citizens, never, never were men called to a more important political deliberation. if we contemplate it from the point where they then stood, no question could be more full of interest; if we look at it now, and judge of its importance by its effects, it appears of still greater magnitude. let us, then, bring before us the assembly which was about to decide a question thus big with the fate of empire. let us open their doors and look in upon their deliberations. let us survey the anxious and careworn countenances, let us hear the firm-toned voices, of this band of patriots. hancock presides over the solemn sitting; and one of those not yet prepared to pronounce for absolute independence is on the floor, and is urging his reasons for dissenting from the declaration. [illustration: _john hancock._] [sidenote: an imaginary speech in opposition to the declaration.] "let us pause! this step, once taken, cannot be retraced. this resolution, once passed, will cut off all hope of reconciliation. if success attend the arms of england, we shall then be no longer colonies with charters and with privileges; these will all be forfeited by this act; and we shall be in the condition of other conquered people, at the mercy of the conquerors. for ourselves, we may be ready to run the hazard; but are we ready to carry the country to that length? is success so probable as to justify it? where is the military, where the naval power, by which we are to resist the whole strength of the arm of england,--for she will exert that strength to the utmost? can we rely on the constancy and perseverance of the people? or will they not act as the people of other countries have acted, and, wearied with a long war, submit, in the end, to a worse oppression? while we stand on our old ground, and insist on redress of grievances, we know we are right, and are not answerable for consequences. nothing, then, can be imputed to us. but if we now change our object, carry our pretensions farther, and set up for absolute independence, we shall lose the sympathy of mankind. we shall no longer be defending what we possess, but struggling for something which we never did possess, and which we have solemnly and uniformly disclaimed all intention of pursuing, from the very outset of the troubles. abandoning thus our old ground of resistance only to arbitrary acts of oppression, the nations will believe the whole to have been mere pretence, and they will look on us, not as injured, but as ambitious subjects. i shudder before this responsibility. it will be on us, if, relinquishing the ground on which we have stood so long, and stood so safely, we now proclaim independence, and carry on the war for that object, while these cities burn, these pleasant fields whiten and bleach with the bones of their owners, and these streams run blood. it will be upon us, it will be upon us, if, failing to maintain this unseasonable and ill-judged declaration, a sterner despotism, maintained by military power, shall be established over our posterity, when we ourselves, given up by an exhausted, a harassed, a misled people, shall have expiated our rashness and atoned for our presumption on the scaffold." it was for mr. adams to reply to arguments like these. we know his opinions, and we know his character. he would commence with his accustomed directness and earnestness. [sidenote: supposed speech of john adams in favor of the declaration.] "sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish, i give my hand and my heart to this vote. it is true, indeed, that in the beginning we aimed not at independence. but there's a divinity which shapes our ends. the injustice of england has driven us to arms; and, blinded to her own interest for our good, she has obstinately persisted, till independence is now within our grasp. we have but to reach forth to it, and it is ours. why, then, should we defer the declaration? is any man so weak as now to hope for a reconciliation with england which shall leave either safety to the country and its liberties, or safety to his own life and his own honor? are not you, sir, who sit in that chair,--is not he, our venerable colleague near you,--are you not both already the proscribed and predestined objects of punishment and of vengeance? cut off from all hope of royal clemency, what are you, what can you be, while the power of england remains, but outlaws? if we postpone independence, do we mean to carry on, or to give up, the war? do we mean to submit to the measures of parliament, boston port bill[ ] and all? do we mean to submit, and consent that we ourselves shall be ground to powder, and our country and its rights trodden down in the dust? i know we do not mean to submit. we never shall submit. do we intend to violate that most solemn obligation ever entered into by men, that plighting, before god, of our sacred honor to washington, when, putting him forth to incur the dangers of war, as well as the political hazards of the times, we promised to adhere to him, in every extremity, with our fortunes and our lives? i know there is not a man here who would not rather see a general conflagration sweep over the land, or an earthquake sink it, than one jot or tittle of that plighted faith fall to the ground. for myself, having, twelve months ago, in this place, moved you that george washington be appointed commander of the forces raised, or to be raised, for defence of american liberty, may my right hand forget her cunning, and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if i hesitate or waver in the support i give him. "the war, then, must go on. we must fight it through. and if the war must go on, why put off longer the declaration of independence? that measure will strengthen us. it will give us character abroad. the nations will then treat with us, which they never can do while we acknowledge ourselves subjects, in arms against our sovereign. nay, i maintain that england herself will sooner treat for peace with us on the footing of independence, than consent, by repealing her acts, to acknowledge that her whole conduct towards us has been a course of injustice and oppression. her pride will be less wounded by submitting to that course of things which now predestinates our independence, than by yielding the points in controversy to her rebellious subjects. the former she would regard as the result of fortune; the latter she would feel as her own deep disgrace. why then, why then, sir, do we not as soon as possible change this from a civil to a national war? and since we must fight it through, why not put ourselves in a state to enjoy all the benefits of victory, if we gain the victory? "if we fail, it can be no worse for us. but we shall not fail. the cause will raise up armies; the cause will create navies. the people, the people, if we are true to them, will carry us, and will carry themselves, gloriously through this struggle. i care not how fickle other people have been found. i know the people of these colonies, and i know that resistance to british aggression is deep and settled in their hearts and cannot be eradicated. every colony, indeed, has expressed its willingness to follow, if we but take the lead. sir, the declaration will inspire the people with increased courage. instead of a long and bloody war for the restoration of privileges, for redress of grievances, for chartered immunities, held under a british king, set before them the glorious object of entire independence and it will breathe into them anew the breath of life. read this declaration at the head of the army; every sword will be drawn from its scabbard, and the solemn vow uttered, to maintain it, or to perish on the bed of honor. publish it from the pulpit; religion will approve it, and the love of religious liberty will cling round it, resolved to stand with it or fall with it. send it to the public halls; proclaim it there; let them hear it who heard the first roar of the enemy's cannon; let them see it who saw their brothers and their sons fall on the field of bunker hill, and in the streets of lexington and concord, and the very walls will cry out in its support. "sir, i know the uncertainty of human affairs, but i see, i see clearly, through this day's business. you and i, indeed, may rue it. we may not live to the time when this declaration shall be made good. we may die; die colonists; die slaves; die, it may be, ignominiously and on the scaffold. be it so. be it so. if it be the pleasure of heaven that my country shall require the poor offering of my life, the victim shall be ready, at the appointed hour of sacrifice, come when that hour may. but while i do live, let me have a country, or at least the hope of a country, and that a free country. "but whatever may be our fate, be assured, be assured that this declaration will stand. it may cost treasure, and it may cost blood; but it will stand, and it will richly compensate for both. through the thick gloom of the present, i see the brightness of the future, as the sun in heaven. we shall make this a glorious, an immortal day. when we are in our graves, our children will honor it. they will celebrate it with thanksgiving, with festivity, with bonfires, and illuminations. on its annual return they will shed tears, copious, gushing tears, not of subjection and slavery, not of agony and distress, but of exultation, of gratitude, and of joy. sir, before god, i believe the hour is come. my judgment approves this measure, and my whole heart is in it. all that i have, and all that i am, and all that i hope, in this life, i am now ready here to stake upon it; and i leave off as i begun, that live or die, survive or perish, i am for the declaration. it is my living sentiment, and by the blessing of god it shall be my dying sentiment, independence _now_, and independence forever." and so that day shall be honored, illustrious prophet and patriot! so that day shall be honored, and as often as it returns, thy renown shall come along with it, and the glory of thy life, like the day of thy death, shall not fail from the remembrance of men. [illustration: _samuel adams._] [sidenote: tributes to john hancock, samuel adams, and robert treat paine.] it would be unjust, fellow-citizens, on this occasion, while we express our veneration for him who is the immediate subject of these remarks, were we to omit a most respectful, affectionate, and grateful mention of those other great men, his colleagues, who stood with him, and with the same spirit, the same devotion, took part in the interesting transaction. hancock, the proscribed hancock, exiled from his home by a military governor, cut off by proclamation from the mercy of the crown,--heaven reserved for him the distinguished honor of putting this great question to the vote, and of writing his own name first, and most conspicuously, on that parchment which spoke defiance to the power of the crown of england. there, too, is the name of that other proscribed patriot, samuel adams, a man who hungered and thirsted for the independence of his country, who thought the declaration halted and lingered, being himself not only ready, but eager for it, long before it was proposed; a man of the deepest sagacity, the clearest foresight, and the profoundest judgment in men. and there is gerry, himself among the earliest and the foremost of the patriots, found when the battle of lexington summoned them to common counsels, by the side of warren; a man who lived to serve his country at home and abroad, and to die in the second place in the government. there, too, is the inflexible, the upright, the spartan character, robert treat paine. he also lived to serve his country through the struggle, and then withdrew from her councils, only that he might give his labors and his life to his native state, in another relation. these names, fellow-citizens, are the treasures of the commonwealth; and they are treasures which grow brighter by time. it is now necessary to resume the narrative, and to finish with great brevity the notice of the lives of those whose virtues and services we have met to commemorate. [sidenote: adams appointed minister to france.] mr. adams remained in congress from its first meeting till november, , when he was appointed minister to france. he proceeded on that service in the february following, embarking in the frigate "boston," from the shore of his native town, at the foot of mount wollaston. the year following, he was appointed commissioner to treat of peace with england. returning to the united states, he was a delegate from braintree in the convention for framing the constitution of this commonwealth, in . at the latter end of the same year, he again went abroad in the diplomatic service of the country, and was employed at various courts, and occupied with various negotiations, until . the particulars of these interesting and important services this occasion does not allow time to relate. in he concluded our first treaty with holland. his negotiations with that republic, his efforts to persuade the states-general[ ] to recognize our independence, his incessant and indefatigable exertions to represent the american cause favorably on the continent, and to counteract the designs of its enemies, open and secret, and his successful undertaking to obtain loans on the credit of a nation yet new and unknown, are among his most arduous, most useful, most honorable services. it was his fortune to bear a part in the negotiation for peace with england, and in something more than six years from the declaration which he had so strenuously supported, he had the satisfaction of seeing the minister plenipotentiary of the crown subscribe his name to the instrument which declared that his "britannic majesty acknowledged the united states to be free, sovereign, and independent." in these important transactions, mr. adams's conduct received the marked approbation of congress and of the country. [sidenote: vice-president, - ; president, - .] returning to the united states in , he found the new government about going into operation, and was himself elected the first vice-president,[ ] a situation which he filled with reputation for eight years, at the expiration of which he was raised to the presidential chair, as immediate successor to the immortal washington. in this high station he was succeeded by mr. jefferson, after a memorable controversy between their respective friends, in ; and from that period his manner of life has been known to all who hear me. he has lived, for five-and-twenty years, with every enjoyment that could render old age happy. not inattentive to the occurrences of the times, political cares have yet not materially, or for any long time, disturbed his repose. in he acted as elector of president and vice-president, and in the same year we saw him, then at the age of eighty-five, a member of the convention of this commonwealth called to revise the constitution. forty years before, he had been one of those who formed that constitution; and he had now the pleasure of witnessing that there was little which the people desired to change. possessing all his faculties to the end of his long life, with an unabated love of reading and contemplation, in the centre of interesting circles of friendship and affection, he was blessed in his retirement with whatever of repose and felicity the condition of man allows. he had, also, other enjoyments. he saw around him that prosperity and general happiness which had been the object of his public cares and labors. no man ever beheld more clearly, and for a longer time, the great and beneficial effects of the services rendered by himself to his country. that liberty which he so early defended, that independence of which he was so able an advocate and supporter, he saw, we trust, firmly and securely established. the population of the country thickened around him faster, and extended wider, than his own sanguine predictions had anticipated; and the wealth, respectability, and power of the nation sprang up to a magnitude which it is quite impossible he could have expected to witness in his day. he lived also to behold those principles of civil freedom which had been developed, established, and practically applied in america, attract attention, command respect, and awaken imitation, in other regions of the globe; and well might, and well did, he exclaim, "where will the consequences of the american revolution end?" if anything yet remain to fill this cup of happiness, let it be added, that he lived to see a great and intelligent people bestow the highest honor in their gift where he had bestowed his own kindest parental affections and lodged his fondest hopes.[ ] thus honored in life, thus happy at death, he saw the jubilee,[ ] and he died; and with the last prayers which trembled on his lips was the fervent supplication for his country, "independence forever!" [illustration: _patrick henry._] [illustration: _benjamin franklin._] [sidenote: jefferson elected governor of virginia.] [sidenote: minister to france.] [sidenote: is made secretary of state by washington.] mr. jefferson, having been occupied in the years and in the important service of revising the laws of virginia, was elected governor of that state, as successor to patrick henry, and held the situation when the state was invaded by the british arms. in he published his "notes on virginia," a work which attracted attention in europe as well as america, dispelled many misconceptions respecting this continent, and gave its author a place among men distinguished for science. in november, , he again took his seat in the continental congress, but in the may following was appointed minister plenipotentiary, to act abroad, in the negotiation of commercial treaties, with dr. franklin and mr. adams. he proceeded to france, in execution of this mission, embarking at boston; and that was the only occasion on which he ever visited this place. in he was appointed minister to france, the duties of which situation he continued to perform until october, , when he obtained leave to retire, just on the eve of that tremendous revolution which has so much agitated the world in our times. mr. jefferson's discharge of his diplomatic duties was marked by great ability, diligence, and patriotism; and while he resided at paris, in one of the most interesting periods, his character for intelligence, his love of knowledge and of the society of learned men, distinguished him in the highest circles of the french capital. no court in europe had at that time in paris a representative commanding or enjoying higher regard, for political knowledge or for general attainments, than the minister of this then infant republic. immediately on his return to his native country, at the organization of the government under the present constitution, his talents and experience recommended him to president washington for the first office in his gift. he was placed at the head of the department of state. in this situation, also, he manifested conspicuous ability. his correspondence with the ministers of other powers residing here, and his instructions to our own diplomatic agents abroad, are among our ablest state papers. a thorough knowledge of the laws and usages of nations, perfect acquaintance with the immediate subject before him, great felicity, and still greater facility, in writing, show themselves in whatever effort his official situation called on him to make. it is believed by competent judges, that the diplomatic intercourse of the government of the united states, from the first meeting of the continental congress in to the present time, taken together, would not suffer, in respect to the talent with which it has been conducted, by comparison with anything which other and older governments can produce; and to the attainment of this respectability and distinction mr. jefferson has contributed his full part. [sidenote: vice-president, - ; president, - .] on the retirement of general washington from the presidency, and the election of mr. adams to that office in , he was chosen vice-president. while presiding in this capacity over the deliberations of the senate, he compiled and published a manual of parliamentary practice, a work of more labor and more merit than is indicated by its size. it is now received as the general standard by which proceedings are regulated, not only in both houses of congress, but in most of the other legislative bodies in the country. in he was elected president, in opposition to mr. adams, and re-elected in , by a vote approaching towards unanimity. from the time of his final retirement from public life, in , mr. jefferson lived as became a wise man. surrounded by affectionate friends, his ardor in the pursuit of knowledge undiminished, with uncommon health and unbroken spirits, he was able to enjoy largely the rational pleasures of life, and to partake in that public prosperity which he had so much contributed to produce. his kindness and hospitality, the charm of his conversation, the ease of his manners, the extent of his acquirements, and, especially, the full store of revolutionary incidents which he had treasured in his memory, and which he knew when and how to dispense, rendered his abode in a high degree attractive to his admiring countrymen, while his high public and scientific character drew towards him every intelligent and educated traveller from abroad. both mr. adams and mr. jefferson had the pleasure of knowing that the respect which they so largely received was not paid to their official stations. they were not men made great by office; but great men, on whom the country for its own benefit had conferred office. there was that in them which office did not give, and which the relinquishment of office did not, and could not, take away. in their retirement, in the midst of their fellow-citizens, themselves private citizens, they enjoyed as high regard and esteem as when filling the most important places of public trust. [sidenote: establishes the university of virginia.] there remained to mr. jefferson yet one other work of patriotism and beneficence, the establishment of a university in his native state. to this object he devoted years of incessant and anxious attention, and by the enlightened liberality of the legislature of virginia, and the co-operation of other able and zealous friends, he lived to see it accomplished. may all success attend this infant seminary; and may those who enjoy its advantages, as often as their eyes shall rest on the neighboring height, recollect what they owe to their disinterested and indefatigable benefactor; and may letters honor him who thus labored in the cause of letters![ ] thus useful, and thus respected, passed the old age of thomas jefferson. but time was on its ever-ceaseless wing, and was now bringing the last hour of this illustrious man. he saw its approach with undisturbed serenity. he counted the moments as they passed, and beheld that his last sands were falling. that day, too, was at hand which he had helped to make immortal. one wish, one hope, if it were not presumptuous, beat in his fainting breast. could it be so, might it please god, he would desire once more to see the sun, once more to look abroad on the scene around him, on the great day of liberty. heaven, in its mercy, fulfilled that prayer. he saw that sun; he enjoyed its sacred light; he thanked god for this mercy, and bowed his aged head to the grave. "felix, non vitæ tantum claritate, sed etiam opportunitate mortis."[ ] the last public labor of mr. jefferson naturally suggests the expression of the high praise which is due, both to him and to mr. adams, for their uniform and zealous attachment to learning, and to the cause of general knowledge. of the advantages of learning, indeed, and of literary accomplishments, their own characters were striking recommendations and illustrations. they were scholars, ripe and good scholars; widely acquainted with ancient as well as modern literature, and not altogether uninstructed in the deeper sciences. their acquirements, doubtless, were different, and so were the particular objects of their literary pursuits; as their tastes and characters, in these respects, differed like those of other men. being, also, men of busy lives, with great objects requiring action constantly before them, their attainments in letters did not become showy or obtrusive. yet i would hazard the opinion that if we could now ascertain all the causes which gave them eminence and distinction in the midst of the great men with whom they acted, we should find not among the least their early acquisitions in literature, the resources which it furnished, the promptitude and facility which it communicated, and the wide field it opened for analogy and illustration; giving them thus, on every subject, a larger view and a broader range, as well for discussion as for the government of their own conduct. fellow-citizens, i will detain you no longer by this faint and feeble tribute to the memory of the illustrious dead. even in other hands adequate justice could not be done to them, within the limits of this occasion. their highest, their best praise is your deep conviction of their merits, your affectionate gratitude for their labors and their services. it is not my voice, it is this cessation of ordinary pursuits, this arresting of all attention, these solemn ceremonies, and this crowded house, which speak their eulogy. their fame, indeed, is safe. that is now treasured up beyond the reach of accident. although no sculptured marble should rise to their memory, nor engraved stone bear record of their deeds, yet will their remembrance be as lasting as the land they honored. marble columns may, indeed, moulder into dust; time may erase all impress from the crumbling stone; but their fame remains; for with american liberty it rose, and with american liberty only can it perish. it was the last swelling peal of yonder choir: "their bodies are buried in peace, but their name liveth evermore." i catch that solemn song, i echo that lofty strain of funeral triumph, "their name liveth evermore." [sidenote: charles carroll, in the last of the signers of the declaration.] of the illustrious signers of the declaration of independence there now remains only charles carroll. he seems an aged oak, standing alone on the plain, which time has spared a little longer after all its contemporaries have been levelled with the dust. venerable object! we delight to gather round its trunk, while yet it stands, and to dwell beneath its shadow. sole survivor of an assembly of as great men as the world has witnessed, in a transaction one of the most important that history records, what thoughts, what interesting reflections, must fill his elevated and devout soul! if he dwell on the past, how touching its recollections; if he survey the present, how happy, how joyous, how full of the fruition of that hope which his ardent patriotism indulged; if he glance at the future, how does the prospect of his country's advancement almost bewilder his weakened conception! fortunate, distinguished patriot! interesting relic of the past! let him know that, while we honor the dead, we do not forget the living; and that there is not a heart here which does not fervently pray that heaven may keep him yet back from the society of his companions. [sidenote: america's debt to the fathers.] and now, fellow-citizens, let us not retire from this occasion without a deep and solemn conviction of the duties which have devolved upon us. this lovely land, this glorious liberty, these benign institutions, the dear purchase of our fathers, are ours; ours to enjoy, ours to preserve, ours to transmit. generations past and generations to come hold us responsible for this sacred trust. our fathers, from behind, admonish us, with their anxious paternal voices; posterity calls out to us, from the bosom of the future; the world turns hither its solicitous eyes; all, all conjure us to act wisely, and faithfully, in the relation which we sustain. we can never, indeed, pay the debt which is upon us; but by virtue, by morality, by religion, by the cultivation of every good principle and every good habit, we may hope to enjoy the blessing, through our day, and to leave it unimpaired to our children. let us feel deeply how much of what we are and of what we possess we owe to this liberty, and to these institutions of government. nature has, indeed, given us a soil which yields bounteously to the hand of industry; the mighty and fruitful ocean is before us; and the skies over our heads shed health and vigor. but what are lands, and seas, and skies to civilized man, without society, without knowledge, without morals, without religious culture; and how can these be enjoyed, in all their extent and all their excellence, but under the protection of wise institutions and a free government? fellow-citizens, there is not one of us, there is not one of us here present, who does not, at this moment, and at every moment, experience, in his own condition, and in the condition of those most near and dear to him, the influence and the benefits of this liberty and these institutions. let us then acknowledge the blessing, let us feel it deeply and powerfully, let us cherish a strong affection for it, and resolve to maintain and perpetuate it. the blood of our fathers, let it not have been shed in vain; the great hope of posterity, let it not be blasted. the striking attitude, too, in which we stand to the world around us, a topic to which, i fear, i advert too often and dwell on too long, cannot be altogether omitted here. neither individuals nor nations can perform their part well until they understand and feel its importance, and comprehend and justly appreciate all the duties belonging to it. it is not to inflate national vanity, nor to swell a light and empty feeling of self-importance, but it is that we may judge justly of our situation, and of our own duties, that i earnestly urge upon you this consideration of our position and our character among the nations of the earth. it cannot be denied, but by those who would dispute against the sun, that with america, and in america, a new era commences in human affairs. this era is distinguished by free representative governments, by entire religious liberty, by improved systems of national intercourse, by a newly awakened and an unconquerable spirit of free inquiry, and by a diffusion of knowledge through the community, such as has been before altogether unknown and unheard of. america, america, our country, fellow-citizens, our own dear and native land, is inseparably connected, fast bound up, in fortune and by fate, with these great interests. if they fall, we fall with them; if they stand, it will be because we have maintained them. let us contemplate, then, this connection, which binds the prosperity of others to our own; and let us manfully discharge all the duties which it imposes. if we cherish the virtues and the principles of our fathers, heaven will assist us to carry on the work of human liberty and human happiness. auspicious omens cheer us. great examples are before us. our own firmament now shines brightly upon our path. washington is in the clear, upper sky. these other stars have now joined the american constellation; they circle round their centre, and the heavens beam with new light. beneath this illumination let us walk the course of life, and at its close devoutly commend our beloved country, the common parent of us all, to the divine benignity.[ ] the murder of captain joseph white[ ] from an argument on the trial of john francis knapp, at salem, massachusetts, aug. , gentlemen, it is a most extraordinary case. in some respects, it has hardly a precedent anywhere; certainly none in our new england history. this bloody drama exhibited no suddenly excited, ungovernable rage. the actors in it were not surprised by any lion-like temptation springing upon their virtue, and overcoming it, before resistance could begin. nor did they do the deed to glut savage vengeance, or satiate long-settled and deadly hate. it was a cool, calculating, money-making murder. it was all "hire and salary, not revenge." it was the weighing of money against life; the counting out of so many pieces of silver against so many ounces of blood. an aged man, without an enemy in the world, in his own house, and in his own bed, is made the victim of a butcherly murder, for mere pay. truly, here is a new lesson for painters and poets. whoever shall hereafter draw the portrait of murder, if he will show it as it has been exhibited, where such example was last to have been looked for, in the very bosom of our new england society, let him not give it the grim visage of moloch, the brow knitted by revenge, the face black with settled hate, and the bloodshot eye emitting livid fires of malice. let him draw, rather, a decorous, smooth-faced, bloodless demon; a picture in repose, rather than in action; not so much an example of human nature in its depravity, and in its paroxysms of crime, as an infernal being, a fiend, in the ordinary display and development of his character. the deed was executed with a degree of self-possession and steadiness equal to the wickedness with which it was planned. the circumstances now clearly in evidence spread out the whole scene before us. deep sleep had fallen on the destined victim, and on all beneath his roof. a healthful old man, to whom sleep was sweet, the first sound slumbers of the night held him in their soft but strong embrace. the assassin enters, through the window already prepared, into an unoccupied apartment. with noiseless foot he paces the lonely hall, half lighted by the moon; he winds up the ascent of the stairs, and reaches the door of the chamber. of this, he moves the lock, by soft and continued pressure, till it turns on its hinges without noise; and he enters, and beholds his victim before him. the room is uncommonly open to the admission of light. the face of the innocent sleeper is turned from the murderer, and the beams of the moon, resting on the gray locks of his aged temple, show him where to strike. the fatal blow is given! and the victim passes, without a struggle or a motion, from the repose of sleep to the repose of death! it is the assassin's purpose to make sure work; and he plies the dagger, though it is obvious that life has been destroyed by the blow of the bludgeon. he even raises the aged arm, that he may not fail in his aim at the heart, and replaces it again over the wounds of the poniard! to finish the picture, he explores the wrist for the pulse! he feels for it, and ascertains that it beats no longer! it is accomplished. the deed is done. he retreats, retraces his steps to the window, passes out through it as he came in, and escapes. he has done the murder. no eye has seen him, no ear has heard him. the secret is his own, and it is safe! [sidenote: "murder will out."] ah! gentlemen, that was a dreadful mistake. such a secret can be safe nowhere. the whole creation of god has neither nook nor corner where the guilty can bestow it, and say it is safe. not to speak of that eye which pierces through all disguises, and beholds everything as in the splendor of noon, such secrets of guilt are never safe from detection, even by men. true it is, generally speaking, that "murder will out." true it is, that providence hath so ordained, and doth so govern things, that those who break the great law of heaven by shedding man's blood seldom succeed in avoiding discovery. especially, in a case exciting so much attention as this, discovery must come, and will come, sooner or later. a thousand eyes turn at once to explore every man, every thing, every circumstance, connected with the time and place; a thousand ears catch every whisper; a thousand excited minds intensely dwell on the scene, shedding all their light, and ready to kindle the slightest circumstance into a blaze of discovery. meantime the guilty soul cannot keep its own secret. it is false to itself; or, rather, it feels an irresistible impulse of conscience to be true to itself. it labors under its guilty possession, and knows not what to do with it. the human heart was not made for the residence of such an inhabitant. it finds itself preyed on by a torment, which it dares not acknowledge to god or man. a vulture is devouring it, and it can ask no sympathy or assistance, either from heaven or earth. the secret which the murderer possesses soon comes to possess him; and, like the evil spirits of which we read, it overcomes him, and leads him whithersoever it will. he feels it beating at his heart, rising to his throat, and demanding disclosure. he thinks the whole world sees it in his face, reads it in his eyes, and almost hears its workings in the very silence of his thoughts. it has become his master. it betrays his discretion, it breaks down his courage, it conquers his prudence. when suspicions from without begin to embarrass him, and the net of circumstance to entangle him, the fatal secret struggles with still greater violence to burst forth. it must be confessed, it will be confessed; there is no refuge from confession but suicide, and suicide is confession. the reply to hayne from the second speech on foot's resolution, delivered in the senate of the united states, jan. and , [ ] mr. president,--when the mariner has been tossed for many days in thick weather, and on an unknown sea, he naturally avails himself of the first pause in the storm, the earliest glance of the sun, to take his latitude, and ascertain how far the elements have driven him from his true course. let us imitate this prudence, and, before we float farther on the waves of this debate, refer to the point from which we departed, that we may at least be able to conjecture where we now are. i ask for the reading of the resolution before the senate. [sidenote: the resolution which caused the debate] [the secretary read the resolution, as follows:-- "_resolved_, that the committee on public lands be instructed to inquire and report the quantity of public lands remaining unsold within each state and territory, and whether it be expedient to limit for a certain period the sales of the public lands to such lands only as have heretofore been offered for sale, and are now subject to entry at the minimum price. and, also, whether the office of surveyor-general, and some of the land offices, may not be abolished without detriment to the public interest; or whether it be expedient to adopt measures to hasten the sales and extend more rapidly the surveys of the public lands."] we have thus heard, sir, what the resolution is which is actually before us for consideration; and it will readily occur to every one, that it is almost the only subject about which something has not been said in the speech, running through two days, by which the senate has been entertained by the gentleman from south carolina. every topic in the wide range of our public affairs, whether past or present,--everything, general or local, whether belonging to national politics or party politics,--seems to have attracted more or less of the honorable member's attention, save only the resolution before the senate. he has spoken of everything but the public lands; they have escaped his notice. to that subject, in all his excursions, he has not paid even the cold respect of a passing glance. [sidenote: hayne's "return-shot."] when this debate, sir, was to be resumed, on thursday morning, it so happened that it would have been convenient for me to be elsewhere. the honorable member, however, did not incline to put off the discussion to another day. he had a shot, he said, to return, and he wished to discharge it. that shot, sir, which he thus kindly informed us was coming, that we might stand out of the way, or prepare ourselves to fall by it and die with decency, has now been received. under all advantages, and with expectation awakened by the tone which preceded it, it has been discharged, and has spent its force. it may become me to say no more of its effect than that, if nobody is found, after all, either killed or wounded, it is not the first time, in the history of human affairs, that the vigor and success of the war have not quite come up to the lofty and sounding phrase of the manifesto. the gentleman, sir, in declining to postpone the debate, told the senate, with the emphasis of his hand upon his heart, that there was something rankling _here_, which he wished to relieve. [mr. hayne rose, and disclaimed having used the word _rankling_.] it would not, mr. president, be safe for the honorable member to appeal to those around him, upon the question whether he did in fact make use of that word. but he may have been unconscious of it. at any rate, it is enough that he disclaims it. but still, with or without the use of that particular word, he had yet something _here_, he said, of which he wished to rid himself by an immediate reply. in this respect, sir, i have a great advantage over the honorable gentleman. there is nothing _here_, sir, which gives me the slightest uneasiness; neither fear, nor anger, nor that which is sometimes more troublesome than either, the consciousness of having been in the wrong. there is nothing, either originating _here_, or now received _here_ by the gentleman's shot. nothing originating here, for i had not the slightest feeling of unkindness towards the honorable member. some passages, it is true, had occurred since our acquaintance in this body, which i could have wished might have been otherwise; but i had used philosophy and forgotten them. i paid the honorable member the attention of listening with respect to his first speech; and when he sat down, though surprised, and i must even say astonished, at some of his opinions, nothing was farther from my intention than to commence any personal warfare. through the whole of the few remarks i made in answer, i avoided, studiously and carefully, everything which i thought possible to be construed into disrespect. and, sir, while there is thus nothing originating _here_ which i have wished at any time, or now wish, to discharge, i must repeat, also, that nothing has been received _here_ which _rankles_, or in any way gives me annoyance. i will not accuse the honorable member of violating the rules of civilized war; i will not say that he poisoned his arrows. but whether his shafts were or were not dipped in that which would have caused rankling if they had reached their destination, there was not, as it happened, quite strength enough in the bow to bring them to their mark. if he wishes now to gather up those shafts, he must look for them elsewhere; they will not be found fixed and quivering in the object at which they were aimed. [illustration: the reply to hayne] the honorable member complained that i had slept on his speech. i must have slept on it, or not slept at all. the moment the honorable member sat down, his friend from missouri rose, and, with much honeyed commendation of the speech, suggested that the impressions which it had produced were too charming and delightful to be disturbed by other sentiments or other sounds, and proposed that the senate should adjourn. would it have been quite amiable in me, sir, to interrupt this excellent good feeling? must i not have been absolutely malicious, if i could have thrust myself forward, to destroy sensations thus pleasing? was it not much better and kinder, both to sleep upon them myself, and to allow others also the pleasure of sleeping upon them? but if it be meant, by sleeping upon his speech, that i took time to prepare a reply to it, it is quite a mistake. owing to other engagements, i could not employ even the interval between the adjournment of the senate and its meeting the next morning, in attention to the subject of this debate. nevertheless, sir, the mere matter of fact is undoubtedly true. i did sleep on the gentleman's speech, and slept soundly. and i slept equally well on his speech of yesterday, to which i am now replying. it is quite possible that in this respect, also, i possess some advantage over the honorable member, attributable, doubtless, to a cooler temperament on my part; for, in truth, i slept upon his speeches remarkably well. [illustration: _thomas h. benton._] [sidenote: thomas h. benton's part in the debate.] but the gentleman inquires why _he_ was made the object of such a reply. why was _he_ singled out? if an attack has been made on the east, he, he assures us, did not begin it; it was made by the gentleman from missouri. sir, i answered the gentleman's speech because i happened to hear it; and because, also, i chose to give an answer to that speech, which, if unanswered, i thought most likely to produce injurious impressions. i did not stop to inquire who was the original drawer of the bill. i found a responsible indorser before me, and it was my purpose to hold him liable, and to bring him to his just responsibility, without delay. but, sir, this interrogatory of the honorable member was only introductory to another. he proceeded to ask me whether i had turned upon him, in this debate, from the consciousness that i should find an overmatch, if i ventured on a contest with his friend from missouri. if, sir, the honorable member, _modestiæ gratia_, had chosen thus to defer to his friend, and to pay him a compliment, without intentional disparagement to others, it would have been quite according to the friendly courtesies of debate, and not at all ungrateful to my own feelings. i am not one of those, sir, who esteem any tribute of regard, whether light and occasional, or more serious and deliberate, which may be bestowed on others, as so much unjustly withholden from themselves. but the tone and manner of the gentleman's question forbid me thus to interpret it. i am not at liberty to consider it as nothing more than a civility to his friend. it had an air of taunt and disparagement, something of the loftiness of asserted superiority, which does not allow me to pass it over without notice. it was put as a question for me to answer, and so put as if it were difficult for me to answer, whether i deemed the member from missouri an overmatch for myself in debate here. it seems to me, sir, that this is extraordinary language, and an extraordinary tone, for the discussions of this body. [sidenote: a senate of equals.] matches and overmatches! those terms are more applicable elsewhere than here, and fitter for other assemblies than this. sir, the gentleman seems to forget where and what we are. this is a senate, a senate of equals, of men of individual honor and personal character, and of absolute independence. we know no masters, we acknowledge no dictators. this is a hall for mutual consultation and discussion; not an arena for the exhibition of champions. i offer myself, sir, as a match for no man; i throw the challenge of debate at no man's feet. but then, sir, since the honorable member has put the question in a manner that calls for an answer, i will give him an answer; and i tell him, that, holding myself to be the humblest of the members here, i yet know nothing in the arm of his friend from missouri, either alone or when aided by the arm of _his_ friend from south carolina, that need deter even me from espousing whatever opinions i may choose to espouse, from debating whenever i may choose to debate, or from speaking whatever i may see fit to say, on the floor of the senate. sir, when uttered as matter of commendation or compliment, i should dissent from nothing which the honorable member might say of his friend. still less do i put forth any pretensions of my own. but when put to me as matter of taunt, i throw it back, and say to the gentleman that he could possibly say nothing less likely than such a comparison to wound my pride of personal character. the anger of its tone rescued the remark from intentional irony, which otherwise, probably, would have been its general acceptation. but, sir, if it be imagined that, by this mutual quotation and commendation; if it be supposed that, by casting the characters of the drama, assigning to each his part,--to one the attack, to another the cry of onset; or if it be thought that, by a loud and empty vaunt of anticipated victory, any laurels are to be won here; if it be imagined, especially, that any or all these things will shake any purpose of mine, i can tell the honorable member, once for all, that he is greatly mistaken, and that he is dealing with one of whose temper and character he has yet much to learn. sir, i shall not allow myself, on this occasion, i hope on no occasion, to be betrayed into any loss of temper; but if provoked, as i trust i never shall be, into crimination and recrimination, the honorable member may perhaps find, that, in that contest, there will be blows to take as well as blows to give; that others can state comparisons as significant, at least, as his own; and that his impunity may possibly demand of him whatever powers of taunt and sarcasm he may possess. i commend him to a prudent husbandry of his resources. [illustration: _john quincy adams._] [sidenote: the "coalition".] but, sir, the coalition![ ] the coalition! ay, "the murdered coalition!" the gentleman asks if i were led or frighted into this debate by the spectre of the coalition. "was it the ghost of the murdered coalition," he exclaims, "which haunted the member from massachusetts; and which, like the ghost of banquo, would never down?" "the murdered coalition!" sir, this charge of a coalition, in reference to the late administration, is not original with the honorable member. it did not spring up in the senate. whether as a fact, as an argument, or as an embellishment, it is all borrowed. he adopts it, indeed, from a very low origin, and a still lower present condition. it is one of the thousand calumnies with which the press teemed, during an excited political canvass. it was a charge, of which there was not only no proof or probability, but which was in itself wholly impossible to be true. no man of common information ever believed a syllable of it. yet it was of that class of falsehoods which, by continued repetition, through all the organs of detraction and abuse, are capable of misleading those who are already far misled, and of further fanning passion already kindling into flame. doubtless it served in its day, and in greater or less degree, the end designed by it. having done that, it has sunk into the general mass of stale and loathed calumnies. it is the very cast-off slough of a polluted and shameless press. incapable of further mischief, it lies in the sewer, lifeless and despised. it is not now, sir, in the power of the honorable member to give it dignity or decency, by attempting to elevate it, and to introduce it into the senate. he cannot change it from what it is, an object of general disgust and scorn. on the contrary, the contact, if he choose to touch it, is more likely to drag him down, down, to the place where it lies itself. [sidenote: an infelicitous allusion by hayne.] but, sir, the honorable member was not, for other reasons, entirely happy in his allusion to the story of banquo's murder and banquo's ghost. it was not, i think, the friends, but the enemies of the murdered banquo, at whose bidding his spirit would not down. the honorable gentleman is fresh in his reading of the english classics, and can put me right if i am wrong; but, according to my poor recollection, it was at those who had begun with caresses and ended with foul and treacherous murder that the gory locks were shaken. the ghost of banquo, like that of hamlet, was an honest ghost. it disturbed no innocent man. it knew where its appearance would strike terror, and who would cry out, a ghost! it made itself visible in the right quarter, and compelled the guilty and the conscience-smitten, and none others, to start, with, "prithee, see there! behold! look! lo! if i stand here, i saw him!"[ ] their eyeballs were seared (was it not so, sir?) who had thought to shield themselves by concealing their own hand, and laying the imputation of the crime on a low and hireling agency in wickedness; who had vainly attempted to stifle the workings of their own coward consciences by ejaculating through white lips and chattering teeth, "thou canst not say i did it!" i have misread the great poet if those who had no way partaken in the deed of the death, either found that they were, or feared that they should be, pushed from their stools by the ghost of the slain, or exclaimed to a spectre created by their own fears and their own remorse, "avaunt! and quit our sight!" there is another particular, sir, in which the honorable member's quick perception of resemblances might, i should think, have seen something in the story of banquo, making it not altogether a subject of the most pleasant contemplation. those who murdered banquo, what did they win by it? substantial good? permanent power? or disappointment, rather, and sore mortification,--dust and ashes, the common fate of vaulting ambition overleaping itself? did not evenhanded justice ere-long commend the poisoned chalice to their own lips? did they not soon find that for another they had "filed their mind"? that their ambition, though apparently for the moment successful, had but put a barren sceptre in their grasp? ay, sir, "a barren sceptre in their gripe, _thence to be wrenched with an unlineal hand, no son of theirs succeeding_." sir, i need pursue the allusion no farther. i leave the honorable gentleman to run it out at his leisure, and to derive from it all the gratification it is calculated to administer. if he finds himself pleased with the associations, and prepared to be quite satisfied, though the parallel should be entirely completed, i had almost said, i am satisfied also; but that i shall think of. yes, sir, i will think of that. [sidenote: the ordinance of .] [sidenote: what webster said, and did not say, about slavery.] i spoke, sir, of the ordinance of ,[ ] which prohibits slavery, in all future times, northwest of the ohio, as a measure of great wisdom and foresight, and one which had been attended with highly beneficial and permanent consequences. i supposed that on this point no two gentlemen in the senate could entertain different opinions. but the simple expression of this sentiment has led the gentleman not only into a labored defence of slavery, in the abstract, and on principle, but also into a warm accusation against me, as having attacked the system of domestic slavery now existing in the southern states. for all this, there was not the slightest foundation in anything said or intimated by me. i did not utter a single word which any ingenuity could torture into an attack on the slavery of the south. i said, only, that it was highly wise and useful, in legislating for the northwestern country while it was yet a wilderness, to prohibit the introduction of slaves; and i added that i presumed there was no reflecting and intelligent person, in the neighboring state of kentucky, who would doubt that, if the same prohibition had been extended, at the same early period, over that commonwealth, her strength and population would, at this day, have been far greater than they are. if these opinions be thought doubtful, they are nevertheless, i trust, neither extraordinary nor disrespectful. they attack nobody and menace nobody. and yet, sir, the gentleman's optics have discovered, even in the mere expression of this sentiment, what he calls the very spirit of the missouri question! he represents me as making an onset on the whole south, and manifesting a spirit which would interfere with, and disturb, their domestic condition! [sidenote: slavery a matter of domestic policy, left with the states.] [sidenote: but a great evil.] sir, this injustice no otherwise surprises me, than as it is committed here, and committed without the slightest pretence of ground for it. i say it only surprises me as being done here; for i know full well that it is, and has been, the settled policy of some persons in the south, for years, to represent the people of the north as disposed to interfere with them in their own exclusive and peculiar concerns. this is a delicate and sensitive point in southern feeling; and of late years it has always been touched, and generally with effect, whenever the object has been to unite the whole south against northern men or northern measures. this feeling, always carefully kept alive, and maintained at too intense a heat to admit discrimination or reflection, is a lever of great power in our political machine. it moves vast bodies, and gives to them one and the same direction. but it is without adequate cause, and the suspicion which exists is wholly groundless. there is not, and never has been, a disposition in the north to interfere with these interests of the south. such interference has never been supposed to be within the power of government; nor has it been in any way attempted. the slavery of the south has always been regarded as a matter of domestic policy, left with the states themselves, and with which the federal government had nothing to do. certainly, sir, i am, and ever have been, of that opinion. the gentleman, indeed, argues that slavery, in the abstract, is no evil. most assuredly i need not say i differ with him, altogether and most widely, on that point. i regard domestic slavery as one of the greatest evils, both moral and political. but whether it be a malady, and whether it be curable, and if so, by what means; or, on the other hand, whether it be the _vulnus immedicabile_ of the social system, i leave it to those whose right and duty it is to inquire and to decide. and this i believe, sir, is, and uniformly has been, the sentiment of the north. [sidenote: the public lands.] [sidenote: webster's broad view of national relations to internal improvements.] [sidenote: public works are bonds of union.] we approach, at length, sir, to a more important part of the honorable gentleman's observations. since it does not accord with my views of justice and policy to give away the public lands altogether, as a mere matter of gratuity, i am asked by the honorable gentleman on what ground it is that i consent to vote them away in particular instances. how, he inquires, do i reconcile with these professed sentiments, my support of measures appropriating portions of the lands to particular roads, particular canals, particular rivers, and particular institutions of education in the west? this leads, sir, to the real and wide difference in political opinion between the honorable gentleman and myself. on my part, i look upon all these objects as connected with the common good, fairly embraced in its object and its terms; he, on the contrary, deems them all, if good at all, only local good. this is our difference. the interrogatory which he proceeded to put at once explains this difference. "what interest," asks he, "has south carolina in a canal in ohio?" sir, this very question is full of significance. it develops the gentleman's whole political system; and its answer expounds mine. here we differ. i look upon a road over the alleghanies, a canal round the falls of the ohio, or a canal or railway from the atlantic to the western waters, as being an object large and extensive enough to be fairly said to be for the common benefit. the gentleman thinks otherwise, and this is the key to his construction of the powers of the government. he may well ask what interest has south carolina in a canal in ohio. on his system, it is true, she has no interest. on that system, ohio and carolina are different governments, and different countries; connected here, it is true, by some slight and ill-defined bond of union, but in all main respects separate and diverse. on that system, carolina has no more interest in a canal in ohio than in mexico. the gentleman, therefore, only follows out his own principles; he does no more than arrive at the natural conclusions of his own doctrines; he only announces the true results of that creed which he has adopted himself, and would persuade others to adopt, when he thus declares that south carolina has no interest in a public work in ohio. [sidenote: the states are one.] sir, we narrow-minded people of new england do not reason thus. our notion of things is entirely different. we look upon the states, not as separated, but as united. we love to dwell on that union, and on the mutual happiness which it has so much promoted, and the common renown which it has so greatly contributed to acquire. in our contemplation, carolina and ohio are parts of the same country; states, united under the same general government, having interests common, associated, intermingled. in whatever is within the proper sphere of the constitutional power of this government, we look upon the states as one. we do not impose geographical limits to our patriotic feeling or regard; we do not follow rivers and mountains, and lines of latitude, to find boundaries, beyond which public improvements do not benefit us. we who come here, as agents and representatives of these narrow-minded and selfish men of new england, consider ourselves as bound to regard with an equal eye the good of the whole, in whatever is within our powers of legislation. sir, if a railroad or canal, beginning in south carolina and ending in south carolina, appeared to me to be of national importance and national magnitude, believing, as i do, that the power of government extends to the encouragement of works of that description, if i were to stand up here and ask, what interest has massachusetts in a railroad in south carolina? i should not be willing to face my constituents. these same narrow-minded men would tell me that they had sent me to act for the whole country, and that one who possessed too little comprehension, either of intellect or feeling, one who was not large enough, both in mind and in heart, to embrace the whole, was not fit to be intrusted with the interest of any part. [sidenote: the powers of the government to be used for the general benefit of the whole.] [sidenote: one in war, in peace, and in commerce.] sir, i do not desire to enlarge the powers of the government by unjustifiable construction, nor to exercise any not within a fair interpretation. but when it is believed that a power does exist, then it is, in my judgment, to be exercised for the general benefit of the whole. so far as respects the exercise of such a power, the states are one. it was the very object of the constitution to create unity of interests to the extent of the powers of the general government. in war and peace we are one; in commerce, one; because the authority of the general government reaches to war and peace, and to the regulation of commerce. i have never seen any more difficulty in erecting light-houses on the lakes than on the ocean; in improving the harbors of inland seas, than if they were within the ebb and flow of the tide; or in removing obstructions in the vast streams of the west, more than in any work to facilitate commerce on the atlantic coast. if there be any power for one, there is power also for the other; and they are all and equally for the common good of the country. [sidenote: the government a great untaxed proprietor.] there are other objects, apparently more local, or the benefit of which is less general, towards which, nevertheless, i have concurred with others to give aid by donations of land. it is proposed to construct a road, in or through one of the new states, in which this government possesses large quantities of land. have the united states no right, or, as a great and untaxed proprietor, are they under no obligation to contribute to an object thus calculated to promote the common good of all the proprietors, themselves included? and even with respect to education, which is the extreme case, let the question be considered. in the first place, as we have seen, it was made matter of compact with these states, that they should do their part to promote education. in the next place, our whole system of land laws proceeds on the idea that education is for the common good; because in every division a certain portion is uniformly reserved and appropriated for the use of schools. and, finally, have not these new states singularly strong claims, founded on the ground already stated, that the government is a great untaxed proprietor, in the ownership of the soil? it is a consideration of great importance, that probably there is in no part of the country, or of the world, so great call for the means of education, as in these new states, owing to the vast numbers of persons within those ages in which education and instruction are usually received, if received at all. this is the natural consequence of recency of settlement and rapid increase. the census of these states shows how great a proportion of the whole population occupies the classes between infancy and manhood. these are the wide fields, and here is the deep and quick soil for the seeds of knowledge and virtue; and this is the favored season, the very spring-time for sowing them. let them be disseminated without stint. let them be scattered with a bountiful hand, broadcast. whatever the government can fairly do towards these objects, in my opinion, ought to be done. these, sir, are the grounds, succinctly stated, on which my votes for grants of lands for particular objects rest; while i maintain, at the same time, that it is all a common fund, for the common benefit. and reasons like these, i presume, have influenced the votes of other gentlemen from new england. those who have a different view of the powers of the government, of course, come to different conclusions, on these, as on other questions. i observed, when speaking on this subject before, that if we looked to any measure, whether for a road, a canal, or anything else, intended for the improvement of the west, it would be found that if the new england _ayes_ were struck out of the lists of votes, the southern _noes_ would always have rejected the measure. the truth of this has not been denied, and cannot be denied. in stating this, i thought it just to ascribe it to the constitutional scruples of the south, rather than to any other less favorable or less charitable cause. but no sooner had i done this, than the honorable gentleman asks if i reproach him and his friends with their constitutional scruples. sir, i reproach nobody. i stated a fact, and gave the most respectful reason for it that occurred to me. the gentleman cannot deny the fact; he may, if he choose, disclaim the reason. it is not long since i had occasion, in presenting a petition from his own state, to account for its being intrusted to my hands, by saying that the constitutional opinions of the gentleman and his worthy colleague prevented them from supporting it. sir, did i state this as matter of reproach? far from it. did i attempt to find any other cause than an honest one for these scruples? sir, i did not. it did not become me to doubt or to insinuate that the gentleman had either changed his sentiments, or that he had made up a set of constitutional opinions accommodated to any particular combination of political occurrences. had i done so, i should have felt that, while i was entitled to little credit in thus questioning other people's motives, i justified the whole world in suspecting my own. but how has the gentleman returned this respect for others' opinions? his own candor and justice, how have they been exhibited towards the motives of others, while he has been at so much pains to maintain, what nobody has disputed, the purity of his own? why, sir, he has asked _when_, and _how_, and _why_ new england votes were found going for measures favorable to the west. he has demanded to be informed whether all this did not begin in , and while the election of president was still pending. [sidenote: new england's aid to western improvements.] sir, to these questions retort would be justified; and it is both cogent and at hand. nevertheless, i will answer the inquiry, not by retort, but by facts. i will tell the gentleman _when_, and _how_, and _why_ new england has supported measures favorable to the west. i have already referred to the early history of the government, to the first acquisition of the lands, to the original laws for disposing of them, and for governing the territories where they lie; and have shown the influence of new england men and new england principles in all these leading measures. i should not be pardoned were i to go over that ground again. coming to more recent times, and to measures of a less general character, i have endeavored to prove that everything of this kind, designed for western improvement, has depended on the votes of new england; all this is true beyond the power of contradiction. and now, sir, there are two measures to which i will refer, not so ancient as to belong to the early history of the public lands, and not so recent as to be on this side of the period when the gentleman charitably imagines a new direction may have been given to new england feeling and new england votes. these measures, and the new england votes in support of them, may be taken as samples and specimens of all the rest. [illustration: _robert y. hayne._] in (observe, mr. president, in ) the people of the west besought congress for a reduction in the price of lands. in favor of that reduction, new england, with a delegation of forty members in the other house, gave thirty-three votes, and one only against it. the four southern states, with more than fifty members, gave thirty-two votes for it, and seven against it. again, in (observe again, sir, the time), the law passed for the relief of the purchasers of the public lands. this was a measure of vital importance to the west, and more especially to the southwest. it authorized the relinquishment of contracts for lands which had been entered into at high prices, and a reduction in other cases of not less than thirty-seven and a half per cent on the purchase-money. many millions of dollars, six or seven, i believe, probably much more, were relinquished by this law. on this bill, new england, with her forty members, gave more affirmative votes than the four southern states, with their fifty-two or fifty-three members. these two are far the most important general measures respecting the public lands which have been adopted within the last twenty years. they took place in and . that is the time _when_. as to the manner _how_, the gentleman already sees that it was by voting in solid column for the required relief; and, lastly, as to the cause _why_, i tell the gentleman it was because the members from new england thought the measures just and salutary; because they entertained towards the west neither envy, hatred, nor malice; because they deemed it becoming them, as just and enlightened public men, to meet the exigency which had arisen in the west with the appropriate measure of relief; because they felt it due to their own characters, and the characters of their new england predecessors in this government, to act towards the new states in the spirit of a liberal, patronizing, magnanimous policy. so much, sir, for the cause _why_; and i hope that by this time, sir, the honorable gentleman is satisfied; if not, i do not know _when_, or _how_, or _why_ he ever will be. [sidenote: hayne's attack on new england.] professing to be provoked by what he chose to consider a charge made by me against south carolina, the honorable member, mr. president, has taken up a new crusade against new england. leaving altogether the subject of the public lands, in which his success, perhaps, had been neither distinguished nor satisfactory, and letting go, also, of the topic of the tariff, he sallied forth in a general assault on the opinions, politics, and parties of new england, as they have been exhibited in the last thirty years. this is natural. the "narrow policy" of the public lands had proved a legal settlement in south carolina, and was not to be removed. the "accursed policy" of the tariff, also, had established the fact of its birth and parentage in the same state. no wonder, therefore, the gentleman wished to carry the war, as he expressed it, into the enemy's country. prudently willing to quit these subjects, he was, doubtless, desirous of fastening on others, which could not be transferred south of mason and dixon's line.[ ] the politics of new england became his theme; and it was in this part of his speech, i think, that he menaced me with such sore discomfiture. discomfiture! why, sir, when he attacks anything which i maintain, and overthrows it, when he turns the right or left of any position which i take up, when he drives me from any ground i choose to occupy, he may then talk of discomfiture, but not till that distant day. what has he done? has he maintained his own charges? has he proved what he alleged? has he sustained himself in his attack on the government, and on the history of the north, in the matter of the public lands? has he disproved a fact, refuted a proposition, weakened an argument, maintained by me? has he come within beat of drum of any position of mine? oh, no; but he has "carried the war into the enemy's country"! carried the war into the enemy's country! yes, sir, and what sort of a war has he made of it? why, sir, he has stretched a drag-net over the whole surface of perished pamphlets, indiscreet sermons, frothy paragraphs, and fuming popular addresses,--over whatever the pulpit in its moments of alarm, the press in its heats, and parties in their extravagance, have severally thrown off in times of general excitement and violence. he has thus swept together a mass of such things as, but that they are now old and cold, the public health would have required him rather to leave in their state of dispersion. for a good long hour or two we had the unbroken pleasure of listening to the honorable member while he recited with his usual grace and spirit, and with evident high gusto, speeches, pamphlets, addresses, and all the _et cæteras_ of the political press, such as warm heads produce in warm times; and such as it would be "discomfiture" indeed for any one, whose taste did not delight in that sort of reading, to be obliged to peruse. this is his war. this it is to carry war into the enemy's country. it is in an invasion of this sort that he flatters himself with the expectation of gaining laurels fit to adorn a senator's brow! [sidenote: party contests under the constitution.] [sidenote: political attacks upon washington.] mr. president, i shall not--it will not, i trust, be expected that i should--either now or at any time, separate this farrago into parts, and answer and examine its components. i shall barely bestow upon it all a general remark or two. in the run of forty years, sir, under this constitution, we have experienced sundry successive violent party contests. party arose, indeed, with the constitution itself, and, in some form or other, has attended it through the greater part of its history. whether any other constitution than the old articles of confederation was desirable, was itself a question on which parties divided; if a new constitution were framed, what powers should be given to it was another question; and when it had been formed, what was, in fact, the just extent of the powers actually conferred was a third. parties, as we know, existed under the first administration, as distinctly marked as those which have manifested themselves at any subsequent period. the contest immediately preceding the political change in , and that, again, which existed at the commencement of the late war, are other instances of party excitement of something more than usual strength and intensity. in all these conflicts there was, no doubt, much of violence on both and all sides. it would be impossible, if one had a fancy for such employment, to adjust the relative _quantum_ of violence between these contending parties. there was enough in each, as must always be expected in popular governments. with a great deal of popular and decorous discussion, there was mingled a great deal, also, of declamation, virulence, crimination, and abuse. in regard to any party, probably, at one of the leading epochs in the history of parties, enough may be found to make out another inflamed exhibition, not unlike that with which the honorable member has edified us. for myself, sir, i shall not rake among the rubbish of bygone times to see what i can find, or whether i cannot find something by which i can fix a blot on the escutcheon of any state, any party, or any part of the country. general washington's administration was steadily and zealously maintained, as we all know, by new england. it was violently opposed elsewhere. we know in what quarter he had the most earnest, constant, and persevering support, in all his great and leading measures. we know where his private and personal character was held in the highest degree of attachment and veneration; and we know, too, where his measures were opposed, his services slighted, and his character vilified. we know, or we might know, if we turned to the journals, who expressed respect, gratitude, and regret, when he retired from the chief magistracy, and who refused to express either respect, gratitude, or regret. i shall not open those journals. publications more abusive or scurrilous never saw the light, than were sent forth against washington and all his leading measures, from presses south of new england. but i shall not look them up. i employ no scavengers; no one is in attendance on me, furnishing such means of retaliation; and if there were, with an ass's load of them, with a bulk as huge as that which the gentleman himself has produced, i would not touch one of them. i see enough of the violence of our own times, to be no way anxious to rescue from forgetfulness the extravagances of times past. besides, what is all this to the present purpose? it has nothing to do with the public lands, in regard to which the attack was begun; and it has nothing to do with those sentiments and opinions which, i have thought, tend to disunion, and all of which the honorable member seems to have adopted himself, and undertaken to defend. new england has, at times, so argues the gentleman, held opinions as dangerous as those which he now holds. suppose this were so; why should _he_ therefore abuse new england? if he finds himself countenanced by acts of hers, how is it that, while he relies on these acts, he covers, or seeks to cover, their authors with reproach? but, sir, if, in the course of forty years, there have been undue effervescences of party in new england, has the same thing happened nowhere else? party animosity and party outrage, not in new england, but elsewhere, denounced president washington, not only as a federalist, but as a tory, a british agent, a man who, in his high office, sanctioned corruption. but does the honorable member suppose, if i had a tender here who should put such an effusion of wickedness and folly into my hand, that i would stand up and read it against the south? parties ran into great heats again in and . what was said, sir, or rather what was not said, in those years, against john adams, one of the committee that drafted the declaration of independence, and its admitted ablest defender on the floor of congress? if the gentleman wishes to increase his stores of party abuse and frothy violence, if he has a determined proclivity to such pursuits, there are treasures of that sort south of the potomac, much to his taste, yet untouched. i shall not touch them. [sidenote: political parties in .] the parties which divided the country at the commencement of the late war were violent. but then there was violence on both sides, and violence in every state. minorities and majorities were equally violent. there was no more violence against the war in new england than in other states; nor any more appearance of violence, except that, owing to a dense population, greater facility of assembling, and more presses, there may have been more in quantity spoken and printed there than in some other places. in the article of sermons, too, new england is somewhat more abundant than south carolina; and for that reason the chance of finding here and there an exceptionable one may be greater. i hope, too, there are more good ones. opposition may have been more formidable in new england, as it embraced a larger portion of the whole population; but it was no more unrestrained in principle, or violent in manner. the minorities dealt quite as harshly with their own state governments as the majorities dealt with the administration here. there were presses on both sides, popular meetings on both sides, ay, and pulpits on both sides also. the gentleman's purveyors have only catered for him among the productions of one side. i certainly shall not supply the deficiency by furnishing samples of the other. i leave to him, and to them, the whole concern. it is enough for me to say that if, in any part of this their grateful occupation, if, in all their researches, they find anything in the history of massachusetts, or new england, or in the proceedings of any legislative or other public body, disloyal to the union, speaking slightingly of its value, proposing to break it up, or recommending non-intercourse with neighboring states, on account of difference of political opinion, then, sir, i give them all up to the honorable gentleman's unrestrained rebuke; expecting, however, that he will extend his buffetings in like manner _to all similar proceedings, wherever else found_. [sidenote: tribute to south carolina.] the eulogium pronounced by the honorable gentleman on the character of the state of south carolina, for her revolutionary and other merits, meets my hearty concurrence. i shall not acknowledge that the honorable member goes before me in regard for whatever of distinguished talent, or distinguished character, south carolina has produced. i claim part of the honor, i partake in the pride, of her great names. i claim them for countrymen, one and all, the laurenses, the rutledges, the pinckneys, the sumpters, the marions, americans all, whose fame is no more to be hemmed in by state lines, than their talents and patriotism were capable of being circumscribed within the same narrow limits. in their day and generation they served and honored the country, and the whole country; and their renown is of the treasures of the whole country. him whose honored name the gentleman himself bears,--does he esteem me less capable of gratitude for his patriotism, or sympathy for his sufferings, than if his eyes had first opened upon the light of massachusetts, instead of south carolina? sir, does he suppose it in his power to exhibit a carolina name so bright as to produce envy in my bosom? no, sir, increased gratification and delight, rather. i thank god that, if i am gifted with little of the spirit which is able to raise mortals to the skies, i have yet none, as i trust, of that other spirit, which would drag angels down. when i shall be found, sir, in my place here in the senate, or elsewhere, to sneer at public merit, because it happens to spring up beyond the little limits of my own state or neighborhood; when i refuse, for any such cause or for any cause, the homage due to american talent, to elevated patriotism, to sincere devotion to liberty and the country; or, if i see an uncommon endowment of heaven, if i see extraordinary capacity and virtue, in any son of the south, and if, moved by local prejudice or gangrened by state jealousy, i get up here to abate the tithe of a hair from his just character and just fame, may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth! [sidenote: massachusetts and south carolina in the revolution.] sir, let me recur to pleasing recollections; let me indulge in refreshing remembrance of the past; let me remind you that, in early times, no states cherished greater harmony, both of principle and feeling, than massachusetts and south carolina. would to god that harmony might again return! shoulder to shoulder they went through the revolution, hand in hand they stood round the administration of washington, and felt his own great arm lean on them for support. unkind feeling, if it exist, alienation, and distrust are the growth, unnatural to such soils, of false principles since sown. they are weeds, the seeds of which that same great arm never scattered. [sidenote: defence of massachusetts.] mr. president, i shall enter on no encomium upon massachusetts; she needs none. there she is. behold her, and judge for yourselves. there is her history; the world knows it by heart. the past, at least, is secure. there is boston, and concord, and lexington, and bunker hill; and there they will remain forever. the bones of her sons, falling in the great struggle for independence, now lie mingled with the soil of every state from new england to georgia; and there they will lie forever. and, sir, where american liberty raised its first voice, and where its youth was nurtured and sustained, there it still lives, in the strength of its manhood and full of its original spirit. if discord and disunion shall wound it, if party strife and blind ambition shall hawk at and tear it, if folly and madness, if uneasiness under salutary and necessary restraint, shall succeed in separating it from that union by which alone its existence is made sure, it will stand, in the end, by the side of that cradle in which its infancy was rocked; it will stretch forth its arm with whatever of vigor it may still retain over the friends who gather round it; and it will fall at last, if fall it must, amidst the proudest monuments of its own glory, and on the very spot of its origin. [illustration: the battle of lexington _from an engraving. by permission of mr. o. g. seeley_] [sidenote: the true principles of the constitution.] there yet remains to be performed, mr. president, by far the most grave and important duty which i feel to be devolved on me by this occasion. it is to state, and to defend, what i conceive to be the true principles of the constitution under which we are here assembled. i might well have desired that so weighty a task should have fallen into other and abler hands. i could have wished that it should have been executed by those whose character and experience give weight and influence to their opinions, such as cannot possibly belong to mine. but, sir, i have met the occasion, not sought it; and i shall proceed to state my own sentiments, without challenging for them any particular regard; with studied plainness, and as much precision as possible. [sidenote: may state legislatures arrest national laws?] i understand the honorable gentleman from south carolina to maintain that it is a right of the state legislatures to interfere, whenever, in their judgment, this government transcends its constitutional limits, and to arrest the operation of its laws. i understand him to maintain this right, as a right existing _under_ the constitution, not as a right to overthrow it on the ground of extreme necessity, such as would justify violent revolution. i understand him to maintain an authority, on the part of the states, thus to interfere, for the purpose of correcting the exercise of power by the general government, of checking it, and of compelling it to conform to their opinion of the extent of its powers. [sidenote: are the states the final judges of the acts of the general government?] i understand him to maintain, that the ultimate power of judging of the constitutional extent of its own authority is not lodged exclusively in the general government, or any branch of it; but that, on the contrary, the states may lawfully decide for themselves, and each state for itself, whether, in a given case, the act of the general government transcends its power. i understand him to insist that if the exigency of the case, in the opinion of any state government, require it, such state government may, by its own sovereign authority, annul an act of the general government which it deems plainly and palpably unconstitutional. [sidenote: the south carolina doctrine.] this is the sum of what i understand from him to be the south carolina doctrine, and the doctrine which he maintains. i propose to consider it, and compare it with the constitution. allow me to say, as a preliminary remark, that i call this the south carolina doctrine only because the gentleman himself has so denominated it. i do not feel at liberty to say that south carolina, as a state, has ever advanced these sentiments. i hope she has not, and never may. that a great majority of her people are opposed to the tariff laws, is doubtless true. that a majority, somewhat less than that just mentioned, conscientiously believe these laws unconstitutional, may probably also be true. but that any majority holds to the right of direct state interference at state discretion, the right of nullifying acts of congress by acts of state legislation, is more than i know, and what i shall be slow to believe. that there are individuals besides the honorable gentleman who do maintain these opinions is quite certain. i recollect the recent expression of a sentiment which circumstances attending its utterance and publication justify us in supposing was not unpremeditated: "the sovereignty of the state,--never to be controlled, construed, or decided on, but by her own feelings of honorable justice." [mr. hayne here rose and said that for the purpose of being clearly understood, he would state that his proposition was in the words of the virginia resolution, as follows:-- "that this assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no farther valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them."[ ] mr. webster resumed:--] [sidenote: webster admits the right of revolution.] i am quite aware, mr. president, of the existence of the resolution which the gentleman read, and has now repeated, and that he relies on it as his authority. i know the source, too, from which it is understood to have proceeded. i need not say that i have much respect for the constitutional opinions of mr. madison; they would weigh greatly with me always. but before the authority of his opinion be vouched for the gentleman's proposition, it will be proper to consider what is the fair interpretation of that resolution, to which mr. madison is understood to have given his sanction. as the gentleman construes it, it is an authority for him. possibly he may not have adopted the right construction. that resolution declares that _in the case of the dangerous exercise of powers not granted by the general government, the states may interpose to arrest the progress of the evil_. but how interpose, and what does this declaration purport? does it mean no more than that there may be extreme cases, in which the people, in any mode of assembling, may resist usurpation, and relieve themselves from a tyrannical government? no one will deny this. such resistance is not only acknowledged to be just in america, but in england also blackstone admits as much, in the theory, and practice, too, of the english constitution. we, sir, who oppose the carolina doctrine, do not deny that the people may, if they choose, throw off any government when it becomes oppressive and intolerable, and erect a better in its stead. we all know that civil institutions are established for the public benefit, and that when they cease to answer the ends of their existence they may be changed. but i do not understand the doctrine now contended for to be that which, for the sake of distinction, we may call the right of revolution. i understand the gentleman to maintain that without revolution, without civil commotion, without rebellion, a remedy for supposed abuse and transgression of the powers of the general government lies in a direct appeal to the interference of the state governments. [mr. hayne here rose and said that he did not contend for the mere right of revolution, but for the right of constitutional resistance. what he maintained was, that in case of a plain, palpable violation of the constitution by the general government, a state may interpose; and that this interposition is constitutional. mr. webster resumed:--] [sidenote: no middle course between revolution and submission to constitutional laws.] [sidenote: a concise statement of webster's whole argument.] so, sir, i understood the gentleman, and am happy to find that i did not misunderstand him. what he contends for is that it is constitutional to interrupt the administration of the constitution itself, in the hands of those who are chosen and sworn to administer it, by the direct interference, in form of law, of the states, in virtue of their sovereign capacity. the inherent right in the people to reform their government i do not deny; and they have another right, and that is to resist unconstitutional laws, without overturning the government. it is no doctrine of mine that unconstitutional laws bind the people. the great question is, whose prerogative is it to decide on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the laws? on that the main debate hinges. the proposition that, in case of a supposed violation of the constitution by congress, the states have a constitutional right to interfere and annul the law of congress, is the proposition of the gentleman. i do not admit it. if the gentleman had intended no more than to assert the right of revolution for justifiable cause, he would have said only what all agree to. but i cannot conceive that there can be a middle course, between submission to the laws, when regularly pronounced constitutional, on the one hand, and open resistance, which is revolution or rebellion, on the other. i say the right of a state to annul a law of congress cannot be maintained, but on the ground of the inalienable right of man to resist oppression; that is to say, upon the ground of revolution. i admit that there is an ultimate violent remedy, above the constitution and in defiance of the constitution, which may be resorted to when a revolution is to be justified. but i do not admit that, under the constitution and in conformity with it, there is any mode in which a state government, as a member of the union, can interfere and stop the progress of the general government, by force of her own laws, under any circumstances whatever. [sidenote: the source of the power of the government of the united states.] [sidenote: the people's government.] [sidenote: the constitution declared by the people to be the supreme law.] [sidenote: the general government and the state governments derive their authority from the people.] [sidenote: general powers as over against state powers.] this leads us to inquire into the origin of this government and the source of its power. whose agent is it? is it the creature of the state legislatures, or the creature of the people? if the government of the united states be the agent of the state governments, then they may control it, provided they can agree in the manner of controlling it; if it be the agent of the people, then the people alone can control it, restrain it, modify, or reform it. it is observable enough that the doctrine for which the honorable gentleman contends leads him to the necessity of maintaining, not only that this general government is the creature of the states, but that it is the creature of each of the states severally, so that each may assert the power for itself of determining whether it acts within the limits of its authority. it is the servant of four-and-twenty masters, of different wills and different purposes, and yet bound to obey all. this absurdity (for it seems no less) arises from a misconception as to the origin of this government and its true character. it is, sir, the people's constitution, the people's government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people. the people of the united states have declared that this constitution shall be the supreme law. we must either admit the proposition, or dispute their authority. the states are, unquestionably, sovereign, so far as their sovereignty is not affected by this supreme law. but the state legislatures, as political bodies, however sovereign, are yet not sovereign over the people. so far as the people have given power to the general government, so far the grant is unquestionably good, and the government holds of the people, and not of the state governments. we are all agents of the same supreme power, the people. the general government and the state governments derive their authority from the same source. neither can, in relation to the other, be called primary, though one is definite and restricted, and the other general and residuary. the national government possesses those powers which it can be shown the people have conferred on it, and no more. all the rest belongs to the state governments, or to the people themselves. so far as the people have restrained state sovereignty, by the expression of their will, in the constitution of the united states, so far, it must be admitted, state sovereignty is effectually controlled. i do not contend that it is, or ought to be, controlled farther. the sentiment to which i have referred propounds that state sovereignty is only to be controlled by its own "feeling of justice"; that is to say, it is not to be controlled at all, for one who is to follow his own feelings is under no legal control. now, however men may think this ought to be, the fact is, that the people of the united states have chosen to impose control on state sovereignties. there are those, doubtless, who wish they had been left without restraint; but the constitution has ordered the matter differently. to make war, for instance, is an exercise of sovereignty; but the constitution declares that no state shall make war. to coin money is another exercise of sovereign power; but no state is at liberty to coin money. again, the constitution says that no sovereign state shall be so sovereign as to make a treaty. these prohibitions, it must be confessed, are a control on the state sovereignty of south carolina, as as well as of the other states, which does not arise "from her own feelings of honorable justice." the opinion referred to, therefore, is in defiance of the plainest provisions of the constitution. [sidenote: the "sovereign" states.] there are other proceedings of public bodies which have already been alluded to, and to which i refer again for the purpose of ascertaining more fully what is the length and breadth of that doctrine, denominated the carolina doctrine, which the honorable member has now stood up on this floor to maintain. in one of them i find it resolved, that "the tariff of , and every other tariff designed to promote one branch of industry at the expense of others, is contrary to the meaning and intention of the federal compact; and such a dangerous, palpable, and deliberate usurpation of power, by a determined majority, wielding the general government beyond the limits of its delegated powers, as calls upon the states which compose the suffering minority, in their sovereign capacity, to exercise the powers which, as sovereigns, necessarily devolve upon them, when their compact is violated." [sidenote: are protective tariffs unconstitutional usurpations?] observe, sir, that this resolution holds the tariff of , and every other tariff designed to promote one branch of industry at the expense of another, to be such a dangerous, palpable, and deliberate usurpation of power, as calls upon the states, in their sovereign capacity, to interfere by their own authority. this denunciation, mr. president, you will please to observe, includes our old tariff of , as well as all others; because that was established to promote the interest of the manufacturers of cotton, to the manifest and admitted injury of the calcutta cotton trade. observe, again, that all the qualifications are here rehearsed and charged upon the tariff, which are necessary to bring the case within the gentleman's proposition. the tariff is a usurpation; it is a dangerous usurpation; it is a palpable usurpation; it is a deliberate usurpation. it is such a usurpation, therefore, as calls upon the states to exercise their right of interference. here is a case, then, within the gentleman's principles, and all his qualifications of his principles. it is a case for action. the constitution is plainly, dangerously, palpably, and deliberately violated; and the states must interpose their own authority to arrest the law. let us suppose the state of south carolina to express this same opinion, by the voice of her legislature. that would be very imposing; but what then? is the voice of one state conclusive? it so happens that, at the very moment when south carolina resolves that the tariff laws are unconstitutional, pennsylvania and kentucky resolve exactly the reverse. _they_ hold those laws to be both highly proper and strictly constitutional. and now, sir, how does the honorable member propose to deal with this case? how does he relieve us from this difficulty, upon any principle of his? his construction gets us into it; how does he propose to get us out? [sidenote: nullification would make uniform laws impossible.] in carolina, the tariff is a palpable, deliberate usurpation; carolina, therefore, may nullify it, and refuse to pay the duties. in pennsylvania, it is both clearly constitutional and highly expedient; and there the duties are to be paid. and yet we live under a government of uniform laws, and under a constitution too, which contains an express provision, as it happens, that all duties shall be equal in all the states. does not this approach absurdity? if there be no power to settle such questions, independent of either of the states, is not the whole union a rope of sand? are we not thrown back again, precisely, upon the old confederation? [sidenote: the union, with nullification, a mere connection during pleasure.] it is too plain to be argued. four-and-twenty interpreters of constitutional law, each with a power to decide for itself, and none with authority to bind anybody else, and this constitutional law the only bond of their union! what is such a state of things but a mere connection during pleasure, or, to use the phraseology of the times, _during feeling_? and that feeling, too, not the feeling of the people, who established the constitution, but the feeling of the state governments! [sidenote: new england rejects the south carolina doctrine.] the gentleman has found no case, he can find none, to support his own opinions by new england authority. new england has studied the constitution in other schools and under other teachers. she looks upon it with other regards, and deems more highly and reverently both of its just authority and its utility and excellence. the history of her legislative proceedings may be traced. the ephemeral effusions of temporary bodies, called together by the excitement of the occasion, may be hunted up; they have been hunted up. the opinions and votes of her public men, in and out of congress, may be explored. it will all be in vain. the carolina doctrine can derive from her neither countenance nor support. she rejects it now; she always did reject it; and till she loses her senses, she always will reject it. the honorable member has referred to expressions on the subject of the embargo law, made in this place, by an honorable and venerable gentleman,[ ] now favoring us with his presence. he quotes that distinguished senator as saying that, in his judgment, the embargo law was unconstitutional, and that therefore, in his opinion, the people were not bound to obey it. that, sir, is perfectly constitutional language. an unconstitutional law is not binding; _but then it does not rest with a resolution or a law of a state legislature to decide whether an act of congress be or be not constitutional_. an unconstitutional act of congress would not bind the people of this district, although they have no legislature to interfere in their behalf;[ ] and, on the other hand, a constitutional law of congress does bind the citizens of every state, although all their legislatures should undertake to annul it by act or resolution. the venerable connecticut senator is a constitutional lawyer, of sound principles and enlarged knowledge; a statesman practised and experienced, bred in the company of washington, and holding just views upon the nature of our governments. he believed the embargo unconstitutional, and so did others; but what then? who did he suppose was to decide that question? the state legislatures? certainly not. no such sentiment ever escaped his lips. let us follow up, sir, this new england opposition to the embargo laws; let us trace it, till we discern the principle which controlled and governed new england throughout the whole course of that opposition. we shall then see what similarity there is between the new england school of constitutional opinions and this modern carolina school. the gentleman, i think, read a petition from some single individual addressed to the legislature of massachusetts, asserting the carolina doctrine, that is, the right of state interference to arrest the laws of the union. the fate of that petition shows the sentiment of the legislature. it met no favor. the opinions of massachusetts were very different. they had been expressed in , in answer to the resolutions of virginia, and she did not depart from them, nor bend them to the times. misgoverned, wronged, oppressed, as she felt herself to be, she still held fast her integrity to the union. the gentleman may find in her proceedings much evidence of dissatisfaction with the measures of government, and great and deep dislike to the embargo; all this makes the case so much the stronger for her; for, notwithstanding all this dissatisfaction and dislike, she still claimed no right to sever the bonds of the union. there was heat, and there was anger in her political feeling. be it so; but neither her heat nor her anger betrayed her into infidelity to the government. the gentleman labors to prove that she disliked the embargo[ ] as much as south carolina dislikes the tariff, and expressed her dislike as strongly. be it so; but did she propose the carolina remedy? did she threaten to interfere, by state authority, to annul the laws of the union? that is the question for the gentleman's consideration. [sidenote: new england attitude toward the embargo of .] [sidenote: the government has power of deciding ultimately on the just extent of its own authority.] no doubt, sir, a great majority of the people of new england conscientiously believed the embargo law of unconstitutional; as conscientiously, certainly, as the people of south carolina hold that opinion of the tariff. they reasoned thus: congress has power to regulate commerce; but here is a law, they said, stopping all commerce, and stopping it indefinitely. the law is perpetual; that is, it is not limited in point of time, and must of course continue until it shall be repealed by some other law. it is as perpetual, therefore, as the law against treason or murder. now, is this regulating commerce, or destroying it? is it guiding, controlling, giving the rule to commerce, as a subsisting thing, or is it putting an end to it altogether? nothing is more certain than that a majority in new england deemed this law a violation of the constitution. the very case required by the gentleman to justify state interference had then arisen. massachusetts believed this law to be "a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of a power not granted by the constitution." deliberate it was, for it was long continued; palpable she thought it, as no words in the constitution gave the power, and only a construction, in her opinion most violent, raised it; dangerous it was, since it threatened utter ruin to her most important interests. here, then, was a carolina case. how did massachusetts deal with it? it was, as she thought, a plain, manifest, palpable violation of the constitution, and it brought ruin to her doors. thousands of families, and hundreds of thousands of individuals, were beggared by it. while she saw and felt all this, she saw and felt also, that, as a measure of national policy, it was perfectly futile; that the country was no way benefited by that which caused so much individual distress; that it was efficient only for the production of evil, and all that evil inflicted on ourselves. in such a case, under such circumstances, how did massachusetts demean herself? sir, she remonstrated, she memorialized, she addressed herself to the general government, not exactly "with the concentrated energy of passion," but with her own strong sense, and the energy of sober conviction. but she did not interpose the arm of her own power to arrest the law, and break the embargo. far from it. her principles bound her to two things; and she followed her principles, lead where they might. first, to submit to every constitutional law of congress; and secondly, if the constitutional validity of the law be doubted, to refer that question to the decision of the proper tribunals. the first principle is vain and ineffectual without the second. a majority of us in new england believed the embargo law unconstitutional; but the great question was, and always will be in such cases, who is to decide this? who is to judge between the people and the government? and, sir, it is quite plain that the constitution of the united states confers on the government itself, to be exercised by its appropriate department, and under its own responsibility to the people, this power of deciding ultimately and conclusively upon the just extent of its own authority. if this had not been done, we should not have advanced a single step beyond the old confederation. [sidenote: the vexed question of the tariff.] [sidenote: the laws of the union beyond the control of the states.] sir, the human mind is so constituted that the merits of both sides of a controversy appear very clear, and very palpable, to those who respectively espouse them; and both sides usually grow clearer as the controversy advances. south carolina sees unconstitutionality in the tariff; she sees oppression there also, and she sees danger. pennsylvania, with a vision not less sharp, looks at the same tariff, and sees no such thing in it; she sees it all constitutional, all useful, all safe. the faith of south carolina is strengthened by opposition, and she now not only sees, but _resolves_, that the tariff is palpably unconstitutional, oppressive, and dangerous; but pennsylvania, not to be behind her neighbors, and equally willing to strengthen her own faith by a confident asseveration, _resolves_, also, and gives to every warm affirmative of south carolina, a plain, downright, pennsylvania negative. south carolina, to show the strength and unity of her opinion, brings her assembly to a unanimity, within seven voices; pennsylvania, not to be outdone in this respect any more than in others, reduces her dissentient fraction to a single vote. now, sir, again i ask the gentleman, what is to be done? are these states both right? is he bound to consider them both right? if not, which is in the wrong? or rather, which has the best right to decide? and if he, and if i, are not to know what the constitution means, and what it is, till those two state legislatures, and the twenty-two others, shall agree in its construction, what have we sworn to, when we have sworn to maintain it? i was forcibly struck, sir, with one reflection, as the gentleman went on in his speech. he quoted mr. madison's resolutions, to prove that a state may interfere, in a case of deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of a power not granted. the honorable member supposes the tariff law to be such an exercise of power; and that consequently a case has arisen in which the state may, if it see fit, interfere by its own law. now, it so happens, nevertheless, that mr. madison deems this same tariff law quite constitutional. instead of a clear and palpable violation, it is, in his judgment, no violation at all. so that, while they use his authority for a hypothetical case, they reject it in the very case before them. all this, sir, shows the inherent futility, i had almost used a stronger word, of conceding this power of interference to the state, and then attempting to secure it from abuse by imposing qualifications of which the states themselves are to judge. one of two things is true: either the laws of the union are beyond the discretion and beyond the control of the states; or else we have no constitution of general government, and are thrust back again to the days of the confederation. i must now beg to ask, sir, whence is this supposed right of the states derived? where do they find the power to interfere with the laws of the union? sir, the opinion which the honorable gentleman maintains is a notion founded in a total misapprehension, in my judgment, of the origin of this government, and of the foundation on which it stands. i hold it to be a popular government, erected by the people; those who administer it responsible to the people; and itself capable of being amended and modified, just as the people may choose it should be. it is as popular, just as truly emanating from the people, as the state governments. it is created for one purpose; the state governments for another. it has its own powers; they have theirs. there is no more authority with them to arrest the operation of a law of congress, than with congress to arrest the operation of their laws. we are here to administer a constitution emanating immediately from the people, and trusted by them to our administration. it is not the creature of the state governments. it is of no moment to the argument, that certain acts of the state legislatures are necessary to fill our seats in this body. that is not one of their original state powers, a part of the sovereignty of the state. it is a duty which the people, by the constitution itself, have imposed on the state legislatures; and which they might have left to be performed elsewhere, if they had seen fit. so they have left the choice of president with electors; but all this does not affect the proposition that this whole government, president, senate, and house of representatives, is a popular government. it leaves it still all its popular character. the governor of a state (in some of the states) is chosen, not directly by the people, but by those who are chosen by the people, for the purpose of performing, among other duties, that of electing a governor. is the government of the state, on that account, not a popular government? this government, sir, is the independent offspring of the popular will. it is not the creature of state legislatures; nay, more, if the whole truth must be told, the people brought it into existence, established it, and have hitherto supported it, for the very purpose, amongst others, of imposing certain salutary restraints on state sovereignties. the states cannot now make war; they cannot contract alliances; they cannot make, each for itself, separate regulations of commerce; they cannot lay imposts; they cannot coin money. if this constitution, sir, be the creature of state legislatures, it must be admitted that it has obtained a strange control over the volitions of its creators. [sidenote: the people erected the government.] [sidenote: a constitution with enumerated powers.] [sidenote: the main design of the constitution to free the government from state agency.] [sidenote: the failure of the confederation the cause of the constitution.] the people, then, sir, erected this government. they gave it a constitution, and in that constitution they have enumerated the powers which they bestow on it. they have made it a limited government. they have defined its authority. they have restrained it to the exercise of such powers as are granted; and all others, they declare, are reserved to the states or the people. but, sir, they have not stopped here. if they had, they would have accomplished but half their work. no definition can be so clear as to avoid possibility of doubt; no limitation so precise as to exclude all uncertainty. who, then, shall construe this grant of the people? who shall interpret their will, where it may be supposed they have left it doubtful? with whom do they repose this ultimate right of deciding on the powers of the government? sir, they have settled all this in the fullest manner. they have left it with the government itself, in its appropriate branches. sir, the very chief end, the main design, for which the whole constitution was framed and adopted, was to establish a government that should not be obliged to act through state agency, or depend on state opinion and state discretion. the people had had quite enough of that kind of government under the confederation. under that system, the legal action, the application of law to individuals, belonged exclusively to the states. congress could only recommend; their acts were not of binding force till the states had adopted and sanctioned them. are we in that condition still? are we yet at the mercy of state discretion and state construction? sir, if we are, then vain will be our attempt to maintain the constitution under which we sit. but, sir, the people have wisely provided, in the constitution itself, a proper, suitable mode and tribunal for settling questions of constitutional law. there are in the constitution grants of powers to congress, and restrictions on these powers. there are, also, prohibitions on the states. some authority must, therefore, necessarily exist, having the ultimate jurisdiction to fix and ascertain the interpretation of these grants, restrictions, and prohibitions. the constitution has itself pointed out, ordained, and established that authority. how has it accomplished this great and essential end? by declaring, sir, that "_the constitution, and the laws of the united states, made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding_." [sidenote: the supremacy of the constitution.] [sidenote: the final decision of the supreme court.] this, sir, was the first great step. by this the supremacy of the constitution and laws of the united states is declared. the people so will it. no state law is to be valid which comes in conflict with the constitution, or any law of the united states passed in pursuance of it. but who shall decide this question of interference? to whom lies the last appeal? this, sir, the constitution itself decides also, by declaring, "_that the judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the united states_." these two provisions cover the whole ground. they are, in truth, the keystone of the arch! with these it is a government; without them it is a confederation. in pursuance of these clear and express provisions, congress established, at its very first session, in the judicial act, a mode for carrying them into full effect, and for bringing all questions of constitutional power to the final decision of the supreme court. it then, sir, became a government. it then had the means of self-protection; and but for this, it would, in all probability, have been now among things which are past. having constituted the government, and declared its powers, the people have further said, that, since somebody must decide on the extent of these powers, the government shall itself decide; subject, always, like other popular governments, to its responsibility to the people. and now, sir, i repeat, how it is that a state legislature acquires any power to interfere? who, or what, gives them the right to say to the people, "we, who are your agents and servants for one purpose, will undertake to decide that your other agents and servants, appointed by you for another purpose, have transcended the authority you gave them!" the reply would be, i think, not impertinent, "who made you a judge over another's servants? to their own masters they stand or fall." [sidenote: revolution a law to itself.] [sidenote: the people have reposed power in the general government.] sir, i deny this power of state legislatures altogether. it cannot stand the test of examination. gentlemen may say that in an extreme case a state government might protect the people from intolerable oppression. sir, in such a case the people might protect themselves without the aid of the state governments. such a case warrants revolution. it must make, when it comes, a law for itself. a nullifying act of a state legislature cannot alter the case, nor make resistance any more lawful. in maintaining these sentiments, sir, i am but asserting the rights of the people. i state what they have declared, and insist on their right to declare it. they have chosen to repose this power in the general government, and i think it my duty to support it, like other constitutional powers. for myself, sir, i do not admit the competency of south carolina, or any other state, to prescribe my constitutional duty; or to settle, between me and the people, the validity of laws of congress for which i have voted. i decline her umpirage. i have not sworn to support the constitution according to her construction of its clauses. i have not stipulated, by my oath of office or otherwise, to come under any responsibility, except to the people, and those whom they have appointed to pass upon the question, whether laws, supported by my votes, conform to the constitution of the country. and, sir, if we look to the general nature of the case, could anything have been more preposterous than to make a government for the whole union, and yet leave its powers subject, not to one interpretation, but to thirteen or twenty-four interpretations? instead of one tribunal, established by all, responsible to all, with power to decide for all, shall constitutional questions be left to four-and-twenty popular bodies, each at liberty to decide for itself, and none bound to respect the decisions of others,--and each at liberty, too, to give a new construction on every new election of its own members? would anything, with such a principle in it, or rather with such a destitution of all principle, be fit to be called a government? no, sir. it should not be denominated a constitution. it should be called, rather, a collection of topics for everlasting controversy; heads of debate for a disputatious people. it would not be a government. it would not be adequate to any practical good, or fit for any country to live under. to avoid all possibility of being misunderstood, allow me to repeat again, in the fullest manner, that i claim no powers for the government by forced or unfair construction. i admit that it is a government of strictly limited powers; of enumerated, specified, and particularized powers; and that whatsoever is not granted, is withheld. but notwithstanding all this, and however the grant of powers may be expressed, its limit and extent may yet, in some cases, admit of doubt; and the general government would be good for nothing, it would be incapable of long existing, if some mode had not been provided in which those doubts, as they should arise, might be peaceably, but authoritatively, solved. and now, mr. president, let me run the honorable gentleman's doctrine a little into its practical application. let us look at his probable _modus operandi_. if a thing can be done, an ingenious man can tell how it is to be done, and i wish to be informed how this state interference is to be put in practice, without violence, bloodshed, and rebellion. we will take the existing case of the tariff law. south carolina is said to have made up her opinion upon it. if we do not repeal it, (as we probably shall not,) she will then apply to the case the remedy of her doctrine. she will, we must suppose, pass a law of her legislature, declaring the several acts of congress usually called the tariff laws null and void, so far as they respect south carolina, or the citizens thereof. so far, all is a paper transaction, and easy enough. but the collector at charleston is collecting the duties imposed by these tariff laws. he, therefore, must be stopped. the collector will seize the goods if the tariff duties are not paid. the state authorities will undertake their rescue, the marshal, with his posse, will come to the collector's aid, and here the contest begins. the militia of the state will be called out to sustain the nullifying act. they will march, sir, under a very gallant leader; for i believe the honorable member himself commands the militia of that part of the state. he will raise the nullifying act on his standard, and spread it out as his banner! it will have a preamble, setting forth that the tariff laws are palpable, deliberate, and dangerous violations of the constitution! he will proceed, with this banner flying, to the custom-house in charleston, "all the while sonorous metal blowing martial sounds." arrived at the custom-house, he will tell the collector that he must collect no more duties under any of the tariff laws. this he will be somewhat puzzled to say, by the way, with a grave countenance, considering what hand south carolina herself had in that of . but, sir, the collector would not probably desist, at his bidding. he would show him the law of congress, the treasury instruction, and his own oath of office. he would say, he should perform his duty, come what come might. here would ensue a pause; for they say that a certain stillness precedes the tempest. the trumpeter would hold his breath awhile, and before all this military array should fall on the custom-house, collector, clerks, and all, it is very probable some of those composing it would request of their gallant commander-in-chief to be informed a little upon the point of law; for they have, doubtless, a just respect for his opinions as a lawyer, as well as for his bravery as a soldier. they know he has read blackstone[ ] and the constitution, as well as turenne[ ] and vauban.[ ] they would ask him, therefore, something concerning their rights in this matter. they would inquire whether it was not somewhat dangerous to resist a law of the united states. what would be the nature of their offence, they would wish to learn, if they, by military force and array, resisted the execution in carolina of a law of the united states, and it should turn out, after all, that the law _was constitutional?_ he would answer, of course, treason. no lawyer could give any other answer. john fries,[ ] he would tell them, had learned that, some years ago. how, then, they would ask, do you propose to defend us? we are not afraid of bullets, but treason has a way of taking people off that we do not much relish. how do you propose to defend us? "look at my floating banner," he would reply; "see there the _nullifying law_!" is it your opinion, gallant commander, they would then say, that, if we should be indicted for treason, that same floating banner of yours would make a good plea in bar? "south carolina is a sovereign state," he would reply. that is true; but would the judge admit our plea? "these tariff laws," he would repeat, "are unconstitutional, palpably, deliberately, dangerously." that may all be so; but if the tribunal should not happen to be of that opinion, shall we swing for it? we are ready to die for our country, but it is rather an awkward business, this dying without touching the ground! after all, that is a sort of hemp tax worse than any part of the tariff. mr. president, the honorable gentleman would be in a dilemma, like that of another great general. he would have a knot before him which he could not untie. he must cut it with his sword. he must say to his followers, "defend yourselves with your bayonets;" and this is war,--civil war. [sidenote: nullification leads to disunion.] direct collision, therefore, between force and force, is the unavoidable result of that remedy for the revision of unconstitutional laws which the gentleman contends for. it must happen in the very first case to which it is applied. is not this the plain result? to resist by force the execution of a law, generally, is treason. can the courts of the united states take notice of the indulgence of a state to commit treason? the common saying that a state cannot commit treason herself, is nothing to the purpose. can she authorize others to do it? if john fries had produced an act of pennsylvania, annulling the law of congress, would it have helped his case? talk about it as we will, these doctrines go the length of revolution. they are incompatible with any peaceable administration of the government. they lead directly to disunion and civil commotion; and therefore it is, that at their commencement, when they are first found to be maintained by respectable men, and in a tangible form, i enter my public protest against them all. the honorable gentleman argues, that, if this government be the sole judge of the extent of its own powers, whether that right of judging be in congress or the supreme court, it equally subverts state sovereignty. this the gentleman sees, or thinks he sees, although he cannot perceive how the right of judging in this matter, if left to the exercise of state legislatures, has any tendency to subvert the government of the union. the gentleman's opinion may be that the right _ought not_ to have been lodged with the general government; he may like better such a constitution as we should have under the right of state interference; but i ask him to meet me on the plain matter of fact. i ask him to meet me on the constitution itself. i ask him if the power is not found there, clearly and visibly found there? [sidenote: the constitution alterable by the people, not by the states.] but, sir, what is this danger, and what are the grounds of it? let it be remembered that the constitution of the united states is not unalterable. it is to continue in its present form no longer than the people who established it shall choose to continue it. if they shall become convinced that they have made an injudicious or inexpedient partition and distribution of power between the state governments and the general government, they can alter that distribution at will. but, sir, although there are fears, there are hopes also. the people have preserved this, their own chosen constitution, for forty years, and have seen their happiness, prosperity, and renown grow with its growth, and strengthen with its strength. they are now, generally, strongly attached to it. overthrown by direct assault it cannot be; evaded, undermined, _nullified_, it will not be, if we and those who shall succeed us here, as agents and representatives of the people, shall conscientiously and vigilantly discharge the two great branches of our public trust, faithfully to preserve, and wisely to administer it. [sidenote: the preservation of the union.] mr. president, i have thus stated the reasons of my dissent to the doctrines which have been advanced and maintained. i am conscious of having detained you and the senate much too long. i was drawn into the debate with no previous deliberation, such as is suited to the discussion of so grave and important a subject. but it is a subject of which my heart is full, and i have not been willing to suppress the utterance of its spontaneous sentiments. i cannot, even now, persuade myself to relinquish it, without expressing once more my deep conviction, that, since it respects nothing less than the union of the states, it is of most vital and essential importance to the public happiness. i profess, sir, in my career hitherto, to have kept steadily in view the prosperity and honor of the whole country, and the preservation of our federal union. it is to that union we owe our safety at home, and our consideration and dignity abroad. it is to that union that we are chiefly indebted for whatever makes us most proud of our country. that union we reached only by the discipline of our virtues in the severe school of adversity. it had its origin in the necessities of disordered finance, prostrate commerce, and ruined credit. under its benign influences, these great interests immediately awoke, as from the dead, and sprang forth with newness of life. every year of its duration has teemed with fresh proofs of its utility and its blessings; and although our territory has stretched out wider and wider, and our population spread farther and farther, they have not outrun its protection or its benefits. it has been to us all a copious fountain of national, social, and personal happiness. [sidenote: webster's final prayer.] i have not allowed myself, sir, to look beyond the union, to see what might lie hidden in the dark recess behind. i have not coolly weighed the chances of preserving liberty when the bonds that unite us together shall be broken asunder. i have not accustomed myself to hang over the precipice of disunion, to see whether, with my short sight, i can fathom the depth of the abyss below; nor could i regard him as a safe counsellor in the affairs of this government, whose thoughts should be mainly bent on considering, not how the union may be best preserved, but how tolerable might be the condition of the people when it should be broken up and destroyed. while the union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us, for us and our children. beyond that i seek not to penetrate the veil. god grant that, in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise! god grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind! when my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may i not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious union; on states dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! let their last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the republic, now known and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in their original lustre, not a stripe erased or polluted, nor a single star obscured, bearing for its motto no such miserable interrogatory as "what is all this worth?" nor those other words of delusion and folly, "liberty first and union afterwards"; but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true american heart,--liberty _and_ union, now and forever, one and inseparable![ ] executive patronage and removal from office from a speech delivered at the national republican convention held at worcester, massachusetts, october , the same party selfishness which drives good men out of office will push bad men in. political proscription leads necessarily to the filling of offices with incompetent persons, and to a consequent mal-execution of official duties. and in my opinion, sir, this principle of claiming a monopoly of office by the right of conquest, unless the public shall effectually rebuke and restrain it, will entirely change the character of our government. it elevates party above country; it forgets the common weal in the pursuit of personal emolument; it tends to form, it does form, we see that it has formed, a political combination, united by no common principles or opinions among its members, either upon the powers of the government, or the true policy of the country; but held together simply as an association, under the charm of a popular head; seeking to maintain possession of the government by a vigorous exercise of its patronage; and for this purpose agitating, and alarming, and distressing social life by the exercise of a tyrannical party proscription. sir, if this course of things cannot be checked, good men will grow tired of the exercise of political privileges. they will have nothing to do with popular elections. they will see that such elections are but a mere selfish contest for office; and they will abandon the government to the scramble of the bold, the daring, and the desperate. the character of washington a speech delivered at a public dinner in the city of washington, feb. , , the centennial anniversary of washington's birth [sidenote: the power of the name of washington.] we are met to testify our regard for him whose name is intimately blended with whatever belongs most essentially to the prosperity, the liberty, the free institutions, and the renown of our country. that name was of power to rally a nation, in the hour of thick-thronging public disasters and calamities; that name shone, amid the storm of war, a beacon light, to cheer and guide the country's friends; it flamed, too, like a meteor, to repel her foes. that name, in the days of peace, was a loadstone, attracting to itself a whole people's confidence, a whole people's love, and the whole world's respect. that name, descending with all time, spreading over the whole earth, and uttered in all the languages belonging to the tribes and races of men, will forever be pronounced with affectionate gratitude by every one in whose breast there shall arise an aspiration for human rights and human liberty. [illustration: _george washington._] we perform this grateful duty, gentlemen, at the expiration of a hundred years from his birth, near the place, so cherished and beloved by him, where his dust now reposes, and in the capital which bears his own immortal name. all experience evinces that human sentiments are strongly influenced by associations. the recurrence of anniversaries, or of longer periods of time, naturally freshens the recollection, and deepens the impression, of events with which they are historically connected. renowned places, also, have a power to awaken feeling, which all acknowledge. no american can pass by the fields of bunker hill, monmouth, and camden, as if they were ordinary spots on the earth's surface. whoever visits them feels the sentiment of love of country kindling anew, as if the spirit that belonged to the transactions which have rendered these places distinguished still hovered round, with power to move and excite all who in future time may approach them. [sidenote: washington's great moral example to the youth of america.] but neither of these sources of emotion equals the power with which great moral examples affect the mind. when sublime virtues cease to be abstractions, when they become embodied in human character, and exemplified in human conduct, we should be false to our own nature if we did not indulge in the spontaneous effusions of our gratitude and our admiration. a true lover of the virtue of patriotism delights to contemplate its purest models; and that love of country may be well suspected which affects to soar so high into the regions of sentiment as to be lost and absorbed in the abstract feeling, and becomes too elevated or too refined to glow with fervor in the commendation or the love of individual benefactors. all this is unnatural. it is as if one should be so enthusiastic a lover of poetry as to care nothing for homer or milton; so passionately attached to eloquence as to be indifferent to tully[ ] and chatham; or such a devotee to the arts, in such an ecstasy with the elements of beauty, proportion, and expression, as to regard the masterpieces of raphael and michael angelo with coldness or contempt. we may be assured, gentlemen, that he who really loves the thing itself; loves its finest exhibitions. a true friend of his country loves her friends and benefactors, and thinks it no degradation to commend and commemorate them. the voluntary outpouring of the public feeling, made to-day, from the north to the south, and from the east to the west, proves this sentiment to be both just and natural. in the cities and in the villages, in the public temples and in the family circles, among all ages and sexes, gladdened voices to-day bespeak grateful hearts and a freshened recollection of the virtues of the father of his country. and it will be so, in all time to come, so long as public virtue is itself an object of regard. the ingenuous youth of america will hold up to themselves the bright model of washington's example, and study to be what they behold; they will contemplate his character till all its virtues spread out and display themselves to their delighted vision; as the earliest astronomers, the shepherds on the plains of babylon, gazed at the stars till they saw them form into clusters and constellations, overpowering at length the eyes of the beholders with the united blaze of a thousand lights. [sidenote: a wonderful age and country.] gentlemen, we are at a point of a century from the birth of washington; and what a century it has been! during its course, the human mind has seemed to proceed with a sort of geometric velocity, accomplishing for human intelligence and human freedom more than had been done in fives or tens of centuries preceding. washington stands at the commencement of a new era, as well as at the head of the new world. a century from the birth of washington has changed the world. the country of washington has been the theatre on which a great part of that change has been wrought, and washington himself a principal agent by which it has been accomplished. his age and his country are equally full of wonders; and of both he is the chief. if the poetical prediction, uttered a few years before his birth, be true; if indeed it be designed by providence that the grandest exhibition of human character and human affairs shall be made on this theatre of the western world; if it be true that, "the four first acts already past, a fifth shall close the drama with the day; time's noblest offspring is the last";[ ] how could this imposing, swelling, final scene be appropriately opened, how could its intense interest be adequately sustained, but by the introduction of just such a character as our washington? [illustration: the resignation of washington] [sidenote: the spirit of human freedom.] washington had attained his manhood when that spark of liberty was struck out in his own country which has since kindled into a flame and shot its beams over the earth. in the flow of a century from his birth, the world has changed in science, in arts, in the extent of commerce, in the improvement of navigation, and in all that relates to the civilization of man. but it is the spirit of human freedom, the new elevation of individual man, in his moral, social, and political character, leading the whole long train of other improvements, which has most remarkably distinguished the era. society, in this century, has not made its progress, like chinese skill, by a greater acuteness of ingenuity in trifles; it has not merely lashed itself to an increased speed round the old circles of thought and action; but it has assumed a new character; it has raised itself from _beneath_ governments to a participation _in_ governments; it has mixed moral and political objects with the daily pursuits of individual men; and, with a freedom and strength before altogether unknown, it has applied to these objects the whole power of the human understanding. it has been the era, in short, when the social principle has triumphed over the feudal principle; when society has maintained its rights against military power, and established, on foundations never hereafter to be shaken, its competency to govern itself. [sidenote: a new governmental experiment.] it was the extraordinary fortune of washington, that, having been intrusted, in revolutionary times, with the supreme military command, and having fulfilled that trust with equal renown for wisdom and for valor, he should be placed at the head of the first government in which an attempt was to be made on a large scale to rear the fabric of social order on the basis of a written constitution and of a pure representative principle. a government was to be established, without a throne, without an aristocracy, without castes, orders, or privileges; and this government, instead of being a democracy existing and acting within the walls of a single city, was to be extended over a vast country of different climates, interests, and habits, and of various communions of our common christian faith. the experiment certainly was entirely new. a popular government of this extent, it was evident, could be framed only by carrying into full effect the principle of representation or of delegated power; and the world was to see whether society could, by the strength of this principle, maintain its own peace and good government, carry forward its own great interests, and conduct itself to political renown and glory. by the benignity of providence, this experiment, so full of interest to us and to our posterity forever, so full of interest, indeed, to the world in its present generation and in all its generations to come, was suffered to commence under the guidance of washington. destined for this high career, he was fitted for it by wisdom, by virtue, by patriotism, by discretion, by whatever can inspire confidence in man toward man. in entering on the untried scenes, early disappointment and the premature extinction of all hope of success would have been certain, had it not been that there did exist throughout the country, in a most extraordinary degree, an unwavering trust in him who stood at the helm. [sidenote: the world interested in the experiment.] i remarked, gentlemen, that the whole world was and is interested in the result of this experiment. and is it not so? do we deceive ourselves, or is it true that at this moment the career which this government is running is among the most attractive objects to the civilized world? do we deceive ourselves, or is it true that at this moment that love of liberty and that understanding of its true principles which are flying over the whole earth, as on the wings of all the winds, are really and truly of american origin? [sidenote: importance of the english revolution of .] at the period of the birth of washington there existed in europe no political liberty in large communities, except in the provinces of holland, and except that england herself had set a great example, so far as it went, by her glorious revolution of . everywhere else, despotic power was predominant, and the feudal or military principle held the mass of mankind in hopeless bondage. one-half of europe was crushed beneath the bourbon sceptre, and no conception of political liberty, no hope even of religious toleration, existed among that nation which was america's first ally. the king was the state, the king was the country, the king was all. there was one king, with power not derived from his people, and too high to be questioned; and the rest were all subjects, with no political right but obedience. all above was intangible power, all below quiet subjection. a recent occurrence in the french chamber shows us how public opinion on these subjects is changed. a minister had spoken of the "king's subjects." "there are no subjects," exclaimed hundreds of voices at once, "in a country where the people make the king!" gentlemen, the spirit of human liberty and of free government, nurtured and grown into strength and beauty in america, has stretched its course into the midst of the nations. like an emanation from heaven, it has gone forth, and it will not return void. it must change, it is fast changing, the face of the earth. our great, our high duty is to show, in our own example, that this spirit is a spirit of health as well as a spirit of power; that its benignity is as great as its strength; that its efficiency to secure individual rights, social relations, and moral order, is equal to the irresistible force with which it prostrates principalities and powers. the world, at this moment, is regarding us with a willing, but something of a fearful admiration. its deep and awful anxiety is to learn whether free states may be stable, as well as free; whether popular power may be trusted, as well as feared; in short, whether wise, regular, and virtuous self-government is a vision for the contemplation of theorists, or a truth established, illustrated, and brought into practice in the country of washington. [sidenote: the united states a western sun.] gentlemen, for the earth which we inhabit, and the whole circle of the sun, for all the unborn races of mankind, we seem to hold in our hands, for their weal or woe, the fate of this experiment. if we fail, who shall venture the repetition? if our example shall prove to be one not of encouragement, but of terror, not fit to be imitated, but fit only to be shunned, where else shall the world look for free models? if this great _western sun_ be struck out of the firmament, at what other fountain shall the lamp of liberty hereafter be lighted? what other orb shall emit a ray to glimmer, even, on the darkness of the world? there is no danger of our overrating or overstating the important part which we are now acting in human affairs. it should not flatter our personal self-respect, but it should reanimate our patriotic virtues, and inspire us with a deeper and more solemn sense both of our privileges and of our duties. we cannot wish better for our country, nor for the world, than that the same spirit which influenced washington may influence all who succeed him; and that the same blessing from above, which attended his efforts, may also attend theirs. [sidenote: washington's farewell address.] the principles of washington's administration are not left doubtful. they are to be found in the constitution itself, in the great measures recommended and approved by him, in his speeches to congress, and in that most interesting paper, his farewell address to the people of the united states. the success of the government under his administration is the highest proof of the soundness of these principles. and, after an experience of thirty-five years, what is there which an enemy could condemn? what is there which either his friends, or the friends of the country, could wish to have been otherwise? i speak, of course, of great measures and leading principles. in the first place, all his measures were right in their intent. he stated the whole basis of his own great character, when he told the country, in the homely phrase of the proverb, that honesty is the best policy. one of the most striking things ever said of him is, that "_he changed mankind's ideas of political greatness_."[ ] to commanding talents, and to success, the common elements of such greatness, he added a disregard of self, a spotlessness of motive, a steady submission to every public and private duty, which threw far into the shade the whole crowd of vulgar great. the object of his regard was the whole country. no part of it was enough to fill his enlarged patriotism. his love of glory, so far as that may be supposed to have influenced him at all, spurned everything short of general approbation. it would have been nothing to him that his partisans or his favorites outnumbered, or outvoted, or outmanaged, or outclamored, those of other leaders. he had no favorites; he rejected all partisanship; and, acting honestly for the universal good, he deserved, what he has so richly enjoyed, the universal love. his principle it was to act right, and to trust the people for support; his principle it was not to follow the lead of sinister and selfish ends, nor to rely on the little arts of party delusion to obtain public sanction for such a course. born for his country and for the world, he did not give up to party what was meant for mankind. the consequence is, that his fame is as durable as his principles, as lasting as truth and virtue themselves. while the hundreds whom party excitement, and temporary circumstances, and casual combinations, have raised into transient notoriety, sink again, like thin bubbles, bursting and dissolving into the great ocean, washington's fame is like the rock which bounds that ocean, and at whose feet its billows are destined to break harmlessly forever. [sidenote: his conduct of america's foreign relations.] the maxims upon which washington conducted our foreign relations were few and simple. the first was an entire and indisputable impartiality towards foreign states.[ ] he adhered to this rule of public conduct, against very strong inducements to depart from it, and when the popularity of the moment seemed to favor such a departure. in the next place, he maintained true dignity and unsullied honor in all communications with foreign states. it was among the high duties devolved upon him to introduce our new government into the circle of civilized states and powerful nations. not arrogant or assuming, with no unbecoming or supercilious bearing, he yet exacted for it from all others entire and punctilious respect. he demanded, and he obtained at once, a standing of perfect equality for his country in the society of nations; nor was there a prince or potentate of his day, whose personal character carried with it, into the intercourse of other states, a greater degree of respect and veneration. he regarded other nations only as they stood in political relations to us. with their internal affairs, their political parties and dissensions, he scrupulously abstained from all interference; and, on the other hand, he repelled with spirit all such interference by others with us or our concerns. his sternest rebuke, the most indignant measure of his whole administration, was aimed against such an attempted interference. he felt it as an attempt to wound the national honor, and resented it accordingly. [sidenote: foreign influence a foe of republican government.] the reiterated admonitions in his farewell address show his deep fears that foreign influence would insinuate itself into our counsels through the channels of domestic dissension, and obtain a sympathy with our own temporary parties. against all such dangers he most earnestly entreats the country to guard itself. he appeals to its patriotism, to its self-respect, to its own honor, to every consideration connected with its welfare and happiness, to resist, at the very beginning, all tendencies towards such connection of foreign interests with our own affairs. with a tone of earnestness nowhere else found, even in his last affectionate farewell advice to his countrymen, he says, "against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (i conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be _constantly_ awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government." [sidenote: the advantages of american isolation.] lastly, on the subject of foreign relations, washington never forgot that we had interests peculiar to ourselves. the primary political concerns of europe, he saw, did not affect us. we had nothing to do with her balance of power, her family compacts, or her successions to thrones. we were placed in a condition favorable to neutrality during european wars, and to the enjoyment of all the great advantages of that relation. "why, then," he asks us, "why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of european ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?" indeed, gentlemen, washington's farewell address is full of truths important at all times, and particularly deserving consideration at the present. with a sagacity which brought the future before him, and made it like the present, he saw and pointed out the dangers that even at this moment most imminently threaten us. i hardly know how a greater service of that kind could now be done to the community, than by a renewed and wide diffusion of that admirable paper, and an earnest invitation to every man in the country to reperuse and consider it. its political maxims are invaluable; its exhortations to love of country and to brotherly affection among citizens, touching; and the solemnity with which it urges the observance of moral duties, and impresses the power of religious obligation, gives to it the highest character of truly disinterested, sincere, parental advice. [sidenote: washington's domestic policy.] the domestic policy of washington found its pole-star in the avowed objects of the constitution itself. he sought so to administer that constitution as to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. these were objects interesting, in the highest degree, to the whole country, and his policy embraced the whole country. among his earliest and most important duties was the organization of the government itself, the choice of his confidential advisers, and the various appointments to office. this duty, so important and delicate, when a whole government was to be organized, and all its offices for the first time filled, was yet not difficult to him, for he had no sinister ends to accomplish, no clamorous partisans to gratify, no pledges to redeem, no object to be regarded but simply the public good. it was a plain, straightforward matter, a mere honest choice of good men for the public service. [sidenote: his first cabinet.] his own singleness of purpose, his disinterested patriotism, were evinced by the selection of his first cabinet, and by the manner in which he filled the seats of justice, and other places of high trust. he sought for men fit for offices; not for offices which might suit men. above personal considerations, above local considerations, above party considerations, he felt that he could only discharge the sacred trust which the country had placed in his hands, by a diligent inquiry after real merit, and a conscientious preference of virtue and talent. the whole country was the field of his selection. he explored that whole field, looking only for whatever it contained most worthy and distinguished. he was, indeed, most successful, and he deserved success for the purity of his motives, the liberality of his sentiments, and his enlarged and manly policy. [sidenote: important measures of his administration.] washington's administration established the national credit, made provision for the public debt, and for that patriotic army whose interests and welfare were always so dear to him; and, by laws wisely framed, and of admirable effect, raised the commerce and navigation of the country, almost at once, from depression and ruin to a state of prosperity. nor were his eyes open to these interests alone. he viewed with equal concern its agriculture and manufactures, and, so far as they came within the regular exercise of the powers of this government, they experienced regard and favor. it should not be omitted, even in this slight reference to the general measures and general principles of the first president, that he saw and felt the full value and importance of the judicial department of the government. an upright and able administration of the laws he held to be alike indispensable to private happiness and public liberty. the temple of justice, in his opinion, was a sacred place, and he would profane and pollute it who should call any to minister in it, not spotless in character, not incorruptible in integrity, not competent by talent and learning, not a fit object of unhesitating trust. [sidenote: his opinion of the dangers of party spirit.] among other admonitions, washington has left us, in his last communication to his country, an exhortation against the excesses of party spirit. a fire not to be quenched, he yet conjures us not to fan and feed the flame. undoubtedly, gentlemen, it is the greatest danger of our system and of our time. undoubtedly, if that system should be overthrown, it will be the work of excessive party spirit, acting on the government, which is dangerous enough, or acting in the government, which is a thousand times more dangerous; for government then becomes nothing but organized party, and, in the strange vicissitudes of human affairs, it may come at last, perhaps, to exhibit the singular paradox of government itself being in opposition to its own powers, at war with the very elements of its own existence. such cases are hopeless. as men may be protected against murder, but cannot be guarded against suicide, so government may be shielded from the assaults of external foes, but nothing can save it when it chooses to lay violent hands on itself. [sidenote: his love of the union.] finally, gentlemen, there was in the breast of washington one sentiment so deeply felt, so constantly uppermost, that no proper occasion escaped without its utterance. from the letter which he signed in behalf of the convention when the constitution was sent out to the people, to the moment when he put his hand to that last paper in which he addressed his countrymen, the union,--the union was the great object of his thoughts. in that first letter he tells them that to him and his brethren of the convention, union appears to be the greatest interest of every true american; and in that last paper he conjures them to regard that unity of government which constitutes them one people as the very palladium of their prosperity and safety, and the security of liberty itself. he regarded the union of these states less as one of our blessings, than as the great treasure-house which contained them all. here, in his judgment, was the great magazine of all our means of prosperity; here, as he thought, and as every true american still thinks, are deposited all our animating prospects, all our solid hopes for future greatness. he has taught us to maintain this union, not by seeking to enlarge the powers of the government, on the one hand, nor by surrendering them, on the other; but by an administration of them at once firm and moderate, pursuing objects truly national, and carried on in a spirit of justice and equity. [sidenote: the american nation unique.] the extreme solicitude for the preservation of the union, at all times manifested by him, shows not only the opinion he entertained of its importance, but his clear perception of those causes which were likely to spring up to endanger it, and which, if once they should overthrow the present system, would leave little hope of any future beneficial reunion. of all the presumptions indulged by presumptuous man, that is one of the rashest which looks for repeated and favorable opportunities for the deliberate establishment of a united government over distinct and widely extended communities. such a thing has happened once in human affairs, and but once; the event stands out as a prominent exception to all ordinary history; and unless we suppose ourselves running into an age of miracles, we may not expect its repetition. washington, therefore, could regard, and did regard, nothing as of paramount political interest but the integrity of the union itself. with a united government, well administered, he saw that we had nothing to fear; and without it, nothing to hope. the sentiment is just, and its momentous truth should solemnly impress the whole country. if we might regard our country as personated in the spirit of washington, if we might consider him as representing her, in her past renown, her present prosperity, and her future career, and as in that character demanding of us all to account for our conduct, as political men or as private citizens, how should he answer him who has ventured to talk of disunion and dismemberment? or how should he answer him who dwells perpetually on local interests, and fans every kindling flame of local prejudice? how should he answer him who would array state against state, interest against interest, and party against party, careless of the continuance of that unity of government which constitutes us one people? the political prosperity which this country has attained, and which it now enjoys, has been acquired mainly through the instrumentality of the present government. while this agent continues, the capacity of attaining to still higher degrees of prosperity exists also. we have, while this lasts, a political life capable of beneficial exertion, with power to resist or overcome misfortunes, to sustain us against the ordinary accidents of human affairs, and to promote, by active efforts, every public interest. but dismemberment strikes at the very being which preserves these faculties. it would lay its rude and ruthless hand on this great agent itself. it would sweep away, not only what we possess, but all power of regaining lost, or acquiring new possessions. it would leave the country not only bereft of its prosperity and happiness, but without limbs, or organs, or faculties, by which to exert itself hereafter in the pursuit of that prosperity and happiness. [sidenote: dismemberment of the united states the greatest of evils.] other misfortunes may be borne, or their effects overcome. if disastrous war should sweep our commerce from the ocean, another generation may renew it; if it exhaust our treasury, future industry may replenish it; if it desolate and lay waste our fields, still, under a new cultivation, they will grow green again, and ripen to future harvests. it were but a trifle even if the walls of yonder capitol were to crumble, if its lofty pillars should fall, and its gorgeous decorations be all covered by the dust of the valley. all these might be rebuilt. but who shall reconstruct the fabric of demolished government? who shall rear again the well-proportioned columns of constitutional liberty? who shall frame together the skilful architecture which unites national sovereignty with state rights, individual security, and public prosperity? no, if these columns fall, they will be raised not again. like the coliseum and the parthenon, they will be destined to a mournful, a melancholy immortality. bitterer tears, however, will flow over them than were ever shed over the monuments of roman or grecian art; for they will be the remnants of a more glorious edifice than greece or rome ever saw, the edifice of constitutional american liberty. but let us hope for better things. let us trust in that gracious being who has hitherto held our country as in the hollow of his hand. let us trust to the virtue and the intelligence of the people, and to the efficacy of religious obligation. let us trust to the influence of washington's example. let us hope that that fear of heaven which expels all other fear, and that regard to duty which transcends all other regard, may influence public men and private citizens, and lead our country still onward in her happy career. full of these gratifying anticipations and hopes, let us look forward to the end of that century which is now commenced. a hundred years hence, other disciples of washington will celebrate his birth, with no less of sincere admiration than we now commemorate it. when they shall meet, as we now meet, to do themselves and him that honor, so surely as they shall see the blue summits of his native mountains rise in the horizon, so surely as they shall behold the river on whose banks he lived, and on whose banks he rests, still flowing on toward the sea, so surely may they see, as we now see, the flag of the union floating on the top of the capitol; and then, as now, may the sun in his course visit no land more free, more happy, more lovely, than this our own country! the constitution and the union from a speech delivered in the senate of the united states, march , [ ] [sidenote: for the preservation of the union.] mr. president,--i wish to speak to-day, not as a massachusetts man, nor as a northern man, but as an american, and a member of the senate of the united states. it is fortunate that there is a senate of the united states; a body not yet moved from its propriety, not lost to a just sense of its own dignity and its own high responsibilities, and a body to which the country looks, with confidence, for wise, moderate, patriotic, and healing counsels. it is not to be denied that we live in the midst of strong agitations, and are surrounded by very considerable dangers to our institutions and government. the imprisoned winds are let loose. the east, the north, and the stormy south combine to throw the whole sea into commotion, to toss its billows to the skies, and disclose its profoundest depths. i do not affect to regard myself, mr. president, as holding, or as fit to hold, the helm in this combat with the political elements; but i have a duty to perform, and i mean to perform it with fidelity, not without a sense of existing dangers, but not without hope. i have a part to act, not for my own security or safety, for i am looking out for no fragment upon which to float away from the wreck, if wreck there must be, but for the good of the whole, and the preservation of all; and there is that which will keep me to my duty during this struggle, whether the sun and the stars shall appear, or shall not appear, for many days. i speak to-day for the preservation of the union. "hear me for my cause." i speak to-day, out of a solicitous and anxious heart, for the restoration to the country of that quiet and that harmony which make the blessings of this union so rich, and so dear to us all. these are the topics that i propose to myself to discuss; these are the motives, and the sole motives, that influence me in the wish to communicate my opinions to the senate and the country; and if i can do anything, however little, for the promotion of these ends, i shall have accomplished all that i expect. [illustration: _henry clay._] [sidenote: peaceable secession impossible.] mr. president, i should much prefer to have heard from every member on this floor declarations of opinion that this union could never be dissolved, than the declaration of opinion by anybody that, in any case, under the pressure of any circumstances, such a dissolution was possible. i hear with distress and anguish the word "secession," especially when it falls from the lips of those who are patriotic, and known to the country, and known all over the world, for their political services. secession! peaceable secession! sir, your eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle. the dismemberment of this vast country without convulsion! the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep without ruffling the surface! who is so foolish--i beg everybody's pardon--as to expect to see any such thing? sir, he who sees these states now revolving in harmony around a common centre, and expects to see them quit their places and fly off without convulsion, may look the next hour to see the heavenly bodies rush from their spheres, and jostle against each other in the realms of space, without causing the wreck of the universe. there can be no such thing as a peaceable secession. peaceable secession is an utter impossibility. is the great constitution under which we live, covering this whole country,--is it to be thawed and melted away by secession, as the snows on the mountain melt under the influence of a vernal sun, disappear almost unobserved, and run off? no, sir! no, sir! i will not state what might produce the disruption of the union; but, sir, i see as plainly as i see the sun in heaven what that disruption itself must produce; i see that it must produce war, and such a war as i will not describe, in its twofold character. peaceable secession! peaceable secession! the concurrent agreement of all the members of this great republic to separate? a voluntary separation, with alimony on one side and on the other! why, what would be the result? where is the line to be drawn? what states are to secede? what is to remain american? what am i to be? an american no longer? am i to become a sectional man, a local man, a separatist, with no country in common with the gentlemen who sit around me here, or who fill the other house of congress? heaven forbid! where is the flag of the republic to remain? where is the eagle still to tower? or is he to cower, and shrink, and fall to the ground? why, sir, our ancestors, our fathers and our grandfathers, those of them that are yet living amongst us with prolonged lives, would rebuke and reproach us; and our children and our grandchildren would cry out shame upon us, if we of this generation should dishonor these ensigns of the power of the government and the harmony of that union which is every day felt among us with so much joy and gratitude. what is to become of the army? what is to become of the navy? what is to become of the public lands? how is each of the thirty states to defend itself? [sidenote: the idea of a southern confederacy.] i know, although the idea has not been stated distinctly, there is to be, or it is supposed possible that there will be, a southern confederacy. i do not mean, when i allude to this statement, that any one seriously contemplates such a state of things. i do not mean to say that it is true, but i have heard it suggested elsewhere that the idea has been entertained, that, after the dissolution of this union, a southern confederacy might be formed. i am sorry, sir, that it has ever been thought of, talked of, or dreamed of, in the wildest flights of human imagination. but the idea, so far as it exists, must be of a separation assigning the slave states to one side and the free states to the other. sir, i may express myself too strongly, perhaps, but there are impossibilities in the natural as well as in the physical world, and i hold the idea of a separation of these states, those that are free to form one government, and those that are slave-holding to form another, as such an impossibility. we could not separate the states by any such line, if we were to draw it. we could not sit down here to-day and draw a line of separation that would satisfy any five men in the country. there are natural causes that would keep and tie us together, and there are social and domestic relations which we could not break if we would, and which we should not if we could. [sidenote: liberty and union.] instead of speaking of the possibility or utility of secession, instead of dwelling in those caverns of darkness, instead of groping with those ideas so full of all that is horrid and horrible, let us come out into the light of day; let us enjoy the fresh air of liberty and union; let us cherish those hopes which belong to us; let us devote ourselves to those great objects that are fit for our consideration and our action; let us raise our conceptions to the magnitude and the importance of the duties that devolve upon us; let our comprehension be as broad as the country for which we act, our aspirations as high as its certain destiny; let us not be pygmies in a case that calls for men. never did there devolve on any generation of men higher trusts than now devolve upon us, for the preservation of this constitution and the harmony and peace of all who are destined to live under it. let us make our generation one of the strongest and brightest links in that golden chain which is destined, i fondly believe, to grapple the people of all the states to this constitution for ages to come. we have a great popular, constitutional government, guarded by law and by judicature, and defended by the affections of the whole people. no monarchical throne presses these states together, no iron chain of military power encircles them; they live and stand under a government popular in its form, representative in its character, founded upon principles of equality, and so constructed, we hope, as to last forever. in all its history it has been beneficent; it has trodden down no man's liberty; it has crushed no state. its daily respiration is liberty and patriotism; its yet youthful veins are full of enterprise, courage, and honorable love of glory and renown. large before, the country has now, by recent events, become vastly larger. this republic now extends, with a vast breadth, across the whole continent. the two great seas of the world wash the one and the other shore. we realize, on a mighty scale, the beautiful description of the ornamental border of the buckler of achilles:-- "now, the broad shield complete, the artist crowned with his last hand, and poured the ocean round; in living silver seemed the waves to roll, and beat the buckler's verge, and bound the whole."[ ] the addition to the capitol an address delivered at the laying of the corner stone of the addition to the capitol of the united states, at washington, july , fellow-citizens,--i greet you well; i give you joy on the return of this anniversary; and i felicitate you, also, on the more particular purpose of which this ever-memorable day has been chosen to witness the fulfilment. hail! all hail! i see before and around me a mass of faces glowing with cheerfulness and patriotic pride. i see thousands of eyes turned towards other eyes, all sparkling with gratification and delight. this is the new world! this is america! this is washington! and this the capitol of the united states! and where else, among the nations, can the seat of government be surrounded, on any day of any year, by those who have more reason to rejoice in the blessings which they possess? nowhere, fellow-citizens! assuredly, nowhere! let us, then, meet this rising sun with joy and thanksgiving! [illustration: _the capitol at washington._] this is that day of the year which announced to mankind the great fact of american independence. this fresh and brilliant morning blesses our vision with another beholding of the birthday of our nation; and we see that nation, of recent origin, now among the most considerable and powerful, and spreading over the continent from sea to sea. among the first colonists from europe to this part of america there were some, doubtless, who contemplated the distant consequences of their undertaking, and who saw a great futurity. but, in general, their hopes were limited to the enjoyment of a safe asylum from tyranny, religious and civil, and to respectable subsistence by industry and toil. a thick veil hid our times from their view. but the progress of america, however slow, could not but at length awaken genius, and attract the attention of mankind. [sidenote: bishop berkeley's prophecy.] in the early part of the second century of our history, bishop berkeley, who, it will be remembered, had resided for some time in newport, in rhode island, wrote his well-known "verses on the prospect of planting arts and learning in america." the last stanza of this little poem seems to have been produced by a high poetical inspiration:-- "westward the course of empire takes its way; the four first acts already past, a fifth shall close the drama with the day: time's noblest offspring is the last." this extraordinary prophecy may be considered only as the result of long foresight and uncommon sagacity; of a foresight and sagacity stimulated, nevertheless, by excited feeling and high enthusiasm. so clear a vision of what america would become was not founded on square miles, or on existing numbers, or on any common laws of statistics. it was an intuitive glance into futurity; it was a grand conception, strong, ardent, glowing, embracing all time since the creation of the world, and all regions of which that world is composed, and judging of the future by just analogy with the past. and the inimitable imagery and beauty with which the thought is expressed, joined to the conception itself, render it one of the most striking passages in our language. [sidenote: independence day.] on the day of the declaration of independence our illustrious fathers performed the first scene in the last great act of this drama; one in real importance infinitely exceeding that for which the great english poet invokes "--a muse of fire,... a kingdom for a stage, princes to act, and monarchs to behold the swelling scene!"[ ] the muse inspiring our fathers was the genius of liberty, all on fire with a sense of oppression, and a resolution to throw it off; the whole world was the stage, and higher characters than princes trod it; and, instead of monarchs, countries and nations and the age beheld the swelling scene. how well the characters were cast, and how well each acted his part, and what emotions the whole performance excited, let history, now and hereafter, tell. on the th of july, , the representatives of the united states of america, in congress assembled, declared that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states. this declaration, made by most patriotic and resolute men, trusting in the justice of their cause and the protection of heaven, and yet made not without deep solicitude and anxiety, has now stood for seventy-five years, and still stands. it was sealed in blood. it has met dangers, and overcome them; it has had enemies, and conquered them; it has had detractors, and abashed them all; it has had doubting friends, but it has cleared all doubts away; and now, to-day, raising its august form higher than the clouds, twenty millions of people contemplate it with hallowed love, and the world beholds it, and the consequences which have followed from it, with profound admiration. [sidenote: liberty the inheritance of every american.] this anniversary animates and gladdens and unites all american hearts. on other days of the year we may be party men, indulging in controversies more or less important to the public good; we may have likes and dislikes, and we may maintain our political differences, often with warm, and sometimes with angry, feelings. but to-day we are americans all; and all nothing but americans. as the great luminary over our heads, dissipating mists and fogs, now cheers the whole hemisphere, so do the associations connected with this day disperse all cloudy and sullen weather in the minds and hearts of true americans. every man's heart swells within him; every man's port and bearing become somewhat more proud and lofty, as he remembers that seventy-five years have rolled away, and that the great inheritance of liberty is still his: his, undiminished and unimpaired; his in all its original glory; his to enjoy, his to protect, and his to transmit to future generations. fellow-citizens, this inheritance which we enjoy to-day is not only an inheritance of liberty, but of our own peculiar american liberty. liberty has existed in other times, in other countries, and in other forms. there has been a grecian liberty, bold and powerful, full of spirit, eloquence, and fire; a liberty which produced multitudes of great men, and has transmitted one immortal name, the name of demosthenes, to posterity. but still it was a liberty of disconnected states, sometimes united, indeed, by temporary leagues and confederacies, but often involved in wars between themselves. the sword of sparta turned its sharpest edge against athens, enslaved her, and devastated greece; and, in her turn, sparta was compelled to bend before the power of thebes. and let it ever be remembered, especially let the truth sink deep into all american minds, that it was the _want of union_ among her several states which finally gave the mastery of all greece to philip of macedon. [sidenote: the corner-stone of the original capitol laid by washington.] fellow-citizens, fifty-eight years ago washington stood on this spot to execute a duty like that which has now been performed. he then laid the corner-stone of the original capitol. he was at the head of the government, at that time weak in resources, burdened with debt, just struggling into political existence and respectability, and agitated by the heaving waves which were overturning european thrones. but even then, in many important respects, the government was strong. it was strong in washington's own great character; it was strong in the wisdom and patriotism of other eminent public men, his political associates and fellow-laborers; and it was strong in the affections of the people. since that time astonishing changes have been wrought in the condition and prospects of the american people; and a degree of progress witnessed with which the world can furnish no parallel. as we review the course of that progress, wonder and amazement arrest our attention at every step. the present occasion, although allowing of no lengthened remarks, may yet, perhaps, admit of a short comparative statement of important subjects of national interest as they existed at that day, and as they now exist. i have adopted for this purpose the tabular form of statement, as being the most brief and significant.[ ] comparative table year . year . year . number of states representatives and senators in congress population of the united states , , , , , , [ ] population of boston , , , population of baltimore , , , population of philadelphia , , , , population of new york (city) , , , , population of washington ... , , population of richmond , , , population of charleston , , , amount of receipts into the treasury $ , , $ , , $ , , amount of expenditures $ , , $ , , $ , , amount of imports $ , , $ , , $ , , amount of exports $ , , $ , , $ , , , amount of tonnage (tons) , , , , , area of the united states in square miles , , , , , [ ] rank and file of the army , , , militia (enrolled) ... , , , , [ ] navy of the united states (vessels) (none.) navy armament (ordnance) ... , ... treaties and conventions with foreign powers ... light-houses and light-boats [ ] expenditures for ditto $ , $ , ... area of the capitol / acre. - / acres. - / acres.[ ] number of miles of railroad in operation ... , , [ ] cost of ditto ... $ , , $ , , , [ ] number of miles in course of construction ... , , lines of electric telegraph, in miles ... , , [ ] number of post-offices , , number of miles of post-route , , , amount of revenue from post-offices $ , $ , , $ , , amount of expenditures of post-office department $ , $ , , $ , , number of miles of mail transportation ... , , ... number of colleges public libraries , [ ] volumes in ditto , , , , , school libraries ... , ... volumes in ditto ... , , ... emigrants from europe to the united states , , , [ ] coinage at the mint $ , $ , , $ , , [sidenote: the city of washington.] who does not feel that, when president washington laid his hand on the foundation of the first capitol, he performed a great work of perpetuation of the union and the constitution? who does not feel that this seat of the general government, healthful in its situation, central in its position, near the mountains whence gush springs of wonderful virtue, teeming with nature's richest products, and yet not far from the bays and the great estuaries of the sea, easily accessible and generally agreeable in climate and association, does give strength to the union of these states? that this city, bearing an immortal name, with its broad streets and avenues, its public squares and magnificent edifices of the general government, erected for the purpose of carrying on within them the important business of the several departments, for the reception of wonderful and curious inventions, for the preservation of the records of american learning and genius, of extensive collections of the products of nature and art, brought hither for study and comparison from all parts of the world; adorned with numerous churches, and sprinkled over, i am happy to say, with many public schools, where all the children of the city, without distinction, have the means of obtaining a good education, and with academies and colleges, professional schools and public libraries,--should continue to receive, as it has heretofore received, the fostering care of congress, and should be regarded as the permanent seat of the national government? with each succeeding year new interest is added to the spot; it becomes connected with all the historical associations of our country, with her statesmen and her orators; and, alas! its cemetery is annually enriched by the ashes of her chosen sons. [sidenote: its associations.] before us is the broad and beautiful river, separating two of the original thirteen states, which a late president, a man of determined purpose and inflexible will, but patriotic heart, desired to span with arches of ever-enduring granite, symbolical of the firmly cemented union of the north and the south. that president was general jackson. on its banks repose the ashes of the father of his country; and at our side, by a singular felicity of position, overlooking the city which he designed, and which bears his name, rises to his memory the marble column, sublime in its simple grandeur, and fitly intended to reach a loftier height than any similar structure on the surface of the whole earth.[ ] [illustration: _washington monument._] let the votive offerings of his grateful countrymen be freely contributed to carry this monument higher and still higher. may i say, as on another occasion, "let it rise; let it rise till it meet the sun in his coming; let the earliest light of the morning gild it, and parting day linger and play on its summit!"[ ] fellow-citizens, what contemplations are awakened in our minds as we assemble here to re-enact a scene like that performed by washington! methinks i see his venerable form now before me, as presented in the glorious statue by houdon, now in the capitol of virginia. he is dignified and grave; but concern and anxiety seem to soften the lineaments of his countenance. the government over which he presides is yet in the crisis of experiment. not free from troubles at home, he sees the world in commotion and in arms all around him. he sees that imposing foreign powers are half disposed to try the strength of the recently established american government. we perceive that mighty thoughts, mingled with fears as well as with hopes, are struggling within him. he heads a short procession over these then naked fields; he crosses yonder stream on a fallen tree; he ascends to the top of this eminence, whose original oaks of the forest stand as thick around him as if the spot had been devoted to druidical worship, and here he performs the appointed duty of the day. [sidenote: george washington's monition.] and now, fellow-citizens, if this vision were a reality; if washington actually were now amongst us, and if he could draw around him the shades of the great public men of his own day, patriots and warriors, orators and statesmen, and were to address us in their presence, would he not say to us: "ye men of this generation, i rejoice and thank god for being able to see that our labors and toils and sacrifices were not in vain. you are prosperous, you are happy, you are grateful: the fire of liberty burns brightly and steadily in your hearts, while _duty_ and the _law_ restrain it from bursting forth in wild and destructive conflagration. cherish liberty, as you love it; cherish its securities, as you wish to preserve it. maintain the constitution which we labored so painfully to establish, and which has been to you such a source of inestimable blessings. preserve the union of the states, cemented as it was by our prayers, our tears and our blood. be true to god, to your country, and to your duty. so shall the whole eastern world follow the morning sun to contemplate you as a nation; so shall all generations honor you, as they honor us; and so shall that almighty power which so graciously protected us, and which now protects you, shower its everlasting blessings upon you and your posterity." [sidenote: the sacred trust of americans.] great father of your country! we heed your words; we feel their force as if you now uttered them with lips of flesh and blood. your example teaches us, your affectionate addresses teach us, your public life teaches us your sense of the value of the blessings of the union. those blessings our fathers have tasted, and we have tasted, and still taste. nor do we intend that those who come after us shall be denied the same high fruition. our honor as well as our happiness is concerned. we cannot, we dare not, we will not, betray our sacred trust. we will not filch from posterity the treasure placed in our hands to be transmitted to other generations. the bow that gilds the clouds in the heavens, the pillars that uphold the firmament, may disappear and fall away in the hour appointed by the will of god; but until that day comes, or so long as our lives may last, no ruthless hand shall undermine that bright arch of union and liberty which spans the continent from washington to california. fellow-citizens, we must sometimes be tolerant to folly, and patient at the sight of the extreme waywardness of men; but i confess that, when i reflect on the renown of our past history, on our present prosperity and greatness, and on what the future hath yet to unfold, and when i see that there are men who can find in all this nothing good, nothing valuable, nothing truly glorious, i feel that all their reason has fled away from them, and left the entire control over their judgment and their actions to insanity and fanaticism; and more than all, fellow-citizens, if the purposes of fanatics and disunionists should be accomplished, the patriotic and intelligent of our generation would seek to hide themselves from the scorn of the world, and go about to find dishonorable graves. [illustration: _millard fillmore._] [sidenote: the preservation of the union foretold.] fellow-citizens, take courage; be of good cheer. we shall come to no such ignoble end. we shall live, and not die. during the period allotted to our several lives we shall continue to rejoice in the return of this anniversary. the ill-omened sounds of fanaticism will be hushed; the ghastly spectres of secession and disunion will disappear; and the enemies of united constitutional liberty, if their hatred cannot be appeased, may prepare to have their eyeballs seared as they behold the steady flight of the american eagle, on his burnished wings, for years and years to come. president fillmore, it is your singularly good fortune to perform an act such as that which the earliest of your predecessors performed fifty-eight years ago. you stand where he stood; you lay your hand on the corner-stone of a building designed greatly to extend that whose corner-stone he laid. changed, changed is everything around. the same sun, indeed, shone upon his head which now shines upon yours. the same broad river rolled at his feet, and bathes his last resting-place, that now rolls at yours. but the site of this city was then mainly an open field. streets and avenues have since been laid out and completed, squares and public grounds enclosed and ornamented, until the city which bears his name, although comparatively inconsiderable in numbers and wealth, has became quite fit to be the seat of government of a great and united people. and now, fellow-citizens, with hearts void of hatred, envy, and malice towards our own countrymen, or any of them, or towards the subjects or citizens of other governments, or towards any member of the great family of man; but exulting, nevertheless, in our own peace, security, and happiness, in the grateful remembrance of the past, and the glorious hopes of the future, let us return to our homes, and with all humility and devotion offer our thanks to the father of all our mercies, political, social, and religious. index achilles, . adams and jefferson: a discourse in commemoration of the lives and services of john adams and thomas jefferson, delivered in faneuil hall, boston, aug. , , . adams, john, , - , - , , ; similarity to jefferson, ; example of, ; work of, ; services of, ; career of, - , - ; portrait of, . adams, john quincy, and note, note; portrait of, . adams, samuel, , ; portrait of, . alfred, . allerton, isaac, . amendment, thirteenth, to the constitution, note. america, popular government in, , ; constitutional history of, ; literature of, ; discovery of, ; revolution in, ; obligations of, , ; contributions of, to europe, ; example of, . americans, sacred trust of, . american union, the, . ames, fisher, and note. angelo, michael, . athens, . bacon, francis, . bennington, vt., . benton, thomas hart, - ; portrait of, . berkeley, george, and note, . blackstone, sir william, and note. boston, mass., massacre, note; port bill, and note; "tea-party," note; speeches of webster at, . bradford, william, . brewster, william, , . bunker hill, battle of, ; importance of, ; motive for, ; consequences of, . bunker hill monument, the: an address delivered at the laying of the corner-stone at charlestown, mass. june , , ; and see and note. bunker hill monument, the completion of the: an address delivered june , , . byron, lord, note. camden, n. j., . capitol, the addition to the, . capitol, united states, in , view of, . carroll, charles, . carver, john, . charlestown, mass., ; speeches of webster at, , . chatham, earl of, . cicero, , and note. clay, henry, note, note; portrait of, . "coalition," the, and note. concord, mass., , . congress, continental, first, . constitution and the union, the, . constitution of the united states, true principles of, ; declared by people to be supreme law, , ; enumerated powers of, ; main design of, ; failure of confederation the cause of, ; alterable by the people, not the states, . cortéz, hernando, . declaration of independence, the, - . demosthenes, , . district of columbia, . electors, presidential, in the united states, note. elizabeth, queen, . eloquence, nature of, . embargo bill of , and note. england, religious persecutions in, ; idea of liberty in, . executive patronage and removal from office, . faneuil hall, boston, view of, ; speeches of webster in, . federalist party, note. fillmore, millard, ; portrait of, . foot, samuel augustus, note; resolution of, . foreign influence a foe of republican government, . franklin, benjamin, , ; portrait of, . freedom, spirit of, . fries, john, and note. gage, thomas, . gates, horatio, . government, representative system of, ; principles of, as held by english colonists in america, , ; powers of, to be used for the general benefit, ; a great untaxed proprietor, ; republican, foreign influence a foe of, . government, united states, source of powers of, , , ; powers of, as related to powers of states, , , , ; a new experiment, . "great debate," the, note. greece, revolution in ( ), and note. greene, nathanael, . hancock, john, , ; portrait of, . harrington, james, . harvard college, ; view of, . hayne, robert young, note, - ; portrait of, . hayne, the reply to: from the second speech on foot's resolution, delivered in the senate of the united states, jan. and , , ; first version of, note; and see note. henry, patrick, ; portrait of, . hillhouse, james, and note. holland, pilgrims in, . homer, . independence, american, - . independence, declaration of, - . independence hall, philadelphia, view of, . internal improvements, webster's opinions concerning, . jackson, andrew, note. jamestown, va., and note. jefferson, thomas, note; similarity to adams, ; example of, ; work of, ; services of, ; career of, - , , - ; portrait of, . kentucky resolutions of , note. lafayette, marquis de, and note; portrait of, . lee, richard henry, . legislatures, state, in relation to national laws, . lexington, mass., , . liberty the inheritance of every american, . lincoln, benjamin, . lincolnshire, england, . livingston, robert r., . marathon, and note. mason and dixon's line, and note. massachusetts, in the revolution, ; defence of, . milton, john, . missouri question, - , note. monmouth, n. j., . monuments of the past, . national republican party, note, . nations, progress of, . newton, isaac, . new england, the first settlement of: a discourse delivered at plymouth, mass. dec. , , . new england, third century of history of, ; ancestors of, ; religious liberty in, ; distribution of property in, ; education in, ; future progress of, ; settlement of, , ; relation of, to western improvements, - ; hayne's attack on, ; relation of, to south carolina doctrine of nullification, ; to the embargo of , . northwest territory, note. nullification, , , - ; leads to disunion, . ohio, note. "old style" of reckoning time, note. ordinance of , the, and note. otis, james, ; portrait of, . paine, robert treat, , . parties, political, in , . party contests under the constitution, . phidias, . philip of macedon, . pilgrims, and note; purpose of, , ; new home of, , ; duty of descendants of, ; and see new england, first settlement of. pizarro, francisco, . plato, . plymouth, mass., , and note, , ; speech of webster at, . pope, alexander, note. prescott, william, , , , . public lands, . public works bonds of union, . puritans, note. putnam, israel, , . quincy, josiah, jr., . randolph, peyton, . raphael, . religion, influence of, . religious liberty in new england, . religious persecutions in england, . revolution, american, ; survivors of, , , ; influence of, upon europe, . revolution of , english, importance of, . revolution, webster admits right of, ; a law to itself, . robinson, john, and note, . rome, commonwealth of, . salem, mass., speech of webster at, . saratoga, n. y., . sargent, henry, and note. secession, peaceable, impossible, . senate, united states, ; speeches of webster in, , . serbonis, lake, note. "seventh of march" ( ) speech of webster, . shakespeare, william, and note. sherman, roger, . slavery, webster's opinion concerning, - . smithfield (london), and note. socrates, . solon, . sophocles, . south america, liberty in, . south carolina, , ; nullification in, ; webster's tribute to, ; doctrine of state discretion, . southern confederacy, idea of a, . spain, greed of, . sparta, . standish, miles, . stark, john, , . states, not final judges of acts of general government, ; powers of, as related to powers of general government, , . "suicide is confession," . sullivan, john, . supreme court of the united states, final decision of, . tariffs, protective, as related to constitution, , ; to south carolina nullification, . thebes, . trenton, n. y., . turenne, vicomte de, and note. tyler, john, ; portrait of, . union, as related to nullification, ; preservation of, , , , . united states, example of, ; are one, ; a western sun, ; advantages of isolation of, ; dismemberment of, the greatest of evils, ; growth of population of, - . vauban, sebastien de, . virginia resolutions of , - , note. virginia, university of, and note. warren, joseph, , , , ; portrait of, . washington, george, , , , , , , , , , - ; power of the name of, ; moral example of, ; farewell address of, , , , ; conduct of america's foreign relations, ; domestic policy of, ; first cabinet of, ; important measures of administration of, ; opinion of dangers of party spirit, ; love of the union, ; monition of, - . washington, the character of, . washington, city of, - ; speeches of webster in, . washington monument, and note; view of, . whig party, note. white, captain joseph, the murder of: from an argument on the trial of joseph francis knapp, at salem, mass. aug. , , . wilmot proviso, the, note. worcester, mass., speech of webster at, . wythe, george, . yorktown, va., . footnotes: [ ] the "pilgrims" are often confused with the "puritans," and the words are used interchangeably. strictly speaking, the former were the english independents or congregationalists who came from holland to plymouth in ; the latter, the immigrants from england to massachusetts bay in and following years, some of whom, at the time of their arrival in new england, retained nominal connection with the church of england. the church polity of the two parties, however, soon became the same. [ ] henry sargent's "landing of the pilgrims," in pilgrim hall, plymouth. [ ] the landing at plymouth was on dec. , , old style, corresponding to december according to the present calendar, though december is generally observed. [ ] a plain eighteen miles northeast of athens, between mount pentelicus and the sea, where, b. c. , , greeks and , platæans, under miltiades, defeated , persians, thereby destroying darius's scheme for subjugating greece. "the mountains look on marathon, and marathon looks on the sea; and musing there an hour alone, i dreamed that greece might still be free." byron, _don juan_, canto iii, stanza , . [ ] john robinson, - , an influential english independent (or congregational) minister, who left the church of england and joined the "separatists" in , and was their pastor at scrooby, england, removing to amsterdam, holland, in , and continuing his leadership of independents there and in leyden. [ ] smithfield is a section of london, north of st. paul's cathedral, where alleged heretics were burned at the stake during the reign of queen mary, in and subsequent years. [ ] the monument, erected by an association which aroused national as well as local interest and support, is a granite obelisk, two hundred and twenty-one feet high, actually standing on breed's, not bunker hill. the two eminences are seven hundred yards apart, and both were scenes of conflict, the american redoubt being on breed's; but general use has long sanctioned the expression "the battle of bunker hill." the monument was finished in . [ ] jamestown, virginia, on the james river, where the first permanent english settlement in the united states was made may , . [ ] it is no part of the purpose of the present edition to undertake to criticise the rhetoric of webster. but the use of "him" in the objective case, in the present paragraph, followed by "thy," is so uncommon as to call for mention. most rhetoricians would employ "he," followed by "his;" or "thou," followed by "thy." a use of cases identical with webster's is found in the well-known second stanza of s.f. smith's "america":-- "my native country, _thee_, land of the noble free,-- _thy_ name i love." [ ] the marquis de la fayette ( - ), a member of a rich and noble french family, equipped a vessel at his own cost, and came to america in , to aid the revolutionists. at once brave and judicious, he became the friend of washington, and was made major-general, distinguishing himself as a fighter or strategist at brandywine, monmouth, and yorktown. returning to france after the war, he took a middle course in the french revolution, for which he later was subjected to the unwarranted sneers of carlyle. imprisoned for years in austria, he was released by request of napoleon in . in he again visited the united states, being everywhere greeted with enthusiasm, and receiving from congress $ , and a township of land. four years before his death he was made head of the french national guard by the party which dethroned the bourbon, charles x., and transferred the crown to louis philippe. [ ] late may you return to the sky. [ ] the people of greece, long restive against turkish oppression, rose under alexander ypsilanti in , promulgated a new constitution in , and began a war of revolution. after bloody atrocities on both sides, in the greeks began to receive some outside help, including that of lord byron, who died at missolonghi, in that year, from exposure in the field. the jealousies and intrigues of mahmoud, sultan of turkey, and mehemet ali, turkish viceroy of egypt, with fears of russian preponderance in a divided turkey, led the great powers of europe to interfere in behalf of greece, as the turks and egyptians were working together against her. the treaty of london (july , ) founded the new kingdom of greece; england, france, and russia overwhelmed the fleets of turkey and egypt at navarino, october of the same year; and the independent career of the resuscitated greek nation began. [ ] "monument square is four hundred and seventeen feet from north to south, and four hundred feet from east to west, and contains nearly six acres. it embraces the whole site of the redoubt, and a part of the site of the breastwork. according to the most accurate plan of the town and the battle (page's), the monument stands where the southwest angle of the redoubt was, and the whole of the redoubt was between the monument and the street that bounds it on the west. the small mound in the northeast corner of the square is supposed to be the remains of the breastwork. warren fell about two hundred feet west of the monument. an iron fence encloses the square, and another surrounds the monument. the square has entrances on each of its sides, and at each of its corners, and is surrounded by a walk and rows of trees. "the obelisk is thirty feet in diameter at the base, about fifteen feet at the top of the truncated part, and was designed to be two hundred and twenty feet high; but the mortar and the seams between the stones make the precise height two hundred and twenty-one feet. within the shaft is a hollow cone, with a spiral stairway winding round it to its summit, which enters a circular chamber at the top. there are ninety courses of stone in the shaft,--six of them below the ground, and eighty-four above the ground. the capstone, or apex, is a single stone four feet square at the base, and three feet six inches in height, weighing two and a half tons."--frothingham's _siege of boston._ [ ] the old method, established by julius cæsar, of counting days in a year, and every fourth year, gave each year about eleven minutes too much, which overplus amounted in to ten days. in that year pope gregory xiii discontinued the "julian" and established the "gregorian" calendar, by setting forward the date of a day ten days. this change was adopted (the dropping of an additional day being needed) by the english parliament in ,--september , , to be called september . at present, the new style gives days to every year divisible by four, excepting , , etc. [ ] march , , a conflict called the "boston massacre" took place between english troops and bostonians, three of the latter being killed. samuel adams, the people's leader in boston, in consequence compelled the governor to withdraw the soldiers from the town. [ ] documents giving the royal custom-house officers the right to search any house for alleged smuggled goods. [ ] parliament closed the port of boston, in , in retaliation for the destruction of taxed tea by the colonists in , in the so-called "boston tea-party." under the port bill all exports and imports were prohibited save food and fuel. [ ] the parliament of holland. [ ] prior to the "presidential electors" voted for two candidates from previous page: for president; the one receiving the highest number to be president, and the one having the next highest vice-president. [ ] john quincy adams was president of the united states, - . [ ] the fiftieth anniversary of the independence of the united states. the jews of the old testament celebrated every fiftieth anniversary of their entrance into canaan. leviticus xxv. . [ ] mr. jefferson himself considered his services in establishing the university of virginia as among the most important rendered by him to the country. in large part he arranged its curriculum, and even designed its buildings. by his direction the following inscription was placed on his monument: "here was buried thomas jefferson, author of the declaration of independence, of the statutes of virginia for religious freedom, and father of the university of virginia." [ ] "happy, not only in the brightness of his life, but also in the circumstance of his death." [ ] the question has often been asked whether the anonymous speech against the declaration of independence, and the speech in support of it ascribed to john adams in the preceding address, are a portion of the debates which actually took place in in the continental congress. those speeches were composed by mr. webster, after the manner of the ancient historians, as embodying the arguments relied upon by the friends and opponents of the measure, respectively. they represent speeches actually made on both sides, but no report of the debates of this period has been preserved, and mr. webster had no aid in framing these addresses but what was furnished by tradition and the known line of argument pursued by the speakers and writers of that day for and against the measure of independence. the first sentence of the speech ascribed to mr. adams was suggested by the parting scene with jonathan sewall, as described by mr. adams himself, in the preface to the "letters of novanglus and massachusettensis." the following answer was written by mr. webster to one of the letters of inquiry above alluded to. "washington, _ january, _. "dear sir:-- "i have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the th instant. its contents hardly surprise me, as i have received very many similar communications. "your inquiry is easily answered. the congress of the revolution sat with closed doors. its proceedings were made known to the public from time to time, by printing its journal; but the debates were not published. so far as i know, there is not existing, in print or manuscript, the speech, or any part or fragment of the speech, delivered by mr. adams on the question of the declaration of independence. we only know, from the testimony of his auditors, that he spoke with remarkable ability and characteristic earnestness. "the day after the declaration was made, mr. adams, in writing to a friend, declared the event to be one that 'ought to be commemorated, as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to god almighty. it ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward, forevermore.' "and on the day of his death, hearing the noise of bells and cannon, he asked the occasion. on being reminded that it was 'independent day,' he replied, 'independence forever!' these expressions were introduced into the speech _supposed_ to have been made by him. for the rest i must be answerable. the speech was written by me, in my house in boston, the day before the delivery of the discourse in faneuil hall; a poor substitute, i am sure it would appear to be, if we could now see the speech actually made by mr. adams on that transcendently important occasion. "i am, respectfully, "your obedient servant, "daniel webster." [ ] joseph white, an old man of eighty, was found murdered in his bed, in salem, massachusetts, on the morning of april , . a few weeks later four men--richard crowninshield, george crowninshield, john francis knapp, and joseph j. knapp, jr.--were arrested on the charge of murder. on june richard crowninshield committed suicide in his cell; george crowninshield, having proved an alibi, was discharged; and the two knapps were tried between july and august , the former as principal and the latter as accessory. joseph made a full confession, outside of court, on the government's promise of impunity; but afterwards refused to repeat this testimony on the witness-stand. it was shown that the fatal blow was struck by richard crowninshield; that john francis knapp, who had bargained with richard crowninshield to commit the murder, was lurking in the neighborhood during the commission of the crime; and that joseph j. knapp was also an accessory before the fact, having, indeed, projected the murder. the knapps were executed. a detailed description of the extraordinary network of circumstances, before and after the murder, is given in the volume entitled "great speeches and orations of daniel webster." [ ] the "great debate" in the senate, between webster and hayne, had an unexpected origin. a resolution had been introduced by senator samuel augustus foot, of connecticut, merely ordering an inquiry into the expediency of throwing restrictions around future sales of public lands of the united states. into the discussion of this resolution, which lasted five months, was brought a large number of partisan pleas, tariff arguments, local jealousies, and questions of the right and wrong of slavery, and of the respective powers of the state and national governments. recriminations and even personalities were not infrequent; and some of the southern speakers did not refrain, in defence of the new "nullification" doctrine, from criticism of new england federalism as having been essentially selfish, derisive, and unpatriotic. senator robert young hayne ( - ), of south carolina, who had been a member of the senate since , was conspicuous, in this debate, for his advocacy of the idea that a state might suspend federal laws at its discretion; and his assertions to that effect, combined with sharp criticisms of massachusetts, led mr. webster to make his famous reply. mr. hayne was subsequently governor of south carolina, at the time of the almost armed collision between that state and president jackson, in , over the nullification of tariff laws. at one time governor hayne actually issued a proclamation of resistance to the authority of the general government; but subsequently congress modified the objectionable tariff provisions and the state repealed its nullification ordinance, which president jackson's firmness had certainly made "null, void, and no law." [ ] it had been charged that john quincy adams, during his presidency ( - ), had sought to purchase the support of webster by giving offices to members of the old federalist party, then merging into the "national republican" or whig party. furthermore, the opposition had declared that adams's bestowal of the secretaryship of state upon henry clay was in accordance with a bargain by which adams was to be supported by the clay vote in the house of representatives. [ ] mr. webster here quotes parts of lines and of macbeth, act iii. scene . [ ] the ordinance of july , , was an act of the congress of the confederation,--prior to the beginning of the constitutional government of the united states in ,--which, in its sixth article, said of the "northwest territory," organized by this ordinance: "there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." under the provisions of this ordinance ohio became a state in . says johnston in his "history of american politics ": "the ordinance of is noteworthy as an exercise by the congress of the confederacy of the right to exclude slavery from the territories. it will be found that the language of this ordinance was copied in the efforts made in (missouri), (wilmot proviso), and (xiiith amendment), to assert and maintain for the federal congress under the constitution this power of regulating and abolishing slavery in the territories of the united states, and finally in the states as the result of civil war." [ ] the line between pennsylvania, a free state, and maryland, a slave state; originally run by two surveyors bearing these names. [ ] the "virginia resolutions of ," of which the most important is here quoted, and the similar kentucky resolutions of the same year, were protests of the republican, or anti-federalist, legislatures of the two states, against the "alien and sedition laws" passed by the federalist majority in congress. these laws were the outgrowth of an almost warlike feeling between the united states and france, due to a variety of causes, for the most part discreditable to france. they authorized the president to order out of the country any foreigner he deemed dangerous; and imposed fines and imprisonment upon alleged conspirators against government measures, or libellers of congress or the president. the laws were deemed by the anti-federalists to be autocratic and semi-monarchical. the virginia protesting resolutions were put into form by james madison, afterwards president. [ ] james hillhouse ( - ), of connecticut. [ ] the district of columbia is governed directly by congress, but sends no representative thereto. [ ] the embargo bill of prohibited american vessels from foreign trade, and foreign vessels from american, only coasting trade being permitted. it was directed against england, and was supported by the anti-federalists and bitterly opposed by the federalists. for the time it almost destroyed american commerce, and bore especially heavily on new england. [ ] sir william blackstone ( - ), author of the famous "commentaries on the laws of england" ( - ). [ ] henri de la tour d'auvergne, vicomte de turenne ( - ) an eminent french general, who left memoirs of his campaigns from to . [ ] see note on page xciv. [ ] john fries ( ?- ) was the leader of seven hundred men who forcibly resisted the levying of the "house or window" tax in northampton, bucks, and montgomery counties, pennsylvania, in - . these men liberated prisoners and "arrested" the assessors themselves; and fries, when marching toward bethlehem, pennsylvania, resisted a united states marshal. he was tried for treason in , found guilty, given a new trial in , again found guilty, and sentenced to be hanged; but president john adams, against the advice of all his cabinet, pardoned him and gave a general amnesty to the rioters. fries became a well-to-do merchant in philadelphia. [ ] interesting examples of webster's revision of important passages in this speech may be found by comparing the present standard text with the original versions as preserved in the boston public library. the eulogium of massachusetts, beginning "mr. president, i shall enter on no encomium" and ending with "the very spot of its origin," was spoken thus: "sir, i shall be led on this occasion into no eulogium on massachusetts. i shall paint no portraiture of her merits, original, ancient or modern. yet, sir, i cannot but remember that boston was the cradle of liberty, that in massachusetts (the parent of this accursed policy so eternally narrow to the west), etc., etc., etc. i cannot forget that lexington, concord and bunker hill _are_ in massachusetts, and that in men and means and money she _did_ contribute more than any other state to carry on the revolutionary war. there was not a state in the union whose soil was not wetted with massachusetts blood in the revolutionary war, and it is to be remembered that of the army to which cornwallis surrendered at yorktown a majority consisted of new england troops. it is painful to me to recur to these recollections even for the purpose of self-defence, and even to that end, sir, i will not extol the intelligence, the character and the virtue of the people of new england. i leave the theme to itself, here and everywhere, now and forever." the first form of the famous concluding passage was as follows: "when my eyes shall be turned for the last time on the meridian sun, i hope i may see him shining bright upon my united, free, and happy country. i hope i shall not live to see his beams falling upon the dispersed fragments of the structure of this once glorious union. i hope i may not see the flag of my country with its stars separated or obliterated; torn by commotions, smoking with the blood of civil war. i hope i may not see the standard raised of separate state rights, star against star, and stripe against stripe; but that the flag of the union may keep its stars and its stripes corded and bound together in indissoluble ties. i hope i shall not see written as its motto, '_first_ liberty, and _then_ union.' i hope i shall see no such delusive and deluded motto on the flag of that country. i hope to see, spread all over it, blazoned in letters of light and proudly floating over land and sea, that other sentiment, dear to my heart, 'union _and_ liberty, now and forever, one and inseparable.'" [ ] at the beginning of the nineteenth century marcus tullius cicero was often called tully. [ ] bishop george berkeley's ( - ) "on the prospect of planting arts and learning in america." [ ] a remark by fisher ames ( - ), of massachusetts,--perhaps the extremest federalist of his time. [ ] the famous phrase "honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none" was not washington's, but jefferson's. [ ] in the debate on henry clay's compromise resolutions. [ ] pope's translation of homer's iliad, book xviii., lines - . webster changes the first word, "thus," to "now." [ ] shakespeare, king henry the fifth, prologue, lines - . [ ] mr. webster's table contained, of course, the figures for and only. for the sake of illustration, those for are now added. [ ] including hawaii, but not the other foreign possessions. [ ] including alaska, but no other possession not contiguous to the united states. [ ] male population available for defence. [ ] total lighted aids in the year . [ ] the area given for was incorrect. [ ] exclusive of double tracks and sidings. [ ] total liabilities. [ ] excluding private lines. [ ] including public, society, and school libraries. [ ] total from all parts of the world. [ ] the washington monument here mentioned had been begun in . work was continued, by state and other donations, until , when it was abandoned until . but as the unfinished condition of the shaft was felt to be a sort of national disgrace, its construction was resumed in the last-named year, under a congressional appropriation, and steadily pushed forward until the completion of the noble obelisk in , at a total cost of $ , , . it is built of white maryland marble, and is feet high--the loftiest masonry construction in the world, though much surpassed in height by the steel eiffel tower in paris. [ ] from the address at the laying of the corner-stone of bunker hill monument. [illustration: benjamin harrison] speeches of benjamin harrison twenty-third president of the united states a complete collection of his public addresses from february, , to february, , chronologically classified; embracing all his campaign speeches, letter of acceptance, inaugural address, and the numerous speeches delivered during his several tours; also extracts from his messages to congress compiled by charles hedges new york united states book company successors to john w. lovell company to worth street copyright, , by charles hedges preface. it is not the purpose of this book to present a few selections of oratory, laboriously prepared and polished, or occasional flashes of brilliant thought. from such efforts, prepared, perhaps, after days of study and repeated revision, one can form but an imperfect idea of their author. such a compilation might show the highest conceptions of the man, and evidence a wide range of thought and a surpassing grandeur of expression; but it would be but a poor mirror of the man himself in his daily life. it is due to the people that the largest opportunity be given them to observe the character of their public servants, to come into closest touch with their daily thoughts, and to know them as they are--not when prepared for special occasions, but day after day and all the time. it is with this view that this collection of the speeches of president harrison is offered to the public. it is a series of instantaneous photographs that have caught him unawares. the studied pose is wanting, but the pictures are true to life. there are included the letter of acceptance, the inaugural address, the letter to the commercial congress, extracts from his last annual message to congress, his patriotic message on the chilian affair, and a few carefully prepared speeches, among them his notable addresses at the banquet of the michigan club, february , , and before the marquette club at chicago, march , the same year; also his celebrated speech at galveston, in april last. all these are among the best models of statesmanlike thought and concise, forcible, and elegant expression. with these exceptions, the speeches presented were delivered during the presidential campaign of , often four or five in a day, to visiting delegations of citizens, representing every occupation and interest, and during his tours of and , when he often spoke eight or ten times a day from the platform of his car. if these speeches contained no other merit, they would be remarkable in the fact that, while delivered during the excitement of a political campaign and in the hurry of wayside pauses in a journey by railroad, they contain not one carelessly spoken word that can detract from their dignity, or, by any possible distortion of language, be turned against their author by his political opponents. with no opportunity for elaborately studied phrases, he did not utter a word that could be sneered at as weak or commonplace. this fact is all the more noteworthy when we recall the dismal failures that have been made by others under like circumstances. a spirit of exalted patriotism and broad statesmanship is apparent in every line; and notwithstanding the malignity of the partisan assaults that were made upon him, no words of bitterness--only terms of generous tolerance--characterize his allusions to his political opponents. with a single notable exception, no thought of sameness or repetition is ever suggested. that exception was the central thought and vital principle that was at stake in the campaign. one marvels at his versatility in adapting himself to every occasion, whether he was addressing a delegation of miners, of comrades in war, or of children from the public schools; we admire the lofty thoughts and the delicious humor; but while he might soften in tender, playful greeting of children, or live again with his comrades the old life of tent and field, he never for one moment forgot the great principle whose banner he had been chosen to uphold. protection of american industry was always his foremost thought--and how well he presented it! what an example to the politician who seeks by evasion or silence to avoid the questions at issue! the book is therefore presented with the gratifying belief that a valuable service has been rendered in collecting these speeches and putting them in an enduring form, not only because they give the american people the most lifelike mental portrait of their chief magistrate, but because they are a valuable contribution to american literature. in order to the best understanding and appreciation of an address, it is often necessary to know the circumstances in which it was delivered. especially is this true when the address was made, as many of these were, to some particular organization or class of citizens or at the celebration of some important event. for this reason, as well as for their important historical value, an account is given of the occasion of each speech, including, as far as they could be learned, the names of the more distinguished persons who were present and took part in the exercises. c. h. washington, d. c., february , . biographical. benjamin harrison, twenty-third president of the united states, was born tuesday, august , , at north bend, hamilton county, ohio. he is the second son of the late john scott and elizabeth irwin harrison. his father--the third son of president william henry harrison and anna symmes--was born at vincennes, indiana, was twice elected to congress as a democrat, from the cincinnati district, and died in . general william henry harrison, ninth president of the united states, was the third son of a famous signer of the declaration of independence--benjamin harrison, of virginia, and his wife elizabeth bassett. this benjamin harrison, "the signer," was one of the first seven delegates from virginia to the continental congress. he reported the resolution for independence, was speaker of the house of burgesses, and was thrice elected governor of virginia, dying in ; he was the eldest son of benjamin and anna carter harrison, both of whom were descended from ancestors distinguished for their high character and their services to the colony of virginia. ben harrison's boyhood was passed upon his father's farm in ohio. at the age of , with his elder brother irwin, he attended farmer's college at cincinnati, preparatory to entering miami university at oxford, ohio, from which institution he graduated in . he studied law in the office of judge belamy storer at cincinnati, and in march, --with his bride, miss caroline w. scott, to whom he was wedded october , --he located at indianapolis and began the practice of the law. in he was elected reporter of the decisions of the supreme court of indiana, as a republican, receiving , majority. in july, , he was commissioned by gov. oliver p. morton as second lieutenant, and raised company a of the seventieth indiana volunteer infantry, was commissioned captain, and on the organization of the regiment was commissioned colonel. in august his regiment entered the field and became a part of the st brigade of the st division of the th army corps, gen. w. t. ward, of kentucky, brigade commander. at the battle of resaca, sunday, may , , the seventieth regiment led the brigade in a gallant charge, and its colonel signally distinguished himself, being among the first to scale the bloody parapet. he actively participated in the engagements at cassville, new hope church, gilgal church, kulps hill, and kenesaw. following that great captain in the atlanta campaign, initiatory to his famous march to the sea, colonel harrison at the battle of peach tree creek, july , , in the crisis of the fight, without awaiting orders, seized an important position and successfully resisted, at great loss, the terrific assaults of a large detachment of hood's army. for this brilliant achievement, upon the recommendation of major-general joe hooker, he was brevetted in march, , by president lincoln, a brigadier-general, to date from january , . in october, , while at the front, he was re-elected, by , majority, reporter of the supreme court, which office he had lost by accepting a commission in the army. after four years as reporter he resumed his law practice, forming a partnership with albert g. porter and w. p. fishback. about mr. fishback retired, and the firm became porter, harrison & hines; upon governor porter's retirement w. h. h. miller took his place, and in mr. hines retired, and, john b. elam coming in, the firm became harrison, miller & elam. in hon. godlove s. orth was nominated as republican candidate for governor of indiana, but pending the canvass he unexpectedly withdrew. in this emergency, during general harrison's absence on a trip to lake superior, the central committee substituted his name at the head of the ticket. undertaking the canvass despite adverse conditions, he was defeated by hon. james d. williams--"blue jeans"--by a plurality of , votes. in he was chosen chairman of the republican state convention. in he was appointed by president hayes a member of the mississippi river commission. in he was chairman of the delegation from indiana to the national convention, and with his colleagues cast consecutive ballots for james g. blaine in that historic contest. president garfield tendered him any position but one in his cabinet, but the high honor was declined. in january, , he was elected united states senator--the unanimous choice of his party--to succeed joseph e. mcdonald, and served six years to march , . in he again represented his state as delegate at large to the national convention. january, , he was a second time the unanimous choice of his party for united states senator, but after a protracted and exciting contest was defeated on the sixteenth joint ballot, upon party lines, by majority. june , , he was nominated at chicago by the republican national convention for president, on the eighth ballot, receiving votes against for john sherman, for russell a. alger, and for walter q. gresham. he was chosen president by electoral votes against for grover cleveland. the popular vote resulted: , , ( . per cent.) for the democratic ticket, , , ( . per cent.) for the republican ticket, , ( . per cent.) for the prohibition, , ( . per cent.) for the union labor, and , ( . per cent.) scattering. harrison's speeches. detroit, february , . _michigan club banquet._ the michigan club, the largest and most influential political organization in the state, held its third annual banquet at the detroit rink on washington's birthday, . the officers of the club were: _president_, clarence a. black; _vice-president_, william h. elliott; _secretary_, fred. e. farnsworth; _treasurer_, frederick woolfenden. senator thomas w. palmer was president of the evening; the vice-presidents were: hons. f. b. stockbridge, c. g. luce, j. h. macdonald, austin blair, h. p. baldwin, david h. jerome, r. a. alger, o. d. conger, chas. d. long, e. p. allen, james o'donnell, j. c. burrows, m. s. brewer, s. m. cutcheon, henry w. seymour, benj. f. graves, isaac marston, edward s. lacy, john t. rich, o. l. spaulding, geo. w. webber, geo. willard, e. w. keightley, r. g. horr, e. o. grosvenor, james birney, c. e. ellsworth, d. p. markey. the distinguished guests and speakers of the evening from other states were: general benjamin harrison, ind.; general joseph r. hawley, conn.; hon. william mckinley, jr., ohio; hon. joseph g. cannon, hon. john f. finerty, and general green b. raum, ill.; hon. l. e. mccomas, md.; and hon. james p. foster, n. y. general harrison responded to the sentiment, "washington, the republican. the guarantee of the constitution that the state shall have a republican form of government is only executed when the majority in the states are allowed to vote and have their ballots counted." his speech attracted widespread attention at the time, and is considered one of his greatest. one expression therein--viz.: "i am a dead statesman, but a living and rejuvenated republican"--went broadcast over the land and became one of the keynotes of the campaign. senator harrison made the first reference of the evening to the name of "chandler." it was talismanic; instantly a great wave of applause swept over the banquet-hall, and thenceforth the speaker carried his hearers with him. the senator spoke as follows: _mr. president and gentlemen of the michigan club_--i feel that i am at some disadvantage here to-night by reason of the fact that i did not approach detroit from the direction of washington city. i am a dead statesman ["no! no!"]; but i am a living and rejuvenated republican. i have the pleasure to-night, for the first time in my life, of addressing an audience of michigan republicans. your invitations in the past have been frequent and urgent, but i have always felt that you knew how to do your own work, that we could trust the stalwart republicans of this magnificent state to hold this key of the lakes against all comers. i am not here to-night in the expectation that i shall be able to help you by any suggestion, or even to kindle into greater earnestness that zeal and interest in republican principles which your presence here to-night so well attests. i am here rather to be helped myself, to bathe my soul in this high atmosphere of patriotism and pure republicanism [applause] by spending a little season in the presence of those who loved and honored and followed the cromwell of the republican party, zachariah chandler. [tremendous applause.] the sentiment which has been assigned me to-night--"washington, the republican; a free and equal ballot the only guarantee of the nation's security and perpetuity"--is one that was supported with a boldness of utterance, with a defiance that was unexcelled by any leader, by zachariah chandler always and everywhere. [applause.] as republicans we are fortunate, as has been suggested, in the fact that there is nothing in the history of our party, nothing in the principles that we advocate, to make it impossible for us to gather and to celebrate the birthday of any american who honored or defended his country. [cheers.] we could even unite with our democratic friends in celebrating the birthday of st. jackson, because we enter into fellowship with him when we read his story of how by proclamation he put down nullification in south carolina. [applause.] we could meet with them to celebrate the birthday of thomas jefferson; because there is no note in the immortal declaration or in the constitution of our country that is out of harmony with republicanism. [cheers.] but our democratic friends are under limitation. they have a short calendar of sense, and they must omit from the history of those whose names are on their calendar the best achievements of their lives. i do not know what the party is preserved for. its history reminds me of the boulder in the stream of progress, impeding and resisting its onward flow and moving only by the force that it resists. i want to read a very brief extract from a most notable paper--one that was to-day in the senate at washington read from the desk by its presiding officer--the "farewell address of washington;" and while it is true that i cannot quote or find in the writings of washington anything specifically referring to ballot-box fraud, to tissue ballots, to intimidation, to forged tally-sheets [cheers], for the reason that these things had not come in his day to disturb the administration of the government, yet in the comprehensiveness of the words he uttered, like the comprehensive declarations of the holy book, we may find admonition and guidance, and even with reference to a condition of things that his pure mind could have never contemplated. washington said: "liberty is indeed little less than a name where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of factions, to confine each member of society within the limits prescribed by the law, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of persons and property." if i had read that to a democratic meeting they would have suspected that it was an extract from some republican speech. [laughter.] my countrymen, this government is that which i love to think of as my country; for not acres, or railroads, or farm products, or bulk meats, or wall street, or all combined, are the country that i love. it is the institution, the form of government, the frame of civil society, for which that flag stands, and which we love to-day. [applause.] it is what mr. lincoln so tersely, yet so felicitously, described as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people; a government of the people, because they instituted it--the constitution reads, "we, the people, have ordained;" by the people, because it is in all its departments administered by them; for the people, because it states as its object of supreme attainment the happiness, security and peace of the people that dwell under it. [applause.] the bottom principle--sometimes it is called a corner-stone, sometimes the foundation of our structure of government--is the principle of control by the majority. it is more than the corner-stone or foundation. this structure is a monolith, one from foundation to apex, and that monolith stands for and is this principle of government by majorities, legally ascertained by constitutional methods. everything else about our government is appendage, it is ornamentation. this is the monolithic column that was reared by washington and his associates. for this the war of the revolution was fought, for this and its more perfect security the constitution was formed; for this the war of the rebellion was fought; and when this principle perishes the structure which washington and his compatriots reared is dishonored in the dust. the equality of the ballot demands that our apportionments in the states for legislative and congressional purposes shall be so adjusted that there shall be equality in the influence and the power of every elector, so that it shall not be true anywhere that one man counts two or one and a half and some other man counts only one half. but some one says that is fundamental. all men accept this truth. not quite. my countrymen, we are confronted by this condition of things in america to-day; a government by the majority, expressed by an equal and a free ballot, is not only threatened, but it has been overturned. why is it to-day that we have legislation threatening the industries of this country? why is it that the paralyzing shadow of free trade falls upon the manufactures and upon the homes of our laboring classes? it is because the laboring vote in the southern states is suppressed. there would be no question about the security of these principles so long established by law, so eloquently set forth by my friend from connecticut, but for the fact that the workingmen of the south have been deprived of their influence in choosing representatives at washington. but some timid soul is alarmed at the suggestion. he says we are endeavoring to rake over the coals of an extinct strife, to see if we may not find some ember in which there is yet sufficient vitality to rekindle the strife. some man says you are actuated by unfriendly feelings toward the south, you want to fight the war over again, you are flaunting the bloody shirt. my countrymen, those epithets and that talk never have any terrors for me. [applause.] i do not want to fight the war over again, and i am sure no northern soldier--and there must be many here of those gallant michigan regiments, some of which i had the pleasure during the war of seeing in action--not one of these that wishes to renew that strife or fight the war over again. not one of this great assemblage of republicans who listen to me to-night wishes ill to the south. if it were left to us here to-night the streams of her prosperity would be full. we would gladly hear of her reviving and stimulated industry. we gladly hear of increasing wealth in those states of the south. we wish them to share in the onward and upward movement of a great people. it is not a question of the war, it is not a question of the states between ' and ' , at all, that i am talking about to-night. it is what they have been since ' . it is what they did in ' , when a president was to be chosen for this country. our controversy is not one of the past; it is of the present. it has relation to that which will be done next november, when our people are again called to choose a president. what is it we ask? simply that the south live up to the terms of the surrender at appomattox. when that great chieftain received the surrender of the army of northern virginia, when those who had for four years confronted us in battle stacked arms in total surrender, the terms were simply these: "you shall go to your homes and shall be there unmolested so long as you obey the laws in force where you reside." that is the sum of our demand. we ask nothing more of the south to-night than that they shall cease to use this recovered citizenship which they had forfeited by rebellion to oppress and disfranchise those who equally with themselves under the constitution are entitled to vote--that and nothing more. i do not need to enter into details. the truth to-day is that the colored republican vote of the south, and with it and by consequence the white republican vote of the south, is deprived of all effective influence in the administration of this government. the additional power given by the colored population of the south in the electoral college and in congress was more than enough to turn the last election for president, and more than enough to reverse--yes, largely more than reverse--the present democratic majority of the house of representatives. have we not the spirit to insist that everywhere north and south in this country of ours no man shall be deprived of his ballot by reason of his politics? there is not in all this land a place where any rebel soldier is subject to any restraint or is denied the fullest exercise of the elective franchise. shall we not insist that what is true of those who fought to destroy the country shall be true of every man who fought for it, or loved it, like the black man of the south did [applause]--that to belong to abraham lincoln's party shall be respectable and reputable everywhere in america? [cheers.] but this is not simply a southern question. it has come to be a national question, for not only is the republican vote suppressed in the south, but i ask you to turn your eyes to as fair and prosperous a territory as ever sat at the door of the federal union asking admission to the sisterhood of the states. see yonder in the northwest dakota, the child of all these states, with , loyal, intelligent, law-abiding, prosperous american citizens robbed to-day of all participation in the affairs of this nation. the hospitable door which has always opened to territories seeking admission is insolently closed in her face--and why? simply because the predominating sentiment in the territory of dakota is republican--that and nothing more. and that is not all. this question of a free, honest ballot has crossed the ohio river. the overspill of these southern frauds has reached ohio and indiana and illinois, indicating to my mind a national conspiracy, having its centre and most potent influence in the southern states, but reaching out into ohio, indiana and illinois in its attempt by frauds upon the ballot-box to possess the senate of the united states. go down to cincinnati in a recent election and look at the election returns, shamelessly, scandalously manipulated to return members to the senate and house of ohio, in order that that grand champion of republican principles, john sherman, might be defeated. go yonder with me to chicago and look into those frauds upon the ballot--devised, executed in furtherance of the same iniquitous scheme, intended to defeat the re-election of that gallant soldier, that fearless defender of republican principles, john a. logan of illinois. [great cheering.] and these people have even invaded indiana. at the last election in my own state, first by gerrymander, they disturbed and utterly destroyed the equality of suffrage in that state; it was so framed as to give the democratic party a majority of on joint ballot; and indiana gave a republican majority on members of the legislature of , , and yet they claim to hold the legislature. and that is not all. then, when gerrymander had failed, they introduced the eraser to help it out [laughter]; scratched our tally-sheets, shamelessly transferred ballots from republican to democratic candidates. how are we going to deal with these fellows? what is the remedy? as to the southern aspect of this question, i have first to suggest that it is in the power of the free people of the north, those who love the constitution and a free and equal ballot, those who, while claiming this high privilege for themselves, will deny it to no other man, to welcome a president who shall not come into office, into the enjoyment of the usufruct of these crimes, against the ballot [applause]; that will be great gain. and then we should aim to place in the southern states, in every office exercising federal authority, men whose local influence will be against these frauds, instead of such men as the district attorney appointed by mr. cleveland, who in this recent outrage upon the ballot in jackson, miss., was found among the most active conspirators, when, by public resolution of a democratic committee, republicans of that city were warned away from the polls. then again we shall keep ourselves free from all partisanship if we lift our voice steadily and constantly in protest against these offences. there is vast power in a protest. public opinion is the most potent monarch this world knows to-day. czars tremble in its presence, and we may bring to bear upon this question a public sentiment, by bold and fearless denunciation of it, that will do a great deal towards correcting it. why, my countrymen, we meet now and then with these irish-americans and lift our voices in denunciations of the wrongs which england is perpetrating upon ireland. [applause.] we do not elect any members of parliament, but the voice of free america protesting against these centuries of wrongs has had a most potent influence in creating, stimulating and sustaining the liberal policy of william e. gladstone and his associates. [great applause.] cannot we do as much for oppressed americans? can we not make our appeal to these irish-american citizens who appeal to us in behalf of their oppressed fellow-countrymen to rally with us in this crusade against election frauds and intimidation in the country that they have made their own? [applause.] there may be legislative remedies in sight when we can once again possess both branches of the national congress and have an executive at washington who has not been created by these crimes against the ballot. [applause.] whatever they are, we will seek them out and put them into force--not in a spirit of enmity against the men who fought against us--forgetting the war, but only insisting that now, nearly a quarter of a century after it is over, a free ballot shall not be denied to republicans in these states where rebels have been rehabilitated with a full citizenship. [applause.] every question waits the settlement of this. the tariff question would be settled already if the , , of black laborers in the south had their due representation in the house of representatives. and my soldier friends, interested that liberal provisions should be made for the care of the disabled soldier--are they willing that this question should be settled without the presence in the house of representatives of the power and influence of those faithful black men in the south who were always their friends? [applause.] the dependent pension bill would pass over the president's veto if these black friends of the union soldier had their fair representation in congress. [applause.] it is the dominant question at the foundation of our government, in its dominating influence embracing all others, because it involves the question of a free and fair tribunal to which every question shall be submitted for arbitrament and final determination. therefore, i would here, as we shall in indiana, lift up our protest against these wrongs which are committed in the name of democracy, lift high our demand, and utter it with resolution, that it shall no longer be true that anywhere in this country men are disfranchised for opinion's sake. i believe there are indications that this power is taking hold of the north. self-respect calls upon us. does some devotee at the shrine of mammon say it will disturb the public pulse? do we hear from new york and her markets of trade that it is a disturbing question and we must not broach it? i beg our friends, and those who thus speak, to recollect that there is no peace, that there can be no security for commerce, no security for the perpetuation of our government, except by the establishment of justice the country over. [great applause.] chicago, march , . _marquette club banquet._ on the evening of march , , general harrison was the honored guest of the marquette club of chicago--one of the leading social and political organizations of that great city--at their second annual banquet, given at the grand pacific hotel. the officers of the club for that year were: george v. lauman, _president_; william h. johnson, _first vice-president_; hubert d. crocker, _second vice-president_; charles u. gordon, _secretary_; will sheldon gilbert, _treasurer_. the banquet committee and committee of reception for the occasion comprised the following prominent members: james s. moore, frederick g. laird, leroy t. steward, wm. h. johnson, james e. rogers, f. w. c. hayes, henry t. smith, harry j. jones, chas. s. norton, irving l. gould, t. a. broadbent, jas. rood, jr., wm. a. paulsen, t. m. garrett, geo. w. keehn, harry p. finney, c. b. niblock, wm. a. lamson, s. e. magill, r. d. wardwell, fred. g. mcnally. president lauman was toastmaster, and opened the banquet with an address of welcome to senator harrison. the other speakers of the evening were edward j. judd, theodore brentano, hon. thomas c. macmillan, hon. john s. runnells, newton wyeth, mayor roche and president tracy of the state league of republican clubs. amid hearty applause general harrison rose to respond to the toast, "the republican party." he spoke as follows: _mr. president and gentlemen of the marquette club_--i am under an obligation that i shall not soon forget in having been permitted by your courtesy to sit at your table to-night and to listen to the eloquent words which have fallen from the lips of those speakers who have preceded me. i count it a privilege to spend an evening with so many young republicans. there seems to be a fitness in the association of young men with the republican party. the republican party is a young party. i have not yet begun to call myself an old man, and yet there is no older republican in the united states than i am. my first presidential vote was given for the first presidential candidate of the republican party, and i have supported with enthusiasm every successor of frémont, including that matchless statesman who claimed our suffrages in . we cannot match ages with the democratic party any more than that party can match achievements with us. it has lived longer, but to less purpose. "moss-backed" cannot be predicated of a republican. our democratic friends have a monopoly of that distinction, and it is one of the few distinguished monopolies that they enjoy; and yet when i hear a democrat boasting himself of the age of his party i feel like reminding him that there are other organized evils in the world, older than the democratic party. "the republican party," the toast which you have assigned to me to-night, seems to have a past, a present and a future tense to it. it suggests history, and yet history so recent that it is to many here to-night a story of current events in which they have been participants. the republican party--the influences which called it together were eclectic in their character. the men who formed it and organized it were picked men. the first assembly that sounded in its camp was a call to sacrifice, and not to spoils. it assembled about an altar to sacrifice, and in a temple beset with enemies. it is the only political party organized in america that has its "book of martyrs." on the bloody fields of kansas, republicans died for their creed, and since then we have put in that book the sacred memory of our immortal leader who has been mentioned here to-night--abraham lincoln--who died for his faith and devotion to the principles of human liberty and constitutional union. and there have followed it a great army of men who have died by reason of the fact that they adhered to the political creed that we loved. it is the only party in this land which in the past has been proscribed and persecuted to death for its allegiance to the principles of human liberty. after lincoln had triumphed in that great forum of debate in his contest with douglas, the republican party carried that debate from the hustings to the battle-field and forever established the doctrine that human liberty is of natural right and universal. it clinched the matchless logic of webster in his celebrated debate against the right of secession by a demonstration of its inability. no party ever entered upon its administration of the affairs of this nation under circumstances so beset with danger and difficulty as those which surrounded the republican party when it took up the reins of executive control. in all other political contests those who had resisted the victorious party yielded acquiescence at the polls, but the republican party in its success was confronted by armed resistance to national authority. the first acts of republican administration were to assemble armies to maintain the authority of the nation throughout the rebellious states. it organized armies, it fed them, and it fought them through those years of war with an undying and persistent faith that refused to be appalled by any dangers or discouraged by any difficulties. in the darkest days of the rebellion the republican party by faith saw appomattox through the smoke of bull run, and raleigh through the mists of chickamauga; and not only did it conduct this great civil war to a victorious end, not only did it restore the national authority and set up the flag on all those places where it had been overthrown and that flag torn down, but it in the act and as an incident in the restoration of national authority accomplished that act which, if no other had been recorded in its history, would have given it immortality. the emancipation of a race, brought about as an incident of war under the proclamation of the first republican president, has forever immortalized the party that accomplished it. but not only were these dangers and difficulties and besetments and discouragements of this long strife at home, but there was also a call for the highest statesmanship in dealing with the foreign affairs of the government during that period of war. england and france not only gave to the confederacy belligerent rights, but threatened to extend recognition, and even armed intervention. there was scarcely a higher achievement in the long history of brilliant statesmanship which stands to the credit of our party than the matchless management of our diplomatic relations during the period of our war; dignified, yet reserved, masterful, yet patient. those enemies of republican liberty were held at bay until we had accomplished perpetual peace at appomattox. that grasping avarice which has attempted to coin commercial advantages out of the distress of other nations which has so often characterized english diplomacy naturally made the government of england the ally of the confederacy, that had prohibited protective duties in its constitution, and yet geneva followed appomattox. a trinity of effort was necessary to that consummation--war, finance and diplomacy; grant, chase, seward, and lincoln over all, and each a victor in his own sphere. when , veterans found themselves without any pressing engagement, and phil sheridan sauntered down towards the borders of mexico, french evacuation was expedited, and when gen. grant advised the english government that our claims for the depredations committed by those rebel cruisers that were sent out from british ports to prey upon our commerce must be paid, but that we were not in a hurry about it--we could wait, but in the mean time interest would accumulate--the geneva arbitration was accepted and compensation made for these unfriendly invasions of our rights. it became fashionable again at the tables of the english nobility to speak of our common ancestry and our common tongue. then again france began to remind us of la fayette and de grasse. five hundred thousand veteran troops and an unemployed navy did more for us than a common tongue and ancient friendships would do in the time of our distress. and we must not forget that it is often easier to assemble armies than it is to assemble army revenues. though no financial secretary ever had laid upon him a heavier burden than was placed upon salmon p. chase to provide the enormous expenditures which the maintenance of our army required, this ceaseless, daily, gigantic drain upon the national treasury called for the highest statesmanship. and it was found, and our credit was not only maintained through the war, but the debt that was accumulated, which our democratic friends said could never be paid, we at once began to discharge when the army was disbanded. and so it is that in this timely effort--consisting first in this appeal to the courage and patriotism of the people of this country that responded to the call of lincoln and filled our armies with brave men that, under the leadership of grant and sherman and thomas, suppressed the rebellion, and under the wise, magnificent system of our revenue enabled us to defray our expenses, and under the sagacious administration of our state department held europe at bay while we were attending to the business at home. in these departments of administration the republican party has shown itself conspicuously able to deal with the greatest questions that have ever been presented to american statesmanship for solution. we must not forget that in dealing with these questions we were met continually by the protest and opposition of the democratic party. the war against the states was unconstitutional. there was no right to coerce sovereign states. the war was a failure, and a dishonorable peace was demanded. the legal tenders were illegal. the constitutional amendments were void. and so through this whole brilliant history of achievement in this administration we were followed by the democratic statesman protesting against every step and throwing every impediment in the way of national success until it seemed to be true of many of their leaders that in their estimation nothing was lawful, nothing was lovely, that did not conduce to the success of the rebellion. now, what conclusion shall we draw? is there anything in this story, so briefly and imperfectly told, to suggest any conclusion as to the inadequacy or incompetency of the republican party to deal with any question that is now presented for solution or that we may meet in the progress of this people's history? why, countrymen, these problems in government were new. we took the ship of state when there was treachery at the helm, when there was mutiny on the deck, when the ship was among the rocks, and we put loyalty at the helm; we brought the deck into order and subjection. we have brought the ship into the wide and open sea of prosperity, and is it to be suggested that the party that has accomplished these magnificent achievements cannot sail and manage the good ship in the frequented roadways of ordinary commerce? what is there now before us that presents itself for solution? what questions are we to grapple with? what unfinished work remains to be done? it seems to me that the work that is unfinished is to make that constitutional grant of citizenship, the franchise to the colored men of the south, a practical and living reality. the condition of things is such in this country--a government by constitutional majority--that whenever the people become convinced that an administration or a law does not represent the will of the majority of our qualified electors, then that administration ceases to challenge the respect of our people and that law ceases to command their willing obedience. this is a republican government, a government by majority, the majorities to be ascertained by a fair count and each elector expressing his will at the ballot-box. i know of no reason why any law should bind my conscience that does not have this sanction behind it. i know of no reason why i should yield respect to any executive officer whose title is not based upon a majority vote of the qualified electors of this country. what is the condition of things in the southern states to-day? the republican vote is absolutely suppressed. elections in many of those states have become a farce. in the last congressional election in the state of alabama there were several congressional districts where the entire vote for members of congress did not reach , ; whereas in most of the districts of the north the vote cast at our congressional elections goes from , to , . i had occasion to say a day or two ago that in a single congressional district in the state of nebraska there were more votes cast to elect one congressman than were cast in the state of alabama at the same election to elect their whole delegation. out of what does this come? the suppression of the republican vote; the understanding among our democratic friends that it is not necessary that they should vote because their opponents are not allowed to vote. but some one will suggest: "is there a remedy for this?" i do not know, my fellow citizens, how far there is a legal remedy under our constitution, but it does not seem to me to be an adequate answer. it does not seem to me to be conclusive against the agitation of the question even if we should be compelled to respond to the arrogant question that is asked us: "what are you going to do about it?" even if we should be compelled to answer: "we can do nothing but protest," is it not worth while here, and in relation to this american question, that we should at least lift up our protest; that we should at least denounce the wrong; that we should at least deprive the perpetrators of it of what we used to call the usufructs of the crime? if you cannot prevent a burglar from breaking into your house you will do a great deal towards discouraging burglary if you prevent him from carrying off anything, and so it seems to me that if we can, upon this question, arouse the indignant protest of the north, and unite our efforts in a determination that those who perpetrate these wrongs against popular suffrage shall not by means of those wrongs seat a president in washington to secure the federal patronage in a state, we shall have done much to bring this wrong to an end. but at least while we are protesting by representatives from our state department at washington against wrongs perpetrated in russia against the jew, and in our popular assemblies here against the wrongs which england has inflicted upon ireland, shall we not at least in reference to this gigantic and intolerable wrong in our own country, as a party, lift up a stalwart and determined protest against it? but some of these independent journalists, about which our friend macmillan talked, call this the "bloody shirt." they say we are trying to revive the strife of the war, to rake over the extinct embers, to kindle the fire again. i want it understood that for one i have no quarrel with the south for what took place between and . i am willing to forget that they were rebels, at least as soon as they are willing to forget it themselves, and that time does not seem to have come yet to them. but our complaint is against what was done in , not against what was done during the war. our complaint is against what will be done this year, not what was done between and . no bloody shirt--though that cry never had any terrors for me. i believe we greatly underestimate the importance of bringing the issue to the front, and with that oft-time republican courage and outspoken fidelity to truth denouncing it the land over. if we cannot do anything else we can either make these people ashamed of this outrage against the ballot or make the world ashamed of them. there is another question to which the republican party has committed itself, and on the line of which it has accomplished, as i believe, much for the prosperity of this country. i believe the republican party is pledged and ought to be pledged to the doctrine of the protection of american industries and american labor. i believe that in so far as our native inventive genius--which seems to have no limit--our productive forces can supply the american market, we ought to keep it for ourselves. and yet this new captain on the bridge seems to congratulate himself on the fact that the voyage is still prosperous notwithstanding the change of commanders; who seems to forget that the reason that the voyage is still prosperous is because the course of the ship was marked out before he went on the bridge and the rudder tied down. he has attempted to take a new direction since he has been in command, with a view of changing the sailing course of the old craft, but it has seemed to me that he has made the mistake of mistaking the flashlight of some british lighthouse for the light of day. i do not intend here to-night in this presence to discuss this tariff question in any detail. i only want to say that in the passage of what is now so flippantly called the war tariff, to raise revenue to carry on the war out of the protective duties which were then levied, there has come to this country a prosperity and development which would have been impossible without it, and that reversal of this policy now, at the suggestion of mr. cleveland, according to the line of the blind statesman from texas, would be to stay and interrupt this march of prosperity on which we have entered. i am one of those uninstructed political economists that have an impression that some things may be too cheap; that i cannot find myself in full sympathy with this demand for cheaper coats, which seems to me necessarily to involve a cheaper man and woman under the coat. i believe it is true to-day that we have many things in this country that are too cheap, because whenever it is proved that the man or woman who produces any article cannot get a decent living out of it, then it is too cheap. but i have not intended to discuss in detail any of these questions with which we have grappled, upon which we have proclaimed a policy, or which we must meet in the near future. i am only here to-night briefly to sketch to you the magnificent career of this party to which we give our allegiance--a union of the states, restored, cemented, regenerated; a constitution cleansed of its compromises with slavery and brought into harmony with the immortal declaration; a race emancipated, given citizenship and the ballot; a national credit preserved and elevated until it stands unequalled among the nations of the world; a currency more prized than the coin for which it may be exchanged; a story of prosperity more marvellous than was ever written by the historian before. this is in brief outline the magnificent way in which the republican party has wrought. it stands to-day for a pure, equal, honest ballot the country over. it stands to-day without prejudice or malice, the well-wisher of every state in this union; disposed to fill all the streams of the south with prosperity, and demanding only that the terms of the surrender at appomattox shall be complied with. when that magnificent act of clemency was witnessed, when those sublime and gracious words were uttered by general grant at appomattox, the country applauded. we said to those misguided men: "go home"--in the language of the parole--"and you shall be unmolested while you obey the laws in force at the place where you reside." we ask nothing more, but we cannot quietly submit to the fact, while it is true everywhere in the united states that the man who fought for years against his country is allowed the full, free, unrestricted exercise of his new citizenship, when it shall not also be true everywhere that every man who followed lincoln in his political views, and every soldier who fought to uphold the flag, shall in the same full, ample manner be secured in his political rights. this disfranchisement question is hardly a southern question in all strictness. it has gone into dakota, and the intelligent and loyal population of that territory is deprived, was at the last election, and will be again, of any participation in the decision of national questions solely because the prevailing sentiment of dakota is republican. not only that, but this disregard of purity and honesty in our elections invaded ohio in an attempt to seize the united states senate by cheating john sherman, that gallant statesman, out of his seat in the senate. and it came here to illinois, in an attempt also to defeat that man whom i loved so much, john a. logan, out of his seat in the united states senate. and it has come into our own state (indiana) by tally-sheet frauds, committed by individuals, it is true, but justified and defended by the democratic party of the state in an attempt to cheat us all out of our fair election majorities. it was and is a question that lies over every other question, for every other question must be submitted to this tribunal for decision, and if the tribunal is corrupted, why shall we debate questions at all? who can doubt whether, in defeat or victorious, in the future as in the past, taking high ground upon all these questions, the same stirring cause that assembled our party in the beginning will yet be found drawing like a great magnet the young and intelligent moral elements of our country into the republican organization? defeated once, we are ready for this campaign which is impending, and i believe that the great party of is gathering together for the coming election with a force and a zeal and a resolution that will inevitably carry it, under that standard-bearer who may be chosen here in june, to victory in november. indianapolis, june , . _nomination day._ a few hours after the receipt of the news of the nomination of general harrison for president, on monday, june , , delegations from neighboring cities and towns began to arrive to congratulate him. from the moment the result at chicago was known, and for two days thereafter, the city of indianapolis was the scene of excitement and enthusiasm unparalleled in its history. the first out-of-town delegation to arrive was the republican club of danville, hendricks county, indiana, three hundred strong, led by the hon. l. m. campbell, rev. ira j. chase, major j. b. homan, joel t. baker, capt. worrel, and e. hogate. they came on the afternoon of the twenty-fifth and marched to the harrison residence escorted by about five thousand excited citizens of indianapolis, and it was to these men of hendricks that general harrison made his first public speech--after his nomination--which proved to be the opening words of a series of impromptu addresses remarkable for their eloquence, conciseness and variety, and generally conceded by the press of the day to have been the most brilliant and successful campaign speeches of his generation. to the danville club general harrison said: _gentlemen_--i am very much obliged to my hendricks county friends for this visit. the trouble you have taken to make this call so soon after information of the result at chicago reached you induces me to say a word or two, though you will not, of course, expect any reference to politics or any extended reference to the result at chicago. i very highly appreciate the wise, discreet and affectionate interest which our delegation and the people of indiana have displayed in the convention which has just closed at chicago. [cries of "good!" "good!" and cheers.] i accept your visit to-day as an expression of your confidence and respect, and i thank you for it. [great cheering.] scarcely had the danville visit concluded before another organization from hendricks county arrived, the republican club of plainfield, led by dr. harlan, william g. ellis, oscar hadley, and a. t. harrison. responding to their call, general harrison said: _gentlemen_--i can only thank you for this evidence of your friendliness. that so many of my hendricks county friends should have reached indianapolis so soon after hearing the result at chicago is very gratifying. the people of your county have always given me the most hearty support whenever i have appealed to them for support. i have a most affectionate interest in your county and in its people, especially because of the fact that it furnished two companies to the regiment which i took into the field. some of the best and most loyal of these soldiers gave their lives for their country in the battles in which the regiment was engaged. these incidents have attached me to the county, and i trust i have yet, even here among this group, some of my friends of the seventieth indiana surviving, who will always be glad to extend to me, as i to them, a comrade's hand. i thank you for this call. a few moments later two large delegations arrived from hamilton and howard counties: hon. j. r. gray of noblesville and milton garrigus of kokomo delivered congratulatory addresses on behalf of their townsmen, to which general harrison responded: i thank you, my friends of hamilton county, for this call. i know the political steadfastness of that true and tried county. your people have always been kind to me. i thank you for this evidence of your confidence and respect. howard county. of that county i may say what i have said of hamilton county. it is a neighbor in location and it is a neighbor in good works. [great cheering.] on the evening of the twenty-fifth five thousand or more neighbors and residents of the city congregated before the harrison residence. the general, on appearing, was greeted by a demonstration lasting several minutes. the standard-bearers, carrying the great banner of the oliver p. morton club, made their way to the steps and held the flag over his head. hon. w. n. harding finally quieted the crowd and presented general harrison, who spoke as follows: _neighbors and friends_--i am profoundly sensible of the kindness which you evidence to-night in gathering in such large numbers to extend to me your congratulations over the result at chicago. it would be altogether inappropriate that i should say anything of a partisan character. many of my neighbors who differ with me politically have kindly extended to me, as citizens of indianapolis, their congratulations over this event. [cries of "good!" "good!"] such congratulations, as well as those of my neighbors who sympathize with me in my political beliefs, are exceedingly grateful. i have been a long time a resident of indianapolis--over thirty years. many who are here before me have been with me, during all those years, citizens of this great and growing capital of a magnificent state. we have seen the development and growth of this city. we are proud of its position to-day, and we look forward in the future to a development which shall far outstrip that which the years behind us have told. i thank you sincerely for this evidence that those who have known me well and long give me still their confidence and respect. [cheers and applause.] kings sometimes bestow decorations upon those whom they desire to honor, but that man is most highly decorated who has the affectionate regard of his neighbors and friends. [great applause, and cries of "hurrah for harrison!"] i will only again thank you most cordially for this demonstration of your regard. i shall be glad, from time to time, as opportunity offers, to meet you all personally, and regret that to-night this crowd is so great that it will be impossible for me to take each one of you by the hand [cries of "we'll forgive you!"], but we will be here together and my house will always open its doors gladly to any of you when you may desire to see me. [great cheering.] indianapolis, june . the evening of the day following his nomination general harrison was visited by the surviving members of his old regiment, the seventieth indiana volunteers, led by major george w. grubbs of martinsville. there was also present a delegation from boone county headed by the hon. henry l. bynum, o. p. mahan and s. j. thompson; also the returning delegates from vermont to the chicago convention, headed by gov. redfield proctor and general j. g. mccullough. responding to the address of major grubbs, on behalf of the veterans, general harrison said: _comrades_--called, as i have been, by the national convention of one of the great political parties of this country to be its candidate for the presidency, it will probably be my fortune before the election to receive many delegations representing various interests and classes of our fellow-citizens, but i am sure that out of them all there will come none whose coming will touch my heart so deeply as this visit from my comrades of the seventieth indiana and these scattered members of the other regiments that constituted the first brigade of the third division of the twentieth army corps. i recall the scene to which major grubbs has alluded. i remember that summer day, when, equipped and armed, we were called to leave our homes and cross the ohio river and enter the territory that was in arms against the government which we were sworn to support. i recall, with you, the tender parting, the wringing of hearts with which we left those we loved. i recall the high and buoyant determination, the resolute carriage with which you went to do your part in the work of suppressing the great rebellion. i remember the scenes through which we went in that hard discipline of service and sickness, and all of those hard incidents which are necessary to convert citizens into veterans. i remember the scenes of battle in which we stood together. i remember especially that broad and deep grave at the foot of the resaca hill where we left those gallant comrades who fell in that desperate charge. i remember, through it all, the gallantry, devotion and steadfastness, the high set patriotism you always exhibited. i remember how, after sweeping down with sherman from chattanooga to the sea and up again through the carolinas and virginia, you, with those gallant armies that had entered the gate of the south by louisville and vicksburg, marched in the great review up the grand avenue of our nation's capital. i remember that proud scene of which we were part that day; the glad rejoicing as our faces were turned homeward, the applause which greeted us as the banner of our regiment was now and then recognized by some home friends who had gathered to see us--the whole course of these incidents of battle, of sickness, of death, of victory, crowned thus by the triumphant reassertion of national authority, and by the muster out and our return to those homes that we loved, made again secure against all the perils which had threatened them. i feel that in this campaign upon which i am entering, and which will undoubtedly cause careful scrutiny, perhaps unkind and even malicious assault, all that related to my not conspicuous but loyal services with you in the army i may confidently leave, with my honor, in the hands of the surviving members of the seventieth indiana, whatever their political faith may be. [cries of "that is true, general!" and "yes!" "yes!"] may i ask you now, for i am too deeply moved by this visit to speak as i would desire, that each one will enter this door, that will always open with a hearty welcome to you, and let me take you by the hand? [cheering.] the event of the night was the visit of the california delegation, at ten o'clock, accompanied by the indiana delegation to chicago and several hundred personal friends and neighbors of general harrison just returned from chicago, where they had been laboring for his nomination. the hon. m. h. de young and john f. ellison of california delivered congratulatory addresses, on conclusion of which the californians hastened to their train; after they departed the great crowd refused to disperse and called repeatedly for general harrison, who responded as follows: _fellow-citizens, ladies and gentlemen_--i am very deeply impressed and gratified with this magnificent demonstration of your respect. no man can be so highly honored by any convention, or by any decoration which any of the authorities of the government can bestow, as by the respect and confidence of those who live near him. my heart is touched by this demonstration which my fellow-citizens have given me of their personal respect for me. i do not, however, accept this manifestation of interest as wholly due to myself. the great bulk of those who are assembled here to-night manifest rather their interest in those political principles which i have been called by the representatives, in national convention of the republican party, to represent in this campaign. but i will not discuss any of those high issues to-night, because i am glad to know that among those who are gathered here, and among those who have paid me the compliment of their presence in my home, there are many citizens of indianapolis who differ with me politically. i would not, therefore, if it were otherwise proper, mar this occasion by the discussion of any political topic. i am glad to have an opportunity to return my sincere and heartfelt thanks to the indiana delegation, and to that band of devoted friends who gathered about them and assisted them in their work at chicago. when i saw in the newspaper press of the east and of the west the encomiums that were passed by the correspondents upon the deportment and character of the representatives of indiana at chicago, i was greatly pleased. when i heard of their affectionate devotion, of their discreet and wise presentation of the claims of indiana, i was still further gratified. and if the result of that convention had been, as it well might have been if individuals had only been considered in the contest that was there waged, the selection for this high place of some one other than myself, i should have felt that the devoted interest, the wise and faithful presentation by the indiana delegation of the indiana situation was such that the failure to yield to their argument would still have left me crowned with the highest crown that can be placed upon mortal brow--the affection and confidence and discreet support of my friends from indiana. [cries of "good!" "good!"] i am glad that the despatches said of them, and truly said, that they conducted their canvass with that gentle and respectful regard to the interests and character of the others who were named for this high place, and that they came home without those regrets which must have followed if this victory had been won at the expense of any of those noble names that were presented for the suffrage of the convention. i do not feel at all that in selecting the candidate who was chosen regard was had simply to the individual equipment and qualifications for the duties of this high office. i feel sure that if the convention had felt free to regard these things only, some other of those distinguished men, old-time leaders of the republican party, blaine, or sherman, or allison, or some of the others named--would have been chosen in preference to me. i feel that it was the situation in indiana and its relation to the campaign that was impending rather than the personal equipment or qualifications of the candidate that was chosen that turned the choice of the convention in our direction. we are here to-night to thank those members of the convention who have done us the honor to pay our capital a visit to-night not only for this visit, but for the support and interest which they took in the indiana candidacy in the convention at chicago. i thank you again for gathering here to-night. i am sure that in this demonstration you give evidence that the interest in this campaign will not flag until the election has determined the result of the contest. and i feel sure, too, my fellow-citizens, that we have joined now a contest of great principles, and that the armies which are to fight out this great contest before the american people will encamp upon the high plains of principle, and not in the low swamps of personal defamation or detraction. [cries of "hear!" "hear!" and "good!"] again i thank you for the compliment of your presence here to-night, and bid you good-night. [great cheering.] indianapolis, june . during the afternoon representatives of the marquette club of chicago--of which general harrison is an honorary member--called to present a set of congratulatory resolutions adopted by the club. the committee comprised geo. v. lauman, h. d. crocker, w. s. gilbert, e. b. gould, h. m. kingman and j. s. moore. one of the resolutions recited that "the marquette club of chicago takes great pride in the fact that within its walls and at its board was fired the first gun in chicago of that memorable contest which has culminated in the nomination of its most honored member, general benjamin harrison, to fill the highest office within the gift of the american people." general harrison in response said: _gentlemen of the marquette club_--i sincerely thank you for the congratulations of the marquette club of chicago. i well recollect the evening i spent with you last february, and i remember how favorably your club impressed me at that time as a body of active, energetic young republicans: not so much an organization for social purposes as for active advancement of republican principles in your vicinity, and in the country as well. i thought i recognized in you then an efficient body for work in the state of illinois, one that could in the coming campaign render signal service to the party whose principles its members maintain. i rejoice in your coming to call on me here, and i hope you will carry my sincere thanks to your members, and make yourselves welcome at my home now and whenever you are in indianapolis. on the evening of june several thousand citizens, irrespective of party, paid their respects to general harrison; at the head of the column marched four hundred veterans commanded by moses g. mclain. major james l. mitchell, a prominent democrat, was spokesman for the veterans. general harrison, responding, said: _comrade mitchell and fellow-soldiers_--i sincerely thank you for this evidence of your respect and comradeship. i am very certain that there is no class whose confidence and respect i more highly prize or more earnestly covet than that of the soldiers who, in the great war from to , upheld the loved banner of our country and brought it home in honor. the comradeship of the war will never end until our lives end. the fires in which our friendship was riveted and welded were too hot for the bond ever to be broken. we sympathize with each other in the glory of the common cause for which we fought. we went, not as partisans, but as patriots, into the strife which involved the national life. i am sure that no army was ever assembled in the world's history that was gathered from higher impulses than the army of the union. [cries of "right!" "right!"] it was no sordid impulse, no hope of spoils that induced these men to sunder the tender associations of home and forsake their business pursuits to look into the grim face of death with unblanched cheeks and firm and resolute eyes. they are the kind of men who draw their impulses from the high springs of truth and duty. the army was great in its assembling. it came with an impulse that was majestic and terrible. it was as great in its muster-out as in the brilliant work which had been done in the field. when the war was over the soldier was not left at the tavern. every man had in some humble place a chair by some fireside where he was loved and towards which his heart went forward with a quick step. [applause.] and so this great army that had rallied for the defence and preservation of the country was disbanded without tumult or riot or any public disturbance. it had covered the country with the mantle of its protection when it needed it, as the snows of spring cover the early vegetation, and when the warm sun of peace shone upon it, it disappeared as the snow sinks into the earth to refresh and vivify the summer growth. they found their homes; they carried their brawn and intellect into all the pursuits of peace to stimulate them and lift them up; they added their great impulse to that great wave of prosperity which has swept over our country ever since. [applause.] but in nothing was this war greater than in that it led a race into freedom and brought those whom we had conquered in the struggle into the full enjoyment of a restored citizenship, and shared again with them the responsibilities and duties of a restored government. [applause.] i thank you to-night most sincerely for this evidence of your comradeship. i thank, specially, those friends who differ with me in their political views, that they have put these things aside to-night, and have come here to give me a comrade's greeting. [applause.] may i have the privilege now, without detaining you longer, of taking by the hand every soldier here? [applause.] later, the same evening, the harrison league of indianapolis, numbering three hundred colored men, assembled on the lawn and congratulated the republican nominee through its spokesman, mr. ben d. bagby. general harrison's response was as follows: _mr. bagby and gentlemen of the harrison club_--i assure you that i have a sincere respect for, and a very deep interest in, the colored people of the united states. my memory, as a boy, goes back to the time when slavery existed in the southern states. i was born upon the ohio river, which was the boundary between the free state of ohio and the slave state of kentucky. some of my earliest recollections relate to the stirring and dramatic interest which was now and then excited by the pursuit of an escaping slave for the hope of offered rewards. i remember, as a boy, wandering once through my grandfather's orchard at north bend, and in pressing through an alder thicket that grew on its margin i saw sitting in its midst a colored man with the frightened look of a fugitive in his eye, and attempting to satisfy his hunger with some walnuts he had gathered. he noticed my approach with a fierce, startled look, to see whether i was likely to betray him; i was frightened myself and left him in some trepidation, but i kept his secret. [cries of "good!" "good!"] i have seen the progress which has been made in the legislation relating to your race, and the progress that the race itself has made since that day. when i came to indiana to reside the unfriendly black code was in force. my memory goes back to the time when colored witnesses were first allowed to appear in court in this state to testify in cases where white men were parties. prior to that time, as you know, you had been excluded from the right to tell in court, under oath, your side of the story in any legal controversy with white men. [cries of "i know that!"] the laws prevented your coming here. in every way you were at a disadvantage, even in the free states. i have lived to see this unfriendly legislation removed from our statute-books and the unfriendly section of our state constitution repealed. i have lived not only to see that, but to see the race emancipated and slavery extinct. [cries of "amen to that!"] nothing gives me more pleasure among the results of the war than this. history will give a prominent place in the story of this great war to the fact that it resulted in making all men free, and gave to you equal civil rights. the imagination and art of the poet, the tongue of the orator, the skill of the artist will be brought under contribution to tell this story of the emancipation of the souls of men. [applause and cries of "amen!"] nothing gives me so much gratification as a republican as to feel that in all the steps that led to this great result the republican party sympathized with you, pioneered for you in legislation, and was the architect of those great measures of relief which have so much ameliorated your condition. [applause.] i know nowhere in this country of a monument that i behold with so much interest, that touches my heart so deeply, as that monument at washington representing the proclamation of emancipation by president lincoln, the kneeling black man at the feet of the martyred president, with the shackles falling from his limbs. i remember your faithfulness during the time of the war. i remember your faithful service to the army as we were advancing through an unknown country. we could always depend upon the faithfulness of the black man. [cries of "right you are!"] he might be mistaken, but he was never false. many a time in the darkness of night have those faithful men crept to our lines and given us information of the approach of the enemy. i shall never forget a scene that i saw when sherman's army marched through a portion of north carolina, between raleigh and richmond, where our troops had never before been. the colored people had not seen our flag since the banner of treason had been set up in its stead. as we were passing through a village the colored people flocked out to see once more the starry banner of freedom, the emblem, promise, and security of their emancipation. i remember an aged woman, over whom nearly a century of slavery must have passed, pressed forward to see the welcome banner that told her that her soul would go over into the presence of her god. i remember her exultation of spirit as she danced in the dusty road before our moving column, and, like miriam of old, called upon her soul to rejoice in the deliverance which god had wrought by the coming of those who stood for and made secure the proclamation of emancipation. [applause.] i rejoice in all that you have accomplished since you have been free. i recall no scene more pathetic than that which i have often seen about our camp-fires. an aged man, a fugitive from slavery, had found freedom in our camp. after a day of hard work, when taps had sounded and the lights in the tents were out, i have seen him with the spelling-book that the chaplain had given him, lying prone upon the ground taxing his old eyes, and pointing with his hardened finger to the letters of the alphabet, as he endeavored to open to his clouded brain the avenues of information and light. i am glad to know that that same desire to increase and enlarge your information possesses the race to-day. it is the open way for the race to that perfect emancipation which will remove remaining prejudices and secure to you in all parts of the land an equal and just participation in the government of this country. it cannot much longer be withholden from you. again i thank you for your presence here to-night and will be glad to take by the hand any of you who desire to see me. [great applause.] indianapolis, july , . _the notification._ the indiana republican state committee, through its chairman, the hon. james n. huston, designated as a committee to receive and escort the committee on notification from the national convention the following gentlemen: ex-gov. albert g. porter, mayor caleb s. denny, col. john c. new, j. n. huston, col. j. h. bridgland, hon. stanton j. peelle, william wallace, m. g. mclain, n. s. byram, hon. w. h. calkins, w. j. richards, and hon. h. m. lafollette. at noon on july the notification committee representing the republican national convention arrived under escort at the residence of general harrison, no. delaware street. the following delegates comprised the committee: judge morris m. estee of california, _chairman_; alabama, a. h. hendricks; arkansas, logan h. roots; california, paris kilburn; colorado, henry r. wolcott; connecticut, e. s. henry; delaware, j. r. whitaker; florida, f. m. wicker; georgia, w. w. brown; illinois, thomas w. scott; indiana, j. n. huston; iowa, thomas updegraff; kansas, henry l. alden; kentucky, george denny; louisiana, andrew hero; maine, samuel h. allen; maryland, wm. m. marine; massachusetts, f. l. burden; michigan, wm. mcpherson; minnesota, r. b. langdon; mississippi, t. w. stringer; missouri, a. w. mullins; nebraska, r. s. norval; nevada, s. e. hamilton; new hampshire, p. c. cheney; new jersey, h. h. potter; new york, obed wheeler; north carolina, d. c. pearson; ohio, charles foster; oregon, f. p. mays; pennsylvania, frank reeder; rhode island, b. m. bosworth; south carolina, paris simpkins; tennessee, j. c. dougherty; texas, e. h. terrell; vermont, redfield proctor; virginia, harry libby; west virginia, c. b. smith; wisconsin, h. c. payne; arizona, geo. christ; dakota, g. w. hopp; dist. columbia, p. h. carson; idaho, g. a. black; montana, g. o. eaton; new mexico, j. f. chavez; utah, j. j. daly; washington, t. h. minor; wyoming, c. d. clark. chairman estee spoke for the committee; his address signed by each member was also presented to general harrison, who in a full, clear voice replied as follows: _mr. chairman and gentlemen of the committee_--the official notice which you have brought of the nomination conferred upon me by the republican national convention recently in session at chicago excites emotions of a profound, though of a somewhat conflicting, character. that after full deliberation and free consultation the representatives of the republican party of the united states should have concluded that the great principles enunciated in the platform adopted by the convention could be in some measure safely confided to my care is an honor of which i am deeply sensible and for which i am very grateful. i do not assume or believe that this choice implies that the convention found in me any pre-eminent fitness or exceptional fidelity to the principles of government to which we are mutually pledged. my satisfaction with the result would be altogether spoiled if that result had been reached by any unworthy methods or by a disparagement of the more eminent men who divided with me the suffrages of the convention. i accept the nomination with so deep a sense of the dignity of the office and of the gravity of its duties and the responsibilities as altogether to exclude any feeling of exultation or pride. the principles of government and the practices in administration upon which issues are now fortunately so clearly made are so important in their relations to the national and to individual prosperity that we may expect an unusual popular interest in the campaign. relying wholly upon the considerate judgment of our fellow-citizens and the gracious favor of god, we will confidently submit our cause to the arbitrament of a free ballot. the day you have chosen for this visit suggests no thoughts that are not in harmony with the occasion. the republican party has walked in the light of the declaration of independence. it has lifted the shaft of patriotism upon the foundation laid at bunker hill. it has made the more perfect union secure by making all men free. washington and lincoln, yorktown and appomattox, the declaration of independence and the proclamation of emancipation are naturally and worthily associated in our thoughts to-day. as soon as may be possible i shall by letter communicate to your chairman a more formal acceptance of the nomination, but it may be proper for me now to say that i have already examined the platform with some care, and that its declarations, to some of which your chairman has alluded, are in harmony with my views. it gives me pleasure, gentlemen, to receive you in my home and to thank you for the cordial manner in which you have conveyed your official message. at the conclusion of these formalities charles w. clisbee, one of the secretaries of the national convention, presented the nominee an engrossed official copy of the republican platform. july , , was a memorable day in the life of general harrison and his wife; for aside from the official notification of his nomination, they were the recipients of congratulations of a unique character from the tippecanoe club of marion county, a political organization composed exclusively of veterans who had voted for general william henry harrison in the campaigns of or . nearly all the younger and able-bodied members attended the chicago convention and worked unceasingly for the nomination of general benjamin harrison. their average age was seventy-five years, while one member, james hubbard of mapleton, was over one hundred years old. on the afternoon of the fourth, ninety-one of these veterans commanded by their marshal, isaac taylor, marched to general harrison's house through the rain. they had adopted a congratulatory address which was presented by a committee consisting of dr. george w. new, judge j. b. julian, and dr. lawson abbett, to which general harrison feelingly replied as follows: _mr. president and gentlemen of the tippecanoe club of marion county_--i am very deeply touched by your visit to-day. the respect and confidence of such a body of men is a crown. many of you i have known since i first came to indianapolis. i count you my friends. [cries of "yes, sir, we are!"] you have not only shown your friendliness and respect in the political contests in which my name has been used, but very many of you in the social and business relations of life extended to me, when i came a young man among you, encouragement and help. i know that at the beginning your respect and confidence was builded upon the respect, and even affection--may i not say, which you bore to my grandfather. [a voice, "yes, that is true!"] may i not, without self-laudation, now say that upon that foundation you have since created a modest structure of respect for me? [cries of "yes, sir!" "we have!" "that's the talk!"] i came among you with the heritage i trust, of a good name [cries of "that's so!" "good stock!"], such as all of you enjoy. it was the only inheritance that has been transmitted in our family. [cries of "it has been!"] i think you recollect, and, perhaps, it was that as much as aught else that drew your choice in to the whig candidate for the presidency, that he came out of virginia to the west with no fortune but the sword he bore, and unsheathed it here in the defence of our frontier homes. he transmitted little to his descendants but the respect he had won from his fellow-citizens. it seems to be the settled habit in our family to leave nothing else to our children. [laughter and cries of "that's enough!"] my friends, i am a thorough believer in the american test of character [cries of "that's right!"]: the rule must be applied to a man's own life when his stature is taken he will not build high who does not build for himself. [applause and cries of "that's true!"] i believe also in the american opportunity which puts the starry sky above every boy's head, and sets his foot upon a ladder which he may climb until his strength gives out. i thank you cordially for your greeting, and for this tender of your help in this campaign. it will add dignity and strength to the campaign when it is found that the zealous, earnest, and intelligent co-operation of men of mature years like you is given to it. the whig party to which you belonged had but one serious fault--there were not enough of them after . [laughter and applause.] we have since received to our ranks in the new and greater party to which you now belong accessions from those who were then our opponents, and we now unite with them in the defence of principles which were dear to you as whigs, which were indeed the cherished and distinguishing principles of the whig party; and in the olden and better time, of the democratic party also. chief among these were a reverent devotion to the constitution and the flag, and a firm faith in the benefits of a protective tariff. if, in some of the states, under a sudden and mad impulse some of the old whigs who stood with you in the campaign of , to which you have referred, wandered from us, may we not send to them to-day the greetings of these their old associates, and invite them to come again into the fold? and now, gentlemen, i thank you again for your visit, and would be glad if you would remain with us for a little personal intercourse. indianapolis, july . five hundred commercial travellers paid a visit to general harrison on july ; they came from all parts of the country, principally from philadelphia, cincinnati, st. louis, and louisville. major james r. ross was marshal of their delegation; david e. coffin presented the "drummers" to general and mrs. harrison. when all had gathered within or about the residence, col. ed. h. wolfe of rushville, indiana, delivered a congratulatory address on behalf of the visitors. general harrison, responding, said: _gentlemen of the commercial travellers' association of indiana and visiting friends_--i most heartily thank you for this cordial manifestation of your respect. it is to be expected when one has been named for office by one of the great parties that those who are in accord with him in his political convictions will show their interest in the campaign which he represents, but it is particularly gratifying to me that many of you who differ with me in political opinion, reserving your own opinions and choice, have come here to-night to express your gratification, personally, that i have been named by the republican party as its candidate for the presidency. it is a very pleasant thing in politics when this sort of testimony is possible, and it is very gratifying to me to-night to receive it at your hands. i do not know why we cannot hold our political differences with respect for each other's opinions, and with entire respect for each other personally. our opinions upon the great questions which divide parties ought not to be held in such a spirit of bigotry as will prevent us from extending to a political opponent the concession of honesty in his opinion and that personal respect to which he may be entitled. [applause.] i very much value this visit from you, for i think i know how to estimate the commercial travellers of america. i am not going to open before you to-night any store of flattery. i do not think there is any market for it here. [laughter and cries of "that's good!" and cheers.] you know the value of that commodity perfectly. [laughter and continued applause.] i do not mean to suggest at all that you are dealers in it yourselves [laughter] in your intercourse with your customers, but i do mean to say that your wide acquaintance with men, that judgment of character and even of the moods of men which is essential to the successful prosecution of your business makes you a very unpromising audience upon which to pass any stale compliments. my memory goes back to the time when there were no commercial travellers. when i first came to indianapolis to reside your profession was not known. the retail merchant went to the wholesale house and made his selections there. i appreciate the fact that those who successfully pursue your calling must, in the nature of things, be masters of the business in which you are engaged and possess great adaptability and a high order of intelligence. i thank you again for this visit; and give you in return my most sincere respect and regard. [applause.] i regret that there is not room enough here for your comfort [a voice: "there will be more room in the white house!" another: "we will take your order now and deliver the goods in november!"], but i shall be glad if any or all of you will remain for a better acquaintance and less formal intercourse. [great applause and rousing cheers for the next president.] indianapolis, july . the first of many delegations from other states arrived july , from the city of benton harbor, mich., and included many ladies. the leading members were f. r. gilson, ambrose h. rowe, wm. s. farmer, g. m. valentines, w. b. shanklin, e. m. elick, a. j. kidd, c. c. sweet, o. b. hipp, r. m. jones, w. l. hogan, james mcdonald, allen brunson, frank melton, p. w. hall, geo. w. platt, w. l. mcclure, j. c. purrill, e. h. kelly, j. a. crawford, m. j. vincent, dr. boston, m. g. kennedy, and dr. j. bell. general l. m. ward was spokesman for the visitors. general harrison said: _my friends_--this visit is exceptional in some of its features. already, in the brief time since my nomination, i have received various delegations, but this is the first delegation that has visited me from outside the borders of my own state. your visit is also exceptional and very gratifying in that you have brought with you the ladies of your families to grace the occasion and to honor me by their presence. i am glad to know that while the result of the convention at chicago brought disappointment to you, it has not left any sores that need the ointment of time for their healing. your own favored citizen, distinguished civilian, and brave soldier, general alger, was among the first and among the most cordial to extend to me his congratulations and the assurance of his earnest support in the campaign. i am sure it cannot be otherwise than that the republicans of michigan will take a deep interest in this campaign; an interest that altogether oversteps all personal attachments. your state has been proudly associated with the past successes of the republican party, and your interests are now closely identified with its success in the pending campaign. i am sure, therefore, that i may accept your presence here to-night not only as a personal compliment, but as a pledge that michigan will be true again to those great principles of government which are represented by the republican party. we cherish the history of our party and are proud of its high achievements; they stir the enthusiasm of the young and crown those who were early in its ranks with well-deserved laurels. the success of the republican party has always been identified with the glory of the flag and the unity of the government. there has been nothing in the history or principles of our party out of line with revolutionary memories or with the enlightened statesmanship of the framers of our constitution. those principles are greater than men, lasting as truth, and sure of final vindication and triumph. let me thank you again for your visit, and ask introduction to each of you. indianapolis, july . general harrison received four delegations this day. the first was a committee of veterans from john a. logan post, no. , g. a. r., of north manchester, wabash county, who came to invite the general to attend a soldiers' reunion for northern indiana. the committee comprised shelby sexton, senior vice-commander indiana g. a. r.; john elwood, geo. lawrence, j. a. brown, w. e. thomas, i. d. springdon, j. c. hubbard, j. m. jennings, e. a. ebbinghous, l. j. noftzger, and s. v. hopkins. rev. r. j. parrott delivered the address of invitation. general harrison responded: _comrades and gentlemen_--your request is one that appeals to me very strongly, and if it were single i should very promptly accede to it, but, without being told, you will readily understand that invitations of a kindred nature are coming to me every day, presented by individual comrades and committees, but more frequently by written communications. i have felt that if i opened a door in this direction it would be a very wide one, and i would either subject myself to the criticism of having favored particular localities or particular organizations, to the neglect of others having equal claims upon me, or that i should be compelled to give to this pleasant duty--as it would be if other duties did not crowd me--too much of my time. i am, therefore, compelled to say to you that it will be impossible for me to accept your invitation. but in doing this, i want to thank you for the interest you have shown in my presence with you, and i want especially to thank you for the spirit of comradeship which brings you here. i am glad to know--and i have many manifestations of it--that the peculiar position in which i am placed as a candidate of a political party does not separate me from the cordial friendship and comradeship of those who differ with me politically. i should greatly regret it if it should be so. we held our opinions and fought for them when the war was on, and we will hold them now in affectionate comradeship and mutual respect. i thank you for your visit. the second delegation also came from wabash county and was under the leadership of william hazen, warren bigler, james p. ross, james e. still, robert weesner, john rodgers, job ridgway, and joseph ridgway, aged , of wabash city. their spokesman was mr. cowgill. general harrison, responding, said: _mr. cowgill and my wabash county friends_--in i was first a candidate before a convention for nomination to a public office. possibly some of those who are here to-day were in that convention. wabash county presented in the person of my friend, and afterwards my comrade, col. charles parrish, a candidate for the office which i also sought, that of reporter of decisions of the supreme court of the state of indiana. we had a friendly yet earnest contest before the convention, in which i succeeded. a little later in the campaign, as i was attempting to render to my party the services which my nomination seemed to imply, i visited your good county and received at your hands a welcome so demonstrative and cordial that i have always had a warm place in my heart for your people. i was then almost a boy in years, and altogether a boy in public life. since then, in campaigns in which i have had a personal interest, and in very many more wherein i had only the general interest that you all had, it has been my pleasure to visit your county, and i can testify to the earnest, intelligent and devoted republicanism of wabash county. you have never faltered in any of the great struggles in which the party has engaged; and i believe you have followed your party from a high conviction that the purposes it set before us involved the best interests of the country that you love, and to which you owe the duty of citizens. i know how generously you contributed to the army when your sons were called to defend it; and i know how, since the war, you have endeavored to preserve and to conserve those results which you fought for, and which made us again one people, acknowledging, and i hope loving, one flag and one constitution. [applause.] i want to thank you personally for this visit, and i wish now, if it is your pleasure, to meet you individually. benton county, indiana, contributed the third delegation of the day, led by h. s. travis, clark cook, b. johnson, henry taylor, frank knapp, and robert l. cox of fowler. they were presented by col. a. d. streight. general harrison said: _colonel streight, fellow-citizens, and comrades_--i am very grateful to you for this visit, and for the cordial terms in which your spokesman has extended to me the congratulations of my friends of benton county. we have men who boast that they are cosmopolitans, citizens of the world. i prefer to say that i am an american citizen [applause], and i freely confess that american interests have the first place in my regard. [applause.] this is not at all inconsistent with the recognition of that comity between nations which is necessary to the peace of the world. it is not inconsistent with that philanthropy which sympathizes with human distress and oppression the world around. we have been especially favored as an apart nation, separated from the conflicts, jealousies, and intrigues of european courts, with a territory embracing every feature of climate and soil, and resources capable of supplying the wants of our people, of developing a wholesome and gigantic national growth, and of spreading abroad, by their full establishment here, the principles of human liberty and free government. i do not think it inconsistent with the philanthropy of the broadest teacher of human love that we should first have regard for that family of which we are a part. here in indiana the drill has just disclosed to us the presence of inexhaustible quantities, in a large area of our state, of that new fuel which has the facility of doing its own transportation, even to the furnace door, and which leaves no residuum to be carried away when it has done its work. this discovery has added an impulse to our growth. it has attracted manufacturing industries from other states. many of our towns have received, and this city, we may hope, is yet to receive, a great impulse in the development of their manufacturing industries by reason of this discovery. it seems to me that when this fuller development of our manufacturing interests, this building up of a home market for the products of our farms, which is sure to produce here that which has been so obvious elsewhere--a great increase in the value of farms and farm products--is opening to us the pleasant prospect of a rapid growth in wealth, we should be slow to abandon that system of protective duties which looks to the promotion and development of american industry and to the preservation of the highest possible scale of wages for the american workman. [applause.] the development of our country must be on those lines that benefit all our people. any development that does not reach and beneficially affect all our people is not to be desired, and cannot be progressive or permanent. comrades, you still love the flag for which we fought. we are preserved in god's providence to see the wondrous results of that struggle in which you were engaged--a reunited country, a constitution whose authority is no longer disputed, a flag to which all men bow. it has won respect at home; it should be respected by all nations of the earth as an emblem and representative of a people desiring peace with all men, but resolute in the determination that the rights of all our citizens the world around shall be faithfully respected. [applause and cries of "that's right!"] i thank you again for this visit, and, if it be your pleasure, and your committee will so arrange, i will be glad to take you by the hand. the fourth and largest delegation of the day came from boone county, numbering more than two thousand, led by captain brown, s. s. heath, a. l. howard, w. h. h. martin, d. a. rice, james williamson, e. g. darnell, d. h. olive, and captain arbigas of lebanon, the last-named veteran totally blind. another contingent was commanded by david o. mason, j. o. hurst, j. n. harmon, and mr. denny, an octogenarian, all of zionsville. dr. d. c. scull was orator for the visitors. general harrison said: _my friends_--the magnitude of this demonstration puts us at a disadvantage in our purpose to entertain you hospitably, as we had designed when notified of your coming. [cheers.] i regret that you must stand exposed to the heat of the sun, and that i must be at the disadvantage of speaking from this high balcony a few words of hearty thanks. i hope it may be arranged by the committee so that i may yet have the opportunity of speaking to you informally and individually. i am glad to notice your quick interest in the campaign. i am sure that that interest is stimulated by your devotion to the principles of government which you conceive--rightly, as i believe--to be involved in this campaign. [applause.] i am glad to think that some of you, veterans of a former political campaign to which your chairman has alluded, and others of you, comrades in the great war for the union, come here to express some personal friendship for me. [cheers.] but i am sure that this campaign will be waged upon a plan altogether above personal consideration. you are here as citizens of the state of indiana, proud of the great advancement the state has made since those pioneer days when brave men from the east and south entered our territory, blazing a pathway into the unbroken forest, upon which civilization, intelligence, patriotism, and the love of god has walked until we are conspicuous among the states as a community desirous of social order, full of patriotic zeal, and pledged to the promotion of that education which is to qualify the coming generations to discharge honorably and well their duties to the government which we will leave in their hands. [applause.] you are here also as citizens of the united states, proud of that arch of strength that binds together the states of this union in one great nation. but citizenship has its duties as well as its privileges. the first is that we give our energies and influence to the enactment of just, equal, and beneficent laws. the second is like unto it--that we loyally reverence and obey the will of the majority enacted into law, whether we are of a majority or not [applause]; the law throws the ægis of its protection over us all. it stands sentinel about your country homes to protect you from violence; it comes into our more thickly populated community and speaks its mandate for individual security and public order. there is an open avenue through the ballot-box for the modification or repeal of laws which are unjust or oppressive. to the law we bow with reverence. it is the one king that commands our allegiance. we will change our king, when his rule is oppressive, by these methods appointed, and crown his more liberal successor. [applause.] i thank you again, most cordially, for this visit, and put myself in the hands of your committee that i may have the privilege of meeting you individually. indianapolis, july . one thousand employees of the various railroads centreing at indianapolis, organized as a harrison and morton club--j. c. finch, president, and a. d. shaw, marshal of the occasion--called on general harrison on the night of july . yardmaster shaw was spokesman. general harrison replied: _gentlemen_--your visit is very gratifying to me, and is full of significance and interest. if i read aright the language of your lanterns you have signalled the republican train to go ahead. [applause and cries of "and she is going, too!"] you have concluded that it is freighted with the interests and hopes of the workingmen of america, and must have the right of way. [cheers and cries, "that's true!" and "we don't have to take water on this trip, either!"] the train has been inspected; you have given it your skilled and intelligent approval; the track has been cleared and the switches spiked down. have i read your signals aright? [cheers and cries of "you have!" and "there's no flat wheels under this train!"] you represent, i understand, every department of railroad labor--the office, the train, the shop, the yard, and the road. you are the responsible and intelligent agents of a vast system that, from a rude and clumsy beginning, has grown to be as fine and well adapted as the parts of the latest locomotive engine. the necessities and responsibilities of the business of transportation have demanded a body of picked men--inventive and skilful, faithful and courageous, sober and educated--and the call has been answered, as your presence here to night demonstrates. [cheers.] heroism has been found at the throttle and the brake, as well as on the battle-field, and as well worthy of song and marble. the trainman crushed between the platforms, who used his last breath, not for prayer or message of love, but to say to the panic-stricken who gathered around him, "put out the red light for the other train," inscribed his name very high upon the shaft where the names of the faithful and brave are written. [a voice: "give him three cheers for that!" great and enthusiastic cheering.] this early and very large gathering of republican railroad men suggests to me that you have opinions upon public questions which are the product of your own observations and study. some one will say that the railroad business is a "non-protected industry," because it has to do with transportation and not with production. but i only suggest what has already occurred to your own minds when i say that is a very deceptive statement. you know there is a relation between the wages of skilled and unskilled labor as truly as between the prices of two grades of cotton cloth; that if the first is cut down, the other, too, must come down. [cries of "that's just so!"] you know, also, that if labor is thrown out of one line or avenue, by so much the more will the others be crowded; that any policy that transfers production from the american to the english or german shop works an injury to all american workmen. [great cheering.] but, if it could be shown that your wages were unaffected by our system of protective duties, i am sure that your fellowship with your fellow toilers in other industries would lead you to desire, as i do and always have, that our legislation may be of that sort that will secure to them the highest possible prosperity [applause]--wages that not only supply the necessities of life, but leave a substantial margin for comfort and for the savings bank. no man's wages should be so low that he cannot make provision in his days of vigor for the incapacity of accident or the feebleness of old age. [great cheering.] i am glad to be assured to-night that the principles of our party and all things affecting its candidates can be safely left to the thoughtful consideration of the american workingmen--they will know the truth and accept it; they will reject the false and slanderous. [applause.] and now let me say in conclusion that my door will always be open to any of you who may desire to talk with me about anything that interests you or that you think will interest me. i regret that mrs. harrison is prevented by a temporary sickness from joining with me in receiving you this evening. [great cheering.] indianapolis, july . a notable visit was that of two hundred and twenty members of the lincoln club, one of the most influential political organizations of cincinnati. they were escorted by the first regiment band and led by their president, hon. a. c. horton, with col. james i. quinton, marshal of the day. among other prominent members in line were col. leo markbreit, senator richardson, dr. m. m. eaton, hon. fred pfeister, w. e. hutton, samuel baily, jr., albert mitchell, h. m. zeigler, b. o. m. de beck, w. t. porter, harry probasco, john ferinbatch, geo. b. fox, j. e. strubbe, dr. s. v. wiseman, joseph h. thornton, c. h. rockwell, lewis wesner and col. moore. hon. drusin wulsin, vice-president of the club, was the orator. general harrison, who had been ill for two days, replied: _mr. wulsin and gentlemen of the lincoln club of cincinnati_--i thank you very much for this visit, and i wish i found myself in condition to talk to you with comfort to-night. i cannot, however, let the occasion pass, in view of the kind terms in which you have addressed me through your spokesman, without a word. i feel as if these hamilton county republicans were my neighbors. the associations of my early life were with that county, and of my student life largely with the city of cincinnati. you did not need to state to me that ohio supported john sherman in the convention at chicago [laughter] simply to couple with it the suggestion that it was a matter of state pride for you to do so. i have known him long and intimately. it was my good fortune for four years to sit beside him in the senate of the united states. i learned there to value him as a friend and to honor him as a statesman. there were reasons altogether wider than the state of ohio why you should support john sherman in the convention. [applause and cries of "good!" "good!"] his long and faithful service to his country and to the republican party, his distinguished ability, his fidelity as a citizen, all entitled him to your faithful support; and i beg to assure you, as i have assured him both before and since the convention, that i did not and would not, upon any consideration, have made any attempt against him upon the ohio delegation. [applause.] i have known of your club as an organization that early set the example of perpetuating itself--an example that i rejoice to see is being largely followed now throughout our country. if these principles which are being urged by our party in these contests are worthy of our campaign enthusiasm and ardor, they are worthy to be thought of and advocated in the period of inter-campaign. they affect the business interests of our country, and their full adoption and perpetuation, we believe, will bring prosperity to all our individual and social and community interests. therefore, i think it wise that in those times, when men's minds are more open to conviction and are readier of access, you should press upon the attention of your neighbors through your club organizations these principles to which you and i have given the allegiance of our minds and the devotion of our hearts. i thank you again for this visit. we are glad that you have come; therefore, i welcome you, not only as republicans, but as friends. [applause.] indianapolis, july . howard county sent a delegation of six hundred citizens this day, led by major a. n. grant. the lincoln league club of kokomo was commanded by its president, john e. moore. other prominent citizens in the delegation were hon. j. n. loop, j. a. kautz, j. e. vaile, john ingalls, w. e. blackledge, b. b. johnson, j. b. landen, dr. james wright, h. e. mcmonigal, edward klum, charles pickett, and a. r. ellis. rev. father rayburn, a voter in the campaign of , was spokesman. general harrison, in reply, said: _father rayburn and my howard county friends_--i think i may accept this demonstration as evidence that the action of the republican convention at chicago has been accepted with resignation by the republicans of howard county. [loud cheers.] you are the favored citizens of a favored county. your county has been conspicuous among the counties of this state for its enterprise and intelligence. you have been favored with a kindly and generous soil, cultivated by an intelligent and educated class of farmers. hitherto you have chiefly drawn your wealth from the soil. you have had in the city of kokomo an enterprising and thrifty county town. you have been conspicuous for your interest and devotion to the cause of education--for your interest in bringing forward the coming generations well equipped for the duties of citizenship. i congratulate you to-day that a new era of prosperity has opened for your county in the discovery of this new and free fuel to which mr. rayburn has alluded. a source of great wealth has been opened to your people. you have already begun to realize what it is to your county, though your expectations have hardly grasped what it will be when the city of kokomo and your other towns have reached the full development which will follow this discovery. you will then all realize--the citizens of that prosperous place as well as the farmers throughout the county--the advantage of having a home market for the products of your farms. [cheers.] you may not notice this so much in the appreciation of the prices of the staple products of your farms, but you will notice it in the expansion of the market for those more perishable products which cannot reach a distant market and must be consumed near home. is it not, then, time for you, as thoughtful citizens, whatever your previous political affiliations may have been, to consider the question, "what legislation will most promote the development of the manufacturing interests of your county and enlarge the home market for the products of your farm?" i shall not enter upon a discussion of this question; it is enough to state it, and leave it to your own intelligent consideration. [cheers.] let me thank you again for this kindly visit, and beg you to excuse any more extended remarks, and to give me now an opportunity of thanking each of you personally for the kind things your chairman has said in your behalf. indianapolis, july . illinois sent three large delegations this date from springfield, jacksonville and monticello. conspicuous in the column was the famous "black eagle" club of springfield, led by its president, sam h. jones, and the lincoln club, commanded by capt. john c. cook. in the springfield delegation were twenty-one original whigs who voted for gen. wm. henry harrison, among them jeriah bonham, who wrote the first editorial--nov. , --proposing the candidacy of abraham lincoln for president. others among the prominent visitors from springfield were: col. james t. king, c. a. vaughan, major james a. connelly, paul selby, hon. david t. littler, jacob wheeler, gen. charles w. pavey, robert j. oglesby, ira knight, c. p. baldwin, james h. kellogg, alexander smith, geo. jameson, augustus c. ayers, jacob strong, dr. f. c. winslow, fred smith, charles t. hawks, hon. henry dement, col. theo. ewert, jacob bunn, j. c. matthews, j. r. stewart, h. w. beecher, andrew j. lester, dr. gurney, and howes yates, brother of the great war governor. the jacksonville visitors were represented by hon. fred h. rowe, ex-mayor tomlinson, judge t. b. orear, j. b. stevenson, dr. goodrich, professor parr of illinois college, j. w. davenport, and thomas rapp. attorney-general hunt spoke on behalf of all the visitors. general harrison's reply was one of his happiest speeches. he said: _general hunt and my illinois friends_--i thank you for this cordial expression of your interest in republican success. i thank you for the kindly terms in which your spokesman has conveyed to me the assurance, not only of your political support, but of your personal confidence and respect. the states of indiana and illinois are neighbors, geographically. the river that for a portion of its length constitutes the boundary between our states is not a river of division. its tendency seems to be, in these times when so many things are "going dry" [cheers], rather to obliterate than to enlarge the obstruction between us. [cheers.] but i rejoice to know that we are not only geographically neighbors, but that indiana and illinois have been neighborly in the high sentiments and purposes which have characterized their people. i rejoice to know that the same high spirit of loyalty and devotion to the country that characterized the state of illinois in the time when the nation made its appeal to the brave men of all the states to rescue its flag and its constitution from the insurrection which had been raised against them was equally characteristic of indiana--that the same great impulse swept over your state that swept over ours--that richard yates of illinois [cheers] and oliver p. morton of indiana [prolonged cheers] stood together in the fullest sympathy and co-operation in the great plans they devised to augment and re-enforce the union armies in the field and to suppress and put down treasonable conspiracies at home. as americans and as republicans we are glad that illinois has contributed so many and such conspicuous names to that galaxy of great americans and great republicans whose deeds have been written on the scroll of eternal fame. i recall that it was on the soil of illinois that lovejoy died--a martyr to free speech. [cries of "hear!" "hear!"] he was the forerunner of abraham lincoln. he died, but his protest against human slavery lived. another great epoch in the march of liberty found on the soil of illinois the theatre of its most influential event. i refer to that high debate in the presence of your people, but before the world, in which douglas won the senatorship and lincoln the presidency and immortal fame. [loud cheers.] but lincoln's argument and lincoln's proclamation must be made good upon the battle-field--and again your state was conspicuous. you gave us grant and logan [prolonged cheers] and a multitude of less notable, but not less faithful, soldiers who underwrote the proclamation with their swords. [cheers.] i congratulate you to-day that there has come out of this early agitation--out of the work of lovejoy, the disturber; out of the great debate of , and out of the war for the union, a nation without a slave [cheers]--that not the shackles of slavery only have been broken, but that the scarcely less cruel shackles of prejudice which bound every black man in the north have also been unbound. we are glad to know that the enlightened sentiment of the south to-day unites with us in our congratulations that slavery has been abolished. they have come to realize, and many of their best and greatest men to publicly express, the thought that the abolition of slavery has opened a gateway of progress and material development to the south that was forever closed against her people while domestic slavery existed. we send them the assurance that we desire the streams of their prosperity shall flow bank full. we would lay upon their people no burdens that we do not willingly bear ourselves. they will not think it amiss if i say that the burden which rests willingly upon our shoulders is a faithful obedience to the constitution and the laws. a manly assertion by each of his individual rights, and a manly concession of equal right to every other man, is the boast and the law of good citizenship. let me thank you again and ask you to excuse me from further public speech. i now ask an opportunity to meet my illinois friends personally [loud and prolonged cheers.] the second speech of the day was delivered at o'clock at night to an enthusiastic delegation of fifteen hundred republicans from shelbyville, shelby county, led by hon. h. c. gordon, j. walter elliott, c. h. campbell, james t. caughey, c. x. matthews, j. richey, e. s. powell, e. e. elliott, l. s. limpus, orland young, and norris winterowd. judge j. c. adams was their spokesman. general harrison touched upon civil service; he said: _judge adams and my shelby county friends_--this is only a new evidence of your old friendliness. my association with the republicans of shelby county began in , when i was a very young man and a still younger politician. in that year, if i recollect right, i canvassed every township of your county in the interest of mr. campbell, who was then a candidate for county clerk. since then i have frequently visited your county, and have always been received with the most demonstrative evidence of your friendship. but in addition to these political associations, which have given me an opportunity to observe and to admire the steadfastness, the courage, the unflinching faithfulness of the republicans of shelby county [cheers], i have another association with your county, which i cherish with great tenderness and affection. two companies of the seventieth indiana were made up of your brave boys: company b, commanded by captain sleeth, and company f, commanded by captain endsley, who still lives among you. [cheers.] many of the surviving members of these companies still dwell among you. many others are in the far west, and they, too, from their distant homes have sent me a comrade's greeting. i recollect a little story of peach tree creek that may interest you. when the seventieth indiana, then under command of col. sam merrill, swung up from the reserve into the front line to meet the enemy's charge, the adjutant-general of the brigade, who had been directed to order the advance, reported that the left of the seventieth indiana was exposed. he said he had ordered the bluff old captain of company f, who was commanding the left wing, to reserve his left in order to cover his flank, but that the old hickory had answered him with an expletive--which i have no doubt he has repented of--that he "could not see it," that he proposed that his end of the regiment should get to the top of that hill as quick as the other end. [prolonged cheers.] we will venerate the memory of the dead of these companies and their associate companies in other commands who gave up their lives in defence of the flag. but i turn aside from these matters of personal recollection to say a word of more general concern. we are now at the opening of a presidential campaign, and i beg to suggest to you, as citizens of the state of indiana, that there is always in such campaigns a danger to be avoided, viz. that the citizen may overlook the important local and state interests which are also involved in the campaign. i beg, therefore, to suggest that you turn your minds not only to the consideration of the questions connected with the national legislation and national administration, but that you think deeply and well of those things that concern our local affairs. there are some such now presented to you that have to do with the honor and prosperity of the state. there are some questions that ought not to divide parties, but upon which all good men ought to agree. i speak of only one. the great benevolent institutions--the fruit of our christian civilization--endowed by the bounty of the state, maintained by public taxes, and intended for the care and education of the disabled classes of our community, ought to be lifted above all party influences, benefit or control. [cheers.] i believe you can do nothing that will more greatly enhance the estimation in which the state of indiana is held by her sister states than to see to it that a suitable, well-regulated, and strict civil service is provided for the administration of the benevolent and penal institutions of the state of indiana. i will not talk longer; i thank you for this magnificent evidence that i am still held in kindly regard by the republicans of shelby county, and bid you good-night. [cheers.] indianapolis, july . on the twenty-fourth of july champaign county, illinois, contributed a large delegation under the direction of hon. f. k. robeson, z. riley, h. w. mahan, and w. m. whindley. their parade was conspicuous for the number of log-cabins, cider-barrels, coons, eagles, and other campaign emblems. prominent members of the delegation were rev. i. s. mahan, h. m. dunlap, f. m. mckay, j. j. mcclain, james barnes, rev. john henry, h. s. clark, m. s. goodrich, a. w. mcnichols, capt. j. h. sands and three veterans of , the rev. s. k. reed, stephen freeman, and w. b. downing. hon. frank m. wright delivered the address on behalf of the visitors. general harrison responded: _my friends_--i feel very conscious of the compliment which is conveyed by your presence here to-day. you come as citizens of an adjoining state to manifest, as your spokesman has said, some personal respect for me, but much more, i think--your interest in the pending contention of principles before the people of the united states. it is fortunate that you are allowed, not only to express your interest by such popular gatherings as these, but that you will be called upon individually, after the debate is over, to settle this contention by your ballots. an american political canvass, when we look through the noise and tinsel that accompanies it, presents a scene of profound interest to the student of government. the theory upon which our government is builded is that every qualified elector shall have an equal influence at the ballot-box with every other. our constitutions do not recognize fractional votes; they do not recognize the right of one man to count one and a half in the determination of public questions. it is wisely provided that whatever differences may exist in intelligence, in wealth, or in any other respect, at the ballot-box there shall be absolute equality. no interest can be truly subserved, whether local or general, by any invasion of this great principle. the wise work of our fathers in constructing this government will stand all tests of internal dissension and revolution, and all tests of external assault, if we can only preserve a pure, free ballot. [applause.] every citizen who is a patriot ought to lend his influence to that end, by promoting necessary reforms in our election laws and by a watchful supervision of the processes of our popular elections. we ought to elevate in thought and practice the free suffrage that we enjoy. as long as it shall be held by our people to be the jewel above price, as long as each for himself shall claim its free exercise and shall generously and manfully insist upon an equally free exercise of it by every other man, our government will be preserved and our development will not find its climax until the purpose of god in establishing this government shall have spread throughout the world--governments "of the people, by the people, and for the people." [cheers.] you will not expect, nor would it be proper, that i should follow the line of your spokesman's remarks, or even allude to some things that he has alluded to; but i will not close without one word of compliment and comradeship for the soldiers of illinois. [applause.] i do not forget that many of them, like logan--that fearless and first of volunteer soldiers--at the beginning of the war were not in sympathy with the republican national administration. you had a multitude of soldiers besides logan, one of whom has been immortalized in poetry--sergeant tillman joy--who put their politics by "to keep till the war was through;" and many, i may add, like logan, when they got home found new party associations. but we do not limit our praise of the loyalty and faithfulness of your soldiers to any party lines, for we realize that there were good soldiers who did resume their ante-war politics when they came back from the army. to such we extend a comrade's hand always, and the free and untrammelled exercise of his political choice shall not bar our comradeship. it happened during the war that three illinois regiments were for some time under my command. i had opportunity to observe their perfection in drill, their orderly administration of camp duties, and, above all, the brilliant courage with which they met the enemy. and, in complimenting them, i take them as the type of that great army that illinois sent out for the preservation of the union and the constitution. let me thank you again for your friendly visit to-day; and if any of you desire a nearer acquaintance, i shall be glad to make that acquaintance now. indianapolis, july . two thousand visitors from edgar and coles counties, illinois, paid their respects to the republican nominee this day. the excursion was under the auspices of the john a. logan club of paris, charles p. fitch, president. there were many farmers in the delegation, also eighty-two veterans of the campaign of , and the watchwords of the day were "old tippecanoe and young tippecanoe." the reception took place at university park, notable from this time forward for many similar events. prominent among the visitors were geo. f. howard, capt. f. m. rude, j. w. howell, e. r. lodge, capt. j. c. bessier, m. hackett, james stewart, and mayor j. m. bell of paris; c. g. peck and j. h. clark of mattoon; and hon. john w. custor of benton. state senator george e. bacon delivered the congratulatory address. general harrison replied: _senator bacon and my illinois friends_--some of my home friends have been concerned lest i should be worn out by the frequent coming of these delegations. i am satisfied from what i see before me to-day that the rest of illinois is here [laughter], and the concern of my friends will no longer be excited by the coming of illinois delegations. [a voice, "we are all here!"] that you should leave the pursuits of your daily life--the farm, the office, and the shop--to make this journey gives me the most satisfactory evidence that your hearts are enlisted in this campaign. i am glad to welcome here to-day the john a. logan club of paris. you have chosen a name that you will not need to drop, whatever mutations may come in politics, so long as there shall be a party devoted to the flag and to the constitution, and pledged to preserve the memories of the great deeds of those who died that the constitution might be preserved and the flag honored. [applause.] general logan was indeed, as your spokesman has said, "the typical volunteer soldier." with him loyalty was not a sentiment; it was a passion that possessed his whole nature. when the civil war broke out no one did more than he to solidify the north in defence of the government. he it was who said that all parties and all platforms must be subordinated to the defence of the government against unprovoked assault. [a voice, "that's just what he said!"] in the war with mexico, as a member of the first illinois regiment, and afterwards as the commander of the thirty-first illinois in the civil war, he gave a conspicuous example of what an untrained citizen could do in the time of public peril. in the early fight at donelson he, with the first illinois brigade, successfully resisted the desperate assaults that were made upon his line; twice wounded, he yet refused to leave the field. the courage of that gallant brigade called forth from a massachusetts poet the familiar lines: "thy proudest mother's eyelids fill, as dares her gallant boy, and plymouth rock and bunker hill yearn to thee, illinois." [applause.] he commanded successively brigades, divisions, corps and armies, and fought them with unvarying success. i greet these veterans of the campaign of . you recall the pioneer days, the log cabin days of the west, the days when muddy highways were the only avenues of travel and commerce. you have seen a marvellous development. the state of your adoption has become a mighty commonwealth; you have seen it crossed and recrossed by railroads, bringing all your farms into easy communication with distant markets; you have seen the schoolhouse and church brought into every neighborhood; you have seen this country rocked in the cradle of war; you have seen it emerge from that dreadful trial and enter upon an era of prosperity that seems to surpass all that had gone before. to these young men who will, for the first time this year, take part as citizens in determining a presidential election, i suggest that you have become members of a party of precious memories. there has been nothing in the history of the republican party, nothing in the platform of principles that it has proclaimed, that is not calculated to stir the high impulses of your young hearts. the republican party has walked upon high paths. it has set before it ever the maintenance of the union, the honor of its flag, and the prosperity of our people. it has been an american party [great cheering] in that it has set american interests always to the front. my friends of the colored organization, i greet you as republicans to-day. i recall the time when you were disfranchised; when your race were slaves; when the doors of our institutions of learning were closed against you, and even admittance to many of our northern states was denied you. you have read the story of your disfranchisement, of the restoration to you of the common rights of men. read it again; read the story of the bitter and bigoted opposition that every statute and constitutional amendment framed for your benefit encountered. what party befriended you when you needed friends? what party has stood always as an obstruction to the development and enlargement of your rights as citizens? when you have studied these questions well you will be able to determine not only where your gratitude is due, but where the hopes of your race lie. [cheers.] indianapolis, july . from clay county, indiana, came three thousand coal-miners and others, this day, under the auspices of the harrison miners' club of brazil. their parade, with dozens of unique banners and devices, was one of the most imposing of the campaign. prominent in the delegation were dr. joseph c. gifford, l. a. wolfe, jacob herr, p. h. penna, john f. perry, c. p. eppert, e. c. callihan, w. h. lowery, rev. john cox, a. f. bridges, william sporr, carl thomas, geo. f. fuller, john gibbons, sam'l blair, thomas washington, and judge coffey of brazil. major william carter and edward wilton, a miner, delivered addresses; rob't l. mccowan spoke for the colored members of the delegation. general harrison, in response, said: _gentlemen and friends from clay county_--i thank you for this enthusiastic demonstration of your interest. i am glad to be assured by those who have spoken for you to-day that you have brought here, and desire to evidence, some personal respect for me; but this demonstration has relation, i am sure, rather to principles than to men. you come as representatives of the diversified interests of your county. you are fortunate in already possessing diversified industries. you have not only agriculture, but the mine and factory which provide a home market for the products of your farms. you come here, as i understand, from all these pursuits, to declare that in your opinion your interests, as farmers, as miners, as mechanics, as tradesmen, are identified with the maintenance of the doctrine of protection to american industries, and the preservation of the american market for american products. [cheers.] some resort to statistics to show that the condition of the american workman is better than that of the workman of any other country. i do not care now to deal with statistics. one fact is enough for me. the tide of emigration from all european countries has been and is towards our shores. the gates of castle garden swing inward. they do not swing outward to any american laborer seeking a better country than this. [cries of "never!"] my countrymen, these men, who have toiled at wages in other lands that barely sustained life, and opened no avenue of promise to them or to their children, know the good land of hope as well as the swallow knows the land of summer. [applause.] they testify that here there are better conditions, wider and more hopeful prospects for workmen than in any other land. the next suggestion i have to make is this: that the more work there is to do in this country the higher the wages that will be paid for the doing of it. [applause.] i speak to men who know that when the product of their toil is in demand in the market, when buyers are seeking it, wages advance; but when the market for your products is depressed, and the manufacturer is begging for buyers, then wages go down. is it not clear, then, that that policy which secures the largest amount of work to be done at home is the policy which will secure to laboring men steady employment and the best wages? [cheers and cries of "that is right!"] a policy which will transfer work from our mines and our factories to foreign mines and foreign factories inevitably tends to the depression of wages here. [applause and cries of "that is true!"] these are truths that do not require profound study. having here a land that throws about the workingman social and political conditions more favorable than are found elsewhere, if we can preserve also more favorable industrial conditions we shall secure the highest interests of our working classes. [great cheering.] what, after all, is the best evidence of a nation's prosperity, and the best guarantee of social order, if it is not an intelligent, thrifty, contented working class? can we look for contentment if the workman is only able to supply his daily necessities by his daily toil, but is not able in the vigor of youth to lay up a store against old age? a condition of things that compels the laborer to contemplate want, as an incident of sickness or disability, is one that tends to social disorder. [applause and cries of "that is so!"] you are called upon now to consider these problems. i will not debate them in detail, others will. i can only commend them to your thoughtful consideration. think upon them; conclude for yourselves what policy as to our tariff legislation will best subserve your interests, the interests of your families, and the greatness and glory of the nation of which you are citizens. [cheers.] my colored friends who are here to-day, the emancipation of the slave removed from our country that which tended to degrade labor. all men are now free; you are thrown upon your own resources; the avenues of intelligence and of business success are open to all. i notice that the party to which we belong has been recently reproached by the suggestion that we have not thoroughly protected the colored man in the south. this has been urged as a reason why the colored people should join the democratic party. i beg the gentlemen who urge that plea to answer this question: against whom is it that the republican party has been unable, as you say, to protect your race? [applause and cries of "good! good!"] thanking you again for this demonstration and for your friendly expressions, i will, if it be your pleasure, drop this formal method of communication and take my clay county friends by the hand. [great cheering.] the clay county miners had not concluded their reception before a delegation of several hundred arrived from bloomington, illinois, headed by the john a. logan club, under the lead of general geo. f. dick, william maddox, john a. fullwiller, m. b. herr, and dr. f. c. vandervoort. their orator was dr. w. h. h. adams, formerly president of the illinois wesleyan university. general harrison, replying, said: _my bloomington friends_--when i received here, yesterday, a very large delegation from illinois, i expressed the opinion that they must be the "rest of the people of illinois that had not been here before." i suppose you are a remnant that could not get into line yesterday. i thank you as i have thanked those who preceded you, for the interest which the people of your state have manifested, and for your cordial fellowship with indiana. i will not discuss the issues of the campaign. you have already thought upon the platforms of the two parties. some of you have perhaps taken your politics by inheritance. it is now a good time to review the situation. we have the same interests as citizens. let us all consider the history and declarations of the great parties and thoughtfully conclude which is more likely to promote the general interests of our people. that is the test. the british parliament does not legislate with a view to advance the interests of the people of the united states. [cries of "no, never!"] they--rightly--have in view the interest of that empire over which victoria reigns. should we not, also, as americans, in our legislation, consider first the interests of our people? we invite the thoughtful attention of those who have hitherto differed with us as to these questions. our interests are bound together. that which promotes the prosperity of the community in which you dwell in kindly association with your democratic friends promotes your interests and theirs alike. thanking you for this visit, i will ask you to excuse me from further speech. [applause.] indianapolis, july . kosciusko county, indiana, contributed two thousand visitors on the twenty-seventh of july, under the leadership of capt. c. w. chapman, james h. cisney, reub. williams, louis ripple, j. e. stevenson, wm. b. wood, t. loveday, john wynant, charles adams, nelson richhart, captain a. s. miller, clinton lowe, p. l. runyon, james a. cook, frank mcgee, and john burbaker, all of warsaw. judge h. s. biggs made the presentation address. general harrison replied as follows: _mr. biggs and my kosciusko county friends_--i did not need to be assured of the friendliness of the republicans of your county. it has been evidenced too many times in the past. before the convention at chicago the republicans of your county gave me the assurance that my nomination would meet the cordial approbation of your people. i am glad to welcome you here to-day, and regret that your journey hither has been so tedious. you are proud of the state in which you dwell; proud of her institutions of learning; proud of her great benevolent institutions, which i notice by one of these banners you have pledged yourselves to protect from party spoliation and degradation. [applause and cries of "good! good!"] but while we have much that is cause for congratulation, we are not enjoying that full equality of civil rights in the state of indiana to which we are entitled. our government is a representative government. delegates in congress and members of our state senate and house of representatives are apportioned to districts, and the national and state constitutions contemplate that these districts shall be equal, so that, as far as possible, each citizen shall have, in his district, the same potency in choosing a member of congress or of our state legislature as is exercised by a voter in any other district. we do not to-day have that condition of things. the apportionment of our state for legislative and congressional purposes is unfair, and is known to be unfair to all men. no candid democrat can defend it as a fair apportionment. it was framed to be unequal, it was designed to give to the citizens of favored districts an undue influence. it was intended to discriminate against republicans. it is not right that it should be so. i hope the time is coming, and has even now arrived, when the great sense of justice which possesses our people will teach men of all parties that party success is not to be promoted at the expense of an injustice to any of our citizens. [applause.] these things take hold of government. if we would maintain that respect for the law which is necessary to social order, our people must understand that each voter has his full and equal influence in determining what the law shall be. i hope this question will not be forgotten by our people until we have secured in indiana a fair apportionment for legislative and congressional purposes. [cheers.] when the republicans shall secure the power of making an apportionment, i hope and believe that the experiment of seeking a party advantage by a public injustice will not be repeated. [great applause and cries of "good! good!"] there are some other questions affecting suffrage, too, to which my attention has, from circumstances, been particularly attracted. there are in the northwest several territories organized under public law with defined boundaries. they have been filled up with the elect of our citizens--the brave, the enterprising and intelligent young men from all the states. many of the veterans of the late war have sought under our beneficent homestead law new homes in the west. several of these territories have been for years possessed of population, wealth, and all the requisites for admission as states. when the territory of indiana took the census which was the basis for its petition for admission to the union we had less than , people; we had only thirteen organized counties. in the territory of south dakota there are nearly half a million people. for years they have been knocking for admission to the sisterhood of states. they are possessed of all the elements of an organized and stable community. it has more people, more miles of railroad, more post-offices, more churches, more banks, more wealth, than any territory ever possessed when it was admitted to the union. it surpasses some of the states in these particulars. four years ago, when a president was to be chosen, the committee on territories in the senate, to meet the objection of our democratic friends that the admission of dakota would add a disturbing element to the electoral college, provided in the dakota bill that its organization should be postponed until after the election; now four years more have rolled around, and our people are called again to take part in a presidential election, and the intelligent and patriotic dakota people are again to be deprived of any participation. i ask you why this is so? is not the answer obvious? [cries of "yes!"] they are disfranchised and deprived of their appropriate influence in the electoral college only because the prevailing sentiment in the territory is republican. [cries of "that's right!" "that's the reason!"] the cause of washington territory is more recent but no less flagrant. if we appropriately express sympathy with the cause of irish home rule, shall we not also demand home rule for dakota and washington, and insist that their disfranchisement shall not be prolonged? [applause.] there is a sense of justice, of fairness, that will assert itself against these attempts to coin party advantage out of public wrong. the day when men can be disfranchised or shorn of their political power for opinion's sake must have an end in our country. [cheers.] i thank you again for your call, and if you will observe the arrangement which has been suggested i will be glad to take each of you by the hand. i know that some of you are fasting, and therefore we will shorten these exercises in order that you may obtain needed refreshments. [cheers.] indianapolis, july . jennings county, indiana, was represented on the above date by a large delegation under the auspices of the harrison and morton clubs of vernon and north vernon. the leaders of their delegation were fred h. nauer, j. c. cope, c. e. wagner, w. g. norris, dr. t. c. bachelder, t. a. pearce, p. c. mcgannon, and prof. amos saunders. hon. frank e. little, president of the north vernon club, delivered the address. general harrison, in response, said: _my friends_--it is a source of regret to me that i can do so little to compensate those who take the trouble to visit me. i need hardly say to you that i very highly appreciate this evidence of your friendliness and also the kind words which you have addressed to me through your representative. jennings county has a history of which it may well be proud. it has contributed to the city of indianapolis some of our most distinguished and useful men. your spokesman has not exaggerated the fidelity and steadfastness of the people of your county. your republicanism has been as straight as the walls of your cliffs [applause] and as solid as the limestone with which your hills are buttressed. [applause.] you have said to me that you are in favor of a free and equal ballot the country over. we are so related in our government that any disturbance of the suffrage anywhere directly affects us all. our members of congress pass upon questions that are as wide as the domain over which our flag floats. therefore, our interest in the choice of these representatives is not limited to our own districts. if the debate upon public questions is to be of value the voter must be free to register his conclusion. the tribunal which is to pronounce upon the argument must not be coerced. you have said to me that you favor the doctrine of protection. the republican party stands for the principles of protection. we believe in the preservation of the american market for our american producers and workmen. [applause and cries of "that's it!"] we believe that the development of home manufactures tends directly to promote the interest of agriculture by furnishing a home market for the products of the farm, and thus emancipating our farmers from the transportation charges which they must pay when their products seek distant markets. [applause.] we are confronted now with a treasury surplus. our position is exceptional. we are not seeking, as many other nations are, new subjects of taxation, new sources of revenue. our quest is now how, wisely, to reduce our national revenue. the attempt has been made to use this surplus as a lever to overturn the protective system. the promoters of this scheme, while professing a desire to diminish the surplus, have acted as if their purpose was to increase it in part by opposing necessary and legitimate appropriations. i agree that there is danger that a surplus may promote extravagance, but i do not find myself in sympathy with that policy that denies the appropriation necessary for the proper defence of our people, and for the convenient administration of our public affairs throughout the country, in order that the threat of a surplus may be used for a sinister purpose. i believe that in reducing our revenues to the level of our needful and proper expenditures we can and should continue to favor and protect our industries. i do not like to entrust this work to those who declare protective duties to be vicious "legalized robbery." the republican party has by its legislation shown its capacity wisely to reduce our revenues and at the same time to preserve the american system. [applause.] it can be trusted to do the work that remains, and to do it wisely. [applause.] indianapolis, july . the last delegation in july came from henry county, indiana, two thousand strong, headed by c. s. hernley, w. h. elliott, hon. eugene bundy, judge mark e. forkner, a. abernathy, a. d. osborn, o. p. m. hubbard, david luellen, o. b. mooney, and captain armstrong, all of new castle. gen. william h. grose was their orator. in his response general harrison at this early day out-lined his views upon reciprocal trade relations with south american nations--views which were afterwards successfully, and with great profit to our people, put into effect through the celebrated reciprocity treaties with brazil, venezuela and other countries. repeated outbursts of enthusiasm punctured his address. he said: _comrade grose and my henry county friends_--if we have here any discouraged statesman who takes a despondent view of the future of the country, i think he would recover his hopefulness if he could look, once in a while, into the face of an audience like this. [applause.] you came from a county that has been a bulwark of republicanism since the party was organized. you had an early element in your population that has done much to promote your material interests, and, much more, to lift up those principles that relate to the purity of the home and to the freedom of men. the friends, who have been and are so large and so influential an element in your population and in the counties surrounding it, are a people notable for the purity of their home life and for their broad and loving sympathy with all men. they were the early enemies of slavery, and they have always naturally been the strength of the republican party in the community where they reside. your spokesman has expressed your continued interest in the party to which some of you gave the confidence of your matured powers and some of you the early devotion of your youth. the republican party has accomplished for the country a great work in the brief period of its life. it preserved the nation by a wise, courageous and patriotic administration. what that means for you and your posterity, what it means for the world, no man can tell. it would have been a climax of disaster for the world if this government of the people had perished. the one unsolved experiment of free government was solved. we have demonstrated the capacity of the people and a citizen soldiery to maintain inviolate the unity of the republic. [applause.] there remain now, fortunately, chiefly economic questions to be thought of and to be settled. we refer to the great war, not in any spirit of hostility to any section or any class of men, but only because we believe it to be good for the whole country that loyalty and fidelity to the flag should be honored. [great applause.] it was one of the great triumphs of the war, a particular in which our war was distinguished from all other wars of history, that we brought the vanquished into the same full, equal citizenship under the law that we maintained for ourselves. in all the addresses which have been made to me there has been some reference to the great question of the protection of our american industries. i see it upon the banners which you carry. our party stands unequivocally, without evasion or qualification, for the doctrine that the american market shall be preserved for our american producers. [great applause.] we are not attracted by the suggestion that we should surrender to foreign producers the best market in the world. our sixty millions of people are the best buyers in the world, and they are such because our working classes receive the best wages. _but we do not mean to be content with our own market. we should seek to promote closer and more friendly commercial relations with the central and south american states._ [applause.] and what is essential to that end? regular mails are the first condition of commerce. the merchant must know when his order will be received, and when his consignment will be returned, or there can be no trade between distant communities. what we need, therefore, is the establishment of american steamship lines between our ports and the ports of central and south america. [applause.] then it will no longer be necessary that an american minister, commissioned to an american state, shall take an english ship to liverpool to find another english ship to carry him to his destination. we are not to be frightened by the use of that ugly word "subsidy." [laughter.] we should pay to american steamship lines a liberal compensation for carrying our mails, instead of turning them over to british tramp steamships. [applause.] we do not desire to dominate these neighboring governments; we do not desire to deal with them in any spirit of aggression. _we desire those friendly political, mental, and commercial relations which shall promote their interests equally with ours._ we should not longer forego those commercial relations and advantages which our geographical relations suggest and make so desirable. if you will excuse me from further public speech i will be glad to take by the hand my henry county friends. [cheers.] mr. harrison arrived home--after the henry county reception in university park--in time to welcome his guest, gen. r. a. alger of michigan, the distinguished gentlemen meeting for the first time. in the afternoon several hundred of the henry county visitors, escorted by the local clubs, marched to the harrison residence to pay their respects to general alger. in introducing his guest general harrison said: _my fellow-citizens_--i have had the pleasure to-day to receive in my own home a distinguished citizen of a neighboring state; distinguished not only for his relation to the civil administration of affairs in his state, but also as one of those conspicuous soldiers contributed by michigan to the armies of the union when our national life was in peril. i am sure you will be glad to make broader the welcome i have given him, and to show him that he has a warm place in the affections of our indiana people. let me present to you general alger of michigan. [prolonged applause.] general alger responded as follows: _gentlemen_--i thank you very much for this cordial greeting. i thank you very kindly, general harrison, for the pleasant words you have said of me personally. i wish to say--as you would know if you lived in michigan--that i am not a speechmaker. i composed a few speeches some weeks ago, and general harrison has been delivering them ever since. [laughter.] after reading his speeches carefully, each one of them a gem of concentrated thought, i have made up my mind that the chicago convention made no mistake. [applause.] we have not held any _post-mortem_ in our state. we are glad that we have such a gallant candidate, a man in whose composition no flaw can be found, in whose life no act or word can be adversely criticised. we are as proud in michigan of your candidate--who is our candidate also--as we could possibly be were any other man in the universe named. we are all harrison men in michigan now; and the place he has in our hearts is just as warm as though he lived within our own borders. [applause.] you hoosiers have no patent upon this. [applause.] the people of the united states have a great crisis before them. the question as to the life and prosperity of our industrial institutions is at stake. we have, as we have always had, since this country was worth caring for, the opposition of the english government. indianapolis, august . the month of august opened with two thousand visitors from morgan and brown counties, including thirty survivors of general harrison's former regiment. the several clubs comprising the brown county delegation were led by norman j. roberts, leander woods, wm. griffin, e. d. turner, and c. w. mackenzie of nashville. prominent in the morgan county detachment were w. w. kennedy, w. c. banta, john hardwick, m. g. branch, david wilson, h. c. hodges, r. c. griffitt, j. g. bain, john s. newby, j. g. kennedy, u. m. hinson, merwin rowe, hon. j. h. jordan, h. r. butler, w. c. barnett, john c. comer, geo. mitchell, and j. i. hilton of martinsville. hon. g. a. adams spoke for the visitors. general harrison, responding, said: _mr. adams and my morgan and brown county friends_--in previous campaigns i have not put you to the trouble to come and see me. my habit has been to go to you, and it has been my pleasure often to discuss before you the issues that were involved in our campaigns. the limitations which are upon me now prevent me from following this old habit, and put you, who desire to see me, to the trouble of coming here. my associations with the county of morgan have been very close. among its citizens are some of my most devoted personal and political friends. there are also in your county a large number of my comrades, to whom i am bound by the very close ties that must always unite those who marched under the same regimental banner. your county furnished two companies for the seventieth indiana--brave, true men, commanded by intelligent and capable officers, and having in the ranks of both companies men as capable of command as any who wore shoulder-straps in the regiment. these men, together with their comrades of the thirty-third and other regiments that were recruited in your county, went into the service from very high motives. they heard the call of their country, saying: "he that loveth father or mother or wife or child or houses or lands more than me is not worthy of me," and they were found worthy by this supreme test. many of you were so careless of a money recompense for the service you offered and gave that when you lifted your hands and swore to protect and defend the constitution and the flag you didn't even know what your pay was to be. [cries of "that's so!"] if there was any carefulness or thought in that direction it was only that the necessary provision might be made for those you left at home. no sordid impulse, no low emotion, called you to the field. [applause.] in remembering all the painful ways in which you walked, ways of toil, and suffering, and sickness, and dying, to emerge into the glorious sunlight of that great day at washington, we must not forget that in the homes you left there were also sacrifices and sufferings. anxiety dwelt perpetually with those you left behind. we remember gratefully the sacrifices and sufferings of the fathers and mothers who sent you to the field, and, much more, of the wives who bravely gave up to the country the most cherished objects of their love. and now peace has come; no hand is lifted against the flag; the constitution is again supreme and the nation one. my countrymen, it is no time now to use an apothecary's scale to weigh the rewards of the men who saved the country. [applause.] if you will pardon me i will not further follow the line of remarks suggested by the kind words you have addressed to me through your representative. i notice the limitation which your spokesman has put upon you, but i beg to assure him and you that i am not so worn that i have not the strength to greet any of you who may desire to greet me. [great applause.] indianapolis, august . on the third of august, with the mercury registering ninety-nine degrees, thirty-five hundred visitors arrived from montgomery and clinton counties, indiana. their parade, carrying miniature log-cabins and other emblems, was one of the most enthusiastic demonstrations of the campaign. fifty voters of headed the column led by major d. k. price, aged . the montgomery county delegation was marshalled by john h. burford, w. w. thornton, t. h. b. mccain, john s. brown, e. p. mcclarkey, john johnson, j. r. bonnell, d. w. roundtree, t. h. ristine, h. m. billingsley, dumont kennedy, and clerk hulett of crawfordsville. their spokesman was hon. peter s. kennedy. among the clinton county leaders were albert h. coble, edward r. burns, a. t. dennis, wm. h. staley, r. p. shanklin, s. a. coulton, j. w. harrison, j. t. hockman, nicholas rice, ambrose colby, oliver hedgecock, and dr. gard of frankfort. judge j. c. suit was their orator. in reply to their addresses general harrison said: _my fellow-citizens_--these daily and increasing delegations coming to witness their interest in the great issues which are presented for their consideration and determination, and bearing as they do to me their kind personal greetings, quite overmatch my ability to fittingly greet and respond to them. you are here from every walk in life. some of you have achieved success in the mechanical arts, some in professional pursuits, and more of you come from that first great pursuit of man--the tilling of the soil--and you come to express the thought that you have common interests; that these diverse pursuits are bound together harmoniously in a common governmental policy and administration. your interests have had a harmonious and an amazing growth under that protective system to which your representatives have referred, and you wisely demand a continuation of that policy for their further advancement and development. [applause.] you are in large part members of the republican party. you have in the past contributed your personal influence, as well as your ballots, to the great victories which it has won. among the great achievements of our party i think we may worthily mention the passage of that beneficent act of legislation known as the "homestead law." it was impossible to the old parties. it was possible only to a party composed of the sturdy yeomanry of the free states. [applause.] it has populated our territories and newer states with the elect of our citizenship. it opened a way to an ownership of the soil to a vast number of our citizens, and there is no surer bond in the direction of good citizenship than that our people should have property in the soil upon which they live. it is one of the best elements of our strength as a state that our farm-lands are so largely possessed in small tracts, and are tilled by the men who own them. it is one of the best evidences of the prosperity of our cities that so large a proportion of the men who work are covered by their own roof trees. if we would perpetuate this condition, we must maintain the american scale of wages. [applause.] the policy of the subdivision of the soil is one that tends to strengthen our national life. god grant that it may be long before we have in this country a tenantry that is hopelessly such from one generation to another. [applause.] that condition of things which makes ireland a land of tenants, and which holds in vast estates the lands of england, must never find footing here. [applause.] small farms invite the church and the school-house into the neighborhood. therefore, it was in the beginning the republican party declared for free homes of a quarter-section each. that policy should be perpetuated as long as our public domain lasts, and all our legislation should tend in the direction which i have indicated. i cannot discuss all the important questions to which you have called my attention. i have before alluded to some of them. my montgomery and clinton county friends, i thank you for the cordial and hopeful words you have addressed to me. my highest ambition is to be found worthy of your respect and confidence. [applause.] to these veterans of who kindly transfer to this the interest they felt in that campaign, to these first voters who come to join us with the high impulses of youth, i desire to extend my sincere thanks. [applause.] indianapolis, august . the most remarkable night demonstration of the campaign occurred august , the occasion being the visit of the harrison and morton railroad club of terre haute, a thousand strong. they were met by twelve hundred members of the indianapolis railroad club, and, escorted by several thousand citizens, marched to the harrison residence. at the head of the column rolled the model of a monster locomotive, emitting fire and smoke and bearing the significant number , hundreds of stores and residences along the line of march were illuminated. at the head of the visiting club marched its officers: president, d. t. downs; secretary, chas. e. carter; treasurer, benj. mckeen; and vice-presidents, r. b. woolsey, j. l. pringle, j. n. evanhart, e. g. south, l. m. murphy, h. m. kearns, george leckert, and w. h. miller. president downs delivered an address and presented an engrossed copy of the club roster. general harrison spoke from a stand in front of his residence, and said: _mr. downs, gentlemen of the terre haute railroad club, and fellow-citizens_--i am amazed and gratified at the character of this demonstration to-night. i do not find words to express the emotions which swell in my heart as i look into your faces and listen to the kindly greetings which you have given me through your representative. he has not spoken in too high praise of the railroad men of the united states. the character of the duties they are called to discharge require great intelligence, in many departments the best skill in the highest mechanic arts, and in all, even in the lowest grade of labor in connection with railroad management, there is required, for the safety of the public who entrust themselves to your care, fidelity and watchfulness, not only in the day, but in the darkness. the man who attends the switch, the trackman who observes the condition of the track--all these have put into their charge and keeping the lives of men and women and the safety of our commerce. therefore it is that the exigencies of the service in which you are engaged have operated to select and call into the service of our great railroad corporations a picked body of men. i gratefully acknowledge to-night the service you render to the country of which i am a citizen. the great importance of the enterprises with which you are connected have already suggested to our legislators that they owe duties to you as well as to the travelling and mercantile public. the congress of the united states has, under that provision of the constitution which commits to its care all foreign and interstate commerce, undertaken to regulate the great interstate railroads in the interest of equal and fair competition and in the equal interest of all members of our communities. i do not doubt that certain and necessary provisions for the safety of the men who operate these roads will yet be made compulsory by public and general law. [applause.] the dangers connected with your calling are very great, and the public interest, as well as your own, requires that they should be reduced to the minimum. i do not doubt that we shall yet require that uniformity in the construction of railroad cars that will diminish the danger of those who must pass between them in order to make up trains. [applause.] i do not doubt, either, that as these corporations are not private corporations, but are recognized by the law to which i have referred and by the uniform decisions of our courts as having public relations, we shall yet see legislation in the direction of providing some suitable tribunal of arbitration for the settlement of differences between railroad men and the companies that engage their services. [great applause.] i believe that in these directions, and others that i have not time to suggest, reforms will work themselves out, with exact justice to the companies and with justice to the men they employ. because, my friends, i do not doubt--and i hope you will never allow yourselves to doubt--that the great mass of our people, of all vocations and callings, love justice and right and hate oppression. [applause.] the laboring men of this land may safely trust every just reform in which they are interested to public discussion and to the logic of reason; they may surely hope, upon these lines, which are open to you by the ballot-box, to accomplish under our american institutions all those right things you have conceived as necessary to your highest success and well-being. do not allow yourselves to doubt, for one moment, the friendly sentiment of the great masses of our people. make your appeal wisely, and calmly, and boldly, for every reform you desire, to that sentiment of justice which pervades our american public. [applause.] you come to-night from one of our most beautiful indiana cities. it was built on the wabash in the expectation that that stream would furnish the channel of its communication with the outside world. but the wabash is a small tributary to-day to the commerce of terre haute. the railroads that span it are the great vehicles of your commerce. they have largely superseded the water communication that was deemed so important in the first settlement, and, perhaps, was so decisive in the location of your city. terre haute is conspicuous for its industries. the smoke of your factories goes up night and day. the farms about your city have become gardens, and the cordial and harmonious relations between the railroad shop and the factory and the farms that lie about have a conspicuous illustration with you. you have found that that policy which built up these shops, which maintains them, which secures the largest output yearly from the factories, which gives employment to the largest number of men, is the best thing not only for the railroads that do the transportation, but for the workingmen, who find steady employment at good wages, and for the farmers, who supply their needs. [applause.] you will not willingly be led to believe that any policy that would check the progress and the prosperity of these enterprises is good for you or for the community in which you live. [applause and cries of "no, never!"] it will be hard to convince such an intelligent body of workingmen that a policy which would transfer from this country to any other the work that might be done here is good for them. [applause.] it can easily be demonstrated that if our revenue laws were so adjusted that the imports from great britain should be doubled it would be good for the workingmen of england, but i think it would be hard to demonstrate that it would be good for the workingmen of america. [applause.] there is a wise selfishness; it begins at home, and he who has the care of his own family first, of the community in which he lives, of the nation of which he is a citizen, is wise in his generation. now, my friends, i have been daily talking. i used to be thought by my friends to be a reticent man. [laughter.] i fear i am making an impression that i am garrulous. [cries of "no! no!"] and yet, when friends such as you take the trouble you have to-night to visit me, i feel that i owe it to you to say something. now, thanking you for this roster, which will furnish authentic evidence, if it is challenged, that this visit to-night has been from genuine railroad men [applause], i venture to invite my terre haute friends to enter my house. i will ask the citizens of indianapolis, the escort club of my own home, railroad friends who have done so much to make your coming here to-night pleasant, to kindly refrain themselves, and allow me to greet the visitors. in order that that may be accomplished, i will ask some of my terre haute friends to place themselves by the door, that i may meet those who are of their company. the others i have seen, or will see some other day. indianapolis, august . monday, august , general harrison received a visit from one hundred members of the kansas city blaine club, accompanied by many ladies, _en route_ to new york to welcome the maine statesman on his return from europe. col. r. h. hunt led the club, and delivered a stirring address on behalf of the republicans of missouri. on concluding he introduced miss abbie burgess, who presented the general a beautiful badge inscribed "the kansas city blaine club greet their next president." miss burgess made the presentation in the name of the working-women of america. general harrison responded briefly to these addresses, stating that he found he had been talking a great deal of late; "but," he added, "i never begin it; some one else always starts it." he returned his cordial thanks to the visitors for the compliment of their call. speaking of the trip which the visitors were making, he commended its purpose in meeting upon his return to america "that matchless defender of republican principles--james g. blaine." he felt sure that no circumstance would be omitted in doing him merited honor. he was glad to know that the republicans of missouri are so zealous and aggressive. he believed that they had, perhaps, too much acquiesced in the majorities against them, and had not offered such resistance as would prove their own strength. in the coming canvass he thought the economic questions at issue ought to work to the interest of republicans in missouri and overcome in part the prevailing democratic prejudices there. he also expressed the hope that the race question would cease to divide men by prejudices that should long ago have become extinct. in reply to miss burgess' address the general expressed his grateful appreciation of the souvenir, and said that the women of the land could never be forgotten. to those of them who are toilers for their daily bread the first thought goes out in considering the question that involves depreciation of wages, and concluded by declaring if cheaper coats and cheaper garments were to be had by still further reducing the wages of the sewing-women of america, then he was not in favor of cheaper apparel. indianapolis, august . indianapolis contained several thousand visitors at this period, in attendance on the state convention; in addition to these, however, on the seventh of august two large delegations arrived. the first came from tippecanoe county. the city of lafayette was represented by the lincoln club, h. c. tinney, president; the garfield club, henry vinton, president; and the young men's republican club association. among other prominent members of the delegation were james m. reynolds, n. i. throckmorton, w. h. caulkins, charles e. wilson, wm. fraser, john b. sherwood, charles terry, john opp, alexander stidham, matt heffner, s. vater, maurice mayerstein, geo. a. harrison, w. d. hilt, p. w. sheehan, c. h. henderson, henry marshall, j. w. jefferson, wm. e. beach, john b. gault, and h. m. carter. hon. b. wilson smith delivered an address on behalf of his townsmen. general harrison, in his response, touched upon the origin and principles of the republican party. he said: _mr. smith and my tippecanoe county friends_--i am very grateful for the evidence which you give me this morning by your presence, and by the kind words which your representative has addressed to me, of your respect and good-will. you are members, in great part, of a party that was not machine-made. it had its birth in an impulse that stirred simultaneously the hearts of those who loved liberty. the first convention of our party did not organize it. those men were great, but they were delegates--representatives of principles which had already asserted their power over the consciences and the hearts of the people. [applause.] the republican party did not organize for spoils; it assembled about an altar of sacrifice and in a sanctuary beset with enemies. you have not forgotten our early battle-cry--"free speech, a free press, free schools and free territories." we have widened the last word; it is now "a free nation." the appeals which we have made and shall yet make are addressed to the hearts, the consciences, and to the mind of our people. therefore, we believe in schools and colleges, and seminaries of learning. education is the great conservative and assimilating force. a doubter is not necessarily an evil person. the capacity to doubt implies reason--the power of solving doubts; and if the doubt is accompanied with a purpose to find the truth and a supreme affection for the truth when it is found, he will not go widely astray. therefore, in our political campaigns let men think for themselves, and the truth will assert its sway over the minds of our people. then everything that affects the record and character of the candidate and the principles of the parties will be brought to a safe tribunal whose judgment will be right. [great applause and cries of "good!"] i am not unaware of the fact that some of you had another convention preference, but i have always believed that convention preferences should be free in the republican party [applause], and that no prejudice should follow any republican on account of that preference. as party men, we will judge a man by his post-convention conduct. the second delegation comprised fifteen hundred citizens from vanderburg county. the tippecanoe club of evansville, with sixty veterans, led the column. leaders in the delegation were ex-congressman heilman, henry s. bennett, chas. h. mccarer, j. e. iglehart, w. a. wheeler, c. r. howe, j. w. compton, s. b. sansom, s. a. bate, john h. osborn, john w. davidson, henry ludwig, wm. koelling, a. s. glover, j. w. roelker, r. c. wilkinson, james d. parvin, wm. warren, chas. l. roberts, and geo. n. wells. dr. w. g. ralston delivered an address in the name of the delegation. general harrison, in reply, said: _my good friends from the pocket_--i feel very much complimented by your visit to-day. your coming here from so great a distance involved much inconvenience which those who live nearer have not experienced. you are geographically remote, but it does not follow from that that you are remote from the sources of political influence and political power. the general then spoke of the extension of the republican party from the lakes to the ohio in indiana and all over the north, saying that geographical lines marked its limits only in the south. he said that the people of vanderburg county, living as they did on the ohio river, a river that some men sought to make the division line between two governments, knew what it was to guard their homes and what it was to send out veterans from the sturdy yeomanry to the defence of their country. he referred in the highest terms to general shackelford and his service in the hour of his country's need. "i greet you to-day," he continued, "as republicans--men whose judgment and conscience compel their political opinions. it does not fall to my lot now to argue or discuss at length any of the great political questions of the day. i have done that in the past. it is reserved for others in this campaign. i recall with pleasure my frequent visits to you and your cordial reception when i came to speak to you. in this contest others will maintain before you that great policy which, we believe, dignifies every american, both at home and abroad." speaking in reference to wages, general harrison said that he thought we often forget the women who were compelled to work for their daily bread. he sometimes thought those persons who demand cheaper coats would be ashamed of themselves if they could realize that their demand cut the wages of the women who made these coats. in concluding, he greeted and thanked the tippecanoe club for coming, and the young men's republican club also, saying that he had heard of their efficient work in the highest terms of praise. indianapolis, august . _the republican state convention._ the republican state convention convened at tomlinson hall, city of indianapolis, august , , and concluded its work in one day. it was the largest attended and most enthusiastic convention ever held in indiana. hon. wm. h. calkins of indianapolis was chosen chairman, and mark l. de motte of valparaiso secretary. the following ticket was nominated, and in november triumphantly elected: _governor_--alvin p. hovey, posey county. _lieutenant-governor_--ira j. chase, hendricks county. _secretary of state_--charles f. griffin, lake county. _auditor of state_--bruce carr, orange county. _treasurer_--j. a. lemcke, vanderburg county. _attorney-general_--l. t. michner, shelby county. _superintendent public instruction_--h. m. lafollette, boone county. _reporter supreme court_--john l. griffiths, marion county. judges of supreme court. _first district_--silas t. coffey, clay county. _second district_--j. g. berkshire, jennings county. _fourth district_--walter olds, whitely county. _electors-at-large_--james m. shackelford, vanderburg county; thomas h. nelson, vigo county. judge gardner, a delegate from daviess county, introduced a resolution, which was unanimously adopted midst great enthusiasm, inviting general harrison to visit the convention, and designating hon. richard w. thompson, john w. linck and e. p. hammond a committee to convey the invitation. on the platform, with the presiding officer, to meet the distinguished guest were the hon. james n. huston, hon. john m. butler, hon. will cumback, william wallace, hon. w. p. fishback, hon. a. c. harris, rev. dr. backus, judge e. b. martindale, general thomas bennett, judge j. h. jordan, and the republican state officials. the entrance of general harrison, escorted by the committee, was followed by a tumultuous scene rarely witnessed outside of a national convention, the demonstration lasting nearly ten minutes. chairman calkins finally succeeded in introducing--"the next president"--and general harrison spoke as follows: _mr. president and gentlemen of the convention_--when i received your invitation to appear for a moment before you i felt that what you asked could not involve any indelicacy, and as it offered me the only opportunity which i shall have to look into the faces of my indiana republican friends here assembled, i could not find it in my heart to deny myself the pleasure of spending a moment in your presence. [applause.] this enthusiastic and kindly reception crowns a long series of friendly acts on the part of my republican friends of indiana. to have your confidence is very grateful to me, to be worthy of your confidence is the highest ambition i can set before me. [applause.] whatever may befall me, i feel that my fellow-citizens of indiana have crowned me and made me forever their debtor. [applause.] but i must not detain you from the business which has brought you here. [cries of "go on!"] such an assemblage as this is characteristic of america. what you shall do to-day will influence the prosperity and welfare of the state. such a meeting is a notable historical event. we have to-day transpiring in this country two other events that are attracting wide interest. at the chief seaport of our country that great republican, and that great american, james g. blaine, returns to his home. [applause.] we shall not be disappointed, i hope, in hearing his powerful voice in indiana before the campaign is old. [applause.] another scene attracts our solemn and even tearful interest, for while you are transacting your business here to-day a draped train is bearing from the place of his sojourn by the sea to the place of his interment at washington the mortal part of philip h. sheridan. from the convention at chicago we sent him our greetings and our earnest prayers for his restoration. to-day we mourn our hero dead. you called him then a favorite child of victory, and such he was. he was one of those great commanders who, upon the field of battle, towered a very god of war. [applause.] he was one of those earnest fighters for his country who did not at the end of his first day's fight contemplate rest and recuperation for his own command. he rested and refreshed his command with the wine of victory, and found recuperation in the dispersion of the enemy that confronted him. [great applause.] this gallant son of ireland and america [great applause] has written a chapter in the art of war that will not fail to instruct and to develop, when the exigencies may come again, others who shall repeat in defence of our flag his glorious achievements. [great applause.] and now, mr. president, and gentlemen, i am sure the heat of this hall and the labors that are before you suggest to you, as they do to me, that i shall close these remarks and bid you good-by. [great applause.] indianapolis, august . godfrey commandery, knights templars, of chicago, colored men, _en route_ to the grand conclave at louisville, paid their respects to general harrison on the th, and were individually presented by eminent commander h. s. cooper. on august the visitors aggregated , . the first delegation came from hamilton county, indiana, headed by eighty veterans of the tippecanoe club, charles swain, president. there were nine lincoln league organizations in line. among the leaders were j. k. bush, j. e. walker, f. b. pfaff, j. r. christian, benj. goldsmith, ike hiatt, and c. r. davis, of noblesville, and captain carl, of arcadia. hon. j. r. gray was their spokesman. general harrison, in reply, said: _colonel gray and my hamilton county friends_--the demonstration which you have made this morning is worthy of hamilton county; it is worthy of the great party to which you have given the consent of your minds and the love of your hearts; it is altogether more than worthy of him whom you have come to greet. you come from a county that, as your spokesman has said, is greatly favored, a county rich in its agricultural capacity; but, as i look into your faces this morning i turn from the contemplation of material wealth to the thought of those things that are higher and better. [applause and cries of "good! good!"] not long ago a distinguished englishman and jurist visited our country. on the eve of his return, in a public address, he alluded to the fact that wherever he went he was asked whether he was not amazed at the great size of our country. this student of law and government very kindly, but very decidedly, rebuked this too prevalent pride of bulk, and called our attention to the finer and higher things that he had observed in our american civilization. so to-day, as i look into these intelligent faces, my thoughts are turned away from those things that are scheduled, that have their places in our census returns, to those things which belong to the higher man--his spiritual and moral nature. [applause.] i congratulate you, not so much upon the rich farm lands of your county as upon your virtuous and happy homes. [applause.] the home is the best, as it is the first, school of good citizenship. it is the great conservative and assimilating force. i should despair for my country if american citizens were to be trained only in our schools, valuable as their instruction is. it is in the home that we first learn obedience and respect for law. parental authority is the type of beneficent government. it is in the home that we learn to love, in the mother that bore us, that which is virtuous, consecrated, and pure. [applause.] i take more pride in the fact that the republican party has always been the friend and protector of the american home than in aught else. [applause.] by the beneficent homestead law it created more than half a million of homes; by the emancipation proclamation it converted a million cattle-pens into homes. [applause] and it is still true to those principles that will preserve contentment and prosperity in our homes. i greet you as men who have been nurtured in such homes, and call your thought to the fact that the republican party has always been, and can be trusted to be, friendly to all that will promote virtue, intelligence and morality in the homes of our people. now, in view of the fact that i must greet other delegations to-day [cries of "don't stop!"], i am sure you will be content with these brief remarks, though they are altogether an inadequate return for your cordial demonstration. the other delegations of the day came from macon and douglas counties, illinois, numbering , . a notable feature of the douglas county display was the tattered old battle-flag of the twenty-first illinois regiment--general grant's original regiment--borne by seven survivors. capt. t. d. minturn, of tuscola, was spokesman. at the head of the macon county column marched uniformed members of the young men's republican club of decatur, led by captain wm. m. strange and wm. frazier; prof. l. a. estes, of westfield, headed a company from that town. andrew h. mills, of decatur, spoke for the macon county people. general harrison said: _my republican friends_--i feel myself unable to respond suitably to this magnificent demonstration and to those kindly words which you have addressed to me. public duties involve grave responsibilities. the conscientious man will not contemplate them without seriousness. but the man who sincerely desires to know and to do his duty may rely upon the favoring help of god and the friendly judgment of his fellow-citizens. [great applause.] your coming from another state and from distant homes testifies to the observing interest which you feel in those questions which are to be settled by the ballot in november. [cries of "we will settle them!"] the confessed free-traders are very few in this country. but english statesmen and english newspapers confidently declare that in fact we have a great many. [applause.] we are told that it is only an average reduction of seven per cent. that is contemplated. [laughter.] well, if that were true, and not a very deceptive statement, as it really is, you might fairly ask whether this average reduction does not sacrifice some american industry or the wages of our workingmen and working-women. you may also fairly ask to see the free list, which does not figure in this "average." [applause, and cries of "that's it!"] we would have more confidence in the protest of these reformers that they are not "free-traders" if we could occasionally hear one of them say that he was a protectionist [applause], or admit that our customs duties should adequately favor our domestic industries. but they seem to be content with a negative statement. those who would, if they could, eliminate the protective principle from our tariff laws have, in former moments of candor, described themselves as "progressive free-traders," and it is an apt designation. the protective system is a barrier against the flood of foreign importations and the competition of underpaid labor in europe. [applause.] those who want to lower the dike owe it to those who live behind it to make a plain statement of their purposes. do they want to invite the flood, or do they believe in the dike, but think it will afford adequate protection at a lower level? [great and enthusiastic applause.] what i say is only suggestive. i cannot in this brief talk go into details, or even properly limit the illustrations i have used. but this is an appropriate and timely inquiry: with what motive, what ultimate design, what disposition toward the principle of protection is it that our present tariff schedule is attacked? it may be that reductions should be made; it may be that some duties should be increased; but we want to know whether those who propose the revision believe in taking thought of our american workingmen in fixing the rates, or will leave them to the chance effects of a purely revenue tariff. [applause.] now, having spoken once already to-day, you will accept this inadequate acknowledgment of this magnificent demonstration. i thank you, my illinois friends, not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of the republicans of indiana, for the great interest you have manifested. [applause.] indianapolis, august . rush, decatur, and delaware counties, indiana, contributed fully five thousand visitors on the th of august. rush county sent twenty republican clubs, mainly township organizations, led by one hundred veterans of and ' . the prominent republicans of the delegation were hon. john k. gowdy, john m. stevens, a. l. riggs, w. j. henley, john f. moses, t. m. green, j. c. kiplinger, j. w. study, and g. w. looney, of rushville; r. r. spencer and j. a. shannon, of richland. judge w. a. cullen was their spokesman. general harrison, responding, said: _judge cullen and my rush county friends_--i am glad to see you here--glad to be assured by him who has spoken in your behalf that your coming here in some measure is intended as an evidence of your personal respect for me. the respect of one's fellow-citizens, who have opportunities to know him, is of priceless value. i cannot in these daily addresses enter much into public questions. you are indianians, some of you by birth; some of you, like me, by choice. you are republicans; you have opposed always the doctrine of state's rights; you have believed and gloried in the great citizenship that embraces all the people of all the states. you believe that this government is not a confederation to be dissolved at the will of any member of it, but a nation having the inherent right, by arms, if need be, to perpetuate its beneficent existence. [great applause.] many of you who are here to-day have aided in vindicating that principle upon the battle-field [cries of "plenty of us!"], and yet these views are not inconsistent with a just state pride. we are proud to be indianians, proud of the story of her progress in material development, proud of her educational and benevolent institutions, proud of her christian homes, proud of her part in the civil war. if there has been any just cause of reproach against our state we will all desire that it may be removed. we may fairly appeal to all indianians, without distinction of party, to co-operate in promoting such public measures as are calculated to lift up the dignity and honor and estimation of indiana among the states of the union. [great applause.] i will call your attention to one such subject that seems to me to be worthy of your thought. it is the reform of our election laws. [applause and cries of "that's it!"] a constitutional amendment, to which a great majority of our people gave their sanction, has removed the impediments which stood in the way of progressive legislation in the protection of an honest ballot in indiana. formerly we could not require a definite period of residence in the voting precinct. now we may and have. the same amendment authorized our legislature to enact a just and strict registry law, which will enable the inspectors properly to verify the claims of those who offer a ballot. every safeguard of law should be thrown around the ballot-box until fraud in voting and frauds in counting shall receive the sure penalties of law as well as the reprobation of all good men. [great applause.] the republican party has always stood for election reforms. no measure tending to secure the ballot-box against fraud has ever been opposed by its representatives. i am not here to make imputations; i submit this general suggestion: find me the party that sets the gate of election frauds open, or holds it open, and i will show you the party that expects to drive cattle that way. [applause.] let us as citizens, irrespective of party, unite to exalt the name of indiana by making her election laws models of justice and severity, and her elections free from the taint of suspicion. [great applause.] and now, as i must presently speak to other delegations, i am sure my rush county friends will allow me to close these remarks. [applause and cheers.] the visitors from decatur and delaware counties were received together. the decatur delegation numbered fifteen hundred, led by b. f. bennett, john f. goddard, v. p. harris, j. j. hazelrigg, geo. anderson, edward speer, a. g. fisher, f. m. sherwood, and a. s. creath, of greensburg. their spokesman was the hon. will cumback. delaware county sent twelve organizations, conspicuous among which were the tippecanoe club, the veterans regiment, and lincoln colored club. among the leaders of the delegation were ex-senator m. c. smith, a. f. collins, hon. james n. templer, major j. f. wildman, rev. t. s. guthrie, j. d. hoyt, geo. f. mcculloch, w. w. orr, joseph g. lefler, lee coffeen, c. f. w. neely, ed. r. templer, w. h. murray, w. h. stokes, john s. aldredge, j. r. shoemaker, jacob stiffler, web s. richey, t. h. johnson and others, of muncie. rev. n. l. bray spoke on behalf of the lincoln club, but r. s. gregory delivered the address for the delegation as a whole. in reply to these several addresses general harrison said: _my friends_--the man who does not believe that the issues of this campaign have taken a very deep hold upon the minds and upon the hearts of the american people would do well to come and stand with me and look into the faces of the masses who gather here. i know nothing of the human face if i do not read again in your faces and eyes the lesson i have read here from day to day, and it is this: that the thinking, intelligent, god-fearing and self-respecting citizens of this country believe there are issues at stake that demand their earnest effort. [applause.] a campaign that is one simply of party management, a campaign by committees and public speakers, may fail; but a campaign to which the men and women of the country give their unselfish and earnest efforts can never fail. [great applause.] it is no personal interest in the candidate that stirs these emotions in your hearts; it is the belief that questions are involved affecting your prosperity and the prosperity of your neighbors; affecting the dignity of the nation; affecting the generation to which you will presently leave the government which our fathers built and you have saved. [applause.] one subject is never omitted by those who speak for these visiting delegations, viz.: the protective tariff. the purpose not to permit american wages to be brought below the level of comfortable living, and competence, and hope, by competition with the pauper labor of europe, has taken a very strong hold upon our people. [applause.] and of kin to this suggestion and purpose is this other: that we will not permit this country to be made the dumping-ground of foreign pauperism and crime. [great applause.] there are some who profess to be eager to exclude paupers and chinese laborers, and at the same time advocate a policy that brings the american workman into competition with the product of cheap foreign labor. [applause and cries of "that's it!"] the disastrous effects upon our workingmen and working-women of competition with cheap, underpaid labor are not obviated by keeping the cheap worker over the sea if the product of his cheap labor is allowed free competition in our market. we should protect our people against competition with the products of underpaid labor abroad as well as against the coming to our shores of paupers, laborers under contract, and the chinese labor. [enthusiastic applause.] these two thoughts are twin thoughts; the same logic supports both; and the republican party holds them as the dual conclusion of one great argument. now, gentlemen, to the first voters, who come with the high impulse of recruits into this strife; to these old men, seasoned veterans of many a contest, and to these colored friends, whose fidelity has been conspicuous, i give my thanks and hearty greetings. [applause.] there has been a desire expressed that the reception of these delegations should be individualized; that delaware should be received by itself, and decatur separately; but that is not possible. you are one in thought and purpose; and if i am not able to individualize your reception by counties, i will, so far as i can, now make it absolutely individual by greeting each one of you. indianapolis, august . delegations from ohio, indiana, and illinois, aggregating between nine and ten thousand visitors, paid their respects to the republican nominee on the seventeenth of august. the ohio delegation came from bellefontaine, logan county, led by judge william lawrence. they carried a beautiful old silk banner that had been presented to a logan county club at the hands of gen. wm. henry harrison in . ford county, illinois, sent a large delegation, headed by judge a. sample and col. c. bogardus, of paxton. the young men's club--wm. ramsey, president, and the paxton league--t. t. thompson, president, were conspicuous in this delegation. the kankakee county (illinois) delegation, headed by the republican club of the city of kankakee in campaign uniforms, was led by judge t. s. sawyer, d. h. paddock, f. s. hatch, w. f. kenoga, h. l. richardson, j. f. leonard, r. d. sherman, geo. r. letourneau, and judge j. n. orr. morgan county, illinois, contributed the largest delegation of the day, over two thousand, with three drum corps, one, the jacksonville juvenile drum corps, led by thomas barbour, aged . prominent in the morgan delegation were c. g. rutledge, president young men's republican club, b. f. hilligass, d. m. simmons, dr. p. g. gillett, sam'l w. nichols, judge m. t. layman, j. g. loomis, a. p. and j. m. smith, veterans of ' , and henry yates, son of illinois' war governor--all of jacksonville. the indiana visitors came from three counties--bartholomew, johnson, and vermilion. the bartholomew contingent was composed largely of veterans of the late war, who were led by a company of their daughters in uniform. among their representative members were john c. orr, w. w. lambert, john h. taylor, john f. ott, j. w. morgan, john sharp, t. b. prother, andrew perkinson, and h. rost, of columbus. the johnson county delegation numbered two thousand, led by w. t. pritchard, d. w. barnett, jessie overstreet, j. h. vannuys, i. m. thompson, jacob hazlett, and john brown, of franklin. vermilion county sent fifteen hundred enthusiastic visitors, commanded by a. j. ralph, marshal of the delegation. other leaders were hon. r. b. sears, w. l. porter, rob't a. parrett, s. b. davis, r. h. nixon, geo. h. fisher, and andrew curtis, of newport. the speakers on behalf of these several delegations were: hon. william lawrence, of ohio; hon. frank l. cook, paxton, ill.; judge c. r. starr, kankakee county, ill.; prof. wm. d. saunders, jacksonville, ill.; major w. t. strickland, bartholomew county, ind.; col. sam'l p. oyler, johnson county, ind.; hon. h. h. connelly, vermilion county, ind. to these addresses general harrison responded as follows: _my friends_--the magnitude of this gathering, i fear, quite out-reaches the capacity of my voice. it is so great and so cordial, it has been accompanied by so many kind expressions, that my heart is deeply touched--too deeply to permit of extended or connected speech. i return most cordially the greetings of these friends from ohio, indiana, and illinois [cheers], a trio of great states lying in this great valley, endowed by nature with a productive capacity that rivals the famous valley of the nile, populated by a people unsurpassed in intelligence, manly independence and courage. [applause and cheers.] the association of these states to-day brings to my mind the fact that in the brigade with which i served indiana, ohio and illinois were represented [applause]--three regiments from illinois, the one hundred and second, the one hundred and fifth and the one hundred and twenty-ninth; one from ohio, the seventy-ninth, and one from indiana, the seventieth infantry. i have seen the men of these states stand together in the evening parade. i have seen them also charge together in battle, and die together for the flag they loved [great applause], and when the battle was over i have seen the dead gathered from the field they had enriched with their blood and laid side by side in a common grave. again you evidence by your coming that these great states have in peace common interests and common sympathies. the republican party has always been hospitable to the truth. [applause and laughter.] it has never shunned debate. it has boldly, and in the courage of the principles it has advocated, opened the lists and challenged all comers. it has never found it necessary or consistent with its great principles to suppress free discussion of any question. there is not a republican community where any man may not advocate without fear his political beliefs. [cries of "that's so!"] there is not a republican voting precinct where any man, whatever may have been his relations to the flag during the war, may not freely exercise his right to vote. [cheers.] there is not one such precinct where the right of a confederate soldier freely to cast the ballot of his choice would not be defended by the union veterans of the war. [applause and cries of "that's true!"] our party is tolerant of political differences. it has always yielded to others all that it demanded for itself. it has been intolerant of but one thing: disloyalty to the flag and to the union of states. [great applause.] it has had the good fortune to set in the constitution and in the permanent laws of our country many of the great principles for which it has contended. it has not only persuaded a majority of our thinking people, but it has had the unusual fortune to compel those who opposed it to give a belated assent to every great principle it has supported. now, gentlemen, i am sure you will excuse further speech. what i say here must necessarily be very general. it would not be in good taste for me to make too close or too personal an application of republican principles. [laughter and applause and cries of "you're a dandy!"] i do not know what to say further. i have up to this time greeted personally all those who came. my courage is a little shaken as i look upon this vast multitude, but for a time, at least--so long as i can, and to those who especially desire it, i will give a personal greeting. [great and prolonged applause.] indianapolis, august . the commercial travelling men, and their friends, from the cities of peoria, bloomington, terre haute, and lafayette, about a thousand in number, paid their respects to general harrison on the afternoon of the th of august. the bloomington delegation was led by j. h. sprague and dan van elsler, the peoria club by j. g. jones. each delegation was escorted by a splendid band. they were met and escorted to the harrison residence by a committee from the indianapolis commercial travellers' association, comprising g. c. webster, c. h. mcpherson, john v. parker, w. h. schmidt, d. w. coffin, harry gates, r. k. syfers, w. f. winchester, wm. sisson, t. p. swain, c. l. schmidt, ed. finney, o. w. moorman, charles lefler, m. p. green, j. l. barnhardt, berg. applegate, g. r. rhoads, hon. j. h. rowell, of bloomington; and hon. j. s. starr of peoria spoke on behalf of the visitors. general harrison said: _gentlemen of the commercial travellers' association of peoria, bloomington, lafayette, and terre haute_--i thank you for this most cordial and beautiful demonstration. the respect of such a body of men is a valuable acquisition. but i am particularly glad that a class so large and so influential, and one that touches so many communities, is loyally and earnestly devoted to the principles of the republican party. i have travelled somewhat in the wake of the commercial men, and have observed that they have the habit of getting the best of everything wherever they go. [applause and laughter. a voice: "that's the reason we are here!"] i am therefore quite ready to credit the statement of the gentleman who has just spoken in your behalf when he tells me that the commercial travellers are all republicans. [applause and cries of "he was right!"] i should expect they would get the best politics that were to be found. [laughter and applause.] your calling is an active one--you are always on the move. you are quick to discover the wants of local trade. you are persuasive in speech and address; you are honest for the love of integrity, and do not forget that you must again face your customer after the goods are delivered. [laughter and applause.] the men who employed you have chosen you, picked you out, and they subject you to the weekly test of success. you have been proved and not found wanting. the wide intercourse you have with your fellow-men and the wide view you get of our country must tend to make you liberal and patriotic. the provincialism that once existed in this country has largely disappeared, and the commercial travellers have been an important agency in bringing this about. this going to and fro has given you a fuller comprehension, not only of the extent of this country, but of the greatness and unity of its people. [cheers.] i have thought that the prophet daniel must have had a vision of the commercial travellers when he said that in the last days many should run to and fro and knowledge should be increased. [laughter and applause.] you will not expect me to enter upon the discussion of any of the topics which have been suggested by those who have spoken for you. most of them i have already alluded to in public speech since my nomination, and upon some of them i have spoken more fully before. let me suggest but this one thought: do not allow any one to persuade you that this great contest as to our tariff policy is one between schedules. it is not a question of a seven per cent. reduction. [applause.] it is a question between wide-apart principles. [cries of "that's right!"] the principle of protection, the intelligent recognition in the framing of our tariff laws of the duty to protect our american industries and maintain the american scale of wages by adequate discriminating duties [cries of "that's right!" "that's it!"] on the one hand, and on the other a denial of the constitutional right to make our customs duties protective, or the assertion of the doctrine that free competition with foreign products is the ideal condition to which all our legislation should tend. [applause.] let me now, in behalf not only of myself, but of my family, thank you for your visit and ask you to enter our home. [applause.] toledo, ohio, august . general harrison left indianapolis on the morning of august , ' , for a two weeks' outing and vacation at middle bass island, lake erie, where he was the guest--upon invitation of ex-gov. charles foster, of ohio--of the middle bass fishing club, mather shoemaker, sr., president. he was accompanied by mrs. harrison, judge wm. a. woods and wife, miss woods, samuel miller, and representatives of the associated press and cincinnati _commercial-gazette_. his departure was not generally known, consequently there was no demonstration along the line until defiance, ohio, was reached, where several hundred people had gathered. hon. c. a. flickinger delivered a brief address of welcome. general harrison, speaking from the train, said: _gentlemen_--i am very much obliged to you for this reception. you will excuse me, i am sure, for not attempting to make any speech. this evidence of your friendly feeling is gratifying to me. we were intending to travel to-day in quietness, and i am confident you will conform to our wishes in that respect by allowing me to say simply, "how do you do" and "good-by." toledo was reached early in the evening, and several thousand citizens and militia welcomed the distinguished travellers. a committee of reception, comprising james m. brown, chairman, mayor hamilton, hon. e. d. potter, j. c. bonner, john berdan, c. a. king, calvin barker, fred eaton, col. s. c. reynolds, judge r. f. doyle, judge joseph cummings, hon. john f. kumler, hon. richard waite, wm. baker, and judge austin, escorted general harrison and his party to the residence of wm. cummings, whose guests they were. at night an open-air mass-meeting was held in memorial hall square, where ten thousand men assembled. gov. foster spoke at length, and was followed by general harrison, who was introduced by hon. j. m. brown, president of the executive committee united republican clubs, and spoke as follows: _my friends_--you have already been told that this reception was not planned by me, and yet i do not regret that i have yielded to the urgent solicitation of your representatives and have consented to stand for a few moments in the presence of this magnificent and instructive audience. [applause.] i say instructive, for that public man is dull indeed who does not gather both instruction and inspiration from such meetings as this. [applause.] i thank you for any measure of personal respect and interest which your coming here to-night may witness, but i do not see in this immense gathering any testimony that is personal to me. i prefer to regard it as another witness added to the long number i have seen before of the deep-seated and earnest interest of our people in the public questions that are to be settled in november. [applause.] i choose rather to regard it as a pledge that this interest you manifest in me to-night will not stop here, but is the pledge of continued and earnest personal work by each one of you for those principles which have won the consent of your minds and the love of your hearts. [applause.] i cannot enter in any detail into the discussion of public questions; i would not at all put myself between you and these great, important issues. i would, in all i may say, put them to the front. we are here citizens of a great, prosperous, magnificent nation. we have common interests. we are here charged with the common duties to perpetuate, if we can, the prosperity and to maintain the honor of this great republic. [applause.] we are here to-night in the enjoyment of free government. we are here in the individual possession of better opportunities of development, of a larger prosperity, and of more individual comfort than are possessed by any other people in the world. [applause.] the great economic question as to what shall be our future legislative policy is stated with a distinctness in this campaign that it has never had before, and i believe the verdict and decision will have an emphasis and finality that it has never had before. [applause.] if there is any one here present to-night that knows of any land that spreads a more promising sky of hope above the heads of the poor and the laboring man than this, i would be glad if he would name it. the one fact that i do not need to stop to demonstrate by statistics, the one fact that i could call out of this vast audience hundreds of witnesses to support by their personal testimony, is that the scale of american wages is higher than that of any other country in the world. [applause.] if this were not true, why is it that the workingmen and the working-women of the older lands turn their faces hitherward? if there is a better country, one that offers better wages, fuller hopes than this, why is it that those who are in quest of such better things have not found it out and turned their faces thitherward? now, if that is true, then why is it true, and how is it to be continued--this condition of our country? it is because, and only because, we have for years, by our protective tariff, discriminated in favor of american manufacturers and american workingmen. [applause.] strike down this protective system, bring our workingmen and working-women in equal competition in the products of their toil with those who labor abroad, and nothing is clearer than that these mills and factories must reduce wages here to the level with wages abroad, or they must shut down. you have the choice to make; you, the free citizens of this country, whose ballots sway its destiny, will settle these questions in november. [applause.] i ask you how? don't be deceived by the suggestion that this is any contest over a seven per cent. reduction in the tariff schedule. we are allowed now to say, i think, that all those who are entitled to speak for the democratic party have declared that it is opposed to protection. that being so, the issue is clearly, distinctly, strongly drawn. i beg you all--not in my interest, but in your own; in the interest of your families and the country you love--to ponder this question; to think upon it with that seriousness its importance demands, and when you have thought it out, settle it, settle it in november, so that we shall be free for years to come from this agitation in behalf of free trade. [great applause.] i thank you again for this kindly demonstration. i beg you to accept these brief suggestions as the only but inadequate return that i can make you for this kindness. [applause.] put-in-bay, ohio, august . the residents of put-in-bay island, about five hundred in number, tendered general harrison a reception on the thirty-first of august. the steamboats from cleveland, detroit, toledo, and sandusky brought several thousand excursionists. general harrison and his party on their arrival from middle bass island were met at the pier by all the residents of put-in-bay island, headed by their most distinguished citizen john brown, jr., son of the celebrated "ossawatomie" brown, of harper's ferry fame. from a pavilion in the adjacent grove john brown introduced hon. charles foster, who said: _fellow-citizens_--general harrison came to middle bass for the purpose of rest and quiet. at the solicitation of a number of people of this section of country--a great number, i might say--he has kindly consented to give a reception here to-day, upon one condition--that he was not to make a speech. now, fellow-citizens, i have the very great pleasure of presenting to you general benjamin harrison, the republican candidate for the presidency. [applause.] as governor foster concluded, general harrison arose midst a shout of welcome and spoke as follows: _my friends_--i have found governor foster to be a very agreeable and thoughtful host, and i find him to-day to be the most agreeable master of ceremonies who has ever attended me at a public reception. i like his announcement of the condition under which i appear before you to-day. i never enjoy a banquet when my name is on the programme for a toast. i do not, therefore, intend to speak to you about any of those questions that are engaging your minds as citizens of this prosperous and mighty and happy nation. we are here to-day as americans, proud of the flag that symbolizes this great union of states; proud of the story that has been written by our fathers in council and in war, in the formation and defence and perpetuation of our magnificent institutions, we are here in the immediate neighborhood of one of those great historic events that was among the most potential agencies in settling our title to the great northwest. if we had stood where we stand to-day we could have heard the guns of perry's fleet. if we had stood where we stand to-day we could have welcomed him as he came a victor into put-in-bay. these institutions of ours are in our own keeping now, and not only our fundamental institutions, but the fame that has been won by those who have gone before. i may therefore properly say to-day that a campaign like this demands the thoughtful consideration of every american voter. we are prosperous. [cheers.] the story of our prosperity, of our development in wealth, of our achievements in finance as a nation, since and during the war, is almost as notable and almost as admirable as that of our achievements in arms. the assembling of our revenue was even more difficult than the assembling of armies, and yet we were able to maintain those armies in the field, and have been able since not only to bear up the great load of debt, but to pay it off, until that which was once thought to be a burden that would crush our industries has come to be in our hands but as the ball the boy tosses in play [cheers]; and we are to-day confronted with the question, not how we shall get money, but how we shall wisely stop some of those avenues by which wealth is pouring into our public treasury. it is an easier problem than that which confronted the great war secretary, in whose name you so delight--how to raise revenue to prosecute the war successfully. it will be wisely solved. and may i note also the fact that, notwithstanding this complaint of excessive revenue, there are some who suggest that they are not able adequately to arouse the popular indignation against excessive taxation because they cannot disclose to the people when or how they are paying the taxes? [applause.] it is taken, they say, so indirectly and so subtly that these--our plain people--don't know that they are paying them at all. [applause.] but i must not cross this line of party discussion. i have had a pleasant stay in this most delightful neighborhood, and i cannot let this public opportunity pass without expressing, for myself and for mrs. harrison, our grateful appreciation of the kind and thoughtful hospitality which has been shown to us by the people of these islands. [prolonged applause.] fort wayne, ind., september , . general harrison and party, _en route_ home from middle bass island, arrived at toledo on the evening of sept. , and were again the guests of wm. cummings. at night they were tendered a reception by mr. and mrs. john berdan, at their residence. on the morning of sept. the party started homeward. the first stop was at fort wayne, where several thousand hoosiers welcomed their leader. supt. wall, of the pittsburg and fort wayne railroad, introduced the general, who spoke as follows: _my friends_--i desire to thank you for this cordial demonstration. i thank you not so much for myself as for the party to which most of us have given the consent of our minds. i am glad to know that the people are moved to a thoughtful consideration of those questions which are this year presented for their determination. under a popular government like ours it is of the first importance that every man who votes should have some reason for his vote; that every man who attaches himself to this or that political party should intelligently understand both the creed and the purposes of the party to which he belongs. i think it is universally conceded by democrats as well as by republicans that the questions involved in this campaign do have a very direct bearing upon the national prosperity, and upon the prosperity and welfare of the individual citizen. i think it is conceded that the result of this election will affect beneficently or injuriously our great manufacturing interests, and will affect for weal or for woe the workingmen and working-women who fill these busy hives of industry. [applause.] this much is conceded. i do not intend to-day to argue the question in any detail. i want to call your attention to a few general facts and principles, and the first one--the one i never tire of mentioning; the one i deem so important that i do not shun the charge that i am repeating myself--is this: that the condition of the wage-workers of america is better than that of the wage-workers of any other country in the world. [applause.] now, if that be true, it is important that you should each find out why it is so; that each one of you should determine for himself what effect a protective tariff has had and is likely to have upon his wages and his prosperity. does it need to be demonstrated that if we reduce our tariff to a revenue level, if we abolish from it every consideration of protection, more goods will come in from abroad than come in now? and what is the necessary effect? it is the transfer to foreign shops of work that you need here; it is to diminish american production and increase english production. that is to be the effect of it. it is, not worth while to stand upon nice definitions as to free trade. some think it enough to say that they are not free-traders because they are not in favor of abolishing all customs duties. let me remind such that the free-trade countries of europe, recognized to be such, have not abolished all customs duties. a better distinction is this: the free-trader believes in levying customs duties without any regard to the effect of those duties upon the wages of our working people, or upon the production of our own shops. this, then, is the issue. take it to your homes. there are many confusing and contradictory statements made in the public press and by public speakers. ask any of those who assail our protective system whether they do not believe that if their policy is adopted a larger amount of foreign-made goods will come into this country. it is their purpose to increase importation in order to cheapen prices. i think i may safely ask you to consider the question whether this cheapening of prices, which they seem to regard as the highest attainment of statesmanship, is consistent with the rate of wages that our working people enjoy now, whether it will not involve--if we are to have foreign competition without favoring duties--a reduction of american wages to the standard of the wages paid abroad. [applause.] do you believe for one moment that two factories making the same product can be maintained in competition when one pays thirty-three per cent. more to its workingmen than the other? is it not certain that wages must be equalized in those competing establishments or the one paying the higher wages must shut down? [applause and cries, "that's the thing!"] here in this city of fort wayne, so important and so prosperous, we have a fine illustration of the accruing advantages of a large factory and shop population. it has made your city prosperous as well as populous, and it has made these outlying allen county farms vastly more valuable than they otherwise would have been. these interests harmonize. but i only want to ask you to think upon these questions; settle them in your own minds, for it is agreed by all that, as they shall be settled one way or the other, your interests and those of your families and of this community, and of every other like community in this country, are to be affected, favorably or unfavorably. may i not appeal to you to review these questions, to throw off the shackles of preconceived notions and of party prejudices, and consider them anew in the light of all the information that is accessible to you? if you shall do that i do not doubt that the working people of this country will this november forever settle the question that american customs duties shall by intention, by forethought, have regard to the wages of our working people. [applause.] and now, if you will pardon further speech, i shall be glad to avail myself of the arrangements which the committee have provided to greet personally any of you who may desire to greet me. [prolonged applause and cheers.] huntington, ind., september . the next stop was at huntington, where two thousand people were congregated. in response to repeated calls general harrison said: _my friends_--our stop here is altogether too brief for me to attempt to speak; yet i cannot refrain from expressing to you, my friends of huntington county, my sincere and grateful appreciation for the evidence of your kindness in welcoming me so cordially to my home after a brief absence. i have not travelled very far this time, but i have seen nothing either on this visit, or any more extended visit that i have heretofore made, to win away my interests and affection from the great state of indiana. [great applause.] it is great in the capabilities, both of its soil and its citizenship [applause]; great in its achievements during the war. when our country was imperilled no state more nobly or magnificently responded to the demands which were made by the general government for men to fight and to die for the flag. [applause.] i am glad to greet in this audience to-day my comrades of the war, and all who have gathered here. i beg to thank you again for your kindness. peru, ind., september . at peru a committee, headed by hon. a. c. bearss and giles w. smith, waited upon general harrison, who addressed an audience of over two thousand as follows: _my friends_--i am very much obliged to you for that kindness of feeling which your gathering here to-day evinces. i have had a brief visit for rest, and i am come back to my home with very kind feelings toward my friends in indiana, who have, not only during this important campaign, but always, when i have appealed to them, treated me with the utmost consideration. i have not time to-day to discuss the issues of this campaign. they are extremely important, and they will have a direct bearing upon the prosperity of our country. i can only ask you to think of them, and not to mistake the issue. it is very plain. it is the question of whether our tariff laws shall be a protection to american workingmen and a protection to american manufacturing establishments. those who advocate tariff for revenue only do not take any thought of our wage-workers, but let their interests take care of themselves. on the other hand the republican party believes that high regard should be paid to the question what the effect will be upon wages and upon the protection of our american shops. those who believe the doctrine agree with us; and those who assail it, and say it is unconstitutional, as has recently been said by a distinguished citizen, would destroy our protective system if they could. we must believe so, because we must impute to them sincerity in what they say. i believe this campaign will settle for many years to come the question of whether legislation shall be intelligently directed in favor of the doctrine that we will, so far as may be, see that our farmers may find home consumers for their home product, and that these populous manufacturing centres may give a larger value to the farms that lie about them. you have these questions to settle. they affect your interests as citizens. i am sure that everything that regards them, as well as everything that regards the candidate, may be safely left in the kind hands of these intelligent citizens of indiana and of the united states. [great cheering.] kokomo, ind., september . the city of kokomo welcomed the party in the evening with a brilliant illumination by natural gas. three thousand people were present. general harrison said: _my friends_--i very much appreciate this spontaneous evidence of your friendliness. that so many of you should have gathered here this evening to greet us on our return home after a brief absence from the state is very gratifying to me. kokomo has been for many years a very prosperous place. it has been the happy home of a very intelligent and very thrifty people. you are now, however, realizing a development more rapid and much greater than the most sanguine among you could have anticipated three years ago. the large increase in the number and business of your manufacturing establishments, the coming here from other parts of the country of enterprising men with their capital to set up manufacturing plants, has excited your interest and has promoted your development. there is not a resident of kokomo, there is not a resident of howard county, who does not rejoice in this great prosperity. i am sure there is not a man or woman in this city who does not realize that this new condition of things gives to your boys, who are growing up, new avenues of useful thrift. it opens to those who might otherwise have pursued common labor access to skilled trades and higher compensation. there is not a merchant in kokomo who does not appreciate the added trade which comes to his store. there is not a farmer in howard county who has not realized the benefits of a home market for his crops [applause and cries of "good!"], and especially for those perishable products of the farm which do not bear distant transportation. now i submit to your consideration, in the light of these new facts, whether you have not a very deep interest in the protection of our domestic industries and the maintenance of the american standard of wages. there can be no mistaking the issue this year. in previous campaigns it has been observed by evasive platform declarations. it is now so clear that all men can understand it. i would leave this thought with you: will the prosperity that is now realized by you, and that greater prosperity which you anticipate, be better advanced by the continuance of the protective policy or by its destruction? tipton, ind., september . at tipton junction, where several hundred people had congregated, general harrison said: _my friends_--there is no time this evening for me to say more than that i thank you very sincerely for this cordial evidence of your kindly feeling. i will not have time to discuss any public questions. you will consider them for yourselves, and can have ready access to all necessary information. noblesville, ind., september . at noblesville the train was met by a special from indianapolis, bearing the columbia club, a uniformed organization of three hundred prominent young men, who had come to escort general harrison to his home. to the assembled citizens of noblesville the general said: _my friends_--you are very kind, and i am grateful for this manifestation of your kindness. i cannot speak to you at any length to-night. you are in the "gas belt" of indiana. the result of the discovery of this new fuel has been the rapid development of your towns. you have shown your enterprise by hospitably opening the way for the coming of new industrial enterprises. you have felt it worth while not only to invite them, but to offer pecuniary inducements for them to come. if it has been worth while to do so much in the hope of developing your town and to add value to your farms by making a home market for your farm product, is it not also worth your while so to vote this fall as to save and enlarge these new industrial enterprises? [applause.] let me acknowledge a new debt of gratitude to my friends of hamilton county, who have often before made me their debtor, and bid you good-night. indianapolis, september . the home-coming of general harrison was a veritable ovation. fifteen thousand people greeted and accompanied him to his residence, led by the columbia club, the veterans' regiment, and the railroad men's club. escorted by gen. foster, daniel m. ransdell, and w. n. harding, general harrison--standing in his own door--facing the great assembly, said: _my friends_--two weeks ago to-day i left indianapolis quietly for a brief season of rest. we met in ohio very considerate and hospitable friends, who allowed nothing to be lacking to the enjoyment and comfort of our brief vacation. but, notwithstanding all the attractions of that island home in lake erie, we are to-night very happy to be again at home. the enthusiastic welcome you have extended to us has added grace and joy. i think i may conclude that nothing has happened since i have been gone that has disturbed your confidence or diminished your respect. [great applause and cries of "no! no!"] at the outset of this campaign i said i would confidently commit all that was personal to myself to the keeping of the intelligent and fair-minded citizens of indiana. [applause.] we will go on our way in this campaign upon that high and dignified plane upon which it has been pitched, so far as it lay in our power, commending the principles of our party to the intelligent interest of our fellow-citizens, and trusting to truth and right for the victory. [applause.] most gratefully i acknowledge the affectionate interest which has been shown to-night by my old comrades of the war. [applause.] i am glad to know that in this veteran organization there are many who have heretofore differed with me in political opinion, but who are drawn in this campaign, by a sense of our common interests, to cast in their influence with us. i desire also to thank the railroad club for their kind greetings. there has been a special significance in their friendly organization, and i am grateful, also, to the members of the columbia club for their part in this demonstration. now, with an overwhelming sense of inability to respond fittingly to your cordiality and kindness, i can only thank you once more and bid you good-night. [applause.] indianapolis, september . on the night of sept. general harrison, in company with general a. p. hovey, ex-gov. a. g. porter, hon. james n. huston, hon. r. b. f. pierce, judge walker, and other friends, reviewed from the balcony of the new-denison hotel ten thousand marching republicans. it was one of the most brilliant and successful demonstrations of the campaign. the great line was composed of eighty-two republican clubs and associations of the city of indianapolis, commanded by chief marshal hon. geo. w. spahr, assisted by the following mounted aids: major geo. herriott, moses g. mclain, dan'l m. ransdell, thomas f. ryan, w. h. h. miller, john b. elam, dr. austin morris, col. i. n. walker, wm. l. taylor, w. a. pattison, capt. o. h. hibben, charles murray, ed. thompson, charles wright, s. d. pray, j. e. haskell, wm. thomas, w. h. tucker, joseph forbes, ed. harmon, lou wade, john w. bowlus, m. l. johnson, miles reynolds, w. e. tousey, r. h. rees, and w. d. wiles. the column was divided into four divisions, commanded by col. n. r. ruckle, col. james b. black, horace mckay, and hon. stanton j. peelle. a great mass-meeting followed the parade, and the issues of the campaign were presented by general hovey, gov. porter and hon. john m. butler. indianapolis, september . general harrison on this date received perhaps the most unique delegation of the campaign: a band of one hundred girls and misses, aged from seven to fifteen years, organized by mrs. mattie mccorkle. at their head rode master charles pettijohn, six years old, mounted upon a pony, followed by a drum corps of eight young boys. the girls marched four abreast, dressed in uniforms of red, white and blue, carrying mounted japanese lanterns. they were commanded by miss florence schilling. after singing "marching through georgia," master pettijohn, on behalf of the young ladies, presented the general a handsome bouquet and made an address. general harrison honored the young orator and the club with a speech, and said: when some one asked this afternoon, over the telephone, if i would receive some children who wanted to pay me a visit, i gave a very cheerful consent, because i thought i saw a chance to have a good time. that you little ones would demand a speech from me never entered my mind, nor did i expect to see a company so prettily uniformed and so well drilled, both in marching and in song. children have always been attractive to me. i have found not only entertainment but instruction in their companionship. little ones often say wise things. in the presence of such a company as this, one who has any aspirations for the things that are good and pure cannot fail to have them strengthened. the kind words you have addressed to me in song come, i am sure, from sincere and loving hearts, and i am very grateful for them and for your visit. some of the best friends i have are under ten years of age, and after to-night i am sure i shall have many more, for all your names will be added. and now i hope you will all come in where we can see you and show you whatever there is in our home to interest you. i would like you all to feel that we will be glad if you will come to see us often. indianapolis, september . general harrison's visitors to-day comprised six hundred g. a. r. veterans and their wives from northwestern kansas--_en route_ to the grand encampment--under the lead of general w. h. caldwell, frank mcgrath, c. e. monell, w. s. search, dr. a. patten, j. w. garner, and dr. j. r. king, of beloit, kan. colonel w. c. whitney, commander of the first division, was orator, and assured general harrison that "kansas grew more corn and more babies than any other state in the union." in response the general said: _my comrades_--i have a choice to make and you have one. i can occupy the few moments i have to spare either in public address or in private, personal greeting. i think you would prefer, as i shall prefer, to omit the public speech that i may be presented to each of you. [cries of "good! good!"] i beg you, therefore, to permit me only to say that i very heartily appreciate this greeting from my comrades of kansas. the bond that binds us together as soldiers of the late war is one that is enduring and close. no party considerations can break it; it is stronger than political ties, and we are able thus in our grand army associations to come together upon that broad and high plane of fraternity, loyalty, and charity. [applause and cries of "good! good!"] let me now, if it be your pleasure, extend a comrade's hand to each of you. [applause.] general harrison's letter of acceptance. indianapolis, ind., september , . hon. m. m. estee and others, committee, etc.: _gentlemen_--when your committee visited me, on the fourth of july last, and presented the official announcement of my nomination for the presidency of the united states by the republican convention, i promised as soon as practicable to communicate to you a more formal acceptance of the nomination. since that time the work of receiving and addressing, almost daily, large delegations of my fellow-citizens has not only occupied all of my time, but has in some measure rendered it unnecessary for me to use this letter as a medium of communicating to the public my views upon the questions involved in the campaign. i appreciate very highly the confidence and respect manifested by the convention, and accept the nomination with a feeling of gratitude and a full sense of the responsibilities which accompany it. it is a matter of congratulation that the declarations of the chicago convention upon the questions that now attract the interest of our people are so clear and emphatic. there is further cause of congratulation in the fact that the convention utterances of the democratic party, if in any degree uncertain or contradictory, can now be judged and interpreted by executive acts and messages, and by definite propositions in legislation. this is especially true of what is popularly known as the tariff question. the issue cannot now be obscured. it is not a contest between schedules, but between wide-apart principles. the foreign competitors for our market have, with quick instinct, seen how one issue of this contest may bring them advantage, and our own people are not so dull as to miss or neglect the grave interests that are involved for them. the assault upon our protective system is open and defiant. protection is assailed as unconstitutional in law, or as vicious in principle, and those who hold such views sincerely cannot stop short of an absolute elimination from our tariff laws of the principle of protection. the mills bill is only a step, but it is toward an object that the leaders of democratic thought and legislation have clearly in mind. the important question is not so much the length of the step as the direction of it. judged by the executive message of december last, by the mills bill, by the debates in congress, and by the st. louis platform, the democratic party will, if supported by the country, place the tariff laws upon a purely revenue basis. this is practical free trade--free trade in the english sense. the legend upon the banner may not be "free trade"--it may be the more obscure motto, "tariff reform;" but neither the banner nor the inscription is conclusive, or, indeed, very important. the assault itself is the important fact. those who teach that the import duty upon foreign goods sold in our market is paid by the consumer, and that the price of the domestic competing article is enhanced to the amount of the duty on the imported article--that every million of dollars collected for customs duties represents many millions more which do not reach the treasury, but are paid by our citizens as the increased cost of domestic productions resulting from the tariff laws--may not intend to discredit in the minds of others our system of levying duties on competing foreign products, but it is clearly already discredited in their own. we cannot doubt, without impugning their integrity, that if free to act upon their convictions they would so revise our laws as to lay the burden of the customs revenue upon articles that are not produced in this country, and to place upon the free list all competing foreign products. i do not stop to refute this theory as to the effect of our tariff duties. those who advance it are students of maxims and not of the markets. they may be safely allowed to call their project "tariff reform," if the people understand that in the end the argument compels free trade in all competing products. this end may not be reached abruptly, and its approach may be accompanied with some expressions of sympathy for our protected industries and our working people, but it will certainly come if these early steps do not arouse the people to effective resistance. the republican party holds that a protective tariff is constitutional, wholesome, and necessary. we do not offer a fixed schedule, but a principle. we will revise the schedule, modify rates, but always with an intelligent provision as to the effect upon domestic productions and the wages of our working people. we believe it to be one of the worthy objects of tariff legislation to preserve the american market for american producers, and to maintain the american scale of wages by adequate discriminative duties upon foreign competing products. the effect of lower rates and larger importations upon the public revenue is contingent and doubtful, but not so the effect upon american production and american wages. less work and lower wages must be accepted as the inevitable result of the increased offering of foreign goods in our market. by way of recompense for this reduction in his wages, and the loss of the american market, it is suggested that the diminished wages of the workingman will have an undiminished purchasing power, and that he will be able to make up for the loss of the home market by an enlarged foreign market. our workingmen have the settlement of the question in their own hands. they now obtain higher wages and live more comfortably than those of any other country. they will make choice of the substantial advantages they have in hand and the deceptive promises and forecasts of these theorizing reformers. they will decide for themselves and for their country whether the protective system shall be continued or destroyed. the fact of a treasury surplus, the amount of which is variously stated, has directed public attention to a consideration of the methods by which the national income may best be reduced to the level of a wise and necessary expenditure. this condition has been seized upon by those who are hostile to protective customs duties as an advantageous base of attack upon our tariff laws. they have magnified and nursed the surplus, which they affect to deprecate, seemingly for the purpose of exaggerating the evil, in order to reconcile the people to the extreme remedy they propose. a proper reduction of the revenues does not necessitate, and should not suggest, the abandonment or impairment of the protective system. the methods suggested by our convention will not need to be exhausted in order to effect the necessary reduction. we are not likely to be called upon, i think, to make a present choice between the surrender of the protective system and the entire repeal of the internal taxes. such a contingency, in view of the present relation of expenditures to revenues, is remote. the inspection and regulation of the manufacture and sale of oleomargarine is important, and the revenue derived from it is not so great that the repeal of the law need enter into any plan of revenue reduction. the surplus now in the treasury should be used in the purchase of bonds. the law authorizes this use of it, and if it is not needed for current or deficiency appropriations, the people, and not the banks in which it has been deposited, should have the advantage of its use by stopping interest upon the public debt. at least those who needlessly hoard it should not be allowed to use the fear of a monetary stringency, thus produced, to coerce public sentiment upon other questions. closely connected with the subject of the tariff is that of the importation of foreign laborers under contracts of service to be performed here. the law now in force prohibiting such contracts received my cordial support in the senate, and such amendments as may be found necessary effectively to deliver our working men and women from this most inequitable form of competition will have my sincere advocacy. legislation prohibiting the importation of laborers under contract to serve here will, however, afford very inadequate relief to our working people if the system of protective duties is broken down. if the products of american shops must compete in the american market, without favoring duties, with the products of cheap foreign labor the effect will be different, if at all, only in degree, whether the cheap laborer is across the street or over the sea. such competition will soon reduce wages here to the level of those abroad, and when that condition is reached we will not need any laws forbidding the importation of laborers under contract--they will have no inducement to come, and the employer no inducement to send for them. in the earlier years of our history public agencies to promote immigration were common. the pioneer wanted a neighbor with more friendly instincts than the indian. labor was scarce and fully employed. but the day of the immigration bureau has gone by. while our doors will continue open to proper immigration, we do not need to issue special invitations to the inhabitants of other countries to come to our shores or to share our citizenship. indeed, the necessity of some inspection and limitation is obvious. we should resolutely refuse to permit foreign governments to send their paupers and criminals to our ports. we are also clearly under a duty to defend our civilization by excluding alien races whose ultimate assimilation with our people is neither possible nor desirable. the family has been the nucleus of our best immigration, and the home the most potent assimilating force in our civilization. the objections to chinese immigration are distinctive and conclusive, and are now so generally accepted as such that the question has passed entirely beyond the stage of argument. the laws relating to this subject would, if i should be charged with their enforcement, be faithfully executed. such amendments or further legislation as may be necessary and proper to prevent evasions of the laws and to stop further chinese immigration would also meet my approval. the expression of the convention upon this subject is in entire harmony with my views. our civil compact is a government by majorities, and the law loses its sanction and the magistrate our respect when this compact is broken. the evil results of election frauds do not expend themselves upon the voters who are robbed of their rightful influence in public affairs. the individual or community or party that practises or connives at election frauds has suffered irreparable injury, and will sooner or later realize that to exchange the american system of majority rule for minority control is not only unlawful and unpatriotic, but very unsafe for those who promote it. the disfranchisement of a single legal elector by fraud or intimidation is a crime too grave to be regarded lightly. the right of every qualified elector to cast one free ballot and to have it honestly counted must not be questioned. every constitutional power should be used to make this right secure and to punish frauds upon the ballot. our colored people do not ask special legislation in their interest, but only to be made secure in the common rights of american citizenship. they will, however, naturally mistrust the sincerity of those party leaders who appeal to their race for support only in those localities where the suffrage is free and election results doubtful, and compass their disfranchisement where their votes would be controlling and their choice cannot be coerced. the nation, not less than the states, is dependent for prosperity and security upon the intelligence and morality of the people. this common interest very early suggested national aid in the establishment and endowment of schools and colleges in the new states. there is, i believe, a present exigency that calls for still more liberal and direct appropriations in aid of common-school education in the states. the territorial form of government is a temporary expedient, not a permanent civil condition. it is adapted to the exigency that suggested it, but becomes inadequate, and even oppressive, when applied to fixed and populous communities. several territories are well able to bear the burdens and discharge the duties of free commonwealths in the american union. to exclude them is to deny the just rights of their people, and may well excite their indignant protest. no question of the political preference of the people of a territory should close against them the hospitable door which has opened to two-thirds of the existing states. but admissions should be resolutely refused to any territory a majority of whose people cherish institutions that are repugnant to our civilization or inconsistent with a republican form of government. the declaration of the convention against "all combinations of capital, organized in trusts or otherwise, to control arbitrarily the condition of trade among our citizens," is in harmony with the views entertained and publicly expressed by me long before the assembling of the convention. ordinarily, capital shares the losses of idleness with labor; but under the operation of the trust, in some of its forms, the wageworker alone suffers loss, while idle capital receives its dividends from a trust fund. producers who refuse to join the combination are destroyed, and competition as an element of prices is eliminated. it cannot be doubted that the legislative authority should and will find a method of dealing fairly and effectively with those and other abuses connected with this subject. it can hardly be necessary for me to say that i am heartily in sympathy with the declaration of the convention upon the subject of pensions to our soldiers and sailors. what they gave and what they suffered i had some opportunity to observe, and, in a small measure, to experience. they gave ungrudgingly; it was not a trade, but an offering. the measure was heaped up, running over. what they achieved only a distant generation can adequately tell. without attempting to discuss particular propositions, i may add that measures in behalf of the surviving veterans of the war and of the families of their dead comrades should be conceived and executed in a spirit of justice and of the most grateful liberality, and that, in the competition for civil appointments, honorable military service should have appropriate recognition. the law regulating appointments to the classified civil service received my support in the senate in the belief that it opened the way to a much-needed reform. i still think so, and, therefore, cordially approve the clear and forcible expression of the convention upon this subject. the law should have the aid of a friendly interpretation and be faithfully and vigorously enforced. all appointments under it should be absolutely free from partisan considerations and influence. some extensions of the classified list are practicable and desirable, and further legislation extending the reform to other branches of the service to which it is applicable would receive my approval. in appointment to every grade and department, fitness, and not party service, should be the essential and discriminating test, and fidelity and efficiency the only sure tenure of office. only the interests of the public service should suggest removals from office. i know the practical difficulties attending the attempt to apply the spirit of the civil service rules to all appointments and removals. it will, however, be my sincere purpose, if elected, to advance the reform. i notice with pleasure that the convention did not omit to express its solicitude for the promotion of virtue and temperance among our people. the republican party has always been friendly to everything that tended to make the home life of our people free, pure, and prosperous, and will in the future be true to its history in this respect. our relations with foreign powers should be characterized by friendliness and respect. the right of our people and of our ships to hospitable treatment should be insisted upon with dignity and firmness. our nation is too great, both in material strength and in moral power, to indulge in bluster or to be suspected of timorousness. vacillation and inconsistency are as incompatible with successful diplomacy as they are with the national dignity. we should especially cultivate and extend our diplomatic and commercial relations with the central and south american states. our fisheries should be fostered and protected. the hardships and risks that are the necessary incidents of the business should not be increased by an inhospitable exclusion from the near-lying ports. the resources of a firm, dignified, and consistent diplomacy are undoubtedly equal to the prompt and peaceful solution of the difficulties that now exist. our neighbors will surely not expect in our ports a commercial hospitality they deny to us in theirs. i cannot extend this letter by a special reference to other subjects upon which the convention gave an expression. in respect to them, as well as to those i have noticed, i am in entire agreement with the declarations of the convention. the resolutions relating to the coinage, to the rebuilding of the navy, to coast defences, and to public lands, express conclusions to all of which i gave my support in the senate. inviting a calm and thoughtful consideration of these public questions, we submit them to the people. their intelligent patriotism and the good providence that made and has kept us a nation will lead them to wise and safe conclusions. very respectfully, your obedient servant, benjamin harrison. clayton, ind., september . _reunion of the seventieth indiana regiment._ general harrison, accompanied by mrs. harrison and mrs. mckee, on september attended the fourteenth reunion of the seventieth indiana regimental association at clayton village, hendricks county. the seventieth regiment was recruited from the counties of hendricks, johnson and marion. of the one hundred and fifty-nine regiments sent to the front by indiana, but few, if any, achieved a more honorable and distinguished record. it was the first regiment to report for duty under president lincoln's call of july, ' , and was recruited in less than a month by second lieutenant benjamin harrison. after the regiment had been recruited lieutenant harrison was elected captain of company a, and when the regiment was organized, august , , captain harrison was commissioned its colonel. it left indianapolis for the front august , , and returned thirty-four months later, with a loss of men. it participated in eleven engagements, including resaca, kenesaw, marietta, peach tree creek, atlanta, savannah and bentonville. the regiment was a part of sherman's army, and was attached to the first brigade, third division, twentieth corps. for several years past general harrison has been successively chosen president of the regimental association. several hundred veterans, with their families, accompanied the general from indianapolis, and were greeted at clayton by five thousand people. three hundred veterans of the seventieth saluted their colonel as he walked to the front and, assuming command, led the column to a neighboring grove, where the exercises of the day were held. it was the largest reunion in the history of the association. among the prominent non-resident members in attendance were lieutenant-colonel james burghs, of topeka; capt. wm. m. meredith, chicago (he was captain of company e, the color company of the regiment); captain tansey, now judge, of winfield, kansas; captain willis record, of nebraska; lieutenant hardenbrook and private snow, of kansas, and cyrus butterfield, of minneapolis. the orator of the day was comrade j. m. brown. general harrison, as president of the association, presided. the proceedings were opened with prayer by comrade j. h. meteer, followed by an address of welcome by miss mary l. mitchell, daughter of captain w. c. mitchell, who directed her closing remarks to general harrison. with great earnestness the general replied as follows: _miss mitchell_--i feel quite incompetent to discharge the duty that now devolves upon me--that of making suitable response to the touching, cordial and sympathetic words which you have addressed to us. we thank you and the good citizens of clayton, for whom you have spoken, that you have opened your hearts so fully to us to-day. i am sure we have never assembled under circumstances more attractive than those that now surround us. the mellow sunshine of this autumn-time that falls upon us, the balmy air which moves the leaves of those shadowing trees, the sweet calm and spell of nature that is over everything, makes the day one of those that may be described in the language of the old poet as "a bridal of the earth and sky." your hospitable welcome makes us feel at home, and in behalf of this large representation of our regiment, possibly the largest that has assembled since the close of the war, gathered not only from these adjacent counties, but from distant homes beyond the mississippi and the missouri, i give you to-day in return our most hearty thanks for your great kindness. the autumn-time is a fit time for our gathering, for our spring-time is gone. it was in the spring-time of our lives that we heard our country's call. full of vigor and youth and patriotism, we responded to it. the exhaustion of march and camp and battle, and the civil strife of the years that have passed since the close of the war, have left their marks upon us, and, as we gather from year to year, we notice the signs of advancing age, and the roster of our dead is lengthened. we are reminded by the minutes of our last meeting, that have been read, of the presence at our last reunion of that faithful and beloved officer who went out from this county, major reagan. with a prophetic instinct of what was before him, he told us then that it was probably the last time that he should gather with us. god has verified the thought that was in his mind, and that simple, true-hearted, brave comrade has been enrolled with the larger company. we are glad to-day to be together, yet our gladness is sobered. as i look into those familiar faces i notice a deep sense of satisfaction, but i have not failed to observe that there are tears in many eyes. we are not moved to tears by any sense of regret that we gave some service to our country and to its flag, but only by the sense that we are not all here to-day, and that all who are here will never gather again in a meeting like this. we rejoice that we were permitted to make some contribution to the glory and credit and perpetuity of the nation we love. [applause.] comrades who served under other regimental flags and who have gathered here with us to-day, we do not boast of higher motives or greater service than yours. we welcome you to a participation in our reunion. we fully acknowledge that you had a full--possibly a fuller--share than we in the great achievements of the war. we claim only this for the seventieth indiana--that we went into the service with the full purpose to respond to every order [cries of "that's so!"], and that we never evaded a fight or turned our backs to the enemy. [applause.] we are not here to exalt ourselves, but i cannot omit to say that a purer, truer self-consecration to the flag and country was never offered than by you and your dead comrades who, in , mustered for the defence of the union. [applause.] it was not in the heyday of success, it was not under the impression that sixty days would end the war, that you were mustered. it was when the clouds hung low and disasters were thick. buell was returning from the tennessee, kirby smith coming through cumberland gap, and mcclellan had been defeated on the peninsula. it seemed as if the frown of god was on our cause. it was then, in that hour of stress, that you pledged your hearts and lives to the country [applause], in the sober realization that the war was a desperate one, in which thousands were to die. we are glad that god has spared us to see the magnificent development and increase in strength and honor which has come to us as a nation, and in the glory that has been woven into the flag we love. [great applause.] we are glad that with most of us the struggle in life has not left us defeat, if it has not crowned us with the highest successes. we are veterans and yet citizens, pledged, each according to his own conscience and thought, to do that which will best promote the glory of our country and best conserve and set in our public measures those patriotic thoughts and purposes that took us into the war. [applause.] it is my wish to-day that every relation i occupy to the public or to a political party might be absolutely forgotten [cries of "good! good!"], and that i might for this day, among these comrades, be thought of only as a comrade--your old colonel. [great applause.] nothing has given me more pleasure on this occasion than to notice, as i passed through your streets, so beautifully and so tastefully decorated, that the poles that have been reared by the great parties were intertwined [applause]--and now i remind myself that i am not the orator of this occasion [cries of "go on!"], but its presiding officer. the right discharge of that duty forbids much talking. comrades of the seventieth indiana, comrades of all these associated regiments, i am glad to meet you. nothing shall sever that bond, i hope. nothing that i shall ever say, nothing that i shall ever do, will weaken it. and now, if you will permit me again to acknowledge the generous hospitality of this community, and in your behalf to return them our most sincere thanks, i will close these remarks and proceed with the programme which has been provided. general harrison was unanimously re-elected president of the association, colonel samuel merrill vice-president, m. g. mclean secretary, major james l. mitchell treasurer. when the motion was put by one of the veterans on the adoption of the report re-electing general harrison to the presidency of the association, the veterans answered with a "yea" that brought cheer upon cheer from the crowd. general harrison, visibly affected, simply said: "i feel myself crowned again to-day by this evidence of comradeship of the old soldiers of the seventieth indiana." [cheers.] on his return from clayton, general harrison was visited at his residence by fifty veterans of potter post, g. a. r., sycamore, ill., _en route_ home from the columbus encampment. they were introduced by general e. f. dutton, colonel of the one hundred and fifth illinois infantry, and commander of the second brigade, third division of the twentieth army corps. indianapolis, september . all trains arriving from the east this day brought large delegations of homeward-bound veterans from the columbus, ohio, encampment. the first to arrive was one hundred veterans of ransom post, st. louis--general sherman's post--who were introduced by col. murphy. general harrison, responding to their greeting, said: _comrades_--i esteem it a pleasure to be able to associate with you by the use of that form of address. i know of no human organization that can give a better reason for its existence than the grand army of the republic. [cries of "good!"] it needs no argument to justify it; it stands unassailable, and admits of no criticism from any quarter. its members have rendered that service to their country in war, and they maintain now, in peace, that honorable, courageous citizenship that entitles them to every patriot's respect. i thank you for this visit, and will be glad if you will now allow me to welcome you to my home. in the afternoon the streets of indianapolis were overflowing with marching veterans from illinois, minnesota, missouri, wisconsin, and kansas, headed by the national drum corps of minneapolis, and commanded by department commander col. james a. sexton, of chicago, and a brilliant staff. the great column passed through the city out to the harrison residence. conspicuous at the head of the line marched the distinguished governor of wisconsin, general jere m. rusk, surrounded by his staff of seventeen crippled veterans, among whom were capt. e. g. fimme, secretary of state of wisconsin; col. h. b. harshaw, state treasurer; c. e. estabrook, attorney-general; philip cheek, insurance commissioner; col. h. p. fischer, maj. j. r. curran, maj. f. l. phillips, maj. f. h. conse; captains w. w. jones, h. w. lovejoy, and w. h. mcfarland. eighty members of the woman's relief corps accompanied the veterans, and were given positions of honor at the reception. when general harrison appeared he was tendered an ovation. governor rusk said: "comrades--i consider it both an honor and a pleasure in introducing to you the president of the united states for the next eight years--general benjamin harrison." [cheers.] general harrison responded as follows: _governor rusk, comrades of the grand army, and ladies_--i did not suppose that the constitution of our country would be subjected to so serious a fracture by the executive of one of our great states. [laughter.] four years is the constitutional term of the president. [laughter.] i am glad to see you; i return your friendly greetings most heartily. your association is a most worthy one. as i said to some comrades who visited me this morning, it has the best reason for its existence of any human organization that i know of. [applause.] i am glad to know that your recent encampment at columbus was so largely attended, and was in all its circumstances so magnificent a success. the national encampment of the g. a. r. is an honor to any city. the proudest may well array itself in its best attire to welcome the union veterans of the late war. in these magnificent gatherings, so impressive in numbers and so much more impressive in the associations they revive, there is a great teaching force. if it is worth while to build monuments to heroism and patriotic sacrifice that may stand as dumb yet eloquent instructors of the generation that is to come, so it is worth while that these survivors of the war assemble in their national encampments and march once more, unarmed, through the streets of our cities, whose peace and prosperity they have secured. [applause.] every man and every woman should do them honor. we have a body of citizen soldiers instructed in tactics and strategy and accustomed to the points of war that make this nation very strong and formidable. i well remember that even in the second year of the war instructors in tactics were rare in our own camps. they are very numerous now. [laughter.] yet, while this nation was never so strong in a great instructed, trained body of veteran soldiers, i think it was never more strongly smitten with the love of peace. the man that would rather fight than eat has not survived the last war. [laughter.] he was laid away in an early grave or enrolled on the list of deserters. but he would be mistaken who supposes that all the hardships of the war--its cruel, hard memories--would begin to frighten those veterans from the front if the flag was again assailed or the national security or dignity imperilled. [applause and cries of "you are right!"] the war was also an educator in political economy. these veterans, who saw how the poverty of the south in the development of her manufacturing interests paralyzed the skill of her soldiers and the generalship of her captains, have learned to esteem and value our diversified manufacturing interests. [applause.] you know that woollen mills and flocks would have been more valuable to the confederacy than battalions; that foundries and arsenals and skilled mechanical labor was the great lack of the confederacy. you have learned that lesson so well that you will not wish our rescued country, by any fatal free-trade policy, to be brought to a like condition. [applause and cries of "good! good!"] and now, gentlemen, i had a stipulation that i was not to speak at all. [laughter.] you will surely allow me now to stop this formal address, and to welcome my comrades to our home. [applause.] indianapolis, september . general harrison held three receptions this date. the first was tendered the scott rifles of kansas city, all members of the g. a. r., _en route_ home from the columbus encampment. they wore the regulation blue uniform and carried muskets. captain brant introduced his company, stating that in bringing their arms with them "they did not intend to do general harrison any violence." the general responded: _captain and comrades_--i did not need to be assured that comrades of the grand army, whether bearing arms or not, brought me no peril. no loyal and orderly citizen will mistrust their friendliness. the people of indiana will not ask that you procure any permit or give bond to keep the peace before passing through this loyal state with arms in your hands. i am especially complimented by the visit of this organized company of the missouri militia, composed wholly of union veterans. it gives evidence that those who served in the civil war are still watchful of the honor and safety of our country and its flag; that our government may rest with security upon the defence which our citizen-soldiers offer. and now, without alluding at all to any topic of partisan interest, i bid you welcome, and will be pleased to have a personal introduction to each of you, if that is your pleasure. the second reception was extended to a delegation of twelve hundred workingmen from new albany, floyd county, organized into political clubs, among whose leaders were walter b. godfrey, m. y. mallory, geo. b. cardwell, m. m. hurley, w. a. maynor, andrew fite, chas. r. clarke, j. w. edmonson, l. l. pierce, horace brown, n. d. morris, t. w. armstrong, d. c. anthony, john hahn, r. e. burke, albert hopkins, f. d. connor, frank norton, m. mcdonald, m. h. sparks, w. h. russell, j. n. peyton, daniel prosser, geo. roberts, and g. h. pennington. a band of g. a. r. veterans from far-off texas happened to be present at the reception, among them col. j. c. de gress, wm. long, john herman, s. c. slade, w. h. nye, w. h. tuttle, geo. a. knight, and dr. s. mckay. james a. atkinson, a glassblower of the de pauw works at new albany, delivered an able address on behalf of the visitors. general harrison responded as follows: _my fellow-citizens_--there is something very distinctive, very interesting, and very instructive in this large delegation of workingmen from the city of new albany. your fellow-workman and spokesman has so eloquently presented that particular issue upon which you have the greatest interest that i can add nothing to the force or conclusiveness of his argument. he has said that the interests of the workingmen were especially involved in the pending political contest. i think that is conceded even by our political opponents. i do not think there is a man so dull or so unfair as to deny that the reduction of our tariff rates so as to destroy the principle of protection now embodied in our laws will have an influence on your wages and on the production of your mills and factories. if this be true, then your interest in the question is apparent. you will want to know whether the influence of the proposed reduction of rates is to be beneficial or hurtful; whether the effect will be to stimulate or diminish production; whether it will be to maintain or increase the rate of wages you are now receiving, or to reduce them. as you shall settle these questions, so will you vote in november. [applause.] no man can doubt that a reduction of duties will stimulate the importation of foreign merchandise. none of these plate-glass workers can doubt that a reduction of the duty upon plate-glass will increase the importation of french plate-glass. none of these workers in your woollen mills can doubt that the reduction of the duty upon the product of their mills will increase the importation of foreign woollen goods. and, if that is true, is it not also clear that this increased importation of foreign-made goods means some idle workingmen in your mills? the party that favors such discriminating duties as will develop american production and secure the largest amount of work for our american shops is the party whose policy will promote your interests. [applause and cries of "hit him again!"] i have heard it said by some leaders of democratic thought that the reduction proposed by the mills bill, and the further reduction which some of them are candid enough to admit they contemplate, will stimulate american production by opening foreign markets and that the interests of our indiana manufacturing establishments would thus be promoted. but those who advance this argument also say that it will not do to progress too rapidly in the direction of free trade--that we must go slowly, because our protected industries cannot stand too rapid an advance; it would not be safe. [laughter.] now, my countrymen, if this plan of revenue reform is to be promotive of our manufacturing interests, why go slowly? why not open the gates wide and let us have the promised good all at once? [laughter and applause.] is it that these philosophers think the cup of prosperity will be so sweet and full that our laboring people cannot be allowed to drink it at one draught? [applause and cries of "good! good!"] no, my countrymen, this statement implies what these gentlemen know to be true--that the effect of the proposed legislation is diminished production and diminished wages, and they desire that you shall have an opportunity to get used to it. [applause.] but i cannot press this discussion further. i want to thank you for the cordial things you have said to me by him who has spoken for you. i trust, and have always trusted, the intelligence and conscience of our working people. [applause.] they will inevitably find out the truth, and when they find it they will justify it. therefore, there are many things that have been said to which i have not and shall not allude while this contest is on. they are with you: the truth is accessible to you, and you will find it. now, thanking you most heartily for the personal respect you have evidenced, and congratulating you upon your intelligent devotion to that great american system which has spread a sky of hope above you and your children, i bid you good-by. [cheers.] the crowning event of the day was the reception of several hundred members of the irish-american republican club of cook county and chicago. the visitors were met by the home irish-american protection club, patrick a. ward, president, assisted by the columbia club and several thousand citizens. their demonstration was one of the most notable of the campaign. this club was the first political organization in the country to congratulate general harrison on his nomination. the evening of june the club met and adopted the following, which was telegraphed the general: the irish-american republican club of cook county, illinois, congratulate you and the country upon your nomination. we greet the gallant soldier and true american, and rejoice with our fellow-citizens of every nationality in the glad assurance your nomination gives that the industries of our country will be protected and the honor of the nation maintained with the same courage and devotion that distinguished you on the bloody field of resaca. we salute the next president of the republic. nathan p. brady, _president_. leaders of the delegation were hon. john f. finerty, f. j. gleason, dennis ward, richard powers, and messrs. russell and o'morey. thomas f. byron, of lowell, mass., founder of the land league in america, accompanied the club. in the absence of president brady their spokesman was mr. john f. beggs. general harrison delivered one of his happiest responses. he said: _mr. beggs and my friends of the irish-american republican club of cook county, ill._--you were irishmen, you are americans [cheers]--irish-americans [continued cheering], and though you have given the consecrated loyalty of your honest hearts to the starry flag and your adopted country, you have not and you ought not to forget to love and venerate the land of your nativity. [great applause.] if you could forget ireland, if you could be unmoved by her minstrelsy, untouched by the appeals of her splendid oratory, unsympathetic with her heroes and martyrs, i should fear that the bonds of your new citizenship would have no power over hearts so cold and consciences so dead. [cheers.] what if a sprig of green were found upon the bloody jacket of a union soldier who lay dead on missionary ridge? the flag he died for was his flag and the green was only a memory and an inspiration. we, native or irish born, join with the republican convention in the hope that the cause of irish home rule, progressing under the leadership of gladstone and parnell [cheers] upon peaceful and lawful lines, may yet secure for ireland that which as americans we so much value--local home rule. [cheering.] i am sure that you who have, in your own persons or in your worthy representatives, given such convincing evidence of your devotion to the american constitution and flag and to american institutions will not falter in this great civil contest which your spokesman has so fittingly described. who, if not irish-americans versed in the sad story of the commercial ruin of the island they love, should be instructed in the beneficent influence of a protective tariff? [continuous cheering.] who, if not irish-americans should be able to appreciate the friendly influences of the protective system upon their individual and upon their home life? which of you has not realized that not the lot of man only, but the lot of woman, has been made softer and easier under its influence? [applause and "hear! hear!"] contrast the american mother and wife, burdened only with the cares of motherhood and of the household, with the condition of women in many of the countries of the old world, where she is loaded also with the drudgery of toil in the field. [applause.] i know that none more than irishmen, who are so characterized by their deference for women, and whose women have so fitly illustrated that which is pure in female character, will value this illustration of the good effects of our american system upon the home life. [continued applause.] there are nations across the sea who are hungry for the american market. they are waiting with eager expectation for the adoption of a free-trade policy by the united states. [cries of "that will never happen!"] the english manufacturer is persuaded that an increased market for english goods in america is good for him, but i think it will be impossible to persuade the american producer and the american workman that it is good for them. [applause and cries of "that's right!"] i believe that social order, that national prosperity, are bound up in the preservation of our existing policy. [loud cheering and cries of "you are right!"] i do not believe that a republic can live and prosper whose wage-earners do not receive enough to make life comfortable, who do not have some upward avenues of hope open before them. when the wage-earners of the land lose hope, when the star goes out, social order is impossible, and after that anarchy or the czar. [cheering.] i gratefully acknowledge the compliment of your call, and exceedingly regret that the storm without made it impossible for me to receive you at my house. [applause and cries of "thanks! thanks!"] i will now be glad to take each member of your club by the hand. [continued cheering.] indianapolis, september . general harrison's callers to-day numbered about five thousand, over half of whom came from vermilion county, illinois, led by a company of young ladies, in uniform, from the town of sidell. hon. samuel stansbury of danville was marshal of the delegation, aided by e. c. boudinot, d. g. moore, chas. a. allen, j. g. thompson, and w. c. cowan. col. w. r. jewell, editor danville _daily news_, was spokesman. general harrison, in response, said: _my illinois friends_--the people of your state were very early in giving evidence to our people and to me that they are deeply and generally interested in this campaign. i welcome you and accept your coming as evidence that the early interest you manifested has suffered no abatement. it was not an impulse that stirred you, but a deep conviction that matters of great and lasting consequence to your country are involved in this campaign. your representative in congress, hon. joseph cannon, is well known in indiana. [applause.] i have known him for many years; have observed his conduct in the national congress, and always with admiration. he is a fearless, aggressive, honest republican leader. [applause and cries of "good! good!"] he is worthy of the favor and confidence you have shown him. if some one were to ask to-day, "what is the matter with the united states?" [laughter and cries of "she's all right!"] i am sure we would hear some democratic friend respond, "its people are oppressed and impoverished by tariff taxation." [laughter.] ordinarily our people can be trusted to know when they are taxed; but this democratic friend will tell us that the tariff tax is so insidious that our people pay it without knowing it. that is a very unhappy condition, indeed. but his difficulties are not all surmounted when he has convinced his hearers that a customs duty is a tax, for history does not run well with his statement that our people have been impoverished by our tariff system. another answer to your question will be perhaps that there is now a great surplus in the treasury--he will probably not state the figures, for there seems to be a painful uncertainty about that. i have sometimes thought that this surplus was held chiefly to be talked about. the laws provide a use for it that would speedily place it in circulation. if a business man finds an accumulated surplus that he does not need in his business, that stands as a bank balance and draws no interest, and if he has notes outside to mature in the future he will make a ready choice between leaving his balance in the bank and using it to take up his obligations. [applause.] but in our national finances the other choice has been made, and this surplus remains in the national bank without interest, while our bonds, which, under the law, might be retired by the use of it, continue to draw interest. you have a great agricultural state. its prairies offer the most tempting invitation to the settler. i have heard it suggested that one reason why you have outstripped indiana in population was because the men who were afraid of the "deadening" passed over us to seek your treeless plains. [applause.] but you have not been contented to be only an agricultural community. you have developed your manufactures and mechanical industries until now, if my recollection is not at fault, for every two persons engaged in agricultural labor you have one engaged in manufacturing, in the mechanical arts and mining. it is this subdivision of labor, these diversified industries, that make illinois take rank so near the head among the states. by this home interchange of the products of the farm and shop, made possible by our protective system, illinois has been able to attain her proud position in the union of the states. shall we continue a policy that has wrought so marvellously since the war in the development of all those states that have given hospitable access to manufacturing capital and to the brawn and skill of the workingman? [cries of "good! good!" and cheers.] from louisville, ky., came , enthusiastic visitors, led by the hon. wm. e. riley, hon. r. r. glover, hon. albert scott, w. w. huffman, w. m. collins, m. e. malone, and j. j. jonson. a. e. willson, of louisville, delivered a stirring address on behalf of the republicans of kentucky, to which general harrison responded as follows: _my kentucky friends_--there have been larger delegations assembled about this platform, but there has been none that has in a higher degree attracted my interest or touched my heart. [applause.] it has been quite one thing to be a republican in illinois and quite another to be a republican in kentucky. [applause.] not the victors only in a good fight deserve a crown; those who fight well and are beaten and fight again, as you have done, deserve a crown, though victory never yet has perched on your banner. [a voice, "it will perch there, though, don't you forget it!"] yes, it will come, for the bud of victory is always in the truth. i will not treat you to-day to any statistics from the census reports [laughter], nor enter the attractive field of the history of your great state. i have believed that these visiting delegations were always well advised as to the history and statistics of their respective states. [laughter.] if this trust has been misplaced in other cases, certainly kentuckians can be trusted to remember and perhaps to tell all that is noble in the thrilling history of their great state. [great applause.] your history is very full of romantic and thrilling adventure and of instances of individual heroism. your people have always been proud, chivalric, and brave. in the late war for the union, spite of all distraction and defection, kentucky stood by the old flag. [applause.] and now that the war is over and its bitter memory is forgotten, there is not one, i hope, in all your borders, who does not bless the outcome of that great struggle. [applause.] surely there are none in kentucky who do not rejoice that the beautiful river is not a river of division. [great applause.] and now what hinders that kentucky shall step forward in the great industrial rivalry between the states? is there not, as your spokesman has suggested, in the early and thorough instruction which the people of kentucky received from the mouth of your matchless orator, henry clay [applause], a power that shall yet and speedily bring back kentucky to the support of our protective system? [applause.] can the old whigs, who so reverently received from the lips of clay the gospel of protection, much longer support a revenue policy that they know to be inimical to our national interests? if when kentucky was a slave state she found a protective tariff promoted the prosperity of her people, what greater things will the same policy not do for her as a free state? she has now opened her hospitable doors to skilled labor; her coal and metals and hemp invite its transforming touch. why should she not speedily find great manufacturing cities spring up in her beautiful valleys? shall any old prejudice spoil this hopeful vision? [great applause.] i remember that kentucky agitated for seven years and held nine conventions before she secured a separate statehood. may i not appeal to the children of those brave settlers who, when but few in number, composed of distant and feeble settlements, were received into the union of states, to show their chivalry and love of justice by uniting with us in the demand that dakota and washington shall be admitted? [applause.] does not your own story shame those who represent you in the halls of congress and who bar the door against communities whose numbers and resources so vastly outreach what you possessed when you were admitted to statehood? we look hopefully to kentucky. the state of henry clay and abraham lincoln [enthusiastic cheering] cannot be much longer forgetful [cries of "no! no!"] of the teachings of those great leaders of thought. i believe that kentucky will place herself soon upon the side of the truth upon these great questions. [a voice, "we believe it!" another voice, "we will keep them out of indiana, anyhow!" great cheering.] thank you. there is no better way that i know of to keep one detachment of an army from re-enforcing another than by giving that detachment all it can do in its own field. [applause and laughter.] the last visitors of the day were delegates, in attendance upon the sessions of the national association of union ex-prisoners of war. they were led by gen. w. h. powell, of belleville, iowa, president of the association; e. h. williams, of indianapolis, vice-president; chaplain c. c. mccabe, new york city; historian frank e. moran, philadelphia; president-elect thomas h. mckee and secretary l. p. williams, washington, d. c.; s. n. long, of new jersey, and j. w. green, of ohio. every one of the visiting veterans had undergone imprisonment at andersonville, libby, or some less noted southern prison. conspicuous among them was gen. b. f. kelly, of virginia, the first union officer wounded in the rebellion, and j. a. january, of illinois, who amputated both his own feet while in libby prison, to prevent gangrene spreading. general powell, in a brief address, touchingly referred to the perils and hardships they had survived. general harrison was greatly affected by the scene--the veterans grouped closely about him in his own house. he paused a moment in silence, then in a low, sympathetic voice, said: _general powell and comrades_--i am always touched when i meet either with those who stood near about me in the service, or those who shared the general comradeship of the war. it seems to me that the wild exhilaration which in the earlier reunions we often saw is very much sobered as we come together now. i have realized in meeting with my own regiment this fall that it was a time when one felt the touches of the pathetic. and yet there was a glow of satisfaction in being together again and in thinking of what was and what is. the annals of the war fail to furnish a sadder story than that of the host of union veterans who suffered war's greatest hardship--captivity. the story of the rebel prison pens was one of grim horror. in the field our armies, always brave, were generally always chivalric and humane. but the treatment of the captured union soldiers surpassed in fiendish cruelty the best achievements of the savage. it is the black spot without any lining of silver or any touch of human nature. but you have cause for congratulation that you have been spared to the glory and prosperity that your services and sufferings have brought to the nation. the most vivid imagination has drawn no picture of the full meaning to our people and to the world of these simple words--we saved the union, perpetuated free government, and abolished slavery. [prolonged applause.] indianapolis, september . five delegations paid their respects to the republican nominee this day. the first was sixty veterans of the seventh indiana cavalry--general j. p. shanks' old regiment. colonel lewis reeves, of mentone, ind., made the address on behalf of the veterans, to which general harrison responded: _comrades_--i recall the services of your gallant regiment. i welcome you as men who had as honorable a part in the great achievements of the union army as any in the civil war. i congratulate you that you have been spared to see the fruits of your labors and sacrifices. in these meetings the thought of those who did not live to see the end of the bloody struggle is always present. their honor also is in our keeping. i am glad to know that at last in our state a shaft is being lifted to the honor of the indiana soldier. it will not only keep alive a worthy memory, but it will instil patriotism into our children. i thank you for this friendly visit. [cheers.] from illinois came two large delegations--that from iroquois county numbering , , commanded by chief marshal slattery, of onargo. a tippecanoe club of veterans headed their column, led by chairman owen, followed by the john a. logan club, commanded by capt. a. l. whitehall. prominent in the delegation were state senator secrist, judge s. g. bovie, b. f. price, j. f. ireland, a. powell, james woodworth, g. b. joiner, w. m. coney, dr. j. h. gillam, dr. scull, editors e. a. nye and m. s. taliaferro, of watseka; also w. h. howe, of braidwood, father of the "drummer boy of vicksburg." robert meredith, of onargo, spoke on behalf of the colored members of the delegation, and capt. r. w. hilscher, of watseka, for the veterans. la porte county, ind., was represented by a large delegation, the michigan city detachment commanded by major biddle, uriah culbert, and major wood. the laporte city clubs were led by wm. c. weir, marshal of the delegation. other prominent members were s. m. closser, w. c. miller, frank e. osborn, j. n. whitehead, m. l. bramhall, nelson larzen, samuel bagley, brook travis, wm. hastings, s. a. rose, swan peterson, and editor sonneborn. the presentation address was made by col. j. w. crumpacker, of laporte. to these several addresses general harrison responded: _my illinois and my indiana friends_--if i needed any stimulus to duty, or to have my impression of the dignity and responsibility of representative office increased, i should find it in such assemblies as these and in the kind and thoughtful words which have been addressed to me in your behalf. the american people under our system of government have their public interests in their own keeping. all laws and proclamations may be revoked or repealed by them. they will be called on in november to mark out the revenue policy for our government by choosing public officers pledged to the principles which a majority of our people approve. fortunately you have now an issue very clearly drawn and very easy to be understood. in previous campaigns we have not quite known where our adversaries stood. now we do know. our democratic friends say a protective tariff is robbery. you see this written at the head of campaign tracts circulated by their committees. you hear it said in the public speeches of their leaders. you have not once, i think, in the campaign heard any democratic speaker admit that even a low protective tariff was desirable. those who, like mr. randall, have in former campaigns been used to allay the apprehension of our working people by talking protection have been silenced. on the other hand, the republican party declares by its platform and by its speakers that a protective tariff is wise and necessary. there is the issue. make your own choice. if you approve by your votes the doctrine that a protective tariff is public robbery, you will expect your representatives to stop this public robbery, and if they are faithful they will do it; not seven per cent. of it, but all of it. [applause and cries of "that's it!"] so that i beg you all to recollect that you will vote this fall for or against the principle of protection. you are invited to a feast of cheapness. you are promised foreign-made goods at very low prices, and domestic competing goods, if any are made, at the same low rates. but do not forget that the spectre of low wages will also attend the feast. [applause and cries of "that's so!"] inevitably, as certain as the night follows the day, the adoption of this policy means lower wages. choose, then, and do not forget that this cheapening process may be pushed so far as to involve the cheapening of human life and the loss of human happiness. [applause.] and now a word about the surplus in the treasury. our democratic friends did not know what else to do with it, and so they have deposited it in certain national banks. the government gets no interest upon it, but it is loaned out by the banks to our citizens at interest. our income is more than our current expenses. there is no authority for the secretary of the treasury to lend the money, and so only three methods of dealing with it presented themselves, under the law--first, to lock it up in the treasury vaults; second, to deposit it in the banks without interest; or, third, to use it in the purchase of bonds not yet due. the objection to the first method was that the withdrawal of so large a sum might result in a monetary stringency; the second obviated this objection by allowing the banks to put the money in circulation; but neither method resulted in any advantage to the government. as to it the money was dead; only the banks received interest for its use. by the third method the money would be returned to the channels of trade and the government would make the difference between the premium paid for the bond and the interest that the bonds would draw if left outstanding until they matured. if a government bond at the market premium is a good investment for a capitalist who is free to use his money as he pleases, can it be bad finance for the government, having money that it cannot use in any other way, to use it in buying up its bonds? [great applause.] it is not whether we will purposely raise money to buy our bonds at a premium--no one would advise that--but will we so use a surplus that we have on hand and cannot lawfully pay out in any other way? do our democratic friends propose to give the banks the free use of it until our bonds mature, or do they propose to reduce our annual income below our expenditure by a revision of the tariff until this surplus is used, and then revise the tariff again to restore the equilibriums? [great applause.] i welcome the presence to-day of these ladies of your households. we should not forget that we have working-women in america. [applause and cries of "good! good!"] none more than they are interested in this policy of protection which we advocate. if want and hard conditions come into the home, the women bear a full share. [applause.] and now i have been tempted to speak more at length than i had intended. i thank you for this cordial manifestation of your confidence and respect. [cheers.] the fourth delegation of the day came from grundy county, illinois, headed by the logan club of morris. an enthusiastic member of this delegation was the venerable geo. p. augustine, of braceville, ill., aged , who in the summer of employed the boy "jimmie" garfield--afterward president of the united states--to ride his horses on the tow-path of the ohio canal between portsmouth and cleveland. hon. p. c. hayes, of morris, was spokesman for the delegation. general harrison said: _general hayes and my illinois friends_--i regret that your arrival was postponed so long as to make it impossible for you to meet with the other friends from your state who, a little while ago, assembled about the platform. i thank you for the kind feelings that prompted you to come, and for the generous things general hayes has said in your behalf. there is little that i can say and little that i can appropriately do to promote the success of the republican principles. a campaign that enlists the earnest and active co-operation of the individual voters will have a safe issue. i am glad to see in your presence an evidence that in your locality this individual interest is felt. [applause.] but popular assemblies, public debate, and conventions are all an empty mockery unless, when the debate is closed, the election is so conducted that every elector shall have an equal and full influence in determining the result. that is our compact of government. [cheers.] i thank you again for your great kindness, and it will now give me pleasure to accede to the suggestion of general hayes and take each of you by the hand. the fifth and last delegation of the day reached the harrison residence in the evening, and comprised survivors of the second and ninth indiana cavalry and the twenty-sixth indiana infantry. col. john a. bridgland, the old commander of the second cavalry, spoke on behalf of the veterans. general harrison replied: _colonel bridgland and comrades_--i am fast losing my faith in men. [laughter.] this morning a representative or two of this regiment called upon me and made an arrangement that i should receive you at this hour. it was expressly stipulated--though i took no security [laughter]--that there should be no speech-making at all. now i find myself formally introduced to you and under the necessity of talking to you. [laughter.] i am under so much stress in this way, from day to day, that i am really getting to be a little timid when i see a corporal's guard together anywhere, for fear they will want a speech. [laughter.] and even at home, when i sit down at the table with my family, i have some apprehensions lest some one may propose a toast and insist that i shall respond. [laughter.] i remember that the second indiana cavalry was the first full cavalry regiment i ever saw. i saw it marching through washington street from the windows of my law office; and as i watched the long line drawing itself through the street, it seemed to me the call for troops might stop; that there were certainly enough men and horses there to put down the rebellion. [laughter.] it is clear i did not rightly measure the capacities of a cavalry regiment, or the dimensions of the rebellion. [laughter.] i am glad to see you here to-day. you come as soldiers, and i greet you as comrades. i will not allude to political topics, on which any of us might differ. [a voice, "there ain't any differences!"] of course, the members of the ninth cavalry and the twenty-sixth infantry must understand i am speaking to all my comrades. [a voice, "the twenty-sixth were waiting for the cavalry to get out of the way!" laughter.] well, during the war you were willing to wait, weren't you? [hearty laughter.] i was going to say that i had an express promise from mr. adams, of the twenty-sixth indiana, there should be no speaking on the occasion of your visit. [laughter.] perhaps his comrades of the twenty-sixth will say i had not sufficient reason for so thinking, as we all know that he is given to joking. [laughter.] i will be pleased now to meet each of you personally. indianapolis, september . on september a distinguished delegation arrived from cincinnati, for the purpose of inviting general and mrs. harrison to attend the cincinnati exposition. the committee, representing the board of commissioners of the exposition, was headed by chairman goodale and president allison and wife, accompanied by mayor amor smith and wife, comptroller e. p. eshelby and wife, hon. john b. peaslee, mrs. and miss devereaux, c. h. rockwell and wife, and others. in the evening gentlemen, exhibiting implements and agricultural machinery at the state fair--then in progress--called on general harrison. john c. wingate, of montgomery county, was their spokesman. responding to their greeting the general said: _my friends_--when i was asked yesterday whether it would be agreeable to me to see about one hundred gentlemen who were here in attendance upon the indiana state fair and connected with the exhibit of machinery, i was assured their call would be of the most informal character--that they would simply visit me at my home and spend a few moments socially. [laughter.] until i heard the music of your band and saw the torchlights, that was my understanding of what was in store for me this evening. i am again the victim of a misunderstanding. [laughter and applause.] still, though my one hundred guests have been multiplied several times, and though i find myself compelled to speak to you en masse rather than individually, i am glad to see you. i thank you for your visit, and for the cordial terms in which you have addressed me. what your speaker has said as to the favorable condition of our working people is true; and we are fortunate in the fact that we do not need to depend for our evidence on statistics or the reports of those who casually visit the countries of the old world. there is probably not a shop represented here that has not among its workingmen those who have tried the conditions of life in the old country, and are able to speak from personal experience. it cannot be doubted that our american system of levying discriminating duties upon competing foreign products has much to do with the better condition of our working people. i welcome you as representatives of one of the great industries of our country. the demands of the farm have been met by the ingenuity of your shops. the improvement in farm machinery within my own recollection has been marvellous. the scythe and the cradle still held control in the harvest field when i first went out to carry the noon meal to the workmen. afterward it sometimes fell to my lot in the hay-field to drive one of the old-fashioned combination reapers and mowers. it was a great advance over the scythe and cradle, and yet it was heavy and clumsy--a very horse-killer. [laughter and applause.] when the drivers struck a stump the horse had no power over the machine in either direction. now these machines have been so lightened and improved that they are the perfection of mechanism. your inventive genius has responded to the necessities of the farm until that which was drudgery has become light and easy. i thank you again for your call, and will be glad to meet personally those strangers who are here. [applause.] indianapolis, september . randolph and jay counties, indiana, contributed , visitors on september . at the head of the randolph column marched members of the "old men's tippecanoe club," of winchester, led by marshals j. b. ross, a. j. stakebake, and auditor cranor. other leaders in the delegation were mayor f. h. bowen, hon. theo. shockley, geo. patchell, w. s. ensign, frank parker, samuel bell, dr. g. rynard, and washington smith, of union city; j. w. macy, j. s. engle, reverdy puckett, a. c. beeson, and john e. markle, of winchester. the jay county contingent was led by james a. russell, b. d. halfhill, isaac mckinney, j. w. williams, eli clark, j. c. andrews, t. j. cartwright, and albert martin. l. c. hauseman was spokesman for the hoosiers. gen. stone, of randolph, spoke on behalf of the veterans. from dayton, ohio, came visitors, including veterans of the campaign of ' , led by secretary edgar. marshal james applegate, mr. eckley, dr. j. a. ronspert, and w. r. knaub were other leaders of the ohio contingent. col. john g. lowe was their speaker, and referred to the fact that gen. harrison "had won his education and miss caroline m. scott, now his estimable wife, when a resident of ohio." to these addresses the general, responding, said: _my ohio and indiana friends_--the magnitude and the cordiality of this demonstration are very gratifying. that these representatives of the state of my nativity, and these, my neighbors in this state of my early adoption, should unite this morning in giving this evidence of their respect and confidence is especially pleasing. i do remember ohio, the state of my birth and of my boyhood, with affection and veneration. i take pride in her great history, the illustrious men she furnished to lead our armies, and the army of her brave boys who bore the knapsack and the gun for the union. i take pride in her pure and illustrious statesmen. ohio was the first of the northwestern states to receive the western emigration after the revolutionary war. when that tide of patriotism which had borne our country to freedom and had established our constitution threw upon the west many of the patriots whose fortunes had been maimed or broken by their sacrifices in the revolutionary war, this pure stream, pouring over the alleghanies, found its first basin in the state of ohio. [cries of "good! good!"] the waters of patriotism that had been distilled in the fires of the revolution fertilized her virgin fields. [applause.] i do not forget, however, that my manhood has all been spent in indiana--that all the struggle which is behind me in life has this for its field. [cheers.] i brought to this hospitable state only that to which col. lowe has alluded--an education and a good wife. [great cheering.] whatever else i have, whatever else i have accomplished, for myself and for my family or the public, has been under the favoring and friendly auspices of these, my fellow-citizens of indiana. [applause.] to them i owe more than i can repay. my indiana friends, you come from a county largely devoted to agriculture. the invitation of nature was so generous that your people have generally accepted it. guarded as your early settlers were, and as those of ohio were, by that sword of liberty which was placed at your gates by the ordinance of , stimulated, as you have been, by the suggestions of that great ordinance in favor of morality and education, you have, in your rural homes, one of the best communities in the world. [applause.] you do not forget, farmers though you are, that per cent. of the product of your farms is consumed at home, and you are too wise to put that in peril in a greedy search after foreign trade. [great applause.] you will not sacrifice these great industries that have created in our country a consuming class for your products. [cheers.] i do not think that there is any doubt what tariff policy england would wish us to adopt, and yet some say that england is trembling lest we should adopt free trade here [laughter], and so rob her of other markets that she now enjoys. [laughter.] the story of our colonial days, when england, with selfish and insatiate avarice, laid her repressive hand upon our infant manufactories and attempted to suppress them all, furnishes the first object-lesson she gave us. another was given when the life of this nation--the child of england, as she has been wont to call us, speaking the mother tongue, having many institutions inherited from her--was imperilled. the offer of free trade by the confederacy so touched the commercial greed of england that she forgot the ties of blood and went to the verge of war with us to advance the cause of the rebel government. [cheers.] but what england wants, or what any other country wants, is not very important--certainly not conclusive. [cheers.] what is best for us and our people should be the decisive question. [cheers.] my randolph county friends, there are state questions that must take a strong hold upon the minds of people like yours. the proposition to lift entirely out of the range and control of partisan politics the great benevolent institutions of the state is one that must commend itself to all your people. [cheers.] if all those friends who sympathize with us upon this question had acted with us in we should then have accomplished this great reform. [applause.] and now, to these old gentlemen whose judgment and large experience in life gives added value to their kind words; to these young friends who, for the first time, take a freeman's place in the line of battle to do duty for the right, i give my kindly greetings and best wishes in return for theirs. [cheers.] indianapolis, september on the afternoon of september general harrison was visited by chicago "drummers," organized as the republican commercial travellers' association of chicago and accompanied by the celebrated second regiment band. they were escorted to the harrison residence by the columbia club and members of the republican commercial travellers' escort club of indianapolis, george c. webster, president; ernest morris, secretary. the entire business community turned out to greet the visitors as they marched through the city, performing difficult evolutions, under the command of chief marshal vandever and his aids--c. s. felton, p. h. brockway, b. f. horton, joseph pomroy, w. h. haskell, geo. w. bristol, a. c. boyd, geo. h. green, and secretary h. a. morgan. general harrison's appearance was signalized by a remarkable demonstration. col. h. h. rude delivered the address on behalf of his associates. in response general harrison made one of his best speeches. he said: _sir, and gentlemen of the republican commercial travellers' association of chicago_--i bid you welcome to my home. i give you my most ardent thanks for this cordial evidence of your interest in those great principles of government which are advocated by the republican party, whose candidate i am. i am not unfamiliar with the value, efficiency, and intelligence of the commercial travellers of our country. [cheers.] the contribution you make to the success of the business communities with which you are identified is large and indispensable. i do not doubt that one of the strongest props of chicago's commercial greatness would be destroyed if you were withdrawn from the commercial forces of that great city. [cheers.] the growth and development of chicago has been one of the most marvellous incidents in the story of american progress. it is gratifying to know that your interest is enlisted in this political campaign. it is very creditable to you that in the rush of the busy industries and pushing trade of your city you have not forgotten that you are american citizens and that you owe service, not to commerce only, but to your country. [great cheering.] it is gratifying to be assured that you propose to bring your influence into the great civil contest which is now engaging the interest of our people. the intelligence and energy which you give to your commercial pursuits will be a most valuable contribution to our cause. [cheers.] the power of such a body of men is very great. i want now to introduce to you for a moment another speaker--an englishman. within the last year i have been reading, wholly without any view to politics, the story of our diplomatic relations with england during the civil war. the motive that most strongly influenced the english mind in its sympathy with the south was the expectancy of free trade with the confederacy [cries of "that's right!"], and among the most influential publications intended to urge english recognition and aid to the confederates was a book entitled "the american union," by james spence. it was published in , and ran through several editions. speaking of the south he said: "no part of the world can be found more admirably placed for exchanging with this country the products of industry to mutual advantage than the southern states of the union. producing in abundance the material we chiefly require, their climate and the habits of the people indispose them to manufactures, and leave to be purchased precisely the commodities we have to sell. they have neither the means nor the desire to enter into rivalry with us. commercially they offer more than the capabilities of another india within a fortnight's distance from our shores. the capacity of a southern trade when free from restrictions may be estimated most correctly by comparison. the condition of those states resembles that of australia, both non-manufacturing countries, with the command of ample productions to offer in exchange for the imports they require." the author proceeds to show that at the time england's exports to our country were only thirteen shillings per capita of our population, while the exports to australia were ten pounds sterling per capita. let me now read you what is said of the northern states: "the people of the north, whether manufacturers or ship-owners, regard us as rivals and competitors, to be held back and cramped by all possible means. [applause and cries of "that's it!"] they possess the same elements as ourselves--coal, metals, ships, an aptitude for machinery, energy and industry--while the early obstacles of deficient capital and scanty labor are rapidly disappearing. [applause and a voice, "exactly!"] "for many years they have competed with us in some manufactures in foreign markets, and their peculiar skill in the contrivance of labor-saving machinery daily increases the number of articles they produce cheaper than ourselves. [loud cheering and a voice, "we'll knock them out again!"] "thus, to one part of the world our exports are at the rate of ten pounds sterling per head, while those to the union amount to but thirteen shillings per head." i have read these extracts because they seemed to me very suggestive and very instructive. the south offered free trade to europe in exchange for an expected recognition of their independence by england and france. [cries of "you are right!"] the offer was very attractive and persuasive to the ruling classes of england. they took confederate bonds and sent out armed cruisers to prey upon our commerce. they dallied with southern agents, fed them with delusive hopes, and thus encouraged the south to protract a hopeless struggle. they walked to the very edge of open war with the united states, forgetful of all the friendly ties that had bound us as nations, and all this to satisfy a commercial greed. we may learn from this how high a price england then set upon free trade with a part only of the states. [a voice, "we remember it!"] but now the union has been saved and restored. men of both armies and of all the states rejoice that england's hope of a commercial dependency on our southern coast was disappointed. the south is under no stress to purchase foreign help by trade concessions. she will now open her hospitable doors to manufacturing, capital, and skilled labor. it is not now true that either climate or the habits of her people indispose them to manufactures. of the virginias, north carolina, kentucky, tennessee, alabama, and missouri, it may be now said, as mr. spence said of the more northern states, "they possess the same elements as ourselves [england]--coal, metals, ships, an aptitude for machinery, energy, and industry--while the early obstacles of deficient capital and scanty labor are rapidly disappearing." and i am sure there is a "new south"--shackled as it is by traditions and prejudices--that is girding itself to take part in great industrial rivalry with england, which mr. spence so much deprecates. these great states will no longer allow either old england or new england to spin and weave their cotton, but will build mills in the very fields where the great staple is gathered. [applause.] they will no longer leave pennsylvania without an active rival in the production of iron. they surely will not, if they are at all mindful of their great need and their great opportunity, unite in this crusade against our protected industries. our interests no longer run upon sectional lines, and it cannot be good for any part of our country that mr. spence's vision of english trade with us should be realized. [cries of "never! never!"] commerce between the states is working mightily, if silently, to efface all lingering estrangements between our people, and the appeal for the perpetuation of the american system of protection will, i am sure, soon find an answering response among the people of all the states. [loud cheering.] i thank you again for this beautiful and cordial demonstration, and will now be glad to meet you personally. indianapolis, september . the third delegation from wabash county during the campaign arrived on september , a thousand strong, headed by hon. jesse arnold, col. homan depew, thomas black, w. d. caldwell, obed way, thomas mcnamee, rob't thompson, wm. alexander, robert wilson, andrew egnew, c. s. haas, w. w. stewart, w. h. bent, robert stewart, and w. d. gachenour. their spokesman was capt. b. f. williams. parke county, indiana, contributed a large delegation the same day, under the lead of john w. stryker, jacob church, john r. johnson, a. o. benson, w. w. mccune, joseph h. jordan, and a. a. hargrave, of rockville, and school children, in charge of a. r. mcmurty. dr. t. f. leech was orator for the parke visitors. general harrison spoke as follows: _my wabash county friends and my little friends from parke_--i am very glad to meet you here to-day. my friend who has spoken for wabash county has very truly said that the relations between me and the republicans of that county have always been exceedingly cordial. i remember well when i first visited your county in , almost a boy in years, altogether a boy in political experience. i was then a candidate for reporter of the decisions of the supreme court of this state. you had in one of your own citizens, afterward a distinguished soldier, a candidate for that office in the convention that nominated me, but that did not interfere at all with the cordial welcome from your people when, as the nominee of the party, i came into your county. i think from that day to this my name has never been mentioned in any convention for any office that i have not had almost the unanimous support of the republicans of wabash county. [applause.] this is no new interest which you now manifest to-day. the expressions of your confidence have been very numerous and have been continued through nearly thirty years. there is one word on one subject that i want to say. our democratic friends tell us that there are about a hundred millions--their arithmeticians do not agree on the exact figures--in the public treasury for which the government has no need. they have found only this method of using it, viz.: depositing it in the national banks of the country, to be loaned out by them to our citizens at interest, the government getting no interest whatever from the banks. i suggested, and it was not an original suggestion with me--senator sherman has advocated the same policy with great ability in the senate--that this money had better be used in buying government bonds, because the government would make some money in applying it that way, and there was no other way in which they could get any interest on it at all. but it is said if we use it in this manner we pay a premium to the bondholders. but it is only the same premium that the bonds are bringing in the market. in other words, as i said the other day, capitalists who can use their money as they please--put it out on mortgages, at interest, or in any other way--think the government bond at the current rate of premium is a good investment for them. now, the government can buy those bonds at that premium and save a great deal of interest. i will not undertake to give you figures. one issue of these bonds matures in , and bears four per cent. annual interest. now, suppose this surplus money were to remain all that time in the banks without bringing any interest to the government; is there a man here so dull that he cannot see the great loss that would result to the people? i have another objection to this policy: the favoritism that is involved in it. we have heard--and from such high authority that i think that we must accept it as true--that the great patronage appertaining to the office of president of the united states involves a public peril. now, suppose we add to that danger a hundred millions of dollars that the secretary of the treasury can put in this community or that, in this bank or that, at his pleasure; is not the power of the executive perilously increased? is it right that the use of this vast sum should be a matter of mere favoritism, that the secretary should be allowed to put $ , , of this surplus in indianapolis and none of it in kansas city, or $ , , in new york and none in indianapolis? if the money is used in buying bonds it finds its natural place--goes where it belongs. this is a most serious objection to the present method of dealing with the surplus. but if you still object to paying the market premium when we buy these bonds, see how it works the other way. the banks deposit their bonds in the treasury to secure these deposits, get the government money without interest, and still draw interest on their bonds. if any of you had a note for a thousand dollars due in five years, bearing interest, and your credit was so good that the note was worth a premium, and you had twelve hundred dollars that you could not put out at interest so as to offset the interest on your note, would you not make money by using this surplus to take up the note at a fair premium? would you think it wise finance to give the thousand dollars that you had on hand to your creditor without interest and allow him to deposit your note with you as security, you paying interest on the note until it was due and getting no interest on your deposit? [laughter and applause.]. i welcome my young friends from parke county. there is nothing fuller of interest than childhood. there is so much promise and hope in it. expectancy makes life very rosy to them and them very interesting to us who have passed beyond the turn of life. [applause.] you are fortunate in these kind instructors, who from week to week instil into your minds the principles of religion and of morality; but do not forget that there is another vine of beauty that may be appropriately twined with those--the love of your country and her institutions. [applause.] i thank you again for this cordial evidence of your regard. the skies are threatening, and as there is danger that our meeting may be interrupted by rain i will stop here in order that i may meet each of you personally. [cheers.] indianapolis, september . ohio and indiana united to-day again, through their delegations, aggregating , citizens, in paying their respects to general harrison. the tippecanoe veteran association of columbus, ohio, j. e. st. clair, president, comprising veterans, whose ages averaged years, was escorted by the foraker club of columbus, led by president reeves. the veterans were accompanied by the venerable judge john a. bingham, of cadiz, and gen. geo. b. wright, of columbus, both of whom made addresses. no other club or organization, during the entire campaign, was the recipient of such marked attentions as the ohio veterans; the youngest among them was years of age. among the oldest were wm. armstrong, aged ; ansel bristol, ; h. h. chariton, ; francis a. crum, ; joseph davis, ; henry edwards, ; john fields, ; john a. gill, ; j. l. grover, ; j. a. s. harlow, ; harris loomis, ; dan'l melhousen, ; sam'l mccleland, ; judge john otstot, ; james park, ; daniel short, ; john saul, ; george snoffer, ; david taylor, ; jacob taylor, ; j. d. fuller, , and luther hillery, aged , who knew william henry harrison before his first nomination. prominent in the foraker club were dr. a. w. harden and d. k. reif. the tipton county, indiana, visitation was under the auspices of the first voters' club of the town of tipton. a large club of tippecanoe campaign veterans headed their column, led by chief marshal j. a. swoveland, assisted by m. w. pershing, james johns, john f. pyke, r. j. mccalion, isaac booth, j. q. seright, and j. wolverton. judge daniel waugh, of tipton, was the mouthpiece of the delegation. from elkhart county, indiana, came a notable delegation of a thousand business men, prominent among whom were state senator davis, hon. geo. w. burt, daniel zook, h. j. beyerle, e. g. herr, d. w. neidig, t. h. dailey, d. w. granger, and i. w. nash, of goshen; and james h. state, a. c. manning, j. w. fieldhouse, j. g. schreiner, a. p. kent, j. h. cainon, frank baker, and jacob berkley, of elkhart city. hon. o. z. hubbell was spokesman for the delegation. judge bingham's eloquent address was listened to with marked attention. general harrison responded as follows: _gentlemen, my ohio and indiana friends_--again about this platform there are gathered representatives from these two great states. your coming is an expression of a common interest, a recognition of the fact that there is a citizenship that is wider than the lines of any state. [cheers.] that over and above that just pride in your own communities, which you cherish so jealously, there is a fuller pride in the one flag, to which we all give our allegiance, and in the one constitution, which binds the people of these states together indissolubly in a government strong enough to protect its humblest citizen wherever he may sojourn. [prolonged cheers.] your state institutions are based, like those of the nation, upon the great principles of human liberty and equality, and are consecrated to the promotion of social order and popular education. but, above all this, resting on like foundations, is the strong arch of the union that binds us together as a nation. you are citizens of the united states, and as such have common interests that suggest this meeting. [cheers.] i cannot speak separately to the various organizations represented here. there is a broad sense in which you are one. but i cannot omit to pay a hearty tribute of thanks to these venerable men who are gathered about me to-day. i value this tribute from them more than words can tell. i cannot, without indelicacy, speak much of that campaign to which they brought the enthusiasm of their earlier life and to which their memories now turn with so much interest. if, out of it, they have brought on with them in life to this moment and have transferred to me some part of the respect which another won from them, then i will find in their kindness a new stimulus to duty. [applause and cries, "we have; we have!"] in looking over, the other day, a publication of the campaign of , i fell upon a card signed by fifteen democrats of orange, n. j., giving their reasons for leaving the democratic party. it has occurred to me that it might be interesting to some of these old gentlemen. [cries of "we want to hear it!" and "read it!"] it was as follows: "we might give many reasons for this change in our political opinions. the following, however, we deem sufficient: we do not believe the price of labor in this free country should be reduced to the standard prescribed by despots in foreign countries. [applause.] we do not believe in fighting for the country and being unrepresented in the councils of the country. we do not believe in an exclusive, hard, metallic currency any more than we believe in hard bread or no bread! we do not believe it was the design of the framers of the constitution that the president should occupy his time during the first term in electioneering for his re-election to a second term!" [loud laughter and applause.] i have read this simply as an historical curiosity and to refresh your recollections as to some of the issues of that campaign. if it has any application to our modern politics i will leave you to make it. [laughter and applause.] i have recently been talking, and have one thing further to say, about the surplus. there is a very proper use i think that can be made of more than twenty millions of it. during the civil war our customs receipts and our receipts from internal taxes, which last had brought under tribute almost every pursuit in life, were inadequate to the great drain upon our treasury caused by the civil war. our congress, exercising one of the powers of the constitution, levied a direct tax upon the states. ohio paid her part of it, indiana paid hers, and so did the other loyal states. the southern states were in rebellion and did not pay theirs. now we have come to a time when the government has surplus money, and the proposition was made in congress to return this tax to the states that had paid it. [applause.] the state of indiana would have received one million dollars, which my fellow-citizens of this state know would have been a great relief to our taxpayers in the present depleted condition of our treasury. [cheers.] i do not recall the exact amount ohio would have received, but it was much larger. if any one asks, why repay this tax? this illustration will be a sufficient answer: suppose five men are associated in a business corporation. the corporation suffers losses and its capital is impaired. an assessment becomes necessary, and three members pay their assessments while two do not. the corporation is again prosperous and there is a surplus of money in the treasury. what shall be done with it? manifestly, justice requires that the two delinquents should pay up or that there should be returned to the other three the assessment levied upon them. [great cheering.] a bill providing for the repayment of the tax was killed in the house of representatives, not by voting it down, but by filibustering, a majority of the house being in favor of its passage. and those who defeated the bill by those revolutionary tactics were largely from the states that had not paid the tax. [cheers.] i mention these facts to show that twenty millions of the surplus now lying in the banks, where it draws no interest, might very righteously be used so as to greatly lighten the real burdens of taxation now resting on the people--burdens that the people know to be taxes without any argument from our statesmen. [applause and laughter.] i am a lover of silence [laughter], and yet when such assemblies as these greet me with their kind, earnest faces and their kinder words, i do not know how i can do less than to say a few words upon some of these great public questions. i have spoken frankly and fearlessly my convictions upon these questions. [cheers and cries of "good! good!"] and now, unappalled by the immensity of this audience, i will complete the accustomed programme and take by the hand such of you as desire to meet me personally. [cheers.] indianapolis, september . general harrison's visitors this day came from ohio and pennsylvania. hancock and allen counties, ohio, sent over a thousand, including the harrison and morton battalion of lima, commanded by capt. martin atmer, and the republican veteran club of findlay, rev. r. h. holliday, president. the chief marshal of the combined delegations was major s. f. ellis, of lima, hero of the forlorn hope storming column which carried the intrenchments at port hudson, la., june , . prominent members of the allen county delegation were hon. geo. hall, geo. p. waldorf, s. s. wheeler, j. f. price, w. a. campbell, j. j. marks, and burt hagedorn. major s. m. jones was spokesman for the visitors. general harrison, with his usual vigor, replied: _gentlemen and my ohio friends_--the state of my nativity has again placed me under obligations by this new evidence of the respect of her people. i am glad to meet you and to notice in the kind and interested faces into which i look a confirmation of the cordial remarks which have been addressed to me on your behalf. you each feel a personal interest and, i trust, a personal responsibility in this campaign. the interest which expresses itself only in public demonstrations is not of the highest value. the citizen who really believes that this election will either give a fresh impulse to the career of prosperity and honor in which our nation has walked since the war, or will clog and retard that progress, comes far short of his duty if he does not in his own place as a citizen make his influence felt for the truth upon those who are near him. [applause.] you come from a community that has recently awakened to the fact that beneath the soil which has long yielded bounteous harvests to your farmers there was stored by nature a great and new source of wealth. you, in common with neighboring communities in ohio and with other communities in our state, have only partially realized as yet the increase in wealth that oil and natural gas will bring to them, if it is not checked by destructive changes in our tariff policy. this fact should quicken and intensify the interest of these communities in this contest for the preservation of the american system of protection. [applause.] it is said by some of our opponents that a protective tariff has no influence upon wages; that labor in the united states has nothing to fear from the competition from pauper labor; that in the contest between pauper labor and high priced labor pauper labor was always driven out. do such statements as these fall in line with experiences of these workingmen who are before me? [cries of "no, no!"] if that is true, then why the legislative precautions we have wisely taken against the coming of pauper labor to our shores? it is because you know, every one of you, that in a contest between two rival establishments here, or between two rival countries, that that shop or that country that pays the lowest wages--and so produces most cheaply--can command the market. if the products of foreign mills that pay low wages are admitted here without discriminating duties, you know there is only one way to meet such competition, and that is by reducing wages in our mills. [applause.] they seek to entice you by the suggestion that you can wear cheaper clothing when free access is given to the products of foreign woollen mills; and yet they mention also that now, in some of our own cities, the men, and especially the women, who are manufacturing the garments we wear are not getting adequate wages, and that among some of them there is suffering. do they hope that when the coat is made cheaper the wages of the man or woman who makes it will be increased? the power of your labor organizations to secure increased wages is greatest when there is a large demand for the product you are making at fair prices. you do not strike for better wages on a falling market. when the mills are running full time, when there is a full demand at good prices for the product of your toil, and when warehouses are empty, then your organization may effectively insist upon increased wages. did any of you ever see one of the organized efforts for better wages succeed when the mill was running on half time, and there was a small demand at falling prices in the market for the product? [applause.] the protective system works with your labor organization to secure and maintain a just compensation for labor. whenever it becomes true--as it is in some other countries--that the workingman spends to-day what he will earn to-morrow, then your labor organizations will lose their power. then the workman becomes in very fact a part of the machine he operates. he cannot leave it, for he has eaten to-day bread that he is to earn to-morrow. but when he eats to-day bread that he earned last week or last year, then he may successfully resist any unfair exactions. [applause.] i do not say that we have here an ideal condition. i do not deny that in connection with some of our employments the conditions of life are hard. but the practical question is this: is not the condition of our working people on the average comparatively a great deal better than that of any other country? [applause and cries of "good! good!"] if it is, then you will carefully scan all these suggestions before you consent that the work of foreign workmen shall supply our market, now supplied by the products of the hands of american workmen. i thank you again. the day is threatening and cool, and i beg you to excuse further public speech. [applause.] at night pennsylvanians, who came to indiana to aid in developing the natural gas industry, called upon general harrison at his residence, under the direction of a committee composed of capt. j. c. gibney, j. b. wheeler, and geo. a. richards. their spokesman was wm. mcelwaine, a fellow-workman. general harrison addressed them and said: _gentlemen_--it is very pleasant for me to meet you to-night in my own home. the more informal my intercourse can be made with my fellow-citizens the more agreeable it is to me. to you, and all others who will come informally to my home, i will give a hearty greeting. i am glad to see these representatives from the state of pennsylvania whose business pursuits have called them to make their home with us in indiana. the state of pennsylvania has a special interest for me in the fact that it was the native state of a mother who, though nearly forty years dead, still lives affectionately in my memory. i welcome you here to this state as those who come to settle among us under new conditions of industrial and domestic life, to bring into our factories and our homes this new fuel from which we hope so much, not only in the promotion of domestic comfort and economy, but in the advancement of our manufacturing institutions. your calling is one requiring high skill and intelligence and great fidelity. the agent with which you deal is an admirable servant but a dangerous master, and through carelessness may bring a peril instead of a blessing into our households and into our communities. i am glad that indiana, so long drained upon by the states west of the mississippi, has at last felt in your coming from that stanch, magnificent republican commonwealth some restoration of this drain, which has made the struggle for republican success in indiana doubtful in our previous elections. it is time some of the states east of us, having such majorities as pennsylvania, were contributing not only to our business enterprise and prosperity, but to the strengthening of the republican ranks, which have been depleted by the invitations which the agricultural states of the west have extended to our enterprising young men. i welcome your here to-night, and will be glad to have a personal introduction to each of you. [applause.] indianapolis, september . ohio and illinois did honor this day again to the republican nominee. from cleveland came voters; their organizations were the harrison boys in blue-- veterans of the civil war--commanded by gen. james barnett; the garfield club, led by thomas r. whitehead and albert m. long; the logan club, headed by capt. w. r. isham, and the german central club. prominent in the delegation were hon. amos townsend, john gibson, and major palmer, the blind orator. gen. e. myers spoke for the buckeyes. the city of normal, mclean county, illinois, sent a delegation of teachers and students of the state normal school, including ladies. student william galbraith spoke for his associates. general harrison, in response, said: _gentlemen and friends_--the organizations represented here this morning have for me each an individual interest. each is suggestive of a line of thought which _i_ should be glad to follow, but i cannot, in the few moments that i can speak to you in this chilly atmosphere, say all that the names and character of your respective clubs suggest as appropriate. i welcome those comrades in the union army in the civil war. [cheers.] death wrought its work in ghastly form in those years when, patiently, fearlessly, and hopefully, you carried the flag to the front and brought it at last in triumph to the nation's capital. [cheers.] death, since, in its gentler forms, has been coming into the households where the veterans that were spared from shot and shell abide. the muster-roll of the living is growing shorter. the larger company is being rapidly recruited. you live not alone in the memories of the war. your presence here attests that, as citizens, you feel the importance of these civil strifes. you recall the incidents of the great war, not in malice, not to stir or revive sectional divisions, or to re-mark sectional lines, but because you believe that it is good for the nation that loyalty to the flag and heroism in its defence should be remembered and honored. [cheers.] there is not a veteran here, in this republican club of veterans, who does not desire that the streams of prosperity in the southern states should run bank-full. [cheers.] there is not one who does not sympathize with her plague-stricken communities, and rejoice in every new evidence of her industrial development. the union veterans have never sought to impose hard conditions upon the brave men they vanquished. the generous terms of surrender given by general grant were not alone expressions of his own brave, magnanimous nature. the hearts of soldiers who carried the gun and the knapsack in his victorious army were as generous as his. you were glad to accept the renewal of the confederate soldier's allegiance to the flag as the happy end of all strife; willing that he should possess the equal protection and power of a citizenship that you had preserved for yourselves and secured to him. [cheers.] you have only asked--and you may confidently submit to the judgment of every brave confederate soldier whether the terms are not fair--that the veteran of the union army shall have, as a voter, an equal influence in the affairs of the country that was saved by him for both with the man who fought against the flag, and that soldiers of neither army shall abridge the rights of others under the law. [great cheering.] less than that you cannot accept with honor; less than that a generous foe would not consent to offer. to the gentlemen of the john a. logan club let me say: you have chosen a worthy name for your organization. patriot, soldier, and statesman, logan's memory will live in the affectionate admiration of his comrades and in the respect of all his opponents. his home state was illinois, but his achievements were national. to these german-american republicans i give a most cordial welcome. you have been known in our politics as a people well informed upon all the great economic questions that have arisen for settlement. you have always been faithful to an honest currency. [cheers.] the enticements of depreciated money did not win you from sound principle. you bravely stood for a paper currency that should be the true equivalent of coin. [cries of "good! good!"] those who, like your people, have learned the lessons of thrift and economy in your old-country homes, and have brought them here with you, realized that above all things the laborer needed honest money that would not shrink in his hands when it had paid him for an honest day's toil. and now, when another great economic question is pressing for determination, i do not doubt that you will as wisely and as resolutely help to settle that also. as the great german chancellor, that student of human government and affairs, turning his thoughtful study toward the history of our country since the war, has declared that in his judgment our protective tariff system was the source of our strength, that by reason of it we were able to deal with a war debt that seemed to be appalling and insurmountable, i do not doubt that you, too, men who believe in work and in thrift, and so many of whom are everywhere sheltered under a roof of their own, will unite with us in this struggle to preserve our american market for our own workingmen, and to maintain here a living standard of wages. [cheers.] to these students who come fresh from the class-room to give me a greeting this morning i also return my sincere thanks. i suggest to them that they be not only students of books and maxims, but also of men and markets; that in the study of the tariff question they do not forget, as so many do, that they are americans. i thank you all again for your visit. i regret that i am not able to give you, in my own home, a personal and more cordial greeting. my house is not large enough to receive you. [a voice, "your heart is!"] yes, i have room enough in my heart for all. [great cheering.] i am very sincerely grateful for these evidences of your personal regard. out of them all; out of the coming of these frequent and enthusiastic crowds of my fellow-citizens; out of all these kind words; out of these kind faces of men and women; out of the hearty "god-speeds" you give me, i hope to bring an inspiration and an endowment for whatever may be before me in life, whether i shall walk in private or public paths. [great cheering.] the largest delegation of the day, numbering over a thousand business men, arrived from chicago, after stopping _en route_ at several important points, where their orators, gen. h. h. thomas, george drigg, and judge john w. green, made speeches. their notable political organizations were the first tippecanoe club of chicago, veterans of , led by dr. d. s. smith; the logan club, and the twelfth ward republican club, led by charles catlin, e. s. taylor, wm. wilkes, and joseph dixon. judge green and dr. smith delivered addresses. general harrison, responding, said: _my illinois friends_--it is a source of great regret to me that we are not able to make your reception more comfortable. the chill of this september evening and of this open grove is not suggestive of the hospitable and cordial welcome that our people would have been glad to extend to you. our excuse for this time may be found in the vastness of this assemblage. i am pleased to have this fresh and imposing evidence of the enthusiasm and interest of the illinois republicans. [cheers.] there is nothing in the great history of the republican party that need make any man blush to own himself a republican. [cheers.] there is much to kindle the enthusiasm of all lovers of their country. we do not rest in the past, but we rejoice in it. [cheers.] the republican party has so consistently followed the teachings of those great americans whose names the world reveres that we may appropriately hold a republican convention on the birthday of any one of them. [cheers.] the calendar of our political saints does not omit one name that was conspicuous in peace or war. [cheers.] we can celebrate jackson's birthday or the anniversary of the battle of new orleans because he stood for the unity of the nation, and his victory confirmed it in the respect of the world. [great cheering.] there is no song of patriotism that we do not sing in our meetings. there is no marble that has been builded to perpetuate the glory of our soldiers about which we may not appropriately assemble and proclaim the principles that we advocate. [cheers.] we believe in our country, and give it our love and first care. we have always advocated that policy in legislation which was promotive of the interests and honor of our country. [cheers.] i will not discuss any particular public topic to-day, as the conditions are so unfavorable for out-door speaking. let me thank you again for this cordial evidence of your interest and for the personal respect which you have shown to me. i hope you will believe that my heart is deeply touched in these manifestations of the friendliness of my fellow-citizens. if in anything i shall come short of the high expectations and hopes they have formed, it will not be because i do not feel myself put under the highest obligations by these evidences of their friendly regard to do my utmost to continue in their respect and confidence. [great cheering.] indianapolis, october . the fourteenth week of general harrison's public receptions opened this date with the arrival of an enthusiastic republican club from the distant city of tower, minn., most of whose members were engaged in the iron industry. they left a huge specimen of vermilion range iron ore--weighing over pounds--in the front yard of the harrison residence. prominent in the delegation were dr. fred barnett, capt. elisha marcom, s. f. white, chas. r. haines, john owens, w. n. shepard, n. h. bassett, s. j. noble, j. e. bacon, j. b. noble, frank burke, w. h. wickes, chas. l. white, a. nichaud, d. mckinley, and page norris; also geo. m. smith and w. h. cruikshank, of duluth. immediately following the reception of the minnesota visitors came two large delegations from fulton and marshall counties, indiana. the fulton leaders were j. h. bibler, dr. w. s. shafer, dr. e. z. capell, arthur howard, samuel heftly, henry mow, c. d. sisson, arch stinson, j. f. collins, a. f. bowers, w. j. howard, and t. m. bitters, of rochester. m. l. essick was their spokesman. among the prominent members of the marshall county delegation were m. w. simons, john w. parks, j. w. siders, edward mccoy, m. s. smith, john v. astley, enoch baker, i. h. watson, and abram shafer, of plymouth. h. g. thayer delivered the address. general harrison said: _my indiana friends_--this is a home company to-day. usually our indiana visitors have met here delegations from other states. i am sure you will understand that i place a special value upon these evidences of the interest indiana republicans are taking in the campaign. whatever the fate of the battle may be elsewhere, it is always a source of pride to the soldier and to his leader that the part of the line confided to their care held fast. [applause.] i feel that i ought also to acknowledge the friendliness and co-operation which has been already extended to us in this campaign by many who have differed with us heretofore. [applause.] it is encouraging to hear that the prosperous and intelligent farmers of marshall and fulton counties have not been misled by the attempt to separate the agricultural vote from the vote of the shop. it has seemed to me that the mills bill was framed for the purpose of driving from the protection column the agricultural voters, not by showing them favor, but the reverse--by placing agricultural products on the free list, thus withdrawing from the farmer the direct benefits he is receiving from our tariff laws as affecting the products of his labor, hoping that the farmers might then be relied upon to pull down the rest of the structure. i am glad to believe that we have in indiana a class of farmers too intelligent to be caught by these unfriendly and fallacious propositions. [applause.] i had to-day a visit from twenty or more gentlemen who came from the town of tower, in the most northern part of minnesota, where, within the last four years, there has been discovered and developed a great deposit of iron ore especially adapted to the manufacture of steel. within the four years since these mines were opened they tell me that about a million tons of ore have been mined and sent to the furnaces. they also mentioned the fact that arrangements are already being made to bring block coal of indiana to the mouth of these iron mines, that the work of smelting may be done there. this is a good illustration of the interlocking of interests between widely separated states of the union [applause]--a new market and a larger demand for indiana coal. the attempt is often made to create the impression that only particular classes of workingmen are benefited by a protective tariff. there can be nothing more untrue. the wages of all labor--labor upon the farm, labor upon our streets--has a direct and essential relation to the scale of wages that is paid to skilled labor. [applause.] one might as well say that you could bring down the price of a higher grade of cotton cloth without affecting the price of lower grades as to say that you can degrade the price of skilled labor without dragging down the wages of unskilled labor. [applause.] this attempt to classify and schedule the men who are benefited by a protective tariff is utterly deceptive. [applause.] the benefits are felt by all classes of our people--by the farmer as well as by the workmen in our mills; by the man who works on the street as well as the skilled laborer who works in the mill; by the women in the household, and by the children who are now in the schools and might otherwise be in the mills. [applause.] it is a policy broad enough to embrace within the scope of its beneficent influence all our population. [applause.] i thank you for your visit, and will be glad to meet any of you personally who desire to speak to me. [applause.] indianapolis, october . the porter-columbian club, a local organization named in honor of governor porter, with a membership of workingmen, paid their respects to general harrison on this night, commanded by their president and founder, marshall c. woods, who delivered an address. general harrison, in reply, said: _mr. woods and my friends_--my voice is not in condition to speak at much length in this cool night air. i am very deeply grateful for this evidence of the respect of this large body of indianapolis workingmen. i am glad to be assured by what has been said to me that you realize that this campaign has a special interest for the wage-earners of america. [cries of "good! good!"] that is the first question in life with you, because it involves the subsistence and comfort of your families. i do not wonder then that, out of so many different associations in life, you have come together into this organization to express your determination to vote for the maintenance of the american system of protection. [great cheering.] i think you can all understand that it is not good for american workingmen that the amount of work to be done in this country should be diminished by transferring some of it to foreign shops. [applause.] nor ought the wages paid for the work that is done here to be diminished by bringing you into competition with the underpaid labor of the old country. [applause.] i am not speaking any new sentiment to-night. many times before the chicago convention i have, in public addresses, expressed the opinion that every workingman ought to have such wages as would not only yield him a decent and comfortable support for his family, and enable him to keep his children in school and out of the mill in their tender age, but would allow him to lay up against incapacity by sickness or accident, or for old age, some fund on which he could rely. these views i entertain to-night. i beg you to excuse further public speech and to allow me to receive personally such of you as care to speak to me. [applause.] indianapolis, october . three states did homage to the republican nominee this date. from grand rapids and muskegon, mich., came visitors, under the auspices of the belknap club of grand rapids. the wife of governor luce was a member of the delegation, accompanied by r. c. luce and w. a. davitt. other prominent members were: judge f. j. russell, hon. a. b. turner, col. c. t. foote, j. b. pantlind, don j. leathers, col. e. s. pierce, wm. a. gavett, h. j. felker, d. g. crotty, h. j. stevens, aldrich tateum, louis kanitz, a. e. yerex, and n. mcgraft, of grand rapids; thomas a. parish and geo. turner, of grand haven; and john j. cappon, of holland. john patton, jr., of grand rapids, was orator. the ohio visitors came from tiffin, seneca county, led by the venerable a. c. baldwin, capt. john mccormick, albert corthell, capt. edward jones, edward naylor, and j. b. rosenburger. the wife of gen. wm. h. gibson was an honored guest of the delegation, accompanied by mrs. robert lysle and mrs. root. j. k. rohn was spokesman for the ohio visitors. the third delegation comprised , voters from jay county, indiana, led by gen. n. shepherd, theodore bailey, richard a. green, john geiger, e. j. marsh, frank h. snyder, and m. v. moudy, of portland. jesse m. la follette was their speaker. to these several addresses general harrison, in response, said: _my michigan, ohio, and indiana friends_--these cordial manifestations of your personal regard move me very deeply [applause], but i do not at all appropriate to myself the great expressions of popular interest of which this meeting is only one. i understand that my relation to these public questions and to the people is a representative one--that the interest which thus expresses itself is in principles of government rather than in men. [cheers.] i am one of the oldest republicans; my first presidential vote was given to the first republican candidate for that office [applause], and it has always been a source of profound gratification to me that, in peace and war, a high spirit of patriotism and devotion to our country has always pervaded and dominated the party. [cheers.] when, during the civil war, the clouds hung low, disasters thickened, and the future was crowded with uncanny fears, never did any republican convention assemble without declaring its faith in the ultimate triumph of our cause [great cheering]; and now, with a broad patriotism that embraces and regards the interests of all the states, it advocates policies that will develop and unite all our communities in the friendly and profitable interchange of commerce as well as in a lasting political union. [applause.] these great western states will not respond to the attempt to excite prejudice against new england. we advocate measures that are as broad as our national domain; that are calculated to distil their equal blessing upon all the land. [cheers.] the people of the great west recognize and value the great contribution which those commonwealths about plymouth rock have made to the civilization, material growth, and manhood of our western states. [cheers.] we are not envious of the prosperity of new england; we rejoice in it. we believe that the protective policy developed her great manufacturing institutions and made her rich, and we do not doubt that a continuance of that policy will produce the same results in michigan, ohio, and indiana. [cheers.] we are not content to remain wholly agricultural states in our relations to either new england or old england. [applause.] we believe that in all these great western states there are minerals in the soil and energy and skill in the brains and arms of our people that will yet so multiply and develop our manufacturing industries as to give us a nearer home market for much of the products of our soil. [cheers.] and for that great surplus which now and always, perhaps, we shall not consume at home we think a new england market better than a foreign market. [enthusiastic and prolonged cheering.] the issue upon this great industrial question is drawn as sharply as the lines were ever drawn between contending armies. men are readjusting their party relations upon this great question. the appeal that is now made for the defence of our american system is finding its response, and many of those who are opposed to us upon other questions are committing such questions to the future for settlement, while they help us to settle now and for an indefinite future the great question of the preservation of our commercial independence. [applause.] the democratic party has challenged our protected industries to a fight of extermination. the wage-earners of our country have accepted the challenge. the issue of the contest will settle for many years our tariff policy. [prolonged cheering.] the eloquent descriptions to which we have listened of the material wealth of the great state of michigan have been full of interest to us as citizens of indiana. we cannot doubt that the people of a state having such generous invitations to the developments of great home wealth in manufacturing and mining pursuits will understand the issue that is presented, and will cast their influence in favor of that policy which will make that development rapid and sure; and more than all, and better than all, will maintain in her communities a well-paid class of wage-workers. [cheers.] our wage-workers vote; they are american citizens, and it is essential that they be kept free from the slavery of want and the discontents bred of injustice. [applause.] i thank my michigan friends for these handsome specimens of the products of their mines and of their mills. i shall cherish them with grateful recollection of this pleasant visit. [applause.] to my indiana friends, always generous, i return my thanks for this new evidence of their esteem. [cheers.] to my ohio friends, who so often before have visited me with kind expressions of their regard, i return the thanks of a native-born ohioan. [prolonged cheers from the ohio delegation.] three great states are grouped here to-day. i remember at resaca, when the field and staff of the regiments that were to make the assault were ordered to dismount, there was a michigan officer too sick to go on foot and too proud to subject himself to the imputation of cowardice by staying behind. he rode alone, the one horseman in that desperate charge, and died on that bloody hillside rather than subject his state to the imputation that one of her sons had lingered when the enemy was to be engaged. he was a noble type of the brave men these great states gave to the country. [cheers.] indianapolis, october . wisconsin and indiana were the states represented at this day's reception. the wisconsin visitors came from madison, janesville, and beloit. prominent among them were general atwood, editor wisconsin _state journal_, surgeon-general palmer, w. t. van kirk, and t. g. maudt. r. c. spooner spoke for the badgers. fountain county, indiana, sent , visitors, led by a club of tippecanoe veterans. among their representative men were h. la tourette, w. w. layton, john h. spence, of covington; a. h. clark, and w. h. malory, of veedersburg; a. s. peacock, h. c. martin, and c. e. holm, of attica. capt. benj. hegeler, of attica, delivered the address on behalf of the hoosiers. general harrison responded as follows: _my wisconsin and my indiana friends_--these great daily manifestations of the interest of great masses of our people in the principles represented by the republican party are to me increasingly impressive. i am glad to-day that indiana has opportunity to welcome a delegation from the magnificent state of wisconsin. [cheers.] it offers a fitting opportunity to acknowledge my personal obligation and the obligation of the indiana republicans for the early and constant support which wisconsin gave to the efforts of the indiana delegation in the chicago convention. [prolonged cheers.] to-day two states, not contiguous in territory, but touching in many interests, are met to express the fact that these great electoral contests affect all our people. it is not alone in the choice of presidential electors that we have common interests. our national congress, though chosen in separate districts, legislates for all our people. wisconsin has a direct interest that the ballot shall be free and pure in indiana, and wisconsin and indiana have a direct interest that the ballot shall be free and pure in all the states. [great cheering.] therefore let no man say that it is none of our business how elections are conducted in other states. [cheers.] i believe that this great question of a free ballot, so much disturbed by race questions in the south, would be settled this year if the men of the south who believe with us upon the great question of the protection of american industries would throw off old prejudices and vote their convictions upon that question. [cheers and cries of "good! good!"] i believe there are indications that the independent manhood of the south will this year strongly manifest itself in this direction. those intelligent and progressive citizens of the south who are seeking to build up within their own states diversified industries will not much longer be kept in bondage to the traditions of the days when the south was wholly a community of planters. when they assert their belief in a protective tariff, by supporting the only party that advocates that policy, the question of a free ballot, so far as it is a southern question, will be settled forever, for they will have the power to insist that those who believe with them shall vote, and that their votes shall be counted. [applause.] the protective policy, by developing a home supply and limiting importations, helps us to maintain the balance of trade upon our side in our dealings with the world. [cheers.] under the tariff of from the year to the balance of trade was continuously against us, aggregating in that period over three hundred millions of dollars. under the influence of a protective tariff the balance of trade has been generally and largely with us, unless disturbed by special conditions. instead of sending our gold abroad to pay a foreign balance we have usually been bringing foreign gold here to augment our store. [cheers.] i will not detain you further. these daily demands upon me make it necessary that i shall speak briefly. let me thank most profoundly those gentlemen and ladies from wisconsin who have come so far to bring me this tribute of their respect. i very highly value it. these, my indiana friends, unite with me in thanking you for your presence to-day. [cheers from the indianians.] to my nearer friends, my fountain county friends, let me say i am profoundly grateful to you for this large and imposing demonstration and for the interest you are individually taking in this campaign. [cheers.] i do not think of it as a personal campaign. it has always seemed to me to be altogether greater than that, and when i thank you for your interest and commend your zeal it is an interest in principles and a zeal for the truth that i approve. [cheers.] indianapolis, october . saturday, october , was one of the great days of the campaign. the first delegation, numbering , , came from wells and blackford counties, indiana. conspicuous in their ranks were two large uniformed clubs of ladies, one from montpelier, and the carrie harrison club of bluffton. in the wells county contingent were many veterans and newly-converted democrats. their leaders were asbury duglay, d. h. swaim, b. w. bowman, peter ulmer, silas wisner, joseph milholland, j. c. hatfield, and t. a. doan. j. j. todd was their spokesman. prominent in the blackford delegation were frank geisler, h. m. campbell, w. l. ritter, eli hamilton, r. v. ervin, w. a. williams, john sipe, and john cantwell, of hartford city; j. c. summerville, wm. pugh, j. h. morrical, g. a. mason, john g. ward, and j. m. tinsley, of montpelier. hon. b. g. shinn delivered the address on behalf of the blackford people. general harrison confined his speech to state questions. he said: _my wells and blackford county friends_--i am glad to meet you. it is extremely gratifying to be assured by your presence here this inclement day, and by the kind words which you have addressed to me through your representatives, that i have some part in your friendly regard as an individual. but individuals are not of the first importance. that man who thinks that the prosperity of this country or the right administration of its affairs is wholly dependent upon him grossly exaggerates his value. the essential things to us are the principles of government upon which our institutions were builded, and by and through which we make that symmetrical and safe growth which has characterized our nation in the past, and which is yet to raise it to a higher place among the nations of the earth. [applause.] we are indianians--hoosiers, if you please [cheers]--and are proud of the state of which we are citizens. your spokesmen have referred with an honest pride to the counties from which you have come, and that is well. but i would like to suggest to you that every political community and neighborhood has a character of its own, a moral character, as well as every man and every woman, and it is exceedingly important, looked at even from the side of material advantage, that our communities should maintain a good reputation for social order, intelligence, virtue, and a faithful and willing obedience to law. [applause.] it cannot be doubted that such a character possessed by any state or county attracts immigration and capital, advances its material development, and enhances the value of its farms. there has been much in the history of indiana that is exceedingly creditable. there have been some things--there are some things to-day--that are exceedingly discreditable to us as a political community; things that i believe retard the advancement of our state and affect its material prosperity by degrading it in the estimation of right-thinking men. one of those things is this patent and open fact: that the great benevolent institutions of this state, instead of being operated upon the high plane that public charities should occupy, are being operated and managed upon the lowest plane of party purposes and advantage. [cries of "that's so!"] another such thing is of recent occurrence. in the campaign of , after advising with the chief law officer of the state, a democratic governor declared to the people of this state that there was a vacancy in the office of lieutenant-governor which the people were entitled to fill at the ensuing general election. the democratic party acted upon that advice, assembled in convention in this hall, and nominated john c. nelson for lieutenant-governor. the republican party followed with their convention, and placed in nomination that gallant soldier, robert s. robertson. [cheers.] these two gentlemen went before the people of indiana and made a public canvass for the office. the election was held, and colonel robertson was chosen by a majority of about , . [applause.] is there a man in the state, democratic or republican, who doubts that if the choice had been otherwise, and mr. nelson had received a majority at the polls, the house of representatives, which was republican, would have met with the democratic senate in an orderly joint meeting, for canvassing the votes, and that mr. nelson would have been inaugurated as lieutenant-governor? [cries of "no, no!"] but the result was otherwise; and the public fame, the good reputation of this state, was dishonored when, by force and brutal methods, the voice of the people was stifled, and the man they had chosen was excluded from the right to exercise the duties of the office of lieutenant-governor. [cries of "yes, yes!"] do the people think that the attractiveness of indiana as a home for americans who believe in social order and popular government has been increased by this violent and disgraceful incident? do our democratic friends who have an honest state pride, who would like to maintain the honor and good reputation of the state, who would have the people of our sister states believe that we have a people who believe in a warm canvass but in a free ballot, and a manly and ready acquiescence in election results, intend to support their leaders in this violent exclusion from office of a duly chosen public officer? do those who are democrats from principle, and not for personal spoils, intend to support the men who have first prostituted our benevolent institutions to party and now to personal advantage? these things, if not reproved and corrected by our people, will not only disgrace us in the estimation of all good people, but will substantially retard the material development of the state. [cheers.] i am not talking to-day of questions in which i have any other interest than that you have, my fellow-citizens. [applause.] i believe the material prosperity of indiana, much more the honor, will be advanced if her people in this state election shall rebuke the shameless election frauds that have recently scandalized our state, the prostitution of our benevolent institutions, and the wanton violence that overturned the result of the popular election in . [great cheering.] the chicago veterans. the great event of the day was the reception tendered the veterans and citizens from chicago, hyde park, pullman, south chicago, and the town of lake. they numbered over , , and arrived in the evening, after stopping _en route_ at danville, ill., and crawfordsville, ind., to participate in demonstrations. the chicago contingent comprised members of the union veteran club, commanded by its president, capt. john j. healy; members of the veteran union league, led by capt. james j. healy; the blaine club, second regiment band, and many smaller clubs. leaders in the delegation were major mccarty, col. dan. w. munn, hon. stephen a. douglas, jr., s. w. king, charles h. hann, and others. hyde park sent several hundred rolling-mill men; the city of pullman car-builders; the town of lake--"the largest village in the world"--was represented by a flambeau club, the lake view screw club, and numerous other organizations. their leading representatives were col. j. hodgkins, judge c. m. hawley, hon. john e. cowells, hon. b. e. hoppin, geo. c. ingham, judge freen, hon. l. d. condee, joseph hardacre, edward maher, m. j. mcgrath, a. g. proctor, frank i. bennett, and col. foster. the visitors were met by about , citizens and escorted to tomlinson hall. when general harrison appeared, accompanied by judge e. b. martindale, chairman of the reception committee, there ensued a scene never to be forgotten by those who witnessed it. the , people present arose to their chairs, surrounding the visiting veterans, all frantically waving flags and banners. the demonstration continued without abatement for ten minutes. general harrison stood as if dazed by the spectacle. finally ex-governor hamilton, of illinois, secured quiet, and on behalf of the veterans addressed the gathering, followed by judge e. w. keightly on behalf of the hyde park visitors. general harrison's response was by many regarded as his greatest speech of the campaign. he said: _comrades and friends_--it is a rare sight, and it is one very full of interest to us as citizens of indiana, to see this great hall filled with the people of another state, come to evidence their interest in great principles of government. [cheers.] i welcome to-night for myself and for our people this magnificent delegation from chicago and hyde park. [cheers.] we have not before in the procession of these great delegations seen its equal in numbers, enthusiasm, and cordiality. i thank you profoundly for whatever of personal respect there is in this demonstration [cheers]; but above all, as an american citizen, i rejoice in this convincing proof that our people realize the gravity and urgency of the issues involved in this campaign. [cheers.] i am glad to know that this interest pervades all classes of our people. [cheers.] this delegation, composed of the business men of chicago and of the men who wield the hammer in the shops, shows a common interest in the right decision of these great questions. [great cheers.] our government is not a government by classes or for classes of our fellow-citizens. [cheers.] it is a government of the people and by the people. [renewed cheering.] its wise legislation distills its equal blessings upon the homes of the rich and the poor. [cheers.] i am especially glad that these skilled, intelligent workmen coming out of your great workshops have manifested, by their coming, to their fellow-workmen throughout the country their appreciation of what is involved for them in this campaign. [prolonged cheers.] may that god who has so long blessed us as a nation long defer that evil day when penury shall be a constant guest in the homes of our working people, and long preserve to us that intelligent, thrifty and cheerful body of workmen that was our strength in war and is our guaranty of social order in time of peace! [great cheering.] comrades of the civil war, it was true of the great union army, as it is said to be of the kingdom of heaven--not many rich. [cheers.] it was out of the homes of our working people the great army came. it was the strong arm inured to labor on the farm or in the shop that bore up the flag in the smoke of battle, carried it through storms of shell and shot, and lifted it again in honor over our national capital. [prolonged cheers.] after so many historical illustrations of the evil effects of abandoning the policy of protection for that of a revenue tariff, we are again confronted by the suggestion that the principle of protection shall be eliminated from our tariff legislation. have we not had enough of such experiments? does not the history of our tariff legislation tell us that every revenue tariff has been followed by business and industrial crashes, and that a return to the policy of protection has stimulated our industries and set our throbbing workshops again in motion? [cheers.] and yet, again and again, the democratic party comes forward with this pernicious proposition--for it has been from that party always that the proposition to abandon our protective policy and to substitute a revenue tariff has come. [cries of "that's so!"] i had placed in my hands yesterday a copy of the london news for september . the editor says in substance that, judging the purposes of the democratic party by the executive message of last december, the english people were justified in believing that party meant free trade; but if they were to accept the more recent utterances of its leader, protesting that that was not their purpose, then the editor thus states the issue presented by the democratic party. i read but a single sentence: "it is, at any rate, a contest between protection and something that is not protection." [prolonged and wild cheering.] it is not of the smallest interest to you what that other thing is. [continued cheering.] it is enough to know that it is not protection. [renewed cheering.] those who defend the present democratic policy declare that our people not only pay the tariff duty upon all imported goods, but that a corresponding amount is added to the price of every domestic competing article. that for every dollar that is paid into the treasury in the form of a customs duty the people pay several dollars more in the enhanced cost of the domestic competing article. those who honestly hold such doctrines cannot stop short of the absolute destruction of our protective system. [cries of "no, no!"] the man who preaches such doctrines and denies that he is on the road to free trade is like the man who takes passage on a train scheduled from here to cincinnati without a stop, and when the train is speeding on its way at the rate of forty miles an hour, denies that he is going to cincinnati. [great laughter and cheering.] the impulse of such logic draws toward free trade as surely and swiftly as that engine pulls the train to its appointed destination. it inevitably brings us to the english rule of levying duties only upon such articles as we do not produce at home, such as tea and coffee. that is purely revenue tariff, and is practically free trade. against this the republican party proposes that our tariff duty shall be of an intelligent purpose, be levied chiefly upon competing articles. [cheers.] that our american workmen shall have the benefit of discriminating duties upon the products of their labor. [cheers.] the democratic policy increases importation, and, by so much, diminishes the work to be done in america. it transfers work from the shops of south chicago to birmingham. [cries of "right you are!"] for, if a certain amount of any manufactured article is necessary for a year's supply to our people, and we increase the amount that is brought from abroad, by just so much we diminish the amount that is made at home, and in just that proportion we throw out of employment the men that are working here. and not only so, but when this equal competition is established between our shops and the foreign shops, there is not a man here who does not know that the only condition under which the american shop can run at all is that it shall reduce the wages of its employees to the level of the wages paid in the competing shops abroad. [cheers.] this is, briefly, the whole story. i believe we should look after and protect our american workingmen; therefore i am a republican. [renewed enthusiastic cheering.] but i will not detain you longer. [cries of "go on!"] you must excuse me; i have been going on for three months. [a voice, "and you'll go on for four years!"] i am somewhat under restraint in what i can say, and others here are somewhat under restraint as to what they can appropriately say in my presence. i beg you therefore to allow me, after thanking you again for your kindness, to retire that others who are here may address you. [great cheering.] indianapolis, october . in point of numbers the greatest day of the indiana campaign was thursday, october , when over , visitors arrived from all points in indiana and along the border counties of ohio to participate in the greeting to the hon. james g. blaine, who was the guest of general harrison. from the balcony of the new-denison hotel general and mrs. harrison, accompanied by mr. blaine, gen. adam king, of baltimore; col. a. l. snowden and gen. d. h. hastings, of pennsylvania; col. m. j. murray, of massachusetts; gen. w. c. plummer, of dakota; corporal james tanner, of new york; ex-senator ferry, of michigan; hon. r. w. thompson, ex-governor a. g. porter, hon. j. n. huston, gen. a. p. hovey, and ira j. chase, reviewed probably the greatest political parade ever witnessed in this country outside of the city of new york. twenty-five thousand men constituted the marching column, in nine great divisions, commanded by col. charles s. millard, chief marshal, with gen. james s. carnahan, chief of staff, and aids. the division commanders and principal aids were: first division, gen. n. r. ruckle, of indianapolis. chief of staff, charles j. many, of indianapolis. second division, capt. h. m. caylor, of noblesville. chief of staff, major j. m. watt, of delphi. third division, john w. lovett, of anderson. chief of staff, col. george parker. fourth division, gen. tom bennett, of richmond. chief of staff, capt. ira b. myers, of peru. fifth division, col. t. c. burnside, of liberty. chief of staff, j. w. ream, of muncie. sixth division, col. j. m. story, of franklin. chief of staff, capt. david wilson, of martinsville. seventh division, col. w. r. mcclellen, of danville. chief of staff, capt. w. h. armstrong, of terre haute. eighth division, capt. t. h. b. mccain, of crawfordsville. chief of staff, edward watson, of brazil. ninth division, capt. j. o. pedigo, of lebanon. chief of staff, c. c. shirley, of kokomo. mr. blaine visited the exposition grounds in the afternoon, where major w. h. calkins introduced him to an audience of about , , to whom he addressed a few words. at night mr. blaine delivered one of his masterly speeches at tomlinson hall to an audience of , . at the close of the blaine meeting general harrison received a delegation from cincinnati, consisting of a. b. horton, h. d. emerson, wm. fredberger, james a. graff, h. r. probasco, dr. m. t. carey, abram myer, fred pryor, and walter hartpense, who called to invite him to attend the cincinnati exposition on "republican day." a st. louis delegation, members of the loyal legion, also paid their respects. among them were col. r. c. kerens, col. nelson cole, col. j. s. butler, major w. r. hodges, captain gleason, g. b. adams, h. l. morrill, c. h. sampson, and w. b. gates. on october a party of distinguished railroad magnates visited general harrison. they were hon. chauncey m. depew, j. d. layng, h. w. webb, sam'l barton, seward c. webb, and c. f. cox, of new york; j. de koven, of chicago; s. m. beach, of cleveland, and j. q. van winkle, of st. louis. on october general harrison received informally survivors of the eleventh indiana regiment, headed by their first colonel, gen. lew wallace, and general mcginnis. indianapolis, october . two large and influential organizations visited general harrison on october . from milwaukee came members of the young men's republican club--paul d. carpenter, president; george russell, secretary. among other prominent members were samuel chandler, who organized the pilgrimage, and walter w. pollock. president carpenter--son of the late senator matt carpenter--and c. s. otjen, a wage-worker, were spokesmen for the club. the second and largest delegation was the chicago german-american republican club--franz amberg, president; f. j. buswick, secretary. accompanying them was the excelsior band and sixteen voices from the orpheus maennerchor society of chicago. among the widely known members with the club were hon. chris. mamer, louis huck, peter hand, edward bert, peter mahr, henry wulf, city treasurer plantz, n. f. plotke, and alderman tiedemann. as general harrison entered the hall the reception exercises were opened by the maennerchor society with the inspiring hymn--"this is the lord's own day." addresses on behalf of the visitors were made by hon. wm. vocke, henry greenbaum, and andrew soehngen; also, general fred knefler for the german republicans of indiana, and hon a. b. ward, of dakota. general harrison, responding to both visiting delegations, said: _my friends of the german-american republican club of chicago, and of the club of milwaukee, and my home german friends_--i am very grateful for the kind words you have addressed to me. the long journey most of you have taken upon this inclement day to tender your respects to me as the candidate of the republican party is very convincing evidence that you believe this civil contest to be no mock tournament, but a very real and a very decisive battle for great principles. [cheers]. my german-american friends, you are a home-loving people; father, mother, wife, child are words that to you have a very full and a very tender meaning. [cheers.] the old father and mother never outlive the veneration and love of the children in a german household. [cheers.] you have come from the fatherland in families, and have set up again here the old hearth-stones. out of this love of home there is naturally born a love of country--it is only the widening of the family circle--and so our fellow-citizens of german birth and descent did not fail to respond with alacrity and enthusiasm to the call of their adopted country when armies were mustered for the defence of the union. [cheers.] the people of indiana will long remember the veteran willich and the thirty-second regiment of indiana volunteers (or first german), which he took into the field in . the repulse by this regiment alone of an attacking force under general hindman of , infantry, a battalion of texas rangers, and four pieces of artillery at rowlett's station, in december, , filled our people with enthusiasm and pride. again and again the impetuous texas horsemen threw themselves with baffled fury upon that square of brave hearts. no bayonet point was lowered, no skulker broke the wall of safety that enclosed the flag. [cheers.] your people are industrious, thrifty, and provident. to lay by something is one of life's earliest lessons in a german home. these national traits naturally drew your people to the support of the republican party when it declared for freedom and free homes in the territories. [cheers.] they secured your adherence to the cause of the union in the civil war. they gave us your help in the long struggle for resumption and an honest currency, and i do not doubt that they will now secure our sympathy and help in this great contest in behalf of our american homes. your people are largely wage-earners. they have prospered under a protective tariff, and will not, i am sure, vote for such a change in our tariff policy as will cut them off from their wages that margin which they are now able to lay aside for old age and for their children. and now a word to my young friends from wisconsin. you have come into the possession of the suffrage at an important, if not critical, time in our public affairs. the democratic party out of power was a party of negations. it did not secure its present lease of power upon the platform or the policies it now supports and advocates. [cheers.] the campaign of was not made upon the platform of a tariff for revenue only. our workingmen were soothed with phrases that implied some regard to their interests, and democrats who believed in a protective tariff were admitted to the party councils and gladly heard in public debate. [cheers.] but four years of power have changed all this. democrats who thought they could be protectionists and still maintain their party standing have been silenced or their opinions coerced. the issue is now distinctly made between "protection and something that is not protection." [cheers.] the republican party fearlessly accepts the issue and places itself upon the side of the american home and the american workingman. [cheers.] we invite these young men who were too young to share the glory of the struggle for our political unity to a part in this contest for the preservation of our commercial independence. [cheers.] and now to these friends who are the bearers of gifts, one word of thanks. i especially value this cane as a token of the confidence and respect of the workingmen of bay view. [cheers.] i accept their gift with gratitude, and would wish you, sir, to bear in return my most friendly regards and good wishes to every one of them. i do not need to lean on this beautiful cane, but i do feel like resting upon the intelligent confidence of the men who sent it. [great cheering.] i am glad to know that they have not stumbled over the simple problem that is presented for their consideration in this campaign. they know that an increase of importation means diminished work in american shops. [cheers.] to my friend who brings this beautiful specimen of american workmanship, this commonly accepted token of good luck, i give my thanks. but we will not trust wholly in this symbol of good luck. the earnest individual effort of the american people only can make the result of this contest so decisive, so emphatic, that we shall not for a generation hear any party contest the principle that our tariff laws shall adequately protect our own workingmen. [great cheering.] indianapolis, october . ohio's chief executive, gov. joseph b. foraker, escorted by the garfield club and the fourteenth regiment band of columbus, made a pilgrimage to the republican mecca on october . the widely known columbus glee club accompanied them. among the prominent republicans with the delegation were auditor of state poe, adjutant-general axline, hon. estes g. rathbone, c. l. kurtz, d. w. brown, c. e. prior, l. d. hogerty, j. w. firestone, and ira h. crum. escorted by the columbia club, the buckeyes marched to the residence of general harrison and were introduced by governor foraker. in response to their greeting general harrison said: _gentlemen_--it was very appropriate that these representative ohio republicans should accompany to the state of indiana your distinguished governor, whose presence among us to-day is so welcome to our people. we know his story as the young ohio volunteer, the fearless champion of republican principles in public debate, and the resolute, courageous, and sagacious executive of the great state of ohio. [applause.] we welcome him and we welcome you. the fame of this magnificent glee club has preceded them. we are glad to have an opportunity to hear you. to these members of the garfield club i return my thanks for this friendly call. you bear an honored name. i look back with pleasure to the small contribution i was able to make in indiana toward securing the electoral vote of this state to that great son of ohio, whose tragic death spread gloom and disappointment over our land. i welcome you as citizens of my native state--a state i shall always love, because all of my early associations are with it. in this state, to which i came in my earliest manhood, the republicans are as staunch and true, as valorous and resolute, as can be found in any of the states. you have no advantage of us except in numbers. we welcome you all as republicans. [a voice, "that's what we are!"] we believe that our party now advocates another great principle that needs to be established--made fast--put where it shall be beyond assault. it is a principle which has wrought marvellously in the development of our country since the war. it has enabled us to handle a great national debt, which our desponding democratic friends said would inevitably sink our country into bankruptcy, so that we are not troubled about getting the money to pay our maturing bonds, but are getting it faster than our bonds mature. we need to establish this principle of protection, the defence of our american workers against the degrading and unfriendly competition of pauper labor in all other countries [cheers], so unmistakably that it shall not again be assailed. [a voice, "amen!"] our democratic friends in previous campaigns have deceived the people upon this great question by uncertain and evasive utterances. we are glad to know that now they have drawn the issue clearly; we accept it. [applause.] if we shall be able in this campaign, as i believe we will, to arouse our people to the importance of maintaining our defences against unfair foreign competition, we shall administer those who believe in revenue tariffs and in progressive free trade a wholesome lesson--one that will last them a lifetime. [cheers.] i had resolutely determined when i came upon these steps not to make a speech. [laughter and cries of "go on!"] i am absolutely determined to stop now. [laughter.] i shall be glad to meet the members of these escort clubs personally in my house. [three cheers.] later in the day about survivors of the seventy-ninth indiana regiment, led by their first colonel, general fred knefler, called on general harrison, and were presented by their leader in a brief speech, in response to which general harrison, speaking from his doorway, said: _general knefler and comrades_--i am always deeply touched when my comrades visit me and offer their kindly greetings. i have no higher ambition than to stand well in the estimation of my comrades of the old union army. i will not speak of any political topic. these men who stand before me gave the supreme evidence of their love and devotion to their country. no man could give more than they offered. the perpetuity of our institutions, the honor of what general sherman so felicitously called the "old glory," demand the country shall always and in every appropriate way honor and reward the men who kept it a nation. whatever may be said of our great prosperity since the war, and it can scarcely be exaggerated, if we look for the cause under god, is it not found in the stout hearts of these men? they have opened this wide avenue of prosperity and honor in which we are moving. it will be a shame if our people do not in every way properly recognize that debt and properly honor the men who gave this supreme evidence of their devotion to the country and its institutions. thanking you again for this visit, i will be glad if you will enter my house and let me meet you personally. indianapolis, october . for the fifth time during the campaign the commercial travellers visited general harrison, each time with increased numbers. on saturday, october , under the supervision of the commercial travellers' republican club of indianapolis--g. c. webster, president; ernest morris, secretary--they held one of the largest and most successful demonstrations of this remarkable campaign. their gathering partook of a national character, as large numbers of "drummers" were present from massachusetts, new york, pennsylvania, ohio, kentucky, michigan, illinois, missouri, west virginia, and vermont, while every important city in indiana sent its complement. the visitors were received by a local committee of travelling men, consisting of fred schmidt, chairman; c. mcpherson, wm. faucet, joseph stubbs, jeff cook, ed. allcott, j. c. norris, m. p. green, geo. white, o. w. morman, chas. d. pearson, jeff taylor, wm. p. bone, henry ramey, albert a. womack, john a. wright, james w. muir, and frank brough. it was estimated that , spectators witnessed their fine parade, a conspicuous feature of which was a big bull covered with a white cloth on which was printed the words--"john bull rides the democratic party and we ride john bull." on his back rode "drummer" dan'l b. long in an emerald suit, while l. a. worch, dressed as uncle sam, led the bovine. the parade was in charge of chief marshal j. r. ross and his aids. as the column passed their residence it was reviewed by general and mrs. harrison. later in the day the visitors were received at tomlinson hall. when general harrison appeared a great demonstration occurred. president webster presided; the speakers were: john e. dowell, of boston; r. t. dow, of atlanta; c. l. young and john l. fennimore, of columbus, ohio; chas. p. banks, of brooklyn; john l. griffiths and john c. wingate, of indiana. general harrison said: _my friends_--four times already, i believe, the commercial travellers have honored me by calling upon me in large delegations. you have assembled to-day, not from a single state or locality, but from many states, upon the invitation of your associates of this city, to show your intelligent interest in the principles that are involved in this campaign. [cheers.] i do not need to repeat what i have said on former occasions, that i very highly value the respect and confidence of the commercial travellers of the united states. [cheers.] i value it because i believe they give their adherence to the party whose candidate i am upon an intelligent investigation and upon an earnest conviction as to what is good for the country of which they are citizens. [cheers.] who should be able, better than you, to know the commercial and business needs of our country? you, whose hand is every day upon the business pulse of the people; you, who travel the country up and down upon all the swift highways of commerce, and who are brought in contact with the business men of the country, not only in our great centres of commerce, but in all the hamlets of the land. i believe i may say for you that, as a result of this personal knowledge of our business needs, you have concluded that the policy for america is the policy of a protective tariff. [great cheering.] there are doubtless here many representatives of great american manufacturing establishments; and who should know better than they the prostrating effects upon the industries they represent of this policy of a revenue tariff, or the not much differing policy of free trade? [cheers.] who should know better than you that if the discriminating duties now levied, which enable our american manufacturers to maintain a fair competition with the manufacturers of other countries, and at the same time to pay a scale of living wages to the men and women who work for them, is once broken down, american competition with foreign production becomes impossible, except by the reduction of the scale of american wages to the level of the wages paid abroad? [cheers.] certainly you do not need to be told that that shop or mill that has the smallest pay-roll in proportion to its production will take the market. [cheers.] certainly you do not need to be told that the wages now enjoyed by our american workmen are greatly larger and the comforts they enjoy greatly more than those enjoyed by the working people of any other land. [cheers.] certainly you do not need to be told that if the american government, instead of patronizing home industries, buys its blankets for the public service in england there is just that much less work for american workmen to do. [cheers.] this is to me the beginning and the end of the tariff question. since i was old enough to have opinions or to utter them, i have held to the doctrine that the true american policy was that which should maintain not only a living rate of wages, but one with a margin for savings and comfort for our workmen. i believe that policy is essential to the prosperity and possibly to the perpetuity of our government. [cheers.] the two propositions that now stare our working people--and our whole country--in the face are these: competition with foreign countries, without adequate discriminating and favoring duties, means lower wages to our working people; a revenue-only tariff, or progressive free trade, means larger importations of foreign goods, and that means less work in america. [cheers.] let our democratic friends fairly meet these two indisputable conclusions. how do they do it? [cries, "they don't; they can't!"] by endeavoring to prevent and poison the minds of our working people by utterly false and scandalous campaign stories. [enthusiastic cheering.] let me say in conclusion that i believe the managers of the democratic campaign greatly underestimate the intelligence, the sense of decency, and the love of fair play that prevail among out people. [great cheering.] you will pardon further remark. the evening is drawing on, and many of you, i am sure, have been made uncomfortable by your muddy walk through the streets of our city. i cannot omit, however, to thank my friends from lafayette for this beautiful floral tribute which they have placed at my side--an emblem of their profession. [floral gripsack.] i accept it gratefully, and very highly appreciate it as a mark of the confidence and respect of the intelligent body of my own fellow-citizens of indiana. [great cheering.] indianapolis, october . three thousand enthusiastic citizens of springfield, clarke county, ohio, paid their respects to the republican nominee on this date, under the auspices of the republican white hat brigade, gen. a. s. bushnell, commander; e. t. thomes, vice-commander; s. j. wilkerson, chief of staff; j. w. r. cline, sam'l hoffman, and j. h. arbogast, aids. the brigade, comprising , voters, each wearing a white beaver hat, was divided into three regiments and accompanied by six excellent bands. the first regiment was commanded by col. j. a. dickus, lieut.-col. geo. lentz, major henry harper. second regiment--col. wm. f. bakhaus, lieut.-col. darwin pierce, major wm. robinson. third regiment--col. h. n. taylor, lieut.-col. henry hains, major p. m. hawk. when general harrison entered the hall every buckeye stood on his chair and frantically waved his high hat in one hand and a flag in the other. general bushnell made the presentation address, to which general harrison responded as follows: _general bushnell and my ohio friends_--the people of clarke county owed me a visit. i recall, with great pleasure, two occasions when i visited your prosperous county and the rich and busy city of springfield to speak in behalf of the republican party and its candidates. i recall with pleasure the cordiality with which i was received by your people. [applause.] i noted then the intelligent interest manifested by the masses of your people in public questions, and the enthusiasm with which you rallied to the defense of republican principles. [cheers.] we are glad to welcome you to indiana, but regret that this inclement day and our muddy streets have thrown about your visit so many incidents of discomfort. i hope that you will not allow these incidents to give you an unfavorable impression of the beautiful capital city of indiana. [cheers and cries of "we won't!"] our people are glad to have this added evidence of the interest which the people of your state take in the question which the issue of this campaign will settle. i say settle, because i believe that the question of the life of protective tariff system is now very distinctly presented. the enemies of the system have left their ambuscades and taken to the open field, and we are to have a decisive battle over this question. [great cheers.] i believe that never before, in any campaign, has this question been so fully and ably discussed in the hearing of our people. [cheers.] there can be found nowhere in this country a better illustration of what a great manufacturing centre will do for the farmer in enhancing the value of his farm and in furnishing a home market for his products than the city of springfield. [cheers.] your city and county--your merchants and farmers--are prosperous, because you have a great body of well-paid wage-earners in your great shops and factories. [cheers.] it is the policy of the republican party to multiply, all through our agricultural regions, such centres of manufacturing industries as springfield. [cheers.] it is conceded that to all our working people, all those who earn their subsistence by toil, this campaign involves most important interests. i will not pursue in its details this question. you have heard it discussed, and most of you, perhaps all, have made up your conclusions. it is of such importance as, wholly without respect to the candidate who may by chance represent it, to be worthy of the intelligent and earnest thought and vigorous effort of every american citizen. [cheers.] let me now only thank you for this most remarkable evidence of the interest of your people. we have rarely, if it all, seen here, in this long procession of delegations, one that equalled that which i see before me now. [great cheering.] at the conclusion of general harrison's speech general bushnell presented him with a highly polished horse-shoe, manufactured from american steel by s. b. thomas, formerly an englishman. repeated calls for mr. thomas brought that gentleman out, and there was another prolonged demonstration as general harrison cordially clasped his hand and said: i accept with pleasure this product of the skill and industry of one who, out of his own experience, can speak of the benefits of a protective tariff. one who sought our land because it offered better wages and better hopes [cheers], and who in his life here has been able to contrast the condition of working people in england and in america. [cheers.] indianapolis, october . during the campaign in indiana several prominent labor representatives from the east canvassed the state in advocacy of a protective tariff and the republican ticket. chief among these speakers were charles h. litchman, of massachusetts, ex-secretary-general of the knights of labor; john j. jarrett, hon. henry hall, eccles robinson, and robert d. layton, of pennsylvania, and jeremiah murphy, of new york. these gentlemen, assisted by john r. rankin, marshall c. woods, and other prominent indiana labor leaders, signalized the conclusion of their campaign work by a notable workingmen's demonstration on october . about , voters from over the state participated in the parade, led by chief marshal john r. rankin, assisted by c. a. rodney, george e. clarke, wm. r. mounts, john baker, fred andler, wm. h. baughmier, geo. e. perry, lewis rathbaust, j. n. loop, wm. cook, gustave schneider, john w. browning, a. raphel, and michael bamberger. general harrison, with hon. william mckinley, jr., of ohio, senator john c. spooner, of wisconsin, and senator henry w. blair, of new hampshire, reviewed the column and later attended a great meeting at tomlinson hall. many ladies occupied seats on the stage, among them mrs. harrison. when general harrison appeared, escorted by secretary litchman, the vast audience arose and cheered frantically for full five minutes. l. w. mcdaniels, a prominent member of the typographical union, presided, and in his address among other things said: we are here to repudiate the authority claimed by a few professional men to speak for the wage-workers of indiana, to deny the truthfulness of their statements, and to contradict the assertion that there is other than the kindliest feeling among the workingmen of indiana toward general harrison. while general harrison has never acted the blatant demagogue by making loud professions, yet we have had evidence of his earnest sympathy and sincere friendship on more than one occasion, notably his advocacy while in the senate of the bill making arbitration the means of settlement of labor troubles and excluding contract labor from our shores. also the bill prohibiting the use of convict labor on government works, or the purchasing by the government of any of the products of convict labor. as general harrison arose to respond there was another prolonged outbreak; he appeared greatly moved, and delivered probably his most earnest speech of the campaign. the demonstrations of approval were very marked, especially as the general warmed up to his denials of matters suggested by chairman mcdaniels' remarks. he said: _mr. mcdaniels and my friends_--i have seen, during this busy summer, many earnest and demonstrative assemblages of my fellow-citizens. i have listened to many addresses full of the kindest expressions toward me personally; but, among them all, none have been more grateful to me, none have more deeply touched me than this great assemblage of the workingmen of indiana and these kind words which have been addressed to me in your behalf. [great cheering.] there are reasons why this should be so that will readily occur to your minds, and to some of which mr. mcdaniels has alluded. early in this campaign certain people, claiming to speak for the laboring men, but really in the employ of the democratic campaign managers, promulgated through the newspaper press and by campaign publications that were not given the open endorsement of the democratic campaign managers, but were paid for by their funds and circulated under their auspices, a number of false and scandalous stories relating to my attitude toward organized labor. [great and prolonged cheering.] the purpose of all these stories was to poison the minds of the workingmen against the candidate of the party that stands in this campaign for the principle of protection to american labor. [great cheering.] i have only once, in all the addresses i have made to my fellow-citizens, alluded to these malicious and scandalous stories, but, now and in the presence of this great gathering of workingmen, i do pronounce them to be utterly false. [tumultuous cheering, waving of flags and banners, continued for several minutes.] the story that i ever said that one dollar a day was enough for a workingman, with all its accompaniments and appendages, is not a perversion of anything i ever said--it is a false creation. [enthusiastic cheering.] i will not follow in detail this long catalogue of campaign slanders, but will only add that it is equally false that anywhere or at any time i ever spoke disparagingly of my fellow-citizens of irish nativity or descent. many of them are now enrolling themselves on the side of protection for american labor--this created the necessity for the story. [cheers.] i want to say again that those who pitch a campaign upon so low a level greatly underestimate the intelligence, the sense of decency, and the love of fair play of the american people. [prolonged cheering.] i said to one of the first delegations that visited me that this was a contest of great principles; that it would be fought out upon the high plains of truth, and not in the swamps of slander and defamation. [great cheering.] those who will encamp their army in the swamp will abandon the victory to the army that is on the heights. [cheers.] the republican party stands to-day as the bulwark and defense of the wage-earners of this country against a competition which may reduce american wages even below the standard they falsely impute to my suggestion. [cheers.] there are two very plain facts that i have often stated--and others more forcibly than i--that it seems to me should be conclusive with the wage-earners of america. the policy of the democratic party--the revision of our tariff laws as indicated by the democratic party, a revenue-only tariff, or progressive free trade--means a vast and sudden increase of importations. is there a man here so dull as not to know that this means diminished work in our american shops? [cheers and cries of "no, no!"] if some one says that labor is not fully employed now, do you hope it will be more fully employed when you have transferred one-third of the work done in our shops to foreign workshops? [cries of "no, no!"] if some one tells me that labor is not sufficiently rewarded here, does he hope to have its rewards increased by striking down our protective duties and compelling our workmen to compete with the underpaid labor of europe? [cheers.] i conclude by saying that less work and lower wages are the inevitable result of the triumph of the principles advocated by the democratic party. [cheers.] and now you will excuse further speech from me. [cries of "go on!"] there are here several distinguished advocates of republican principles. you will be permitted to hear now, i understand, from the hon. henry w. blair, a senator from the state of new hampshire, who has been so long at the head of the committee on education and labor in the united states senate; and to-night in this hall you will be permitted to listen to the hon. william mckinley, jr., of ohio. now will you allow me again to thank you out of a full heart for this cordial tender of your confidence and respect. i felt that in return i could not omit to say what i have said, not because you needed to be assured of my friendliness, but in recognition of a confidence that falsehood and slander could not shake. i have not thought it in good taste to make many personal references in my public addresses. if any one thinks it necessary that a comparison should be instituted between the candidates of the two great parties as to their friendliness to the reforms demanded by organized labor, i must leave others to make it. [great cheering.] indianapolis, october . the railroad men of indiana held their last gathering of the great campaign on saturday night, october . its estimated , voters participated in their parade under chief marshal a. d. shaw and chief of staff geo. butler. the porter flambeau club, the harrison zouaves, and , members of the indianapolis railroad club--each man carrying a colored lantern--escorted the visiting organizations. general harrison and the hon. w. r. mckeen, of terre haute, reviewed the brilliant procession from the balcony of the new-denison and then repaired to tomlinson hall, where the general's arrival was signalized by an extraordinary demonstration. chairman finch introduced hon. mathew o'doherty, of louisville, and a. f. potts, of indianapolis, who addressed the meeting later in the evening. general harrison was the first speaker. he said: _my friends of the railroad republican clubs_--before your committee waited upon me to request my presence here to-night i had resolutely determined that i would not make another address in this campaign. but when they presented their suggestion that i should meet my railroad friends, i said to them--the kindness which has been shown to me from an early period in this campaign by the railroad men of indiana has been so conspicuous and so cordial that i could not deny any request that is presented in their name. [cheers.] and so i am here to-night, not to speak upon any political topic, but only to express, if i can find words to express, the deep and earnest thankfulness i feel toward you who have shown so much kindness and confidence in me. [cheers.] very early in this campaign there were those who sought to make a breach between you and me. you did not wait for my answer, but you made answer yourselves. [cheers.] and time and again you have witnessed your faith that my disposition toward you and toward the men who toil for their living was one of friendliness, and the principles which i represented and have always advocated were those that promoted the true interests of the workingmen of america. [cheers.] i have always believed and held that the prosperity of our country, that the supremacy of its institutions and its social order all depended upon our pursuing such a policy in our legislation that we should have in america a class of workingmen earning adequate wages that would bring comfort into their homes and maintain hope in their hearts. [cheers.] a despairing man, a man out of whose horizon the star of hope has gone, is not a safe citizen in a republic. [cheers.] therefore i would preserve against unfriendly competition the highest possible scale of wages to our working people. [great cheering.] i know the stout hearts, i know the intelligence, i know the enterprise of those men who man our railway trains and push them at lightning speed through darkness and storm. i know the skill and faithfulness of those who sit at the telegraph instrument, holding in their watchfulness the safety of those who journey. i know the fidelity of the men who conduct this business, which has grown to be a system as fine and perfect as the finest product of mechanical art. [cheers.] and so i value to-night this evidence of your cordial respect; and let me say that whatever may happen to me in the future, whether i shall remain a citizen of indianapolis to bear with you the duties and responsibilities of private citizenship, or shall be honored with office, i shall never forget this great demonstration of your friendliness. [prolonged cheers.] general harrison's unequalled campaign of speech-making closed on the afternoon of this day with a visit from young lady students of oxford, ohio, college. they were organized as the "carrie harrison club of oxford," and their visit was in honor of that distinguished lady, who, years before, as miss carrie scott, graduated from this same institution, of which her venerable father, the rev. dr. john w. scott, was the first president. the students were accompanied by president and mrs. faye walker and professors wilson, fisher, and dean. miss nellie f. deem, of union city, indiana, the youngest teacher in the college, addressed mrs. harrison on behalf of the school. general harrison responded briefly in a happy little speech, in which he expressed the pleasure felt by both over the visit of the oxford young ladies. he spoke of their mutual memories of the school and the happy days spent in its charming surroundings, and said they both rejoiced in the prosperity of the college, noted as it was for its scholarship and the christian training of its pupils. in conclusion he thanked them for their visit, and assured them that the kind words spoken of mrs. harrison and himself were fully appreciated and would be long remembered. indianapolis, november . the last day of the great campaign brought a delegation of nearly ladies and gentlemen from terre haute, indiana, who came to deliver a handsome present of a miniature silver-mounted plush chair, designated the "presidential chair." they also brought mrs. harrison a valuable flower-stand, voted to her at germania fair as the most popular lady. in returning thanks for these gifts and their visit general harrison said: _captain ebel and gentlemen_--i am very much obliged to you for this friendly visit. it comes in the nature of a surprise, for it was only a little while ago that i was advised of your intention. i thank you for this gift. it is intended, i suppose, as a type, and a type of a very useful article, one that does not come amiss in any station of life. only those who for months found their only convenient seat upon a log or a cracker-box know what infinite luxury there was in even a common windsor chair. we are glad to welcome you to our home, and will be glad to greet personally the members of this club and those ladies who accompany you. the general then, in behalf of mrs. harrison, thanked the ladies for their present to her. the election, november, . it is not the purpose of this work to more than chronicle the result of the great presidential campaign of . the election fell on november . twenty states gave the republican candidate votes in the electoral college, and states cast votes for mr. cleveland, the democratic candidate. the total vote cast in the states, for the electoral tickets, was , , , of which general harrison received , , . the republican electoral ticket was chosen in indiana by a plurality of , votes. when it became evident that general harrison had won the election a demonstration without parallel was inaugurated at indianapolis and continued three days. the exciting street parades and gatherings witnessed at the time of his nomination were re-enacted with tenfold energy and enthusiasm. delegations came from all points in the state to offer their congratulations, and , telegrams and letters from distinguished countrymen poured in upon the successful candidate. from an early hour on the morning of the th, for days thereafter, the streets of indianapolis were thronged with enthusiastic visitors. the first delegation to call upon general harrison after his election came from hendricks county, numbering veterans and others, headed by ira j. chase, the newly elected lieutenant-governor, rev. j. h. hull, and john c. ochiltree. general harrison made no formal response to their congratulatory address. on november a delegation from the commercial club of cincinnati arrived, and at night the saw-makers of indianapolis--about in number--bedecked in red from head to foot, marched with glaring torches to the residence of general harrison, and after a serenade called upon him for a speech. coming out on the steps the general said: the time for speech-making is over. the debate is closed, and i believe the polls are closed. ["right you are!"] i will only thank you for your call to-night and for that friendly spirit which you have shown to me during the campaign. _a famous telegram._ the state of new york gave harrison (rep.) over cleveland (dem.) a plurality of , votes; but for governor--at the same election--the state gave david b. hill (dem.) a plurality of , over warner miller (rep.). these opposite results called forth the following famous telegram from the president-elect: indianapolis, ind., nov. , . _to_ hon. warner miller, _herkimer, n. y._: i am greatly grieved at your defeat. if the intrepid leader fell outside the breastworks, the column, inspired by his courage, went on to victory. benjamin harrison. indianapolis, january , . the installation of officers by george h. thomas post, g. a. r., on the night of new year's day, ' , was attended by general harrison, who for many years had been an active member of this post. many comrades from other posts in the city were present. the president-elect was escorted by col. irvin robbins, who was commander of the democratic regiment during the recent campaign, and col. george w. spahr, who commanded a republican regiment. he was received with full honors by the retiring commander, james b. black, who presented him to the post. in response to their enthusiastic greeting, general harrison--speaking in public for the first time since his election--in substance said: _commander and comrades_--it affords me pleasure to meet with you again on this occasion. when i left the army so many years ago i little expected to enter it again, as i soon will. among the many honors which may be placed on me in the future there will be none, i can assure you, that i will esteem more highly than my membership in this order, instituted by those who sustained the flag of washington, the flag of perry, the flag that was baptized in the blood of the revolution and again in the second conflict with the mother country; that floated over the halls of the montezumas, and was sustained in other wars, and which you made possible to wave over every foot of our beloved country. i esteem it my greatest honor that i bore even an humble part with you and all the comrades of the grand army in bringing about this most desirable result. i wish to say before parting with you, if i may never look upon your faces collectively again, that the parting request i would make of you would be that each of you, without regard to party (and i believe i can say this without offence to any comrade of the grand army), stand shoulder to shoulder, as we did during the war, to preserve a free and honest ballot. there is nothing, i can assure you, that will do more to preserve and maintain our institutions than this. our country, separated as it is by the great watery waste, need have no fear of interference by foreign countries with its institutions; nor do we desire in any way to interfere with them. nor, indeed, is there any fear of another civil war. the only fear we should now have is a corruption or suppression of the free ballot, and your utmost exertions should be to prevent it. in concluding, he called for the choicest blessings upon his comrades, saying: "to each one, god bless you and your families; god keep you and protect you in your homes!" indianapolis, february , . _the departure for washington._ president-elect and mrs. harrison bade their friends and neighbors good-by and left indiana on february for washington. governor hovey, mayor denny, and several thousand citizens escorted them from their residence to the railroad station. in the escort column were , g. a. r. veterans from geo. h. thomas and other posts, commanded by h. c. allen. conspicuous in their ranks was that distinguished soldier-diplomat, general lew wallace. the members of the indiana legislature saluted and joined the _cortége_ as it passed through pennsylvania street. general harrison's carriage was completely enclosed within a hollow square composed of prominent citizens--a body-guard of honor. the entire population of the city turned out to witness the eventful departure, while numerous delegations were present from danville, richmond, crawfordsville, terre haute, and other cities. a great throng greeted the distinguished travellers at the union station. from the rear platform of the special inaugural train governor hovey presented the president-elect amid tumultuous cheering. general harrison was greatly affected by the scene and the occasion. speaking with emotion he said: _my good friends and neighbors_--i cannot trust myself to put in words what i feel at this time. every kind thought that is in your minds and every good wish that is in your hearts for me finds its responsive wish and thought in my mind and heart for each of you. i love this city. it has been my own cherished home. twice before i have left it to discharge public duties and returned to it with gladness, as i hope to do again. it is a city on whose streets the pompous displays of wealth are not seen. it is full of pleasant homes, and in these homes there is an unusual store of contentment. the memory of your favor and kindness will abide with me, and my strong desire to hold your respect and confidence will strengthen me in the discharge of my new and responsible duties. let me say farewell to all my indiana friends. for the public honors that have come to me i am their grateful debtor. they have made the debt so large that i can never discharge it. there is a great sense of loneliness in the discharge of high public duties. the moment of decision is one of isolation. but there is one whose help comes even into the quiet chamber of judgment, and to his wise and unfailing guidance will i look for direction and safety. my family unite with me in grateful thanks for this cordial good-by, and with me wish that these years of separation may be full of peace and happiness for each of you. [great cheering.] knightstown, indiana, february . as the inaugural train sped along it was greeted at every station by thousands of cheering spectators. the first stop was at knightstown, where the soldiers' orphans' home is located. in response to their calls general harrison said: _my friends_--i thank you for this cordial gathering and demonstration. i can detain the train but a moment, and i only stopped at the request of the superintendent of the soldiers' orphans' home, so that the children might have an opportunity to see me and that i might wish them the bright and prosperous future which the sacrifices of their fathers won for them. i bid you farewell. richmond, indiana, february . the city of richmond was reached at o'clock in the afternoon, where several thousand people greeted the travellers. general harrison said: _my friends_--i have so long had my home among you that i cannot but feel a sense of regret in leaving the soil of indiana. i go with a deep sense of inadequacy, but i am sure you will be patient with my mistakes, and that you will all give me your help as citizens [cheers and cries of "we will!"] in my efforts to promote the best interests of our people and the honor of the nation we love. i thank you for this cordial greeting. [cheers.] columbus, ohio, february . at piqua the president-elect and his party were welcomed by ohio's chief executive, gov. j. b. foraker, and his wife; and, notwithstanding the hour, some , people greeted their arrival at columbus. the roar of cannon rendered speaking difficult. governor foraker presented general harrison, who here made his last public speech before being inaugurated as president. he said: _my fellow-citizens_--i thank you for the wonderful demonstration of this evening. in these evidences of the good will of my friends i receive a new stimulus as i enter upon the duties of the great office to which i have been chosen. i beg to thank you again for your interest. [great cheering.] washington, d. c., march , . general harrison and his family, accompanied by hon. james n. huston, hon. w. h. h. miller, mr. e. w. halford, mr. e. f. tibbott and family, miss sanger, and the representatives of the press, arrived in washington on the evening of february . the president-elect was met by col. a. t. britton, geo. b. williams, gen. h. v. boynton, j. k. mccammon, gen. daniel macauley, and other members of the inaugural committee, and escorted to the arlington hotel. the inaugural celebration was conducted by several hundred residents of washington, acting through committees. the executive committee, having supervising charge of all matters pertaining to the celebration, comprised the following prominent washingtonians: alex. t. britton, chairman; myron m. parker, vice-chairman; brainerd h. warner, treasurer; henry l. swords, secretary; elmon a. adams, joseph k. mccammon, james e. bell, james g. berret, robert boyd, henry v. boynton, almon m. clapp, a. h. s. davis, frederick douglass, john joy edson, lawrence gardner, george gibson, charles c. glover, stilson hutchins, e. kurtz johnson, george e. lemon, john mcelroy, geo. a. mcilhenny, crosby s. noyes, albert ordway, charles b. purvis, melancthon l. ruth, thomas somerville, orren g. staples, john w. thompson, henry a. willard, george b. williams, louis d. wine, simon wolf, levi p. wright, and hallett kilbourn. general james beaver, governor of pennsylvania, was chief marshal of the day, and with a brilliant staff led the great column in its march to and from the capitol. the veterans of the seventieth indiana regiment were accorded the post of honor on the route to the capitol, and on conclusion of the ceremonies escorted their old commander to the white house. chief-justice fuller administered the oath of office. president harrison delivered his inaugural address from the terrace of the capitol in the presence of a vast concourse and during a rainfall. the inaugural address. there is no constitutional or legal requirement that the president shall take the oath of office in the presence of the people. but there is so manifest an appropriateness in the public induction to office of the chief executive officer of the nation that from the beginning of the government the people, to whose service the official oath consecrates the officer, have been called to witness the solemn ceremonial. the oath taken in the presence of the people becomes a mutual covenant; the officer covenants to serve the whole body of the people by a faithful execution of the laws, so that they may be the unfailing defence and security of those who respect and observe them, and that neither wealth and station nor the power of combinations shall be able to evade their just penalties or to wrest them from a beneficent public purpose to serve the ends of cruelty or selfishness. my promise is spoken; yours unspoken, but not the less real and solemn. the people of every state have here their representatives. surely i do not misinterpret the spirit of the occasion when i assume that the whole body of the people covenant with me and with each other to-day to support and defend the constitution and the union of the states, to yield willing obedience to all the laws and each to every other citizen his equal civil and political rights. entering thus solemnly in covenant with each other, we may reverently invoke and confidently expect the favor and help of almighty god, that he will give to me wisdom, strength, and fidelity, and to our people a spirit of fraternity and a love of righteousness and peace. this occasion derives peculiar interest from the fact that the presidential term which begins this day is the twenty-sixth under our constitution. the first inauguration of president washington took place in new york, where congress was then sitting, on april , , having been deferred by reason of delays attending the organization of the congress and the canvass of the electoral vote. our people have already worthily observed the centennials of the declaration of independence, of the battle of yorktown, and of the adoption of the constitution, and will shortly celebrate in new york the institution of the second great department of our constitutional scheme of government. when the centennial of the institution of the judicial department by the organization of the supreme court shall have been suitably observed, as i trust it will be, our nation will have fully entered its second century. i will not attempt to note the marvellous and, in great part, happy contrasts between our country as it steps over the threshold into its second century of organized existence under the constitution, and that weak but wisely ordered young nation that looked undauntedly down the first century, when all its years stretched out before it. our people will not fail at this time to recall the incidents which accompanied the institution of government under the constitution, or to find inspiration and guidance in the teachings and example of washington and his great associates, and hope and courage in the contrast which thirty-eight populous and prosperous states offer to the thirteen states, weak in everything except courage and the love of liberty, that then fringed our atlantic seaboard. the territory of dakota has now a population greater than any of the original states--except virginia--and greater than the aggregate of five of the smaller states in . the centre of population when our national capital was located was east of baltimore, and it was argued by many well-informed persons that it would move eastward rather than westward. yet in it was found to be near cincinnati, and the new census, about to be taken, will show another stride to the westward. that which was the body has come to be only the rich fringe of the nation's robe. but our growth has not been limited to territory, population, and aggregate wealth, marvellous as it has been in each of those directions. the masses of our people are better fed, clothed, and housed than their fathers were. the facilities for popular education have been vastly enlarged and more generally diffused. the virtues of courage and patriotism have given recent proof of their continued presence and increasing power in the hearts and over the lives of our people. the influences of religion have been multiplied and strengthened. the sweet offices of charity have greatly increased. the virtue of temperance is held in higher estimation. we have not attained an ideal condition. not all of our people are happy and prosperous; not all of them are virtuous and law-abiding. but, on the whole, the opportunities offered to the individual to secure the comforts of life are better than are found elsewhere, and largely better than they were here years ago. the surrender of a large measure of sovereignty to the general government, effected by the adoption of the constitution, was not accomplished until the suggestions of reason were strongly re-enforced by the more imperative voice of experience. the divergent interests of peace speedily demanded a "more perfect union." the merchant, the ship-master, and the manufacturer discovered and disclosed to our statesmen and to the people that commercial emancipation must be added to the political freedom which had been so bravely won. the commercial policy of the mother country had not relaxed any of its hard and oppressive features. to hold in check the development of our commercial marine, to prevent or retard the establishment and growth of manufactures in the states, and so to secure the american market for their shops and the carrying trade for their ships, was the policy of european statesmen, and was pursued with the most selfish vigor. petitions poured in upon congress urging the imposition of discriminating duties that should encourage the production of needed things at home. the patriotism of the people, which no longer found a field of exercise in war, was energetically directed to the duty of equipping the young republic for the defence of its independence by making its people self-dependent. societies for the promotion of home manufactures and for encouraging the use of domestics in the dress of the people were organized in many of the states. the revival at the end of the century of the same patriotic interest in the preservation and development of domestic industries and the defence of our working people against injurious foreign competition is an incident worthy of attention. it is not a departure, but a return, that we have witnessed. the protective policy had then its opponents. the argument was made, as now, that its benefits inured to particular classes or sections. if the question became in any sense, or at any time, sectional, it was only because slavery existed in some of the states. but for this there was no reason why the cotton-producing states should not have led or walked abreast with the new england states in the production of cotton fabrics. there was this reason only why the states that divide with pennsylvania the mineral treasures of the great southeastern and central mountain ranges should have been so tardy in bringing to the smelting furnace and the mill the coal and iron from their near opposing hillsides. mill-fires were lighted at the funeral pile of slavery. the emancipation proclamation was heard in the depths of the earth as well as in the sky--men were made free and material things became our better servants. the sectional element has happily been eliminated from the tariff discussion. we have no longer states that are necessarily only planting states. none are excluded from achieving that diversification of pursuit among the people which brings wealth and contentment. the cotton plantation will not be less valuable when the product is spun in the country town by operatives whose necessities call for diversified crops and create a home demand for garden and agricultural products. every new mine, furnace, and factory is an extension of the productive capacity of the state more real and valuable than added territory. shall the prejudices and paralysis of slavery continue to hang upon the skirts of progress? how long will those who rejoice that slavery no longer exists cherish or tolerate the incapacities it puts upon their communities? i look hopefully to the continuance of our protective system and to the consequent development of manufacturing and mining enterprises in the states hitherto wholly given to agriculture as a potent influence in the perfect unification of our people. the men who have invested their capital in these enterprises, the farmers who have felt the benefit of their neighborhood, and the men who work in shop or field will not fail to find and to defend a community of interest. is it not quite possible that the farmers and the promoters of the great mining and manufacturing enterprises which have recently been established in the south may yet find that the free ballot of the workingman, without distinction of race, is needed for their defence as well as for his own? i do not doubt that if these men in the south who now accept the tariff views of clay and the constitutional expositions of webster would courageously avow and defend their real convictions they would not find it difficult, by friendly instruction and co-operation, to make the black man their efficient and safe ally, not only in establishing correct principles in our national administration, but in preserving for their local communities the benefits of social order and economical and honest government. at least until the good offices of kindness and education have been fairly tried the contrary conclusion cannot be plausibly urged. i have altogether rejected the suggestion of a special executive policy for any section of our country. it is the duty of the executive to administer and enforce in the methods and by the instrumentalities pointed out and provided by the constitution all the laws enacted by congress. these laws are general, and their administration should be uniform and equal. as a citizen may not elect what laws he will obey, neither may the executive elect which he will enforce. the duty to obey and execute embraces the constitution in its entirety and the whole code of laws enacted under it. the evil example of permitting individuals, corporations, or communities to nullify the laws because they cross some selfish or local interests or prejudices is full of danger, not only to the nation at large, but much more to those who use this pernicious expedient to escape their just obligations or to obtain an unjust advantage over others. they will presently themselves be compelled to appeal to the law for protection, and those who would use the law as a defence must not deny that use of it to others. if our great corporations would more scrupulously observe their legal obligations and duties they would have less cause to complain of the unlawful limitations of their rights or of violent interference with their operations. the community that by concert, open or secret, among its citizens denies to a portion of its members their plain rights under the law has severed the only safe bond of social order and prosperity. the evil works, from a bad centre, both ways. it demoralizes those who practise it, and destroys the faith of those who suffer by it in the efficiency of the law as a safe protector. the man in whose breast that faith has been darkened is naturally the subject of dangerous and uncanny suggestions. those who use unlawful methods, if moved by no higher motive than the selfishness that prompts them, may well stop and inquire what is to be the end of this. an unlawful expedient cannot become a permanent condition of government. if the educated and influential classes in a community either practise or connive at the systematic violation of laws that seem to them to cross their convenience, what can they expect when the lesson that convenience or a supposed class interest is a sufficient cause for lawlessness has been well learned by the ignorant classes? a community where law is the rule of conduct, and where courts, not mobs, execute its penalties, is the only attractive field for business investments and honest labor. our naturalization laws should be so amended as to make the inquiry into the character and good disposition of persons applying for citizenship more careful and searching. our existing laws have been in their administration an unimpressive and often an unintelligible form. we accept the man as a citizen without any knowledge of his fitness, and he assumes the duties of citizenship without any knowledge as to what they are. the privileges of american citizenship are so great and its duties so grave that we may well insist upon a good knowledge of every person applying for citizenship and a good knowledge by him of our institutions. we should not cease to be hospitable to immigration, but we should cease to be careless as to the character of it. there are men of all races, even the best, whose coming is necessarily a burden upon our public revenues or a threat to social order. these should be identified and excluded. we have happily maintained a policy of avoiding all interference with european affairs. we have been only interested spectators of their contentions in diplomacy and in war, ready to use our friendly offices to promote peace, but never obtruding our advice and never attempting unfairly to coin the distresses of other powers into commercial advantage to ourselves. we have a just right to expect that our european policy will be the american policy of european courts. it is so manifestly incompatible with those precautions for our peace and safety, which all the great powers habitually observe and enforce in matters affecting them, that a shorter water-way between our eastern and western seaboards should be dominated by any european government, that we may confidently expect that such a purpose will not be entertained by any friendly power. we shall in the future, as in the past, use every endeavor to maintain and enlarge our friendly relations with all the great powers, but they will not expect us to look kindly upon any project that would leave us subject to the dangers of a hostile observation or environment. we have not sought to dominate or to absorb any of our weaker neighbors, but rather to aid and encourage them to establish free and stable governments, resting upon the consent of their own people. we have a clear right to expect, therefore, that no european government will seek to establish colonial dependencies upon the territory of these independent american states. that which a sense of justice restrains us from seeking they may be reasonably expected willingly to forego. it must not be assumed, however, that our interests are so exclusively american that our entire inattention to any events that may transpire elsewhere can be taken for granted. our citizens domiciled for purposes of trade in all countries and in many of the islands of the sea demand and will have our adequate care in their personal and commercial rights. the necessities of our navy require convenient coaling stations and dock and harbor privileges. these and other trading privileges we will feel free to obtain only by means that do not in any degree partake of coercion, however feeble the government from which we ask such concessions. but having fairly obtained them by methods and for purposes entirely consistent with the most friendly disposition toward all other powers, our consent will be necessary to any modification or impairment of the concession. we shall neither fail to respect the flag of any friendly nation or the just rights of its citizens, nor to exact the like treatment for our own. calmness, justice, and consideration should characterize our diplomacy. the offices of an intelligent diplomacy or of friendly arbitration, in proper cases, should be adequate to the peaceful adjustment of all international difficulties. by such methods we will make our contribution to the world's peace, which no nation values more highly, and avoid the opprobrium which must fall upon the nation that ruthlessly breaks it. the duty devolved by law upon the president to nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, to appoint all public officers whose appointment is not otherwise provided for in the constitution or by act of congress has become very burdensome, and its wise and efficient discharge full of difficulty. the civil list is so large that a personal knowledge of any large number of the applicants is impossible. the president must rely upon the representations of others, and these are often made inconsiderately and without any just sense of responsibility. i have a right, i think, to insist that those who volunteer or are invited to give advice as to appointments shall exercise consideration and fidelity. a high sense of duty and an ambition to improve the service should characterize all public officers. there are many ways in which the convenience and comfort of those who have business with our public officers may be promoted by a thoughtful and obliging officer, and i shall expect those whom i may appoint to justify their selection by a conspicuous efficiency in the discharge of their duties. honorable party service will certainly not be esteemed by me a disqualification for public office; but it will in no case be allowed to serve as a shield for official negligence, incompetency, or delinquency. it is entirely creditable to seek public office by proper methods and with proper motives, and all applications will be treated with consideration; but i shall need, and the heads of departments will need, time for inquiry and deliberation. persistent importunity will not, therefore, be the best support of an application for office. heads of departments, bureaus, and all other public officers having any duty connected therewith, will be expected to enforce the civil service law fully and without evasion. beyond this obvious duty i hope to do something more to advance the reform of the civil service. the ideal, or even my own ideal, i shall probably not attain. retrospect will be a safer basis of judgment than promises. we shall not, however, i am sure, be able to put our civil service upon a non-partisan basis until we have secured an incumbency that fair minded men of the opposition will approve for impartiality and integrity. as the number of such in the civil list is increased removals from office will diminish. while a treasury surplus is not the greatest evil, it is a serious evil. our revenue should be ample to meet the ordinary annual demands upon our treasury, with a sufficient margin for those extraordinary but scarcely less imperative demands which arise now and then. expenditure should always be made with economy, and only upon public necessity. wastefulness, profligacy, or favoritism in public expenditures is criminal; but there is nothing in the condition of our country or of our people to suggest that anything presently necessary to the public prosperity, security, or honor should be unduly postponed. it will be the duty of congress wisely to forecast and estimate these extraordinary demands, and, having added them to our ordinary expenditures, to so adjust our revenue laws that no considerable annual surplus will remain. we will fortunately be able to apply to the redemption of the public debt any small and unforeseen excess of revenue. this is better than to reduce our income below our necessary expenditures with the resulting choice between another change of our revenue laws and an increase of the public debt. it is quite possible, i am sure, to effect the necessary reduction in our revenues without breaking down our protective tariff or seriously injuring any domestic industry. the construction of a sufficient number of modern war ships and of their necessary armament should progress as rapidly as is consistent with care and perfection in plans and workmanship. the spirit, courage, and skill of our naval officers and seamen have many times in our history given to weak ships and inefficient guns a rating greatly beyond that of the naval list. that they will again do so upon occasion i do not doubt; but they ought not, by premeditation or neglect, to be left to the risks and exigencies of an unequal combat. we should encourage the establishment of american steamship lines. the exchanges of commerce demand stated, reliable, and rapid means of communication, and until these are provided the development of our trade with the states lying south of us is impossible. our pension law should give more adequate and discriminating relief to the union soldiers and sailors and to their widows and orphans. such occasions as this should remind us that we owe everything to their valor and sacrifice. it is a subject of congratulation that there is a near prospect of the admission into the union of the dakotas and montana and washington territories. this act of justice has been unreasonably delayed in the case of some of them. the people who have settled those territories are intelligent, enterprising, and patriotic, and the accession of these new states will add strength to the nation. it is due to the settlers in the territories who have availed themselves of the invitations of our land laws to make homes upon the public domain that their titles should be speedily adjusted and their honest entries confirmed by patent. it is very gratifying to observe the general interest now being manifested in the reform of our election laws. those who have been for years calling attention to the pressing necessity of throwing about the ballot-box and about the elector further safeguards, in order that our elections might not only be free and pure, but might clearly appear to be so, will welcome the accession of any who did not so soon discover the need of reform. the national congress has not as yet taken control of elections in that case over which the constitution gives it jurisdiction, but has accepted and adopted the election laws of the several states, provided penalties for their violation and a method of supervision. only the inefficiency of the state laws or an unfair partisan administration of them could suggest a departure from this policy. it was clearly, however, in the contemplation of the framers of the constitution that such an exigency might arise, and provision was wisely made for it. no power vested in congress or in the executive to secure or perpetuate it should remain unused upon occasion. the people of all the congressional districts have an equal interest that the election in each shall truly express the views and wishes of a majority of the qualified electors residing within it. the results of such elections are not local, and the insistence of electors residing in other districts that they shall be pure and free does not savor at all of impertinence. if in any of the states the public security is thought to be threatened by ignorance among the electors, the obvious remedy is education. the sympathy and help of our people will not be withheld from any community struggling with special embarrassments or difficulties connected with the suffrage, if the remedies proposed proceed upon lawful lines and are promoted by just and honorable methods. how shall those who practise election frauds recover that respect for the sanctity of the ballot which is the first condition and obligation of good citizenship? the man who has come to regard the ballot-box as a juggler's hat has renounced his allegiance. let us exalt patriotism and moderate our party contentions. let those who would die for the flag on the field of battle give a better proof of their patriotism and a higher glory to their country by promoting fraternity and justice. a party success that is achieved by unfair methods or by practices that partake of revolution is hurtful and evanescent, even from a party standpoint. we should hold our differing opinions in mutual respect, and, having submitted them to the arbitrament of the ballot, should accept an adverse judgment with the same respect that we would have demanded of our opponents if the decision had been in our favor. no other people have a government more worthy of their respect and love, or a land so magnificent in extent, so pleasant to look upon, and so full of generous suggestion to enterprise and labor. god has placed upon our head a diadem, and has laid at our feet power and wealth beyond definition or calculation. but we must not forget that we take these gifts upon the condition that justice and mercy shall hold the reins of power, and that the upward avenues of hope shall be free to all the people. i do not mistrust the future. dangers have been in frequent ambush along our path, but we have uncovered and vanquished them all. passion has swept some of our communities, but only to give us a new demonstration that the great body of our people are stable, patriotic, and law-abiding. no political party can long pursue advantage at the expense of public honor or by rude and indecent methods, without protest and fatal disaffection in its own body. the peaceful agencies of commerce are more fully revealing the necessary unity of all our communities, and the increasing intercourse of our people is promoting mutual respect. we shall find unalloyed pleasure in the revelation which our next census will make of the swift development of the great resources of some of the states. each state will bring its generous contribution to the great aggregate of the nation's increase. and when the harvest from the fields, the cattle from the hills, and the ores of the earth shall have been weighed, counted, and valued, we will turn from them all to crown with the highest honor the state that has most promoted education, virtue, justice, and patriotism among the people. new york city, april , . _the nation's centenary._ the celebration, at the city of new york, of the one hundredth anniversary of the inauguration of george washington as first president of the united states was more than national in its scope and influence. the people of the entire continent manifested a gratifying interest in it, and no event in our history has been commemorated with greater success. the occasion called together more than two million people within the gateways of the great metropolis, many of them our most distinguished and representative citizens. the celebration was conducted under the auspices of one hundred prominent citizens, organized as a general committee, of which the hon. hamilton fish was president; mayor hugh j. grant, chairman; hon. elbridge t. gerry, chairman executive committee; and clarence w. bowen, secretary. early on the morning of april the president, accompanied by mrs. harrison, mrs. j. r. mckee, mr. and mrs. russell b. harrison, the members of the cabinet, chief justice and mrs. fuller, justice and mrs. field, justice blatchford, justice strong, major-general schofield, mr. walker blaine and miss blaine, col. thos. f. barr, lieut. t. b. m. mason and mrs. mason, left washington by special train tendered by president geo. r. roberts and vice-president frank thomson, of the pennsylvania company. the distinguished guests were escorted by the following members of the centennial committee designated for this honorable duty: john a. king, chairman; john jay, edward cooper, wm. h. wickham, wm. r. grace, frederick j. depeyster, wm. h. robertson, cornelius vanderbilt, wm. m. evarts, frank hiscock, seth low, orlando b. potter, clifford s. sims, jas. duane livingston, and frank s. witherbee. at trenton the party was met by the new jersey centennial committee, consisting of governor green, general sewell, rev. dr. hamill, colonel stockton, general grubb, colonel donnelly, captain skirm, senator cramner, senator cattell, colonel chambers, and others. arrived at elizabeth the president breakfasted with governor green and then held a reception, conducted by col. rob't s. green, assisted by col. suydam, chas. g. parkhurst, and john l. boggs. following the route taken by washington, president harrison and his party embarked at elizabethport on board the u. s. s. _despatch_, and, escorted by a magnificent fleet of war ships, merchant marine, and craft of all kinds, proceeded up the kills to the bay amid the roar of cannon from the several forts and the men-of-war. at the gangway of the _despatch_ the president was received by jackson s. schultz and the following gentlemen, comprising the committee on navy: john s. barnes, george g. haven, d. willis james, frederick r. coudert, capt. henry erben, ogden goelet, john jay pierrepont, loyall farragut, alfred c. cheney, buchanan winthrop, and s. nicholson kane. other distinguished guests on the _despatch_ were gov. david b. hill, gen. william t. sherman, admiral david d. porter, commodore ramsey, and jas. m. varnum. several hundred thousand patriotic people greeted the _despatch_ as she proudly entered the harbor. the scene was a most memorable one. following the example of washington, president harrison was rowed ashore in a barge, landing at pier , where he was met by the venerable hamilton fish, who welcomed him to new york. proceeding to the equitable building, the president was tendered a reception in the rooms of the lawyers' club, followed by a banquet under the auspices of the committee on states, consisting of the following distinguished citizens: william g. hamilton, chairman; james c. carter, john schuyler, j. t. van rensselaer, james w. husted, theo. roosevelt, jacob a. cantor, e. ellery anderson, floyd clarkson, henry w. leroy, john b. pine, samuel borrowe, and jas. m. montgomery. among the guests--other than the members of the cabinet and the other prominent gentlemen who accompanied the president on the _despatch_--were ex-president r. b. hayes and the governors of thirty-five states. at night the president and his cabinet attended the grand centennial ball at the metropolitan opera house, at which , guests were present. this brilliant entertainment, rendered memorable by the presence of so many distinguished people, was given under the auspices of a committee composed of the following society leaders: stuyvesant fish, chairman; william waldorf astor, william k. vanderbilt, william jay, egerton l. winthrop, robert goelet, wm. b. beekman, stephen h. olin, wm. e. d. stokes, and gouverneur morris. the morning of the th--centennial day--the president, members of his cabinet, with ex-presidents cleveland and hayes, governor hill, and many other noted guests, attended thanksgiving services at st. paul's church. the president and his family occupied the washington pew. the exercises were conducted by the rt. rev. henry c. potter, bishop of new york. the literary exercises were held on the steps of the sub-treasury, where general washington took his oath of office a hundred years before. countless thousands surrounded the speaker's stand and congregated in the vicinity. elbridge t. gerry presided and introduced rev. richard s. storrs, who delivered the invocation. secretary bowen read a poem entitled "the vow of washington," composed for the occasion by the venerable john greenleaf whittier. hon. chauncey m. depew then delivered the centennial oration. on conclusion, chairman gerry introduced president harrison, who was greeted with a grand outburst as he advanced to the front. amid repeated interruptions with cheers he spoke as follows: _mr. chairman, my countrymen_--official duty of a very exacting character has made it quite impossible that i should deliver an address on this occasion. foreseeing this, i early notified your committee that the programme must not contain any address by me. the selection of mr. depew as the orator of this occasion makes further speech not only difficult, but superfluous. he has met the demand of this great occasion on its own high level. he has brought before us the incidents and the lessons of the first inauguration of washington. we seem to have been a part of that admiring and almost adoring throng that filled these streets one hundred years ago. we have come into the serious, but always inspiring, presence of washington. he was the incarnation of duty, and he teaches us to-day this great lesson: that those who would associate their names with events that shall outlive a century can only do so by high consecration to duty. self-seeking has no public observance or anniversary. the captain who gives to the sea his cargo of goods, that he may give safety and deliverance to his imperilled fellow-men, has fame; he who lands the cargo has only wages. washington seemed to come to the discharge of the duties of his high office impressed with a great sense of his unfamiliarity with these new calls thrust upon him, modestly doubtful of his own ability, but trusting implicitly in the sustaining helpfulness and grace of that god who rules the world, presides in the councils of nations, and is able to supply every human defect. we have made marvellous progress in material things since then, but the stately and enduring shaft that we have erected at the national capital at washington symbolizes the fact that he is still the first american citizen. [cheers.] _the great military parade and banquet._ on conclusion of the ceremonies at the sub-treasury the president and other honored guests of the day reviewed the grand military parade from a stand in madison square. along the line of march, especially on broadway and fifth avenue, for several miles the gorgeous pageant moved between two living walls. never were so many people congregated on this continent. the glittering column, commanded by general schofield, moved with continuous precision, and was five hours and twenty-five minutes in passing the reviewing stand. the president remained at his post, saluting the last company. the troops of the various states were led by their governors. this monster military demonstration and the great industrial parade of the day following were conducted under the management of a committee comprising the following well-known gentlemen: s. van rensselaer cruger, chairman; john cochrane, locke w. winchester, j. hampden robb, frederick gallatin, frederick d. tappen, and john c. tomlinson. the president's visit concluded with his participation in the greatest banquet known to modern times, held at the metropolitan opera house. the lavish decorations, the magnitude and occasion of the entertainment have rendered it historical. eight hundred guests were seated at the tables, while the surrounding boxes and stalls were overflowing with distinguished ladies eagerly partaking of the feast of reason. mayor grant presided, and introduced governor hill, who welcomed the guests. ex-president cleveland responded to the toast "our people;" gov. fitzhugh lee, of virginia, spoke to "the states;" chief-justice fuller responded to "the federal constitution;" hon. john w. daniel spoke to "the senate;" ex-president hayes to "the presidency." among other prominent guests were vice-president morton, general sherman, lieutenant-governor jones, of new york, judge charles andrews, hon. hannibal hamlin, mayor chapin, of brooklyn, governor foraker, of ohio, abram s. hewitt, cornelius n. bliss, fred'k s. tallmadge, samuel d. babcock, chauncey m. depew, erastus wiman, charles w. dayton, josiah m. fisk, william henry smith, thomas s. moore, henry clews, austin corbin, philip l. livingston, brayton ives, darius o. mills, richard t. wilson, william l. strong, henry b. hyde, james m. brown, louis fitzgerald, allan campbell, john sloane, james d. smith, edward v. loew, eugene kelly, walter stanton, john f. plummer, j. edward simmons, john jay knox, de lancey nicoll, henry g. marquand, gordon l. ford, daniel huntington, f. hopkinson smith, william e. dodge, chas. parsons, a. w. drake, oliver h. perry, frank d. millet, h. h. boyesen, charles henry hart, rutherford stuyvesant, john l. cadwalader, lispenard stewart, chas. h. russell, jr., and richard w. gilder. after the chief-justice's address president harrison was introduced and received with a storm of applause. he spoke to the toast "the united states of america" as follows: _mr. president and fellow-citizens_--i should be unjust to myself, and, what is more serious, i should be unjust to you, if i did not at this first and last opportunity express to you the deep sense of obligation and thankfulness which i feel for these many personal and official courtesies which have been extended to me since i came to take part in this celebration. the official representatives of the state of new york and of this great city have attended me with the most courteous kindness, omitting no attention that could make my stay among you pleasant and gratifying. from you and at the hands of those who have thronged the streets of the city to-day i have received the most cordial expressions of good will. i would not, however, have you understand that these loud acclaims have been in any sense appropriated as a personal tribute to myself. i have realized that there was that in this occasion and all these interesting incidents which have made it so profoundly impressive to my mind which was above and greater than any living man. i have realized that the tribute of cordial interest which you have manifested was rendered to that great office which, by the favor of a greater people, i now exercise, rather than to me. the occasion and all of its incidents will be memorable not only in the history of your own city, but in the history of our country. new york did not succeed in retaining the seat of national government here, although she made liberal provision for the assembling of the first congress in the expectation that the congress might find its permanent home here. but though you lost that which you coveted, i think the representatives here of all the states will agree that it was fortunate that the first inauguration of washington took place in the state and the city of new york. for where in our country could the centennial of the event be so worthily celebrated as here? what seaboard offered so magnificent a bay on which to display our merchant and naval marine? what city offered thoroughfares so magnificent, or a people so great, so generous, as new york has poured out to-day to celebrate that event? i have received at the hands of the committee who have been charged with the details--onerous, exacting, and too often unthankful--of this demonstration evidence of their confidence in my physical endurance. [laughter.] i must also acknowledge still one other obligation. the committee having in charge the exercises of this event have also given me another evidence of their confidence, which has been accompanied with some embarrassment. as i have noticed the progress of this banquet, it seemed to me that each of the speakers had been made acquainted with his theme before he took his seat at the banquet, and that i alone was left to make acquaintance with my theme when i sat down to the table. i prefer to substitute for the official title which is upon the programme the familiar and fireside expression, "our country." i congratulate you to-day, as one of the instructive and interesting features of this occasion, that these great thoroughfares dedicated to trade have closed their doors and covered up the insignias of commerce; that your great exchanges have closed and your citizens given themselves up to the observance of the celebration in which we are participating. i believe that patriotism has been intensified in many hearts by what we have witnessed to-day. i believe that patriotism has been placed in a higher and holier fane in many hearts. the bunting with which you have covered your walls, these patriotic inscriptions, must go down and the wage and trade be resumed again. here may i not ask you to carry those inscriptions that now hang on the walls into your homes, into the schools of your city, into all of your great institutions where children are gathered, and teach them that the eye of the young and the old should look upon that flag as one of the familiar glories of every american? have we not learned that no stocks and bonds, nor land, is our country? it is a spiritual thought that is in our minds--it is the flag and what it stands for; it is the fireside and the home; it is the thoughts that are in our hearts, born of the inspiration which comes with the story of the flag, of martyrs to liberty. it is the graveyard into which a common country has gathered the unconscious deeds of those who died that the thing might live which we love and call our country, rather than anything that can be touched or seen. let me add a thought due to our country's future. perhaps never have we been so well equipped for war upon land as now, and we have never seen the time when our people were more smitten with the love of peace. to elevate the morals of our people; to hold up the law as that sacred thing which, like the ark of god of old, may not be touched by irreverent hands, but frowns upon any attempt to dethrone its supremacy; to unite our people in all that makes home comfortable, as well as to give our energies in the direction of material advancement, this service may we render. and out of this great demonstration let us draw lessons to inspire us to consecrate ourselves anew to this love and service of our country. indianapolis, august , . _soldiers' and sailors' monument._ a memorable event in the history of indiana was the laying of the corner-stone of the soldiers' and sailors' monument at indianapolis on august , . the board of commissioners for the erection of the monument--under whose supervision the attendant exercises were conducted--comprised: george j. langsdale, of greencastle, president; geo. w. johnston, of indianapolis, secretary; t. w. bennett, of richmond; s. b. voyles, of salem; and d. c. mccollum, of la porte. president harrison and his party were honored guests on the occasion; he was accompanied by secretary jeremiah m. rusk, attorney-general w. h. h. miller, private secretary e. w. halford, capt. william m. meredith, marshal daniel m. ransdell, and general thomas j. morgan. at college corner, on the indiana border, the president was met by gov. alvin p. hovey, mayor caleb s. denny, hon. william h. english, william scott, john p. frenzel, robert s. mckee, j. a. wildman, albert gall, dr. henry jameson, and others, comprising an honorary escort committee. governor hovey welcomed the president to indiana in a brief, cordial address, to which president harrison responded: i thank the governor for this larger welcome extended as governor on the part of the people of the whole state. you have well said that the people of indiana have been kind to me, and if, when my public career is ended, i can return to you the happy possessor of your respect and good-will, i shall not leave public office with regret. arriving at indianapolis on the evening of the st, the president was formally waited upon by the monument commissioners and board of trade reception committee. general james r. carnahan, on behalf of the commissioners, and george g. tanner, president of the board of trade, warmly welcomed him. to their addresses president harrison replied: _gentlemen of the committees and friends_--i scarcely know how to convey to you my deep impressions at this cordial welcome back to indianapolis. i cannot hope to do it. i have been deeply touched by this generous and courteous reception. it was not my expectation when i left indianapolis a few months ago, under so serious a sense of my responsibilities, that i would return again so soon to my home. but this occasion was one which i could not well be absent from. it is one that should enlist to a degree that nothing else can do our patriotic interests and state pride. it is true, as general carnahan has said, that i took an early interest in this movement. i felt that until this monument was built, until its top-stone was laid, and its voice had been heard by the people of this state in expressive speech, we had not done that for our soldier dead which we should, and that we had neglected those who died for us. i am glad, therefore, to be present and see this monument started. i reverently rejoice with you on this occasion, and hail the work which these commissioners have so wisely and magnificently begun. among other distinguished guests participating in the ceremonies were mrs. jennie meyerhoff, of evansville, president of the woman's relief corps, department of indiana; col. george c. harvey, of danville, commanding the sons of veterans, division of indiana; mrs. zelda seguin-wallace and miss laura mcmanis, indianapolis; miss kate hammond, greencastle, and rev. h. j. talbott. the march to the monument was one of the most imposing demonstrations ever witnessed in indiana. fifteen thousand veterans and others formed the great column, commanded by chief marshal charles a. zollinger, of fort wayne; chief of staff, major irvin robbins; adjutant-general, major wilbur f. hitt, assisted by a brilliant staff of prominent citizens. in addition to these officers of the day was a mounted honorary staff, representing the thirteen congressional districts. they were: first district, gil r. stormont, princeton; second, col. elijah cavens, bloomfield; third, capt. james b. patton, jeffersonville; fourth, marine d. tackett, greensburg; fifth, maj. j. g. dunbar, greencastle; sixth, maj. j. f. wildman, muncie; seventh, capt. d. w. hamilton, indianapolis; eighth, capt. a. c. ford, terre haute; ninth, col. r. p. dehart, lafayette; tenth, capt. m. l. demotte, valparaiso; eleventh, col. c. e. briant, huntington; twelfth, capt. j. c. peltier, fort wayne; thirteenth, gen. reub. williams, warsaw. more than , people witnessed the pageant. the monument is a majestic square embellished shaft of indiana limestone, some feet high, surmounted by a heroic figure of victory, the pedestal resting upon a great circular stone terrace. the architects were bruno schmitz, of berlin, and frederick baumann, of chicago. the ceremony of laying the corner-stone was conducted by the following officials of the grand army of the republic: commander of the department of indiana charles m. travis, of crawfordsville; senior vice department commander p. d. harris, of shelbyville; junior vice-commander b. b. campbell, of anderson; assistant adjutant-general i. n. walker, of indianapolis; officers of the day wm. h. armstrong, of indianapolis, and lieut.-gov. ira j. chase, of danville. gov. alvin p. hovey, as presiding officer, delivered an eloquent opening address, which was followed by the singing of the hymn "dedication," written for the occasion by charles m. walker, of indianapolis. the speakers of the day were gen. mahlon d. manson, of crawfordsville, and gen. john coburn, of indianapolis. their masterly orations were followed by the reading of a poem, "what shall it teach?" written by capt. lee o. harris, of greenfield. when governor hovey introduced the chief executive of the nation the vast audience swayed with enthusiasm. in a voice low, and with a slight tremble in it, president harrison began his fine tribute to the men who responded to the country's call. as he proceeded his voice rose higher until it rang out clear as a bugle and drew from the multitude repeated and vociferous cheers. he spoke as follows: _mr. president and fellow-citizens_--i did not expect to make any address on this occasion. it would have been pleasant, if i could have found leisure to make suitable preparation, to have accepted the invitation of the committee having these exercises in charge to deliver an oration. i would have felt it an honor to associate my name with an occasion so great as this. public duties, however, prevented the acceptance of the invitation, and i could only promise to be present with you to-day. it seemed to me most appropriate that i should take part with my fellow-citizens of indiana in this great ceremony. there have been few occasions in the history of our state so full of interest, so magnificent, so inspiring, as that which we now witness. the suggestion that a monument should be builded to commemorate the valor and heroism of those soldiers of indiana who gave their lives for the flag attracted my interest from the beginning. five years ago last january, when the people assembled in the opera-house yonder to unveil the statue which had been worthily set up to our great war governor, i ventured to express the hope that near by it, as a twin expression of one great sentiment, there might be builded a noble shaft, not to any man, not to bear on any of its majestic faces the name of a man, but a monument about which the sons of veterans, the mothers of our dead, the widows that are yet with us, might gather, and, pointing to the stately shaft, say: "there is his monument." the hope expressed that day is realized now. [cheers.] i congratulate the people of indiana that our legislature has generously met the expectations of our patriotic people. i congratulate the commission having this great work in charge that they have secured a design which will not suffer under the criticism of the best artists of the world. i congratulate you that a monument so costly as to show that we value that which it commemorates, so artistic as to express the sentiment which evoked it, is to stand in the capital of indiana. does any one say there is wastefulness here? [cries of "no, no!"] my countrymen, $ , has never passed, and never will pass, from the treasury of indiana that will give a better return than the expenditure for the erection of this monument. as i have witnessed these ceremonies and listened to these patriotic hymns i have read in the faces of the men who stand about me that lifting up of the soul, that kindling of patriotic fire, that has made me realize that on such occasions the nation is laying deep and strong its future security. this is a monument by indiana to indiana soldiers. but i beg you to remember that they were only soldiers of indiana until the enlistment oath was taken; that from that hour until they came back to the generous state that had sent them forth they were soldiers of the union. so that it seemed to me not inappropriate that i should bring to you to-day the sympathy and cheer of the loyal people of all the states. no american citizen need avoid it or pass it with unsympathetic eyes, for, my countrymen, it does not commemorate a war of subjugation. there is not in the united states to-day a man who, if he realizes what has occurred since the war and has opened his soul to the sight of that which is to come, who will not feel that it is good for all our people that victory crowned the cause which this monument commemorates. i do seriously believe that if we can measure among the states the benefits resulting from the preservation of the union, the rebellious states have the larger share. it destroyed an institution that was their destruction. it opened the way for a commercial life that, if they will only embrace it and face the light, means to them a development that shall rival the best attainments of the greatest of our states. and now let me thank you for your pleasant greeting. i have felt lifted up by this occasion. it seems to me that our spirits have been borne up to meet those of the dead and glorified, and that from this place we shall go to our homes more resolutely set in our purpose as citizens to conserve the peace and welfare of our neighborhoods, to hold up the dignity and honor of our free institutions, and to see that no harm shall come to our country, whether from internal dissensions or from the aggressions of a foreign foe. [great cheering.] a camp-fire was held at night at tomlinson hall, presided over by charles m. travis, commander of indiana g. a. r., where an audience of over , assembled. the orators of the occasion were hon. samuel b. voyles, of salem; judge daniel waugh, of tipton; general jasper packard, of new albany; col. i. n. walker and albert j. beveridge, indianapolis; hon. benj. s. parker, new castle, and hon. wm. r. myers, anderson. president harrison's appearance was greeted by a prolonged demonstration, the audience rising with one impulse. commander travis said: "i told you i would treat you to a surprise. here is your president. he needs no introduction." president harrison's reply was: _mr. chairman, comrades_--i think i will treat you to another surprise. my indiana friends have been so much accustomed to have me talk on all occasions that i am sure nothing would gratify them more--nothing would be a greater surprise than for me to decline to talk to-night. i am very grateful for this expression of your interest and respect. that comradeship and good feeling which your cordial salutation has expressed to me i beg every comrade of the grand army here to-night to believe i feel for him. now, i am sure, in view of the labors of yesterday and to-day, that you will allow me to wish you prosperous, happy, useful lives, honorable and peaceful deaths, and that those who survive you may point to this shaft, which is being reared yonder, as a worthy tribute of your services in defence of your country. [cheers.] indianapolis, august , . _reunion of the seventieth indiana._ the day following the ceremonies at the soldiers' monument president harrison attended the fifteenth annual reunion of his old regiment, the seventieth indiana, at tomlinson hall. many survivors of the one hundred and second and one hundred and fifth indiana, the one hundred and twenty-ninth illinois, and the seventy-ninth ohio regiments were present. these regiments, with the seventieth, constituted the first brigade--general harrison's command. the gathering, therefore, was alternately a regimental and brigade reunion. col. samuel merrill, who delivered the annual address, escorted the president, and amid enthusiastic cheering installed him as presiding officer of the assembly. other prominent members of the seventieth present were gen. thomas j. morgan, capt. wm. m. meredith, daniel m. ransdell, moses g. mclain, capt. h. m. endsley, capt. wm. mitchell, and capt. chas. h. cox. general harrison was unanimously re-elected president of the regimental association; he was also chosen first president of the brigade association. the other brigade officers were vice-president, gen. daniel dustin; second vice-president, gen. a. w. doane; secretary, j. m. ayers; treasurer, e. h. conger. in the absence of mayor denny, city attorney w. l. taylor cordially welcomed the veterans to indianapolis. to this greeting the presiding officer, president harrison, responded: _mr. taylor_--the survivors of the seventieth indiana volunteer infantry, now assembled in annual reunion, have heard, with great gratification, the cordial words of welcome which you have addressed to us. we have never doubted the hospitality of the citizens of this great city, and have several times held our reunions here; and if we have more frequently sought some of the quieter towns in this congressional district--where the regiment was organized--it has only been because we could be a little more to ourselves than was possible in this city. you will not think this a selfish instinct when i tell you that, as the years go on, these reunions of our regiment become more and more a family affair; and as in the gathering of the scattered members of a family in the family reunion, so we have loved, when we get together as comrades, to be somewhat apart, that we might enjoy each other. it has been pleasant, i am sure, however, to link this annual reunion with the great event of yesterday. it did us good to meet with our comrades of the whole state--those who had other numbers on their uniforms, but carried the same flag under which we marched--in these exercises connected with the dedication of a monument that knows no regimental distinction. [applause.] if those having charge now will announce some proper arrangement by which i can take by the hand the members, not only of the seventieth indiana, but any comrades of the first brigade, who have done us honor by meeting with us to-day, i would be glad to conform to their wishes. it is perhaps possible that, without leaving the hall, simply by an exchange of seats, this may be accomplished, and when that is done there may yet be time before dinner to proceed with some other of the exercises upon the programme. chicago, december , . monday morning, december , , president harrison, accompanied by mr. and mrs. russell b. harrison, mrs. mckee, and first ass't postmaster-general j. s. clarkson and wife, arrived in chicago for the purpose of participating in the dedication of the great auditorium building, in which--while in an unfinished state--was held the convention of june, , that nominated general harrison for the presidency. the distinguished party was met by a committee comprising mayor d. c. cregier, ferd. w. peck, gen. geo. w. crook, hon. a. l. seeberger, col. james a. sexton, alexander h. revell, franklin s. head, c. l. hutchinson, charles counselman, j. j. p. odell, col. o. a. schaffner, f. s. bissell, and r. w. dunham. during the morning the president and vice-president morton, under the guidance of mr. ferd. peck, visited the board of trade and were tendered an enthusiastic reception by the members of that famous exchange. then followed a reception and lunch at the union league club, as the guests of mr. peck and president bissell of the club. other prominent citizens present were governor fifer, geo. m. pullman, marshall field, joseph medill, s. m. nickerson, j. r. rumsey, n. k. fairbank, sam. w. allerton, a. a. sprague, h. h. kohlsaat, wm. penn nixon, a. l. patterson, adolph caron, c. i. peck, a. l. coe, john r. walsh, j. w. scott, john b. carson, m. a. ryerson, v. f. lawson, and o. w. meysenberg. later in the afternoon the president and mr. morton, accompanied by governor hoard, of wisconsin, general alger, and judge thurston, visited the marquette club--of which the president is an honorary member--and were received by president revell, secretary gould, h. m. kingman, c. w. gordon, and c. e. nixon, comprising the reception committee. the dedication of the auditorium hall in the evening was an event of rare interest in the history of chicago. president harrison and his party and vice-president and mrs. morton were the honored guests of the occasion. other distinguished out-of-town guests were sir adolph caron, hon. g. a. kirkpatrick, c. h. mcintosh, and mr. wells, of canada; governor and mrs. fifer; governor and mrs. merriam, of minnesota; governor hoard, of wisconsin; governor and mrs. larrabee, of iowa; mrs. governor gordon; ex-governor morton, of nebraska; general alger, judge and mrs. walter q. gresham; mr. and mrs. house, of st. louis, and mr. and mrs. f. j. mackey, of kansas city. the auditorium--the modern parthenon--typifying the spirit of the age, is largely the conception of mr. ferd. w. peck, and its realization is the fruit of his zeal, supported and encouraged by the wealthy men of chicago. the great structure, costing three and a half million dollars, was built by the chicago auditorium association, whose officers at the time of completion were: ferd. w. peck, president; n. k. fairbank, first vice-president; john r. walsh, second vice-president; charles l. hutchinson, treasurer; charles h. lunt, secretary. the building was begun june , ; the laying of the corner-stone occurred in september that year, and was witnessed by president cleveland and other distinguished visitors. it has a frontage of feet on congress street, michigan and wabash avenues. the exterior material is granite and bedford stone. the height of the main structure is feet, or ten stories; height of tower above main building feet, or eight floors; height of lantern above main tower feet, or two floors; total height feet--one of the tallest buildings in the world. the permanent seating capacity of the auditorium is over , , but for conventions--by utilizing stage--this capacity is increased to , . a feature of the great hall is the grand organ. in addition to this unrivalled convention hall the colossal structure contains a recital hall, stores and offices, a hotel with guest rooms, and a magnificent banquet hall feet long. the gathering at the dedicatory exercises nationalized the auditorium; , people were within its walls. the president and mrs. mckee were the guests of mr. and mrs. ferd. w. peck. among the several thousand prominent residents present were the following gentlemen and their families--stockholders in the auditorium association: g. e. adams, a. c. bartlett, g. m. bogue, c. w. brega, j. w. doane, j. b. drake, j. k. fisher, carter h. harrison, charles henrotin, o. r. keith, g. f. kimball, s. d. kimbark, j. t. lester, w. l. peck, r. w. roloson, w. c. seipp, lazarus silverman, robert warren, john wilkinson, jr., c. s. willoughby, c. t. yerkes, j. mcgregor adams, w. t. baker, gen. j. c. black, h. botsford, r. r. cable, c. r. cummings, j. c. dore, g. l. dunlap, c. b. farwell, j. j. glessner, e. g. kieth, w. d. kerfoot, w. w. kimball, l. z. leiter, j. m. loomis, a. a. munger, n. b. ream, conrad seipp, j. g. shortall, w. sooy smith, p. b. weare, norman williams, f. h. winston, and j. otto young. the exercises opened with an address of welcome by mayor cregier, followed by a speech from mr. peck, president of the association, who received an ovation. president harrison's address was followed by the rendition of the hymn "america" by the apollo club of trained voices. hon. john s. runnells delivered the dedicatory oration. then came the real event of the day--"home, sweet home" and the "swiss echo song" by the incomparable songstress adelina patti, who shared the honors of the occasion with the president. the programme concluded with an address by governor fifer and the grand "hallelujah" chorus from "the messiah." as mr. peck introduced president harrison the great assembly enthusiastically testified its welcome. the president spoke as follows: _ladies and gentlemen_--some of my newspaper friends have been puzzling themselves in order to discover the reason why i left washington to be present here to-night. i do not think i need, in view of the magnificent spectacle presented to us here to-night, to state the motives which have impelled my presence. surely no loyal citizen of chicago who sits here to-night under this witching and magnificent scene will ask for any other reason than that which is here presented. [applause.] i do most heartily congratulate you upon the completion and inauguration of this magnificent building--without an equal in this country, and, so far as i know, without an equal in the world. [applause.] we have here about us to-night in this grand architecture, in this tasteful decoration, that which is an education and an inspiration. [applause.] it might well tempt one whose surroundings were much farther removed from this scene than is the capital city to make a longer journey than i have done to stand for an hour in the view of such a spectacle of magnificence and grandeur and architectural triumph as this. [applause.] and if that be true, surely there is reason enough why the president may turn aside for a little while from public duty to mingle with his fellow-citizens in celebrating an event so high and so worthy of commemoration as this triumph to-night. [prolonged applause.] not speech, certainly, not the careless words of an extemporaneous speech, can adequately express all the sentiments i feel in contemplating the fitting culmination of this deed. [applause.] only the voice of the immortal singer can bring from these arches those echoes which will tell us the true purpose of their construction. [applause.] you will permit me, then, to thank you, to thank the mayor of chicago, to thank the president of this association, and to thank all those good citizens with whom i have to-day been brought in personal contact, for the kindness and respect with which you and they have received me; and you will permit me to thank you, my fellow-citizens, for the cordiality which you have kindly displayed here to-night. it is my wish, and may it be the wish of all, that this great building may continue to be to all your population that which it should be--an edifice opening its doors from night to night, calling your people here away from the care of business to those enjoyments, and pursuits, and entertainments which develop the souls of men [applause], which will have power to inspire those whose lives are heavy with daily toil, and in its magnificent and enchanting presence lift them for a time out of these dull things into those higher things where men should live. [great applause.] cleveland, ohio, may , . _garfield memorial dedication._ on decoration day, , president harrison and vice-president morton, accompanied by secretary windom, postmaster-general wanamaker, attorney-general miller, secretary of agriculture rusk, and marshal daniel m. ransdell, visited the city of cleveland for the purpose of participating in the dedication of the grand mausoleum erected to the memory of the lamented president james abram garfield. fifty thousand people greeted the president and his party on arrival. the mausoleum is situated in lake view cemetery, overlooking a region closely associated with garfield's memory; it is built of ohio sandstone--a large and imposing circular tower feet in diameter, rising feet. at the base projects a square porch, decorated externally with an historical frieze, divided into panels containing life-size bas-reliefs picturing the career of garfield as teacher, statesman, soldier, and president. this imposing monument was erected under the auspices of the garfield national memorial association, whose officers were: rutherford b. hayes, president; j. h. wade and t. p. handy, vice-presidents; amos townsend, secretary. the trustees of the association were: charles foster, r. b. hayes, james g. blaine, h. b. payne, j. h. wade, dan'l p. eells, j. h. rhodes, james barnett, john hay, t. p. handy, j. b. parsons, william bingham, w. s. streator, and h. c. white. the memorial cost $ , , of which $ , was contributed by citizens of cleveland; the architect was george keller, of hartford, connecticut. more than , people witnessed the parade and the dedicatory ceremonies, which were conducted under the auspices of the grand commandery, knights templars of ohio--right eminent henry perkins, of akron, grand commander; very eminent william b. melish, of cincinnati, grand marshal; eminent sir huntington brown, of mansfield, generalissimo; eminent sir l. f. van cleve, of cincinnati, grand prelate; eminent sir h. p. mcintosh, of cleveland, grand senior warden; and eminent sir j. burton parsons, of cleveland, grand treasurer. the committee to receive and entertain the guests from other cities comprised the following prominent residents of cleveland: hon. j. h. wade, dan'l p. eells, m. a. hanna, col. william edwards, hon. r. c. parsons, henry d. coffinberry, gen. m. d. leggett, hon. george h. ely, hon. joseph turney, samuel andrews, hon. s. buhrer, hon. h. b. payne, charles f. brush, hon. charles a. otis, r. k. hawley, william chisholm, h. r. hatch, w. j. mckinnie, john tod, hon. n. b. sherwin, l. e. holden, george w. howe, samuel l. mather, judge s. burke, col. john hay, hon. t. e. burton, hon. r. r. herrick, selah chamberlain, a. wiener, charles wesley, hon. lee mcbride, hon. o. j. hodge, h. c. ranney, g. e. herrick, hon. w. w. armstrong, s. t. everett, judge j. m. jones, hon. j. h. farley, hon. g. w. gardner, r. r. rhodes, j. b. zerbe, samuel w. sessions, louis h. severance, hon. m. a. foran, hon. c. b. lockwood, hon. william bingham, john f. whitelaw, fayette brown, capt. p. g. watmough, e. r. perkins, bolivar butts, george t. chapman, hon. d. a. dangler, charles hickox, and george w. pack. committee on finance: john h. mcbride, myron t. herrick, s. c. ford, joseph turney, charles l. pack, h. s. whittlesey, h. r. groff, percy w. rice, charles h. bulkley, douglas perkins, kaufman hays, m. a. hanna, t. s. knight, james parmelee, i. p. lampson, samuel mather, o. m. stafford, c. j. sheffield, harvey h. brown, j. k. bole, dan'l p. eells, h. r. hatch, john f. pankhurst, john tod, and george p. welch. the event called together one of the most distinguished assemblies of the decade. among the guests not previously mentioned--who occupied places of honor--were gen. william t. sherman, chief-justice melville w. fuller, maj.-gen. john m. schofield, ex-postmaster-general thomas l. james, gov. james e. campbell, lieutenant-governor marquis, hon. william mckinley, jr., bishop william a. leonard, bishop gilmour, col. wm. perry fogg, and many others. mrs. garfield was accompanied by her four sons, her daughter, and general and mrs. john newell. the spectacular event of the day was the grand military and civic parade, participated in by president harrison and the other guests. six thousand men were in line, commanded by chief marshal gen. james barnett and a brilliant staff. at the head of the great column marched survivors of garfield's old regiment--the forty-second ohio--led by capt. c. e. henry, of dallas, texas, the colonel, judge don a. pardee, being absent. the procession comprised twelve divisions, commanded by the following marshals: capt. j. b. molyneaux, gen. m. d. leggett, col. w. h. hayward, em. sir m. j. houck, col. louis black, col. john dunn, capt. e. h. bohm, captain mcniel, capt. louis perczel, col. allen t. brinsmade, col. c. l. alderson, and capt. m. g. browne. ex-president hayes officiated as chairman of the dedicatory meeting at the mausoleum, and introduced hon. jacob d. cox, of cincinnati, who delivered the oration of the occasion. many other distinguished men spoke briefly. when the chairman introduced president harrison an ovation was tendered him, and almost every sentence of his address was enthusiastically cheered. the president spoke with great earnestness. he said: _mr. chairman and fellow-citizens_--i thank you most sincerely for this cordial greeting, but i shall not be betrayed by it into a lengthy speech. the selection of this day for these exercises--a day consecrated to the memory of those who died that there might be one flag of honor and authority in this republic--is most fitting. that one flag encircles us with its folds to-day, the unrivalled object of our loyal love. this monument, so imposing and tasteful, fittingly typifies the grand and symmetrical character of him in whose honor it has been builded. his was "the arduous greatness of things done." no friendly hands constructed and placed for his ambition a ladder upon which he might climb. his own brave hands framed and nailed the cleats upon which he climbed to the heights of public usefulness and fame. he never ceased to be student and instructor. turning from peaceful pursuits to army service, he quickly mastered tactics and strategy, and in a brief army career taught some valuable lessons in military science. turning again from the field to the councils of state, he stood among the great debaters that have made our national congress illustrious. what he might have been or done as president of the united states is chiefly left to friendly augury, based upon a career that had no incident of failure or inadequacy. the cruel circumstances attending his death had but one amelioration--that space of life was given him to teach from his dying bed a great lesson of patience and forbearance. his mortal part will find honorable rest here, but the lessons of his life and death will continue to be instructive and inspiring incidents in american history. [great applause.] boston, august , . _the guest of massachusetts._ monday afternoon, august , the cruiser _baltimore_, bearing president harrison, secretary rusk, secretary noble, and a number of friends, entered boston harbor, saluted by the _atlanta_, the _kearsage_, the _petrel_, the _yorktown_, the _dolphin_, the dynamite cruiser _vesuvius_, and the torpedo-boat _cushing_. the distinguished guests were met by the hon. john q. a. brackett, governor of massachusetts; hon. alanson w. beard, collector of the port; adj.-gen. samuel dalton, surg.-gen. alfred f. holt, judge adv. gen. edward o. shepard, col. sidney m. hedges, col. wm. p. stoddard, col. samuel e. winslow, and col. edward v. mitchell, of the governor's military staff; hon. thomas n. hart, mayor of boston; hon. geo. l. goodale, chairman executive committee national encampment, g. a. r.; hon. john d. long, president national encampment committee; hon. e. s. converse, treasurer; and secretary silas a. barton. many thousand visiting veterans greeted the head of the nation as he passed through the historic streets escorted by the first battalion of cavalry. arrived at the hotel vendome, the president and his party, as guests of the commonwealth, attended a state banquet, presided over by governor brackett. there was no speech-making. other distinguished guests were vice-president morton, secretaries proctor and tracy, general sherman, admiral gherardi, gov. leon abbett, of new jersey, and lieutenant-governor hale, of massachusetts. later in the evening governor brackett and staff escorted the president to the parker house, where they participated in a reception given by e. w. kinsley post of boston to lafayette post of new york. many veterans of national fame were present, among them gen. lucius fairchild, gen. dan'l e. sickles, corporal james tanner, ex-gov. austin blair, of michigan, commander viele, of lafayette post, and the following prominent citizens of massachusetts, comprising the reception committee of the national encampment: hon. henry h. sprague, president massachusetts senate; hon. wm. e. barrett, speaker massachusetts house; hon. wm. power wilson, chairman boston aldermen; horace g. allen, president common council; hon. john f. andrew, geo. h. innis, charles e. osgood, arthur a. fowle, fred c. king, paul h. kendricken, j. h. o'neil, joel goldthwaite, hon. charles j. noyes, hon. e. a. stevens, horace g. allen, capt. nathan appleton, col. albert clarke, chas. d. rohan, f. c. brownell, and a. s. fowle, of boston; gen. a. b. r. sprague and col. h. e. smith, of worcester; john w. hersey, of springfield; john m. deane, fall river; gen. j. w. kimball, fitchburg; maj. geo. s. merrill, lawrence; wm. h. lee, greenwood; s. w. benson, charlestown; joseph o. burdett, hingham; col. myron p. walker, belchertown; and arthur a. smith, of griswoldsville. the reception concluded with a banquet. col. charles l. taylor acted as toastmaster and presented general harrison, who received an ovation. in response to these cordial greetings the president said: _comrades_--i do not count it the least of those fortunate circumstances which have occasionally appeared in my life that i am able to be here to-night to address you as comrades of the grand army of the united states. [great applause.] it is an association great in its achievement and altogether worthy of perpetuation until the last of its members have fallen into an honorable grave. it is not my purpose to-night to address you in an extended speech, but only to say that, whether walking with you in the private pursuits of life, or holding a place of official responsibility, i can never, in either, forget those who upheld the flag of this nation in those days when it was in peril. everything that was worthy of preservation in our history past, everything that is glowing and glorious in the future, which we confront, turned upon the issue of that strife in which you were engaged. will you permit me to wish for each of you a life full of all sweetness, and that each of you may preserve, undimmed, the love for the flag which called you from your homes to stand under its folds amid the shock of battle and amid dying men. i believe there are indications to-day in this country of a revived love for the flag. [applause.] i could wish that no american citizen would look upon it without saluting it. [loud applause.] boston, august . _g. a. r. national encampment._ the morning of august the president and the several members of his cabinet, with vice-president morton, governor brackett, mayor hart, general sherman, governor dillingham and staff, of vermont; governor davis, of rhode island; hon. william mckinley, hon. henry cabot lodge, mrs. john a. logan, mrs. r. a. alger, mrs. mckee, mrs. a. l. coolidge, and lillian nordica, the _prima donna_, reviewed the grand parade of the veterans from a stand in copley square. as the head of the great column appeared, led by commander-in-chief r. a. alger, with mounted staff and escort numbering officers, the president and his cabinet arose and saluted the veterans. general alger and gen. b. f. butler reviewed the column from a stand in adams square. the parade was five hours and thirty-five minutes in passing. in the evening the mayor's club of boston tendered a banquet to president harrison and other distinguished visitors. mayor fisher, of waltham, introduced the chief executive, who said: _mr. chairman_--i wish only to thank you for this cordial welcome. being upon my feet, i cannot refrain from expressing here my deep sense of gratitude for all the evidences of friendliness which have been shown me during my brief stay in boston. the president of the united states, whosoever he may have been, from the first to the last, has always found in the citizenship of massachusetts stanch supporters of the union's constitution. [applause.] it has never occurred that he has called upon this great commonwealth for support that it has not been cordially and bravely rendered. in this magnificent parade which we have seen to-day of the survivors of the massachusetts regiments in the war for the union, and in this magnificent parade of the sons of veterans, coming on now to take the fathers' place in civil life and to stand as they were in their day as bulwarks of the nation's defence, we have seen a magnificent evidence of what massachusetts has done in defence of the union and of the flag, and in these young men sure promise of what she would do again if the exigencies should call upon her to give her blood in a similar cause. [applause.] let me again cordially thank you for your interest and friendliness and to bid you good-night, and, as i must leave you to-night for washington, to hope that the closing exercises of this grand and instructive week may be pleasant, and as the outcome of it all that there may be kindled in the hearts of you all, and of these comrades of the grand army of the republic, a newer love for the flag and for the constitution, and that this may all inure to us in social, family, and public life. [applause and cheers.] quitting the mayor's banquet, the president and members of the cabinet, with admiral gherardi and staff, proceeded to mechanics' hall, where a joint reception of the grand army and woman's relief corps was in progress. at least , people greeted the arrival of the distinguished visitors. on the platform with the president's party were miss florence barker, first president woman's relief corps; mrs. annie wittenmyer, national president; miss clara barton, president red cross association; mrs. mary e. knowles, massachusetts department president; mrs. cheney, national secretary; mrs. lynch, national treasurer; mrs. nichols, national inspector of the relief corps; department commander t. s. clarkson, nebraska; department commander p. h. darling, ohio; governor brackett and congressman mckinley. george h. innis, commander massachusetts department, welcomed the visiting comrades. other speakers were general sherman, commander-in-chief alger, and vice-president morton. general harrison was introduced as comrade harrison, president of the united states, and was greeted with tremendous applause. he spoke as follows: _mr. chairman and comrades of the grand army of the republic_--i had impressions both pleasurable and painful as i looked upon the great procession of veterans which swept through the streets of this historic capital to-day; pleasurable in the contemplation of so many faces of those who shared together the perils and glories of the great struggle for the union; sensations of a mournful sort as i thought how seldom we should meet again. not many times more here. as i have stood in the great national cemetery at arlington and have seen those silent battalions of the dead, i have thought how swiftly the reaper is doing his work and how soon in the scattered cemeteries of the land the ashes of all the soldiers of the great war shall be gathered to honored graves. and yet i could not help but feel that in the sturdy tread of those battalions there was yet strength of heart and limb that would not be withheld if a present peril should confront the nation that you love. [applause.] and if arlington is the death, we see to-day in the springing step of those magnificent battalions of the sons of veterans the resurrection. [applause.] they are coming on to take our places, the nation will not be defenceless when we are gone, but those who have read about the firesides of the veterans' homes, in which they have been born and reared, the lessons of patriotism and the stories of heroism will come fresh armed to any conflict that may confront us in the future. [applause.] and so to-night we may gather from this magnificent spectacle a fresh and strong sense of security for the permanency of our country and our free institutions. i thought it altogether proper that i should take a brief furlough from official duties at washington to mingle with you here to-day as a comrade [applause], because every president of the united states must realize that the strength of the government, its defence in war, the army that is to muster under its banner when our nation is assailed, is to be found here in the masses of our people. [applause and cries of "good!"] and so, as my furlough is almost done, and the train is already waiting that must bear me back to washington, i can only express again the cordial, sincere, and fraternal interest which i feel this day in meeting you all. i can only hope that god will so order the years that are left to you that for you and those who are dear to you they may be ordered in all gentleness and sweetness, in all prosperity and success, and that, when at last the comrades who survive you shall wrap the flag of the union about your body and bear it to the grave, you may die in peace and in the hope of a glorious resurrection! [applause.] cresson, pennsylvania, september . nearly , veterans from the several g. a. r. posts of altoona, tyronne, and holidaysburg visited cresson on september , , for the purpose of paying their respects to president harrison. general ekin and col. theo. burchfield headed the delegation. other prominent veterans were post commanders painter, beighel, lewis, and calvin; j. c. walters, w. h. fentiman, rob't howe, maj. john r. garden, george kuhn, william aiken, oliver sponsler, wm. guyer, hon. j. w. curry, capt. joseph w. gardner, and ex-mayor breth, of altoona. the president received the veterans at the mountain house. after the reception j. d. hicks delivered a congratulatory address on behalf of the veterans. general harrison, speaking from the balcony of the hotel, warmly thanked his comrades for their good wishes, and in mentioning the events of the war referred feelingly to the tragic death of the great lincoln and the memorable words of garfield on that occasion. his reference to the constitution and the flag, and the love of the people for them, elicited a hearty response. he concluded as follows: "now, my comrades, who have suffered and still suffer for your country, i wish in this world all good to you and your dear ones, and in the world to come joy everlasting." osceola, pennsylvania, september . during the stay of the president and his family at cresson springs in september, , they made an excursion through the celebrated clearfield coal regions, under the guidance of frank l. sheppard, general superintendent of the pennsylvania railroad, geo. w. boyd, ass't gen'l passenger agent, gen. d. h. hastings, and s. s. blair. the party comprised the president and mrs. harrison, mr. and mrs. j. r. mckee, mrs. dimmick, and miss alice sanger, accompanied by hon. john patton, of curwensville, mr. and mrs. w. h. dill, of clearfield, and f. n. barksdale. the first point visited was osceola, where , people tendered the president a rousing reception. the committee of reception were geo. m. brisbin, d. r. good, r. j. walker, t. c. heims, and j. r. paisley. the veterans of mclarren post, g. a. r., acted as an escort through the town from one depot to the other. the president briefly thanked the veterans and citizens for extending him such a cordial reception. houtzdale, pennsylvania, september . arrived at houtzdale, about noon saturday, the president and his party were welcomed by an assemblage numbering fully , . they were met at osceola by an escort committee consisting of g. w. dickey, abe feldman, julius viebahn, thos. rolands, b. w. hess, w. e. meek, w. c. davis, w. b. hamilton, j. v. henderson, j. b. mcgrath, james white, d. w. smith, john charlton, w. h. patterson, and thomas byers. all work in the mines and stores was suspended for the day, and the visit of the chief magistrate was celebrated with a grand parade and demonstration directed by chief burgess john argyle, aided by the g. a. r. veterans. the president was received by the following committee of prominent citizens: w. irvin shaw, esq., of the clearfield county bar; w. c. langsford, alex. monteith, john f. farrell, geo. p. jones, joseph delehunt, harry roach, ad. hanson, s. t. henderson, r. r. fleming, and e. j. duffy. the veterans of wm. h. kinkead post acted as a guard of honor to the president during the parade. a notable incident of the demonstration was the reception by the children of the parochial school. after the parade the formal reception of the distinguished visitors took place in the presence of the great assemblage. john f. farrell presided, and introduced chairman w. i. shaw, who delivered an eloquent address of welcome on behalf of the citizens. president harrison responded as follows: _my fellow-citizens_--i beg to assure you that i very highly appreciate your cordial welcome. i did not need the assurance of him who has spoken in your name that we are welcome in this home of profit and industry. as i have passed along the streets, and as i now look into your eyes, i have read welcome in every face. i do not regard this greeting as personal. how can it be, since you look into my face as i into yours for the first time? i assume that in this demonstration you are evidencing your loyalty and fidelity to the government of which we are all citizens. you welcome me as one who, for the time being by your choice, is charged with the execution of the law. it is a great thing to be a citizen of this country, and the privilege has its corresponding obligations. this government can never be wrecked by the treason or fault of those who for the time are placed in public position so long as the people are true to the principles of the government and to the flag. [applause.] set your love upon the flag and that which it represents. be ready, if occasion should call, to defend it, as my brave comrades did in the time of its greatest peril. honor it in peace, cherish your loyal institutions, civil and educational; maintain social order in your community, let every one have respect for the rights and privileges of others while asserting his own. these are the springs of our national and social life. if these springs are kept pure and strong the great river they form will ever flow on in purity and majesty. if local interests are carefully preserved the general good is secured, and all our people, each in his own place--the place where he labors, the place where he lives, the roof under which his family is sheltered--will continue to enjoy the benison of liberty in the fear of god. to every one of you, those who come from the village shops, those who come from the mines and every vocation of life to join in this welcome, let me declare that i have no other purpose as president of the united states than to so administer my office as to promote the general good of all our people. [great applause.] philipsburg, pennsylvania, september . other points visited were clearfield, where the veterans of lamar post and colonel barrett at the head of a committee received the distinguished excursionists. at curwensville the party became the guests of a. e. patton, and the president shook hands with , residents. philipsburg was reached at p.m. the entire population of the town welcomed the president. the reception committee comprised major h. c. warfel, hon. chester munson, j. b. childs, o. p. jones, s. s. crissman, w. e. irwin, dr. t. b. potter, capt. j. h. boring, m. g. lewis, henry lehman, h. k. grant, al. jones, w. t. bair, geo. w. wythes, a. b. herd, john nuttall, and a. j. graham. the president and mrs. harrison were driven through the city, which was elaborately decorated. returning to the station mayor warfel introduced the president, who said: _citizens of philipsburg_--i thank you for this very cordial expression of your esteem. you must excuse my not addressing you at any length because of the very limited time at our disposal. i again thank you. western tour, october, . on the morning of october , , president harrison left washington to attend the reunion of the first brigade, twentieth army corps, at galesburg, ill., and to visit points in iowa, kansas, missouri, and indiana. he was accompanied by secretary tracy, gen. charles h. grosvenor, private secretary halford, marshal daniel m. ransdell, capt. wm. m. meredith, gen. t. j. morgan, and e. f. tibbott, stenographer. clifton forge, virginia, october . the trip through virginia was uneventful. at staunton the president was serenaded, and among those who met him were ex-congressman desendorf, of virginia, and david stewart, of indianapolis. clifton forge was reached at twilight, and nearly , residents heartily cheered the president and called for a speech. in response he said: _my friends_--i hope you will excuse me from making a speech. i have travelled for the first time over the chesapeake and ohio railroad, and i have noticed with great interest and pleasure the development which is being made along the road of the mineral resources of the state of virginia. what i have seen moves me to offer my sincere congratulations on what you have already accomplished, and what is surely in store for you if you but make use of your resources and opportunities. [cheers.] lawrenceburg, indiana, october . at cincinnati, tuesday morning, the party was joined by archibald eaton, the president's nephew; col. w. b. shattuc, col. john c. new, and a committee of escort from lawrenceburg, comprising gen. thomas j. lucas, archibald shaw, john o. cravens, john k. thompson, and valentine j. koehler. near north bend, ohio, the old harrison homestead was reached, and the train came to a stop just abreast the house in which benjamin harrison was born, and but a few yards from the white shaft that marks the tomb of his illustrious ancestor, president william henry harrison. the occasion was not for words, and as the president passed to the rear platform he was unaccompanied by the rest of the party, who left him to the memories that the scenes of his childhood and youth called forth. arrived at lawrenceburg the president was visibly affected at meeting many old friends and neighbors of years ago. among the leading citizens who welcomed him were: john isherwood, z. heustes, peter braun, dr. j. d. gatch, frank r. dorman, d. w. c. fitch, j. h. burkham, w. h. rucker, wm. probasco, louis adler, h. g. kidd, john s. dorman, john b. garnier, a. d. cook, chas. decker, john f. cook, dr. t. c. craig, c. j. b. ragin, j. e. larimer, d. e. sparks, and capt. john shaw; also, m. c. garber, of madison, robert cain, of brookville, and alfred shaw, of vevay, ind. the president addressed the large assembly in a voice heavy with emotion. he said: _my friends_--i want to thank you very cordially for this greeting. all the scenes about here are very familiar to me. this town of lawrenceburg is the first village of my childish recollections, and as i approached it this morning, past the earliest home of my recollections, the home in which my childhood and early manhood were spent, memories crowded in upon me that were very full of interest, very full of pleasure, and yet full of sadness. they bring back to me those who once made the old home very dear, the most precious spot on earth. i have passed with bowed head the place where they rest. we are here in our generation, with the work of those who have gone before upon us. let us see, each of us, that in the family, in the neighborhood, and in the state, we do at least with equal courage, and grace, and kindness, the work which was so bravely, kindly, and graciously done by those who filled our places fifty years ago. now, for i must hurry on, to these old friends, and to these new friends who have come in since lawrenceburg was familiar to me, i extend again my hearty thanks for this welcome, and beg, in parting, to introduce the only member of my cabinet who accompanies me, general tracy, secretary of the navy. north vernon, indiana, october . at north vernon, jennings county, many old acquaintances greeted the president, among them j. c. cope, john fable, p. c. mcgannon, and others. acknowledging the repeated cheers of the assembly, the president said: _my friends_--i am very glad to see you, and very much obliged to you for your pleasurable greeting. it is always a pleasure to see my old indiana friends. we have had this morning a delightful ride across the southern part of the state, one that has given me a great deal of refreshment and pleasure. [cheers.] let me again assure you that i am very much obliged to you for this evidence of your friendship. i hope you will excuse me from further speech on this occasion. it gives me pleasure now, my fellow-citizens, to introduce to you general tracy, of new york, the secretary of the navy, who accompanies me on this trip. [cheers.] seymour, indiana, october . at seymour, jackson county, , citizens gave evidence of general harrison's popularity in that town. among the prominent residents who welcomed him were hon. w. k. marshall, louis schneck, travis carter, ph. wilhelm, w. f. peters, j. b. morrison, r. f. white, s. e. carter, john a. ross, john a. weaver, l. m. mains, john a. goodale, theo. b. ridlen, and v. h. monroe. after he had introduced secretary tracy, the president said: _my friends_--i feel that i ought to thank you for your friendly greeting this beautiful morning. it is a pleasure indeed to me to greet so many of you. again i thank you for this welcome. a request has just been handed me that i speak a few minutes to the school children here assembled. i scarcely know what to say to them, except that i have a great interest in them, and the country has a great interest in them. those who, like myself, have passed the meridian of life realize more than younger men that the places we now hold and the responsibilities we now carry in society and in all social and business relations must devolve upon those who are now in the school. our state has magnificently provided for their education, so that none of them need be ignorant, and i am sure that in these happy homes the fathers and mothers are not neglecting their duties, but are instilling into these young minds morality and respect for the law which must crown intelligence in order to make them. shoals, indiana, october . the citizens of shoals, the county seat of martin county, gave the president a most cordial reception. prominent among those friends who welcomed him were r. e. hunt, j. a. chenoweth, j. p. albaugh, j. b. freeman, j. t. rogers, m. shirey, s. p. yeune, h. q. houghton, james mahany, c. h. mohr, s. n. gwin, f. j. masten, c. s. dobbins, and n. h. matsinger. responding to their cheers and calls the president said: _my fellow-citizens_--i am very glad to see you. my trip this morning is more like a holiday than i have had for a long time. i am glad to see the cordiality of your welcome. it makes me feel that i am still held somewhat in the esteem of the people whose friendship i so very much covet and desire to retain. [cheers.] sullivan, indiana, october . it was an agreeable surprise to the president to find several thousand people awaiting an opportunity to greet him at the town of sullivan. of prominent townsmen there were present j. h. clugage, g. w. buff, rob't h. crowder, john t. hays, c. p. lacey, c. f. briggs, o. h. crowder, s. goodman, r. b. mason, w. a. bell, joseph hayden, john h. dickerson, and r. f. knotts. in answer to repeated calls for a speech the president said: _my friends_--some of you have requested that i would give you a little talk. the range of things that i can say on an occasion like this is very limited, but one thing, though it seems to involve repetition, i can say to you very heartily and very sincerely: i am very glad to again look into the faces of my indiana friends. i trust i have friends that are not in indiana, but my earliest and my best are here. again i thank you. [cheers.] terre haute, indiana, october . the principal demonstration of the day was at terre haute, where fully , people greeted the president. the following reception committee escorted the party from vincennes: hon. w. r. mckeen, h. hulman, sr., judge c. f. mcnutt, george w. faris, samuel huston, a. herz, w. c. isbell, r. a. campbell, dr. rob't van valzah, jacob d. early, george e. pugh, a. g. austin, f. e. benjamin, and b. g. hudnut. _en route_ to the speaker's stand every bell and steam whistle in the city added its tribute to the enthusiasm of the occasion. this unique hoosier welcome was arranged by d. c. greiner. other leading citizens participating prominently in the reception were: d. w. minshall, n. filbeck, judge b. e. rhoades, s. c. beach, j. s. tally, senator bischawsky, g. w. bement, jay cummings, geo. m. allen, and p. s. westfall. mayor frank c. danaldson made the welcoming address, and concluded by introducing president harrison, who said: _mr. mayor, fellow-citizens of indiana, ladies and gentlemen_--i very heartily appreciate this large gathering assembled to greet me. i very heartily appreciate the welcome which your kind and animated faces, as well as the spoken words of the chief officer of your city, have extended to me. i have known this pretty city for more than thirty years, and have watched its progress and growth. it has always been the home of some of my most cherished personal friends, and i am glad to know that your city is in an increasing degree prosperous, and your people contented and happy. i am glad to know that the local industries which have been established in your midst are to-day busy in producing their varied products, and that these find a ready market at remunerative prices. i was told as we approached your city that there was not an idle wheel in terre haute. it is very pleasant to know that this prosperity is so generally shared by all our people. hopefulness, and cheer, and courage tend to bring and maintain good times. we differ widely in our views of public politics, but i trust every one of us is devoted to the flag which represents the unity and power of our country and to the best interests of the people, as we are given to see and understand those interests. [applause.] we are in the enjoyment of the most perfect system of government that has ever been devised for the use of men. we are under fewer restraints; the individual faculties and liberties have wider range here than in any other land. here a sky of hope is arched over the head of every ambitious, industrious, and aspiring young man. there are no social conditions; there are no unneeded legal restrictions. let us continue to cherish these institutions and to maintain them in their best development. let us see that as far as our influence can bring it to pass they are conducted for the general good. [applause.] it gives me pleasure to bring into your city to-day one who is the successor as the head of the navy department of that distinguished citizen of indiana who is especially revered and loved by all the people of terre haute, but is also embraced in the wider love of all the citizens of indiana--col. richard w. thompson. let me present to you gen. benjamin f. tracy, of new york, the secretary of the navy. [cheers.] danville, illinois, october . danville was reached at p.m. the roar of cannon sounded a hearty welcome to the prairie state. fully , people were assembled around the pavilion erected near the station. among the prominent residents who received the president on the part of the citizens were: hon. joseph g. cannon, mayor w. r. lawrence, justice j. w. wilkin, of the supreme court of illinois, col. samuel stansbury, h. p. blackburn, w. r. jewell, m. j. barger, w. c. tuttle, henry brand, and capt. j. g. hull. congressman cannon introduced the president, who said: _my fellow-citizens_--i regret that the time of our arrival and the brief time we can give you should make it so inconvenient for you who have assembled here to greet us. yet, though the darkness shuts out your faces, i cannot omit to acknowledge with the most heartfelt gratitude the enthusiastic greeting of this large assembly of my fellow-citizens. it is quite worth while, i think, for those who are charged with great public affairs now and then to turn aside from the routine of official duties to look into the faces of the people. [applause.] it is well enough that all public officers should be reminded that under our republican institutions the repository of all power, the originator of all policy, is the people of the united states. [great applause.] i have had the pleasure of visiting this rich and prosperous section of your great state before, and am glad to notice that, if the last year has not yielded an average return to your farms, already the promise of the coming year is seen in your well-tilled fields. let me thank you again and bid you good-night. [great applause.] champaign, illinois, october . at urbana, ill., secretary tracy addressed several thousand residents. at champaign the citizens were attended by the students of the university of illinois, who received the president with their college cheer. among the leading citizens who participated in welcoming the chief executive were dr. l. s. wilcox, john w. spalding, f. k. robinson, p. w. woody, h. h. harris, j. l. ray, t. j. smith, h. swannell, ozias riley, a. p. cunningham, j. b. harris, edward bailey, solon philbrick, c. j. sabin, w. s. maxwell, l. w. faulkner, j. w. mulliken, judge c. b. smith, w. p. lockwood, w. a. heath, geo. f. beardsley, hon. abel harwood, w. h. munhall, a. w. spalding, and c. m. sherfey. president harrison said: _my good friends_--it is very evident that there is a large representation here of the greek societies. [cheers.] i thank you for this greeting. we are on our way to galesburg to unite with my old comrades in arms of the first brigade, third division, twentieth army corps, in a reunion. i had not expected here, or at any other intermediate point on the journey, to make addresses, but i cannot fail to thank these young gentlemen from the university of illinois for the interest their presence gives to this meeting. your professors, no doubt, give you all needed admonition and advice, and you will, i am sure, thank me for not adding to your burdens. good-night. [cheers.] peoria, illinois, october . the third day of the president's journey found him in peoria, where he was warmly welcomed by mayor charles c. clarke at the head of the following committee of prominent citizens: alexander g. tyng, jr., president board of trade; john d. soules, president travelling men's association; editor eugene baldwin, and hon. julius s. starr. miss elsie leslie lyde, the child actress, on behalf of the citizens and the grand army, presented the president with a beautiful bouquet, which the chief magistrate acknowledged by kissing the little orator in the presence of the great assemblage. mayor clarke introduced the president, who spoke as follows: _my fellow-citizens_--it is not possible that i should introduce this morning any serious theme. i have greatly enjoyed this trip through my own state and yours, sisters in loyalty and sacrifice for the union, sisters also in prosperity and honor. i find myself simply saying thank you, but with an increasing sense of the kindness of the people. if anything could add to the solemn sense of responsibility which my official oath places upon me, it would be these evidences of friendliness and confidence. the great mass of the people of this country are loyal, loving, dutiful citizens, ready to support every faithful officer in the discharge of his duties and to applaud every honest effort for their good. it is a source of great strength to know this, and this morning, not less from this bright sunshine and this crisp illinois air than from these kindly faces, i draw an inspiration to do what i can, the very best i can, to promote the good of the people of the united states. i go to-day to meet with some comrades of your state who stood with me in the army of the great union for the defence of the flag. i beg now to thank these comrades of peoria and this company of national guards and all these friends, and you, mr. mayor and gentlemen of the reception committee, for this kindly greeting, and to say that i have great satisfaction in knowing the people of this community are very prosperous. may that prosperity increase until every citizen, even the humblest, shares it. may peace, social order, and the blessing of god abide in every house is my parting wish for you. [cheers.] galesburg, illinois, october . _the public reception._ during the trip from peoria the president and secretary tracy rode a goodly portion of the distance on the locomotive with engineer frank hilton, a veteran who served in the president's old command. galesburg, the principal objective point of the journey, was reached at noon on october , where , patriotic citizens greeted their arrival. mayor loren stevens, at the head of the following committee, received and welcomed the president: forrest f. cooke, president of the day, judge a. a. smith, hon. h. m. sisson, hon. o. f. price, maj. h. h. clay, z. beatty, henry emerich, james m. ayres, francis a. free, gersh martin, f. c. rice, c. d. hendryx, gen. f. c. smith, john bassett, r. w. sweeney, sam'l d. harsh, colonel phelps, hon. philip s. post, rev. john hood, rev. g. j. luckey, h. a. drake, matthias o'brien, k. johnson, c. p. curtis, h. c. miles, capt. e. o. atchinson, and mr. weeks. fully , veterans participated in the parade; also the local militia, commanded by captain elder and lieutenants ridgley and tompkins; company d, fifth regiment, from quincy, capt. f. b. nichols, lieutenants treet and whipple; company h, sixth regiment, monmouth, capt. d. e. clarke, lieutenants shields and turnbull; company i, sixth regiment, morrison, capt. w. f. colebaugh, lieutenants griffin and baker. arriving at the court-house park, mayor stevens delivered the address of welcome. president harrison responded as follows: _mr. mayor and fellow-citizens_--the magnitude of this vast assemblage to-day fills me with surprise and with consternation as i am called to make this speech to you. i came here to meet with the survivors of my old brigade. i came here with the expectation that the day would chiefly be spent in their companionship and in the exchange of those cordial greetings which express the fondness and love which we bear to each other; but to my surprise i have found that here to-day the first brigade, for the first time in its history, has been captured. one or two of them i have been able to take by the hand, a few more of them i have seen as they marched by the reviewing stand, but they seemed to have been swallowed up in this vast concourse of their associate comrades and their fellow-citizens of illinois. i hope there may yet be a time during the day when i shall be able to take each by the hand, and to assure them that in the years of separation since muster-out day i have borne them all sacredly in my affectionate remembrance. they were a body of representative soldiers, coming from these great central states of ohio, indiana, and illinois, and as the borders of those states touch in friendly exchange, so the elbows of these great heroes and patriots touched in the great struggle for the union. who shall say who was chiefest? who shall assign honors where all were brave? the distinction that illinois may claim in connection with this organization is that, given equal courage, fidelity, and loyalty to every man, illinois furnished three-fifths of the brigade. but possibly i should withhold here those suggestions which come to me, and which will be more appropriate when i meet them in a separate organization. i have been greatly impressed with this assemblage to-day in this beautiful city, in this rich and prosperous state. the thought had occurred to me, and the more i thought of it the more sure i was of the conclusion, that nowhere on the face of the earth except in the united states of america, under no flag that kisses any breeze, could such an assemblage as this have been gathered. who are these? look into these faces; see the evidences of contentment, thrift, prosperity, and intelligence that we read in all these faces. they have come by general summons from all these homes, of village, city, and farm, and here they are to-day the strength and rock of our security as a nation; the people who furnished an invincible army when its flag was in danger; the people upon whose enlightened consciences and god-fearing hearts this country may rest with unguarded hope. where is the ultimate distribution of governmental powers? how can all the efforts of president, cabinet and judges, and armies, even, serve to maintain this country, to continue it in its great career of prosperity, if there were lacking this great law-abiding, liberty-loving people by whom they are chosen to these important offices? it is the great thought of our country that men shall be governed as little as possible, but full liberty shall be given to individual effort, and that the restraints of law shall be reserved for the turbulent and disorderly. what is it that makes our communities peaceful? what is it that makes these farm-houses safe? it is not the policemen. it is not the soldiers. it is this great and all-pervading american sentiment that exalts the law, that stands with threatening warning to the law-breaker, and, above all, that pervading thought that gives to every man what is his and claims only what is our own. the war was only fought that the law might not lose its sanction and its sanctity. if we had suffered that loss, dismemberment would have been a lesser one. but we taught those who resisted law and taught the world that the great sentiment of loyalty to our written laws was so strong in this country that no associations, combinations, or conspiracies could overturn it. our government will not fail to go on in this increased career of development, in population, in wealth, in intelligence, in morality, so long as we hold up everywhere in the local communities and in the nation this great thought that every man shall keep the law which secures him in his own rights, and shall not trample upon the rights of another. let us divide upon tariff and finance, but let there never be a division among the american people upon this question, that nowhere shall the law be overturned in the interests of anybody. if it fails of beneficent purpose, which should be the object of all law, then let us modify it, but while it is a law let us insist that it shall be obeyed. when we turn from that and allow any other standard of living to be set up, where is your security, where is mine, when some one else makes convenience more sacred, more powerful than the law of the land? i believe to-day that the great rock of our security is this deeply imbedded thought in the american heart that does not, as in many of our spanish-american countries, give its devotion to the man, but to the law, the constitution, and to the flag. so that in that hour of gloom, when that richest contribution of all gems that illinois has ever set in our nation's diadem, abraham lincoln, and in that hour of the consummation of his work, dies by the hand of the assassin, garfield, who was to meet a like fate, might say to the trembling and dismayed people: "lincoln is dead, but the government at washington still lives." my fellow-citizens, to all those who, through your mayor, have extended me their greeting, to all who are here assembled, i return my most sincere thanks. i do not look upon such assemblages without profound emotion. they touch me, and i believe they teach me, and i am sure that the lessons are wholesome lessons. we have had here to-day this procession of veterans, aged and feeble many of them. that is retrospective. that is part of the great story of the past, written in glorious letters on the firmament that is spread above the world. and in these sweet children who have followed we read the future. how sweet it was to see them bearing in their infant hands these same banners that those veterans carried amid the shot and battle and dying of men! i had occasion at the centennial celebration of the inauguration of washington in new york, being impressed by the great display of national colors, to make a suggestion that the flag should be taken into the schoolhouses, and i am glad to know that in that state there is daily a little drill of the children that pays honor to the flag. but, my friends, the constitution provides that i shall annually give information to congress of the state of the union and make such recommendations as i may think wise, and it has generally been understood, i think, that this affirmative provision contains a negative and implies that the president is to give no one except congress any information as to the state of the union, and that he shall especially make no suggestions that can be in any shape misconstrued. i confess that it would give me great pleasure, if the occasion were proper, to give you some information as to the state of the union as i see it, and to make some suggestions as to what i think would be wise as affecting the state of the union. but i would not on an occasion like this, when i am greeted here by friends, fellow-citizens of all shades of thought in politics and in the church, say a word that could mar the harmony of this great occasion. i trust we are all met here together to-day as loyal-loving american citizens, and that over all our divisions and differences there is this great arch of love and loyalty binding us together. and now you will excuse me from further speech when i have said again that i am profoundly grateful to the people of galesburg and this vicinity, and to these, my comrades in arms, who have so warmly opened their arms to welcome me to-day. [cheers.] _reunion first brigade, third division, twentieth army corps._ in the afternoon general harrison attended the reunion of the first brigade association, of which he is president. this brigade was the general's command in the late war, and comprised the seventieth indiana regiment, seventy-ninth ohio, one hundred and second, one hundred and fifth, and one hundred and twenty-ninth illinois. many veterans were present from these regiments. among the prominent participants were: generals daniel dustin and e. f. dutton, sycamore, ill.; gen. f. c. smith, galesburg; gen. a. w. doane, wilmington, ohio; general miles, col. h. c. corbin, h. h. carr, n. e. gray, dr. p. l. mckinnie, and colonel sexton, chicago; h. h. mcdowell, pontiac; capt. edward l. patterson, cleveland; capt. f. e. scott, brokenbow, neb.; capt. j. t. merritt, aledo; major m. g. mclain, indianapolis; capt. j. e. huston, clearfield, iowa; james m. ayers, r. m. smock, colonel mannon, major jack burst, wm. eddleman, c. d. braidemeyer, capt. t. u. scott, capt. t. s. rogers, c. p. curtis, captain bodkins, and others. congressman thos. j. henderson and many of the above-mentioned officers made brief speeches during the reunion. general dustin occupied the chair pending the election of officers for the ensuing year. general harrison's re-election as president of the association was carried amid cheers, and as he appeared to assume the presiding chair the veterans gave him a rousing reception. the president then addressed the brigade as follows: _comrades_--the object of my visit to galesburg was this meeting which we are to have now. i should not, i think, have been persuaded to make this trip except for the pleasure which i expected to find in meeting the men of the old brigade, from most of whom i have been separated since the muster-out day. we have had a great demonstration, one very full of interest, on the streets and in the park, but i think we are drawn a little closer in this meeting and understand each other a little better than in the larger assemblages of which we have made a part. it is very pleasant for me to see so many here. i cannot recall the names of all of you. time has wrought its changes upon the faces of us all. you recognize me because there were not so many colonels as there were soldiers--fortunately, perhaps, for the country. [laughter.] i saw you as individuals in the brigade line when it was drawn up either for parade or battle. it is quite natural, therefore, and i trust it will not be held against me, that you should have a better recollection of my features than i can possibly have of yours. and yet some of you i recall and all of you i love. [applause.] when you were associated in a brigade in we were all somewhat new to military duties and life. the officers as well as the men had come together animated by a common purpose from every pursuit in life. we were not so early in the field as some of our comrades. we yield them the honor of longer service, but i think we may claim for ourselves that when our hands were lifted to take the enlistment oath there was no inducement for any man to go into the army under any expectation that he was entering on a holiday. in the early days of the war men thought or hoped it would be brief. they did not measure its extent or duration. they did not at all rightly estimate the awful sacrifices that were to be made before peace with honor was assured. i well remember an incident of the early days of volunteering at indianapolis, when the first companies in response to the first call of president lincoln came hurrying to the capital. among the first to arrive was one from lafayette, under the command of capt. chris. miller. they came in tumultuously and enthusiastic for the fight. these companies were organized into regiments, which one by one were sent into west virginia or other fields of service. it happened that the regiment to which my friend miller was assigned was the last to leave the state. i met him one day on the street, and a more mad and despondent soldier i never saw. he was not absolutely choice in the use of his language--all soldiers were not. i think the first brigade was an exception. [laughter.] he was swearing like a pirate over the disgrace that had befallen him and his associates, growing out of the fact that he was absolutely certain that the war would be over before they got into the field, and left in camp a stranded regiment, having no part in putting down the rebellion. well, his day came presently, and he was ordered to west virginia, and among the first of those who, under the fire of the enemy at rich mountain, received a bullet through his body was capt. chris. miller. when these regiments of ours were enlisted we were not apprehensive that the war would be over before we had an adequate share of it. we were pretty certain we would all have enough before we were through. the clouds were dark in those days of ' . mcclellan was shut up in the peninsula; buell was coming back from alabama; kirby smith was entering through cumberland gap, and everything seemed to be discouraging. i think i may claim for these men of illinois, and these men of indiana and of ohio--if some of them are here to meet with us to-day--that when they enlisted there was no other motive than pure, downright patriotism, and there was no misunderstanding of the serious import of the work on which they entered. [applause.] those early days in which we were being transformed from civilians into soldiers were full of trial and hardship. the officers were sometimes bumptious and unduly severe--i am entering a plea in my own behalf now. [laughter.] the soldiers had not yet got to understand why a camp guard should be established, why they should not be at perfect liberty to go to town as they were when on the farm and the day's work was over. it was supposed that an army was composed of so many men, but we had not learned at that time that it was absolutely necessary that all those men should be at the same place at the same time, and that they could not be scattered over the neighborhood. there were a good many trials of that sort while the men were being made soldiers and the officers were learning their duties, and to know the proper margin between the due liberty of the individual and the necessary restraint of discipline. but those days were passed soon, and they passed the sooner when the men went into active duties. camp duties were always irksome and troublesome, but when they were changed for the active duties of the march and field there was less need of restraint. i always noticed there was no great need of a camp guard after the boys had marched twenty-five miles. they did not need so much watching at night. then the serious time came when sickness devastated us and disease swept its dread swath, and that dreadful progress of making soldiers was passed through when diseases which should have characterized childhood prostrated and destroyed men. then there came out of all this, after the sifting out of those who were weak and incapable, of those who could not stand this acclimating process, that body of tough, strong men, ready for the march and fight, that made up the great armies which under grant and sherman and sheridan carried the flag to triumph. the survivors of some of them are here to-day, and whatever else has come to us in life, whether honor or disappointment, i do not think there are any of us--not me, i am sure--who would to-day exchange the satisfaction, the heart comfort we have in having been a part of the great army that subdued the rebellion, that saved the country, the constitution, and the flag. [applause.] if i were asked to exchange it for any honor that has come to me, i would lay down any civil office rather than surrender the satisfaction i have in having been an humble partaker with you in that great war. [applause.] who shall measure it? well, generations hence, when this country, which had , , , now , , , has become , , , when these institutions of ours grow and develop and spread, and homes in which happiness and comfort have their abiding place, then we may begin to realize, north and south, what this work was. we but imperfectly see it now, yet we have seen enough of the glory of the lord to fill our souls full of a quiet enthusiasm. [applause.] here we are pursuing our different works in life to-day just as when we stood on picket or on guard, just as in the front rank of battle facing the foe--trying to do our part for the country. i hope there is not a soldier here in whom the love of the flag has died out. i believe there is not one in whose heart it is not a growing passion. i think a great deal of the interest of the flag we see among the children is because you have taught them what the flag means. no one knows how beautiful it is when we see it displayed here on this quiet october day, amid these quiet autumnal scenes, who has not seen it when there was no other beautiful thing to look upon. [applause.] and in those long, tiresome marches, in those hours of smoke and battle and darkness, what was there that was beautiful except the starry banner that floated over us? [applause.] our country has grown and developed and increased in riches until it is to-day marvellous among the nations of the earth, sweeping from sea to sea, embracing almost every climate, touching the tropics and the arctic, covering every form of product of the soil, developing in skill in the mechanical arts, developing, i trust and believe, not only in these material things which are great, but not the greatest, but developing also in those qualities of mind and heart, in morality, in the love of order, in sobriety, in respect for the law, in a god-fearing disposition among the people, in love for our country, in all these high and spiritual things. i believe the soldiers in their places have made a large contribution to all these things. the assembling of our great army was hardly so marvellous as its disbanding. in the olden time it was expected that a soldier would be a brawler when the campaign was over. he was too often a disturber. those habits of violence which he had learned in the field followed him to his home. but how different it was in this war of ours. the army sprang into life as if by magic, on the call of the martyred president--illinois' greatest gift, as i have said, to the nation. they fought through the war, and they came out of it without demoralization. they returned to the very pursuits from which they had come. it seemed to one that it was like the wrapping of snow which nature sometimes puts over the earth in the winter season to protect and keep warm the vegetation which is hidden under it, and which under the warm days of spring melts and disappears, and settles into the earth to clothe it with verdure and beauty and harvest. [great cheering.] _alumni hall, knox college._ after the public reception was concluded the president and party participated in the laying of the corner-stone of the alumni hall on the campus of knox college. dr. newton bateman, president of the college, conducted the exercises. prof. milton l. comstock read a brief history of knox college, at the conclusion of which dr. adams introduced president harrison, who spoke as follows: _my fellow-citizens_--speaking this morning in the open air, which since my official isolation from campaigning has made my voice unaccustomed to it, will make it impossible for me to speak further at this time. i do not deem this ceremony at all out of accord with the patriotic impulses which have stirred our hearts to-day. education was early in the thought of the framers of our constitution as one of the best, if not the only guarantee of their perpetuation. washington, as well as the founders of the venerable and useful institution, appreciated and expressed his interest in the establishment of institutions of learning. how shall one be a safe citizen when citizens are rulers who are not intelligent? how shall he understand those great questions which his suffrage must adjudge without thorough intellectual culture in his youth? we are here, then, to-day engaged in a patriotic work as we lay this corner-stone of an institution that has had a great career of usefulness in the past and is now entering upon a field of enlarged usefulness. we lay this corner-stone and rededicate this institution to truth, purity, loyalty, and a love of god. _phi delta theta banquet._ in the evening the president attended a banquet tendered him by lombard and knox chapters of phi delta theta, of which college fraternity general harrison was a member in his student days. at the president's table sat toastmaster lester l. silliman, of lombard chapter, with general miles, generals grosvenor, morgan, and post, mayor stevens, dr. ayres, and rev. dr. hood. brother geo. w. prince delivered the welcoming address on behalf of the local chapters, to which the distinguished phi brother, president harrison, arising amid great applause, responded. after a few pleasant remarks regarding his recollections of college life and his pleasure at meeting again with the members of the phi delta theta, he said: my college associations were broken early in life, partly by necessity and partly by choice; by necessity so far as the compulsion to work for a living was upon me, and by choice in that i added to my responsibility at an early date, so that it has not been my pleasure often to meet with or sit about the banquet board with members of this society. it gives me pleasure to meet with you to-night. i feel the greatest sympathy with these young men who are now disciplining their minds for the work of life. i would not have them make these days too serious, and yet they are very full of portent and promise. it is not inconsistent, i think, with the joyfulness and gladness which pertains to youth that they shall have some sense of the value of these golden days. they are days that are to affect the whole future. if i were to select a watchword that i would have every young man write above his door and on his heart, it would be that good word "fidelity." i know of no better. the man who meets every obligation to the family, to society, to the state, to his country, and his god, to the very best measure of his strength and ability, cannot fail of that assurance and quietness that comes of a good conscience, and will seldom fail of the approval of his fellow-men, and will never fail of the reward which is promised to faithfulness. unfaithfulness and lack of fidelity to duty, to work, and to obligation is the open door to all that is disgraceful and degrading. i want to thank you again, gentlemen, for this pleasant greeting, and to ask you, after the rather exhaustive duties of this day, to excuse me from further address and accept the best wishes of a brother in the phi delta theta organization. [cheers.] _the brigade banquet._ later in the evening the president and party attended a banquet given by the citizens in honor of the first brigade. it was a brilliant affair, conducted by the ladies of the city, active among whom were mrs. geo. lescher, miss tillie weeks, miss maude stewart, miss winnie hoover, and mrs. whiffen. mrs. george gale had charge of the table of honor, assisted by mrs. otto m. smith and miss louise tryon. gen. philip s. post was master of ceremonies and presented general harrison. the president prologued his parting words with an incident of a visit he made to a small town down the potomac. although he was introduced as president all over the town, no special attention was paid to him, and when the local paper came out with a column and a half report of the visit of the chief executive, the good people of the town were astonished, but explained their lack of attention by saying they thought mr. harrison was president of some fishing club. aside from jokes, said the president: one serious word in leaving. this day in galesburg i shall long remember. the enthusiasm and the cordiality of the citizens, the delicacy and kindness of their attention, have impressed me deeply. i shall ever gratefully recollect galesburg as a spot of especial interest, as the place of the meeting of the old brigade. comrades, i hope to meet you again when my time is more my own, and on several occasions like this to speak to you more familiarly, and to recall this time. i have tried not to be stinted in my intercourse with you, for i have wanted you to feel me warm and sincere. i have expressed myself, but not as freely as i would if by ourselves, or if i were but a private citizen or member of the brigade. but i would say to you and all your families, to the wives that sit here, to the wives and children that are at home, to those who have gone out from your roof-tree to prepare homes, to your grand-children--and i hope all of you have them--to one and all, i extend the hearty sympathy and best wishes of the "old-timer" you served so faithfully. ottumwa, iowa, october . the president's party left galesburg the night of the th, arriving at burlington at o'clock, where about , people greeted them. the president was escorted to the commercial club rooms, where mayor duncan, on behalf of the city of burlington, and p. m. crapo, president of the club, made addresses of welcome. a reception of one hour's duration followed, during which president harrison shook hands with , callers. ottumwa was reached at o'clock thursday morning. a committee of citizens, headed by hon. j. g. hutchison, met the president at galesburg. on arrival the president and his brother, john scott harrison, were immediately driven to the residence of their sister, mrs. t. j. devin, where they passed the morning. at the coal palace the president and secretary tracy were met by gov. horace boies and his staff, headed by adjt.-gen greene; also senator wm. b. allison, senator james f. wilson, ex-senator harlan, hon. john f. lacey, and the following committee of reception, representing the city of ottumwa: t. j. devin, w. t. harper, j. e. hawkins, w. b. smith, henry phillips, sam'l a. flager, j. c. manchester, a. w. johnson, w. t. fenton, j. g. meek, calvin manning, geo. withall, j. w. garner, j. j. smith, w. w. epps, h. b. hendershott, j. h. merrill, w. b. bonnifield, a. h. hamilton, c. f. blake, john c. fisher, hon. john n. irwin, j. t. hackworth, w. c. wyman, john c. jordan, a. g. harrow, allen johnston, t. d. foster, j. w. edgerly, a. w. lee, william daggett, g. h. sheffer, w. d. elliott, charles bachman, h. a. zangs, r. h. moore, capt. s. b. evans, capt. s. h. harper, h. w. merrill, j. r. burgess, j. b. mowrey, a. c. leighton, w. s. cripps, r. l. tilton, dr. l. j. baker, d. a. emery, samuel mahon, w. s. coen, o. c. graves, thomas swords, and john f. henry. other cities in iowa were represented on the reception committee by the following prominent citizens: hon. john craig, of keokuk; judge traverse and senator taylor, of bloomfield; gen. w. w. wright and gen. f. m. drake, centerville; gen. b. m. mcfall, oskaloosa; t. b. perry and j. h. drake, albia; geo. d. woodin and hon. f. e. white, sigourney; hon. chas. d. leggett and chas. d. fullen, fairfield; hon. edwin manning and capt. w. a. duckworth, keosauqua; f. r. crocker and e. a. temple, chariton; o. p. wright, knoxville; e. b. woodruff, marion co.; col. al. swalm, oskaloosa; hon. w. p. smith, hon. josiah given, hon. fred lehman, g. w. wright, des moines; hon. john h. gear, hon. john j. seely, burlington; hon. f. c. hormel, capt. m. p. mills, cedar rapids; hon. geo. h. spahr, hon. w. i. babb, mt. pleasant; hon. j. b. grinnell, of grinnell; dr. engle, newton; frank letts and j. s. mcfarland, marshalltown; hon. j. b. harsh and m. a. robb, creston; ex-governor kirkwood and ezekiel clark, iowa city. the president and governor boies reviewed the parade from a stand in the park. the column was led by the veterans of the famous third iowa cavalry. three thousand school children participated in the demonstration, which was witnessed by fully , spectators. the public reception took place in the afternoon at the coal palace; the great building was overflowing. hon. p. g. ballingall, president of the coal palace exposition, introduced governor boies, who welcomed the president in behalf of the people of iowa. president harrison responded as follows: _governor boies and fellow-citizens_--i accept in the same cordial and friendly spirit in which they have been offered these words of welcome spoken on behalf of the good people of the great state of iowa. it gives me pleasure in this hasty journey to pause for a little time in the city of ottumwa. i have had especial pleasure in looking upon this structure and the exhibits which it contains. it is itself a proof of the enterprise, skill, and artistic taste of the people of this city of which they may justly be very proud. i look about it and see that its adornment has been wrought with materials that are familiar and common, and that these have assumed, under the deft fingers and artistic thoughts of your people, shapes of beauty that are marvellously attractive. if i should attempt to interpret the lesson of this structure, i should say it was an illustration of how much that is artistic and graceful is to be found in the common things of life; and if i should make an application of the lesson, it would be to suggest that we might profitably carry into all our homes and into all neighborly intercourse the same transforming spirit. the common things of this life, touched by a loving spirit, may be made to glow and glisten. the common intercourse of life, touched by friendliness and love, may be made to fill every home and neighborhood with a brightness that jewels cannot shed. and it is pleasant to think that in our american home-life we have reached this ideal in a degree unexcelled elsewhere. i believe that in the american home, whether in the city or on the farm, the american father and the american mother, in their relations to the children, are kinder, more helpful, and benignant than any others. [cries of "good! good!" and cheers.] in these homes is the strength of our institutions. let these be corrupted and the government itself has lost the stone of strength upon which it securely rests. (here, by some accident of arrangement, the water of an artificial waterfall immediately behind the president was turned on, and the rush and roar of the water drowned his voice almost completely.) i have contended with a brass band while attempting to address a popular audience, but i have never before been asked to speak in the rush and roar of niagara. [laughter and cheers.] i think if i were to leave it to this audience whether they would rather see that beautiful display and hear the rippling of these waters [pointing] than to hear me, they would vote for the waterfall. [cries of "no, no!" and "shut off the water!"] (at this point the management succeeded in finally turning off the water so that the deafening noise ceased.) i had supposed that there were limitations upon the freedom of this meeting this afternoon, both as to the governor and myself, and that no political suggestion of any sort was to be introduced into this friendly concourse of american citizens; and i think both of us have good cause for grievances against the prohibitionists for interrupting us with this argument for cold water. [great laughter and applause.] it is quite difficult, called upon as i am every day, and sometimes three or four times a day, to make short addresses with the limitations that are upon me as to the subjects upon which i may speak, to know what to say when i meet my fellow-citizens. i was glad to hear the governor say that iowa is prosperous. we have here a witness that it is so. it offers also, i think, a solution of the origin of that prosperity, and suggests how it may be increased and developed. we have in this structure a display of all the products of the farm, and side by side with it a display of the mechanic arts. i think in this combination, in this diversity of interest and pursuit, in this mutual and helpful relation between the toilers of the soil and the workers in our shops, each contributing to the commonwealth and each giving to the other that which he needs, we have that which has brought about the prosperity you now enjoy, and which is to increase under the labors of your children to a degree that we have not realized. the progress in the mechanical arts that men not older than i have witnessed, the application of new agencies to the use of men within the years of my own notice and recollection, read like a fairy tale. let us not think that we have reached the limits of this development. there are yet uses of the agencies already known to be developed and applied. there are yet agencies perhaps in the great storehouse of nature that have not been harnessed for the use of man. the telegraph, the telephone, and the phonograph have all come within the memory of many who stand about me to-day. the application of steam to ocean travel is within the memory of many here. the development of our railroad system has all come within your memory and mine. the railroad was but a feeble agency in commerce when my early recollection begins; and now this great state is covered with railroads like a network. every farm is within easy reach of a shipping station, and every man can speak to his neighbor any day of the week, though that neighbor live on the opposite side of the globe. out of all this what is yet to come? who can tell? you are favored here in having not only a surface soil that yields richly to the labor of the farmer, but in also having hidden beneath that surface rich mines of coal which are to be converted into power to propel the mills that will supply the wants of your people. now, my friends, thanking you for the kindness with which you have listened to me, expressing again my appreciation of the taste and beauty of this great structure in which we stand, and wishing for iowa and all its citizens the largest increase of prosperity in material wealth, the most secure social order in all their communities, and the crowning blessing of home happiness, i bid you good-by. [prolonged cheering.] st. joseph, missouri, october . the first reception in the state of missouri took place at st. joseph at : the morning of october . many thousands greeted the president at the union depot. conspicuous in the assemblage were the veterans of custer post, g. a. r., who escorted the party to the neighboring hotel. the committee of reception consisted of col. a. c. dawes, chairman; mayor wm. shepard, hon. john l. bittinger, capt chas. f. ernst, capt. f. m. posegate, col. n. p. ogden, august nunning, wm. m. wyeth, major t. j. chew, hon. geo. j. englehart, hon. o. m. spencer, dr. j. d. smith, james mccord, ex-gov. silas woodson, john m. frazier, frank m. atkinson, rev. h. l. foote, and major joseph hansen. colonel dawes made a brief welcoming address and presented the president, who spoke as follows: _my fellow-citizens_--if you are glad to see me at this hour in the morning, if you are so kind and demonstrative before breakfast, how great would have been your welcome if i had come a little later in the day? [applause.] i beg to thank you, who at an inconvenient and early hour, have turned out to speak these words of welcome to us as we pass through your beautiful city. many years ago i read of st. joseph. i know something of its history, when, instead of being a large city, it was a place for outfitting those slow and toilsome trains that bore the early pioneers toward california and the far west. those days are not to be forgotten. those means of communication were slow, but they bore men and women, full of courage and patriotism, to do for us on the pacific and in the great west the work of peaceful conquest that has added greatly to the glory and prosperity of our country. and yet we congratulate ourselves that the swifter means of communication have taken the place of the old; we congratulate ourselves that these conveniences, both of business and social life, have come to crown our day. and yet in the midst of them, enjoying the luxuries which modern civilization brings to our doors, let us not lose from our households those plain and sturdy virtues which are essential to true american citizenship; let us remember always that above all surroundings, above all that is external, there is to be prized those solid and essential virtues that make home happy and that make our country great, and that enable us in every time of trial and necessity to call out from among the people some who are fit to lead our armies or to meet every emergency in the history of the state. we are here as american citizens, not as partisans; we are here as comrades of the late war, or, if there are here those who under the other banner fought for what seemed to them to be right, we are here to say one and all that god knew what was best for this country when he cast the issue in favor of the union and the constitution. [applause and cheers.] now, again united under its ample guarantee of personal liberty and public security, united again under one flag, we have started forward, if we are true to our obligations, upon a career of prosperity that would not otherwise have been possible. let us therefore, in all kindliness and faithfulness, in devotion to the right, as god shall give us light to see it, go forward in the discharge of our duties, setting above everything else the flag and the constitution on which all our rights and securities are based. now, my comrades of the grand army of the republic and fellow-citizens of missouri, again i thank you and bid you good-by. [cheers.] atchison, kansas, october . entering kansas the president was the recipient of a unique welcome at atchison, where , school children and several thousand citizens greeted him. little edna elizabeth downs was the orator on behalf of the children, and delivered a beautiful address, at the conclusion of which the children showered the president with flowers. the mayor of atchison, hon. b. p. waggener, and the following prominent citizens welcomed the chief executive: hon. john j. ingalls, hon. edward k. blair, hon. clem rohr, hon. s. c. king, hon. s. h. kelsey, hon. john c. tomlinson, hon. a. j. harwi, hon. henry elleston, hon. s. r. stevenson, hon. c. w. benning, judge rob't m. eaton, ex-gov. geo. w. glick, hon. h. c. solomon, judge a. g. otis, judge david martin, l. c. challiss, e. w. howe, david auld, b. t. davis, chas. e. faulkner, major w. h. haskell, major s. r. washer, capt. j. k. fisher, capt. david baker, capt. john seaton, stanton park, t. b. gerow, and h. claypark. chief-justice albert h. horton made the welcoming address and introduced president harrison, who said: _my fellow-citizens_--i stand to-day for the first time upon the soil of kansas. i am glad to have been permitted to enter it by the vestibule of this attractive city, the home of one of your most brilliant statesmen. i cannot refrain from saying, god be thanked that freedom won its early battle in kansas. [applause.] all this would have been otherwise impossible. you have a soil christened with the blood of men who died for liberty, and you have well maintained the lessons they taught, living and dying. it was appropriate that the survivors of the late war, men who came home crowned with the consummating victory of liberty, should make the state of kansas pre-eminently the soldier state of the union. now, after telling you that i am very grateful for your friendly greeting this morning, you will, i am sure, excuse me, in this tumult, from attempting further speech. may every good attend you in your homes; may the career of this great state be one of unceasing prosperity in things material, and may your citizenship never forget that the spiritual things that take hold of liberty and human rights are higher and better than all material things. [prolonged cheering.] allow me now to present to you the only member of my cabinet who accompanied me, general tracy, of new york, the secretary of the navy. topeka, kansas, october . the president's reception at topeka on friday, october , was a remarkable ovation; over , people from every county in the state greeted him. the famous seventh u. s. cavalry, gen. j. w. forsythe commanding, acted as the guard of honor. the president was welcomed by gov. lyman u. humphrey, senator john j. ingalls, chief-justice albert h. horton, mayor robert l. cofran, and the following distinguished committee: ex-gov. thomas a. osborn, ex-gov. geo. t. anthony, capt. geo. r. peck, col. james burgess, hon. s. b. bradford, judge n. c. mcfarland, judge john martin, a. j. arnold, john guthrie, wm. p. douthitt, john mileham, william sims, cyrus k. holliday, perry g. noel, s. t. howe, bernard kelly, j. lee knight, n. d. mcginley, wm. h. rossington, rev. dr. f. s. mccabe, geo. w. reed, elihu holcomb, lark odin, l. j. webb, milo b. ward, j. k. hudson, f. p. mclennan, h. o. garvey, frank root, john m. bloss, john f. gwinn, a. m. fuller, j. w. f. hughes, john r. peckham, james l. king, henry bennett, geo. h. evans, m. c. holman, john c. gordon, h. p. throop, joseph r. hankland, t. w. durham, judge c. g. foster, a. k. rodgers, a. b. jetmore, and thomas f. oenes. the parade was an imposing affair. thirty thousand veterans were in line. the indiana contingent numbered over , , and as they passed the reviewing carriage, led by major george noble, cheer after cheer was given in honor of the distinguished hoosier. nearly , school children participated in the parade. in the afternoon the president visited the reunion grounds with commander ira f. collins and other officers of the kansas department, g. a. r. governor humphrey delivered the welcoming address. the president responded as follows: _my fellow-citizens_--i am strongly tempted to omit even an attempt to speak to you to-day; i think it would be better that i should go home and write you an open letter. [great laughter and cheering.] i have been most profoundly impressed with the incidents which have attended this tremendous and, i am told, unprecedented gathering of the soldiers and citizens of the great state of kansas. no one can interpret in speech the lessons of this occasion. no power of description is adequate to convey to those who have not looked upon it or into the spirit and power of this meeting. this assembly is altogether too large to be greeted individually--one cannot get his arms around it. [laughter and cheers.] and yet so kindly have you received me that i would be glad if to each of you i could convey the sense of gratitude and appreciation which is in my heart. there is nothing for any of us to do but to open wide our hearts and let these elevating suggestions take possession of them. i am sure there has been nothing here to-day that does not point in the direction of a higher individual, social, state and national life. who can look upon this vast array of soldiers who fought to a victorious consummation the war for the union without bowing his head and his heart in grateful reverence? [great applause.] who can look upon these sons of veterans, springing from a patriotic ancestry, full of the spirit of ' , and coming into the vigor and strength of manhood to take up the burdens that we must soon lay down, and who, turning from these to the sweet-faced children whose hands are filled with flowers and flags, can fail to feel those institutions of liberty are secure for two generations at least? [great cheering.] i never knew until to-day the extent of the injury which the state of kansas had inflicted upon the state of indiana [laughter and cheers]--never until i had looked upon that long line of indiana soldiers that you plucked from us when the war was over by the superior inducement which your fields and cities offered to their ambitious toil. indiana grieves for their loss, but rejoices in the homes and prosperity they have found here. [cheers.] they are our proud contribution to the great development which this state has made. they are our proud contribution to that great national reputation which your state has established as the friend as well as one of the bulwarks of liberty and law. [cheers.] it was not unnatural that they, coming back from scenes where comrades had shed their blood for liberty, should choose to find homes in a state that had the baptism of martyrs' blood upon its infant brow. [prolonged cheering.] the future is safe if we are but true to ourselves, true to these children whose instruction is committed to us. there is no other foe that can at all obstruct or hinder our onward progress except treason in our own midst--treachery to the great fundamental principle of our government, which is obedience to the law. the law, the will of the majority expressed in orderly, constitutional methods, is the only king to which we bow. but to him all must bow. let it be understood in all your communities that no selfish interest of the individual, no class interests, however entrenched, shall be permitted to assert their convenience against the law. this is good american doctrine, and if it can be made to prevail in all the states of the union until every man, secure under the law in his own right, is compelled by the law to yield to every other man his rights, nothing can shake our repose. [cheers.] now, fellow-citizens, you will excuse me from the attempt at further speech. i beg you again to believe that i am grateful, so far as your presence here has any personal reference to myself--grateful as a public officer for this evidence of your love and affection for the constitution and the country which we all love. [great applause.] there is some grumbling in kansas, and i think it is because your advantages are too great. [laughter.] a single year of disappointment in agricultural returns should not make you despair of the future or tempt you to unsafe expedients. life is made up of averages, and i think yours will show a good average. let us look forward with hope, with courage, fidelity, thrift, patience, good neighborly hearts, and a patriotic love for the flag. kansas and her people have an assured and happy future. [prolonged cheers.] nortonville, kansas, october . at nortonville the citizens, and especially the school children, turned out _en masse_ and gave the president the heartiest of welcomes. among the prominent residents who participated in the greeting were hon. a. j. perry, s. p. griffin, thomas eckles, c. c. mccarthy, dr. d. t. brown, l. p. king, d. a. ellsworth, o. u. babcock, dr. r. d. webb, j. g. roberts, w. t. eckles, harry ellison, rev. t. hood, and m. crowberger. on behalf of the school children a little girl climbed the steps and presented the chief magistrate with an armful of beautiful bouquets, for which she received a hearty kiss. governor humphrey introduced the president, who spoke as follows: _my fellow-citizens_--this brief stop forbids that i should say anything more than thank you and to extend to you all my most friendly greeting. the sky is overcast, but in this assemblage of your school children, with flags and flowers, and in this gathering of the sturdy men who have made kansas great among states, there are suggestions that spread a sky of beauty and hope above our country and its destiny. it gives me great pleasure to make this first visit to kansas. it gives me great pleasure to see both at atchison and here the interest which the presence of these children shows you take in public education. there are many here who in their early days experienced the hardships and privations of pioneer life. the avenues of learning were shut against them, but it is much to their credit that what they lacked in early life, the impediments which have burdened their careers, they have bravely resolved shall not burden their children. i thank you again for this pleasant reception, and i bid you good-by, as we proceed on our journey. valley falls, kansas, october . at valley falls, kan., another large crowd was assembled. the president was welcomed by mayor a. d. kendall, dr. a. m. cowan, r. h. crosby, m. m. maxwell, dr. frank swallow, mrs. j. h. murry, miss l. m. ring, and other prominent residents. mrs. dr. cowan, on behalf of the ladies, presented general harrison with a basket of flowers. in response to the enthusiastic greetings the president said: _my friends_--i thank you sincerely for this cordial reception. i will not attempt any speech further than to say that this greeting puts me, if possible, under still stronger obligations in every official duty that devolves upon me to consult the interests of the people and do that which seems to be most promotive of public good. [cheers.] lawrence, kansas, october . the historic city of lawrence was reached at : o'clock, where the cheers of an immense multitude, including a battalion from haskell institute, welcomed the president. the reception committee consisted of mayor a. henley, george innis, w. h. whitney, gov. chas. robinson, gen. j. n. roberts, and e. f. goodrich. the veterans of washington post, g. a. r., gen. h. s. hall, commander, were present in a body. mayor henley, in the name of the city, welcomed the president, who, responding, said: _my friends_--i am sure you are kind, and the greatest kindness you can do me is not to ask me to attempt to speak again so recently after attempting at topeka to talk to all the rest of the people in kansas [laughter] who are not here. i supposed until the train pulled into this city that the entire citizenship of the state was in the immense crowd congregated at topeka to-day. my voice was so strained in attempting to speak there that i will only say to you that it gives me great pleasure to see you and to speak to you, even for a moment, at this hospitable town. all the inspiration connected with the story of the early history of kansas clusters around the city of lawrence. i am sure you will find in that story inspiration and suggestion that will keep the cause of liberty ever near to your hearts. [great applause.] kansas city, october . the presidential party reached kansas city at : p.m. friday, where a grand reception was tendered the chief executive. the committee of reception, representing the municipality and business interests, comprised the following prominent citizens, who escorted the president from topeka: mayor benjamin holmes, witten mcdonald, j. c. james, joseph speyer, judge c. l. dobson, col. m. j. payne, w. s. woods, hon. e. h. allen, f. l. kaufman, m. e. lawrence, joseph cahn, col. t. b. bullene, col. e. h. phelps, col. j. f. richards, george r. barse, major william warner, william taylor, col. louis hammerslough, e. c. sattley, j. h. fink, col. w. a. wilson, marshal tracy, f. b. nofsinger, collector devol, surveyor guffin, dr. f. w. schulte, w. t. urie, g. s. hampton, j. h. smith, m. d. henderson, h. j. rosecrans, r. m. easley, h. c. fike, b. s. flersheim, wm. barton, h. j. long, e. m. clendening, t. james, james m. coburn, l. e. irwin, c. l. valandingham, g. w. hollinger, e. e. richardson, e. m. wilcox, j. m. cooper, w. h. bundage, m. h. dickerson, c. a. brockett, s. a. pierce, j. h. neff, s. r. hudson, a. h. moffitt, s. b. stokely, p. l. whipple, j. w. merrill, d. g. saunders, f. w. hatch, g. bernheimer, b. c. burgess, s. t. smith, and j. l. walker. an enormous crowd greeted the president as he was driven to the coates house, where the distinguished party were entertained at dinner by mayor holmes, ex-governor crittenden, mayor w. a. coy, of kansas city, kan.; gov. a. j. smith, of the soldiers' home at leavenworth; hon. john scott harrison--the president's brother--and other leading citizens. in response to a toast to the president's health, general harrison said: _gentlemen_--i am sorry to cause even this temporary interruption by leaving the banquet, but i am sure you will all appreciate the desire i have to spend a few minutes under my brother's roof in your city, and will therefore excuse me. let me say that i very much appreciate the friendly and hospitable spirit of the business men of kansas city, to whom i am indebted for this banquet and reception. it has never been my pleasure before to visit your city, but it has been well advertised, and i have heard of it frequently. [laughter and applause.] so far as i could tell by the dim light of the evening in riding through the city, it realizes fully my expectations in growth and prosperity. [applause.] let me say, in conclusion, that i hope all your dreams for kansas city may be realized. [great applause.] after passing the evening at his brother's residence, at p.m. the president was escorted by members of the third regiment and a cavalry guard, commanded by col. milton moore, to the chamber of commerce, where an informal reception was held. major william warner introduced the president, who said: _my fellow citizens_--i will not attempt to say more than that i am very grateful to you for your kindness, for this cordial, genuine kansas city welcome. [cheers.] the arrangements which have been made, and which are intended to give me an opportunity to meet some of you personally, and the early hour at which we are to take the train for st. louis, make it inappropriate that i should attempt to speak at any length. i thank you again for your kindness, and will now submit myself to such arrangements as the committee have made to spend the little time i have to spend with you. [cheers.] st. louis, october . the president arrived in st. louis at : in the morning and received a royal welcome. as he drove through the city amid the roar of cannon, it is estimated that fully , people greeted him, and his journey partook of a triumph. the committee of escort that met the president at kansas city consisted of ex-gov. e. o. stanard, col. s. w. fordyce, hon. r. c. kerens, and marcus bernheimer. the guard of honor was a detail from the grand army, commanded by major leo rassieur. the president was met on arrival by the following distinguished committee of reception: his honor, mayor noonan, d. m. houser, geo. d. reynolds, r. m. scruggs, nelson cole, col. james g. butler, col. j. o. churchill, daniel catlin, wm. m. senter, john orrick, john s. moffett, s. newman, d. p. rowland, john j. daly, a. b. ewing, miles sells, john dillon, professor waterhouse, frank buchanan, john b. harlow, marquand foster, philip brockman, wm. grassmuck, chas. scudder, john j. o'brien, t. j. cummings, john h. terry, j. s. finkenbauer, c. j. hanabrinck, l. bohle, o. m. dean, john m. sellers, james green, dr. thomas o'reilly, samuel kennard, o. m. haye, john a. scudder, h. l. morrill, s. h. h. clark, john scullen, c. c. maffitt, joseph franklin, hon. f. g. niedringhaus, hon. nathan frank, w. m. kinsey, e. s. rowse, geo. d. barnard, j. l. boland, d. h. king, c. p. walbridge, b. f. harnett, geo. taylor, r. p. tansey, a. s. white, f. a. wann, m. m. bodenheimer, w. a. hargadine, george a. baker, john n. booth, geo. w. parker, j. d. thompson, george a. medill, e. c. simmons, edwin c. kehr, g. a. finkelnburg, marcus bernheimer, l. beavis, charles f. joy, henry hitchcock, wm. h. thompson, w. f. niedringhaus, charles espenschied, a. b. goodbaugh, jonathan rice, jacob meyer, goodman king, d. c. nugent, john davis, j. d. bascom, r. w. shapleigh, edgar d. tilton, john c. wilkinson, d. d. walker, frederick vaughn, e. f. williams, j. h. wear, c. d. comfort, c. c. rainwater, f. w. humphrey, michael mcginnis, john wahl, w. l. hughes, and thomas h. west. after reviewing the parade from the balcony of the southern hotel the president and secretary tracy visited the merchants' exchange and were tendered a reception by the business men of the city. mr. marcus bernheimer, president of the exchange, occupied the presiding chair and introduced gov. d. r. francis, who, in an eloquent address, welcomed the president in the name of the people of missouri. the governor was followed by hon. edward a. noonan, mayor of st. louis, who extended a "sincere and hearty greeting," on behalf of the residents of the city. hon. charles parsons then introduced the president, who addressed the assemblage as follows: _governor francis, mr. mayor, and fellow-citizens_--it is very grateful and very healthful to be so cordially received by you this morning. the office which i have been called upon to administer is very great in dignity, but it is very full of care and heavy responsibility. the man who with conscientious regard and a proper appreciation of the great trust seeks to administer it for the public good will find himself daily beset with perplexities and doubts, and daily besieged by those who differ with him as to the public administration. but it is a great comfort to know that we have an intelligent, thoughtful, and, at the same time, a very kind people, who judge benevolently and kindly the acts of those public servants of whose good disposition to do right they are not left in doubt. and it is very pleasant to know--and i do not need these eloquent words of assurance to have already impressed upon me--the great lesson that there are more things in which we agree and have common interests than in which we differ. but our differences of opinion as to public administration are all brought together in a genuine patriotism and love of country. [applause]. it gives me pleasure to witness since my last visit to st. louis evidence of that steady and uninterrupted growth which this great commercial centre has made since its birth as an indian trading-post on the mississippi. no year has been without its added evidences of progress, development, accumulation of wealth, and increase in population. you have now passed any period of doubt or uncertainty, and the career of st. louis is assured. you have grown like the oak, annually adding a ring to the prosperity and wealth and commercial importance of your great city. you have struck the roots of your influence broad and deep into the nourishing earth of this great fertile land in which you have lived; and the branches--the high branches of your enterprise--are reaching toward the sunlight that shines upon them. you are situated upon the mississippi river, giving you water communication with the sea, a communication which this government has undertaken to improve and secure, and which i believe will be made secure by appropriate legislation. [applause.] nor do i know any reason why these great lines of railway stretching from st. louis to the southwest may not yet touch great ports of commerce, deep harbors, until they shall become trunk lines. we have come to regard only these lines of railway communication to eastern seaboards as trunk lines. i do not know why. indeed, i believe that in the future, when we shall have seized again, as we will seize if we are true to ourselves, our own fair part of commerce upon the sea, and when we shall have again our appropriate share of south american trade [cheers], that these railroads from st. louis, touching deep harbors on the gulf, and communicating there with lines of steamships, shall touch the ports of south america and bring their tribute to you. you shall in all these things find a special interest, but an interest that will be shared, as all great interests are, by the nation and people, of which you are a loyal and enterprising part. and now, my friends, again let me thank you, and all those who have spoken in your behalf, for these friendly words. these great industries of commerce and manufactures here are entwined in friendly helpfulness. as they are diversified your prosperity is increased; but under them all, as the only secure rock upon which they can rest, is social order and obedience to the law. let it never be forgotten anywhere that commerce builds only upon social order. be watchful and careful of every instrumentality or suggestion which puts itself against the law. where the law is wrong make it right. [cries of "good!" and cheering.] let that be the one rule of conduct in the public relations of every american citizen. and now, my friends, again let me say thank you and good-by. at the conclusion of the reception on 'change the president, escorted by the committee of reception, visited the fair grounds and attended a banquet in his honor at the jockey club house. in the evening the distinguished guests visited the exposition, where a tremendous crowd gathered. as the president entered music hall, gilmore's famous band struck up "hail to the chief." the great audience stood and called repeatedly for a speech. the president arose in his box and bowed several times; but there was no denying their demands, and governor francis finally introduced his excellency, who said: _ladies and gentlemen_--i have sometimes thought that the life of the president of the united states is like that of the policeman in the opera--not a happy one. so many cares strew his path, so many people's welfare is to be considered, that wiser heads than mine may well be puzzled. the attention of this mighty audience to-night has been distracted from the concert by my entrance, not withstanding the fact that it has a leader more a master of his art than any other on the continent. i did not, nor do i desire to make a speech to-night. but as i have always declared myself in favor of the rule of the majority, i feel compelled to do so. from early morn till late this evening the day has been one of unalloyed pleasure to me. every possible courtesy has been shown our party, and we have gathered, i assure you, a most high opinion of your people and your city. this building is in every way a credit to st. louis, the metropolis of the southwest, and its exhibits do credit to the merchants and manufacturers represented. i am glad to see that the higher arts go hand-in-hand with mechanics. art, music, poetry, and song should not be separated from the homes of the poor, and such an institution as this cannot fail to instil all that is good into the hearts of every one. before i close let me tell you all how grateful and how complimented i feel at my hearty reception in your midst. i shall always recall this day with happy remembrance. now, won't you crown the great courtesies of the day by allowing me to end my speech? [applause.] anderson, indiana, october . president harrison passed the sabbath quietly at his indianapolis residence, and early monday morning, accompanied by secretary tracy and marshal ransdell, started for washington. the first stop was at pendleton, where the president shook hands with quite a crowd. anderson, the county seat of madison county, was reached at : , and a large concourse of people greeted the travellers. the president was received by hon. winfield t. durbin, chas. t. doxey, w. a. kittinger, john f. mcclure, caleb brown, jacob koehler, francis watkins, a. a. small, and other leading citizens. mayor terhune, in a patriotic address, presented the chief executive. after acknowledging the cordial greeting, the president spoke of the rapid industrial development of that section consequent upon the discovery and development of natural gas, and predicted a fine future for the county. concluding, he said: i am here to-day, returning to my duties at washington from a trip taken to meet some of my old comrades during the war. there are some here this morning. i bid them god-speed; i give them a comrade's greeting; and to you, my old-time friends, not in politics, but in that pride and association which makes us all indianians--we are all proud of our state and proud of our communities--i desire to say that while i have friends elsewhere, these were my earliest friends--friends of my boyhood almost, for i was scarcely more than a boy when i became a citizen of this state, and i always turn to it with affectionate interest. [cheers.] muncie, indiana, october . at muncie the assemblage was very large, numbering over , , and the president received the most vociferous greeting of the day. here, as at other points in the state, hundreds of general harrison's old friends crowded forth to welcome him and bid him god-speed. prominent among these were: hon. frank ellis, mayor of the city; hon. m. c. smith, hon. john c. eiler, hon. fred w. heath, hon. w. w. orr, hon. o. n. cranor, hon. geo. w. cromer, judge o. j. lotz, dr. g. w. h. kemper, dr. thos. j. bowles, dr. a. b. bradbury, a. l. kerwood, geo. l. lenon, f. e. putnam, thos. h. kirby, charles h. anthony, d. h. h. shewmaker, theodore f. rose, n. n. spence, chas. m. kimbrough, webster s. richey, thos. l. zook, john t. watterhouse, j. w. ream, c. e. jones, and r. i. patterson. mayor ellis delivered a brief welcoming address and introduced the president, who spoke as follows: _my fellow-citizens_--i have known this beautiful city of yours and many of the people of this prosperous county for more than thirty years. i have known in a general way the development of your interests by almost yearly visits to the city of muncie, but it seems to me that in these two years i have been out of the state you have made more progress than in any ten years when i was in the state. [cheers.] i think it was in the year , when i spent a night in muncie, that my attention was drawn by some of your citizens, as darkness settled down, to a remarkable and what was then thought to be chiefly a curious red glow in your horizon. it was, if i recollect aright, about the earliest development of natural gas in indiana, and the extent of this great field was wholly unknown. how rapidly events have crowded each other since! you have delved into the earth and have found the supply of this most adaptable and extraordinary fuel inexhaustible; and what has it done for you? no longer are you transporting coal from the distant mines to feed your furnaces. no longer are you sending the choppers into the woods to cut your trees and haul them in, that they may bring you winter heat and fuel. the factories have been coming to you. this convenient heat and serviceable fuel is found in the humblest home in muncie. how it has added to your comfort only those who have used it know. how much it has added to your prosperity and development of manufactures here you have only begun to know. [cheers.] the sunlight will not more surely shed its beams on us this morning than this great tide of prosperity which has set in through this gas belt in indiana shall go on increasing until all these cities and towns within its radius are full of busy men and humming machinery. what does all this mean? it means employment for men. it means happy and comfortable homes for an increasing population. it means an increased home market for the products of your farm. it means that the farmer will have a choice of crops, and will have consumers for perishable products of his farm at his very door. it means, if you preserve the order of your community, if this good county of delaware continues to maintain its reputation as a law-abiding, liberty-loving, free-school-loving population [cheers], that you shall have a prosperity--an increase of riches and of human comfort that we have scarcely conceived. and now, my friends, all over this, and above all this, and better than it all, let us keep in mind those higher things that make our country great. i do not forget that your good county sent to the war of the union, in the gallant regiments that went from this state, a multitude of brave men to stand by the flag. [cheers.] some of them are with you to-day. [applause.] now let that love of the flag be still uppermost in your hearts. nothing has pleased me more as i passed through some of our western states than to see that the school children everywhere had the starry flag in their hands. [cheers.] let it be so here and everywhere. let them learn to love it, to know its beauty, in order that when the time of peril comes they may be ready to defend it. [applause.] now to these friends, i am most grateful for your appreciative kindness, and if i shall be able, in the discharge of high and difficult duties, to maintain the respect and confidence of my fellow-citizens of indiana, other things will take care of themselves. winchester, indiana, october . winchester's greeting was of the most cordial character; a large share of the population of randolph county seemed to have turned out to do the president honor. among the prominent citizens participating were: leander j. monks, albert o. marsh, martin b. miller, c. w. moore, dennis kelley, w. r. way, w. e. miller, t. f. moorman, albert canfield, john r. engle, a. c. beeson, e. l. watson, thos. s. gordon, h. p. kizer, j. e. watson, john t. chenoweth, w. h. reinheimer, b. hawthorne, and b. w. simmons. gen. thomas m. browne, on behalf of the citizens, delivered an eloquent address of welcome, and closed by introducing president harrison, who said: _my friends_--it gives me great pleasure to hear from the lips of your honored fellow-citizen, my old-time army comrade, these words of welcome, spoken in your behalf. i thank you and him for his assurance that your assembling here together is without regard to difference in belief, and as american citizens having common interests and a common love for the flag and the constitution. now, to these good people of randolph county i render this morning my sincere thanks for their hearty and cordial welcome. no public servant, in whatever station, can ever be indifferent to the good esteem of men and women and children like these. you do not know how much these kindly faces, these friendly indiana greetings, help me in the discharge of duties that are not always easy. i bid you good-by and god-speed. i do wish for indiana and all her people the greatest happiness that god can give. [prolonged cheers.] union city, indiana, october . the president found another great crowd awaiting him at union city, including several hundred school children, each waving a flag. between rows of children he was escorted to the park near the station by a committee consisting of hon. theo. shockney, b. f. coddington, j. s. reeves, and geo. w. patchell. arrived at the park he was met by james b. ross, s. r. bell, l. c. huesman, j. f. rubey, w. s. ensign, l. d. lambert, j. b. montani, c. s. hardy, j. c. platt, judge j. w. williams, r. g. clark, h. h. le fever, h. d. grahs, chas. hook, and other prominent citizens. senator shockney made the welcoming address. the president, responding, said: _senator shockney and fellow-citizens_--the conditions are not such here that i can hope to make many of you hear the few words that it is possible for me to speak to you. i have found myself in this tour through these western states, undertaken for the purpose of meeting some of my comrades of the late war, who had invited me to be with them at their annual gatherings, repeating the words "thank you" everywhere. i have felt how inadequate this word or any other word was to express the sense of gratitude i should feel to these friendly fellow-citizens who everywhere greeted me with kind words and kinder faces. i feel very grateful to see you, and to realize that if there are any fault-finders, sometimes with reason, and sometimes without, that the great body of our people are interested only in good government, in good administration, and that the offices shall be filled by men who understand that they are the servants of the people, and who serve them faithfully and well. if it were not so a president would despair. great as the government is, vast as is our civil list, it is wholly inadequate to satisfy the reasonable demands of men, and so, from disappointment, reasonable or unreasonable, we turn with confidence and receive with encouragement these kindly greetings from the toilers of the country--the men and women who only ask from the government that it shall protect them in their lives, their property, and their homes; that it shall encourage education, provide for these sweet young children, so that they shall have an easier road in life than their fathers had, and that there shall be an absence of corrupt intent or act in the administration of public business. and now, standing on the line which divides these two states, the one for which i have the regard every man should feel for his birthplace, and the other to which i owe everything i have received in civil life or public honor, i beg to call your attention to the fact how little state lines have to do with american life. some of you pay your taxes on that side of the line, some on this, but in your intercourse, business, and social ties you cross this line unknowingly. above both and greater than both--above the just pride which ohioans have in that noble state, and above the just pride which we have in indiana--there floats this banner that is the common banner of us all. we are one in citizenship; we are one in devotion to the government, which makes the existence of states possible and their destruction impossible. [cheers.] and now, to these children, to my grand army friends, and to these old citizens, many of whom i have met under other conditions, i beg to say god bless you every one, and good-by. de graff, ohio, october . crossing the ohio line a short stop was made at sidney, where the president shook hands and received a delegation from bellefontaine headed by judge wm. lawrence. at de graff the president met with a cordial reception, especially from the school children. he was welcomed by ex-mayor h. p. runyon, dr. w. w. hamer, dr. w. h. hinkle, w. e. haris, g. w. harnish, john f. rexer, dr. f. m. galer, dr. wm. hance, r. o. bigley, d. s. spellman, d. w. koch, benjamin bunker, w. h. valentine, j. w. strayer, and s. e. loffer. superintendent of schools joseph swisher introduced the president, who said: _my friends_--i am very glad to see you all, and especially these dear young children. i have been passing through a country glorious in the autumnal tints which make a landscape that can be seen nowhere else in the world, and yet i turn always from these decaying glories of nature with great delight to look into the bright faces of these happy children, where i see a greater, because immortal, glory. i thank them for their presence here this morning. i wish their lives may be as sunny and bright through manhood and through womanhood, finding happiness in usefulness. i wish i had time to shake hands with you all. [cheers.] bellefontaine, ohio, october . bellefontaine accorded the president an enthusiastic welcome. the committee of reception consisted of dr. a. l. wright, mayor of the city; judge william lawrence, judge west, judge price, j. c. brand, d. hennesy, geo. w. emerson, aaron gross, a. c. elliott, a. e. griffen, h. j. king, j. e. west, i. n. zearing, and j. q. a. campbell. mayor wright delivered a brief welcoming address and introduced the president, who spoke as follows: _my fellow-citizens_--i wish all of you could have seen what i have seen in this extended but hasty visit through some of the great states of the central west, the broader view which we get as we journey through this country of the capabilities of its soil, of the beauties of its landscape, of the happiness of its homes, but, above all, of the sturdy manhood of its people, can but be useful to every public man and every patriot. [applause.] no one can make such a journey as we have and look into the faces of hundreds of thousands of his fellow-citizens and see how here in ohio, indiana, illinois, iowa, kansas, and missouri they are everywhere characterized by a sturdy independence and intelligent thoughtfulness and manhood, and doubt the future of this country of which they are citizens. nothing can shake its repose as long as this great mass of people in these homes, on these farms, in these shops and city dwelling-places are true to themselves and to their children. not every one can hope to reach the maximum of human wealth or enjoyment, but nowhere else is there so general a diffusion of human comfort and the conveniences of life as in this land of ours. you must not, then, show unthankfulness to the framers of our great constitution or to god by indulging in gloomy forebodings or in unreasonable complaint. he has not promised that everywhere and every season the fields should give full returns. he has promised that the food of man should not fail, and where else is famine unknown? other countries have now and then appealed for philanthropic help from abroad to feed their population, greater or less. the united states has always a surplus after its people are fed, and for this we should be thankful. i have been told everywhere that though crops in some respects and in some places have been short, the general prosperity is very great. everywhere i have been told that no wheel is idle, and that no hand is idle that seeks employment that honest bread may come to his household. i believe that we are on an upward grade of prosperity, if we will be brave and hopeful and true, that shall lead us perhaps to a development and an increase of wealth we have never before attained. and now, my fellow-citizens, thanking you for this friendly morning greeting, i bid you good-by. [applause.] let me have the pleasure, however, of introducing to you my valued associate at washington--secretary tracy. [applause.] crestline, ohio, october . the people of crestline honored the president with a large assembly, prominent among whom were: mayor p. w. pool, hon. daniel babst, john g. barney, alexander hall, b. f. miller, john whittle, john f. castle, c. f. frank, dr. w. p. bennett, l. g. russell, a. howorth, g. b. thrailkill, e. s. bagley, d. l. zink, j. p. davis, t. p. kerr, w. r. boyd, e. w. hadley, samuel gee, c. c. hall, d. s. patterson, and richard youngblood. mayor pool welcomed and introduced the president in a brief address. general harrison responded: _my fellow-citizens_--already some seven or eight times this morning, beginning before breakfast, i have been called upon to talk briefly to my fellow-citizens who have gathered at the various points where we made brief stops at their request. the story i must tell you is the same old story i have been telling them--that i am very grateful for your friendly expressions and presence; very grateful for the kindliness which speaks through those who address me, and for the kindness which appears in all your faces. it is pleasant to know that as against all enemies of our country we are one, that we have great pride, just pride in our birthright as american citizens, just pride in the country of our adoption as to those who have found a home here with us. it is the people's land more than any other country in the world. mr. lincoln felicitously expressed it to be a "government of the people, by the people, for the people." [applause.] they originate it; they perpetuate it. if it does not miss its purpose it is administered for their good. [applause.] and so to you upon whom the burden of citizenship now rests, you who have the care of these homes and the responsibilities of womanhood; to these lads who will soon be citizens, and to these girls who are coming on to womanhood, to all i express my thanks for your friendly greeting. [applause.] to every one of you i wish the most abundant success; that every home represented here may be a typical american home, in which morality and purity and love sit as the crowning virtues and are household gods. our country is prosperous, though not all have attained this year the measure of success which they had hoped for. if there was any shortness of crops anywhere, already the fields are green with the promise of another year. let our hearts be hopeful, let us be faithful and true, and the future of our country and our own comfort are assured. [cheers.] mansfield, ohio, october . at mansfield, the home of senator sherman, a large assemblage greeted the president, prominent among whom was the distinguished senator, and hon. henry c. hedges, frank w. pierson, j. m. waugh, frank k. tracy, maj. joseph s. hedges, hon. w. s. kerr, j. r. brown, nelson ozier, capt. w. s. bradford, hon. w. s. cappeller, hon. w. m. hahn, capt. joseph brown, g. u. harn, maj. w. w. smith, geo. c. wise, judge jas. e. lowry, james mccoy, john crum, ried carpenter, and wm. c. hedges, jr. senator sherman introduced the president, who spoke briefly, saying: _my fellow-citizens_--we stop so frequently upon this journey and our time at each station is so brief, that i cannot hope to say anything that would be interesting or instructive. i thank you most sincerely for these friendly manifestations. i am glad to be permitted to stop at the home of your distinguished senator and my friend. [cheers.] i am sure, however you may differ from him in political opinion, the people of mansfield and of ohio are proud of the eminence which he has attained in the counsels of the nation and of the distinguished service he has been able to render to his country not only in congress but in the treasury department. [cheers.] he is twin in greatness with that military brother who led some of you, as he did me, in some of the great campaigns of the war, and they have together rendered conspicuous services to this country, which we, as they, love with devoted affection. we have so many common interests and so much genuine friendliness among the american people that except in the very heat and ardor of a political campaign the people are kind to each other, and we soon forget the rancor of these political debates. we ought never to forget that we are american citizens; we ought never to forget that we are put in charge of american interests, and that it is our duty to defend them. [applause.] thanking you again for your presence and kindliness, i bid you good-by. [applause.] wooster, ohio, october . at wooster, the seat of the well-known university, the presidential party received a rousing greeting, especially from the students with their college cry. at the head of the committee of reception was the venerable professor stoddard, formerly professor of chemistry at miami university when benjamin harrison attended that institute. among other prominent townsmen who received the president were: hon. m. l. smyser, hon. a. s. mcclure, jacob frick, col. c. v. hard, capt. harry mcclarran, dr. john a. gann, dr. r. n. warren, capt. r. e. eddy, lieut. w. h. woodland, w. o. beebe, dr. j. d. robison, wm. annat, john c. hall, enos pierson, r. j. smith, samuel metzler, geo. w. reed, c. w. mcclure, a. g. coover, a. m. parish, anthony wright, abram plank, j. s. r. overholt, jesse mcclellan, david nice, andrew branstetter, charles landam, wm. f. kane, capt. lemuel jeffries, sylvester f. scovel, d.d., o. a. hills, d.d., jas. m. quinby, r. w. funck, and harry heuffstot. congressman smyser introduced the president, who said: _my fellow-citizens_--if anything could relieve the sense of weariness which is ordinarily incident to extended railroad travel, it would be the exceeding kindness with which we have been everywhere received by our fellow-citizens, and to look upon an audience like that assembled here, composed in part of venerable men who experienced the hardships of early life in ohio, of some of those venerable women who shared those labors and self-denials of early life in the west, and in part of their sons, that gallant second generation, who, in the time of the nation's peril in , sprang to its defence and brought the flag home in honor [applause], and in part of these young men here undergoing that discipline of mind which is to fit them for useful american citizenship, full of the ambitions of early manhood, and, i trust, rooted in the principles of morality and loyalty [applause], and in part of these sweet-faced children, coming from your schools and homes to brighten with their presence this graver assembly. where else in the world could such a gathering be assembled? where else so much social order as here? the individual free to aspire and work, the community its own police officer and guardian. we are here as american citizens, having, first, duties to our families, then to our neighborhood--to the institutions and business with which we are connected--but above all, and through and by all these duties, to our country and to god, by whose beneficial guidance our government was founded, by whose favor and protection it has been preserved. [applause.] friendly to all peoples of the world, we will not thwart their course or provoke quarrels by unfriendly acts, neither will we be forgetful of the fact that we are charged here first with the conservation and promotion of american interests, and that our government was founded for its own citizenship. [applause and cheers.] but i cannot speak at further length. i must hurry on to other places, where kind people are impatiently awaiting our coming, and to duties which will be assumed and undertaken with more courage since i have so often looked into the kind faces of the people whom i endeavor to serve. [applause.] let me present to you now, and i do so with great pleasure, one of the gentlemen called by me under the constitution to assist in the administration of the government--one whom i know you have learned to love and honor as you are now privileged to know--gen. benjamin f. tracy, the secretary of the navy. [cheers.] orrville, ohio, october . at orrville, wayne county, it was not contemplated to stop; but so large and enthusiastic was the crowd the president held a brief reception. among the prominent townsmen who welcomed him were: a. h. walkey, s. n. coe, a. e. clark, j. w. hostetter, a. dennison, n. s. brice, d. j. luikheim, and john trout. in response to repeated cries of "speech," the president said: "fellow-citizens--the american people are very kind"--at this point the train started, and the president closed abruptly by saying-"and i feel sure that they will here excuse my failure to make a speech." there were loud shouts of laughter at the president's readiness as the train pulled out. massillon, ohio, october . at massillon several thousand people assembled and great enthusiasm prevailed. the committee of reception consisted of hon. william m. reed, mayor of the city; prof. e. a. jones, hon. j. walter mcclymonds, hon. s. a. conrad, william f. ricks, clement russell, and joseph grapevine, esq. the grand army veterans and school children were present in force. mayor reed made the welcoming address. president harrison, responding, said: _mr. mayor and fellow-citizens_--the burden of obligation connected with this visit is put upon me by the enthusiasm and magnitude of this welcome which you have extended to me. it gives me pleasure to stop for a brief moment in a city widely celebrated for its industries, and among a people widely celebrated for their virtues and intelligence. [cheers.] it was especially gratifying as we passed in your suburbs, one of these busy hives of industry, to see upon the bank, waving with hearty cheers, the operatives in their work-day clothes. it is of great interest to know that you have these diversified industries among you. your lot would be unhappy and not prosperous if you were all pursuing the same calling, even if it were the calling to which i belong, the profession of the law. [laughter.] it is well that your interchanging industries and pursuits lean upon and help each other, increasing and making possible indeed the great prosperity which you enjoy. i hope it is true here that everybody is getting a fair return for his labor. we cannot afford in america to have any discontented classes, and if fair wages are paid for fair work we will have none. [cheers.] i am not one of those who believe that cheapness is the highest good. i am not one of those who believe that it can be to my interest, or to yours, to purchase in the market anything below the price that pays to the men who make it fair living wages. [great cheering.] we should all "live and let live" in this country. [cheers.] our strength, our promise for the future, our security for social happiness are in the contentment of the great masses who toil. it is in kindly intercourse and relationship between capital and labor, each having its appropriate increase, that we shall find the highest good, the capitalist and employer everywhere extending to those who work for human rights a kindly consideration with compensatory wages. [cheers.] now, to these children and grand army friends who greet me here, i say, thank you and god speed you and good-by. [cheers.] canton, ohio, october . canton, the home of hon. william mckinley, jr., gave the president a most cordial and clamorous greeting. the g. a. r. and other organizations were out in full force. among the leading citizens who welcomed the chief executive were: w. k. miller, w. l. alexander, judge j. p. fawcett, j. m. campbell, judge j. w. underhill, andrew d. braden, col. j. e. dougherty, col. j. j. clark, n. holloway, and capt. c. t. oldfield. major mckinley introduced the president, who addressed the large assemblage, saying: _my fellow-citizens_--the inconvenience which you suffer to-day, and under which i labor in attempting to speak to you, comes from the fact that there are more of you here than can come within the range of my voice, but not more, i assure you, my fellow-citizens, than i can take and do take most hospitably in my regard. [cheers.] it gives me great pleasure to stand here in the prosperous and growing city of canton. i am glad to be at the home of one with whom i have been associated in congressional duties for a number of years, and who in all personal relations with me, as i believe in all personal relations with you, his neighbors, has won my regard, as i am sure he has won yours [cheers]; and without any regard to what may be thought of the mckinley bill, i am sure here to-day you are all the good neighbors and friends of william mckinley. [cheers.] kind-hearted and generous as he seems to me, i am sure he has not failed in these social relations, whatever judgment you may have of his political opinions, in making the masses of the people proud of him as their distinguished friend. [cheers.] you have here to-day the representatives of men from the shops, from the railroads, from the stores, from the offices of your city. you are living together in those helpful and interchanging relations which make american life pleasant and which make american cities prosperous. the foundation of our society is in the motto that every man shall have such wages as will enable him to live decently and comfortably, and rear his children as helpful and safe and useful american citizens. [cheers.] we all desire, i am sure--every kindly heart--that all the relations between employers and workmen shall be friendly and kind. i wish everywhere the associations were closer and employers more thoughtful of those who work for them. i am sure there is one thing in which we all agree, whatever our views may be on the tariff or finance, and that is, there is no prosperity that in the wide, liberal sense does not embrace within it every deserving and industrious man and woman in the community. [cheers.] we are here all responsible citizens, and we should all be free from anything that detracts from our liberties and independence, or that retards the development of our intelligence, morality, and patriotism. i am glad here to speak to some, too, who were comrades in the great struggle of the civil war [cheers]; glad that there are here soldiers who had part in that great success by which our institutions were preserved and the control and sovereignty of the constitution and law were forever established. [cheers.] to them, and to all such friends, i extend to-day a hearty greeting, and would if i could extend a comrade's hand. [cheers.] and now, my friends, the heat of this day, the exhaustion of a dozen speeches, made at intervals as we have come along, renders it impossible that i should speak to you longer. i beg to thank you all for your presence. i beg to hope that, as american citizens, however we differ about particular matters of legislation or administration, we are all pledged, heart and soul, life and property, to the preservation of the union and to the honor of our glorious flag. [great cheering.] alliance, ohio, october . at alliance the assembly was very large. a reception committee, headed by mayor j. m. stillwell and comprising the following leading citizens, met the president: hon. david fording, h. w. harris, t. r. morgan, wm. brinker, madison trail, dr. j. h. tressel, h. w. brush, w. h. morgan, thos. brocklebank, chas. ott, dr. w. p. preston, e. n. johnston, j. h. focht, w. h. ramsey, w. w. webb, e. e. scranton, henry heer, jr., and harper brosius. chairman fording delivered a welcoming address and introduced president harrison, who in response said: _my fellow-citizens_--there is nothing in which the american people are harder upon their public servants than in the insatiable demand they make for public speech. i began talking before breakfast this morning, and have been kept almost continuously at it through the day, with scarcely time for lunch; and yet, as long as the smallest residuum of strength or voice is left i cannot fail to recognize these hearty greetings and to say some appreciative word in return. i do very much thank you, and i do very deeply feel the cordial enthusiasm with which you have received me. it is very pleasant to know that as american citizens we love our government and its institutions, and are all ready to pay appropriate respect to any public officer who endeavors in such light as he has to do his public duty. this homage is not withheld by one's political opponents, and it is pleasant to know that in all things that affect the integrity and honor and perpetuity of our government we rise above party ties and considerations. the interests of this government are lodged with you. there is not much that a president can do to shape its policy. he is charged under the constitution with the duty of making suggestions to congress, but, after all, legislation originates with the congress of the united states, and the policy of our laws is directed by it. the president may veto, but he cannot frame a bill. therefore it is of great interest to you, and to all our people, that you should choose such men to represent you in the congress of the united states as will faithfully promote those policies to which you have given your intelligent adhesion. this country of ours is secure, and social order is maintained, because the great masses of our people live in contentment and some good measure of comfort. god forbid that we should ever reach the condition which has been reached by some other countries, where all that is before many of their population is the question of bare subsistence, where it is simply "how shall i find bread for to-day?" no hopes of accumulation; no hope of comfort; no hope of education, or higher things for the children that are to come after them. god be blessed that that is not our condition in america! here is a chance to every man; here fair wages for fair work, with education for the masses, with no classes or distinctions to keep down the ambitious young. we have a happy lot. let us not grumble if now and then things are not prosperous as they might be. let us think of the average, and if this year's crop is not as full as we could wish, we have already in these green fields the promise of a better one to come. let us not doubt that we are now--as i have seen the evidence of it in a very extended trip through the west--entering upon an up grade in all departments of business. [cheers.] everywhere i went, in the great city of st. louis and the smaller manufacturing towns through which we passed, there was one story to tell--and i have no doubt it is true in your midst--every wheel is running and every hand is busy. [cheers.] i believe the future is bright before us for increasingly better times for all, and as it comes i hope it may be so generally diffused that its kindly touch may be felt by every one who hears me, and that its beneficent help may come into every home. [prolonged cheers.] kansas city, missouri, april , . _letter to western states commercial congress._ the first western states commercial congress met at kansas city, mo., april , . delegations composed mainly of business men, appointed by the governors of the various states and territories, were present from the following western and southern states and territories: alabama, california, colorado, georgia, idaho, illinois, indiana, iowa, kansas, kentucky, louisiana, michigan, minnesota, mississippi, missouri, montana, nebraska, tennessee, texas, washington, wisconsin, wyoming, new mexico, and oklahoma. on motion of governor francis, of missouri, state senator h. b. kelly, of kansas, was chosen chairman of the congress and hon. john w. springer, of illinois, secretary. letters of regret were read from those who had been specially invited to attend the congress. among the letters was the following from president harrison: washington, april . hon. h. b. kelly, _chairman, kansas city, mo._: dear sir--i have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of march , inviting me to attend the meeting of the commercial congress of the western agricultural and mining states, to assemble in kansas city, april to , for the purpose of considering measures affecting the general agricultural and business prosperity of the mississippi valley states. i regret that it will not be possible for me to accept this invitation. if i am not detained here by public business i shall probably start about that time for the pacific coast by the southern route; and if that purpose should be thwarted it will be by considerations that will also prevent the acceptance of your invitation. a public discussion of the conditions affecting agricultural and business prosperity cannot but be helpful, if it is conducted on broad lines and is hospitable to differences of opinion. the extraordinary development of the productions of agriculture which has taken place in a recent period in this country by reason of the rapid enlargement of the area of tillage under the favoring land laws of the united states, very naturally has called attention to the value, and, indeed, the necessity of larger markets. i am one of those who believe that a home market is necessarily the best market for the producer, as it measurably emancipates him in proportion to its nearness from the exactions of the transportation companies. if the farmer could deliver his surplus produce to the consumer out of his farm-wagon his independence and his profits would be larger and surer. it seems to me quite possible to attain a largely increased market for our staple farm products without impairing our home market by opening the manufacturing trades to a competition in which foreign producers, paying a lower scale of wages, would have the advantage. a policy that would reduce the number of our people engaged in mechanical pursuits or diminish their ability to purchase food products by reducing wages cannot be helpful to those now engaged in agriculture. the farmers insist that the prices of farm products have been too low--below the point of fair living and fair profits. i think so too, but i venture to remind them that the plea they make involves the concession that things may be too cheap. a coat may be too cheap as well as corn. the farmer who claims a good living and profits for his work should concede the same to every other man and woman who toils. i look with great confidence to the completion of further reciprocal trade arrangements, especially with the central and south american states, as furnishing new and large markets for meats, breadstuffs, and an important line of manufactured products. persistent and earnest efforts are also being made, and a considerable measure of success has already been attained, to secure the removal of restrictions which we have regarded as unjust upon the admission and use of our meats and live cattle in some of the european countries. i look with confidence to a successful termination of the pending negotiations, because i cannot but assume that when the absolutely satisfactory character of the sanitary inspections now provided by our law is made known to those foreign states they will promptly relax their discriminating regulations. no effort and none of the powers vested in the executive will be left unused to secure an end which is so desirable. your deliberations will probably also embrace consideration of the question of the volume and character of our currency. it will not be possible and would not be appropriate for me in this letter to enter upon any elaborate discussion of these questions. one or two things i will say, and first, i believe that every person who thoughtfully considers the question will agree with me upon a proposition which is at the base of all my consideration of the currency question, namely, that any dollar, paper or coin, that is issued by the united states must be made and kept in its commercial uses as good as any other dollar. so long as any paper money issued or authorized by the united states government is accepted in commercial use as the equivalent of the best coined dollar that we issue, and so long as every coined dollar, whether of silver or gold, is assured of an equivalent value in commercial use, there need be no fear as to an excess of money. the more such money the better. but, on the other hand, when any issue of paper or coined dollars is, in buying and selling, rated at a less value than other paper or coined dollars, we have passed the limit of safe experiment in finance. if we have dollars of differing values, only the poorest will circulate. the farmer and the laborer, who are not in hourly touch with the ticker of the telegraph, will require, above all other classes of our community, a dollar of full value. fluctuations and depreciations are always at the first cost of these classes of our community. the banker and the speculator anticipate, discount, and often profit by such fluctuations. it is very easy, under the impulse of excitement of the stress of money stringency, to fall into the slough of a depreciated or irredeemable currency. it is a very painful and slow business to get out when once in. i have always believed, and do now more than ever believe, in bimetallism, and favor the fullest use of silver in connection with our currency that is compatible with the maintenance of the parity of the gold and silver dollars in their commercial uses. nothing, in my judgment, would so much retard the restoration of the free use of silver by the commercial nations of the world as legislation adopted by us that would result in placing this country upon a basis of silver monometallism. the legislation adopted by the first session of the fifty-first congress i was assured by leading advocates of free coinage--representatives of the silver states--would promptly and permanently bring silver to $ . per ounce and keep it there. that anticipation has not been realized. our larger use of silver has apparently, and for reasons not yet agreed upon, diminished the demand for silver in china and india. in view of the fact that it is impossible in this letter to elaborate, and that propositions only can be stated, i am aware that what i have said may be assailed in points where it is easily defensible, but where i have not attempted to present the argument. i have not before, excepting in an official way, expressed myself on these subjects; but feeling the interest, dignity, and importance of the assemblage in whose behalf you speak, i have ventured, without bigotry of opinion, without any assumption of infallibility, but as an american citizen, having a most earnest desire that every individual and every public act of my life shall conduce to the glory of our country and the prosperity of all our people, to submit these views for your consideration. very respectfully, benjamin harrison. across the continent, . president harrison started on his memorable journey to texas and the pacific coast states at : o'clock tuesday morning, april , . the party consisted of the president and mrs. harrison, postmaster-general john wanamaker, secretary of agriculture j. m. rusk, mr. and mrs. russell b. harrison, mrs. j. r. mckee, mrs. dimmick, maj. j. p. sanger, military aid to the president, marshal daniel m. ransdell, mr. and mrs. geo. w. boyd, mr. e. f. tibbott, stenographer to the president, and alfred j. clark, o. p. austin, and r. y. oulahan, press representatives. at chattanooga the party was joined by the president's younger brother, mr. carter b. harrison, and wife, and at los angeles by mr. c. l. saunders. the train that safely carried the head of the nation on this great tour was a marvel of mechanical perfection unrivalled in equipment. mr. geo. w. boyd, general assistant passenger agent of the pennsylvania railroad, prepared the schedule and had charge of the train throughout. no predecessor of president harrison ever attempted the great task of travelling , miles, or delivering impromptu addresses within the limit of days--an achievement remarkable in many respects. his long-extended itinerary was an almost continuous series of receptions and responses, and there is no instance where any man in public life, subjected to the requirements of a similar hospitable ordeal, has acquitted himself with greater dignity, tact, and good sense both as to the matter and manner of his utterances. this series of speeches is in marked contrast with his incisive utterances during the campaign of , and disclose general harrison's ability to seize the vital topic of the moment and present it to a mixed audience in such a way that while consistent with his own record he yet raises no antagonisms. roanoke, virginia, april . leaving washington shortly after midnight, the train passed through lynchburg at an early hour and arrived at roanoke, its first stopping-point, at : a.m. seemingly the entire population of the enterprising city was out to welcome the president to old virginia. prominent among those who greeted the party were mr. and mrs. charles g. eddy, w. b. bevill, john a. pack, allen hull, a. s. asberry, and john d. smith. after shaking hands with several hundred, president harrison, in response to repeated calls, spoke as follows: _my fellow-citizens_--i desire to thank you very sincerely for this friendly greeting. the state of virginia is entitled, i think, to high estimation among the states for its great history--for the contribution it has made to the great story of our common country. this fact you discovered, i think, long ago. for personal reasons i have great affection for virginia. it is the state of my fathers. i am glad this morning to congratulate you upon the marvellous development which has come, and the greater which is coming, to your commonwealth. you not only have an illustrious story behind you, but before you prospects of development in wealth and prosperity, in all that makes a great state, such as never entered into the imagination of those who laid the foundation of the commonwealth. [cheers.] you are arousing now to a realization of the benefits of diversity of industries. in the olden time virginia was a plantation state. i hope she may never cease to have large agricultural interests. it is the foundation of stable society, but i rejoice with you that she has added to agriculture the mining of coal and iron, and, bringing these from their beds, is producing all the products that enter into the uses of life. in this is the secret of that great growth illustrating what i see about me here, and the promise of a future which none of us can fully realize. in all of these things we have a common interest, and i beg to assure you that in everything that tends to the social order of your people and the development and increased prosperity of the state of virginia i am in most hearty sympathy with you all. [cheers.] bristol, tennessee, april . the town of radford, va., acknowledged the honor of the president's visit in a cordial way. general harrison shook hands with many of the inhabitants. at bristol, tenn., a crowd of several thousand greeted the party at the station. the president was met and escorted to a high bluff overlooking the city by hon. harvey c. wood, at the head of the following committee of prominent citizens: col. e. c. manning, hon. i. c. fowler, judge m. b. wood, a. s. mcneil, w. a. sparger, a. c. smith, c. h. slack, rockingham paul, esq., capt. j. h. wood, judge c. j. st. john, col. nat m. taylor, and john h. caldwell. judge wood made the welcoming address and introduced the president, who, in response, said: _my fellow-citizens_--i have found not only pleasure but instruction in riding to-day through a portion of the state of virginia that is feeling in a very striking way the impulse of a new development. it is extremely gratifying to notice that those hidden sources of wealth which were so long unobserved and so long unused are now being found, and that these regions, once so retired, occupied by a pastoral people, having difficult access to the centres of population, are now being rapidly transformed into busy manufacturing and commercial centres. in the early settlement of this city the emigrants poured over the alleghanies and the blue ridge like waters over an obstructing ledge, seeking the fertile and attractive farm regions of the great west. they passed unobserved these marvellous hidden stores of wealth which are now being brought into use. having filled those great basins of the west, they are now turning back to virginia and west virginia and tennessee to bring about a development and production for which the time is ripe, and which will surprise the world. [cheers.] it has not been long since every implement of iron, domestic, agricultural, and mechanical, was made in other states. the iron point of the wooden mould-board plough with which the early farmers here turned the soil came from distant states. but now virginia and tennessee are stirring their energies to participate in a large degree in mechanical productions and in the great awakening of american influence which will lift the nation to a place among the nations of the world never before attained. [cheers.] what hinders us, secure in the market of our own great population, from successful competition in the markets of the world? what hinders our people, possessing every element of material wealth and endowed with inventive genius and energy unsurpassed, from having again upon the seas a merchant marine flying the flag of our country and carrying its commerce into every sea and every port? i am glad to stand for this moment among you, glad to express my sympathy with you in every enterprise that tends to develop your state and local communities; glad to stand with you upon the one common platform of respect to the constitution and the law, differing in our policies as to what the law should be, but pledged with a common devotion and obedience to law as the majority shall by their expressions make it. i shall carry away from here a new impulse to public duty, a new inspiration as a citizen with you of a country whose greatness is only dawning. and may i now express the pleasure i shall have in every good that comes to you as a community and to each of you as individuals? may peace, prosperity, and social order dwell in your communities, and the fear and love of god in every home! [cheers.] johnson city, tennessee, april . the president was welcomed at johnson city by , people. s. k. n. patton post, g. a. r, with maj. a. cantwell, j. m. erwin, and w. hodges, acted as a guard of honor to the chief magistrate. the committee to receive and entertain the president comprised: mayor ike t. jobe, hon. w. g. mathes, president board of trade; hon. t. f. singiser, hon. a. b. bowman, hon. b. f. childress, thos. e. matson, jas. m. martin, j. c. campbell, h. c. chandler, j. w. cox, c. w. marsh, l. w. wood, j. a. mathes, h. w. hargraves, j. f. crumley, m. n. johnson, and w. w. kirkpatrick. congressman alfred a. taylor presented the president, who spoke as follows: _my fellow-citizens_--the office of president of the united states is one of very high honor and is also one of very high responsibility. no man having conscientiously at heart the good of the whole people, whose interests are, under the law, in some degree committed to his care, can fail to feel a most oppressive sense of inadequacy when he comes to the discharge of these high functions. elected under a system of government which gives to the majority of our people who have expressed their wishes through constitutional methods the right to choose their public servants, when he has taken the oath that inducts him into office he becomes the servant of all the people, and while he may pursue the advocacy of those measures to which the people have given their approval by his choice, he should always act and speak with a reserve and a respect for the opinion of others that shall not alienate from him the good-will of his fellow-citizens, without regard to political belief. i shall not speak of what has been done, but i have a supreme regard for the honor of the nation, a profound respect for the constitution, and a most sincere desire to meet the just expectations of my fellow-citizens. i am not one of those who believe that the good of any class can be permanently and largely attained except upon lines which promote the good of all our people. i rejoice in the union of the states. i rejoice to stand here in east tennessee among a people who so conspicuously and at such sacrifice during the hour of the nation's peril stood by the flag and adhered to their convictions of public duty [cheers]; and i am especially glad to be able to say that those who, following other views of duty, took sides against us in that struggle, without division in voice or heart to-day praise almighty god that he preserved us one nation. [cheers.] there is no man, whatever his views upon the questions that then divided us, but, in view of the marvellous benefits which are disseminating themselves over these states, must also bless god to-day that slavery no longer exists and that the union of free states is indissoluble. [cheers.] what is it that has stirred the public of this great region, that has kindled these furnace fires, that has converted these retired and isolated farms upon which you and your ancestors dwelt into centres of trade and mechanical pursuits, bringing a market close to the door of the farmer and bringing prosperity into every home? it is that we have no line of division between the states; it is that these impulses of freedom and enterprise, once limited in their operations, are now common in all the states. we have a common heritage. the confederate soldier has a full, honorable, and ungrudged participation in all the benefits of a great and just government. [cheers.] i do not doubt to-day that these would be among the readiest of our population to follow the old flag if it should be assailed from any quarter. [cheers.] now, my fellow-countrymen, i can pause but a moment with you. it does me good to look into your faces, to receive these evidences of your good-will. i hope i may have guidance and courage in such time as remains to me in public life conscientiously to serve the public good and the common glory of our beloved country. [great cheering.] jonesboro, tennessee, april . at jonesboro, the oldest city in tennessee and the ancient capital of the state of franklin, the president was the recipient of a most cordial welcome. all the residents of the town seemed to be present. among the prominent citizens who participated in the greeting were: mayor i. e. reeves, judge newton hacker, r. m. may, col. t. h. reeves, a. j. patterson, s. h. anderson, capt. a. s. deaderick, james h. epps, jacob leab, s. h. l. cooper, judge a. j. brown, john d. cox, e. h. west, j. a. febuary, t. b. hacker, r. n. dosser, capt. geo. mcpherson, and chancellor j. p. smith. general harrison's allusion to john sevier and his struggle to establish the state of franklin elicited hearty applause. he spoke as follows: _my fellow-citizens_--we tarry but a moment at this ancient and interesting city, whose story goes back, i think, to the establishment of the state of franklin, of which perhaps not all of you, certainly not these little ones, ever heard, which john sevier attempted to set up as an independent commonwealth. but yet it is not of antiquity that i desire to speak, for ancient history is not of the greatest interest to you now. the scripture speaks, i think--my postmaster-general is near, and if i fall into error will correct me [laughter]--of a time when the old things shall pass away and all things shall become new. tennessee is realizing that beatitude; the old things, the old way of doing things, the stiff clay and steep mountain roads have passed away and the steam-car has come. the old times of isolation in these valleys, when these pioneers, some of whom i see, made their frontier homes, have passed away, and influences from the outside have come; life has been made easier to men and easier to the toiling women who used to carry the water from the spring at the bottom of the hill in a piggin, but who now by modern appliances have it brought into the kitchen. you have come to know now that not only the surface of the soil has wealth in it, but that under the surface there are vast sources of wealth to gladden the homes of your people and to bring with new industries a thrifty population. but of all these old things that have passed away and the new ones that have come, i am sure you are exultantly glad in this region, where there was so much martyrdom for the flag, so much exile, so much suffering, that the one union, the one constitution, and the one flag might be preserved, to know that those old strifes have passed away, and that a period of fraternity has come when all men are for the flag and all for the constitution, when it has been forever put out of the minds of all people that this union can be dissolved or this constitution overthrown. [great cheering.] on all these new things i congratulate the citizens of tennessee. turn your faces to the morning, for the sun is lightening the hill-tops; there is coming to our country a great growth, an extraordinary development, and you are to be full participants in it all. while other nations of the world have reached a climax in their home development, and are struggling to parcel out remote regions of the earth that their commerce may be extended, we have here prodigious resources that are yet to be touched by the finger of development, and we have the power, if we will, to put our flag again on the sea and to share in the world's commerce. [cheers.] greenville, tennessee, april . the home of president andrew johnson--greenville, tenn.--gave the president a cordial greeting through its welcoming committee, consisting of mayor john m. brabson, aldermen a. n. shown, j. d. britton, e. c. miller, and w. h. williams; also burnside post, g. a. r., w. t. mitchell commander; a. j. frazier, and the children of the public schools, in charge of principal l. mcwhisler. president harrison said: _my fellow-citizens_--the arrangements for our journey will not permit me to tarry with you long. i thank you most sincerely for this cordial demonstration. i rejoice to see in the hands of the children here that banner of glory which is the symbol of our greatness and the promise of our security. i am glad that by the common consent of all our people, without any regard to past differences, we have once and forever struck hands upon the proposition that from the lakes to the gulf, from the st. lawrence to the bay of california, there shall be one flag and one constitution. [great cheering.] the story that it brings to us from the time of its adoption as our national emblem is one in which we may all find instruction and inspiration. it is the flag of the free. it symbolizes a government most aptly expressed by the greatest statesman of the people, abraham lincoln, to be "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people"--a government that spreads a sky of hope above the head of every child, that has abolished all class distinctions, and has opened all places of eminence and usefulness in the state and in commerce to the ambitious and energetic young man. this city has given to the country a conspicuous illustration in your distinguished former fellow-citizen, andrew johnson, of what free institutions may do, and what an aspiring young man may do against all adverse conditions in life. to every one perfect freedom is guaranteed within the limits of due respect to the rights of others. thanking you again for this presence and friendly greeting, i bid you good-by. morristown, tennessee, april . at morristown several thousand citizens and residents of hamblen, cocke, grainger, and jefferson counties assembled to greet the president. the reception committee was mayor w. s. dickson, r. l. gaut, h. williams, w. h. maze, a. s. jenkins, and james a. goddard. at the conclusion of the president's speech an old grizzled veteran stepped upon the platform, and reaching out his hand said: "mr. president, i was in that atlanta campaign, on the other side, and helped to keep you back, but now the war is over i'm proud to take your hand." the president showed great pleasure at this greeting, and held the old soldier's hand several minutes, the spectators meanwhile cheering lustily. a large number of ex-confederates witnessed this incident. president harrison's speech on the occasion was as follows: _my fellow citizens_--it will not be possible for me to speak to you for more than a moment, and yet i cannot refuse, in justice to my own feelings, to express my deep appreciation of your cordial reception. i visit to-day for the first time east tennessee, but it is a region in which i have always felt a profound interest and for whose people i have always entertained a most sincere respect. it seems to be true in the history of man that those who are called to dwell among mountain peaks, in regions where the convulsions of nature have lifted the rocks toward the sky, have always been characterized by a personal independence of character, by a devotion to liberty, and by courage in defence of their rights and their homes. the legends that cluster about the mountain peaks of scotland and the patriotic devotion that makes memorable the passes of switzerland have been repeated in the mountains of east tennessee. in those periods of great struggles, when communications were difficult and often interrupted, the hearts of the people of indiana went out to the beleaguered friends of the union beyond the cumberland gap. i am glad to know that it is no longer difficult to reach you for succor or for friendly social intercourse, for travel has been quickened and made easy. some one mentioned just now that it was only four hours and a half from chattanooga to atlanta. that is not my recollection [laughter]; i think we spent as many months making that trip. [laughter.] i am glad to know that now, by the consent of all your people, without regard to the differences that separated you then, your highways are open to all of us, without prejudice; that your hearts are true to the union and the constitution, and that the high sense of public duty which then characterized you still abides among your people. may your valleys be always full of prosperity, your homes the abode of affection and love, and of all that makes the american home the best of all homes and the sure nursery of good citizens. [cheers.] knoxville, tennessee, april . on the evening of the first day of the journey knoxville was reached. the distinguished travellers were welcomed by a citizens' committee, composed of william rule, chairman; col. e. j. sanford, hon. j. c. j. williams, hon. l. c. houk, col. j. vandeventer, m. l. ross, john t. hearn, alex. summers, wm. m. baxter, f. a. moses, john w. conner, b. r. strong, hon. peter kern, capt. w. p. chamberlain, col. j. b. minnis, w. h. simmonds, john l. hudiburg, capt. a. j. albers, hon. j. w. caldwell, and w. p. smith. after visiting fort sanders and viewing the battle-field by twilight the party returned to the city, where a vast audience was assembled. col. william a. henderson introduced the president, who spoke as follows: _my fellow-citizens_--it gives me pleasure to visit this historical city--a city that has given to the country many men who have been eminent in its councils and brought to the nation they served and to the people who called them into the public service great honor. i am glad to visit east tennessee, the scene of that early immigration and of those early struggles of men who, for vigor of intellect, strength of heart, and devotion to republican principles, were among the most conspicuous of the early pioneers of the west and southwest. i am glad to know that that deep devotion to the cause of the union which manifested itself in the early contributions of tennessee to the armies that went to the defence of the homes of the northwest abides still in these valleys and crowns with its glory and lustre every hill-top of the alleghanies. you are feeling now a material development that is interesting and pleasing to all your fellow-citizens of the states. i beg to say to you that whoever supposes that there is anywhere in the northern states any jealousy of this great material progress which the south is making wholly misconceives the friendly heart of the people of the north. it is my wish, as i am sure it is the wish of all with whom i associate in political life, that the streams of prosperity in the south may run bank-full; that in everything that promotes the prosperity of the state, the security and comfort of the community, and the happiness of the individual home, your blessings may be full and unstinted. we live in a government of law. the compact of our organization is that a majority of our people, taking those methods which are prescribed by the constitution and law, shall determine our public policies and choose our rulers. it is our solemn compact; it cannot safely be broken. we may safely differ about policies; we may safely divide upon the question as to what shall be the law; but when the law is once enacted no community can safely divide on the question of implicit obedience to the law. it is the one rule of conduct for us all. i may not choose as president what laws i will enforce, and the citizen may not choose what laws he will obey. upon this broad principle our institutions rest. if we save it, all the agitations and tumults of our campaigns, exciting though they may be, will be harmless to move our government from its safe and abiding foundation. if we abandon it, all is gone. therefore, my appeal everywhere is to hold the law in veneration and reverence. we have no other king; public officers are your servants; but in the august and majestic presence of the law we all uncover and bow the knee. may every prosperity attend you. may this ground, made memorable by one of the most gallant assaults and by one of the most successful defences in the story of the war, never again be stained by blood; but may our people, in one common love of one flag and one constitution, in a common and pervading fealty to the great principles of our government, go on to achieve material wealth, and in social development, in intelligence, in piety, in everything that makes a nation great and a people happy, secure all the lord has in his mind for a nation that he has so conspicuously blessed. [great and prolonged cheering.] chattanooga, tennessee, april . chattanooga was reached wednesday morning at : o'clock. the president was received with marked cordiality and enthusiasm by the several thousand citizens assembled at the station. at this point the party was joined by the president's younger brother, mr. carter b. harrison, and his wife, of murfreesboro, tenn. the following prominent citizens comprised the committee that received the president: hon. j. b. merriam, mayor of chattanooga; hon. h. clay evans, judge david m. key, h. s. chamberlain, d. j. o'connell, henophen wheeler, john crimmins, maj. j. f. shipp, col. tomlinson fort, john t. wilder, adolph s. ochs, john b. nicklin, l. g. walker, a. j. gahagan, c. e. james, f. g. montague, h. m. wiltse, john w. stone, j. b. pound, e. w. mattson, and judge whiteside. the committee escorted the distinguished guests to the summit of lookout mountain. at the lookout inn president harrison pointed out to his immediate companions the spot where he was encamped for a time during the war. from the mountain the party was driven about the city, which was profusely decorated. all the school children in the city stood in front of their respective schools and waved flags and shouted as the president and mrs. harrison drove by. assembled around the platform where the general reception was held were many thousand people. ex-congressman evans, amid deafening cheers, introduced the president, who said: _my fellow-citizens_--i have greatly enjoyed the opportunity of seeing chattanooga again. i saw it last as the camp of a great army. its only industries were military, its stores were munitions of war, its pleasant hill-tops were torn with rifle-pits, its civic population the attendants of an army campaign. i see it to-day a great city, a prosperous commercial centre. i see these hill-tops, then bristling with guns, crowned with happy homes; i see these streets, through which the worn veterans of many campaigns then marched, made glad with the presence of happy children. everything is changed. the wand of an enchanter has touched these hills, and old lookout, that frowned over the valleys from which the plough had been withdrawn, now looks upon the peaceful industries of country life. all things are changed, except that the flag that then floated over chattanooga floats here still. [cheers.] it has passed from the hand of the veterans, who bore it to victory in battle, into the hands of the children, who lift it as an emblem of peace. [cheers.] then chattanooga was war's gateway to the south; now it is the gateway of peace, commerce, and prosperity. [cheers.] there have been two conquests--one with arms, the other with the gentle influences of peace--and the last is greater than the first. [cheers.] the first is only great as it made way for that which followed; and now, one again in our devotion to the constitution and the laws, one again in the determination that the question of the severance of the federal relations of these states shall never again be raised, we have started together upon a career of prosperity and development that has as yet given only the signs of what is to come. i congratulate tennessee, i congratulate this prosperous city, i congratulate all those who through this gateway give and receive the interchanges of friendly commerce, that there is being wrought throughout our country a unification by commerce, a unification by similarity of institutions and habits, that shall in time erase every vestige of difference, and shall make us, not only in contemplation of the law, but in heart and sympathy, one people. [cheers.] i thank you for your cordial greeting to-day, and hope for the development of the industries of our country and for the settling of our institutions upon the firm base of a respect for the law. in this glad springtime, while the gardens are full of blossoms and the fields give promise of another harvest, and your homes are full of happy children, let us thank god for what he has wrought for us as a people, and, each in our place, resolutely maintain the great idea upon which everything is builded--the rule of the majority, constitutionally expressed, and the absolute equality of all men before the law. [cheers.] cartersville, georgia, april . the first stop after crossing the georgia state line was cartersville, where a citizens' committee, headed by m. g. dobbins, w. h. howard, and walter akerman, received the president, who in response to repeated calls said: _my friends_--i am very much obliged to you for coming here in this shower to show your good-will. i can only assure you that i entirely reciprocate your good feelings. i have had great pleasure to-day in passing over some parts of the old route that i took once before under very different and distressing circumstances, to find how easy it is, when we are all agreed, to travel between chattanooga and atlanta. i am glad to see the evidences of prosperity that abound through your country, and i wish you in all your relations every human good. [cheers.] atlanta, georgia, april . "what war has ravaged commerce can bestow, and he returns a friend who came a foe." the presidential party travelled over the western and atlantic route from chattanooga to atlanta, passing through historic battle-grounds with which the president and other members of his party were once familiar. general harrison actively participated in the atlanta campaign and held the chief command at the battle of resaca. it was with keen interest, therefore, that he viewed this memorable field in company with marshal ransdell, who lost an arm there. short stops were made at the battle-fields of chickamauga, tunnel hill, resaca, dug gap, and kennesaw. at marietta the president was met by a committee from the city government of atlanta, consisting of mayor w. a. hemphill, aldermen hutchison, woodward, rice, shropshire, and middlebrooks; councilmen murphy, hendrix, lambert, holbrook, sawtell, king, turner, mcbride, and city clerk woodward. these officials were accompanied by a special committee of citizens representing the chamber of commerce and the veteran associations, comprising ex-gov. r. b. bullock, gen. j. r. lewis, capt. john milledge, julius l. brown, s. m. inman, hon. j. t. glenn, and hon. w. l. calhoun. a vast throng greeted the president's arrival. gov. william j. northen and the other members of the reception committee received the party. governor northen said: "i am glad to welcome your excellency to the state of georgia. you will find among us a loyal and hospitable people, and in their name i welcome you to the state." replying, the president said it gave him great pleasure to visit the empire state of the south, the wonderful evidences of the prosperity of which were manifest in the stirring city of atlanta. in the evening the president and his party were tendered a reception at the capitol by governor northen and mayor hemphill, assisted by chief-justice bleckley, judge simmons, judge lumpkin, gen. phil. cook, comptroller-general wright, judge van epps, and the following prominent citizens: e. p. chamberlin, j. w. rankin, g. t. dodd, judge hook, r. j. lowry, j. w. english, hoke smith, phil. breitenbucher, j. g. oglesby, john silvey, capt. harry jackson, jacob haas, w. l. peel, b. f. abbott, john fitten, joe hirsch, george hillyer, a. a. murphy, p. romare, j. b. goodwin, david wyly, g. h. tanner, dr. henry s. wilson, j. f. edwards, m. a. hardin, a. j. mcbride, john j. doonan, hugh inman, j. h. mountain, m. c. kiser, e. p. howell, a. e. buck, edgar angier, col. l. m. terrell, s. a. darnell, john c. manly, t. b. neal, walter johnson, major mims, w. r. brown, col. t. p. westmoreland, albert cox, clarence knowles, h. m. atkinson, j. c. kimball, c. a. collier, rhode hill, howard van epps, w. h. venable, g. w. adair, f. t. ryan, l. p. thomas, h. f. starke, w. a. wright, amos fox, r. l. rodgers, h. c. divine, w. m. scott, a. b. carrier, w. b. miles, t. c. watson, and l. b. nelson. at the conclusion of the reception the president, accompanied by mayor hemphill, hon. a. l. kontz, and superintendent slaton, visited the night school, where the boys gave him an enthusiastic welcome and called for a speech. the president said: i am glad to be with you to-night. having but a few minutes to spare i would offer a few words of encouragement to you. most, if not all, of you are here at night because your circumstances are such that the day must be given to toil. the day is your earning period. the night must, therefore, be set apart for study. i am glad to see that so many find it in your hearts to be here in this school; it is a very hopeful sign. i think it has in it the promise that you will each become a useful citizen in this country. pluck and energy are two essential elements. a boy wants to be something. with pluck and energy success is assured. there is a day of hope above every one of you. i bid you good cheer and would offer encouragement to every one of you, and i know every one of you may be useful and honorable citizens in this community, whose officers have taken the interest to organize this school for your benefit. i very sincerely and earnestly wish you god-speed. stick to your studies and don't neglect to acquire a needful education, and you may one day occupy the positions of honor which are held by those to-day in charge of the affairs of your city. atlanta, april . on the morning of the th the president's party bade adieu to atlanta. more than , people were present. mayor hemphill invited the president to the rear platform of the train and presented him to the assemblage. in response to their cheers he said: _my fellow-citizens_--i desire, in parting from you, to give public expression of my satisfaction and enjoyment in my brief visit to atlanta. i saw this city once under circumstances of a very unfavorable character. i did not think i would like it, although we were making great efforts to get it. [laughter.] i am glad after all these years to see the great prosperity and development that has come to you. i think i am able to understand some of the influences that are at the bottom of it, and i am sure that i look into the faces of a community that, whatever their differences may have been, however they viewed the question of the war when it was upon us, can have but one thought as to what was best. we can all say with the confederate soldier who carried a gun for what seemed to him to be right, that god knew better than any of us what was best for the country and for the world. you are thankful for what he has wrought and chiefly for emancipation. it has opened up to diversified industries these states that were otherwise exclusively agricultural, and made it possible for you not only to raise cotton, but to spin and weave it, and has made georgia such a state as it could not have been under the old conditions. i am sure we have many common purposes, and as god shall give us power to see truth and right, let us do our duty, and, while exacting all our own rights, let us bravely and generously give every other man his equal rights before the law. [cheers.] thanking you for your reception, which has been warm and hospitable, i go from you very grateful for your kindness and very full of hope for your future. i cannot wish more than that those enterprising land-owners whose work in grading and laying new additions i saw yesterday will realize all their hopes. i am very sure if that is done atlanta will not long be rated the second city of the south. [cheers.] at the conclusion of the president's address there were many calls for mr. wanamaker. these finally brought the postmaster-general to the platform, who said: that man is unfortunate who is called on to speak after a president. but at such a moment as this, parting from people who in a single night have shown so much kindness and good-fellowship, it is not difficult to return at least our grateful thanks for your most generous welcome. of all objects in your city i have looked with most interest upon the house where a great light had gone out, and felt again the common sorrow in the absence of henry grady, a man whose life and influences were larger than atlanta. the words he spoke and the principles he stood for cannot be forgotten. if we can but learn to know each other and understand each other there will be fewer differences than might be supposed. by more frequent intercourse and a fairer consideration of each other we should rise to a higher level of happiness. i wish we had come sooner and could stay longer. [cheers.] tallapoosa, georgia, april . the city of tallapoosa was bedecked with flags and bunting in honor of the distinguished visitors, and gave the president a cordial reception. mayor a. j. head and the following representative citizens were among those who greeted the chief executive: james h. rineard, walker brock, u. g. brock, j. a. head, r. m. strickland, j. c. parker, w. t. king, r. g. bently, t. j. barrett, j. t. tuggle, r. j. mcbride, g. w. bullard, c. tallafario, j. a. burns, j. r. knapp, c. w. fox, m. c. reeve, m. munson, w. w. summerlin, s. j. cason, j. h. davis, s. white, a. hass, t. l. dougherty, g. a. stickney, n. l. hutchens, o. f. sampson, h. martin, m. c. haiston, g. w. tumlin, and j. c. murrey. responding to the welcoming cheers the president addressed the assembly as follows: _my fellow-citizens_--this large assemblage of people from this new and energetic city is very pleasant, and i thank you for the welcome that it implies. all of these evidences of extending industry are extremely pleasing to me as i observe them. they furnish employment to men; they imply comfortable homes, contented families, a safe social organization, and are the strength of the nation. i am glad to see that these enterprises that are taking the ores from the earth and adapting them to the uses of civilization have not been started here unaccompanied by that more important work--the work of gathering the children into the schools and instructing them, that they in their turn may be useful men and women. [applause.] i am glad to greet these little ones this morning; it is a cheerful sight. we are soon to lay down the work of life and the responsibilities of citizenship, these mothers are soon to quit the ever-recurring and never-ending work of the home and give it into new hands. it is of the utmost consequence that these little ones be trained in mind and taught the fear of god and a benevolent regard for their fellow-men, in order that their lives and social relations may be peaceful and happy. we are citizens of one country, having one flag and one destiny. we are starting upon a new era of development, and i hope this development is to keep pace and to be the promoting cause of a very perfect unification of our people. [cheers.] we have a government whose principles are very simple and very popular. the whole theory of our institutions is that, pursuing those election methods which we have prescribed under the constitution, every man shall exercise freely the right that the suffrage law confides to him, and that the majority, if it has expressed its will, shall conclude the issue for us all. there is no other foundation. this was the enduring base upon which the fathers of our country placed our institutions. let us always keep them there. let us press the debate in our campaigns as to what the law should be; but let us keep faith and submit with the reverence and respect which are due to the law when once lawfully enacted. [applause.] the development which is coming to you in these regions of the south is marvellous. in ten years you increased your production of iron about per cent.--nearly a million and a quarter of tons--and you have only begun to open these mines and to put these ores to the process of reduction. now, i want to leave this thought with you: in the old plantations of the south you got everything from somewhere else; why not make it all yourselves? [cheers.] anniston, alabama, april . many thousands greeted the president on his arrival at anniston. the reception committee consisted of mayor james noble, j. w. lapsley, h. w. bailey, t. g. garrett, b. f. cassady, john j. mickle, c. h. camfield, j. j. willett, j. c. sproull, r. h. cobb, i. finch, and alex. s. thweatt. the committee appointed by the alabama state sunday-school association, then in session, was: joseph hardie, geo. b. eager, p. p. winn, m. j. greene, and c. w. o'hare. on the part of the colored citizens the committee of reception was: rev. w. h. mcalpine, wm. j. stevens, s. e. moses, rev. j. f. fitspatrick, and rev. jas. w. brown. daniel tyler post, g. a. r., h. rosenbaum, commander, g. b. randolph acting adjutant, also participated. the hon. john m. mckleroy delivered the address of welcome, followed by wm. j. stevens in behalf of the colored people. president harrison responded as follows: _fellow-citizens_--i very much regret that i am able to make so little return to you for this cordial manifestation of your respect and friendship; and yet, even in these few moments which i am able to spend with you, i hope i shall gather and possibly be able to impart some impulse that may be mutually beneficial. i am glad to see with the eye that of which i have kept informed--the great development which is taking place in the mineral regions of the southern states. i remember, as a boy, resident upon one of the great tributaries of the mississippi, how the agricultural products of those states, the corn and provisions raised upon the fertile acres of the ohio and mississippi valleys, were marketed in the south. the old broad-horn took its way down the mississippi, stopping at the plantations to sell the provisions upon which the people of the south were largely sustained. the south was then essentially a plantation region, producing one or two great staples that found a ready market in the world, but dependent for its implements of industry and domestic utensils upon the states of the north mississippi valley. i am glad all this is changed, that you are realizing the benefits of diversified agriculture, and that the production upon your farms of the staples which you once bought elsewhere is largely increasing; and i am glad that to diversified agriculture you have also added these great mechanical pursuits which have brought into your communities artisans and laborers who take from the adjacent farms the surplus of your fertile lands. [cheers.] there has been received in the south since the war not less than $ , , , for cotton, and while i rejoice in that, i am glad to know that in this generous region there are near , acres devoted to raising watermelons. [laughter.] no farmer, certainly no planter in the old time, would have consented to sell watermelons. you are learning that things which were small and despised have come to be great elements in your commerce. now your railroads make special provision for the transportation of a crop which brings large wealth to your people. i mention this as a good illustration of the changing conditions into which you are entering. you are realizing the benefits of home markets for what you produce, and i am sure you will unite with me in those efforts which we ought to make, not only to fill our own markets with all that this great nation of , , needs, but to reach out to other markets and enter into competition with the world for them. [cheers.] this we shall do, and with all this mechanical and commercial development we shall realize largely that condition of unification of heart and interest to which those who have spoken for you have so eloquently alluded. [cheers.] and now, wishing that the expectations of all who are interested in this stirring young city may be realized, that all your industries may be active and profitable, i add the wish that those gentler and kindlier agencies of the school and church, of a friendly social life, may always pervade and abide with you as a community. [cheers.] birmingham, alabama, april . large delegations came from mobile, selma, montgomery, sheffield, and other points in alabama, to participate in the grand ovation tendered president harrison and his party at birmingham on april . gov. thomas g. jones and the following members of his staff welcomed the presidential party at henryellen: adjt.-gen. charles b. jones, col. f. l. pettus, col. eugene stollenwerck, col. m. p. le grand, col. w. w. quarles, col. b. l. holt, lieut. james b. erwin, and j. k. jackson, secretary to the governor. the governor's party was accompanied by five members from the citizens' committee: col. e. t. taliaferro, rufus n. rhodes, j. w. hughes, r. l. houston, and c. a. johnston. on arrival at birmingham, in the afternoon, the president was greeted by an enormous gathering and formally welcomed by mayor a. o. lane at the head of the following distinguished committee: h. m. caldwell, joseph f. johnston, b. l. hibbard, william youngblood, w. j. cameron, j. a. van hoose, r. h. pearson, e. h. barron, m. m. williams, j. o. wright, james weatherly, chappell cory, louis saks, d. d. smith, j. p. mudd, charles m. shelley, paul giacopazzi, james a. going, joe frank, t. h. spencer, p. g. bowman, j. m. martin, g. w. hewitt, t. t. hillman, e. soloman, f. p. o'brien, lewis m. parsons, robert jemison, john mcqueen, geo. l. morris, b. steiner, mack sloss, j. a. yeates, j. m. handley, fergus w. mccarthy, e. v. gregory, f. h. armstrong, geo. m. morrow, thomas seddon, e. w. rucker, w. h. graves, gus shillinger, m. t. porter, edwin c. campbell, eugene f. enslen, r. l. thornton, charles whelan, w. s. brown, john m. cartin, wm. m. bethea, i. r. hochstadter, john w. johnston, wm. vaughn, jas. e. webb, and robert warnock. george a. custer post, g. a. r., commanded by ass't adjt.-gen. w. j. pender, escorted the president on the march through the city. the following officers participated: w. h. hunter, department commander; f. g. sheppard, past department commander; william snyder, commander; a. a. tyler, senior vice-commander; henry asa n. ballard, surgeon; edward birchenough, assistant quartermaster-general; a. w. fulghum, past commander; and john mackenzie, officer of the day. both the governor and the mayor delivered eloquent addresses of welcome, to which president harrison responded as follows: _governor jones, mr. mayor, and fellow-citizens_--the noise of your industries will not stay itself, i fear, sufficiently to enable me to make myself heard by many in this immense throng that has gathered to welcome us. i judge from what we have seen as we neared your station that we have here at birmingham the largest and most enthusiastic concourse of people that has met us since we left the national capital. [great and prolonged cheering.] for all this i am deeply grateful. the rapidity with which we must pursue this journey will not allow us to look with any detail into the great enterprises which cluster about your city; but if we shall only have opportunity to see for a moment these friendly faces and listen to these friendly words, we shall carry away that which will be invaluable, and, i trust, by the friendly exchange of greetings, may leave something to you that is worth cherishing. [great cheering.] i have read of the marvellous development which, in the last few years, has been stirring the solitude of these southern mountains, and i remember that not many years after the war, when i had resumed my law practice at indianapolis, i was visited by a gentleman, known, i expect, to all of you, upon some professional business. he came to pursue a collection claim against a citizen of indiana; but he seemed to be more interested in talking about birmingham than anything else. [laughter and cheers.] that man was colonel powell, one of the early promoters of your city. [cheers.] i listened to his story of the marvellous wealth of iron and coal that was stored in this region; of their nearness to each other, and to the limestone necessary for smelting; to his calculations as to the cheapness with which iron could be produced here, and his glowing story of the great city that was to be reared, with a good deal of incredulity. i thought he was a visionary; but i have regretted ever since that i did not ask him to pay me my fee in town lots in birmingham. [laughter and cheers.] my countrymen, we thought the war a great calamity, and so it was. the destruction of life and of property was sad beyond expression; and yet we can see now that god led us through that red sea to a development in material prosperity and to a fraternity that was not otherwise possible. [cheers.] the industries that have called to your midst so many toiling men are always and everywhere the concomitants of freedom. out of all this freedom from the incubus of slavery the south has found a new industrial birth. once almost wholly agricultural, you are now not the less fruitful in crops, but you have added all this. [cheers.] you have increased your production of cotton, and have added an increase in ten years of nearly per cent. in the production of iron. you have produced three-fourths of the cotton crop of the world, and it has brought you since the war about $ , , , of money to enrich your people. but as yet you are spinning in the south only per cent, of it. why not, with the help we will give you in new england and the north, spin it all? [cheers.] why not establish here cotton mills that shall send, not the crude agricultural product to other markets, but the manufactured product? [cheers.] why not, while supplying , , of people, reach out and take a part we have not had in the commerce of the world? [cheers.] i believe we are to see now a renaissance in american prosperity and in the up-building again of our american merchant marine. [cheers.] i believe that these southern ports that so favorably look out with invitations to the states of central and south america shall yet see our fleets carrying the american flag and the products of alabama to the markets of south america. [great cheering.] in all this we are united; we may differ as to method, but if you will permit me i will give an illustration to show how we have been dealing with this shipping question. i can remember when no wholesale merchant ever sent a drummer into the field. he said to his customers, "come to my store and buy;" but competition increased and the enterprising merchant started out men to seek customers; and so his fellow-merchant was put to the choice to put travelling men into the field or to go out of business. it seems to me, whatever we may think of the policy of aiding our steamship lines, that since every other great nation does it, we must do it or stay out of business, for we have pretty much gone out. [cheers.] i am glad to reciprocate with the very fulness of my heart every fraternal expression that has fallen from the lips of these gentlemen who have addressed me in your behalf. [cheers.] i have not been saved from mistakes; probably i shall not be. i am sure of but one thing--i can declare that i have simply at heart the glory of the american nation and the good of all its people. [great and prolonged cheering.] i thank these companies of the state militia, one of whom i recognize as having done me the honor to attend the inaugural ceremony, for their presence. they are deserving, sir [to the governor], of your encouragement and that of the state of alabama. they are the reserve army of the united states. it is our policy not to have a large regular army, but to have a trained militia that, in any exigency, will step to the defence of the country; and if that exigency shall ever arise--which god forbid--i know that you would respond as quickly and readily as any other state. [cheers.] [the governor: "you will find all alabama at your back, sir!"] [continued cheering.] i am glad to know that in addition to all this business you are doing you are also attending to education and to those things that conduce to social order. the american home is the one thing we cannot afford to lose out of the american life. [cheers.] as long as we have pure homes and god-fearing, order-loving fathers and mothers to rear the children that are given to them, and to make these homes the abodes of order, cleanliness, piety, and intelligence, the american society and the american union are safe [great cheering.] after the parade the president's party, the governor and staff, and the citizens' reception committee sat down to luncheon. on the right of the president was mrs. jones, wife of the governor; on his left, mrs. lane, wife of the mayor. mr. rufus n. rhodes proposed the health of the president of the united states, to which general harrison responded briefly, saying: we have seen something of the marvellous material growth of birmingham, and seen evidence of the great richness of your "black diamonds" and your iron, and now we see something of your home life. the many beautiful women whom we have had the happiness to meet, and some of whom are now with us, are the angels of your homes, and right glad we are to be favored by their presence. after all, it is their homes which make a people great. we are glad to be here; for, really, you overwhelm us with kindness. [long-continued applause.] memphis, tennessee, april . the presidential party arrived at memphis early on the morning of the th and were greeted by , people. the committee for the reception and entertainment of president harrison and his guests comprised the following prominent citizens: lucas w. clapp, president of the taxing district of memphis, chairman; h. m. neely, m. cooper, j. p. jordan, b. m. stratton, r. c. graves, d. p. hadden, r. p. patterson, wm. m. randolph, john k. speed, john r. godwin, sam tate, jr., n. w. speers, jr., josiah patterson, w. j. crawford, martin kelly, john loague, j. m. keating, j. harvey mathes, a. b. pickett, w. j. smith, emerson etheridge, t. j. lathan, a. d. gwynne, r. d. frayser, j. t. fargason, samuel w. hawkins, t. j. graham, b. m. estes, s. r. montgomery, w. a. collier, a. c. treadwell, f. m. norfleet, alfred g. tuther, w. d. beard, s. h. haines, r. j. morgan, louis erb, dr. j. p. alban, w. a. gage, j. n. snowden, john t. moss, thomas f. tobin, j. s. robinson, james ralston, l. b. eaton, john w. dillard, j. m. semmes, m. t. williamson, andrew j. harris, r. s. capers, l. h. estes, j. j. dubose, j. b. clough, j. e. bigelow, george arnold, t. b. edgington, luke e. wright, d. t. porter, j. t. pettit, napoleon hill, e. s. hammond, wm. r. moore, g. c. matthews, colton greene, isham g. harris, j. a. taylor, p. m. winters, holmes cummins, e. lowenstein, j. s. menken, a. vaccaro, n. m. jones, r. b. snowden, w. m. farrington, barney hughes, j. h. smith, noland fontaine, j. h. martin, j. c. neely, robert gates, james w. brown, g. e. dunbar, j. w. falls, s. c. toof, w. h. carroll, s. p. read, h. g. harrington, h. f. dix, j. s. galloway, t. w. brown, h. j. lynn, j. w. person, h. b. cullen, s. w. green, p. j. quigley, t. j. brogan, m. c. gallaway, w. e. mcguire, ralph davis, j. j. williams, t. a. hamilton, e. b. mchenry, george b. peters, john l. norton, w. h. bates, m. t. garvin, s. h. dunscomb, f. h. white, and r. d. jordan. the following military committee also assisted: gen. s. f. carnes, chairman; col. kellar anderson, col. hugh pettit, maj. j. f. peters, col. w. f. taylor, col. l. w. finley, gen. a. j. vaughn, gen. g. w. gordon, and gen. r. f. patterson. chairman clapp made the address of welcome. president harrison responded as follows: _my fellow-citizens_--the name of the city of memphis was familiar to me in my early boyhood. born and reared upon one of the tributaries of the great river upon which your city is located, these river marts of commerce were the familiar trading-posts of the farmers of the ohio valley. i well remember when, on the shores of father's farm, the old "broad-horn" was loaded from the hay-press and the corn-crib to market with the plantations along the lower mississippi. i remember to have heard from him and the neighbors who constituted the crew of those pioneer craft of river navigation of the perils of these great waters; of the snags and caving banks of the lower mississippi. in those times these states were largely supplied with grain and forage from the northwestern states. here you were giving your attention to one or two great staple products, for which you found a large foreign market. i congratulate you that the progress of events has made you not less agricultural, but has diversified your agriculture so that you are not now wholly dependent upon these great staples for the income of your farms. the benefits of this diversification are very great and the change symbolizes more than we at first realize. this change means that we are now coming to understand that meanness cannot be predicated of any honest industry. i rejoice that you are adding to diversified agriculture diversified manufacturing pursuits; that you are turning your thought to compressing and spinning cotton as well as raising it. i know no reason why these cotton states, that produce per cent. of the cotton of the world, should not spin the greater portion of it. i know no reason why they should export it as raw material, rather than as a manufactured product, holding in their midst the profits of this transformation of the raw material to the finished product. [applause.] i hope it may be so. i see evidence that the people are turning their attention to new industries, and are bringing into the midst of these farming communities a large population of artisans and laborers to consume at your own doors the product of your farms. i am glad that a liberal government is making this great waterway to the sea safe and capable of an uninterrupted use. i am glad that it is here making the shores of your own city convenient and safe, and that it is opening, north and south, an uninterrupted and cheap transportation for the products of these lands that lie along this great system of rivers. i am glad that it is bringing you in contact with ports of the gulf that look out with near and inviting aspect toward a great trade in south america that we shall soon possess. i am glad to believe that these great river towns will speedily exchange their burdens with american ships at the mouth of the mississippi to be transported to foreign ports under the flag of our country. [great cheering.] this government of ours is a compact of the people to be governed by a majority, expressing itself by lawful methods. [cheers.] everything in this country is to be brought to the measure of the law. i propose no other rule, either as an individual or as a public officer. i cannot in any degree let down this rule [cries of "no!" and cheers] without violating my official duty. there must be no other supremacy than that of lawful majorities. we must all come at last to this conclusion--that the supremacy of the law is the one supremacy in this country of ours. [cheers.] now, my fellow citizens, i thank you for this warm and magnificent demonstration of your respect, accepting cordially the expression of the chief of your city government that you are a sincere, earnest, patriotic, devoted people. i beg to leave with you the suggestion that each in his place shall do what he can to maintain social order and public peace; that the lines here and everywhere shall be between the well-disposed and the ill-disposed. the effort of speech to this immense throng is too great for me. i beg to assure you that i carry from the great war no sentiment of ill-will to any. [cheers.] i am glad that the confederate soldier, confessing that defeat which has brought him blessings that would have been impossible otherwise, has been taken again into full participation in the administration of the government; that no penalties, limitations, or other inflictions rest upon him. i have taken and can always take the hand of a brave confederate soldier with confidence and respect. [great cheering.] i would put him under one yoke only, and that is the yoke that the victors in that struggle bore when they went home and laid off their uniforms--the yoke of the law and the obligation always to obey it. [cheers.] upon that platform, without distinction between the victors and the vanquished, we enter together upon possibilities as a people that we cannot overestimate. i believe the nation is lifting itself to a new life; that this flag shall float on unfamiliar seas, and that this coming prosperity will be equally shared by all our people. [prolonged cheering.] little rock, arkansas, april . as the presidential party crossed the mississippi they were met on the arkansas shore by gov. james p. eagle and wife, judge john a. williams, mayor h. l. fletcher, james mitchell, col. logan h. roots, mrs. judge caldwell, mrs. c. c. waters, mrs. wm. g. whipple, mrs. w. c. ratcliffe, miss jean loughborough, and miss fannie mitchell. arriving at little rock, late in the afternoon, the president was welcomed by hon. josiah h. shinn, r. a. edgerton, chas. c. waters, b. d. caldwell, w. a. clark, h. f. roberts, t. h. jones, and the other members of the committee of reception. mcpherson and ord posts, g. a. r., in charge of marshal o. m. spellman, lee clough, and c. altenberg, acted as escort to the president, accompanied by the mccarthy light guards. the parade was in charge of grand marshal zeb ward, jr., assisted by col. w. t. kelley, horace g. allis, and oscar davis. the lincoln club, commanded by p. raleigh and p. c. dooley, participated in the reception. at the state house governor eagle formally welcomed the distinguished travellers. president harrison replied: _governor eagle and fellow-citizens_--no voice is large enough to compass this immense throng. but my heart is large enough to receive all the gladness and joy of your great welcome here to-day. [applause.] i thank you one and all for your presence, for the kind words of greeting which have been spoken by your governor, and for these kind faces turned to me. in all this i see a great fraternity; in all this i feel new impulses to a better discharge of every public and every private duty. i cannot but feel that in consequence of this brief contact with you to-day i shall carry away a better knowledge of your state, its resources, its capabilities, and of the generous warm-heartedness of its people. we have a country whose greatness this meeting evidences, for there are here assembled masses of independent men. the commonwealth rests upon the free suffrage of its citizens and their devotion to the constitution, and the flag is the bulwark of its life. [cheers.] we have agreed, i am sure, that we will do no more fighting among ourselves. [cries of "good! good!" and cheers.] i may say to you confidentially that senator jones and i agreed several years ago, after observing together the rifle practice at fort snelling, that shooting had been reduced to such accuracy that war was too dangerous for either of us to engage in it. [laughter and cheers.] but, my friends, i cannot prolong this talk. once already to-day in the dampness of this atmosphere i have attempted to speak, and therefore you will allow me to conclude by wishing for your state, for its governor and all its public officers, for all its citizens without exception, high or humble, the blessing of social order, peace, and prosperity--the fruits of intelligence and piety. [great cheering.] texarkana, arkansas, april . notwithstanding it was nearly midnight when the presidential train reached texarkana, about , citizens were present. foremost in the movement to give a fitting reception to the president were: george h. langsdale, robert langsdale, richard brunazzi, and edward donnelly. among other well-known citizens present were lyman s. roach, commander of dick yates post, g. a. r.; ira a. church, j. a. mifflin, wm. rhinders, w. f. loren, w. w. shaw, fred a. church, j. p. ashcraft, wm. h. bush, a. b. matson, w. w. de prato, t. p. mccalla, j. w. hatcher, john mckenna, peter gable, john mayher, martin foster, j. k. langsdale, and f. l. schuster. the president spoke briefly and said: having had notice of your request that we stop here for a few moments, i have remained up in order to thank you for your expressed interest and for this very large and cordial demonstration. i have spoken several times during the day, and am sure you will excuse me from attempting now, at midnight, to make a speech. i hope that prosperity is here and that it may abide with you. thanking you again, i bid you good-night. palestine, texas, april . the first stop in the lone star state was at palestine, where the president received a royal welcome, the population of the city turning out to do him honor. his excellency gov. james s. hogg cordially greeted the president at this point. hon. john h. reagan, hon. geo. a. wright, mayor of palestine, and the city council in a body, constituted the committee of reception, together with the following prominent residents: capt. t. t. gammage, a. h. bailey, geo. e. dilley, n. r. royall, w. c. kendall, a. teah, j. r. hearne, j. w. ozment, p. w. ezell, o. b. sawyers, g. w. burkitt, w. m. lacy, henry ash, a. c. green, a. r. howard, a. l. bowers, d. w. heath, wm. broyles, john j. word, e. r. kersh, r. j. wallace, j. m. fullinwider, rev. e. f. fales and mrs. fales, who welcomed her distinguished brother postmaster-general wanamaker. governor hogg made the formal address of welcome, to which the president responded as follows: _governor hogg and fellow-citizens_--it gives me pleasure to come this fresh morning into this great state--a kingdom without a king, an empire without an emperor, a state gigantic in proportions and matchless in resources, with diversified industries and infinite capacities to sustain a tremendous population and to bring to every home where industry abides prosperity and comfort. such homes, i am sure, are represented here this morning--the american home, where the father abides in the respect and the mother in the deep love of the children that sit about the fireside; where all that makes us good is taught and the first rudiments of obedience to law, of orderly relations one to another, are put into the young minds. out of this comes social order; on this rests the security of our country. the home is the training-school for american citizenship. there we learn to defer to others; selfishness is suppressed by the needs of those about us. there self-sacrifice, love, and willingness to give ourselves for others are born. i thank you that so many of you have come here this morning from such homes, and all of us are thankful together that peace rests upon our whole country. all of us have pledged ourselves that no sectional strife shall ever divide us, and that while abiding in peace with all the world we are, against all aggression, one mighty, united people. [cheers.] i desire to assure you, my countrymen, that in my heart i make no distinction between our people anywhere. [cheers.] i have a deep desire that everywhere in all our states there shall be that profound respect for the will of the majority, expressed by our voters, that shall bring constant peace into all our communities. it is very kind of you to come here this morning before breakfast. perhaps you are initiating me into the texas habit--is it so?--of taking something before breakfast. [laughter and cheers.] this exhilarating draught of good-will you have given me this morning will not, i am sure, disturb either my digestion or comfort during this day. [cheers.] houston, texas, april . the presidential party reached houston at noon on april and were greeted by an enthusiastic assemblage estimated at , . the welcoming committee, headed by mayor scherffius, comprised the following-named prominent citizens: hon. charles stewart, geo. a. race, j. w. temby, maj. r. b. baer, a. k. taylor, col. john t. brady, w. d. cleveland, d. c. smith, c. lombardi, dr. e. f. schmidt, capt. j. c. hutcheson, t. w. house, s. k. dick, w. b. chew, james f. dumble, r. b. morris, james a. patton, jr., a. p. root, w. v. r. watson, g. w. kidd, g. c. felton, h. w. garrow, geo. e. dickey, f. halff, john f. dickson, e. w. cave, charles dillingham, a. c. herndon, j. w. jones, d. m. angle, geo. l. porter, rufus cage, f. a. rice, dr. d. f. stuart, and president mitchell, of the commercial club. many prominent ladies of the city participated in receiving and entertaining the ladies in the presidential party. congressman stewart introduced the president, who spoke as follows: _my fellow-citizens_--your faces all respond to the words of welcome which have been spoken in your behalf. we have been not only pleased but touched by the delicate and kindly expressions of regard which we have received since entering the state of texas. i remained up last night until after midnight that i might not unconsciously pass into this great state, and i was called very early from my bed this morning to receive a draught of welcome, before i had breakfasted, from another texas audience. you have a state whose greatness i think you have discovered. a stranger can hardly hope to point out to you that which you have not already known. perhaps virginia and kentucky have been heard to say more about their respective states than texas; but i think their voices are likely soon to be drowned by the enthusiastic and affectionate claims which you will present to the country for your great commonwealth. [cheers.] you have the resources in some measure--in a great measure--of all the states gathered within your borders; a soil adapted to the production of all the cereals and grasses; and to this you add cotton, sugar, and tobacco. you are very rightly diversifying your crops, because the history of intelligent farming shows that as the crops are diversified the people prosper. all is not staked upon the success of a single crop. you do well, therefore, to raise cotton, sugar, and tobacco, and i am glad you are not neglecting cattle, sheep, hogs, corn, and all the cereals. we have been trying to do what we could from washington to make for you a larger and better market for your enormous meat products. [cheers.] we have felt that the restrictions imposed by some of the european governments could not be fairly justified upon the ground stated by them. already the secretary of agriculture--himself a farmer, who has with his own hands wrought in all the work of the farm--has succeeded in procuring the removal of some of these injurious restrictions, and has announced to the country that exportation of cattle has increased per cent. in the last year. [cheers.] i beg to assure you that these interests will have the most careful attention from the government at washington and from our representatives at foreign courts. it is believed that we have now by legislation a system of sanitary inspection of our meat products that, when once put in operation and examined by the european governments, will remove the last excuse for the exclusion of our meats from those foreign states. our time is so limited that i can scarcely say more than "thank you." we cannot at all repay you for this demonstration of welcome, but let me say that in all your prosperity i shall rejoice. i do desire that all our legislation and all our institutions and the combined energies of all our people shall work together for the common good of all our states and all our population. [great cheering.] you have great resources of a material sort, and yet above all this i rejoice that the timely forethought of your public men has provided an unexampled school fund for the education of the children. these things that partake of the life that is spiritual are better after all than the material. indeed, there can be no true prosperity in any state or community where they are not thoughtfully fostered. good social order, respect for the law, regard for other men's rights, orderly, peaceful administration are the essential things in any community. [cheers.] galveston, texas, april . the president and his party, accompanied by governor hogg, arrived at galveston on the afternoon of saturday, april , and were tendered an ovation by the hospitable residents of the island city. the distinguished travellers were met at houston by a committee of escort consisting of chairman leo n. levi, george sealy, julius runge, r. b. hawley, w. f. ladd, col. r. g. lowe, maj. c. j. allen, aldermen c. m. mason and t. w. jackson, d. d. bryan, j. w. burson, mrs. r. l. fulton, mrs. r. b. hawley, mrs. aaron blum, mrs. w. f. ladd, and mrs. c. j. allen. on arriving in the city the president was welcomed by the other members of the reception committee, headed by mayor roger l. fulton, the board of aldermen, and the following prominent citizens: leon blum, r. s. willis, j. c. league, h. a. landes, j. e. wallis, col. j. s. rogers, p. j. willis, robert bornefeld, c. c. sweeney, m. f. mott, albert weis, m. lasker, j. z. miller, fen cannon, col. john d. rogers, j. n. sawyer, w. h. sinclair, joseph cuney, geo. seeligson, julius weber, j. d. skinner, thos. h. sweeney, james montgomery, f. l. dana, james moore, w. f. beers, j. h. hutchings, wm. h. masters, m. w. shaw, w. b. denson, h. b. cullum, c. h. rickert, w. b. lockhart, u. muller, f. lammers, h. f. sproule, judge c. l. cleveland, judge wm. h. stewart, r. t. wheeler, n. w. cuney, thomas w. cain, samuel penland, r. g. street, j. lobit, d. m. erlich, c. m. trueheart, l. fellman, c. r. reifel, charles vidor, george butler, w. vowrinckle, joe owens, c. e. angel, rev. s. m. bird, dr. a. w. fly, dr. j. t. y. paine, dr. h. p. cooke, j. r. gibson, howard carnes, charles maddox, bishop gallagher, rev. a. t. spaulding, a. b. tuller, dr. j. d. daviss, rev. j. e. edwards, a. b. homer, rev. joseph b. sears, j. singer, r. c. johnson, j. w. riddell, b. tiernan, t. a. gary, john focke, joseph scott, w. e. mcdonald, geo. schneider, f. o. becker, thomas goggan, j. d. sherwood, o. h. cooper, e. o'c. macinerney, thos. s. king, robert day, daniel buckley, j. j. hanna, f. w. fickett, wm. selkirk, and j. a. robertson. immediately following their arrival the presidential party, escorted by hon. wm. h. crain, mr. leon blum, and other members of the reception committee, enjoyed a trip about the harbor aboard one of the mallory line steamships, enabling them to view the extensive government works for deepening the channel at the entrance to the harbor. this excursion was followed by a ride across the island amid a shower of flowers. the parade was participated in by all the military and industrial organizations of the city; also by the odd fellows, knights of pythias, and other orders, and was a most imposing demonstration. the g. a. r. veterans acted as a guard of honor to the president on the march, and the day was just closing when the column arrived at the beach hotel, on the very shore of the gulf of mexico, where the formal address of welcome was ably delivered by gen. t. n. waul. president harrison's response was the longest speech of his trip, and attracted wide-spread and favorable comment. he said: _my fellow-citizens_--we close to-night a whole week of travel, a whole week of hand-shaking, a whole week of talking. i have before me , miles of hand-shaking and speaking, and i am not, by reason of what this week has brought me, in voice to contend with the fine but rather strong gulf breeze which pours in upon us to-night; and yet it comes to me laden with the fragrance of your welcome. [cheers.] it comes with the softness, refreshment, and grace which have accompanied all my intercourse with the people of texas. [great cheering.] the magnificent and cordial demonstration which you have made in our honor to-day will always remain a bright and pleasant picture in my memory. [great cheers.] i am glad to have been able to rest my eyes upon the city of galveston. i am glad to have been able to traverse this harbor and to look upon that work which a liberal and united government has inaugurated for your benefit and for the benefit of the northwest. [great and prolonged cheers.] i have always believed that it was one of the undisputed functions of the general government to make these great waterways which penetrate our country and these harbors into which our shipping must come to receive the tribute of rail and river safe and easy of access. this ministering care should extend to our whole country, and i am glad that, adopting a policy with reference to the harbor work, here at least, which i insisted upon in a public message [great and prolonged cheering], the appropriation has been made adequate to a diligent and prompt completion of the work. [great cheering.] in the past the government has undertaken too many things at once, and its annual appropriations have been so inadequate that the work of the engineers was much retarded and often seriously damaged in the interval of waiting for fresh appropriations. it is a better policy, when a work has once been determined to be of national significance, that the appropriation should be sufficient to bring it speedily and without loss to a conclusion. [great cheering.] i am glad that the scheme of the engineer for giving deep water to galveston is thus to be prosecuted. i have said some of our south atlantic and gulf ports occupy a most favorable position for the new commerce toward which we are reaching out our hands, and which is reaching out its hands to us. [great cheering.] i am an economist in the sense that i would not waste one dollar of public money, but i am not an economist in the sense that i would leave incomplete or suffer to lag any great work highly promotive of the true interests of our people. [great cheering.] we are great enough and rich enough to reach forward to grander conceptions than have entered the minds of some of our statesmen in the past. if you are content, i am not, that the nations of europe shall absorb nearly the entire commerce of these near sister republics that lie south of us. it is naturally in large measure ours--ours by neighborhood, ours by nearness of access, ours by that sympathy that binds a hemisphere without a king. [cheers.] the inauguration of the three americas congress, or more properly the american conference, the happy conduct of that meeting, the wise and comprehensive measures which were suggested by it, with the fraternal and kindly spirit that was manifested by our southern neighbors, has stimulated a desire in them and in our people for a larger intercourse of commerce and of friendship. the provisions of the bill passed at the last session looking to a reciprocity of trade not only met with my official approval when i signed the bill, but with my zealous promotion before the bill was reported. [great and prolonged cheering.] its provision concerning reciprocity is that we have placed upon our free list sugar, tea, coffee and hides, and have said to those nations from whom we receive these great staples: give us free access to your ports for an equivalent amount of our produce in exchange, or we will reimpose duties upon the articles named. the law leaves it wholly to the executive to negotiate these arrangements. it does not need that they shall take the form of a treaty. they need not be submitted for the concurrence of the senate. it only needs that we, having made our offer, shall receive their offer in return; and when they shall have made up an acceptable schedule of articles produced by us that shall have free access to their ports, a proclamation by the president closes the whole business. [cheers.] already one treaty with that youngest of the south american republics, the great republic of brazil, has been negotiated and proclaimed. i think, without disclosing an executive secret, i may tell you that the arrangement with brazil is not likely to abide in lonesomeness much longer [great and prolonged cheering]; that others are to follow, and that as a result of these trade arrangements the products of the united states--our meats, our breadstuffs, and certain lines of manufactured goods--are to find free or favored access to the ports of many of these south and central american states. all the states will share in these benefits. we have had some analysis of the manifests of some of our steamers now sailing to south american ports, and in a single steamer it was found that twenty-five states contributed to the cargo. but we shall need something more. we shall need american steamships to carry american goods to these ports. [great cheering.] the last congress passed a bill appropriating about $ , , , and authorized the postmaster-general to contract with steamship companies for a period not exceeding ten years for the carrying of the united states mail. the foreign mail service is the only mail service out of which the government has been making a net profit. we do not make a profit out of our land service. there is an annual deficiency which my good friend the postmaster-general has been trying very hard to reduce or wipe out. the theory of our mail service is that it is for the people, that we are not to make a profit out of it, that we are to give them as cheap postage as is possible. we are, many of us, looking forward to a time when we shall have one-cent postage in this country. [cheers.] we have been so close and penurious in dealing with our ships in the carrying of foreign mails that we have actually made revenues out of that business, not having spent for it what we have received from it. now we propose to change that policy and to make more liberal contracts with american lines carrying american mail. [cheers.] some one may say we ought not to go into this business, that it is subsidy. but, my friend, every other great nation of the world has been doing it and is doing it to-day. great britain and france have built up their great steamship lines by government aid, and it seems to me our attitude with reference to that is aptly portrayed by an illustration i mentioned the other day. in olden times no wholesale merchant sent out travelling men to solicit custom, but he stood in his own store and waited for his customers. but presently some enterprising merchant began to send out men with their samples to seek the trade, to save the country buyer the cost of the trip to new york or philadelphia, until finally that practice has become universal, and these active, intelligent travelling men are scurrying this country over, pushing and soliciting in their several lines of business. now imagine some conservative merchant in new york saying to himself: "all this is wrong; the trade ought to come to me." if he should refuse to adopt these modern methods what would be the result? he must adopt the new methods or go out of business. we have been refusing to adopt the universal method of our competitors in commerce to stimulate their shipping interest and have gone out of the business. [laughter and cheers.] encouraged by what your spokesman has said to-night, i venture to declare that i am in favor of going into business again, and when it is re-established i hope galveston will be in the partnership. [great cheers.] it has been the careful study of the postmaster-general in preparing to execute the law to which i have referred to see how much increase in routes and ships we could secure by it. we have said to the few existing american lines: you must not treat this appropriation as a plate of soup, to be divided and consumed. you must give us new lines, new ships, increased trips, and new ports of call. already the steamship lines are looking over the routes to see what they can do, with a view of increasing their tonnage and establishing new lines. the postmaster-general has invited the attention and suggestion of all the boards of trade of all our seaboard cities. undoubtedly you have received such a letter. this appropriation is for one year; what the future is to be must depend upon the deliberate judgment of the people. if during my term of office they shall strike down a law that i believe to be beneficial or destroy its energy by withholding appropriations, i shall bow to their will, but i shall feel great disappointment if we do not make an era for the revival of american commerce. i do much want that the time shall come when our citizens living in temporary exile in foreign ports shall now and then see steaming into these distant ports a fine modern man-of-war, flying the united states flag [cheers], with the best modern guns on her deck, and a brave american crew in her forecastle. [cheers.] i want, also, that in these ports, so long unfamiliar with the american flag, there shall again be found our steamships and our sailing vessels flying the flag that we all love, and carrying from our shores the products that these men of toil have brought to them to exchange for the products of other climes. i think we should add to all this, and happily it is likely to be accomplished by individual efforts, the early completion of the nicaragua canal. [cheers.] the pacific coast should no longer be found by sea only by the passage of the horn. the short route should be opened, and it will be, and then with this wondrous stirring among the people of all our states, this awakening to new business plans and more careful and economical work, there will come great prosperity to all our people. texas will spin more of the cotton that she raises. the great states of the south will be in discontent with the old condition that made them simply agricultural states, and will rouse themselves to compete with the older manufacturing states of the north and east. [cheers.] the vision i have, all the thoughts i have of this matter embrace all the states and all my countrymen. i do not think of it as a question of party; i think of it as a great american question. [cheers.] by the invitation of the address which was made to me i have freely spoken my mind to you on these topics. i hope i have done so with no offence or impropriety. [cries of "no, no!" and cheers.] i would not on an occasion so full of general good feeling as this obtrude anything that should induce division or dissent. for all who do dissent i have the most respectful tolerance. the views i hold are the result of some thought and investigation, and as they are questions of public concern i confidently submit them to the arbitrament of brave and enlightened american suffrage. [applause and cheers.] san antonio, texas, april . the president and his party passed their first sunday at galveston, leaving the island city at midnight and arriving at san antonio at : monday morning. a special committee, consisting of hon. c. w. ogden, chairman; col. c. m. terrell, s. m. johnson, j. s. mcnamara, mrs. ogden, mrs. johnson, and miss eleanor sullivan, escorted the party from galveston. the _alamo city_ was profusely decorated in honor of the visit, and a great throng greeted the president's arrival. he was received by the hon. bryan callaghan, mayor of the city, at the head of the following committee of leading citizens: gen. david s. stanley, u. s. a.; col. j. p. martin, col. w. b. wright, col. h. b. andrews, maj. c. c. cresson, hon. w. w. king, l. m. gregory, b. f. yoakum, c. w. ogden, h. d. kampmann, j. s. alexander, w. j. b. patterson, a. w. houston, reagan houston, richard wooley, jr., r. h. russell, n. mackey, george dullnig, j. v. dignowity, j. s. thornton, f. groos, h. p. drought, d. sullivan, charles hugo, rev. dr. giddings, c. k. breneman, w. h. weiss, frank grice, alex. joske, henry elmendorf, robert driscoll, paul wagner, j. ronse, j. e. pancoast, adolph wagner, george h. kalteyer, charles j. langholz, c. b. mullaly, r. h. mccracken, a. g. cooper, dr. g. graham watts, dr. j. p. ornealus, dr. amos graves, and a. t. wilson. mayor mcdonald, of austin, and hon. l. l. foster also participated in the reception. a rainstorm interfered with the parade, and the public reception was held at the opera house, thousands being unable to enter. mayor callaghan made the welcoming address and introduced president harrison, who spoke as follows: _mr. mayor and fellow-citizens_--i very much regret that frequent speaking in the open air during the past week and the very heavy atmosphere which we have this morning have somewhat impaired my voice. i am sure you will crown your hospitality and kindness by allowing me to speak to you very briefly. i sympathize with you in the distress which you feel that the day is so unpropitious for any street demonstration, but i have been told by one wise in such matters that this rain is worth $ , , to western texas. that being the case, it greatly moderates our regret. it has come to be a popular habit of attributing to the president whatever weather may happen on any demonstration in which he takes a part. i suppose i may claim credit this morning for this beneficial rain. [applause.] i generously assure you that if it is worth as much money as my friend has estimated i shall not take more than half that sum. [laughter.] in visiting for a little while this historic city, i had anticipated great pleasure in looking upon the remains of an earlier occupancy of this territory in which you now dwell. our glance this morning must be brief and imperfect, but the history has been written and the traditions of these martyrdoms which occurred here for liberty are fresh in your minds and are still an inspiring story to be repeated to your children. i remember in my early boyhood to have heard in our family thrilling descriptions of the experiences of an uncle, whose name i bear, in some of those campaigns for freedom in texas in which he took a part, so that the story to me goes back to those dim early recollections of childhood. i am glad to stand where those recollections are revived and freshened, for they were events of momentous importance to this country, to this state, and to the whole union. i rejoice that you have here so great a commonwealth. the stipulations under which texas came into the union of the states, and which provided that that great territory might be subdivided into five states, seem not to attract much attention in texas now. indeed, as far as i can judge, no man would be able successfully to appeal to the suffrages of any hamlet in texas upon the issue that the state should be divided at all. [cheers.] the great industrial capacities which you have, the beneficent climate that spreads over much of your vast territory, the great variety of productions which your soil and climate render possible, give a promise for the future of a prominence among the great states of the union that seems to me can scarcely fail to bring texas to the front rank. [cheers.] you are only now beginning to plough this vast stretch of land. you are only now beginning to diversify those interests, to emancipate yourselves by producing at home in your fields all of those products which are necessary to comfortable existence. i hope you will soon add, indeed, you are now largely adding, to this diversity of agricultural pursuits a diversity of mechanical pursuits. the advantages which you have to transmute the great production of the field into the manufactured product are very great. there can be certainly no reason why a very large part of the million bales of cotton which you produce should not be spun in texas. [cheers.] i hope your people will more and more turn their thoughts to this matter, for just in proportion as a community or state suitably divides its energies among various industries, so does it retain the wealth it produces and increase its population. [applause.] a great englishman, visiting this country some time ago, in speaking of the impressions which were made upon his mind, said he was constantly asked as he travelled through the country whether he was not amazed at its territorial extent. he said while this, of course, was a notable incident of travel, he wondered that we did not forget all our bigness of territory in a contemplation of the great spectacle we presented as a free people in organized and peaceful community. he regarded this side of our country and her institutions as much more important than its material development or its territorial extent, and he was right in that judgment. my fellow-citizens, the pride of america, that which should attract the admiration and has attracted the imagination of many people upon the face of the earth, is our system of government. [applause.] i am glad to know, and to have expressed my satisfaction before, that here in this state of texas you are giving attention to education; that you have been able to erect a school fund, the interest upon which promises a most magnificent endowment for your common schools. these schools are the pride and safety of your state. they gather into them upon a common level with us, and i hope with you, the children of the rich and poor. in the state in which i dwell everybody's children attend the common schools. this lesson of equality, the perfect system which has been developed by this method of instruction, is training a valued class of citizens to take up the responsibilities of government when we shall lay them down. [applause.] i hope every one of your communities, even your scattered rural communities, will pursue this good work. i am sure this hope is shared by my honored host, governor hogg, who sits beside me [applause], and who, in the discharge of his public duties, can influence the progress of this great measure. no material greatness, no wealth, no accumulation of splendor, is to be compared with those humble and homely virtues which have generally characterized our american homes. the safety of the state, the good order of the community--all that is good--the capacity, indeed, to produce material wealth, is dependent upon intelligence and social order. [applause.] wealth and commerce are timid creatures; they must be assured that the nest will be safe before they build. so it is always in those communities where the most perfect order is maintained, where intelligence is protected, where the church of god and the institutions of religion are revered and respected, that we find the largest development in material wealth. [applause.] thanking you for your cordial greeting, thanking all your people, and especially the governor of your state, for courtesies which have been unfailing, for a cordiality and friendliness that has not found any stint or repression in the fact that we are of different political opinions [great cheering], i beg to thank you for this special manifestation of respect, and to ask you to excuse me from further speech. i shall follow such arrangements as your committee have made, and shall be glad if in those arrangements there is some provision by which i may meet as many of you as possible individually. [prolonged cheering.] del rio, texas, april . the chief incident of the long run from san antonio to el paso was the enthusiastic reception tendered the president by the residents of the thriving frontier town of del rio, county seat of val verde county. the town was handsomely decorated, and the following reception committee welcomed the president and party: judge w. k. jones, c. s. brodbent, zeno fielder, j. a. price, h. d. bonnett, e. l. dignowity, paul flato, clyde woods, thomas cunningham, w. c. easterling, j. c. clarkson, e. g. nicholson, c. g. leighton, and r. j. felder. rev. dr. h. s. thrall, the veteran historian of texas, delivered the address of welcome. the president, responding, said: _my friends_--i had supposed when we left san antonio that we were not to be stopped very often between that point and el paso with such assemblages of our fellow-citizens. we had settled down to an easy way of living on the train, and i had supposed that speech-making would not be taken up until to-morrow. i thank you most cordially for this friendly evidence of your interest, and i assure you that all of these matters to which your spokesman has alluded are having the most careful consideration of the authorities at washington. the secretary of agriculture, who is with me on the train, has been diligent in an effort to open european markets for american meats, and he has succeeded so far that our exportation has very largely increased in the last year. it is our hope that these restrictions may still further be removed, and that american meat products may have a still larger market in europe than they have had for very many years past. the inspections now provided by law certainly must remove every reasonable objection to the use of american meats; for we shall demonstrate to them that they are perfectly wholesome and pure. i want to say, from the time of my induction into office until this hour i have had before me constantly the need of the american farmer of a larger market for his products. [cries of "good! good!" and cheers.] whatever we can do to accomplish that will be done. i want to thank the public-school children for this address which they have placed in my hands. what a blessed thing it is that the public school system is found with the pioneer! it follows the buffalo very closely. i am glad to find that your children are being trained in intelligence and in those moral restraints which shall make them good citizens. i thank you for your kindly presence. el paso, texas, april . the enterprising city of el paso was reached at o'clock tuesday morning, and the president was tendered a veritable ovation. the reception at this point partook of an international aspect. president diaz of mexico was represented in the person of governor carrillo, chief executive of the state of chihuahua, accompanied by a brilliant staff of officers. the war department of the mexican government was represented by gen. josé maria ranjel, chief of the second military zone, accompanied by his staff, a company of artillery, and the eleventh battalion band of instruments. from the city of mexico came col. ricardo villanueva and col. ygnacio j. monroy, representing the federal government, while the neighboring city of juarez was represented by colonel ross, commander of the garrison, señor mejia, señor urtetiga, and many other prominent citizens. the city of el paso was represented by mayor richard caples and the members of the city council. the citizens' committee of reception comprised w. s. hills, chairman; e. b. bronson, m. b. davis, s. w. russell, w. f. payne, frank p. clark, c. f. slack, geo. l. stewart, h. s. beattie, judge allen blacker, a. solomon, w. b. merrick, a. berla, louis papin, geo. e. bovee, james a. smith, hon. s. w. t. lanham, a. j. eaton, z. t. white, w. s. mccutcheon, a. m. loomis, h. c. myles, ben schuster, a. j. sampson, d. w. reckhart, and j. f. satterthwaite. governor carrillo stood beside president harrison during the reception. after the distinguished mexicans had paid their respects and greeted our chief magistrate, gen. a. g. malloy, on behalf of the citizens of el paso, in an eloquent address welcomed him to the gate city of the two republics. president harrison responded as follows: _my fellow-citizens_--i have been journeying for several days throughout the great state of texas. we are now about to leave her territory and receive from you this parting salutation. our entrance into the state was with every demonstration of respect and enthusiasm. this is a fitting close to the magnificent expression which the people of this state have given to us. i am glad to stand at this gateway of trade with the great republic of mexico. [cries of "hear! hear!" and cheers.] i am glad to know that it is not only a gateway of commerce, but a gateway of friendship [cheers]; that not only do these hurrying vehicles of commerce bear the products of the fields and mines in mutual exchange, but that they have facilitated those personal relations which have promoted and must yet more promote the friendliness of two independent liberty-loving peoples. [cheers.] i receive with great satisfaction these tributes of respect which have been brought to me by the governor of chihuahua and the representatives of the army of mexico. [cheers.] i desire to return to them and through them to the people of mexico and to that illustrious and progressive statesman who presides over her destinies [cheers] not only my sincere personal regard, but an assurance of the friendliness and respect of the american government and the american people. i look forward with interest to a larger development of our trade; to the opening of new lines of commerce and new avenues of friendship. we have passed that era in our history, i hope, when we were aggressive and unpleasant neighbors. we do not covet the territory of any other people [cheers], but do covet their friendship and those trade exchanges which are mutually profitable. [cheers.] and now to you, my fellow-citizens, i bring congratulations for the rapid development which you are making here, and extend the most cordial good wishes for the realization of every hope you have for el paso and its neighborhood. [cheers.] all republics are builded on the respect and confidence of the people. they are enduring and stable as their institutions and their rulers continue to preserve their respect. i rejoice that those influences that tend to soften the asperities of human life--the home, the school, and the church--have kept pace with the enterprises of commerce and are established here among you. all commerce and trade rest upon the foundation of social order. you cannot attract an increased citizenship except as you give to the world a reputation for social order [cheers], in which crime is suppressed, in which the rights of the humble are respected [cheers], and where the courts stand as the safe bulwark of the personal and public rights of every citizen, however poor. [cheers.] i trust that as your city grows you will see that these foundations are carefully and broadly laid, and then you may hope that the superstructure, magnificent in its dimensions, perfect in its security and grace, shall rise in your midst. [cheers.] i am glad to meet my comrades of the grand army of the republic [cheers], the survivors of the grand struggle for the union. it was one of the few wars in history that brought blessings to the "victors and vanquished," and was followed by no proscriptions, no block, no executions, but by the reception of those who had striven for the destruction of the country into friendly citizenship, laying upon them no yoke that was not borne by the veterans--that of obedience to the law and a due respect for the rights of others. [cheers.] again, sir [to the mexican representative], i thank you for the friendly greeting you have brought from across this narrow river that separates us, and to you my fellow-countrymen, i extend my thanks and bid you good-by. [prolonged cheers.] deming, new mexico, april . as the train crossed the rio grande and entered new mexico hon. l. bradford prince, governor of that territory, gave the chief magistrate a cordial welcome. deming was reached at o'clock. the city was in holiday attire; a battery of artillery thundered the presidential salute, two companies of the tenth cavalry, under captain keyes, came to a present as the president appeared, and the twenty-fourth infantry band burst forth in patriotic strains. the committee of reception comprised the following prominent citizens: judge boone, c. h. dane, b. a. knowles, j. r. meyers, a. j. clark, j. p. bryon, w. h. hudson, s. m. ashenfelter, gustav wormser, ed. pennington, w. burg, james martin, colonel fitzerell, james a. lockhart, seaman field, john corbett, e. g. ross, and robert campbell. professor hayes delivered the welcoming address. in reply president harrison said: _my fellow-citizens_--it gives me great pleasure to tarry for a moment here and to receive out on these broad and sandy plains the same evidence of friendliness that has greeted me in the states. i feel great interest in your people, and thinking that you have labored under a disadvantage by reason of the unsettled state of your land titles--because no country can settle up and become populous while the titles to its land remain insecure--it was my pleasure to urge upon congress, both in a general and special message, the establishment of a special land court to settle this question once for all. [cheers.] i am glad that the statute is now a law, and immediately upon my return from this trip i expect to announce the judges of that court, and to set them immediately to work upon these cases, so that you shall certainly, within two years, have all these questions settled. i hope you will then see an increase of population that has not as yet been possible, and which will tend to develop your great mineral resources and open up your lands to settlement. thanking you, on behalf of our party, for this pleasant greeting, i bid you good-by. [cheers.] lordsburg, new mexico, april . at lordsburg, new mexico, the train made a brief stop. a number of citizens, headed by don. h. kedzee, welcomed the president and presented him a handsome silver box, manufactured from metal mined in the vicinity. on the case was inscribed, "protect the chief industry of our territories. give us free coinage of silver." in accepting the memento the president said: "mr. kedzee and gentlemen, i thank you for this cordial welcome and for this elegant souvenir, and assure you due care will be taken of your interests." [cheers.] tucson, arizona, april . tucson, the metropolis of arizona, was brilliantly illuminated in honor of the visitors, who were welcomed by , citizens and a band of papago indians. negley post, g. a. r., j. j. hill, commander, represented the veterans. the city government was present in the persons of mayor frederick maish and councilmen m. g. sameniego, m. lamont, geo. lesure, wm. reid, frank miltenberg, and julius goldbaum. the committee of reception on the part of the citizens comprised many of the most distinguished men of the territory as well as of the city, among whom were: federal judges r. e. sloan and h. c. gooding, gen. r. a. johnson, gen. r. h. paul, charles r. drake, herbert brown, brewster cameron, j. knox corbett, george christ, j. s. mcgee, s. ainsa, samuel hughes, juan elias, rev. howard billman, albert steinfeld, h. s. stevens, m. p. freeman, s. m. franklin, w. c. davis, w. m. lovell, j. s. noble, h. b. tenny, f. h. hereford, d. c. driscoll, j. c. handy, j. a. black, thomas hughes, a. j. keen, j. m. ormsby, h. e. lacy, g. b. henry, frank allison, george pusch, h. w. fenner, r. d. furguson, f. j. henry, and c. c. eyster. hon. thos. f. wilson made the address of welcome. the president said: _my fellow-citizens_--it is surprising as well as gratifying to see so many friends assembled to greet us on our arrival at tucson to-night. i beg to assure you that the interests of the territories are very close to my heart. by reason of my service as chairman of the territory committee in the united states senate i was brought to study very closely the needs of the territories. i have had great pleasure issuing the proclamations admitting five territories to the sisterhood of states since i became president. i realize the condition of the people of the territory without having representation in congress as one of disadvantage, and i am friendly to the suggestion that these territories, as they have sufficient population to sustain a state government and to secure suitable administration of the own affairs, shall be received into the union. [cheers.] it will be gratifying to me if you shall come into that condition during the time that i occupy the presidential chair. [cheers.] i thank you again for your cordial demonstration, and beg to present to you that gentleman of the cabinet who has charge of the postal affairs, mr. wanamaker. [prolonged cheers.] indio, california, april . the morning of the d brought the president and his party out of the great desert to the borders of california, where at indio, the first station, they were enthusiastically greeted by the governor of the state, hon. henry h. markham, at the head of the following distinguished committee: senator charles n. felton, ex-gov. geo. c. perkins, col. charles f. crocker, hon. r. f. del valle, hon. stephen m. white, gen. e. p. johnson, hon. hervey lindley, hon. freeman g. teed, hon. irwin c. stump, hon. frank mccoppin, and adjutant-general allen. from the districts adjacent to indio were gathered several hundred people to greet the chief magistrate, mostly indians. postmaster a. g. tingman introduced the venerable chief cabazon, head of the cohuilla tribe and over years old, who presented a petition to the president asking that the lands guaranteed his people by the treaty with mexico be restored to them. governor markham delivered a cordial welcoming address, wherein he reviewed the wonderful growth of california. the president, in reply, said he would not undertake, while almost choked with the dust of the plains he had just left, to say all that he hoped to say in the way of pleasant greetings to the citizens of california. some time, when he had been refreshed by their olive oil and their vineyards, he would endeavor to express his gratification at being able to visit california. he had long desired to visit california, and it was the objective point of this trip. he had seen the northern coast and puget sound, but had never before been able to see california. he remembered from boyhood the excitement of the discovery of gold, and had always distantly followed california's growth and progress. the acquisition of california was second only to that of louisiana and the control of the mississippi river. it secured us this great coast, and made impossible the ownership of a foreign power on any of our coast line. it has helped to perfect our magnificent isolation, which is our great protection against foreign aggression. he thanked the governor and committee for their kindly reception, and assured them that if he should have any complaints to make of his treatment in california it would be because its people had been too hospitable. colton, california, april . at colton the presidential party were enthusiastically greeted by several thousand people. the citizens' committee comprised a. b. miner, chairman; dr. fox, j. b. shepardson, wilson hays, w. h. wright, f. m. hubbard, dr. hutchinson, h. b. smith, j. w. davis, s. m. goddard, j. b. hanna, captain topp, w. w. wilcox, m. a. murphy, prof. mathews, r. a. kuhn, c. b. hamilton, j. m. white, dr. sprecher, geo. e. slaughter, r. f. franklin, e. a. pettijohn, e. e. thompson, dan swartz, r. m. mckie, wm. mccully and proctor mccann. the committee appointed to wait on mrs. harrison were: mesdames hubbard, button, shepardson, fuller, gilbert, shibley, hebbard, and wright. twelve school-girls presented as many baskets of oranges to the lady of the white house. the president addressed the assemblage and said: _my fellow-citizens_--we have travelled now something more than , miles. they have been , miles of cordial greeting from my fellow-citizens; they have been , miles of perpetual talk. it would require a brain more fertile in resources, more diversified in its operations than the state of california in its richness and productions, to say something original or interesting at each one of these stopping places; but i can say always with a warm heart to my fellow-citizens who greet me so cordially, who look to me out of such kindly faces, i thank you; i am your servant in all things that will conduce to the general prosperity and happiness of the american people. remote from us of the far east in distance, we are united to you not only by the ties of a common citizenship, by the reverence and honor we joyfully give to the one flag, but by those interchanges of emigration which have brought so many of the people of the older states to you. at every station where i have stopped since entering california some hoosier has reached up his hand to greet me [laughter and cheers], and the omnipresent ohio man, of course, i have found everywhere. i was assured by these gentlemen that they were making their full contributions to the development of your country, and that they have possessed themselves of their fair share of it. i have been greatly pleased this morning to come out of the land of the desert and the drifting sand into this land of homes and smiling women and bright children. i have been glad to see these beautiful gardens and these fertile fields, and to know that you are now, by the economical collection and distribution of the waters of the hills, making all these valleys to blossom like the garden of eden. we do not come to spy the land with any view of dispossessing you, as the original spies went into palestine. we come simply to exchange friendly greetings, and we shall hope to carry away nothing that does not belong to us. [cheers.] if we shall leave your happy and prosperous state freighted with your good-will and love, as we shall leave ours with you, it will be a happy exchange. [cheers.] ontario, california, april . at ontario the president received a most patriotic greeting; throngs of school children brought him flowers. the reception committee was g. t. stamm, i. s. miller, e. p. clarke, s. g. blood, r. e. blackburn, g. w. a. luckey, dr. o. s. ensign, dr. r. h. tremper, and o. s. picher. h. z. osborne, of the los angeles committee, introduced the president, who spoke as follows: _my friends_--i thank you for this cordial greeting. i am sure you will excuse me from extended remarks. i have been subjected to such a strain in that direction that my brain needs irrigation to make it blossom with new thoughts. it to me is a pleasure to look into the intelligent faces of american citizens. no such people gather in any other country as meet me at every station. they come from good homes, which are the safety of our commonwealth. i am pleased to see these children here. good schools have everywhere followed the pioneer. you have brought to this new country the old new england ideas of thrift, of living on a little and having a good deal left over. [cheers.] banning, california, april . banning, the gateway to southern california, gave the presidential party an enthusiastic welcome and loaded them down with fruits and flowers. mr. louis munson, editor of the banning _herald_, at the head of the reception committee, delivered the welcoming address. the next day at arlington, where he had gone to again assist in receiving the president, mr. munson was suddenly taken with hemorrhage and died as the train passed. other members of the committee were m. g. kelley, w. s. hathaway, c. h. ingelow, w. h. ingelow, dr. j. c. king, f. j. clancy, w. morris, and m. l. bridge. two hundred indian school children, in charge of miss morris and father hahn, were objects of interest to the party. replying to mr. munson's address, the president said that although the good people of banning were far in point of distance from the seat of government, yet he was sure they were bound nearly and close to it by ties of loyalty and of patriotism. he expressed his pleasure at meeting the citizens of banning and his appreciation of their cordial welcome. pomona, california, april . at pomona the president's car was profusely decorated with floral designs by the ladies of the town. the members of the reception committee were senator j. e. mccomas, rev. chas. f. loop, w. e. ward, w. m. woody, a. h. wilbur, f. p. firey, c. i. lorbeer, capt. t. c. thomas, geo. osgoodby, c. d. ambrose, con howe, john e. packard, and e. b. smith. vicksburg post, g. a. r., h. h. williams, commander, was in attendance. responding to their cheers and calls the president said: this cordial demonstration of respect, these friendly greetings, make me your debtor. i beg to thank you for it all, and out of such gatherings as these, out of the friendly manifestations you have given me on my entrance to california, i hope to get new impulses to a more faithful and diligent discharge of the public duties which my fellow-citizens have devolved upon me. no man can feel himself adequate to these responsible functions, but i am sure if you shall judge your public servants to be conscientiously devoted to your interests, to the bringing to the discharge of their public duties a conscientious fidelity and the best intelligence with which they are endowed, you will pardon any shortcoming. again i thank you for your friendliness and beg you to excuse me from further speech. los angeles, california, april . the famous city of los angeles was reached at o'clock on the afternoon of the d. an ovation awaited the president and his party here the like of which they had not witnessed. they were met at colton by a committee of escort consisting of mayor henry t. hazard and mrs. hazard, mr. and mrs. e. f. spence, h. w. hellman, gen. and miss mathews, w. c. furrey and wife, judge and mrs. s. o. houghton, a. w. francisco and wife, col. h. g. otis and wife, j. a. kelly and wife, h. z. osborne and wife, capt. george j. ainsworth, mrs. hervey lindley, e. h. lamme, and l. n. breed. fully , voices greeted the president's arrival at the station, where the members of the citizens' reception committee, of which mayor hazard was chairman, received him. this committee comprised the leading men of the city, among whom were hon. r. f. del valle, gen. john mansfield, gen. e. p. johnson, gen. a. mcd. mccook, gen. e. e. hewitt, maj. geo. e. gard, hon. john r. mathews, maj. e. w. jones, col. h. c. corbin, maj. a. w. barrett, col. t. a. lewis, eugene germain, c. f. a. last, j. frankenfeld, w. h. workman, joseph mesmer, l. i. garnsey, g. j. griffith, john w. green, j. f. humphreys, h. l. macneil, a. e. pomeroy, frank w. sabichi, i. h. polk, j. w. haverstick, s. b. hynes, r. s. baker, harris newmark, j. c. kays, maj. j. r. toberman, i. r. dunkleberger, maj. a. w. elderkin, ex-gov. geo. stoneman, k. h. wade, a. e. fletcher, col. joseph r. smith, w. w. howard, maj. w. h. toler, capt. w. h. seamans, george w. bryant, poindexter dunn, judge lewis h. groff, hon. r. b. carpenter, maj. e. f. c. klokke, hon. s. m. white, w. h. perry, s. c. hubbell, s. h. mott, i. n. van nuys, a. haas, j. de barth shorb, maj. george s. patton, maj. e. l. stern, dr. h. nadeau, k. cohn, o. w. childs, jr., l. lichtenberger, a. h. denker, col. george h. smith, a. glassell, herman silver, louis mesmer, j. m. elliott, s. b. caswell, dr. eyraud, william r. rowland, d, amestoy, j. m. glass, m. l. wicks, j. a. booty, maj. a. f. kimball, capt. h. k. bailey, judge w. p. wade, judge walter van dyke, judge w. h. clarke, judge j. w. mckinley, judge b. n. smith, judge lucien shaw, w. w. robinson, a. lowe, k. loeb, hancock banning, capt. will banning, t. w. brotherton, w. j. brodrick, m. s. severance, j. illich, gen. d. remick, r. cohen, fred eaton, h. siegel, v. dol, m. polaski, dr. john s. griffin, j. f. humphreys, j. m. davies, washington hadley, george c. cook, sanford johnson, c. o. collins, col. f. a. eastman, d. desmond, c. ducommun, james mclachlan, j. e. plater, j. f. towell, john s. chapman, g. wiley wells, judge enoch knight, j. w. hendricks, george a. vignolo, george r. valiant, philip garnier, judge w. p. gardiner, t. j. weldon, r. m. widney, a. c. shafer, freeman g. teed, chas. h. white, john keneally, joseph shoder, judge j. d. bicknell, thomas a. lewis, dr. w. g. cochran, louis phillips, richard gird, d. m. mcgarry, j. t. sheward, j. m. hale, b. f. coulter, andrew mullen, h. jevne, w. s. moore, l. l. bradbury, h. j. fleishman, dr. j. p. widney, george l. arnold, l. a. sheldon, will d. gould, r. r. haines, john mcrae, c. j. ellis, j. k. tufts, dan mcfarland, l. harris, l. ebinger, a. e. pomeroy, ex-gov. j. g. downey, ex-gov. pico, t. e. rowan, o. t. johnson, col. w. g. schreiber, dr. w. lindley, o. h. churchill, w. g. kerckhoff, j. a. muir, silas hoolman, hon. j. f. crank, i. b. newton, james castruccio, j. a. kelly, l. e. mosher, a. f. coronel, j. c. daly, dr. w. l. graves, h. w. o'melveny, j. h. shanklin, charles froman, albert m. stephens, a. w. hutton, rev. w. j. chichester, h. t. gage, anson brunson, charles silent, dr. joseph kurtz, judge t. k. wilson, rev. a. g. meyer, simon maier, jacob kuhrts, judge j. d. bethune, judge m. t. allen, albert mcfarland, w. e. hughes, herman silver, williamson dunn, r. j. northam, capt. f. n. marion, capt. a. m. thornton, l. roeder, h. t. newell, e. a. forrester, john w. wolfskill, joseph wolfskill, h. j. shoulter, niles pease, f. e. brown, m. g. jones, john j. schallert, walter patrick, charles f. harper, f. w. king, j. m. griffith, c. h. hance, j. a. henderson, newell mathews, john wigmore, w. c. howell, h. baruch, l. w. blum, andrew w. ryan, j. schumacher, e. t. wright, a. b. whitney, h. c. austin, a. e. davis, m. dodsworth, r. rees, william lacy, jotham bixby, j. w. potts, l. a. grant, t. h. ward, george p. mclain, j. j. warner, henry owens, f. m. nickell, j. h. dockweiler, dan innes, m. d. johnson, ed. d. gibson, charles stern, h. d. barrows, m. v. biscailuz, h. hiller, j. e. yoakum, j. p. moran, j. w. hinton, george hansen, len j. thompson, w. s. maxwell, l. polaski, theo. summerland, joseph mullaly, p. beaudry, james hanley, l. bixby, william m. friesner, c. ganahl, tom strohm, b. t. tolbert, sherman smith, john a. hughes, h. v. van dusen, john bernard, o. j. muchmore, c. f. heinzman, j. c. quinn, william pridham, l. c. goodwin, c. h. alford, e. h. hutchinson, w. h. rhodes, a. mcnally, e. e. crandall, j. w. hendrick, h. w. mills, john goldsworthy, thomas pierson, robert e. wirshing, cyrus vena, s. w. luitweiler, r. h. slater, h. bartning, a. h. denker, e. b. millar, a. l. bath, t. s. c. lowe, frank h. howard, joseph maier, j. frank burns, conrad jacoby, charles a. homer, judge a. brunson, mark g. jones, d. mcfarland, j. j. gosper, j. m. frew, r. dillon, dr. k. d. wise, t. d. mott, j. c. dotter, w. t. lambie, frank gibson, john bryson, c. h. bradley, v. ponet, m. c. marsh, f. j. capitan, william ferguson, m. meyberg, l. jacoby, h. mosgrove, a. hamburger, al workman, w. t. dalton, s. hutton, dr. j. h. bryant, fred gilmore, j. h. book, c. e. day, c. b. woodhead, gen. e. bouton, robert steere, f. n. meyers, l. m. wagner, and f. e. lopez. as the president passed through the crowded streets of the city, escorted by several hundred g. a. r. veterans, he encountered a veritable rain of flowers at the hands of several thousand school children. arriving at the grand stand mayor hazard, for the reception committee, formally welcomed the president, who responded as follows: _mr. mayor and fellow-citizens_--my stay among you will not be long enough to form an individual judgment of the quality of your people, but it has been long enough already to get a large idea of the number of them. [cheers.] i beg of you to accept my sincere thanks for this magnificent demonstration of your respect. i do not at all assume that these huzzas and streamers and banners with which you have greeted me to-day are a tribute to me individually. i receive them as a most assuring demonstration of the love of the people of california for american institutions. [great and prolonged cheering.] and well are these institutions worthy of all honor. the flag that you have displayed here to-day, the one flag, the banner of the free and the symbol of the indissoluble union of the states, is worthy of the affections of our people. men have died for it on the field of battle; women have consecrated it with their tears and prayers as they placed the standard in the hands of brave men on the morning of battle. it is historically full of tender interest and pride. it has a glorious story on the sea in those times when the american navy maintained our prestige and successfully beat the navies of our great antagonist. [cheers.] it has a proud record from the time of our great struggle for independence down to the last sad conflict between our own citizens. we bless god to-day that these brave men who, working out his purpose on the field of battle, made it again the symbol of a united people. [cheers.] our institutions, of which this flag is an emblem, are free institutions. these men and women into whose faces i look are free men and women. i do not honor you by my presence here to-day. i hold my trust from you and you honor me in this reception. [great cheers.] this magnificent domain on the pacific coast, seized for the union by the energy and courage and wise forethought of frémont and his associates, is essential to our perfection. nothing more important in territorial extension, unless it be the purchase of the territory of louisiana and the control of the mississippi river, has ever occurred in our national history. [great cheering.] we touch two oceans, and on both we have built commonwealths and great cities, thus securing in that territory individuality and association which give us an assurance of perpetual peace. [cheers.] no great conflict of arms can ever take place on american soil if we are true to ourselves and have forever determined that no civil conflict shall again rend our country. [cheers.] we are a peace-loving nation, and yet we cannot be sure that everybody else will be peaceful, and therefore i am glad that by the general consent of our people and by the liberal appropriations from congress we are putting on the sea some of the best vessels of their class afloat [cheers], and that we are now prepared to put upon their decks as good guns as are made in the world; and when we have completed our programme, ship by ship, we will put in their forecastles as brave jack tars as serve under any flag. [great cheering.] the provident care of our government should be given to your sea-coast defences until all these great ports of the atlantic and pacific are made safe. [cheers.] but, my countrymen, this audience overmatches a voice that has been in exercise from roanoke, va., to los angeles. i beg you, therefore, again to receive my most hearty thanks and excuse me from further speech. [great and prolonged cheering.] in the evening the president was escorted to the pavilion, with a view to receiving personally the citizens, but when he viewed the great assemblage he desisted from the herculean task of taking each one by the hand, and instead thereof made the following address: _ladies and gentlemen_--i thank you for the warm greeting that you have given me and the royal welcome you have extended to my party and myself to your lovely city. i am thoroughly aware of the non-partisan character of this gathering, and appreciate the good-will with which you have gathered here in this vast building to receive me. i had a touching evidence of the non-partisan character of this gathering--and the good-will as well--just now when a man said to me: "i want to shake hands with you, even if i did lose a thousand dollars on your election." there will be no trouble to keep the flame of patriotism and love of country glowing so long as the american people thus manifest their loyalty to the officers whom the will of the people has placed in power. i thank you again for your good-will and hearty welcome. [great cheering.] san diego, california, april . the presidential party reached san diego wednesday evening and was escorted at once to coronado beach hotel. the indiana residents of the city called upon the president shortly after his arrival, and mr. wright delivered an address in their behalf. the president, in response, said: _my friends_--i regret that i can only say thank you. our time is now due to the citizens of san diego, and i have promised not to detain that committee. it is particularly pleasurable to me to see, as i have done at almost every station where our train stopped, some indianian, who stretched up the hand of old neighborship to greet me as i passed along. it is this intermingling of our people which sustains the merit of the home. the yankee intermingles with the illinoisian, the hoosier with the sucker, and the people of the south with them all; and it is this commingling which gives that unity which marks the american nation. i am glad to know that there are so many of you here, and as i said to some hoosiers as i came along, i hope you have secured your share of these blessings. the formal reception of the president took place thursday morning, when he was welcomed by mayor douglas gunn, at the head of the following committee of reception: hon. john d. works, hon. eli h. murray, hon. w. w. bowers, howard m. kutchin, hon. olin wellborn, e. s. babcock, col. w. g. dickinson, col. chalmers scott, hon. g. w. hardacre, w. j. hunsaker, hon. george puterbaugh, e. s. torrance, w. l. pierce, watson parrish, m. a. luce, n. h. conklin, maj. levi chase, col. e. j. ensign, james p. goodwin, m. l. ward, col. a. g. gassen, james mccoy, dr. r. m. powers, w. n. king, a. e. horton, l. s. mclure, t. s. van dyke, col. john kastle, carl schutze, geo. d. copeland, m. sherman, h. l. story, d. c. reed, s. w. switzer, col. g. g. bradt, thos. gardner, e. n. buck, dr. d. gochenauer, henry timken, col. w. l. vestal, c. w. pauly, col. g. m. brayton, u. s. a.; capt. leonard hay, capt. w. r. maize, lieut. e. b. robertson, john r. berry, h. t. christian, d. h. hewitt, col. a. g. watson, daniel stone, w. e. howard, j. s. buck, r. c. allen, a. v. lomeli, mexican consul; j. b. neilson, danish consul; j. w. girvin, hawaiian consul; m. blochman, french vice-consul; bryant howard, jacob gruendike, j. w. collins, john long, frank a. kimball, s. levi, gen. t. t. crittenden, j. f. sinks, dr. p. c. remondino, o. j. stough, j. s. mannasse, frank m. simpson, j. e. fishburne, warren wilson, t. a. nerney, h. c. treat, f. s. jennings, t. m. loup, dr. j. g. beck, capt. c. t. hinde, g. s. havermale, h. a. howard, philip morse, george w. marston, fred n. hamilton, e. w. morse, j. s. gordon, e. j. louis, r. m. dooley, e. w. bushyhead, o. s. witherby, w. j. prout, william collier, j. h. gay, g. h. ballou, f. s. plympton, j. p. winship, tomas alvarado, col. e. b. spileman, ariosto mccrimmon, paul h. blades, and walter g. smith. heintzelman post, g. a. r., gen. datus e. coon, commander, participated in the reception, which was held on the plaza. mayor gunn delivered the address of welcome. the president, responding, said: _mr. mayor and fellow-citizens_--i am in slavery to a railroad schedule, and have but a few moments longer to tarry in your beautiful city. if there were no other reward for our journey across the continent, we have seen to-day about your magnificent harbor that which would have repaid us for all the toil of travel. [applause.] i do not come to tell you anything about california, for i have perceived in my intercourse with californians in the east and during this brief stay among you that already you know all about california. [laughter.] you are, indeed, most happily situated. every element that makes life comfortable is here; every possibility that makes life successful and prosperous is here; and i am sure, as i look into those kindly, upturned faces, that your homes have as healthful a moral atmosphere as the natural one that god has spread over your smiling land. it is with regret that we now part from you. the welcome you have extended to us is magnificent, kindly, and tasteful. we shall carry away the most pleasant impression, and shall wish for you all that you anticipate in your largest dreams for your beautiful city [cheers]--that your harbor may be full of foreign and coast-wise traffic, that it may not be long until the passage of our naval and merchant marine shall not be by the horn, but by nicaragua. [cheers.] i believe that great enterprise, which is to bring your commerce into nearer and cheaper contact with the atlantic seaboard cities, both of this continent and of south america, will not be long delayed. and now, again with most grateful thanks for your friendly attention, in my own behalf and in behalf of all who journey with me i bid you a most kindly farewell. [prolonged cheers.] at the conclusion of the president's address governor torres, of lower california, in the uniform of a major-general of the mexican army, approached the president and read the following telegram from gen. porfirio diaz, president of mexico: it has come to my knowledge that the president of the united states, hon. benjamin harrison, shall visit san diego on the d instant, and i let you know it so that you may call to congratulate him in my name and present him with my compliments. [signed] porfirio diaz. responding to this friendly international salute, president harrison said: _governor torres_--this message from that progressive and intelligent gentleman who presides over the destinies of our sister republic is most grateful to me. i assure you that all our people, that the government, through all its instituted authorities, entertain for president diaz and for the chivalrous people over which he presides the most friendly sentiments of respect. [cheers and applause.] we covet, sir, your good-will and those mutual exchanges which are mutually profitable, and we hope that the two republics may forever dwell in fraternal peace. as the president sat down governor torres remarked: "the mexican people respond heartily to your kind wishes." santa ana, california, april . on the return route from san diego the presidential train stopped at santa ana, a thriving town in orange county, where , people had assembled to greet the chief magistrate. the committee of reception was john t. nourse, c. s. mckelvey, w. s. taylor, j. a. crane, john beatty, geo. e. edgar, geo. t. insley, capt. h. t. matthews, w. h. drips, and robert cummings. sedgwick post, g. a. r., h. f. stone, commander, was present. prof. m. manley delivered the address of welcome, and the hon. w. h. spurgeon, founder of the city, introduced the president, who spoke as follows: _my fellow-citizens_--i have already proved your hospitality. it is very, very generous, and it is very graceful. i have but one doubt in regard to it, and that is whether i can stand so much of it. [laughter and applause.] it has given me great gladness of heart to look into your faces. i have been discharging some public business far remote from you, and i hope with some concern for your interest, for i have tried to take a wide view of public questions and to have in my mind a thought of the people of this great land. our politics should be as broad as the territory over which our people have spread. it is a part of the history of the country which has always kept in memory the safety and interests of those who pushed civilization to the rocky mountains and over its rugged peaks into these fruitful valleys. i am glad to see here this afternoon these little children. the order in which they have assembled gives me assurance that they have come from the school-houses, those nurseries of knowledge and common interests in our american states. i am glad that you grow not only the olive-tree in your garden, but that to the olive-trees that are planted in the household and bloom about your table you give your greatest attention. now, thanking you very kindly and confessing very humbly that i am not able to repay you for your generous welcome, and leaving to all these little ones my best hopes for useful, prosperous, and honorable lives, i bid you all good-by. orange, california, april . through the zealous efforts of mrs. t. i. halsted, president of the woman's relief corps of orange, mrs. emilie n. tener, and others, the presidential train stopped at that town. the committee of reception was: rev. a. parker, robert e. tener, e. e. risley, wm. h. arne, mrs. e. b. strong, h. w. wilson, and d. c. pixley. gordon granger post, g. a. r., a. meacham, commander, was present in full force. responding to enthusiastic cheers the president said: _my friends_--i am glad to look into your smiling faces, and i thank you for this welcome. california is a state that is favorably situated, and, so far as i can judge, this section is among the most favored in the state. there is no time for a speech, but we can shake hands with a few of those who are nearest. riverside, california, april . one of the most enjoyable visits of the president and his party was to riverside, san bernardino county, where, on driving from arlington station, they were welcomed by several thousand residents of the district. the committee of reception comprised hon. h. m. streeter, judge w. w. noland, judge harvey potter, c. o. perrine, capt. c. h. vosburg, c. m. loring, a. p. johnson, f. m. dunbar, a. keith, c. t. rice, capt. j. t. lawler, a. h. naftzger, e. w. holmes, f. mcchoppin, frank a. miller, g. w. dickson, j. a. wilbur, f. m. heath, c. n. andrews, j. r. newberry, f. e. abbott, w. c. fitzsimmons, d. w. mcleod, b. r. williams, c. p. hayt, and mrs. s. a. ames, representing the city of riverside; mrs. c. w. sylvester, representing the woman's relief corps; mrs. c. button, representing the w. c. t. u., and mrs. davis. the president and mrs. harrison and all the other members of the party were treated to a delightful drive through the celebrated orange groves. the president was accompanied by hon. s. c. evans. returning from the groves the president's carriage was halted in front of the high school building, where , scholars and several thousand others had assembled. on being presented by mr. evans the president said: _my friends_--we can tarry only for a moment, as we are already behind the regular time for leaving. i cannot, however, drive by this large assemblage of friends, gathered to greet us on the way, without expressing the delight with which i have looked upon these beautiful surroundings. my trip from washington has been full of pleasures and surprises, but nothing has given me greater surprise and more pleasure than the drive of this afternoon through this magnificent valley of riverside. i am glad you are interested in cultivating the children as well as the orange, and i trust that their young minds may be kept as free from all that is injurious as these fine orange orchards are of weeds and everything that is noxious. may their lives be as fruitful as your trees, and their homes as happy and full of joy as this land seems to be of the bright sunshine of god. the distinguished visitors then proceeded through the city and reviewed the parade, at the conclusion of which the president, speaking without introduction, said: _my friends_--i am sorry that we can tarry with you only for a moment. we are now twenty minutes behind our schedule time for leaving. if we should stay with you longer we should disappoint others who are waiting for us at an appointed time. we are grateful to you for your presence. i have enjoyed very much the ride through the valley. you are a favored people, and ought to be, as i have no doubt you are, a law-abiding, liberty-loving, and patriotic people. san bernardino, california, april . another typical gathering, full of california enthusiasm, greeted the party at san bernardino. the reception committee comprised c. c. haskell, chairman; j. c. lynch, hon. samuel merrill, w. a. harris, joseph brown, j. n. victor, l. c. waite, richard gird, w. e. w. lightfoot, w. b. beamer, r. j. waters, truman reeves, dr. a. thompson, col. t. j. wilson, d. a. scott, a. s. hawley, j. j. hewitt, e. b. stanton, a. g. kendall, dr. j. p. booth, w. h. timmons, wilson hays, geo. cooley, r. b. taylor, h. a. keller, e. e. katz, lewis jacobs, h. l. drew, n. g. gill, and i. w. lord. mr. w. j. curtis delivered the address of welcome. in response the president said: _mr. mayor and fellow citizens_--i can only repeat to you what i have already had occasion to say to many similar audiences assembled in california, that i am delighted with my visit to the pacific coast; that much as i had heard of the richness and high cultivation, what i have seen to-day in this great valley has far surpassed my expectations. you have subdued an unpromising soil and made it blossom as the rose; but better than all the fruits and harvests, and better than all the products of the field, is this intelligent population which out of their kindly faces extend to us a greeting wherever we go. i am glad, coming from the far east, to observe how greatly our people are alike. but that is not surprising, because i find all through this valley many hoosiers and buckeyes i knew at home. it is not singular that you should be alike when you are really and truly the same people, not only in lineage and general characteristics, but the same men and women we have known in the older states. and now i thank you again, and beg you will excuse me from further speech, with the assurance that if it were in my power i would double the rich blessings which you already enjoy. [cheers.] pasadena, california, april . it was o'clock in the evening when the presidential train rolled into pasadena, the home of governor markham. the president's reception was notable for its marked enthusiasm. the committee of escort that met the party at riverside was: hon. j. a. buchanan, mayor t. p. lukens, ex-gov. l. a. sheldon, col. g. g. green, geo. f. foster, and p. m. green. a great assemblage greeted the president's arrival, which was celebrated by booming cannon, ringing bells, and bonfires. the committee of reception, comprising the following leading citizens, welcomed the president and escorted him to the hotel: gov. h. h. markham, chairman; j. h. holmes, w. u. masters, c. m. simpson, geo. f. kernaghan, col. j. r. bowler, delos arnold, m. m. parker, w. h. wiley, w. e. arthur, j. w. wood, dr. w. l. mcallister, c. d. daggett, judge h. w. magee, james clarke, a. b. manahan, j. w. scoville, j. e. farnum, m. d. painter, t. banbury, w. w. webster, prof. t. s. c. lowe, rev. e. l. conger, rev. d. d. hill, rev. j. w. phelps, hon. a. g. throop, f. j. woodbury, g. b. ocheltree, g. a. greely, w. l. wotkyns, c. s. martin, a. r. metcalfe, f. c. bolt, e. r. hull, dr. mohr, john mcdonald, judge a. mccoy, b. m. wotkyns, a. k. mcquilling, s. washburn, t. j. rigg, t. earley, c. s. cristy, a. c. armstrong, a. mcnally, j. brockway, j. e. howard, j. s. hodge, c. w. buchanan, o. s. picher, dr. thomas r. hayes, m. fish, j. r. greer, jr., a. k. nash, c. h. richardson, j. g. rossiter, w. t. vore, rev. c. e. harris, h. h. rose, j. banbury, a. dodworth, dr. frary, judge m. c. hester, james h. campbell, c. c. brown, a. h. conger, w. s. wright, george bremner, james mclachlan, j. s. cox, c. t. hopkins, o. e. weed, j. h. baker, l. blankenhorn, w. s. monroe, george f. granger, w. s. gilmore, rev. l. p. crawford, w. e. channing, a. j. painter, s. h. doolittle, dr. george rodgers, e. e. jones, w. d. mcgilvray, webster wotkyns, theodore coleman, r. m. furlong, j. w. vandevoort, b. e. ball, e. t. howe, h. r. hertel, charles foster, g. r. thomas, a. f. mills, dr. w. b. rowland, dr. f. f. rowland, dr. van slyck, rev. j. b. stewart, d. r. mclean, c. m. phillips, c. e. tebbetts, william heiss, h. w. hines, h. e. pratt, s. r. lippincott, j. w. hugus, w. p. forsyth, o. freeman, s. e. locke, c. f. holder, capt. a. c. drake, prof. j. d. yocum, j. h. woodworth, general mcbride, w. t. clapp, e. h. royce, charles legge, calvin hartwell, j. o. lowe, t. c. foster, t. l. hoag, dr. ezra f. carr, e. h. may, dr. mansfield, g. d. patton, prof. s. c. clark, h. h. visscher, f. r. harris, capt. a. l. hamilton, j. s. mills, h. b. sherman, r. c. slaughter, james smith, s. c. arnold, i. n. sears, chas. a. smith, wm. menner, s. h. yocum, d. w. permar, john permar, i. n. wood, emil kayser, n. w. bell, rev. e. e. scannell, rev. h. t. staats, w. r. staats, f. l. bushnell, h. c. allen, rev. a. w. bunker, rev. james kelso, judge j. p. nelson, c. j. morrison, m. rosenbaum, e. s. frost, f. b. wetherby, w. j. mccaldin, a. j. brown, dr. philbrook, captain rogers, dr. s. p. swearingen, fred mcnally, j. e. doty, f. d. stevens, o. stewart taylor, a. f. m. strong, c. m. parker, c. e. langford, g. e. meharry, maj. c. m. skillen, judge b. f. hoffman, henry washburn, capt. a. wakeley, w. s. nosworthy, j. g. shoup, mrs. i. b. winslow, geo. w. sheaff, mrs. t. h. kuhns, p. g. wooster, a. mclean, f. l. jones, dr. a. h. palmer, j. j. allen, e. c. webster, arturo bandini, will forbes, w. w. mills, mrs. dr. elliott, l. c. winston, s. s. vaught, i. n. stevenson, john habbick, thomas croft, wm. j. craig, m. a. de forest, r. k. janes, c. w. mann, john sedwick, homer morris, perry bonham, prof. kyle, r. w. lacey, dr. j. c. michener, a. a. choteau, a. o. bristol, dr. j. m. radebaugh, j. f. mullen, t. m. livingston, g. w. stimson, w. e. cooley, w. s. arnold, w. h. housh, e. w. longley, c. w. hodson, j. d. graham, m. e. wood, f. s. wallace, prof. w. p. hammond, c. s. howard, joseph wallace, robert vandevoort, h. k. w. bent, john allen, george goings, jeans james coleman, aug. mayer, geo. taylor, j. d. requa, rev. a. m. merwin, w. b. mosher, p. f. mcgowan, g. a. gibbs, f. k. burnham, and c. e. brooks. the women's reception committee to receive mrs. harrison and the other ladies in the party consisted of: mrs. l. a. sheldon, mrs. j. a. buchanan, mrs. j. w. wood, mrs. c. d. daggett, mrs. j. r. bowler, mrs. james clarke, miss greenleaf, mrs. w. e. arthur, and mrs. w. u. masters. it was o'clock at night when the president and the gentlemen of his party attended an elegant banquet at the hotel green, over which the hon. w. u. masters presided. mr. buchanan proposed the president's health in words of welcome. president harrison, responding, said: _gentlemen_--i beg you to accept my thanks for this banquet spread in honor of this community of strangers who have dropped in upon you to-night. we come to you after dark. i am not, therefore, prepared to speak of pasadena. when the sun shall have lightened your landscape again and our expectant eyes shall have rested upon its glories, i shall be able to give you my impressions of your city, which i am already prepared to believe is one of the gems in the crown of california. [applause.] perhaps no other place in california has by name been more familiar to me than pasadena, if you except your great commercial city of san francisco. that comes from the fact that many of your early settlers were indiana friends. i am glad to meet some of these friends here to-night. it is pleasant to renew these old acquaintances, to find that they have been received with esteem in this new community. i have found a line of hoosiers all along these railroads we have been traversing. everywhere our train has stopped some hoosier has lifted his hand to me, and often by dozens. as i said the other day, ohio men identify themselves to me by reason of that state being my birthplace, but it is not a surprise to me to find an ohio man anywhere. [laughter.] ohio people are especially apt to be found in the vicinity of a public office. [laughter.] i suppose whatever good fortune has come to me in the way of political preferment must be traced to the fact that i am a buckeye by birth. [laughter.] and now i thank you most cordially again for your attention and kindness. california has been full of the most affectionate interest to us. i have never looked into the faces of a more happy and intelligent people than those i have seen on the pacific coast. [applause.] you occupy the most important position in the sisterhood of states, stretching for these several hundred miles along the pacific shore. you have fortunate birth, and your history has been a succession of fortunate surprises. you have wrought out here great achievements in converting these plains that seemed to be so unpromising to the eye into such gardens as cannot be seen anywhere else upon the continent. [applause.] and now, when i remind you that bedtime was o'clock last night and the reveille sounded at o'clock this morning on our car, i am sure you will permit me to say good-night. [applause.] san fernando, california, april . the first stop on friday was at san fernando, the home of dr. j. k. hawks, who for twenty years was general harrison's near neighbor. the committee of reception was: r. p. waite, s. maclay, j. burr, j. s. kerns, c. smith, colonel hubbard, mesdames bodkin, hubbard, smith, and misses platt, gower, and jennie hawks. dr. hawks made a brief address of welcome and introduced the president, who said: _ladies and gentlemen_--i am pleased to be introduced to you by my old and honored friend, and i do sincerely hope that he has won your respect to the same extent which i learned to respect him when he was my neighbor. i hope you will excuse me from speaking further. i thank you all for your friendly greeting. santa paula, california, april . the thriving town of santa paula, ventura county, gave the president and his party a hearty reception, distinguished above others by a truly mammoth floral piece feet long by feet in width, covered with calla-lilies, and bearing the word "welcome" in red geranium letters inches in height. the committee of reception was: w. l. hardison, chairman; casper taylor, rev. f. d. mather, c. j. mcdevitt, f. a. morgan, f. e. davis, j. b. titus, c. h. mckevett, n. w. blanchard, dr. d. w. mott, c. n. baker, a. wooleven, harry youngken, and s. c. graham. the major eddy post, g. a. r., henry proctor, commander, was present. maj. joseph r. haugh, an old indianapolis acquaintance, welcomed the president on behalf of the committee. president harrison, replying, said: _my friends_--i cannot feel myself a stranger in this state, so distant from home, when i am greeted by some familiar faces from my indiana home at almost every station. your fellow-citizen who has spoken in your behalf was an old-time indianapolis friend. i hope he is held in the same esteem in which he was held by the people among whom he spent his early years as a boy and man. [cries of "he is!"] that you should have gone to the pains to make such magnificent decorations and to come out in such large numbers for this momentary greeting very deeply touches my heart. i have never seen in any state of the union what seems to me to be a more happy and contented people than i have seen this morning. your soil and sun are genial, healthful, and productive, and i have no doubt that these genial and kindly influences are manifested in the homes that are represented here, and that there is sunshine in the household as well as in the fields; that there is contentment and love and sweetness in these homes as well as in these gardens that are so adorned with flowers. our pathway has been strewn with flowers; we have literally driven for miles over flowers that in the east would have been priceless, and these favors have all been accompanied with manifestations of friendliness for which i am very grateful, and everywhere there has been set up as having greater glory than sunshine, greater glory than flowers, this flag of our country. [applause.] everywhere i have been greeted by some of these comrades, veterans of the late war, whose presence among you should be the inspiration to increased patriotism and loyalty. i bid them affectionate greeting, and am sorry that i cannot tarry with them longer. [cheers.] san buenaventura, california, april . three thousand people welcomed the party at san buenaventura, including nearly , school-children, who bounteously provided the president and mrs. harrison with flowers. the reception committee consisted of: mayor j. s. collins, j. r. willoughby, e. m. jones, p. bennett, c. d. bonestel, n. h. shaw, and cushing post, g. a. r., d. m. rodibaugh, commander. gen. william vandever welcomed the party, and the president spoke as follows: _my friends_--i am very glad to meet my old friend and your former representative, general vandever. i have had some surprise at almost every station at which we have stopped. i did not know until he came upon the platform that this was his home. i have not time to make a speech, and i have not the voice to make one. i can only say of these hearty and friendly californians that my heart is deeply touched with this evidence of friendly regard. you have strewn my way with flowers; you have graced every occasion, even the briefest stop, with a most friendly greeting, and i assure you that we are most grateful for it all. you are fortunate in your location among the states; and i am sure that in all this great republic nowhere is there a more loyal and patriotic people than we have here on the pacific coast. i thank you again for this greeting. [cheers.] santa barbara, california, april . the reception at santa barbara was the most unique that the presidential party experienced on their trip, and also one of the most enjoyable; it was a veritable flower carnival. leading the procession was a spanish cavalcade commanded by carlos de la guerra. the president's escort was a cavalcade of children marshalled by mrs. schermerhorn, with flower-decked saddles and bridles; then followed over flower-trimmed equipages, each displaying a different design and flower and bespeaking the marvellous flora of santa barbara in the month of april. the stand from whence the president reviewed the procession and witnessed the battle of flowers was a floral triumph; , calla-lilies were used in its decoration and as many bright-colored flowers. the battle scene occurred on the grand stand, immediately opposite the reviewing stand, between several hundred ladies and gentlemen. the whole was a spectacle to be witnessed but once in a lifetime. the parade was under the direction of grand marshal d. w. thompson, assisted by special aids george culbertson, dr. h. l. stambach, t. r. moore, samuel stanwood, paschal hocker, and c. a. fernald. the committee of reception comprised mayor p. j. barber, c. f. eaton, w. w. burton, w. c. clerk, i. g. waterman, d. baxter, e. p. roe, jr., c. e. bigelow, alston hayne, frank stoddard, l. p. lincoln, w. n. hawley, j. w. calkins, geo. a. edwards, c. c. hunt, edward m. hoit, hon. e. h. heacock, dr. j. m. mcnulta, w. b. cope, c. f. swan, w. m. eddy, j. c. wilson, r. b. canfield; also, joseph sexton, of goleta; e. j. knapp, of carpinteria; t. r. bard, of hueneme; r. e. jack and e. w. steele, of san luis obispo; h. h. poland, of lompoc, and dr. w. t. lucas and thomas boyd, of santa maria. starr king post, g. a. r., c. a. storke, commander, participated in the reception. after witnessing the parade the entire party, including the ladies, visited the ancient mission of santa barbara and were taken within its sacred precincts, it being the second occasion on which any woman was admitted. at night they witnessed a spanish dance, conducted by many ladies and gentlemen, under the direction of f. m. whitney, mrs. bell, and mrs. dibblee. the eventful day closed with a public reception, participated in by , people. gen. wm. vandever delivered an address of welcome, to which the president, responding, said: _general vandever, gentlemen of the committee and friends_--if i have been in any doubt as to the fact of the perfect identity of your people with the american nation, that doubt has been displaced by one incident which has been prominent in all this trip, and that is that the great and predominant and all-pervading american habit of demanding a speech on every occasion has been characteristically prominent in california. [laughter.] i am more than delighted by this visit to your city. it has been made brilliant with the display of banners and flowers--one the emblem of our national greatness and prowess, the other the adornment which god has given to beautify nature. with all this i am sure i have read in the faces of the men, women and children who have greeted me that these things--these flowers of the field and this flag, representing organized government--typify what is to be found in the homes of california. the expression of your welcome to-day has been unique and tasteful beyond description. i have not the words to express the high sense of appreciation and the amazement that filled the minds of all our party as we looked upon this display which you have improvised for our reception. no element of beauty, no element of taste, no element of gracious kindness has been lacking in it, and for that we tender you all our most hearty thanks. we shall keep this visit a bright spot in our memories. [applause.] bakersfield, california, april . the first stop of the presidential train on friday, april , was at bakersfield, the gateway of the famous san joaquin valley, which was reached at : in the morning. fifteen hundred residents greeted the president, who was met by w. e. houghton, w. h. scribner, w. canfield, and c. e. sherman, constituting a special committee of reception. the general committee for the occasion comprised the following prominent citizens: n. r. packard, e. m. roberts, john j. morrison, emil dinkelspiel, h. l. borgwardt, jr., j. neideraur, p. galtes, o. d. fish, h. a. jastro, geo. k. ober, dr. helm, j. j. mack, e. a. pueschel, s. n. reed, h. a. blodget, c. a. maul, chas. e. jewett, a. harrell, g. w. wear, wm. montgomery, john barker, h. p. olds, e. willow, b. brundage, b. a. hayden, f. h. colton, w. h. cook, b. ardizzi, c. c. cowgill, l. s. rogers, john o. miller, geo. g. carr, n. r. wilkinson, a. weill, h. c. lechner, s. w. wible, dr. john snook, l. mckelvy, a. morgan, e. c. palmes, john s. drury, w. a. howell, a. c. maude, chas. vandever, alonzo coons, t. a. metcalf, r. m. walker, richard hudnut, sol. jewett, j. c. smith, s. a. burnap, h. h. fish, s. w. fergusson, j. w. mahon, a. fay, chas. bickirdike, h. f. condict, h. c. park, and i. l. miller. a large number of beautiful bouquets were showered upon the party here. judge a. r. conklin made the welcoming address. president harrison spoke as follows: _my friends_--i am very much obliged to you for your friendly greeting and for these bouquets. you must excuse me if i seem a little shy of the bouquets. i received one in my eye the other day which gave me a good deal of trouble. you are very kind to meet us here so early in the morning with this cordial demonstration. it has been a very long journey, and has been accompanied with some fatigue of travel, but we feel this morning, in this exhilarating air and this sweet sunshine, and refreshed with your kind greeting, as bright and more happy than when we left the national capital. i am glad to feel that here, on the western edge of the continent, in this pacific state, there is that same enthusiastic love for the flag, that same veneration and respect for american institutions, for the one union and the one constitution, that is found in the heart of the country. we are one people absolutely. we follow not men, but institutions. we are happy in the fact that though men may live or die, come or go, we still have that toward which the american citizen turns with confidence and veneration--this great union of the states devised so happily by our fathers. general garfield, when mr. lincoln was stricken down by the foul hand of an assassin, and when that great wave of dismay and grief swept over the land, standing in a busy thoroughfare of new york, could say: "the government at washington still lives." it is dependent upon no man. it is lodged safely in the affections of the people, and having its impregnable defence and its assured perpetuity in their love and veneration for law. [cheers.] tulare, california, april . tulare was reached at o'clock. nearly , people awaited the president's arrival. capt. thomas h. thompson, e. w. holland, and hon. o. b. taylor met the distinguished travellers. the other members of the committee were: hon. john. g. eckles, hon. j. o. lovejoy, i. n. wright, j. wolfrom, e. t. cosper, hon. j. w. davis, sam richardson, dr. c. f. taggart, m. w. cooley, h. h. francisco, c. c. brock, james scoon, d. o. hamman, j. l. bachelder, r. b. bohannan, james morton, a. o. erwin, j. b. zumwalt, hon. e. de witt, alfred fay, j. h. whited, j. a. goble, w. l. blythe, m. m. burnett, scott bowles, r. l. reid, f. m. shultz, b. f. moore, f. rosenthal, henry peard, sam blythe, j. a. allen, e. lathrop, e. j. cox, j. f. boller, hon. g. s. berry, r. linder, miles ellsworth, r. n. hough, c. f. hall, dr. e. w. dutcher, m. premo, hon. john roth, a. borders, t. w. maples, e. d. lake, s. s. ingham, d. w. madden, sam newell, m. c. hamlin, w. c. ambrose, h. c. faber, c. talbot, l. e. schoenemann, m. c. hunt, g. w. zartman, a. p. hall, j. h. woody, isaac roberts, capt. e. oakford, j. c. gist, h. f. tandy, c. f. stone, and dr. b. m. alford. the committee escorted the presidential party to a unique platform constructed inside the stump of a gigantic redwood tree, and there was ample seating capacity upon the platform for the entire party; about the base of the great stump were arranged boxes of elegant flowers. mrs. harrison and the other ladies in the party were escorted to the stand by mrs. e. b. oakford, mrs. t. h. thompson, mrs. g. j. reading, and mrs. patrick, of visalia. gettysburg post, g. a. r., and company e, from visalia, were a guard of honor to the chief magistrate. governor markham introduced the president, who spoke as follows: _my friends_--this seems to be a very happy and smiling audience, and i am sure that the gladness which is in your hearts and in your faces does not depend at all upon the presence of this little company of strangers who tarry with you for a moment. it is born of influences and conditions that are permanent. it comes of the happy sunshine and sweet air that are over your fields, and still more from the contentment, prosperity, and love and peace that are in your households. california has been spoken of as a wonderland, and everywhere we have gone something new, interesting, and surprising has been presented to our observation. there has been but one monotone in our journey, and that is the monotone of universal welcome from all your people. [cheers.] everything else has been new and exceptional at every stop. my own heart kindles with gladness, my own confidence in american interests is firmer and more settled as i mingle with the great masses of our people. you are here in a great agricultural region, reclaimed from desert waste by the skill and energy of man--a region populated by a substantial, industrious, thrifty, god-fearing people, a people devoted to the institutions under which they live, proud to be americans, feeling that the american birthright is the best heritage they can hand down to their children; proud of the great story of our country from the time of independence to this day; devoted to institutions that give the largest liberty to the individual and at the same time secure social order. here is the firm foundation upon which our hopes for future security rest. what but our own neglect, what but our own unfaithfulness, can put in peril either our national institutions or our local organizations of government? true to ourselves, true to those principles which we have embodied in our government, there is to the human eye no danger that can threaten the firm base of our institutions. i am glad to see and meet these happy children. i feel like kneeling to them as the future sovereigns of this country, and feel as if it were a profanation to tread upon these sweet flowers that they have spread in my pathway. god bless them, every one; keep them in the lives they are to live from all that is evil, fill their little hearts with sunshine and their mature lives with grace and usefulness. [cheers.] fresno, california, april . a crowd of , greeted the party at fresno; upward of , school children were present, led by professors heaton, sturges, and sheldon. the committee of reception consisted of mayor s. h. cole, dr. chester a. rowell, f. g. berry, dr. a. j. pedlar, dr. st. george hopkins, w. w. phillips, i. n. pattison, louis einstein, nathan w. moodey, c. w. de long, and j. c. herrington. altanta post, g. a. r., capt. fred banta, commander, also company c, national guard, capt. m. w. muller, and company f, capt. c. chisholm, participated in the reception. a number of handsome floral designs and other mementoes were presented to the several members of the party. dr. rowell delivered the welcoming address. president harrison, responding, said: _my fellow-citizens_--it is altogether impossible for me to reach with my voice this vast concourse of friends. i can only say i am profoundly grateful for this enthusiastic greeting. i receive with great satisfaction the memento you have given me of the varied products of this most fertile and happy valley. i shall carry it with me to washington as a reminder of a scene that will never fade from my memory. it is very pleasant to know that all these pursuits that so much engage your thoughts and so industriously employ your time have not turned your minds away from the love of the flag and of those institutions which spread their secure power over all your homes. what is it that makes the scattered homes of our people secure? there is no policeman at the door; there is no guard to accompany us as we move across this great continent. you and i are in the safe keeping of the law and of the affection and regard of all our people. each respects the rights of the other. i am glad to receive this manifestation of your respect. i am glad to drink in this morning with this sunshine and this sweet balmy air a new impulse to public duty, a new love for the union and flag. it is a matter of great regret that i can return in such a small measure your affectionate greeting. i wish it were possible i could greet each one of you personally, that it were possible in some way other than in words to testify to you my grateful sense of your good-will. [cheers.] merced, california, april . the presidential party arrived at merced shortly after noon and was welcomed by several thousand enthusiastic residents. the committee of reception was composed of the following representative citizens: e. t. dixon, maj. g. b. cook, l. r. fancher, c. h. marks, e. m. stoddard, s. a. d. jones, frank howell, w. j. quigley, m. goldman, c. e. fleming, j. h. rogers, j. a. norvell, thomas harris, maj. c. ralston, f. h. farrar, r. n. hughes, judge j. k. law, thomas h. leggett, and h. j. ostrander. hancock post, g. a. r., j. q. blackburn, commander, participated in the reception. three little girls, dottie norvell, mattie hall, and baby ingalsbe, representing the citizens of merced, presented mrs. harrison with a beautiful souvenir in the shape of a large american flag woven from roses and violets. chairman dixon made the welcoming address, and president harrison replied in the following words: _my fellow-citizens_--i have scarcely been able to finish a meal since i have been in california. [laughter.] i find myself hardly seated at the table till some one reminds me that in about five minutes i am to meet another throng of cordial and friendly people. but i think i could have subsisted on this trip through california without anything to eat, and have dined the while upon the stimulus and inspiration which your good-will and kindly greetings have given me. i do not think, however, from what i have seen of these valleys, that it will be necessary for anyone to live without eating. [laughter.] i have been greatly delighted with the agricultural richness, with the surprises in natural scenery, and in the production which have met us on this journey. everywhere something has been lying in ambush for us, and when i was thinking of prunes and english walnuts and oranges we suddenly pulled up to a station where they had a pyramid of pig tin to excite our wonder and interest at the variety of the production in this marvellous state. but let me say, above all those fruits and flowers, above all these productions of mine and field, i have been most pleased with the men and women of california. [applause.] it gives me great pleasure, too, to meet everywhere these little ones. i am fond of children. they attract my interest always, and the little ones of my own household furnish about the only relaxation and pleasure i have at washington. [applause.] i wish for your children and for you, out of whose homes they come, and where they are treasured with priceless affection and tender supervision, all the blessings that a benign providence and a good government can bestow. i shall be glad if in any way i have the opportunity to conserve and promote your interests. [cheers.] modesto, california, april . modesto was reached at : p.m. the veterans of grant post, g. a. r., with company d, n. g. c., and several hundred citizens, gave the president a rousing greeting. the committee of reception was hon. john s. alexander, charles a. post, and rev. dr. webb. george perley introduced president harrison, who spoke as follows: _fellow-citizens_--it is very pleasant for me to meet here, as at all the stations i have passed, a kindly assembly of my fellow-countrymen. we do not need any one to watch us, nor do we need to keep watch against anybody else. peace and good-will characterize our communities. i was quite amused at a station not far from here to hear a wondering chinaman remark as he came up to the train, "why, they have no guns on board!" [laughter.] how different it is with us!--no retinue, no guards. we travel across this broad country safe in the confidence and fellowship and kindness of its citizenship. what other land is there like it? where else are there homes like ours? where else institutions so free and yet so adequate to all the needs of government, to make the home and community safe, to restrain the ill-disposed, and everywhere to promote peace and individual happiness? we congratulate each other that we are american citizens. without distinction of party, without taking note of the many existing differences of opinion, we are all glad to do all in our power to promote the dignity and prosperity of the country we love. we cannot love it too much; we cannot be too careful that all our influence is on the side of good government and of american interests. we do not wish ill to any other nation or people in the world, but they must excuse us if we regard our own fellow-citizens as having the highest claim on our regard. we will promote such measures as look to our own interests. [cheers.] lathrop, california, april . the president's arrival at lathrop was celebrated by several thousand residents, re-enforced by large delegations from the neighboring city of stockton. the committee of reception consisted of james j. sloan, a. henry stevens, z. t. white, o. h. p. bailey, e. jesurun, t. b. walker, w. s. reyner, d. sanguinite, geo. h. seay, o. d. wilson, c. f. sherburne, f. d. simpson, and f. j. walker. the committee of reception appointed by the mayor of stockton, and participating in behalf of that city, was j. k. doak, f. j. ryan, i. s. haines, willis lynch, h. r. mcnoble, j. m. dormer, and f. t. baldwin. a feature of the reception was school children, each carrying a bouquet, which they presented to the president and mrs. harrison, both of whom kissed several of the little donors. postmaster sloan delivered the welcoming address. the president, responding, said: _my fellow-citizens_--i should be less than human if i were not touched by the rapid succession of hearty greetings received by us in our journey through california. i should be more than human if i were able to say something new or interesting at each of these assemblies. my heart has but one language: it is, "i thank you." most tenderly do i feel as an individual so much of this kindness as is personal to me, and as a public official i am most profoundly grateful that the american people so unitedly show their love and devotion to the constitution and the flag. we have a government of the majority; it is the original compact that when the majority has been fairly counted at the polls, the expressed will of that majority, taking the form of public law enacted by state legislatures or the national congress, shall be the sole rule of conduct of every loyal man. [cheers.] we have no other king than law, and he is entitled to the allegiance of every heart and bowed knee of every citizen. [cries of "good! good!" and cheers.] i cannot look forward with any human apprehension to any danger to our country, unless it approaches us through a corrupt ballot-box. [applause.] let us keep that spring pure, and these happy valleys shall teem with an increasing population of happy citizens, and our country shall find in an increasing population only increased unity and strength. [cheers.] san francisco, april . at keyes station, near merced, the presidential train was joined by a special car containing the san francisco escort committee. the following gentlemen composed the party and represented the organizations named: mexican veterans--maj. r. p. hammond. california pioneers--l. l. baker, w. b. farwell, nathaniel holland, and col. a. w. von schmidt. citizens' committee--e. s. pillsbury, j. b. crockett, m. m. estee, irving m. scott, w. d. english, and rev. dr. samuel v. leech. loyal legion and grand army of the republic--chief engineer j. w. moore, u. s. n., commander loyal legion; past senior vice-commander-in-chief s. w. backus; past department commanders w. h. aiken, e. carlson, c. mason kinne, w. a. robinson, r. h. marfield, w. r. smedburg, e. s. salomon, t. h. goodman, g. e. gard, and a. j. buckles; past junior vice-commander jesse b. fuller, adjt.-gen. t. c. mastellar, past commander j. m. litchfield, congressmen e. f. loud and john t. cutting, comrades j. p. meehan, s. s. flint, and a. j. hawes. seven o'clock saturday evening the boom of cannon and clang of bells signalized the president's arrival at oakland, where he immediately embarked on the ferry steamer _piedmont_ for passage across the bay. on board the _piedmont_, in addition to the veteran guard of the g. a. r., commanded by capt. geo. f. knowlton, jr., and lieutenants wiegand, franks and stateler, were the following prominent residents: senator and mrs. leland stanford, a. n. towne, r. h. platt, a. j. bolfing, h. c. bunker, c. f. bassett, maj. j. n. e. wilson, capt. g. d. boyd, j. c. quinn, geo. l. seybolt, george sanderson, j. steppacher, ass't postmaster richardson, g. w. fletcher, mrs. peter donohue, mrs. geo. r. sanderson, mrs. james denman, mrs. w. w. morrow, mrs. joseph mckenna, mrs. m. ehrman, mrs. e. martin, and mrs. j. d. spreckels. the scene of the _piedmont_ crossing the bay, illuminated with thousands of lights, covered with flying flags, and greeted by all the craft in the harbor with myriads of rockets and lights, was a bewildering spectacle. at a signal great tongues of flame shot up from the summits of telegraph and nob hills, and the monstrous bonfires from the deck of the _piedmont_ resembled volcanoes. the entire population of the city came out to do honor to the head of the nation, and the principal streets were beautifully illuminated. as the president descended on the arm of hon. w. w. morrow he was met on the wharf by mayor george h. sanderson, col. basil norris, lieut.-col. geo. h. burton, lieut.-col. john p. hawkins, maj. frank m. coxe, maj. edward hunter, maj. james h. lord, capt. chas. n. booth, and first lieutenants l. a. lovering and james e. runcie, of the regular army; general dickinson and staff and city officials. mayor sanderson formally welcomed the president and presented him a beautiful gold tablet bearing a resolution of the board of supervisors tendering the freedom of the city and county of san francisco. in response the president said: _mr. mayor_--i have received with great gratification these words of welcome which you have extended to me on behalf of the city of san francisco. they are but new expressions of the welcome which has been extended to me since i entered the state of california. its greatness and glory i knew something of by story and tradition, but what i have seen of its resources has quite surpassed my imagination. but what has deeply impressed me is the loyal and intelligent and warm-hearted people i have everywhere met. i thank you for this reception. san francisco, april . monday, april , the president and his party reviewed many thousand school children assembled on van ness avenue. escorted by mayor sanderson, general ruger, and other distinguished citizens, the party were driven through the famous golden gate park. at the entrance the president was met and welcomed by park commissioner hammond, while awaiting the guests inside was a reception committee consisting of e. s. pilsbury, w. d. english, general sheehan, chief crowley, c. f. crocker, mr. and mrs. w. b. wilshire, judge hawley, of nevada, ex-mayor pond, colonel taylor, marshal long, park commissioner austin, mr. and mrs. francis g. newlands, samuel shortridge, c. m. leavy, surveyor-general pratt, mr. and mrs. j. b. le count, mr. and mrs. e. p. danforth, colonel and mrs. j. b. wright, of sacramento, mr. and mrs. wendell easton, mr. gregory, mr. and mrs. paris kilbourn, mr. and mrs. timothy g. phelps, senator carpenter, of los angeles, miss harriet bolinger, mr. and mrs. bolinger, district attorney garter, mrs. judge w. t. wallace, f. w. sharon, t. b. shannon, mrs. b. l. haseltine, and others. the reception concluded, the drive was continued to the cliff house, overlooking seal rocks; from thence the party visited sutro heights and became the guests of mr. adolph sutro. at the close of luncheon mr. sutro, addressing president harrison, said in part: _mr. president_--i rise to present you a photo-lithographic letter written by sebastian viscano, the great spanish navigator. this is probably the first letter in existence written by any human being from california. it is dated at the port of monterey, december , , named in honor of the conde de monterey, then viceroy of mexico. it is addressed to the court of spain, and states that he (viscano) had taken possession of this country for his majesty. the original of this letter i found in hunting through the archives de las indias at seville, spain. at the date of this letter queen elizabeth was still on the throne of england, louis xiv. of france was not born yet, and the pilgrim fathers had not yet landed on plymouth rock. mr. president, we all thank you for having come to see our beautiful land, and permit me especially to thank you for the honor of your visit to sutro heights. with the closing words mr. sutro extended to the president a red plush album inclosing the letter. president harrison, in accepting it, said: i beg to thank you both for this letter and your generous welcome to a spot the natural beauty of which has been so much enhanced by your efforts. my visit to sutro heights, the cliff, and park will be a red-letter day in my journey. the next visit was to the presidio, where the president and general ruger witnessed the brilliant manoeuvres of the troops. lieutenant-colonel graham was in command; captain zalinski was the officer of the day. captain morris led the heavy artillery; captains brinkle and kinzie commanded the mounted batteries; colonel mills headed the cavalry aided by captains wood and dorst. _phi delta theta._ in the evening the president attended a banquet in his honor by california alpha chapter of the state university of the phi delta theta fraternity, of which mr. harrison is a member. george e. de golbia presided. when the president arrived he was greeted with the fraternity cheer. j. n. e. wilson introduced the honored guest and proposed the health of "the president." general harrison, responding, said: _my friends and brothers in this old society_--i enjoy this moment very much in being able to associate with you. i was a member of the first chapter of this fraternity, which you all know was founded at miami university, oxford, ohio. i have not lost the impression of solemnity and reverence which i experienced hunting in the dark in those early times to find my chapter room, and i am very glad to know that those meetings were not meetings in the dark. i belonged to the order when it was young, and now i find its members scattered in all states, where they all hold positions of trust and influence. i find that in its history it has produced nothing discreditable to itself, but always something of which we may all well be proud. i thank you for these few moments of association with you. [cheers.] at night president and mrs. harrison, secretary rusk, and postmaster-general wanamaker attended an official card reception at the palace hotel, tendered by the citizens of san francisco. the visitors were introduced by col. j. p. jackson and george r. sanderson. the occasion was one of unusual brilliancy, rendered especially so by the presence of admiral a. e. k. benham and the officers of the fleet, gen. thomas h. ruger, gen. g. d. green, gen. john p. hawkins, gen. john g. chandler, col. geo. n. burton, and a hundred or more other officers of the regular army; governor markham and staff in full uniform, maj. gen. w. h. dimond and staff, gen. j. h. dickinson, and scores of officers of the national guard, and a thousand or more private citizens of prominence accompanied by their wives. san francisco, april . _launch of the monterey._ tuesday, april , the president enjoyed an excursion on the bay on board the steamer _puebla_. following the _puebla_ came the cruiser _charleston_, literally covered with bunting, and with booming guns, leading a long line of vessels. the presidential party was accompanied by mayor sanderson, colonel andrews, supervisor jackson, colonel marceau, colonel chadbourne, general gibbon, collector phelps, capt. c. m. goodall, general cutting, w. t. coleman, wm. dargie, w. g. harrison, w. d. english, stewart menzies, judge murphy, judge troutt, barry baldwin, a. e. castle, a. chesebrough, martin corcoran, w. d. clarke, w. r. hearst, j. g. fair, w. j. dutton, w. f. goad, wm. harney, john p. irish, j. d. spreckels, leon sloss, levi strauss, a. w. scott, w. s. tevis, c. l. taylor, j. h. wise, c. e. whitney, r. j. wilson, james. d. phelan, r. h. pease, arthur rodgers, f. w. sumner, f. j. symmes, n. t. james, g. l. bradner, c. f. mullins, geo. a. moore, t. c. grant, and other gentlemen of prominence. in the afternoon, at the union iron works, the president and mrs. harrison participated in the launch of the armored coast-defence vessel _monterey_. mrs. harrison pressed the button which signalized the launching of the great ship, and miss gunn, daughter of j. o'b. gunn, christened the ship with a bottle of california champagne. on the platform with the president's party were henry t. scott and irving m. scott, builders of the _monterey_; master shipwright geo. w. dickie, governor markham, and other prominent people. in the evening the distinguished visitors attended a banquet and reception at the mansion of senator and mrs. leland stanford. nineteen couples sat down at the sumptuous table. they comprised the president and mrs. stanford, senator stanford and mrs. harrison, governor markham and mrs. lowe, general wanamaker and mrs. benham, secretary rusk and mrs. markham, general ruger and mrs. russell harrison, admiral benham and mrs. morrow, col. lloyd tevis and mrs. dimmick, mayor sanderson and mrs. boyd, hon. m. m. estee and mrs. moses hopkins, col. c. f. crocker and miss houghton, senator felton and mrs. mckee, mr. russell b. harrison and mrs. t. hopkins, col. j. p. jackson and mrs. dodge, mr. geo. w. boyd and mrs. hewes, hon. w. w. morrow and mrs. estee, mr. irving m. scott and mrs. jackson, major sanger and mrs. gwin, mr. h. l. dodge and mrs. easton. in the pompeiian parlor of the mansion the president, with mrs. harrison and senator and mrs. stanford, received the thousand or more guests, who comprised the prominent society people of san francisco and many other cities on the coast. redwood city, california, april . leaving san francisco on wednesday, april , the president spent the morning at senator stanford's famous palo alto ranch. the first stop _en route_ to monterey was at redwood city, where a large and enthusiastic crowd, including school children, welcomed the president. geo. s. evans post, g. a. r., c. d. harkins, commander, was present. among the prominent citizens participating were: h. r. judah, of san mateo; geo. c. ross, w. r. welch, geo. w. lovie, john poole, henry buger, sheriff kinne, marshal jamieson, and judge geo. h. buck, who delivered the speech of welcome and presented the president, on behalf of the citizens, with a polished redwood tablet two feet in width. as the train moved off president harrison said: _my friends_--i am sorry that i can say nothing more to you in the limited time we have than that i am sincerely thankful for your friendly demonstration. san josÃ�, california, april . arriving at san josé the president remained an hour and reviewed a parade in his honor. he was received at the depot by mayor s. n. rucker at the head of the following committee of reception: judge john reynolds, judge f. e. spencer, d. b. moody, r. o. shively, s. f. lieb, v. a. schellar, c. m. shortridge, t. e. beans, l. g. nesmith, c. t. ryland, o. a. hale, h. w. wright, j. w. rea, c. t. park, a. mcdonald, c. t. settle, h. m. leonard, b. d. murphy, j. h. henry, a. e. mintie, s. f. ayer, judge w. g. lorigan, and h. v. morehouse. mayor rucker delivered the address of welcome at the court house. president harrison, responding, said. _mr. mayor and fellow-citizens_--i am again surprised by this large outpouring of my friends and by the respectful interest which they evince. i cannot find words to express the delight which i have felt and which those who journey with me have felt as we have observed the beauty and, more than all, the comfort and prosperity which characterize the great state of california. i am glad to observe here, as i have elsewhere, that my old comrades of the great war for the union have turned out to witness afresh by this demonstration their love for the flag and their veneration for american institutions. my comrades, i greet you, every one, affectionately. i doubt not that every loyal state has representatives here of that great army that subdued the rebellion and brought home the flag in triumph. i hope that you have found in this flowery and prosperous land, in the happy homes which you have builded up here, in the wives and children that grace your firesides, a sweet contrast to those times of peril and hardship which you experienced in the army, and i trust above all that under these genial and kindly influences you still maintain your devotion to our institutions and are teaching it to the children that shall take your places. we often speak of the children following in the footsteps of their fathers. a year ago nearly, in boston, at the great review of the grand army of the republic, after those thousands of veterans, stricken with years and labor, had passed along, a great army, nearly as large, came on with the swinging step that characterized you when you carried the flag from your home to the field. they were the sons of veterans, literally marching in their fathers' steps; and so i love to think that in the hands of this generation that is coming on to take our places our institutions are safe and the honor and glory of the flag will be maintained. we may quietly go to our rest when god shall call us, in the full assurance that his favoring providence will follow us, and that in your children valor and sacrifice for the flag will always manifest themselves on every occasion. again thanking you for your presence and friendly interest, i must beg you to excuse further speech, as we must journey on to other scenes like this. good-by and god bless you, comrades. gilroy, california, april . two thousand people welcomed the president on his arrival at gilroy at o'clock in the evening. the floral decorations were particularly fine; the piece attracting the greatest attention was a life-size white bear made of tea-roses. the committee of reception was mayor loupe, thomas rea, geo. e. hersey, victor bassignsno, f. w. blake, professor hall, and messrs. eckhart, casey, and cleveland. mayor loupe introduced the president, who made one of his briefest speeches. he said: _my friends_--it gives me great pleasure to see you for a moment, and thank you for your kindness in coming out on this occasion. in all my travels i have never seen a more intelligent and happy people than i have met in california. let me introduce you to mr. wanamaker. watsonville, california, april . at pajaro station the presidential party was welcomed by the board of trustees and , residents of the thriving city of watsonville, in the beautiful pajaro valley. six hundred school children and a young ladies' zouave company participated in the greeting. the committee of reception comprised the board of trustees, e. h. madden, t. j. horgan, james a. linscott, h. p. brassell, and the following prominent citizens of watsonville: w. a. sanborn, a. b. hawkins, geo. a. shearer, geo. w. peckham, w. r. radcliff, j. a. hetherington, james waters, mark hudson, geo. a. trafton, john t. porter, john f. kane, and f. e. mauk; also, wm. wilson and c. e. bowman, representing the town of corralitos, and c. r. whitcher, jr., representing castroville. chairman madden made the welcoming address. the president said: _my friends_--i am very glad to see you this evening. i am sorry that the fatigues of the past few days have left us all in a state not quite so fresh and blooming as your fields and gardens. we are a little dusty and a little worn, but you quite rekindle our spirits by this demonstration. we have ridden with great delight through this beautiful valley to-day. it seems to me, as we pass each ridge or backbone and come into a new valley, that we see something that still more resembles the garden of eden. it is a constant succession of surprises, but most of all i delight to see such convincing evidence of the contentment and happiness of your people. i am sure that those i see here to-day must come from happy and prosperous homes. i wish you all good-by. [cheers.] monterey, california, april . the presidential party arrived at del monte depot at o'clock wednesday evening and were the guests of manager schonewald, of the famous hotel del monte. the next morning the distinguished travellers were driven over to monterey, the historic old capital of california; they were met at the outskirts by the city trustees and a committee of prominent citizens, among whom were: c. i. burks, capt. thomas bralee, francis doud, david rodrick, f. r. day, edward ingram, job wood, thomas doud, j. t. stockdale, jacob r. leese, wm. kay, a. a. osio, and h. whitcomb. the reception was held on the grounds fronting the old capitol--now used as a school-house. after the reception the visitors were taken on an -mile drive through the parks and groves along the pacific ocean. mayor w. j. hill, of salinas, delivered the address of welcome on behalf of the citizens of monterey and salinas, and presented the president with a silver plate engraved with a fac-simile of the old custom house and the words "the custom house where the american flag was first raised in california, july , . monterey, april , . greeting to our president." in response the president said: _mr. mayor and fellow-citizens_--our whole pathway through the state of california has been paved with good-will. we have been made to walk upon flowers. our hearts have been touched and refreshed at every point by the voluntary offerings of your hospitable people. our trip has been one continued ovation of friendliness. i have had occasion to say before that no man is entitled to appropriate to himself these tributes. they witness a peculiar characteristic of the american people. unlike many other people less happy, we give our devotion to a government, to its constitution, to its flag, and not to men. we reverence and obey those who have been placed by our own suffrages and choice in public stations, but our allegiance, our affection, is given to our beneficent institutions, and upon this rock our security is based. we are not subject to those turbulent uprisings that prevail where the people follow leaders rather than institutions; where they are caught by the glamour and dash of brilliant men rather than by the steady law of free institutions. i rejoice to be for a moment among you this morning. the history of this city starts a train of reflections in my mind that i cannot follow out in speech, but the impression of them will remain with me as long as i live. [applause.] california and its coast were essential to the integrity and completeness of the american union. but who can tell what may be the result of the establishment here of free institutions, the setting up by the wisdom and foresight and courage of the early pioneers in california of a commonwealth that was very early received into the american union? we see to-day what has been wrought. but who can tell what another century will disclose, when these valleys have become thick with a prosperous and thriving and happy people? i thank you again for your cordial greeting and bid you good-morning. [cheers.] santa cruz, california, may . at o'clock friday morning the presidential train halted at santa cruz, the city of the holy cross, where another floral greeting awaited the distinguished guests. they were met by mayor g. bowman at the head of a committee of prominent citizens, among whom were: col. thomas p. robb, w. p. young, dr. t. w. drullard, w. finkeldey, o. j. lincoln, w. j. mccollum, a. l. weeks, p. r. hinds, w. h. galbraith, e. c. williams, duncan mcpherson, wm. t. jeter, a. a. taylor, w. d. storey, f. a. hihn, z. n. goldsby, richard thompson, r. c. kirby, j. h. logan, a. j. jennings, judge mccann, j. f. cunningham, benj. knight, z. barnet, e. c. williams, and j. t. sullivan. grand marshal j. o. wanzer, with his aids, u. s. nichols, m. s. patterson, h. fay, w. d. haslam, r. h. pringle, w. c. hoffman, and george chittenden, acted as an escort of honor to the president during the parade. when the pacific ocean house was reached mayor bowman made a welcoming address. after the reception the party visited the grove of big trees near the city. as the president arose to respond the great audience cheered enthusiastically. he said: _mr. mayor and fellow-citizens_--it seems to me like improvidence that all this tasteful and magnificent display should be but for a moment. in all my journeying in california, where every city has presented some surprise and where each has been characterized by lavish and generous display, i have not seen anything so suddenly created and yet so beautiful. i am sure we have not ridden through any street more attractive than this. i thank you most sincerely for this cordial welcome. i am sure you are a loyal, and i know you are a loving and kindly people. [cheers.] we have been received, strangers as we were, with affection, and everywhere as i look into the faces of this people i feel my heart swell with pride that i am an american and that california is one of the american states. [cheers.] los gatos, california, may . the first stop after leaving santa cruz was at los gatos, overlooking the santa clara valley, where a large assemblage welcomed the party. the committee of reception comprised the board of town trustees and w. h. b. trantham, james h. lyndon, g. a. dodge, and c. f. wilcox. e. o. c. ord post, g. a. r., james g. arthur, commander, was out in full force. chairman j. w. lyndon made the address of welcome and introduced president harrison, who said: _my fellow citizens_--if california had lodged a complaint against the last census i should have been inclined to entertain it and to order your people to be counted again. [laughter.] from what i have seen in these days of pleasant travel through your state i am sure the census enumerators have not taken you all. we have had another surprise in coming over these mountains to find that not the valleys alone of california, but its hill-tops are capable of productive cultivation. we have been greatly surprised to see vineyards and orchards at these altitudes, and to know that your fields rival in productiveness the famous valleys of your state. i thank you for your cordial greeting. it overpowers me i feel that these brief stops are but poor recompense for the trouble and care you have taken. i wish we could tarry longer with you. i wish i could know more of you individually, but i can only thank you and say that we will carry away most happy impressions of california, and that in public and in private life it will give me pleasure always to show my appreciation of your great state. [cheers.] san francisco, may . _chamber of commerce reception._ the president returned to san francisco from his trip to monterey and santa cruz at noon friday, may . he was met across the bay by w. w. montague, geo. c. perkins, and oliver eldridge, constituting a committee of escort from the chamber of commerce. arrived at the chamber of commerce the president was met by the following reception committee, trustees of the chamber, composed of: william l. merry, a. j. ralston, w. t. y. schenck, robert watt, a. r. briggs, james carolan, n. w. spaulding, general dimond, john rosenfeld, charles r. allen, j. j. mckinnon, c. b. stone, and louis parrott. on the floor of the merchants' exchange the president was greeted by a great and enthusiastic assembly, composed of members of the following bodies invited to participate in the reception: mexican war veterans, society of pioneers, territorial pioneers, geographical society, art association, geological society, state board of trade, board of trade of the city, bar association, bankers' association, produce exchange, san francisco stock exchange, merchants' exchange, boards of brokers, boards of marine institute, chamber of commerce, manufacturers' association, and california academy of sciences. colonel taylor, president of the chamber of commerce, delivered an able address upon the trade of the pacific coast, and closed by cordially welcoming president harrison, postmaster-general wanamaker, and secretary rusk. when the president arose to respond he was greeted with a storm of applause. his address was punctured throughout with cheers. he said: _mr. president and gentlemen of these assembled societies_--i have been subjected during my stay in california in some respects to the same treatment the policeman accords to the tramp--i have been kept moving on. you have substituted flowers and kindness for the policeman's baton. and yet, notwithstanding all this, we come to you this morning not exhausted or used up, but a little fatigued. your cordial greetings are more exhilarating than your wine, and perhaps safer for the constitution. [laughter and applause.] i am glad to stand in the presence of this assemblage of business men. i have tried to make this a business administration. [applause.] of course we cannot wholly separate politics from a national administration, but i have felt that every public officer owed his best service to the people, without distinction of party [cries of "good! good!" and applause]; that in administering official trusts we were in a very strict sense, not merely in a figurative sense, your servants. it has been my desire that in every branch of the public service there should be improvement. i have stimulated all the secretaries and have received stimulus from them in the endeavor, in all the departments of the government that touch your business life, to give you as perfect a service as possible. this we owe to you; but if i were pursuing party ends i should feel that i was by such methods establishing my party in the confidence of the people. [applause.] i feel that we have come to a point where american industries, american commerce, and american influence are to be revived and extended. the american sentiment and feeling was never more controlling than now; and i do not use that term in the narrow sense of native american, but to embrace all loyal citizens, whether native-born or adopted, who have the love of our flag in their hearts. [great cheering.] i shall speak to-night, probably, at the banquet of business men, and will not enter into any lengthy discussion here. indeed, i am so careful not to trespass upon any forbidden topic, that i may not in the smallest degree offend those who have forgotten party politics in extending this greeting to us, that i do not know how far i should talk upon these public questions. but since your chairman has alluded to them, i can say i am in hearty sympathy with the suggestions he has made. i believe there are methods by which we shall put the american flag upon the sea again. [applause.] in speaking the other day i used an illustration which will perhaps be apt in this company of merchants. you recall, all of you, certainly those of my age, the time when no merchant sent out travelling men. he expected the buyer to come to his store. perhaps that was well enough; but certain enterprising men sought custom by putting travelling men with samples on the road. however the conservative merchant regarded that innovation, he had but one choice--to put travelling men on the road or go out of business. in this question of shipping we are in a similar condition. the great commercial governments of the world have stimulated their shipping interests by direct or indirect subsidies, while we have been saying: "no, we prefer the old way." we must advance or--i will not say go out of business, for we have already gone out. [applause.] i thank you most cordially for your greeting, and bid you good-by. [applause.] address to the veterans, may . from the chamber of commerce the president and his party were escorted to the mechanics' pavilion by the veteran guard under captain knowlton, preceded and followed by lincoln, garfield, cass, meade, liberty, and geo. sykes posts, g. a. r. fully , children and citizens were assembled to witness the may day festivities under the auspices of the g. a. r. posts. escorted by grand marshal saloman, the president advanced to the stage and was received by hon. henry c. dibble, who presented him to the throng of veterans and children. he spoke as follows: _comrades of the grand army of the republic_--it will not be possible in so large a hall for me to make myself heard, and yet i cannot refuse when appealed to to say a word of kindly greeting to those comrades who have found their homes on the pacific coast. i have no doubt that all the loyal states of the union are represented in this assembly, and it is pleasant to know that, after the strife and hardships of those years of battle, you have found among the flowers and fruits of the earth homes that are full of pleasantness and peace. it was that these things might continue to be that you went to battle; it was that these homes might be preserved; it was that the flag and all that it symbolizes might be perpetuated, that you fought and many of our comrades died. all this land calls you blessed. the fruits of division and strife that would have been ours if secession had succeeded would have been full of bitterness. the end that was attained by your valor under the providence of god has brought peace and prosperity to all the states. [applause.] it gave me great pleasure in passing through the southern states to see how your work had contributed to their prosperity. no man can look upon any of these states through which we campaigned and fought without realizing that what seemed to their people a disaster was, under god, the opening of a great gate of prosperity and happiness. all those fires of industry which i saw through the south were lighted at the funeral pyre of slavery. [cries of "good! good!" and applause.] they were impossible under the conditions that existed previously in those states. we are now a homogeneous people. you in california, full of pride and satisfaction with the greatness of your state, will always set above it the greater glory and the greater citizenship which our flag symbolizes. [cheers.] you went into the war for the defence of the union; you have come out to make your contribution to the industries and progress of this age of peace. as in our states of the northwest the winter covering of snow hides and warms the vegetation, and with the coming of the spring sun melts and sinks into the earth to refresh the root, so this great army was a covering and defence, and when the war was ended, turned into rivulets of refreshment to all the pursuits of peace. there was nothing greater in all the world's story than the assembling of this army except its disbandment. it was an army of citizens; and when the war was over the soldier was not left at the tavern--he had a fireside toward which his steps hastened. he ceased to be a soldier and became a citizen. [cheers.] i observe, as i look into your faces, that the youth of the army must have settled on the pacific coast. [laughter and applause.] you are younger men here than we are in the habit of meeting at our grand army posts in the east. may all prosperity attend you; may you be able to show yourselves in civil life, as in the war, the steadfast, unfaltering, devoted friends of this flag you are willing to die for. [great cheering.] palace hotel banquet, may . in the evening president harrison attended a grand banquet given in his honor by the prominent citizens at the palace hotel. of all the entertainments extended to the distinguished visitors on their journey this banquet was beyond question the most notable. representatives of the business, professional, political, educational, and society circles of the city were present in numbers. the brilliant affair was largely directed by colonel andrews, alfred bovier, geo. r. sanderson, and messrs. le count, jackson, and menzies of the citizens' committee. the president was escorted to the banquet hall by general barnes and introduced to the distinguished assembly quite early in the evening. after the vociferous cheering subsided general harrison rewarded the magnificent assemblage with an address that called forth from the press of the country general commendation, and is only second to his great speech at galveston. he said: _mr. president and gentlemen_--when the queen of sheba visited the court of solomon and saw its splendors she was compelled to testify that the half had not been told her. undoubtedly the emissaries of solomon's court, who had penetrated to her distant territory, found themselves in a like situation to that which attends californians when they travel east--they are afraid to put too much to test the credulity of their hearers [laughter and applause], and as a gentleman of your state said to me, it has resulted in a prevailing indisposition among californians to tell the truth out of california. [laughter and applause.] not at all because californians are unfriendly to the truth, but solely out of compassion for their hearers they address themselves to the capacity of those who hear them. [laughter.] and taking warning by the fate of the man who told a sovereign of the indies that he had seen water so solid that it could be walked upon, they do not carry their best stories away from home. [laughter.] it has been, much as i have heard of california, a brilliant disillusion to me and to those who have journeyed with me. the half had not been told of the productiveness of your valleys, of the blossoming orchards, of the gardens laden with flowers. we have seen and been entranced. our pathway has been strewn with flowers. we have been surprised, when we were in a region of orchards and roses, to be suddenly pulled up at a station and asked to address some remarks to a pyramid of pig tin. [laughter and applause.] products of the mine, rare and exceptional, have been added to the products of the field, until now the impression has been made upon my mind that if any want should be developed in the arts, possibly if any wants should be developed in statesmanship, or any vacancies in office [great laughter], we have here a safe reservoir that can be drawn upon _ad libitum_. [laughter]. but, my friends, sweeter than all the incense of flowers, richer than all the products of mines, has been the gracious, unaffected, hearty kindness with which the people of california have everywhere received us. without division, without dissent, a simple yet magnificent and enthusiastic american welcome. [great applause.] it is gratifying that it should be so. we may carry into our campaigns, to our conventions and congresses, discussions and divisions, but how grand it is that we are a people who bow reverently to the decision when it is rendered, and who will follow the flag always, everywhere, with absolute devotion of heart without asking what party may have given the leader in whose hands it is placed. [enthusiastic cheering.] i believe that we have come to a new epoch as a nation. there are opening portals before us inviting us to enter--opening portals to trade and influence and prestige such as we have never seen before. [great applause.] we will pursue the paths of peace; we are not a warlike nation; all our instincts, all our history is in the lines of peace. only intolerable aggression, only the peril of our institutions--of the flag--can thoroughly arouse us. [great applause.] with capability for war on land and on sea unexcelled by any nation in the world, we are smitten with the love of peace. [applause.] we would promote the peace of this hemisphere by placing judiciously some large guns about the golden gate [great and enthusiastic cheering]--simply for saluting purposes [laughter and cheers], and yet they should be of the best modern type. [cheers.] we should have on the sea some good vessels. we don't need as great a navy as some other people, but we do need a sufficient navy of first-class ships, simply to make sure that the peace of the hemisphere is preserved [cheers]; simply that we may not leave the great distant marts and harbors of commerce and our few citizens who may be domiciled there to feel lonesome for the sight of the american flag. [cheers.] we are making fine progress in the construction of the navy. the best english constructors have testified to the completeness and perfection of some of our latest ships. it is a source of great gratification to me that here in san francisco the energy, enterprise, and courage of some of your citizens have constructed a plant capable of building the best modern ships. [cries of "good! good!" and cheers.] i saw with delight the magnificent launch of one of these new vessels. i hope that you may so enlarge your capacities for construction that it will not be necessary to send any naval vessel around the horn. we want merchant ships. [cheers.] i believe we have come to a time when we should choose whether we will continue to be non-participants in the commerce of the world or will now vigorously, with the push and energy which our people have shown in other lines of enterprise, claim our share of the world's commerce. [cheers.] i will not enter into the discussion of methods of the postal bill of the last session of congress, which marks the beginning. here in california, where for so long a time a postal service that did not pay its own way was maintained by the government, where for other years the government has maintained mail lines into your valleys, reaching out to every remote community, and paying out yearly a hundred times the revenue that was derived, it ought not to be difficult to persuade you that our ocean mail should not longer be the only service for which we refuse to expend even the revenues derived from it. it is my belief that, under the operation of the law to which i have referred, we shall be able to stimulate ship-building, to secure some new lines of american steamships, and to increase the ports of call of all those now established. [enthusiastic cheering.] it will be my effort to do what may be done under the powers lodged in me by the law to open and increase trade with the countries of central and south america. i hope it may not be long--i know it will not be long if we but unitedly pursue this great scheme--until one can take a sail in the bay of san francisco and see some deep-water ships come in bearing our own flag. [enthusiastic and continued cheering.] during our excursion the other day i saw three great vessels come in; one carried the hawaiian and two the english flag. i am a thorough believer in the construction of the nicaragua canal. you have pleased me so much that i would like a shorter water communication between my state and yours. [cheers.] influences and operations are now started that will complete, i am sure, this stately enterprise; but, my fellow-citizens and mr. president, this is the fifth time this day that i have talked to gatherings of california friends, and we have so much taxed the hospitality of san francisco in making our arrangements to make this city the centre of a whole week's sight-seeing that i do not want to add to your other burdens the infliction of longer speech. [cries of "go on!"] right royally have you welcomed us with all that is rich and prodigal in provision and display. with all graciousness and friendliness i leave my heart with you when i go. [great and prolonged cheering.] sacramento, california, may . early saturday morning, may , the president left san francisco, accompanied by mrs. harrison and mrs. dimmick, secretary rusk, marshal ransdell, and major sanger, to visit the capital city, sacramento. they were met at davisville by a special committee consisting of: hon. newton booth, hon. a. p. catlin, hon. w. c. van fleet, col. j. b. wright, hon. j. o. coleman, maj. wm. mclaughlin, col. c. h. hubbard, hon. n. curtis, hon. theo. reichert, r. b. harmon, and hon. w. c. hendricks. a presidential salute at o'clock announced the arrival of the chief magistrate, who was welcomed by hon. w. d. comstock, mayor of the city, at the head of the following distinguished committee of reception: hon. j. w. armstrong, prof. e. c. atkinson, hon. frederick cox, edwin f. smith, h. m. larue, p. s. lawson, w. a. anderson, wells drury, c. k. mcclatchy, maj. h. weinstock, a. a. van voorhies, a. s. hopkins, t. w. humphrey, hon. f. r. dray, wm. beckman, r. d. stephens, w. p. coleman, dr. wm. h. baldwin, allen towle, dr. g. l. simmons, c. t. wheeler, j. c. pierson, w. h. h. hart, a. abbott, chas. mccreary, rev. stephenson, t. m. lindley, e. w. roberts, grove l. johnson, frank miller, dr. w. r. cluness, h. w. byington, chris. green, clinton l. white, alonzo r. conklin, wm. geary, gen. a. l. hart, dr. s. bishop, l. tozer, d. h. mcdonald, l. w. grothan, w. h. ambrose, j. s. mcmahon, geo. w. chesley, w. r. strong, rev. a. c. herrick, t. m. lindley, h. j. small, felix tracy, c. a. luhrs, philip scheld, wm. land, h. g. may, c. a. jenkins, geo. c. mcmulle, jabez turner, m. a. baxter, o. w. erlewine, albert hart, l. elkus, b. b. brown, t. c. adams, b. u. steinman, g. w. safford, w. d. perkins, ed. f. taylor, a. j. johnston, e. greer, l. mebus, w. e. gerber, s. e. carrington, e. c. hart, dr. m. gardner, dr. t. w. huntington, chris. weisel, joseph e. werry, w. f. knox, e. w. hale, dr. g. m. dixon, w. o. bowers, geo. w. hancock, e. g. blessing, a. j. rhoads, r. s. carey, e. b. willis, jud c. brusie, t. l. enright, v. s. mcclatchy, wm. j. davis, dr. j. r. laine, geo. m. mott, harrison bennett, r. m. clarken, jerry paine, j. w. wilson, john weil, gen. j. g. martine, h. b. neilson, chas. m. campbell, m. s. hammer, j. m. avery, dr. h. l. nichols, w. w. cuthbert, james i. felter, r. h. singleton, e. m. luckett, l. l. lewis, c. s. houghton, c. a. yoerk, t. h. berkey, p. herzog, m. j. dillman, robert t. devlin, a. poppert, j. l. huntoon, capt. wm. siddons, maj. w. a. gett, c. j. ellia, f. w. fratt, judge h. o. beatty, w. a. curtis, h. a. guthrie, thomas scott, benj. wilson, chas. wieger, h. fisher, c. h. gilman, w. l. duden, s. s. holl, j. frank clark, h. g. smith, l. williams, john gruhler, f. a. jones, r. j. van voorhies, james woodburn, samuel gerson, m. a. burke, c. c. bonte, lee stanley, perrin stanton, a. mazzini, john f. slater, j. e. burke, capt. j. h. roberts, thos. geddes, s. l. richards, m. m. drew, gen. geo. b. cosbey, j. f. linthicum, j. n. larkin, richard burr, and samuel lavenson. the march from the depot to the capitol grounds was one continuous ovation. the veterans of warren, sumner, and fair oaks posts, g. a. r., acted as an escort of honor. the militia was commanded by gen. t. w. sheehan. more than , people witnessed or participated in the demonstration. as the president passed pioneer hall he halted the column to receive the greetings of the venerable members of the sacramento society. governor markham delivered an eloquent address, reciting the discovery of gold in california, reviewing the president's tour through the state, and bidding him "good-by and god-speed." ex-governor booth and secretary rusk also made short speeches. postmaster-general wanamaker was detained at san francisco, inspecting sites for a new post-office. his absence was a disappointment to the postal employees, who sent him a silver tablet, the size of a money-order, engraved with their compliments, as a memento. the president's address was as follows: _governor markham and fellow-citizens_--our eyes have rested upon no more beautiful or impressive sight since we entered california. this fresh, delightful morning, this vast assemblage of contented and happy people, this building, dedicated to the uses of civil government--all things about us tend to inspire our hearts with pride and with gratitude. gratitude to that overruling providence that turned hither after the discovery of this continent the steps of those who had the capacity to organize a free representative government. gratitude to that providence that has increased the feeble colonies on an inhospitable coast to these millions of prosperous people, who have found another sea and populated its sunny shores with a happy and growing people. [applause.] gratitude to that providence that led us through civil strife to a glory and a perfection of unity as a people that was otherwise impossible. gratitude that we have to-day a union of free states without a slave to stand as a reproach to that immortal declaration upon which our government rests. [cheers.] pride that our people have achieved so much; that, triumphing over all the hardships of those early pioneers, who struggled in the face of discouragement and difficulties more appalling than those that met columbus when he turned the prows of his little vessels toward an unknown shore; that, triumphing over perils of starvation, perils of savages, perils of sickness, here on the sunny slope of the pacific they have established civil institutions and set up the banner of the imperishable union. [cheers.] every californian who has followed in their footsteps, every man and woman who is to-day enjoying the harvest of their endeavors, should always lift his hat to the pioneer of ' . [cheers.] we stand here at the political centre of a great state, in this building where your lawmakers assemble, chosen by your suffrages to execute your will in framing those rules of conduct which shall control the life of the citizen. may you always find here patriotic, consecrated men to do your work. may they always assemble here with a high sense of duty to those brave, intelligent, and honorable people. may they catch the great lesson of our government, that our people need only such regulation as shall restrain the ill-disposed and shall give the largest liberty to individual enterprise and effort. [cheers.] no man is gifted with speech to describe the beauty and the impressiveness of this great occasion. i am awed in this presence. i bow reverently to this great assembly of free, intelligent, enterprising american sovereigns. [cheers.] i am glad to have this hasty glimpse of this early centre of immigration. i am glad to stand at the place where that momentous event, the discovery of gold, transpired, and yet, after you have washed your sand of gold, after the eager rush for sudden wealth, after all this you have come into a heritage in the possession of these fields, in those enduring and inexhaustible treasures of your soil, which will perpetually sustain a great population. in parting, sir [to the governor], to you as the representative of this people i give the most hearty thanks of all who journey with me and my own for the early, continuous, kindly, yea, even affectionate attention which has followed us in all our footsteps through california. [great cheering.] benicia, california, may . on leaving sacramento the president made a brief stop at benicia, where a large crowd greeted him, including the school children, who bombarded him with flowers. the welcoming committee was d. m. hart, president of the board of trustees; a. dalton, jr., s. c. gray, and w. h. foreman. in response to calls for a speech the president said: _my friends_--i thank you most sincerely for this pleasant tribute which i have received from these children. it is a curious thing, perhaps, that among the earliest towns that became familiar to me in my younger days was benicia. in , when the united states sent an armed expedition to utah, and thence across the continent, i happened to have an elder and much-beloved brother who was a lieutenant in that campaign. he was stationed at benicia barracks, and his letters from this place have fixed it in my memory, and recalls to me, as i stand here this morning, very tender memories of one who has long since gone to his rest. i thank you again for this demonstration. berkeley, california, may . _state university._ the president arrived at west berkeley station at o'clock and was met by the berkeley reception committee, consisting of c. r. lord, j. l. scotchler, r. rickard, e. f. neihauser, samuel heywood, c. gaines, j. s. eastman, john squires, f. b. cone, chris. johnson, john finn, george schmidt, l. gottshall, a. f. fonzo, h. w. taylor, and c. e. wulferdingen. a procession was formed, and amid thousands of enthusiastic onlookers the party was driven to the state university. at the main entrance the president found the faculty, the university battalion, and about , other people awaiting his coming. acting president kellogg briefly welcomed the distinguished guest. the president, standing with uncovered head in the carriage, spoke as follows: it gives me great pleasure even to inspect these grounds and the exterior of these buildings devoted to education. our educational institutions, beginning with the primary common schools and culminating in the great universities of the land, are the instrumentalities by which the future citizens of this country are to be trained in the principles of morality and in the intellectual culture which will fit them to maintain, develop, and perpetuate what their fathers have begun. i am glad to receive your welcome, and only regret that it is impossible for me to make a closer observation of your work. i unite with you in mourning the loss which has come to you in the death of professor le conte. i wish for the institution and for those who are called here to train the young the guidance and blessing of god in all their endeavors. _institute of the dumb and blind._ leaving the university the president was rapidly driven through a beautiful residence district and entered the grounds of the california institute of the deaf, dumb and blind. before the great edifice stood the teachers: g. b. goodall, t. d'estrella, t. grady, f. o'donnell, henry frank, douglas kieth, c. t. wilkinson, n. f. whipple, mary dutch, laura nourse, elizabeth moffitt, rose sedgwick, otto fleissner, and charles s. perry. assembled on the green were more than afflicted little ones. the blind welcomed the president with their sympathetic voices, the dumb looked upon him and smiled, while the deaf waved their little hands with joy. superintendent wilkinson in an address warmly thanked the party for their visit. the president, responding, said: it gives me great pleasure to stop for a moment at one of these institutions so characteristic of our christian civilization. in the barbarous ages of the world the afflicted were regarded by superstition unhelpful, or treated with cruel neglect; but in this better day the states are everywhere making magnificent provision for the comfort and education of the blind and deaf and dumb. where one avenue to the mind has been closed science is opening another. the eye does the work of the ear, the finger the work of the tongue for the dumb, and touch becomes sight to the blind. i am sure that gladness has come to all these young hearts through the benevolent, careful, and affectionate instruction they are receiving here. i thank you, and wish all of you the utmost happiness through life. oakland, california, may . leaving the asylum for the blind the presidential party was driven rapidly to oakland, passing through the suburban town of temescal, where a large crowd, including several hundred school children, greeted the distinguished visitors. the president was accompanied by mayor melvin chapman and the following members of the oakland reception committee: ex-mayor john r. glascock, hon. geo. e. whitney, senator w. e. dargie, j. g. mccall, a. c. donnell, t. c. coogan, john p. irish, hon. e. s. denison, c. d. pierce, j. w. mcclymonds, w. d. english, h. m. sanborn, m. j. keller, j. f. evans, a. w. bishop, w. w. foote, robert mckillican, charles g. yale, g. w. mcnear, w. r. thomas, c. b. evans, and maj. f. r. o'brien. as the presidential carriage turned into jackson street at half-past o'clock nearly , school children welcomed the chief magistrate with a fusillade of bouquets. the crowd was so great the president was unable to reach the reviewing stand, where mr. wanamaker awaited him. making the best of the situation, mayor chapman arose in the carriage and formally welcomed the president on behalf of the citizens. president harrison, speaking from the same carriage, responded as follows: _mr. mayor and fellow-citizens_--i am glad to meet you all, and i assure you i appreciate this magnificent demonstration. i must congratulate you upon your fine institutions, and particularly your streets, which, i believe, are the best in the country. i thank you for this reception most heartily. i regret that your enthusiasm and the vast size of this assembly has somewhat disconcerted the programme marked out, but i can speak as well from here as from the stand, which seems to be inaccessible. i return my sincere thanks for your welcome and express the interest and gratification i have felt this morning in riding through some of the streets of your beautiful city. i thank you most sincerely for your friendliness and bid you good-by. [great cheering.] san francisco, california, may . _union league reception._ immediately on returning from his arduous trip to sacramento and oakland the president attended a reception in his honor tendered by members of the union league at their club-house. the affair was one of the most notable of any in which the presidential guests participated during their visit to the golden west, and was conducted under the direction of the following committee: a. e. castle, joseph s. spear, jr., f. s. chadbourne, w. h. chamberlain, t. h. minor, j. h. hegler, frank j. french, j. t. giesting, william macdonald, j. s. mumaugh, r. d. laidlaw, s. k. thornton, w. d. sanborn, joseph simonson, j. m. litchfield, and l. h. clement. the president entered upon the arm of wendell easton, president of the union league club, followed by the first lady of the land, escorted by governor markham. the reception committee comprised: senator stanford, general dimond, m. h. de young, judge estee, i. c. stump, w. c. van fleet, c. j. bandmann, w. e. dargie, n. p. chipman, lewis gerstle, f. a. vail, col. w. r. shafter, mrs. leland stanford, mrs. r. d. laidlaw, mrs. w. h. chamberlain, mrs. joseph s. spear, jr., mrs. w. w. morrow, mrs. f. l. castle, mrs. m. h. de young, mrs. n. p. chipman, mrs. c. j. bandmann, miss emma spreckels, miss thornton, mrs. wendell easton, mrs. s. w. backus, mrs. g. h. sanderson, mrs. w. e. dargie, miss stump, miss reed, and others prominent in society. after the long and brilliant column had passed before the presidential line samuel m. shortridge stepped before the president and in an eloquent address in behalf of the union league club presented him with a fac-simile, in gold, of the invitation issued to the reception. general harrison, in accepting the beautiful souvenir, said: california is full of ambuscades, not of a hostile sort, but with all embarrassments that attend surprise. in a hasty drive this afternoon, when i thought i was to visit oakland, i was suddenly drawn up in front of a college and asked to make an address, and in a moment afterward before an asylum for the deaf, dumb, and blind, the character of which i did not know until the carriage stopped in front of it. all this taxes the ingenuity as your kindness moves the heart of one who is making a hurried journey through california. i do not need such souvenirs as this to keep fresh in my heart this visit to your state. it will be pleasant, however, to show to others who have not participated in this enjoyment the record of a trip that has been very eventful and one of perpetual sunshine and happiness. i do not think i could have endured the labor and toil of travel unless i had been borne up by the inspiriting and hearty good-will of your people. i do not know what collapse is in store for me when it is withdrawn. i fear i shall need a vigorous tonic to keep up to the high level of enjoyment and inspiration which your kind treatment has given me. i thank you for this pleasant social enjoyment and this souvenir of it. [applause.] san francisco, california, may . _farewell._ sunday evening the president and his party, after passing a restful day at the palace hotel, quietly took their leave of san francisco and repaired to their palatial train. mayor sanderson and his secretary, mr. steppacher, col. charles f. crocker and colonel andrews, of the reception committee, escorted the party to their train. the president personally thanked these gentlemen for their kind and unremitting attentions during their visit. shortly before the train resumed its long journey, at a quarter past midnight, the president gave out the following card of thanks to the people of california: i desire, for myself and for the ladies of our party, to give an expression of our thanks for many individual acts of courtesy, which, but for the pressure upon our time, would have been specially acknowledged. friends who have been so kind will not, i am sure, impute to us any lack of appreciation or intended neglect. the very excess of their kindness has made any adequate, and much more, any particular, return impossible. you will all believe that there has been no purposed neglect of any locality or individual. we leave you with all good wishes for the state of california and all her people. benj. harrison. red bluff, california, may . monday morning, may , found the presidential train rolling through northern california. a short stop was made at tehama, where the president shook hands with the crowd in the rain. red bluff, the county seat of tehama county, was reached at : o'clock, and several thousand people greeted the president, among them d. d. dodson and capt. j. t. matlock, the latter an old army friend who served in general harrison's regiment. on being presented to the assemblage by his former comrade the president spoke as follows: _my friends_--it is very pleasant to meet here an old comrade of the seventieth indiana volunteers. your fellow citizen, captain matlock, who has spoken for you, commanded one of the companies of my regiment, and is, therefore, a very old and very dear friend. once before in california i had a like surprise. the other day a glee club began to sing a song that was familiar to me, and i said to those standing about me. "why, that song was written by a lieutenant in my old regiment, and i have not heard it since the war." presently the leader of the glee club turned his face toward me and i found he was the identical lieutenant and the composer of the song, singing it for my benefit. all along i have met old indiana acquaintances, and i am glad to see them, whether they were of my old command or from other regiments of the great war. they all seem to be prosperous and happy. captain matlock was about the same size during the war that he is now. i very well remember, according to his own account, that at resaca he undertook to make a breastwork of some "down timber," but he found, after looking about, that it was insufficient cover, and took a standing tree. [laughter.] seriously, my friends, you have a most beautiful state, capable of promoting the comfort of your citizens in a very high degree, and although already occupying a high place in the galaxy of states, it will, i am sure, take a much higher one. it is pleasant to see how the american spirit prevails among all your people, the love for the flag and the constitution, those settled and permanent things that live whether men go or come. they came to us from our fathers and will pass down to our children. you are blessed with a genial climate and a most productive soil. i see you have in this northern part of california what i have seen elsewhere--a well-ordered community, with churches and school-houses, which indicates that you are not giving all your thoughts to material things, but thinking of those things that qualify the soul for the hereafter. we have been treated to another surprise this morning in the first shower we have seen in california. i congratulate you that it rains here. may all blessings fall upon you, like the gentle rain. [cheers.] redding, california, may . at redding, shasta county, the distinguished travellers were welcomed by several hundred school children, marshalled by william jackson. mayor brigman and the members of the city council, with w. p. england, l. h. alexander, b. f. roberts, mrs. e. a. reid, and other prominent residents, participated in the reception. judge c. c. bush, through whose exertions the visit was secured, delivered an address of welcome and introduced the president, who spoke as follows: _my fellow-citizens_--it is very pleasant, as we near the northern line of california, after having traversed the valleys of the south, and are soon to leave the state in which we have had so much pleasurable intercourse with its people, to see here, as i have seen elsewhere, multitudes of contented, prosperous, and happy people. i am assured you are here a homogeneous people, all americans, all by birth or by free choice lovers of one flag and one constitution. it seems to me as i look into the faces of these california audiences that life must be easier here than it is in the old states. i see absolutely no evidences of want. every one seems to be well nourished. your appearance gives evidence that the family board is well supplied, and from the gladness on your faces it is evident that in your social relations everything is quiet, orderly, and hopeful. i thank you for your friendly demonstrations. i wish it were possible for me to do more in exchange for all your great kindness than simply to say thank you; but i do profoundly thank you, and shall carry away from your state the very happiest impressions and very pleasant memories. [cheers.] sisson, california, may . a brief stop was made at dunsmuir, where the president shook hands with and thanked the people for their greeting, remarking that he was glad to find that even on the hilltops of california they found something profitable to do. sisson, at the foot of mount shasta, was reached at o'clock; it was the last stopping-point in california, and the entire population turned out in honor of the visitors. the committee of reception was asa persons, hugh b. andrews, oliver e. moors, t. j. sullivan, frank b. moors, and the veterans of mount shasta post, g. a. r. president harrison, addressing the assemblage, said: _my friends_--i have been talking now over a trip of , miles and feel pretty well talked out; but i can always say, as i say to you now, that it is ever a very great pleasure to me to see these kindly faces turned toward me. we have received in south california, in their orange groves, a very hearty welcome, and it is very pleasant to come now to this fine scenery among these snow-capped mountains. i have no doubt that you find here in this high altitude an inspiration for all good things. i thank you again for your cordial greeting. ashland, oregon, may . the first stop in oregon was at ashland, at p.m., in a drizzling rain. an escort committee from the oregon legislature and the portland board of trade, headed by hon. joseph simon, president of the senate, met the chief executive at this point. the local reception committee comprised mayor g. m. grainger, hon. j. m. mccall, d. r. mills, dr. j. hall, and col. j. t. bowditch, judge advocate general o. n. g. responding to the greeting of the legislative committee the president said: _mr. simon and gentlemen of the committee_--i esteem it an honor that the legislature of the state of oregon has taken this notice of my visit, and i receive with pleasure this welcome you have extended to me. i am very glad to greet you, and it will give me pleasure to see you further before leaving the state. the president then appeared on the platform, and was presented to the citizens by the mayor, and spoke briefly, saying: _my friends_--this cordial welcome, under the infelicitous circumstances, is very gratifying to us as we enter the great state of oregon. in the state of california we had sunshine, and it was perhaps to be expected that the favorable weather conditions should draw about our platform a large concourse of people, but you have evidenced your interest in the government and the flag and your friendly interest in us by turning out on this inclement night to bid us welcome to your state. i thank you most sincerely, and wish for you and yours all good, and for your state a continued career of development and prosperity. medford, oregon, may . the president's visit to medford at p.m. was acknowledged by a general illumination. the veterans of chester a. arthur post, g. a. r., j. r. erford, commander, and j. h. faris, adjutant, were out _en masse_. mayor g. w. howard made a brief address and introduced the president, who said: _comrades and fellow-citizens_--it gives me great pleasure to see you to-night, especially these old comrades, to whom i am glad to give a comrade's greeting. i would have you think of me as a comrade. i recall those army scenes which are fresh in your minds as well as mine, the scenes of privation, suffering, and battle, and i am glad to see that the old flag you took to the field and brought home in honor is still held in honor among you. it is a beautiful emblem of a great government. we ought to teach our children to love it and to regard it as a sacred thing, a thing for which men have died and for which men will die. it symbolizes the government of the states under one constitution, for while you are all oregonians as i am an indianian, and each has his pride in state institutions and all that properly pertains to our state government, we have a larger and greater pride in the fact that we are citizens of a nation, of a union of states, having a common constitution. [cheers.] it is this flag that represents us on the sea and in foreign countries, it is under this flag that our navies sail and our armies march. i thank you for this cordial greeting. i hope you have found in this state comfortable homes, and that in the years that remain to you god will follow you with those blessings which your courage and patriotism and sacrifices have so well merited. [cheers.] albany, oregon, may . the presidential party arrived at the thriving city of albany, in the willamette valley, at o'clock on the morning of the th, and were received by , people. mayor j. l. cowan headed the committee of reception, consisting of j. w. cusick, judge l. flinn, w. c. tweedale, j. r. whitney, l. e. blain, m. sternberg, g. f. simpson, dr. d. m. jones, a. hackleman, and thomas monteith. mcpherson post, g. a. r., j. f. whiting, commander, and company f, o. n. g., capt. geo. e. chamberlain, together with students from the state agricultural college at corvallis, under prof. j. d. letcher, participated in the reception. mayor cowan delivered the address of welcome. president harrison, in response, said: _my fellow-citizens_--it gives me great pleasure to see you, and to have the testimony of your presence here this wet morning to the interest you take in this little party of strangers who are pausing only for a moment with you. we do not need any assurance, as we look over an american audience like this, that upon some things, at least, we are of one mind. one of these things is that we have a union indissoluble; that we have a flag we all honor, and that shall suffer no dishonor from any quarter. while i regret the inclemency of the morning, i have been thinking that after all there was a sort of instructive moral force in the uncertainty of the weather, which our friends in southern california do not enjoy. how can a boy or young woman be well trained in self-denial and resignation who does not know what it is to have a picnic or picnic dress spoiled by a shower, or some fishing excursion by a storm? i thank you for this welcome. [cheers.] salem, oregon, may . salem, the capital of oregon, was reached at a.m. the local militia and several thousand citizens assembled to greet the president, including governor pennoyer, mayor p. h. d'arcy, charles morris, e. m. waite, a. n. gilbert, william brown, and other prominent citizens; also, the legislative reception committee, headed by hon. joseph simon, president of the senate, and hon. t. t. geer, speaker of the house. _en route_ from the depot to the state house thousands of people lined the sidewalks and several hundred school children, bearing flags, waved a cordial greeting. arriving at the assembly chamber, mayor d'arcy presided and welcomed the president in the name of the city; he was followed by governor pennoyer, who extended "a generous, heartfelt welcome on behalf of the people of oregon." with marked earnestness president harrison responded as follows: _governor pennoyer, mr. mayor and fellow-citizens_--it is very pleasant to be assured by these kindly words which have been spoken by the governor of this state and by the chief officer of this municipality that we are welcome to the state of oregon and to the city of salem. i find here, as i found elsewhere, that these cordial words of welcome are repeated with increased emphasis by the kindly faces of those who assemble to greet us. i am glad that here as elsewhere we look into the faces of happy, prosperous, contented, liberty-loving, patriotic american citizens. our birthright, the wise anticipation of those who framed our government, our national and constitutional organization, which has repeated itself in all the states of the union, this wholesome and just division of power between the three great independent, co-ordinate branches of the government--the executive, the legislative, and the judicial--has already demonstrated that what seems to the nations of europe to be a complicated and jangling system produces in fact the most perfect harmony, and the most complete and satisfactory organization for social order and for national strength. we stand here to-day in one of these halls set apart to the law-making body of your state. those who assemble here are chosen by your suffrages. they come here as representatives to enact into laws those views of public questions which have met the sanction of the majority of your people, expressed in an orderly and honest way at the ballot-box. i hope it may be always found to be true of oregon that your legislative body is a representative body; that coming from the people, its service is consecrated to the people, and the purpose of its creation is attained by giving to the well-ordered and well-disposed the largest liberty, by curbing, by wholesome laws, the ill-disposed and the lawless, and providing by economical methods for the public needs. the judiciary, that comes next in our system, to interpret and apply the public statutes, has been in our country a safe refuge for all who are oppressed. it is greatly to our credit as a nation that with rare exceptions those who have worn the judicial ermine in the highest tribunals of the country, and notably in the supreme court of the united states, have continued to retain the confidence of the people of the whole country. the duty of the executive is to administer the law; the military power is lodged with him under constitutional limitations. he does not frame statutes, though in most states, and under our national government, a veto power is lodged in him with a view to secure reconsideration of any particular measure. but a public executive officer has one plain duty: it is to enforce the law with kindness and forbearance, but with promptness and inexorable decision. he may not choose what laws he will enforce any more than the citizen may choose what laws he will obey. we have here but one king: it is the law, passed by those constitutional methods which are necessary to make it binding upon the people, and to that king all men must bow. it is my great pleasure to find so generally everywhere a disposition to obey the law. i have but one message for the north and for the south, for the east and the west, as i journey through this land. it is to hold up the law, and to say everywhere that every man owes allegiance to it, and that all law-breakers must be left to the deliberate and safe judgment of an established tribunal. you are justly proud of your great state. its capabilities are enormous; its adaptation to comfortable life is peculiar and fine. the years will bring you increased population and increased wealth. i hope they will bring with it, marching in this stately progress of material things, those finer things--piety, pure homes, and orderly communities. but above all this state pride, over all our rejoicings in the advantages which are about us in our respective states, we look with greater pride to that great arch of government that unites these states and makes of them all one great union. but, my fellow-citizens, the difficulties that i see interposed between us and the train which is scheduled to depart very soon warn me to bring these remarks to a speedy close. i beg again, most profoundly, to thank you for this evidence of your respect, this evidence of your love for the institutions of our common country. [cheers.] chemawa, oregon, may . at chemawa, the seat of an indian training-school, the president reviewed the pupils and, in response to calls for a speech, addressed them as follows: _my young friends_--it gives me great pleasure to stop for a moment to see these evidences of the good work the government is doing for you and the good work you are doing for yourselves. all the purposes of the government toward you and your people are benevolent and friendly. it is our wish that you may become such people as your neighbors are--industrious, kindly, peaceful, and self-respecting. everything that i can do to promote this end will be gladly done. i hope your instructors and all those who are brought close to you will in every way express and carry out the benevolent and kindly intentions of the government. oregon city, oregon, may . a cordial greeting was accorded the president at oregon city by the pioneers and army veterans. the committee of reception was hon. j. t. apperson, hon. h. e. cross, hon. t. w. sullivan, and t. rands. from beneath a triumphal floral arch near the station the mayor delivered a welcoming address, closing with three cheers. the president, in response, said: _fellow-citizens_--this is a very pleasant morning reception. the heartiness and genuineness of your greeting is unmistakable, and i beg to assure you that we most heartily appreciate and return your kindly thoughts. you have here a most important state, one of those bordering on the pacific, completing the autonomy of our great country, and giving us a seaboard on the pacific as well as upon the atlantic which was essential to our completeness and separateness as a people. the interesting story of the early settlement of oregon, of the international contest which for some time threatened international war, is fresh in the minds of these pioneers, and i am sure is taught to these children of your public schools. the work of those who set up the american flag here, and who secured to us this fertile region, is worthy of mention and of honorable commemoration by this generation, which is entering into their labors. your state has added another to that succession of kindly greetings which began when we left the national capital. we have come out of the land of irrigation and roses into this land where the lord takes care of the crops; and this dependence upon the seasons is not without its instructive and moral influences. nature seems to have made a fresh, white toilet for us as we have come down the banks of this beautiful river. to the pioneers, to those who have entered in with less labor to the inheritance left to them, to these children and to these comrades of the grand army, i give my most hearty greeting. portland, oregon, may . tuesday, at noon, found the president and his party at portland, where they received an enthusiastic greeting. ten thousand people were present, notwithstanding the rainy weather. the president was welcomed at the station by mayor van b. de lashmutt and wife, chief-justice r. s. strahan, supreme judges w. p. lord and r. s. bean, federal judge m. p. deady, hon. joseph simon, president of the senate; hon. t. t. geer, speaker of the house; ex-atty.-gen. geo. h. williams, hon. t. f. osborn, president chamber of commerce; hon. e. b. mcelroy, gen. o. summers, gen. wm. kapus, hon. m. c. george, hon. henry failing, hon. c. a. dolph, hon. p. l. willis, hon. f. v. drake, hon. g. l. story, hon. j. c. moreland, hon. j. c. fullerton, hon. h. b. miller, philip metschan, and mrs. rosa f. burrell; also w. f. matlock, j. h. mcclung, and s. b. eakin, jr., of eugene city. the parade was a brilliant affair. the veterans of the several g. a. r. posts acted as the guard of honor. the great column was directed by col. t. m. anderson, u. s. a., aided by o. f. paxton, chief of staff; c. m. idleman, d. s. tuthill, dr. henry e. jones, j. g. woodworth, r. w. mitchell, f. k. arnold, l. a. lewis, e. c. michenor, c. r. holcomb, charles e. dodd, j. c. courtney, j. a. sladden, john gwilt, g. a. harding, gen. c. s. wright, gen. c. p. holloway, col. r. s. greenleaf, col. d. h. turner, n. s. pierce, g. e. caukin, a. e. borthwick, col. h. h. northup, col. r. t. chamberlain, g. h. durham, h. c. allen, e. a. weed, m. j. morse, geo. c. sears, f. r. neal, dr. w. h. saylor, capt. j. e. lombard, c. e. dubois, h. p. wilson, and m. g. steffen. conspicuous in the procession were the following staff officers of the department of the columbia: maj. c. a. wikoff, maj. w. h. nash, maj. j. c. muhlenberg, maj. j. g. c. lee, and captains c. mcclure and c. h. ingalls; also hon. r. p. earhart, geo. a. steel, f. p. mays, e. t. hatch, j. t. stewart, mayor of east portland; d. m. mclauchlin, mayor of albina; a. m. crawford, of roseburg, and the french, russian, and danish vice-consuls. in the evening five companies of the first regiment, o. n. g., commanded by col. charles f. beebe, escorted the president, secretary rusk, and postmaster-general wanamaker to the exposition building, where an audience of , greeted them. mayor de lashmutt delivered an eloquent address of welcome. president harrison was tendered an ovation as he arose to respond. he said: _mr. mayor and fellow-citizens_--no more brilliant or inspiring scene than this has been presented to our eyes in this wonderful series of receptions which have been extended to us on our journey. you have been filled with regret to-day that your weeping skies did not present to us the fair spectacle which you had hoped; and yet this very discouragement has but added to the glory of this magnificent reception. [cheers.] to stand in the bright sunshine of a genial day and to wave a welcome is not so strong a proof of the affectionate interest of a people as you have given to-day standing in this down-pouring rain [cheers.] in the presence of a multitude like this, in a scene made brilliant by these decorations, i stand inadequate to any suitable expression of the gratitude that fills my heart. [cheers.] i was quite inclined to stand by the superintendent of the census in the count which he made of the states; but i am afraid if i had witnessed this scene, pending your application for a recount, that it would have been granted. [laughter and great cheering.] i am sorry that it could not have been made as the people turned out to give us this welcome; i am sure no one would have been missed. [laughter and cheers.] this state is interesting in its history. the establishment of the authority of the united states over this region was an important event in our national history. the possession of the columbia and of puget sound was essential to the completeness and the roundness of our empire. we have here in this belt of states, reaching from the gulf of california to the straits of fuca, a magnificent possession which we could not have dispensed with at all. [cheers.] the remoteness of oregon from the older settled states, the peril and privation which attended the steps of the pioneer as he came hither, delayed the development of this great country. you are now but beginning to realize the advantage of closer and easier communications. you are but now beginning to receive from an impartial and beneficent government that attention which you well deserve. [cheers.] that this river of yours should be made safe and deep, so that waiting commerce may come without obstruction to your wharf, is to be desired. [cheers.] it should receive those appropriations which are necessary to make the work accomplish the purpose in view. [cheers.] i believe that you may anticipate a largely increased commerce. looking out as you do toward the regions across the pacific, it would be but natural that this important centre should draw from them and exchange with them a great and increasing commerce. [cheers.] i am in entire sympathy with the suggestion of the mayor that it is important that this commerce should be carried in american ships. [cheers.] a few days ago, when i sailed in the harbor of san francisco, i saw three great deep water ships come into that port. one carried the flag of hawaii and two the english flag. none bore at the masthead the stars and stripes. i believe it is the duty of the national government to take such steps as will restore the american merchant marine. [cheers.] why shall we not have our share in the great commerce of the world? i cannot but believe--and such inspiring presences as this but kindle and confirm my belief--that we are come to a time when this nation should look to the future and step forward bravely and courageously in new lines of enterprise. [cheers.] the nicaragua canal should be completed. [cheers.] our harbors should have adequate defence. [cheers.] we should have upon the sea a navy of first-class ships. [cheers.] we are here in the most kindly relations to these south american and central american countries. we have been content that europe should do the commerce of these nations. we have not availed ourselves of the advantages of neighborhood and of friendly kindred republican institutions to develop our commerce with those people. we have, fortunately, as a result of the great conference of american nations, set on foot measures that i confidently hope will bring to us speedily our just share of this great commerce. [cheers.] i am glad to know that we are here to-night as american citizens, lovers of the one flag and the one constitution. [enthusiastic cheering.] proud of oregon! yes, you may well be proud of oregon. but, my countrymen, above all, crowning all, greater than all, is our american citizenship. [great cheering.] what would one of these states be without the other? what is it that gives us prestige abroad and power at home? it is that we have formed a government of the people, that we have one flag and speak with one voice to all the nations of the earth. [enthusiastic cheering.] i hope that narrow sentiment that regards the authority of the united states or its officers as alien or strange has once and forever been extinguished in this land of ours. [great cheering.] my countrymen, i am profoundly grateful for this magnificent demonstration. i accept it as a tribute to your institutions and to your country. no man is worthy of it; he can only return for it a fresh consecration of himself to the duties of public office and private citizenship. [great cheering.] again i assure you that you have given us to-day what is to my mind, under the conditions, taking into account the population of your city, the most splendid demonstration we have seen on the whole journey. [prolonged and enthusiastic cheering.] at the conclusion of the president's address the great assemblage began calling for postmaster-general wanamaker. after a few moments' hesitation the distinguished philadelphian came forward and was the recipient of an ovation. he said: _fellow-countrymen_--i am proud to be present at this magnificent demonstration. i am especially pleased at the address the president has delivered. instead of having it printed for congress he has reserved it for the people of oregon, and personally brought you his message. [cheers.] what you have done to-day has certainly touched his heart; and no man would be human who did not feel moved at this wonderful welcome that you have prepared for your president. i think you had him in mind all the time, and wanted to show that your loyalty and affection would wash. [laughter and cheers.] i am proud to be an american citizen, and to see how the people rally round the flag and the chief standard-bearer, the president of the united states. [cheers.] from the day he started from home his pathway has been strewn with garlands, and many times our way has lain through a path knee-deep with flowers. they have been scattered all the way from virginia to oregon; but above all is the hearty, loving, loyal welcome that has been extended to us at every stop we have made. on the boundary of your state, at the little town of salem [laughter], i think, a welcome was spoken most beautifully and heartily by your governor. [tremendous cheering.] but you have about , majority over salem. [cheers.] how can any one thank you for it except to go back to washington and do the very best in his power for your good and the good of the whole people? some of us eastern people are doing now what columbus did years ago--we are discovering america. [cheers.] if what you have done for us here to-night and what you have done to-day is a true index to your energy and determination, what is there you will not grasp and do when you get at it? [cheers.] i am sure you will find one opportunity in aiding in the postal telegraph. we are going to have penny postage all the country over. [cheers.] but before that time comes let us go out into the new states as the villages and hamlets build up and let us give them the mail with the freest intercourse and the fullest facility. i will now make way for the next man, for the largest secretary of all is still to come. [cheers and laughter.] secretary rusk also received a hearty welcome. his remarks about the weather bureau had a peculiar zest because of the presence of gen. a. w. greely, chief signal officer. he said: _ladies and gentlemen_--it is with great pleasure that i meet you here to-night. i would not have a heart if i did not say that i have been touched by this demonstration and the demonstration on your streets to-day. [cheers.] i account for this in a different way from those who have preceded me. i saw on your streets to-day more ladies than i saw in any city which we have visited since we left washington. and the beautiful children! while we have had more flowers in other states, we have not met more beautiful women and lovely children. i tell you, in order to raise anything sweetly and beautifully you must have rain. [cheers.] congress has passed a law providing that the weather bureau be turned over to me july , and if i can control the weather and another president comes here i will see that you have a flood. [cheers and laughter.] i will endeavor, however, after july to give you thirteen months' rain every year. i have been touched to the heart in many ways since i came to your beautiful city. i have met friends who were my boyhood's friends away back in wisconsin, and comrades who served with me in battle and in camp. [cheers.] i would fail to do my duty if i did not say that i am glad to see you all. god bless them and may the future deal kindly with you all. [great cheering.] centralia, washington, may . early on the morning of the th the presidential train crossed the state line and entered the new state of washington, stopping a moment at chehalis, and reaching centralia at o'clock. here the president was received with a national salute, and notwithstanding the rain several thousand people were present. mayor d. b. rees and the following prominent residents welcomed the chief magistrate: j. h. corwin, h. j. miller, w. h. bachtall, h. l. meade, geo. miller, e. r. butherworth, charles johnson, henry shield, n. b. kelsey, a. j. wright, and geo. h. ellsbury. the president said: _my fellow-citizens_--it is very kind of you to turn out so early in the morning. i can count among my pleasantest experiences in the northwest this very early rising. i am a good deal of a daniel webster as to early risings. [laughter.] it gives me great pleasure to notice the evidence of increased population as contrasted with what i saw six years ago as i passed through this country. i was so unfortunate then as to find it enveloped in smoke, so that the mountain tops were invisible. i am afraid we are to have this experience repeated on this visit on account of the fog. i suppose this is because the beauties of your country are so great that they have to be shaded to the eyes of a stranger. seriously, however, you have a great commonwealth. i do not doubt that your future is to be one of great development and great increase in population, and that you are to found here a very contented, prosperous, and happy people. fortunately you have a capacity for great agricultural development after you have cleared away the forests; and that, after all, is the permanent foundation of every american city. it is well enough to have trees on the land and mines in the earth; but trees will be cut down and mines be dug out, and the only thing that lasts is good soil in the hands of good husbandmen. i thank you most sincerely. [cheers.] tacoma, washington, may . ten thousand cheers greeted the arrival of the president at tacoma wednesday morning. gov. elisha p. ferry, mayor geo. b. kandle, and judge wm. h. calkins, at the head of the following committee of reception, met the party: gen. john w. sprague, samuel collyer, colonel garretson, judge allyn, hon. m. hill, mrs. frank allyn, w. d. tyler, mrs. derrickson, thomas carroll, dr. munson, judge john beverly, judge applegate, h. c. wallace, senator john b. allen and wife, mrs. galusha parsons, charles hale, george reed, charles catlin, s. c. slaughter, thomas sloane, l. e. post, nelson bennett, f. f. jacobs, i. w. anderson, a. c. mason, c. w. griggs, g. w. holmes, e. m. hunt, john d. hills, l. r. manning, hon. thomas carroll, col. charles reichenbach, atty.-gen. jones, state treasurer lindsley, j. d. hogue, c. b. zabriskie, and fred t. taylor. the decorations were upon an elaborate scale. chief among the attractions of this order were five mammoth arches spanning pacific avenue, constructed from products typifying the principal industries of the state, to wit: the timber arch, coal arch, iron arch, grain arch, and shingle arch. notwithstanding the rain the parade, under chief marshal c. w. griggs, was a brilliant success. a noteworthy incident was the special reception tendered to mrs. harrison and the other ladies of the presidential party by the ladies of tacoma at the opera house. fully , paid their respects. mrs. s. c. slaughter, on behalf of the ladies of tacoma, presented to mrs. harrison a beautiful painting of mt. tacoma by the artist rollins. accompanying the picture was an illustrated copy of mrs. bernice e. wewell's poem on "mt. tacoma," also a gold engraved spoon, the latter for the president's grandson. in acknowledging the receipt of these souvenirs mrs. harrison made perhaps her first public speech on the trip. she said: _ladies_--i cannot thank you enough for all your kindness. i shall take your gifts home and treasure them all my life as mementos of a most enjoyable visit to your beautiful city. [applause.] after the review of the procession governor ferry, in the presence of many thousands, formally welcomed president harrison to the state of washington. the distinguished veteran general sprague made the address on behalf of the citizens of tacoma. the president responded as follows: _my fellow-citizens_--i feel that it would be cruel to prolong this exposure which you are enduring in the inclement weather of the day. i visited your city and the region of puget sound six years ago. i found this country then enveloped in smoke, so that these grand mountain-tops, of which mention has been made in the address of welcome, were hidden from our view. i come again and the smoke is replaced by fog, and we are still, i suppose, to take the existence of these snow-clad peaks on faith. [laughter and applause.] i don't know but there is a benevolent provision for your comfort in the fact that this magnificent scenery, this unmatched body of water are frequently hidden from the eye of the traveller. if every one who journeys hither could see it all everybody would want to live here, and there wouldn't be room. [laughter and cheers.] i congratulate you, citizens of tacoma, upon the magnificent, almost magical, transformation which has been wrought here in these six years since i first saw your city. it has been amazing: it is a tribute to the energy and the enterprise and courage of your people that will endure and increase and attract in a yet higher degree the attention of the whole country. a harbor like this, so safe and commodious and deep, upon puget sound, should be made to bear a commerce that is but yet in its infancy. i would like to see the prows of some of these great steamship lines entering your ports and carrying the american flag at the masthead. [cheers.] i believe we have come to the time in our development as a people when we must step forward with bold progress, or we will lose the advantage we have already attained. we have within ourselves the resources, and a market of which the world is envious. we have been content, in the years gone by, to allow other nations to do the carrying trade of the world. we have been content to see the markets of these american republics lying south of us mastered and controlled by european nations. i think the period of discontent with these things has now come to our people, and i believe the time is auspicious for the enlargement of our commerce with these friendly republics lying to the south of us. i believe the time is propitious for re-establishing upon the sea the american merchant marine, that shall do its share of the carrying trade of the world. [applause.] my friends, i desire to again express to you my regret that to give us this magnificent welcome, under circumstances so inauspicious, you have been exposed to so much wet. i especially regretted, as i passed those long lines of dear school children, that they should have been exposed in order to do us honor. i will not detain you longer. for your city, for this magnificent young state that we have received into the great sisterhood of the union, of which you are a glorious part, we give our aspirations, our prayers, and our best endeavors. [applause.] _on steamer "city of seattle," puget sound._ at : a.m. the president and his party left tacoma, embarking on the steamer _city of seattle_ for the queen city of the northwest. there was a great outpouring at tacoma to witness the departure, and the presidential convoy was escorted down the sound by all the steamers in the bay. as the president came aboard he was met by mayor and mrs. harry white at the head of the following committee of prominent citizens of seattle: jacob furth, john h. mcgraw, a. w. bash, postmaster griffith davies, a. m. brookes, a. a. denny, l. s. j. hunt, w. e. bailey, f. j. grant, president and mrs. g. w. hall, president and mrs. r. w. jones, maj. j. r. hayden, mr. and mrs. e. brainerd, mrs. george h. heilbron, mrs. j. c. haines, mrs. r. c. washburn, mr. and mrs. alfred holman, mrs. e. l. terry, mrs. j. f. mcnaught, mrs. a. b. stewart, mrs. james a. panting, mrs. h. f. jackson and daughter, mrs. charles f. jackson, mr. and mrs. w. r. bentley, miss ina jameson, miss annie longfellow, miss millie longfellow, walter f. cushing, col. g. g. lyon, dr. young, d. b. ward, colonel langley, j. t. ronald, john wiley, c. m. ogden, colonel street, judge roger s. greene, mr. john collins, capt. w. a. snyder, ex-atty.-gen. j. b. metcalfe, lieut. a. b. wyckoff, and dr. whyte fredrick. when the convoy and her noisy consorts had passed out of commencement bay and entered puget sound the reception committee assembled on deck, and mayor white in an address cordially welcomed the president, who, in response, said: _mr. mayor_--i accept with great gratification these words of welcome on behalf of the citizens of seattle. it will give me great pleasure to contrast my observations of your state in with what i shall see to-day. i have not lost track of the progress of seattle, but have, through friends, been advised of the marvellous development which you have made, and how you have repeated in the substantial character of your edifices the story of the chicago fire, coming as you have out of what seemed a disaster with increased magnificence, and finding in it really an advantage. i will defer until i am in the presence of your people any further acknowledgment of your courtesies, and will now only thank you, as you are repeating here what we have observed on our whole trip, namely, the unification of all our people and the absolute oneness of sentiment in devotion to our institutions and the flag. seattle, washington, may . the steamer bearing the presidential party, followed by a great flotilla that had come out to greet them, arrived at seattle at : p.m., and fully , people witnessed the disembarking. the city was profusely decorated. on pioneer place stood a triumphal arch bearing the ensigns of all nations. ranged at its entrance were the sons of veterans in uniform and school-girls. as the president's carriage entered the great arch the choir-girls greeted him with a song of welcome, composed for the occasion by prof. l. a. darling. near the arch, on a platform, sat the shrivelled form of angeline, daughter of chief seattle, the last of the race of royal barbarians who once ruled in the bays and forests of the sound. she was an object of great interest to the president and his party. after visiting lake washington on the cable cars the president was escorted to the university campus by stevens, miller, and cushing posts, g. a. r., m. m. holmes and j. st. clair, commanders. thirty thousand people were assembled on the campus; officials were present from every part of the state, also from british columbia. opposite the speakers' stand were , school children, each waving a flag. governor ferry, senator john b. allen, hon. john h. mcgraw, jacob furth, and numerous other prominent men were on the platform with the president, secretary rusk, and mr. wanamaker. rev. g. a. tewksbury pronounced the invocation. judge thomas burke then delivered the welcoming address on behalf of the citizens. president harrison replied: _judge burke and fellow-citizens_--i am sure you have too much kindness in your heart to ask me to make an address to you this afternoon. this chilly air, this drizzling rain, the long exposure during the day which you and these precious children have suffered, warn me, on your account as well as my own, that i should say but a few words in recognition of this magnificent welcome. six years ago i visited your beautiful city, and the distinguished gentleman who has been your spokesman to-day was one of a hospitable committee that pointed out to me the beauties of this location. you were then largely a prospective city. some substantial and promising improvements had been begun, but it was a period of expectancy rather than of realization. i am glad to come to-day and to see how fully and perfectly the large expectations then entertained by your enterprising people have been realized. it is a matter of amazement to look upon these towering substantial granite and iron structures in which the great business of your city is transacted. that disaster, as it seemed to you, which swept away a large portion of the business part of your city was like the afflictions that come to the saints, a blessing in disguise. [cheers.] you have done what chicago did. you have improved the disaster by rearing structures and completing edifices that were unthought of before. those who were not enterprising or liberal have been compelled to be liberal and enterprising in order that they might realize rents for their property made vacant by fire. [cheers.] i fully appreciate the importance of this great body of water upon which your city is situated. this sound, this inland sea, must be in the future the highway, the _entrepot_, of a great commerce. i do most sincerely believe that we are entering now upon a new development that will put the american flag upon the seas and bring to our ports in american bottoms a largely increased share of the commerce of the world. [cheers.] as i have said in other places, for one i am thoroughly discontented with the present condition of things. we may differ as to methods, but i believe the great patriotic heart of our people is stirred, and that they are bent upon recovering that share of the world's commerce which we once happily enjoyed. your demonstration to day under these unfavorable environments has been most creditable to your city. we have certainly seen nothing in a journey characterized by great demonstrations to surpass this magnificent scene. [cheers.] i realize what your spokesman has said, that in all this there is a patriotic expression of the love of our people for the flag and for the constitution. [cheers.] and now, my friends, thanking you for all you have done for me, humbly confessing my inability to repay you, pledging to you my best efforts to promote the good of all our people, and that i will have a watchful observation of the needs of your state, of your harbors, for defence, improvement, and security, i bid you good by. [cheers.] after the president's address an effort was made to present the veterans individually, but the inclement weather forbade it. turning to those about him president harrison said: i leave you very reluctantly, and i shall always be sorry that my time was so limited here that i could not do justice to your hospitality. [great cheering.] at o'clock the party boarded their train, but a great crowd had assembled and called repeatedly for the president, who responded and said: i can only thank you once more; you have given me a royal welcome, and i carry away with me the most grateful memory of your kindness. i was up until past midnight last night, making a speech, and had to be up at o'clock this morning to speak to some friends in oregon. i leave you with the best wishes for your city and the state. [enthusiastic cheers.] as the president concluded there were loud calls for postmaster-general wanamaker, who waved his hand toward the children and said: the reasons given by the president for not making a speech certainly apply to those who are in your programme to follow him. i cannot, however, leave the platform without thanking you for that share of the welcome that falls to us who attended. there is a chill in the air, but there is no lack of warmth in the cordial greeting that you have given to us who, though we felt ourselves to be strangers among you, have found ourselves to be among friends. i have been trying to find out since the census report was announced what the reason was that philadelphia had fallen behind. [laughter and applause.] it is all very plain to me now. this city set on a hill i shall put down in my book as philadelphia junior. [applause.] you have the family likeness. i recognize some of you by name, and i do not wonder that you have settled in this beautiful spot, so rich in its resources, where you discovered everything that we have in pennsylvania except one thing, and i expect you will find that before long, and i am sure that i hope that you will find the anthracite coal stored away somewhere in your hills. i know if you undertake to find it you will do it. [applause.] you need no better illustration than the choir over yonder, that could not be stopped even to allow the president to speak. [applause and laughter.] i shall carry away from here a story that i am afraid they will call a california story, but i will get your mayor to give me a certificate that i was perfectly sober--that there was nothing but water. [applause and laughter.] and i shall try to recommend what i have seen in this wild west, where people have their splendid schools, their many churches, their refined homes, and where there is such a hearty welcome for all that come in their midst. for my part of the work at washington i have already given you evidence that the post-office department was thinking of the pacific coast. i shall do the best that i can as a business man for this splendid business people that you have in your city and for the many more that are to come; that all the facilities of the mail--quickening it, increasing it--shall be given to you; that you shall not say that your government does not give you all the assistance in building up your great enterprises and swelling the prosperity of all this coast. i say good-by to you and give you a heart full of good wishes. [continued applause.] puyallup, washington, may . it was p.m. when the train stopped at puyallup, where a goodly crowd awaited the visitors. the president shook hands with several score, and in response to calls for a speech said: _my fellow-citizens_--i am very glad to see you to-night, but i am sure you will excuse me from speaking when you remember that i have been out in the rain all day at tacoma and seattle, and have had to talk several times. i am glad to see you, and appreciate the friendly interest you manifest in coming out here to-night in such great numbers to greet us with such kindliness. i have known for a long time of the great hop industry of this region, and i am glad to know that it has proven profitable. the question of the puyallup reservation was one of the last which was brought officially to my attention before leaving, and i expect it will be one of the first i shall take up on my return. good-night and good-by. chehalis, washington, may . a great crowd greeted the president with cannon and bonfires on his arrival at chehalis at : at night. the committee of reception consisted of mayor milet, who delivered an address of welcome; judge ashman, an old comrade of the president's at resaca; and j. f. sachs, an early pioneer, who presented the president a native hawthorn cane. responding to greetings the president said: _my friends_--i am very much obliged to you for this midnight reception. we passed you this morning without stopping, and regretted it when we saw the number who had collected here. we gladly yielded to your request to stop to-night in order to show our appreciation of your kindness. it is very pleasant for me to see those people who have no interest in politics except for good government. [cheers.] cascade locks, oregon, may . the first stop on the morning of the th was at cascade locks, where several hundred people gave an early morning greeting to the president, who responded briefly, saying: _my friends_--i am very much obliged to you for your kindly greeting, and, as we stop only a few moments, i can only express my sincere thanks for your presence. hood river station, oregon, may . at hood river station the president shook hands with a number and addressed the gathering as follows: _my friends_--it is very pleasant to see you this morning, and to come out into the sunshine after two or three days of chilly rain. i have been talking so much, and so much in the dampness, that my voice is not very good; but my heart is always fresh and open to these receptions. i thank you very sincerely for your friendliness and wish for you all, and especially for these little ones, every happiness in life. [cheers.] the dalles, oregon, may . after traversing the famous gorge of the columbia river the presidential train at o'clock emerged within view of the city of the dalles, where an enthusiastic welcome was extended the chief executive. the committee of reception consisted of mayor moody, d. m. french, dr. william shackelford, j. a. varney, r. f. gibson, robert mays, h. m. beall, john mccaul, j. p. mcinerry, m. t. nolan, george ruch, and the following prominent ladies of the city: mrs. t. s. lang, mrs. n. b. sinnott, mrs. a. m. williams, mrs e. m. wilson, mrs. s. french, mrs. s. brooks, mrs. geo. liebe, mrs. charles hilton, and mrs. j. patterson. many old soldiers and a large number of school children were present. mayor moody, in behalf of the city, welcomed the president, who responded as follows: _my friends_--i have spoken at all times of the night and all hours of the day, and under conditions much less auspicious than those around us this morning. we have here a bright sunshine and a bracing air, and everything in nature adds to the gladness of this demonstration which you have made in our honor. i most sincerely thank you for this evidence of your friendliness. i assure you that it is very pleasant, and i cannot but believe that it is very useful for those who are charged with public duties at washington occasionally to move about a little and look into the faces of the plain, patriotic people of the country. most of the people who come to see me at washington want something, and as the provision made by law is not adequate to meet all these wants there is very apt to be a great deal of discontent; but when we get out among the great masses of the people, among those who are doing the work of the farm, of the shop, and of the office, who have a patriotic pride in their country and its institutions, and are kindly disposed, charitable in their judgments, and who have no other interests than that the laws shall be faithfully executed and the whole interest of the people faithfully looked after, we find great refreshment in their presence. i am sure we have such an audience here this morning. you will not expect of any officer that he will altogether avoid mistakes; you have a right to expect a conscientious, courageous fidelity to public duty. i quite sympathize with the suggestion of your mayor, that it is one of the proper government functions to improve and to open to safe navigation the great waterways of our country. the government of the united states has reserved to itself the exclusive control of all navigable inland waters, and that being so, it is, of course, incumbent upon the government to see that the people have the best possible use of them. they are important, as they furnish cheap transportation, and touch points that are often, either for economy or natural reasons, inaccessible to railway traffic. i thank you again for your interest and bid you a kindly farewell. if no ill happens to you that i do not wish, and all the good comes to you that i do wish in your behalf, your lives will be full of pleasantness and peace. [enthusiastic cheers.] pendleton, oregon, may . after leaving the dalles the presidential party encountered a sand storm. at o'clock in the afternoon they arrived at the beautiful city of pendleton and were greeted by a large crowd, including several hundred umatilla indians, led by chiefs peo and ten-a-ow-itz. chief peo made an address and said: i am glad to greet the great father. indian and white man are now one family, friendly, and i give you the hand of welcome for my people. you represent one race, i another, but we are all of one government, and between red man and white there should no longer be war. my people want only peace. in behalf of my tribe i say welcome, president. the committee of reception comprised mayor j. h. raley, judge j. a. fee, j. m. leezer, senator matlock, capt. a. l. ewing, t. c. taylor, w. d. fletcher, s. rothchild, t. f. rourke, r. alexander, lot livermore, benj. s. burroughs, h. l. marston, t. g. hailey, w. d. hansford, f. w. vincent, mrs. m. b. clopton, mrs. t. c. taylor, and mesdames fee, de spain, and fletcher. mayor raley made an address of welcome. the president replied: _my fellow-citizens_--among all the surprises that have greeted us on our journey i do not remember any that burst upon us with more suddenness than this beautiful sight that you have arranged for our welcome here. travelling for some hours through a sparsely settled region, i did not at all anticipate that so large an assemblage could be gathered here. i am glad to read in your faces a full confirmation of the mayor's words of welcome. you have a pride in the common heritage of government which our fathers organized for us. you honor the flag which floats about us here. it is pleasant to meet here, scattered over these plains of the west, so many veterans of the great civil war, men who came out of the army poor as they went into it, men who did not serve their country for reward, but out of a loving fealty to its flag and to their government; men who asked no questions about pay, but went with loyal hearts to battle, determined that the flag should be maintained in its supremacy from sea to sea; men who, returning safely from the vicissitudes of the camp and the march and from the perils of battle, have been ever since giving their brave endeavors to open this new country, to increase its prosperity, and by honorable labor to make comfortable homes for themselves and their children. i greet you to-day, comrades, with a loving heart. god grant that these later days--for years are increasing with us all--may be full of sunshine, full of the respect of your neighbors, full of prosperity, and crowned at last with the full blessing of immortality. to these little ones now enjoying the beneficent provisions which your state has made for their care and education i give the most affectionate greeting. the children of this land are the light and the life of our households. they are in the family what the blossoms are in the orchard and garden. may they appreciate the blessings they enjoy, and when they come to mature years and take up the unfinished labors of their fathers, may they hold aloft the flag which their fathers followed to battle and maintain all those things that conduce to decent and orderly communities and to the purity of the home. to these pioneers who have under discouragements and great difficulties sought these western homes and opened the way for civilization i give my greeting, and to all i give the assurance that these distant states are not forgotten by us who are, for the time, chosen to administer public office at washington. we take you all into our consideration, our confidence, and our affection. i believe there is a great community of interest that touches all our states. i believe that our legislation should be as broad as our territory, should not be for classes, but should be always in the interest of all our people. and now, thanking you for this most interesting and cordial welcome, i bid you good-by. [cheers]. le grande, oregon, may . the president had an enthusiastic reception at le grande from several thousand residents. the city was beautifully illuminated in honor of the visit. the committee of reception consisted of hon. j. h. slater, e. s. mccomas, m. f. honan, and r. e. bryan. mayor c. h. finn made the welcoming address. the president responded: _my fellow-citizens_--it is very gratifying to see this vast assembly here to-night, and i regret that our arrival was not in the daylight, that we might have a better view of this city and its surroundings, as well as of these prosperous and happy people who are assembled here to-night. we have travelled many thousands of miles on this journey, and it has been one continued succession of happy greetings. we have passed through the land of flowers, and they have strewn our pathway with them. we have come now to this north land where the flowers are not so abundant, but where the welcome and heartiness of the people is quite as manifest and quite as sincere. i rejoice to have had the opportunity to see portions of the state of oregon which i had not previously visited. your industries and products are so varied that working together, supplying the wants of different communities by the productions of each, it must be that you shall grow in population, and that the rewards of your labor shall be full and rich. but above all these material things in which you show the country the resources of your people, i rejoice that social order, education, good morals, and all those things that tend to promote the human happiness, the peace of your communities, and the glory of your state, are also here thought of and promoted. [cheers.] we are citizens of one great country, and i do not believe there is a nation in the world where there is a more perfect unification of heart and purpose than in the united states of america. i do not believe there is anywhere any people more earnestly in love with their institutions and with the flag that symbolizes them, more in love with peace and peaceful industries, and yet stronger in their defence of the truth and of the right. [cheers.] i beg again to thank your citizens of this city and of the surrounding country for this gracious and hospitable welcome. [cheers.] baker city, oregon, may . the closing event of the long day was the reception at baker city at : p.m. fifteen hundred people were present and the town was illuminated. the reception committee was mayor s. b. mccord, hon. r. s. anderson, and geo. h. tracy. joe hooker post, g. a. r., fred k. ernst, commander, was present. responding to mr. anderson's welcoming address president harrison said: _mr. mayor and fellow-citizens_--it is very pleasing, so late at night, to be greeted on our arrival here by this large audience and by these hearty cheers. we thank you very sincerely for this evidence of your friendly interest, and beg to assure you in return that not only as public officers, but as citizens with you of this great country, we are in hearty sympathy with all your pursuits and plans and hopes in this distant state. i have heard before of its beauty and the fertility and productiveness of its wheat fields and of the rich mines which are found in this vicinity. situated as you are, the great question with you must be one of transportation, one of getting the products of your field, the surplus of your agricultural products, to a market. i hope you appreciate all the advantages in this regard which the development of these pacific cities is giving. every great manufacturing establishment that is built there produces and increases population, and makes additional and nearer market for the products of your fields. i hope the day is not far distant when the completion of the nicaragua canal will make a shorter way to the atlantic seaboard states and much shorter and cheaper communication with a european market. i am glad to be assured--indeed, i do not need the assurance--that here in oregon, as in the central and eastern states, we are one people, loyal and united in the love for the flag which some of these comrades aided to be victorious in the great war, and that you are thoroughly in love with our american institutions. i am glad to assure you that, so far as i am concerned, i know no sections in this country. i desire to promote those measures which shall always be for the interests of all classes, and which shall diffuse the benefits of our institutions equally and fairly among all the states and among all our people. [cheers.] boise city, idaho, may . boise city, the capital of idaho, was reached at o'clock the morning of the th, where a stop of two hours was made. the following committee of distinguished officials and citizens received the president: his excellency gov. n. b. willey and official staff, comprising col. e. j. curtis, col. j. a. torrance, lieutenant-colonel casswell, and maj. geo. f. hinton; senator geo. l. shoup, hon. james a. pinney, mayor of boise city; r. z. johnson, president board of trade; john lemp, charles a. clark, e. r. leonard, c. w. moore, j. w. daniels, calvin cobb, a. j. glorieaux, nathan falk, peter sonna, a. r. andola, j. h. richards, hon. s. w. moody, capt. c. c. stevenson, and capt. d. w. figgins. the president was escorted to the capitol grounds by phil. sheridan post, g. a. r., d. f. baker commander, a. c. bellus, senior vice-commander, n. f. kimball, junior vice-commander. the parade was in charge of maj. h. e. noyes, of the fourth cavalry, and was one of the most creditable demonstrations witnessed on the trip. the local militia and more than , school children participated. every veteran and each scholar carried a flag, which elicited from president harrison a beautiful tribute to the national symbol. after the review governor willey and mayor pinney formally welcomed the president, who responded as follows: _my friends_--this is instructive and inspiring to us all as american citizens. it is my great pleasure to stand for a little while this morning in the political capitol of this fresh and new state. i had great satisfaction in taking an official part in admitting idaho to the union of states. i believed that it was possessed of a population and resources and capable of a development that fairly entitled her to take her place among the states of the american union. you are starting now upon a career of development which i hope and believe will be uninterrupted. your great mineral resources, now being rapidly developed, have already brought you great wealth. undoubtedly these are to continue to be a source of enrichment and prosperity to your state, but i do not forget that we must look at last for that paramount and enduring prosperity and increase which our states should have to a development of their agricultural resources. you will, of course, as you have done, carefully guard and secure your political institutions. you will organize them upon a basis of economy, and yet of liberal progress. you will take care that only so much revenue is taken from the people as is necessary to the proper public expenditure. [applause.] i am glad to see that this banner of liberty, this flag of our fathers, this flag that these--my comrades here present--defended with honor and brought home with victory from the bloody strife of the civil war, is held in honor and estimation among you. [great applause.] every man should take off his hat when the starry flag moves by. it symbolizes a free republic; it symbolizes a nation; not an aggregation of states, but one compact, solid government in all its relations to the nations of the earth. [applause.] let us always hold it in honor. i am glad to see that it floats not only over your political capitol, but over the school-houses of your state; the children should be taught in the primary schools to know its story and to love it. to these young children, entering by the beneficent and early provision of your state into the advantages of that great characteristic american institution--the common school--i give my greeting this morning. may every good attend them in life, and as the cares of life come on to take the place of the joys of childhood, god grant that, instructed in mind and heart in those things that are high and good, they may bear with honor the responsibility which you will soon lay down. to these comrades of the grand army of the republic, survivors of the great war, upon whom the years are making their impression, i do not doubt that these who stand by me have borne an honorable part among your fellow-citizens in the development of the resources of this, their adopted state. not long will we tarry; but, my comrades, the story of what you have done is undying, and i doubt not this morning that the satisfaction of having had some small part in redeeming this nation and preserving its integrity will fill your hearts with gladness, even under adverse conditions of life. a grateful nation honors you. every community should give you its respect, and i can only add to-day a comrade's greeting and a hearty god bless you all! [cheers.] pocatello, idaho, may . a great crowd, including several hundred indians, greeted the president's arrival at pocatello the night of the th. the committee of reception consisted of frederick k. walker, a. b. bean, a. f. caldwell, john s. baker, o. l. cleveland, r. j. hayes, e. c. hasey, george dash, frank ramsey, j. j. guheen, h. g. guynn, and l. a. west. a large delegation from blackfoot was represented on the committee by hon. f. w. beane, col. j. w. jones, and f. w. vogler. chairman savidge of the committee delivered the welcoming address and introduced the president, who said: _fellow-citizens_--in , that sad summer when general garfield lay so long in agony and the people suffered so long in painful suspense, i passed up the utah and northern narrow gauge railroad through this place--if it was a place then--to montana on a visit. the country through which we have passed is therefore not unfamiliar to me. i have known of its natural conditions, and i have seen its capabilities when brought under the stimulating influence of irrigation. i have had, during my term in the senate, as chairman of the committee on territories of that body, to give a good deal of attention to the condition and needs of our territories. my sympathy and interest have always gone out to those who, leaving the settled and populous parts of our country, have pushed the frontiers of civilization farther and farther to the westward until they have met the pacific ocean and the setting sun. pioneers have always been enterprising people. if they had not been they would have remained at home; they endured great hardships and perils in opening these great mines of minerals which show in your state, and in bringing into subjection these wild plains and making them blossom like gardens. to all such here i would do honor, and you should do honor, for they were heroes in the struggle for the subjugation of an untamed country to the uses of man. i am glad to see that you have here so many happy and prosperous people. i rejoice at the increase of your population, and am glad to notice that with this development in population and in material wealth you are giving attention to those social virtues--to education and those influences which sanctify the home, make social order secure, and honor and glorify the institutions of our common country. [cheers.] i am glad, not only for the sake of the white man, but of the red man, that these two extensive and useless reservations are being reduced by allotment to the indians for farms, which they are expected to cultivate and thereby to earn their own living [cheers], that the unneeded lands shall furnish homes for those who need homes. [cheers.] and now, fellow-citizens, extending to such comrades of the grand army of the republic as i see scattered about through this audience my most cordial greeting as a comrade, to these children and these ladies who share with you the privations of early life on the frontier, and to all my most cordial greeting and most sincere thanks for your kindly demonstration, i will bid you good-by. [great cheering.] salt lake city, utah, may . at pocatello the president was met by a committee representing the citizens of ogden, utah, who took this opportunity to pay their respects, it being impracticable to hold a reception in that city owing to the late hour the train passed. the ogden committee consisted of mayor w. h. turner and wife, hon. james a. miner, e. m. allison and wife, j. r. elliott, w. n. shilling and wife, capt. ransford smith, wm. h. smith, m. n. graves and wife, col. a. c. howard, rev. a. j. bailey, e. m. correl and wife, thomas bell, j. cortez and wife, w. w. funge and wife, o. e. hill and wife, john n. boyle, gilbert belnap and wife, joseph belnap, j. s. painter, maj. r. h. whipple, w. r. white, and prof. t. b. lewis. the committee appointed by governor thomas to meet and welcome the president at the state line on behalf of the territory of utah consisted of hon. e. p. ferry, of park city; h. g. whitney, o. j. salisbury, and m. k. parsons, of salt lake; lieutenant dunning, of fort douglas; and chief-justice zane, associate justice anderson, hon. c. s. varian, colonel godfrey, john e. dooly, heber m. wells, e. c. coffin, and spencer clawson. the presidential party arrived at the "city of zion" at : a.m. at o'clock they were met by governor thomas and mayor geo. m. scott at the head of the following citizens' committee of reception: secretary sells, irving a. benton, general kimball, colonel nelson, commissioner robertson, c. c. goodwin, hon. j. t. caine, r. c. chambers, fred simon, hoyt sherman, ellsworth daggett, judge blackburn, colonel lett, james hansborough, frank d. hobbs, judge miner, general connor, judge bartch, j. h. rumel, c. e. allen, arthur pratt, h. g. mcmillan, j. p. bache, judge boreman, w. h. h. spafford, a. j. pendleton, fred heath, w. l. pickard, h. pembroke, daniel wolstenholm, councilman armstrong, w. p. noble, louis cohn, w. p. lynn, l. c. karrick, e. r. clute, j. b. walden, j. m. young, sheriff burt, selectmen howe, miller, and cahoon; c. b. jack, w. h. bancroft, r. mackintosh, j. h. bennett, robert harkness, h. w. lawrence, j. b. toronto, and mesdames zane, salisbury, dooly, blunt, chambers, goodwin, james, anderson, lawrence, gaylord, simon, and bartch; miss robertson, mrs. i. a. benton, and mrs. hobbs. this committee and a large body of citizens escorted the party to the walker house, where breakfast was served. the president then headed a procession, composed of u.s. troops, state guards, g. a. r. veterans, pioneers, and many other local organizations, and was escorted to a pavilion in liberty park. governor thomas and mayor scott delivered welcoming addresses, to which president harrison responded as follows: _fellow-citizens_--the scenes which have been presented to us in this political and commercial metropolis of the territory of utah have been very full of beauty and full of hope. i have not seen in all this long journey, accompanied as it has been with every manifestation of welcome and crowned with flowers, anything that touched my heart more than that beautiful picture on one of your streets this morning when the children from the free public schools of salt lake city, waving the one banner that we all love [cheers] and singing an anthem of praise to that beneficent providence that led our worthy forefathers to land and has followed the pathway of this nation with his beneficent care until this bright hour, gave us their glad welcome. [applause and cheers.] my service in public life has been such as to call my special attention to, and to enlist my special interest in, the people of the territories. it has been a pleasant duty to welcome the dakotas, washington, montana, idaho, and wyoming into the great sisterhood of the states. i think it has not fallen to any president of the united states to receive into the union so large a number of states. the conditions that surround you in this territory are of the most hopeful character. the diversity of your productions, your mines of gold and silver, iron, lead and coal, placed in such proximity as to make the work of mining and reduction easy and economical; your well-watered valley, capable, under the skilful touch of the husbandman, of transformation from barren wastes into fruitful fields--all these lying in easy reach and intercommunication, one with the other, must make the elements of a great commercial and political community. you do not need to doubt the future. you will step forward confidently and progressively in the development of your great material wealth. the great characteristic of our american institutions--the compact of our government--is that the will of the majority, expressed by legal methods at the ballot box, shall be the supreme law of all our community. to the territories of the united states a measure of local government has always been given, but the supervisory control, the supreme legislative and executive power has been, continuously, as to the territories, held and exercised by the general government at washington. the territorial state has always been regarded as a temporary one. the general government has always looked forward to a division of its vast domain--first, the territory northwest of the ohio, then the louisiana purchase, then these accessions upon the pacific coast--into suitable sections for the establishment of free and independent states. this great work of creating states has gone forward from the ohio to the pacific, and now we may journey from maine to puget sound through established states. [cheers.] the purity of the ballot-box, the wise provisions and careful guardianship that shall always make the expression of the will of the people fair, pure and true, is the essential thing in american life. we are a people organized upon principles of liberty, but, my good countrymen, it is not license. it is liberty within and under the law. [great applause.] i have no discord, as a public officer, with men of any creed or politics if they will obey the law. my oath of office, my public duty, requires me to be against those who violate the law. the foundation of american life is the american home. that which distinguishes us from other nations whose political experience and history have been full of strife and discord is the american home, where one wife sits in single uncrowned glory. [great applause and cheers.] and now, my countrymen, i beg to assure you that every hope you have for safe running on these lines of free government, on these lines of domestic and social order, i have. for every one of you i have the most cordial greeting. god bless and keep you and guide you in the paths of social purity, order, and peace, and make you one of the great communities of the american union. [cheers.] _chamber of commerce speech._ the visitors were then taken to the new chamber of commerce, where the business men of the city greeted the chief executive. the occasion was also the formal opening of the building for business. president harrison made an address. he said: i am very glad to witness in this magnificent structure which you are opening to-day for your use an evidence of the commercial importance of the city. organizations of this character are very useful when rightly conducted, very promotive of the business prosperity of the cities in which they are established, and of the best interest of their membership. it is quite right that those who may be engaged in the rivalries of business, pushing their several lines of trade with the energy and enterprise that characterize our people, should now and then assemble and lay aside things that are personal and selfish and consider the things that affect the whole community. these organizations, as i have known them in other states, have been the council chamber in which large and liberal things have been devised for the development of the interests and prosperity of the community. i do not doubt that you will do so here; that new enterprise will be welcomed, and that the friendly business hand will be extended to those who are seeking investments. i wish you all success in this enterprise, and i hope you may grow until its membership shall embrace all of your commercial classes, and that its influence may do for your business here what the water of your mountain streams has done for the plains--make them grow longer and more productive, and at the same time expel from them those mean jealousies which sometimes divide men. [prolonged cheers.] _address to the school children._ the party visited the mormon tabernacle, which was profusely decorated with bunting and flags. on the side of the temple in large letters was the motto "fear god; honor the president." the entire city was tastefully decorated. the president reviewed the school children, about , in number. they rendered patriotic songs, and he addressed them in the following happy speech: _to the school children_--in all this joyous journey through this land of flowers and the sunny south i have seen nothing more beautiful and inspiring than this scene which burst upon us so unexpectedly. this multitude of children bearing waving banners makes a scene which can never fade from our memories. here, in these children from the free schools established and guarded by your public authorities, is the hope of utah and the country. [cheers.] i give you my thanks for a demonstration that has cheered my heart. may each of you enjoy every blessing that a free country and a more beneficent and kindly creator can bestow. [cheers.] lehi city, utah, may . the first stop after leaving the capital of utah was at lehi city, where a large sugar factory is located. the committee of reception consisted of mayor a. j. evans, bishop t. r. cutler, james harwood, and c. a. granger. the president made a brief address, saying: _my friends_--this industry which you have established here is very interesting to me. i hope it is to open the way to a time when we shall have a home supply of sugar for every household. [cheers.] provo city, utah, may . the presidential train arrived at provo--the garden city of utah--at : p.m. the greeting was a cordial one; about , school children were present. the reception committee was mayor j. e. booth, r. h. dodd, j. r. bishop, j. b. mccauslin, m. m. kellogg, w. s. myton, e. a. wilson, wm. h. king, d. d. houtz, dr. j. n. christensen, dr. h. simmons, f. f. reed, g. w. olger, and w. burlew. mayor booth introduced the president, who spoke as follows: _mr. mayor and fellow-citizens_--this is another of those bright and beautiful pictures that have been spread before our eyes on this whole journey from washington. i am glad to stop for a moment in this enterprising and prosperous city. i am glad to know that you are adding manufacturing to your agriculture, and that you are weaving some of the abundance of wool that is furnished by your flocks. it is the perfection of society, commercially, when you find immediately at your own doors a market for those things that you have to sell. you are a long way from the seaboard. the transportation companies, however fair their rates may be, must levy very heavy tolls upon your produce for taking it to the atlantic or to the pacific. it is then a pleasing thing when, instead of sending your wool to some distant city to be woven into cloth, you can do that work yourselves as you develop, bringing in these manufacturing industries whose employees consume the products of your farm and in turn give to the farmer that which he and his children have to wear. you are approaching the most independent commercial condition. when every farmer is able to sell from his own wagon everything he produces and is emancipated from transportation tolls, he is independent and prosperous. i am glad to see these dear children here coming from the free schools of your city. the public school is a most wholesome and hopeful institution. it has an assimilative power possessed by no other institution in our country. where the children of rich and poor mingle together on the play-ground and in the school-room, there is produced a unity of feeling and a popular love for public institutions that can be brought about in no other way. [cheers.] god bless and promote your public schools until every child in your territory shall be gathered into them. [cheers.] american fork, utah, may . early in the afternoon a brief stop was made at american fork, where several hundred children were marshalled under bishop george halliday (mormon) and rev. f. g. webster. the reception committee consisted of mayor george cunningham, james chipman, john j. cushing, and john f. pribyl. the president, addressing the school children, said: i want to express my interest in these dear children who have gathered here. it is very pleasant to have at all these little stations these expressions of your good-will. i rejoice to see the development which has taken place in these regions since i was here a few years ago, and i have no doubt that it will go on until all your valleys are prosperous and full of happy homes. [cheers.] springville, utah, may . as the presidential train reached castle gate, a mining town on the summit of the wahsatch mountains, the people turned out _en masse_. a salute was fired with dynamite cartridges. the president briefly thanked the people for their greeting. at springville, the last stopping-point in utah, the committee that welcomed the president consisted of don c. johnson, joseph m. westwood, h. m. dougall, r. a. deal, and anthony ethier. governor thomas introduced president harrison, who said: _my friends_--your towns in utah are very close together. i scarcely close an address at one before we are in the corporate limits of another; but i am glad to receive here this pleasant welcome. the evidence of kindliness which i read in all your faces is very reassuring and very comforting. it is delightful, i think, to those who are charged with public duties to come now and then and look into the faces of the people who have no other interest than that the government shall be well administered. [cheers.] i cannot hope, of course, to give a post office to everybody. i have endeavored in the selection of those who are to administer the functions of public office for the general government to secure good men. i have desired that everywhere they should understand that they were the servants of the people [applause], that they were to give the best public service possible, and that they were to treat everybody alike. it has been very pleasant to-day to ride through this most extraordinary valley, and to notice how productive your fields are and how genial and kindly your people are. [cheers.] i am to do whatever i can in public office to serve our people. i am glad to contribute whatever i can as a citizen to the general prosperity and to the glory and dignity of our country. [cheers.] and now one word or two to these few comrades who gather about me. they are not many, but they are entitled to honor. those who struggled in the early years to establish homes in the west, and those who in the hour of public distress and peril bared their breasts to the shaft of battle that the nation might live, are worthy of the highest regard. [cheers.] you have entered into the heritage which they bought and preserved. may you, with as true, loyal hearts as they, preserve and hand down to your children these institutions. [cheers.] glenwood springs, colorado, may . at an early hour sunday morning, may , the presidential party arrived at glenwood springs, where they were met by the governor of colorado, hon. j. l. routt, chief-justice j. c. helm, hon. n. p. hill, ex-senator h. a. w. tabor, and congressman townsend, from denver. at o'clock the hon. j. l. hodges, mayor of the city, with judge g. d. thayer, l. schwarz, c. w. darrow, j. h. fesler, f. mager, and m. w. mather, escorted the party to the hotel glenwood, where they passed the day. the president and postmaster-general wanamaker attended divine services at the presbyterian church. the pastor, rev. w. s. rudolph, was assisted by rev. a. e. armstrong, of leadville, and rev. l. n. haskell, of denver, chaplain of the state senate. the city was filled with thousands of visitors from aspen and other neighboring mining towns and camps until over , people were gathered--notwithstanding it was the sabbath--to greet the chief magistrate of the nation. when the president returned from witnessing several members of his party enjoy a dip in the mammoth pool he was met by mayor hodges at the head of the following reception committee of prominent citizens: joseph love, a. w. dennis, reed burritt, f. c. ewing, f. s. dart, f. c. sohram, h. c. eaton, j. r. de remer, alex. anderson, a. w. dennis, miles standish, j. l. hays, w. h. hallett, h. r. kamm, j. t. mclean, w. h. bradt, j. r. wallingford, j. g. pease, paul blount, j. h. campbell, c. b. ellis, b. t. napier, thomas kendrick, e. t. wolverton, fred korupkat, c. a. lee, dr. g. h. moulton, m. v. b. blood, james leach, p. f. carr, george edinger, w. h. spear, joseph enzensperger, c. m. keck, j. w. beaman, j. m. stevens, r. o. hoover, e. schuster, j. w. ross, william chrisman, g. h. ferris, f. a. enoch, frank lindsley, frank kaiser, j. a. i. claudon, f. a. barlow, ed. b. everett, n. falk, h. c. bunte, h. w. ennen, william dougan, dr. l. g. clark, james anderson, chris. beck, j. s. swan, h. j. holmes, james coughlin, s. h. wood, john miller, n. s. henderson, j. m. durand, jr., matt. carroll, john lynch, w. h. trumbor, s. w. nott, b. hopkins, william houston, c. v. noble, c. m. kiggins, dr. e. a. bryant, j. n. bishop, william denning, a. miller, j. h. connor, c. h. belding, william dinkle, c. l. todd, george yule, c. a. hahn, h. h. gates, james soister, c. c. hendrie, p. r. morris, j. l. noonan, fred l. walthers, t. w. thomas, c. c. parks, j. t. shumate, wm. gelder, m. j. bartley, a. e. bartlett, john mcreavy, w. s. parkinson, frank dallis, e. h. watson, j. h. bixby, jake kline, m. m. cantrell, j. h. pierce, c. c. streeter, e. t. taylor, john eitel, p. c. coryell, frank mason, fred korn, w. h. richardson, h. c. babize, george bennett, frank lyle, j. f. myser, r. stees, j. w. ritter, r. p. mallaby, w. de long, l. f. grace, ed. meachem, andrew anderson, joe keating, w. h. sikes, w. l. willoughby, t. r. williams, j. w. dollison, alex. voorhees, theo. rosenberg, h. t. sale, s. j. de lan, william cardnell, g. b. garrison, r. m. hedden, p. h. fitzpatrick, c. w. durand, kellie cookson, albert gerstle, f. p. monroe, william shaw, c. j. feist, e. e. knight, george phillips, ed. s. hughes, d. w. smart, p. g. foote, w. t. beans, c. poole, j. h. mager, w. j. brennan, murdo mcleod, j. e. chaney, a. w. maxfield, william smith, a. m. stevenson, c. b. brown, m. n. edwards, and harry van sickle. the mayor made the welcoming address and presented the president with a solid silver plate, superbly engraved with the coat-of-arms of colorado. president harrison replied: _mr. mayor and fellow-citizens_--in arranging the programme of this trip, and desiring to find one day in the seven for rest, we selected this spot because of its fame throughout the east as one of delightful location and natural attractions. i am glad this selection was made. it has given me much pleasure--the beauty of your surroundings and especially the picturesque attractiveness and magnificence of the scenery. the city which you are launching forth upon the tide of usefulness and prosperity will grow in fame. i thank you most cordially for this souvenir, and i leave with you my most earnest hope for the prosperity of the city. senator tabor introduced a delegation from aspen representing , miners from that famous camp. col. e. f. browne then presented a most unique souvenir--a silver card bearing mottoes worked in native wire silver. in accepting this rare token the president said: this is one of the most beautiful of all the souvenirs that have been presented me on this trip. i wish to say to you that i do not regard your visit as an intrusion. i will not undertake to dilate upon the fatigue of this trip. i have been leaning over the hind rail of the train for a long time, and i came to glenwood springs tired. i wish to remain quiet, not from any puritanical notion of the sabbath, and i hope none of you will feel that way. it is not because i don't want to see you. it is the contrary, i assure you, and i regret my inability to give you all a public reception. i have for aspen and her people the kindest wishes. as for the state of colorado, it will grow more vigorous and richer in all that makes an american commonwealth. in common with western states, colorado has had the pick of the people of the eastern states. it seems to me as though her citizens had passed competitive examination for push and enterprise, and only the worthless were turned back at the ferry. i thank you for your liberality. charles r. bell, of aspen, state president patriotic order sons of america, presented the president with an address. in the afternoon president harrison and mr. wanamaker attended union services and children's mass-meeting at durand's hall. rev. h. m. law presided, but mayor hodges introduced the president, who said: _mr. mayor, fellow-citizens and children_--our stop at glenwood springs was, as you all know, intended to be for rest; and yet i have not felt that i could deny myself to this large body of friends assembled from the homes of this city, and, perhaps, to an even larger body of friends who have come from some of the neighboring towns to pay their respects and testify their good-will. the trip we have been making has been a prolonged one, and it has been a continued experience of speech-making and hand-shaking. the physical labor has been very great, and i think if one had been called upon to do the same amount of work without the stimulus and inspiration which have come from the happy faces and kind hearts of the people who have greeted us, almost any man would have given out. certainly i would had i not been borne up and helped by the wonderful kindness of our people. i have been intensely interested in what i have seen. it has testified to me of the unity of the people east and west. out here you take on some peculiarities as we do in indiana, but underneath these peculiarities there is the same true american grit and spirit. [applause.] it is not wonderful that this should be so. it is not a mere likeness between different people, because you are precisely the same people that i have known in the central and eastern states. everywhere i have gone i have seen hoosiers; everywhere mr. wanamaker has gone he has seen pennsylvanians; everywhere general rusk has gone wisconsin hands have been reached up to him. these new states have been filled up by the enterprising and pushing young men of the older states. they have set out to find here greater advantages, more rapid pathways to wealth and competence. many of them have found it, many of them are still perhaps in the hard struggle of life; but to you all, to every man, whether he is mine-owner or handles the pick, i bring you my warmest sympathy and my most sincere thanks for your friendly greeting. [applause.] our government was instituted by wise men--men of broad views. it was based upon the idea of the equal rights of men. it absolutely rejects the idea of class distinction and insists that men should be judged by their behavior. that is a good rule; those who are law-abiding and well-disposed, those who pursue their vocations lawfully and with due respect to the rights of others, are the true american citizens. i am glad to know that the love of our institutions is so deeply imbedded in your hearts. it has been a most delightful and cheering thing to see that the starry banner, the same old flag that some of you carried amid the smoke of battle, the rattle of musketry, booming of cannon, and the dying of men, is in the hands of such children. [applause.] some of the prettiest as well as some of the most hopeful sights we have looked upon have been these companies of children gathered on the streets or hill-sides waving this banner. the american institutions deserve our watchful care. all our communities should be careful in the beginning to establish law and maintain it. it is very difficult when lawlessness once obtains the upper hand to put it down. it is very easy to keep it out of any community if the well-disposed, true-hearted people will sink all their differences, religious and political, and stand together as citizens for the good of their municipalities. [applause.] i want to thank the children who have gathered for this sabbath-day's observance. i have had a life that has been full of labor. from my early manhood until this hour my time has had many demands upon it. i have been under the pressure of the practice of my profession. i have been under the pressure of political campaigns and of public office, and yet in all these pursuits, and under all these conditions, i have found, simply as a physical question, without reference to its religious aspects at all, that i could do more by working six days than seven. i think you will all find it so, and that as a civil institution rest on the sabbath day is good for man. it is not only good, but it is the right of the workingman. men should have one free day in which to think of their families, of themselves, of things that are not material, but are spiritual. [applause.] i desire to express from a sincere and earnest heart my thanks to you all for all your kindness, giving you in return simply the pledge that i will in all things keep in mind what seems to me to be the true interests of our people. i have no thought of sections, i have no thought upon any of the great public questions that does not embrace the rights and interests of all our people and all our states. i believe we shall find a common interest and safe ground upon all the great questions, and by moderating our own views and making reasonable and just concessions we shall find them all settled wisely and in the true interest of the people. [applause.] leadville, colorado, may . leadville, the cloud city, was reached at : a.m. monday. ten thousand citizens greeted the chief magistrate at this greatest of silver camps. the following delegation met the presidential party at glenwood and escorted them to leadville: his honor mayor john e. foutz, hon. h. i. higgins, w. arens, john harvey, a. sherwin, a. v. hunter, s. f. maltby, john ewing, john williams, w. f. patrick, h. c. burnett, rev. a. e. armstrong, mrs. foutz, mrs. hunter, mrs. morgan h. williams, and mrs. e. forbes. the ladies of this committee presented mrs. harrison with numerous beautiful silver souvenirs. chairman higgins and the following members of the reception committee escorted the party to the hotel kitchen: mrs. w. f. patrick, w. w. old, mrs. j. y. oliver, a. a. blow, mrs. h. w. hardinge, charles cavender, rev. e. s. ralston, b. s. buell, samuel brown, a. sherwin, robert estey, h. r. pendery, charles l. hill, j. s. jones, robert cary, geo. w. trimble, c. p. schumacher, j. s. saunders, john harvey, j. h. weddle, john nowland, w. f. patrick, hon. wm. kellogg, frank g. white, john f. champion, james smith, moses londoner, j. j. m. mcrobbie, maj. a. v. bohn, and john lumsden. the veterans of garfield post, g. a. r., composed the guard of honor. judge luther m. goddard made the welcoming address, and in the name of the city presented the distinguished visitor a silver brick. the president responded as follows: _mr. mayor and fellow-citizens_--this rare, pure atmosphere, this bright sunshine, the national colors, this multitude of lifted, smiling faces to greet us is a scene that should raise the dullest heart to emotions of thankfulness and pride--pride wholly separated from personal considerations, a pride in which everything personal is swallowed up by the contemplation that all this is the outcome, the manifestation, the culmination of free american institutions. [cheers.] we stand here on this mountain-top and see what i think is the highest evidence of american pluck to be found in the united states. [laughter and applause.] i have addressed my fellow-citizens on many thousands of occasions, but never before stood so near the dome. [cheers.] it is a wonderful testimony to the energy and adaptation of the american that he should have pushed his way to this high altitude, above the snow-line, and erected here these magnificent and extensive industries and these beautiful and happy homes. i rejoice with you in all that has been accomplished here. i bring thanks to you for that great contribution you have made to the wealth of a country we all love. [cheers.] i bring to you the assurance that as an individual citizen and as a public officer my interest, my affection, and my duty embrace all the people of this land. [cries of "good!" and cheers.] i am glad to know we have in the past history of our country found that happy unity of interest which has acted beneficially upon all our institutions and all our people. with due regard to all local interests, we should seek that general legislation which touches with kindly fingers the humblest homes in our land. i do most sincerely thank you for this token of the product of your mines. it is a precious metal, but much more precious to me is the kindly thought and the generous welcome which you have given us in leadville. [cheers.] my lungs are unaccustomed to this rare and stimulating atmosphere, and you will permit me to close by giving you all, to the men who, deep down in these mines, are toilsomely working out the precious metal, to those who welcome you in your homes when you return from your toil, the wives and children who add grace and sweetness to our lives, to these children who have gathered to greet us, a most cordial salutation and a regretful good-by. [cheers.] buena vista, colorado, may . buena vista gave the president a cordial greeting. the committee of reception included mayor mason, hon. a. r. kenedy, capt. a. v. p. day, a. h. wade, col. henry logan, j. c. stuart, and a. c. bottorff. phil. sheridan post, g. a. r., col. g. d. childs commander, participated in the reception. dr. struthers and w. w. fay presented the president with three fine trout caught in thompson's lake, and weighing six pounds each. president harrison said: _my friends_--i am very glad to see your bright and kind faces this morning, and to tarry for a few moments, just long enough to say "how do you do?" and "good-by." it is very pleasant to find everywhere and at every station the same friendly looks and the same kindly greeting. i am glad to have an opportunity that i have not previously had of seeing the state of colorado, great in her present condition and having a greater future development than perhaps you yourselves realize. this combination of agricultural and mining industries can work but good for the high development of colorado. your cattle and your sheep and your mines and your agriculture in your valleys all produce that ideal condition of things in which you find a nearer market for what you raise. i hope the time will come when in addition to smelting furnaces in your mines you will learn to weave the wool from your sheep in place of sending it abroad to be made into clothing. the more you can develop these things and do your own work the more prosperous will be your condition. these dear children have cheered me heartily all the way on this journey. the public schools are worthy of your most thoughtful care. it is there that the children meet on a common ground. it is there class distinctions are wiped out. it is the great american institution. you have well named your little hamlet buena vista. [cheers.] salida, colorado, may . three thousand people from the surrounding district welcomed the president at salida. the reception committee consisted of mayor john g. hollenbeck, j. h. stead, s. m. jackson, w. w. roller, j. a. israel, e. b. jones, and w. p. harbottle. stanton post, g. a. r., w. g. westfall commander, and the children of the public schools were present. miss clara ayers, on behalf of the public schools, presented mrs. harrison with a handsome portfolio of colorado wild flowers prepared by mrs. e. p. chester. dr. durbin, on behalf of the citizens of villa grove, presented a fine collection of mineral specimens. president harrison spoke as follows: i have looked with great interest, in passing through these mountain gorges, at the enterprise of the people who have constructed intersecting lines of railroad upon these difficult grades and through threatening cañons. it has not been many days since such feats of engineering would have been regarded as impossible, and yet now railroads have touched the highest points, have gone above the snow line, have reached elevated mines, and brought isolated valleys into rapid and easy communication with the more settled parts of the country. it has given me great pleasure to look upon the beautiful valley in which the town of salida is situated, and which will undoubtedly be capable of large agricultural production when a system of irrigation is completed. it might be desirable to the people of indiana and illinois and other agricultural states if colorado had to buy her wheat and corn from them, but our larger interest makes it desirable that every community should supply its own wants. i anticipate with pleasure the day when these mountain states will not be content with mining, but shall add agricultural pursuits and manufacturing, and when the wool which is sheared from the flocks will be woven at home. [cheers.] it is a pleasant condition of things when all classes are prosperous, when the workingman has fair wages that leave him some margin above his daily necessities. i should lose hope for our institutions when there should be despairing classes among us. an american citizen could not be a good citizen who did not have hope in his heart. every boy, however humble, can pass through our public schools and climb to any position of usefulness and honor he has the ability to attain. there have been marvellous instances of what courage and pluck and intelligence may do in this way. to the children i give a cordial greeting. they have been a happy feature of almost every gathering in the journey. i hope they may all receive that attention which will make them men and women of intelligence, and capable of taking a full share in all these good things in the community and in the state, for which they are to be responsible. [cheers.] caÃ�on city, colorado, may . leaving salida the route lay through a stretch of country unsurpassed in grandeur. the train made a short stop on the hanging bridge over the arkansas river in the grand cañon. emerging through the royal gorge the party reached cañon city at p.m. amid the cheers of its entire population, including school children. mayor j. m. bradbury, t. m. harding, a. d. cooper, and warden w. a. smith were among the prominent residents who welcomed the president; also, greenwood post, g. a. r., dr. j. l. prentiss, commander. president harrison spoke as follows: _comrades and fellow-citizens_--it gives me great pleasure to see you and accept with a thankful heart those cordial greetings with which you have met us. i have been talking so much since i left washington that i really am almost talked out; and yet, until i shall have altogether lost my voice, of which there does not seem to be any prospect, i cannot refrain from saying thank you to those friends who greet us with such affectionate interest. we do appreciate it very highly. but i do not at all assume it is merely your interest in me. it is, i am sure, your interest in the country, in its constitution, and in its flag--the flag for which these comrades fought, which they carried through the stress of battle and brought home in honor. it is our free institutions, our free ballot, our representative government, that you all honor in coming here to-day. it is very surprising and very pleasant to drop down out of these snow-clad summits and to have passed into our hands in the valley, branches of peach and pear and bouquets of flowers, the first fruits of spring--a spring more genial here than it seemed at leadville this morning. [applause.] i am very glad to have revealed to me the possibilities of this country, and to see how, under the system of irrigation, that which seemed to be a waste--accursed of god--comes to be a very garden of eden in beauty and productiveness. i hope you have not only the fruits and flowers of paradise, but that you have in your homes that state of peace and blessedness which prevailed before our first mother took the apple. [applause.] to these comrades i want to give a comrade's greeting. i know of no higher honor in this world than to be called "comrade" by the survivors of those who saved the union, [applause.] florence, colorado, may . the next stop was at florence, in the oil district, whose citizens gave the president a most cordial greeting. the reception committee comprised mayor isaac canfield, senator j. a. mccandless, j. f. collins, j. h. mcdaniel, thomas robinson, thomas e. spencer, richard mcdonald, w. j. daniels, and joseph patterson. an enthusiastic citizen proposed three cheers "for the first president who has thought enough of us to come and see us." they were given with a will, and the president responded as follows: _my fellow citizens_--i am very much obliged to you for this greeting. i expect there have been other presidents who thought of you, though they have not visited you. this has been a very pleasant and instructive journey to me. i thought i had kept myself reasonably well informed of the capabilities of this country and of its productions, but i am amazed to find how things are put together. we come out of the snow where everything is barren and where labor is under ground, where the precious metals are being extracted, and there is nothing pleasant in the landscape except the snow covered mountains, and presently we are into a land of fruit, and have handed up to us great branches laden with well-set peach and pear, and are showered again, as we were in california, with the flowers of the early spring, and now, to my surprise, we seem to be in the oil region of pennsylvania. these numerous derricks and oil lodes remind us of things about oil city. until i saw them i was not aware that you had here in colorado oil production. it shows us how impartial, after all, the great creator has been. he has given us everywhere possibilities which, if well improved, will make comfortable, happy homes. you have the metals, precious and common, and the coal that is needed for the smelter; oil to light your homes and lubricate your machinery, and these orchards and beautiful valleys, all in the right proximity. no man could have improved upon it. [applause.] our government intends to have a careful and impartial consideration of all its people. we do not recognize classes or distinctions. we want everybody to be prosperous and happy, especially the working people. [cheers.] i do not know how our institutions could endure unless we so conduct our public affairs and society that every man who is sober and industrious shall be able to make a good, comfortable living and lay something aside for old age or for evil days; to have hope in his heart and better prospects for his children. that is the strength of american institutions. whatever promotes that i want to favor. whatever tends to pauperize our people or impair the earning power of the laboring class i do not favor. [cheers.] pueblo, colorado, may . an artillery salute welcomed the party to pueblo at : p.m. mayor w. b. hamilton, col. m. h. fitch, d. w. barkley, hon. i. w. stanton, a. mcclelland, and o. h. p. baxter comprised the committee that escorted the president from glenwood springs. arrived at the station the chief executive was conveyed to the court house square by the following committee of reception: e. c. lyman, paul wilson, benjamin guggenheim, d. l. holden, e. r. chew, fred betts, n. o. mcclees, w. a. moses, f. e. baldwin, a. s. dwight, j. r. flickenger, r. m. stevenson, w. b. mckinney, john lockin, e. c. billings, a. f. ely, w. b. palmer, j. s. johnston, n. e. guyot, m. studzinski, g. t. nash, j. w. purdy, p. f. sharp, s. a. abbey, e. h. martin, n. s. walpole, t. j. cribbs, j. g. keller, and c. c. gaines. upton post, g. a. r., c. j. long commander, and many other organizations participated in the parade. at the court house square , children greeted the president, who was introduced by dr. william a. olmsted and said: _children of the public schools and others_--i am glad to meet such an immense number here, and i can't allow this opportunity to pass without expressing to you my thanks for this whole-souled reception. it moves my heart to say that from your appearances you are well taught, not only in manners but in your intellectual pursuits; your bright, ruddy faces show health, and as you are living in this healthful place it speaks marvels for pueblo. the country need fear no attack from foreign foes when such an army as you'll some day make would be called into action. you have your destiny all before you, and no one can tell but that some of these boys may be a president and these beautiful girls advise those who are born to fill high places in the government. children, i am pleased to see you, and will hold in dear remembrance this, my first visit to pueblo--a city full of american genius and enterprise, which will hold its own and keep on apace with that progress characteristic of americans. god bless you all. [cheers.] as mrs. harrison's carriage drew up the school children presented her with a handsome painting--the "colorado columbine." the president then visited the colorado mineral palace, where president l. s. mclain and secretary livezey of the exposition presented him with specimens of rich ore. colonel stanton made the welcoming address and introduced president harrison to the great assemblage, who responded as follows: _mr. mayor and fellow-citizens_--the brief time which we are able in this hasty journey to allot to the city of pueblo has now almost expired. it has given me pleasure to drive through the streets of this prosperous and enterprising municipality and to see that you are concentrating great business interests which must in the future make you a very important centre in this great state. you have in this state a variety of resources unexcelled, i think, by any other state. your attention was very naturally first directed toward the precious metals, to the mining of gold and silver. the commoner ores were neglected. your cities were mining camps. nowhere in all our history has the american capacity for civil organization been so perfectly demonstrated as in the mining camps of the west. coming here entirely beyond the range of civil institutions, where courts, sheriffs, and police officers could not give a hand to suppress the unruly at a time when our mining laws were unframed, these pioneer miners of california, colorado, nevada, montana, and idaho wrought out for themselves in their mining camps a system of government and mining laws that have received the approval of the state. [cheers.] it was quite natural that interest should have been first directed toward the precious metals. you are coming to realize that the baser metals, as we call them, with which your great hills are stored are of great and more lasting value. [cheers.] we passed this morning through a region where i was surprised to see orchards that reminded me of california. now for all these things, for the beneficent influence under which you live, for that good law that has distributed this public domain freely to every man who desires to make a home for himself and family, for this free government that extends its protection over the humblest as well as the mighty, for all these resources of sky and air and earth, the people of colorado should be joyously thankful. [cheers.] i am glad to hail you as fellow-citizens. i am glad for a moment to stand in the midst of you, to see your great capabilities, and to assure you that my best wishes are with you in the development of them all. [cheers] i am glad to know that colorado, this young centennial state, has established a system of free public schools unexcelled by any state in the union [cheers.] but, my friends, as i said once before, i am in slavery to a railroad schedule, and time is up good-by. [cheers.] colorado springs, colorado, may . the presidential party arrived at colorado springs at o'clock in the evening and received the heartiest kind of a welcome. they were met at the station by the hon. ira g. sprague, mayor of the city, at the head of a large committee of reception, comprising the following prominent citizens: judge john campbell, j. f. seldomridge, j. h. barlow, irving howbert, j. w. stillman, w. s. jackson, b. f. crowell, col. geo. de la vergne, hon. w. f. slocum, j. a. hayes, jr., e. barnett, geo. h. stewart, g. s. barnes, w. a. conant, w. l. weed, h. c. mccreery, e. w. davis, d. heron, w. r. roby, c. h. white, c. e. noble, b. w. steele, l. h. gowdy, j. h. b. mcferran, d. m. holden, w. s. nichols, dr. t. g. horn, dr. w. a. campbell, thomas hughes, j. p. barnes, w. a. roby, dr. b. p. anderson, judge j. b. severy, t. a. mcmorris, f. l. martin, j. m. sellers, h. h. stevens, j. a. weir, geo. w. thorne, j. j. hagerman, h. c. lowe, l. r. ehrich, j. f. pebbles, charles thurlow, a. van vechten, e. s. wooley, j. m. ellison, c. c. hoyt, dr. w. m. strickler, dr. j. p. grannis, dr. s. e. solly, judge william harrison, w. h. reed, geo. f. whitney, e. a. colburn, w. r. barnes, charles w. collins, n. o. johnson, e. w. giddings, p. c. helm, c. e. durkee, w. c. stark, matt wilbur, c. e. stubbs, h. c. fursman, j. h. sinclair, l. p. lowe, j. c. woodbury, w. h. tilton, l. a. pease, thomas barber, david mcshane, h. a. fuller, w. a. perkins, fred robinson, geo. b. perry, count james pourtales, w. b. faunce, e. m. stedman, m. w. everleth, dr. o. gillette, a. a. mcgooney, e. j. eaton, matt france, henry l. b. wills, h. s. ervay, c. j. reynolds, frank white, w. f. anderson, thomas parrish, p. a. mccurdy, c. b. crowell, w. a. otis, j. n. bolton, h. a. ferugson, h. collbran, geo. p. riplet, h. g. lunt, t. h. edsall, a. l. lawton, w. h. d. merrill, k. h. field, dr. h. t. cooper, a. j. denton, h. i. reid, c. w. howbert, w. h. hoagland, j. w. d. stovell, s. h. kingsley, f. a. mangold, dr. t. c. kirkwood, godfrey kissell, thomas gough, v. z. reed, h. s. van petten, t. s. brigham, o. p. hopkins, d. c. dudley, e. r. stark, a. s. holbrook, milo rowell, charles walker, prof. j. e. ray, w. s. nichols, thomas shideler, leonard jackson, l. c. dana, l. e. sherman, samuel bradford, william clark, f. e. dow, geo. p. vaux, i. j. woodworth, a. a. williams, w. d. belden, w. h. goshen, d. a. russell, c. l. gillingham, c. e. aiken, dr. g. w. lawrence, geo. h. parsons, jehu fields, edward ferris, e. f. clark, a. sutton, phil strubel, f. a. sperry, p. k. pattison, l. h. gilbert, prof. wm. strieby, theo. harrison, f. h. morley, e. t. ensign, wm. lennox, w. h. mcintyre, j. e. newton, john hundley, dr. f. hale, john lennox, wm. bischoff, n. j. davis, j. l. clinton, j. d. o'haire, dr. b. st. g. tucker, e. s. josleyn, seth baker, joseph dozier, o. roberts, j. e. ray, j. plumb, h. hall, dr. m. s. smith, w. h. sanford, lawrence myers, s. n. nye, john potter, c. h. burgess, l. g. goodspeed, j. sumner, e. f. rudy, maj. o. remick, e. s. bumstead, g. c. hemenway, john simmons, h. halthusen, william banning, reuben berrey, a. h. corman, f. d. pastorious, j. l. armit, judson bent, rev. james b. gregg, rev. a. r. kieffer, rev. r. montague, rev. h. h. bell, rev. j. p. lucas, rev. m. d. ormes, rev. h. e. warner, and rev. m. carrington. the g. a. r. veterans comprised the presidential guard of honor during the parade through the city. civic organizations from manitou, colorado city, colfax, and koener participated in the demonstration, which was very fine and received the special commendation of president harrison. after the parade the garfield school was visited, and the president addressed the scholars as follows: you have very appropriately named this school in which you have gathered a portion of the children of colorado springs for instruction--garfield. i understand another of your public schools is named after abraham lincoln. that, too, is a most appropriate designation; for where, in all the story of our country, among its men who have been illustrious in civil pursuits or in war, can two names be found which furnish more inspiration and hope to the youth of the land than the names of lincoln and garfield? [applause.] both men came of parentage so poor that no advantages attended their early years, and yet each by his own indomitable will, by the persevering improvement of the meagre opportunities they enjoyed, reached the highest place in our land, and are to-day embalmed in the affectionate recollection of their countrymen. i bid you all to read the lessons of these great lives, and to ponder them well, for while not all may achieve all they achieved, useful and honorable position may be achieved by you all. wishing you every prosperity and success, i bid you good-by. [cheers.] at night the city was brilliantly illuminated. a public reception was held at the hotel antlers. the president and his party were assisted by governor and mrs. routt and the citizens' committee. the welcoming ceremonies took place before a great assemblage; mayor sprague made the address. the president, responding, said: _mr. mayor and fellow-citizens_--i am sure you will crown the kindness which you have shown me to-day by permitting me to make my response to these words of welcome exceedingly brief. i have spoken four or five times to-day, and the chill of the evening will not allow me to exercise my voice with the accustomed immunity, but i cannot refrain from saying to you how much we have been pleased by the hasty glimpse we have been permitted to get of this beautiful city. the fame of colorado springs has spread throughout the entire east. i heard much of the beauty of its location, the grandeur and sublimity of these mountains that stand about bulwarked, as it is, like jerusalem of old; of the health-giving atmosphere that fills this valley, of the marvellous springs, refreshing and life giving, which break out from your mountain sides; of these marvellous and weird products of time that stand in the garden of the gods--of all this i had heard. but, my countrymen, no spring that ever broke from mountain side, no bracing air that ever filled these valleys, was more refreshing and invigorating to the invalid or to the weary than your hearty greeting has been to us. [cheers.] i visit your great state for the first time. when this journey has been completed only two of the states of the union, and only its most distant territory, will have escaped my personal inspection and observation. from maine to california, from the northern line of michigan, where it is washed by the waters of the sault ste. marie, to the savannah, i have traversed this broad land of ours, and out of all this journeying, out of all this mingling with our people, i have come to be a prouder and, i hope, a better american. we have a country whose diversity of climate, soil, and production makes it, in a degree not true of other people in the world, independent and self-contained. none of the necessaries of life, and few of its luxuries, would be denied to us if we were to limit ourselves to articles of american growth and production. [cheers.] but better than all this, greater than our bulk, are those things that enter into and characterize the american social and political life. a distinguished englishman journeying in this country not many years ago, speaking of his observations, rather caustically mentioned that the question most often propounded to him was whether he was not surprised by the great size of the country. he was a man of discernment, one who looked beneath the surface, who had learned to measure the mighty impulses which turn the current of human civilization, and rebuking this pride of bulk he said: yes, it was a surprise, but greater still to him was the surprise that over , , people could maintain and preserve under free republican institutions the social order and individual liberty which was maintained here; greater to him than bulk was the marvel that this great people could have survived and maintained its institutions under the terrible stress of the great civil war; greater than all else to him was that unification of the people which seemed to follow that period of deadly strife. i rejoice to be with you to-night as an american citizen. i rejoice in the glory which the centennial state has brought to the union, and which will greatly increase. [cheers.] denver, colorado, may . on his arrival at denver, at : tuesday morning, president harrison received an ovation. the tribute was a spontaneous, hearty one, emphasized by the acclaim of , people. governor routt, ex-senator tabor, ex-senator hill, and other distinguished citizens escorted the presidential party from glenwood springs. the chief executive was met at the union depot by the hon. platt rogers, mayor of the city, and prominent residents, comprising the committee of reception, as follows: d. h. moffat, i. b. porter, c. e. taylor, wolfe londoner, j. e. leet, professor haswell, s. h. standart, w. s. cheesman, james leonard, w. d. todd, adolph zang, phil. bockfinger, t. m. patterson, c. s. thomas, j. m. berkey, m. j. mcnamara, c. h. reynolds, j. d. mcgilvray, h. n. chittenden, j. a. thatcher, j. s. wolfe, dr. l. e. lemen, edward eddy, dr. stedman, e. r. barton, d. sheedy, h. b. chamberlin, george tritch, james rice, victor elliott, e. monash, thomas e. poole, w. j. barker, j. t. cornforth, j. k. mullen, e. b. light, fine p. ernest, colonel dodge, donald fletcher, w. g. fisher, a. c. fisk, m. hallett, f. a. meredith, charles b. kountz, i. e. blake, dr. dennison, w. h. james, c. m. kittredge, joseph h. smith, william stapleton, j. c. helm, s. t. smith, p. j. flynn, isaac brinker, judge rising, frank bishop, supervisor anderson, j. w. roberts, herman strauss, j. h. brown, a. b. mckinley, w. j. barker, h. p. steele, lafe pence, george f. batchelder, rev. j. m. freeman, john arkins, ex-governor grant, j. m. lawrence, j. j. joslin, f. j. v. skiff, w. s. decker, john corcoran, w. b. felker, f. b. hill, j. d. best, john riethmann, thomas hayden, anthony sweeney, ex-governor cooper, charles d. cobb, john evans, william scott lee, peter magnes, dr. bancroft, e. f. hallack, r. h. mcmann, s. l. holzman, h. r. wolcott, j. s. brown, m. b. carpenter, joseph cresswell, r. w. woodbury, e. m. ashley, j. s. appel, e. l. scholtz, dennis sullivan, samuel elbert, g. w. clayton, j. c. montgomery, g. c. de bronkart, louis mack, c. s. morey, george e. randolph, william barth, t. s. mcmurray, j. e. bates, c. f. wilson, rev. myron w. reed, dr. graham, j. l. mcneill, w. h. bush, g. g. symes, rodney curtis, j. w. nesmith, o. e. le fevre, judge furman, h. j. adams, j. c. twombly, judge graham, f. rinne, supervisor slack, gen. w. a. hamill, h. p. parmelee, general dunn, j. h. poole, george raymond, j. w. hampton, henri foster, w. c. lothrop, james h. blood, e. w. merritt, wm. harris, general humphrey, daniel ryan, r. s. roe, r. w. speer, c. s. lee, jos. milner, j. a. mcdonald, judge bentley, m. currigan, m. d. van horn, fred walsen, dr. h. k. steele, assyria hall, a. p. rittenhouse, richard sopris, f. c. goudy, c. h. hackley, isaac n. stevens, thomas croke, j. p. ewing, george c. manly, j. t. adams, george ady, d. w. hart, judge alvin marsh, c. d. titus, supervisor chase, otto mears, h. solomon, d. f. carmichael, amos steck, e. s. chapman, w. b. hanscome, r. a. gurley, c. h. sage, rev. dr. tupper, henry apple, herbert george, w. h. firth, egbert johnson, f. e. edbrooke, s. k. hooper, thos. g. anderson, a. d. shepard, j. s. mcgilvray, e. l. fox, d. c. packard, o. whittemore, david may, ralph voorhees, senator cochrane, j. m. daily, col. c. j. clark, h. l. morris, rev. father malone, dr. blickensderfer, j. m. downing, c. m. hampson, thomas nicholas, judge miller, jerome riche, j. d. mcgilvray, w. h. milburn, f. h. kreuger, l. h. guldman, w. n. byers, william m. bliss, george h. graham, lewis price, jay cook, jr., c. s. prowitt, s. c. shepard, o. carstarphen, captain j. t. smith, and hugh butler. the parade was an imposing and brilliant spectacle, in charge of chief marshal a. h. jones, assisted by gen. e. k. stimson, chief of staff, and the following aides: john c. kennedy, adjutant-general of colorado; benjamin f. klee, e. j. brooke, w. h. conley, john a. mcbeth, w. y. sedam, n. g. dunn, george ady, thomas r. scott, john corcoran, b. a. harbour, thomas baldwin, g. g. symes, s. a. shepard, and robert r. wright. over , g. a. r. comrades were in line, led by george w. cook, and several hundred sons of veterans, commanded by col. c. h. anderson. the president's carriage, drawn by six white horses, was escorted by lieut. col. a. w. hogle and staff. countless thousands thronged the streets along the route of the procession. as the column passed the high school , scholars and children gave the president and mrs. harrison an enthusiastic greeting. a vast assemblage awaited the president's arrival at the reviewing stand, where he was met by the colorado pioneers, led by maj. william wise. governor routt delivered an eloquent address of welcome, followed by mayor rogers, who portrayed the triumphant struggle and growth of denver. president harrison responded as follows: _governor routt, mr. mayor, pioneers of colorado, comrades of the grand army_ [cheers] _and fellow-citizens_--this scene is inspiring. this beautiful city, the fame of which your journeying citizens have not failed to carry to the far east [laughter and cheers], has become known to me as we can know by the hearing of the ear; and i am rejoiced to add to my pleasant impressions of colorado, and of its commercial and political capital, that which is in sight of the eye, which has but deepened and enlarged the favorable impressions which i brought to your state. it is a marvellous thing that all we see here is in a state whose existence dates from the dawn of the second century of our national life. what a tremendous testimony to the organizing power and energy of the american people this great state is! that these wastes, so unpromising to the eye in that early time, should have been invaded by the restless energy of indomitable men; that they should have seen in visions that which was to follow their heroic labor for the development of these hidden resources; that no drought or drifting sand, no threat of mountain nor of sky, could turn back these brave-hearted men who had set their faces to pierce and uncover the hidden riches of these mountains. the pioneers of colorado are worthy of honor. those who have entered into their labors, who have come not toilsomely but on swift and easy wings into the heritage that they have opened, should, always and everywhere, gratefully acknowledge the services of those who made this easy pathway for their feet. [cheers.] your state is blessed in the diversity of its resources. you do not depend on any one of the great industries of civilized life. you have taken from your mines immense stores of the precious metals, but when these are gone or their supply is diminished you will turn your eyes toward those metals that we call base, but that after all enter in so many ways into human life that they supply more enduring and in the end more profitable industries. your iron, and coal, and lead, and building stone will be sources of income inexhaustible. these valleys, touched by the magical power of irrigation, will yield to your population abundant food, and you will yet have within yourselves that happy commercial condition of a state producing and exchanging within its own limits nearly all the necessaries of life. [cheers.] transportation is always a burden. the industrial condition is always best when the producers and the consumers are near together. i am glad to know that you have not been so busy in delving into the earth; that you have not so turned your minds to the precious metal as to have forgotten that there is a blue sky above you; that there are aspirations, and hopes, and glories that are greater than all material things. [cheers.] you have not failed to make sure that the children, the blessed children of your homes, that are now coming on, are made secure in the possession of a well-ordered and of a well-endowed school system. [cheers.] what a testimony it is to the american character that, however intense the push for the things of this life, however eager the pursuit of gain, you can never assemble a community of people that they do not begin to organize schools for the children. [cheers.] these common schools are not simply nurseries of intellectual training; they are nurseries of citizenship. [cheers.] it has been a most happy sight to see the same old banner that we bore into the smoke of battle and carried over dying comrades to place it in triumph on the ramparts of the enemy now in the hands of the children of colorado. [cheers.] proof has been made a thousand times--proof will be made whenever the occasion requires--that, as much as we pursue gain and personal ends, we have nothing--property or life--that we do not freely lay down upon the altar of our country for the general good. [cheers.] but, my fellow-citizens, this assemblage is too vast, and the demand upon my time for public speech has been too protracted, to enable me to pursue these remarks further. comrades of the grand army of the republic, survivors of the great war whose success preserved all that our fathers had devised and established, whose success brought back this flag in honor and established it again the undisputed emblem of an indissoluble union [cheers], god has bountifully lengthened out your days that you might catch some glimpse of the glory that has come from the achievements in which you bore an honorable part. but only the vision of the prophet reaching out over centuries to come can catch the full glory of what your deeds have wrought. i give you to-day a most affectionate greeting [cheers]; i give you a regretful good-by. may you hold in the community where you live that respect and honor to which you are entitled. let no grand army man ever dishonor in civil life the noble record he made in war. may every blessing follow you, and if it shall not be in god's dispensation to give you riches, at least, comrades, you shall die with the glorious satisfaction of having contributed to the greatest work that man ever wrought for humanity and good; and, wrapped in the flag you followed, your comrades will, one by one, see that in honored graves your bodies rest until the resurrection, and that on each returning day of decoration flowers are strewn upon your graves. citizens of denver, i cannot close without expressing the great satisfaction and surprise with which i have witnessed this morning the magnificent commercial developments which have been made here. these streets, these towering, substantial, and stately houses in which your commerce is transacted, place you in the front rank of enterprise. i do not think any city so young can claim so high a place. [cheers.] i thank you very sincerely for a demonstration which i cannot accept as personal--all this is too great for any man--but as a spontaneous tribute to our free institutions. i accept this as an evidence that in all essential things we are one people. the fuller revelation of that fact to us all has been worth all the labor and time we have mutually expended in this long journey. in all essential things we are one; we divide and strive and debate, but we are patriotic american citizens, having a love for the constitution and the flag that brings us all at last to submit our opinion to the lawfully expressed wish of the majority. [cheers.] and now again good-by. i shall leave behind me every good wish for your prosperity, individually as a municipality and as a state. [cheers.] after a drive over capitol hill the president and the gentlemen of his party were the guests of w. h. bush at the hotel metropole. senator teller presided at luncheon. responding to a toast in honor of the president of the united states, general harrison said: _gentlemen_--i cannot fail to respond to such a toast. indeed, i should be unkind to you and to myself as well if i did not. however, i cannot speak at length in thanking you for the gracious hospitality i have received in denver. i can truly say my visit has culminated in denver. for pleasure during my stay here, for perfection in arrangement, for cordiality, and all things which go to make a stop pleasant, denver has given a climax of enjoyment. it has given me great pleasure to take note of some of the things which have made this beautiful city here and its recent and massive developments a wonder to the civilization of to-day. i am apt to judge the city by the home. that is with me the test, more than the business buildings, the manufactories, etc. it gives me great pleasure to state that in all my travels, and they have included all the states but two, i have never seen a city with such elegant homes as here. [cheers.] i am sure, when you have worked out your silver mines and the more common products, stone and granite, you will have that which will last you for an indefinite time, and which will also add to the beauty of your already beautiful city. [cheers.] i have the pleasure of testifying to the satisfaction with which the party has spent these few days in the centennial state. i hope i may have the pleasure of being with you again at some near future time. i say good-by, and again express our thanks for your hospitality, which has been excelled nowhere on our journey. [cheers.] akron, colorado, may . the president made his farewell colorado speech at akron at o'clock at night. the reception committee consisted of hon. d. w. irwin, r. s. langley, and j. m. aitkin. upward of , people welcomed the distinguished travellers. colonel griffith and gen. l. c. colby, commander nebraska state guards, joined the party at akron as the representatives of governor john m. thayer. commander john n. tague, of akron post, g. a. r., introduced president harrison, who said: _my friends_--it is very kind of you to gather here to-night as we pass by. we have had a very pleasant trip. our interest in your state and our appreciation of its great resources have been very much increased on this visit. i am glad to find--indeed, i knew i should find--the same people here that we have in illinois, indiana, and ohio. most of you come from some of those states, and you are not new people. i have been very much pleased to notice that here, as well as in the east, you take deep interest in schools and in all those things that tend to elevate a community and to set social order on a firm and secure basis. allow me to thank you again, and to bid you good-night. [cheers.] hastings, nebraska, may . hastings, nebraska's third city, was reached at : the morning of the th, and notwithstanding the early hour fully , people were present to welcome the president. the reception committee consisted of mayor a. l. clarke, hon. john m. ragan, c. h. dietrich, judge w. r. burton, f. h. firman, w. m. kerr, general dilworth, j. j. buchanan, r. a. batty, james b. heartwell, a. f. powers, a. v. cole, m. van fleet, dr. johnson, dr. j. e. hilts, a. h. brown, dr. cook, r. b. wahlquist, and c. cameron. j. n. clarke delivered the address of welcome and introduced president harrison, who said: _my fellow-countrymen_--there is a freshness and a beauty about the nebraska prairies, but i hope i will not fall in your esteem if i say i do not like to get up early. [shouts, "neither do we!"] occasionally, in our trip, we seem to pick up an hour. when i retired at denver last night, at none too early an hour, i was told that we would be at hastings at : . but we arrived here, it seems to me, at : by the time i went to bed by last night; but, my friends, all these things that make labor of travel are as nothing compared with the great gratification we find in such assemblages as this. as we journeyed eastward we have seen the arid land where the water ran in ditches and did not fall in showers. that system has its advantages and its disadvantages, but i must confess that it seems more homelike for me to get back to the land where the showers fall and everything is fresh and green. this diversity of natural conditions and of agricultural and mineral wealth makes the greatness of our country. diversity is found everywhere in nature, and it is a happy thing. it is found in the field and crop, but never in the people--any observing man can see that we are one people. [cheers.] the people i saw in california, in arizona, and all along our journey, were just such people as i see here; indeed, they were in a strict sense the same people, because they are yankees, pennsylvanians, wisconsin men, hoosiers, and buckeyes--i think the ohio man must be here. [several responses of "here we are!"] the westerners are the overspill of the enterprising population of the east. they kept going a little farther west, still a little farther, until at last they touched the pacific; and so anywhere the traveller may go, if he will make himself known, the hands of old neighbors will be stretched out to him. out of all this comes the love for the one flag, and i am glad to say that we have not passed any little way station--even in arizona, where a few scores had gathered from distant ranches--but some one with an american flag was there and american cheers for that flag. sometimes the incidents were almost pathetic. at one little station in arizona, as we drew up in the darkness, there were half a dozen ranchers on the platform. i noticed on the lapels of two or three coats the grand army button. one of them shouted, "there are but few of us, but let us give a cheer for the old flag, boys!" [cheers.] i thank you most cordially for your gathering here. i do not know whether it is prejudice or not, but anyway i always have a very high opinion of a state whose chief production is corn. [laughter and applause.] crete, nebraska, may . at crete the president received a musical welcome. nedela's band rendered "america," and over , voices joined in the chorus. it was a beautiful tribute to patriotism. governor thayer, accompanied by lieut. gov. t. j. majors, secretary of state j. c. allen, auditor t. h. benton, treasurer j. e. hill, atty. gen. geo. h. hastings, adjt. gen. a. v. cole, commissioner a. r. humphry, and col. h. e. palmer, came down from lincoln and met the president's party at crete. the local reception committee consisted of mayor norris, ex-governor dawes, s. l. andrews, capt. john sherrill, and h. m. wells. governor thayer introduced the president, who said: _my friends_--it appears sometimes in the heat of political campaigns that the american people do not agree upon anything; but after it is all over we take a broader survey of things and we find that underneath all these divisions is the bed rock of patriotism. in that at least we have a common purpose. i am glad to see these children here this morning. they have greeted me everywhere with their happy smiles, and they brighten the way quite as much as the flowers that have been given us. it is pleasant to know that in these pioneer countries you are establishing common schools in order that the generation which is coming on may have a better chance than you had. i do not know of anything better than the father and mother working and striving that their children may have an easier and better chance in life than they had. i am very glad to see you all this morning, and thank you for your cordial welcome. [cheers.] lincoln, nebraska, may the capital of nebraska was reached at o'clock in the morning and the lincolnites gave the president a warm greeting. the state officials, with mayor weir and the following prominent citizens, comprised the committee of reception: maj. h. c. mcarthur, charles h. gere, e. e. brown, n. s. harwood, c. m. parker, c. e. montgomery, s. s. royce, a. h. weir, j. b. archibald, w. e. churchill, alva brown, john d. wright, phelps paine, j. b. strode, c. h. gould, joseph teeters, j. j. imhoff, john h. mcclay, d. w. mosely, j. h. mcmurtry, professor bessey, and alva kennard. during the march to the capitol grounds the president was escorted by the veterans of farragut post, martin howe commander, and appomattox post, c. w. lyman commander. governor thayer and mayor weir each delivered an address welcoming the president to nebraska and to lincoln. president harrison responded: _governor thayer and mr. mayor_--it will, i think, be entirely impossible for me to make myself heard by this vast assemblage, situated as you are here this morning. our stay with you is necessarily brief, and yet i do not want you to feel that we have discriminated against the political capital of one of the very greatest of the newer states. i have been so pressed with the engagements which have been suggested to us that i have only been able to give three-quarters of an hour to indianapolis, my own home. i have given you the same, and i had hoped, very much, that this time could be extended and that i would be able to address you with more comfort to myself and to you. we are here as american citizens, for common hope and love; we are here the friends of the flag, of the constitution, of social order, of every school, of all that characterizes this nation and makes it better than any other nation in the world. i thank you, most cordially thank you, for this magnificent demonstration. it has but one fault, and that is it is altogether too large to be suitably arranged with a view to public speaking. i hope you will allow me again to thank you very sincerely for your most cordial and magnificent welcome, and wish for you and your state all prosperity and for the country of which we are common citizens a career of unchecked glory. [cheers.] as the president was about to depart he was met by a committee representing the nebraska travelling men's association, consisting of president fred a. wilson, secretary r. m. simons, and capt. j. s. agey, who presented him with an address of welcome printed on satin in gold. in accepting the souvenir the president said: convey my thanks to the travelling men, for whom i entertain the kindest regard. i remember them in the last campaign, and shall always be thankful for the favors extended. i noticed your body in the parade, and have never seen a finer representation of the fraternity. [renewed cheering.] ashland, nebraska, may . about , people greeted the president at ashland. the school children were assembled at the station under superintendent crabtree. mayor j. c. railsback, h. h. shedd, s. g. bryan, col. j. k. clarke, r. e. butler, c. n. folsom, m. newman, w. t. spere, j. h. snell, j. h. oliver, j. w. moon, and s. b. hall, commander of bob mccook post, g. a. r., welcomed the president, who made a brief address, as follows: _my friends_--i am very much obliged to you for your cordial welcome. we pause but for a moment, and it will not be possible for me to make a speech. you are talking yourselves, and i am sure in very high tones of patriotism, by your display of the national colors in your own hands and in the hands of the school children, and by this welcome to one who for the time is placed at the head of the national government. i have not accepted what i have seen on this trip as personal; it is too much for any man. i accept it as the expression of our people for the love of our flag and for the institutions which it symbolizes. [cheers.] omaha, nebraska, may . president harrison arrived at omaha wednesday noon and was accorded a reception that in numbers and enthusiasm was scarcely surpassed during the entire trip. he was met at lincoln by an escort committee consisting of senator charles f. manderson, senator a. s. paddock, hon. j. c. cowin, ex-gov. r. b. furnas, maj. d. h. wheeler, judge j. m. thurston, g. w. willard, w. v. morse, d. j. o'donohue, b. b. wood, dr. g. l. miller, c. hartman, maj. t. s. clarkson, c. j. greene, a. j. poppleton, hon. j. e. boyd, j. h. millard, thomas swobe, a. p. hopkins, max meyer, w. f. bechel, and t. j. lowry. arrived at the station the president and his party were met and welcomed by mayor r. c. cushing at the head of the following committee of prominent citizens: hon. e. s. dundy, e. wakely, t. j. mahoney, dr. j. e. summers, l. berka, w. j. broatch, fred metz, t. l. kimball, g. m. hitchcock, j. a. creighton, j. f. coad, c. v. gallagher, herman kountze, w. a. paxton, c. s. chase, g. w. lininger, lee hartley, amos field, h. g. burt, g. w. holdrege, j. e. kinney, edward rosewater, m. v. gannon, w. a. l. gibbon, henry pundt, j. b. furay, j. t. clarke, e. a. cudahy, j. o. phillippi, f. p. hanlon, b. s. baker, john peters, w. h. alexander, brad slaughter, w. n. nason, euclid martin, henry yates, j. l. mccague, j. a. wakefield, c. l. chaffee, julius meyer, c. e. burmester, l. r. rosaker, james stephenson, j. m. woolworth, charles ogden, j. s. webster, col. dudley evans, richard smith, l. d. fowler, g. m. nattinger, j. w. eller, simon bloom, h. h. benson, capt. r. s. wilcox, s. adamsky, j. a. cusadore, o. g. decker, charles l. thomas, m. j. feenan, frank moores, general brooke and staff, and the following city officials: c. s. goodrich, john rush, lee helsley, w. s. shoemaker, silas cobb, john groves, geo. w. tillson, p. w. birkhauser, geo. c. whitlock, geo. l. dennis, a. b. howatt, clark gapan, j. j. galligan, wilber s. seavey, james flannery, h. l. rammacciotti, james gilbert, thomas j. mclean, j. h. standeven, thomas riley, thomas bermingham, fred hickstein, peter a. welch, and frank r. morrisey. the ladies on the reception committee were mrs. alvin saunders, mrs. general brooke, mrs. general wheaton, mrs. judge dundy, mrs. clark woodman, mrs. h. w. yates, mrs. e. rosewater, mrs. s. s. caldwell, and mrs. geo. m. o'brien. an imposing procession, conducted by chief marshal c. f. weller, assisted by jacob fawcett and capt. geo. porter, escorted the presidential party to the pavilion near the court house, from whence the president reviewed the column, headed by the second regiment u.s. infantry. general frederick, col. m. v. sheridan, colonel turson, general mulcahy, captain morseman, major potwin, colonel curtis, colonel strong, captain richardson, captain rhodes, captain stickle, major luddington, lieutenant jensen, lieutenant korty, and other members of the loyal legion, awaited the commander-in-chief at the pavilion, around which a vast concourse assembled. mayor cushing made the welcoming address. when the demonstration subsided president harrison responded as follows: _mr. mayor and fellow-citizens_--i can accept without question and with very deep gratitude these cordial words of welcome which you have spoken on behalf of the people of this great city. twice before it has been my pleasure to spend a brief time in this great commercial metropolis of the great valley of the missouri. i have had opportunity, therefore, to witness the rapid development which your city has made. i recollect it as i saw it in , and as i see it to-day i feel that i need to be told where i am. [applause and cheers.] these magnificent structures dedicated to commerce, these magnificent churches lifting their spires toward the heavens, these many school-houses consecrated to the training of those who shall presently stand in our places to be responsible for these our public institutions, these great stock-yards, where the meat product of the great meat-producing states of the missouri valley is prepared for market, and, above all and crowning all, these thousands of happy, comfortable homes which characterize and constitute your great city are a marvel and tribute to the enterprise and power of development of the american people, unsurpassed, i think, by any city in the united states. [cheers.] as i turn my face now toward washington, as i hasten on to take up public duties partially laid aside during this journey, i rejoice to receive here in omaha that same kindly greeting with which we were welcomed as we journeyed from washington through the south to the pacific. if anything were needed to call for a perfect surrender of all personal thought in an absolute consecration of public duty to the general good of all our people, i have found it in these magnificent demonstrations. [cheers.] we shall always have parties--it is characteristic of free people--we need to have party divisions, debate, and political contention; but it is pleasant to observe in all this journey we have taken how large a stock of common patriotism we find in all the people. [cheers.] you have here in nebraska a state of magnificent capabilities. i have seen the orange grove, and all those fruits which enrich and characterize the state of california. i have seen leadville, the summit city, these mining camps upon the peaks where men are delving into the earth to bring out the riches stored there, but i return again to the land of the cornstalk with an affection that i cannot describe. [cheers.] i am sure these friends who have delighted us with the visions of loveliness and prosperity will excuse me if my birth and early training in ohio and indiana leads me to the conclusion that the states that raise corn are the greatest states in the world. [cheers.] we have a surplus production in these great valleys for which we must seek foreign markets. it is pleasant to know that per cent. or more of our agricultural productions are consumed by our own people. i do not know how soon it may be that we shall cease to be dependent upon any foreign market for our farm products. with the rapid development which is being made in manufacturing pursuits, with the limitation which the rapid occupation of our public domain now brings to our minds as to the increase of agriculture, it cannot be a very distant day when the farmer shall realize the ideal condition and find a market out of his own farm wagon for what he produces. it has been a source of constant thought and zealous effort on the part of the administration at washington to secure larger foreign markets for our farm products. i rejoice that in the last two years some of those obstructions which hindered the free access of our meat products to american markets have been removed. i rejoice to know that we have now freer, larger access for our meats to the markets of england and of europe than we have had in many years. [applause.] i rejoice to know that this has brought better prices to the stock-raisers of these great western valleys. i believe, under the provision looking to reciprocal trade in the law of the last congress, that we shall open yet larger and nearer markets for the products of nebraska farmers. [cheers.] so distant as you are from the atlantic seaboard, it may have seemed to you that your interest in the revival of our trade, in the re-establishment of an american merchant marine, was not perceptible or direct. not long since an inquiry was made as to the origin of the freight that was carried by one of the brazilian steamers from the port of new york, and it was found that twenty-five states had made contribution to that cargo, and among those states was the state of nebraska. [cheers.] and so by such methods as we can it is our purpose to enlarge our foreign markets for the surplus productions of our great country. and we hope--and we think this hope fills the great west as well as the east--that when this increased traffic and commerce is found upon the sea it shall be carried in american bottoms. [cheers.] a few days ago, sailing in the harbor of san francisco, i saw three great deep-water ships enter the golden gate. one carried the flag of hawaii and two the british flag, and at portland they took the pains to tow up from the lower harbor and to deck in bunting an american ship that was lying in the harbor. it was a curious sight--one they thought important to exhibit to strangers visiting that city. why, my countrymen, i hope the day is not far distant when the sight of great american ships flying the stars and stripes at the fore will be familiar not only in our own ports, but in every busy mart of commerce the world around. [cheers.] this government of ours cannot do everything for everybody. the theory of our government is large individual liberty. it is that we shall take out of the way all legislative obstructions to the free and honest pursuit of all human industries; that each individual shall in his own place have the best chance possible to develop the highest prosperity for himself and his family. some functions are lodged with our government. it must provide a currency for the use of our people, for i believe the time has gone by when we will be content to return to the old system of an issue of money by state banks. but i will not discuss such questions. i only desire to say this--which is common ground upon which we can all stand--that whatever money the government issues, paper or coin, must be good money. [cheers.] i have an idea that every dollar we issue should be as good as any dollar we issue, for, my countrymen, whenever we have any money, paper or coin, the first errand that dollar does is to pay some workingman for his daily toil. no one so much as the laboring man and the farmer requires a full value dollar of permanent value the year around. [cheers.] but, my countrymen, i had not intended to speak so long. i hope i have not intruded upon any ground of division. i am talking, not as a partisan, but as an american citizen, desiring by every method to enhance the prosperity of all our people; to have this great government in all that it undertakes touch with beneficence and equal hands the pursuits of the rich and of the poor. [cheers.] nothing has been so impressive in all this journey as the magnificent spirit of patriotism which pervades our people. i have seen enough american flags to wrap the world around. [great applause and cheers.] the school children have waved it joyously to us, and many a time in some lonesome country home on the bleak sand i have seen a man or woman or a little boy come to the door of a cabin as we hurried by waving the starry banner in greeting to our train. i am sure, as your mayor has said, that this same magnificent, patriotic, american spirit pervades you all here to-day. god bless you all; prosper you in every endeavor; give glory and increase to your city, and settle all its institutions upon a secure basis of social order and obedience to the law. [great cheering.] _at the high-school grounds._ on concluding the formal reception the president and his party became the guests of hon. e. rosewater, editor and proprietor of the omaha _daily bee_, and after inspecting the editorial rooms the president held a reception in the rotunda of the _bee_ building. this was followed by a ride over the city, escorted by the reception committee. as the _cortége_ passed the high-school grounds , children and adults gave the president a most patriotic greeting. halting in front of the building, the president arose in his carriage and said: it gives me great pleasure to receive this cordial greeting from the teachers and pupils of the omaha public schools. the most pleasant features of this journey have been the beautiful and cordial receptions given us by the school children. i am pleased to notice the magnificent system of schools you have here in omaha--part of a system that had its origin in new england and now extends over this entire country, the mainstay of this great government. a number of years ago i was standing upon the banks of the headwaters of the missouri river, where its waters are pure and limpid, but after passing through the bad lands of dakota the waters of the mighty river become contaminated and impure, as you see it rolling by your beautiful city. let me hope that none of you, my little friends, will ever become tainted by contact with the bad lands of experience as you journey through life on to manhood and womanhood. god bless you all; good-by. at the conclusion of these remarks general harrison was apprised that a mistake had been made in halting at the entrance, as the children were unable to either hear or see him. upon learning this the president immediately alighted and made his way with some difficulty to the platform, where he addressed the children, saying: _my little friends_--you do not feel half as badly as i do at the thought that i made my speech intended for you to your papas and mammas. i have not the time to attempt to repeat it, but i can't get away without telling you of the affectionate interest i have in all the children of this great country. bless you--you are the blossoms of our homes. with a good-by and another god bless you i am off. [great cheering.] council bluffs, iowa, may . a short stop was made at council bluffs, where several thousand people greeted the party. owing to the brief time allowed by the schedule no committees were appointed, but the veterans of abe lincoln post, g. a. r., dr. f. s. thomas commander, greeted the party. hon. joseph r. reed made a brief welcoming address. the president, responding, said: _my friends_--it gives me great pleasure to thank you for this cordial greeting as we cross the river. i was not anticipating a meeting here or any call for an address. i see about me some of my old comrades of the grand army of the republic, and i want to give them a comrade's greeting. i have seen them everywhere; even out on the sands of arizona i found them gathered together, and it has always been a pleasure to meet them. [cheers.] shenandoah, iowa, may . the town of shenandoah was illuminated in honor of the president's visit. the travellers were welcomed by mayor h. s. nichols, hon. benjamin todd, c. m. conway, w. h. harrison, r. w. morse, c. s. keenan, capt. c. v. mount, and the veterans of burnside post, g. a. r., commanded by c. p. coleneous. the president, responding to cheers from the large crowd, said: _my friends_--it gives me great pleasure to see you and to receive from you this hearty greeting. our schedule is so close that we can tarry only a moment with you, and therefore i can only say thank you and good-by. [cheers.] maryville, missouri, may . it was p.m. when the train made its first stop in missouri, at maryville, where an unusually large crowd greeted the president. the welcoming committee consisted of judge lafayette dawson, ira k. alderman, james todd, w. c. pierce, h. e. robinson, and lyman parcher. when the cheering subsided president harrison said: _my friends_--this multitude is a great surprise. i have already spoken six or seven times to-day, and am very much fatigued, so that i shall not attempt to speak. indeed, my time is so close that i can tarry but a moment. but i would be untrue to myself if i did not acknowledge this most magnificent demonstration. i thank you most sincerely for your kindness and bid you good-night. hannibal, missouri, may . about the earliest reception on the great journey occurred at hannibal, which was reached at : the morning of the th. notwithstanding the hour, , people gave the president an enthusiastic welcome. secretary rusk and postmaster-general wanamaker appeared on the platform with general harrison. the reception committee comprised capt. john e. catlett, c. p. heywood, j. j. kirkland, smith alexander, lewis jackson, w. h. dulany, edward price, s. j. miller, james c. gill, j. h. mcveigh, john t. leighter, j. h. pelhem, w. e. chamberlain, j. h. boughton, thomas h. bacon, g. o. bishop, s. w. philips, and w. f. drescher. the veterans of w. t. sherman post, g. a. r., w. h. davis commander, and several hundred school children were conspicuous in the reception. president harrison spoke as follows: _my fellow-citizens_--i have only time to assure you that i appreciate very highly this evidence of your respect. we have extended our journey to the pacific coast: we have crossed the sandy plain, where for days together the eye saw little to refresh it, where the green of the blue grass that is so restful to the eye was wanting, and yet again and again at some lone station in the desert a few children from a school and some of the enterprising people who had pushed out there to make new homes assembled with this old banner in their hands and gave us a hearty american welcome. i am glad to return to this central body of states in which i was raised; glad to be again in the land of the buckeye, the beech, and the maple. to these dear children i want to say one word of thanks. they have done for us much on this journey to make it pleasant; their bright faces have cheered us; i love to see them. the care the states are taking for their education is wisely bestowed. god bless them all; open to their feet pleasant ways and qualify them better than we have been in our generation to uphold and perpetuate these magnificent civil institutions. thanking you most sincerely for this kindly demonstration i bid you good-by. [great cheers.] springfield, illinois, may . _at the tomb of lincoln._ brief stops were made at barry, baylis, griggsville, and jacksonville, but not long enough for speech-making. thousands of visitors from neighboring towns helped the people of springfield welcome the president on his arrival at : o'clock. the committee of reception that met the presidential party and escorted them through the principal streets to the lincoln monument in oak ridge cemetery consisted of the hon. joseph w. fifer, governor of illinois; senator shelby m. cullum, senator john m. palmer, ex-governor oglesby, representatives henderson and springer, lieut.-gov. l. b. ray, secretary of state j. n. pearson, auditor of state c. w. pavey, treasurer of state e. s. wilson, atty.-gen. george hunt, adjt-gen. j. w. vance, hon. rheuna d. lawrence, mayor of springfield, and hon. james c. conkling; also, hon. john m. clark and col. e. d. swain, of chicago. the procession, composed of illinois national guards, veterans of the g. a. r., sons of veterans, knights of pythias, and the city fire department, was marshalled by gen. jasper n. reese, assisted by col. j. h. barkley. during the exercises at the monument mayor lawrence presided. governor fifer delivered an eloquent address of welcome, to which the president made the following response: _governor fifer and fellow-citizens_--during this extended journey, in the course of which we have swept from the atlantic coast to the golden gate, and northward to the limits of our territory, we have stood in many spots of interest and looked upon scenes that were full of historical associations and of national interest and inspiration. the interest of this journey culminates to-day as we stand here for a few moments about the tomb of lincoln. as i passed through the southern states and noticed those great centres of busy industry which had been builded since the war, as i saw how the fires of furnaces had been kindled where there was once a solitude, i could not then but think and say that it was the hand that now lies beneath these stones that kindled and inspired all that we beheld; all these fires of industry were lighted at the funeral pyre of slavery. the proclamation of abraham lincoln can be read on all those mountain sides where free men are now bending their energies to the development of states that had long been under the paralysis of human slavery. i come to-day to this consecrated and sacred spot with a heart filled with emotions of gratitude that that god who wisely turned toward our eastern shores a body of god-fearing and liberty-loving men to found this republic did not fail to find for us in the hour of our extremity one who was competent to lead the hearts and sympathies and hold up the courage of our people in the time of our greatest national peril. the life of abraham lincoln teaches more useful lessons than any other character in american history. washington stands remote from us. we think of him as dignified and reserved, but we think of lincoln as one whose tender touch the children, the poor--all classes of our people--felt at their firesides and loved. the love of our people is drawn to him because he had such a great heart--such a human heart. the asperities and hardships of his early life did not dull, but broadened and enlivened, his sympathies. that sense of justice, that love of human liberty which dominated all his life, is another characteristic that our people will always love. you have here in keeping a most precious trust. toward this spot the feet of the reverent patriots of the years to come will bend their way. as the story of lincoln's life is read his virtues will mould and inspire many lives. i have studied it and have been filled with wonder and admiration. his life was an american product; no other soil could have produced it. the greatness of it has not yet been fully discovered or measured. as the inner history of the times in which he lived is written we find how his great mind turned and moved, in time of peril and delicacy, the affairs of our country in their home and foreign relations with that marvellous tact, with that never-failing common-sense which characterized this man of the people. and that impressive lesson we have here this morning. i see in the military uniform of our country, standing as guards about this tomb, the sons of a race that had been condemned to slavery and was emancipated by his immortal proclamation. and what an appropriate thing it is that these whose civil rights were curtailed even in this state are now the trusted, affectionate guards of the tomb in which he sleeps! we will all again and again read the story of lincoln's life, and will find our hearts and minds enlarged, our loves and our charities broadened, and our devotion to the constitution, the flag, and the free government which he preserved to us, intensified. and now, my friends, most cordially do i thank you for these kind words of welcome. i shall go from this tomb impressed with new thoughts as to the responsibilities of those who bear the responsibilities, though in less troublous times, of that great man to whose memory my soul bows this morning. [applause.] _at the state house._ when the president closed he was presented by governor fifer, on behalf of the citizens of petersburg, ill., with a gold-headed cane made from the lincoln store building at new salem. speeches were made by postmaster-general wanamaker and secretary rusk, during which the president and governor fifer proceeded to the state house, where a large crowd collected and the president made the following address: _my fellow-citizens_--i feel that we make a very poor return to you here for your cordial welcome, and for these extensive preparations which you have made to do us honor, but this journey has been so long, the time consumed already so great, the demand for my presence in washington is such that i cannot protract the stay here with you this morning. i beg all to believe that most heartily and sincerely i thank you for this cordial welcome from illinois, for the interesting moments that we have spent about the tomb of that man who would have made the fame of illinois imperishable and springfield the mecca for patriotic feet if no other man in the history of the state had ever come to eminence--abraham lincoln. [cheers.] in his life you have a treasury of instruction for your children, a spring of inspiration for your people that will be lasting. [cheers.] decatur, illinois, may . decatur tendered the president an enthusiastic greeting. ten thousand citizens and school children participated in the welcoming demonstrations. the committee of reception consisted of mayor chambers, hon. s. s. jack, hon. w. c. johns, dr. john t. hubbard, dr. william a. barnes, w. h. bramble, maj. f. l. hays, m. f. kanan, mrs. w. b. chambers, mrs. j. m. clokey, mrs. w. f. calhoun, and miss belle burrows. hon. j. h. rowell, of bloomington, was also a member of the committee. in response to mayor chambers' welcoming address president harrison said: _mr. mayor and fellow-citizens_--we have been now something more than four weeks traversing this broad and beautiful domain which, without regard to state lines, we call our country. we have passed with such rapidity that our intercourse with the people has necessarily been brief and attended by many inconveniences to them. everything that kind hearts could do to make the trip pleasant to us has been done, and yet i have always felt that our hasty call at these prosperous cities where so much pains have been taken in decoration to do honor to us gives us opportunity to make very inadequate returns to them. we have been shooting like a meteor as to rapidity, but without its luminosity. [laughter.] it is very pleasant after seeing california, arizona, idaho, and colorado, states in which the annual rainfall is inadequate to the annual crops, and where the dependence of the husbandman is wholly upon irrigation, to come again in these central states, familiar to me from my boyhood, to see crops that the lord waters in every season. the land of the blue grass is the land of my love. nowhere can there be seen fairer landscapes, nowhere richer farms, than here in your own great state of illinois, a state whose history has been full of illustrious achievements, rich in possibilities, where lived our illustrious sons; a state whose population is intelligent, contented, orderly, and liberty-loving; a state whose development has not yet begun to approach its possible limits; a state having advantages by the location, swept as it is by two of the great waterways of the continent, advantages of access and markets by lake and rail and river unexcelled by any state in the union; a state that has not forgotten that the permanence of our free institutions depends upon the intelligence of the people, and has carefully, at the very beginning, laid a foundation for a common-school system in which every man's child may have a free education. [cheers.] these are not simply schools of intelligence, but, as i have said before, they are schools of statesmanship. they tend as much as any other public institution to make our people a nation of loving people. here on these benches and on this playground the people of rich and poor mingle together, and the pampered son gets his airs rubbed off with the vigor of his playmates. ["that's so!" and cheers.] our government does not undertake to regulate many of the affairs of civil life. the bright blue sky of hope is above every boy's head, affording great opportunities for advancement, and then our people are left to themselves. certain great duties are devolved upon the government--to provide revenue and finance and in every branch of public interest to legislate in the general interests of all the people. i thank you most heartily for this great demonstration. we leave you with our thanks, our best wishes for your state, your city, and especially for these dear little ones from your schools who come to greet us. [applause.] tuscola, illinois, may . at tuscola another large assemblage greeted the travellers most enthusiastically. the committee of reception consisted of mayor patrick c. sloan, a. w. wallace, j. j. knox, frank pearce, dr. s. v. ramsey, o. h. sloan, hans heurichs, a. c. sluss, j. w. king, p. m. moore, d. a. conover, and col. w. taggart. in response to a hasty but cordial welcome from mayor sloan the president said: _my fellow-citizens_--it is very kind of you to assemble here in such large numbers to extend to us a greeting as we hurry through your beautiful state. we can tarry with you but for a moment, for we are in true sense pilgrims. it is pleasant to look in your faces and to read there the same kindly thoughts and the same friendliness that seems to have covered this whole land as we have journeyed through it. i do not like to say anything anywhere that makes a line of division; for i know that these assemblages are without regard to politics, and that men of all parties have extended to us a cordial greeting. the flag, the institutions, and the general good of our people are themes which we appreciate, are themes which we honor, though we may approach them on different lines. i am glad to notice as i journey through your state the evidences of a coming harvest that i hope will be bountiful. wishing for you every good, i bid you good-by. [cheers.] chrisman, illinois, may . at chrisman the president met with another hearty welcome. more than , people were present, many coming from paris, danville, and other neighboring points. the reception committee consisted of j. f. van voorhees, c. e. kenton, c. a. smith, and revs. wiley and wilkin. kenesaw post, g. a. r., of paris, ill., j. m. moody commander, and a number of veterans from ridge farm were present. mr. van voorhees introduced the president, who spoke as follows: _my friends_--i have but one message for all these vast assemblies of my fellow-citizens who have been greeting us for something more than a month at every point where we have stopped. that message is to thank you for all these greetings and for the friendliness which shines in your faces. i am glad this is a government by the people, because they are the most capable governors that can be found. no man can traverse this country, as i have done, from the potomac to the golden gate and from the golden gate to the cities that open on puget sound, to the great north sea, and can look into the faces of these people that come from every pursuit, without feeling that this government, raised upon the bulwark of patriotism, is, by god's goodness, a perpetual institution. the patriotism of our people, their unselfish love for the flag, the great good-nature with which they lay aside all sharp party divisions and come together under one banner, is very gratifying to us all. our trip has been attended by many incidents that have been full of pleasure and sometimes full of pathos. we have never lost sight of the flag in all this journey. sometimes out on the great american desert, as it used to be called, where nothing but the sage brush gave evidence of the power of nature to clothe the earth, from a little dug-out, where some man had set out to make a home for himself, would float the starry banner. [cheers.] this is a great country, girded around by the grand army of the republic. i have never been out of the fellowship of that great organization. i have never stopped on all this trip but some comrade did not stretch up his hand to greet me. i have evidence that some of you are here to-day in this great state, such a magnificent contribution to the grand army that they were. i am glad to see these children. they have added grace and beauty to every meeting which we have had in this long journey. cherish it in your community--this most beneficial institution--the common school of your state. and now, thanking your kindly welcome, and sorry that we can tarry for only these few minutes, i bid you good-by, and god bless you. [prolonged cheering.] montezuma, indiana, may . it was about p.m. thursday when the train crossed the indiana line and arrived at montezuma, where the president was met by a very large and enthusiastic delegation from indianapolis, headed by gov. alvin p. hovey, mayor thomas l. sullivan, gen. lew wallace, ex-gov. isaac p. gray, judge william a. woods, ex-senator mcdonald, and senator david turpie. the escort from indianapolis included representatives from labor organizations, from each g. a. r. post in the city, and delegates from the hendricks, gray, cleveland, columbia, marion, metropolitan, and tippecanoe clubs. the montezuma committee consisted of rev. thomas griffith, joseph burns, t. a. welshan, j. e. johnston, n. s. wheeler, and h. b. griffith. no meeting could have been more cordial. hon. james t. johnston, of rockville, in a few eloquent sentences welcomed the president and mrs. harrison on their home-coming. the greeting overcame the president for a few moments, and he was unable to respond to the demand for a speech at any length. he said: _my friends_--we have had a long journey, and one that has been attended by a great many pleasant incidents. we have had cheers of welcome reaching from our first stop, at roanoke, va., stretching across the mountains of tennessee and northern georgia and alabama, down through arkansas and texas, and along the pacific coast. everywhere we have had the most cordial and kindly greeting; but as i cross to-day the border line of indiana and meet again these old friends i find in your welcome a sweetness that exceeds it all. at this point tears came to the president's eyes, and his utterance became so choked he could say no more. indianapolis, indiana, may . promptly on schedule time, at : , the presidential train arrived at indianapolis. its approach was heralded by an artillery salute. the stay in the city was limited to forty-five minutes. the escort and reception committee--in addition to the distinguished officials mentioned at montezuma--consisted in part of the following prominent citizens: hon. r. b. f. peirce, hon. c. w. fairbanks, rev. m. l. haines, daniel stewart, col. eli lilly, george l. knox, george g. tanner, president of the board of trade; w. d. wiles, john w. murphy, george e. townley, silas t. bowen, w. b. holton, john m. shaw, albert gall, i. s. gordon, john p. frenzel, d. a. richardson, w. f. c. golt, arthur gillet, john h. holliday, dr. henry jameson, robert kipp, thomas c. moore, v. k. hendricks, charles e. hall, nathan morris, e. e. perry, smiley n. chambers, g. b. thompson, franklin landers, and r. k. syfers. the preparations for the president's reception were upon an extensive scale; the business houses were covered with bunting, and pictures of the distinguished traveller were seen everywhere. fully , people participated in the welcome home. a speakers' stand was erected in jackson place. the parade was a most successful feature of the demonstration; thousands of veterans, sons of veterans, and other citizens were in line. gen. fred knefler was marshal of the day, aided by the following staff: major holstein, george w. spahr, j. hauch, john v. parker, j. b. heywood, w. o. patterson, samuel laing, j. a. wildman, h. c. adams, a. w. hendricks, john w. keeling, charles martindale, w. h. tucker, j. m. paver, h. c. cale, josh zimmerman, t. s. rollins, e. s. kise, o. p. ensley, frank sherfey, and berry robinson. cheer after cheer went up from the vast concourse as the president made his way to the stand, accompanied by secretary rusk, postmaster-general wanamaker, and the escort committee. it was a genuine hoosier welcome. governor hovey made a brief but feeling address, welcoming the president's return with "pride and pleasure." mayor sullivan followed the governor in a warm greeting on behalf of the citizens of indianapolis. president harrison was visibly affected at the manifestations of love and esteem, and during the speech-making clearly betrayed the emotion he felt at the cordiality of his welcome. he spoke as follows: _governor hovey, mayor sullivan and friends_--i do not think i can speak much to-day. the strain of this long journey, the frequent calls that have been made upon me to speak to my fellow citizens from washington to the golden gate, from the golden gate to the straits of fuca, and from the most northwestern portion of our territory here to my own home, has left me somewhat exhausted in body and in mind, and has made my heart so open to these impressions, as i greet my old home friends, that i cannot, i fear, command myself sufficiently to speak to you at any length. our path has been attended by the plaudits of multitudes; our way has been strewn with flowers; we have journeyed through the orchards of california, laden with its golden fruit; we have climbed to the summit of great mountains and have seen those rich mines from which the precious metals are extracted; we have dropped again suddenly into fruitful valleys, and our pathway has been made glad by the cheerful and friendly acclaim of our american fellow-citizens without regard to any party division [applause]; but i beg to assure you that all the sweetness of the flowers that have been showered upon us, that all the beauty of these almost tropical landscapes upon which we have looked, that all the richness of these precious mines sink into forgetfulness as i receive to day this welcome from my old friends. [great applause.] my manhood has known no other home but this. it was the scene of my early struggles; it has been the scene, and you have been the instruments and supporters in every success i have achieved in life. i come to lay before you to-day my thankful offering for your friendly helpfulness that was extended to me as a boy and that has been mine in all the years of our intercourse that have intervened until this hour. [applause.] i left you a little more than two years ago to take up the work of the most responsible office in the world. i went to these untried duties sustained by your helpful friendliness. i come to you again after these two years of public office to confess many errors, but to say to you that i have had but one thought in my mind. it was to use whatever influence had been confided to me for the general good of all our people. [applause.] our stay to-day is so brief that i must deny myself the pleasure i would have in taking these old friends by the hand. god bless you all. i have not forgotten, i can never forget, indianapolis. [prolonged applause.] i look forward to it, if my life shall be spared, as the city in which i shall rest when the hard work of life is done. i rejoice in its increase, in its development as a commercial centre. i love its homes, its people; and now if you will pardon me the effort of further speech and believe me when i say this is a most interesting and tender moment to me, allow me to say to you for a time, god bless you every one and good-by. [great cheering.] richmond, indiana, may . at richmond, ind., a very large and enthusiastic assemblage cheered the president. the reception committee consisted of mayor perry j. freeman, hon. henry u. johnson, c. c. binkley, john harrington, everett a. richey, andrew f. scott, j. h. macke, john h. nicholson, col. john f. miller, capt. j. lee yaryan, dr. j. r. weist, e. d. palmer, h. c. starr, frank j. brown, j. b. howes, and isaac jenkins. congressman johnson introduced the president, who said: _my fellow-citizens_--we are now about completing a very long journey. for something more than four weeks we have been speeding across the country, from the potomac to the golden gate, and northward along puget sound. the trip, while it has been full of pleasurable incidents, while it has been attended with every demonstration of friendliness and respect, has, as you can well understand, been full of labor. i began this day--and it is only a sample of many--at o'clock this morning, by speaking to my fellow-citizens at hannibal, mo., and from that place to this i have been almost continuously on my feet or shaking hands over this platform with friends who had gathered there. we have seen regions that were new to me, people that were strangers, and yet, throughout the whole of this journey we have been pervaded, surrounded, inspired by the magnificent spirit of american patriotism. [cheers.] i come now to pass through my own state. i have so often within the last two years been at indianapolis and passed through richmond that i did not expect you would take any special notice of our passage to-night. i am all the more gratified that you should have surprised us by this magnificent demonstration. as i had occasion to say at indianapolis, the respect, the confidence, the affectionate interest of my indiana friends is more valuable to me than anything else in life. i went from you two years ago to new duties, borne down with a sense of the great responsibility that was upon me, and i am glad to believe from what i see to-night that i have at least saved the respect and friendship of my indiana fellow-citizens. [cries of "that's so!" and cheers.] and now, as i return again to labors and duties that are awaiting me, i leave with you my most affectionate greeting and sincere desire for the prosperity of indiana and all its citizens. i hope that my life will be spared to be once more a dweller in this great state. [cheers.] dayton, ohio, may . a great assembly, numbering over , people, greeted the president on arrival at dayton, ohio, at o'clock. the veterans of "the old guard post", parker rusby commander, were present in a body; also many veterans from dister post, hiram strong post, birch, and martin de lancy posts, together with a large representation of the sons of veterans. among the prominent citizens and ladies who received the presidential party were mrs. w. d. bickham, miss rebecca strickel, charles and daniel bickham, hon. ira crawford, hon. washington silzel, wm. p. callahan, fred g. withoft, dr. j. m. weaver, e. b. lyon, dr. j. s. beck, c. m. hassler, a. l. bauman, dr. joseph e. lowes, b. t. guion, henry kissinger, hon. dennis dwyer, e. f. pryor, charles p. garman, d. k. hassler, charles auderton, n. d. bates, john a. miller, john a. bell, c. y. osborn, joseph s. crane, ed. best, daniel e. meade, samuel craighead, warren munger, h. c. harries, g. c. kennedy, william craighead, a. a. simonds, s. brenner, d. f. giddinger, simon gebhart, george la rue, d. e. mcsherry, charles james john patterson, dr. j. a. walters, and rev. dr. a. a. willett. the president's appearance was the signal for a prolonged outburst of patriotic feeling, in recognition and response to which he spoke as follows: _my fellow-citizens_--we have journeyed now about nine thousand miles, and i have never been, in all this distance, out of sight of an ohio man. [laughter and cheers.] everywhere we have journeyed, whether in the new south, awakening under the new influences of freedom to an industrial life that was not possible under slavery; whether on the deserts of arizona or among the orange groves of california, or in one of those wonderful states that have been builded within the last few years on puget sound, some one, noting the fact that i was ohio-born, would claim kin-ship, and so far as i could judge, in my limited observation of them, i think they carried the ohio faculty with them to their new homes of getting their fair share of things. [laughter and cheers.] i do most cordially thank you, citizens of dayton, for this pleasant and friendly demonstration. i cannot talk long. this whole journey has been a succession of speeches. i have come to think it must be tiresome to you to have one of my speeches every morning with your breakfast coffee. [cries of "no! no!" and applause.] but it has been a most cheerful thing to me to observe everywhere, even in those distant and sparsely settled regions of the west, that the american flag was never out of sight. i do not think i have ever lost sight of the stars and stripes since we left washington. [cheers.] several times we have been deeply touched as we moved along over the sandy plains to see at some isolated and very humble cabin a man or child step to the door and unfurl the starry banner. [cheers.] everywhere i have met comrades of the grand army of the republic, everywhere the atmosphere seemed to be pervaded by a magnificent spirit of americanism. [cheers.] we are one people--one in our purposes, aims and lives; one in our fealty to the flag, the constitution, and the indissoluble union of the states. [cheers.] ohio has always maintained a magnificently conspicuous place in the sisterhood of the states--peopled, as she was, by the great patriots of the revolutionary period; receiving, as she did, in this great basin, that overspill of patriotism that moved toward the west after the revolutionary struggle was ended. she has given to the government, in army life and in the civil service, a magnificent galaxy of great men. [cheers.] in the hope that this journey, which has been full of toil, may not prove unprofitable to the people, as it certainly has not been unprofitable to me, i leave you to take up my public duties with new encouragement and new resolves to do the best i can for all the people. [cheers.] xenia, ohio, may . it was nearly o'clock when the city of xenia was reached, but a large crowd greeted the tired travellers. a reception committee, consisting of hon. charles f. howard, mayor; hon. john little, hon. n. a. fulton, hon. george good, charles l. spencer, and f. e. james escorted the party from dayton. judge little introduced president harrison, who said: _my friends_--i began my day's work at o'clock and have already made ten speeches, but i feel that a few spoken words are but small return to those who have gathered to express their friendly regard. no man is worthy to hold office in this republic who does not sincerely covet the good-will and respect of the people. the people may not agree in their views on public questions, but while they have a great many points of difference they have more of agreement, and i believe we are all pursuing the same great end--the glory of our country, the permanency of our institutions, and the general good of our people. the springs of all good government--the most important things after all--are in the local communities. in the townships, school districts, and municipalities, there the utmost care should be taken. if their affairs are wisely and economically administered, those of the state and the nation are sure to be. upon these foundation stones the safety of the nation rests, and i am glad to know that so much careful thought is being given to these questions by public men and the people generally. thanking you for your attendance and cordial greeting. i bid you good-night. [cheers.] columbus, ohio, may . it lacked but fifteen minutes of midnight when the train rolled into the union depot at columbus. notwithstanding the lateness of the hour a fair-sized and enthusiastic crowd was present, including a number of g. a. r. veterans. in response to repeated calls the president appeared, accompanied by secretary rusk, and said: _my fellow-citizens_--i left hannibal, mo., this morning at o'clock, and have made twelve speeches to-day. you have been very thoughtful to meet us here, and i know you will excuse me if i say nothing more than i thank you. good-night. [applause.] altoona, pennsylvania, may . the last day of the long journey began with a speech at altoona at o'clock. superintendent and mrs. theodore n. eby joined the party here. the assemblage was a large one and the president shook hands with many until the crowd began calling for a speech. postmaster-general wanamaker introduced the distinguished traveller, saying: "outside of indiana i think the president could not be more at home than he is in pennsylvania, and he requires no introduction." the president spoke as follows: _my friends_--the book has been closed. i have been talking so much while on this trip that i am sure you will excuse me this morning. it has been a delightful journey, yet we experienced, perhaps, that which is the crowning joy of all trips--getting back home; that is the place for us. [cheers.] i am glad to have this greeting from my pennsylvania friends this morning. mr. wanamaker was not far wrong when he said that after indiana pennsylvania was pretty close to me. it was in one of these valleys, not very distant from your political capitol, that my mother was born and reared, and of course this state and this section of pennsylvania has always had a very dear interest for me. [cheers and great noise from steam being blown off at shops.] of the applause that we have enjoyed on this journey our reception here has been the most original of all. [prolonged cheering.] harrisburg, pennsylvania, may . the arrival at harrisburg at : p.m. was heralded by a presidential salute, and , cheers went up as the president emerged on the rear platform, accompanied by secretary rusk and postmaster-general wanamaker. among the prominent citizens who pressed forward to greet the travellers was his excellency governor pattison, speaker thompson, of the house of representatives, secretary of the commonwealth harrity, adjutant-general mcclelland, hon. b. f. meyers, private secretary tate, and many members of the legislature. the governor's troop, commanded by lieutenant ott, presented arms and bugler bierbower sounded the president's march as the chief magistrate appeared. governor pattison cordially welcomed the president and presented him to the great assemblage. president harrison closed his long series of brilliant and interesting addresses in the following words: _governor pattison and fellow citizens_--i thank you for the courtesy of this reception at the political centre of the great state of pennsylvania. i was informed, a little while ago, by the stenographer who had accompanied me on this trip, that i had made speeches, and when i saw the magnitude of my offence against the american people i was in hopes i should be permitted to pass through harrisburg without adding anything to it. i will only express my thanks and appreciation. no one needs to tell you anything about pennsylvania or its resources; indeed, my work was very much lightened on this journey, because i found that all the people clear out to puget sound had already found out more about their country than i could possibly tell them. [cheers.] it is a pleasant thing that we appreciate our surroundings. we love our own home, our own neighborhood, our own state. it would be a sad thing if it were not so. there is only just enough discontent to keep our people moving a little. now and then some boy gets restless in the homestead and pushes out to the west; the result is a thorough mingling of the people. i do not know what would have become of pennsylvania if some people from other states had not come in and some of your people gone out. it is this that makes the perfect unity of our country. it was delightful on our trip to meet old faces from home. though they had apparently been discontented with indiana and left it, they were willing to recall the fact, as i came near to them, that they were hoosiers. it was very pleasant, also, to see people as they met the postmaster-general put up their hands and say, "i am from the old keystone state." general rusk was never out of sight of a wisconsin man, and of course the ohio man was always there. [laughter and applause.] our journey has been accompanied with the labor of travel, but out of it all i think i have a higher sense of the perfect unity of our people and of their enduring, all-pervading patriotism. [cheers.] the return to washington. there was no demonstration at baltimore. as the train neared washington--on the homestretch of its great run of , miles--the president gathered all the members of his party about him in the observation car, including the train employees and servants, and made a short speech, in which he thanked all who accompanied him for their courtesy and attention. he referred to the long journey--without accident of any kind and without a minute's variance from the prearranged schedule--as a most remarkable achievement, and paid a high compliment to mr. george w. boyd, the general assistant passenger agent of the pennsylvania railroad for his successful management of the trip, adding that it was a superb exhibition of what energy and training could do for a man. he then returned his thanks individually to the engineer, conductor, and every employee. the train reached washington at : o'clock, exactly on time to a fraction of a minute. general harrison was the first to alight to meet his young grandson, master benjamin mckee, and the latter's little sister. there was no unusual demonstration or speech-making. the president was met by secretaries foster and proctor, attorney-general miller, ass't atty.-gen. james n. tyner, assistant secretary nettleton, assistant secretary willetts, major pruden, and captain dinsmore. philadelphia, may . on decoration day, , president harrison, accompanied by postmaster-general wanamaker, secretary proctor, secretary tracy, and private secretary halford, visited philadelphia as the guests of george g. meade post, no. , g. a. r., to participate in their memorial ceremonies. they were met at the station by a committee from the post, comprising the following veterans: post commander louis p. langer, senior vice-commander alexander m. appel, junior vice-commander james thompson, adjutant a. c. johnston, officer of the day robert m. green, guard charles harris, chaplain rev. i. newton ritner, and past post commanders henry h. bingham, joseph r. c. ward, george w. devinny, l. d. c. tyler, alfred j. sellers, william j. simpson, james c. wray, john a. stevenson, alexander reed, lewis w. moore, john w. wiedersheim, isaiah price, w. wayne vogdes, g. harry davis, charles l. sherman, henry c. harper, penn righter, and isaac r. oakford. department commander george boyer and asst. adjt.-gen. samuel town were also present to welcome the commander-in-chief. the historic city troop of cavalry--who, from the day that general washington entered philadelphia to take his second inaugural oath, have acted as an escort to every president who has been a guest of the city--escorted the president and the committee to independence hall, where in a brief speech mayor stuart, in behalf of the city, welcomed the chief magistrate. the president, replying to the address of welcome, said: _mr. mayor, comrades of the grand army of the republic, and fellow-citizens_--i esteem it a great pleasure to stand in this historic edifice in this historic city and to take part to-day as a comrade of the grand army of the republic in these most interesting and instructive exercises, which commemorate events which have been most deeply sunk in our hearts. i think it eminently appropriate that we should stand for a little time before going to the graves of our fallen comrades in this edifice, where the foundations of independence were laid and put into development to make this great nation to-day. in my recent extensive trip through the country i was able to see the effects of planting these seeds of freedom, in the flourishing plants that have grown. [applause.] we are here in a community that was instituted on principles of peace and good will among men. but you gave a conspicuous illustration of the facts that the fruits of peace need to be protected. you did not all depart from the great lessons taught when you united with the comrades from all the other states to hold up the banner of the union and to maintain peace and to perpetuate it at all times. you went out to maintain peace, and you have established in the affections of all of us the flag of our faith, and the question of submission to the constitution and the law in all states has been settled to the contentment of all. i appreciate most highly this welcome, and i take part in these exercises with a sense of their fitness and a sense of the greatness of the event which they commemorate. i have never been able to think that this day is one for mourning, but think that instead of the flag being at half mast it should be at the peak. i feel that the comrades whose graves we honor to-day would rejoice if they could see where their valor has placed us. i feel that the glory of their dying and the glory of their achievement covers all grief and has put them on an imperishable roll of honor. _at general meade's grave._ at the conclusion of the public reception at independence hall the president and his party were escorted to laurel hill cemetery, where they took part in the ceremonies over the grave of gen. george g. meade, the hero of gettysburg. along the entire line of march to the stand were immense crowds, who greeted the president with silent demonstrations of respect. the usual memorial day exercises were held, and at their conclusion commander langer said: "i wish to introduce to you the honored guest of the day, comrade harrison, the chief magistrate of the nation." as the president stepped forward he was heartily cheered. he said: _commander, comrades of the grand army of the republic, and fellow-citizens_--i have neither the strength nor the voice adequate to any extended speech to-day. i come to you as a comrade to take part in the interesting exercises of this memorial day. it gives me special pleasure to combine with that tribute which i have usually been able to pay since this day was instituted to the dead of all our armies a special mark of respect to that great soldier who won gettysburg. it is impossible to separate some impressions of sorrow from these exercises, for they bring to memory comrades who have gone from us. how vividly there comes to my memory many battle scenes; not the impetuous rush of conflict, but the hour of sadness that followed victory. then it was our sad duty to gather from the field the bodies of those who had given the last pledge of loyalty. there is open to my vision more than one yawning trench in which we laid the dead of the old brigade. we laid them, elbow touching elbow, in the order in which they had stood in the line of battle. we left them in the hasty sepulchre and marched on. now we rejoice that a grateful government has gathered together the scattered dust of all these comrades and placed them in beautiful and safe places of honor and repose. i cannot but feel that if they could speak to us to-day they would say put the flag at the top of the mast. i have recently returned from an extended tour of the states, and nothing so impressed and refreshed me as the universal display of this banner of beauty and glory. it waved over every school-house, it was in the hands of the school children. as we sped across the sandy wastes at some solitary house a man, a woman, a child would come to the door and wave it in loyal greeting. two years ago i saw a sight that has ever been present in my memory. as we were going out of the harbor of newport about midnight on a dark night some of the officers of the torpedo station had prepared for us a beautiful surprise. the flag at the top of the station was unseen in the darkness of the night, when suddenly electric search-lights were turned on it, bathing it in a flood of light. all below the flag was hidden, and it seemed to have no touch with earth, but to hang from the battlements of heaven. it was as if heaven was approving the human liberty and human equality typified by that flag. let us take on this occasion a new draught of courage, make new vows of consecration, for, my countrymen, it was not because it was inconvenient that the rebel states should go, not that it spoiled the autonomy of the country, but because it was unlawful that all this sacrifice had to be made, to bring them back to their allegiance. let us not forget that as good citizens and good patriots it is our duty always to obey the law and to give it our loyal support and insist that every one else shall do so. there is no more mischievous suggestion made than that the soldiers of the union army desire to lay any yoke on those who fought against us other than the yoke of the law. we cannot ask less than that in all relations they shall obey the law, and that they shall yield to every other man his full rights under the law. i thank you for the pleasure of participating in these exercises with you to-day, and give you a comrade's best wishes and a comrade's good-by. the bennington trip, august, . on tuesday, august , president harrison left cape may point on a journey to bennington, to participate in the dedication of bennington battle monument. he was accompanied by private secretary halford, russell b. harrison, mr. howard cale, of indianapolis, and george w. boyd, of the pennsylvania company. the trip through new jersey was uneventful. at vineland, glassboro, camden, trenton, and burlington crowds greeted the president, but as it was raining there was no speech-making. at jersey city the party was joined by john a. sleicher, w. j. arkell, and e. f. tibbott, the president's stenographer. leaving new york at noon the first stop was at cornwall, where the president was heartily welcomed by a large crowd and bowed his acknowledgments. newburgh, new york, august . the weather cleared as the party reached historic newburgh, where , people gave the chief executive a rousing welcome. hon. m. doyle, mayor of newburgh, and the following representative citizens received the president: ex-mayor b. b. odell, hon. a. s. cassedy, hon. b. b. odell, jr., william g. taggart, daniel s. waring, william chambers, charles h. hasbrouck, j. m. dickey, henry b. lawson, james g. graham, thomas r. spier, a. e. layman, george hasting, maj. e. c. boynton, a. woolsey, john f. tucker, william lynn, george brown, dr. d. l. kidd, h. c. smith, augustus denniston, e. m. murtfeldt, and john j. nutt. colonel sleicher introduced president harrison, who said: _my fellow-citizens_--i am very much obliged to you for this friendly greeting. it is pleasant to run out of the rain and mist that have hung about our train for an hour or two into this bright sunshine and into the gladness of the pleasant welcome which you have extended to us. you are situated here in a region full of historic interest. every child learns early here the story of the sacrifice and courage of those who laid the foundation of this government, which has grown beyond the conception of even the wisest of our fathers. i am sure that in these things you must all find inspiration to good citizenship, and it is pleasant to know that you rejoice that it has left its impress upon the hearts of all our people; that upon the sacramento as well as upon the hudson men love the old memories and the old flag. [applause.] i am glad to pause with you a moment in passing to the observance in vermont of one of those great battle events which led to the independence of our country. we have great common interests as a people, and, while we divide as to the method by which we would promote the national prosperity, i am sure we are all devoted in heart to the country and the institutions that have done so much for us. in the interest of good government we are one; we all believe that the government should be so administered that all the people shall share equally in its benefits; that there shall be no favored class. i thank you again, and bid you good-by. [applause.] kingston, new york, august . at kingston fully , people were assembled. prominent among those who welcomed the president were hon. james g. linsley, hon. geo. m. brink, h. w. baldwin, william d. brinnier, d. c. overbaugh, s. b. sharpe, b. j. winnie, charles b. safford, george b. merritt, o. p. carpenter, james e. phinney, and noah wolven. after shaking hands for several minutes, hon. william h. turner introduced president harrison, who said: _my fellow-citizens_--perhaps i had better spend the moment or two that remains in saying a word to all of you than in shaking hands with the few that can gather about the car. you ask for a speech. it is not very easy to know what one can talk about on such an occasion as this. those topics that are most familiar to me, because i am brought in daily contact with them, namely, public affairs, are in some measure prohibited to me, and i must speak therefore only of those things upon which we agree; for i have no doubt, if we were closely interrogated, some differences would develop in the views of those assembled here. that is one of the things we are proud of and that tend to the perpetuity and purity of our institutions--that we are permitted to differ in our views, to be independent in our opinions, and to be answerable to our consciences and to god only for the convictions we entertain. i am sure, however, we all rejoice in the evidences of prosperity which are spread over this good land of ours. we rejoice in the freedom and happiness and contentment that are in our communities and in our homes. we rejoice to know that no cloud is over our horizon; that we are at peace with the world and at peace among ourselves. i think the world has come to understand that it is well to be at peace with us [applause], and i am sure we have come to understand that it is very well to be at peace among our selves. [applause.] our situation is one of great favor. we are pretty widely separated from those who would hurt us, if there are any such. we are secure in our great isolation, and we are secure, too, in our great and patriotic people. [applause.] we do not maintain armies; we do not need to extend the conscription list until it takes old age and youth. we maintain only the merest skeleton of an army, but we have already seen how speedily it may develop into gigantic proportions, and how, in a few months, it may take on the discipline that makes it the equal of any of the great armies of the world. [applause.] we have this year a season of unusual productiveness. the orchards are laden with fruit, the gardens yield their abundant supplies to the table, and the fields have produced crops that are too great for our storehouses. god has greatly blessed us, and it happens that this season of our abundance is not only good for us, but for the world; for again, as many times before, the nations of europe, by reason of crop failures, must look to us to feed their people. we have a great surplus and an assorted market for it. our riches must be greatly increased as the result of two magnificent harvests. their good effects will be felt in every home, contentment upon the farm, and well-paid labor in all our cities and centres of manufacture. thus it should be. thus, i am sure, we all rejoice that it is, because these institutions of ours can have no danger except in a discontented citizenship. as long as men have a free and equal chance, as long as the labor of their hands may bring the needed supplies into the household, as long as there are open avenues of hope and advancement to the children they love, men are contented--they are good, loyal, american citizens. [applause.] and now i thank you again for your kindness. [cheers.] albany, new york, august . it was o'clock in the afternoon when the president arrived at albany, during a heavy rain. in anticipation of this visit from the head of the nation, the following telegraphic correspondence had passed between the courteous governor of new york and president harrison: albany, august . hon. benjamin harrison, _cape may, n. j._: i learn for the first time to-day that you have accepted the invitation of mayor manning to stop at albany on your way to vermont. if the plan of your journey will enable you to pass a night in albany, as i hope it may, i shall be pleased to have yourself and party become my guests at the executive mansion. personally, as well as officially, i assure you it gives me great pleasure to extend this invitation, and i sincerely trust that you will so arrange your plans as to give me the opportunity of entertaining you. the executive mansion is ample for the accommodation of such members of your cabinet or friends as may accompany you. on behalf of the people of the state, also, i shall be pleased to tender you a public reception at the state capitol. david b. hill. stockton house, cape may, august . gov. d. b. hill, _albany_: i am very much obliged for your very cordial invitation, but it will be only possible for me to make a brief stay at albany. how long depends upon the railroad schedule, not yet communicated to me. as soon as details are arranged will advise you. for such time as i can spare i will place myself in the hands of the city and state authorities. benjamin harrison. the following prominent citizens of albany met the president at selkirk and escorted him to the city: james ten eyck, chairman; col. a. e. mather, john g. myers, james m. warner, henry c. nevitt, and william barnes. among others who greeted the president on his arrival were capt. john palmer, commander-in-chief of the g. a. r., hon. simon w. rosendale, deputy controller westbrook, h. n. fuller, c. b. templeton, william h. cull, and oscar smith. the reception was held in city hall square, where many thousand albanians assembled. on the platform governor hill, mayor manning, with the common council, secretary of state rice, state treasurer danforth, and other state and municipal officers were gathered. the president received an ovation as he approached the stand. mayor manning welcomed him in the name of the city and presented governor hill, who extended to the chief magistrate a broader welcome in the name of the people of the empire state. responding to these hospitable addresses, the president said: _governor hill, mr. mayor, and fellow-citizens_--the conditions of the evening, these threatening and even dripping clouds, are not favorable to any extended speech. i receive with great gratification the very cordial expressions which have fallen from the lips of his excellency, the governor of this great state, and of his honor, the mayor of this great municipality. it is very gratifying to me to be thus assured that as american citizens, as public officers administering each different functions in connection with the government of the nation, of the state, and of the municipality, we, in common with this great body of citizens, whose servants we all are, have that common love for our institutions, and that common respect for those who, by the appointed constitutional methods, have been chosen to administer them, as on such occasions as this entirely obliterates all differences and brings us together in the great and enduring brotherhood of american citizens. [prolonged cheering.] this great capital of a great state i have had the pleasure of visiting once or twice before. i have many times visited your commercial capital, and have traversed in many directions the great and prosperous empire state. you have concentrated here great wealth and great productive capacity for increased wealth, great financial institutions that reach out in their influences and effects over the whole land. you have great prosperity and great responsibility. the general government is charged with certain great functions in which the people have a general interest. among these is the duty of providing for our people the money with which its business transactions are conducted. there has sometimes been in some regions of the great west a thought that new york, being largely a creditor state, was disposed to be a little hard with the debtor communities of the great west; but, my fellow-citizens, narrow views ought not to prevail with them or with you and will not in the light of friendly discussion. the law of commerce may be selfishness, but the law of statesmanship should be broader and more liberal. i do not intend to enter upon any subject that can excite division; but i do believe that the general government is solemnly charged with the duty of seeing that the money issued by it is always and everywhere maintained at par. i believe that i speak that which is the common thought of us all when i say that every dollar, whether paper or coin, issued or stamped by the general government should always and everywhere be as good as any other dollar. i am sure that we would all shun that condition of things into which many peoples of the past have drifted, and of which we have had in one of the great south american countries a recent example--the distressed and hopeless condition into which all business enterprise falls, when a nation issues an irredeemable or depreciated money. the necessities of a great war can excuse that. i am one of those that believe that these men from your shops, these farmers remote from money centres, have the largest interest of all people in the world in having a dollar that is worth one hundred cents every day in the year, and only such. if by any chance we should fall into a condition where one dollar is not so good as another i venture the assertion that that poorer dollar will do its first errand in paying some poor laborer for his work. therefore, in the conduct of our public affairs i feel pledged, for one, that all the influences of the government should be on the side of giving the people only good money and just as much of that kind as we can get. [cheers.] now, my fellow-citizens, we have this year a most abundant, yes, extraordinary, grain crop. all of the great staples have been yielded to the labor of the farmer in a larger measure than ever before. a leading agricultural paper estimated that the produce of our farms will be worth $ , , , more this year than ever before, and it happens that just with this great surplus in our barns we find a scarcity in all the countries of europe. russia has recently prohibited the export of rye, because she needs her crop to feed her own people. the demands in france and in england and germany will absorb every bushel of the great surplus we shall have after our people are fed, and, whatever complaints there may have been in the past, i believe this year will spread a smile of gladness over the entire agricultural population of our country. this is our opportunity, and i cannot see how it shall be possible but that these exports of grain, now reaching the limit of the capacity of our railroads and of our ships, shall soon bring back to us the lost gold we sent to europe and more that we did not lose. i was told by an officer of the west shore road to-day that that road alone was carrying , bushels of wheat every day into new york, and that it scarcely stopped an hour in the elevator, but was run immediately into the bottom of a steam vessel that was to carry it abroad. [cheers.] this is only an illustration of what is going on. as the result of it our people must be greatly enriched. where there has been complaint, where there has been poverty, there must come this year plenty, for the gardens have loaded the table, the orchards cannot bear the burdens that hang upon their reddening limbs, and the granaries are not equal to the product of our fields. we ought, then, this day to be a happy people. we ought to be grateful for these conditions and careful everywhere to add to them the virtue of patience, frugality, love of order, and, to crown all, a great patriotism and devotion to the constitution and the law--always our rule of conduct as citizens. [cheers.] my fellow-citizens, it is very difficult to speak in this heavy atmosphere. i beg, therefore, that you will allow me to thank you for your friendly demonstration, and bid you good-night. troy, new york, august . when the special train reached troy in the evening an immense throng greeted the president. it was the noisiest demonstration of the day. general harrison shook hands with hundreds, many of them working men just from the shops. the following prominent trojans composed the committee of reception and escorted the party from albany: gen. joseph b. carr, charles w. tillinghast, william kemp, thomas dickson, f. n. mann, william h. hollister jr., col. lee chamberlin, john i. thompson, col. arthur macarthur, d. s. hasbrouck, samuel morris, james h. potts, j. f. bridgeman, c. l. fuller, t. j. o'sullivan, cornelius hannan, henry mcmillen, h. m. reynolds, george h. mead, dr. c. b. herrick, and william kemp, jr. the veterans of willard post g. a. r., under commander leet, participated in the reception. ex-mayor wm. kemp made the address of welcome in the unavoidable absence of mayor whelan. midst great enthusiasm and cheers general carr introduced the president, who spoke as follows: _my friends_--i attempted a little while ago to speak in albany in this damp atmosphere, and find my voice is so much roughened by the effort that i can hardly hope to make myself heard by you. i am glad to have the opportunity to pause some moments in the city of troy, to look into the faces of its industrious and thrifty population. i have long known of your city as a city of industry--as a great manufacturing city--sending out its products to all the land, and by the skill of its workmen and the integrity of its merchants finding everywhere a market for wares kept up to the standard. [applause.] the president was here interrupted by the blowing of steam-whistles, and continued, smiling: i am quite used to having my speeches punctuated by steam-whistles. i am sure that you realize here in a large degree the benefit of a policy that keeps the american market for the american workmen. [cries of "good!" and applause.] i try to be broadly philanthropic in my thoughts about the human race, but cannot help thinking that an american workman has a stronger claim on my sympathy and help than any other workman. [applause.] i believe that our institutions are only safe while we have intelligent and contented working classes. i would adopt constitutional methods--any administrative method--that would preserve this country from the condition into which some others have unfortunately fallen, where a hard day's work does not bring sustenance for the workman and his family. [applause.] i would be glad if there were not a home in troy--not a home in the united states of america--where there was not plenty for man and wife and child; where there was not only sustenance, but a margin of saving that might make the old age of the husband and wife and the life of the children easier than this generation has been. [cheers.] bennington, vermont, august . _dedication of the battle monument._ president harrison and his party reached north bennington at o'clock on the night of the eighteenth. he was met by the following committee of reception on the part of the city of bennington: gen. j. g. mccullough, m. s. colburn, j. v. carney, s. b. hall, and a. p. childs; also, dr. william seward webb, and col. geo. w. hooker, representing the state entertainment committee. as the president appeared he was greeted with rousing cheers by the large crowd and escorted to the residence of general mccullough, whose guest he was. the following morning the distinguished visitors reviewed the grand parade in honor of the centenary of the admission of vermont into the union and the dedication of the bennington battle monument. col. w. seward webb, president-general of the sons of the american revolution, accompanied by a mounted grand army post, escorted president harrison to the soldiers' home, where gov. carroll s. page and all the living ex-governors of vermont greeted him. the presidential party to review the parade consisted of sixty guests of the state, and included secretary of war proctor, attorney-general miller, gen. o. o. howard, governor russell, of massachusetts; governor tuttle, of new hampshire; senator henry l. dawes and ex-gov. a. h. rice, of massachusetts; senators edmunds and morrill; senators wm. e. chandler and j. h. gallinger, of new hampshire; congressmen grout and powers; adjutant-general ayling and hon. john king, of new york. the parade was the most brilliant and imposing ever seen in the state. a feature of the decorations was a magnificent triumphal arch, the turrets and embrasures of which were filled with young maidens clad in brilliant colors, while on the top of the arch were little girls dressed in white, with flowing hair, singing patriotic songs. in the loftiest turret was a gorgeous throne of gold, occupied by miss lillie adams, personating the goddess of liberty. after the review the presidential party was escorted to the grand stand at the monument, where , people assembled. the battle monument is a plain, square shaft of magnesian limestone feet high. the interior at the base is feet square and has a stairway. it was built under the supervision of the trustees of the bennington battle monument association. the building committee comprised gen. john g. mccullough, h. g. root, a. b. valentine, m. c. huling, and l. f. abbott. gen. wheelock g. veazey was president of the day, and introduced rev. dr. charles parkhurst, of boston, who opened the dedicatory exercises with prayer. governor page delivered the address of welcome, and was followed by ex-gov. b. f. prescott, of new hampshire, president of the bennington battle monument association, who transferred the monument to the care and keeping of vermont. hon. edward j. phelps, the chosen orator of the occasion, then delivered a historical and scholarly address, which was listened to with marked attention by his distinguished audience. at the conclusion of mr. phelps' oration chairman veazey introduced president harrison, who arose midst prolonged cheers and spoke as follows: _mr. president and fellow-citizens_--there are several obvious reasons why i should not attempt to speak to you at this time. this great audience is so uncomfortably situated that a further prolongation of these exercises cannot be desirable, but the stronger reason is that you have just listened with rapt attention to a most scholarly and interesting review of those historical incidents which have suggested this assemblage and to those lessons which they furnish to thoughtful and patriotic men. [applause.] a son of vermont honored by his fellow-citizens, honored by the nation which he has served in distinguished public functions, honored by the profession of which he is an ornament and an instructor, has spoken for vermont [applause]; and it does not seem to me fit that these golden sentences should be marred by any extemporaneous words which i can add. i come to you under circumstances that altogether forbid preparation. i have no other preparation for speech than this inspiring cup of good-will which you have presented to my lips. [applause.] the most cordial welcome which has been extended to me to-day makes it unfitting that i should omit to make a cordial acknowledgment of it. perhaps i may be permitted, as a citizen of a western state, to give expression to the high regard and honor in which vermont is held. perhaps i may assume, as a public officer representing in some sense all the states of the union, to bring to-day their appreciation of the history and people of this patriotic state. its history is unique, as mr. phelps has said. the other colonies staked their lives, their fortunes and honor upon the struggle for independence, with the assurance that if, by their valor and sacrifice, independence was achieved, all these were assured. the inhabitants of the new hampshire grants alone fought with their fellow-countrymen of the colonies for liberty, for political independence, unknowing whether, when it had been achieved, the property, the homes upon which they dwelt, would be assured by the success of the confederate colonies. they could not know--they had the gravest reason to fear--that when the authority of the confederation of the states had been established this very government, to whose supremacy vermont had so nobly contributed, might lend its authority to the establishment of the claims of new york upon their homes; and yet, in all this story, though security of property would undoubtedly have been pledged by the royal representative, vermont took a conspicuous, unselfish, and glorious part in achieving the independence of the united colonies, trusting to the justice of her cause for the ultimate security of the homes of her people. [applause.] it is a most noble and unmatched history; and if i may deliver the message of indiana as a citizen of that state, and as a public officer the message of all the states, i came to say, "worthy vermont!" [cheers]. she has kept the faith unfalteringly from bennington until this day. she has added, in war and peace, many illustrious names to our roll of military heroes and of great statesmen. her representation in the national congress, as it has been known to me, has been conspicuous for its influence, for the position it has assumed in committee and in debate, and, so far as i can recall, has been without personal reproach. [cheers] we have occasionally come to vermont with a call that did not originate with her people, and those have been answered with the same pure, high consecration to public duty as has been the case with those who have been chosen by your suffrages to represent the state, and i found when the difficult task of arranging a cabinet was devolved upon me that i could not get along without a vermont stick in it [laughter and applause], and i am sure you have plenty of timber left in each of the great political parties. [cheers.] the participation of this state in the war of the rebellion was magnificent. her troops took to the fields of the south that high consecration to liberty which had characterized their fathers in the revolutionary struggle. [applause.] they did not forget, on the hot savannas of the south, the green tops of these hills, ever in their vision, lifting up their hearts in faith that god would again bring the good cause of freedom to a just issue. [applause.] we are to-day approaching the conclusion of a summer of extraordinary fruitfulness. how insignificant the stores that were gathered at bennington in compared with these great storehouses bursting with fulness to-day! our excess meets the deficiency of europe, and a ready market is offered for all our cereals. we shall grow richer by contributions which other countries shall make as they take from our storehouses the food needed to sustain their people. but after all, it is not the census tables of production or of wealth that tell the story of the greatness of this country. vermont has not been one of the rich states of the union in gold and silver, and its lands have not given the returns that some of the fertile riversides of the west yield. there has been here constant effort and honest toil; but out of all this there has been brought a sturdy manhood, which is better than riches, on which, rather than to wealth, the security of our country rests. [applause.] i beg you to accept my sincere thanks again for the evidence of your friendliness, and my apology that the conditions are not such as to enable me to speak as i could wish. [cheers] _the banquet in the tent._ at o'clock the president's party and the state's invited guests were entertained at a banquet spread in a mammoth tent. the ladies of the party were seated in front of the president. among the notable ladies present were the wives of general alger and attorney-general miller, mrs. e. j. phelps, mrs. h. h. baxter, mrs. a. f. walker, mrs. horatio loomis, mrs. w. g. veazey, and the wives of ex-governor ormsbee and gen. l. g. kingsley, miss roberts, miss brown, miss ormsbee, the wife of senator morrill, mrs. b. b. smalley, the wives of ex-governors farnham and pingree, and of auditor towell. president harrison was seated between governor page and secretary proctor. among the distinguished guests--other than those previously enumerated--were justice blatchford, of the supreme court; gen. russell a. alger; gen. alexander s. webb, of new york; col. a. f. walker, of chicago; speaker w. e. barrett, massachusetts; col. albert clarke, boston; maj.-gen. j. m. warner, of albany; john king, president erie railway; h. w. bruce, kentucky; ex-gov. r. s. green, new jersey; hon. b. b. smalley, dr. e. h. doty, asa b. gardner, maj.-gen. william walls; surg.-gen. j. c. rutherford and quartermaster-general w. h. gilmore, of vermont, f. b. barrett and l. l. tarbell, massachusetts; col. h. c. cutler, col. m. j. horton, col. w. h. h. slack, and col. h. f. brigham, of governor page's staff. the following ex-governors of vermont were present: j. w. stewart, barstow, pingree, farnham, and e. j. ormsbee. the entertainment was upon an extraordinary scale, inasmuch as over , persons were seated at the banquet tables at one time, and , pieces of figured china were used, while the president's table was provided with a dinner service of rare sèvres and old delft ware. general veazey, the president of the committee, again introduced president harrison, who spoke as follows: _mr. president and fellow-citizens_--whatever temporary injury my voice has suffered was not at the hands of vermont. [laughter and applause.] new york is responsible. in albany i spoke in the rain to a large assemblage. perhaps, if it were worth while to trace this vocal infirmity further, i might find its origin at cape may [laughter], for i think i started upon this trip with the elements of a cold that has to some degree marred the pleasure which i had anticipated to-day. but, notwithstanding what my friend, general veazey, has described as "the dilapidated condition" of my voice, i will respond to his request to say a word to you. i know that general veazey had been put in charge of the transportation lines of the country; but i did not expect to find him in charge of what the boys used to call the "cracker line." [laughter.] it seems that his capacity for usefulness in the public service is so great and so diversified that you have called upon him to conduct the exercises of this magnificent occasion. he is a most excellent interstate commerce commissioner [applause], an honor to your state, and i have no criticism of him as president of the day, except that he calls too much attention to me. [laughter and applause.] this scene, these tables so bountifully and so tastefully spread, was one full of beauty when we entered, but it seems now to have taken on some of that "dilapidation" which general veazey ascribed to my voice. [laughter.] i am sure that if the supplies gathered at bennington to-day had been here in that struggle would have been much more obstinate. [laughter.] but, my fellow-citizens, there is much in this occasion that is full of instruction to the strangers who by your hospitable invitation have the privilege of meeting with you. wherever men may have been born within this galaxy of great states, which makes the greater union, there is respect and honor for the new england character. it has been a source of strength to the nation in its development in material things. it has furnished to literature and to invention some of the largest contributions; but, more than all this, it has done a great work for all the states, and especially those states of the west and northwest, in which its enterprising sons have found new homes, in establishing everywhere a love of social order and a patriotic devotion to the union of states. [applause.] if we seek to find the institutions of new england that have formed the character of its own people and have exercised a stronger moulding influence than that of any other section upon our whole people we shall find them, i think, in their temples, in their schools, in their town meetings and in their god-fearing homes. [applause.] the courage of those who fought at bennington, at concord, lexington, bunker hill, and saratoga was born of a high trust in god. they were men who, fearing god, had naught else to fear. that devotion to local self-government which originated and for so long maintained the town meeting, establishing and perpetuating a true democracy, an equal, full participation and responsibility in all public affairs on the part of every citizen, was the cause of the development of the love of social order and respect for law which has characterized your communities, has made them safe and commemorable abodes for your people. these migrations between the states have been to your loss, but there is now a turning back to these states of new england and to some of its unused farms, which i believe is to continue and increase. the migration which you have sent into the south to develop its industries, to open its mines, to set up factories and furnaces, is doing marvellous work in unifying our people. [applause.] as i journeyed recently across the continent this oneness of our people was strongly impressed upon me. i think these centennial observances which have crowded one upon another from concord to the centennial of the adoption of the constitution and the organization of the supreme court have turned the thought of our people to the most inspiring incident in our history, and have greatly intensified and developed our love of the flag and our constitution. [applause.] i do not believe there has been a time in our history when there has been a deeper, fonder love for the unity of the states, for the flag that emblematizes this unity, and for the constitution which cements it. [applause.] i believe we have come to a time when we may look out to greater things. secure in our own institutions, enriched almost beyond calculation, i believe we have reached a time when we may take a large part in the great transactions of the world. [cheers.] i believe our people are prepared now to insist that the american flag shall again be seen upon the sea [applause], and that our merchants and manufacturers are ready to seize the golden opportunity that is now offered for extending our commerce into the states of central and south america. [cheers.] i believe that conservative views of finance will prevail in this country. [applause.] i am sure discontent and temporary distress will not tempt our people to forsake those safe lines of public administration in which commercial security alone rests. [applause.] as long as the general government furnishes the money of the people for their great business transactions i believe we will insist, as i have said before, that every dollar issued, whether paper or coin, shall be as good and be kept as good as any other dollar that issues. [cheers.] the purity, the equality of what we call dollars must be preserved, or an element of uncertainty and of bankruptcy will be introduced into all business transactions. this i may say without crossing lines of division: how this end is to be attained i will not attempt to sketch, but i do not hesitate to say that i feel myself, in the public interest, pledged so far as in me lies to maintain that equality between our circulating money that is essential to the perfect use of all. [prolonged applause.] i have gone beyond the promise of the president of the day, and have been betrayed by your friendliness into speaking two or three words. may i, in closing, tender to these good women of vermont my thanks for the grace and sweetness which their services and their presence have lent to this happy occasion? may i say to them that the devoted services of their mothers, their courage and patience and helpfulness shown by the women in the great struggle for liberty cannot be too highly appreciated? it was an easier fate to march with bared breasts against the hessian ramparts at bennington than to sit in the lonely homestead awaiting the issue with tearful eyes uplifted to god in prayer for those who perilled their lives for the cause. all honor to the new england mother, the queen of the new england home! [applause.] there, in those nurseries of virtue and truth, have been found the strongest influences that have moulded your people for good and led your sons to honor. [great cheering.] at the conclusion john b. carney, chairman of the citizens' committee, presented general harrison with a gold medal bearing a likeness of the bennington monument. as the medal was pinned on the president's coat he remarked: "it needed not this memento to remind me of this auspicious occasion." mt. m'gregor, august . president harrison and his party arrived at saratoga on the morning of the th, and were heartily greeted. he immediately embarked for mt. mcgregor, where another large gathering welcomed him. after visiting the historic grant cottage the president became the guest of w. j. arkell, at the latter's cottage on the mountain. in the afternoon the party partook of a "country dinner" at the hotel balmoral, given by the hon. james arkell in honor of the president's fifty-eighth birthday. about guests participated. senator arkell presided. among those present besides the president's party were: b. gillam, capt. john palmer, commander g. a. r.; hugh reilly, w. h. bockes, m. l. staver, p. farrelly, j. s. lamoreaux, j. m. francis, william barnes, jr., and william whitney, of albany; edward ellis and samuel insul, of schenectady; john w. vrooman, of herkimer; j. y. foster, c. c. shayne, spencer trask, john a. sleicher, j. h. breslin, w. a. sweetzer, s. e. may, and marshall p. wilder, of new york; d. f. ritchie, w. t. rockwood, h. b. hanson, j. g. b. woolworthy, w. lester, c. s. lester, w. w. worden, e. h. peters, j. m. marvin, e. c. clark, and t. f. hamilton, of saratoga; j. a. manning, of troy; d. w. mabee, frank jones, and s. c. medberry, of ballston, and john kellogg and w. j. kline, of amsterdam. mr. arkell paid an eloquent tribute to the memory of general grant and congratulated his distinguished guest. president harrison arose and amid great cheering began: _mr. arkell and friends_--it was a part of the covenant of this feast that it should be a silent one; not exactly a quaker meeting, as mr. arkell has said, because silence there is apt to be broken by the moving of the spirit. that is not a safe rule for a banquet. [laughter.] i rise only to thank your generous host and these gentlemen from different parts of the state who honor this occasion for their friendliness and their esteem. we are gathered here in a spot which is historic. this mountain has been fixed in the affectionate and reverent memory of all our people and has been glorified by the death on its summit of gen. ulysses s. grant. [applause.] it is fit that that great spirit that had already lifted its fame to a height unknown in american history should take its flight from this mountain-top. it has been said that a great life went out here; but great lives, like that of general grant, do not go out. they go on. [cries of "good! good!" and great applause.] i will ask you in a reverent and affectionate and patriotic remembrance of that man who came to recover all failures in military achievement, and with his great generalship and inflexible purpose to carry the flag of the republic to ultimate triumph, recalling with reverent interest his memory, to drink a toast in silence as a pledge that we will ever keep in mind his great services, and in doing so will perpetuate his great citizenship and the glory of the nation he fought to save. saratoga springs, new york, august . the president left mt. mcgregor the afternoon of the st, and reached saratoga at o'clock, where , people joined in an ovation to him. it was the largest gathering ever seen in saratoga, and the town was resplendent with colors. the chief executive was met by a reception committee composed of hon. john r. putnam, hon. a. bockes, hon. henry hilton, hon. h. s. clement, hon. james m. marvin, hon. john w. crane, hon. j. w. houghton, gen. w. b. french, hon. john foley, hon. d. lohnas, col. david f. ritchie, hon. lewis varney, lieut. a. l. hall, edward kearney, john a. manning, george b. cluett, prof. edward n. jones, and j. g. b. woolworth. wheeler post, g. a. r., acted as an escort of honor. arrived at the grand union hotel, the president was greeted with great clapping of hands and the waving of , handkerchiefs by the ladies. he reviewed the procession from the piazza, and, on being introduced by village president lohnas, spoke a follows: _my fellow-citizens_--the greatness of this assembly makes it impossible that i should do more than thank you for the magnificent welcome which you have extended me to-day. i have great pleasure in being again for a few days in saratoga--this world renowned health and pleasure resort. it gives me great satisfaction to witness, on the part of the citizens of saratoga and of the visitors who are spending a season for refreshment or recuperation here, the expression of kindness which beams upon me from all your faces. i am sure the explanation of all this is that you are all american citizens, lovers of the flag and the constitution [applause], and in thus assembling you give expression to your loyalty and patriotism. [applause.] it is not, i am sure, an individual expression; it is larger and better than that, for this country of ours is distinguished in naught else more than in the fact that its people give their love and loyalty and service, not to individuals, but to institutions. [applause.] we love this country because it is a land of liberty, because the web and woof of its institutions are designed to promote and secure individual liberty and general prosperity. [applause.] we love it because it not only does not create, but because it does not tolerate, any distinction between men other than that of merit. [applause.] i desire to thank those comrades who wear the honored badge of the grand army of the republic for their escort and their welcome. i never see this badge anywhere that i do not recognize its wearer as a friend. [applause.] survivors of a great struggle for the perpetuity of our institutions--having endured in march and camp and battle the utmost that men can endure, and given the utmost that men can give--they are now as citizens of this republic in civic life doing their part to maintain order in its communities and to promote in peace the honor and prosperity of the country they saved. [applause.] thanking you once more for your friendliness and cordial enthusiasm, i will ask you to excuse me from further speech. [great applause.] from saratoga through vermont. the last day of the president's stay at saratoga springs he was tendered a reception by mr. and mrs. j. s. t. stranahan, of brooklyn, at the pompeiian house of pansa. admission was by card, and several hundred well-known people paid their respects to the chief magistrate. the wives of governor jackson, of maryland, ex-governor baldwin, of michigan, and hon. george bliss, of new york, assisted the host and hostess in receiving. hon. david f. ritchie introduced the guests. on the morning of august the president, accompanied by secretary proctor and the other members of his party, left saratoga on a journey through the green mountain state. they were accompanied by vice-president e. c. smith, of the vermont central road, and superintendent c. d. hammond, of the delaware and hudson. whitehall, new york, august, . the first stop was at whitehall, where the party was met by hon. h. g. burleigh, gen. j. c. rogers, william sinnott, luke h. carrington, a. j. taft, and maj. john dwyer, president of the washington county veteran association. a train containing several hundred veterans, on their way to a reunion at dresden, was in waiting, and a large crowd assembled around the president's car. the burleigh corps acted as a guard of honor. ex-congressman burleigh, in a brief speech, introduced the president, whose remarks created much enthusiasm. he said: _comrades and fellow-citizens_--it is pleasant to come this morning upon an assemblage of comrades gathering with their families to a social reunion to recall their services and sacrifices and to bathe their souls in the glory of this bright day and of this great land that they fought to save. [applause.] such assemblages are full of interest to the veterans, and they are full of instruction and inspiration to those who gather with them. it is our habit in the west, as it is yours here, to have these annual meetings, and it is always a pleasure to me when i can arrange to meet with the comrades of my old regiment, or of the old brigade, or with the veterans of any regiment of any state who stood for the flag. [applause.] there is a pathetic side to all this. we gather with diminished ranks from year to year. we miss the comrades who are dropping by the way. we see repeated now that which we saw as the great column moved on in the campaign of the war--a comrade dropping out, borne to the hospital, followed to the grave--and yet these soldier memories and thoughts are brightened by the glories which inspire and attend all these gatherings of the veterans of the war. we see the old flag again, and i am glad to believe that there has never been a period in our history when there was more love for it. [applause.] it is quite natural that it should be so. these veterans who stand about me have seen many days and months in camps and battlefields and in devastated country through which they marched when there was on all the horizon one thing of beauty--that glorified flag. [applause.] they brought home the love of it in their hearts, wrought in every fibre of their nature; and it is very natural that the children who have come on should catch this inspiration and love from the fathers who perilled everything that the flag might still be held in honor, and still be an emblem of the authority of one constitution over an undivided nation. we see to-day how worthy the land was for which our comrades died, and for which you, my comrades, offered your lives, in its great development and its increasing population, in its multiplying homes, where plenty and prosperity, the love of god and social order, and all good things abide. in this great nation, striding on in wealth and prosperity to the very first place among the nations of the earth; in this land, in truth as well as in theory the land of the free, we see that which was worthy of the utmost sacrifice of the truest men. [prolonged cheers.] i recall with pleasure that some of the new york regiments, coming to the western army with hooker and howard and gerry and williams and others, served in the same corps to which i was designated during the great campaign upon atlanta. some of the comrades who made that march from chattanooga to atlanta and the sea are here to-day, survivors of one of the greatest, in all its aspects, of all the campaigns of the war. you came from those bloody fields upon the potomac, and struck hands with us of the west as brothers. you helped us in the struggle there to cut the confederacy in twain, and, lapping around by the sea, to strike hands with grant again near appomattox. [cheers.] i thank you again most cordially for your friendly demonstration and presence. if i had the power to call down blessings upon my fellow-men, the home of every comrade here would be full of all prosperity. [applause.] fair haven, vermont, august . at whitehall the party was joined by adj.-gen. t. s. peck and col. m. j. horton, of governor page's staff. when the vermont line was reached general peck, in the name of the governor, formally welcomed the president to the state. fair haven was reached at o'clock. the reception committee was hon. samuel l. hazard, andrew n. adams, george m. fuller, and wm. v. roberts. mr. hazard introduced president harrison, who said: _my fellow-citizens_--we have already lost some minutes at your station, and it will not be possible for me to hold the train longer. i thank you for this friendly greeting, and for the kindness which beams upon me from the faces of these contented and happy men and women of the good state of vermont. i am glad to see about me the evidences of the indomitable pluck and successful enterprise which characterize so highly all of your new england states. when you found the stones too thick to make agriculture profitable you compelled the rocks to yield you a subsistence, and these great slate and marble industries have become the centre of wealthy and prosperous communities. you are here, each in his own place; these good ladies in that supremely influential position, the american home, and you, my countrymen, in the shops and in the fields, making contributions to the prosperity and glory of this great nation. it is pleasant to know that the love of country, stimulated by the teaching of the father and of the mother, revived by these recollections of the first struggle for independence, deepened by the sacrifices which were made in the civil war to preserve what our fathers had purchased for us, are still holding sway in the hearts of our people. [cheers.] we are conspicuously a people abiding in respect and honor for the law. the law, as expressed in our constitutions and in our statute-books, is the sovereign to which we all bow. we acknowledge no other. to the law each and every one should give his undivided allegiance and his faithful service. there is no other rule that will bring and maintain in our communities that peaceful and orderly condition, that good neighborhood and kindly intercourse, which is so essential to the happiness of any community. i am sure that these things, now as of old, characterize these new england communities, where the strife which your colder climate and your soil compel you to make for your subsistence has bred habits of thrift, economy, and independence, and the love of liberty which i am sure is as fadeless as the stars. [applause.] thanking you again for this pleasant morning reception, i will bid you good-by. [applause.] castleton, vermont, august . at castleton there was a large crowd, including pupils of the normal school, who pelted the president with roses and golden-rod. the reception committee comprised hon. henry l. clark, a. e. leavenworth, s. b. ellis, and a. l. ramson. judge clark introduced the president, who said: _ladies and gentlemen_--it is very pleasant to meet here, mingling with the citizens of this neighborhood, the pupils of your normal school. one of the most influential characters in the history of the united states is the new england school-teacher. if we could follow the track of these intelligent men and women who have gone out from the new england states into the west and south; if we could trace those strong, yet slender and hard-to-be-discovered, threads of influence which they have started in the communities to which they went; if we could know how they have impressed on the minds of the pupils brought under their care the great lessons of self-respect and love for free institutions and social order,--we should have a higher thought than we have yet had of the power and dignity of these pioneers of education. [cheers.] brandon, vermont, august . brandon gave the travellers a hearty reception at a.m. ex-gov. j. w. stewart, of middlebury, hon. aldace f. walker, of chicago; g. g. benedict and c. s. forbes, of st. albans, joined the party here. ex-governor ormsbee welcomed the president on behalf of the residents of brandon. general harrison said: _my fellow-citizens_--the kindly pelting which i have received at the hands of some of your ladies and of these bright children reminds me of a like experience on the california trip, when we were so pelted with bouquets of handsome flowers that we were very often compelled to retreat from the platform and take cover in the car. these gifts of flowers which you bring to me here are the products of your fields and not of your gardens. the beautiful golden-rod! it is pleasant to think that in this plant, so widely distributed, slightly diversified in its characteristics, but spreading over nearly our whole country, we have a type of the diversity and yet the oneness of our people; and i am glad to think that its golden hue typifies the gladness and joy and prosperity that is over all our fields this happy year, and, i trust, in all your homes. i thank you for your pleasant greeting this morning, and bid you good-by. [cheers.] middlebury, vermont, august . on the arrival of the train at middlebury at : a.m. another large and enthusiastic throng was on hand. the president was greeted by ex-gov. john w. stewart, col. a. a. fletcher, g. s. wainwright, judge james m. slade, charles m. wilds, e. h. thorp, e. p. russell, b. s. beckwith, e. j. mathews, john h. stewart, a. j. marshall, col. t. m. chapman, rufus wainwright, and frank a. bond. the veterans of russel post, g. a. r., were present in a body, also the sons of veterans. governor stewart introduced the president, who said: _my fellow-citizens_--though i have not before had the pleasure of looking into the faces of many of you, vermont has for many years been familiar to me, and has been placed high in my esteem by the acquaintance i have formed at washington with the representatives you have sent there. it has been a great pleasure to me to know your esteemed fellow-citizen, governor stewart. your state and district and the nation at large have had in him a most able and faithful champion of all that was true and clean and right. [three cheers were given for governor stewart.] you have been particularly fortunate, i think, in your representatives at washington, as i had occasion to say the other day at bennington. i am glad to be here at the site of this institution of learning--middlebury college, which is soon to complete its hundredth year of modest yet efficient service in training the minds of your young men for usefulness in life. these home institutions, in which these able and faithful men assiduously give themselves and their lives to the building up and development of the intelligence--and not only that, but of the moral side of your young men--are bulwarks of strength to your state and to your community. they cannot be too highly esteemed and honored by you; because, my countrymen, kings may rule over an ignorant people, and by their iron control hold them in subjection and in the quietness of tyranny, but a free land rests upon the intelligence of its people, and has no other safety than in well-grounded education and thorough moral training. [cries of "good! good!" and applause.] again i thank you for this cordial greeting which vermont gives me this morning, and to these comrades and friends i extend a comrade's greeting and good wishes. [applause.] vergennes, vermont, august . at vergennes a large and joyful crowd greeted the distinguished traveller. the reception committee comprised hon. j. g. hindes, mayor of the city; hon. j. d. smith, herrick stevens, and j. n. norton. secretary proctor introduced the president, who spoke as follows: _my fellow-citizens_--i have had, as you know, some experience in this business of speaking from the end of a railroad train. but it has seemed to me this morning that these vermont towns are closer together than on any other route i have travelled. [laughter.] perhaps it is because your state is not very large, and you have had to put your towns close together in order to get them all in. [laughter.] i have heard an interesting story of the origin of this city of vergennes. i suppose it was one of the earliest instances in the history of our country, if not the very first, of a city being constructed upon paper before it was built upon the ground. [laughter.] that has come to be quite a familiar practice in these late days of speculation, but it is singular that a city charter and the ample corporate limits of one mile square should have been given to vergennes before this century began. if the expectations of the founder of this city have not been realized fully, you have more than realized all the thoughts of ethan allan and his contemporaries in the greatness and prosperity of your state and in the richer glory and higher greatness of the nation of which you are a part. [cheers.] i am glad this morning to look into the contented faces of another audience of new england people. you were greatly disparaged in the estimation of some of our people before the civil war. there had spread unfortunately over the minds of our southern brethren the impression that you were so much given to money, to thrift, and to toil that your hands had forgotten how to fight. it was a most wholesome lesson when the whole country learned again in the gallant charges and stubborn resistances of the vermont brigade that the old new england spirit still lived; that paul revere still rode the highways of new england; and that the men of concord and lexington and bennington still ploughed her fields. [applause.] i am glad to meet you this bright, joyous morning; and i am sure, in view of the fatigues that have preceded and that are to follow, you will excuse me from further speech, and accept my most heartfelt thanks for your friendliness. [applause.] burlington, vermont, august . burlington gave the president a royal reception tuesday noon. the queen city was elaborately decorated, and all business was suspended during the demonstration. the distinguished visitors were welcomed by senator george f. edmunds, his honor mayor hazelton, col. le grand b. cannon, hon. e. j. phelps, gen. william wells, ex-gov. u. a. woodbury, hon. b. b. smalley, hon. g. g. benedict, c. f. wheeler, ex-governor barstow, c. w. woodhouse, and elias lyman, president of the board of aldermen. after luncheon at the home of senator edmunds, the president was escorted through the fletcher library to a platform fronting the park, where , people greeted him. mayor hazelton delivered the address of welcome and introduced president harrison, who responded as follows: _mr. mayor and fellow-citizens_--i am not a little intimidated as i face so unexpectedly this vast concourse of the citizens of this great state of vermont. i say great, though your territorial extent does not place you among large states; great in an origin that gave occasion for an early and resolute expression of that love of liberty which has always pervaded your people; great in a population that has never bowed the knee to the arrogance of power or to the blandishments of wealth, and has, through all the history of the state, maintained the inspiration of its early annals for love of personal independence. i rejoice to be present to-day at the home of one of your distinguished public servants, with whom it was my good fortune for a time to be associated in the discharge of public duties. i am glad to see here, at his own home, the respect and honor in which george f. edmunds is deservedly held by the people of vermont. [applause.] having for six years witnessed the value of his services as a legislator in the senate of the united states, i share with you the regret that this country is no longer to enjoy those services; though it is a source of gratification to you, as it is to me, to know that in his love and loyalty to the state that he has so highly honored, in his love and loyalty to the union of states, there will be no call for his wise counsel and help that will not find a ready response from the walks of life which he has chosen to resume. [applause.] my fellow-citizens, it is true, as your mayor has said, happily true, that we not infrequently, and with ease, lift ourselves above all the contentions of party strife and stand in the clear, inspiring and stimulating sunshine as american patriots. [applause.] we are conspicuously a people who give their allegiance to institutions and not to men. [applause.] it were a happy thing for others of our sister republics on this hemisphere if they could follow this great example. our people are not slow to appreciate public services. they are not reluctant to acknowledge transcendent genius, but they give their loyalty as citizens to institutions, and not to parties or to men. [applause.] this was happily shown in our great rebellion, when party divisions, that seemed to lift barriers between us like these mountain peaks, were obliterated in a moment by that love for the constitution and the flag which pervaded all our people [applause]--a love that made the people of all these great states one; that sent from vermont and massachusetts, as from indiana, those stalwart and devoted sons who offered--many of them gave--their lives for the perpetuity of the union and the honor of the flag. let us pursue our lines of division. it is characteristic of a free people--it is essential--that mental agitation and unrest out of which the highest and best is evolved. but let us never forget that the fundamental thought of our government is the rule of the majority, lawfully expressed at pure and clean elections, and that, when thus expressed, the laws enacted by those chosen to make our laws are not less of the minority than of the majority. [applause.] those who make the laws are our servants, to whom we yield the respect of office and that measure of personal regard to which their lives may entitle them. [applause.] we are this year a most favored and happy people. drouth has blasted the crops of many of the nations of the world. most of the peoples of europe are short of food. and god has this year, mercifully to us, mercifully to them, made our store-houses to burst with plenty. we have a great surplus of breadstuffs, and there is not a bushel of wheat, corn, rye or oats that will not find a ready market this year. happy are we in this great prosperity; happy that again out of your abundance the lack of other peoples may be supplied. let us be careful that our heads are not turned by too much prosperity. it has been out of hardness, out of struggles, out of self-denials, out of that thrift and economy which was an incident of your soil, that the best things in new england have come. [applause.] and, while thankful to god for a season that diffuses its blessings as this sweet sunshine is diffused into all our homes, let us remember that it is not, after all, riches that exalt the nation. it is a pure, clean, high, intellectual, moral, and god-fearing citizenship that is our glory and security as a nation. [applause.] let me thank you again for the friendliness of your manifestations, for the opportunity to stand for a few moments in this most beautiful city. [applause.] you have the advantage of many of our municipalities. you have not only the beauties of these groves and gardens and pleasant streets and lovely homes, but from these hilltops you have laid under contribution fifty miles in either direction to beautify burlington. [applause.] i thank you, and part with you with regret that my stay cannot be longer and my intercourse with you more personal and informal. [applause.] st. albans, vermont, august . the president and party embarked at burlington on board col. w. seward webb's yacht _elfrida_ and greatly enjoyed the sail on lake champlain, landing at maquam in the evening, whence a special train carried them to st. albans, where they were welcomed by the committee of reception, consisting of hon. a. d. tenney, george t. childs, alfred a. hall, t. m. deal, w. tracy smith, b. f. kelley, a. l. weeks, and a. w. fuller. after dining at governor smith's the president, at p.m., was escorted to the welden house, fronting st. albans park. twelve thousand people greeted him. the scene was one of unusual beauty; from the branching elms hung , chinese lanterns. when the president appeared on the balcony the enthusiasm was great. he was introduced by hon. e. c. smith, and spoke as follows: _my fellow-citizens_--i fear that my voice will not permit me suitably to acknowledge this magnificent demonstration. in the tour which i made this spring across the continent i witnessed very many great assemblages and looked upon very many brilliant and entrancing scenes, but i recall none outside the greater cities more beautiful and worthy than this in st. albans to-night. [applause.] most deeply do i feel whatever of personal respect you thus evidence, and yet more highly do i appreciate that love of american institutions, that fealty to the flag, which i am sure is the dominant impulse in this great assembly. [applause.] your situation upon this great water line connecting the st. lawrence with the hudson was an early suggestion to the trader as well as to the invader. the indian canoe, the boat of the fur-trader, ploughed these waters in the early days of our history. at a later time they suggested to the military leaders of great britain who commanded the armies sent for the subjection of the colonies that familiar strategy of severing the colonies into two parts by moving and establishing posts upon champlain and the hudson. these attempts and the brave resistance which was made by our people, in which vermont had so conspicuous and creditable a part, have made all the shores of lake champlain historic ground. in the address delivered by president bartlett in at the observance of the centennial of the battle of bennington, i noticed that he said, "trading manchester sent two regiments to conquer a market," and it recalled to my mind the fact that one of the great motives of resistance on the part of the colonies was the unjust trade restrictions and exactions which were imposed upon them by the mother country in order to secure the american markets for the british manufacturer. you recall how severe and persistent were the measures adopted in order to repress and crush out the establishment of manufacturing industries in the colonies. this battle for a market was never more general or more strenuous than now among all of the nations of the world, though now generally not pushed to bloodshed. [applause.] all of the countries of the old world have through colonial extension by the division of africa, much as a boy might divide a watermelon among his fellows, had reference largely to trade extensions and enlarged markets. in this contest we have ourselves engaged, not by attempting to push our political domain into lands that are not rightfully ours, not by attempting to overthrow or subjugate the weaker but friendly powers of this hemisphere, but by those methods of peaceful and profitable interchange which are good for them as for us, [cries of "good! good!" and applause.] secure in the great american market for our manufactures--a market the best per capita of any in the world--we have come now to believe that we may well extend our trade and send our manufactured products to other countries across the seas and in ships carrying the american flag. [cries of "good! good!" and applause.] we do not need in any degree to break down or injure our own domestic industries. we are consuming, to an enormous extent, of tropical products not produced by our people, and by a fair exchange with the nations sending us sugar, tea, and coffee we propose and have entered successfully upon the enterprise of opening the markets of central and south america to the manufacturing establishments of new england and the united states. [cries of "good! good!" and applause.] i am sure every american will rejoice in the success which has thus far attended these efforts, and will rejoice that with this expanding trade to the southward there opens before us this year a largely increased traffic in agricultural products with the nations of europe. we have never in the history of our country harvested such a crop as has now been gathered into the granaries of the united states. [applause.] we shall have an enormously large surplus of breadstuffs for exportation, and it happens that in this period of our abundance crop failures or shortages in india, in russia, in france, in germany, and england have opened a market that will require the last bushel of grain we have to sell. [cries of "good! good!" and applause.] rejoicing in the peace that pervades our land, proud of institutions which have for more than a hundred years witnessed their adequacy to give peace and security at home and to preserve our national honor abroad, rejoicing in the great increase of material wealth which is flowing in upon us, may we not on these great lines of enterprise, lifting ourselves now to newer and larger thoughts of what this country may be, enter upon these opening avenues of trade and influence upon which are the beckoning invitations of friendly peoples? [applause.] let me thank you again for this magnificent assemblage of vermont patriots and of vermont women, who have shared with her gallant men the sacrifices and suffering that this state has borne that it might be born among the states, and, having been admitted to the sisterhood, might, though small in geographical extent and population, bear a noble and honorable part in the work of holding up the american character and defending the american flag. [great applause.] richmond, vermont, august . president harrison passed the night at st. albans. on his departure, the morning of the th, he was accompanied by secretary proctor, ex-governor smith and wife, colonel and mrs. e. c. smith, tracy smith, hon. h. h. powers, henry r. start, d. sage mckay, col. geo. t. childs, and col. m. j. horton, of governor page's staff. the first stop of the day was at richmond, where a large audience greeted the party. among the prominent citizens who received the president were: judge e. b. andrews, hon. u. s. whitcomb, capt. g. a. edwards, dr. c. w. jacobs, hon. h. a. hodges, c. p. rhodes and edgar t. jacobs. the veterans of bronson barber post, g. a. r., were present in a body. congressman powers introduced the president, who said: _my fellow-citizens_--it is a little early in the morning to begin the daily round of speech-making, and yet i cannot refrain from saying to you how highly i appreciate your morning welcome. there is the tonic of your fine mountain air and the glory of your sunshine in these cordial manifestations of your respect and good-will. i hope no american citizen will ever begrudge the president of the united states the refreshment which comes from these occasional visits through the country, and from that draught of good-will which he receives as he looks into the faces and takes the hands of these good people, who have no other interest in the government than that it shall be honestly administered for the general good. washington is not always full of that kind of people; we are more certain, perhaps, to find them in the country. and yet no one should complain of honest criticism, and perhaps fault-finding has its use, for occasionally it must be well grounded and disclose to us errors we might otherwise have failed to discern. but, after all, the bracing of the good-will of the good people of this country is very essential to those who, in the midst of great perplexity and doubt and under staggering responsibility, endeavor as they see the right to do it. no man can do more than this, and i look upon this popular feature of our government, the readiness of communication, the nearness and familiarity of access which the people have with all public servants, as a great safeguard to those who might otherwise become separated from those impulses which are, after all, the safest and best. [applause.] i have had great pleasure in passing through your beautiful valley this morning. i can most sincerely commend what i see in these farms and thrifty homes. vermont is a mountain state, and, i suppose, because your horizon is a little high you are more frequently than we who live on the plains compelled to look up. that may account for a great many of the good things which we discover in the new england character. i thank you for your kindness. [applause.] waterbury, vermont, august, . waterbury was reached at : a.m. governor page and hon. w. w. grout joined the party here. about , people were assembled to greet the president, prominent among whom were: g. e. moody, esq., hon. g. w. rundall, hon. e. f. palmer, m. m. knight, george w. atkins, john batchelder, l. h. haines, justin w. moody, c. c. warren, w. r. elliott, c. h. arms, charles wells, dr. henry janes, and f. h. atherton. hon. wm. paul dillingham made the welcoming address and introduced the president, who responded as follows: _my friends_--it is very pleasant to know that a public officer may travel everywhere through this great land of ours--and only those who have traversed it can understand how great it is--and find always his sure defence and care in the good-will and respect of the people who surround him. if we bar out the irresponsible crank, so far as i can see the president is in no peril, except that he may be killed by the superabundant kindness of the people. [laughter.] there seems to be an impression that his strength and capacity for speech-making is unfailing [laughter] and that his arm is a hickory limb. but it is very kind of you and all these good, people of vermont who have met me on this journey to express so pleasantly by your cheers, and much more by your kindly faces, the love and loyalty you have for those in the situation with which the suffrage of the people has for the time connected me. the new england character is one that has been much written about, much discussed, and i think that even those who have found points for the sharpest criticism have, when they adopted the yankee method of averages, concluded that the influences emanating from plymouth rock and diffusing themselves first through the new hampshire grants and then the western reserve of ohio, and so scattering and disseminating the seeds of intelligence and love of liberty throughout the whole land, have been good for the whole country. the new england man is a man with his eye open everywhere. i have sometimes thought that the habit of attention, of giving the whole mind to the business in hand, had its very natural origin and development in new england agriculture. the man who holds a plough in a stumpy or stony ground learns the lesson that he had better give his mind to the business in hand. [laughter.] otherwise the revenge and punishments for inattention are so prompt and severe that he is quickly called back from any mental wanderings into which he may have fallen. i had occasion to say a moment ago that the fact that the mountain regions of the world had always furnished the bravest champions of liberty and the most strenuous defenders of the faith was possibly owing to the fact that their horizon was so high that if they looked at all they were compelled to look up. [laughter and applause.] my countrymen, we have a great and happy land--a people dwelling in happy homes, and that is the origin of government, and there is the essential of a contented citizenship. as long as we can preserve this independence and self-respect, and that degree of comfort in the home that makes it a pleasant abode when the day's toil is ended, and that enables by the most careful thrift the head of the household to lay by for the family and to lighten in some measure the care and labor of the children that are to follow him, there can be no happier land than ours. if we would perpetuate and secure that which we have had handed down to us and which we have so well preserved until this hour, this is the essential thing. i thank you for this kindly greeting, and beg you to accept my sincerest good-will. i can say nothing of public affairs. every man called to public office is subject to the infirmities that belong to our nature--the capacity to make mistakes. he can be, if he is true, sure of one thing--that in all that he does he has it in his mind to do the best he can for all the people. [prolonged cheers.] montpelier, vermont, august . a great throng greeted the president's arrival at the vermont capital. he was met by a reception committee consisting of prominent citizens: col. fred e. smith, hon. charles dewey, prof. j. a. deboer, j. c. houghton, m. e. smilie, l. bart cross, g. h. gurnsey, t. c. phinney, h. w. kemp, d. f. long, c. p. pitkin, j. w. brock, george wing, f. w. morse, and thomas marvin. the first regiment n. g. v., commanded by adjutant-general peck, with the sons of veterans, escorted the president and governor page to the state house, the former walking the entire distance with uncovered head, surrounded by a guard of honor detailed from george crook post, g. a. r. from the governor's room they were conducted to the hall of the house of representatives, where the legislature of vermont was assembled in joint session. the members arose and remained standing until the chief magistrate was seated between governor page and lieutenant-governor fletcher. after the applause subsided the lieutenant-governor introduced president harrison, who addressed the legislators as follows: _mr. president and gentlemen, the legislature of the state of vermont_--i am grateful to you for this cordial reception, which crowns a series of friendly demonstrations which began with my entry into this good state and have continued to this interesting and important occasion. i am glad to meet the chosen representatives of the towns of vermont, appointed to the discharge of functions of legislating for the general good. the wisdom of our fathers devised that system of governmental division for the general government which has found adoption or adaptation in all the states--the division of the powers of the government into three great co-ordinate departments, each independent, and yet having close and important relations one with the other, and each adapted in the highest degree to secure the liberty of the individual, the welfare of our community, and the national honor and prosperity. [applause.] it has been fortunate for us as a people that no serious clash has occurred to these great departments. the constitutional balance and counterbalance have preserved with marvellous exactness, with the perfection of the most perfect machinery, the relations of these several departments, each doing its appropriate work and producing the great result which had been intended. surely there is no other country where the springs of government are higher than here. the impulses of our people are drawn from springs that lie high in the hills of duty and loyalty. they respect and obey the law, because it is the orderly expression of their own will. the compact of our government is a rule by the majority. the sanction of all law is that it is the expression by popular election of the will of a majority of our people. law has no other sanction than that with us; and happy are we, and happy are those communities where the election methods are so honestly and faithfully prescribed and observed that no doubt is thrown upon the popular expression and no question of the integrity of the ballot is ever raised. [applause.] if we shall ever or anywhere allow a doubt to settle into the minds of our people whether the results of our elections are honestly attained, whether the laws made are framed by those who have been properly chosen by the majority, then all sanction is withdrawn from law and all respect from the rulers who by a false ballot are placed in public office. [applause.] i am glad to congratulate you upon your constituencies, intelligent, devoted and patriotic. i am glad to congratulate you that the state of vermont, from its earliest aspirations and efforts for liberty and self-government, which developed into your constitution in , down through all the story of toil and the struggles which have beset you as a state, and the vicissitudes which have beset the country of which you are an honored part, that the state of vermont and her sons in the councils of the nation and on the blood-stained battle-fields of the great war have borne themselves worthily. [applause.] will you permit me now to thank you again for this demonstration and for the opportunity to stand for a moment in your presence? i am sure that we may each, from this occasion, in the discharge of public duty, draw some impulse to a more perfect exercise of our powers for the public good. [applause.] _the public reception._ the speech-making within doors being over, president harrison entered a side room, where he received the tippecanoe club, shaking hands cordially with all. he was then conducted to the governor's room, where he received the members of the legislature. meanwhile a great crowd massed on the beautiful grounds and waited impatiently for the reappearance of the president. finally he made his way from the interior to the front of the capitol. governor page introduced him. the president spoke as follows: _governor page and fellow-citizens_--this sunshine is as warm as a vermont welcome. [applause.] it is of the highest quality. it has life in it. but too much of it is prostrating. [laughter.] i have felt, in endeavoring to respond to these calls, that i was possibly overtaxing my own strength, and perhaps overcrowding the press association. [laughter.] i am not naturally a gossip, i think i had some reputation as a taciturn man, but it is gone. [laughter.] i have not given it up willingly. i have struggled to retain it, but it has been forcefully taken from me by kindness of my fellow-citizens, whom i have met so frequently within the last year. perhaps, however, if i preserve other virtues i can let this go. [laughter.] it is a great thing to be a citizen of the united states. i would not have you abate at all the love and loyalty you have for vermont. but i am glad to know that always in your history as a state and a people you have felt that the higher honor, the more glorious estate, was to be a citizen of the united states of america. [applause.] this association of states is a geographical necessity. we can never consent that hostile boundaries shall be introduced with all that such divisions imply. we must be one from maine to california, one from the lakes to the gulf [applause], and everywhere in all that domain we must insist that the behests of the federal constitution and of the laws written in the federal statute-book shall be loyally obeyed. [applause.] a statesman of one of the southern states said to me, with tears in his eyes, shortly after my inauguration: "mr. president, i hope you intend to give the poor people of my state a chance." i said in reply: "a chance to do what? if you mean, sir, that they shall have a chance to nullify any law, and that i shall wink at the nullification of it, you ask that which you ought not to ask and that which i cannot consider. [applause.] if you mean that obeying every public law and giving to every other man his full rights under the law and the constitution, they shall abide in my respect and in the security and peace of our institutions. then they shall have, so far as in my power lies, an equal chance with all our people." [applause.] we may not choose what laws we will obey; the choice is made for us. when a majority have, by lawful methods, placed a law upon the statute-book, we may endeavor to repeal it, we may challenge its wisdom, but while it is the law it challenges our obedience. [applause.] i thank you for the kindliness of this greeting in this capital of vermont. i wish for you and your gallant state and for all your people in all their good, god-fearing homes continuance of that personal liberty, that material prosperity, that love of the truth which has always characterized them. [applause.] plainfield, vermont, august . at montpelier the president's party was joined by hon. f. a. dwinnel, gen. f. e. alfred, gen. w. h. gilmore, v. r. sartwell, w. a. stowell, col. h. e. folsom, fletcher d. proctor, frank c. partridge; also, e. w. smith and john bailey, of newbury. the first stop in the afternoon was at plainfield, where , people gave the president a cordial greeting. among the leading citizens participating in the reception were: joseph lane, george d. kidder, leroy f. fortney, e. j. bartlett, h. e. cutler, henry q. perry, d. b. smith, h. g. moore, john a. fass, ira f. page, nelson shorey, h. w. batchelder, and w. b. page. w. e. martin post, g. a. r., h. h. hollister commander, occupied a conspicuous position. president harrison was introduced by senator dwinnel, and said: _my fellow-citizens and comrades_--for i see here, as everywhere, some of those who wore the blue and carried the flag in the great civil war gathered to greet me. it gives me pleasure to stop for a moment and to thank you for the friendliness which has brought you from your homes to make this journey bright with your presence and cordial welcome. i have been talking so much to-day that i will not attempt to make a speech. i have already said a great deal about vermont, have expressed my esteem for it and for its people, and all that. i have been very sincere, for i think that your state does hold a very high place among the states. your sons, who have gone out to represent you and to take part in those stirring enterprises which have laid the foundations of new states, have already borne themselves with honor and with true new england thrift, obtaining in the long run the full share of all the good things that were going. i met some of them in california. they are scattered this broad land over, and i think they carry with them everywhere the love of the flag, respect for law and order, love of liberty and of education, and interest in all those things that make the communities where they abide prosperous and happy. i think i owe a special debt to this neighborhood for a pair of good vermont horses that secretary proctor selected for me, and in the driving of which i have had great relaxation and pleasure. your vermont horses are well trained. the morgan horse has the good habit of entering into consultation with the driver whenever there is any trouble. [laughter and applause.] st. johnsbury, vermont, august . brief stops were made at wells river, mcindoes, and barnet, and the president cordially thanked the people at each place. st. johnsbury, where great preparations were made to welcome the distinguished guest, was reached at : p.m. the president's party headed a procession which moved through the principal streets over a distance of two miles. the guard of honor consisted of mounted veterans with drawn swords. the following prominent citizens met the president: col. franklin fairbanks, hon. jonathan ross, chief justice of vermont, and mrs. ross; rev. dr. c. m. lamson, l. d. hazen, a. h. mcleod, charles t. walter, hon. h. h. powers, col. frederick fletcher, h. h. carr, c. h. stevens, e. h. blossom, s. h. brackett, lucius k. hazen, osborne chase, george h. cross, n. p. bowman, albert worcester, h. i. woods, dr. g. b. bullard, a. f. walker, c. p. carpenter, n. r. switser, f. a. carter, l. w. fisher, j. b. gage, c. h. horton, l. n. smythe, and wm. h. sargent. an incident of the parade was the reception by the school children. the president's carriage halted and several hundred of the children, led by h. h. may, rendered "america," at the conclusion of which six pretty little girls--misses may masten, lala mcneil, marian moore, lottie holder, beatrice may, and emma may--stepped forward and presented a beautiful floral key, thus tendering the freedom of the city to the illustrious guest. the president reviewed the procession from "undercliffe," the stately residence of colonel and mrs. fairbanks, whose guest he was. at night the town was brilliantly illuminated, and , residents gathered in the public park. colonel fairbanks made the welcoming address and introduced the president, who received an ovation and spoke as follows: _my fellow-citizens_--i could wish that i were in better voice and in full strength, that i might better respond to this most magnificent demonstration. i have rarely looked upon a scene more calculated to inspire a patriot than this upon which my eye rests to-night. i do most profoundly thank you for this great welcome. the taste and beauty and elaboration of these preparations exceed anything that i have looked upon in this journey. [applause.] i am sure you are here to-night after making all this preparation to give witness by your presence of your love to the flag of our country [applause] and to those institutions of civil government and of liberty which that flag represents. [applause.] it gives me great pleasure to see that the flag is everywhere. i journeyed across this continent, and, except when darkness shut in the landscape, i was never out of sight of the american flag. [applause.] on those wide plains of the west, once called the great american desert, now and again, in the home of some adventurous settler, the flag appeared and was waved in greeting as our train sped on its way. i rejoiced to see it everywhere in the sight of school children. on that great demonstration in new york in observance of the centennial of the inauguration of washington, as i moved from the battery up through those streets dedicated to commerce, i saw every front covered with flags, hiding for the time those invitations to trade which covered their walls. the thought occurred to me, what will be done with these flags when this celebration is over? and it occurred to me to suggest at the centennial banquet that the flags should be taken into our school-houses. [applause.] i rejoice to know that everywhere throughout the land, in all our patriotic towns and villages, movements are being inaugurated to display the american flag over our institutions of learning. i have several times been brought in contact with incidents showing this love of the flag. i remember that when hood was investing nashville, and when that gallant, sturdy, unostentatious, but always faithful and victorious leader, gen. george h. thomas, was gathering the remnants of an army that he might confront his adversary in battle, it was assigned to me to intrench through the beautiful grounds of a resident in the suburbs of nashville. the proprietor was a tennessee unionist. while i was digging and tearing the sod of his beautiful lawn, he was removing his library and other valuables from his mansion, for it was within easy range of the rebel fire. happening into his library while he was thus engaged, he opened a closet below the book-shelf, and, taking out a handsome bunting, asked me whether i had a garrison flag. i told him no. "well," he said, "take this. sir, i have never been without the american flag in my house." [applause.] i would be glad if that could be said by every one of our people. there is inspiration in it. it has a story wrought into its every fold until every thread has some lesson to tell of sacrifice and heroism. it is the promise of all that we hope for. it is to it and about it that we must gather and hold the affections of our people if these institutions are to be preserved. i have it in my mind as i saw it one night in newport harbor. going out of that harbor upon a government vessel about midnight, when the heavens were darkened clouds, i saw a sight that lives fresh in my memory. the officers of the torpedo station had run up the starry banner upon the staff, and turned upon it as we moved out of the harbor two great electric search-lights. it revealed the banner, while the staff and buildings below it were all hidden in the blackness. i could see it as if it had been hung out of the battlements of heaven, lifting its folds in the darkness of night, a glorified emblem of the hope of a free people. [applause.] let us keep it thus in our hearts; let no other flag be borne in our marching processions. we have no place for the red flag of anarchy. [applause.] this emblem typifies a free people, who have voluntarily placed themselves under the restraints of the law, who have consented that individual liberty shall cease where it infringes upon the right or property of another. this is our contract. this is the liberty which we offer those who cast in their lot with us, not a liberty to destroy, but a liberty to conserve and perpetuate. [cheers.] i am most happy to witness in this prosperous new england town so many evidences that your community is intelligent, industrious, enterprising, and your people lovers of home and order. you have here some great manufacturing establishments, whose fame and products have spread throughout the world. you have here a class of enterprising, public-spirited citizens, who are building these free libraries and galleries of art and are ministering to the good of generations that are to come. you have here an intelligent and educated class of skilled workmen, and nothing pleased me more as i passed through your streets to-day than to be told that here and there were the homes of the working people of st. johnsbury [applause]--homes where every evidence of comfort was apparent; homes where taste has been brought to make attractive the abodes where tired men sought rest; homes that must have been made sweet for the children that are reared there, and comfortable for the wives whose place of toil and responsibility it is. here is the anchor of our safety. this is the state that binds men to good order, to good citizenship, to the flag of the constitution, a contented and prosperous working class. [applause.] i will not cross any lines of division in my remarks to night, for this reception is general; but i will venture to say that all our public policy, all our legislation, may wisely keep in view the end of perpetuating an independent, contented, prosperous and hopeful working class in america. [applause.] when hope goes out of the heart and life becomes so hard that it is no longer sweet, men are not safe neighbors and they are not good citizens, let us, then, in cheerful, loving, christian good neighborhood see that the blessings of our institutions, the fruits of labor, have that fair distribution that shall bring contentment into our homes. [applause.] but, my countrymen, i did not intend to speak even so long. i wish it were in my power to make some adequate return for the generous welcome you have given me. i am not a man of promises. i abhor pretension, but every such assembly as this that i see--this great cup of good-will which you put to my lips--gives me strength to do what i can for our country and for you. [applause.] billings park, august . when the presidential party left st. johnsbury on the morning of the th, they were joined by hon. a. a. woolson, c. s. forbes, ex-governor farnham, and ex-senator pingree. at white river junction the president's car was switched to a siding running to billings park, where the vermont association of road and trotting horse breeders was holding its annual exhibition. senator morrill, col. geo. w. hooker, and capt. a. w. davis accompanied the party to the park, where carriages conveyed them over the grounds. a large crowd was present. col. hooker, as president of the association, introduced president harrison, who said: _colonel hooker and fellow-citizens_--i have been called upon to address my fellow-citizens under many diverse and some very peculiar circumstances, but i think that those that surround me this morning are absolutely unique. i understood that in the programme secretary proctor had arranged for a day of pleasure here at this horse fair, and that a more attractive entertainment was to be provided for you and for me than speech-making. i am not well up in the rules of the track, but i suppose on a morning like this some allowance will be made for a heavy track, and if the horses are entitled to it i think i may claim an allowance myself. [laughter.] therefore, i have only to thank you for the friendliness of your reception and to express my interest in this great industry which is represented here--the breeding of horses. i understand that it was so arranged that, after i had seen the flower of the manhood and womanhood of vermont, i should be given an exhibition of the next grade in intelligence and worth in the state--your good horses. [applause.] i have had recently, through the intervention of the secretary of war, the privilege of coming into possession of a pair of vermont horses. they are all i could wish for, and, as i said the other day at the little village from which they came, they are of good morgan stock, of which some one has said that their great characteristic was that they enter into consultation with the driver whenever there is any difficulty. [laughter and applause.] thanking you again, i hope you will give me the allowance to which a heavy track entitles me. [applause.] bradford, vermont, august . at bradford , people assembled to do honor to the president, who arrived at a.m. the visitors were escorted to a platform near the station. among the prominent residents who welcomed the chief executive were h. e. parker, judge s. m. gleason, roswell farnham, john h. watson, dr. j. h. jones, and l. j. brown. ex-governor farnham introduced the president, who spoke as follows: _ladies and gentlemen_--i will only say a few words to thank you for this welcome which is extended to me this morning, and which it seems to me furnishes some proof of your well wishes and kindly feelings. i have had a journey through vermont that will be very pleasant in my recollection, although attended with some instances of an unpleasant nature. as i understood the purpose of this trip when i gave my assent to it at the request of your excellent fellow-citizen, whom you kindly loaned me for a little while, and are now, as far as i can see, about to reclaim, the trip was to be one of relaxation, and to visit him and some of his friends. it seems to me that the circle has been enlarged beyond the limit of his friends, and if not that they include the whole of the people of vermont. it is very pleasant to pass through your enterprising manufacturing towns, and to see this rural population, which, after all, is the foundation of all state organizations, which are based upon the farms of old new england. the farm has been, perhaps, one of the most productive measures toward the enrichment of this country in things that are greater than the material things--in manhood, valor in warfare, and statesmanship in political life. it has been a matter of great pleasure to me as we have driven through the streets of these cities, from bennington until this time, to observe one thing. as we pass by your streets i have seen some aged father or mother or grandfather or grandmother placed in a position for best observation and kindly attended by some member of the family, showing that family love, that veneration for the aged, that has, to me, been a source of particular gratification. for, after all, the home is the beginning and centre of all good things. the life of our nation is learned in the first rudiments of government at home and that lesson of veneration for things that are good. with these elements i think you are sure to make the career of vermont not greater in temporary things, but greater in those things which are more productive to the nation and to mankind. [prolonged cheers.] windsor, vermont, august . it was raining when the president arrived at windsor, at p.m. he was met by senator william m. evarts, accompanied by hon. c. c. beaman, of new york; hon. chester pike, of cornish, n. h., and the following prominent citizens, comprising the local committee of reception: col. marsh o. perkins, dwight tuxbury, hon. g. a. davis, dr. c. p. holden, dr. j. s. richmond, u. l. comings, george t. low, hon. rollin amsden, e. c. howard, charles h. fitch, o. l. patrick, rev. e. n. goddard, s. n. stone, s. r. bryant, j. m. howe, george t. hazen, s. m. blood, s. e. hoisington, horace weston, a. e. houghton, a. j. hunter, allen dudley, dr. deane richmond, j. r. brewster, a. d. cotton, g. r. guernsey, charles n. adams, col. m. k. paine, h. w. stocker, george m. stone, harvey miller, george t. winn, and c. d. penniman. after partaking of luncheon at the residence of senator and mrs. evarts, the president was conducted to the town hall, and, being introduced to the assemblage by colonel perkins, he spoke as follows: _my fellow-citizens_--i am about completing a very pleasant trip through the state of vermont--a trip which, while not the first, has furnished the only occasion on which i have really been brought in contact with the people of your state. my previous journeys were those of a summer tourist, snatching these fine and attractive views as we sped along some of your lines of railway, but getting little impression of the character of the people who occupy these towns and rural homesteads. it has given me great pleasure on this occasion to receive at the hands of your people everywhere a most cordial reception, it has been a source of constant regret to me that i am able on such occasions as we have here this afternoon to make so small a return for the care, preparation, and friendly interest which the people manifest. i am under such limitations as to them and about which i may talk that the fertility of a very rich and highly cultivated mind and imagination would be necessary to furnish one with something new or interesting to say in response to the repeated calls. i have supposed that all of these meetings were expressions of patriotism and of popular interest in a government which mr. lincoln so felicitously described as "a government of the people, by the people, for the people." [applause.] it is pleasant to have the personal esteem and respect of my fellow-citizens, but i have not thought of appropriating to myself these demonstrations. it is very gratifying to see a people in love with their civil institutions and with that glorious flag which typifies our diversity and our unity. [applause.] i have said before that it seemed to me this is the essential element and base of every republican government, that the loyalty and love of the people should be given to our institutions and not to men. [applause.] i think it is one element of discord and unhappiness in some of our sister republics that the minds of these patriotic and generous people are too much swayed by their admiration for men, that they are often swept away from the moorings of principle by the love of a leader. i have rejoiced to find everywhere in the state of vermont what seemed to me to be a deep-seated, earnest patriotism. [applause.] it is to be hoped that we may not soon have any call for such manifestations as you have given in the past on the battle-fields from bennington to the surrender of appomattox. [cheers.] it is pleasant to be here to day at the home of my esteemed friend and your fellow-townsman, the hon. william m. evarts. [applause.] i am glad that he has introduced into vermont model farming [laughter and applause], and has shown you what the income of a large city law practice can do in the fertilization of a farm. [laughter and applause.] he has assured me to-day that his farm yields a net income. i accept the statement of my host with absolute faith--and yet mr. evarts' reputation as a bookkeeper is not the best in the world. [laughter and applause.] it is pleasant to see him and to be for a while in his genial presence, and to have this journey illuminated by a visit to his home. i hope he may dwell long with you in peace and honor, as he will always dwell in the honor and esteem of our whole people. [applause.] charlestown, new hampshire, august . notwithstanding the heavy downpour, , or more sturdy citizens of historic old charlestown welcomed the president to new hampshire. the reception committee consisted of hon. george olcott, george s. bond, frank finnigan, col. samuel webber, herbert w. bond, and frank w. hamlin. lincoln post, g. a. r., lyman f. partridge commander, also participated in the reception. colonel webber delivered an eloquent address of welcome. the president, responding, said: _colonel webber and fellow-citizens_--i think it might be said to-day that new hampshire has "gone wet," as they say when the election returns come in on a vote against prohibition. i am very much obliged to you for this extraordinary manifestation of your interest, for to stand in this downpour of rain is certainly an evidence that you have a most friendly interest in this little party of tourists, who touch in a journey through vermont the mainspring of the state of new hampshire. i have been talking about vermont for the last two or three days, but if you will take the pains, in the comfort of your own homesteads, to read all the good things i have said about vermont, and then understand that they are all said of new hampshire, it will abbreviate my speech and will be expressive of my opinion of that sturdy, enterprising, masterful new england character which you share with them. [applause.] bellows falls, vermont, august . when the train arrived at bellows falls, the rain was pouring in torrents and the president was conducted to the opera house by the veterans of e. h. stoughton post, g. a. r. the committee of reception consisted of hon. wm. a. russell, hon. a. n. swain, judge l. m. read, barnes cannon, jr., wyman flint, john t. moore, c. w. osgood, thomas e. o'brien, george h. babbitt, and capt. walter taylor, the latter a veteran of eighty years, who marshalled the hosts for gen. wm. henry harrison in and ' . the building was packed. mr. swain introduced president harrison, who said: _my fellow-citizens_--i will wait a moment until they turn out the footlights. they put a barrier between us, and i always prefer to get my light from above. [applause.] we can only tarry in this busy city a few moments. the inclement character of the day has driven us to shelter, and the finding of a shelter has consumed some small part of the allotment of time which our schedule gives to you. i greatly appreciate the value and importance of these manufacturing centres, which are now, fortunately for us, not characteristic of new england alone, but are found west of the ohio and of the mississippi and of the missouri. i am one of those who believe that in a diversification of pursuits we make most rapid increase in wealth and attain best social relations and development. i am one of those who believe that providence did not set apart the united states to be a purely agricultural region, furnishing its surplus to supply the lack of other people of the world while they do all the manufacturing for us. i think there are suggestions in our very geographical position, and a great many of them in our history and experience, that we may well desire and reach for that condition in which we shall raise our own food and in which a manufacturing class, withdrawn from agriculture and other pursuits, shall furnish the farmer a market for his surplus near to his fields and gardens, while he exchanges with the farmer the products of the shop and the loom. i would not introduce politics. i do not intend to cross any lines of division, but i think we all agree, though we may differ as to the means by which it is to be done, that the nearer together the producer and the consumer can be brought the less waste there is in transportation and the greater the wealth. [applause.] it is known to you all that our , , people furnish per capita a larger market than any other like number of people. this grows out of the fact that our capacity for purchasing is larger than is found in those countries where poverty holds a larger sway. the workingman buys more, has more to buy with in america than in any other land in the world. [applause.] i mentioned the other day at st. albans that this was the era of the battle for a market. the whole world is engaged in it. the thought was suggested to me by a sentence in the address of president bartlett at the observance of the centennial of the battle of bennington in . he says, "trading manchester furnished two regiments to burgoyne to conquer a market." the foreign policy of the united states has never been selfish. there has always been, if you will trace it through the struggles of greece and of our south american neighbors for independence and a free government, a brave, generous tone of sympathy with struggling people the world round in our diplomatic policy. i think we may well challenge comparison with the foreign policy of any other great government in the world in this regard. it has never been our policy to push our trade forward at the point of the bayonet. we have always believed that it should be urged upon the ground of mutual advantage; and upon this ground alone are we now endeavoring, by every means in our power, to open the markets of our sister republics in central and south america to the products of american shops and farmers. [applause.] we do not covet their territory. the day of filibustering aggression has gone by in the united states. we covet their good will. we wish for them settled institutions of government, and we desire those exchanges that are mutually profitable. we have found that we were receiving from some of these countries enormous annual imports of sugar, coffee, and hides, and we have now placed these articles on the free list upon the condition that they give to the products of the united states fair reciprocity. [applause.] if our own laws, or any aggressive movement we are making for a larger share in the commerce of the world, should excite the commercial jealousy and rivalry of other countries we shall not complain if those rivalries find only proper expressions. we have come to a time in our development as a nation when i believe that interest on money is low enough for us to turn some of our accumulated capital from the railways into steam transportation on the sea; that the time has come when we shall recover a full participation in the carrying trade of the world, when under the american flag steamships shall carry our products to neighboring markets and bring back their exchange to our harbors. larger foreign markets for the products of our farms and of our factories and a larger share in the carrying trade of the world, peaceful relations with all mankind, with naval and coast defences that will silently make an effective argument on the side of peace, are the policies that i would pursue. [applause.] brattleboro, vermont, august . just before the train reached brattleboro the rain ceased, and the president rode in a procession to the house of col. j. j. estey. the committee of reception consisted of colonel estey, col. kittredge haskins, dr. h. d. holton, n. i. hawley, f. w. childs, ex-governor holbrook, judge wheeler, hon. b. d. harris, hon. j. l. martin, e. c. crosby, judge r. w. clarke, c. f. thompson, col. w. c. holbrook, george s. dowley, colonel fuller, dr. conland, dr. ketchum, and g. a. hines. veterans of the g. a. r., and the estey guard, escorted the chief executive through the city. several thousand were assembled on the grounds. colonel estey welcomed and presented the president, who made the following address: _my fellow citizens_--governor proctor held out to me the suggestion that this trip to vermont would be a very restful one. he has the queerest appreciation of what rest means of any man i know. [laughter.] when i attended the centennial demonstration of the inauguration of washington in new york, i spent part of one day on the bridge of the _despatch_ bowing to the fleet in the bay as we moved down to the battery, and the balance of the day shaking hands at the city hall, attending a ball at night; ten hours the next day reviewing a procession, with a banquet at night; and about as many hours the day following reviewing the civic procession; and when released from the stand about o'clock in the evening i hurried to the jersey city depot to take the train, scarcely able to stand upon my feet. one of the gentlemen of the committee said to me: "well, mr. president, i hope you have enjoyed these three days of rest in new york." [laughter.] i wish i could see you more satisfactorily than i am able to do on a hurried trip like this, but governor proctor kept me up very late last night, and he was the last man down to breakfast this morning himself. all that i have seen in your state has but increased the respect i have always entertained for your people. my recent journey of somewhat great length through the country has very deeply impressed upon me the fact of the unity of our people. the building of these great railroad lines making every part of every state familiar, and stretching across the continent so as to bring within easy access the most distant parts of our country, has had a great tendency to unify our people and to wipe out whatever there was provincial or local in our character. it has rubbed off some of the edges of the new england character, and has rubbed on some of the new england polish upon the west. in fact, wherever we have any combining, nothing makes it homogeneous except a thorough mixer, and the american people have certainly had a most thorough mixing. [cheers.] one of your war governors was saying to me to-day, as we came along in the train, your own distinguished fellow-citizen, that on a journey west not long ago everywhere vermont men came to meet him; and as i went recently across the continent the railroad train scarcely stopped at any station that some one from indiana did not reach up his hand and claim recognition; and so it is in all the states. the west is now turning a little back toward the east, and i have found some people, who probably had some ancestral connection with new england, but whose birth, early residence, and business life were in the west, who have come back to the old home. all this is pleasant, all this is surety of the future of our country. it is pleasant to know that the south is being obliterated, that all that made it distinctive in the sense of separation or alienation is being gradually wiped out. [applause.] of course, the prejudices of generations are not like marks upon the blackboard, that can be rubbed out with a sponge. these are more like the deep glacial lines that the years have left in the rock; but the water, when that surface is exposed to its quiet, gentle, and perpetual influence, wears even these out, until the surface is smooth and uniform. and so these influences are at work in our whole country, and we should be hopeful for it, hopeful for its future. i am sure you each feel pride in your american citizenship, and would show readiness to defend it in war, and i am sure that from every class of your community would come the response: "we will maintain it, honorable and high, in peace." i thank you most sincerely for your friendly greeting, and regret that i am not able to speak to you more satisfactorily, and can only accept with a heart full of appreciation these marks of your respect. [applause.] rutland, vermont, august . the president and his party were guests of secretary proctor on the night of the th, at the village of proctor, in the green mountains. the morning of the th, the party visited rutland, and were met by the local reception committee: j. c. baker, h. h. dyer, w. g. veazey, ex-judge barrett, j. w. cramton, dr. j. d. hanrahan, c. h. joyce, j. n. woodfin, e. p. gilson, p. w. clement, george e. lawrence, henry f. field, john n. baxter, p. m. meldon, john a. sheldon, george j. wardwell, dr. norman seaver, and henry carpenter, president of the village. arrived at memorial hall the president was greeted by a large assemblage, including many ladies. he was presented by colonel baker and made the following address: _my fellow-citizens and comrades of the grand army of the republic_--it gives me great pleasure this morning, tired as i am, to see and to have an opportunity to express my thanks to this large assemblage of the good citizens of rutland. my journey through your state has been attended with every evidence of respect which it was possible for the people to bestow. your chairman has spoken of the fact that the president of the united states may travel everywhere through our country without any attendance of policemen. as i have had occasion to say before, the only peril he is likely to meet, if the railroads take good care of him and the cranks keep out of the way, is from the over-kindness of the people [laughter and applause]; and there is more peril in that than you will understand at first thought. it is pleasant to stand upon the steps of this memorial hall, erected as a place of deposit for trophies of the great civil war and as a monument of honor to those soldiers from vermont who aided so conspicuously in making that war successful. we cannot tell how much hung upon that contest. no orator has yet been inspired to describe adequately the gravity of the great issue which was fought out upon the battle-fields of the war of the rebellion. we say it was a contest to preserve the unity of our republic, and so it was; but what dismemberment would have meant; how greatly it would have increased the cost of government; how sadly it would have disturbed the plan of our border communities; how it would have degraded in the eyes of the world this great people; how it would have rejoiced the enemies of popular government, no tongue has yet adequately described. but it was not to be so. god has desired that this experiment of free government should have a more perfect trial, and it was impossible that the brave men of the loyal states should consent to dismemberment of the union. we were very patient, so patient, in the early contest, as it ranged through the great debate of convention and congress that our brethren of the south altogether mistook the temper of our people. undoubtedly there were evidences that the men of trade were reluctant to have those lines of profitable communication, which had been so long maintained with the south, broken off. undoubtedly that character so undesirable in our politics--the doughface--was particularly conspicuous in those days of discussion, but we were altogether misjudged when the people of the south concluded that they might support their threats of disunion which had so long rung in congress, and so long filled their boasting press, by force of arms. i shall never forget, nor will any of you who are old enough to remember it, that great electric thrill and shock which passed through our whole country when the first gun was fired at sumter. debate was closed. our orators were withdrawn, and a great wave of determined patriotism swept over the country higher than any tidal wave ever lifted itself upon a devastated coast [applause], and it was not to be stayed in its progress until the last vestige of rebellion had been swept from the face of our beloved land. the men of new england were a peaceful people. the farmers and the farmers' sons were not brawlers. they were not found at the tavern. they were abiding under the sheltering moral influences and quietude of these new england hills. but the man who thought that the spirit of had been quenched was badly mistaken. the same resolute love of liberty, the same courage to face danger for a cause that had its inspiration in high moral purposes and resolves abided in the hearts of your people. [applause.] possibly the war might have been avoided if the south had understood this, but it was so written in the severe but benevolent purposes of god. there was a great scroll of emancipation to be written. there was a martyr president, who was to affix his name to a declaration that would be as famous as that to which your fathers fixed their signature in . it was to be in truth as well as in theory a free people [applause], and there was no other pathway to emancipation than along the bloody track of armies, not seeing at the beginning nor having the purpose that finally was accomplished, but guided by the hand of power and wisdom that is above us and over us to the accomplishment of that glorious result that struck the shackles from four millions of slaves. [applause.] i greet most affectionately these comrades of the war who are before me to-day. let them abide in honor in all your communities. let shafts of marble and bronze lift themselves in all your towns to tell the story of patriots' work well done and to teach the generations that are to come how worthy their fathers were. let us preserve all these inspiring lessons of history, all these individual examples of heroism, of which vermont furnished so many during the war. let them not be forgotten. let them be the illuminated and inspiring pages of your state's history, and then, whatever shock may come to us in the future, whenever the hand of anarchy or disorder shall be raised, whenever foreign powers shall seek to invade the rights or liberties of this great people, there will be found again an impenetrable bulwark in the brave hearts of a sturdy and patriotic people. [applause.] you will, i am sure, crown your kindness by excusing me from attempting further speech and allowing me to express, as i part from you, my good wishes for vermont and all her good people. [applause.] proctor, vermont, august . on the return to proctor in the evening the president was tendered the final reception of his trip to vermont. the village was elaborately decorated; an illuminated evergreen arch spanned the entrance to secretary proctor's beautiful grounds. the residences and grounds of e. r. morse, f. d. proctor, b. f. taylor, w. e. higbee, g. h. davis, e. j. boyce, j. h. edson, and h. e. spencer were also brilliantly illuminated. from a platform fronting the secretary's home the party reviewed the procession of , workmen from the marble quarries. secretary proctor, in an affectionate address, introduced president harrison, who spoke as follows: it is not my privilege to call you neighbors, but i am sure i may call you friends. this journey in vermont is crowned to-night by a reception and a good-by that is surpassingly brilliant and artistic in its preparation and one that i have never seen exceeded. but above all this, i have been able here in proctor to witness in its best manifestation that which i have seen elsewhere in new england and especially in vermont--a community of workers, men industriously pursuing mechanical avocations and doing it under conditions of the greatest possible comfort. as i look upon these homes in which you dwell and contrast them with the wretchedness of the crowded tenement-houses of our great cities; as i inhale to-night the bracing air of these mountains, and as my eye has looked to-day upon their green summits, i have said how happy is the lot of that man and that woman who work in one of these bright, wholesome new england villages. [applause.] it has seemed to me that the relation of our mutual friend who has inaugurated and developed these works in which many of you find employment was that of a public benefactor and a personal friend. [applause.] the simplicity and naturalness of his own life among you, his ready appreciation of the loyalty and intelligence of those who are employed by him, his interest in their success in life, is the ideal relation between the employer and his workmen. [applause.] i would to god it was always and everywhere so, that when a man is put at a machine he should not be regarded by his employer as a part of it, that the human nature, the aspirations of a man, should still be recognized, and the relations with the employer be that of mutual confidence and helpfulness and respect! [applause.] you are sharers in the responsibilities of local government, of the government of your state and of the nation, of which vermont is one of the honored members. i am sure that you have pride in the faithful discharge of all these duties. i cannot but feel that our national policy should be in the direction of saving our working people from that condition of hopelessness which comes when wages are barely adequate to the sustenance of animal life. [applause.] there is no hope for any community where this state of things exists, and there will be no hope for the nation should it become the general condition of the workingmen of america. that man or woman out of whose heart hope has gone, who sees nothing better in life, before whom the vista of life stretches in one dead level of unending and half-requited toil, that man's estate is calculated to make him reckless in character. it is one of the beneficent conditions of citizenship here that there are no disabilities put in the way of ambitions and the aspiring. i hope it may always be so. i cannot always sympathize with that demand which we hear so frequently for cheap things. things may be too cheap. they are too cheap when the man who produces them upon the farm or the man or woman who produces them in the factory does not get out of them living wages with a margin for old age and for a dowry for the incidents that are to follow. [applause.] i pity that man who wants a coat so cheap that the man or woman who produces the cloth or shapes it into a garment shall starve in the process. [applause.] i am most profoundly grateful to you, my fellow-citizens, and to my good friend governor proctor, for this beautiful demonstration--this magnificent rural welcome which we have had here to-day. it will live always in my memory. i shall carry this community in my thoughts as one of the best types of american neighborhood life. i have found in him a most valuable contribution to the administration of the government at washington. [applause.] you cannot know fully how he has grown into the respect and confidence of all who have been associated with him in the cabinet and of all our legislators in congress without distinction of party. i regret that there is some danger that you may reclaim him for vermont [applause]; yet it is quite natural that it should be so, and i shall do the best i can to get a substitute. the labors of public office at washington are full of high responsibility and most burdensome toil. no man is endowed with an incapacity to make mistakes. we can, however, all of us, in public or private trust, be sure of our motives. these are our own. we can know whether we are pursuing low and selfish ends or have set before us the general good, the highest good of all our people. judgment upon what has been done is with you. i am sure only that i have had it in my heart to do that which should in the highest degree promote the prosperity of our people and lift the glorious flag yet higher in the esteem of the world. [great applause.] we have been endeavoring to open a foreign market for american trade. if these efforts are met, as i trust they will be, by enterprise on the part of our merchants and manufacturers, i do not doubt that the next ten years will see a most gratifying increase in our foreign trade. [applause.] they should diligently set themselves to the study of the new markets into which their goods may now go. the most intelligent representatives should be sent there, and their goods adapted to the market that is to be supplied. this i have no doubt they will do, and i add the expectation that we shall presently have a most gratifying increase in the american merchant marine. [applause.] washington, september , . _the augusta exposition._ president harrison on the above date received at the executive mansion a delegation of prominent citizens of georgia, who extended to him a formal invitation to attend the augusta exposition in november. the delegation comprised the following citizens and exposition directors: hon. patrick walsh, walter m. jackson, j. p. verdery, h. g. smith, j. l. gow, c. h. ballard, j. j. doughty, w. a. garrett, g. j. howard, w. h. landrum, j. e. barton, w. e. keener, percy burum, j. p. bones, j. m. cranston, crawford mays, maurice walton, l. j. henry, t. r. gibson, p. j. o'connor, jules rival, joseph ganahl, jr., w. h. barrett, jr., p. a. stovall, w. e. platt, a. j. gouley, frank x. dorr, and hon. j. c. clements. chairman walsh, on behalf of the committee, made the invitation address, to which the president, responding, said: _gentlemen_--i recall with pleasure the visit made by some of your representatives. i think i have repeatedly, on every suitable occasion, especially during my recent visit to the south, expressed my sincere hope of the development of those marvellous resources so long hidden from sight, but now about to be opened up. i had occasion to say then that you would realize the advantage of combining manufactures with agriculture. the old system made of georgia a plantation state. i would not have it less so. but you may still develop other industries without destroying the surface of the country. there is no competition between these industries; one does not supersede the other. the farmer still has his near market for some products that will not bear transportation. out of this diversity i think the highest development will come. recently i made a trip through new england and was deeply impressed with the numerous industries and small factories showing in little places, where the lives and homes of the workmen were so much cleaner and purer than in the great cities, and this was made possible by the great diversity of small interests. in vermont i came upon a busy little factory surrounded by cottages in the midst of the hills. i was told that the proprietor made stethoscopes, and out of a small beginning had built up a great trade. these little things make happy homes; bring money, trade, and development. i am greatly interested in these things, and i would be very happy to see this development in alabama and georgia as in any northern state. we all wish it. whether i can be with you or not i cannot now say. i have a good many very important matters demanding attention from now on to the meeting of congress. some are home matters of importance and some are foreign. looking back over the last year, it would seem probable that there was a conspiracy among the powers to see that those in responsible places should have no rest. many of these things must now come to my personal attention. if i cannot be with you, you will know that my heart is with you. if i can i will come, but the time now being so close to the meeting of congress it is doubtful. washington, d. c., october , . the ecumenical conference of the methodist church convened in the metropolitan church at washington, d. c., on october , . rt. rev. thomas bowman, senior bishop of the church in america, presided at the opening, and rev. william arthur, m.a., of london, delivered the inaugural sermon. it was in every respect the greatest assembly in the history of methodism. among a few of the distinguished preachers and orators from abroad were: rev. t. b. stephenson, d.d., ll.d., rev. hugh price hughes, m.a., rev. john bond, rev. f. w. bourne, rev. j. ernest clapham, and rev. david j. waller, d.d., all of london. the following washingtonians comprised the committee on reception: bishop j. f. hurst, d.d.; rev. g. h. corey, d.d., chairman; rev. c. w. baldwin, rev. j. h. becket, rev. j. w. e. bowen, rev. t. e. carson, rev. r. h. g. dyson, rev. george elliott, rev. s. r. murray, rev. c. h. phillips, rev. j. a. price, rev. e. s. todd, rev. l. t. widerman, rev. j. t. wightman, rev. l. b. wilson, alexander ashley, e. s. atkinson, w. s. birch, gen. cyrus bussey, j. f. chestnut, d. s. cissell, robert cohen, george compton, l. a. cornish, g. s. deering, robert dunn, a. b. duval, hon. m. g. emery, prof. edgar frisbie, d. b. groff, t. a. harding, gen. s. s. henkle, w. h. houghton, w. j. hutchinson, thomas jarvis, b. f. leighton, william mayse, h. b. moulton, hon. hiram price, b. robinson, w. j. sibley, t. b. stahl, b. h. stinemetz, h. l. strang, g. w. f. swartzell, frederick tasker, j. s. topham, l. h. walker, e. s. wescott, j. b. wilson, and w. r. woodward. on the tenth day of the conference, president harrison, escorted by rev. dr. j. m. king, secretary, and rev. dr. corey, the pastor of metropolitan church, attended the session. other distinguished visitors were secretary of the treasury foster, secretary of the interior noble, and sir julian pauncefote, the british minister. the chief essay of the session was delivered by mr. thomas snape, of liverpool, upon the topic of the day, "international arbitration," a subject which made the presence of the president and the british envoy particularly appropriate. as the president ascended to the pulpit, all the delegates and the great audience instantly arose. the presiding officer of the day, rev. t. g. williams, of montreal, presented the distinguished visitor, who was received with prolonged applause, in which the english delegates led. president harrison then addressed the conference as follows: _mr. chairman and gentlemen of the conference_--i come here this morning to make an expression of my respect and esteem for this great body of delegates assembled from all the countries of the world, and much more to give a manifestation of my respect and love for that greater body of christian men and women for whom you stand. every ecumenical conference is a distinct step in the direction, not only of the unification of the church, but of the unification of the human race. assembling from countries unlike in their civil institutions, from churches not wholly in accord as to doctrine or church order, you come together to find that the unlikeness is not so great as you had thought, and to find your common sympathies and common purposes greater and larger than you had thought--large enough presently to overspread and to extinguish all these transitory lines of division. i am glad to know that as followers of wesley, whose hymns we sing, you have been in consultation as to the methods by which these minor divisions among you might be obliterated. it is the natural order that subdivisions should be wiped out before the grand divisions of the church can be united. [applause.] who does not greatly rejoice that the controversial clash of the churches is less than it once was; that we hear more of the master and his teachings of love and duty than of hair-splitting theological differences? [applause.] many years ago, while visiting in wisconsin, when sunday came around i went with some friends to the little methodist church in an adjoining village. the preacher undertook to overturn my presbyterianism. [laughter and applause.] an irreverent friend who sat beside me as the young man delivered his telling blows against calvinism was constantly emphasizing the points made by nudging me with his elbow. [laughter.] now i am glad to say that very often since then i have worshipped in methodist churches, and that is the last experience of that kind i have had. [applause] you have to-day as the theme of discussion the subject of international arbitration; and this being a public, or, in a large sense of the word, a political question, perhaps makes my presence here as an officer of the united states especially appropriate. [applause.] it is a curious incident that some days ago, and before i was aware of the theme or the occasion which we have here this morning, i had appointed this afternoon to visit the great gun foundry of the united states at the navy yard. things have come in their proper sequence. i am here at this arbitration meeting before i go to the gun factory. [laughter.] this subject is one that has long attracted the attention, and i think i may say has, perhaps, as greatly attracted the interest and adherence of the united states as that of any other christian power in the world. [applause.] it is known to you all that in the recent conference of the american states at washington the proposition was distinctly made and adopted by the representatives of all, or nearly all, of the governments of america that, as applied to this hemisphere, all international disputes should be settled by arbitration. [applause.] of course there are limitations as yet, in the nature of things, to the complete and general adoption of such a scheme. it is quite possible to apply arbitration to a dispute as to a boundary line; it is quite impossible, it seems to me, to apply it to a case of international feud. if there is present a disposition to subjugate, an aggressive spirit to seize territory, a spirit of national aggrandizement that does not stop to consider the rights of other men and other people--to such a case and to such a spirit international arbitration has none, or, if any, a remote and difficult application. it is for a christian sentiment, manifesting itself in a nation, to remove forever such causes of dispute; and then what remains will be the easy subject of adjustment by fair international arbitration. but i had not intended to enter into a discussion of this great theme, for the setting forth of which you have appointed those who have given it special attention. let me, therefore, say simply this: that for myself--temporarily in a place of influence in this country--and much more for the great body of its citizenship, i express the desire of america for peace with the whole world. [applause.] it would have been vain to suggest the pulling down of block-houses or family disarmament to the settlers on a hostile indian frontier. they would have told you rightly that the conditions were not ripe. and so it may be and is probably true that a full application of the principle is not presently possible, the devil still being unchained. [laughter.] we will have our gun foundries, and possibly will best promote the settlement of international disputes by arbitration, by having it understood that if the appeal is to a fiercer tribunal we shall not be out of the debate. [great applause.] there is a unity of the church and of humanity, and the lines of progress are the same. it is by this great christian sentiment, characterized not only by a high sense of justice, but by a spirit of love and forbearance, mastering the civil institutions and governments of the world, that we shall approach universal peace and adopt arbitration methods of settling disputes. [applause.] let me thank you, mr. chairman, and you, gentlemen of this conference, for the privilege of standing before you for a moment, and for this most cordial welcome which you have given to me. i beg to express again my high appreciation of the character of this delegation and the membership of the great church from which you come, and to wish that in your remaining deliberations and in your journeys to far-distant homes you may have the guidance and care of that god whom we all revere and worship. [applause.] american tin plate, october . while the gubernatorial campaign in ohio was in progress and major mckinley was making his famous race, the question as to the successful manufacture of tin plate in the united states was one of the leading issues of the day. at this juncture w. c. cronemyer, of the united states iron and steel tin plate works, at demmler, pa., sent president harrison a box of tin plate manufactured at the demmler works, and received in return the following interesting letter, which was given wide publicity at the time: executive mansion, october , . my dear sir--i have your letter of october , and also a box of bright tin plate which you send as a specimen of the product being turned out by the united states iron and tin plate company. i have no skill in determining the character of this work; but, to the eye, it seems to be eminently satisfactory, and i thank you for this evidence that a new industry has been established in the united states. i cannot quite understand how an american can doubt that we have the mechanical skill and business sagacity to establish successfully here the manufacture of tin plate. no other country, certainly, surpasses us in the inventive genius of its citizens or in the business sagacity of its capitalists. it is surprising to me that any patriotic american should approach this question with a desire to see this great and interesting experiment fail, or with an unwillingness to accept the evidences of its success. it will be a great step in the direction of commercial independence when we produce our own tin plate. it seems to me that nothing, unless it be a lack of faith in the maintenance of the present law, can thwart this desirable achievement. i can understand how our success should be doubted and our failure accepted with satisfaction in wales, but i cannot understand how any american can take that view of the question or why he should always approach every evidence of the successful establishment of this industry in this country with a disposition to discredit it and reject it. if the great experiment is to fail, our own people should not add to the mortification of failure the crime of rejoicing in it. very truly yours, benjamin harrison. washington, november and december , . _the chilian imbroglio._ in january, , civil war broke out in the republic of chili between the congressional forces and the established government under president balmaceda. deeds of cruelty signalized the conflict, which continued until august , when the insurgent forces landed near valparaiso and, after a bloody engagement, captured that city. president balmaceda became a fugitive, and a few weeks later committed suicide, by shooting, at the residence of señor uribirru, the argentine minister. during the conduct of the war, the _itata_, an armed vessel, commanded by an officer of the chilian insurgent fleet, was seized under process of the united states court at san diego, cal., for a violation of the neutrality laws. this seizure and the subsequent escape, surrender, and return of the _itata_, and the strict neutrality observed by the american minister, hon. patrick egan, and admiral brown, commanding the squadron, caused the victorious chilians to manifest a spirit of animosity toward the government and people of the united states. this feeling was intensified by the false statements published in the british press, notably the london _times_, touching the conduct of admiral brown and the american minister, and by the fact that the american legation, exercising the established right of asylum, opened its doors to several prominent political refugees of the defunct balmaceda government. on october , , this hostility culminated in an attack, in the streets of valparaiso, upon a number of sailors attached to the u. s. cruiser _baltimore_, who were upon shore leave. these sailors, wearing their uniforms, were assaulted by armed men in different localities in the city; one petty officer was killed outright, and eight seamen seriously wounded, one of whom died a few days later. many of their stab wounds were in the back. the news of this bloody and unprovoked attack sent a thrill of indignation across the american continent, and it was felt that the deadly insult must be atoned in blood. the war feeling was not lessened by the impudent tone of the reply from the chilian minister of foreign affairs. american indignation subsided somewhat pending a judicial inquiry into the attack, but the determination to expiate the insult had in no degree abated when, on november , señor don pedro montt was presented to president harrison as the newly accredited chilian minister to the united states. the reception of a new minister is ordinarily a very formal and uninteresting affair, but the circumstances narrated--with the two governments apparently on the verge of war--lent an unusual interest to this official meeting; and the president's remarks, characterized by his usual frankness and firmness, called forth the approval of the whole nation. the minister was accompanied by señors anibal cruz, secretary of legation; guillermo arenanetegan and valentin del campo, attachés. after the formal introductions by secretary blaine, señor montt addressed the president in spanish as follows: _mr. president_--i have the honor to present the credentials which accredit me in the capacity of envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the republic of chili in the united states of north america. the object of the mission which the government of chili has confided to me is to cultivate and maintain the relations of peace and friendship between the united states and chili, which have ever been close and cordial. for the accomplishment of this purpose i rely upon the kindness and good-will which the united states government has always manifested for the representatives of chili. permit me to express my country's sincere wishes for the prosperity and welfare of this noble country, which is so highly favored by providence, and for your own happiness. the president, in response, said: _mr. minister_--i am glad to receive from your hands the letters accrediting you as the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the republic of chili to the united states. the presence of a representative of the government of chili at this capital will, i hope, tend to promote a good understanding between the two governments and the early settlement, upon terms just and honorable to both, of the diplomatic questions now somewhat urgently awaiting adjustment. the government of the united states, as well as its people, particularly desire and rejoice in the prosperity of all our neighbors in this hemisphere. our diplomatic relations with them have always been and will continue to be free from intermeddling with their internal affairs. our people are too just to desire that the commercial or political advantage of this government should be sought by the promotion of disastrous dissensions in other countries. we hear with sorrow every fresh tale of war or internal strife, and are always ready to give our friendly offices to the promotion of peace. if these are not acceptable or do not avail, it is our policy to preserve an honorable and strict neutrality, as was done during the recent war in chili. tempting commercial and political advantages may be offered for our aid or influence by one or the other of the two contending parties, but this we have not deemed to be consistent with the obligations of international honor and good-will. this government was quite as determined in its refusal to allow a war-vessel of the united states to carry to a neutral port, where it could be made available for war purposes, the silver of balmaceda, as it was to give aid to the forces opposing him. the questions involved were chilian questions, and this government endeavored to observe those principles of non-intervention upon which it had so strongly insisted when civil war disturbed our own people. i cannot doubt that this policy will commend itself to those who now administer the government of chili; nor can i doubt that when excitement has given place to calmness, when the truth is ascertained and the selfish and designing perversions of recent incidents have been exposed, our respective governments will find a basis of increased mutual respect, confidence, and friendship. mr. minister, this government and our people rejoice that peace has been restored in chili, and that its government is the expression of the free choice of its people. you may assure your honored president, who has been chosen under circumstances which so strongly testify to his moderation and to the esteem in which he is held by the people of all parties, that the government of the united states entertains only good-will for him and for the people of chili, and cannot doubt that the existing and all future differences between the two governments will find an honorable adjustment. to you, mr. minister, i tender a personal welcome. in his annual message to congress, december , president harrison concludes his remarks upon chilian affairs relating to the attack upon the sailors of the cruiser _baltimore_ with the following significant paragraphs: so far as i have yet been able to learn, no other explanation of this bloody work has been suggested than that it had its origin in hostility to these men as sailors of the united states, wearing the uniform of their government, and not in any individual act or personal animosity. the attention of the chilian government was at once called to this affair, and a statement of the facts obtained by the investigation we had conducted was submitted, accompanied by a request to be advised of any other or qualifying facts in the possession of the chilian government that might tend to relieve this affair of the appearance of an insult to this government. the chilian government was also advised that if such qualifying facts did not exist, this government would confidently expect full and prompt reparation. it is to be regretted that the reply of the secretary for foreign affairs of the provisional government was couched in an offensive tone. to this no response has been made. this government is now awaiting the result of an investigation which has been conducted by the criminal court at valparaiso. it is reported unofficially that the investigation is about completed, and it is expected that the result will soon be communicated to this government, together with some adequate and satisfactory response to the note by which the attention of chili was called to this incident. if these just expectations should be disappointed or further needless delay intervene, i will, by a special message, bring this matter again to the attention of congress for such action as may be necessary. the entire correspondence with the government of chili will at an early day be submitted to congress. protection for railroad employees. [_extract from president's message, december , ._] on the evening of august , , at indianapolis, general harrison, responding to an address from d. t. downs, president of the terre haute railroad club, and in the presence of several thousand railroad employees, speaking of the heroic services rendered by the men who operate the great railroad lines of the country, said: i do not doubt that certain and necessary provisions for the safety of the men who operate these roads will yet be made compulsory by public and general law. the dangers connected with your calling are very great, and the public interest, as well as your own, requires that they should be reduced to the minimum. i do not doubt that we shall yet require that uniformity in the construction of railroad cars that will diminish the danger of those, who must pass between them in order to make up trains. consistent with these views, president harrison, in his message to congress, december , , made the following pertinent suggestions: i have twice before urgently called the attention of congress to the necessity of legislation for the protection of the lives of railroad employees, but nothing has yet been done. during the year ending june , , brakemen were killed and , maimed while engaged in coupling cars. the total number of railroad employees killed during the year was , and the number injured , . this is a cruel and largely a needless sacrifice, the government is spending nearly one million dollars annually to save the lives of shipwrecked seamen; every steam-vessel is rigidly inspected and required to adopt the most approved safety appliances. all this is good; but how shall we excuse the lack of interest and effort in behalf of this army of brave young men who in our land commerce are being sacrificed every year by the continued use of antiquated and dangerous appliances? a law requiring of every railroad engaged in inter-state commerce the equipment each year of a given per cent. of its freight cars with automatic couplers and air brakes would compel an agreement between the roads as to the kind of brakes and couplers to be used, and would very soon and very greatly reduce the present fearful death-rate among railroad employees. the appointment of presidential electors. [_from annual message to congress, december , ._] perhaps no official utterance of president harrison received more serious and profound consideration--as indicated through the press of the day--than the following patriotic admonishment regarding the danger lurking within certain possible methods of choosing presidential electors. he said: the method of appointment by the states of electors of president and vice-president has recently attracted renewed interest by reason of a departure by the state of michigan from the method which had become uniform in all the states. prior to various methods had been used by the different states, and even by the same state. in some the choice was made by the legislature; in others electors were chosen by districts, but more generally by the voters of the whole state upon a general ticket. the movement toward the adoption of the last-named method had an early beginning and went steadily forward among the states, until in there remained but a single state--south carolina--that had not adopted it. that state, until the civil war, continued to choose its electors by a vote of the legislature, but after the war changed its method and conformed to the practice of the other states. for nearly sixty years all the states save one have appointed their electors by a popular vote upon a general ticket, and for nearly thirty years this method was universal. after a full test of other methods, without important division or dissent in any state and without any purpose of party advantage, as we must believe, but solely upon the considerations that uniformity was desirable and that general election in territorial divisions not subject to change was most consistent with the popular character of our institutions, best preserved the equality of the voters, and perfectly removed the choice of president from the baneful influence of the "gerrymander," the practice of all the states was brought into harmony. that this concurrence should now be broken is, i think, an unfortunate and even a threatening episode, and one that may well suggest whether the states that still give their approval to the old and prevailing method ought not to secure, by a constitutional amendment, a practice which has had the approval of all. the recent michigan legislation provides for choosing what are popularly known as the congressional electors for president by congressional districts, and the two senatorial electors by districts created for that purpose. this legislation was, of course, accompanied by a new congressional apportionment, and the two statutes bring the electoral vote of the state under the influence of the "gerrymander." these gerrymanders for congressional purposes are in most cases buttressed by a gerrymander of the legislative districts, thus making it impossible for a majority of the legal voters of the state to correct the apportionment and equalize the congressional districts. a minority rule is established that only a political convulsion can overthrow. i have recently been advised that in one county of a certain state three districts for the election of members of the legislature are constituted as follows: one has , population, one , , and one , ; while in another county, detached, non-contiguous sections have been united to make a legislative district. these methods have already found effective application to the choice of senators and representatives in congress, and now an evil start has been made in the direction of applying them to the choice by the states of electors of president and vice-president. if this is accomplished, we shall then have the three great departments of the government in the grasp of the "gerrymander," the legislative and executive directly and the judiciary indirectly, through the power of appointment. an election implies a body of electors having prescribed qualifications, each one of whom has an equal value and influence in determining the result. so when the constitution provides that "each state shall appoint [elect], in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors," etc., an unrestricted power was not given to the legislatures in the selection of the methods to be used. "a republican form of government" is guaranteed by the constitution to each state, and the power given by the same instrument to the legislatures of the states to prescribe methods for the choice, by the state, of electors must be exercised under that limitation. the essential features of such a government are the right of the people to choose their own officers and the nearest practicable equality of value in the suffrages given in determining that choice. it will not be claimed that the power given to the legislature would support a law providing that the persons receiving the smallest vote should be the electors, or a law that all the electors should be chosen by the voters of a single congressional district. the state is to choose, and under the pretence of regulating methods the legislature can neither vest the right of choice elsewhere nor adopt methods not conformable to republican institutions. it is not my purpose here to discuss the question whether a choice by the legislature or by the voters of equal single districts is a choice by the state, but only to recommend such regulation of this matter by constitutional amendment as will secure uniformity and prevent that disgraceful partisan jugglery to which such a liberty of choice, if it exist, offers a temptation. nothing just now is more important than to provide every guaranty for the absolutely fair and free choice by an equal suffrage, within the respective states, of all the officers of the national government, whether that suffrage is applied directly, as in the choice of members of the house of representatives, or indirectly, as in the choice of senators and electors of president. respect for public officers and obedience to law will not cease to be the characteristics of our people until our elections cease to declare the will of majorities fairly ascertained, without fraud, suppression, or gerrymander. if i were called upon to declare wherein our chief national danger lies, i should say, without hesitation, in the overthrow of majority control by the suppression or perversion of the popular suffrage. that there is a real danger here all must agree, but the energies of those who see it have been chiefly expended in trying to fix responsibility upon the opposite party, rather than in efforts to make such practices impossible by either party. is it not possible now to adjourn that interminable and inconclusive debate while we take, by consent, one step in the direction of reform by eliminating the gerrymander, which has been denounced by all parties, as an influence in the selection of electors of president and members of congress? all the states have, acting freely and separately, determined that the choice of electors by a general ticket is the wisest and safest method, and it would seem there could be no objection to a constitutional amendment making that method permanent. if a legislature chosen in one year upon purely local questions should, pending a presidential contest, meet, rescind the law for a choice upon a general ticket, and provide for the choice of electors by the legislature, and this trick should determine the result, it is not too much to say that the public peace might be seriously and widely endangered. i have alluded to the "gerrymander" as affecting the method of selecting electors of president by congressional districts, but the primary intent and effect of this form of political robbery have relation to the selection of members of the house of representatives. the power of congress is ample to deal with this threatening and intolerable abuse. the unfailing test of sincerity in election reform will be found in a willingness to confer as to remedies and to put into force such measures as will most effectually preserve the right of the people to free and equal representation. an attempt was made in the last congress to bring to bear the constitutional powers of the general government for the correction of frauds against the suffrage. it is important to know whether the opposition to such measures is really vested in particular features supposed to be objectionable or includes any proposition to give to the election laws of the united states adequacy to the correction of grave and acknowledged evils. i must yet entertain the hope that it is possible to secure a calm, patriotic consideration of such constitutional or statutory changes as may be necessary to secure the choice of the officers of the government to the people by fair apportionments and free elections. i believe it would be possible to constitute a commission, non-partisan in its membership and composed of patriotic, wise, and impartial men, to whom a consideration of the question of the evils connected with our election system and methods might be committed with a good prospect of securing unanimity in some plan for removing or mitigating those evils. the constitution would permit the selection of the commission to be vested in the supreme court, if that method would give the best guaranty of impartiality. this commission should be charged with the duty of inquiring into the whole subject of the law of elections as related to the choice of officers of the national government, with a view to securing to every elector a free and unmolested exercise of the suffrage and as near an approach to an equality of value in each ballot cast as is attainable. while the policies of the general government upon the tariff, upon the restoration of our merchant marine, upon river and harbor improvements, and other such matters of grave and general concern are liable to be turned this way or that by the results of congressional elections and administrative policies, sometimes involving issues that tend to peace or war, to be turned this way or that by the results of a presidential election, there is a rightful interest in all the states and in every congressional district that will not be deceived or silenced by the audacious pretence that the question of the right of any body of legal voters in any state or in any congressional district to give their suffrages freely upon these general questions is a matter only of local concern or control. the demand that the limitations of suffrage shall be found in the law, and only there, is a just demand, and no just man should resent or resist it. my appeal is, and must continue to be, for a consultation that shall "proceed with candor, calmness, and patience upon the lines of justice and humanity, not of prejudice and cruelty." to the consideration of these very grave questions i invite not only the attention of congress, but that of all patriotic citizens. we must not entertain the delusion that our people have ceased to regard a free ballot and equal representation as the price of their allegiance to laws and to civil magistrates. i have been greatly rejoiced to notice many evidences of the increased unification of our people and of a revived national spirit. the vista that now opens to us is wider and more glorious than ever before. gratification and amazement struggle for supremacy as we contemplate the population, wealth, and moral strength of our country. a trust, momentous in its influence upon our people and upon the world, is for a brief time committed to us, and we must not be faithless to its first condition--the defence of the free and equal influence of the people in the choice of public officers and in the control of public affairs. the chilian message, january , . just as this book is going to the printer there has appeared a most satisfactory closing chapter--the masterly message on the chilian difficulty. this message quickly won the approval of the civilized world, and has stirred, as it has not been stirred in years, the patriotic pride of our own people. it will rank side by side with monroe's famous declaration of american policy. it at once impresses one with its character as the official statement of their position by a powerful yet generous people, who, conscious of their own strength, will firmly assert their rights and maintain their dignity, without any disposition to despoil or humiliate their weaker neighbors. the position taken by the president was so firm and the justice of our claims was so clearly set forth that three days after the date of the message he was enabled to announce to congress that chili had substantially complied with our demands. such parts of the message as contained only a recital of facts, or were not necessary to an understanding of the policy announced have, for the sake of brevity, been omitted. _to the senate and house of representatives_: · · · · · we have now received from the chilian government an abstract of the conclusions of the _fiscal general_ upon the testimony taken by the judge of crimes in an investigation which was made to extend over nearly three months. i very much regret to be compelled to say that this report does not enable me to modify the conclusion announced in my annual message. i am still of the opinion that our sailors were assaulted, beaten, stabbed, and killed, not for anything they or any one of them had done, but for what the government of the united states had done, or was charged with having done, by its civil officers and naval commanders. if that be the true aspect of the case, the injury was to the government of the united states, not to these poor sailors who were assaulted in a manner so brutal and so cowardly. · · · · · it is not claimed that every personal collision or injury in which a sailor or officer of such naval vessel visiting the shore may be involved raises an international question; but i am clearly of the opinion that where such sailors or officers are assaulted by a resident populace, animated by hostility to the government whose uniform these sailors and officers wear, and in resentment of acts done by their government, not by them, their nation must take notice of the event as one involving an infraction of its rights and dignity--not in a secondary way, as where a citizen is injured and presents his claim through his own government, but in a primary way, precisely as if its minister or consul or the flag itself had been the object of the same character of assault. the officers and sailors of the _baltimore_ were in the harbor of valparaiso under the orders of their government, not by their own choice. they were upon the shore by the implied invitation of the government of chili and with the approval of their commanding officer; and it does not distinguish their case from that of a consul that his stay is more permanent or that he holds the express invitation of the local government to justify his longer residence. nor does it affect the question that the injury was the act of a mob. if there had been no participation by the police or military in this cruel work and no neglect on their part to extend protection, the case would still be one, in my opinion, when its extent and character are considered, involving international rights. here follow the details of the attack upon the sailors of the _baltimore_ in the streets of valparaiso, october th. the scene ... is very graphically set before us by the chilian testimony. the american sailors, who, after so long an examination, have not been found guilty of any breach of the peace so far as the chilian authorities are able to discover, unarmed and defenceless, are fleeing for their lives, pursued by overwhelming numbers, and fighting only to aid their own escape from death or to succor some mate whose life is in greater peril. eighteen of them are brutally stabbed and beaten, while one chilian seems, from the report, to have suffered some injury; but how serious or with what character or weapon, or whether by a missile thrown by our men or by some of his fellow-rioters, is unascertained. the pretence that our men were fighting "with stones, clubs, and bright arms" is, in view of these facts, incredible. it is further refuted by the fact that our prisoners, when searched, were absolutely without arms, only seven penknives being found in the possession of the men arrested, while there were received by our men more than thirty stab wounds, every one of which was inflicted in the back, and almost every contused wound was in the back or back of the head. the evidence of the ship's officer of the day is that even the jack-knives of the men were taken from them before leaving the ship.... no amount of evasion or subterfuge is able to cloud our clear vision of this brutal work.... it is quite remarkable and quite characteristic of the management of this affair by the chilian police authorities that we should now be advised that seaman davidson, of the _baltimore_, has been included in the indictment, his offence being, so far as i have been able to ascertain, that he attempted to defend a shipmate against an assailant who was striking at him with a knife. the perfect vindication of our men is furnished by this report; one only is found to have been guilty of criminal fault, and that for an act clearly justifiable.... the evidence of our sailors clearly shows that the attack was expected by the chilian people, that threats had been made against our men, and that, in one case somewhat early in the afternoon, the keeper of one house into which some of our men had gone closed his establishment in anticipation of the attack, which he advised them would be made upon them as darkness came on.... several of our men sought security from the mob by such complete or partial changes in their dress as would conceal the fact of their being seamen of the _baltimore_, and found it then possible to walk the streets without molestation. these incidents conclusively establish that the attack was upon the uniform--the nationality--and not upon the men. · · · · · the testimony of captain jenkins, of the american merchant ship _keweenaw_, which had gone to valparaiso for repairs, and who was a witness of some part of the assault upon the crew of the _baltimore_, is strongly corroborative of the testimony of our own sailors when he says that he saw chilian sentries drive back a seaman, seeking shelter, upon a mob that was pursuing him. the officers and men of captain jenkins' ship furnish the most conclusive testimony as to the indignities which were practised toward americans in valparaiso. when american sailors, even of merchant ships, can only secure their safety by denying their nationality, it must be time to readjust our relations with a government that permits such demonstrations. as to the participation of the police, the evidence of our sailors shows that our men were struck and beaten by police officers before and after arrest, and that one at least was dragged with a lasso about his neck by a mounted policeman. that the death of riggin was the result of a rifle-shot fired by a policeman or soldier on duty is shown directly by the testimony of johnson, in whose arms he was at the time, and by the evidence of charles langen, an american sailor not then a member of the _baltimore's_ crew, who stood close by and saw the transaction. the chilian authorities do not pretend to fix the responsibility of this shot upon any particular person, but avow their inability to ascertain who fired it, further than that it was fired from a crowd.... the communications of the chilian government in relation to this cruel and disastrous attack upon our men, as will appear from the correspondence, have not in any degree taken the form of a manly and satisfactory expression of regret, much less of apology. the event was of so serious a character that, if the injuries suffered by our men had been wholly the result of an accident in a chilian port, the incident was grave enough to have called for some public expression of sympathy and regret from the local authorities. it is not enough to say that the affair was lamentable, for humanity would require that expression, even if the beating and killing of our men had been justifiable. it is not enough to say that the incident is regretted, coupled with the statement that the affair was not of an unusual character in ports where foreign sailors are accustomed to meet. it is not for a generous and sincere government to seek for words of small or equivocal meaning in which to convey to a friendly power an apology for an offence so atrocious as this. in the case of the assault by a mob in new orleans upon the spanish consulate in , mr. webster wrote to the spanish minister, mr. calderon, that the acts complained of were "a disgraceful and flagrant breach of duty and propriety," and that his government "regrets them as deeply as minister calderon or his government could possibly do;" that "these acts have caused the president great pain, and he thinks a proper acknowledgment is due to her majesty's government." he invited the spanish consul to return to his post, guaranteeing protection, and offered to salute the spanish flag if the consul should come in a spanish vessel. such a treatment by the government of chili of this assault would have been more creditable to the chilian authorities; and much less can hardly be satisfactory to a government that values its dignity and honor. · · · · · on the st instant i caused to be communicated to the government of chili, by the american minister at santiago, the conclusions of this government after a full consideration of all the evidence and of every suggestion affecting this matter, and to these conclusions i adhere. they were stated as follows: "first. that the assault is not relieved of the aspect which the early information of the event gave to it, viz.: that of an attack upon the uniform of the united states navy, having its origin and motive in a feeling of hostility to this government, and not in any act of the sailors or of any of them. "second. that the public authorities of valparaiso flagrantly failed in their duty to protect our men, and that some of the police and of the chilian soldiers and sailors were themselves guilty of unprovoked assaults upon our sailors before and after arrest. he [the president] thinks the preponderance of the evidence and the inherent probabilities lead to the conclusion that riggin was killed by the police or soldiers. "third. that he [the president] is therefore compelled to bring the case back to the position taken by this government in the note of mr. wharton of october last, ... and to ask for a suitable apology and for some adequate reparation for the injury done to this government." in the same note the attention of the chilian government was called to the offensive character of a note addressed by mr. matta, its minister of foreign affairs, to mr. montt, its minister at this capital, on the th ultimo. this despatch was not officially communicated to this government; but, as mr. montt was directed to translate it and to give it to the press of this country, it seemed to me that it could not pass without official notice. it was not only undiplomatic, but grossly insulting to our naval officers and to the executive department, as it directly imputed untruth and insincerity to the reports of the naval officers and to the official communications made by the executive department to congress. it will be observed that i have notified the chilian government that, unless this note is at once withdrawn and an apology as public as the offence made, i will terminate diplomatic relations. the request for the recall of mr. egan upon the ground that he was not _persona grata_ was unaccompanied by any suggestion that could properly be used in support of it, and i infer that the request is based upon official acts of mr. egan which have received the approval of this government. but however that may be, i could not consent to consider such a question until it had first been settled whether our correspondence with chili could be conducted upon a basis of mutual respect. in submitting these papers to congress for that grave and patriotic consideration which the questions involved demand, i desire to say that i am of the opinion that the demands made of chili by this government should be adhered to and enforced. if the dignity as well as the prestige and influence of the united states are not to be wholly sacrificed, we must protect those who, in foreign ports, display the flag or wear the colors of this government against insult, brutality, and death inflicted in resentment of the acts of their government, and not for any fault of their own. it has been my desire in every way to cultivate friendly and intimate relations with all the governments of this hemisphere. we do not covet their territory; we desire their peace and prosperity. we look for no advantage in our relations with them, except the increased exchanges of commerce upon a basis of mutual benefit. we regret every civil contest that disturbs their peace and paralyzes their development, and are always ready to give our good offices for the restoration of peace. it must, however, be understood that this government, while exercising the utmost forbearance toward weaker powers, will extend its strong and adequate protection to its citizens, to its officers, and to its humblest sailors when made the victims of wantonness and cruelty in resentment, not of their personal misconduct, but of the official acts of their government. upon information received that patrick shields, an irishman and probably a british subject, but at the time a fireman of the american steamer _keweenaw_, in the harbor of valparaiso for repairs, had been subjected to personal injuries in that city--largely by the police--i directed the attorney-general to cause the evidence of the officers and crew of that vessel to be taken upon its arrival in san francisco; and that testimony is also herewith transmitted. the brutality and even savagery of the treatment of this poor man by the chilian police would be incredible if the evidence of shields was not supported by other direct testimony and by the distressing condition of the man himself when he was finally able to reach his vessel.... a claim for reparation has been made in behalf of this man, for while he was not a citizen of the united states, the doctrine long held by us, as expressed in the consular regulations, is "the principles which are maintained by this government in regard to the protection, as distinguished from the relief, of seamen are well settled. it is held that the circumstance that the vessel is american is evidence that the seamen on board are such; and in every regularly documented merchant vessel the crew will find their protection in the flag that covers them." i have as yet received no reply to our note of the st instant, but in my opinion i ought not to delay longer to bring these matters to the attention of congress for such action as may be deemed appropriate. benj. harrison. executive mansion, january , . index to speeches, etc. akron, colorado, reception address at, albany, oregon, reception address at, albany, new york, reception address at, alger, gen. r. a., response of, allen county, ohio, to delegation from, alliance, ohio, reception address at, altoona, pa., reception address at, american fork, utah, reception address at, anderson, indiana, reception address at, anniston, alabama, reception address at, ashland, oregon, reception address at, ashland, nebraska, reception address at, atchison, kansas, reception address at, atlanta, georgia, address to students, farewell address, mr. wanamaker's address, augusta, georgia, to exposition committee from, bakersfield, california, reception address at, baker city, oregon, reception address at, banning, california, reception address at, bartholomew county, indiana, to delegation from, bellefontaine, ohio, to delegation from, reception address at, bellows falls, vermont, reception address at, benicia, california, reception address at, bennington trip, , personnel of party, bennington, vermont, battle monument address, at great tent banquet, benton harbor, michigan, to delegation from, benton county, indiana, to delegation from, berkeley, california, at state university, dumb and blind institute, billings park, vermont, speech at horse fair, birmingham, alabama, reception address at, luncheon address, blackford county, indiana, to delegation from, blaine club of kansas city, address to, at indianapolis, blaine reception, demonstration at indianapolis oct. , , bloomington, illinois, to delegation from, boise city, idaho, reception address at, boone county, indiana, to delegation from, boston, mass., reception address at, mayor's club banquet, g. a. r. national encampment, bradford, vermont, reception address at, brandon, vermont, reception address at, brattleboro, vermont, reception address at, bristol, tennessee, reception address at, brown county, indiana, to delegation from, buena vista, colorado, reception address at, burlington, vermont, reception address at, california delegates to chicago, visit from, california tour, , personnel of party, cañon city, colorado, reception address at, canton, ohio, reception address at, cartersville, georgia, reception address at, cascade locks, oregon, reception address at, castleton, vermont, reception address at, centennial address, new york city, april , , centralia, washington, reception address at, champaign county, illinois, to delegation from, champaign, illinois, reception address at, charlestown, new hampshire, reception address at, chattanooga, tennessee, reception address at, chehalis, washington, reception address at, chemawa, oregon, reception address at, chicago, marquette club banquet address, to committee from marquette club, to irish-american club from, to commercial travellers from, to delegation business men from, to union veterans and others from, to german-american club from, auditorium dedication address, chilian minister, official reception of, response to, chilian affair, message on, january , , - chrisman, illinois, reception address at, cincinnati, ohio, to lincoln club from, cincinnati exposition committee, visit from, cincinnati exposition, invitation committee from, clay county, indiana, to delegation from, clayton, indiana, reunion th regiment, clearfield, pa., trip to the coal regions, cleveland, ohio, to delegation from, garfield mausoleum dedication, clifton forge, virginia, reception address at, clinton county, indiana, to delegation from, coles county, illinois, to delegation from, colorado springs, colorado, address to scholars, reception address, colton, california, reception address at, columbus, ohio, to delegation veteran voters from, to garfield club and gov. foraker, reception address at, feb. , , reception address at, may , , commercial travellers of indiana, address to, commercial travellers of ill. and ind., address to, commercial travellers of chicago, address to, commercial travellers of united states, address to, council bluffs, iowa, reception address at, cresson, pa., to visiting altoona veterans, crestline, ohio, reception address at, crete, nebraska, reception address at, danville, indiana, to republican club from, june , , danville, illinois, reception address at, dayton, ohio, to delegation from, reception address at, decatur county, indiana, to delegation from, decatur, illinois, reception address at, defiance, ohio, reception address at, de graff, ohio, reception address at, delaware county, indiana, to delegation from, del rio, texas, reception address at, deming, new mexico, reception address at, denver, colorado, address at capitol, address at hotel metropole, depew, hon. chauncey m., visits the nominee, detroit, michigan club banquet address, diaz, president porfirio, telegram from, douglas county, illinois, to delegation from, duluth, minnesota, to delegation from, ecumenical conference, address to, at washington, edgar county, illinois, to delegation from, election results, popular vote for president, , electoral college, extract from president's message, dec., , eleventh indiana regiment, survivors received, elkhart county, indiana, to delegation from, el paso, texas, reception address at, ex-prisoners of war, address to, at indianapolis, fair haven, vermont, reception address at, florence, colorado, reception address at, floyd county, indiana, to delegation from, foraker, gov. j. b., congratulates the nominee, ford county, illinois, to delegation from, fort wayne, indiana, reception address at, foster, ex-gov. charles, introduces the nominee, fountain county, indiana, to delegation from, fresno, california, reception address at, fulton county, indiana, to delegation from, galesburg, illinois, reception address at, address at reunion st brigade, alumni hall, knox college, phi delta theta banquet, at st brigade banquet, galveston, texas, great speech and reception, garfield club of columbus, address to, at indianapolis, garfield monument, address at dedication of, g. a. r. veterans and gov. rusk, address to, at indianapolis, g. a. r. installation officers, address to comrades, g. a. r. camp fire, indianapolis, address to comrades, g. a. r. national encampment, address at boston, gilroy, california, reception address at, glenwood springs, colorado, reception address at, address to miners, address to children, godfrey commandery of chicago, visit from, grand rapids, michigan, to delegation from, greenville, tennessee, reception address at, grundy county, illinois, to delegation from, hamilton county, indiana, to delegation from, june , , to delegation from, august , , hancock county, ohio, to delegation from, hannibal, missouri, reception address at, harrison, gen. benj., biographical sketch of, - harrison league of indianapolis, address to, harrisburg, pa., reception address at, hastings, nebraska, reception address at, hendricks county, indiana, to delegation from, june , , to delegation from, nov. , , henry county, indiana, to delegation from, hill, gov. david b., his invitation to the president, hood river station, oregon, reception address at, houston, texas, reception address at, houtzdale, pa., reception address at, howard county, indiana, to delegation from, june , , to delegation from, july , , huntington, indiana, reception address at, hyde park, illinois, to delegation from, inaugural executive committee, personnel of, inaugural address, march , , - indianapolis, to his neighbors, june , , to indiana delegates, june , , to colored citizens, june , , to veterans th regiment, to veterans th infantry, to veterans th cavalry, to veterans th regiment, to veterans and neighbors, introducing gen. r. a. alger, official notification, july , , to tippecanoe veterans, july , , to railroad employees, july , , speech at state convention, aug. , , on returning from put-in bay, sept. , , great street demonstration, sept. , , address to children, sept. , , to the porter-columbian club, oct. , , labor-day address, oct. , , to railroad clubs of indiana, oct. , , to the saw-makers of city, nov. , , to g. a. r. veterans, jan. , , farewell to neighbors, feb. , , dedication soldiers' monument, at g. a. r. camp-fire, aug. , , at reunion th regiment, aug. , , the home welcome, may , , indio, california, received by gov. markham, irish-american club, address to, sept. , , iroquois county, illinois, to delegation from, jacksonville, illinois, to delegation from, july , , to delegation from, aug. , , janesville, wisconsin, to delegation from, oct. , , jay county, indiana, to delegation from, sept. , , to delegation from, oct. , , jennings county, indiana, to delegation from, july , , johnson county, indiana, to delegation from, aug. , , johnson city, tennessee, reception address at, jonesboro, tennessee, reception address at, kankakee, illinois, to delegation from, kansas city, missouri, to blaine club from, to scott rifles from, banquet address at, chamber commerce speech, letter to commercial congress, kansas veterans, address to, at indianapolis, kingston, new york, reception address at, knightstown, indiana, to soldiers' orphans at, knoxville, tennessee, reception address at, kokomo, indiana, to delegations from, , reception address at, kosciusko county, indiana, to delegation from, labor-day address, close of the great campaign, la porte county, indiana, to delegation from, lathrop, california, reception address at, lawrenceburg, indiana, reception address at, lawrence, kansas, reception address at, leadville, colorado, reception address at, le grande, oregon, reception address at, lehi city, utah, reception address at, letter of acceptance, sept. , , letter to commercial congress, april , , letter on tin plate, its manufacture in america, lincoln, nebraska, reception address at, thanks to travelling men, lincoln club, cincinnati, address to, at indianapolis, little rock, arkansas, reception address at, lordsburg, new mexico, reception address at, los angeles, california, reception address at, speech at the pavilion, los gatos, california, reception address at, louisville, kentucky, to delegation from, macon county, illinois, to delegation from, madison, wisconsin, to delegation from, mansfield, ohio, reception address at, marion county, indiana, to the tippecanoe club, marquette club, chicago, speech at banquet, to delegates from, the president received by, marshall county, indiana, to delegation from, maryville, missouri, reception address at, massillon, ohio, reception address at, medford, oregon, reception address at, memphis, tennessee, reception address at, merced, california, reception address at, message to congress, presidential electors, dec. , , - chilian affair, dec. , , chilian affair, jan. , , - mcdaniels, l. w., extract from his address, michigan club, detroit, speech at banquet, middlebury, vermont, reception address at, miller, hon. warner, famous telegram to, milwaukee german american club, address to, modesto, california, reception address at, monterey, california, reception address at, montezuma, indiana, welcomed by gov. hovey, montgomery county, indiana, to delegation from, monticello, illinois, to delegation from, montpelier, vermont, address to legislature, reception address at, montt, señor don pedro, his address to the president, morgan county, indiana, to delegation from, morgan county, illinois, to delegation from, morristown, tennessee, reception address at, mt. mcgregor, new york, birthday dinner speech, muncie, indiana, reception address at, muskegon, michigan, to delegation from, newburgh, new york, reception address at, new york city, washington centenary speech, centennial banquet address, ninth indiana cavalry, address to survivors, noblesville, indiana, reception address at, normal, illinois, to students from, north vernon, indiana, reception address at, northen, gov. wm. j., welcomes the president, nortonville, kansas, reception address at, notification committee, personnel of, oakland, california, reception address at, ogden, utah, committee escorts president, omaha, nebraska, reception address at, addresses to school children, ontario, california, reception address at, orange, california, reception address at, oregon city, oregon, reception address at, orrville, ohio, reception address at, osceola, pa., reception address at, ottumwa, iowa, speech at coal palace, oxford college, ohio, visit from students, palestine, texas, received by gov. hogg, parke county, indiana, to delegation from, pasadena, california, reception address at, paxton, illinois, to delegation from, pendleton, oregon, reception address at, pennsylvania gas men, address to, at indianapolis, peo, umatilla chief, his unique address to president, peoria, illinois, reception address at, peru, indiana, reception address at, philadelphia, speech at independence hall, remarks at gen meade's grave, phillipsburg, pa., reception at, sept. , , plainfield, indiana, to delegation from, plainfield, vermont, reception address at, pocatello, idaho, reception address at, pomona, california, reception address at, porter-columbian club, address to members, portland, oregon, reception address at, secretary rusk's address, postmaster-general wanamaker's speech, proctor, vermont, farewell to new england, provo city, utah, reception address at, pueblo, colorado, address to school children, mineral palace speech, puget sound, remarks on board steamship, pullman, illinois, to delegation from, put-in bay, ohio, reception address at, puyallup, washington, reception address at, railroad club of terre haute, address to, railroad clubs of indiana, address to, railroad employees of indianapolis, address to, railroad employees should be protected, message, randolph county, indiana, to delegation from, ransom post, g. a. r., address to delegation from, red bluff, california, reception address at, redding, california, reception address at, redwood city, california, reception address at, republican state convention, speech before, richmond, indiana, reception address at, feb. , , reception address at, may , , richmond, vermont, reception address at, riverside, california, reception address at, roanoke, virginia, reception address at, rush county, indiana, to delegation from, rusk, gov. j. m., names gen. harrison for a second term, rusk, secretary, speech of, at portland, oregon, rutland, vermont, reception address at, sacramento, california, address at state house, salem, oregon, address at capitol, salida, colorado, reception address at, salt lake, utah, reception address at, chamber commerce speech, address to children, san antonio, texas, reception address at, san bernardino, california, reception address at, san buena ventura, california, reception address at, san diego, california, to indiana residents, at citizens' reception, response to gov. torres, san fernando, california, reception address at, san francisco, the arrival address, sutro heights speech, at phi delta theta banquet, launch of the _monterey_, reception at senator stanford's, chamber commerce speech, address to veterans, may , palace hotel banquet speech, at union league reception, farewell to california, san josé, california, reception address at, santa ana, california, reception address at, santa barbara, california, reception address at, santa cruz, california, reception address at, santa paula, california, reception address at, saratoga, new york, reception address at, house of pansa reception, seattle, washington, reception address at, mr. wanamaker's address, second indiana cavalry, address to survivors, seventieth indiana infantry, reunion address, sept. , , reunion address, aug. , , seventh indiana cavalry, address to survivors, seventy-ninth indiana infantry, address to survivors, seymour, indiana, reception address at, shelby county, indiana, to delegation from, shenandoah, iowa, reception address at, shoals, indiana, reception address at, sisson, california, reception address at, soldiers' monument, indianapolis, dedicatory address, south chicago, illinois, to delegation from, springfield, ohio, to delegation from, springfield, illinois, to delegation from, at lincoln's tomb, state house address, springville, utah, reception address at, state fair, indianapolis, address to exhibitors, st. albans, vermont, reception address at, st. johnsbury, vermont, reception address at, st. joseph, missouri, reception address at, st. louis, missouri, delegation from ransom post, loyal legion delegation, merchants' exchange speech, at jockey club banquet, sullivan, indiana, reception address at, sutro, hon. adolph, presentation address to president, tacoma, washington, reception address at, mrs. harrison's thanks, tallapoosa, georgia, reception address at, terre haute, indiana, to railroad club from, response to chair presentation, reception address at, texarkana, arkansas, reception address at, texas g. a. r. veterans, visit to gen. harrison, the dalles, oregon, reception address at, tiffin, ohio, to delegation from, tippecanoe county, indiana, to delegation from, tipton, indiana, reception address at, tipton county, indiana, to delegation from, toledo, ohio, reception address at, topeka, kansas, address to veterans, tower, minnesota, to delegation from, troy, new york, reception address at, tucson, arizona, reception address at, tulare, california, reception address at, tuscola, illinois, reception address at, twenty-sixth indiana infantry, address to survivors, union city, indiana, reception address at, union ex-prisoners war address to delegates, valley falls, kansas, reception address at, vanderberg county, indiana, to delegation from, vergennes, vermont, reception address at, vermilion county, indiana, to delegation from, vermilion county, illinois, to delegation from, wabash county, indiana, to veterans from, to delegation from, july , , to delegation from, sept. , , wanamaker, hon. john, address at atlanta, address at portland, address at seattle, washington, d. c., to augusta exposition committee, to methodist ecumenical conference, the return to, may , , waterbury, vermont, reception address at, watsonville, california, reception address at, wells county, indiana, to delegation from, western tour, , personnel of party, whitehall, new york, reception address at, winchester, indiana, reception address at, windsor, vermont, reception address at, wooster, ohio, reception address at, xenia, ohio, reception address at, transcriber's note obvious typographical errors have been corrected. inconsistent spelling and hyphenation in the original document have been preserved. [illustration: charles sumner] statesman edition vol. i charles sumner his complete works with introduction by hon. george frisbie hoar [illustration] boston lee and shepard mcm copyright, , by lee and shepard. statesman edition. limited to one thousand copies. of which this is no. norwood press: norwood, mass., u.s.a. believe me still, as i have ever been, the steadfast lover of my fellow-men; my weakness, love of holy liberty; my crime, the wish that all mankind were free: free, not by blood; redeemed, but not by crime; each fetter broken, but in god's good time. whittier. note. in this collection the arrangement is strictly chronological. every article will be found according to its date, without reference to the subject or occasion, thus showing the succession of efforts as they occurred. contents of volume . page introduction. by hon. george frisbie hoar vii the true grandeur of nations. an oration before the authorities of the city of boston, july , tribute of friendship: the late joseph story. article from the boston daily advertiser, september , the wrong of slavery. speech at a public meeting in faneuil hall, boston, against the admission of texas as a slave state, november , equal rights in the lecture-room. letter to the committee of the new bedford lyceum, november , prisons and prison discipline. article from the christian examiner, january, the employment of time. lecture before the boston lyceum, delivered in the federal street theatre, february , biographical sketch of the late john pickering. article in the law reporter of june, the scholar, the jurist, the artist, the philanthropist. an oration before the phi beta kappa society of harvard university, at their anniversary, august , antislavery duties of the whig party. speech at the whig state convention of massachusetts, in faneuil hall, boston, september , wrongful declaration of war against mexico. letter to hon. robert c. winthrop, representative in congress from boston, october , refusal to be a candidate for congress. notice in the boston papers, october , slavery and the mexican war. speech at a public meeting in the tremont temple, boston, november , invalidity of enlistments in the massachusetts regiment of volunteers for the mexican war. argument before the supreme court of massachusetts, january, withdrawal of american troops from mexico. speech at a public meeting in faneuil hall, boston, february , [illustration: george f. hoar] introduction. by hon. george frisbie hoar, ll.d. the speeches of charles sumner have many titles to endure in the memory of mankind. they contain the reasons on which the american people acted in taking the successive steps in the revolution which overthrew slavery, and made of a race of slaves, freemen, citizens, voters. they have a high place in literature. they are not only full of historical learning, set forth in an attractive way, but each of the more important of them was itself an historical event. they afford a picture of a noble public character. they are an example of the application of the loftiest morality to the conduct of the state. they are an arsenal of weapons ready for the friends of freedom in all the great battles when she may be in peril hereafter. they will not be forgotten unless the world shall attain to such height of virtue that no stimulant to virtue shall be needed, or to a depth of baseness from which no stimulant can arouse it. mr. sumner held the office of justice of the peace, and that of commissioner of the circuit court, to which he was appointed by his friend and teacher, judge story. he was a member of the convention held in to revise the constitution of the commonwealth of massachusetts. with these exceptions, his only official service was as senator in congress from massachusetts, from the th of march, , when he was just past forty years of age, until his death, march , . if his career could have been predicted in his earliest childhood, he could have had no better training for his great duties than that he in fact received. he was one of the best scholars in the public latin school in boston. he received the franklin medal from the hands of daniel webster, who told him that "the state had a pledge of him." his school life was followed by four years in harvard college, and a course at the harvard law school, where he was the favorite pupil of judge story. he was an eager student of the greek and roman classics. but his special delight was in history and international law. after his admission to the bar he was reporter of the decisions of his beloved master, and edited twenty volumes of the equity reports of vesey, jr., which he enriched with copious and learned notes. a little later, when he was twenty-six years old, he spent a month in washington, tarrying a short time in new york on his way. in that brief period he made life-long friendships with some famous men, including chancellor kent, judge marshall, and francis lieber. he had a rare gift for making friendships with men, especially with great men, and with women. with him in those days an acquaintance with any person worth knowing soon ripened into an indissoluble friendship. a few years later he spent a little more than two years in europe, coming home when he was just past twenty-nine years old. that time was spent in attending courts, lectures of eminent professors, and in society. no house which he desired to enter seems to have been closed to him. statesmen, judges, scholars, beautiful women, leaders of fashionable society, welcomed to the closest intimacy this young american of humble birth, with no passport other than his own character and attainment. it is hardly too much to say that the youth of twenty-nine had a larger and more brilliant circle of friendship than any other man on either continent. the list of his friends and correspondents would fill many pages. he says in a letter to judge story, what would seem like boasting in other men, but with him was modest and far within the truth:-- "i have a thousand things to say to you about the law, circuit life, and the english judges. i have seen more of all than probably ever fell to the lot of a foreigner. i have had the friendship and confidence of judges, and of the leaders of the bar. not a day passes without my being five or six hours in company with men of this stamp. my tour is no vulgar holiday affair, merely to spend money and to get the fashions. it is to see men, institutions, and laws; and, if it would not seem vain in me, i would venture to say that i have not discredited my country. i have called the attention of the judges and the profession to the state of the law in our country, and have shown them, by my conversation (i will say this), that i understand their jurisprudence." he returned from europe bringing his sheaves with him. he resolved to devote himself to the study and practice of jurisprudence, to avoid political strife and political office, hoping that he might, perhaps, at some future time, succeed to the chair of judge story at harvard. he kept up his habit of incessant labor. he contributed to the reviews and newspapers a few essays on literature and jurisprudence, and some obituary notices of deceased friends. he became interested in prison discipline and in the cause of peace. in january, , he engaged in an earnest debate in the prison discipline society, in which he favored the system of separate imprisonment for criminals, and maintained his side with great power. july , , he delivered in boston the oration printed in these volumes entitled, "the true grandeur of nations," which was declared by richard cobden to be the most powerful contribution to the cause of peace made by any modern writer. august , , he delivered before the phi beta kappa society, at harvard, his oration entitled, "the scholar, the jurist, the artist, the philanthropist," in which, in the form of eulogies of his four friends, pickering, story, allston, and channing, he set forth with masterly eloquence the beauties of the virtues of which they were shining examples. but he could not remain an indifferent spectator of the great contest then going on between freedom and slavery for the possession of the vast territory between the mississippi and the pacific. his first public speech against slavery, printed in these volumes, was delivered november , . june , , he was present at the meeting in worcester, where the free soil party, afterward the republican party, was founded, and from that time was recognized in massachusetts, and very largely throughout the country, as the most eloquent leader and champion of the political movement against slavery. he was elected to the seat of daniel webster, in the senate of the united states, april , , and took the oath of office december , . the history of his career from that time to his death, the history of the great party he helped to found, the history of liberty in the united states, are almost identical. "the record of the cause he loved is the best record of its friend." it was impossible for charles sumner to keep aloof from the great contest for which he was the best equipped champion alive, or to decline to obey the voice of the beloved commonwealth commanding him to take his place in the front and heat of the battle. he had every quality of soul and intellect, every accomplishment, every equipment, needed to fit him for that lofty leadership. emerson said of him that he had the whitest soul he ever knew. in such warfare no armor of proof is like the defence of absolute integrity, no temper of the sword is like that of perfect purity. "my good sword cleaves the casques of men, my tough lance thrusteth sure, my strength is as the strength of ten, because my heart is pure." he was a man of absolute singleness of purpose and directness of aim. he went straight to his mark. his public life was devoted to one object, which absorbed his whole soul; that was to make righteousness and freedom controlling forces in the government of the country. he had no other ambition. he desired public office only as he could make it an instrument to that end. he cared for history only as its lessons were lessons of justice and freedom. he cared for literature only as he could draw from it persuasion, argument, or illustration which would advance that lofty purpose. he cared for art only when it taught a moral lesson. he had a marvellous capacity for work. from the beginning to the end, his life was a life of incessant labor. he had no idle moments. even conversation, in which he delighted, was an intellectual exercise. in college, the lonely light shone out from his study window, where he "outwatched the bear" long after the gayest of youthful revellers had gone to bed. even in the heat of summer, in washington, his life was crowded with hard work. i have known him more than once to fix the hour of midnight for a meeting with delegations with whom he could find no time in the busy day. the results of this incessant toil were retained in a memory from which nothing seemed to escape. as it was impossible for him to be idle, so it seemed impossible for him to forget. his mind was an encyclopædia of the literature and history of constitutional liberty. he had an indomitable courage. he never flinched or hesitated. he was never troubled with doubts. he saw everything clearly, and could never understand the state of mind of a man who could not see things as he did. his was the most hopeful nature it was ever my fortune to know. the great virtue of hope, the central figure in the mighty group which the apostle tells us are forever to abide, possessed the very depths of his soul. he came into public life when slavery controlled every department of the government; legislated through congress; administered the law through the executive; sat on the bench of the supreme court. the first years of his public service were years of signal victories of the slaveholding power. to common men the day seemed constantly growing darker and darker, and the cause of freedom more and more hopeless. sumner never abated one jot or tittle of his sublime confidence. the close of some of his speeches in those days is a trumpet note of triumph. when he was stricken down in the senate-chamber by the bludgeon of an assassin, his first conscious utterance as he recovered from the stupor caused by the terrible blows upon his head was that he would renew the conflict with slavery in the senate as soon as he could return there. in his first public speech, a few weeks afterward, he said: "you have already made allusion to the suffering which i have undergone. this is not small, but it has been incurred in the performance of duty; and how small is it compared with that tale of woe which is perpetually coming to us from the house of bondage! with you i hail the omens of final triumph. i ask no prophet to confirm this assurance. the future is not less secure than the past." he prefixed to his own edition of his works the motto from leibnitz:-- "veniet fortasse aliud tempus, dignius nostro, quo, debellatis odiis, veritas triumphabit." but there was no "fortasse" about it, to his confident and triumphant faith. he had a gentle, affectionate, and magnanimous nature, incapable of hatred or revenge. in spite of his severity of speech, his differences with men were differences of principle, never personal. there is no nobler sentence in political history than that with which he begins his first speech after his injury, when he got back from europe and took his place again in the senate:-- "mr. president: undertaking now, after a silence of more than four years, to address the senate on this important subject, i should suppress the emotions natural to such an occasion, if i did not declare on the threshold my gratitude to that supreme being through whose benign care i am enabled, after much suffering and many changes, once again to resume my duties here, and to speak for the cause so near my heart. to the honored commonwealth whose representative i am, and also to my immediate associates in this body, with whom i enjoy the fellowship which is found _in thinking alike concerning the republic_, i owe thanks, which i seize the moment to express, for indulgence extended to me throughout the protracted seclusion enjoined on me by medical skill; and i trust it will not be thought unbecoming in me to put on record here, as an apology for leaving my seat so long vacant, without making way, by resignation, for a successor, that i acted under the illusion of an invalid, whose hopes for restoration to natural health continued against oft recurring disappointment. "when last i entered into this debate, it became my duty to expose the crime against kansas, and to insist upon the immediate admission of that territory as a state of this union, with a constitution forbidding slavery. time has passed, but the question remains. resuming the discussion precisely where i left it, i am happy to avow that rule of moderation which, it is said, may venture to fix the boundaries of wisdom itself. i have no personal griefs to utter; only a vulgar egotism could intrude such into this chamber. i have no personal wrongs to avenge; only a brutish nature could attempt to wield that vengeance which belongs to the lord. the years that have intervened and the tombs that have opened since i spoke[ ] have their voices, too, which i cannot fail to hear. besides, what am i, what is any man among the living or among the dead, compared with the question before us? it is this alone which i shall discuss, and i begin the argument with that easy victory which is found in charity." [ ] preston s. brooks and senator butler had both died in the interval. he was proud that he was an american, proud of his state, proud of his birthplace, proud of his office. to his mind the most exalted position on earth was the position of a senator of the united states. and if he thought that to be a massachusetts senator was a prouder title still, who shall blame him? from the beginning he had massachusetts behind him; when he spoke from his seat, it was the voice, not of a man, but of a commonwealth. it seemed sometimes as if he thought everything that had been accomplished for freedom was accomplished in the senate; that even the war was but a tumult which had disturbed the debates, somewhat. he kept his senatorial robe unstained. he seemed never to lay it aside. there was no place in his life for jesting or trifling. he had no sense of humor. the pledge which he took upon his lips when he entered upon his great office he kept religiously to the end. "to vindicate freedom and oppose slavery is the object near my heart. others may become indifferent to these principles, bartering them for political success, vain and short-lived, or forgetting the visions of youth in the dreams of age. whenever i forget them, whenever i become indifferent to them, whenever i cease to be constant in maintaining them through good report and evil report, then may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, may my right hand forget its cunning." his political creed, his political bible, his ten commandments, his golden rule, were the declaration of independence and the constitution of the united states penetrated, illuminated, interpreted by the declaration of independence. there was not a syllable in that august document to be omitted or qualified. it was to him a permanent, perfect, universal law of national life. on many of the great questions with which the american people had to deal for the last thirty years of his life,--from to --he was the leader and guide. his speeches on these subjects, contained in these volumes, were the speeches which attracted widest public attention at the time. they contained the arguments which convinced the public mind. they are probably, in most cases, the only ones remembered now. toward the close of his life he gave much study to the questions of finance and currency. if his life had been spared he doubtless would have been foremost in conducting the country in the path of financial safety and integrity. the titles of the following speeches, to which many others might be added, suggest the principal subjects with which he dealt. vol. i. the true grandeur of nations. july , . the wrong of slavery. nov. , . equal rights in the lecture room. (letter.) nov. , . prison discipline. (separate system.) january, . scholar, jurist, etc. ph. b.r. aug. , . antislavery duties of the whig party. sept. , . withdrawal of troops from mexico. feb. , . vol. ii. white slavery in the barbary states. feb. , . fame and glory. aug. , . sundry speeches in behalf of new party to oppose slavery. ( - .) war system of nations. may , . vol. iii. equality before the law. dec. , . welcome to kossuth. dec. , . justice to the land states. jan. , feb. , march , . cheap ocean postage. march , . pardoning power of the president. may , . freedom national, slavery sectional. aug. , . vol. iv. the basis of the representative system. july , . bills of rights. july , . repeal of the missouri compromise. feb. , . final protest against slavery in nebraska and kansas. may , . union of all parties against the slave power. may , . vol. v. origin of appropriation bills. feb. , . abrogation of treaties. may , . the crime against kansas. may , , . vol. vi. the electric telegraph. aug. , . the barbarism of slavery. june , . vol. vii. lafayette. nov. , . no surrender of the northern forts, against the crittenden compromise. feb. , . object of the war. july , . sympathies of the civilized world not to be repelled. speech against increase of per cent on all duties. july , . emancipation our best weapon. oct. , . slavery the origin and mainspring of the rebellion. nov. , . vol. viii. revision and consolidation of the national statutes. dec. , . trent case and maritime rights. jan. , . treasury notes a legal tender. feb. , . help for mexico against foreign intervention. feb. , . state suicide and emancipation. march , . final independence of haiti and liberia. april , . final suppression of the slave trade. april , . emancipation in the district. april , . no names of victories over fellow-citizens on regimental colors. may , . testimony of colored persons. may , . vol. ix. rights of sovereignty and rights of war. may , . help from slaves. may , . tax on cotton. may , . war powers of congress. june , . the proclamation of emancipation. oct. , . emancipation proclamation our corner-stone. oct. , . prudence in our foreign relations. feb. , . employment of colored troops. feb. , . pacific railroad. may , . vol. x. our foreign relations. sept. , . power of congress over the rebel states. atlantic monthly. october, . equal pay of colored soldiers. feb. , . vol. xi. french spoliation claims reported. april , . national banks and the currency. april , . reform in the civil service. april , . slavery and the rebellion one and inseparable. nov. , . vol. xii. motion to admit a colored lawyer to the bar of the supreme court of the united states. feb. , . participation of rebel states not necessary in ratification of constitutional amendments. feb. , . opinion on the case of the smith brothers. march , . guaranties for the national freedmen and the national creditor. sept. , . vol. xiii. republican form of government the essential condition of peace. dec. , . equal rights of colored persons to be protected in the national courts. dec. , . whitewashing by the president. dec. , . protection of the national debt. jan. , . protection of civil rights. feb. , . vol. xiv. ship canal through the isthmus of darien. july , . metric system. july , . the one man power _versus_ congress. oct. , . cheap books and public libraries. jan. , . vol. xv. cession of russian america to the united states. april , . vol. xvi. are we a nation? nov. , . expulsion of the president. impeachment of andrew johnson. may , . specie payments. july , . vol. xvii. powers of congress to prohibit inequality, caste, etc. feb. , . claims on england. april ; sept. , . return to specie payments. dec. , . cuban belligerency. dec. , . specie payments. jan. , ; feb. ; march , , , . vol. xviii. one cent postage with abolition of franking. june , . duel between france and germany. oct. , . naboth's vineyard speech on proposed annexation of san domingo. dec. , . italian unity. jan. , . vol. xix. violations of international law and usurpations of war powers. march , . one term for president. dec. , . vol. xx. arbitration a substitute for war. may , . republicanism _versus_ grantism. may , . no names of battles with fellow-citizens on the regimental colors of the united states. dec. , . international arbitration. july , . civil rights bill. jan. , . if any one doubt the practical sagacity and consummate statesmanship of charles sumner let him read the speech in the trent case. he had a most difficult task. he had to reconcile a people smarting under the sting of english disdain and dislike to meet an insolent demand to give up men we had taken from an english ship, when every man in the united states believed england would have taken them from us in a like case; and to do this not only without dishonor, but so as to turn an apparent defeat into victory. the english cabinet, as is often the case with men who act arrogantly, acted hastily. they put their demand and their menace of war on grounds which justified us and put them in the wrong on the great contention which had existed from the beginning of our government. the united states had been, till the outbreak of the civil war, and hoped to be forever after that war was over, a great neutral power. she was concerned to establish the immunity of the decks of her ships. sumner saw and seized our opportunity. great as was the influence of president lincoln, it seems unlikely that even his authority would have reconciled the american people to the surrender of mason and slidell without the support of sumner. it would certainly have been a terrible strain upon his administration. none of these speeches bears the marks of haste. in general no important consideration is overlooked and no important authority fails to be cited. several of them were addressed to the senate at a time when in the beginning he was able to convince scarcely anybody but himself. but in the end senate and people came to his opinion. let me repeat what i said in reviewing mr. pierce's admirable biography:-- "let us hope that these volumes will always be a text-book for americans. let successive generations be brought up on the story of the noble life of charles sumner. let the american youth think of these things. they are things true, honest, just, lovely, and of good report. there is virtue in them and praise, if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise. they do not belong to fiction, but to history. it is no grecian, or roman, or english heroism that the youth is invited to study. charles sumner belongs to us. his youth was spent under a humble american roof. his training was in an american school and college. he sleeps in american soil. he is ours, wholly and altogether. his figure will abide in history like that of st. michael in art, an emblem of celestial purity, of celestial zeal, of celestial courage. it will go down to immortality with its foot upon the dragon of slavery, and with the sword of the spirit in its hand, but with a tender light in its eye, and a human love in its smile. guido and raphael conceived their 'inviolable saint,' "'invulnerable, impenetrably armed; such high advantages his innocence gave him above his foe; not to have sinned, not to have disobeyed; in fight he stood unwearied, unobnoxious, to be pained by wounds.' the michael of the painters, as a critic of genius akin to their own has pointed out, rests upon his prostrate foe light as a morning cloud, no muscle strained, with unhacked sword and unruffled wings, his bright tunic and shining armor without a rent or stain. not so with our human champion. he had to bear the bitterness and agony of a long and doubtful struggle, with common weapons and against terrible odds. he came out of it with soiled garments, and with a mortal wound, but without a regret and without a memory of hate." charles sumner will always be a foremost figure in our history. his name will be a name to conjure with. whenever freedom is in peril; whenever justice is menaced, whenever the race, whose right he vindicated, shall be trodden under foot, those lips of stone, from the stately antechamber of the senate, will again utter their high commands. the noble form of charles sumner, to the vision of the lovers of liberty, will seem to take its place again in the front of the battle. "pass thou first, thou dauntless heart, as thou wert wont of yore." worcester, december, . the true grandeur of nations. an oration before the authorities of the city of boston, july , . o, yet a nobler task awaits thy hand, (for what can war but endless war still breed?) till truth and right from violence be freed. milton, _sonnet to fairfax_. pax optima rerum quas homini novisse datum est; pax una triumphis innumeris potior; pax custodire salutem et cives æquare potens. silius italicus, _punica_, lib. xi. vv. - . * * * * * sed majoris est gloriæ _ipsa bella verbo occidere_ quam homines ferro, et acquirere vel obtinere pacem pace, non bello.--augustini _epistola_ cclxii., _ad darium comitem_. * * * * * certainly, if all who look upon themselves as men, not so much from the shape of their bodies as because they are endowed with reason, would listen awhile unto christ's wholesome and peaceable decrees, and not, puffed up with arrogance and conceit, rather believe their own opinions than his admonitions, the whole world long ago (turning the use of iron into milder works) should have lived in most quiet tranquillity, and have met together in a firm and indissoluble league of most safe concord.--arnobius afer, _adversus gentes_, lib. i. c. . * * * * * and so for the first time [three hundred years after the christian era] the meek and peaceful jesus became a god of battle, and the cross, the holy sign of christian redemption, a banner of bloody strife. this irreconcilable incongruity between the symbol of universal peace and the horrors of war, in my judgment, is conclusive against the miraculous or supernatural character of the transaction [the vision of constantine].--i was agreeably surprised to find that mosheim concurred in these sentiments, for which i will readily encounter the charge of quakerism.--milman, _history of christianity_, book iii. chap. . * * * * * when you see fighting, be peaceable; for a peaceable disposition shuts the door of contention. oppose kindness to perverseness; the sharp sword will not cut soft silk. by using sweet words and gentleness you may lead an elephant with a hair.--saadi, _the gulistan_, translated by francis gladwin, chap. iii. tale . * * * * * si l'on vous disait que tous les chats d'un grand pays se sont assemblés par milliers dans une plaine, et qu'après avoir miaulé tout leur saoul, ils se sont jetés avec fureur les uns sur les autres, et ont joué ensemble de la dent et de la griffe, que de cette mêlée il est demeuré de part et d'autre neuf à dix mille chats sur la place, qui ont infecté l'air à dix lieues de là par leur puanteur, ne diriez-vous pas, "voilà le plus abominable sabbat dont on ait jamais oui parler"? et si les loups en faisaient de même, quels hurlements! quelle boucherie! et si les uns ou les autres vous disaient _qu'ils aiment la gloire_, ... ne ririez-vous pas de tout votre coeur de l'ingénuité de ces pauvres bêtes?--la bruyÈre, _les caractères: des jugements_. he was disposed to dissent from the maxim, which had of late years received very general assent, that the best security for the continuance of peace was to be prepared for war. that was a maxim which might have been applied to the nations of antiquity, and to society in a comparatively barbarous and uncivilized state.... men, when they adopted such a maxim, and made large preparations in time of peace that would be sufficient in time of war, were apt to be influenced by the desire to put their efficiency to the test, that all their great preparations and the result of their toil and expense might not be thrown away.--earl of aberdeen, _hansard's parliamentary debates_, july , . * * * * * _bellum para, si pacem velis_, was a maxim regarded by many as containing an incontestable truth. it was one, in his opinion, to be received with great caution, and admitting of much qualification.... we should best consult the true interests of the country by husbanding our resources in a time of peace, and, instead of a lavish expenditure on all the means of defence, by placing some trust in the latent and dormant energies of the nation.--sir robert peel, _hansard's parliamentary debates_, march , . * * * * * let us terminate this disastrous system of rival expenditure, and mutually agree, with no hypocrisy, but in a manner and under circumstances which can admit of no doubt,--by a reduction of armaments,--that peace is really our policy.--mr. d'israeli, _hansard's parliamentary debates_, july , . * * * * * all high titles of honor come hitherto from fighting. your _herzog_ (duke, _dux_) is leader of armies; your earl (_jarl_) is strong man; your marshal, cavalry horseshoer. a millennium, or reign of peace and wisdom, having from of old been prophesied, and becoming now daily more and more indubitable, may it not be apprehended that such fighting titles will cease to be palatable, and new and higher need to be devised?--carlyle, _sartor resartus_, book iii. chap. . * * * * * after the memorable conflict of june, , in which, as _chef de bataillon_, he [ary scheffer] had shown a capacity for military conduct not less remarked than his cool courage, general changarnier, then commanding the national guard of paris, tendered to scheffer's acceptance the cross of _commandeur_. he replied, "had this honorable distinction been offered to me in my quality of artist, and as a recognition of the merit of my works, i should receive it with deference and satisfaction. but to carry about me a decoration reminding me only of the horrors of civil war is what i cannot consent to do."--ary scheffer, _life by mrs. grote_, appendix. additional examples and illustrations have been introduced into this oration since its publication, but the argument and substance remain the same. it was at the time the occasion of considerable controversy, and many were disturbed by what mr. sumner called his _declaration of war against war_. this showed itself at the dinner in faneuil hall immediately after the delivery. there was friendly dissent also, as appears from the letters of judge story and mr. prescott, which will be found in the biographies of those eminent persons. a letter from john a. andrew, afterwards the distinguished governor of massachusetts, shows the completeness of his sympathy. "you will allow me to say, i hope," he writes, "that i have read the oration with a satisfaction only equalled by that with which i heard you on the th july. and while i thank you a thousand times for the choice you made of a topic, as well as for the fidelity and brilliant ability which you brought to its illustration, (both, to my mind, defying the most carping criticism,) i cannot help expressing also my gratitude to providence, that here, in our city of boston, one has at last stepped forward to consecrate to celestial hopes the day--the great day--which americans have at best heretofore held sacred only to memory." the oration was noticed extensively at home and abroad. two or more editions were printed by the city government, one by the booksellers, messrs. w.d. ticknor & co., and several by the american peace society, which has recently issued another, making a small volume. another edition appeared in london. portions have been printed and circulated as tracts. there was also an abridgment in philadelphia, edited by professor charles d. cleveland, and another in liverpool, by mr. richard rathbone. oration. in accordance with uninterrupted usage, on this sabbath of the nation, we have put aside our daily cares, and seized a respite from the never-ending toils of life, to meet in gladness and congratulation, mindful of the blessings transmitted from the past, mindful also, i trust, of our duties to the present and the future. * * * * * all hearts turn first to the fathers of the republic. their venerable forms rise before us, in the procession of successive generations. they come from the frozen rock of plymouth, from the wasted bands of raleigh, from the heavenly companionship of penn, from the anxious councils of the revolution,--from all those fields of sacrifice, where, in obedience to the spirit of their age, they sealed their devotion to duty with their blood. they say to us, their children, "cease to vaunt what you do, and what has been done for you. learn to walk meekly and to think humbly. cultivate habits of self-sacrifice. never aim at what is not right, persuaded that without this every possession and all knowledge will become an evil and a shame. and may these words of ours be ever in your minds! strive to increase the inheritance we have bequeathed to you,--bearing in mind always, that, if we excel you in virtue, such a victory will be to us a mortification, while defeat will bring happiness. in this way you may conquer us. nothing is more shameful for a man than a claim to esteem, not on his own merits, but on the fame of his ancestors. the glory of the fathers is doubtless to their children a most precious treasure; but to enjoy it without transmission to the next generation, and without addition, is the extreme of ignominy. following these counsels, when your days on earth are finished, you will come to join us, and we shall receive you as friend receives friend; but if you neglect our words, expect no happy greeting from us."[ ] [ ] this is borrowed almost literally from the words attributed by plato to the fathers of athens, in the beautiful funeral discourse of the menexenus. honor to the memory of our fathers! may the turf lie lightly on their sacred graves! not in words only, but in deeds also, let us testify our reverence for their name, imitating what in them was lofty, pure, and good, learning from them to bear hardship and privation. may we, who now reap in strength what they sowed in weakness, augment the inheritance we have received! to this end, we must not fold our hands in slumber, nor abide content with the past. to each generation is appointed its peculiar task; nor does the heart which responds to the call of duty find rest except in the grave. be ours the task now in the order of providence cast upon us. and what is this duty? what can we do to make our coming welcome to our fathers in the skies, and draw to our memory hereafter the homage of a grateful posterity? how add to the inheritance received? the answer must interest all, particularly on this festival, when we celebrate the nativity of the republic. it well becomes the patriot citizen, on this anniversary, to consider the national character, and how it may be advanced,--as the good man dedicates his birthday to meditation on his life, and to resolutions of improvement. avoiding, then, all exultation in the abounding prosperity of the land, and in that freedom whose influence is widening to the uttermost circles of the earth, i would turn attention to the character of our country, and humbly endeavor to learn what must be done that the republic may best secure the welfare of the people committed to its care,--that it may perform its part in the world's history,--that it may fulfil the aspirations of generous hearts,--and, practising that righteousness which exalteth a nation, attain to the elevation of true grandeur. * * * * * with this aim, and believing that i can in no other way so fitly fulfil the trust reposed in me to-day, i purpose to consider _what, in our age, are the true objects of national ambition,--what is truly national honor, national glory_,--what is the true grandeur of nations. i would not depart from the modesty that becomes me, yet i am not without hope that i may do something to rescue these terms, now so powerful over the minds of men, from mistaken objects, especially from deeds of war, and the extension of empire, that they may be applied to works of justice and beneficence, which are better than war or empire. the subject may be novel, on an occasion like the present; but it is comprehensive, and of transcendent importance. it raises us to the contemplation of things not temporary or local, but belonging to all ages and countries,--things lofty as truth, universal as humanity. nay, more; it practically concerns the general welfare, not only of our own cherished republic, but of the whole federation of nations. it has an urgent interest from transactions in which we are now unhappily involved. by an act of unjust legislation, extending our power over texas, peace with mexico is endangered,--while, by petulant assertion of a disputed claim to a remote territory beyond the rocky mountains, ancient fires of hostile strife are kindled anew on the hearth of our mother country. mexico and england both avow the determination to vindicate what is called the _national honor_; and our government calmly contemplates the dread arbitrament of war, provided it cannot obtain what is called an honorable peace. far from our nation and our age be the sin and shame of contests hateful in the sight of god and all good men, having their origin in no righteous sentiment, no true love of country, no generous thirst for fame, "that last infirmity of noble mind," but springing manifestly from an ignorant and ignoble passion for new territory, strengthened, in our case, in a republic whose star is liberty, by unnatural desire to add new links in chains destined yet to fall from the limbs of the unhappy slave! in such contests god has no attribute which can join with us. who believes that the national honor would be promoted by a war with mexico or a war with england? what just man would sacrifice a single human life to bring under our rule both texas and oregon? an ancient roman, ignorant of christian truth, touched only by the relation of fellow-countryman, and not of fellow-man, said, as he turned aside from a career of asiatic conquest, that he would rather save the life of a single citizen than win to his power all the dominions of mithridates.[ ] [ ] plutarch, _lucullus_, cap. viii. a war with mexico would be mean and cowardly; with england it would be bold at least, though parricidal. the heart sickens at the murderous attack upon an enemy distracted by civil feud, weak at home, impotent abroad; but it recoils in horror from the deadly shock between children of a common ancestry, speaking the same language, soothed in infancy by the same words of love and tenderness, and hardened into vigorous manhood under the bracing influence of institutions instinct with the same vital breath of freedom. the roman historian has aptly pictured this unnatural combat. rarely do words of the past so justly describe the present. _curam acuebat, quod adversus latinos bellandum erat, lingua, moribus, armorum genere, institutis ante omnia militaribus congruentes: milites militibus, centurionibus centuriones, tribuni tribunis compares collegæque, iisdem præsidiis, sæpe iisdem manipulis permixti fuerant._[ ] [ ] livy, hist., lib. viii. c. . can there be in our age any peace that is not honorable, any war that is not dishonorable? the true honor of a nation is conspicuous only in deeds of justice and beneficence, securing and advancing human happiness. in the clear eye of that christian judgment which must yet prevail, vain are the victories of war, infamous its spoils. he is the benefactor, and worthy of honor, who carries comfort to wretchedness, dries the tear of sorrow, relieves the unfortunate, feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, does justice, enlightens the ignorant, unfastens the fetters of the slave, and finally, by virtuous genius, in art, literature, science, enlivens and exalts the hours of life, or, by generous example, inspires a love for god and man. this is the christian hero; this is the man of honor in a christian land. he is no benefactor, nor worthy of honor, whatever his worldly renown, whose life is absorbed in feats of brute force, who renounces the great law of christian brotherhood, whose vocation is blood. well may the modern poet exclaim, "the world knows nothing of its greatest men!"--for thus far it has chiefly honored the violent brood of battle, armed men springing up from the dragon's teeth sown by hate, and cared little for the truly good men, children of love, guiltless of their country's blood, whose steps on earth are noiseless as an angel's wing. it will not be disguised that this standard differs from that of the world even in our day. the voice of man is yet given to martial praise, and the honors of victory are chanted even by the lips of woman. the mother, rocking the infant on her knee, stamps the images of war upon his tender mind, at that age more impressible than wax; she nurses his slumber with its music, pleases his waking hours with its stories, and selects for his playthings the plume and the sword. from the child is formed the man; and who can weigh the influence of a mother's spirit on the opinions of his life? the mind which trains the child is like a hand at the end of a long lever; a gentle effort suffices to heave the enormous weight of succeeding years. as the boy advances to youth, he is fed like achilles, not on honey and milk only, but on bears' marrow and lions' hearts. he draws the nutriment of his soul from a literature whose beautiful fields are moistened by human blood. fain would i offer my tribute to the father of poetry, standing with harp of immortal melody on the misty mountain-top of distant antiquity,--to those stories of courage and sacrifice which emblazon the annals of greece and rome,--to the fulminations of demosthenes and the splendors of tully,--to the sweet verse of virgil and the poetic prose of livy; fain would i offer my tribute to the new literature, which shot up in modern times as a vigorous forest from the burnt site of ancient woods,--to the passionate song of the troubadour in france and the minnesinger in germany,--to the thrilling ballad of spain and the delicate music of the italian lyre: but from all these has breathed the breath of war, that has swept the heart-strings of men in all the thronging generations. and when the youth becomes a man, his country invites his service in war, and holds before his bewildered imagination the prizes of worldly honor. for him the pen of the historian and the verse of the poet. his soul is taught to swell at the thought that he, too, is a soldier,--that his name shall be entered on the list of those who have borne arms for their country; and perhaps he dreams that he, too, may sleep, like the great captain of spain, with a hundred trophies over his grave. the law of the land throws its sanction over this frenzy. the contagion spreads beyond those subject to positive obligation. peaceful citizens volunteer to appear as soldiers, and affect, in dress, arms, and deportment, what is called the "pride, pomp, and circumstance of glorious war." the ear-piercing fife has to-day filled our streets, and we have come to this church, on this national sabbath, by the thump of drum and with the parade of bristling bayonets. it is not strange, then, that the spirit of war still finds a home among us, nor that its honors continue to be regarded. all this may seem to illustrate the bitter philosophy of hobbes, declaring that the natural state of mankind is war, and to sustain the exulting language of the soldier in our own day, when he wrote, "war is the condition of this world. from man to the smallest insect, all are at strife; and the glory of arms, which cannot be obtained without the exercise of honor, fortitude, courage, obedience, modesty, and temperance, excites the brave man's patriotism, and is a chastening corrective for the rich man's pride."[ ] this is broad and bold. in madder mood, another british general is reported as saying, "why, man, do you know that a grenadier is the _greatest character_ in this world,"--and after a moment's pause, with the added emphasis of an oath, "and, i believe, in the next, too."[ ] all these spoke in harmony. if one is true, all are true. a french voice has struck another note, chanting nothing less than the divinity of war, hailing it as "divine" in itself,--"divine" in its consequences,--"divine" in mysterious glory and seductive attraction,--"divine" in the manner of its declaration,--"divine" in the results obtained,--"divine" in the undefinable force by which its triumph is determined;[ ] and the whole earth, continually imbibing blood, is nothing but an immense altar, where life is immolated without end, without measure, without respite. but this oracle is not saved from rejection even by the magistral style in which it is delivered. [ ] napier, peninsular war, book xxiv. ch. , vol. vi. p. . [ ] southey, colloquies on the progress and prospects of society, coll. viii., vol. i. p. . [ ] joseph de maistre, soirées de saint-pétersbourg, tom. ii. pp. , - . alas! in the existing attitude of nations, the infidel philosopher and the rhetorical soldier, to say nothing of the giddy general and the french priest of mars, find too much support for a theory which degrades human nature and insults the goodness of god. it is true that in us are impulses unhappily tending to strife. propensities possessed in common with the beast, if not subordinated to what in man is human, almost divine, will break forth in outrage. this is the predominance of the animal. hence wars and fightings, with the false glory which crowns such barbarism. but the true civilization of nations, as of individuals, is determined by the extent to which these evil dispositions are restrained. nor does the teacher ever more truly perform his high office than when, recognizing the supremacy of the moral and intellectual, he calls upon nations, as upon individuals, to declare independence of the bestial, to abandon practices founded on this part of our nature, and in every way to beat down that brutal spirit which is the genius of war. in making this appeal, he will be startled as he learns, that, while the municipal law of each christian nation, discarding the arbitrament of force, provides a judicial tribunal for the determination of controversies between individuals, international law expressly _establishes_ the arbitrament of war for the determination of controversies between nations. here, then, in unfolding the true grandeur of nations, we encounter a practice, or _custom_, sanctioned by the law of nations, and constituting a part of that law, which exists in defiance of principles such as no individuals can disown. if it is wrong and inglorious when individuals _consent and agree_ to determine their petty controversies by combat, it must be equally wrong and inglorious when nations _consent and agree_ to determine their vaster controversies by combat. here is a positive, precise, and specific evil, of gigantic proportions, inconsistent with what is truly honorable, making within the sphere of its influence all true grandeur impossible, which, instead of proceeding from some uncontrollable impulse of our nature, is _expressly established and organized by law_. * * * * * as all citizens are parties to municipal law, and responsible for its institutions, so are all the christian nations parties to international law, and responsible for its provisions. by recognizing these provisions, nations _consent and agree_ beforehand to the arbitrament of war, precisely as citizens, by recognizing trial by jury, _consent and agree_ beforehand to the latter tribunal. as, to comprehend the true nature of trial by jury, we first repair to the municipal law by which it is established, so, to comprehend the true nature of the arbitrament of war, we must first repair to the law of nations. writers of genius and learning have defined this arbitrament, and laid down the rules by which it is governed, constituting a complex code, with innumerable subtile provisions regulating the resort to it and the manner in which it must be conducted, called the _laws of war_. in these quarters we catch our first authentic glimpses of its folly and wickedness. according to lord bacon, whose authority is always great, "wars are no massacres and confusions, but they are the highest _trials of right_, when princes and states, that acknowledge no superior upon earth, shall put themselves upon the justice of god _for the deciding of their_ _controversies_ by such success as it shall please him to give on either side."[ ] this definition of the english philosopher is adopted by the american jurist, chancellor kent, in his commentaries on american law.[ ] the swiss publicist, vattel, whose work is accepted as an important repository of the law of nations, defines war as "that state in which a nation _prosecutes its right by force_."[ ] in this he very nearly follows the eminent dutch authority, bynkershoek, who says, "bellum est eorum, qui suæ potestatis sunt, _juris sui persequendi ergo_, concertatio per vim vel dolum."[ ] mr. whewell, who has done so much to illustrate philosophy in all its departments, says, in his recent work on the elements of morality and polity, "though war is appealed to, because there is no other ultimate tribunal to which states can have recourse, _it is appealed to for justice_."[ ] and in our country, dr. lieber says, in a work of learning and sagacious thought, that war is undertaken "in order to obtain right,"[ ]--a definition which hardly differs in form from those of vattel and bynkershoek. [ ] observations upon a libel, etc., works, vol. iii. p. . [ ] lecture iii., vol. i. p. . [ ] book iii. ch. , sec. . [ ] quæst. jur. pub., lib. i. cap. . [ ] book vi. ch. . art. . [ ] political ethics, book vii. sec. , vol. ii. p. . in accordance with these texts, i would now define the evil which i arraign. _war is a public armed contest between nations, under the sanction of international law, to establish_ justice _between them_: as, for instance, to determine a disputed boundary, the title to territory, or a claim for damages. this definition is confined to contests between nations. it is restricted to international war, carefully excluding the question, often agitated, concerning the right of revolution, and that other question, on which friends of peace sometimes differ, the right of personal self-defence. it does not in any way throw doubt on the employment of force in the administration of justice or the conservation of domestic quiet. it is true that the term _defensive_ is always applied to wars in our day. and it is creditable to the moral sense that nations are constrained to allege this seeming excuse, although its absurdity is apparent in the equal pretensions of the two belligerents, each claiming to act on the defensive. it is unreasonable to suppose that war can arise in the present age, under the sanctions of international law, except to determine an _asserted right_. whatever its character in periods of barbarism, or when invoked to repel an incursion of robbers or pirates, "enemies of the human race," war becomes in our day, _among all the nations parties to existing international law_, simply a mode of litigation, or of deciding a _lis pendens_. it is a mere trial of right, an appeal for justice to force. the wars now lowering from mexico and england are of this character. on the one side, we assert a _title_ to texas, _which is disputed_; on the other, we assert a _title_ to oregon, _which is disputed_. only according to "martial logic," or the "flash language" of a dishonest patriotism, can the ordeal by battle be regarded in these causes, on either side, as _defensive war_. nor did the threatened war with france in promise to assume any different character. its professed object was to obtain the payment of five million dollars,--in other words, to determine by this _ultimate_ _tribunal_ a simple question of justice. and going back still farther in our history, the avowed purpose of the war against great britain in was to obtain from the latter power an abandonment of the claim to search american vessels. unrighteous as was this claim, it is plain that war here was invoked only as a _trial of right_. * * * * * it forms no part of my purpose to consider individual wars in the past, except so far as necessary by way of example. my aim is higher. i wish to expose an irrational, cruel, and impious _custom_, sanctioned by the law of nations. on this account i resort to that supreme law for the definition on which i plant myself in the effort i now make. after considering, in succession, _first_, the character of war, _secondly_, the miseries it produces, and, _thirdly_, its utter and pitiful insufficiency, as a mode of determining justice, we shall be able to decide, strictly and logically, whether it must not be ranked as crime, from which no true honor can spring to individuals or nations. to appreciate this evil, and the necessity for its overthrow, it will be our duty, _fourthly_, to consider in succession the various prejudices by which it is sustained, ending with that prejudice, so gigantic and all-embracing, at whose command uncounted sums are madly diverted from purposes of peace to preparations for war. the whole subject is infinitely practical, while the concluding division shows how the public treasury may be relieved, and new means secured for human advancement. i. first, as to the essential character and root of war, or that part of our nature whence it proceeds. listen to the voice from the ancient poet of boeotian ascra:-- "this is the law for mortals, ordained by the ruler of heaven: fishes and beasts and birds of the air devour each other; justice _dwells not among them: only to_ man _has he given_ justice _the highest and best_."[ ] [ ] hesiod, works and days, vv. - . cicero also says, "neque ulla re longius absumus a natura ferarum, in quibus inesse fortitudinem sæpe dicimus, ut in equis, in leonibus; justitiam, æquitatem, bonitatem non dicimus."--de offic., lib. i. cap. . these words of old hesiod exhibit the distinction between man and beast; but this very distinction belongs to the present discussion. the idea rises to the mind at once, that war is a resort to brute force, where nations strive to overpower each other. reason, and the divine part of our nature, where alone we differ from the beast, where alone we approach the divinity, where alone are the elements of that _justice_ which is the professed object of war, are rudely dethroned. for the time men adopt the nature of beasts, emulating their ferocity, like them rejoicing in blood, and with lion's paw clutching an asserted right. though in more recent days this character is somewhat disguised by the skill and knowledge employed, war is still the same, only more destructive from the genius and intellect which have become its servants. the primitive poets, in the unconscious simplicity of the world's childhood, make this boldly apparent. the heroes of homer are likened to animals in ungovernable fury, or to things devoid of reason or affection. menelaus presses his way through the crowd "like a wild beast." sarpedon is aroused against the argives, "as a lion against the crooked-horned oxen," and afterwards rushes forward "like a lion nurtured on the mountains, for a long time famished for want of flesh, but whose courage impels him to attack even the well-guarded sheep-fold." in one and the same passage, the great telamonian ajax is "wild beast," "tawny lion," and "dull ass"; and all the greek chiefs, the flower of the camp, are ranged about diomed, "like raw-eating lions, or wild-boars, whose strength is irresistible." even hector, the model hero, with all the virtues of war, is praised as "tamer of horses"; and one of his renowned feats in battle, indicating brute strength only, is where he takes up and hurls a stone which two of our strongest men could not easily lift into a wagon; and he drives over dead bodies and shields, while the axle is defiled by gore, and the guard about the seat is sprinkled from the horses' hoofs and the tires of the wheels;[ ] and in that most admired passage of ancient literature, before returning his child, the young astyanax, to the arms of the wife he is about to leave, this hero of war invokes the gods for a single blessing on the boy's head,--"that he may excel his father, and bring home _bloody spoils_, his enemy being slain, and _so make glad the heart of his mother_!" [ ] little better than trojan hector was the "great" condé ranging over the field and exulting in the blood of the enemy, which defiled his sword-arm to the elbow.--mahon, essai sur la vie du grand condé, p. . from early fields of modern literature, as from those of antiquity, might be gathered similar illustrations, showing the unconscious degradation of the soldier, in vain pursuit of _justice_, renouncing the human character, to assume that of brute. bayard, the exemplar of chivalry, with a name always on the lips of its votaries, was described by the qualities of beasts, being, according to his admirers, _ram in attack, wild-boar in defence, and wolf in flight_. henry the fifth, as represented by our own shakespeare, in the spirit-stirring appeal to his troops exclaims,-- "when the blast of war blows in our ears, _then imitate the action of the tiger_." this is plain and frank, revealing the true character of war. i need not dwell on the moral debasement that must ensue. passions, like so many bloodhounds, are unleashed and suffered to rage. crimes filling our prisons stalk abroad in the soldier's garb, unwhipped of justice. murder, robbery, rape, arson, are the sports of this fiendish saturnalia, when "the gates of mercy shall be all shut up, and the fleshed soldier, rough and hard of heart, in liberty of bloody hand shall range _with conscience wide as hell_." by a bold, but truthful touch, shakespeare thus pictures the foul disfigurement which war produces in man, whose native capacities he describes in those beautiful words: "how noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god!" and yet this nobility of reason, this infinitude of faculties, this marvel of form and motion, this nature so angelic, so godlike, are all, under the transforming power of war, lost in the action of the beast, or the license of the fleshed soldier with bloody hand and conscience wide as hell. ii. the immediate effect of war is to sever all relations of friendship and commerce between the belligerent nations, and every individual thereof, impressing upon each citizen or subject the character of enemy. imagine this instant change between england and the united states. the innumerable ships of the two countries, the white doves of commerce, bearing the olive of peace, are driven from the sea, or turned from peaceful purposes to be ministers of destruction; the threads of social and business intercourse, so carefully woven into a thick web, are suddenly snapped asunder; friend can no longer communicate with friend; the twenty thousand letters speeded each fortnight from this port alone are arrested, and the human affections, of which they are the precious expression, seek in vain for utterance. tell me, you with friends and kindred abroad, or you bound to other lands only by relations of commerce, are you ready for this rude separation? this is little compared with what must follow. it is but the first portentous shadow of disastrous eclipse, twilight usher of thick darkness, covering the whole heavens with a pall, broken only by the lightnings of battle and siege. such horrors redden the historic page, while, to the scandal of humanity, they never want historians with feelings kindred to those by which they are inspired. the demon that draws the sword also guides the pen. the favorite chronicler of modern europe, froissart, discovers his sympathies in his prologue, where, with something of apostleship, he announces his purpose, "that the honorable enterprises and noble adventures and feats of arms which happened in the wars of france and england be notably registered and put in perpetual memory," and then proceeds to bestow his equal admiration upon bravery and cunning, upon the courtesy which pardoned as upon the rage which caused the flow of blood in torrents, dwelling with especial delight on "beautiful incursions, beautiful rescues, beautiful feats of arms, and beautiful prowesses"; and wantoning in pictures of cities assaulted, "which, being soon gained by force, were robbed, and men and women and children put to the sword without mercy, while the churches were burnt and violated."[ ] this was in a barbarous age. but popular writers in our own day, dazzled by false ideas of greatness, at which reason and humanity blush, do not hesitate to dwell on similar scenes even with rapture and eulogy. the humane soul of wilberforce, which sighed that england's "bloody laws sent many unprepared into another world," could hail the slaughter of waterloo, by which thousands were hurried into eternity on the sabbath he held so holy, as a "splendid victory."[ ] [ ] froissart, les chroniques, ch. , , collection de buchon, tom. ii. pp. , . [ ] life of william wilberforce, by his sons, ch. , vol. iv. pp. , . my present purpose is less to judge the historian than to expose the horrors on horrors which he applauds. at tarragona, above six thousand human beings, almost all defenceless, men and women, gray hairs and infant innocence, attractive youth and wrinkled age, were butchered by the infuriate troops in one night, and the morning sun rose upon a city whose streets and houses were inundated with blood: and yet this is called a "glorious exploit."[ ] here was a conquest by the french. at a later day, ciudad rodrigo was stormed by the british, when, in the license of victory, there ensued a savage scene of plunder and violence, while shouts and screams on all sides mingled fearfully with the groans of the wounded. churches were desecrated, cellars of wine and spirits were pillaged, fire was wantonly applied to the city, and brutal intoxication spread in every direction. only when the drunken dropped from excess, or fell asleep, was any degree of order restored: and yet the storming of ciudad rodrigo is pronounced "one of the most brilliant exploits of the british army."[ ] this "beautiful feat of arms" was followed by the storming of badajoz, where the same scenes were enacted again, with accumulated atrocities. the story shall be told in the words of a partial historian, who himself saw what he eloquently describes. "shameless rapacity, brutal intemperance, savage lust, cruelty, and murder, shrieks and piteous lamentations, groans, shouts, imprecations, the hissing of fires bursting from the houses, the crashing of doors and windows, and the reports of muskets used in violence, resounded for two days and nights in the streets of badajoz. on the third, when the city was sacked, when the soldiers were exhausted by their own excesses, the tumult rather subsided than was quelled. the wounded men were then looked to, the dead disposed of."[ ] all this is in the nature of confession, for the historian is a partisan of battle. [ ] alison, hist. of europe, ch. , vol. viii. p. . [ ] ibid., ch. , vol. viii. p. . [ ] napier, hist. peninsular war, book xvi. ch. , vol. iv. p. . the same terrible war affords another instance of atrocities at a siege crying to heaven. for weeks before the surrender of saragossa, the deaths daily were from four to five hundred; and as the living could not bury the increasing mass, thousands of carcasses, scattered in streets and court-yards, or piled in heaps at the doors of churches, were left to dissolve in their own corruption, or be licked up by the flames of burning houses. the city was shaken to its foundations by sixteen thousand shells, and the explosion of forty-five thousand pounds of powder in the mines,--while the bones of forty thousand victims, of every age and both sexes, bore dreadful testimony to the unutterable cruelty of war.[ ] [ ] napier, book v. ch. , vol. ii. p. . these might seem pictures from the life of alaric, who led the goths to rome, or of attila, general of the huns, called the scourge of god, and who boasted that the grass did not grow where his horse had set his foot; but no! they belong to our own times. they are portions of the wonderful, but wicked, career of him who stands forth the foremost representative of worldly grandeur. the heart aches, as we follow him and his marshals from field to field of satanic glory,[ ] finding everywhere, from spain to russia, the same carnival of woe. the picture is various, yet the same. suffering, wounds, and death, in every form, fill the terrible canvas. what scene more dismal than that of albuera, with its horrid piles of corpses, while all night the rain pours down, and river, hill, and forest, on each side, resound with the cries and groans of the dying?[ ] what scene more awfully monumental than salamanca, where, long after the great battle, the ground, strewn with fragments of casques and cuirasses, was still white with the skeletons of those who fell?[ ] what catalogue of horrors more complete than the russian campaign? at every step is war, and this is enough: soldiers black with powder; bayonets bent with the violence of the encounter; the earth ploughed with cannon-shot; trees torn and mutilated; the dead and dying; wounds and agony; fields covered with broken carriages, outstretched horses, and mangled bodies; while disease, sad attendant on military suffering, sweeps thousands from the great hospitals, and the multitude of amputated limbs, which there is no time to destroy, accumulate in bloody heaps, filling the air with corruption. what tongue, what pen, can describe the bloody havoc at borodino, where, between rise and set of a single sun, one hundred thousand of our fellow-men, equalling in number the whole population of this city, sank to earth, dead or wounded?[ ] fifty days after the battle, no less than thirty thousand are found stretched where their last convulsions ended, and the whole plain is strewn with half-buried carcasses of men and horses, intermingled with garments dyed in blood, and bones gnawed by dogs and vultures.[ ] who can follow the french army in dismal retreat, avoiding the spear of the pursuing cossack only to sink beneath the sharper frost and ice, in a temperature below zero, on foot, without shelter for the body, famishing on horse-flesh and a miserable compound of rye and snow-water? with a fresh array, the war is upheld against new forces under the walls of dresden; and as the emperor rides over the field of battle--after indulging the night before in royal supper with the saxon king--he sees ghastly new-made graves, with hands and arms projecting, stark and stiff, above the ground; and shortly afterwards, when shelter is needed for the troops, the order to occupy the hospitals for the insane is given, with the words, "turn out the mad."[ ] [ ] a living poet of italy, who will be placed by his prose among the great names of his country's literature, in a remarkable ode which he has thrown on the urn of napoleon invites posterity to judge whether his career of battle was true glory. "fu vera gloria? ai posteri l'ardua sentenza."--manzoni, _il cinque maggio_. when men learn to appreciate moral grandeur, the easy sentence will be rendered. [ ] napier, book xii. ch. , vol. iii. p. . [ ] alison, ch. , vol. viii. p. . [ ] ibid., ch. , vol. viii. p. . [ ] ibid., ch. , vol. viii. p. . ségur, hist. de napoléon, liv. ix. ch. , tom. ii. p. . labaume, rel. de la campagne de russie, liv. vii. [ ] alison, ch. , vol. ix. pp. , . * * * * * here i might close this scene of blood. but there is one other picture of the atrocious, though natural, consequences of war, occurring almost within our own day, that i would not omit. let me bring to your mind genoa, called the superb, city of palaces, dear to the memory of american childhood as the birthplace of christopher columbus, and one of the spots first enlightened by the morning beams of civilization, whose merchants were princes, and whose rich argosies, in those early days, introduced to europe the choicest products of the east, the linen of egypt, the spices of arabia, and the silks of samarcand. she still sits in queenly pride, as she sat then,--her mural crown studded with towers,--her churches rich with marble floors and rarest pictures,--her palaces of ancient doges and admirals yet spared by the hand of time,--her close streets thronged by a hundred thousand inhabitants,--at the foot of the apennines, as they approach the blue and tideless waters of the mediterranean sea,--leaning her back against their strong mountain-sides, overshadowed by the foliage of the fig-tree and the olive, while the orange and the lemon with pleasant perfume scent the air where reigns perpetual spring. who can contemplate such a city without delight? who can listen to the story of her sorrows without a pang? at the opening of the present century, the armies of the french republic, after dominating over italy, were driven from their conquests, and compelled, with shrunken forces, to find shelter under massena, within the walls of genoa. various efforts were made by the austrian general, aided by bombardment from the british fleet, to force the strong defences by assault. at length the city was invested by a strict blockade. all communication with the country was cut off, while the harbor was closed by the ever-wakeful british watch-dogs of war. besides the french troops, within the beleaguered and unfortunate city are the peaceful, unoffending inhabitants. provisions soon become scarce; scarcity sharpens into want, till fell famine, bringing blindness and madness in her train, rages like an erinnys. picture to yourselves this large population, not pouring out their lives in the exulting rush of battle, but wasting at noonday, daughter by the side of mother, husband by the side of wife. when grain and rice fail, flaxseed, millet, cocoa, and almonds are ground by hand-mills into flour, and even bran, baked with honey, is eaten, less to satisfy than to deaden hunger. before the last extremities, a pound of horse-flesh is sold for thirty-two cents, a pound of bran for thirty cents, a pound of flour for one dollar and seventy-five cents. a single bean is soon sold for two cents, and a biscuit of three ounces for two dollars and a quarter, till finally none can be had at any price. the wretched soldiers, after devouring the horses, are reduced to the degradation of feeding on dogs, cats, rats, and worms, which are eagerly hunted in cellars and sewers. "happy were now," exclaims an italian historian, "not those who lived, but those who died!" the day is dreary from hunger,--the night more dreary still, from hunger with delirious fancies. they now turn to herbs,--dock, sorrel, mallows, wild succory. people of every condition, with women of noble birth and beauty, seek upon the slope of the mountain within the defences those aliments which nature designed solely for beasts. scanty vegetables, with a scrap of cheese, are all that can be afforded to the sick and wounded, those sacred stipendiaries of human charity. in the last anguish of despair, men and women fill the air with groans and shrieks, some in spasms, convulsions, and contortions, yielding their expiring breath on the unpitying stones of the street,--alas! not more unpitying than man. children, whom a dead mother's arms had ceased to protect, orphans of an hour, with piercing cries, supplicate in vain the compassion of the passing stranger: none pity or aid. the sweet fountains of sympathy are all closed by the selfishness of individual distress. in the general agony, some precipitate themselves into the sea, while the more impetuous rush from the gates, and impale their bodies on the austrian bayonets. others still are driven to devour their shoes and the leather of their pouches; and the horror of human flesh so far abates, that numbers feed like cannibals on the corpses about them.[ ] [ ] this account is drawn from the animated sketches of botta (storia d' italia dal al , tom. iii. lib. ), alison (history of europe, vol. iv. ch. ), and arnold (modern history, lect. iv.). the humanity of the last is particularly aroused to condemn this most atrocious murder of innocent people, and, as a sufficient remedy, he suggests a modification of the laws of war, permitting non-combatants to withdraw from a blockaded town! in this way, indeed, they may be spared a languishing death by starvation; but they must desert firesides, pursuits, all that makes life dear, and become homeless exiles,--a fate little better than the former. it is strange that arnold's pure soul and clear judgment did not recognize the truth, that the whole custom of war is unrighteous and unlawful, and that the horrors of this siege are its natural consequence. laws of war! laws in what is lawless! rules of wrong! there can be only _one law of war_,--that is, the great law which pronounces it unwise, unjust, and unchristian. at this stage the french general capitulated, claiming and receiving what are called "the honors of war,"--but not before twenty thousand innocent persons, old and young, women and children, having no part or interest in the contest, had died the most horrible of deaths. the austrian flag floated over captured genoa but a brief span of time; for bonaparte had already descended like an eagle from the alps, and in nine days afterwards, on the plains of marengo, shattered the austrian empire in italy. * * * * * but wasted lands, famished cities, and slaughtered armies are not all that is contained in "the purple testament of bleeding war." every soldier is connected with others, as all of you, by dear ties of kindred, love, and friendship. he has been sternly summoned from the embrace of family. to him there is perhaps an aged mother, who fondly hoped to lean her bending years on his more youthful form; perhaps a wife, whose life is just entwined inseparably with his, now condemned to wasting despair; perhaps sisters, brothers. as he falls on the field of war, must not all these rush with his blood? but who can measure the distress that radiates as from a bloody sun, penetrating innumerable homes? who can give the gauge and dimensions of this infinite sorrow? tell me, ye who feel the bitterness of parting with dear friends and kindred, whom you watch tenderly till the last golden sands are run out and the great hour-glass is turned, what is the measure of your anguish? your friend departs, soothed by kindness and in the arms of love: the soldier gasps out his life with no friend near, while the scowl of hate darkens all that he beholds, darkens his own departing soul. who can forget the anguish that fills the bosom and crazes the brain of lenore, in the matchless ballad of bürger, when seeking in vain among returning squadrons for her lover left dead on prague's ensanguined plain? but every field of blood has many lenores. all war is full of desolate homes, as is vividly pictured by a master poet of antiquity, whose verse is an argument. "but through the bounds of grecia's land, who sent her sons for troy to part, see mourning, with much suffering heart, on each man's threshold stand, on each sad hearth in grecia's land. well may her soul with grief be rent; she well remembers whom she sent, she sees them not return: instead of men, to each man's home urns and ashes only come, and the armor which they wore,-- sad relics to their native shore. for mars, the barterer of the lifeless clay, who sells for gold the slain, _and holds the scale, in battle's doubtful day, high balanced o'er the plain_, from ilium's walls for men returns ashes and sepulchral urns,-- ashes wet with many a tear, sad relics of the fiery bier. round the full urns the general groan goes, as each their kindred own: and one that 'mid the armed throng he sunk in glory's slaughtering tide, and for another's consort died. * * * * * others they mourn whose monuments stand by ilium's walls on foreign strand; where they fell in beauty's bloom, there they lie in hated tomb, sunk beneath the massy mound, in eternal chambers bound."[ ] [ ] agamemnon of Æschylus: _chorus_. this is from the beautiful translation by john symmons. iii. but all these miseries are to no purpose. war is utterly ineffectual to secure or advance its professed object. the wretchedness it entails contributes to no end, helps to establish no right, and therefore in no respect determines _justice_ between the contending nations. the fruitlessness and vanity of war appear in the great conflicts by which the world has been lacerated. after long struggle, where each nation inflicts and receives incalculable injury, peace is gladly obtained on the basis of the condition before the war, known as the _status ante bellum_. i cannot illustrate this futility better than by the familiar example--humiliating to both countries--of our last war with great britain, where the professed object was to obtain a renunciation of the british claim, so defiantly asserted, to impress our seamen. to overturn this injustice the arbitrament of war was invoked, and for nearly three years the whole country was under its terrible ban. american commerce was driven from the seas; the resources of the land were drained by taxation; villages on the canadian frontier were laid in ashes; the metropolis of the republic was captured; while distress was everywhere within our borders. weary at last with this rude trial, the national government appointed commissioners to treat for peace, with these specific instructions: "your first duty will be to conclude a peace with great britain; and you are authorized to do it, _in case_ you obtain a satisfactory stipulation against impressment, one which shall secure under our flag protection to the crew.... if this encroachment of great britain is not provided against, _the united states have appealed to arms in vain_."[ ] afterwards, finding small chance of extorting from great britain a relinquishment of the unrighteous claim, and foreseeing from the inveterate prosecution of the war only an accumulation of calamities, the national government directed the negotiators, in concluding a treaty, to "_omit any stipulation on the subject of impressment_."[ ] these instructions were obeyed, and the treaty that restored to us once more the blessings of peace, so rashly cast away, but now hailed with intoxication of joy, contained no allusion to impressment, nor did it provide for the surrender of a single american sailor detained in the british navy. thus, by the confession of our own government, "the united states _had appealed to arms_ in vain."[ ] these important words are not mine; they are words of the country. [ ] mr. monroe to commissioners, april , : american state papers, vol. viii. pp. , . [ ] mr. monroe to commissioners, june , : ibid., vol. viii. p. . [ ] mr. jefferson, in more than one letter, declares the peace _an armistice only_, "because no security is provided against the impressment of our seamen."--letter to crawford, feb. , ; to lafayette, feb. , : works, vol. vi. pp. , . all this is the natural result of an appeal to war for the determination of _justice_. justice implies the exercise of the judgment. now war not only supersedes the judgment, but delivers over the pending question to superiority of _force_, or to _chance_. superior force may end in conquest; this is the natural consequence; but it cannot adjudicate any right. we expose the absurdity of its arbitrament, when, by a familiar phrase of sarcasm, we deride _the right of the strongest_,--excluding, of course, all idea of right, except that of the lion as he springs upon a weaker beast, of the wolf as he tears in pieces the lamb, of the vulture as he devours the dove. the grossest spirits must admit that this is not justice. but the battle is not always to the strong. superiority of force is often checked by the proverbial contingencies of war. especially are such contingencies revealed in rankest absurdity, where nations, as is the acknowledged _custom_, without regard to their respective forces, whether weaker or stronger, voluntarily appeal to this mad umpirage. who beforehand can measure the currents of the heady fight? in common language, we confess the "chances" of battle; and soldiers devoted to this harsh vocation yet call it a "game." the great captain of our age, who seemed to drag victory at his chariot-wheels, in a formal address to his officers, on entering russia, says, "in war, _fortune_ has an equal share with ability in success."[ ] the famous victory of marengo, accident of an accident, wrested unexpectedly at close of day from a foe at an earlier hour successful, taught him the uncertainty of war. afterwards, in bitterness of spirit, when his immense forces were shivered, and his triumphant eagles driven back with broken wing, he exclaimed, in that remarkable conversation recorded by his secretary, fain,--"well, this is war! high in the morning,--low enough at night! from a triumph to a fall is often but a step."[ ] the same sentiment is repeated by the military historian of the peninsular campaigns, when he says, "_fortune_ always asserts her supremacy in war; and often from a slight mistake such disastrous consequences flow, that, in every age and every nation, the _uncertainty_ of arms has been proverbial."[ ] and again, in another place, considering the conduct of wellington, the same military historian, who is an unquestionable authority, confesses, "a few hours' delay, an accident, a turn of fortune, and he would have been foiled. ay! but this is war, _always dangerous and uncertain_, an ever-rolling wheel, and armed with scythes."[ ] and will intelligent man look for justice to an ever-rolling wheel armed with scythes? [ ] alison, ch. , vol. viii. p. . [ ] alison, ch. , vol. ix. p. . [ ] napier, book xxiv. ch. , vol. vi. p. . [ ] ibid., book xvi. ch. , vol. iv. p. . chance is written on every battle-field. discerned less in the conflict of large masses than in that of individuals, it is equally present in both. how capriciously the wheel turned when the fortunes of rome were staked on the combat between the horatii and curiatii!--and who, at one time, augured that the single horatius, with two slain brothers on the field, would overpower the three living enemies? but this is not alone. in all the combats of history, involving the fate of individuals or nations, we learn to revolt at the frenzy which carries questions of property, freedom, or life to a judgment so uncertain and senseless. the humorous poet fitly exposes its hazards, when he says,-- "that a turnstile is more certain than, in events of war, dame fortune."[ ] [ ] hudibras, part i. canto , vv. , . during the early modern centuries, and especially in the moral night of the dark ages, the practice prevailed extensively throughout europe of invoking this adjudication for controversies, whether of individuals or communities. i do not dwell on the custom of private war, though it aptly illustrates the subject, stopping merely to echo that joy which, in a time of ignorance, before this arbitrament yielded gradually to the ordinances of monarchs and an advancing civilization, hailed its temporary suspension as _the truce of god_. but this beautiful term, most suggestive, and historically important, cannot pass without the attention which belongs to it. such a truce is still an example, and also an argument; but it is for nations. here is something to be imitated; and here also is an appeal to the reason. if individuals or communities once recognized the truce of god, why not again? and why may not its benediction descend upon nations also? its origin goes back to the darkest night. it was in that the bishop of aquitaine announced the appearance of an angel with a message from heaven, engaging men to cease from war and be reconciled. the people, already softened by calamity and disposed to supernatural impressions, hearkened to the sublime message, and consented. from sunset thursday to sunrise monday each week, also during advent and lent, and at the great festivals, all effusion of blood was interdicted, and no man could molest his adversary. women, children, travellers, merchants, laborers, were assured perpetual peace. every church was made an asylum, and, by happy association, the plough also sheltered from peril all who came to it. this respite, justly regarded as marvellous, was hailed as the truce of god. beginning in one neighborhood, it was piously extended until it embraced the whole kingdom, and then, by the authority of the pope, became coextensive with christendom, while those who violated it were put under solemn ban. as these things passed, bishops lifted their crosses, and the people in their gladness cried, _peace! peace!_[ ] originally too limited in operation and too short in duration, the truce of god must again be proclaimed for all places and all times,--proclaimed to all mankind and all nations, without distinction of person or calling, on all days of the week, without distinction of sacred days or festivals, and with one universal asylum, not merely the church and the plough, but every place and thing. [ ] robertson, hist. of charles v., vol. i. note . semichon, la paix et la trève de dieu, tom. ii. pp. , . * * * * * from private wars, whose best lesson is the truce of god, by which for a time they were hushed, i come to the _judicial combat_, or trial by battle, where, as in a mirror, we behold the barbarism of war, without truce of any kind. trial by battle was a formal and legitimate mode of deciding controversies, principally between individuals. like other ordeals, by walking barefoot and blindfold among burning ploughshares, by holding hot iron, by dipping the hand in hot water or hot oil, and like the great ordeal of war, it was a presumptuous appeal to providence, under the apprehension and hope that heaven would give the victory to him who had the right. its object was the very object of war,--_the determination of justice_. it was sanctioned by municipal law as an arbitrament for individuals, as war, to the scandal of civilization is still sanctioned by international law as an arbitrament for nations. "men," says the brilliant frenchman, montesquieu, "subject even their prejudices to rules"; and trial by battle, which he does not hesitate to denounce as a "monstrous usage," was surrounded by artificial regulations of multifarious detail, constituting an extensive system, determining how and when it should be waged, as war is surrounded by a complex code, known as the laws of war. "nothing," says montesquieu again, "could be more contrary to good sense, but, once established, it was executed with a certain prudence,"--which is equally true of war. no battle-field for an army is selected with more care than was the field for trial by battle. an open space in the neighborhood of a church was often reserved for this purpose. at the famous abbey of saint-germain-des-prés, in paris, there was a tribune for the judges, overlooking the adjoining meadow, which served for the field.[ ] the combat was inaugurated by a solemn mass, according to a form still preserved, _missa pro duello_, so that, in ceremonial and sanction, as in the field, the church was constantly present. champions were hired, as soldiers now.[ ] [ ] sismondi, hist. des français, part. v. ch. , tom. x. p. . [ ] the pivotal character of trial by battle, as an illustration of war, will justify a reference to the modern authorities, among which are robertson, who treats it with perspicuity and fulness (history of charles v., vol. i. note ),--hallam, always instructive (middle ages, vol. i. chap. ii. pt. ),--blackstone, always clear (commentaries, book iii. ch. , sec. , and book iv. ch. , sec. ),--montesquieu, who casts upon it a flood of light (esprit des lois, liv. xxviii. ch. - ),--sismondi, humane and interesting (histoire des français, part. iv. ch. , tom. viii. pp. - ),--guizot, in a work of remarkable historic beauty, more grave than montesquieu, and enlightened by a better philosophy (histoire de la civilisation en france depuis la chute de l'empire romain, tom. iv. pp. , - ),--wheaton, our learned countryman (history of the northmen, chap. iii. and xii.),--also the two volumes of millingen's history of duelling, if so loose a compend deserves a place in this list. all these, describing trial by battle, testify against war. i cannot conceal that so great an authority as selden, a most enlightened jurist of the long parliament, argues the lawfulness of the duel from the lawfulness of war. after setting forth that "a duel may be granted in some cases by the law of england," he asks, "but whether is this lawful?" and then answers, "_if you grant any war lawful_, i make no doubt but to convince it." (table-talk: _duel_.) but if the duel be unlawful, how then with war? no question was too sacred, grave, or recondite for this tribunal. in france, the title of an abbey to a neighboring church was decided by it; and an emperor of germany, according to a faithful ecclesiastic, "desirous of dealing _honorably_ with his people and nobles" (mark here the standard of honor!), waived the judgment of the court on a grave question of law concerning the descent of property, and referred it to champions. human folly did not stop here. in spain, a subtile point of theology was submitted to the same determination.[ ] but trial by battle was not confined to particular countries or to rare occasions. it prevailed everywhere in europe, superseding in many places all other ordeals, and even _trials by proofs_, while it extended not only to criminal matters, but to questions of property. in orléans it had an exceptional limitation, being denied in civil matters where the amount did not exceed five sous.[ ] [ ] robertson, hist. charles v., vol. i. note . [ ] montesquieu, esprit des lois, liv. xxviii. ch. . like war in our day, its justice and fitness as an arbitrament were early doubted or condemned. liutprand, a king of the lombards, during that middle period neither ancient nor modern, in a law bearing date a.d. , declares his distrust of it as a mode of determining justice; but the monarch is compelled to add, that, considering the _custom_ of his lombard people, he cannot forbid the _impious law_. his words deserve emphatic mention: "_propter consuetudinem gentis nostræ langobardorum_ legem impiam _vetare non possumus_ ..."[ ] the appropriate epithet by which he branded trial by battle is the important bequest of the royal lombard to a distant posterity. for this the lawgiver will be cherished with grateful regard in the annals of civilization. [ ] liutprandi leges, lib. vi. cap. : muratori, rerum italic. script., tom. i. pars , p. . this custom received another blow from rome. in the latter part of the thirteenth century, don pedro of aragon, after exchanging letters of defiance with charles of anjou, proposed a personal combat, which was accepted, on condition that sicily should be the prize of success. each called down upon himself all the vengeance of heaven, and the last dishonor, if, at the appointed time, he failed to appear before the seneschal of aquitaine, or, in case of defeat, refused to consign sicily undisturbed to the victor. while they were preparing for the lists, the pope, martin the fourth, protested with all his might against this new trial by battle, which staked the sovereignty of a kingdom, a feudatory of the holy see, on a wild stroke of chance. by a papal bull, dated at civita vecchia, april th, , he threatened excommunication to either of the princes who should proceed to a combat which he pronounced _criminal_ and _abominable_. by a letter of the same date, the pope announced to edward the first of england, duke of aquitaine, the agreement of the two princes, which he most earnestly declared to be full of indecency and rashness, hostile to the concord of christendom, and reckless of christian blood; and he urged upon the english monarch all possible effort to prevent the combat,--menacing him with excommunication, and his territories with interdict, if it should take place. edward refusing to guaranty the safety of the combatants in aquitaine, the parties retired without consummating their duel.[ ] the judgment of the holy see, which thus accomplished its immediate object, though not in terms directed to the suppression of the _custom_, remains, nevertheless, from its peculiar energy, a perpetual testimony against trial by battle. [ ] sismondi, hist. des français, part. iv. ch. , tom. viii. pp. - . * * * * * to a monarch of france belongs the honor of first interposing the royal authority for the entire suppression within his jurisdiction of this _impious custom_, so universally adopted, so dear to the nobility, and so profoundly rooted in the institutions of the feudal age. and here let me pause with reverence as i pronounce the name of st. louis, a prince whose unenlightened errors may find easy condemnation in an age of larger toleration and wider knowledge, but whose firm and upright soul, exalted sense of justice, fatherly regard for the happiness of his people, respect for the rights of others, conscience void of offence toward god or man, make him foremost among christian rulers, and the highest example for christian prince or christian people,--in one word, a model of true greatness. he was of angelic conscience, subjecting whatever he did to the single and exclusive test of moral rectitude, disregarding every consideration of worldly advantage, all fear of worldly consequences. his soul, thus tremblingly sensitive to right, was shocked at the judicial combat. it was a sin, in his sight, thus to _tempt god_, by demanding of him a miracle, whenever judgment was pronounced. from these intimate convictions sprang a royal ordinance, promulgated first at a parliament assembled in : "_we forbid to all persons throughout our dominions the_ trial by battle; ... _and instead of battles, we establish proofs by witnesses_.... and these battles we abolish in our dominions forever."[ ] [ ] guizot, hist. de la civilisation en france, leçon , vol. iv. pp. - . such were the restraints on the royal authority, that this beneficent ordinance was confined in operation to the demesnes of the king, not embracing those of the barons and feudatories. but where the power of the sovereign did not reach, there he labored by example, influence, and express intercession,--treating with the great vassals, and inducing many to renounce this unnatural usage. though for years later it continued to vex parts of france, its overthrow commenced with the ordinance of st. louis. honor and blessings attend this truly christian king, who submitted all his actions to the heaven-descended sentiment of duty,--who began a long and illustrious reign by renouncing and restoring conquests of his predecessor, saying to those about him, whose souls did not ascend to his heights, "i know that the predecessors of the king of england lost altogether by right the conquest which i hold; and the land which i give him i do not give because i am bound to him or his heirs, _but to put love between my children and his children, who are cousins-german_; and it seems to me that what i thus give i employ to good purpose."[ ] honor to him who never by force or cunning grasped what was not his own,--who sought no advantage from the turmoil and dissension of his neighbors,--who, first of christian princes, rebuked the spirit of war, saying to those who would have him profit by the strifes of others, "blessed are the peacemakers,"[ ]--who, by an immortal ordinance, abolished trial by battle throughout his dominions,--who extended equal justice to all, whether his own people or his neighbors, and in the extremity of his last illness, before the walls of tunis, under a burning african sun, among the bequests of his spirit, enjoined on his son and successor, "in maintaining justice, to be inflexible and loyal, turning neither to the right hand nor to the left."[ ] [ ] guizot, hist. de la civilisation en france, leçon , vol. iv. p. . [ ] "_benoist soient tuit li apaiseur._"--joinville, p. . [ ] sismondi, hist. des français, part. iv. ch. , tom. viii. p. . * * * * * to condemn trial by battle no longer requires the sagacity above his age of the lombard monarch, or the intrepid judgment of the sovereign pontiff, or the ecstatic soul of st. louis. an incident of history, as curious as it is authentic, illustrates this point, and shows the certain progress of opinion; and this brings me to england, where this trial was an undoubted part of the early common law, with peculiar ceremonies sanctioned by the judges robed in scarlet. the learned selden, not content with tracing its origin, and exhibiting its forms, with the oath of the duellist, "as god me help, and his saints of paradise," shows also the copartnership of the church through its liturgy appointing prayers for the occasion.[ ] for some time it was the only mode of trying a writ of right, by which the title to real property was determined, and the fines from the numerous cases formed no inconsiderable portion of the king's revenue.[ ] it was partially restrained by henry the second, under the advice of his chief justiciary, the ancient law-writer, glanville, substituting the grand assize as an alternative, on the trial of a writ of right; and the reason assigned for this substitution was the uncertainty of the duel, so that after many and long delays justice was scarcely obtained, in contrast with the other trial, which was more convenient and swift.[ ] at a later day, trial by battle was rebuked by elizabeth, who interposed to compel the parties to a composition,--although, for the sake of their _honor_, as it was called, the lists were marked out and all the preliminary forms observed with much ceremony.[ ] it was awarded under charles the first, and the proceeding went so far that a day was proclaimed for the combatants to appear with spear, long sword, short sword, and dagger, when the duel was adjourned from time to time, and at last the king compelled an accommodation without bloodshed.[ ] though fallen into desuetude, quietly overruled by the enlightened sense of successive generations, yet, to the disgrace of english jurisprudence, it was not legislatively abolished till near our own day,--as late as ,--the right to it having been openly claimed in westminster hall only two years previous. an ignorant man, charged with murder,--whose name, abraham thornton, is necessarily connected with the history of this monstrous usage,--being proceeded against by the ancient process of appeal, pleaded, when brought into court, as follows: "not guilty; and i am ready to defend the same by my body": and thereupon taking off his glove, he threw it upon the floor. the appellant, not choosing to accept this challenge, abandoned his proceedings. the bench, the bar, and the whole kingdom were startled by the infamy; and at the next session of parliament trial by battle was abolished in england. in the debate on this subject, the attorney-general remarked, in appropriate terms, that, "if the appellant had persevered in the trial by battle, he had no doubt the legislature would have felt it their imperious duty at once to interfere, and pass _an ex post facto law to prevent so degrading a spectacle from taking place_."[ ] [ ] selden, the duello, or single combat, from antiquity derived into this kingdom of england; also, table talk, _duel_: works, vol. iii. col. - , . [ ] madox, hist. of exchequer, vol. i. p. . [ ] "est autem magna assisa regale quoddam beneficium, ... quo vitæ hominum et status integritati tam salubriter consulitur, ut in jure quod quis in libero soli tenemento possidet retinendo, duelli casum declinare possunt homines ambiguum.... jus enim, _quod post mullas et longas dilationes vix evincitur per duellum_, per beneficium istius constitutionis commodius et acceleratius expeditur." (glanville, tractatus de legibus et consuetudinibus regni angliæ, lib. ii. cap. .) these pointed words are precisely applicable to our arbitrament of war, with its many and long delays, so little productive of justice. [ ] robertson, hist. charles v., vol. i. note . [ ] proceedings in the court of chivalry, on an appeal of high treason by donald lord rea against mr. david ramsay, cha. i., : hargrave's state trials, vol. xi. pp. - . [ ] hansard, parl. debates, xxxix. . blackstone, com., iii. : chitty's note. these words evince the disgust which trial by battle excites in our day. its folly and wickedness are conspicuous to all. reverting to that early period in which it prevailed, our minds are impressed by the general barbarism; we recoil with horror from the awful subjection of justice to brute force,--from the impious profanation of god in deeming him present at these outrages,--from the moral degradation out of which they sprang, and which they perpetuated; we enrobe ourselves in self-complacent virtue, and thank god that we are not as these men,--that ours is an age of light, while theirs was an age of darkness! * * * * * but remember, fellow-citizens, that this criminal and impious custom, which all condemn in the case of individuals, is openly avowed by our own country, and by other countries of the great christian federation, nay, that it is expressly _established_ by international law, as the proper mode of determining _justice_ between nations,--while the feats of hardihood by which it is waged, and the triumphs of its fields, are exalted beyond all other labors, whether of learning, industry, or benevolence, as the well-spring of glory. alas! upon our own heads be the judgment of barbarism which we pronounce upon those that have gone before! at this moment, in this period of light, while to the contented souls of many the noonday sun of civilization seems to be standing still in the heavens, as upon gideon, the dealings between nations are still governed by the odious rules of brute violence which once predominated between individuals. the dark ages have not passed away; erebus and black night, born of chaos, still brood over the earth; nor can we hail the clear day, until the hearts of nations are touched, as the hearts of individual men, and all acknowledge _one and the same law of right_. what has taught you, o man! thus to find glory in an act, performed by a nation, which you condemn as a crime or a barbarism, when committed by an individual? in what vain conceit of wisdom and virtue do you find this incongruous morality? where is it declared that god, who is no respecter of persons, is a respecter of multitudes? whence do you draw these partial laws of an impartial god? man is immortal; but nations are mortal. man has a higher destiny than nations. can nations be less amenable to the supreme moral law? each individual is an atom of the mass. must not the mass, in its conscience, be like the individuals of which it is composed? shall the mass, in relations with other masses, do what individuals in relations with each other may not do? as in the physical creation, so in the moral, there is but one rule for the individual and the mass. it was the lofty discovery of newton, that the simple law which determines the fall of an apple prevails everywhere throughout the universe,--ruling each particle in reference to every other particle, large or small,--reaching from earth to heaven, and controlling the infinite motions of the spheres. so, with equal scope, another simple law, _the law of right_, which binds the individual, binds also two or three when gathered together,--binds conventions and congregations of men,--binds villages, towns, and cities,--binds states, nations, and races,--clasps the whole human family in its sevenfold embrace; nay, more, beyond "the flaming bounds of place and time, the living throne, the sapphire blaze," it binds the angels of heaven, cherubim, full of knowledge, seraphim, full of love; above all, it binds, in self-imposed bonds, a just and omnipotent god. this is the law of which the ancient poet sings, as _queen alike of mortals and immortals_. it is of this, and not of any earthly law, that hooker speaks in that magnificent period which sounds like an anthem: "of law there can be no less acknowledged than that her seat is the bosom of god, her voice the harmony of the world: all things in heaven and earth do her homage, the very least as feeling her care, and the greatest as not exempted from her power: both angels and men, and creatures of what condition soever, though each in different sort and manner, yet all with uniform consent, admiring her as the mother of their peace and joy." often quoted, and justly admired, sometimes as the finest sentence of our english speech, this grand declaration cannot be more fitly invoked than to condemn the pretence of one law for the individual and another for the nation. stripped of all delusive apology, and tried by that comprehensive law under which nations are set to the bar like common men, war falls from glory into barbarous guilt, taking its place among bloody transgressions, while its flaming honors are turned into shame. painful to existing prejudice as this may be, we must learn to abhor it, as we abhor similar transgressions by vulgar offender. every word of reprobation which the enlightened conscience now fastens upon the savage combatant in trial by battle, or which it applies to the unhappy being who in murderous duel takes the life of his fellow-man, belongs also to the nation that appeals to war. amidst the thunders of sinai god declared, "thou shalt not kill"; and the voice of these thunders, with this commandment, is prolonged to our own day in the echoes of christian churches. what mortal shall restrict the application of these words? who on earth is empowered to vary or abridge the commandments of god? who shall presume to declare that this injunction was directed, not to nations, but to individuals only,--not to many, but to one only,--that one man shall not kill, but that many may,--that one man shall not slay in duel, but that a nation may slay a multitude in the duel of war,--that each individual is forbidden to destroy the life of a single human being, but that a nation is not forbidden to cut off by the sword a whole people? we are struck with horror, and our hair stands on end, at the report of a single murder; we think of the soul hurried to final account; we hunt the murderer; and government puts forth its energies to secure his punishment. viewed in the unclouded light of truth, what is war but organized murder,--murder of malice aforethought,--in cold blood,--under sanctions of _impious law_,--through the operation of an extensive machinery of crime,--with innumerable hands,--at incalculable cost of money,--by subtle contrivances of cunning and skill,--or amidst the fiendish atrocities of the savage, brutal assault? by another commandment, not less solemn, it is declared, "thou shalt not steal"; and then again there is another forbidding to covet what belongs to others: but all this is done by war, which is stealing and covetousness organized by international law. the scythian, undisturbed by the illusion of military glory, snatched a phrase of justice from an acknowledged criminal, when he called alexander "the greatest robber in the world." and the roman satirist, filled with similar truth, in pungent words touched to the quick that flagrant, unblushing injustice which dooms to condign punishment the very guilt that in another sphere and on a grander scale is hailed with acclamation:-- "ille crucem sceleris pretium tulit, his diadema."[ ] [ ] juvenal, sat. xiii. . the same judgment is pronounced by fénelon in his counsels to royalty, entitled, _examen de conscience sur les devoirs de la royauté_. while condemning the ordinary malefactor, mankind, blind to the real character of war, may yet a little longer crown the giant actor with glory; a generous posterity may pardon to unconscious barbarism the atrocities which have been waged; but the _custom_, as organized by existing law, cannot escape the unerring judgment of reason and religion. the outrages, which, under most solemn sanctions, it permits and invokes for professed purposes of justice, cannot be authorized by any human power; and they must rise in overwhelming judgment, not only against those who wield the weapons of battle, but more still against all who uphold its monstrous arbitrament. * * * * * when, o, when shall the st. louis of the nations arise,--christian ruler or christian people,--who, in the spirit of true greatness, shall proclaim, that hence-forward forever the great trial by battle shall cease,--that "these battles" shall be _abolished_ throughout the commonwealth of civilization,--that _a spectacle so degrading_ shall never be allowed again to take place,--and that it is the duty of nations, involving the highest and wisest policy, to establish love between each other, and, in all respects, at all times, with all persons, whether their own people or the people of other lands, to be governed by the sacred _law of right_, as between man and man? iv. i am now brought to review the obstacles encountered by those who, according to the injunction of st. augustine, would _make war on war_, and slay it with the word. to some of these obstacles i alluded at the beginning, especially the warlike literature, by which the character is formed. the world has supped so full with battles, that its modes of thought and many of its rules of conduct are incarnadined with blood, as the bones of swine, feeding on madder, are said to become red. not to be tempted by this theme, i hasten on to expose in succession those various prejudices so powerful still in keeping alive the _custom_ of war, including that greatest prejudice, mighty parent of an infinite brood, at whose unreasoning behest untold sums are absorbed in preparations for war. * * * * * . one of the most important is the prejudice from _belief in its necessity_. when war is called a necessity, it is meant, of course, that its object can be attained in no other way. now i think it has already appeared, with distinctness approaching demonstration, that the professed object of war, which is justice between nations, is in no respect promoted by war,--that force is not justice, nor in any way conducive to justice,--that the eagles of victory are the emblems of successful force only, and not of established right. justice is obtained solely by the exercise of reason and judgment; but these are silent in the din of arms. justice is without passion; but war lets loose all the worst passions, while "chance, high arbiter, more embroils the fray." the age is gone when a nation within the enchanted circle of civilization could make war upon its neighbors for any declared purpose of booty or vengeance. it does "nought in hate, but all in _honor_." such is the present rule. professions of tenderness mingle with the first mutterings of strife. as if conscience-struck at the criminal abyss into which they are plunging, each of the great litigants seeks to fix upon the other some charge of hostile aggression, or to set up the excuse of defending some asserted right, some texas, some oregon. each, like pontius pilate, vainly washes its hands of innocent blood, and straightway allows a crime at which the whole heavens are darkened, and two kindred countries are severed, as the vail of the temple was rent in twain. proper modes for the determination of international disputes are negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and a congress of nations,--all practicable, and calculated to secure peaceful justice. under existing law of nations these may be employed at any time. _but the very law sanctioning war may be changed_, as regards two or more nations by treaty between them, and as regards the body of nations by general consent. if nations can agree in solemn provisions of international law to establish war as arbiter of justice, they can also agree to abolish this arbitrament, and to establish peaceful substitutes,--precisely as similar substitutes are established by municipal law to determine controversies among individuals. a system of arbitration may be instituted, or a congress of nations, charged with the high duty of organizing an _ultimate tribunal_, instead of "these battles." to do this, the will only is required. let it not be said, then, that war is a _necessity_; and may our country aspire to the glory of taking the lead in disowning the barbarous system of lynch law among nations, while it proclaims peaceful _substitutes_! such a glory, unlike the earthly fame of battle, will be immortal as the stars, dropping perpetual light upon the souls of men. * * * * * . another prejudice is founded on _the practice of nations_, past and present. there is no crime or enormity in morals which may not find the support of human example, often on an extended scale. but it will not be urged in our day that we are to look for a standard of duty in the conduct of vain, fallible, mistaken man. not by any subtile alchemy can man transmute wrong into right. because war is according to the practice of the world, it does not follow that it is right. for ages the world worshipped false gods,--not less false because all bowed before them. at this moment the prevailing numbers of mankind are heathen; but heathenism is not therefore true. once it was the practice of nations to slaughter prisoners of war; but the spirit of war recoils now from this bloody sacrifice. by a perverse morality in sparta, theft, instead of being a crime, was, like war, dignified into an art and accomplishment; like war, it was admitted into the system of youthful education; and, like war, it was illustrated by an instance of unconquerable firmness, barbaric counterfeit of virtue. the spartan youth, with the stolen fox beneath his robe eating into his bowels, is an example of fortitude not unlike that so often admired in the soldier. other illustrations crowd upon the mind; but i will not dwell upon them. we turn with disgust from spartan cruelty and the wolves of taygetus,--from the awful cannibalism of the feejee islands,--from the profane rites of innumerable savages,--from the crushing juggernaut,--from the hindoo widow on her funeral pyre,--from the indian dancing at the stake; but had not all these, like war, the sanction of established usage? often is it said that we need not be wiser than our fathers. rather strive to excel our fathers. what in them was good imitate; but do not bind ourselves, as in chains of fate, by their imperfect example. in all modesty be it said, we have lived to little purpose, if we are not wiser than the generations that have gone before. it is the exalted distinction of man that he is progressive,--that his reason is not merely the reason of a single human being, but that of the whole human race, in all ages from which knowledge has descended, in all lands from which it has been borne away. we are the heirs to an inheritance grandly accumulating from generation to generation, with the superadded products of other lands. the child at his mother's knee is now taught the orbits of the heavenly bodies, "where worlds on worlds compose one universe," the nature of this globe, the character of the tribes by which it is covered, and the geography of countries, to an extent far beyond the ken of the most learned in other days. it is true, therefore, that antiquity is the real infancy of man. then is he immature, ignorant, wayward, selfish, childish, finding his chief happiness in lowest pleasures, unconscious of the higher. the animal reigns supreme, and he seeks contest, war, blood. already he has lived through infancy and childhood. reason and the kindlier virtues, repudiating and abhorring force, now bear sway. the time has come for temperance, moderation, peace. we are the true ancients. the single lock on the battered forehead of old time is thinner now than when our fathers attempted to grasp it; the hour-glass has been turned often since; the scythe is heavier laden with the work of death. let us not, then, take for a lamp to our feet the feeble taper that glimmers from the sepulchre of the past. rather hail that ever-burning light above, in whose beams is the brightness of noonday. * * * * * . there is a topic which i approach with diffidence, but in the spirit of frankness. it is the influence which war, though condemned by christ, has derived from the _christian church_. when constantine, on one of his marches, at the head of his army, beheld the luminous trophy of the cross in the sky, right above the meridian sun, inscribed with the words, _by this conquer_, had his soul been penetrated by the true spirit of him whose precious symbol it was, he would have found no inspiration to the spear and the sword. he would have received the lesson of self-sacrifice as from the lips of the saviour, and learned that by no earthly weapon of battle can true victory be won. the pride of conquest would have been rebuked, and the bawble sceptre have fallen from his hands. _by this conquer_: by patience, suffering, forgiveness of evil, by all those virtues of which the cross is the affecting token, _conquer_, and the victory shall be greater than any in the annals of roman conquest; it may not yet find a place in the records of man, but it will appear in the register of everlasting life. the christian church, after the early centuries, failed to discern the peculiar spiritual beauty of the faith it professed. like constantine, it found new incentive to war in the religion of peace; and such is its character, even in our own day. the pope of rome, the asserted head of the church, vicegerent of christ upon earth, whose seal is a fisherman, on whose banner is a lamb before the holy cross, assumed the command of armies, mingling the thunders of battle with the thunders of the vatican. the dagger projecting from the sacred vestments of de retz, while still an archbishop, was justly derided by the parisian crowd as "the archbishop's breviary." we read of mitred prelates in armor of proof, and seem still to catch the clink of the golden spurs of bishops in the streets of cologne. the sword of knighthood was consecrated by the church, and priests were expert masters in military exercises. i have seen at the gates of the papal palace in rome a constant guard of swiss soldiers; i have seen, too, in our own streets, a show as incongruous and inconsistent,--the pastor of a christian church swelling the pomp of a military parade. and some have heard, within a few short weeks, in a christian pulpit, from the lips of an eminent christian divine, a sermon, where we are encouraged to _serve the god of battles, and, as citizen soldiers, fight for peace_:[ ] a sentiment in unhappy harmony with the profane language of the british peer, who, in addressing the house of lords, said, "_the best road to peace, my lords, is war_, and that in the manner we are taught to worship our creator, namely, by carrying it on with all our souls, with all our minds, with all our hearts, and with all our strength,"[ ]--but finding small support in a religion that expressly enjoins, when one cheek is smitten, to turn the other, and which we hear with pain from a minister of christian truth,--alas! thus made inferior to that of the heathen who _preferred the unjustest peace to the justest war_.[ ] [ ] discourse before the ancient and honorable artillery company, by a.h. vinton. [ ] earl of abingdon, may , : hansard, parl. hist., xxxi. . [ ] "_vel iniquissimam pacem justissimo bello anteferrem_" are the words of cicero. (epist. a. cæcinæ: epp. ad diversos, vi. .) only eight days after franklin had placed his name to the treaty of peace which acknowledged the independence of his country, he wrote to a friend, "may we never see another war! for, in my opinion, there never was a good war or a bad peace." (letter to josiah quincy: works, ed. sparks, vol. x. p. .) it is with sincere regret that i seem, by a particular allusion, to depart for a moment from so great a theme; but the person and the theme here become united. i cannot refrain from the effort to tear this iron branch of war from the golden tree of christian truth, even though a voice come forth from the breaking bough. well may we marvel that now, in an age of civilization, the god of battles should be invoked. "_deo imperante_, quem adesse bellantibus credunt," are the appropriate words of surprise in which tacitus describes a similar delusion of the ancient germans.[ ] the polite roman did not think god present with fighting men. this ancient superstition must have lost something of its hold even in germany; for, at a recent period, her most renowned captain,--whose false glory procured for him the title of great,--frederick of prussia, declared, with commendable frankness, that he always found the god of battles on the side of the strongest regiments; and when it was proposed to place on his banner, soon to flout the sky of silesia, the inscription, _for_ god _and country_, he rejected the first word, declaring it not proper to introduce the name of the deity in the quarrels of men. by this elevated sentiment the warrior monarch may be remembered, when his fame of battle has passed away. [ ] de moribus german., cap. . the french priest of mars, who proclaimed the "divinity" of war, rivals the ancient germans in faith that god is the tutelary guardian of battle, and he finds a new title, which he says "shines" on all the pages of scripture, being none other than _god of armies_.[ ] never was greater mistake. no theology, no theodicy, has ever attributed to god this title. god is god of heaven, god of hosts, the living god, and he is god of peace,--so called by st. paul, saying, "now the god of peace be with you all,"[ ] and again, "the god of peace shall bruise satan shortly,"[ ]--but god of armies he is not, as he is not god of battles.[ ] the title, whether of armies or of hosts, thus invoked for war, has an opposite import, even angelic,--the armies named being simply, according to authorities ecclesiastical and rabbinical, the hosts of angels standing about the throne. who, then, is god of battles? it is mars,--man-slaying, blood-polluted, city-smiting mars![ ] it is not he who binds the sweet influences of the pleiades and looses the bands of orion, who causes the sun to shine on the evil and the good, who distils the oil of gladness upon every upright heart, who tempers the wind to the shorn lamb,--the fountain of mercy and goodness, the god of justice and love. mars is not the god of christians; he is not our father in heaven; to him can ascend no prayers of christian thanksgiving, no words of christian worship, no pealing anthem to swell the note of praise. [ ] joseph de maistre, soirées de saint-pétersbourg, tom. ii. p. . [ ] romans, xv. . [ ] ibid., xvi. . [ ] a volume so common as cruden's concordance shows the audacity of the martial claim. [ ] iliad, v. . and yet christ and mars are still brought into fellowship, even interchanging pulpits. what a picture of contrasts! a national ship of the line now floats in this harbor. many of you have pressed its deck, and observed with admiration the completeness which prevails in all its parts,--its lithe masts and complex network of ropes,--its thick wooden walls, within which are more than the soldiers of ulysses,--its strong defences, and its numerous dread and rude-throated engines of war. there, each sabbath, amidst this armament of blood, while the wave comes gently plashing against the frowning sides, from a pulpit supported by a cannon, in repose now, but ready to awake its dormant thunder charged with death, a christian preacher addresses officers and crew. may his instructions carry strength and succor to their souls! but, in such a place, those highest words of the master he professes, "blessed are the peacemakers," "love your enemies," "resist not evil," must, like macbeth's "amen," stick in the throat. it will not be doubted that this strange and unblessed conjunction of the church with war has no little influence in blinding the world to the truth, too slowly recognized, that the whole custom of war _is contrary to christianity_. individual interests mingle with prevailing errors, and are so far concerned in maintaining them that military men yield reluctantly to this truth. like lawyers, as described by voltaire, they are "conservators of ancient barbarous usages." but that these usages should obtain countenance in the church is one of those anomalies which make us feel the weakness of our nature, if not the elevation of christian truth. to uphold the arbitrament of war requires no more than to uphold the trial by battle; for the two are identical, except in proportion. one is a giant, the other a pygmy. long ago the church condemned the pygmy, and this christian judgment now awaits extension to the giant. meanwhile it is perpetual testimony; nor should it be forgotten, that, for some time after the apostles, when the message of peace and good-will was first received, many yielded to it so completely as to reject arms of all kinds. such was the voice of justin martyr, irenæus, tertullian, and origen, while augustine pleads always for peace. gibbon coldly recounts, how maximilian, a youthful recruit from africa, refused to serve, insisting that his conscience would not permit him to embrace the profession of soldier, and then how marcellus the centurion, on the day of a public festival, threw away his belt, his arms, and the ensigns of command, exclaiming with a loud voice, that he would obey none but jesus christ, the eternal king.[ ] martyrdom ensued, and the church has inscribed their names on its everlasting rolls, thus forever commemorating their testimony. these are early examples, not without successors. but mars, so potent, especially in rome, was not easily dislodged, and down to this day holds his place at christian altars. "thee to defend the moloch priest prefers the prayer of hate, and bellows to the herd, that deity, accomplice deity, in the fierce jealousy of wakened wrath, will go forth with our armies and our fleets to scatter the red ruin on their foes! o, blasphemy! to mingle fiendish deeds with blessedness!"[ ] [ ] gibbon, decline and fall of the roman empire, chap. xvi. vol. i. p. . [ ] coleridge, religious musings, written christmas eve, . one of the beautiful pictures adorning the dome of a church in home, by that master of art, whose immortal colors speak as with the voice of a poet, the divine raphael, represents mars in the attitude of war, with a drawn sword uplifted and ready to strike, while an unarmed angel from behind, with gentle, but irresistible force, arrests and holds the descending hand. such is the true image of christian duty; nor can i readily perceive any difference in principle between those ministers of the gospel who themselves gird on the sword, as in the olden time, and those others, unarmed, and in customary suit of solemn black, who lend the sanction of their presence to the martial array, or to any form of preparation for war. the drummer, who pleaded that he did not fight, was held more responsible for the battle than the soldier,--as it was the sound of his drum that inflamed the flagging courage of the troops. * * * * * . from prejudices engendered by the church i pass to prejudices engendered by the army itself, having their immediate origin in military life, but unfortunately diffusing themselves throughout the community, in widening, though less apparent circles. i allude directly to what is called _the point of honor_, early child of chivalry, living representative of its barbarism.[ ] it is difficult to define what is so evanescent, so impalpable, so chimerical, so unreal, and yet which exercises such fiendish power over many men, and controls the intercourse of nations. as a little water, fallen into the crevice of a rock, under the congelation of winter, swells till it bursts the thick and stony fibres, so a word or slender act, dropping into the heart of man, under the hardening influence of this pernicious sentiment, dilates till it rends in pieces the sacred depository of human affection, and the demons hate and strife are left to rage. the musing hamlet saw this sentiment in its strange and unnatural potency, when his soul pictured to his contemplations an "army of such mass and charge, led by a delicate and tender prince,... exposing what is mortal and unsure to all that fortune, death, and danger dare, _even for an egg-shell_"; and when, again, giving to the sentiment its strongest and most popular expression, he exclaims,-- "rightly to be great is not to stir without great argument, _but greatly to find quarrel in a straw, when honor's at the stake_." [ ] the _point of honor_ has a literature of its own, illustrated by many volumes, some idea of which may be obtained in brunet, "manuel du libraire," tom. vi. col. - , under the head of _chevalerie au moyen age, comprenant les tournois, les combats singuliers_, etc. one of these has a title much in advance of the age in which it appeared: "chrestienne confutation du point d'honneur sur lequel la noblesse fonde aujourd'hui ses querelles et monomachies," par christ. de chiffontaine, paris, . and when is honor at stake? this inquiry opens again the argument with which i commenced, and with which i hope to close. honor can be at stake only where justice and beneficence are at stake; it can never depend on egg-shell or straw; it can never depend on any hasty word of anger or folly, not even if followed by vulgar violence. true honor appears in the dignity of the human soul, in that highest moral and intellectual excellence which is the nearest approach to qualities we reverence as attributes of god. our community frowns with indignation upon the profaneness of the duel, having its rise in this irrational _point of_ _honor_. are you aware that you indulge the same sentiment on a gigantic scale, when you recognize this very point of honor as a proper apology for war? we have already seen that justice is in no respect promoted by war. is true honor promoted where justice is not? the very word honor, as used by the world, fails to express any elevated sentiment. how immeasurably below the sentiment of duty! it is a word of easy virtue, that has been prostituted to the most opposite characters and transactions. from the field of pavia, where france suffered one of the worst reverses in her annals, the defeated king writes to his mother, "all is lost, except _honor_." at a later day, the renowned french cook, vatel, in a paroxysm of grief and mortification at the failure of two dishes for the table, exclaims, "i have lost my _honor_!" and stabs himself to the heart.[ ] montesquieu, whose writings are constellations of epigrams, calls honor a prejudice only, which he places in direct contrast with virtue,--the former being the animating principle of monarchy, and the latter the animating principle of a republic; but he reveals the inferiority of honor, as a principle, when he adds, that, in a well-governed monarchy, almost everybody is a good citizen, while it is rare to meet a really good man.[ ] the man of honor is not the man of virtue. by an instinct pointing to the truth, we do not apply this term to the high columnar qualities which sustain and decorate life,--parental affection, justice, benevolence, the attributes of god. he would seem to borrow a feebler phrase, showing a slight appreciation of the distinctive character to whom reverence is accorded, who should speak of father, mother, judge, angel, or finally of god, as _persons of honor_. in such sacred connections, we feel, beyond the force of any argument, the mundane character of the sentiment which plays such a part in history and even in common life. [ ] the death of the culinary martyr is described by madame de sévigné with the accustomed coldness and brilliancy of her fashionable pen (lettres l. and li., tom. i. pp. , ). it was attributed, she says, _to the high sense of honor he had after his own way_. tributes multiply. a french vaudeville associates his name with that of this brilliant writer, saying, "madame de sévigné and vatel are the people who _honored_ the age of louis xiv." the _almanach des gourmands_, in the epistle dedicatory of its concluding volume, addresses the venerable shade of the heroic cook: "you have proved that the _fanaticism of honor_ can exist in the kitchen as well as the camp." berchoux commemorates the dying exclamation in _la gastronomie_, chant iii.:-- "_je suis perdu d'honneur_, deux rôtis ont manqué." [ ] esprit des lois, liv. iii. ch. - . the rule of honor is founded in the imagined necessity of resenting by force a supposed injury, whether of word or act.[ ] admit the injury received, seeming to sully the character; is it wiped away by any force, and descent to the brutal level of its author? "could i wipe your blood from my conscience as easily as this insult from my face," said a marshal of france, greater on this occasion than on any field of fame, "i would lay you dead at my feet." plato, reporting the angelic wisdom of socrates, declares, in one of those beautiful dialogues shining with stellar light across the ages, that _to do a wrong is more shameful than to receive a wrong_.[ ] and this benign sentiment commends itself alike to the christian, who is bid to render good for evil, and to the enlightened soul of man. but who confessing its truth will resort to force on any point of _honor_? [ ] this is well exposed in a comedy of molière. "_don pedre._ souhaitez-vous quelque chose de moi? "_hali._ oui, un conseil sur _un fait d'honneur_. je sais qu'en ces matières il est mal-aisé de trouver un cavalier plus consommé que vous.... "seigneur, _j'ai reçu un soufflet_. vous savez ce qu'est un soufflet, lorsqu'il se donne à main ouverte sur le beau milieu de la joue. _j'ai ce soufflet fort sur le coeur; et je suis dans l'incertitude, si, pour me venger de l'affront, je dois me battre avec mon homme, ou bien le faire assassiner._ "_don pedre._ assassiner, c'est le plus sûr et le plus court chemin." _le sicilien_, sc. xiii. [ ] this proposition is enforced by socrates, with unanswerable reasoning and illustration, throughout the _gorgias_, which cicero read diligently while studying at athens (de oratore, i. ). in ancient athens, as in unchristianized christian lands, there were sophists who urged that _to suffer_ was unbecoming a man, and would draw down incalculable evil. the following passage, which i translate with scrupulous literalness, will show the manner in which the moral cowardice of these persons of little faith was rebuked by him whom the gods of greece pronounced wisest of men. "these things being so, let us inquire what it is you reproach me with: whether it is well said, or not, that i, forsooth, am not able to assist either myself or any of my friends or my relations, or to save myself from the greatest dangers, but that, like the infamous, i am at the mercy of any one who may choose to smite me on the face (for this was your juvenile expression), or take away my property, or drive me out of the city, or (the extreme case) kill me, and that to be so situated is, as you say, the most shameful of all things. but my view is,--a view many times expressed already, but there is no objection to its being stated again,--_my view, i say, is, o callicles, that to be struck on the face unjustly is not most shameful, nor to have my body mutilated, nor my purse cut; but that to strike and cut me and mine unjustly is more shameful and worse--and stealing, too,_ _and enslaving, and housebreaking, and, in general, doing any wrong whatever to me and mine, is more shameful and worse--for him who does the wrong than for me who suffer it_. these things, which thus appeared to us in the former part of this discussion, are secured and bound (even if the expression be somewhat rustical) with iron and adamantine arguments, as indeed they would seem to be; and unless you, or some one stronger than you, can break them, it is impossible for any one, saying otherwise than as i now say, to speak correctly: since, for my part, _i always have the same thing to say,--that i know not how these things are, but that, of all whom i have ever discoursed with as now, no one is able to say otherwise without being ridiculous_."[ ] [ ] gorgias, cap. lxiv. such is the wisdom of socrates, as reported by plato; and it has found beautiful expression in the verse of an english poet, who says,-- "dear as freedom is, and in my heart's just estimation prized above all price, _i had much rather be myself the slave and wear the bonds than fasten them on him_."[ ] [ ] cowper, the task, book ii. vv. - . the modern _point of honor_ did not obtain a place in warlike antiquity. themistocles at salamis, when threatened with a blow, did not send a cartel to the spartan commander. "strike, but hear," was the response of that firm nature, which felt that true honor is gained only in the performance of duty. it was in the depths of modern barbarism, in the age of chivalry, that this sentiment shot up into wildest and rankest fancies. not a step was taken without it. no act without reference to the "bewitching duel." and every stage in the combat, from the ceremonial at its beginning to its deadly close, was measured by this fantastic law. nobody forgets _as you like it_, with its humorous picture of a quarrel in progress to a duel, through the seven degrees of touchstone. nothing more ridiculous, as nothing can be more disgusting, than the degradation in which this whole fantasy of honor had its origin, as fully appears from an authentic incident in the life of its most brilliant representative. the chevalier bayard, cynosure of chivalry, the good knight without fear and without reproach, battling with the spaniard señor don alonso de soto mayor, succeeded by a feint in striking him such a blow, that the weapon, despite the gorget, penetrated the throat four fingers deep. the wounded spaniard grappled with his antagonist until they both rolled on the ground, when bayard, drawing his dagger, and thrusting the point directly into the nostrils of his foe, exclaimed, "señor don alonso, surrender, or you are a dead man!"--a speech which appeared superfluous, as the second of the spaniard cried out, "señor bayard, he is dead already; you have conquered." the french knight "would gladly have given a hundred thousand crowns, if he had had them, to have vanquished him alive," says the chronicle; but now falling upon his knees, he kissed the earth three times, then rose and drew his dead enemy from the field, saying to the second, "señor don diego, have i done enough?" to which the other piteously replied, "too much, señor bayard, for the _honor_ of spain!" when the latter very generously presented him with the corpse, it being his right, by the law of honor, to dispose of it as he thought proper: an act highly commended by the chivalrous brantôme, who thinks it difficult to say which did most _honor_ to the faultless knight,--not dragging the dead body by a leg ignominiously from the field, like the carcass of a dog, or condescending to fight while suffering under an ague![ ] [ ] la tresjoyeuse, plaisante et recreative hystoire, composée par le loyal serviteur, des faiz, gestes, triumphes et prouesses du bon chevalier sans paour et sans reprouche, le gentil seigneur de bayart, chap. xxii.: petitot, collection complète des mémoires relatifs à l'histoire de france, tom. xv. pp. - . brantôme, discours sur les duels: oeuvres, tom. viii. pp. , . in such a transaction, conferring honor upon the brightest son of chivalry, we learn the real character of an age whose departure has been lamented with such touching, but inappropriate eloquence. thank god! the age of chivalry is gone; but it cannot be allowed to prolong its fanaticism of honor into our day. this must remain with the lances, swords, and daggers by which it was guarded, or appear, if it insists, only with its inseparable american companions, bowie-knife, pistol, and rifle. a true standard of conduct is found only in the highest civilization, with those two inspirations, justice and benevolence,--never in any barbarism, though affecting the semblance of sensibility and refinement. but this standard, while governing the relations of the individual, must be recognized by nations also. alas! alas! how long? we still wait that happy day, now beginning to dawn, harbinger of infinite happiness beyond, when nations, like men, shall confess that it is better to receive a wrong than do a wrong. . there is still another influence stimulating war, and interfering with the natural attractions of peace: i refer to a selfish and exaggerated _prejudice of country_, leading to physical aggrandizement and political exaltation at the expense of other countries, and in disregard of justice. nursed by the literature of antiquity, we imbibe the sentiment of heathen patriotism. exclusive love for the land of birth belonged to the religion of greece and rome. this sentiment was material as well as exclusive. the oracle directed the returning roman to kiss his mother, and he kissed mother earth. agamemnon, according to Æschylus, on regaining his home, after perilous separation for more than ten years at the siege of troy, before addressing family, friend, or countryman, salutes argos:-- "by your leave, lords, first argos i salute." the schoolboy does not forget the victim of verres, with the memorable cry which was to stay the descending fasces of the lictor, "i am a roman citizen,"--nor those other words echoing through the dark past, "how sweet and becoming to die for country!" of little avail the nobler cry, "i am a man," or the christian ejaculation, swelling the soul, "how sweet and becoming to die for duty!" the beautiful genius of cicero, instinct at times with truth almost divine, did not ascend to that heaven where it is taught that all mankind are neighbors and kindred. to the love of universal man may be applied those words by which the great roman elevated his selfish patriotism to virtue, when he said that _country alone embraced all the charities of all_.[ ] attach this admired phrase to the single idea of country, and you see how contracted are its charities, compared with that world-wide circle where our neighbor is the suffering man, though at the farthest pole. such a sentiment would dry up those precious fountains now diffusing themselves in distant unenlightened lands, from the icy mountains of greenland to the coral islands of the pacific sea. [ ] "cari sunt parentes, cari liberi, propinqui, familiares; sed _omnes omnium caritates patria una complexa est_." (de offic., lib. i. cap. .) it is curious to observe how cicero puts aside that expression of true humanity which fell from terence, "_humani nihil a me alienum puto._" he says, "_est enim difficilis cura rerum alienarum._" ibid., lib. i. cap. . it is the policy of rulers to encourage this exclusive patriotism, and here they are aided by the examples of antiquity. i do not know that any one nation is permitted to reproach another with this selfishness. all are selfish. men are taught to live, not for mankind, but only for a small portion of mankind. the pride, vanity, ambition, brutality even, which all rebuke in the individual, are accounted virtues, if displayed in the name of country. among us the sentiment is active, while it derives new force from the point with which it has been expressed. an officer of our navy, one of the heroes nurtured by war, whose name has been praised in churches, going beyond all greek, all roman example, exclaimed, "our country, _right or wrong_,"--a sentiment dethroning god and enthroning the devil, whose flagitious character must be rebuked by every honest heart. how different was virtuous andrew fletcher, whose heroical uprightness, amidst the trials of his time, has become immortal in the saying, that he "would readily lose his life to _serve_ his country, but would not do a base thing to _save_ it."[ ] better words, or more truly patriotic, were never uttered. "our country, our whole country, and _nothing but our country_," are other delusive sounds, which, first falling from the lips of an eminent american orator, are often painted on banners, and echoed by innumerable multitudes. cold and dreary, narrow and selfish would be this life, if _nothing but our country_ occupied the soul,--if the thoughts that wander through eternity, if the infinite affections of our nature, were restrained to that place where we find ourselves by the accident of birth. [ ] character, prefixed to political works, p. viii. by a natural sentiment we incline to the spot where we were born, to the fields that witnessed the sports of childhood, to the seat of youthful studies, and to the institutions under which we have been trained. the finger of god writes all these things indelibly upon the heart of man, so that even in death he reverts with fondness to early associations, and longs for a draught of cold water from the bucket in his father's well. this sentiment is independent of reflection: for it begins before reflection, grows with our growth, and strengthens with our strength. it is the same in all countries having the same degree of enlightenment, differing only according to enlightenment, under whose genial influence it softens and refines. it is the strongest with those least enlightened. the wretched hottentot never travels away from his melting sun; the wretched esquimau never travels away from his freezing cold; nor does either know or care for other lands. this is his patriotism. the same instinct belongs to animals. there is no beast not instinctively a patriot, cherishing his own country with all its traditions, which he guards instinctively against all comers. thus again, in considering the origin of war, do we encounter the animal in man. but as human nature is elevated, as the animal is subdued, that patriotism which is without reason shares the generous change and gradually loses its barbarous egotism. to the enlarged vision a new world is disclosed, and we begin to discern the distant mountain-peaks, all gilded by the beams of morning, revealing that god has not placed us alone on this earth, but that others, equally with ourselves, are children of his care. the curious spirit goes further, and, while recognizing an inborn attachment to the place of birth, searches into the nature of the allegiance required. according to the old idea, still too prevalent, man is made for the state, not the state for man. far otherwise is the truth. the state is an artificial body, for the security of the people. how constantly do we find in human history that the people are sacrificed for the state,--to build the roman name, to secure for england the trident of the sea, to carry abroad the conquering eagles of france! this is to barter the greater for the less,--to sacrifice humanity, embracing more even than country _all the charities of all_, for the sake of a mistaken grandeur. not that i love country less, but humanity more, do i now and here plead the cause of a higher and truer patriotism. i cannot forget that we are men by a more sacred bond than we are citizens,--that we are children of a common father more than we are americans. thus do seeming diversities of nations--separated by accident of language, mountain, river, or sea--all disappear, and the multitudinous tribes of the globe stand forth as members of one vast human family, where strife is treason to heaven, and all war is nothing else than _civil_ war. in vain restrict this odious term, importing so much of horror, to the dissensions of a single community. it belongs also to feuds between nations. the soul trembles aghast in the contemplation of fields drenched with fraternal gore, where the happiness of homes is shivered by neighbors, and kinsman sinks beneath the steel nerved by a kinsman's hand. this is civil war, accursed forever in the calendar of time. in the faithful record of the future, recognizing the true grandeur of nations, the muse of history, inspired by a loftier justice and touched to finer sensibilities, will extend to universal man the sympathy now confined to country, and no war will be waged without arousing everlasting judgment. * * * * * . i might here pause, feeling that those who have accompanied me to this stage will be ready to join in condemnation of war, and to hail peace as the only condition becoming the dignity of human nature, while it opens vistas of all kinds abundant with the most fruitful promises. but there is one other consideration, yielding to none in importance,--perhaps more important than all, being at once cause and effect,--the cause of strong prejudice in favor of war, and the effect of this prejudice. i refer to _preparations for war_ in time of peace. here is an immense practical evil, requiring remedy. in exposing its character too much care cannot be taken. * * * * * i shall not dwell upon the fearful cost of war itself. that is present in the mountainous accumulations of debt, piled like ossa upon pelion, with which civilization is pressed to earth. according to the most recent tables, the public debt of european nations, so far as known, amounts to the terrific sum of $ , , , ,--all the growth of war! it is said that there are throughout these nations , , paupers, or persons subsisting at the public expense, without contributing to its resources. if these millions of public debt, forming only a part of what has been wasted in war, could be apportioned among these poor, it would give to each $ ,--a sum placing all above want, and about equal to the average wealth of an inhabitant of massachusetts. the public debt of great britain in reached to $ , , , , the growth of war since . this amount is equal to two thirds of all the harvest of gold and silver yielded by spanish america, including mexico and peru, from the discovery of our hemisphere by christopher columbus to the beginning of the present century, as calculated by humboldt.[ ] it is much larger than the mass of all the precious metals constituting at this moment the circulating medium of the world. sometimes it is rashly said, by those who have given little attention to the subject, that all this expenditure has been widely distributed, and therefore beneficial to the people; but this apology forgets that it has not been bestowed on any productive industry or useful object. the magnitude of this waste appears by contrast. for instance, the aggregate capital of all the joint-stock companies in england of which there was any known record in , embracing canals, docks, bridges, insurance, banks, gas-lights, water, mines, railways, and other miscellaneous objects, was about $ , , ,--all devoted to the welfare of the people, but how much less in amount than the war debt! for the six years preceding , the average payment for interest on this debt was $ , , annually. if we add to this sum the further annual outlay of $ , , for the army, navy, and ordnance, we shall have $ , , as the annual tax of the english people, to pay for former wars and prepare for new. during this same period, an annual appropriation of $ , , was sufficient for the entire civil service. thus war consumed ninety cents of every dollar pressed by heavy taxation from the english people. what fabulous monster, what chimæra dire, ever raged with a maw so ravenous? the remaining ten cents sufficed to maintain the splendor of the throne, the administration of justice, and diplomatic relations with foreign powers,--in short, all the more legitimate objects of a nation.[ ] [ ] new spain, vol. iii. p. . [ ] here and in subsequent pages i have relied upon the encyclopædia britannica, the annual register, mcculloch's commercial dictionary, laurie's universal geography, founded on the works of malte-brun and balbi, and the calculations of hon. william jay, in war and peace, p. , and in his address before the peace society, pp. , . * * * * * thus much for the general cost of war. let us now look exclusively at the _preparations for war in time of peace_. it is one of the miseries of war, that even in peace its evils continue to be felt beyond any other by which suffering humanity is oppressed. if bellona withdraws from the field, we only lose sight of her flaming torches; the baying of her dogs is heard on the mountains, and civilized man thinks to find protection from their sudden fury only by inclosing himself in the barbarous armor of battle. at this moment, the christian nations, worshipping a symbol of common brotherhood, occupy intrenched camps, with armed watch, to prevent surprise from each other. recognizing war as arbiter of justice, they hold themselves perpetually ready for the bloody umpirage. it is difficult, if not impossible, to arrive at any exact estimate of these preparations, ranging under four different heads,--standing army, navy, fortifications, and militia, or irregular troops. the number of soldiers now affecting to keep the peace of european christendom, as a _standing army_, without counting the navy, is upwards of two millions: some estimates place it as high as three millions. the army of great britain, including the forces in india, exceeds , men; that of france, , ; that of russia, , , and is reckoned by some as high as , , ; that of austria, , ; that of prussia, , . taking the smaller number, and supposing these two millions to require for their support an average annual sum of only $ each, the result would be $ , , for sustenance alone; and reckoning one officer to ten soldiers, and allowing to each of the latter an english shilling a day, or $ . a year, for wages, and to the former an average annual salary of $ , we have for the pay of the whole no less than $ , , , or an appalling sum-total, for both sustenance and pay, of $ , , a year. if the same calculation be made, supposing the force three millions, the sum-total will be $ , , ! but to this enormous sum must be added another still more enormous, on account of loss sustained by the withdrawal of these hardy, healthy millions, in the bloom of life, from useful, productive labor. it is supposed that it costs an average sum of $ to rear a soldier, and that the value of his labor, if devoted to useful objects, would be $ a year. therefore, in setting apart two millions of men as soldiers, the christian powers sustain a loss of $ , , , on account of training, and $ , , on account of labor, in addition to the millions annually expended for sustenance and pay. so much for the standing army of christian europe in time of peace. glance now at the _navy_. the royal navy of great britain consists at present of ships; but deducting such as are used for convict ships, floating chapels, and coal depots, the efficient navy comprises ships of the line, frigates, small frigates, corvettes, brigs, and cutters, including packets, steamers of various sizes, troop-ships and yachts: in all, ships. of these, in , were in commission, carrying in all , guns, with crews numbering , men. the navy of france, though not comparable with that of england, is of vast force. by royal ordinance of st january, , it was fixed in time of peace at ships of the line, frigates, steamers, and smaller vessels, with crews numbering, in , , men. the russian navy is composed of two large fleets,--one in the gulf of finland, and the other in the black sea; but the exact amount of their force is a subject of dispute among naval men and publicists. some idea of the navy may be derived from the number of hands. the crews of the baltic amounted, in , to not less than , men, and those of the black sea to , , or altogether , ,--being nearly equal to those of england and france combined. the austrian navy comprised, in , ships of the line, frigates, sloops, brigs, schooners or galleys, and smaller vessels: the number of men in its service, in , was , . the navy of denmark comprised, at the close of , ships of the line, frigates, sloops, brigs, schooners, cutters, gunboats, gun-rafts, and bomb-vessels, requiring about , men. the navy of sweden and norway consisted recently of gunboats, ships of the line, frigates, corvettes, and brigs, with several smaller vessels. the navy of greece has ships of war, carrying guns, with , men. the navy of holland, in , had ships of the line, frigates, corvettes, brigs, and gunboats. of the untold cost absorbed in these mighty preparations it is impossible to form an accurate idea. but we may lament that means so gigantic are applied by christian europe, in time of peace, to the construction and maintenance of such superfluous wooden walls. in the _fortifications and arsenals_ of europe, crowning every height, commanding every valley, frowning over every plain and every sea, wealth beyond calculation has been sunk. who can tell the immense sums expended in hollowing out the living rock of gibraltar? who can calculate the cost of all the preparations at woolwich, its , cannon, and its small arms counted by hundreds of thousands? france alone contains more than one hundred and twenty fortified places; and it is supposed that the yet unfinished fortifications of paris have cost upward of _fifty millions of dollars_. the cost of the _militia_, or irregular troops, the yeomanry of england, the national guard of paris, and the _landwehr_ and _landsturm_ of prussia, must add other incalculable sums to these enormous amounts. turn now to the united states, separated by a broad ocean from immediate contact with the great powers of christendom, bound by treaties of amity and commerce with all the nations of the earth, connected with all by strong ties of mutual interest, and professing a devotion to the principles of peace. are treaties of amity mere words? are relations of commerce and mutual interest mere things of a day? are professions of peace vain? else why not repose in quiet, unvexed by preparations for war? colossal as are european expenditures for these purposes, they are still greater among us in proportion to other expenses of the national government. it appears that the average _annual_ expenses of the national government, for the six years ending , exclusive of payments on account of debt, were $ , , . of this sum, the average appropriation each year for military and naval purposes amounted to $ , , , being eighty per cent. yes,--of all the annual appropriations by the national government, eighty cents in every dollar were applied in this unproductive manner. the remaining twenty cents sufficed to maintain the government in all its branches, executive, legislative, and judicial,--the administration of justice, our relations with foreign nations, the post-office, and all the light-houses, which, in happy, useful contrast with the forts, shed their cheerful signals over the rough waves beating upon our long and indented coast, from the bay of fundy to the mouth of the mississippi. the relative expenditures of nations for military preparations in time of peace, exclusive of payments on account of debts, when accurately understood, must surprise the advocates of economy in our country. in proportion to the whole expenditure of government, they are, in austria, as per cent; in france, as per cent; in prussia, as per cent; in great britain, as per cent; in the united states, as per cent![ ] [ ] i have verified these results, but do little more than follow judge jay, who has illustrated this important point with his accustomed accuracy.--_address before the american peace society_, p. . to this stupendous waste may be added the still larger and equally superfluous expenses of the militia throughout the country, placed recently by a candid and able writer at $ , , a year![ ] [ ] jay, war and peace, p. . by a table of the national expenditures,[ ] exclusive of payments on account of the public debt, it appears, that, _in fifty-four years from the formation of our present government_, that is, from down to , $ , , were expended for civil purposes, comprehending the executive, the legislative, the judiciary, the post-office, light-houses, and intercourse with foreign governments. during this same period, $ , , were devoted to the military establishment, and $ , , to the naval establishment,--the two forming an aggregate of $ , , . deducting from this amount appropriations during three years of war, and we find that more than _four hundred and sixty millions_ were absorbed by vain preparations for war in time of peace. add to this amount a moderate sum for the expenses of the militia during the same period, which, as we have seen, are placed at $ , , a year,--for the past years we may take an average of $ , , ,--and we have the enormous sum-total of $ , , , piled upon the $ , , , the whole amounting to _eighteen hundred and ten millions_ of dollars, a sum not easily conceived by the human faculties, sunk, under the sanction of the national government, in mere _peaceful preparations for war_: almost _twelve times_ as much as was dedicated by the national government, during the same period, to all other purposes whatsoever. [ ] executive document no. , twenty-eighth congress, first session, pp. - . from this serried array of figures the mind instinctively recoils. if we examine them from a nearer point of view, and, selecting some particular item, compare it with the figures representing other interests in the community, they will present a front still more dread. within cannon-range of this city stands an institution of learning which was one of the earliest cares of our forefathers, the conscientious puritans. favored child in an age of trial and struggle,--carefully nursed through a period of hardship and anxiety,--endowed at that time by the oblations of men like harvard,--sustained from its first foundation by the parental arm of the commonwealth, by a constant succession of munificent bequests, and by the prayers of good men,--the university at cambridge now invites our homage, as the most ancient, most interesting, and most important seat of learning in the land,--possessing the oldest and most valuable library,--one of the largest museums of mineralogy and natural history,--with a school of law which annually receives into its bosom more than one hundred and fifty sons from all parts of the union, where they listen to instruction from professors whose names are among the most valuable possessions of the land,--also a school of divinity, fount of true learning and piety,--also one of the largest and most flourishing schools of medicine in the country,--and besides these, a general body of teachers, twenty-seven in number, many of whose names help to keep the name of the country respectable in every part of the globe, where science, learning, and taste are cherished,--the whole presided over at this moment by a gentleman early distinguished in public life by unconquerable energy and masculine eloquence, at a later period by the unsurpassed ability with which he administered the affairs of our city, and now, in a green old age, full of years and honors, preparing to lay down his present high trust.[ ] such is harvard university; and as one of the humblest of her children, happy in the memories of a youth nurtured in her classic retreats, i cannot allude to her without an expression of filial affection and respect. [ ] hon. josiah quincy. it appears from the last report of the treasurer, that the whole available property of the university, the various accumulation of more than two centuries of generosity, amounts to $ , . change the scene, and cast your eyes upon another object. there now swings idly at her moorings in this harbor a ship of the line, the ohio, carrying ninety guns, finished as late as at an expense of $ , ,--repaired only two years afterwards, in , for $ , ,--with an armament which has cost $ , ,--making an aggregate of $ , , as the actual outlay at this moment for that single ship,[ ]--more than $ , beyond all the available wealth of the richest and most ancient seat of learning in the land! choose ye, my fellow-citizens of a christian state, between the two caskets,--that wherein is the loveliness of truth, or that which contains the carrion death. [ ] executive document no. , twenty-seventh congress, third session. i refer to the ohio because this ship happens to be in our waters; but i do not take the strongest case afforded by our navy. other ships have absorbed larger sums. the expense of the delaware, in , had reached $ , , . pursue the comparison still further. the expenditures of the university during the last year, for the general purposes of the college, the instruction of the undergraduates, and for the schools of law and divinity, amounted to $ , . the cost of the ohio for one year of service, in salaries, wages, and provisions, is $ , ,--being $ , above the annual expenditures of the university, and more than _four times_ as much as those expenditures. in other words, for the annual sum lavished on a single ship of the line, _four_ institutions like harvard university might be supported. furthermore, the pay of the captain of a ship like the ohio is $ , , when in service,--$ , , when on leave of absence, or off duty. the salary of the president of harvard university is $ , , without leave of absence, and never off duty. if the large endowments of harvard university are dwarfed by comparison with a single ship of the line, how must it be with other institutions of learning and beneficence, less favored by the bounty of many generations? the average cost of a sloop of war is $ , ,--more, probably, than all the endowments of those twin stars of learning in the western part of massachusetts, the colleges at williamstown and amherst, and of that single star in the east, the guide to many ingenuous youth, the seminary at andover. the yearly expense of a sloop of war in service is about $ , ,--more than the annual expenditures of these three institutions combined. i might press the comparison with other institutions of beneficence,--with our annual appropriations for the blind, that noble and successful charity which sheds true lustre upon the commonwealth, amounting to $ , , and for the insane, another charity dear to humanity, amounting to $ , . take all the institutions of learning and beneficence, the crown jewels of the commonwealth, schools, colleges, hospitals, asylums, and the sums by which they have been purchased and preserved are trivial and beggarly, compared with the treasures squandered within the borders of massachusetts in vain preparations for war,--upon the navy yard at charlestown, with its stores on hand, costing $ , , ,--the fortifications in the harbors of massachusetts, where untold sums are already sunk, and it is now proposed to sink $ , , more,[ ]--and the arsenal at springfield, containing, in , , muskets, valued at $ , , ,[ ] and maintained by an annual appropriation of $ , , whose highest value will ever be, in the judgment of all lovers of truth, that it inspired a poem which in influence will be mightier than a battle, and will endure when arsenals and fortifications have crumbled to earth. some of the verses of this psalm of peace may relieve the detail of statistics, while they happily blend with my argument. "were half the power that fills the world with terror, were half the wealth bestowed on camps and courts, given to redeem the human mind from error, there were no need of arsenals or forts: "the warrior's name would be a name abhorred, and every nation that should lift again its hand against a brother on its forehead would wear forevermore the curse of cain."[ ] [ ] report of secretary of war, senate document no. , twenty-seventh congress, second session,--where we are asked to invest in a general system of land defences $ , , . [ ] executive document no. , twenty-seventh congress, third session. [ ] longfellow, the arsenal at springfield. turn now to a high and peculiar interest of the nation, the administration of justice. perhaps no part of our system is regarded with more pride and confidence, especially by the enlightened sense of the country. to this, indeed, all other concerns of government, with all its complications of machinery, are in a manner subordinate, since it is for the sake of justice that men come together in communities and establish laws. what part of the government can compare in importance with the national judiciary, that great balance-wheel of the constitution, controlling the relations of the several states to each other, the legislation of congress and of the states, besides private interests to an incalculable amount? nor can the citizen who discerns the true glory of his country fail to recognize in the immortal judgments of marshall, now departed, and of story, who is still spared to us--_serus in coelum redeat!_--a higher claim to admiration and gratitude than can be found in any triumph of battle. the expenses of this great department under the national government, in , embracing the cost of court-houses, the salaries of judges, the pay of juries, and of all the law officers throughout the united states, in short, all the outlay by which justice, according to the requirement of magna charta, is carried to every man's door, amounted to $ , ,--a larger sum than is usually appropriated for this purpose, but how insignificant, compared with the cormorant demands of army and navy! let me allude to one more curiosity of waste. by a calculation founded on the expenses of the navy it appears that the average cost of each gun carried over the ocean for one year amounts to about fifteen thousand dollars,--a sum sufficient to maintain ten or even twenty professors of colleges, and equal to the salaries of all the judges of the supreme court of massachusetts and the governor combined! * * * * * such are illustrations of that tax which nations constituting the great federation of civilization, including our own country, impose on the people, in time of profound peace, for no permanent productive work, for no institution of learning, for no gentle charity, for no purpose of good. wearily climbing from expenditure to expenditure, from waste to waste, we seem to pass beyond the region of ordinary measurement; alps on alps arise, on whose crowning heights of everlasting cold, far above the habitations of man, where no green thing lives, where no creature draws breath, we behold the sharp, icy, flashing glacier of war. in the contemplation of this spectacle the soul swells with alternate despair and hope: with despair, at the thought of such wealth, capable of such service to humanity, not merely wasted, but bestowed to perpetuate hate; with hope, as the blessed vision arises of all these incalculable means secured to purposes of peace. the whole world labors with poverty and distress; and the painful question occurs in europe more than here, what shall become of the poor,--the increasing standing army of the poor? could the voice that now addresses you penetrate those distant councils, or councils nearer home, it would say, disband your standing armies of soldiers, employ your navies in peaceful and enriching commerce, abandon fortifications and arsenals, or dedicate them to works of beneficence, as the statue of jupiter capitolinus was changed to the image of a christian saint; in fine, utterly renounce the present incongruous system of _armed peace_. * * * * * that i may not seem to accept this conclusion too hastily, at least as regards our own country, i shall consider the asserted usefulness of the national armaments,--and then expose the fallacy, at least in the present age and among christian nations, of the maxim, that in time of peace we must prepare for war. _for what use is the standing army of the united states?_ for many generations it has been a principle of freedom to avoid a standing army; and one of the complaints in the declaration of independence was, that george the third had quartered large bodies of troops in the colonies. for the first years after the adoption of the national constitution, during our period of weakness, before our power was assured, before our name had become respected in the family of nations, under the administration of washington, a small sum was ample for the military establishment of the united states. it was at a later day that the country, touched by martial insanity, abandoned the true economy of a republic, and, in imitation of monarchical powers, lavished means, grudged to peace, in vain preparation for war. it may now be said of our army, as dunning said of the influence of the crown, it has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished. at this moment there are in the country more than sixty military posts. for any of these it would be difficult to present a reasonable apology,--unless, perhaps, on some distant indian frontier. of what use is the detachment of the second artillery at the quiet town of new london, in connecticut? of what use is the detachment of the first artillery in that pleasant resort of fashion, newport? by exhilarating music and showy parade they may amuse an idle hour; but is it not equally true that emotions of a different character will be aroused in thoughtful bosoms? he must have lost something of sensibility to the dignity of human nature who can observe, without at least a passing regret, all the details of discipline--drill, marching, countermarching--which fill the life of the soldier, and prepare him to become the rude, inanimate part of that _machine_ to which an army is likened by the great living master of the art of war.[ ] and this sensibility may be more disturbed by the spectacle of ingenuous youth, in chosen numbers, under the auspices of the government, amidst the bewitching scenery of west point, painfully trained to these same exercises,--at a cost to the country, since the establishment of this academy, of above four millions of dollars. [ ] the duke of wellington. in europe, standing armies are supposed to be needed in support of government; but this excuse cannot prevail here. the monarchs of the old world, like the chiefs of the ancient german tribes, are upborne on the shields of the soldiery. happily, with us, government needs no janizaries. the hearts of the people are a sufficient support. i hear a voice from some defender of this abuse, some upholder of this "rotten borough," crying, the army is needed for defence! as well might you say that the shadow is needed for defence. for what is the army of the united states, but the feeble shadow of the american people? _in placing the army on its present footing, so small in numbers, compared with the forces of great_ _european states, our government tacitly admits its superfluousness for defence._ it only remains to declare that the country will repose in the consciousness of right, without the extravagance of soldiers, unproductive consumers of the fruits of the earth, who might do the country good service in the various departments of useful industry. _for what use is the navy of the united states?_ the annual expense of our navy, during recent years, has been upwards of six millions of dollars. for what purpose? not for the apprehension of pirates, since frigates and ships of the line are of too great bulk for this service. not for the suppression of the slave trade; for, under the stipulations with great britain, we employ only eighty guns in this holy alliance. not to protect our coasts; for all agree that our few ships would form an unavailing defence against any serious attack. not for these purposes, you admit; _but for the protection of our navigation_. this is not the occasion for minute estimates. suffice it to say, that an intelligent merchant, extensively engaged in commerce for the last twenty years, and who speaks, therefore, with the authority of knowledge, has demonstrated, in a tract of perfect clearness,[ ] that the annual profits of the whole mercantile marine of the country do not equal the annual expenditure of our navy. admitting the profit of a merchant ship to be four thousand dollars a year, which is a large allowance, it will take the earnings of one hundred ships to build and employ for one year a single sloop of war, of one hundred and fifty ships to build and employ a frigate, and of nearly three hundred ships to build and employ a ship of the line. thus more than five hundred ships must do a profitable business to earn a sufficient sum for the support of this little fleet. still further, taking a received estimate putting the mercantile marine of the united states at forty millions of dollars, we find that it is only a little more than six times the annual cost of the navy; so that this interest is protected at a charge of more than _fifteen per cent_ of its whole value! protection at such price is not less ruinous than one of pyrrhus's victories. [ ] i refer to the pamphlet of s.e. coues, "united states navy: what is its use?" it is to the navy as an unnecessary arm of national defence, and part of the war establishment, that i confine my objection. so far as it is required for science, or for the _police_ of the seas,--to scour them of pirates, and, above all, to defeat the hateful traffic in human flesh,--it is a fit engine of government, and cannot be obnoxious as a portion of the machinery of war. but, surely, a most costly navy to protect navigation in time of peace against assaults from civilized nations is absurdly superfluous. the free cities of hamburg and bremen, survivors of the powerful hanseatic league, with a commerce whitening the most distant seas, are without a single ship of war. following this prudent example, the united states might be willing to abandon an institution already become a vain and expensive toy. _for what use are the fortifications of the united states?_ we have already seen the enormous sums locked in the odious mortmain of their everlasting masonry. like the pyramids, they seem by mass and solidity to defy time. nor can i doubt that hereafter, like these same monuments, they will be looked upon with wonder, as the types of an extinct superstition, not less degrading than that of ancient egypt. under the pretence of saving the country from conquest and bloodshed they are reared. but whence the danger? on what side? what people to fear? no civilized nation threatens our borders with rapine or trespass. none will. nor, in the existing state of civilization, and under existing international law, is it possible to suppose any war with such a nation, unless, renouncing the peaceful tribunal of arbitration, we voluntarily appeal to trial by battle. the fortifications might be of service then. but perhaps they would invite the attack they might be inadequate to defeat. according to a modern rule, illustrated with admirable ability in the diplomatic correspondence of mr. webster, non-combatants and their property on land are not molested. so firmly did the duke of wellington act upon this rule, that, throughout the revengeful campaigns of spain, and afterwards entering france, flushed with the victory of waterloo, he directed his army to pay for all provisions, even the forage of their horses. war is carried on against _public_ property,--against _fortifications, navy-yards, and arsenals_. if these do not exist, where is its aliment, where the fuel for the flame? paradoxical as it seems, and disparaging to the whole trade of war, it may be proper to inquire, whether, according to acknowledged laws, now governing this bloody arbitrament, every new fortification and every additional gun in our harbor is not less a safeguard than a danger. do they not draw the lightning of battle upon our homes, without, alas! any conductor to hurry its terrors innocently beneath the concealing bosom of the earth? _for what use is the militia of the united states?_ this immense system spreads, with innumerable suckers, over the whole country, draining its best life-blood, the unbought energies of our youth. the same painful discipline which we observe in the soldier absorbs their time, though to a less degree than in the regular army. theirs also is the savage pomp of war. we read with astonishment of the painted flesh and uncouth vestments of our progenitors, the ancient britons. but the generation will come, that must regard with equal wonder the pictures of their ancestors closely dressed in padded and well-buttoned coats of blue "besmeared with gold," surmounted by a huge mountain-cap of shaggy bear-skin, and with a barbarous device, typical of brute force, _a tiger_, painted on oil-skin tied with leather to their backs! in the streets of pisa the galley-slaves are compelled to wear dresses stamped with the name of the crime for which they are suffering punishment,--as theft, robbery, murder. is it not a little strange that christians, living in a land "where bells have tolled to church," should voluntarily adopt devices which, if they have any meaning, recognize the example of beasts as worthy of imitation by man? the general considerations belonging to preparations for war illustrate the inanity of the militia for purposes of _national defence_. i do not know, indeed, that it is now strongly urged on this ground. it is oftener approved as an important part of the _police_. i would not undervalue the advantage of an active, efficient, ever-wakeful police; and i believe that such a police has been long required. but the militia, where youth and character are without the strength of experience, is inadequate for this purpose. no person who has seen this arm of the police in an actual riot can hesitate in this judgment. a very small portion of the means absorbed by the militia would provide a substantial police, competent to all the domestic emergencies of disorder and violence. the city of boston has discarded a fire department composed of _accidental volunteers_. why not do the same with the police, and set another example to the country? i am well aware that efforts to reduce the militia are encountered by some of the dearest prejudices of the common mind,--not only by the war spirit, but by that other, which first animates childhood, and, at a later day, "children of a larger growth," inviting to finery of dress and parade,--the same which fantastically bedecks the dusky feather-cinctured chief of the soft regions warmed by the tropical sun,--which inserts a ring in the nose of the north american indian,--which slits the ears of the australian savage, and tattoos the new zealand cannibal. * * * * * such are the national armaments, in their true character and value. thus far i have regarded them in the plainest light of ordinary worldly economy, without reference to those higher considerations, drawn from the nature and history of man and the truths of christianity, which pronounce them vain. it is grateful to know, that, though having yet the support of what jeremy taylor calls "popular noises," the other more economical, more humane, more wise, more christian system is daily commending itself to good people. on its side are all the virtues that truly elevate a state. economy, sick of pygmy efforts to stanch the smallest fountain and rill of exuberant expenditure, pleads that here is a measureless, fathomless, endless river, an amazon of waste, rolling its prodigal waters turbidly, ruinously, hatefully, to the sea. it chides us with unnatural inconsistency, when we strain at a little twine and paper, and swallow the monstrous cables and armaments of war. humanity pleads for the surpassing interests of knowledge and benevolence, from which such mighty means are withdrawn. wisdom frowns on these preparations, as nursing sentiments inconsistent with peace; christianity calmly rebukes the spirit in which they have their origin, as of little faith, and treacherous to her high behests; while history, exhibiting the sure, though gradual, progress of man, points with unerring finger to that destiny of true grandeur, when nations, like individuals, disowning war as a proper arbiter of justice, shall abandon the oppressive apparatus of armies, navies, and fortifications, by which it is waged. * * * * * before considering the familiar injunction, _in time of peace prepare for war_, i hope i shall not seem to descend from the proper sphere of this discussion, if i refer to the parade of _barbarous mottoes_, and of _emblems from beasts_, as another impediment to the proper appreciation of these preparations. these mottoes and emblems, prompting to war, are obtruded on the very ensigns of power and honor, and, careless of their discreditable import, men learn to regard them with patriotic pride. in the armorial bearings of nations and individuals, beasts and birds of prey are the exemplars of true grandeur. the lion appears on the flag of england; the leopard on the flag of scotland; a double-headed eagle spreads its wings on the imperial standard of austria, and again on that of russia; while a single-headed eagle was adopted on the napoleonic seal, and thus far the same single-headed bird is enough for prussia. the pennons of knights, after exhausting the known kingdom of nature, were disfigured by imaginary and impossible monsters, griffins, hippogriffs, unicorns, all intended to represent the exaggeration of brute force. the people of massachusetts unconsciously adopt this early standard. the escutcheon used as the seal of the state has an unfortunate combination, to which i refer briefly by way of example. on that part in the language of heraldry termed the _shield_ stands an indian with a bow in his hand,--certainly no agreeable memento, except to those who find honor in the disgraceful wars where our fathers robbed and murdered king philip of pokanoket, and his tribe, rightful possessors of the soil. the _crest_ is a raised arm _holding a drawn sabre in a threatening attitude_,--being precisely the emblem once borne on the flag of algiers. the _scroll_, or legend, is the latter of two favorite verses, in modern latin, which are not traced to any origin more remote than algernon sidney, by whom they were inscribed in an album at copenhagen:- "manus hæc inimica tyrannnis _ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem_."[ ] [ ] the earl of leicester, father of sidney, in an anxious letter, august , , writes his son: "it is said that the university of copenhagen brought their album unto you, desiring you to write something therein, and that your did _scribere in albo_ these words [setting forth the verses], and put your name to it"; and then he adds, "this cannot but be publicly known, if it be true.... either you must live in exile or very privately here, and perhaps not safely." the restoration of charles the second had just taken place. (meadley, memoirs of algernon sidney, pp. , - .) lord molesworth, in a work which first appeared in , mentions the verses as written by sidney in "the book of mottoes in the king's library," and then tells the story, that the french ambassador, who did not know a word of latin, on learning their meaning, tore them from the book, as a libel on the french government, and its influence in denmark. (molesworth, account of denmark, preface.) the inference from this narrative would seem to be that the verses were by sidney himself. with singular unanimity, the legislature of massachusetts has expressed an earnest desire for the establishment of a high court of nations to adjudge international controversies, and thus supersede the arbitrament of war. it would be an act of moral dignity consistent with these professions, and becoming the character it vaunts before the world, if it abandoned the bellicose escutcheon,--at least, that _algerine_ emblem, fit only for corsairs, if not also the latin motto with its menace of the sword. if a latin substitute for the latter be needed, it might be those words of virgil, "_pacisque_ imponere morem,"[ ] or that sentence of noble truth from cicero, "sine summa justitia rempublicam geri nullo modo posse":[ ] the first a homage to peace, and the second a consecration to justice. where such a spirit prevailed, there would be little occasion to consider the question of war preparations. [ ] Æneid, vi. . [ ] de republica, lib. ii. cap. . massachusetts is not alone in the bellicose anachronism of her banner. the nation is in the same category. our fathers would have hesitated long before accepting the eagle for the national escutcheon, had they recalled the pungent words of erasmus on this most unrepublican bird. "let any physiognomist, not a blunderer in his trade," says this most learned scholar, "consider the look and features of an eagle, those rapacious and wicked eyes, that menacing curve of the beak, those cruel cheeks, that stern front,--will he not at once recognize _the image of a king_, a magnificent and majestic king? add to these a dark, ill-omened color, an unpleasing, dreadful, appalling voice, and that threatening scream at which every kind of animal trembles." proceeding with his indictment, he describes the eagle in old age as satisfied with nothing but blood, with which he prolongs his hateful life, the upper mandible growing so that he cannot feed on flesh, while the natural rapacity continues,--all of which typifies the wicked prince. but the scholar becomes orator, when, after mentioning that there are innumerable species of birds, some admirable for richness of plumage, some remarkable for snowy whiteness, some shining with befitting blackness, some pre-eminent in bodily stature, some notable for fecundity, some grateful at the rich banquet, some pleasant from loquacity, some captivating in song, some distinguished for courage, some created for the entertainment of man,--he proceeds to say: "of all birds, the eagle alone has seemed to wise men _the apt type of royalty_: not beautiful, not musical, not fit for food,--but carnivorous, ravenous, plundering, destroying, fighting, solitary, hateful to all, the curse of all, and though able to do the greatest harm, yet wishing to do more than he can."[ ] erasmus, who says this and much more, is no mean authority. brightest and best among the scholars who illustrated the modern revival of letters, loving peace, and detesting kings, he acquired a contemporary power and fame such as letters never bestowed before, if since,--at least until voltaire, kindred in versatile genius, mounted the throne. in all the homage profusely offered to the latter there was nothing stronger than that of luther to erasmus, when the great reformer asked, "who is the man whose soul erasmus does not occupy, whom erasmus does not instruct, over whom erasmus does not reign?" his face is still familiar from the devotion of two great artists, albert dürer and hans holbein, each of whom has left to us his portrait,--while he is commemorated by a bronze statue in rotterdam, his birthplace, and by a monument in the ancient cathedral at basel, where he died. it is this renowned scholar who castigates our eagle. doubtless for fighting qualities this royal bird was transferred to the coin and seal of a republic. his presence there shows the spirit which unconsciously prevailed; and this same presence, beyond all question, exercises a certain influence, especially with the young, nursing a pride in that beak and those pounces which are the menace of war. [ ] erasmi adagia, chil. iii. cent. vii. prov. : _scarabæus aquilam quærit._ hallam, literature of europe, part i. ch. . sec. , . * * * * * the maxim, _in time of peace prepare for war_,[ ] is transmitted from distant ages, when brute force was the general law. it is the terrible inheritance which painfully reminds present generations of their connection with the past. it belongs to the dogmas of barbarism. it is the companion of harsh, tyrannical rules by which the happiness of the many is offered up to the few. it is the child of suspicion, and the forerunner of violence. having in its favor almost uninterrupted usage, it possesses a hold on popular opinion not easily unloosed. and yet no conscientious man can fail, on careful observation, to detect its mischievous fallacy,--_at least among christian nations in the present age_,--a fallacy the most costly the world has witnessed, dooming nations to annual tribute in comparison with which the extortions of conquest are as the widow's mite. so true is what rousseau said, and guizot has since repeated, that "a bad principle is far worse than a bad fact"; for the operations of the latter are finite, while those of the former are infinite. [ ] if countenance were needed in thus exposing a pernicious maxim, i might find it in the german philosopher kant, whose work on perpetual peace treats it with very little respect. (kant, sämmtliche werke, band vii., _zum ewigen frieden_, § .) since this oration, sir robert peel and the earl of aberdeen, each prime minister of england, and practically conversant with the question, have given their valuable testimony in the same direction. life has its surprises; and i confess one in my own, when the latter, in conversation on this maxim, most kindly thanked me for what i had said against it. i speak of this principle with earnestness; for i believe it erroneous and false, founded in ignorance and wrong, unworthy of civilization, and disgraceful to christians. i call it a principle; but it is a mere _prejudice_,--sustained by vulgar example only, and not by enlightened truth,--obeying which, we imitate the early mariners, who, steering from headland to headland, hugged the shore, unwilling to venture upon the broad ocean, with the luminaries of heaven for their guide. if not yet discerned in its true character, it is because the clear light of truth is discolored and refracted by an atmosphere where the cloud of war covers all. dismissing the actual usage on the one side, and considerations of economy on the other, i would regard these preparations in the simple light of reason, in a just appreciation of the nature of man, and in the injunctions of the highest truth. our conclusion will be very easy. they are twice pernicious, and whoso would vindicate them must satisfactorily answer these two objections: _first_, that they inflame the people, exciting to deeds of violence, otherwise alien to the mind; and, _secondly_, that, having their origin in the low motives of distrust and hate, inevitably, by a sure law of the human mind, they excite to corresponding action in other nations. thus, in fact, are they _promoters of war_, rather than _preservers of peace_. in illustration of the _first_ objection, it will occur at once to every inquirer that the possession of power is in itself dangerous, tempting the purest and highest, and too rarely enjoyed without abuse. nor is the power to employ force in war an exception. nations possessing the greatest armaments are the most belligerent. it is the feebler powers which enjoy eras of peace. throughout more than seven hundred years of roman history resounds the din of war, with only two short lulls of peace; and in modern times this din has been echoed from france. but switzerland has had no din. less prepared, this republic had less incentive to war. not only in nations do we find this law. it applies to individuals also. the same din which resounded in rome and was echoed from france has filled common life, and from the same cause. the _wearing of arms_ has been a provocative, too often exciting, as it furnished the weapon of strife. the odious system of private quarrels, with altercation and hostile meetings even in the street, disgracing the social life of modern europe, continued with this habit. this was its origin. but who can measure the extent of its influence? dead bodies stretched on the pavements, and vacant chairs at home, were the contemporary witnesses. if death was hasty and unpremeditated, it was only according to the law of such encounter. poets and authors, wearing arms, were exposed to the rude chances. the dramatist marlowe, in some respects almost shakespearian, "renowned for his rare art and wit," perished ignominiously under the weapon of a vulgar adversary; and savage, whose genius and misfortune inspired the friendship and praise of samuel johnson, was tried at the old bailey for murder committed in a sudden broil. nothing of this could have occurred without the habit of wearing arms, which was a fashion. out of this came the _dance of death_. this pernicious influence is illustrated by judge jay with admirable plainness. he shows the individual as an example to nations. listen, a moment, to what he says so well. "the expert swordsman, the practised marksman, is ever more ready to engage in personal combats than the man who is unaccustomed to the use of deadly weapons. in those portions of our country where it is supposed essential to personal safety to go armed with pistols and bowie-knives mortal affrays are so frequent as to excite but little attention, and to secure, with exceedingly rare exceptions, perfect impunity to the murderer; whereas at the north and east, where we are unprovided with such facilities for taking life, comparatively few murders of the kind are perpetrated. we might, indeed, safely submit the decision of the principle we are discussing to the calculations of pecuniary interest. let two men, equal in age and health, apply for an insurance on their lives,--one known to be ever armed to defend his honor and his life against every assailant, and the other a meek, unresisting quaker: can we doubt for a moment which of these men would be deemed by an insurance company most likely to reach a good old age?"[ ] [ ] address before the american peace society, pp. , . with this practical statement and its strong sense i leave this objection to war preparations, adding a single supplementary remark,--what is good for the individual is good for nations. the _second_ objection, though different in character, is not less operative. it is founded on that law of human nature according to which the very hate or distrust to which these preparations testify excites in others a corresponding sentiment. this law is general and fundamental. though rarely recognized by nations as a rule of conduct, it was never without its influence on individuals. indeed, it is little more than a practical illustration of the horatian adage, _si vis me flere, dolendum est primum ipsi tibi_: if you wish me to weep, you must yourself first grieve. nobody questions its truth or applicability. but does it not proclaim that war preparations in a period of professed peace must naturally prompt adverse preparations, and everywhere within the circle of their influence quicken the spirit of war? so are we all knit together that the feelings in our own bosoms awaken corresponding feelings in the bosoms of others,--as harp answers to harp in its softest vibration, as deep responds to deep in the might of its power. what in us is good invites the good in our brother; generosity begets generosity; love wins love; peace secures peace;--while all in us that is bad challenges the bad in our brother; distrust engenders distrust; hate provokes hate; war arouses war. therefore are we admonished to avoid such appeal, and this is the voice of nature itself. this beautiful law is everywhere. the wretched maniac, in whose mind the common principles of conduct are overthrown, confesses its overruling power; and the vacant stare of madness is illumined by a word of love. the wild beasts confess it: and what is the story of orpheus, whose music drew in listening rapture the lions and panthers of the forest, or of st. jerome, whose kindness soothed the lion to lie down at his feet, but expressions of its prevailing power?[ ] [ ] scholars will remember the incident recorded by homer in the odyssey (xiv. , ), where ulysses, on reaching his loved ithaca, is beset by dogs, described as wild beasts in ferocity, who rush towards him barking; but he, with _craft_ (that is the word of homer), seats himself upon the ground _and lets his staff fall from his hand_. a similar incident is noticed by mr. mure, in his entertaining travels in greece, and also by mr. borrow, in his "bible in spain." pliny remarks, that all dogs may be appeased in the same way: "_impetus eorum et sævitia mitigatur ab homine considente humi._" nat. hist., lib. viii. cap. . even a fable may testify. i would not be tempted too far, but, at the risk of protracting this discussion, i cannot forget illustrations which show how poetry at least, if not history, has interpreted the heart of man. looking back to the historic dawn, one of the most touching scenes illumined by that auroral light is the peaceful visit of the aged priam to the tent of achilles, entreating the body of his son. the fierce combat ended in the death of hector, whose unhonored corse the bloody greek has trailed behind his chariot. after twelve days of grief, the venerable father is moved to seek the remains of the son he has so dearly loved. he leaves his lofty cedarn chamber, and with a single aged attendant, unarmed, repairs to the grecian camp beside the distant sounding sea. entering alone, he finds achilles in his tent, with two of his chiefs. grasping his knees, the father kisses those terrible homicidal hands which had taken the life of his son. touched by the sight which he beholds, the heart of the inflamed, the angry, the inflexible achilles responds to the feelings of priam. he takes the suppliant by the hand, seats him by his side, consoles his grief, refreshes his weary body, and concedes to the prayers of a weak, unarmed old man what all troy in arms could not win. in this scene, which fills a large space in the iliad,[ ] the master poet, with unconscious power, has presented a picture of the omnipotence of that law, making all mankind of kin, in obedience to which no word of kindness, no act of confidence, falls idly to the earth. [ ] book xxiv. among the early passages of roman history, perhaps none makes a deeper impression than that scene, after the roman youth were consumed at the allia, and the invading gauls under brennus had entered the city, where in a temple were seated the venerable senators of the republic, too old to flee, and careless of surviving the roman name, each on his curule chair, unarmed, looking, as livy says, more august than mortal, and with the majesty of the gods. the gauls gaze as upon sacred images; and the hand of slaughter, which had raged through the streets of rome, is stayed by the sight of an unarmed assembly. this continued until one of the invaders standing nearest reached his hand to stroke gently the silver beard of a senator, who, indignant at the license, smote the barbarian with his ivory staff, which was the signal for general vengeance. think you that a band of savages could have slain these senators, if the _appeal to force_ had not been made first by one of their own number? this story, though recounted by livy, and also by plutarch,[ ] is repudiated by niebuhr; but it is none the less interesting as a legend, attesting the law by which hostile feelings are aroused or subdued. [ ] liv., lib. v. cap. . plutarch, life of camillus. this great scene, in its essential parts, has been repeated in another age and country. the theatre was an african wilderness, with christian converts for roman senators. the little band, with their pastor, who was a local chief, assembled on a sabbath morning for prayer, when suddenly robbers came upon them, as the gauls upon rome, and demanded cattle. the pastor, asking his people to sit still, calmly pointed to the cattle, and then turned back to unite with the rest in prayer. the robbers, like the gauls, looked on in silence, awed into forbearance, until they quietly withdrew, injuring nobody and touching nothing. such an instance, which is derived from the report of missionaries,[ ] testifies again to the might of meekness, and proves that the roman story, though reduced to the condition of a legend, is in harmony with actual life. [ ] moffat, missionary labors and scenes in southern africa, ch. . an admired picture by virgil, in his melodious epic, furnishes similar testimony. the trojan fleet, beaten by tempest on the raging waves, is about to succumb, when the god of the sea, suddenly appearing in tranquil power, stills the hostile elements, as a man venerable for piety and deserts by a gentle word assuages a furious populace just breaking into sedition and outrage.[ ] the sea and the populace were equally appeased. alike in the god and the man was the same peaceful presence. elsewhere is this same influence. guizot, illustrates this same influence, when, describing the development of mediæval civilization, he exhibits an angry multitude subdued by an unarmed man, employing the _word_ instead of the _sword_.[ ] and surely no reader of that noble historical romance, the _promessi sposi_, can forget that finest scene, where frà cristoforo, in an age of violence, after slaying his comrade in a broil, presents himself unarmed and penitent before the family and retainers of his victim, and by dignified gentleness awakens the admiration of men raging against him. both hemispheres are at this moment occupied with the popular romance, _le juif errant_, by eugène sue, where is an interesting picture of christian courage superior to the trained violence of the soldier. another example, made familiar by recent translations of _frithiof's saga_, the swedish epic,[ ] is more emphatic. the scene is a battle. frithiof is in deadly combat with atlé, when the falchion of the latter breaks. throwing away his own weapon, frithiof says,-- "_swordless foeman's life ne'er dyed this gallant blade._" [ ] "ille regit dictis animos et pectora mulcet." _Æneid_, i. - . [ ] guizot, histoire de la civilisation en france, tom. ii. p. . [ ] longfellow, poets and poetry of europe, p. : tegnér. the two champions now close in mutual clutch; they hug like bears, says the poet. "'tis o'er; for frithiof's matchless strength has felled his ponderous size, and 'neath that knee, a giant length, supine the viking lies. 'but fails my sword, thou berserk swart,' the voice rang far and wide, 'its point should pierce thy inmost heart, its hilt should drink the tide.' 'be free to lift the weaponed hand,' undaunted atlé spoke; hence, fearless, quest thy distant brand: thus i abide the stroke.'" frithiof regains his sword, intent to close the dread debate, while his adversary awaits the stroke; but his heart responds to the generous courage of his foe; he cannot injure one who has shown such confidence in him. "_this quelled his ire, this checked his arm, outstretched the hand of peace._" i cannot leave these illustrations without alluding again to the treatment of the insane, teaching, by conclusive example, how strong in nature must be the responsive principle. on proposing to remove the heavy chains from the raving maniacs of the paris hospitals, the benevolent pinel was regarded as one who saw visions or dreamed dreams. at last his wishes were gratified. the change in the patients was immediate; the wrinkled front of warring passion was smoothed into the serene countenance of peace. the treatment by force is now universally abandoned; the law of kindness takes its place; and these unfortunates mingle together, unvexed by restraints implying suspicion, and therefore arousing opposition. what an example to nations, who are little better than insane! the ancient hospitals, with their violent madness, making confusion and strife, are a dark, but feeble, type of the christian nations, obliged to wear the intolerable chains of war, assimilating the world to one great mad-house; while the peace and good-will now abounding in these retreats are the happy emblems of what awaits mankind when at last we practically recognize the supremacy of those higher sentiments which are at once a strength and a charm,-- "making their future might magnetic o'er the fixed, untrembling heart." i might dwell also on recent experience, so full of delightful wisdom, in the treatment of the distant, degraded convict of new south wales, showing how confidence and kindness on the part of overseers awaken a corresponding sentiment even in outcasts, from whose souls virtue seems blotted out. thus, from all quarters and sources--the far-off past, the far-away pacific, the verse of the poet, the legend of history, the cell of the mad-house, the congregation of transported criminals, the experience of daily life, the universal heart of man--ascends spontaneous tribute to that law according to which we respond to the sentiments by which we are addressed, whether of love or hate, of confidence or distrust. if it be urged that these instances are exceptional, i reply at once, that it is not so. they are indubitable evidence of the real man, revealing the divinity of humanity, out of which goodness, happiness, true greatness can alone proceed. they disclose susceptibilities confined to no particular race, no special period of time, no narrow circle of knowledge or refinement, but present wherever two or more human beings come together, and strong in proportion to their virtue and intelligence. therefore on the nature of man, as impregnable ground, do i place the fallacy of this most costly and pernicious prejudice. nor is human nature the only witness: christianity testifies in familiar texts, and then again by holiest lips. augustine, in one of his persuasive letters, protests, with proverbial heart of flame, _against turning peace into a preparation for war_, and then tells the soldier whom he addresses to be _pacific even in war_.[ ] from the religion of his master the great christian saint had learned that love is more puissant than force. to the reflecting mind, the omnipotence of god himself is less discernible in earthquake and storm than in the gentle, but quickening, rays of the sun, and the sweet descending dews. he is a careless observer who does not recognize the superiority of gentleness and kindness in exercising influence or securing rights among men. as the storms of violence beat upon us, we hug mantles gladly thrown aside under the warmth of a genial sun. [ ] "non enim pax quæritur ut bellum excitetur.... esto ergo etiam bellando pacificus."--augustini epistola ccv., ad bonifacium comitem: opera, tom. ii. p. . christianity not only teaches the superiority of love to force, it positively enjoins the practice of the former, as a constant, primal duty. it says, "love your neighbors"; but it does not say, "in time of peace rear the massive fortification, build the man-of-war, enlist standing armies, train militia, and accumulate military stores, to overawe and menace your neighbor." it directs that we should do to others as we would have them do to us,--a golden rule for all; but how inconsistent is that distrust in obedience to which nations professing peace sleep like soldiers on their arms! nor is this all. its precepts inculcate patience, forbearance, forgiveness of evil, even the duty of benefiting a destroyer, "as the sandal-wood, in the instant of its overthrow, sheds perfume on the axe which fells it." can a people in whom this faith is more than an idle word authorize such enormous sacrifices to pamper the spirit of war? thus far nations have drawn their weapons from earthly armories, unmindful that there are others of celestial temper. the injunction, "love one another," is as applicable to nations as to individuals. it is one of the great laws of heaven. and nations, like individuals, may well measure their nearness to god and to his glory by the conformity of their conduct to this duty. * * * * * in response to arguments founded on economy, the true nature of man, and christianity, i hear the skeptical note of some advocate of the transmitted order of things, some one among the "fire-worshippers" of war, saying, all this is beautiful, but visionary; it is in advance of the age, which is not yet prepared for the great change. to such i answer: nothing can be beautiful that is not true; but all this is true, and the time has come for its acceptance. now is the dawning day, and now the fitting hour. the name of washington is invoked as authority for a prejudice which economy, human nature, and christianity repudiate. mighty and reverend as is his name, more mighty and more reverend is truth. the words of counsel which he gave were in accordance with the spirit of his age,--which was not shocked by the slave-trade. but his great soul, which loved virtue and inculcated justice and benevolence, frowns upon those who would use his authority as an incentive to war. god forbid that his sacred character should be profanely stretched, like the skin of john ziska, on a militia-drum, to arouse the martial ardor of the american people! the practice of washington, during the eight years of his administration, compared with that of the last eight years for which we have the returns, may explain his real opinions. his condemnation of the present wasteful system speaks to us from the following table.[ ] [ ] executive document no. , twenty-eighth congress, first session. +----------------------+----------------+---------------+ | years. | military | naval | | | establishment. | establishment.| +----------------------+----------------+---------------+ | - | $ , | $ | | | , , | ! | | | , , | | | | , , | , | | | , , | , | | | , , | , | | total, during eight |} ----------- | -------- | | years of washington, |} $ , , | $ , | | | | | | | $ , , | $ , , | | | , , | , , | | | , , | , , | | | , , | , , | | | , , | , , | | | , , | , , | | | , , | , , | | | , , | , , | | | | | | total, during eight |} ------------ | ----------- | | recent years, |} $ , , | $ , , | +----------------------+----------------+---------------+ thus the expenditures for the national armaments under the sanction of washington were less than _eleven million_ dollars, while during a recent similar period of eight years they amounted to upwards of _one hundred and sixty-nine millions_,--an increase of nearly _fifteen hundred per cent_! to him who quotes the precept of washington i commend the example. he must be strongly possessed by the martial mania who will not confess, that, in this age, when the whole world is at peace, and our national power is assured, _there is less need_ of these preparations than in an age convulsed with war, when our national power was little respected. the only semblance of argument in their favor is the increased wealth of the country; but the capacity to endure taxation is no criterion of its justice, or even of its expediency. another fallacy is also invoked, that _whatever is is right_. a barbarous practice is elevated above all those authorities by which these preparations are condemned. we are made to count principles as nothing, because not yet recognized by nations. but they are practically applied in the relations of individuals, towns, counties, and states in our union. _all these have disarmed._ it remains only that they should be extended to the grander sphere of nations. be it our duty to proclaim the principles, whatever the practice. through us let truth speak. * * * * * from the past and the present auspicious omens cheer us for the future. the terrible wars of the french revolution were the violent rending of the body preceding the exorcism of the fiend. since the morning stars first sang together, the world has not witnessed a peace so harmonious and enduring as that which now blesses the christian nations. great questions, fraught with strife, and in another age heralds of war, are now determined by mediation or arbitration. great political movements, which a few short years ago must have led to bloody encounter, are now conducted by peaceful discussion. literature, the press, and innumerable societies, all join in the work of inculcating good-will to man. the spirit of humanity pervades the best writings, whether the elevated philosophical inquiries of the "vestiges of the creation," the ingenious, but melancholy, moralizings of the "story of a feather," or the overflowing raillery of "punch." nor can the breathing thought and burning word of poet or orator have a higher inspiration. genius is never so promethean as when it bears the heavenly fire to the hearths of men. in the last age, dr. johnson uttered the detestable sentiment, that he liked "a good hater." the man of this age will say that he likes "a good lover." thus reversing the objects of regard, he follows a higher wisdom and a purer religion than the renowned moralist knew. he recognizes that peculiar heaven-born sentiment, the brotherhood of man, soon to become the decisive touchstone of human institutions. he confesses the power of love, destined to enter more and more into the concerns of life. and as love is more heavenly than hate, so must its influence redound more to the true glory of man and the approval of god. a christian poet--whose few verses bear him with unflagging wing in immortal flight--has joined this sentiment with prayer. thus he speaks, in words of uncommon pathos and power:-- "he prayeth well who loveth well both man and bird and beast. "he prayeth best who loveth best all things, both great and small; for the dear god who loveth us, he made and loveth all."[ ] [ ] coleridge, rime of the ancient mariner, part vii. the ancient law of hate is yielding to the law of love. it is seen in manifold labors of philanthropy and in missions of charity. it is seen in institutions for the insane, the blind, the deaf, the dumb, the poor, the outcast,--in generous efforts to relieve those who are in prison,--in public schools, opening the gates of knowledge to all the children of the land. it is seen in the diffusive amenities of social life, and in the increasing fellowship of nations; also in the rising opposition to slavery and to war. there are yet other special auguries of this great change, auspicating, in the natural progress of man, the abandonment of all international preparations for war. to these i allude briefly, but with a deep conviction of their significance. look at the past, and see how war itself is changed, so that its oldest "fire-worshipper" would hardly know it. at first nothing but savagery, with disgusting rites, whether in the north american indian with powhatan as chief, or the earlier assyrian with nebuchadnezzar as king, but yielding gradually to the influence of civilization. with the greeks it was less savage, but always barbarous,--also with rome always barbarous. too slowly christianity exerted a humanizing power. rabelais relates how the friar jean des entommeures clubbed twelve thousand and more enemies, "without mentioning women and children, which is understood always." but this was war, as seen by that great genius in his day. this can be no longer. women and children are safe now. the divine metamorphosis has begun. look again at the past, and observe the _change in dress_. down to a period quite recent the sword was the indispensable companion of the gentleman, wherever he appeared, whether in street or society; but he would be deemed madman or bully who should wear it now. at an earlier period the armor of complete steel was the habiliment of the knight. from the picturesque sketch by sir walter scott, in the "lay of the last minstrel," we learn the barbarous constraint of this custom. "ten of them were sheathed in steel, with belted sword, and spur on heel; they quitted not their harness bright, neither by day nor yet by night: they lay down to rest with corslet laced, pillowed on buckler cold and hard; they carved at the meal with gloves of steel, and they drank the red wine through the helmet barred." but all this is changed now. observe the _change in architecture and in domestic life_. places once chosen for castles or houses were savage, inaccessible retreats, where the massive structure was reared to repel attack and to enclose its inhabitants. even monasteries and churches were fortified, and girdled by towers, ramparts, and ditches,--while a child was stationed as watchman, to observe what passed at a distance, and announce the approach of an enemy. homes of peaceful citizens in towns were castellated, often without so much as an aperture for light near the ground, but with loopholes through which the shafts of the crossbow were aimed. the colored plates now so common, from mediæval illustrations, especially of froissart, exhibit these _belligerent armaments_, always so burdensome. from a letter of margaret paston, in the time of henry the sixth, of england, i draw supplementary testimony. addressing in dutiful phrase her "right worshipful husband," she asks him to procure for her "some crossbows, and wyndacs [grappling-irons] to bind them with, and quarrels [arrows with square heads]," also "two or three short pole-axes to keep within doors"; and she tells her absent lord of apparent preparations by a neighbor,--"great ordnance within the house," "bars to bar the door crosswise," and "wickets on every quarter of the house to shoot out at, both with bows and with hand-guns."[ ] savages could hardly live in greater distrust. let now the poet of chivalry describe another scene:-- "ten squires, ten yeomen, mail-clad men, waited the beck of the warders ten; thirty steeds, both fleet and wight, stood saddled in stable day and night, barbed with frontlet of steel, i trow, and with jedwood axe at saddle-bow; a hundred more fed free in stall: such was the custom of branksome hall." [ ] paston letters, cxiii. (lxxvii. vol. iii. p. .) this also is all changed now. the principles causing this change are not only active still, but increasing in activity; nor can they be confined to individuals. nations must soon declare them, and, abandoning martial habiliments and fortifications, enter upon peaceful, _unarmed life_. with shame let it be said, that they continue to live in the very relations of distrust towards neighbors which shock us in the knights of branksome hall, and in the house of margaret paston. they pillow themselves on "buckler cold and hard," while their highest anxiety and largest expenditure are for the accumulation of new munitions of war. the barbarism which individuals have renounced nations still cherish. so doing, they take counsel of the wild-boar in the fable, who whetted his tusks on a tree of the forest when no enemy was near, saying, that in time of peace he must prepare for war. has not the time come, when man, whom god created in his own image, and to whom he gave the heaven-directed countenance, shall cease to look down to the beast for an example of conduct? nay, let me not dishonor the beasts by the comparison. the superior animals, at least, prey not, like men, upon their own species. the kingly lion turns from his brother lion; the ferocious tiger will not raven upon his kindred tiger; the wild-boar of the forest does not glut his sharpened tusks upon a kindred boar. "sed jam serpentum major concordia: parcit cognatis maculis similis fera: quando leoni fortior eripuit vitam leo? quo nemore unquam exspiravit aper majoris dentibus apri? indica tigris agit rabida cum tigride _pacem perpetuam_."[ ] [ ] juvenal, sat. xv. - . to an early monarch of france just homage has been offered for effort in the cause of peace, particularly in abolishing the trial by battle. to another monarch of france, in our own day, descendant of st. louis, and lover of peace worthy of the illustrious lineage, louis philippe, belongs the honest fame of first from the throne publishing the truth that peace is endangered by preparations for war. "the sentiment, or rather the principle," he says, in reply to an address from the london peace convention in , "that in peace you must prepare for war, _is one of difficulty and danger; for while we keep armies on land to preserve peace, they are at the same time incentives and instruments of war_. he rejoiced in all efforts to preserve peace, for that was what all needed. he thought the time was coming when we should get rid entirely of war in all civilized countries." this time has been hailed by a generous voice from the army itself, by a marshal of france,--bugeaud, the governor of algiers,--who, at a public dinner in paris, gave as a toast these words of salutation to a new and approaching era of happiness: "to the pacific union of the great human family, by the association of individuals, nations, and races! to the annihilation of war! to the transformation of destructive armies into corps of industrious laborers, who will consecrate their lives to the cultivation and embellishment of the world!" be it our duty to speed this consummation! and may other soldiers emulate the pacific aspiration of this veteran chief, until _the trade of war_ ceases from the earth![ ] [ ] there was a moment when the aspiration of the french marshal seemed fulfilled even in france, if we may credit the early madame de lafayette, who, in the first sentence of her memoirs, announces perfect tranquillity, where "no other arms were known than instruments for the cultivation of the earth and for building, and the troops were employed on these things." part of their work was to divert the waters of the eure, so that the fountains at versailles should have a perpetual supply: but this was better than war.--madame de lafayette, _mémoires de la cour de france pour les années et _, p. . to william penn belongs the distinction, destined to brighten as men advance in virtue, of first in human history establishing the _law of love_ as a rule of conduct in the intercourse of nations. while recognizing the duty "to support power in reverence with the people, and to secure the people from the abuse of power,"[ ] as a great end of government, he declined the superfluous protection of arms against foreign force, and aimed to "reduce the savage nations by just and gentle manners to the love of civil society and the christian religion." his serene countenance, as he stands with his followers in what he called the sweet and clear air of pennsylvania, all unarmed, beneath the spreading elm, forming the great treaty of friendship with the untutored indians,--whose savage display fills the surrounding forest as far as the eye can reach,--not to wrest their lands by violence, but to obtain them by peaceful purchase,--is to my mind the proudest picture in the history of our country. "the great god," said the illustrious quaker, in words of sincerity and truth addressed to the sachems, "hath written his law in our hearts, by which we are taught and commanded to love and help and do good to one another. it is not our custom to use hostile weapons against our fellow-creatures, for which reason we come unarmed. our object is not to do injury, but to do good. we are now met on the broad pathway of good faith and good will, so that no advantage is to be taken on either side, but all is to be openness, brotherhood, and love, while all are to be treated as of the same flesh and blood."[ ] these are words of true greatness. "without any carnal weapons," says one of his companions, "we entered the land, and inhabited therein, as safe as if there had been thousands of garrisons." what a sublime attestation! "this little state," says oldmixon, "subsisted in the midst of six indian nations without so much as a militia for its defence." a great man worthy of the mantle of penn, the venerable philanthropist, clarkson, in his life of the founder, pictures the people of pennsylvania as armed, though without arms,--strong, though without strength,--safe, without the ordinary means of safety. according to him, the constable's staff was the only instrument of authority for the greater part of a century; and never, during the administration of penn, or that of his proper successors, was there a quarrel or a war.[ ] [ ] preface to penn's frame of government of the province of pennsylvania: hazard's register of pennsylvania, vol. i. p. . see also clarkson's memoirs of penn, vol. i. p. , philadelphia, . [ ] clarkson's memoirs of penn, vol. i. ch. . [ ] ibid., vol. ii. ch. . greater than the divinity that doth hedge a king is the divinity that encompasses the righteous man and the righteous people. the flowers of prosperity smiled in the footprints of william penn. his people were unmolested and happy, while (sad, but true contrast!) other colonies, acting upon the policy of the world, building forts, and showing themselves in arms, were harassed by perpetual alarm, and pierced by the sharp arrows of savage war. this pattern of a christian commonwealth never fails to arrest the admiration of all who contemplate its beauties. it drew an epigram of eulogy from the caustic pen of voltaire, and has been fondly painted by sympathetic historians. every ingenuous soul in our day offers willing tribute to those graces of justice and humanity, by the side of which contemporary life on this continent seems coarse and earthy. not to barren words can we confine ourselves in recognition of virtue. while we see the right, and approve it too, we must dare to pursue it. now, in this age of civilization, surrounded by christian nations, it is easy to follow the successful example of william penn encompassed by savages. recognizing those two transcendent ordinances of god, the _law of right_ and the _law of love_,--twin suns which illumine the moral universe,--why not aspire to the true glory, and, what is higher than glory, the great good, of taking the lead in _the disarming of the nations_? let us abandon the system of preparations for war in time of peace, as irrational, unchristian, vainly prodigal of expense, and having a direct tendency to excite the evil against which it professes to guard. let the enormous means thus released from iron hands be devoted to labors of beneficence. our battlements shall be schools, hospitals, colleges, and churches; our arsenals shall be libraries; our navy shall be peaceful ships, on errands of perpetual commerce; our army shall be the teachers of youth and the ministers of religion. this is the cheap defence of nations. in such intrenchments what christian soul can be touched with fear? angels of the lord will throw over the land an invisible, but impenetrable panoply:-- "or if virtue feeble were, heaven itself would stoop to her."[ ] [ ] these are the concluding words of that most exquisite creation of early genius, the "comus." beyond their intrinsic value, they have authority from the circumstance that they were adopted by milton as a motto, and inscribed by him in an album at geneva, while on his foreign travels. this album is now in my hands. the truth thus embalmed by the grandest poet of modern times is also illustrated in familiar words by the most graceful poet of antiquity:-- "integer vitæ scelerisque purus non eget mauris jaculis, neque arcu, nec venenatis gravida sagittis, fusce, pharetra." hor., _carm._ i. xxii. - . dryden pictures the same in some of his most magical lines:-- "a milk-white hind, immortal and unchanged, fed on the lawns, and in the forest ranged; without unspotted, innocent within, _she feared no danger, for she knew no sin_." _the hind and the panther_, part i. - . at the thought of such a change, the imagination loses itself in vain effort to follow the multitudinous streams of happiness which gush forth from a thousand hills. then shall the naked be clothed and the hungry fed; institutions of science and learning shall crown every hill-top; hospitals for the sick, and other retreats for the unfortunate children of the world, for all who suffer in any way, in mind, body, or estate, shall nestle in every valley; while the spires of new churches leap exulting to the skies. the whole land shall testify to the change. art shall confess it in the new inspiration of the canvas and the marble. the harp of the poet shall proclaim it in a loftier rhyme. above all, the heart of man shall bear witness to it, in the elevation of his sentiments, in the expansion of his affections, in his devotion to the highest truth, in his appreciation of true greatness. the eagle of our country, without the terror of his beak, and dropping the forceful thunderbolt from his pounces, shall soar, with the olive of peace, into untried realms of ether, nearer to the sun. * * * * * i pause to review the field over which we have passed. we have beheld war, sanctioned by international law as a mode of determining _justice_ between nations, elevated into an _established custom_, defined and guarded by a complex code known as the laws of war; we have detected its origin in an appeal, not to the moral and intellectual part of man's nature, in which alone is justice, but to that low part which he has in common with the beast; we have contemplated its infinite miseries to the human race; we have weighed its sufficiency as a mode of determining justice between nations, and found that it is a rude invocation to force, or a gigantic game of chance, in which god's children are profanely treated as a pack of cards, while, in unnatural wickedness, it is justly likened to the monstrous and impious custom of trial by battle, which disgraced the dark ages,--thus showing, that, in this day of boastful civilization, justice between nations is determined by the same rules of barbarous, brutal violence which once controlled the relations between individuals. we have next considered the various prejudices by which war is sustained, founded on a false belief in its necessity,--the practice of nations, past and present,--the infidelity of the christian church,--a mistaken sentiment of honor,--an exaggerated idea of the duties of patriotism,--and finally, that monster prejudice which draws its vampire life from the vast preparations for war in time of peace;--especially dwelling, at this stage, upon the thriftless, irrational, and unchristian character of these preparations,--hailing also the auguries of their overthrow,--and catching a vision of the surpassing good that will be achieved, when the boundless means thus barbarously employed are dedicated to works of peace, opening the serene path to that righteousness which exalteth a nation. * * * * * and now, if it be asked why, in considering the true grandeur of nations, i dwell thus singly and exclusively on war, it is because war is utterly and irreconcilably inconsistent with true greatness. thus far, man has worshipped in military glory a phantom idol, compared with which the colossal images of ancient babylon or modern hindostan are but toys; and we, in this favored land of freedom, in this blessed day of light, are among the idolaters. the heaven-descended injunction, _know thyself_, still speaks to an unheeding world from the far-off letters of gold at delphi: _know thyself; know that the moral is the noblest part of man_, transcending far that which is the seat of passion, strife, and war,--nobler than the intellect itself. and the human heart, in its untutored, spontaneous homage to the virtues of peace, declares the same truth,--admonishing the military idolater that it is not the bloody combats, even of bravest chiefs, even of gods themselves, as they echo from the resounding lines of the great poet of war, which receive the warmest admiration, but those two scenes where are painted the gentle, unwarlike affections of our nature, the parting of hector from andromache, and the supplication of priam. in the definitive election of these peaceful pictures, the soul of man, inspired by a better wisdom than that of books, and drawn unconsciously by the heavenly attraction of what is truly great, acknowledges, in touching instances, the vanity of military glory. the beatitudes of christ, which shrink from saying, "blessed are the war-makers," inculcate the same lesson. reason affirms and repeats what the heart has prompted and christianity proclaimed. suppose war decided by _force_, where is the glory? suppose it decided by _chance_, where is the glory? surely, in other ways true greatness lies. nor is it difficult to tell where. true greatness consists in imitating, as nearly as possible for finite man, the perfections of an infinite creator,--above all, in cultivating those highest perfections, justice and love: justice, which, like that of st. louis, does not swerve to the right hand or to the left; love, which, like that of william penn, regards all mankind as of kin. "god is angry," says plato, "when any one censures a man like himself, _or praises a man of an opposite character_: and the godlike man is the good man."[ ] again, in another of those lovely dialogues precious with immortal truth: "nothing resembles god more than that man among us who has attained to the highest degree of justice."[ ] the true greatness of nations is in those qualities which constitute the true greatness of the individual. it is not in extent of territory, or vastness of population, or accumulation of wealth,--not in fortifications, or armies, or navies,--not in the sulphurous blaze of battle,--not in golgothas, though covered by monuments that kiss the clouds; for all these are creatures and representatives of those qualities in our nature which are unlike anything in god's nature. nor is it in triumphs of the intellect alone,--in literature, learning, science, or art. the polished greeks, our masters in the delights of art, and the commanding romans, overawing the earth with their power, were little more than splendid savages. and the age of louis the fourteenth, of france, spanning so long a period of ordinary worldly magnificence, thronged by marshals bending under military laurels, enlivened by the unsurpassed comedy of molière, dignified by the tragic genius of corneille, illumined by the splendors of bossuet, is degraded by immoralities that cannot be mentioned without a blush, by a heartlessness in comparison with which the ice of nova zembla is warm, and by a succession of deeds of injustice not to be washed out by the tears of all the recording angels of heaven. [ ] minos, § . [ ] theætetus, § . the true greatness of a nation cannot be in triumphs of the intellect alone. literature and art may enlarge the sphere of its influence; they may adorn it; but in their nature they are but accessaries. _the true grandeur of humanity is in moral elevation, sustained, enlightened, and decorated by the intellect of man._ the surest tokens of this grandeur in a nation are that christian beneficence which diffuses the greatest happiness among all, and that passionless, godlike justice which controls the relations of the nation to other nations, and to all the people committed to its charge. but war crushes with bloody heel all beneficence, all happiness, all justice, all that is godlike in man,--suspending every commandment of the decalogue, setting at naught every principle of the gospel, and silencing all law, human as well as divine, except only that impious code of its own, the _laws of war_. if in its dismal annals there is any cheerful passage, be assured it is not inspired by a martial fury. let it not be forgotten, let it be ever borne in mind, as you ponder this theme, that the virtues which shed their charm over its horrors are all borrowed of peace,--that they are emanations from the spirit of love, which is so strong in the heart of man that it survives the rudest assault. the flowers of gentleness, kindliness, fidelity, humanity, which flourish unregarded in the rich meadows of peace, receive unwonted admiration when we discern them in war,--like violets shedding their perfume on the perilous edge of the precipice, beyond the smiling borders of civilization. god be praised for all the examples of magnanimous virtue which he has vouchsafed to mankind! god be praised, that the roman emperor, about to start on a distant expedition of war, encompassed by squadrons of cavalry, and by golden eagles swaying in the wind, stooped from his saddle to hear the prayer of a humble widow, demanding justice for the death of her son![ ] god be praised, that sidney, on the field of battle, gave with dying hand the cup of cold water to the dying soldier! that single act of self-forgetful sacrifice has consecrated the deadly field of zutphen, far, oh, far beyond its battle; it has consecrated thy name, gallant sidney, beyond any feat of thy sword, beyond any triumph of thy pen! but there are lowly suppliants in other places than the camp; there are hands outstretched elsewhere than on fields of blood. everywhere is opportunity for deeds of like charity. know well that these are not the product of war. they do not spring from enmity, hatred, and strife, but from those benign sentiments whose natural and ripened fruit of joy and blessing are found only in peace. if at any time they appear in the soldier, it is less _because_ than _notwithstanding_ he is the hireling of battle. let me not be told, then, of the virtues of war. let not the acts of generosity and sacrifice sometimes blossoming on its fields be invoked in its defence. from such a giant root of bitterness no true good can spring. the poisonous tree, in oriental imagery, though watered by nectar and covered with roses, produces only the fruit of death. [ ] according to the legends of the catholic church, this most admired instance of justice opened to trajan, although a heathen, the gates of salvation. dante found the scene and the "visible speech" of the widow and emperor storied on the walls of purgatory, and has transmitted them in a passage which commends itself hardly less than any in the divine poem.--see _purgatorio_, canto x. casting our eyes over the history of nations, with horror we discern the succession of murderous slaughters by which their progress is marked. even as the hunter follows the wild beast to his lair by the drops of blood on the ground, so we follow man, faint, weary, staggering with wounds, through the black forest of the past, which he has reddened with his gore. oh, let it not be in the future ages as in those we now contemplate! let the grandeur of man be discerned, not in bloody victory or ravenous conquest, but in the blessings he has secured, in the good he has accomplished, in the triumphs of justice and beneficence, in the establishment of perpetual peace! as ocean washes every shore, and with all-embracing arms clasps every land, while on its heaving bosom it bears the products of various climes, so peace surrounds, protects, and upholds all other blessings. without it, commerce is vain, the ardor of industry is restrained, justice is arrested, happiness is blasted, virtue sickens and dies. peace, too, has its own peculiar victories, in comparison with which marathon and bannockburn and bunker hill, fields sacred in the history of human freedom, lose their lustre. our own washington rises to a truly heavenly stature, not when we follow him through the ice of the delaware to the capture of trenton, not when we behold him victorious over cornwallis at yorktown, but when we regard him, in noble deference to justice, refusing the kingly crown which a faithless soldiery proffered, and at a later day upholding the peaceful neutrality of the country, while he met unmoved the clamor of the people wickedly crying for war. what glory of battle in england's annals will not fade by the side of that great act of justice, when her parliament, at a cost of one hundred million dollars, gave freedom to eight hundred thousand slaves? and when the day shall come (may these eyes be gladdened by its beams!) that shall witness an act of larger justice still,--the peaceful emancipation of three million fellow-men "guilty of a skin not colored as our own," now, in this land of jubilant freedom, bound in gloomy bondage,--then will there be a victory by the side of which that of bunker hill will be as the farthing candle held up to the sun. that victory will need no monument of stone. it will be written on the grateful hearts of countless multitudes that shall proclaim it to the latest generation. it will be one of the famed landmarks of civilization,--or, better still, a link in the golden chain by which humanity connects itself with the throne of god. as man is higher than the beasts of the field, as the angels are higher than man, as christ is higher than mars, as he that ruleth his spirit is higher than he that taketh a city,--so are the victories of peace higher than the victories of war. * * * * * far be from us, fellow-citizens, on this festival, the pride of national victory, and the illusion of national freedom, in which we are too prone to indulge! none of you make rude boast of individual prosperity or prowess. and here i end as i began. our country cannot do what an individual cannot do. therefore it must not vaunt or be puffed up. rather bend to unperformed duties. independence is not all. we have but half done, when we have made ourselves free. the scornful taunt wrung from bitter experience of the great revolution in france must not be levelled at us: "they wish to be _free_, but know not how to be _just_."[ ] nor is priceless freedom an end in itself, but rather the means of justice and beneficence, where alone is enduring concord, with that attendant happiness which is the final end and aim of nations, as of every human heart. it is not enough to be free. there must be peace which cannot fail, and other nations must share the great possession. for this good must we labor, bearing ever in mind two special objects, complements of each other: first, the arbitrament of war must end; and, secondly, disarmament must begin. with this ending and this beginning the great gates of the future will be opened, and the guardian virtues will assert a new empire. alas! until this is done, national honor and national glory will yet longer flaunt in blood, and there can be no true grandeur of nations. [ ] "_ils veulent être libres, et ne savent pas être justes_," was the famous exclamation of sieyès. to this great work let me summon you. that future, which filled the lofty vision of sages and bards in greece and rome, which was foretold by prophets and heralded by evangelists, when man, in happy isles, or in a new paradise, shall confess the loveliness of peace, may you secure, if not for yourselves, at least for your children! _believe_ that you can do it, and you _can_ do it. the true golden age is before, not behind. if man has once been driven from paradise, while an angel with flaming sword forbade his return, there is another paradise, even on earth, which he may make for himself, by the cultivation of knowledge, religion, and the kindly virtues of life,--where the confusion of tongues shall be dissolved in the union of hearts, and joyous nature, borrowing prolific charms from prevailing harmony, shall spread her lap with unimagined bounty, and there shall be perpetual jocund spring, and sweet strains borne on "the odoriferous wing of gentle gales," through valleys of delight more pleasant than the vale of tempe, richer than the garden of the hesperides, with no dragon to guard its golden fruit. is it said that the age does not demand this work? the robber conqueror of the past, from fiery sepulchre, demands it; the precious blood of millions unjustly shed in war, crying from the ground, demands it; the heart of the good man demands it; the conscience, even of the soldier, whispers, "peace!" there are considerations springing from our situation and condition which fervently invite us to take the lead. here should join the patriotic ardor of the land, the ambition of the statesman, the effort of the scholar, the pervasive influence of the press, the mild persuasion of the sanctuary, the early teaching of the school. here, in ampler ether and diviner air, are untried fields for exalted triumph, more truly worthy the american name than any snatched from rivers of blood. war is known as the _last reason of kings_. let it be no reason of our republic. let us renounce and throw off forever the yoke of a tyranny most oppressive of all in the world's annals. as those standing on the mountain-top first discern the coming beams of morning, so may we, from the vantage-ground of liberal institutions, first recognize the ascending sun of a new era! lift high the gates, and let the king of glory in,--the king of true glory,--of peace! i catch the last words of music from the lips of innocence and beauty,[ ]-- "and let the whole earth be filled with his glory!" [ ] the services of the choir on this occasion were performed by the youthful daughters of the public schools of boston. it is a beautiful picture in grecian story, that there was at least one spot, the small island of delos, dedicated to the gods, and kept at all times sacred from war. no hostile foot ever pressed this kindly soil, and citizens of all countries met here, in common worship, beneath the ægis of inviolable peace. so let us dedicate our beloved country; and may the blessed consecration be felt in all its parts, everywhere throughout its ample domain! the temple of honor shall be enclosed by the temple of concord, that it may never more be entered through any portal of war; the horn of abundance shall overflow at its gates; the angel of religion shall be the guide over its steps of flashing adamant; while within its happy courts, purged of violence and wrong, justice, returned to the earth from long exile in the skies, with equal scales for nations as for men, shall rear her serene and majestic front; and by her side, greatest of all, charity, sublime in meekness, hoping all and enduring all, shall divinely temper every righteous decree, and with words of infinite cheer inspire to those deeds that cannot vanish away. and the future chief of the republic, destined to uphold the glories of a new era, unspotted by human blood, shall be first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen. while seeking these fruitful glories for ourselves, let us strive for their extension to other lands. let the bugles sound the _truce of god_ to the whole world forever. not to one people, but to every people, let the glad tidings go. the selfish boast of the spartan women, that they never saw the smoke of an enemy's camp, must become the universal chorus of mankind, while the iron belt of war, now encompassing the globe, is exchanged for the golden cestus of peace, clothing all with celestial beauty. history dwells with fondness on the reverent homage bestowed by massacring soldiers upon the spot occupied by the sepulchre of the lord. vain man! why confine regard to a few feet of sacred mould? the whole earth is the sepulchre of the lord; nor can any righteous man profane any part thereof. confessing this truth, let us now, on this sabbath of the nation, lay a new and living stone in the grand temple of universal peace, whose dome shall be lofty as the firmament of heaven, broad and comprehensive as earth itself. tribute of friendship: the late joseph story. article from the boston daily advertiser, september , . i have just returned from the funeral of this great and good man. under that roof where i have so often seen him in health, buoyant with life, exuberant in kindness, happy in family and friends, i stood by his mortal remains sunk in eternal rest, and gazed upon those well-loved features from which even the icy touch of death had not effaced all the living beauty. the eye was quenched, and the glow of life extinguished; but the noble brow seemed still to shelter, as under a marble dome, the spirit that had fled. and is he dead, i asked myself,--whose face was never turned to me, except in affection,--who has filled the civilized world with his name, and drawn to his country the homage of foreign nations,--who was of activity and labor that knew no rest,--who was connected with so many circles by duties of such various kinds, by official ties, by sympathy, by friendship and love,--who, according to the beautiful expression of wilberforce, "touched life at so many points,"--has he, indeed, passed away? upon the small plate on the coffin was inscribed, joseph story, _died september th, , aged years_. these few words might apply to the lowly citizen, as to the illustrious judge. thus is the coffin-plate a register of the equality of men. at his well-known house we joined in religious worship. the rev. dr. walker, present head of the university, in earnest prayer, commended his soul to god who gave it, and invoked upon family and friends a consecration of their afflictive bereavement. from this service we followed, in mournful procession, to the resting-place which he had selected for himself and his family, amidst the beautiful groves of mount auburn. as the procession filed into the cemetery i was moved by the sight of the numerous pupils of the law school, with uncovered heads and countenances of sorrow, ranged on each side of the road within the gate, testifying by silent and unexpected homage their last reverence to their departed teacher. around the grave, as he was laid in the embrace of the mother earth, were gathered all in our community most distinguished in law, learning, literature, station,--judges of our courts, professors of the university, surviving classmates, and a thick cluster of friends. he was placed among the children taken from him in early life. _of such is the kingdom of heaven_ were the words he had inscribed over their names on the simple marble which now commemorates alike the children and their father. nor is there a child in heaven of more childlike innocence and purity than he, who, full of years and honors, has gone to mingle with these children. there is another sentence, inscribed by him on this family stone, which speaks to us now with a voice of consolation. _sorrow not as those without hope_ were the words which brought solace to him in his bereavements. from his bed beneath he seems to whisper thus among his mourning family and friends,--most especially to her, the chosen partner of his life, from whom so much of human comfort is apparently removed. he is indeed gone; but we shall see him once more forever. with this blessed trust, we may find happiness in dwelling upon his virtues and fame on earth, till the great consoler, time, shall come with healing in his wings. from the grave of the judge i walked a few short steps to that of his classmate and friend, the beloved channing, who died less than three years ago, aged sixty-two. thus these companions in early studies--each afterwards foremost in important duties, pursuing divergent paths, yet always drawn towards each other by the attractions of mutual friendship--again meet and lie down together in the same sweet earth, in the shadow of kindred trees, through which the same birds sing a perpetual requiem. the afternoon was of unusual brilliancy, and the full-orbed sun gilded with mellow light the funereal stones through which i wound my way, as i sought the grave of another friend, the first colleague of the departed judge in the duties of the law school,--professor ashmun. after a life crowded with usefulness, he laid down the burden of disease which he had long borne, at the early age of thirty-three. i remember listening, in , to the flowing discourse which story pronounced, in the college chapel, over the departed; nor can i forget his deep emotion, as we stood together at the foot of the grave, while the earth fell, dust to dust, upon the coffin of his friend. wandering through this silent city of the dead, i called to mind those words of beaumont on the tombs in westminster abbey:-- "here's an acre sown indeed with the richest, royal'st seed that the earth did e'er suck in since the first man died for sin; here are sands, ignoble things dropt from the ruined sides of kings." a richer royalty is sown at mount auburn. the kings that slumber there were anointed by more than earthly hand. turning again to the newest grave, i found no one but the humble gardeners, smoothing the sod over the fresh earth. it was late in the afternoon, and the upper branches of the stately trees that wave over the sacred spot, after glistening for a while in the golden rays of the setting sun, were left in the gloom which had already settled on the grass beneath. hurrying away, i reached the gate as the porter's curfew was tolling to forgetful musers like myself the warning to leave. moving away from the consecrated field, i thought of the pilgrims that would come from afar, through successions of generations, to look upon the last home of the great jurist. from all parts of our own country, from all the lands where law is taught as a science, and where justice prevails, they will come to seek the grave of their master. let us guard, then, this precious dust. let us be happy, that, though his works and his example belong to the world, his remains are placed in our peculiar care. to us, also, who saw him face to face, in the performance of his various duties, and who sustain a loss so irreparable, is the melancholy pleasure of dwelling with household affection upon his surpassing excellences. his death makes a chasm which i shrink from contemplating. he was the senior judge of the highest court of the country, an active professor of law, and a fellow in the corporation of harvard university. he was in himself a whole triumvirate; and these three distinguished posts, now vacant, will be filled, in all probability, each by a distinct successor. it is, however, as the jurist that he is to take his place in the history of the world, high in the same firmament where beam the mild glories of tribonian, cujas, hale, and mansfield. it was his fortune, unlike that of many cultivating the law with signal success on the european continent, to be called as a judge practically to administer and apply it in the business of life. it thus became to him not merely a science, whose depths and intricacies he explored in his closet, but a great and godlike instrument, to be employed in that grandest of earthly functions, the determination of justice among men. while the duties of the magistrate were thus illumined by the studies of the jurist, the latter were tempered to a finer edge by the experience of the bench. in the attempt to estimate his character as a jurist, he may be regarded in _three_ different aspects,--as judge, author, and teacher of jurisprudence, exercising in each a peculiar influence. his lot is rare who achieves fame in any single department of human action; rarer still is his who becomes foremost in many. the first impression is of astonishment, that a single mind, in a single life, should accomplish so much. omitting the incalculable labors, of which there is no trace, except in the knowledge, happiness, and justice they helped to secure, the bare amount of his written and printed works is enormous beyond precedent in the annals of the common law. his written judgments on his circuit, and his various commentaries, occupy _twenty-seven_ volumes, while his judgments in the supreme court of the united states form an important part of no less than _thirty-four_ volumes more. the vast professional labors of coke and eldon, which seem to clothe the walls of our libraries, must yield to his in extent. he is the lope de vega, or the walter scott, of the common law. we are struck next by the universality of his juridical attainments. it was said by dryden of a great lawyer in english history,--heneage finch,-- "our laws, that did a boundless ocean seem, were coasted all and fathomed all by him." but the boundless ocean of that age was a "closed sea," compared with that on which the adventurer embarks to-day. in howell's familiar letters there is a saying of only a few short years before, that the books of the common law might all be carried in a wheelbarrow. to coast such an ocean were a less task than a moiety of his labors whom we now mourn. called to administer all the different branches of law, kept separate in england, he showed a mastery of all. his was universal empire; and wherever he set his foot, in the various realms of jurisprudence, it was as a sovereign,--whether in the ancient and subtile learning of real law,--the criminal law,--the niceties of special pleading,--the more refined doctrines of contracts,--the more rational system of commercial and maritime law,--the peculiar and interesting principles and practice of admiralty and prize,--the immense range of chancery,--the modern, but important, jurisdiction over patents,--or that higher region, the great themes of public and constitutional law. in each of these branches there are judgments by him which will not yield in value to those of any other judge in england or the united states, even though his studies and duties may have been directed to only one particular department. his judgments are remarkable for exhaustive treatment. the common law, as every student knows to his cost, is found only in innumerable "sand-grains" of authority. in his learned expositions not one of these is overlooked, while all are combined with care, and the golden cord of reason is woven across the ample tissue. there is in them, besides, a clearness which flings over the subject a perfect day,--a severe logic, which, by its closeness and precision, makes us feel the truth of the saying of leibnitz, that nothing approaches so near the certainty of geometry as the reasoning of the law,--a careful attention to the discussions at the bar, that nothing should be lost,--with a copious and persuasive eloquence investing the whole. many of his judgments will be landmarks in the law: i know of no single judge who has set up so many. i think it may be said, without fear of question, that the reports show a larger number of judicial opinions from story, which posterity will not willingly let die, than from any other judge in the history of english or american law. there is much of his character as a judge which cannot be preserved, except in the faithful memory of those whose happiness it was to enjoy his judicial presence. i refer particularly to his mode of conducting business. even the passing stranger bore witness to his suavity of manner on the bench, while all practitioners in the courts where he presided so long attest the marvellous quickness with which he seized habitually the points of a case, often anticipating the slower movements of counsel, and leaping, or, i might almost say, flying, to the proper conclusion. napoleon's perception, at the head of an army, was not more rapid. nor can i forget the scrupulous care with which he assigned reasons for every portion of his opinions, showing that it was not _he_ who spoke with the voice of authority, but the _law_, whose organ he was. in the history of the english bench there are but two names with combined eminence as judge and author,--coke and hale,--unless, indeed, the "ordinances in chancery," from the verulamian pen, should entitle lord bacon to this distinction, and the judgments of lord brougham should vindicate the same for him. blackstone's character as judge is lost in the fame of the commentaries. to story belongs this double glory. early in life he compiled an important professional work; but it was only at a comparatively recent period, after his mind had been disciplined by the labors of the bench, that he prepared those elaborate commentaries which have made his name a familiar word in foreign countries. they who knew him best observed the lively interest which he took in this extension of his renown. and most justly; for the voice of distant foreign nations comes as from a living posterity. his works have been reviewed with praise in the journals of england, scotland, ireland, france, and germany. they are cited as authorities in all the courts of westminster hall; and one of the ablest and most learned jurists of the age, whose honorable career at the bar has opened to him the peerage,--lord campbell,--in the course of debate in the house of lords, accorded to their author an exalted place, saying that he "had a greater reputation as a legal writer than any author england could boast since the days of blackstone."[ ] [ ] hansard, lxviii. . to complete this hasty survey, i should allude to his excellences as a teacher of law, that other relation which he sustained to jurisprudence. the numerous pupils reared at his feet, and now scattered throughout the country, diffusing, in their different circles, the light obtained at cambridge, as they hear that their beloved master has fallen, will each feel that he has lost a friend. he had the faculty, rare as it is exquisite, of interesting the young, and winning their affections. i have often seen him surrounded by a group of youths,--the ancient romans might have aptly called it a _corona_,--all intent upon his earnest conversation, and freely interrogating him on matters of interest. in his lectures, and other forms of instruction, he was prodigal of explanation and illustration; his manner, according to the classical image of zeno, was like the open palm, never like the clenched fist. his learning was always overflowing, as from the horn of abundance. he was earnest and unrelaxing in effort, patient and gentle, while he listened with inspiring attention to all that the pupil said. like chaucer's clerk, "and gladly wolde he lerne, and gladly teche." above all, he was a living example of love for the law,--supposed by many to be unlovely and repulsive,--which seemed to grow warmer under the snows of accumulating winters; and such an example could not fail, with magnetic power, to touch the hearts of the young. nor should i forget the lofty standard of professional morals which he inculcated, filling his discourse with the charm of goodness. under such auspices, and those of his learned associate, professor greenleaf, large classes of students, larger than any other in america, or in england, were annually gathered in cambridge. the law school became the glory of the university. he was proud of his character as professor. in his earlier works he is called on the title-page "dane professor of law." it was only on the suggestion of the english publisher that he was induced to append the other title, "one of the justices of the supreme court of the united states." he looked forward with peculiar satisfaction to the time which seemed at hand, when he should lay down the honors and cares of the bench, and devote himself singly to the duties of his chair. i have merely glanced at him in his three several relations to jurisprudence. great in each, it is on this unprecedented combination that his peculiar fame will be reared, as upon an immortal tripod. in what i have written, i do not think i am biased by partialities of private friendship. i have endeavored to regard him as posterity will regard him, as all must regard him now who fully know him in his works. imagine for one moment the irreparable loss, if all that he has done were blotted out forever. as i think of the incalculable facilities afforded by his labors, i cannot but say with racine, when speaking of descartes, "_nous courons; mais, sans lui, nous ne marcherions pas._" besides, it is he who has inspired in many foreign bosoms, reluctant to perceive good in our country, a sincere homage to the american name. he has turned the stream refluent upon the ancient fountains of westminster hall, and, stranger still, has forced the waters above their sources, up the unaccustomed heights of countries alien to the common law. it is he also who has directed, from the copious well-springs of roman law, and from the fresher currents of modern continental law, a pure and grateful stream to enrich and fertilize our domestic jurisprudence. in his judgments, his books, and his teachings, he drew always from other systems to illustrate the common law. the mind naturally seeks to compare him with eminent jurists, servants of themis, who share with him the wide spaces of fame. in genius for the law, in the exceeding usefulness of his career, in the blended character of judge and author, he cannot yield to our time-honored master, lord coke; in suavity of manner, and in silver-tongued eloquence, he may compare with lord mansfield, while in depth, accuracy, and variety of juridical learning he surpassed him far; if he yields to lord stowell in elegance of diction, he exceeds even his excellence in curious exploration of the foundations of that jurisdiction which they administered in common, and in the development of those great principles of public law whose just determination helps to preserve the peace of nations; and even in the peculiar field illustrated by the long career of eldon, we find him a familiar worker, with eldon's profusion of learning, and without the perplexity of his doubts. there are many who regard the judicial character of the late chief justice marshall as unapproachable. i revere his name, and have read his judgments, which seem like "pure reason," with admiration and gratitude; but i cannot disguise that even these noble memorials must yield in juridical character, learning, acuteness, fervor, variety of topics, as they are far inferior in amount, to those of our friend. there is still spared to us a renowned judge, at this moment the unquestioned living head of american jurisprudence, with no rival near the throne,--chancellor kent,--whose judgments and works always inspired the warmest eulogy of the departed, and whose character as a jurist furnishes the fittest parallel to his own in the annals of our law. it seems idle to weave further these vain comparisons, particularly to invoke the living. but busy fancy revives the past, and persons and scenes renew themselves in my memory. i call to mind the recent chancellor of england, the model of a clear, grave, learned, and conscientious magistrate,--lord cottenham. i see again the ornaments of westminster hall, on the bench and at the bar, where sits denman, in manner, conduct, and character "every inch" the judge,--where pleaded the consummate lawyer, follett, whose voice is now hushed in the grave; their judgments, their arguments, their conversation i cannot forget; but thinking of these, i feel new pride in the great magistrate, the just judge, the consummate lawyer whom we lament. it has been my fortune to know the chief jurists of our time, in the classical countries of jurisprudence, france and germany. i remember well the pointed and effective style of dupin, in one of his masterly arguments before the highest court of france; i recall the pleasant converse of pardessus--to whom commercial and maritime law is under a larger debt, perhaps, than to any other mind--while he descanted on his favorite theme; i wander in fancy to the gentle presence of him with flowing silver locks who was so dear to germany,--thibaut, the expounder of roman law, and the earnest and successful advocate of a just scheme for the reduction of the unwritten law to the certainty of a written text; from heidelberg i pass to berlin, where i listen to the grave lecture and mingle in the social circle of savigny, so stately in person and peculiar in countenance, whom all the continent of europe delights to honor; but my heart and my judgment, untravelled, fondly turn with new love and admiration to my cambridge teacher and friend. jurisprudence has many arrows in her quiver, but where is one to compare with that which is now spent in the earth? the fame of the jurist is enhanced by various attainments superinduced upon learning in the law. his "miscellaneous writings" show a thoughtful mind, imbued with elegant literature, warm with kindly sentiments, commanding a style of rich and varied eloquence. many passages from these have become commonplaces of our schools. in early life he yielded to the fascinations of the poetic muse; and here the great lawyer may find companionship with selden, who is introduced by suckling into the "session of the poets" as "hard by the chair,"--with blackstone, whose "farewell to his muse" shows his fondness for poetic pastures, even while his eye was directed to the heights of the law,--and also with mansfield, whom pope has lamented in familiar words, "how sweet an ovid murray! was our boast." i have now before me, in his own handwriting, some verses written by him in , entitled, "advice to a young lawyer." as they cannot fail to be read with interest, i introduce them here. "whene'er you speak, remember every cause stands not on eloquence, but stands on laws; pregnant in matter, in expression brief, let every sentence stand with bold relief; on trifling points nor time nor talents waste, a sad offence to learning and to taste; nor deal with pompous phrase, nor e'er suppose poetic flights belong to reasoning prose. loose declamation may deceive the crowd, and seem more striking as it grows more loud; but sober sense rejects it with disdain, as naught but empty noise, and weak as vain. the froth of words, the schoolboy's vain parade of books and cases (all his stock in trade). the pert conceits, the cunning tricks and play of low attorneys, strung in long array, the unseemly jest, the petulant reply, that chatters on, and cares not how nor why, studious, avoid: unworthy themes to scan, they sink the speaker and disgrace the man; like the false lights by flying shadows cast, scarce seen when present, and forgot when past. "begin with dignity; expound with grace each ground of reasoning in its time and place; let order reign throughout; each topic touch, nor urge its power too little or too much; give each strong thought its most attractive view, in diction clear, and yet severely true; and as the arguments in splendor grow, let each reflect its light on all below. when to the close arrived, make no delays by petty flourishes or verbal plays, but sum the whole in one deep, solemn strain, like a strong current hastening to the main." but the jurist, rich with the spoils of time, the exalted magistrate, the orator, the writer, all vanish when i think of the friend. much as the world may admire his memory, all who knew him will love it more. who can forget his bounding step, his contagious laugh, his exhilarating voice, his beaming smile, his countenance that shone like a benediction? what pen can describe these? what canvas or marble can portray them? he was always the friend of the young, who never tired in listening to his mellifluous discourse. nor did they ever leave his presence without a warmer glow of virtue, a more inspiring love of knowledge, and more generous impulses of action. i remember him in my childhood; but i first knew him after he came to cambridge as professor, while i was yet an undergraduate, and now recall freshly, as if the words were of yesterday, the eloquence and animation with which at that time he enforced upon a youthful circle the beautiful truth, _that no man stands in the way of another_. the world is wide enough for all, he said, and no success which may crown our neighbor can affect our own career. in this spirit he ran his race on earth, without jealousy, without envy,--nay, more, overflowing with appreciation and praise of labors which compared humbly with his own. in conversation he dwelt with fervor upon all the topics which interest man,--not only upon law, but upon literature, history, human character, the affairs of every day,--above all, upon the great duties of life, the relations of men to each other, to country, to god. high in his mind, above all human opinions and practices, were the everlasting rules of _right_; nor did he ever rise to truer eloquence than when condemning, as i have more than once heard him recently, that evil sentiment, "our country, _right or wrong_" which, in whatsoever form of language it may disguise itself, assails the very foundations of justice and virtue. he was happy in life, happy also in death. it was his hope, expressed in health, that he should not be allowed to linger superfluous on the stage, nor waste under the slow progress of disease. he was always ready to meet his god. his wishes were answered. two days before his last illness he was in court, and delivered an elaborate judgment on a complicated case in equity. since his death another judgment in a case already argued before him has been found among his papers, ready to be pronounced. i saw him for a single moment on the evening preceding his illness. it was an accidental meeting away from his own house,--the last time that the open air fanned his cheeks. his words of familiar, household greeting still linger in my ears, like an enchanted melody. the morning sun saw him on the bed from which he never rose. thus closed, after an illness of eight days, in the bosom of his family, without pain, surrounded by friends, a life which, through various vicissitudes of disease, had been spared beyond the grand climacteric, that cape of storms in the sea of human existence. "multis ille bonis flebilis occidit, nulli flebilior quam mihi." he is gone, and we shall see him no more on earth, except in his works, and the memory of his virtues. the scales of justice, which he so long held, have fallen from his hand. the untiring pen of the author rests at last. the voice of the teacher is mute. the fountain, which was ever flowing and ever full, is stopped. the lips, on which the bees of hybla might have rested, will no more distil their honeyed sweets. the manly form, warm with all the affections of life, with love for family and friends, for truth and virtue, is now cold in death. the justice of nations is eclipsed; the life of the law is suspended. but let us listen to the words which, though dead, he utters from the grave: "sorrow not as those without hope." the righteous judge, the wise teacher, the faithful friend, the loving father, has ascended to his judge, his teacher, his friend, his father in heaven. the wrong of slavery. speech at a public meeting in faneuil hall, boston, against the admission of texas as a slave state, november , . the officers of this meeting were hon. charles francis adams, president; james m. whiton, charles g. hovey, and william i. bowditch, secretaries. the president made a speech on taking the chair. he was followed by hon. john g. palfrey, charles sumner, wendell phillips, henry b. stanton, george s. hillard, rev. william h. channing, and william lloyd garrison. the meeting was thus sympathetically described by the _liberator_:-- "faneuil hall next had a meeting, more worthy of its fame than the one which was held in it on tuesday evening last, to set the ball in motion for another grand rally of the freemen of the north against the admission of texas into the union as a slave state. the weather was extremely unpropitious,--the rain pouring down violently, the thunder roaring, and the lightning blazing vividly at intervals,--emblematic of the present moral and political aspects of the country." the _daily times_, a democratic paper of boston, in its account of the meeting made the severe storm play an important part. here is something of what it said:-- "the elements seemed determined not to sanction any such traitor-like movement, and interposed every obstacle to its success. it was proper that such a foul project should have foul weather as an accompaniment. the night was dark, and so were the designs contemplated." to oppose the extension of slavery was traitor-like, foul, and dark. the resolutions adopted at the meeting were drawn by mr. sumner, although introduced by another. they were the first political resolutions ever drawn by him, as the speech which follows was the first political speech ever made by him. the resolutions, while condemning slavery and denouncing the plan to secure its predominance in the national government, start with the annunciation of _equal rights and the_ _brotherhood of all men_, as set forth in the declaration of independence, which mr. sumner always, from beginning to end, made the foundation of his arguments, appeals, and aspirations. * * * * * "_whereas_ the government and independence of the united states are founded on the adamantine truth of _equal rights and the brotherhood of all men_, declared on the th of july, , a truth receiving new and constant recognition in the progress of time, and which is the great lesson from our country to the world, in support of which the founders toiled and bled, and on account of which we, their children, bless their memory,-- "_and whereas_ it is essential to our self-respect as a nation, and to our fame in history, that this truth, declared by our fathers, should not be impeached or violated by any fresh act of their children,-- "_and whereas_ the scheme for the annexation of texas as a slave state, begun in stealth and fraud, and carried on to confirm slavery and extend its bounds, in violation of the fundamental principle of our institutions, is not consummated, and may yet be arrested by the zealous and hearty co-operation of all who sincerely love their country and the liberty of mankind,-- "_and whereas_ this scheme, if successful, involves the whole country, free states as well as slave-owners, in one of the two greatest crimes a nation can commit, and threatens to involve them in the other,--namely, slavery and unjust war,--slavery of the most revolting character, and war to sustain slavery,-- "_and whereas_ the state constitution of texas, which will soon be submitted to congress for adoption or rejection, expressly prohibits the legislature, except under conditions rendering the exception practically void, from enacting any law for the emancipation of slaves, and for the abolition of the slave-trade between texas and the united states, thereby reversing entirely the natural and just tendency of our institutions towards freedom,-- "_and whereas_ the slaveholders seek annexation for the purpose of increasing the market of human flesh, and for extending and perpetuating slavery,-- "_and whereas_, by the triumph of this scheme, and by creating new slave states within the limits of texas, the slaveholders seek to control the political power of the majority of freemen represented in the congress of the union:-- "_therefore be it resolved_, in the name of god, of christ, and of humanity, that we, belonging to all political parties, and reserving all other reasons of objection, unite in protest against the admission of texas into this union as a slave state. "_resolved_, that the people of massachusetts will continue to resist the consummation of this wicked purpose, which will cover the country with disgrace, and make us responsible for crimes of gigantic magnitude. "_resolved_, that we have the fullest confidence that the senators and representatives of massachusetts in congress will never consent to the admission of texas as a slave state, but by voice and vote will resist this fatal measure to the utmost at every stage. "_and furthermore, whereas_ the congress of the united states, by assuming to connect this country with a foreign state, have already involved the people of the free states in great expenditure for the protection of the usurped territory by force of arms on sea and land,-- "_and whereas_ a still greater outlay may hereafter be incurred to maintain by violence what is held by wrong:-- "_resolved_, that we protest against the policy of enlisting the strength of a free people to sustain by physical force a measure urged with the criminal purpose of perpetuating a system of slavery at war with the fundamental principle of our institutions. "_resolved_, that a committee be appointed by the chair to present copies of these resolutions to the senators and representatives from massachusetts, and also to send them to every senator and representative in congress from the free states." mr. chairman,--i could not listen to the appropriate remarks of my friend, the secretary of the commonwealth,[ ] without recalling an important act in his life, and feeling anew what all must feel, the beauty of his example in the fraternal treatment of slaves descended to him by inheritance, manumitting them as he has done, and conducting them far away from slavery into these more cheerful precincts of freedom. in offering him this humble tribute, i am sure that i awaken a response in every heart that has not ceased to throb at the recital of an act of self-sacrifice and humanity. he has done as a citizen what massachusetts is now called to do as a state. he has divested himself of all responsibility for any accession of slave property, and the state must do likewise. [ ] hon. john g. palfrey. there are occasions, in the progress of affairs, when persons, though ordinarily opposed to each other, come together, and even the lukewarm, the listless, the indifferent unite heartily in a common object. such is the case in great calamities, when the efforts of all are needed to avert a fatal blow. if the fire-bell startles us from our slumbers, we do not ask of what faith in politics or religion is the unfortunate brother whose house is exposed to conflagration; it is enough that there is misfortune to be averted. in this spirit we have assembled on this inclement evening,--putting aside all distinctions of party,--forgetting all disagreements of opinion, to remember one thing only, on which all are agreed,--renouncing all discords, to stand firm on one ground only, where we all meet in concord: i mean opposition to texas as a slave state. the scheme for the annexation of texas, begun in stealth and fraud, in order to extend and strengthen slavery, has not yet received the final sanction of congress. according to the course proposed by these machinators, it is necessary that texas should be formally admitted into the family of states by a vote of congress, and that her constitution should be approved by congress. the question will be presented this winter, and we would, if we could, strengthen the hearts and words of those by whom the measure will be opposed. ours is no factious or irregular course. it has the sanction of the best examples on a kindred occasion. the very question before us occurred in , on the admission of missouri as a slave state. i need not remind you of the ardor and constancy with which this was opposed at the north, by men of all parties, with scarcely a dissenting voice. one universal chorus of protest thundered from the north against the formation of what was called another _black state_. meetings were convened in all the considerable towns,--philadelphia, trenton, new york, new haven, and everywhere throughout massachusetts,--to make this opposition audible on the floor of congress. at boston, december the d, , a meeting without distinction of party, and embracing the leaders of both sides, was held in the state-house. that meeting, in its object, was precisely like the present. a numerous committee to prepare resolutions was appointed, of which william eustis, afterwards governor of massachusetts, was chairman. with him were associated john phillips, at that time president of the senate of massachusetts,--a name dear to every friend of the slave, as father of him to whose eloquent voice we hope to listen to-night,[ ]--timothy bigelow, speaker of the house of representatives, william gray, henry dearborn, josiah quincy, daniel webster, william ward, william prescott, thomas h. perkins, stephen white, benjamin pickman, william sullivan, george blake, david cummins, james savage, john gallison, james t. austin, and henry orne. no committee could have been appointed better fitted to inspire the confidence of all sides. numerous as were its members, they were all men of mark and consideration in our community. this committee reported the following resolutions, which were adopted by the meeting. "_resolved_, as the opinion of this meeting, that the congress of the united states possesses the constitutional power, upon the admission of any new state created beyond the limits of the original territory of the united states, to make the prohibition of the further extension of slavery or involuntary servitude in such new state a condition of its admission. "_resolved_, that, in the opinion of this meeting, it is just and expedient that this power should be exercised by congress upon the admission of all new states created beyond the original limits of the united states." [ ] wendell phillips esq. the meeting in boston was followed by another in salem, called, according to the terms of the notice, to consider "whether the immense region of country extending from the mississippi to the pacific ocean is destined to be the abode of happiness, independence, and freedom, _or the wide prison of misery and slavery_." resolutions were passed against the admission of any slave state, being supported by benjamin t. pickman, andrew dunlap, and joseph story, a name of authority wherever found. in the meeting at worcester, solomon strong and levi lincoln took a prominent part. resolutions were adopted here, "earnestly requesting their representatives in congress to use their unremitted exertions to prevent the sanction of that honorable body to any further introduction of slavery within the extending limits of the united states." by these assemblies the commonwealth was aroused. to slavery it presented an unbroken front. since these efforts in the cause of freedom twenty-five years have passed. some of the partakers in them are still spared to us,--i need not add, full of years and honors. the larger part have been called from the duty of opposing slavery on earth. the same question which aroused their energies presents itself to us. shall we be less faithful than they? will massachusetts oppose a less unbroken front now than then? in the lapse of these few years has the love of freedom diminished? has sensibility to human suffering lost any of the keenness of its edge? let us regard the question more closely. congress is asked to sanction the constitution of texas, which not only supports slavery, but contains a clause prohibiting the legislature of the state from abolishing slavery. in doing this, it will give a fresh stamp of legislative approbation to an unrighteous system; it will assume a new and active responsibility for the system; it will again become a dealer in human flesh, and on a gigantic scale. at this moment, when the conscience of mankind is at last aroused to the enormity of holding a fellow-man in bondage, when, throughout the civilized world, a slave-dealer is a by-word and a reproach, we as a nation are about to become proprietors of a large population of slaves. such an act, at this time, is removed from the reach of that palliation often extended to slavery. slavery, we are speciously told by those who defend it, is not our original sin. it was entailed upon us by our ancestors, so we are instructed; and the responsibility is often, with exultation, thrown upon the mother country. now, without stopping to inquire into the truth of this allegation, it is sufficient for the present purpose to know that by welcoming texas as a slave state we make slavery our own original sin. here is a new case of actual transgression, which we cannot cast upon the shoulders of any progenitors, nor upon any mother country, distant in time or place. the congress of the united states, the people of the united states, at this day, in this vaunted period of light, will be responsible for it; so that it will be said hereafter, so long as the dreadful history of slavery is read, that in the present year of christ a new and deliberate act was passed to confirm and extend it. by the present movement we propose no measure of change. we do not offer to interfere with any institution of the southern states, nor to modify any law on the subject of slavery anywhere under the constitution. our movement is conservative. it is to preserve existing supports of freedom; it is to prevent the violation of free institutions in their vital principles. such a movement should unite in its support all but those few in whose distorted or unnatural vision slavery seems to be a great good. most clearly should it unite the freemen of the north, by all the considerations of self-interest, and by those higher considerations founded on the rights of man. i cannot dwell now upon the controlling political influence in the councils of the country which the annexation of texas will secure to slaveholders. this topic is of importance; but it yields to the supreme requirements of religion, morals, and humanity. i cannot banish from my view the great shame and wrong of slavery. judges of our courts have declared it contrary to the law of nature, finding its support only in positive enactments of men. its horrors who can tell? language utterly fails to depict them. by the proposed measure, we not only become parties to the acquisition of a large population of slaves, with all the crime of slavery, but we open a new market for the slaves of virginia and the carolinas, and _legalize a new slave-trade_. a new slave-trade! consider this well. you cannot forget the horrors of that too famous "middle passage," where crowds of human beings, stolen, and borne by sea far from their warm african homes, are pressed on shipboard into spaces of smaller dimensions for each than a coffin. and yet the deadly consequences of this middle passage are believed to fall short of those sometimes undergone by the wretched coffles driven from the exhausted lands of the northern slave states to the sugar plantations nearer the sun of the south. one quarter part are said often to perish in these removals. i see them, in imagination, on their fatal journey, chained in bands, and driven like cattle, leaving behind what has become to them a home and a country, (alas! what a home, and what a country!)--husband torn from wife, and parent from child, to be sold anew into more direful captivity. can this take place with our consent, nay, without our most determined opposition? if the slave-trade is to receive new adoption from our country, let us have no part or lot in it. let us wash our hands of this great guilt. as we read its horrors, may each of us be able to exclaim, with conscience void of offence, "thou canst not say i did it." god forbid that the votes and voices of northern freemen should help to bind anew the fetters of the slave! god forbid that the lash of the slave-dealer should descend by any sanction from new england! god forbid that the blood which spurts from the lacerated, quivering flesh of the slave should soil the hem of the white garments of massachusetts! voices of discouragement reach us from other parts of the country, and even from our own friends in this bracing air. we are told that all exertion will be vain, and that the admission of a new slave state is "a foregone conclusion." but this is no reason why we should shrink from duty. "i will try," was the response of an american officer on the field of battle. "england expects every man to do his duty," was the signal of the british admiral. ours is a contest holier than those which aroused these stirring words. let _us_ try. let every man among _us_ do his duty. and suppose new england stands alone in these efforts; suppose massachusetts stands alone: is it not a noble isolation? is it not the post of honor? is it not the position where she will find companionship with all that is great and generous in the past,--with all the disciples of truth, of right, of liberty? it has not been her wont on former occasions to inquire whether she should stand alone. your honored ancestor, mr. chairman, who from these walls regards our proceedings to-night, did not ask whether massachusetts would be alone, when she commenced that opposition which ended in the independence of the thirteen colonies. but we cannot fail to accomplish great good. it is in obedience to a prevailing law of providence, that no act of self-sacrifice, of devotion to duty, of humanity can fail. it stands forever as a landmark, from which at least to make a new effort. future champions of equal rights and human brotherhood will derive new strength from these exertions. let massachusetts, then, be aroused. let all her children be summoned to this holy cause. there are questions of ordinary politics in which men may remain neutral; but neutrality now is treason to liberty, to humanity, and to the fundamental principles of free institutions. let her united voice, with the accumulated echoes of freedom that fill this ancient hall, go forth with comfort and cheer to all who labor in the same cause everywhere throughout the land. let it help to confirm the wavering, and to reclaim those who have erred from the right path. especially may it exert a proper influence in congress upon the representatives of the free states. may it serve to make them as firm in the defence of freedom as their opponents are pertinacious in the cause of slavery. massachusetts must continue foremost in the cause of freedom; nor can her children yield to deadly dalliance with slavery. they must resist at all times, and be forearmed against the fatal influence. there is a story of the magnetic mountain which drew out the iron bolts of a ship, though at a great distance. slavery is such a mountain, and too often draws out the iron bolts of representatives. there is another story of the norwegian maelström, which, after sucking a ship into its vortex, whirls the victim round and round until it is dashed in pieces. slavery is such a maelström. representatives must continue safe and firm, notwithstanding magnetic mountain or maelström. but this can be only by following those principles for which massachusetts is renowned. a precious incident in the life of one whom our country has delighted to honor furnishes an example for imitation. when napoleon, already at the pinnacle of military honor, but lusting for perpetuity of power, caused a vote to be taken on the question, whether he should be first consul for life, lafayette, at that time in retirement, and only recently, by his intervention, liberated from the dungeons of olmütz, deliberately registered his _no_. afterwards revisiting our shores, the scene of his youthful devotion to freedom, and receiving on all sides that beautiful homage of thanksgiving which is of itself an all-sufficient answer to the sarcasm that republics are ungrateful, here in boston, this illustrious frenchman listened with especial pride to the felicitation addressed to him as "the man who knew so well how to say _no_." be this the example for massachusetts; and may it be among her praises hereafter, that on this occasion she knew so well how to say no! equal rights in the lecture-room. letter to the committee of the new bedford lyceum, november , . after accepting an invitation to lecture before the lyceum at new bedford, mr. sumner, learning that colored persons were denied membership and equal opportunities with white persons, refused to lecture, as appears in the following letter, which was published in the papers of the time. shortly afterwards the obnoxious rule was rescinded, and mr. sumner lectured. boston, november , . my dear sir,--i have received your favor of november , asking me to appoint an evening in february or march to lecture before the new bedford lyceum, in pursuance of my promise. on receiving the invitation of your lyceum, i felt flattered, and, in undertaking to deliver a lecture at some time, to be appointed afterwards, i promised myself peculiar pleasure in an occasion of visiting a town which i had never seen, but whose refined hospitality and liberal spirit, as described to me, awakened my warmest interest. since then i have read in the public prints a protest, purporting to be by gentlemen well known to me by reputation, who are members of the lyceum, and some of them part of its government, from which it appears that in former years tickets of admission were freely sold to colored persons, as to white persons, and that no objection was made to them as members, but that at the present time tickets are refused to colored persons, and membership is also refused practically, though, by special vote recently adopted, they are allowed to attend the lectures without expense, provided they will sit in the north gallery. from these facts it appears that the new bedford lyceum has undertaken within its jurisdiction to establish a distinction of _caste_ not recognized before. one of the cardinal truths of religion and freedom is the _equality and brotherhood of man_. in the sight of god and of all just institutions the white man can claim no precedence or exclusive privilege from his color. it is the accident of an accident that places a human soul beneath the dark shelter of an african countenance, rather than beneath our colder complexion. nor can i conceive any application of the divine injunction, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, more pertinent than to the man who founds a discrimination between his fellow-men on difference of skin. it is well known that the prejudice of color, which is akin to the stern and selfish spirit that holds a fellow-man in slavery, is peculiar to our country. it does not exist in other civilized countries. in france colored youths at college have gained the highest honors, and been welcomed as if they were white. at the law school there i have sat with them on the same benches. in italy i have seen an abyssinian mingling with monks, and there was no apparent suspicion on either side of anything open to question. all this was christian: so it seemed to me. in lecturing before a lyceum which has introduced the prejudice of color among its laws, and thus formally reversed an injunction of highest morals and politics, i might seem to sanction what is most alien to my soul, and join in disobedience to that command which teaches that the children of earth are all of one blood. i cannot do this. i beg, therefore, to be excused at present from appointing a day to lecture before your lyceum; and i pray you to lay this letter before the lyceum, that the ground may be understood on which i deem it my duty to decline the honor of appearing before them. i hope you will pardon the frankness of this communication, and believe me, my dear sir, very faithfully yours, charles sumner. _to the chairman of the committee } of the new bedford lyceum._ } prisons and prison discipline.[ ] article from the christian examiner, january, . it is with a feeling of deference that we welcome miss dix's "remarks on prisons and prison discipline." her peculiar labors for humanity, and her renunciation of the refined repose which has such attractions for her sex, to go about doing good, enduring the hardships of travel, the vicissitudes of the changing season, and, more trying still, the coldness of the world, awaken towards her a sense of gratitude, and invest her name with an interest which must attach to anything from her pen. [ ] . _remarks on prisons and prison discipline in the united states._ by d.l. dix. second edition. philadelphia. . vo. pp. . . _nineteenth annual report of the board of managers of the prison discipline society._ boston. . vo. pp. . . _prisons and prisoners._ by joseph adshead. with illustrations. london. . vo. pp. . . _report of the surveyor-general of prisons on the construction, ventilation, and details of the pentonville prison._ london. . fol. pp. . . _revue pénitentiaire des institutions préventives_, sous la direction de m. moreau-christophe. tom. ii. paris. . vo. pp. . . _du projet de loi sur la réforme des prisons._ par m. lÉon faucher. paris. . vo. . _considerations sur la réclusion individuelle des détenus._ par w.h. suringar. traduit du hollandais sur la seconde Édition. précédées d'une préface, et suivies du résumé de la question pénitentiaire, par l.m. moreau-christophe. paris et amsterdam. . vo. pp. . . _nordamerikas sittliche zustände._ (the moral condition of north america.) von dr. n.h. julius. bände. leipzig. . vo. . _archiv des criminalrechts, herausgegeben_ von den professoren abegg, birnbaum, heffter, mittermaier, wÄchter, zachariÄ. (archives of criminal law, edited by professors abegg, etc.) halle. . mo. pp. . the chosen and almost exclusive sphere of woman is home, in the warmth of the family hearth. rarely is she able to mingle with effect in the active labors which influence mankind. with incredulity we admire the feminine expounder of the roman law, illustrating by her lectures the universities of padua and bologna,--and the charities of st. elizabeth of hungary are legendary in the dim distance; though, in our own day, the classical productions of the widow of wyttenbach, crowned doctor of philosophy by the university of marburg, and most especially the beautiful labors of mrs. fry, recently closed by death, are examples of the sway exerted by the gentler sex beyond the charmed circle of domestic life. among these miss dix will receive a place which her modesty would forbid her to claim. her name will be enrolled among benefactors. it will be pronounced with gratitude, when heroes in the strifes of politics and of war are disregarded or forgotten. "can we forget the generous few who, touched with human woe, redressive sought into the horrors of the gloomy jail, unpitied and unheard, where misery moans, where sickness pines?" miss dix's labors embrace penitentiaries, jails, alms-houses, poor-houses, and asylums for the insane, throughout the northern and middle states,--all of which she has visited, turning a face of gentleness towards crime, comforting the unfortunate, softening a hard lot, sweetening a bitter cup, while she obtained information of their condition calculated to awaken the attention of the public. this labor of love she has pursued earnestly, devotedly, sparing neither time nor strength, neglecting no person, abject or lowly, frequenting the cells of all, and by word and deed seeking to strengthen their hearts. the melody of her voice still sounds in our ears, as, standing in the long corridor of the philadelphia penitentiary, she read a psalm of consolation; nor will that scene be effaced quickly from the memory of any then present. her memorials, addressed to the legislatures of different states, have divulged a mass of facts, derived from personal and most minute observation, particularly with regard to the treatment of the insane, which must arouse the sensibilities of a humane people. in herself alone she is a whole prison discipline society. to her various efforts may be applied, without exaggeration, those magical words in which burke commemorated the kindred charity of howard, when he says that he travelled, "not to survey the sumptuousness of palaces or the stateliness of temples, not to make accurate measurements of the remains of ancient grandeur nor to form a scale of the curiosity of modern art, not to collect medals or collate manuscripts, but to dive into the depths of dungeons, to plunge into the infection of hospitals, to survey the mansions of sorrow and pain, to take the gauge and dimensions of misery, depression, and contempt, to remember the forgotten, to attend to the neglected, to visit the forsaken, and to compare and collate the distresses of all men." her "remarks" contain general results on different points connected with the discipline of prisons: as, the duration of sentences; pardons and the pardoning power; diet of prisoners; water; clothing; ventilation; heat; health; visitors' fees; dimensions of lodging-cells in the state penitentiaries; moral, religious, and general instruction in prisons; reformation of prisoners; penitentiary systems of the united states; and houses of refuge for juvenile offenders. it would be interesting and instructive to examine the conclusions on all these important topics having the sanction of her disinterested experience; but our limits restrict us, on the present occasion, to a single topic. we are disposed to take advantage of the interest miss dix's publication may excite, and also of her name, which is an authority, to say a few words on a question much agitated, and already the subject of many books,--the comparative merits of what are called the pennsylvania and auburn penitentiary systems. this question is, perhaps, the most important of all that grow out of prisons; for it affects, in a measure, all others. it involves both the construction of the prison, and its administration. the subject of prison discipline, and particularly the question between the two systems, has of late years occupied the attention of jurists and philanthropists in no ordinary degree. the discussion has been conducted in all the languages of europe, to such an extent that the titles alone of the works would occupy considerable space in a volume of bibliography. we have before us, for instance, a list of no less than eleven in italian. but we must go back to the last century, if we would trace the origin of the controversy. to howard, a man of true greatness, whose name will stand high on the roll of the world's benefactors, belongs the signal honor of first awakening the sympathies of the english people in this work of benevolence. by his travels and labors he became familiar with the actual character of prisons, and was enabled to spread before the public an accumulation of details which fill the reader with horror and disgust. the condition of prisons at that time in england was appalling. of course there was no system; nor was there any civilization in the treatment of prisoners. everything was bad. as there was no care, so there was no cleanliness, on which so much depends, and there was no classification or separation of any kind. all commingled, so that the uncleanness of one befouled all, and the wickedness of one contaminated all. while this continued, all hope of reform was vain. therefore, with especial warmth, howard pleaded for the _separation_ of prisoners, especially at night, "wishing to have so many small rooms or cabins that each criminal may sleep alone,"[ ] and called attention to the fact he had observed in holland, that "in most of the prisons for criminals there are so many rooms that each prisoner is kept separate."[ ] [ ] howard, state of the prisons, p. . [ ] ibid. p. . the importance of the principle of separation was first recognized at rome, as long ago as , by clement xi., in the foundation of the hospital of st. michael, or the house of refuge, where a separate dormitory was provided for each prisoner. over the portal of this asylum, in letters of gold, were inscribed the words of wisdom which howard adopted as the motto of his labors, and which indicate the spirit that should preside over the administration of all prisons: _parum est improbos coercere poena, nisi probos efficias disciplina_,--it is of small consequence to coerce the wicked by punishment, unless you make them good by discipline. the first and most important step in this discipline is to remove prisoners from all evil influence,--which can be done only by separation from each other, and by filling their time with labor. in furtherance of this principle, and that he might reduce it to practice, howard, in conjunction with sir william blackstone, as early as , drew an act of parliament, the preamble to the fifth section of which is an enunciation of the cardinal truth at the foundation of all effective prison discipline. "whereas," says the act, "if many offenders, convicted of crimes for which transportation hath been usually inflicted, _were ordered to solitary imprisonment, accompanied by well-regulated labor and religious instruction_, it might be the means, under providence, not only of deterring others from the commission of the like crimes, _but also of reforming the individuals_," etc. noble words! here, for the first time in english legislation, the reformation of the prisoner is proposed as a distinct object. this act, though passed, was unfortunately never carried into execution, through the perverseness, it is said, of one of the persons associated with howard as commissioner for erecting a suitable prison. as early as a law was passed in pennsylvania, which is of importance in the history of this subject, showing appreciation of the principle of seclusion with labor. in the preamble it is declared, that previous laws for the punishment of criminals had failed of success, "from the _communication_ with each other not being sufficiently restrained within the places of confinement, and it is hoped _that the addition of unremitted solitude to laborious employment_, as far as it can be effected, will contribute as much to reform as to deter", and the act further provides, that certain persons shall be "_kept separate and apart from each other_, as much as the convenience of the building will admit." the principle of separation, when first announced by howard, and practically attempted in pennsylvania, was imperfectly understood. it was easy to see the importance of separation; but how should it be applied? in pennsylvania it was attempted at first with such rigor as to justify its designation as the _solitary system_. but as the new penitentiary in philadelphia was about to be occupied, a law was passed providing that after july st, , convicts should, "instead of the penitentiary punishments heretofore prescribed, be sentenced to suffer punishment by _separate_ or solitary confinement at _labor_"; and there is further provision for "visits to the prisoners." here were the two elements,--first, of labor, and, secondly, of visits. in pursuance of this act, that penitentiary was organized at philadelphia which afforded the first example on an extended scale of the absolute separation of convicts from each other, combined with labor. and this penitentiary has given its name to the class of prisons founded on this principle. it should be borne in mind that this system is distinguishable from one of _solitary_ confinement with labor,--much more from one of mere solitary confinement without labor. an intemperate opponent, too rash or prejudiced to recognize all the truth, has often characterized the present pennsylvania system as the _solitary system_, and by this term not unfrequently aroused a feeling against it which must disappear before a candid inquiry. it is easy to condemn any system of absolute solitude without solace of labor or society. the examples of history rise in judgment against such. who can forget the bastile? we have the testimony of lafayette, whose own further experience at olmütz should not be neglected, as to its effect. "i repaired to the scene," he says, "on the second day of the demolition, and found that all the prisoners had been deranged by their solitary confinement, except one. he had been a prisoner twenty-five years, and was led forth during the height of the tumultuous riot of the people, whilst engaged in tearing down the building. he looked around with amazement, for he had seen nobody for that space of time, and before night he was so much affected that he became a confirmed maniac." but the bastile is not the only prison whose stones, could they speak, would tell this fearful tale; nor is lafayette the only reporter. names often have the importance of things; and it cannot be doubted that the ignorant or dishonest application of the term _solitary_ to the pennsylvania system is a strong reason for the opposition it has encountered. the _separate system_ has but one essential condition,--the absolute separation of prisoners from intercourse of any kind with each other. on this may be engrafted labor, instruction, and even constant society with officers of the prison, or with virtuous persons. in fact, these have become, in greater or less degree, component parts of the system. in constant employment the prisoner finds peace, and in the society with which he is indulged innocent relaxation and healthy influence. this is the pennsylvania system. there is another and rival system, first established in the _maison de force_ at ghent, but borrowing its name from the auburn penitentiary of new york, where it was first introduced in , by a remarkable disciplinarian, elam lynds. here the prisoners are separated only at night, each sleeping in a small cell or dormitory by himself. during the day they labor together in shops, or in the open air, according to the nature of the work,--being prohibited from speaking to each other, under pain of punishment. from the latter feature this is often called the _silent system_. as its chief peculiarity, in contradistinction to the _separate system_, is the working of prisoners in assemblies, where all see and are seen, it may be more properly designated the _congregate system_. such, in brief, are these two systems, which, it will be observed, both aim at the same object, _the separation of prisoners so that they can have no intercourse with each other_. in the one this end is attained by their physical separation from each other both night and day; in the other, by such separation at night, with untiring watch by day to prevent intercourse. of course, separation by the congregate system is less complete than by the other. conversation by words may be restrained; though it is now admitted that no guardian can be sufficiently watchful to intercept on all occasions those winged messengers. the extensive unspoken, unwritten language of signs, the expression of the countenance, the movements of the body, may telegraph from convict to convict thoughts of stubbornness, hatred, or revenge. if separation be desirable, should it not be complete? should not the conducting wires be broken, so that no electrical spark may propagate its disturbing force? but the very pains taken in the congregate system to insure silence by day and separation by night answer this question. thus, by strange inconsistency, the advocates of the _congregate_ system seek to enforce _separation_. wedded to an imperfect practice, they recognize the correct principle. before proceeding farther with this comparison it is proper to glance at the real objects of prison discipline, that we may be better enabled to determine which system is best calculated to answer these objects. three things are proposed by every enlightened system: first, to deter others from crime; secondly, to prevent the offender from preying again upon society; thirdly, discipline and care, so far as possible to promote reformation. there are grounds for belief that the first two purposes are best attained by the separate system; but without considering these particularly, let us pass to the question, which is best calculated to perform that truly heavenly function of reforming the offender? is not the answer prompt and decisive in favor of that system which most completely protects the prisoner from the pernicious influence of brethren in guilt? it is a venerable proverb, that a man is known by the company he keeps; and this is a homely expression of the truth, that the character of a man is naturally in harmony with those about him. if the society about him is virtuous, his own virtues will be confirmed and expanded; on the other hand, if it be wicked, then will the demon of his nature be aroused. bad qualities, as well as good, are quickened and strengthened under the influence of society. every association of prisoners must pervert, in greater or less degree, but can never reform, those of whom it is composed. the obdurate offender, perpetually brooding on evil, even though he utter no audible word, will impart to the congregation something of his own hardness of heart. are we not told by the poet, that sheep and swine take contagion from one of their number, and even a grape is spoiled by another grape? "dedit hanc contagio labem, et dabit in plures; sicut grex totus in agris unius scabie cadit, et porrigine porci, _uvaque conspecta livorem ducit ab uva_."[ ] [ ] juv., sat. ii. - . from the inherent nature of things, this contagion must be propagated by the congregate system, while the separate system does all that man can do to restrain it. by the latter, as successfully administered, the prisoner is, in the first place, withdrawn, so far as possible by human means, from all bad influences, while, in the second place, he is brought under the operation of good influences. the mind is naturally diverted from thick-coming schemes of crime, and turned to thoughts of virtue. what in it is bad, if not entirely subdued, is weakened by inactivity, while the good is prompted to constant exercise. it cannot be questioned, then, on grounds of reason, independent of experience, that the separate system is better calculated to promote that great object of prison discipline, the reformation of the offender. with this recommendation alone it would be entitled to the regard of all who feel that the return of a single sinner is blessed. but a further object is secured. as the prisoners never see one another, they leave the penitentiary, at the expiration of their punishment, literally unknowing and unknown. in illustration of this fact, the delightful incident is mentioned, that the keeper of the philadelphia penitentiary once recognized three persons at the same place, engaged in honest labor, who had been in his custody as convicts, though neither knew the career of the other two. discharged prisoners are thus enabled to slide back into the community, without the chilling fear of untimely recognition by those with whom they congregated in the penitentiary. they cannot escape the memory of the punishment they have endured; but the brand is not upon the forehead. they are encouraged to honest exertion by the hope of retrieving, on a distant spot and under a new name, the fair character they have lost; while, on the other hand, if evil-minded, they have no associations of the prison to renew, or to stimulate to conspiracy against society. a system of prison discipline with these benign features must long ago have commended itself to general acceptance, if it had not been opposed with exceptional ardor on grounds which, though in reality little tenable, are calculated to exercise influence over the ignorance and prejudice of men. the first objection is, that it is productive of insanity, from an unnatural deprivation of society. however just this may be when directed against the solitary system, it is inapplicable to what is called the separate system, which does not exclude the idea of society, and, as practically administered at philadelphia and elsewhere, supplies both society and labor in ample measure. if the prisoner is not indulged with society enough, it is a fault in the administration of the system, and not in the system itself. in the publications of the boston prison discipline society, elaborate tables have been arranged showing a tendency to insanity in the penitentiary at philadelphia; but careful and candid inquiry will demonstrate that these are founded in misapprehension, and will exonerate that institution from such imputation. the highest authorities in medicine have distinctly declared, that the separate system, if properly administered, with labor and conversation, does not affect the reason. the names of esquirol and louis give to this opinion the strongest sanction of science throughout the civilized world. the same conclusion was affirmed with precision and fervor by lélut, in an elaborate memoir before the institute of france, and also by the scientific congress assembled at padua in , and at lucca in . the second objection charges the separate system with being unfavorable to health, as compared with the congregate system. in reply we merely say, that the great names in medicine to which we have already referred expressly deny that it has any influence in shortening life; while a statistical comparison of several penitentiaries conducted on the congregate system with the philadelphia penitentiary attests the superiority of the latter in this respect. the third and last objection is founded on the increased expense of the separate system. the congregate system is recommended by suggestions of economy and clamors of cupidity. it is said to be put into operation at less cost, and afterwards to support itself, and even to bring profit to the state. we are sorry to believe that this consideration has had an extensive influence. it is humiliating to suppose that government would hesitate to adopt a system founded on enlightened humanity because another might be had for less money,--counting the unworthy gain or the petty economy as of higher consequence than the reformation of an offender. such a course were unworthy of our civilization. the state has sacred duties to the unfortunate men it takes into its custody. it must see not only that they receive no harm, but that they enjoy all means of improvement consistent with their condition,--that, while their bodies are clothed and fed, their souls are not left naked and hungry. it assumes the place of parent, and owes a parent's care and kindness; or rather, when we consider that the state itself is child of the people, may we not say that it should emulate that famous roman charity, so often illustrated by art, which descended into the darkness of a dungeon, to afford an exuberant, health-giving bosom to the exhausted being from whom it drew its own life. notwithstanding the uncompromising hostility the separate system has encountered, it wins constant favor. many prisons are built on this plan, and experience comes to confirm the suggestions of humanity and science. the penitentiary at philadelphia, which first proved its superiority, was followed in by one at pittsburg and by a county prison at alleghany, and in by another county prison, on the same system, at harrisburg. in new jersey followed the example of her neighbor state, and established a penitentiary on this system at trenton. commissions from foreign governments, after visiting the different prisons of the united states, have all reported _emphatically_ in favor of the separate system: as, that of beaumont and de tocqueville to the french government, in ; of mr. crawford to the english, in ; of dr. julius to the prussian, in , after a most careful perambulation of all the prisons of the country; of demetz and blouet to the french, in ,--being the second commission from the same government; and of neilson and mondelet to the canadian government, in . in accordance with these recommendations, numerous prisons have been built or are now building in europe. in england a model prison has been constructed at pentonville, which is perhaps the best prison in the world. in the late report of the surveyor-general of prisons, laid on the table of parliament during its last session, it was expressly declared, from the experience gained in the pentonville prison, "that the separation of one prisoner from another is indispensable as the basis of any sound system." as long ago as , no less than seventeen prisons on this principle were built or building in different counties of england, and several in scotland. in france the whole subject has undergone most thorough discussion by the press, and also in debate by the chamber of deputies. among the works now before us is a volume of more than six hundred pages, filled by a report of this debate, with notes, which ended in the passage of a law during the last summer appropriating ninety millions of francs for the building of thirty prisons on the separate system. such is the testimony of france and england. similar testimony comes from other quarters: from prussia, where five prisons on this system have been built; from denmark, where ten are now building; from sweden, where eight are building under the auspices of the monarch, who, when prince oscar, wrote ably in advocacy of the separate system; from norway, where one is now building in the neighborhood of christiania; from poland, where one has long been in existence, and three others are nearly completed; from hungary, where a project has been submitted to the diet for the erection of ten on the separate system; from holland, where one is about to be erected on the plan of pentonville; from belgium, which has yielded to the separate system, and has even engrafted it upon the famous _maison de force_ at ghent, the model of our auburn prison; from the duchy of nassau; from the grand duchy of baden; from frankfort-on-the-main; from hamburg; from geneva, in switzerland: in all of which prisons on this system are built or are building. from poor, distracted spain proceeds the same testimony. to this array of authorities and examples may be added two names of commanding weight in all matters of prison discipline,--edward livingston and miss dix. the first, whose high fortune it was to refine jurisprudence by his philanthropy, as he had illumined it by his genius and strengthened it by his learning, in his introductory report to the code of prison discipline, as long ago as , urged with classical eloquence a system of "seclusion, accompanied by moral, religious, and scientific instruction, and useful manual labor." miss dix, after attentive survey of different systems throughout our country, fervently enforces, as well in the publication now before us as in her memorials, the merits of the separate system, and of its administration in pennsylvania. it might be said that the voices of civilized nations, by a rare harmony, concurred in sanctioning the separate system, if the boston prison discipline society had not raised a persistent note of discord, which has gone on with a most unmusical _crescendo_. as the solitary champion of an imperfect system which the world is renouncing, it has contended with earnestness, which has often become prejudice, and with insensibility to accumulating facts, which was injustice. with frankness, as with sorrow, we allude to the sinister influence it has exercised over this question, particularly throughout the northern states. but the truth which has been proclaimed abroad need not be delicately minced at home. we do not join with the recent english writer, who, among many harsher suggestions, speaks of the "misrepresentation," the "trickery," the "imposture"[ ] of the society or its agent,--nor with moreau-christophe, who says, "_la société des prisons à boston a juré haine à mort au système de philadelphie_";[ ] for we know well the honesty and sincere interest in the welfare of prisoners which animate its secretary, and we feel persuaded that he will gladly abandon the deadly war which he wages against the separate system, when he sees it as it is now regarded by the science and humanity of the civilized world. but we feel that his exertions, which in some departments of prison discipline have been productive of incalculable good, for which his memory will be blessed, on this important question have done harm. in his reports he has never failed to present all the evil of the separate system, particularly as administered in philadelphia, sometimes even drawing upon his imagination for facts, while he has carefully withheld the testimony in its favor. this beneficent system and its meritorious supporters are held up to obloquy, and the wide circle that confided implicitly in his reports are consigned to darkness with regard to its true character and its general reception abroad. [ ] adshead, pp. , . [ ] revue pénitentiaire, tom. ii. p. . one of the most strenuous advocates of the separate system at the present moment, whose work of elaborate argument and detail now lies before us, is suringar, called sometimes the howard of holland, who had signalized himself by previous opposition to it. he says, "i am now completely emancipated from my former error. this error i do not blush to confess openly. the same change has been wrought in the opinions of julius in prussia, of crawford in england, of bérenger and demetz in france, and of all men of good faith, who are moved, in their researches, only by the suggestions of conscience, unswayed by prejudice or pride of opinion." perhaps in these changes of opinion the secretary of the boston prison discipline society may find an example which he will not be unwilling to follow; and it may be for us to welcome him as a cordial fellow-laborer in the conscientious support of what he has for a long period most conscientiously attacked. from this rapid survey it will be seen that our convictions and sympathies are with the separate system. nothing in prison discipline seems clearer than the general duty of removing prisoners from the corrupting influence of association, even though silent. but we are not insensible to the encouragement and succor which prisoners might derive from companionship with those struggling like themselves. it was a wise remark of the english professor, that "students are the best professors to each other"; and the experience of mrs. farnham, the matron of the female convicts at sing-sing, shows that this same principle is not without its effect even among classes of convicts. perhaps the separate system might be modified, so as to admit instruction and labor together, in a small class, selected after a probationary period of separation, as specially worthy of this indulgence and confidence. such a modification was contemplated and recommended by mr. livingston, and would seem to find favor with von raumer in his recent work on america. this privilege can be imparted to those only who have shown themselves so exemplary that their society seems to be uncontaminating. but it remains to be seen whether there is any subtile alchemy by which their purity may be determined, so as to justify a departure from the general rule of separation. finally, we would commend this subject to the attention of all. in the language of sir michael foster, a judge of eminence in the last century, "no rank or condition of life, no uprightness of heart, no prudence or circumspection of conduct, should teach any man to conclude that he may not one day be deeply interested in these researches." there are considerations of self-interest which may move those who do not incline to labor for others, unless with ultimate advantage to themselves. but all of true benevolence, and justly appreciating the duties of the state, will join in effort for the poor prisoner, deriving from his inferior condition new motives to action, that it may be true of the state, as of law, that the very least feels its care, as the greatest is not exempt from its power. in the progress of an enlightened prison discipline, it may be hoped that our penitentiaries will become in reality, if not in name, houses of reformation, and that convicts will be treated with scrupulous regard for their well-being, physical, moral, and intellectual, to the end, that, when they are allowed to mingle again with society, they may feel sympathy with virtue and detestation of vice, and, when wiser, may be better men. in the promotion of this cause, the city of boston at this moment occupies a position of signal advantage. it has determined to erect a new county jail, and the plans are still under consideration. it is easy to perceive that the plan it adopts and the system of discipline it recognizes will become an example. no narrow prejudice and no unworthy economy should prevent the example from being such as becomes a city of the wealth, refinement, and humanity of boston. it is a common boast, that her schools and various institutions of beneficence are the best in the world. the prison about to be erected should share this boast. _let it be the best in the world._ let it be the model prison, not only to our own country, but to other countries. the rule of separation, considered of such importance among the ripe convicts of the penitentiary, is of greater necessity still in a prison which will receive before trial both innocent and guilty. from the first moment he is touched by the hand of the law, the prisoner should be cut off from all association, by word or sight, with fellow-prisoners. the state, as his temporary guardian, mindful of his weakness, owes him this protection and this means of reformation. the _absolute separation_ of prisoners, so that they can neither see, hear, nor touch each other, is the pole-star of prison discipline. it is the alpha, or beginning, as the reformation of the offender is the omega, or the end. it is this principle, when properly administered, which irradiates with heavenly light even the darkness of the dungeon, driving far away the intrusive legion of unclean thoughts, and introducing in their vacant place the purity of religion, the teachings of virtue, the solace of society, and the comfort of hope. in this spirit let us build our prisons. the jail will no longer be a charnel-house of living men; the cell will cease to be the tomb where is buried what is more precious than the body,--a human soul. from their iron gates let us erase that doom of despair, "all hope abandon, ye who enter in," and inscribe words of gentleness, encouragement, love. the employment of time. lecture before the boston lyceum, delivered in the federal street theatre, february , . "i have lost a day," was the exclamation of the virtuous roman emperor,--"for on this day i have done no good thing." the arch of titus still stands midway between the forum and the colosseum, and the curious traveller discerns the golden candlesticks of conquered judæa sculptured on its marble sides; but this monument of triumph, and the memory it perpetuates of the veteran legions of rome and the twenty cohorts of allies before whose swords the sacred city yielded its life in terrible fire and blood, give not to the conqueror such true glory as springs from these words,--destined to endure long after the arch has crumbled to dust, and when the triumph it seeks to perpetuate has passed from the minds of men. that day was not lost. on no day wast thou so great or beneficent as when thou gavest this eternal lesson to man. across the ages it still reaches innumerable hearts, even as it penetrated the friendly bosoms that throbbed beneath its first utterance. the child learns it, and receives a new impulse to labor and goodness. there are few, whether old or young, who do not recognize it as more than a victory. if i undertake to dwell on the suggestions of this theme, it is because it seems to me especially appropriate to the young, at whose request i have the honor of appearing before you. my subject is the value of time, and the way in which it may be best employed. i shall attempt nothing elaborate, but simply gather together illustrations and examples, which, though trite and familiar, will at least be practical. * * * * * the value of time is one of our earliest lessons, taught at the mother's knee, even with the alphabet,--"_s_ is a sluggard,"--confirmed by the maxims of poor richard, printed at the end of almanacs, and stamped on handkerchiefs,--further enforced by the examples of the copy-book, as the young fingers first learn to join words together by the magical art of writing. fable comes in aid of precept, and the venerable figure of time is depicted to the receptive, almost believing, imagination of childhood, as winged, and also bald on the top and back of the head, with a single tuft of hair on the forehead, signifying that whoso would detain it must seize it by the forelock. with such lessons and pictures the child is trained. moralist, preacher, and poet also enforce these teachings; and the improvement of time, the importance of industry, and the excellence of labor become commonplaces of exhortation. the value of time has passed into a proverb,--"time is money." it is so because its employment brings money. but it is more. it is knowledge. still more, it is virtue. nor is it creditable to the character of the world that the proverb has taken this material and mercenary complexion, as if money were the highest good and the strongest recommendation. time is more than money. it brings what money cannot purchase. it has in its lap all the learning of the past, the spoils of antiquity, the priceless treasures of knowledge. who would barter these for gold or silver? but knowledge is a means only, and not an end. it is valuable because it promotes the welfare, the development, and the progress of man. and the highest value of time is not even in knowledge, but in the opportunity of doing good. time is opportunity. little or much, it may be the occasion of usefulness. it is the point desired by the philosopher where to plant the lever that shall move the world. it is the napkin in which are wrapped, not only the talent of silver, but the treasures of knowledge and the fruits of virtue. saving time, we save all these. employing time to the best advantage, we exercise a true thrift. here is a wise parsimony; here is a sacred avarice. to each of us the passing day is of the same dimensions, nor can any one by taking thought add a moment to its hours. but though unable to extend their duration, he may swell them with works. it is customary to say, "take care of the small sums, and the large will take care of themselves." with equal wisdom and more necessity may it be said, "watch the minutes, and the hours and days will be safe." the moments are precious; they are gold filings, to be carefully preserved and melted into the rich ingot. time is the measure of life on earth. its enjoyment is life itself. its divisions, its days, its hours, its minutes, are fractions of this heavenly gift. every moment that flies over our heads takes from the future and gives to the irrevocable past, shortening by so much the measure of our days, abridging by so much the means of usefulness committed to our hands. before the voice which now addresses you shall die away in the air, another hour will have passed, and we shall all have advanced by another stage towards the final goal on earth. waste or sacrifice of time is, then, waste or sacrifice of life itself: it is partial suicide. the moments lost in listlessness or squandered in unprofitable dissipation, gathered into aggregates, are hours, days, weeks, months, years. the daily sacrifice of a single hour during a year comes at its end to thirty-six working days, allowing ten hours to the day,--an amount of time, if devoted exclusively to one object, ample for the acquisition of important knowledge, and for the accomplishment of inconceivable good. imagine, if you please, a solid month dedicated, without interruption, to a single purpose,--to the study of a new language, an untried science, an unexplored field of history, a fresh department of philosophy, or to some new sphere of action, some labor of humanity, some godlike charity,--and what visions must not rise of untold accumulations of knowledge, of unnumbered deeds of goodness! who of us does not each day, in manifold ways, sacrifice these precious moments, these golden hours? there is a legend of mohammed which teaches how much may be crowded into a moment. it is said that he was suddenly taken up by an angel, and borne beyond the naming bounds of space, where he beheld the wonders of heaven and hell, the bliss of the faithful and the torments of the damned in measureless variety, and was then returned to the spot of earth from which he had been lifted,--all in so short a time that the water had not entirely run out of the pitcher which he let fall from his hands when he was borne upwards. but actual life furnishes illustrations of greater point. it is related of a celebrated french jurist, one of the ornaments of the magistracy, that he composed a learned and important work in the quarter hours that draggled between dinner ordered and dinner served. napoleon directed one of his generals to move on a battery of the enemy, although reinforcements were in sight, saying, "it will take them fifteen minutes to reach the point; i have always observed that these _fifteen minutes_ decide great battles." in the currents of common life they are often as decisive as in the heady fight. it would be easy, from literary and political history, from the lives of all who have excelled in any way, to accumulate illustrations of the power of industry. among those who have achieved what the world calls greatness, the list might be extended from julius cæsar to napoleon, whose feats of labor are among the marvels of history. nor should we forget alfred, the father of english civilization, whose better fame testifies also to the wise employment of time. our own country, this very town, furnishes a renowned example in benjamin franklin. here i pronounce a name which has its own familiar echoes. his early studies, when a printer's boy,--his singular experience of life in its extremes,--sounding in childhood all the humilities, as in maturer years he reached all that was exalted in place,--the truant boy become a teacher to the nations, and pouring light upon the highest schools of science and philosophy, touching the throne with hands once blackened by types and ink,--all this must be present to you. his first and constant talisman was industry. the autobiography in which he has recorded his progress in knowledge is a remarkable composition, where the style flows like a brook of transparent water, without a ripple on its smooth surface. perhaps no single book has had greater influence in quickening labor and the rigid economy of time, overcoming all obstacles, among those whose early life has been chilled by penury or darkened by neglect. but we must qualify our praise. it cannot fail to be regretted that the lessons taught by franklin are so little spiritual in their character,--that they are so material, so mundane, so full of pounds, shillings, and pence. "the almighty dollar," now ruling here with sovereign sway and masterdom, was placed on the throne by poor richard. when shall it be dethroned? when shall the thoughts, the aspirations, the politics of the land be lifted from the mere greed of gain, with an appetite that grows by what it feeds on, into the serene region of inflexible justice and universal benevolence? could we imagine the thrift, the worldly wisdom, the practical sense, the inventive genius of franklin, softened, exalted, illumined, inspired by the imagination, the grace, the sensibility, the heavenly spirit of channing, we should behold a character under whose influence our country would advance at once in all spiritual as well as material prosperity,--where money should not be the "main chance," but truth, justice, righteousness, drawing in their train all the goods of earth, and reflecting all the blessings of heaven. then would time be the best ally of man, and no day would pass without some good thing done. among the contemporaries of franklin in england, unlike in the patrician circumstances of his birth, education, and life, most unlike in his topics of thought and study, but resembling him in the diligence and constancy of labor marking his career, was edward gibbon, author of the history of the decline and fall of the roman empire. he also has left behind an autobiography,--in style and tone how unlike the simple narrative of franklin!--where in living colors are depicted the labors and delights of a scholar's life. this book has always seemed to me, more than any other in the english language, calculated to enkindle the love of learning, and to train the student for its pursuit. here he will find an example and guide in the various fields of scholarship, who will challenge his admiration in proportion as he shares the same generous aspiration. the autobiographies of gibbon and franklin are complements of each other. they teach the same lesson of labor and study in different spheres of life and to different classes of minds. both have rare excellence as compositions, and constitute important contributions to that literature which illustrates the employment of time. there is another character, of our own age, whose example is, perhaps, more direct and practical, especially as described by himself: i mean william cobbett. to appreciate this example, you must know something of his long life, from early and inauspicious youth to venerable years, filled always with labors various, incessant, and herculean, under which his elastic nature seemed to rise with renewed strength. he died in , supposed to be seventy-three years of age, although the exact date of his birth was never known, and such was the position he had acquired that he was characterized at that time, even by hostile pens, as one of the most remarkable men whom england, fertile in intellectual excellence, ever produced. the lapse of little more than ten years has begun to obscure his memory. it will be for posterity to determine whether he has connected his name with those great causes of human improvement which send their influence to future ages, and are destined to be the only consideration on which fame hereafter will be awarded or preserved. but the memory of his labors, and the voice of encouragement to the poor and lowly which sounds throughout his writings, must always be refreshing to those whose hopes of future usefulness are clouded by discouragement and poverty. there can be none so humble as not to derive succor from his example. he was conscious even to vanity of his own large powers, and at the close of his long career surveyed his succession of labors--the hundred volumes from his sleepless pen, and the wide influence they had exercised--with the self-gratulation of the miser in counting his stores of gold and silver. the son of a poor farmer, at the age of twenty he ran away from the paternal acres, and became for a short time copying-clerk to a lawyer, but, tiring soon of these duties, he enlisted in the army and found himself private in a regiment at chatham, which was ordered to america. his merit soon raised him to the rank of corporal, and then of sergeant-major. at this time he saw his future wife and the mother of his children. the circumstances of this meeting, as described by himself in his own peculiar style, belong to this picture, while they illustrate the subject. "when i first saw my wife," he writes, "she was thirteen years old, and i was within a month of twenty-one. she was the daughter of a sergeant-major of artillery, and i was the sergeant-major of a regiment of foot, both stationed in forts near the city of st. john, in the province of new brunswick. i sat in the same room with her for about an hour, in company with others, and i made up my mind that she was the very girl for me. that i thought her beautiful is certain, for that i had always said should be an indispensable qualification; but i saw in her what i deemed marks of that sobriety of conduct of which i have said so much, and which has been by far the greatest blessing of my life. it was now dead of winter, and of course the snow several feet deep on the ground, and the weather piercing cold. it was my habit, when i had done my morning's writing, to go out at break of day to take a walk on a hill at the foot of which our barracks lay. in about three mornings after i had first seen her, i had, by an invitation to breakfast with me, got up two young men to join me in my walk, and our road lay by the house of her father and mother. it was hardly light, but she was out on the snow, scrubbing out a washing-tub. 'that's the girl for me!' said i, when we had got out of her hearing."[ ] to her he plighted faith. after eight years of service in the army, and his return to england, he obtained his discharge and married her. [ ] life, pp. , . in cobbett came to the united states, living in philadelphia, where he was bookseller, publisher, author, and libeller by profession. as "peter porcupine" he is well known. he shot his sharp and malicious quills at the most estimable characters,--franklin, jefferson, gallatin, priestley, and even the sacred name of washington. a heavy judgment for libel hanging suspended over him, he fled from america, and from the justice he had aroused, to commence in england a fresh career of unquestioned talents, unaccountable inconsistency, and inexhaustible malignity. on his arrival in england cobbett attached himself warmly to the interests of mr. pitt, in whose behalf he wielded for a while his untiring pen. at the same time he commenced business as bookseller, in which he soon failed. in politics he showed himself more tory than the most tory. mr. windham, in the house of commons, made the remarkable declaration, that "he merited a statue of gold."[ ] his letters on the treaty of amiens produced a sensation throughout europe.[ ] the celebrated swiss historian, von müller, pronounced them more eloquent than anything since demosthenes. how transitory is fame! these letters, once so much admired, which, with profane force, helped to burst open the temple of janus, happily closed by peace, are now forgotten. i do not know that they are to be found in any library in this part of the country. [ ] speech, august , : hansard, xxxvi. . [ ] letters to the right honorable lord hawkesbury and to the right honorable henry addington, on the peace with buonaparté; to which is added an appendix. london, . it was at this period that he commenced his "weekly political register," which for more than thirty years was the vehicle of his opinions and feelings. but the pungent toryism with which he began his career was changed into a more pungent liberalism; from the oil of conservatism he passed to the vinegar of dissent. he saw all things in a new light, and with unsparing criticism pursued the men he had recently extolled. his ishmael pen was turned against every man. he wrote with the hardihood of a pirate and the ardor of a patriot. at length he was convicted of libel, and sentenced to pay a fine of a thousand pounds and to be imprisoned for two years. this severe incarceration he never forgave or forgot. with thoughts of vengeance he emerged from his prison to unaccustomed popularity. his "register," into which, as into a seething caldron, he weekly poured the venom of his pen, reached the unprecedented circulation of one hundred thousand, an audience greater than was ever before addressed by saint or sinner. the soul swells in the contemplation of the good that might have been wrought by a spirit elevated to the high purpose, having access to so many human hearts. his pen waxing in inveteracy, and himself becoming daily more obnoxious to the government, in , by timely flight, he withdrew from the threatening storm, and sought shelter in the united states, where he lingered, principally on long island, till , when he wandered back to england, there to renew his strifes and ruffle again the waters of political controversy. as late as , he was, for the eighth time in his life, brought into court on a charge of libel. the veteran libeller, then seventy years of age, defended himself in a speech which occupied six hours. the jury did not agree,--six being for conviction and six for acquittal. at the general election for the reform parliament in , cobbett was chosen member for the borough of oldham, which seat he held until june , , when his long, active, and disturbed career was closed by death, leaving her whom he had loved at the wash-tub, amid the snows of new brunswick, his honored widow. his character was unique. he was the most emphatic of writers, perhaps the most voluminous. he was foremost in the crew of haters; he was the paragon of turncoats. sentiments uttered at one period were denied at another. at one time he wrote of paine as follows: "he has done all the mischief he can in the world, and whether his carcass is at last to be suffered to rot on the earth or to be dried in the air is of very little consequence. whenever or wherever he breathes his last, he will excite neither sorrow nor compassion; no friendly hand will close his eyes."[ ] later in life, on his second visit to america, he exhumed the bones of the man he had thus reviled, and bore them in idolatrous custody to the land of his birth. [ ] life of thomas paine: political censor, no. v., sept., : porcupine's works, vol. iv. pp. , . besides his multitudinous political writings, which in number remind us of the cloud of "locusts warping on the eastern wind," he produced several works of great and deserved popularity,--a grammar of the french language, written while he rocked the cradle of his first child,--a grammar of the english language,--a little volume, "advice to young men,"--and a series of sketches entitled "rural rides," in which he gave unmixed pleasure to friend and foe. i have dwelt thus long upon the life and character of cobbett, as a proper introduction to the picture of his marvellous industry, which i am able to present in his own language. the labor which he accomplished testifies; but in his writings he often refers to it with peculiar pride. he tells us how he learned grammar. writing a fair hand, he was employed as copyist by the commandant of the garrison where he first enlisted. in his autobiography he says: "being totally ignorant of the rules of grammar, i necessarily made many mistakes. the colonel saw my deficiency, and strongly recommended study. i procured me a lowth's grammar, and applied myself to the study of it with unceasing assiduity. the pains i took cannot be described. i wrote the whole grammar out two or three times; i got it by heart; i repeated it every morning and every evening; and when on guard, i imposed on myself the task of saying it all over once, every time i was posted sentinel."[ ] would that all posted as sentinels were as well employed as saying over to themselves the english grammar! if every common soldier could do this, there would be little fear of war. the evil spirits were supposed to be driven away by an ave maria or a word of prayer. the grammar would be as potent. "terrible as an army with grammars" would be more than "terrible as an army with banners." [ ] life, p. . in his "advice to young men" cobbett says: "for my part, i can truly say that i owe more of my great labors to my strict adherence to the precepts that i have here given you than to all the natural abilities with which i have been endowed; for these, whatever may have been their amount, would have been of comparatively little use, even aided by great sobriety and abstinence, if i had not in early life contracted the blessed habit of husbanding well my time. to this, more than to any other thing, i owed my very extraordinary promotion in the army. i was _always ready_. if i had to mount guard at ten, i was ready at nine; never did any man or any thing wait one moment for me.... my custom was this: to get up in summer at daylight, and in winter at four o'clock; shave, dress, even to the putting of my sword-belt over my shoulder, and having my sword lying on the table before me, ready to hang by my side. then i ate a bit of cheese or pork and bread. then i prepared my report, which was filled up as fast as the companies brought me in the materials. after this i had an hour or two to read before the time came for any duty out of doors."[ ] [ ] advice to young men, pp. , . at a later period of life, when his condition was entirely changed, and his name as a writer was in all men's mouths, he thus describes his habits. "i hardly ever eat more than twice a day,--when at home, never,--and i never, if i can well avoid it, eat any meat later than one or two o'clock in the day. i drink a little tea or milk-and-water at the usual tea-time (about seven o'clock). i go to bed at eight, if i can. i write or read from about four to about eight, and then, hungry as a hunter, i go to breakfast."[ ] [ ] life, p. . in another place he recounts with especial satisfaction a conversation at which he was present, one of the parties to which was sir john sinclair, the famous agriculturist and correspondent of washington. "i once heard sir john sinclair," he says, "ask mr. cochrane johnstone whether he meant to have a son of his, then a little boy, taught latin. 'no,' said mr. johnstone, 'but i mean to do something a great deal better for him.' 'what is that?' said sir john. 'why,' said the other, 'teach him to shave with cold water and without a glass.'"[ ] [ ] advice to young men, p. . with this pertinacious devotion to labor, and this unparalleled sense of the value of time, cobbett surrendered himself to the blandishments of domestic life. the hundred-armed giant of the press, he always had an arm for his child. "for my own part," he says, "how many days, how many months, all put together, have i spent with babies in my arms! my time, when at home, and when babies were going on, was chiefly divided between the pen and the baby. i have fed them and put them to sleep hundreds of times, though there were servants to whom the task might have been transferred. yet i have not been effeminate; i have not been idle; i have not been a waster of time." "many a score of papers have i written amidst the noise of children, and in my whole life never bade them be still. when they grew up to be big enough to gallop about the house, i have, in wet weather, when they could not go out, written the whole day amidst noise that would have made some authors half mad. it never annoyed me at all."[ ] [ ] advice to young men, pp. , . these passages are like windows in his life, through which we discern his character, where the domestic affections seem to vie with the sense of time. no person can become familiar with the career of cobbett without recognizing regular habits of industry as the potent means of producing important results. did the hour permit, it would be pleasant and instructive to review the career of another distinguished character, whose writings have added much to the happiness of his age, and whose rare feats of labor illustrate the same truth: i mean the author of "waverley." there are points of comparison or contrast between cobbett and scott which might be presented at length. they were strictly contemporaries, spanning with their lives almost the same long tract of time. they were the most voluminous authors of their age, perhaps the most voluminous couple of any age. since the days of ariosto no writers had been read by so many persons as was the fortune of each. the marvellous fecundity of scott was more than matched by the prolific energy of cobbett. the fame of the scotsman was equalled by the notoriety of the englishman. if one awakened our delight, we could not withhold from the other our astonishment. with scott life was a gala and a festival, with beauty, wit, and bravery. with cobbett it was a stern reality, perpetually crying out, like the witch in macbeth, "i'll do, i'll do, and i'll do." and yet scott was hardly less careful of time than his indefatigable contemporary. his life is a lesson of industry, and the student may derive instruction from his example. both sought in early rising the propitious hours of labor; but the morning brought its rich incense to the one, and its vigor to the other. they departed this life within a short period of each other, casting and leaving behind their voluminous folds of authorship. the future historian will note and study these; but the world, which has already dismissed cobbett from its presence, will hardly cherish with enduring affection the writings of scott. he lived in the past, and, with ill-directed genius, sought to gild the force, the injustice, the inhumanity of the early ages. cobbett lived intensely in the present, and drew his inspiration from its short-lived controversies. for neither had hope scattered from her "pictured urn" the delights of an unborn period, when the dignity of humanity shall stand confessed. a greater fame than is awarded to either will be his who hereafter, with the imagination of the one and the energy of the other, without the spirit of hate that animated cobbett, without the spirit of caste that prevailed in scott, regarding life neither as a festival nor as a battle, forgetting cavalier and roundhead alike, and remembering only universal man, shall dedicate the labors of a long life, not to the past, not to the present only, but also to the future, striving to bring its blessings nearer to all. such are some of the examples by which we learn the constant lesson of the value of time. for them genius did much, but industry went hand in hand with this celestial guide. here the student may ask by what rule time is to be arranged and apportioned so as to accomplish the greatest results. if we interrogate the lives of our masters in this regard, we shall find no uniform rule as to the employment of the day, or even the hours of repose. the great lawyer, lord coke, whose rare learning and professional fame cannot render us insensible to his brutality of character, has preserved for the benefit of the young student some latin verses setting forth the proper division of the day, allowing six hours for sleep, six for the law, four for prayers, two for meals, while all the rest, being six hours more, is to be lavished on the sacred muses.[ ] these directions are imperfectly reproduced in two english rhymes:-- six hours in sleep; in law's grave study six; four spend in prayer; the rest on nature fix." [ ] "sex horas somno, totidem des legibus æquis, quatuor orabis, des epulisque duas; quod superest ultro sacris largire camoenis." co. litt. . a more estimable character than lord coke, in whose life clustered literary as well as professional honors, sir william jones, himself a model of the industry he inculcated, has said in a well-known distich:-- "six hours to law, to soothing slumber seven, ten to the world allot, and all to heaven." the one hour here unappropriated is absorbed in the "all to heaven." sir matthew hale, another eminent name in jurisprudence, studied sixteen hours a day for the first two years after he commenced the law, but almost brought himself to the grave thereby, though of a strong constitution, and he afterwards came down to eight hours; but he would not advise anybody to so much,--believing that six hours a day, with constancy and attention, were sufficient, and adding, that "a man must use his body as he would his horse and his stomach, not tire him at once, but rise with an appetite."[ ] here is at once example and warning. [ ] roscoe, lives of eminent british lawyers: notes, pp. , . sleep is the most exacting of masters; it must be obeyed. couriers slumber on their horses; soldiers drop asleep on the field of battle, even amidst the din of war. in that famous retreat of sir john moore, english soldiers are said to have slept while still moving. ambition and the pride of victory yield to sleep. alexander slept on the field of arbela, and napoleon on the field of austerlitz. bereavement and approaching death are forgotten in sleep. the convict sleeps in the few hours before his execution. according to homer, sleep overcomes even the gods, excepting jupiter alone. its beneficence is equal to its power; nor has this ever been pictured more wonderfully than in those agonized words of macbeth, where he says,-- "macbeth does murther sleep, the innocent sleep,-- sleep, that knits up the ravelled sleave of care, the death of each day's life, sore labor's bath, balm of hurt minds, great nature's second course, chief nourisher in life's feast." the rule of sleep is not the same for all. there are some with whom its requirements are gentle: a few hours will suffice. but such cases are exceptional. the jesuits have done much for education, but on this question they seem to have failed. in settling the system for their college at clermont, they followed their physicians in a rigid rule. the latter reported that five hours were sufficient, six abundant, and seven as much as a youthful constitution could bear without injury. on the other hand, cobbett, whose experience of life was as thorough as his diligence, says expressly: "young people require more sleep than those that are grown up: there must be the number of hours, and that number cannot well be on an average less than eight; and if it be more in winter-time, it is all the better."[ ] george the third thought otherwise, at least for men. a tradesman, whom he had asked to call on him at eight o'clock in the morning, arriving behind the hour, the king said, "oh! the great mr. b.! what sleep do you take, mr. b.?" "why, please your majesty, i am a man of regular habits; i usually take eight hours." "eight hours!" said the king; "that's too much, too much. six hours' sleep is enough for a man, seven for a woman, and eight for a fool,--mr. b., eight for a fool." the opinions of physiologists would probably incline with mr. b., the tradesman, contrary to this royal authority. [ ] advice to young men, p. . it is impossible to lay down any universal rule with regard to the proper portion of time for sleep. each constitution of body has its own habits; nor can any rule be drawn from the lives of the most industrious, except of economy of time, according to the capacity of each person. the great german scholar heyne, who has shed such lustre on classical learning, in the order of his early studies allowed himself, for six months, only two nights' sleep in a week. the eccentric robert hill, of england, who passed his life as a tailor, but by persevering labor made rare attainments in latin, greek, and hebrew, was accustomed to sit up very late into the night, or else to rise by two or three o'clock in the morning, that he might find time for reading without prejudice to his trade, and although of a weakly constitution, he accustomed himself to do very well with only two or three hours of sleep in the twenty-four, and he lived to be seventy-eight. but this is a curiosity rather than an example. such also is the story of the roman emperor caligula, who slept only three hours. in the list of men sleeping only four hours is frederick of prussia, john hunter, the surgeon, napoleon, and alexander von humboldt. that gallant cavalier and accomplished historian, renowned for genius and misfortune, sir walter raleigh, was accustomed, even under the pressure of his arduous career, to devote four hours daily to reading and study, while he allowed only five for sleep. probably all of us, in our own personal experience, have known men of study and labor who, in the ardor of their pursuit, have foregone what is thought the ordinary sleep, being late to bed and early to rise, reducing the night to a narrow isthmus of time. others there are with a vivacity of industry which acts with intensity and rapidity, requiring long periods of repose. i cannot forget that judge story, the person who has accomplished more than any one within the circle of my individual observation, whose life--now, alas! closed by death--was thickly studded with various labors as judge, professor, and author, is a high example of what may be wrought by wakeful diligence, without denying the body any refreshment of repose. his habit, during the years of his greatest intellectual activity, was to retire always at ten o'clock and to rise at seven,--allowing nine hours for sleep. the tradesman of george the third might have sought shelter with him from the royal raillery. pursuing these inquiries as to the arrangement of the day, we find the precept, if not the example, uniform with regard to early rising as propitious to health and intellectual exertion. the old saw, "early to bed and early to rise," imprints the lesson upon the mind of childhood. the magnificent period of milton sounds in our ears: "my morning haunts are where they should be, at home,--not sleeping, or concocting the surfeits of an irregular feast, but up and stirring,--in winter often ere the sound of any bell awake men to labor or to devotion,--in summer as oft with the bird that first rouses, or not much tardier, to read good authors or cause them to be read, till the attention be weary or memory have its full fraught,--then with useful and generous labors preserving the body's health and hardiness, to render lightsome, clear, and not lumpish obedience to the mind, to the cause of religion, and our country's liberty."[ ] sir walter scott is less stately in his tribute to the morning, but he agrees with milton: "the half-hour between waking and rising has all my life proved propitious to any task which was exercising my invention. when i got over any knotty difficulty in a story, or have had in former times to fill up a passage in a poem, it was always when i first opened my eyes that the desired ideas thronged upon me. this is so much the case, that i am in the habit of relying upon it, and saying to myself, when i am at a loss, 'never mind, we shall have it at seven o'clock to-morrow morning.' if i have forgot a circumstance, or a name, or a copy of verses, it is the same thing."[ ] in this equal dedication to the morning milton and scott are alike, but how unlike in all else! milton's testimony is like an anthem; scott's like an affidavit. [ ] apology for smectymnuus: prose works, vol. i. p. . [ ] diary: lockhart's life of scott, chap. vii. vol. vi. p. . notwithstanding these great examples and the prevailing precept, it may be doubted if the student can be weaned from those habits which lead him to continue his vigils far into the watches of the night. from time immemorial he has been said to "consume the midnight oil," and productions marked by peculiar care are proverbially reputed to "smell of the lamp," never to breathe the odor of the morning. an ingenious inquirer might be inclined to trace in different writers, particularly in poets, the distinctive influence of the hours they devoted to labor, and, perhaps, to find in milton and scott the freshness and vivid colors of the rosy-fingered dawn, and in schiller and byron the sombre shade and sickly glare of the lamp. whatever the result of such speculations, which might be moralized by example, the midnight lamp will ever be regarded as the symbol of labor. in the wonders it has wrought it yields only to the far-famed lamp of aladdin. they who confess themselves among "the slaves of the lamp" say that there is an excitement in study, increasing as the work proceeds, which flames forth with new brightness at the close of the day and in the stillness of those hours when the world is wrapped in sleep and the student is the sole watcher. the heavy clock seems to toll the midnight hour in the church-belfry for him alone, and, as he catches its distant vibrations, he thinks that he hears the iron hoof of time come sounding by. all interruptions are ended, and he is in closer companionship with his books and studies. he holds converse face to face with the spirits of the mighty dead, while the learned page and glowing verse become vocal with inspiring thought. the poet speaks to him with richer melodies, and the soul responds in new and more generous resolves. it is not for me on this occasion to interpose any judgment on a question which comes within the precincts of physiology. my present purpose is accomplished, if i teach the husbandry of time. to this end i have adduced authority and example. but there are other considerations which enforce the lesson with persuasive power. in the employment of time will be found the sure means of happiness. the laborer living by the sweat of his brow, and the youth toiling in perplexities of business or study, sighs for repose, and repines at the law which ordains the seeming hardship of his lot. he seeks happiness as the end and aim of life, but he does not open his mind to the important truth that occupation is indispensable to happiness. he shuns work, but he does not know the precious jewel hidden beneath its rude attire. others there are who wander over half the globe in pursuit of what is found under the humblest roof of virtuous industry, in the shadow of every tree planted by one's own hand. the poet has said,-- "the best and sweetest far are toil-created gains." but this does not disclose the whole truth. there is in useful labor its own exceeding great reward, without regard to gain. the happiness found in occupation is the frequent theme of the moralist, but nobody has illustrated it with more power than luther in his table-talk, where he presents an image of the human mind which has always seemed to me one of the most striking in the whole range of literature. let me give it in the strong and fibrous diction of the ancient translation from the original latin. "the heart of an humane creature is like a mill-stone in a mill: when corn is shaked thereupon, it runneth about, rubbeth and grindeth it to meal; but if no corn bee present (the stone nevertheless running still about), then it rubbeth and grindeth it self thinner, and becometh less and smaller: even so the heart of an humane creature will bee occupied; if it hath not the works of its vocation in hand to bee busied therein, then cometh the divel and shooteth thereinto tribulations, heavie cogitations and vexations, as then the heart consumeth it self with melancholie, insomuch that it must starv and famish."[ ] that it may not starve and famish, it must be supplied with something to do; and its happiness will be in proportion to the completeness with which all its faculties are brought into activity. [ ] dr. martin luther's divine discourses at his table, etc., translated out of the high germane into the english tongue by capt. henrie bell, london, : chap. xxxvii., _of tribulation and temptation_, p. . it is according to god's providence that there should be pleasure in the exercise of all the powers with which we are blessed. there is pleasure in seeing the sights and catching the sounds of nature. there is pleasure in the exercise of the limbs, even in extending an arm or moving a muscle. higher degrees of pleasure are allotted to the exercise of the higher faculties. there is pleasure in the acquisition of knowledge,--pleasure in the performance of duty,--pleasure in all the labors by which we promote our own progress,--pleasure higher still in those by which we promote the progress of others. if this be so,--and surely it will not be doubted,--then is it our duty to regulate our habits so as to cultivate all the faculties, to the end that time shall yield its choicest fruits. when i speak of all the faculties, i mean all those which enter into and form the character created in the image of god, not merely those which minister to the selfish ends of life. there are faculties for business; there are others which open to us the avenues of knowledge,--others which connect us by chains soft as silk, but strong as iron, to the social and domestic circle,--others still which reveal to us, in vistas of infinite variety and inconceivable extension, our duties to god and man. nor can any one reasonably persuade himself that he has done his whole duty, and employed his time to the best purpose, who has neglected any of these, although he may have sacrificed much to the others. success in business will not compensate for neglect of general culture; nor will attendance on "the stated preaching of the gospel" atone for a want of interest in the great charities of life, in the education of the people, in the sufferings of the poor, in the sorrows of the slave. there is a tendency to absorption by one pursuit or one idea, against which we must especially guard. the mere man of business is "a man of one idea,"[ ] and his solitary idea has its root in no generous or humane desires, but in selfishness. he lives for himself alone. he may send his freights to the most distant quarters of the earth, and receive therefrom returning argosies, but his real horizon is restricted to the narrow circle of his own personal interests; nor does his worldly nature, elated by the profits of cent per cent, see with eye of sympathy, in cotton sold or sugar bought, the drops of blood falling from the unhappy slaves out of whose labor they were wrung. in the mere man of business the individual is lost in the profession or calling, thinking only of that, and caring little for other things of life. he is known by the character that business impresses upon him. he is untiring in its pursuit, but with no true progress, for each day renews its predecessor. benevolence calls, but he is deaf, or satisfies his conscience by a dole of money. literature exhibits her charms, but he is insensible. and innocent recreation makes her pleasant appeal, but he will not listen. he is absorbed, engrossed, filled in every vein by the "one idea" of business with new methods of adding to his increasing gains, as the mouth of the money-seeking crassus was filled by the parthians with molten gold. [ ] at the date of this lecture the abolitionist was constantly taunted, especially by business men, as "the man of one idea." we learn to deride the pedant who sacrifices everything to the accumulation of empty learning, which he displays at all times, as a peddler his wares. the image of dominie sampson, in scott's novel of "guy mannering," is a happy scarecrow to frighten us from his "one idea." but the merchant whose only talk is of markets, the farmer whose only talk is of bullocks, and the lawyer whose only talk is of his cases, are all dominie sampsons in their way. they have all missed that completeness and harmony of development essential to the balance of the faculties and to the best usefulness. they have become richer in this world's goods; but they have sacrificed what money cannot supply,--a general intelligence, an independence of calling or position, and a catholic, liberal spirit. in the prejudices engendered by exclusive devotion to a single pursuit, they have lost one of the most important attributes of man,--the power to receive and appreciate truth. it is a common saying, handed down with reverence in my own profession, where it is attested at once by bacon and by coke, that "every man owes a debt to his profession." if by this is meant that every man should seek to elevate his profession, and to increase its usefulness, the saying is a truism, although valuable as at least one remove from individual selfishness. but is it not too often construed so as to exclude exertion in any other walk, or to serve as a cloak for indifference to other things? important as this debt may be,--and i will not disparage it,--not for this alone are we sent into the world. there are other debts which must not be postponed. man was not thus fearfully and wonderfully made,--the cunningest pattern of excelling nature,--endowed with infinite faculties,--traversing with the angels the blue floor of heaven,--ranging with light from system to system of the universe,--descending to the earth and receiving in bountiful largess all its hoarded treasures,--girdling the globe with the peaceful embrace of commerce,--imposing chains even upon the lawless sea,--making the winds and elements do his bidding,--summoning to his company all that is and all that has been the good and great of all times, exemplars of truth, liberty, and virtue, all the grand procession of history,--formed to throb at every deed of generosity and self-sacrifice, and to send forth his sympathies wider and sweeter than any south-wind blowing over beds of violets, until they reach the most distant sufferer,--formed for the acquisition of knowledge and of science,--gifted to enjoy the various feast of letters and art, the breathing canvas and marble, the infinite many-choired voices of all the sons of genius who have written or spoken, the beauty of mountain, field, and river, the dazzling drapery of the winter snow, the glory of sunset, the blushing of the rose,--man was not made with all these capacities, looking before and after, spanning the vast outstretched past, penetrating the vaster unfathomable future, with all its images of beauty, merely to follow a profession or a trade, merely to be a merchant, a lawyer, a mechanic, a soldier. "so god created man in his own image; in the image of god created he him." the image of god is in the soul, and the young must take heed that it is not effaced by the neglect of any of the trusts they have received. they must bear in mind that there are debts other than to their profession or business, which, like gratitude, it will ever be their pleasure, "still paying, still to owe,"--which can be properly discharged only by the best employment of all the faculties with which they are blessed,--so that life shall be improved by culture and filled with works for the good of man. in no respect would i weaken any just attachment to the business of one's choice. goethe advised every one to read daily a short poem; and in the same spirit would i refine and elevate business by the chastening influence of other pursuits, by enlarging the intelligence, by widening the sphere of observation and interest, by awakening new sympathies. in the faithful husbandry of time, in the aggregation of all its particles of golden sand, is the first stage of individual progress. with the living spirit of industry, the student will find his way easy. difficulties cannot permanently obstruct his resolute career. he will remember "rare ben jonson," one of england's admired and most learned bards, working as a bricklayer with a trowel in his hand and a book in his pocket,--burns, wooing his muse as he followed the plough on the mountain-side,--the beloved german jean paul, composing his earliest works by the music of the simmering kettles in his mother's humble kitchen,--and franklin, while a printer's boy, straitened by small means, beginning those studies and labors which make him an example to mankind. seek, then, occupation; seek labor; seek to employ all the faculties, whether in study or conduct,--not in words only, but in deeds also, mindful that "words are the daughters of earth, but deeds are the sons of heaven." so shall you eat of that fabled fruit growing on the banks of the river of delight, whereby men gain a blessed course of life without one moment of sadness. so shall your days be filled with usefulness,-- "and when old time shall lead you to your end, goodness and you fill up one monument." there is a legend of friar roger bacon, so conspicuous in what may be called the mythology of modern science, which enforces the importance of seizing the present moment; nor could i hope to close this appeal with anything better calculated to impress upon all the lesson i have sought to teach. with wizard skill he had succeeded in constructing a brazen head, which, by unimaginable contrivance, after unknown lapse of time, was to speak and declare important knowledge. weary with watching for the auspicious moment, which had been prolonged through successive weeks, he had sought the refreshment of sleep, leaving his man miles to observe the head, and to awaken him at once, if it should speak, that he might not fail to interrogate it. shortly after he had sunk to rest, the head spake these words, _time is_. but the foolish guardian heeded them not, nor the commands of his master, whom he allowed to slumber unconscious of the auspicious moment. another half-hour passed and the head spake the words, _time was_, which miles still heeded not. another half-hour passed, and the head spake yet other words, _time is past_, and straightway fell to the earth, shivered in pieces, with a terrible crash and strange flashes of fire, so that miles was half dead with fear; and his master awoke to behold the workmanship of his cunning hand and the hopes he had builded thereupon shattered, while the voice from the brazen throat still sounded in his ears, time is past! biographical sketch of the late john pickering. article in the law reporter of june, . it was a remark of lord brougham, illustrated by his own crowded life, that the complete performance of all the duties of an active member of the british parliament might be joined to a full practice at the bar. the career of the late mr. pickering illustrates a more grateful truth: that the mastery of the law as a science and the constant performance of all the duties of a practitioner are not incompatible with the studies of the most various scholarship,--that the lawyer and the scholar may be _one_. he dignified the law by the successful cultivation of letters, and strengthened the influence of these elegant pursuits by becoming their representative in the concerns of daily life and in the labors of his profession. and now that this living example of excellence is withdrawn, we feel a sorrow which words can only faintly express. we would devote a few moments to the contemplation of what he did and what he was. the language of exaggeration is forbidden by the modesty of his nature, as it is rendered unnecessary by the multitude of his virtues. * * * * * john pickering, whose recent death we deplore, was born in salem, february , , at the darkest and most despondent period of the revolution. his father, colonel pickering, was a man of distinguished character and an eminent actor in public affairs, whose name belongs to the history of our country. of his large family of ten children john was the eldest.[ ] his diligence at school was a source of early gratification to his family, and gave augury of future accomplishments. an authentic token of this character, beyond any tradition of partial friends, is afforded by a little book entitled "letters to a student in the university of cambridge, massachusetts, by john clarke, minister of a church in boston," printed in , and in reality addressed to him. the first letter begins with an honorable allusion to his early improvement. "your superior qualifications for admission into the university give you singular advantages for the prosecution of your studies.... you are now placed in a situation to become, what you have often assured me is your ambition, _a youth of learning and virtue_." the last letter of the volume concludes with benedictions, which did not fall as barren words upon the heart of the youthful pupil. "may you," says dr. clarke, "be one of those sons who do honor to their literary parent. the union of _virtue_ and _science_ will give you distinction at the present age, and will tend to give celebrity to the name of harvard. you will not disappoint the friends who anticipate your improvements." they who remember his college days still dwell with fondness upon his exemplary character and his remarkable scholarship. he received his degree of bachelor of arts at cambridge in . [ ] the reporter, octavius pickering, was so named from his being the _eighth_ child. on leaving the university he went to philadelphia, at that time the seat of government, his father being secretary of state. here he commenced the study of the law under mr. tilghman, afterwards the distinguished chief justice of pennsylvania, and one of the lights of american jurisprudence. but his professional lucubrations were soon suspended by his appointment, in , as secretary of legation to portugal. in this capacity he resided at lisbon for two years, during which time he became familiar with the language and literature of the country. later in life, when his extensive knowledge of foreign tongues opened to him the literature of the world, he recurred with peculiar pleasure to the language of camoens and pombal. from lisbon he passed to london, where, at the close of the last century, he became, for about two years, the private secretary of our minister, mr. king, residing in the family and enjoying the society and friendship of this distinguished representative of his country. here he was happy in meeting with his classmate and attached friend, dr. james jackson, of boston, then in london, pursuing those medical studies whose ripened autumnal fruits of usefulness and eminence he still lives to enjoy. in pleasant companionship they perambulated the thoroughfares of the great metropolis, enjoying together its shows and attractions; in pleasant companionship they continued ever afterwards, till death severed the ties of long life. mr. pickering's youth and inexperience in the profession to which he afterwards devoted his days prevented his taking any special interest, at this period, in the courts or in parliament. but there were several of the judges who made a strong impression on his mind; nor did he ever cease to remember the vivacious eloquence of erskine or the commanding oratory of pitt. meanwhile, his father, being no longer in the public service, had returned to salem; and thither the son followed, in , resuming the study of the law, under the direction of mr. putnam, afterwards a learned and beloved judge of the supreme court of massachusetts, whose rare fortune it has been to rear two pupils whose fame will be among the choicest possessions of our country,--story and pickering. in due time he was admitted to the bar, and commenced the practice of the law in salem. here begins the long, unbroken series of his labors in literature and philology, running side by side with the daily, untiring business of his profession. it is easy to believe, that, notwithstanding his undissembled predilection for jurisprudence as a _science_, he was drawn towards its _practice_ by the compulsion of duty rather than by any attraction it possessed for him. not removed by fortune from the necessity, to which dr. johnson so pathetically alludes, of providing for the day that was passing over him, he could indulge his taste for study only in hours secured by diligence from the inroads of business or refused to the seductions of pleasure. since the oration for archias, perhaps no lawyer ever lived who could have uttered with greater truth the inspiring words with which, in that remarkable production, the roman orator confessed and vindicated the cultivation of letters: "me autem quid pudeat, qui tot annos ita vivo, judices, ut ab nullius unquam me tempore aut commodo aut otium meum abstraxerit, aut voluptas avocârit, aut denique somnus retardârit? quare quis tandem me reprehendat, aut quis mihi jure succenseat, si, quantum cæteris ad suas res obeundas, quantum ad festos dies ludorum celebrandos, quantum ad alias voluptates, et ad ipsam requiem animi et corporis conceditur temporum, quantum alii tribuunt tempestivis conviviis, quantum denique aleæ, quantum pilæ, tantum mihi egomet ad hæc studia recolenda sumpsero?"[ ] [ ] pro archia, c. . in his life may be seen two streams flowing side by side, as through a long tract of country: one fed by the fresh fountains high up in the mountain-tops, whose waters leap with delight on their journey to the sea; while the other, having its sources low down in the valleys, among the haunts of men, moves with reluctant, though steady, current onward. mr pickering's days were passed in the performance of all the duties of a wide and various practice, first at salem, and afterwards at boston. he resided at the former place till , when he removed to the metropolis, where two years afterwards he became city solicitor, an office whose arduous labors he continued to discharge until within a few months of his death. there is little worthy of notice in the ordinary incidents of professional life. what blackstone aptly calls "the pert dispute" renews itself in infinitely varying form. some new turn of litigation calls forth some new effort of learning or skill, calculated to serve its temporary purpose, and, like the manna which fell in the desert, perishing on the day that beholds it. the unambitious labors of which the world knows nothing, the advice to clients, the drawing of contracts, the perplexities of conveyancing furnish still less of interest than ephemeral displays of the court-room. the cares of his profession and the cultivation of letters left but little time for the concerns of politics. and yet, at different periods, he filled offices in the legislature of massachusetts. he was three times representative from salem, twice senator from essex, once senator from suffolk, and once a member of the executive council. in all these places he commended himself by the same diligence, honesty, learning, and ability which marked his course at the bar. the careful student of our legislative history will not fail to perceive his obligations to mr. pickering, as the author of important reports and bills. the first bill for the separation of maine from massachusetts was reported to the senate by him in , and though the object failed for the time with the people of maine, the bill is characterized by the historian of that state as "drawn with great ability and skill."[ ] the report and accompanying bill on the jurisdiction and proceedings of the courts of probate, discussing and remodelling the whole system, were from his hand. [ ] williamson, history of maine, vol. ii. p. . in he was appointed to the vacancy, occasioned by the death of professor ashmun, in the commission for revising and arranging the statutes of massachusetts, being associated in this important work with those eminent lawyers, mr. jackson and mr. stearns. the first part, or that entitled _of the internal administration of the government_, corresponding substantially with blackstone's division _of the rights of persons_, was executed by him. this alone entitles him to be gratefully remembered, not only by those having occasion to consult the legislation of massachusetts, but by all who feel an interest in scientific jurisprudence. his contributions to what may be called the literature of his profession were frequent. the american jurist was often enriched by articles from his pen. among these is a review of the valuable work of williams on the law of executors, and of curtis's admiralty digest, where he examined the interesting history of this jurisdiction; also an article on the study of the roman law, where, within a short compass, he presented a lucid history of this system, and the growth in germany of the historical and didactic schools, "rival houses," as they may be called, in jurisprudence, whose long and unpleasant feud has only recently subsided. in the law reporter for september, , he published an article of singular merit, on national rights and state rights, being a review of the case of alexander mcleod, recently determined in the supreme court of new york. this was afterwards republished in a pamphlet, and extensively circulated. it is marked by uncommon learning, clearness, and power. the course of the courts of new york is handled with freedom, and the supremacy of the government vindicated. of all the discussions elicited by that interesting question, on which, for a while, seemed to hang the portentous issues of peace and war between the united states and great britain, that of mr. pickering will be admitted to take the lead, whether we consider its character as an elegant composition, or as a searching review of the juridical questions involved. in dealing with the opinion of mr. justice cowen, renowned for black-letter and the bibliography of the law, he shows himself more than a match for this learned judge, even in these unfrequented fields, while the spirit of the publicist and jurist gives a refined temper to the whole article, which we vainly seek in the other production. in the north american review for october, , is an article by him, illustrative of conveyancing in ancient egypt, being an explanation of an egyptian deed of a piece of land in hundred-gated thebes, written on papyrus, more than a century before the christian era, with the impression of a seal or stamp attached, and a certificate of registry in the margin, in as regular a manner as the keeper of the registry in the county of suffolk would certify to a deed of land in the city of boston at this day. jurisprudence is here adorned by scholarship. there is another production which, like the preceding, belongs to the department of literature as well as of jurisprudence: his lecture on the alleged uncertainty of the law, delivered before the boston society for the diffusion of useful knowledge. though written originally for the general mind, which it is calculated to interest and instruct in no common degree, it will be read with equal advantage by the profound lawyer. it is not easy to mention any popular discussion of a juridical character, in our language, deserving of higher regard. it was first published in the american jurist, at the solicitation of the writer of this sketch, who has never referred to it without fresh admiration of the happy illustrations and quiet reasoning by which it vindicates the science of the law. * * * * * in considering what mr. pickering accomplished out of his profession, we are led over wide and various fields of learning, where we can only hope to indicate his footprints, without presuming to examine or describe the ground. one of his earliest cares was to elevate the character of classical studies in our country. in this respect his own example did much. from the time he left the university, he was always regarded as an authority on topics of scholarship. but his labors were devoted especially to this cause. as early as , in conjunction with his friend, the present judge white, of salem, he published an edition of the histories of sallust with latin notes and a copious index. this is one of the first examples, in our country, of a classic edited with scholarly skill. the same spirit led him, later in life, to publish in the north american review, and afterwards in a pamphlet, "observations on the importance of greek literature, and the best method of studying the classics," translated from the latin of professor wyttenbach. in the course of the remarks with which he introduces the translation, he urges with conclusive force the importance of raising the standard of education in our country. "we are too apt," he says, "to consider ourselves as an insulated people, as not belonging to the great community of europe; but we are, in truth, just as much members of it, by means of a common public law, commercial intercourse, literature, a kindred language and habits, as englishmen or frenchmen themselves are; and we must procure for ourselves the qualifications necessary to maintain that rank which we shall claim as equal members of such a community." his remarks on greek grammars, which appeared in the american journal of education in , belongs to the same field of labor, as does also his admirable paper, published in , in the memoirs of the american academy, on the proper pronunciation of the ancient greek language.[ ] he maintained that it should be pronounced, as far as possible, according to the romaic or modern greek, and learnedly exposed the vicious usage introduced by erasmus. his conclusions, though controverted when first presented, are now substantially adopted by scholars. we well remember his honest pleasure in a communication received within a few years from president moore, of columbia college, in which that gentleman, who had once opposed his views, announced his change, and, with the candor that becomes his honorable scholarship, volunteered to them the sanction of his approbation. [ ] "observations upon the greek accent" is the title of an essay in the royal irish transactions, vol. vii., by dr. browne, suggested, like mr. pickering's, by conversation with some modern greeks, and touching upon similar topics. dr. browne is the author of the learned and somewhat antediluvian book on the civil and admiralty law. the greek and english lexicon is his work of greatest labor in the department of classical learning. this alone would entitle him to praise from all who love liberal studies. with the well-thumbed copy of this book, used in college days, now before us, we feel how much we are debtor to his learned toil. planned early in mr. pickering's life, it was begun in . the interruptions of his profession induced him to engage the assistance of the late dr. daniel oliver, professor of moral and intellectual philosophy at dartmouth college. the work, proceeding slowly, was not announced by a prospectus until , and not finally published until . it was mainly founded on the well-known lexicon of schrevelius, which had received the emphatic commendation of vicesimus knox, and was generally regarded as preferable to any other for the use of schools. when mr. pickering commenced his labors there was no greek lexicon with definitions in our own tongue. the english student obtained his knowledge of greek through the intervention of latin. and it is supposed by many, who have not sufficiently regarded other relations of the subject, as we are inclined to believe, that this circuitous and awkward practice is a principal reason why greek is so much less familiar to us than latin. in honorable efforts to remove this difficulty our countryman took the lead. shortly before the last sheets of his lexicon were printed, a copy of a london translation of schrevelius reached this country, which proved, however to be "a hurried performance, upon which it would not have been safe to rely."[ ] [ ] preface to pickering's lexicon. since the publication of his lexicon, several others in greek and english have appeared in england. the example of germany and the learning of her scholars have contributed to these works. it were to be wished that all of them were free from the imputation of an unhandsome appropriation of labors performed by others. the lexicon of dr. dunbar, professor of greek in the university of edinburgh, published in , contains whole pages taken bodily--"convey, the wise it call"--from that of mr. pickering, while the preface is content with an acknowledgment, in very general terms, of obligation to the work which is copied. this is bad enough. but the second edition, published in , omits acknowledgment altogether; and the lexicon is welcomed by an elaborate article in the quarterly review,[ ] as the triumphant labor of dr. dunbar, "well known among our northern classics as a clever man and an acute scholar. _in almost every page_," continues the reviewer, "_we meet with something which bespeaks the pen of a scholar_; and we every now and then stumble on explanations of words and passages, occasionally fanciful, but always sensible, and sometimes ingenious, which amply repay us for the search.... _they prove, moreover, that the professor is possessed of one quality which we could wish to see more general: he does not see with the eyes of others_; he thinks for himself, and he seems well qualified to do so." did he not see with the eyes of others? the reviewer hardly supposed that his commendation would reach the production of an american lexicographer. [ ] vol. lxxv. p. . in the general department of languages and philology his labors were various. some of the publications already mentioned might be ranged under this head. there are others which remain to be noticed. the earliest is the work generally called _the vocabulary of americanisms_, being a collection of words and phrases supposed to be peculiar to the united states, with an essay on the state of the english language in this country. this originally appeared in the memoirs of the american academy, in , and republished in a separate volume, with corrections and additions, in . it was the author's intention, had his life been spared, to print another edition, with the important gleanings of subsequent observation and study. undoubtedly this work has exerted a beneficial influence upon the purity of our language. it has promoted careful habits of composition, and, in a certain degree, helped to guard the "well of english undefiled." some of the words found in this vocabulary may be traced to ancient sources of authority; but there are many which are beyond question provincial and barbarous, although much used in our common speech,--"_fæx quoque quotidiani sermonis, foeda ac pudenda vitia_."[ ] [ ] de oratoribus dialogus, c. ,--sometimes attributed to tacitus. in the memoirs of the american academy for appeared his essay on a uniform orthography for the indian languages of north america. the uncertainty of their orthography arose from the circumstance that the words were collected and reduced to writing by scholars of different nations, who often attached different values to the same letter, and represented the same sound by different letters; so that it was impossible to determine the sound of a written word, without first knowing through what alembic of speech it had passed. thus the words of the same language or dialect, written by a german, a frenchman, or an englishman, would seem to belong to languages as widely different as those of these different people. with the hope of removing from the path of others the perplexities that had beset his own, mr. pickering recommended the adoption of a common orthography, which would enable foreigners to use our books without difficulty, and, on the other hand, make theirs easy for us. to this end, he devised an alphabet for the indian languages, which contained the common letters of our alphabet, so far as practicable, a class of nasals, also of diphthongs, and, lastly, a number of compound characters, which it was supposed would be of more or less frequent use in different dialects. with regard to this essay, mr. du ponceau said, at an early day, "if, as there is great reason to expect, mr. pickering's orthography gets into general use among us, america will have had the honor of taking the lead in procuring an important auxiliary to philological science."[ ] perhaps no single paper on language, since the legendary labors of cadmus, has exercised a more important influence than this communication. though originally composed with a view to the indian languages of north america, it has been successfully followed by the missionaries in the polynesian islands. in harmony with the principles of this essay, the unwritten dialect of the sandwich islands, possessing, it is said, a more than italian softness, was reduced to writing according to a systematic orthography prepared by mr. pickering, and is now employed in two newspapers published by natives. thus he may be regarded as one of the contributors to that civilization, under whose gentle influence those islands, set like richest gems in the bosom of the sea, will yet glow with the effulgence of christian truth. [ ] notes on eliot's indian grammar, mass. hist. coll., second series, vol. ix. p. xi. i cannot forbear adding, that in the correspondence of leibnitz there is a proposition for a new alphabet of the arabic, Æthiopic, syriac, and similar languages, which may remind the reader of that of mr. pickering. leibnitz, opera (ed. dutens), vol. vi. p. . his early studies in this branch are attested by an article in the north american review for june, , on du ponceau's report on the languages of the american indians, and another article in the same review, for july, , on dr. jarvis's discourse on the religion of the indian tribes of north america. the latter attracted the particular attention of william von humboldt. the collections of the massachusetts historical society contain several important communications from him on the indian languages: in (vol. ix. second series) an edition of the indian grammar of eliot, the st. augustin of new england, with introductory observations on the massachusetts language by the editor, and notes by mr. du ponceau, inscribed to his "learned friend, mr. pickering, as a just tribute of friendship and respect";--in (vol. x. second series) an edition of jonathan edwards's observations on the mohegan language, with an advertisement and copious notes on the indian languages by the editor, and a comparative vocabulary of various dialects of the lenape or delaware stock of north american languages, together with a specimen of the winnebago language;--in (vol. ii. third series) an edition of cotton's vocabulary of the massachusetts language. he also prepared roger williams's vocabulary of the narragansett indians for the rhode island historical society. these labors were calculated, in no ordinary degree, to promote a knowledge of our aboriginal idioms, and to shed light on that important and newly attempted branch of knowledge, the science of comparative language. among the memoirs of the american academy, published in , (vol. i. new series) is the dictionary of the abnaki language, in north america, by father sebastian rasles, with an introductory memoir and notes by mr. pickering. the original manuscript of this copious dictionary, commenced by the good and indefatigable jesuit in , during his solitary residence with the indians, was found among his papers after the massacre at norridgewock, in which he was killed, and, passing through several hands, at last came into the possession of harvard university. it is considered one of the most interesting and authentic documents in the history of the north american languages. in the memoir accompanying the dictionary, mr. pickering, with the modesty which marked all his labors, says that he made inquiries for memorials of these languages, "hoping that he might render some small service by collecting and preserving these valuable materials for the use of those persons whose leisure and ability would enable them to employ them more advantageously than it was in his power to do, for the benefit of philological science." the elaborate article on the indian languages of america in the encyclopædia americana is from his pen. the subject was considered so interesting, in regard to general and comparative philology, while so little was known respecting it, that a space was allowed to this article beyond that of other philological articles in the encyclopædia. the forthcoming volume of memoirs of the american academy contains an interesting paper of a kindred character, one of his latest productions, on the language and inhabitants of lord north's island, in the indian archipelago, with a vocabulary. the address before the american oriental society, delivered and published in , as the first number of the journal of that body, is an admirable contribution to the history of languages, presenting a survey of the peculiar field of labor to which the society is devoted, in a style which attracts alike the scholar and the less critical reader. among his other productions in philology may be mentioned an interesting article on the chinese language, which first appeared in the north american review for january, , and was afterwards _dishonestly reprinted, as an original article_, in the london monthly review for december, ; also an article on the cochin-chinese language, published in the north american review for april, ; another on adelung's "survey of languages," in the same journal, in ; a review of johnson's dictionary, in the american quarterly review for september, ; and two articles in the new york review for , being a caustic examination of general cass's article in the north american review respecting the indians of north america. these two papers were not acknowledged by their author at the time they were written. they purport to be by kass-_ti-ga-tor-skee_, or _the feathered arrow_, a fictitious name from the latin cas-_tigator_ and an indian termination _skee_ or _ski_. even this enumeration does not close the catalogue of mr. pickering's productions. there are others--to which, however, we refer by their titles only--that may be classed with contributions to _general literature_. among these is an oration delivered at salem on the fourth of july, ; an article in the encyclopædia americana, in , on the agrarian laws of rome; an article in the north american review for april, , on elementary instruction; an introductory essay to newhall's letters on junius, in ; a lecture on telegraphic language, before the boston marine society, in ; an article on peirce's history of harvard university, in the north american review for april, ; an article on the south sea islands, in the american quarterly review for september, ; an article on prescott's history of the reign of ferdinand and isabella, in the new york review for april, ; the noble eulogy on dr. bowditch, delivered before the american academy, may , ; and obituary notices of mr. peirce, the librarian of harvard college, of dr. spurzheim, of dr. bowditch, and of his valued friend and correspondent, the partner of his philological labors, mr. du ponceau; also an interesting lecture, still unpublished, on the origin of the population of america, and two others on languages. * * * * * the reader will be astonished at these various contributions to learning and literature, thus hastily reviewed, particularly when he regards them as the diversions of a life filled in amplest measure by other pursuits. charles lamb said that his _real works_ were not his published writings, but the ponderous folios copied by his hand in the india house. in the same spirit, mr. pickering might point to the multitudinous transactions of his long professional life, cases argued in court, conferences with clients, and deeds, contracts, and other papers, in that clear, legible autograph which is a fit emblem of his transparent character. his professional life first invites attention. here it should be observed that he was a thorough, hard-working lawyer, for the greater part of his days in _full practice_, constant at his office, attentive to all the concerns of business, and to what may be called the humilities of the profession. he was faithful, conscientious, and careful; nor did his zeal for the interests committed to his care ever betray him beyond the golden mean of duty. the law, in his hands, was a shield for defence, and never a sword to thrust at his adversary. his preparations for arguments in court were marked by peculiar care; his brief was elaborate. on questions of law he was learned and profound; but his manner in court was excelled by his matter. the experience of a long life never enabled him to overcome the native childlike diffidence which made him shrink from public display. he developed his views with clearness and an invariable regard to their logical sequence,--but he did not press them home by energy of manner, or any of the arts of eloquence. his mind was rather judicial than forensic in cast. he was better able to discern the right than to make the wrong appear the better reason. he was not a legal athlete, snuffing new vigor in the atmosphere of the bar, and regarding success alone,--but a faithful counsellor, solicitous for his client, and for justice too. it was this character that led him to contemplate the law as a science, and to study its improvement and elevation. he could not look upon it merely as the means of earning money. he gave much of his time to its generous culture. from the walks of practice he ascended to the heights of jurisprudence, embracing within his observation the systems of other countries. his contributions to this department illustrate the turn and extent of his inquiries. it was his hope to accomplish some careful work on the law, more elaborate than the memorials he has left. the subject of the _practice and procedure of courts_, or what is called by the civilians _stylus curiæ_, occupied his mind, and he intended to treat it in the light of foreign authorities, particularly german and french, with the view of determining the general principles, or natural law, common to all systems, by which it is governed. such a work, executed with the fine juridical spirit in which it was conceived, would have been welcomed wherever the law is studied as a science. it is, then, not only as lawyer, practising in courts, but as jurist, to whom the light of jurisprudence shone gladsome, that we are to esteem our departed friend. as such, his example will command attention and exert an influence long after the paper dockets in blue covers, chronicling the stages of litigation in his cases, are consigned to the oblivion of dark closets and cobwebbed pigeon-holes. but he has left a place vacant, not only in the halls of jurisprudence, but also in the circle of scholars throughout the world, and, it may be said, in the pantheon of universal learning. contemplating the variety, the universality of his attainments, the mind, borrowing an epithet once applied to another, involuntarily exclaims, "the admirable pickering!" he seems, indeed, to have run the whole round of knowledge. his studies in ancient learning had been profound; nor can we sufficiently admire the facility with which, amidst other cares, he assumed the task of lexicographer. unless some memorandum should be found among his papers, as was the case with sir william jones,[ ] specifying the languages to which he had been devoted, it might be difficult to frame a list with entire accuracy. it is certain that he was familiar with at least _nine_,--english, french, portuguese, italian, spanish, german, romaic, greek, and latin, of which he spoke the first five. he was less familiar, though well acquainted, with dutch, swedish, danish, and hebrew,--and had explored, with various degrees of care, the arabic, turkish, syriac, persian, coptic, sanscrit, chinese, cochin-chinese, russian, egyptian hieroglyphics, the malay in several dialects, and particularly the indian languages of america and the polynesian islands. [ ] sir william jones had studied eight languages critically,--english, latin, french, italian, greek, arabic, persian, sanscrit; eight less perfectly, but all intelligible with a dictionary,--spanish, portuguese, german, runic, hebrew, bengali, hindi, turkish; twelve least perfectly, but all attainable,--tibetian, pâli, phalavi, deri, russian, syriac, Æthiopic, coptic, welsh, swedish, dutch, chinese: in all twenty-eight languages.--teignmouth, _life of jones_, p. , note. the sarcasm of hudibras on the "barren ground" supposed congenial to "hebrew roots" is refuted by the richness of his accomplishments. his style is that of a scholar and man of taste. it is simple, unpretending like its author, clear, accurate, and flows in an even tenor of elegance, which rises at times to a suavity almost xenophontian. though little adorned by flowers of rhetoric, it shows the sensibility and refinement of an ear attuned to the harmonies of language. he had cultivated music as a science, and in his younger days performed on the flute with grecian fondness. some of the airs he had learned in portugal were sung to him by his daughter shortly before his death, bringing with them, doubtless, the pleasant memories of early travel and the "incense-breathing morn" of life. a lover of music, he was naturally inclined to the other fine arts, but always had particular pleasure in works of sculpture. nor were those other studies which are sometimes regarded as of a more practical character foreign to his mind. in college days he was noticed for his attainments in mathematics; and later in life he perused with intelligent care the great work of his friend, dr. bowditch, the translation of the _mécanique celeste_. he was chairman of the committee which recommended the purchase of a first-class telescope for the neighborhood of boston, and was the author of their interesting report on the use and importance of such an instrument. he was partial to natural history, particularly botany, which he taught to some of his family. in addition to all this, he possessed a natural aptitude for the mechanic arts, which was improved by observation and care. early in life he learned to use the turning-lathe, and, as he declared in an unpublished lecture before the mechanics' institute of boston, _made toys which he bartered among his school-mates_. this last circumstance gives singular point to the parallel, already striking in other respects, between him and the greek orator, the boast of whose various knowledge is preserved by cicero: "nihil esse ulla in arte rerum omnium, quod ipse nesciret: nec solum has artes, quibus liberales doctrinæ atque ingenuæ continerentur, geometriam, musicam, literarum cognitionem et poetarum, atque illa, quæ de naturis rerum, quæ de hominum moribus, quæ de rebuspublicis dicerentur; _sed annulum, quem haberet, se sua manu confecisse_."[ ] the greek, besides knowing everything, made the ring which he wore, as our friend made toys. [ ] de oratore, lib. iii. cap. . as the champion of classical studies, and a student of language, or philologist, he is entitled to be specially remembered. it is impossible to measure the influence he has exerted upon the scholarship of the country. his writings and his example, from early youth, pleaded its cause, and will plead it ever, although his living voice is hushed in the grave. his genius for languages was profound. he saw, with intuitive perception, their structure and affinities, and delighted in the detection of their hidden resemblances and relations. to their history and character he devoted his attention, more than to their literature. it is not possible for this humble pen to determine the place which will be allotted to him in the science of philology; but the writer cannot forbear recording the authoritative testimony to the rare merits of mr. pickering in this department, which it was his fortune to hear from the lips of alexander von humboldt. with the brother, william von humboldt, that great light of modern philology, he maintained a long correspondence, particularly on the indian languages; and his letters will be found preserved in the royal library at berlin. without rashly undertaking to indicate any scale of pre-eminence or precedence among the cultivators of this department, at home or abroad, it may not be improper to refer to his labors in those words of dr. johnson with regard to his own, as evidence "that we may no longer yield the palm of philology, without a contest, to the nations of the continent."[ ] [ ] preface to dictionary. if it should be asked by what magic mr. pickering was able to accomplish these remarkable results, it must be answered, by the careful husbandry of time. his talisman was industry. he delighted in referring to those rude inhabitants of tartary who placed idleness among the torments of the world to come, and often remembered the beautiful proverb in his oriental studies, that by labor the leaf of the mulberry is turned into silk. his life is a perpetual commentary on those words of untranslatable beauty in the great italian poet:-- "seggendo in piuma, in fama non si vien, nè sotto coltre: sanza la qual, chi sua vita consuma, cotal vestigio in terra di se lascia, qual fumo in aere od in acqua la schiuma."[ ] [ ] divina commedia, _inferno_, canto xxiv. vv. - . with a mind thus deeply imbued with learning, it will be felt that he was formed less for the contentions of the forum than for the exercises of the academy. and yet it is understood that he declined several opportunities of entering its learned retreats. in he was elected hancock professor of hebrew and other oriental languages in harvard university; and at a later day he was invited to the chair of greek literature in the same institution. on the death of professor ashmun, many eyes were turned towards him, as fitted to occupy the professorship of law in cambridge, since so ably filled by mr. greenleaf; and on two different occasions his name was echoed by the public prints as about to receive the dignity of president of the university. but he continued in the practice of the law to the last. he should be claimed by the bar with peculiar pride. if it be true, as has been said, that serjeant talfourd has reflected more honor upon his profession by the successful cultivation of letters than any of his contemporaries by their forensic triumphs, then should the american bar acknowledge their obligations to the fame of mr. pickering. he was one of us. he was a _regular_ in our ranks; in other service, only a _volunteer_. the mind is led instinctively to a parallel between him and that illustrious scholar and jurist, ornament of the english law, and pioneer of oriental studies in england, sir william jones, to whom i have already referred. both confessed, in early life, the attractions of classical studies; both were trained in the discipline of the law; both, though engaged in its practice, always delighted to contemplate it as a science; both surrendered themselves with irrepressible ardor to the study of languages, while the one broke into the unexplored fields of eastern philology, and the other devoted himself more especially to the native tongues of his own western continent. their names are, perhaps, equally conspicuous for the number of languages which occupied their attention. as we approach them in private life, the parallel still continues. in both there were the same truth, generosity, and gentleness, a cluster of noble virtues,--while the intenser earnestness of the one is compensated by the greater modesty of the other. to our american jurist-scholar, also, may be applied those words of the greek couplet, borrowed from aristophanes, and first appropriated to his english prototype: "the graces, seeking a shrine that would not decay, found the soul of jones." while dwelling with admiration upon his triumphs of intellect and the fame he has won, we must not forget the virtues, higher than intellect or fame, by which his life was adorned. in the jurist and the scholar we must not lose sight of the _man_. so far as is allotted to a mortal, he was a spotless character. the murky tides of this world seemed to flow by without soiling his garments. he was pure in thought, word, and deed; a lover of truth, goodness, and humanity; the friend of the young, encouraging them in their studies, and aiding them by wise counsels; ever kind, considerate, and gentle to all; towards children, and the unfortunate, full of tenderness. he was of charming modesty. with learning to which all bowed with reverence, he walked humbly before god and man. his pleasures were simple. in the retirement of his study, and the blandishments of his music-loving family, he found rest from the fatigues of the bar. he never spoke in anger, nor did any hate find a seat in his bosom. his placid life was, like law in the definition of aristotle, "mind without passion." through his long and industrious career he was blessed with unbroken health. he walked on earth with an unailing body and a serene mind; and at last, in the fulness of time, when the garner was overflowing with the harvests of a well-spent life, in the bosom of his family, the silver cord was gently loosed. he died at boston, may , , in the seventieth year of his age,--only a few days after he had prepared for the press the last sheets of a new and enlarged edition of his greek lexicon. his wife, to whom he was married in , and three children, survive to mourn their irreparable loss. the number of societies, both at home and abroad, of which he was an honored member, attests the widespread recognition of his merits. he was president of the american academy of arts and sciences; president of the american oriental society; foreign secretary of the american antiquarian society; fellow of the massachusetts historical society, the american ethnological society, the american philosophical society; honorary member of the historical societies of new hampshire, rhode island, new york, pennsylvania, michigan, maryland, and georgia; honorary member of the national institution for the promotion of science, the american statistical association, the northern academy of arts and sciences, hanover, n.h., and the society for the promotion of legal knowledge, philadelphia; corresponding member of the academy of sciences at berlin, the oriental society of paris, the academy of sciences and letters at palermo, the antiquarian society at athens, and the royal northern antiquarian society at copenhagen; and titular member of the french society of universal statistics. for many years he maintained a copious correspondence, on matters of jurisprudence, science, and learning, with distinguished names at home and abroad: especially with mr. du ponceau, at philadelphia,--with william von humboldt, at berlin,--with mittermaier, the jurist, at heidelberg,--with dr. prichard, author of the physical history of mankind, at bristol,--and with lepsius, the hierologist, who wrote to him from the foot of the pyramids, in egypt. the death of one thus variously connected is no common sorrow. beyond the immediate circle of family and friends, he will be mourned by the bar, among whom his daily life was passed,--by the municipality of boston, whose legal adviser he was,--by clients, who depended upon his counsels,--by good citizens, who were charmed by the abounding virtues of his private life,--by his country, who will cherish his name more than gold or silver,--by the distant islands of the pacific, who will bless his labors in the words they read,--finally, by the company of jurists and scholars throughout the world. his fame and his works will be fitly commemorated, on formal occasions, hereafter. meanwhile, one who knew him at the bar and in private life, and who loves his memory, lays this early tribute upon his grave. the scholar, the jurist, the artist, the philanthropist. an oration before the phi beta kappa society of harvard university, at their anniversary, august , . then i would say to the young disciple of truth and beauty, who would know how to satisfy the noble impulse of his heart, through every opposition of the century,--i would say, give the world beneath your influence a _direction_ towards the good, and the tranquil rhythm of time will bring its development.--schiller. in this oration, as in that of the th of july, mr. sumner took advantage of the occasion to express himself freely, especially on the two great questions of slavery and war. in the sensitive condition of public sentiment at that time, such an effort would have found small indulgence, if he had not placed himself behind four such names. while commemorating the dead, he was able to uphold living truth. the acceptance of this oration at the time is attested by the toast of john quincy adams at the dinner of the society:-- "the memory of the scholar, the jurist, the artist, the philanthropist; and not the memory, but the long life of the kindred spirit who has this day embalmed them all." this was followed by a letter from mr. adams to mr. sumner, dated at quincy, august , , containing the following passage:-- "it is a gratification to me to have the opportunity to repeat the thanks which i so cordially gave you at the close of your oration of last thursday, and of which the sentiment offered by me at the dinner-table was but an additional pulsation from the same heart. i trust i may now congratulate you on the felicity, first of your selection of your subject, and secondly of its consummation in the delivery.... the pleasure with which i listened to your discourse was inspired far less by the success and _all but_ universal acceptance and applause of the present moment than by the vista of the future which is opened to my view. casting my eyes backward no farther than the th of july of last year, when you set all the vipers of alecto a-hissing by proclaiming the christian law of universal peace and love, and then casting them forward, perhaps not much farther, but beyond my own allotted time, i see you have a mission to perform. i look from pisgah to the promised land; you must enter upon it.... to the motto on my seal [_alteri sæculo_] add _delenda est servitus_." similar testimony was offered by edward everett in a letter dated at cambridge, september , , where he thanks mr. sumner for his "most magnificent address,--an effort certainly of unsurpassed felicity and power,"--then in another letter dated at cambridge, september th, where he writes: "i read it last evening with a renewal of the delight with which i heard it. should you never do anything else, you have done enough for fame; but you are, as far as these public efforts are concerned, at the commencement of a career, destined, i trust, to last for long years, of ever-increasing usefulness and honor." mr. prescott, under date of october d, writes:-- "the most happy conception has been carried out admirably, as if it were the most natural order of things, without the least constraint or violence. i don't know which of your sketches i like the best. i am inclined to think the judge; for there you are on your own heather, and it is the tribute of a favorite pupil to his well-loved master, gushing warm from the heart. yet they are all managed well; and the vivid touches of character and the richness of the illustration will repay the study, i should imagine, of any one familiar with the particular science you discuss." chancellor kent, of new york, under date of october th, expresses himself as follows:-- "i had the pleasure to receive your phi beta kappa address, and i think it to be one of the most splendid productions in point of diction and eloquence that i have ever read. you brought a most fervent mind to the task, glowing with images of transcendent worth, and embellished with classical and literary allusions drawn from your memory and guided by your taste, with extraordinary force.... you have raised a noble monument to the four great men who have adorned your state, and i feel deeply humbled with a sense of my own miserable inferiority when i contemplate such exalted models." these contemporary tokens of friendship and sympathy seem a proper part of this record. oration. to-day is the festival of our fraternity, sacred to learning, to friendship, and to truth. from many places, remote and near, we have come together beneath the benediction of alma mater. we have walked in the grateful shelter of her rich embowering trees. friend has met friend, classmate has pressed the hand of classmate, while the ruddy memories of youth and early study have risen upon the soul. and now we have come up to this church, a company of brothers, in long, well-ordered procession, commencing with the silver locks of reverend age, and closing with the fresh faces that glow with the golden blood of youth. with hearts of gratitude, we greet among our number those whose lives are crowned by desert,--especially him who, returning from conspicuous cares in a foreign land, now graces our chief seat of learning,[ ]--and not less him who, closing, in the high service of the university, a life-long career of probity and honor, now voluntarily withdraws to a scholar's repose.[ ] we salute at once the successor and the predecessor, the rising and the setting sun. and ingenuous youth, in whose bosom are infolded the germs of untold excellence, whose ardent soul sees visions closed to others by the hand of time, commands our reverence not less than age rich in experience and honor. the present and the past, with all their works, we know and measure; but the triumphs of the future are unknown and immeasurable;--therefore is there in the yet untried powers of youth a vastness of promise to quicken the regard. welcome, then, not less the young than the old! and may this our holiday brighten with harmony and joy! [ ] hon. edward everett, president of harvard university. [ ] hon. josiah quincy, late president of harvard university. as the eye wanders around our circle, mr. president, in vain it seeks a beloved form, for many years so welcome in the seat you now fill. i might have looked to behold him on this occasion. but death, since we last met together, has borne him away. the love of friends, the devotion of pupils, the prayers of the nation, the concern of the world, could not shield him from the inexorable shaft. borrowing for him those words of genius and friendship which gushed from clarendon at the name of falkland, that he was "a person of prodigious parts of learning and knowledge, of inimitable sweetness and delight in conversation, of flowing and obliging humanity and goodness to mankind, and of primitive simplicity and integrity of life,"[ ] i need not add the name of story. to dwell on his character, and all that he has done, were a worthy theme. but his is not the only well-loved countenance which returns no answering smile. [ ] history of the rebellion, book vii. this year our society, according to custom, publishes the catalogue of its members, marking by a star the insatiate archery of death during the brief space of four years. in no period of its history, equally short, have such shining marks been found. "now kindred merit fills the sable bier, now lacerated friendship claims a tear; year chases year, decay pursues decay, still drops some joy from withering life away."[ ] [ ] johnson, vanity of human wishes, vv. - . scholarship, jurisprudence, art, humanity, each is called to mourn a chosen champion. pickering the scholar, story the jurist, allston the artist, channing the philanthropist, are gone. when our last catalogue was published they were all living, each in his field of fame. our catalogue of this year gathers them with the peaceful dead. sweet and exalted companionship! they were joined in life, in renown, and in death. they were brethren of our fraternity, sons of alma mater. story and channing were classmates; pickering preceded them by two years only, allston followed them by two years. casting our eyes upon the closing lustre of the last century, we discern this brilliant group whose mortal light is now obscured. after the toils of his long life, pickering sleeps serenely in the place of his birth, near the honored dust of his father. channing, story, and allston have been laid to rest in cambridge, where they first tasted together the tree of life: allston in the adjoining church-yard, within sound of the voice that now addresses you; channing and story in the pleasant, grassy bed of mount auburn, under the shadow of beautiful trees, whose falling autumnal leaves are fit emblem of the generations of men. it was the custom in ancient rome, on solemn occasions, to bring forward the images of departed friends, arrayed in robes of office, and carefully adorned, while some one recounted what they had done, in the hope of refreshing the memory of their deeds, and of inspiring the living with new impulse to virtue. "for who," says the ancient historian, "can behold without emotion the forms of so many illustrious men, thus living, as it were, and breathing together in his presence? or what spectacle can be conceived more great and striking?"[ ] the images of our departed brothers are present here to-day, not in sculptured marble, but graven on our hearts. we behold them again, as in life. they mingle in our festival, and cheer us by their presence. it were well to catch the opportunity of observing together their well-known lineaments, and of dwelling anew, with warmth of living affection, upon the virtues by which they are commended. devoting the hour to their memory, we may seek also to comprehend and reverence the great interests which they lived to promote. pickering, story, allston, channing! their names alone, without addition, awaken a response, which, like the far-famed echo of dodona, will prolong itself through the live-long day. but, great as they are, we feel their insignificance by the side of those great causes to which their days were consecrated,--_knowledge_, _justice_, _beauty_, _love_, the comprehensive attributes of god. illustrious on earth, they were but lowly and mortal ministers of lofty and immortal truth. it is, then, the scholar, the jurist, the artist, the philanthropist, whom we celebrate to-day, and whose pursuits will be the theme of my discourse. [ ] hampton's polybius, book vi. ext. ii. ch. . here, on this threshold, let me say, what is implied in the very statement of my subject, that, in offering these tributes, i seek no occasion for personal eulogy or biographical detail. my aim is to commemorate the men, but more to advance the objects which they so successfully served. reversing the order in which they left us, i shall take the last first. * * * * * john pickering, the scholar, died in the month of may, , aged sixty-nine, within a short distance of that extreme goal which is the allotted limit of human life. by scholar i mean a cultivator of liberal studies, a student of knowledge in its largest sense,--not merely classical, not excluding what in our day is exclusively called science, but which was unknown when the title of scholar first prevailed; for though cicero dealt a sarcasm at archimedes, he spoke with higher truth when he beautifully recognized the common bond between all departments of knowledge. the brother whom we mourn was a scholar, a student, as long as he lived. his place was not merely among those called by courtesy _educated men_, with most of whom education is past and gone,--men who have studied; he studied always. life to him was an unbroken lesson, pleasant with the charm of knowledge and the consciousness of improvement. the world knows and reveres his learning; they only who partook somewhat of his daily life fully know the modesty of his character. his knowledge was such that he seemed to be ignorant of nothing, while, in the perfection of his humility, he might seem to know nothing. by learning conspicuous before the world, his native diffidence withdrew him from its personal observation. surely, learning so great, which claimed so little, will not be forgotten. the modesty which detained him in retirement during life introduces him now that he is dead. strange reward! merit which shrank from the living gaze is now observed of all men. the voice once so soft is returned in echoes from the tomb. i place in the front his modesty and his learning, two attributes by which he will be always remembered. i might enlarge on his sweetness of temper, his simplicity of life, his kindness to the young, his sympathy with studies of all kinds, his sensibility to beauty, his conscientious character, his passionless mind. could he speak to us of himself, he might adopt words of self-painting from the candid pen of his eminent predecessor in the cultivation of grecian literature, leader of its revival in europe, as pickering was leader in america,--the urbane and learned erasmus. "for my own part," says the early scholar to his english friend, john colet, "i best know my own failings, and therefore shall presume to give a character of myself. you have in me a man of little or no fortune,--a stranger to ambition,--of a strong propensity to loving-kindness and friendship,--without any boast of learning, but a great admirer of it,--one who has a profound veneration for any excellence in others, however he may feel the want of it in himself,--who can readily yield to others in learning, but to none in integrity,--a man sincere, open, and free,--a hater of falsehood and dissimulation,--of a mind lowly and upright,--of few words, and who boasts of nothing but an honest heart."[ ] [ ] erasmi epist., lib. v. ep. . i have called him scholar; for it is in this character that he leaves so excellent an example. but the triumphs of his life are enhanced by the variety of his labors, and especially by his long career at the bar. he was a lawyer, whose days were spent in the faithful practice of his profession, busy with clients, careful of their concerns in court and out of court. each day witnessed his untiring exertion in scenes little attractive to his gentle and studious nature. he was formed to be a seeker of truth rather than a defender of wrong; and he found less satisfaction in the strifes of the bar than in the conversation of books. to him litigation was a sorry feast, and a well-filled docket of cases not unlike the curious and now untasted dish of "nettles," in the first course of a roman banquet. he knew that the duties of the profession were important, but felt that even their successful performance, when unattended by juridical culture, gave small title to regard, while they were less pleasant and ennobling than the disinterested pursuit of learning. he would have said, at least as regards his own profession, with the lord archon of the _oceana_, "i will stand no more to the judgment of lawyers and divines than to that of _so many other tradesmen_."[ ] [ ] harrington's oceana, p. . it was the law as a _trade_ that he pursued reluctantly, while he had true happiness in the science of jurisprudence, to which he devoted many hours rescued from other cares. by example, and contributions of the pen, he elevated the study, and invested it with the charm of liberal pursuits. by marvellous assiduity he was able to lead two lives,--one producing the fruits of earth, the other of immortality. in him was the union, rare as it is grateful, of lawyer and scholar. he has taught how much may be done for jurisprudence and learning even amidst the toils of professional life; while the enduring lustre of his name contrasts with the fugitive reputation which is the lot of the _mere lawyer_, although clients beat at his gates from cock-crow at the dawn. to describe his labors of scholarship would be impossible on this occasion. although important contributions to the sum of knowledge, they were of a character only slightly appreciated by the world at large. they were chiefly directed to two subjects,--classical studies and general philology, if these two may be regarded separately. his early life was marked by a particular interest in _classical studies_. at a time when, in our country, accurate and extensive scholarship was rare, he aspired to possess it. by daily and nightly toil he mastered the great exemplars of antiquity, and found delight in their beauties. his example was persuasive. and he added earnest effort to promote their study in the learned seminaries of our country. with unanswerable force he urged among us a standard of education commensurate, in every substantial respect, with that of europe. he desired for the american youth on his native soil, under the influence of free institutions, a course of instruction rendering foreign aid superfluous. he had a just pride of country, and longed for its good name through accomplished representatives, well knowing that the american scholar, wherever he wanders in foreign lands, is a living recommendation of the institutions under which he was reared. he knew that scholarship of all kinds would gild the life of its possessor, enlarge the resources of the bar, enrich the voice of the pulpit, and strengthen the learning of medicine. he knew that it would afford a soothing companionship in hours of relaxation from labor, in periods of sadness, and in the evening of life; that, when once embraced, it was more constant than friendship,--attending its votary, as an invisible spirit, in the toils of the day, the watches of the night, the changes of travel, and the alternations of fortune or health. in commending classical studies it would be difficult to say that he attached to them undue importance. by his own example he showed that he bore them no exclusive love. he regarded them as an essential part of liberal education, opening the way to other realms of knowledge, while they mature the taste and invigorate the understanding. here probably all will concur. it may be questioned, whether, in our hurried american life, it is possible, with proper regard for other studies, to introduce into ordinary classical education the exquisite skill which is the pride of english scholarship, reminding us of the minute finish in chinese art,--or the ponderous and elaborate learning which is the wonder of germany, reminding us of the unnatural perspective in a chinese picture. but much will be done, if we establish those habits of accuracy, acquired only through early and careful training, which enable us at least to appreciate the severe beauty of antiquity, while they become an invaluable standard and measure of attainment in other things. the classics possess a peculiar charm, as models, i might say masters, of composition and form. in the contemplation of these august teachers we are filled with conflicting emotions. they are the early voice of the world, better remembered and more cherished than any intermediate voice,--as the language of childhood still haunts us, when the utterances of later years are effaced from the mind. but they show the rudeness of the world's childhood, before passion yielded to the sway of reason and the affections. they want purity, righteousness, and that highest charm which is found in love to god and man. not in the frigid philosophy of the porch and the academy are we to seek these; not in the marvellous teachings of socrates, as they come mended by the mellifluous words of plato; not in the resounding line of homer, on whose inspiring tale of blood alexander pillowed his head; not in the animated strain of pindar, where virtue is pictured in the successful strife of an athlete at the olympian games; not in the torrent of demosthenes, dark with self-love and the spirit of vengeance; not in the fitful philosophy and boastful eloquence of tully; not in the genial libertinism of horace, or the stately atheism of lucretius. to these we give admiration; but they cannot be our highest teachers. in none of these is the way of life. for eighteen hundred years the spirit of these classics has been in constant contention with the sermon on the mount, and with those two sublime commandments on which "hang all the law and the prophets."[ ] the strife is still pending, and who shall say when it will end? heathenism, which possessed itself of such siren forms, is not yet exorcised. even now it exerts a powerful sway, imbuing youth, coloring the thought of manhood, and haunting the meditation of age. widening still in sphere, it embraces nations as well as individuals, until it seems to sit supreme. [ ] terence, taught, perhaps, by his own bitter experience as slave, has given expression to truth almost christian, when he says,-- "homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." _heauton._, act i. sc. . and in the _andria_,-- "facile omnes perferre ac pati, cum quibus erat cunque una: iis sese dedere: eorum obsequi studiis: advorsus nemini: nunquam præponens se illis." act i. sc. . our own productions, though yielding to the ancient in arrangement, method, beauty of form, and freshness of illustration, are superior in truth, delicacy, and elevation of sentiment,--above all, in the recognition of that peculiar revelation, the brotherhood of man. vain are eloquence and poetry, compared with this heaven-descended truth. put in one scale that simple utterance, and in the other all the lore of antiquity, with its accumulating glosses and commentaries, and the latter will be light in the balance. greek poetry has been likened to the song of the nightingale, as she sits in the rich, symmetrical crown of the palm-tree, trilling her thick-warbled notes; but these notes will not compare in sweetness with those teachings of charity which belong to our christian inheritance. these things cannot be forgotten by the scholar. from the past he may draw all it can contribute to the great end of life, human progress and happiness,--progress, without which happiness is vain. but he must close his soul to the hardening influence of that spirit, which is more to be dreaded, as it is enshrined in compositions of such commanding authority. "sunk in homer's mine, i lose my precious years, now soon to fail, handling his gold; which, howsoe'er it shine, proves dross, when balanced in the christian scale."[ ] [ ] cowper, sonnet to john johnson: minor poems. in the department of _philology_, kindred to that of the classics, our scholar labored with similar success. unlike sir william jones in genius, he was like this english scholar in the multitude of languages he embraced. distance of time and space was forgotten, as he explored the far-off primeval sanscrit,--the hieroglyphics of egypt, now awakening from the mute repose of centuries,--the polite and learned tongues of ancient and modern europe,--the languages of mohammedanism,--the various dialects in the forests of north america, and in the sandal-groves of the pacific,--only closing with a _lingua franca_ from an unlettered tribe on the coast of africa, to which his attention was called during the illness which ended in death. this recital exhibits the variety and extent of his studies in a department which is supposed inaccessible, except to peculiar and herculean labors. he had a natural and intuitive perception of affinities in language, and of its hidden relations. his researches have thrown important light on the general principles of this science, as also on the history and character of individual languages. in devising an alphabet of the indian tongues in north america, since adopted in the polynesian islands, he rendered a brilliant service to civilization. it is pleasant to contemplate the scholar sending forth from his seclusion this priceless instrument of improvement. on the distant islands once moistened by the blood of cook newspapers and books are printed in a native language, which was reduced to a written character by the care and genius of pickering. the vocabulary of americanisms and the greek and english lexicon attest still further the variety and value of his philological labors; nor can we sufficiently admire the facility with which, amidst the duties of an arduous profession and the temptations of scholarship, he assumed the appalling task of the lexicographer, which scaliger compares to the labors of the anvil and the mine. there are critics, ignorant, hasty, or supercilious, who are too apt to disparage the toils of the philologist, treating them sometimes as curious only, sometimes as trivial, or, when they enter into lexicography, as those of a harmless drudge. it might be sufficient to reply, that all exercise of the intellect promoting forgetfulness of self and the love of science ministers essentially to human improvement. but philology may claim other suffrages. it is its province to aid in determining the character of words, their extraction and signification, and in other ways to guide and explain the use of language; nor is it generous, while enjoying eloquence, poetry, science, and the many charms of literature, to withhold our gratitude from silent and sometimes obscure labors in illustration of that great instrument without which all the rest is nothing. the science of comparative philology, which our scholar has illustrated, may rank with shining pursuits. it challenges a place by the side of that science which received such development from the genius of cuvier. the study of comparative anatomy has thrown unexpected light on the physical history of the animate creation; but it cannot be less interesting or important to explore the unwritten history of the human race in languages that have been spoken, to trace their pedigree, to detect their affinities,--seeking the prevailing law by which they are governed. as we comprehend these things, confusion and discord retreat, the fraternity of man stands confessed, and the philologist becomes a minister at the altar of universal philanthropy. in the study of the past, he learns to anticipate the future; and in sublime vision he sees, with leibnitz, that unity of the human race which, in the succession of ages, will find its expression in an instrument more marvellous than the infinite calculus,--a universal language, with an alphabet of human thoughts.[ ] [ ] fontenelle, Éloge de leibnitz: oeuvres, tom. v. p. . leibnitz, opera, ed. dutens, vol. v. p. . as the sun draws moisture from rill, stream, lake, and ocean, to be returned in fertilizing shower upon the earth, so did our scholar derive knowledge from all sources, to be diffused in beneficent influence upon the world. he sought it not in study only, but in converse with men, and in experience of life. his curious essay on the pronunciation of the ancient greek language was suggested by listening to greek sailors, whom the temptations of commerce had conducted to our shores from their historic sea. such a character--devoted to works of wide and enduring interest, not restricted to international lines--awakened respect and honor wherever learning was cultivated. his name was associated with illustrious fraternities of science in foreign nations, while scholars who could not know him face to face, by an amiable commerce of letters sought the aid and sympathy of his learning. his death has broken these living links of fellowship; but his name, that cannot die, will continue to bind all who love knowledge and virtue to the land which was blessed by his presence. * * * * * from the scholar i pass to the jurist. joseph story died in the month of september, , aged sixty-six. his countenance, familiar in this presence, was always so beaming with goodness and kindness that its withdrawal seems to lessen sensibly the brightness of the scene. we are assembled near the seat of his favorite pursuits, among the neighbors intimate with his private virtues, close by the home hallowed by his domestic altar. these paths he often trod; and all that our eyes here look upon seems to reflect his genial smile. his twofold official relations with the university, his high judicial station, his higher character as jurist, invest his name with a peculiar interest, while the unconscious kindness which he showed to all, especially the young, touches the heart, making us rise up and call him blessed. how fondly would the youth nurtured in jurisprudence at his feet--were such an offering, alcestis-like, within the allotments of providence--have prolonged their beloved master's days at the expense of their own! the university, by the voice of his learned associate, has already rendered tribute to his name. the tribunals of justice throughout the country have given utterance to their solemn grief, and the funeral torch has passed across the sea into foreign lands. he has been heard to confess that literature was his earliest passion, which yielded only to a sterner summons beckoning to professional life; and they who knew him best cannot forget that he continued to the last fond of poetry and polite letters, and would often turn from themis to the muses. nor can it be doubted that this feature, which marks the resemblance to selden, somers, mansfield, and blackstone, in england, and to l'hôpital and d'aguesseau, in france, has added to the brilliancy and perfection of his character as a jurist. in the history of jurisprudence it would not be easy to mention a single person winning its highest palm who was not a scholar also. the first hardships incident to study of the law, which perplexed the youthful spirit of the learned spelman, beset our jurist with disheartening force. let the young remember his trial and his triumph, and be of good cheer. according to the custom of his day, while yet a student in the town of marblehead, he undertook to read coke on littleton, in the large folio edition, thatched over with those manifold annotations which cause the best-trained lawyer to "gasp and stare." striving to force his way through the black-letter page, he was filled with despair. it was but a moment. the tears poured from his eyes upon the open book. those tears were his precious baptism into the learning of the law. from that time forth he persevered, with ardor and confidence, from triumph to triumph. he was elevated to the bench of the supreme court of the united states, by the side of marshall, at the early age of thirty-two. at the same early age buller--reputed the ablest judge of westminster hall, in the list of those who never arrived at the honors of chief justice--was induced to renounce an income larger than the salary of a judge, to take a seat by the side of mansfield. the parallel continues. during the remainder of mansfield's career on the bench, buller was the friend and associate upon whom he chiefly leaned; and history records the darling desire of the venerable chief justice that his faithful assistant should succeed to his seat and chain of office; but these wishes, the hopes of the profession, and his own continued labors were disregarded by a minister who seldom rewarded any but political services,--i mean mr. pitt. our brother, like buller, was the friend and associate of a venerable chief justice, by whose side he sat for many years; nor do i state any fact which i should not for the sake of history, when i add, that it was the long-cherished desire of marshall that story should be his successor. it was ordered otherwise; and he continued a judge of the supreme court for the space of thirty-four years,--a judicial life of almost unexampled length in the history of the common law, and of precisely the same duration with the illustrious magistracy of d'aguesseau in france. as judge, he was called to administer a most extensive jurisdiction, embracing matters which in england are so variously distributed that they never come before any one court; and in each department he has shown himself second to none other, unless we unite with him in deferring to marshall as the greatest expounder of a branch peculiar to ourselves, constitutional law. nor will it be easy to mention any other judge who has left behind so large a number of judgments which belong to the first class in the literature of the law. some excel in a special branch, to which their learning and labor are directed. he excelled in all. at home in the feudal niceties of real law, with its dependencies of descents, remainders, and executory devises,--also in the ancient hair-splitting technicalities of special pleading,--both creatures of an illiterate age, gloomy with black-letter and verbal subtilties,--he was most skilful in using and expounding the rules of evidence, the product of a more refined period of juridical history,--was master of the common law of contracts, and of commercial law in its wide expanse, embracing so large a part of those topics which concern the business of our age,--was familiar with criminal law, which he administered with the learning of a judge and the tenderness of a parent,--had compassed the whole circle of chancery in its jurisdiction and its pleadings, touching all the interests of life, and subtilely adapting the common law to our own age; and he ascended with ease to those less trodden heights where are extended the rich demesnes of admiralty, the law of prize, and that comprehensive theme, embracing all that history, philosophy, learning, literature, human experience, and christianity have testified,--the law of nations. it was not as judge only that he served. he sought other means of illustrating the science of the law which he loved so well, and to the cares of judicial life superadded the labors of author and teacher. to this he was moved by passion for the law, by desire to aid its elucidation, and by the irrepressible instinct of his nature, which found in incessant activity the truest repose. his was that constitution of mind where occupation is the normal state. he was possessed by a genius for labor. others may moil in law as constantly, but without his loving, successful study. what he undertook he always did with heart, soul, and mind,--not with reluctant, vain compliance, but with his entire nature bent to the task. as in social life, so was he in study: his heart embraced labor, as his hand grasped the hand of friend. as teacher, he should be gratefully remembered here. he was dane professor of law in the university. by the attraction of his name students were drawn from remote parts of the union, and the law school, which had been a sickly branch, became the golden mistletoe of our ancient oak.[ ] besides learning unsurpassed in his profession, he brought other qualities not less important in a teacher,--goodness, benevolence, and a willingness to teach. only a good man can be a teacher, only a benevolent man, only a man willing to teach. he was filled with a desire to teach. he sought to mingle his mind with that of his pupil. to pour into the souls of the young, as into celestial urns, the fruitful waters of knowledge, was to him a blessed office. the kindly enthusiasm of his nature found a response. law, sometimes supposed to be harsh and crabbed, became inviting under his instructions. its great principles, drawn from experience and reflection, from the rules of right and wrong, from the unsounded depths of christian truth, illustrated by the learning of sages and the judgments of courts, he unfolded so as to inspire a love for their study,--well knowing that the knowledge we impart is trivial, compared with that awakening of the soul under the influence of which the pupil himself becomes teacher. all of knowledge we can communicate is finite; a few pages, a few chapters, a few volumes, will embrace it; but such an influence is of incalculable power. it is the breath of a new life; it is another soul. story taught as priest of the law seeking to consecrate other priests. in him the spirit spake, not with the voice of earthly calling, but with the gentleness and self-forgetful earnestness of one pleading in behalf of justice, knowledge, happiness. his well-loved pupils hung upon his lips, and, as they left his presence, confessed new reverence for virtue, and warmer love of knowledge for its own sake. [ ] "talis erat species auri frondentis opaca ilice." _Æneis_, vi. . the spirit which glowed in his teachings filled his life. he was, in the truest sense, jurist,--student and expounder of jurisprudence as a science,--not merely lawyer or judge, pursuing it as an art. this distinction, though readily perceived, is not always regarded. members of the profession, whether on the bench or at the bar, seldom send their regard beyond the case directly before them. the lawyer is generally content with the applause of the court-house, the approbation of clients, "fat contentions, and flowing fees." infrequently does he render voluntary service felt beyond the limited circle in which he moves, or helping forward the landmarks of justice. the judge, in the discharge of his duty, applies the law to the case before him. he may do this discreetly, honorably, justly, benignly, in such wise that the community who looked to him for justice shall pronounce his name with gratitude,-- "that his bones, when he has run his course and sleeps in blessings, may have a tomb of orphans' tears wept on 'em." but the function of lawyer or judge, both _practising_ law, is unlike that of the jurist, who, whether judge or lawyer, examines every principle in the light of science, and, while doing justice, seeks to widen and confirm the means of justice hereafter. all ages have abounded in lawyers and judges; there is no church-yard that does not contain their forgotten dust. but the jurist is rare. the judge passes the sentence of the law upon the prisoner at the bar face to face; but the jurist, invisible to mortal sight, yet speaks, as was said of the roman law, swaying by the reason, when he has ceased to govern by the living voice. such a character does not live for the present only, whether in time or place. ascending above its temptations, yielding neither to the love of gain nor to the seduction of ephemeral praise, he perseveres in those serene labors which help to build the mighty dome of justice, beneath which all men are to seek shelter and peace. it is not uncommon to hear the complaint of lawyers and judges, as they liken themselves, in short-lived fame, to the well-graced actor, of whom only uncertain traces remain when his voice has ceased to charm. but they labor for the present only. how can they hope to be remembered beyond the present? they are instruments of a temporary and perishable purpose. how can they hope for more than they render? they do nothing for all. how can they think to be remembered beyond the operation of their labors? so far forth, in time or place, as any beneficent influence is felt, so far will its author be gratefully commemorated. happy may he be, if he has done aught to connect his name with the enduring principles of justice! in the world's history, lawgivers are among the greatest and most godlike characters. they are reformers of nations. they are builders of human society. they are fit companions of the master poets who fill it with their melody. man will never forget homer, virgil, dante, shakespeare, milton, goethe,--nor those other names of creative force, minos, solon, lycurgus, numa, justinian, st. louis, napoleon the legislator. each is too closely linked with human progress not to be always remembered. in their train follow the company of jurists, whose labors have the value without the form of legislation, and whose recorded opinions, uttered from the chair of a professor, the bench of a judge, or, it may be, from the seclusion of private life, continue to rule the nations. here are papinian, tribonian, paulus, gaius, ancient, time-honored masters of the roman law,--cujas, its most illustrious expounder in modern times, of whom d'aguesseau said, "cujas has spoken the language of the law better than any modern, and perhaps as well as any ancient," and whose renown during life, in the golden age of jurisprudence, was such that in the public schools of germany, when his name was mentioned, all took off their hats,--dumoulin, kinsman of our english queen elizabeth, and most illustrious expounder of municipal law, one of whose books was said to have accomplished what thirty thousand soldiers of his monarch failed to do,--hugo grotius, filled with all knowledge and loving all truth, author of that marvellous work, at times divine, at other times, alas! too much of this earth, the "laws of war and peace,"--john selden, who against grotius vindicated for his country the dominion of the sea, supped with ben jonson at the mermaid, and became, according to contemporary judgment, the great dictator of learning to the english nation,--d'aguesseau, who brought scholarship to jurisprudence throughout a long life elevated by justice and refined by all that character and study could bestow, awakening admiration even at the outset, so that a retiring magistrate declared that he should be glad to end as the young man began,--pothier, whose professor's chair was kissed in reverence by pilgrims from afar, while from his recluse life he sent forth those treatises which enter so largely into the invaluable codes of france,--coke, the indefatigable, pedantic, but truly learned author and judge, mansfield, the chrysostom of the bench, and blackstone, the elegant commentator, who are among the few exemplars within the boast of the english common law,--and, descending to our own day, pardessus, of france, to whom commercial and maritime law is under a larger debt, perhaps, than to any single mind,--thibaut, of germany, earnest and successful advocate of a just scheme for the reduction of the unwritten law to the certainty of a written text,--savigny, also of germany, renowned illustrator of the roman law, who is yet spared to his favorite science,--and in our own country one now happily among us to-day by his son,[ ] james kent, the unquestioned living head of american jurisprudence. these are among jurists. let them not be confounded with the lawyer, bustling with forensic success, although, like dunning, arbiter of westminster hall, or, like pinkney, acknowledged chief of the american bar. the jurist is higher than the lawyer,--as watt, who invented the steam-engine, is higher than the journeyman who feeds its fires and pours oil upon its irritated machinery,--as washington is more exalted than the swiss, who, indifferent to the cause, barters for money the vigor of his arm and the sharpness of his spear. [ ] hon. william kent, recently appointed royall professor of law in harvard university. the lawyer is the honored artisan of the law. tokens of worldly success surround him; but his labors are on the things of to-day. his name is written on the sandy margin of the sounding sea, soon to be washed away by the embossed foam of the tyrannous wave. not so is the name of the jurist. this is inscribed on the immortal tablets of the law. the ceaseless flow of ages does not wear off their indestructible front; the hour-glass of time refuses to measure the period of their duration. into the company of jurists story has now passed, taking place, not only in the immediate history of his country, but in the grander history of civilization. it was a saying of his, often uttered in the confidence of friendship, that a man may be measured by the horizon of his mind, whether it embraces the village, town, county, or state in which he lives, or the whole broad country,--ay, the world itself. in this spirit he lived and wrought, elevating himself above the present, and always finding in jurisprudence an absorbing interest. only a few days before the illness ending in death, it was suggested to him, that, as he was about to retire from the bench, there were many who would be glad to see him president. he replied at once, spontaneously, and without hesitation, "that the office of president of the united states would not tempt him from his professor's chair and from the law." so spoke the jurist. as lawyer, judge, professor, he was always jurist. while administering justice between parties, he sought to extract from their cause the elements of future justice, and to advance the science of the law. thus his judgments have a value stamped upon them which is not restricted to the occasions when they were pronounced. like the gold coin of the republic, they bear the image and superscription of sovereignty, which is recognized wherever they go, even in foreign lands. many years ago his judgments in matters of admiralty and prize arrested the attention of that famous judge and jurist, lord stowell; and sir james mackintosh, a name emblazoned by literature and jurisprudence, said of them, that they were "justly admired by all cultivators of the law of nations."[ ] he has often been cited as authority in westminster hall,--an english tribute to a foreign jurist almost unprecedented, as all familiar with english law will know; and the chief justice of england made the remarkable declaration, with regard to a point on which story differed from the queen's bench, that his opinion would "at least neutralize the effect of the english decision, and induce any of their courts to consider the question as an open one."[ ] in the house of lords, lord campbell characterized him as "one of the greatest ornaments of the united states, who had a greater reputation as a legal writer than any author england could boast since the days of blackstone";[ ] and, in a letter to our departed brother, the same distinguished magistrate said: "i survey with increased astonishment your extensive, minute, exact, and familiar knowledge of english legal writers in every department of the law. a similar testimony to your juridical learning, i make no doubt, would be offered by the lawyers of france and germany, as well as of america, and we should all concur in placing you at the head of the jurists of the present age."[ ] his authority was acknowledged in france and germany, the classic lands of jurisprudence; nor is it too much to say, that at the moment of his death he enjoyed a renown such as had never before been achieved, during life, by any jurist of the common law. [ ] letter of sir james mackintosh to hon. edward everett, dated june , : life and letters of story, vol. i. p. . [ ] letter of lord denman to charles sumner, esq., dated september , : life and letters of story, vol. ii. p. . the case to which lord denman referred was that of _peters_ v. _the warren insurance company_, sumner's rep. , where mr. justice story dissented from the case of _de vaux_ v. _salvador_, adolph. & ellis, . [ ] hansard, parl. deb., lxviii. . [ ] life and letters of story, vol. ii. p. . in this recital i state simply facts, without intending to assert presumptuously for our brother any precedence in the scale of eminence. the extent of his fame is a fact. it will not be forgotten, as a proper contrast to his fame, which was not confined to his own country or to england, that the cultivators of the common law have hitherto enjoyed little more than an insular reputation, and that even its great master received on the continent no higher designation than _quidam cocus_, "one coke." in the common law was the spirit of liberty; in that of the continent the spirit of science. the common law has given to the world trial by jury, _habeas corpus_, parliamentary representation, the rules and orders of debate, and that benign principle which pronounces that its air is too pure for a slave to breathe,--perhaps the five most important political establishments of modern times. from the continent proceeded the important impulse to the systematic study, arrangement, and development of the law,--also the example of law schools and of codes. story was bred in the common law; but while admiring its vital principles of freedom, he felt how much it would gain from science, and from other systems of jurisprudence. in his later labors he never forgot this object; and under his hands we behold the development of a study until him little known or regarded,--the science of _comparative jurisprudence_, kindred to those other departments of knowledge which exhibit the relations of the human family, and showing that amidst diversity there is unity. i need not add that he emulated the law schools of the continent,--as "ever witness for him" this seat of learning. on more than one occasion, he urged, with conclusive force, the importance of reducing the unwritten law to the certainty of a code, compiling and bringing into one body fragments now scattered in all directions, through the pages of many thousand volumes.[ ] his views on this subject, while differing from those of john locke and jeremy bentham,--both of whom supposed themselves able to clothe a people in a new code, as in fresh garments,--are in substantial harmony with the conclusions now adopted by the jurists of continental europe, and not unlike those of an earlier age having the authority of bacon and leibnitz, the two greatest intellects ever applied to topics of jurisprudence in modern times.[ ] [ ] encyclopædia americana, article _law, legislation, codes_, appendix to vol. vii. pp. - . report of the commissioners of massachusetts on the codification of the common law. american jurist, vol. xvii. p. . [ ] bacon, offer to king james of a digest to be made of the laws of england: works, vol. ii. p. , to ed. leibnitz, ratio corporis juris reconcinnandi; epist. xv., ad kestnerum: opera, tom. iv. pars iii. pp. , . in this catholic spirit he showed true eminence. he loved the law with a lover's fondness, but not with a lover's blindness. he could not join with those devotees of the common law by whom it is entitled "the perfection of reason,"--an anachronism great as the assumed infallibility of the pope: as if perfection or infallibility existed in this world! he was led, in becoming temper, to contemplate its amendment; and here is revealed the jurist,--not content with the present, but thoughtful of the future. in a letter published since his death, he refers with sorrow to "what is but too common in our profession,--a disposition to resist innovation, even when it is improvement." it is an elevated mind that, having mastered the subtilties of the law, is willing to reform them. and now farewell to thee, jurist, master, benefactor, friend! may thy spirit continue to inspire a love for the science of the law! may thy example be ever fresh in the minds of the young, beaming, as in life, with encouragement, kindness, and joy! * * * * * from the grave of the jurist, at mount auburn, let us walk to that of the artist, who sleeps beneath the protecting arms of those trees which cast their shadow into this church. washington allston died in the month of july, , aged sixty-three, having reached the grand climacteric, that famous mile-stone on the road of life. it was saturday night; the cares of the week were over; the pencil and brush were laid in repose; the great canvas, on which for many years he had sought to perpetuate the image of daniel confronting the soothsayers of belshazzar, was left, with fresh chalk lines designating the labor to be resumed after the repose of the sabbath; the evening was passed in the converse of family and friends; words of benediction had fallen from his lips upon a beloved relative; all had retired for the night, leaving him alone, in health, to receive the visitation of death, sudden, but not unprepared for. happy lot, thus to be borne away with blessings on the lips,--not through the long valley of disease, amidst the sharpness of pain, and the darkness that clouds the slowly departing spirit, but straight upward, through realms of light, swiftly, yet gently, as on the wings of a dove! the early shades of evening began to prevail before the body of the artist reached its last resting-place; and the solemn service of the church was read in the open air, by the flickering flame of a torch,--fit image of life. in the group of mourners who bore a last tribute to what was mortal in him of whom so much was immortal stood our jurist. overflowing with tenderness and appreciation of merit in all its forms, his soul was touched by the scene. in vivid words, as he slowly left the church-yard, he poured forth his admiration and his grief. never was such an artist mourned by such a jurist. of allston may we repeat the words in which burke commemorated his friend sir joshua reynolds, when he says, "he was the first who added the praise of the elegant arts to the other glories of his country."[ ] an ingenious english writer, who sees art with the eye of taste and humanity, and whom i quote with sympathy, if not with entire assent, has said, in a recent publication on our artist, "it seemed to me that in him america had lost her third great man. what washington was as a statesman, channing as a moralist, _that_ was allston as an artist."[ ] [ ] prior, life of burke, vol. ii. p. . [ ] mrs. jameson, memoirs and essays: _washington allston_, p. . (new york, .) here again is discerned the inseparable union between character and works. allston was a good man, with a soul refined by purity, exalted by religion, softened by love. in manner he was simple, yet courtly,--quiet, though anxious to please,--kindly to all alike, the poor and lowly not less than the rich and great. as he spoke, in that voice of gentlest utterance, all were charmed to listen; and the airy-footed hours often tripped on far towards the gates of morning, before his friends could break from his spell. his character is transfigured in his works. the artist is always inspired by the man. his life was consecrated to art. he lived to diffuse beauty, as writer, poet, painter. as an expounder of principles in his art, he will take a place with leonardo da vinci, albert dürer, sir joshua reynolds, and fuseli. his theory of painting, as developed in his still unpublished discourses, and in that tale of beauty, "monaldi," is an instructive memorial of conscientious study. in the small group of painter-poets--poets by the double title of pencil and pen--he holds an honored place. his ode "america to great britain," which is among the choice lyrics of the language, is superior to the satirical verse of salvator rosa, and may claim companionship with the remarkable sonnets of michel angelo. it was this which made no less a judge than southey place him among the first poets of the age. in youth, while yet a pupil at the university, his busy fingers found pleasure in drawing; and a pen-and-ink sketch from his hand at that time is still preserved in the records of a college society. shortly after leaving cambridge he repaired to europe, in the pursuit of art. at paris were then collected the masterpieces of painting and sculpture, the spoils of unholy war, robbed from their native galleries and churches to swell the pomp of the imperial capital. there our artist devoted his days to diligent study of his profession, particularly to drawing, so important to accurate art. at a later day, alluding to these thorough labors, he said he "worked like a mechanic." to these, perhaps, may be referred his singular excellence in that necessary, but neglected branch, which is to art what grammar is to language. grammar and design are treated by aristotle on a level. turning his back upon paris and the greatness of the empire, he directed his steps towards italy, the enchanted ground of literature, history, and art,--strown with richest memorials of the past,--filled with scenes memorable in the progress of man,--teaching by the pages of philosophers and historians,--vocal with the melody of poets,--ringing with the music which st. cecilia protects,--glowing with the living marble and canvas,--beneath a sky of heavenly purity and brightness,--with the sunsets which claude has painted,--parted by the apennines, early witnesses of the unrecorded etruscan civilization,--surrounded by the snow-capped alps, and the blue, classic waters of the mediterranean sea. the deluge of war submerging europe had subsided here, and our artist took up his peaceful abode in rome, the modern home of art. strange vicissitude of condition! rome, sole surviving city of antiquity, once disdaining all that could be wrought by the cunning hand of sculpture,-- "excudent alii spirantia mollius æra, credo equidem: vivos ducent de marmore vultus,"-- who has commanded the world by her arms, her jurisprudence, her church,--now sways it further by her arts. pilgrims from afar, where her eagles, her prætors, her interdicts never reached, become willing subjects of this new empire; and the vatican, stored with the priceless remains of antiquity, and the touching creations of modern art, has succeeded to the vatican whose thunders intermingled with the strifes of modern europe. at rome he was happy in the friendship of coleridge, and in long walks cheered by his companionship. we can well imagine that the author of "genevieve" and "the ancient mariner" would find sympathy with allston. it is easy to recall these two natures, tremblingly alive to beauty of all kinds, looking together upon those majestic ruins, upon the manifold accumulations of time, upon the marble which almost speaks, and upon the warmer canvas,--listening together to the flow of perpetual fountains, fed by ancient aqueducts,--musing together in the forum on the mighty footprints of history,--and entering together, with sympathetic awe, that grand christian church whose dome rises a majestic symbol of the comprehensive christianity which is the promise of the future. "never judge a work of art by its defects," was a lesson of coleridge to his companion, which, when extended, by natural expansion, to the other things of life, is a sentiment of justice and charity, more precious than a statue of praxiteles or a picture of raphael. in england, where our artist afterwards passed several years, his intercourse with coleridge was renewed, and he became the friend and companion of lamb and wordsworth also. returning to his own country, he spoke of them with fondness, and often dwelt upon their genius and virtue. in considering his character as an artist, we may regard him in three different respects,--drawing, color, and expression or sentiment. it has already been seen that he devoted himself with uncommon zeal to drawing. his works bear witness to this excellence. there are chalk outlines by him, sketched on canvas, which are clear and definite as anything from the classic touch of flaxman. his excellence in color was remarkable. this seeming mystery, which is a distinguishing characteristic of artists in different schools, periods, and countries, is not unlike that of language in literature. color is to the painter what words are to the author; and as the writers of one age or place arrive at a peculiar mastery in language, so do artists excel in color. it would be difficult to account satisfactorily for the rich idiom suddenly assumed by our english tongue in the contemporaneous prose of sidney, hooker, and bacon, and in the unapproached affluence of shakespeare. it might be as difficult to account for the unequalled tints which shone on the canvas of tintoretto, paul veronese, and titian, masters of what is called the venetian school. ignorance has sometimes referred these glories to concealed or lost artistic rules in combinations of color, not thinking that they can be traced only to a native talent for color, prompted into activity by circumstances difficult at this late period to determine. as some possess a peculiar, untaught felicity and copiousness of words without accurate knowledge of grammar, so there are artists excelling in rich and splendid color, but ignorant of drawing, and, on the other hand, accurate drawing is sometimes coldly clad in unsatisfactory color. allston was largely endowed by nature with the talent for color, which was strongly developed under the influence of italian art. while in rome, he was remarked for his excellence in this respect, and received from german painters there the flattering title of "american titian." critics of authority have said that the clearness and vigor of his color approached that of the elder masters.[ ] rich and harmonious as the verses of the "faëry queen," it was uniformly soft, mellow, and appropriate, without the garish brilliancy of the modern french school, calling to mind the saying of the blind man, that red resembles the notes of a trumpet. [ ] bunsen, beschreibung der stadt rom, band i. p. . article on _modern art_, by k. platner. he affected no secret or mystery in the preparation of colors. what he knew he was ready to impart: his genius he could not impart. with simple pigments, accessible to all alike, he reproduced, with glowing brush, the tints of nature. all that his eyes looked upon furnished a lesson. the flowers of the field, the foliage of the forest, the sunset glories of our western horizon, the transparent azure above, the blackness of the storm, the soft gray of twilight, the haze of an indian summer, the human countenance animate with thought, and that finest color in nature, according to the ancient greek, the blush of ingenuous youth,--these were the sources from which he drew. with a discerning spirit he mixed them on his palette, and with the eye of sympathy saw them again on his canvas. but richness of color superadded to accuracy of drawing cannot secure the highest place in art; and here i approach a more harmonious topic. expression, or, in other words, the sentiment, the thought, the soul, which inspires the work, is not less important than that which animates the printed page or beams from the human countenance. the mere imitation of inanimate nature belongs to the humbler schools of art. the skill of zeuxis, which drew birds to peck at the grapes on his canvas, and the triumph of parrhasius, who deceived his rival by a painted curtain, cannot compare with those pictures which seem articulate with the voices of humanity. the highest form of art is that which represents man in the highest scenes and under the influence of the highest sentiments. and that quality or characteristic called _expression_ is the highest element of art. it is this which gives to raphael, who yields to titian in color, such acknowledged eminence. his soul was brimming with sympathies, which his cunning hand kept alive in immortal pictures. eye, mouth, countenance, the whole composition, has life,--not the life of mere imitation, copied from common nature, but elevated, softened, refined, idealized. beholding his works, we forget the colors in which they are robed; we gaze at living forms, and look behind the painted screen of flesh into living souls. a genius so largely endowed with the promethean fire has been not unaptly called divine. it was said by plato that nothing is beautiful which is not morally good. but this is not a faultless proposition. beauty is of all kinds and degrees; and it exists everywhere beneath the celestial canopy, in us and about us. it is that completeness or finish which gives pleasure to the mind. it is found in the color of a flower, and the accuracy of geometry,--in an act of self-sacrifice, and the rhythm of a poem,--in the virtues of humanity, and the marvels of the visible world,--in the meditations of a solitary soul, and the stupendous mechanism of civil society. there is beauty where there is neither life nor morality; but the highest form of beauty is in the perfection of the moral nature. the highest beauty of expression is a grace of christian art. it flows from sensibilities, affections, and struggles peculiar to the christian character. it breathes purity, gentleness, meekness, patience, tenderness, peace. it abhors pride, vain-glory, selfishness, intemperance, lust, war. how celestial, compared with that which dwells in perfection of form or color only! the beauty of ancient art found congenial expression in the faultless form of aphrodite rising from the sea,[ ] and in the majestic mien of juno, with snow-white arms, and royal robes, seated on a throne of gold,[ ]--not in the soul-lit countenance of her who watched the infant in his manger-cradle, and throbbed with a mother's heart beneath the agonies of the cross. [ ] ovid, tristia, lib. ii. . [ ] martial, epig., lib. x. . allston was a christian artist; and the beauty of expression lends uncommon charm to his colors. all that he did shows purity, sensibility, refinement, delicacy, feeling, rather than force. his genius was almost feminine. as he advanced in years, this was more remarked. his pictures became more and more instinct with those sentiments which form the true glory of art. early in life he had a partiality for pieces representing _banditti_; but this taste does not appear in his later works. and when asked if he would undertake to fill the vacant panels in the rotunda of the capitol at washington, should congress determine to order such a work, he is reported to have said, in memorable words, "i will paint only one subject, and choose my own: _no battle-piece!_"[ ] this incident, so honorable to the artist, is questioned; but it is certain that on more than one occasion he avowed a disinclination to paint _battle-pieces_. i am not aware if he assigned any reason. is it too much to suppose that his refined artistic sense, recognizing expression as the highest beauty of art, unconsciously judged the picture? the ancient greek epigram, describing the philoctetes of parrhasius, an image of hopeless wretchedness and consuming grief, rises to a like sentiment, when it says, with mild rebuke,-- "we blame thee, painter, though thy skill commend; 'twas time his sufferings with himself should end."[ ] [ ] dunlap's history of the arts of design, vol. ii. p. . mrs. jameson's memoirs and essays: _washington allston_, p. . [ ] anthol. lib. iv. tit. viii. ep. . in another tone, and with cold indifference to human suffering, lucretius sings, in often-quoted verse, that it is pleasant, when beyond the reach of danger, to behold the shock of contending armies:-- "suave etiam belli certamina magna tueri."[ ] [ ] lucretius, de rerum natura, lib. ii. . in like heathen spirit, it may be pleasant to behold a _battle-piece_ in art. but this is wrong. admitting the calamitous necessity of war, it can never be with pleasure--it cannot be without sadness unspeakable--that we survey its fiendish encounter. the artist of purest aim, sensitive to these emotions, withdraws naturally from the field of blood, confessing that no scene of battle finds a place in the highest art,--that man, created in the image of god, can never be pictured degrading, profaning, violating that sacred image. were this sentiment adopted in literature as in art, war would be shorn of its false glory. poet, historian, orator, all should join with the artist in saying, _no battle-piece!_ let them cease to dwell, except with pain and reprobation, upon those dismal exhibitions of human passion where the life of friends is devoted to procure the death of enemies. no pen, no tongue, no pencil, by praise or picture, can dignify scenes from which god averts his eye. it is true, man has slain his fellow-man, armies have rushed in deadly shock against armies, the blood of brothers has been spilled. these are tragedies which history enters sorrowfully, tearfully, in her faithful record; but this generous muse with too attractive colors must not perpetuate the passions from which they sprang or the griefs they caused. be it her duty to dwell with eulogy and pride on all that is magnanimous, lovely, beneficent; let this be preserved by votive canvas and marble also. but _no battle-piece!_ in the progress of truth, the animal passions degrading our nature are by degrees checked and subdued. the license of lust and the brutality of intemperance, marking a civilization inferior to our own, are at last driven from public display. faithful art reflects the character of the age. to its honor, libertinism and intemperance no longer intrude their obscene faces into its pictures. the time is at hand when religion, humanity, and taste will concur in rejecting any image of human strife. laïs and phryne have fled; bacchus and silenus are driven reeling from the scene. mars will soon follow, howling, as with that wound from the grecian spear before troy. the hall of battles, at versailles, where louis philippe, the inconsistent conservator of peace, has arrayed, on acres of canvas, the bloody contests in the long history of france, will be shut by a generation appreciating true greatness. in the mission of teaching to nations and to individuals wherein is true greatness, art has a noble office. if not herald, she is at least handmaid of truth. her lessons may not train the intellect, but they cannot fail to touch the heart. who can measure the influence from an image of beauty, affection, and truth? the christus consolator of scheffer, without a word, wins the soul. such a work awakens lasting homage to the artist, and to the spirit from which it proceeds, while it takes its place with things that never die. other works, springing from the lower passions, are no better than gaudy, perishing flowers of earth; but here is perennial, amaranthine bloom. allston loved excellence for its own sake. he looked down upon the common strife for worldly consideration. with impressive beauty of truth and expression, he said, "fame is the eternal shadow of excellence, from which it can never be separated."[ ] here is a volume, prompting to noble thought and action, not for the sake of glory, but for advance in knowledge, virtue, excellence. our artist gives renewed utterance to that sentiment which is the highest grace in the life of the great magistrate, lord mansfield, when, confessing the attractions of "popularity," he said it was that which followed, not which was followed after. [ ] mrs. jameson, memoirs and essays: _washington allston_, p. . as we contemplate the life and works of allston, we are inexpressibly grateful that he lived. his example is one of our best possessions. and yet, while rejoicing that he has done much, we seem to hear a whisper that he might have done more. his productions suggest a higher genius than they display; and we are disposed sometimes to praise the master rather than the work. like a beloved character in english literature, sir james mackintosh, he finally closed a career of beautiful, but fragmentary labors, leaving much undone which all had hoped he would do. the great painting which haunted so many years of his life, and which his friends and country awaited with anxious interest, remained unfinished at last. his virgilian sensibility and modesty would doubtless have ordered its destruction, had death arrested him less suddenly. titian died, leaving incomplete, like allston, an important picture, on which his hand was busy down to the time of his death. a pious and distinguished pupil, the younger palma, took up the labor of his master, and, on its completion, placed it in the church for which it was destined, with this inscription: "that which titian left unfinished palma reverently completed, and dedicated to god." where is the palma who can complete what our titian has left unfinished? * * * * * let us now devoutly approach the grave of the brother whom, in order of time, we were first called to mourn. william ellery channing, the philanthropist, died in the month of october, , aged sixty-two. by an easy transition we pass from allston to channing. they were friends and connections. the monumental stone which marks the last resting-place of the philanthropist was designed by the artist. in physical organization they were not unlike, each possessing a fineness of fibre hardly belonging to the anglo-saxon stock. in both we observe similar sensibility, delicacy, refinement, and truth, with highest aims; and the color of allston finds a parallel in the venetian richness which marks the style of channing. i do not speak of him as theologian, although his labors have earned this title also. it is probable that no single mind, in our age, has exerted a greater influence over theological opinions. but i pass all this by, without presuming to indicate its character. far better dwell on those labors which should not fail to find favor in all churches, whether at rome, geneva, canterbury, or boston. his influence is widely felt and acknowledged. his words have been heard and read by thousands, in all conditions of life, and in various lands, whose hearts now throb with gratitude towards the meek and eloquent upholder of divine truth. an american traveller, at a small village nestling on a terrace of the tyrolese alps, encountered a german, who, hearing that his companion was from boston, inquired earnestly after channing,--saying that the difficulty of learning the english language was adequately repaid by the charm of his writings. a distinguished stranger, when about to visit our country, was told by a relative not less lovely in character than elevated in condition, that she envied him his journey "for the sake of niagara and channing." we have already observed that a critic of art places him in an american triumvirate with allston and washington. more frequently he is associated with washington and franklin. unlike washington, he was never general or president; unlike franklin, he never held high office. but it would be difficult to say that since them any american has exerted greater sway over his fellow-men. and yet, if it be asked what single measure he carried to a successful close, i could not answer. it is on _character_ that he has wrought and is still producing incalculable change. so extensive is this influence, that multitudes now feel it, although strangers to his spoken or even his written word. the whole country and age feel it. i have called him philanthropist, lover of man,--the title of highest honor on earth. "i take goodness in this sense," says lord bacon, in his essays, "_the affecting of the weal of men_, which is that the grecians call _philanthropia_.... this of all virtues and dignities of the mind is the greatest, being the character of the deity; and without it man is a busy, mischievous, wretched thing, no better than a kind of vermin." lord bacon was right. confessing the attractions of scholarship, awed by the majesty of the law, fascinated by the beauty of art, the soul bends with involuntary reverence before the angelic nature that seeks the good of his fellow-man. through him god speaks. on him has descended in especial measure the divine spirit. god is love; and man, when most active in good works, most nearly resembles him. in heaven, we are told, the first place or degree is given to the angels of love, who are termed seraphim,--the second to the angels of light, who are termed cherubim. sorrowfully it must be confessed that the time has not come when even his exalted labors find equal acceptance with all men. and now, as i undertake to speak of them in this presence, i seem to tread on half-buried cinders. i shall tread fearlessly, loyal ever, i hope, to the occasion, to my subject, and to myself. in the language of my own profession, i shall not travel out of the record; but i must be true to the record. it is fit that his name should be commemorated here. he was one of us. he was a son of the university, enrolled also among its teachers, and for many years a fellow of the corporation. to him, more, perhaps, than to any other person, is she indebted for her most distinctive opinions. his fame is indissolubly connected with hers:-- "and when thy ruins shall disclaim to be the treasurer of his name, his name, that cannot die, shall be an everlasting monument to thee."[ ] [ ] ben jonson's inscription for the "pious marble" in honor of drayton. i have called him philanthropist: he may also be called moralist, for he was the expounder of human duties; but his exposition of duties was another service to humanity. his morality, elevated by christian love, fortified by christian righteousness, was frankly applied to the people and affairs of his own country and age. he saw full well, that, in contest with wrong, more was needed than a declaration of simple principles. a general morality is too vague for action. tamerlane and napoleon both might join in general praise of peace, and entitle themselves to be enrolled, with alexander of russia, as members of a peace society. many satisfy the conscience by such generalities. this was not the case with our philanthropist. he brought his morality to bear distinctly upon the world. nor was he disturbed by another suggestion, which the moralist often encounters, that his views were sound in theory, but not practical. he well knew that what is unsound in theory must be vicious in practice. undisturbed by hostile criticism, he did not hesitate to arraign the wrong he discerned, and fasten upon it the mark of cain. his philanthropy was morality in action. as a moralist, he knew that the truest happiness is reached only by following the right; and as a lover of man, he sought on all occasions to inculcate this supreme duty, which he addressed to nations and individuals alike. in this attempt to open the gates of a new civilization, he encountered prejudice and error. the principles of morality, first possessing the individual, slowly pervade the body politic; and we are often told, in extenuation of war and conquest, that the nation and the individual are governed by separate laws,--that the nation may do what an individual may not do. in combating this pernicious fallacy, channing was a benefactor. he helped to bring government within the christian circle, and taught the statesman that there is one comprehensive rule, binding on the conscience in public affairs, as in private affairs. this truth cannot be too often proclaimed. pulpit, press, school, college, all should render it familiar to the ear, and pour it into the soul. beneficent nature joins with the moralist in declaring the universality of god's law; the flowers of the field, the rays of the sun, the morning and evening dews, the descending showers, the waves of the sea, the breezes that fan our cheeks and bear rich argosies from shore to shore, the careering storm, all on this earth,--nay, more, the system of which this earth is a part, and the infinitude of the universe, in which our system dwindles to a grain of sand, all declare one prevailing law, knowing no distinction of person, number, mass, or extent. while channing commended this truth, he fervently recognized the rights of man. he saw in our institutions, as established in , the animating idea of human rights, distinguishing us from other countries. it was this idea, which, first appearing at our nativity as a nation, shone on the path of our fathers, as the unaccustomed star in the west which twinkled over bethlehem. kindred to the idea of human rights was that other, which appears so often in his writings as to inspire his whole philanthropy, the importance of the individual man. no human soul so abject in condition as not to find sympathy and reverence from him. he confessed brotherhood with all god's children, although separated from them by rivers, mountains, and seas,--although a torrid sun had left upon them an unchangeable ethiopian skin. filled with this thought, he was untiring in effort to promote their elevation and happiness. he yearned to do good, to be a spring of life and light to his fellow-men. "i see nothing worth living for," he said, "but the divine virtue which endures and surrenders all things for truth, duty, and mankind." in this spirit, so long as he lived, he was the constant champion of humanity. in the cause of education and of temperance he was earnest. he saw how essential to a people governing themselves was knowledge,--that without it the right of voting would be a dangerous privilege, and that with it the nation would be elevated with new means of happiness and power. his vivid imagination saw the blight of intemperance, and exposed it in glowing colors. in these efforts he was sustained by the kindly sympathy of those among whom he lived. there were two other causes in which, more than any other, his soul was enlisted, especially toward the close of life, and with which his name will be inseparably associated,--i mean the efforts for the abolition of those two terrible scourges, slavery and war. all will see that i cannot pass these by on this occasion; for not to speak of them would be to present a portrait in which the most distinctive features were wanting. and, first, as to slavery. to this his attention was particularly drawn by early residence in virginia, and a season subsequently in one of the west india islands. his soul was moved by its injustice and inhumanity. he saw in it an infraction of god's great laws of right and love, and of the christian precept, "whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." regarding it contrary to the law of nature, the philanthropist unconsciously adopted the conclusions of the supreme court of the united states, speaking by the mouth of chief justice marshall,[ ] and of the supreme court of massachusetts, at a later day, speaking by the mouth of chief justice shaw. a solemn decision, now belonging to the jurisprudence of this commonwealth, declares that "slavery is contrary to natural right, to the principles of justice, humanity, and sound policy."[ ] [ ] the antelope, wheaton's rep. . [ ] commonwealth _v._ aves, pick. . with these convictions, his duty as moralist and philanthropist did not admit of question. he saw before him a giant wrong. almost alone he went forth to the contest. on his return from the west indies, he first declared himself from the pulpit. at a later day, he published a book entitled "slavery," the most considerable treatise from his pen. his object, as he testifies, was "to oppose slavery on principles which, if admitted, would inspire resistance to all the wrongs and reverence for all the rights of human nature."[ ] other publications followed down to the close of his life, among which was a prophetic letter, addressed to henry clay, against the annexation of texas, on the ground that it would entail war with mexico and the extension of slavery. it is interesting to know that this letter, before its publication, was read to his classmate story, who listened to it with admiration and assent; so that the jurist and the philanthropist joined in this cause. [ ] letter to blanco white, july , : life of white, vol. ii. p. . in his defence of african liberty he invoked always the unanswerable considerations of justice and humanity. the argument of economy, deemed by some to contain all that is pertinent, never presented itself to him. the question of profit and loss was absorbed in the question of right and wrong. his maxim was,--anything but slavery; poverty sooner than slavery. but while exhibiting this institution in blackest colors, as inhuman, unjust, unchristian, unworthy of an enlightened age and of a republic professing freedom, his gentle nature found no word of harshness for those whom birth, education, and custom bred to its support. implacable towards wrong, he used mild words towards wrong-doers. he looked forward to the day when they too, encompassed by a _moral blockade_, invisible to the eye, but more potent than navies, and under the influence of increasing light, diffused from all the nations, must acknowledge the wrong, and set the captive free. he urged the _duty_--such was his unequivocal language--incumbent on the northern states to free themselves from all support of slavery. to this conclusion he was driven irresistibly by the ethical principle, that _what is wrong for the individual is wrong for the state_. no son of the pilgrims can hold a fellow-man in bondage. conscience forbids. no son of the pilgrims can, through government, hold a fellow-man in bondage. conscience equally forbids. we have among us to-day a brother who, reducing to practice the teachings of channing and the suggestions of his own soul, has liberated the slaves which fell to him by inheritance. our homage to this act attests the obligation upon ourselves. in asking the free states to disconnect themselves from all support of slavery, channing called them to do as _states_ what palfrey has done as _man_. at the same time he dwelt with affectionate care upon the union. he sought to reform, not to destroy,--to eradicate, not to overturn; and he cherished the union as mother of peace, plenteousness, and joy. such were some of his labors for liberty. the mind instinctively recalls the parallel exertions of john milton. he, too, was a defender of liberty. his "defence of the people of england" drew to him, living, a larger fame than his sublime epic. but channing's labors were of a higher order, more instinct with christian sentiment, more truly worthy of renown. milton's _defensio pro populo anglicano_ was for the _political_ freedom of the english people, supposed at that time to number four and a half millions. it was written after the "bawble" of royalty had been removed, and in the confidence that the good cause was triumphantly established, beneath the protecting genius of cromwell. channing's _defensio pro populo africano_ was for the _personal_ freedom of three million fellow-men in abject bondage, none of whom knew that his eloquent pen was pleading their cause. the efforts of milton produced his blindness; those of channing exposed him to obloquy and calumny. how justly might the philanthropist have borrowed the exalted words of the sonnet to cyriac skinner!-- "what supports me, dost thou ask? the conscience, friend, to have lost them overplied _in liberty's defence, my noble task, of which all europe rings from side to side_." the same spirit of justice and humanity animating him in defence of liberty inspired his exertions for the abolition of the barbarous custom or institution of war. when i call war an institution, i mean international war, sanctioned, explained, and defined by the law of nations, as a mode of determining questions of right. i mean war, the arbiter and umpire, the ordeal by battle, deliberately continued in an age of civilization, as the means of justice between nations. slavery is an institution sustained by municipal law. war is an institution sustained by the law of nations. both are relics of the early ages, and are rooted in violence and wrong. the principle, already considered, that nations and individuals are bound by one and the same rule, applies here with unmistakable force. the trial by battle, to which individuals once appealed for justice, is branded by our civilization as _monstrous_ and _impious_; nor can we recognize honor in the successful combatant. christianity turns from these scenes, as abhorrent to her best injunctions. and is it right in nations to prolong a usage, monstrous and impious in individuals? there can be but one answer. this definition leaves undisturbed that question of christian ethics, whether the right of self-defence is consistent with the example and teaching of christ. channing thought it was. it is sufficient that war, when regarded as a judicial combat, sanctioned by the law of nations as an _institution_ to determine justice, raises no such question, involves no such right. when, in our age, two nations, parties to existing international law, after mutual preparations, continued perhaps through years, appeal to war and invoke the god of battles, they _voluntarily_ adopt this unchristian umpirage; nor can either side plead that overruling _necessity_ on which alone the right of self-defence is founded. they are governed at every step by the laws of war. but self-defence is independent of law; it knows no law, but springs from sudden tempestuous urgency, which brooks neither circumscription nor delay. define it, give it laws, circumscribe it by a code, invest it with form, refine it by punctilio, and it becomes _the duel_. and modern war, with its definitions, laws, limitations, forms, and refinements, is _the duel of nations_. these nations are communities of christian brothers. war is, therefore, a duel between brothers; and here its impiety finds apt illustration in the past. far away in the early period of time, where uncertain hues of poetry blend with the clearer light of history, our eyes discern the fatal contest between those two brothers, eteocles and polynices. no scene stirs deeper aversion; we do not inquire which was right. the soul cries out, in bitterness and sorrow, _both were wrong_, and refuses to discriminate between them. a just and enlightened opinion, contemplating the feuds and wars of mankind, will condemn both sides as wrong, pronouncing all war fratricidal, and every battle-field a scene from which to avert the countenance, as from that dismal duel beneath the walls of grecian thebes. to hasten this judgment our philanthropist labored. "follow my white plume," said the chivalrous monarch of france. "follow the right," more resplendent than plume or oriflamme, was the watchword of channing. with a soul kindling intensely at every story of magnanimous virtue, at every deed of self-sacrifice in a righteous cause, his clear christian judgment saw the mockery of what is called military glory, whether in ancient thunderbolts of war or in the career of modern conquest. he saw that the fairest flowers cannot bloom in soil moistened by human blood,--that to overcome evil by bullets and bayonets is less great and glorious than to overcome it by good,--that the courage of the camp is inferior to this christian fortitude found in patience, resignation, and forgiveness of evil, as the spirit which scourged and crucified the saviour was less divine than that which murmured, "father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." with fearless pen he arraigned that giant criminal, napoleon bonaparte. witnesses flocked from all his scenes of blood; and the pyramids of egypt, the coast of palestine, the plains of italy, the snows of russia, the fields of austria, prussia, spain, all europe, sent forth uncoffined hosts to bear testimony against the glory of their chief. never before, in the name of humanity and freedom, was grand offender arraigned by such a voice. the sentence of degradation which channing has passed, confirmed by coming generations, will darken the name of the warrior more than any defeat of his arms or compelled abdication of his power. these causes channing upheld and commended with admirable eloquence, both of tongue and pen. though abounding in beauty of thought and expression, he will be judged less by single passages, sentences, or phrases, than by the continuous and harmonious treatment of his subject. and yet everywhere the same spirit is discerned. what he said was an effluence rather than a composition. his style was not formal or architectural in shape or proportion, but natural and flowing. others seem to construct, to build; he bears us forward on an unbroken stream. if we seek a parallel for him as writer, we must turn our backs upon england, and repair to france. meditating on the glowing thought of pascal, the persuasive sweetness of fénelon, the constant and comprehensive benevolence of the abbé saint pierre, we may be reminded of channing. with few of the physical attributes belonging to the orator, he was an orator of surpassing grace. his soul tabernacled in a body that was little more than a filament of clay. he was small in stature; but when he spoke, his person seemed to dilate with the majesty of his thoughts,--as the hercules of lysippus, a marvel of ancient art, though not more than a foot in height, revived in the mind the superhuman strength which overcame the nemean lion:-- "deus ille, deus; seseque videndum indulsit, lysippe, tibi, _parvusque videri sentirique ingens_."[ ] [ ] statius, silv., lib. iv. carm. . his voice was soft and musical, not loud or full in tone; and yet, like conscience, it made itself heard in the inmost chambers of the soul. his eloquence was gentleness and persuasion, reasoning for religion, humanity, and justice. he did not thunder or lighten. the rude elemental forces furnish no proper image of his power. like sunshine, his words descended upon the souls of his hearers, and under their genial influence the hard in heart were softened, while the closely hugged mantle of prejudice and error dropped to the earth. his eloquence had not the character and fashion of forensic effort or parliamentary debate. it mounted above these, into an atmosphere unattempted by the applauded orators of the world. whenever he spoke or wrote, it was with loftiest purpose, as his works attest,--not for public display, not to advance himself, not on any question of pecuniary interest, not under any worldly temptation, but to promote the love of god and man. here are untried founts of truest inspiration. eloquence has been called _action_; but it is something more. it is that divine and ceaseless energy which saves and helps mankind. it cannot assume its highest form in personal pursuit of dishonest guardians, or selfish contention for a crown,--not in defence of a murderer, or invective hurled at a conspirator. i would not over-step the proper modesty of this discussion, nor would i disparage the genius of the great masters; but all must join in admitting that no rhetorical skill or oratorical power can elevate these lower, earthly things to the natural heights on which channing stood, when he pleaded for freedom and peace. such was our philanthropist. advancing in life, his enthusiasm seemed to brighten, his soul put forth fresh blossoms of hope, his mind opened to new truths. age brings experience; but, except in a few constitutions of rare felicity, it renders the mind indifferent to what is new, particularly in moral truth. his last months were passed amid the heights of berkshire, with a people to whom may be applied what bentivoglio said of switzerland,--"their mountains become them, and they become their mountains." to them, on the st of august, , he volunteered an anniversary address, in commemoration of that great english victory,--the peaceful emancipation of eight hundred thousand slaves. these were the last public words from his lips. his final benediction descended on the slave. his spirit, taking flight, seemed to say,--nay, still says, _remember the slave_. * * * * * thus have i attempted, humbly and affectionately, to bring before you the images of our departed brothers, while i dwelt on the great causes in which their lives were revealed. servants of knowledge, justice, beauty, love, they have ascended to the great source of knowledge, justice, beauty, love. though dead, they yet speak, informing the understanding, strengthening the sense of justice, refining the tastes, enlarging the sympathies. the body dies; but the page of the scholar, the interpretation of the jurist, the creation of the artist, the beneficence of the philanthropist cannot die. i have dwelt upon their lives and characters, less in grief for what we have lost than in gratitude for what we possessed so long, and still retain, in their precious example. proudly recollecting her departed children, alma mater may well exclaim, in those touching words of parental grief, that she would not give her dead sons for any living sons in christendom. pickering, story, allston, channing! a grand quaternion! each, in his peculiar sphere, was foremost in his country. each might have said, what the modesty of demosthenes did not forbid him to boast, that, through him, his country had been crowned abroad. their labors were wide as scholarship, jurisprudence, art, humanity, and have found acceptance wherever these are recognized. their lives, which overflow with instruction, teach one persuasive lesson to all alike of every calling and pursuit,--_not to live for ourselves alone_. they lived for knowledge, justice, beauty, love. turning from the strifes of the world, the allurements of office, and the rage for gain, they consecrated themselves to the pursuit of excellence, and each, in his own sphere, to beneficent labor. they were all philanthropists; for the labors of all were directed to the welfare and happiness of man. in their presence, how truly do we feel the insignificance of office and wealth, which men so hotly pursue! what is office? and what is wealth? expressions and representatives of what is present and fleeting only, investing the possessor with a brief and local regard. let this not be exaggerated; it must not be confounded with the serene fame which is the reflection of generous labors in great causes. the street lights, within the circle of their nightly glimmer, seem to outshine the distant stars, observed of men in all lands and times; but gas-lamps are not to be mistaken for celestial luminaries. they who live for wealth, and the things of this world, follow shadows, neglecting realities eternal on earth and in heaven. after the perturbations of life, all its accumulated possessions must be resigned, except those only which have been devoted to god and mankind. what we do for _ourselves_ perishes with this mortal dust; what we do for _others_ lives coeval with the benefaction. worms may destroy the body, but they will not consume such a fame. struggles of the selfish crowd, clamors of a false patriotism, suggestions of a sordid ambition, cannot obscure that commanding duty which enjoins perpetual labor for the welfare of the whole human family, without distinction of country, color, or race. in this work, knowledge, jurisprudence, art, humanity, all are blessed ministers. more puissant than the sword, they will lead mankind from the bondage of error into that service which alone is freedom:-- "hæ tibi erunt artes, _pacisque imponere morem_."[ ] [ ] Æneid, vi. .--dryden, translating this passage, gives distinctness to a duty beyond the language of virgil:-- "_the fettered slave to free_, these are imperial arts, and worthy thee." the brothers we commemorate join in summons to this gladsome obedience. their examples have voice. go forth into the many mansions of the house of life. scholar! store them with learning. jurist! strengthen them with justice. artist! adorn them with beauty. philanthropist! fill them with love. be servants of truth, each in his vocation,--sincere, pure, earnest, enthusiastic. a virtuous enthusiasm is self-forgetful and noble. it is the grand inspiration yet vouchsafed to man. like pickering, blend humility with learning. like story, ascend above the present, in place and time. like allston, regard fame only as the eternal shadow of excellence. like channing, plead for the good of man. cultivate alike the wisdom of experience and the wisdom of hope. mindful of the future, do not neglect the past; awed by the majesty of antiquity, turn not with indifference from the new. true wisdom looks to the ages before, as well as behind. like the janus of the capitol, one front regards the past, rich with experience, with memories, with priceless traditions of virtue; the other is directed to the all hail hereafter, richer still with transcendent hopes and unfulfilled prophecies. we stand on the threshold of a new age, which is preparing to recognize new influences. the ancient divinities of violence and wrong are retreating before the light of a better day. the sun is entering a new ecliptic, no longer deformed by those images of animal rage, taurus, leo, scorpio, sagittarius, but beaming with the mild radiance of those heavenly signs, faith, hope, and charity. "there's a fount about to stream, there's a light about to beam, there's a warmth about to glow, there's a flower about to blow, there's a midnight blackness changing into gray: men of thought, and men of action, _clear the way!_ "aid the dawning, tongue and pen! aid it, hopes of honest men! aid it, paper! aid it, type! aid it, for the hour is ripe, and our earnest must not slacken into play: men of thought, and men of action, _clear the way!_" the age of chivalry is gone. an age of humanity has come. the horse, whose importance, more than human, gave its name to that early period of gallantry and war, now yields the foremost place to man. in serving him, in studying his elevation, in helping his welfare, in doing him good, are fields of bloodless triumph, nobler far than any in which bayard or du guesclin conquered. here are spaces of labor, wide as the world, lofty as heaven. let me say, then, in the benison once bestowed upon the youthful knight,--scholar! jurist! artist! philanthropist! hero of a christian age, companion of a celestial knighthood, "go forth, be brave, loyal, and successful!" and may it be our office to light a fresh beacon-fire on the venerable walls of harvard, sacred to truth, to christ, and to the church,[ ]--to truth immortal, to christ the comforter, to the holy church universal. let the flame pass from steeple to steeple, from hill to hill, from island to island, from continent to continent, till the long lineage of fires illumine all the nations of the earth, animating them to the holy contests of knowledge, justice, beauty, love! [ ] the legend on the early seal of harvard university was _veritas_. the present legend is _christo et ecclesiæ_. antislavery duties of the whig party. speech at the whig state convention of massachusetts, in faneuil hall, boston, september , . the convention was organized by the appointment of hon. charles hudson, of westminster, president,--nathan appleton, of boston, stephen c. phillips, of salem, amos abbott, of andover, samuel hoar, of concord, thomas kinnicutt, of worcester, isaac king, of palmer, e.r. coit, of pittsfield, a. richards, of dedham, artemas hale, of bridgewater, and aaron mitchell, of nantucket, vice-presidents,--and f.w. lincoln, jr., of boston, william s. robinson, of lowell, george marston, of barnstable, and e.g. bowdoin, of south hadley, secretaries. after the appointment of a committee to report resolutions, and its withdrawal for this purpose, there was a call for mr. sumner, who came forward and spoke. this incident was described by the _daily advertiser_, in its account of the proceedings, as follows. "after this committee had gone out, charles sumner, esq., of this city, in response to a general call, took the stand and made a very eloquent speech, which was received with sympathy and repeated bursts of applause.... an allusion which he made to daniel webster in terms of the highest admiration, and an appeal to him to add to his title of _defender of the constitution_ that of _defender of freedom_ [_humanity_], was received with great applause." mr. winthrop, at the call of the convention, spoke immediately after mr. sumner. as mr. sumner stepped from the platform, mr. appleton, one of the vice-presidents, said to him, "a good speech for virginia, but out of place here"; to which mr. sumner replied, "if good for virginia, it is good for boston, as we have our responsibilities for slavery." this incident is mentioned as opening briefly the practical issue made by many with regard to the discussion of slavery at the north. mr. president and fellow-citizens, whigs of massachusetts:-- grateful for the honor done me in this early call to address the convention, i shall endeavor to speak with sincerity and frankness on the duties of the whig party. it is of duties that i shall speak. on the first notice that our meeting was to be in boston, many were disposed to regret that the country was not selected instead, believing that the opinions of the country, free as its bracing air, more than those of boston, were in harmony with the tone becoming us at the present crisis. in the country is the spirit of freedom, in the city the spirit of commerce; and though these two spirits may at times act in admirable conjunction and with irresistible strength, yet it sometimes occurs that the generous and unselfish impulses of the one are checked and controlled by the careful calculations of the other. even right and liberty are, in some minds, of less significance than dividends and dollars. but i am happy that the convention is convoked in faneuil hall,--a place vocal with inspiring accents; and though on other occasions words have been uttered here which the lover of morals, of freedom, and humanity must regret, these walls, faithful only to freedom, refuse to echo them. whigs of massachusetts, in faneuil hall assembled, must be true to this early scene of patriot struggles; they must be true to their own name, which has descended from the brave men who took part in those struggles. we are a convention of whigs. and who are the whigs? some may say they are supporters of the tariff; others, that they are advocates of internal improvements, of measures to restrict the veto power, or it may be of a bank. all these are now, or have been, prominent articles of the party. but this enumeration does not do justice to the whig character. the whigs, as their name imports, are, or ought to be, the party of freedom. they seek, or should seek, on all occasions, to carry out fully and practically the principles of our institutions. those principles which our fathers declared, and sealed with their blood, their whig children should seek to manifest in acts. the whigs, therefore, reverence the declaration of independence, as embodying the vital truths of freedom, especially that great truth, "that all men are created equal." they reverence the constitution of the united states, and seek to guard it against infractions, believing that under the constitution freedom can be best preserved. they reverence the union, believing that the peace, happiness, and welfare of all depend upon this blessed bond. they reverence the public faith, and require that it shall be punctiliously kept in all laws, charters, and obligations. they reverence the principles of morality, truth, justice, right. they seek to advance their country rather than individuals, and to promote the welfare of the people rather than of leaders. a member of such an association, founded on the highest moral sentiments, recognizing conscience and benevolence as animating ideas, is not open to the accusation that he "to party gave up what was meant for mankind,"--since all the interests of the party must be coincident and commensurate with the manifold interests of humanity. such is, as i trust, the whig party of massachusetts. it refuses to identify itself exclusively with those measures of transient policy which, like the bank, may become "obsolete ideas," but connects itself with everlasting principles which can never fade or decay. doing this, it does not neglect other things, as the tariff, or internal improvements; but it treats them as subordinate. far less does it show indifference to the constitution or the union; for it seeks to render these guardians and representatives of the principles to which we are attached. the whigs have been called by you, mr. president, _conservatives_. in a just sense, they should be conservatives,--not of forms only, but of substance,--not of the letter only, but of the living spirit. the whigs should be conservators of the ancestral spirit, conservators of the animating ideas in which our institutions were born. they should profess that truest and highest conservatism which watches, guards, and preserves the great principles of truth, right, freedom, and humanity. such a conservatism is not narrow and exclusive, but broad and expansive. it is not trivial and bigoted, but manly and generous. it is the conservatism of ' . let me say, then, that the whigs of massachusetts are--i hope it is not my wish only that is father to the thought--the party which seeks the establishment of truth, freedom, right, and humanity, under the constitution of the united states, and by the union of the states. they are unionists, constitutionalists, friends of the right. the question here arises, how shall this party, inspired by these principles, now act? the answer is easy. in strict accordance with their principles. it must utter them with distinctness, and act upon them with energy. the party will naturally express opposition to the present administration for its treacherous course on the tariff, and for its interference by veto with internal improvements; but it will be more alive to evils of greater magnitude,--the unjust and unchristian war with mexico, which is not less absurd than wicked, and, beyond this, the institution of slavery. the time, i believe, has gone by, when the question is asked, _what has the north to do with slavery?_ it might almost be answered, that, politically, it has little to do with anything else,--so are all the acts of our government connected, directly or indirectly, with this institution. slavery is everywhere. appealing to the constitution, it enters the halls of congress, in the disproportionate representation of the slave states. it holds its disgusting mart at washington, in the shadow of the capitol, under the legislative jurisdiction of the nation,--of the north as well as the south. it sends its miserable victims over the high seas, from the ports of virginia to the ports of louisiana, beneath the protecting flag of the republic. it presumes to follow into the free states those fugitives who, filled with the inspiration of freedom, seek our altars for safety; nay, more, with profane hands it seizes those who have never known the name of slave, freemen of the north, and dooms them to irremediable bondage. it insults and expels from its jurisdiction honored representatives of massachusetts, seeking to secure for her colored citizens the peaceful safeguard of the union. it assumes at pleasure to build up new slaveholding states, striving perpetually to widen its area, while professing to extend the area of freedom. it has brought upon the country war with mexico, with its enormous expenditures and more enormous guilt. by the spirit of union among its supporters, it controls the affairs of government,--interferes with the cherished interests of the north, enforcing and then refusing protection to her manufactures,--makes and unmakes presidents,--usurps to itself the larger portion of all offices of honor and profit, both in the army and navy, and also in the civil department,--and stamps upon our whole country the character, before the world, of that monstrous anomaly and mockery, _a slaveholding republic_, with the living truths of freedom on its lips and the dark mark of slavery on its brow. in opposition to slavery, massachusetts has already, to a certain extent, done what becomes her character as a free commonwealth. by successive resolutions of her legislature, she has called for the abolition of slavery in the district of columbia, and for the abolition of the slave-trade between the states; and she has also proposed an amendment of the constitution, putting the south upon an equality with the north in congressional representation. more than this, her judiciary, always pure, fearless, and upright, has inflicted upon slavery the brand of reprobation. i but recall a familiar fact, when i refer to the opinion of the supreme court of massachusetts, where it is expressly declared that "slavery is contrary to natural right, to the principles of justice, humanity, and sound policy."[ ] this is the law of massachusetts. [ ] pick. rep. . and shall this commonwealth continue in any way to sustain an institution which its laws declare to be contrary to natural right, justice, humanity, and sound policy? shall whigs support what is contrary to the fundamental principles of the party? here the consciences of good men respond to the judgment of the court. if it be wrong to hold a single slave, it must be wrong to hold many. if it be wrong for an individual to hold a slave, it must be wrong for a state. if it be wrong for a state in its individual capacity, it must be wrong also in association with other states. massachusetts does not allow any of her citizens within her borders to hold slaves. let her be consistent, and call for the abolition of slavery wherever she is any way responsible for it, not only where she is a party to it, but wherever it may be reached by her influence,--that is, everywhere beneath the constitution and laws of the national government. "if any practices exist," said mr. webster, in one of those earlier efforts which commended him to our admiration, his discourse at plymouth in ,--"if any practices exist contrary to the principles of justice and humanity, within the reach of our laws or our influence, _we are inexcusable, if we do not exert ourselves to restrain and abolish them_."[ ] this is correct, worthy of its author, and of massachusetts. it points directly to massachusetts as inexcusable for not doing her best to restrain and abolish slavery everywhere within the reach of her laws or her influence. [ ] works, vol. i. p. . certainly, to labor in this cause is far higher and nobler than to strive for _repeal of the tariff_, once the tocsin to rally the whigs. repeal of slavery under the constitution and laws of the national government is a watchword more christian and more potent, because it embodies a higher sentiment and a more commanding duty. the time has passed when this can be opposed on constitutional grounds. it will not be questioned by any competent authority, that congress may, by express legislation, abolish slavery: first, in the district of columbia; secondly, in the territories, if there should be any; thirdly, that it may abolish the slave-trade on the high seas between the states; fourthly, that it may refuse to admit new states with a constitution sanctioning slavery. nor can it be questioned that the people of the united states may, in the manner pointed out by the constitution, proceed to its amendment. it is, then, by constitutional legislation, and even by amendment of the constitution, that slavery may be reached. here the question arises, is there any _compromise_ in the constitution of such a character as to prevent action? this word is invoked by many honest minds as the excuse for not joining in this cause. let me meet this question frankly and fairly. the constitution, it is said, was the result of compromise between the free states and the slave states, which good faith will not allow us to break. to this it may be replied, that the slave states, by their many violations of the constitution, have already overturned all the original compromises, if any there were of perpetual character. but i do not content myself with this answer. i wish to say, distinctly, that there is no compromise on slavery not to be reached _legally and constitutionally_, which is the only way in which i propose to reach it. wherever powers and jurisdiction are secured to congress, they may unquestionably be exercised in conformity with the constitution; even in matters beyond existing powers and jurisdiction there is a constitutional method of action. the constitution contains an article pointing out how, at any time, amendments may be made. this is an important element, giving to the constitution a _progressive_ character, and allowing it to be moulded according to new exigencies and conditions of feeling. the wise framers of this instrument did not treat the country as a chinese foot,--never to grow after its infancy,--but anticipated the changes incident to its advance. "_provided_, that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article, and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate." these are the words of the constitution. they expressly designate what shall be sacred from amendment,--what compromise shall be perpetual,--and so doing, according to a familiar rule of law and of logic, virtually declare that the remainder of the constitution may be amended. already, since its adoption, twelve amendments have been made, and every year produces new projects. there has been a pressure on the floor of congress to abrogate the veto, and also to limit the tenure of the presidential office. let it be distinctly understood, then,--and this is my answer to the pretension of binding compromise,--that, in conferring upon congress certain specified powers and jurisdiction, and also in providing for the amendment of the constitution, its framers expressly established the means for setting aside what are vaguely called compromises of the constitution. they openly declare, "legislate as you please, in conformity with the constitution; and even make amendments rendered proper by change of opinion or circumstances, following always the manner prescribed." nor can we dishonor the revered authors of the constitution by supposing that they set their hands to it, believing that under it slavery was to be _perpetual_,--that the republic, which they had reared to its giant stature, snatched from heaven the sacred fire of freedom, only to be bound, like another prometheus, in adamantine chains of fate, while slavery, like another vulture, preyed upon its vitals. let franklin speak for them. he was president of the earliest abolition society in the united states, and in , only two years after the adoption of the constitution, addressed a petition to congress, calling upon them to "step to the very verge of the power vested in them for discouraging every species of traffic in the persons of our fellow-men."[ ] let jefferson speak for them. his desire for the abolition of slavery was often expressed with philanthropic warmth and emphasis, and is too familiar to be quoted. let washington speak for them. "it is among my first wishes," he said, in a letter to john f. mercer, "to see some plan adopted by which slavery in this country _may be abolished by law_."[ ] and in his will, penned with his own hand, during the last year of his life, he bore his testimony again, by providing for the emancipation of all his slaves. it is thus that washington speaks, not only by words, but by actions more significant "give freedom to your slaves." the father of his country requires, as a token of the filial piety which all profess, that his example shall be followed. i am not insensible to the many glories of his character; but i cannot contemplate this act without a fresh feeling of admiration and gratitude. the martial scene depicted on that votive canvas may fade from the memory of men; but this act of justice and benevolence can never perish. "ergo postque magisque viri nunc gloria claret." [ ] annals of congress, first congress, second session, col. . [ ] sparks's writings of washington, vol. ix. p. , note. i assume, then, that it is the duty of whigs professing the principles of the fathers to express themselves openly, distinctly, and solemnly against slavery,--_not only against its further extension, but against its longer continuance under the constitution and laws of the union_. but while it is their duty to enter upon this holy warfare, it should be their aim to temper it with moderation, with gentleness, with tenderness, towards slave-owners. these should be won, if possible, rather than driven, to the duties of emancipation. but emancipation should always be presented as the cardinal object of our national policy. it is for the whigs of massachusetts now to say whether the republican edifice shall indeed be one where all the christian virtues will be fellow-workers with them. the resolutions which they adopt, the platform of principles which they establish, must be the imperishable foundation of a true glory. but it will not be sufficient to pass _resolutions_ opposing slavery; we must choose _men_ who will devote themselves earnestly, heartily, to the work,--who will enter upon it with awakened conscience, and with that valiant faith before which all obstacles disappear,--who will be ever loyal to truth, freedom, right, humanity,--who will not look for rules of conduct down to earth, in the mire of expediency, but with heaven-directed countenance seek those great "primal duties" which "shine aloft like stars," to illumine alike the path of individuals and of nations. they must be true to the principles of massachusetts. they must not be northern men with southern principles, nor northern men under southern influences. they must be courageous and willing on all occasions to stand alone, provided right be with them. "were there as many devils in worms as there are tiles upon the roofs," said martin luther, "yet would i enter." such a spirit is needed now by the advocates of right. they must not be ashamed of the name which belongs to franklin, jefferson, and washington,--expressing the idea which should be theirs,--abolitionist. they must be thorough, uncompromising advocates of the repeal of slavery,--of its abolition under the laws and constitution of the united states. they must be repealers, abolitionists. there are a few such now in congress. massachusetts has a venerable representative,[ ] whose aged bosom still glows with inextinguishable fires, like the central heats of the monarch mountain of the andes beneath its canopy of snow. to this cause he dedicates the closing energies of a long and illustrious life. would that all might join him! [ ] john quincy adams. there is a senator of massachusetts we had hoped to welcome here to-day, whose position is of commanding influence. let me address him with the respectful frankness of a constituent and friend. already, sir, by various labors, you have acquired an honorable place in the history of our country. by the vigor, argumentation, and eloquence with which you upheld the union, and that interpretation of the constitution which makes us a nation, you have justly earned the title of _defender of the constitution_. by masterly and successful negotiation, and by efforts to compose the strife concerning oregon, you have earned another title,--_defender of peace_. pardon me, if i add, that there are yet other duties claiming your care, whose performance will be the crown of a long life in the public service. do not forget them. dedicate, sir, the years happily in store for you, with all that precious experience which is yours, to grand endeavor, in the name of human freedom, for the overthrow of that terrible evil which now afflicts our country. in this cause are inspirations to eloquence higher than any you have yet confessed. "to heavenly themes sublimer strains belong." do not shrink from the task. with the marvellous powers that are yours, under the auspicious influences of an awakened public sentiment, and under god, who smiles always upon conscientious labor for the welfare of man, we may hope for beneficent results. assume, then, these unperformed duties. the aged shall bear witness to you; the young shall kindle with rapture, as they repeat the name of webster; the large company of the ransomed shall teach their children and their children's children, to the latest generation, to call you blessed; and you shall have yet another title, never to be forgotten on earth or in heaven,--_defender of humanity_,--by the side of which that earlier title will fade into insignificance, as the constitution, which is the work of mortal hands, dwindles by the side of man, created in the image of god.[ ] [ ] how mr. webster regarded this appeal will be seen in a letter from him at the end of the speech. to my mind it is clear that the time has arrived when the whigs of massachusetts, the party of freedom, owe it to their declared principles, to their character before the world, and to conscience, that they should place themselves firmly on this honest ground. they need not fear to stand alone. they need not fear separation from brethren with whom they have acted in concert. better be separated even from them than from the right. massachusetts can stand alone, if need be. the whigs of massachusetts can stand alone. their motto should not be, "our party, _howsoever bounded_," but "our party, bounded always by the right." they must recognize the dominion of right, or there will be none who will recognize the dominion of the party. let us, then, in faneuil hall, beneath the images of our fathers, vow perpetual allegiance to the right, and perpetual hostility to slavery. ours is a noble cause, nobler even than that of our fathers, inasmuch as it is more exalted to struggle for the freedom of _others_ than for _our own_. the love of right, which is the animating impulse of our movement, is higher even than the love of freedom. but right, freedom, and humanity all concur in demanding the abolition of slavery. letter of mr. webster to mr. sumner. marshfield, october , . my dear sir,--i had the pleasure to receive yours of september th, and thank you for the kind and friendly sentiments which you express. these sentiments are reciprocal. i have ever cherished high respect for your character and talents, and seen with pleasure the promise of your future and greater eminence and usefulness. in political affairs we happen to entertain, at the present moment, a difference of opinion respecting the relative importance of some of the political questions of the time, and take a different view of the line of duty most fit to be pursued in endeavors to obtain all the good which can be obtained in connection with certain important subjects. these differences i much regret, but shall not allow them to interfere with personal regard, or my continued good wishes for your prosperity and happiness. yours truly, daniel webster. mr. sumner. wrongful declaration of war against mexico. letter to hon. robert c. winthrop, representative in congress from boston, october , . sir,--newspapers, and some among your friends, complain of the manner in which many of your constituents are obliged to regard your vote on the mexican war bill. this vote is defended with an ardor such as even truth, freedom, and right do not always find in their behalf,--while honest strictures are attributed to personal motives, sometimes to a selfish desire for the place you now hold, sometimes even to a wanton purpose to injure you. all this may be the natural and inevitable incident of political controversy; but it must be regretted that personal feelings and imputations of personal selfishness should intrude into the discussion of an important question of public duty,--i might say, of public morals. as a whig, never failing to vote for you when i had an opportunity, i have felt it proper on other occasions to review your course, and to express the sorrow it caused. for this i am arraigned; and the question of public morals is forgotten in personal feeling. this is my excuse for recalling attention now to the true issue. conscious of no feeling to yourself personally, except of good-will, mingled with the recollection of pleasant social intercourse, i refer with pain to your vote, and the apologies for it which have been set up. as one of your constituents, i single you, who are the representative of boston, among the majority with whom you acted. i am not a politician; and you will pardon me, therefore, if i do not bring your conduct to any test of party or of numbers, to any sliding scale of expediency, to any standard except the rule of right and wrong. to understand your course, it will be necessary to consider the action of congress in declaring war against mexico. i shall state the facts and conclusions briefly as possible. by virtue of an unconstitutional act of congress, in conjunction with the _de facto_ government of texas, the latter was annexed to the united states some time in the month of december, . if we regard texas as a province of mexico, its boundaries must be sought in the geography of that republic. if we regard it as an independent state, they must be determined by the extent of jurisdiction which the state was able to maintain. now it seems clear that the river nueces was always recognized by mexico as the western boundary; and it is undisputed that the state of texas, since its declaration of independence, never exercised any jurisdiction beyond the nueces. the act of annexation could not, therefore, transfer to the united states any title to the region between the nueces and the rio grande. that region belonged to mexico. _certainly_ it did not belong to the united states. in the month of january, , the president of the united states directed the troops under general taylor, called the army of occupation, to take possession of this region. here was an act of aggression. as might have been expected, it produced collision. the mexicans, aroused in self-defence, sought to repel the invaders from their hearths and churches. unexpected tidings reached washington that the american forces were in danger. the president, in a message to congress, called for succors. here the question occurs, what was the duty of congress in this emergency? clearly to withhold all sanction to unjust war,--to aggression upon a neighboring republic,--to spoliation of fellow-men. our troops were in danger only because upon foreign soil, forcibly displacing the jurisdiction and laws of the rightful government. in this condition of things, the way of safety, just and honorable, was by instant withdrawal from the rio grande to the nueces. congress should have spoken like washington, when general braddock, staggered by the peril of the moment, asked the youthful soldier, "what shall i do, colonel washington?" "retreat, sir! retreat, sir!" was the earnest reply. the american forces should have been directed to _retreat_,--not from any human force, but from _wrong-doing_; and this would have been a true victory. alas! this was not the mood of congress. with wicked speed a bill was introduced, furnishing large and unusual supplies of men and money. in any just sense, such provision was wasteful and unnecessary; but it would hardly be worthy of criticism, if confined in its object to the safety of the troops. when made, it must have been known that the fate of the troops was already decided, while the magnitude of the appropriations and the number of volunteers called for showed that measures were contemplated _beyond self-defence_. self-defence is easy and cheap. aggression and injustice are difficult and costly. the bill, in its earliest guise, provided money and volunteers only. suddenly an amendment is introduced, in the nature of a preamble, which gives to it _another character_, in harmony with the covert design of the large appropriation. this was adopted by a vote of to ; and the bill then leaped forth, fully armed, as a measure of open and active hostility against mexico. as such, it was passed by a vote of to . this was on the th of may, , destined to be among the dark days of our history. the amendment, in the nature of a preamble, and the important part of the bill, are as follows. "_whereas, by the act of the republic of mexico, a state of war exists between that government and the united states,_-- "be it enacted, &c., _that, for the purpose of enabling the government of the united states to prosecute said war to a speedy and successful termination_, the president be, and he is hereby, authorized to employ the militia, naval, and military forces of the united states, and to call for and accept the services of any number of volunteers, not exceeding fifty thousand, and that the sum of ten millions of dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated for the purpose." this act cannot be regarded merely as provision for the safety of general taylor; nor, indeed can this be considered the principal end proposed. it has other and ulterior objects, broader and more general, in view of which his safety, important as it might be, is of comparative insignificance; as it would be less mournful to lose a whole army than lend the solemn sanction of legislation to an unjust war. this act may be considered in six different aspects. it is six times wrong. six different and unanswerable reasons should have urged its rejection. six different appeals should have touched every heart. i shall consider them separately. _first._ it is practically a declaration of war against a sister republic. by the constitution of the united states, the power of declaring war is vested in congress. before this act was passed, the mexican war had no legislative sanction. without this act it could have no legislative sanction. _by virtue of this act_ the present war is waged. _by virtue of this act_, an american fleet, at immense cost of money, and without any gain of character, is now disturbing the commerce of mexico, and of the civilized world, by the blockade of vera cruz. _by virtue of this act_, a distant expedition, with pilfering rapacity, has seized the defenceless province of california. _by virtue of this act_ general kearney has marched upon and captured santa fe. _by virtue of this act_ general taylor has perpetrated the massacre at monterey. _by virtue of this act_ desolation has been carried into a thousand homes, while the uncoffined bodies of sons, brothers, and husbands are consigned to premature graves. lastly, it is _by virtue of this act_ that the army of the united states has been converted into a _legalized band_ of brigands, marauders, and banditti, against the sanctions of civilization, justice, and humanity. american soldiers, who have fallen wretchedly in the streets of a foreign city, in the attack upon a _bishop's_ palace, in contest with christian fellow-men defending firesides and altars, may claim the epitaph of simonides: "go, tell the lacedæmonians that we lie here in obedience to their commands." it was in obedience to this act of congress that they laid down their lives. _secondly._ this act gives the sanction of congress to an _unjust_ war. war is barbarous and brutal; but this is unjust. it grows out of aggression on our part, and is continued by aggression. the statement of facts already made is sufficient on this head. _thirdly._ it declares that war exists "_by the act of the republic of mexico_." this statement of brazen falsehood is inserted in the front of the act. but it is now admitted by most, if not all, of the whigs who unhappily voted for it, that it is not founded in fact. it is a national lie. "whose tongue soe'er speaks false not truly speaks; _who speaks not truly_ lies." _fourthly._ it provides for the prosecution of the war "_to a speedy and successful termination_,"--that is, for the speedy and successful prosecution of _unjust_ war. surely no rule can be better founded in morals than that we should seek the establishment of _right_. how, then, can we strive to hasten the triumph of wrong? _fifthly._ the war has its origin in a series of measures to extend and perpetuate slavery. a wise and humane legislator should have discerned its source, and found fresh impulses to oppose it. _sixthly._ the war is dishonorable and cowardly, as the attack of a rich, powerful, numerous, and united republic upon a weak and defenceless neighbor, distracted by civil feud. every consideration of honor, manliness, and christian duty prompted gentleness and forbearance towards our unfortunate sister. such, sir, is the act of congress which received your sanction. hardly does it yield in importance to any measure of our government since the adoption of the national constitution. it is the most wicked in our history, as it is one of the most wicked in all history. the recording muse will drop a tear over its turpitude and injustice, while it is gibbeted for the disgust and reprobation of mankind. such, sir, is the act of congress to which by your affirmative vote the people of boston are made parties. through _you_ they are made to _declare unjust and cowardly war, with superadded falsehood, in the cause of slavery_. through _you_ they are made partakers in the blockade of vera cruz, the seizure of california, the capture of santa fe, the bloodshed of monterey. it were idle to suppose that the soldier or officer only is stained by this guilt. it reaches far back, and incarnadines the halls of congress; nay, more, through you, it reddens the hands of your constituents in boston. pardon this language. strong as it may seem, it is weak to express the aggravation of this act. rather than lend your hand to this wickedness, you should have suffered the army of the united states to pass submissively through the caudine forks of mexican power,--to perish, it might be, like the legions of varus. their bleached bones, in the distant valleys where they were waging unjust war, would not tell to posterity such a tale of ignominy as this lying act of congress. passing from the character and consequences of your vote, i proceed to examine the grounds on which it is vindicated: for it is vindicated, by yourself, and by some of your friends! the first vindication, apology, or extenuation appears in your speech on the tariff, delivered in the house of representatives, june th. this was a deliberate effort, more than six weeks subsequent to the vote, and after all the disturbing influences of haste and surprise had passed. it may be considered, therefore, to express your own view of the ground on which it is to be sustained. and here, while you declare, with commendable frankness, that you "would by no means be understood to vindicate the justice" (why not say the _truth_?) "of the declaration that war exists by the act of mexico," yet you adhere to your vote, and animadvert upon the conduct of mexico, in refusing to receive a minister instead of a commissioner, as if that were a vindication, apology, or extenuation! do we live in a christian land? is this the nineteenth century? does an american statesman venture any such suggestion in vindication, apology, or extenuation of war? on this point i join issue. by the law of nations as now enlightened by civilization, by the law of common sense, by the higher law of christian duty, the fact presented in your vindication can form no ground of war. this attempt has given pain to many of your constituents hardly less than the original vote. it shows insensibility to the true character of war, and perverse adherence to the fatal act of wrong. it were possible to suppose a representative, not over-tenacious of moral purpose, shaken from his firm resolve by the ardors of a tyrannical majority ordaining wicked things; but it is less easy to imagine a deliberate vindication of the hasty wrong, when the pressure of the majority is removed, and time affords opportunity for the recovery of that sense of right which was for a while overturned. another apology, in which you and your defenders participate, is founded on the alleged duty of voting succors to our troops, and the impossibility of doing this without voting also for the bill, after it was converted into a declaration of falsehood and of war. it is said that patriotism required this vote. is not that name profaned by this apology? one of your honored predecessors, sir, a representative of boston on the floor of congress, mr. quincy, replied to such apology, when, on an occasion of trial not unlike that through which you have just passed, he gave utterance to these noble words:-- "but it is said that this resolution must be taken as 'a test of patriotism.' to this i have but one answer. if patriotism ask me to assert a falsehood, i have no hesitation in telling patriotism, 'i am not prepared to make that sacrifice.' the duty we owe to our country is, indeed, among the most solemn and impressive of all obligations; yet, high as it may be, it is nevertheless subordinate to that which we owe to that being with whose name and character _truth_ is identified. in this respect i deem myself acting upon this resolution under a higher responsibility than either to this house or to this people."[ ] [ ] speech on the resolution concerning the conduct of the british minister, dec. , : annals of congress, eleventh congress, second session, col. . these words were worthy of boston. may her representatives never more fail to feel their inspiration! "but," say the too swift defenders, "mr. winthrop voted against the falsehood _once_." certainly no reason for not voting against it _always_. but the excuse is still pressed, "succors to general taylor should have been voted." the result shows that even these were unnecessary. before the passage of this disastrous act of congress, his troops had already achieved a success to which may be applied the words of milton:-- "that _dishonest_ victory at chæronea, _fatal to liberty_." but it would have been less wrong to leave him without succors, even if needful to his safety, than to vote falsehood and unjust war. in seeing that the republic received no detriment, you should not have regarded the army only; _your highest care should have been that its good name, its moral and christian character, received no detriment_. you might have said, in the spirit of virtuous andrew fletcher, that "you would lose your life to _serve_ your country, but would not do a base thing to _save_ it." you might have adopted the words of sheridan, in the british parliament, during our revolution, that you "could not assent to a vote that seemed to imply a recognition or approbation of the war."[ ] [ ] speech, nov. , : hansard, parl. hist., xxi. . another apology is, that the _majority_ of the whig party joined with you,--or, as it has been expressed, that "mr. winthrop voted with all the rest of the weight of moral character in congress, from the free states, belonging to the whig party, _not included in the massachusetts delegation_"; and suggestions are made in disparagement of the _fourteen_ who remained unshaken in loyalty to truth and peace. in the question of right or wrong, it is of little importance that a few fallible men, constituting what is called a majority, are all of one mind. supple or insane majorities are found in every age to sanction injustice. it was a majority which passed the stamp act and tea tax,--which smiled upon the persecution of galileo,--which stood about the stake of servetus,--which administered the hemlock to socrates,--which called for the crucifixion of our lord. these majorities cannot make us hesitate to condemn such acts and their authors. aloft on the throne of god, and not below in the footprints of a trampling multitude, are the sacred rules of right, which no majorities can displace or overturn. and the question recurs, was it _right_ to declare unjust and cowardly war, with superadded falsehood, in the cause of slavery? thus do i set forth the character of your act, and the apologies by which it is shielded. i hoped that you would see the wrong, and with true magnanimity repair it. i hoped that your friends would all join in assisting you to recover the attitude of uprightness which becomes a representative from boston. but i am disappointed. i add, that your course in other respects has been in disagreeable harmony with the vote on the mexican war bill. i cannot forget--for i sat by your side at the time--that on the fourth of july, , in faneuil hall, you extended the hand of fellowship to texas, although this slaveholding community was not yet received among the states of the union. i cannot forget the toast,[ ] on the same occasion, by which you were willing to connect your name with an epigram of dishonest patriotism. i cannot forget your apathy at a later day, when many of your constituents engaged in constitutional efforts to oppose the admission of texas _with a slaveholding constitution_,--so strangely inconsistent with your recent avowal of "uncompromising hostility to all measures for introducing new slave states and new slave territories into our union."[ ] nor can i forget the ardor with which you devoted yourself to the less important question of the tariff,--indicating the relative value of the two in your mind. the vote on the mexican war bill seems to be the dark consummation of your course. [ ] "our country,--however bounded, still our country, to be defended by all our hands." [ ] speech at the whig convention in faneuil hall, sept. , . pardon me, if i ask you, on resuming your seat in congress, to testify _at once_, without hesitation or delay, against the further prosecution of this war. forget for a while sub-treasury, veto, even tariff, and remember this wicked war. with the eloquence which you command so easily, and which is your pride, call for the instant cessation of hostilities. let your cry be that of falkland in the civil wars: "peace! peace!" think not of what you call in your speeches "an _honorable_ peace." there can be no peace with mexico which will not be more honorable than this war. every fresh victory is a fresh dishonor. "unquestionably," you have strangely said, "we are not to forget that mexico must be willing to negotiate."[ ] no! no! mr. winthrop! we are not to wait for mexico. her consent is not needed; nor is it to be asked, while our armies are defiling her soil by their aggressive footsteps. she is _passive_. we alone are _active_. stop the war. withdraw our forces. in the words of colonel washington, retreat! retreat! so doing, we shall cease from further wrong, and peace will ensue. [ ] speech at the whig convention, sept. , . let me ask you to remember in your public course the rules of right which you obey in private life. the principles of morals are the same for nations as for individuals. pardon me, if i suggest that you have not acted invariably according to this truth. you would not in your private capacity set your name to a falsehood; but you have done so as representative in congress. you would not in your private capacity countenance wrong, even in friend or child; but as representative you have pledged yourself "not to withhold your vote from any reasonable supplies which may be called for"[ ] in the prosecution of a wicked war. do by your country as by friend or child. to neither of these would you furnish means of offence against a neighbor; do not furnish to your country any such means. again, you would not hold slaves. i doubt not you would join with mr. palfrey in emancipating any who should become yours by inheritance or otherwise. but i do not hear of your effort or sympathy with those who seek to carry into our institutions that practical conscience which declares it to be as wrong in states as in individuals to sanction slavery. [ ] speech on the tariff, june , : congressional globe, twenty-ninth congress, first session, p. . let me ask you still further--and you will know if there is reason for this request--to bear testimony against the mexican war, and all supplies for its prosecution, regardless of the minority in which you are placed. think, sir, of the cause, and not of your associates. forget for a while the tactics of party, and all its subtle combinations. emancipate yourself from its close-woven web, spun as from a spider's belly, and move in the pathway of right. remember that you represent the conscience of boston, the churches of the puritans, the city of channing. meanwhile a fresh election is at hand, and you are again a candidate for the suffrages of your fellow-citizens. i shall not anticipate their verdict. your blameless private life and well-known attainments will receive the approbation of all; but more than one of your neighbors will be obliged to say,-- "cassio, i love thee, but nevermore be officer of mine!" i am, sir, your obedient servant, charles sumner. october , . refusal to be a candidate for congress. notice in the boston papers, october , . after the appearance of mr. sumner's letter to mr. winthrop, there was a disposition with certain persons feeling strongly on slavery and the mexican war to seek a candidate against the latter. mr. sumner again and again refused to accept a nomination. besides his constant unwillingness to enter into public life, he would not consent that his criticism of mr. winthrop should be weakened by the imputation of an unworthy desire for his place. in his absence from boston, lecturing before lyceums in maine, a meeting of citizens was convened at the tremont temple on the evening of october , , to make what was called an "independent nomination for congress." the meeting was called to order by dr. s.g. howe, and organized by the choice of the following officers: hon. charles f. adams, president,--j.p. blanchard, samuel may, george merrill, dr. walter channing, dr. henry i. bowditch, and r. i. attwill, vice-presidents,--charles g. davis and j.h. frevert, secretaries. a committee was appointed to draft resolutions and nominate a candidate. this committee, by its chairman, john a. andrew, afterwards governor of massachusetts, reported an elaborate series of resolutions, setting forth reasons for a separate nomination, and concluding with a resolution in the following terms. * * * * * "_resolved_, that we recommend to the citizens of this district as a candidate for representative in the national congress a man raised by his pure character above reproach, whose firmness, intelligence, distinguished ability, rational patriotism, manly independence, and glowing love of liberty and truth entitle him to the unbought confidence of his fellow-citizens,--charles sumner, of boston,--fitted to adorn any station, always found on the side of the right, and especially worthy at the present crisis to represent the interests of the city and the cardinal principles of truth, justice, liberty, and peace, which have not yet died out from the hearts of her citizens." * * * * * mr. andrew followed the reading of the resolutions with a speech, in which he vindicated the position of mr. sumner as follows. "mr. president, i shall have done no adequate justice to the views of the committee, to this meeting, to the distinguished friend of peace and liberty to whose nomination this crowded assembly has with such gratifying and enthusiastic heartiness so unequivocally responded, nor, indeed, to my own feelings, until i shall have made a single statement of fact in regard to the attitude of mr. sumner himself towards the act we have just felt it our duty to perform. "this nomination, grateful as it may be to his feelings, considered as an evidence of personal attachment and respect on the part of so many of his friends and fellow-citizens, will find him wholly unprepared for its reception; more than that, as i myself do know, he will hear of it with surprise and regret. though i am unaware that any member of the committee, other than myself, has had any immediate personal knowledge of the views likely to be entertained by him in this regard, i say, what no living man can truly dispute or honestly question, that this nomination has been made upon the entire responsibility and sense of duty of this committee,--not only without the knowledge, approbation, or consent of mr. sumner, but in the face of his constant, repeated, and determined refusal, at all times, to allow his name, even for a moment, to be held at the disposal of friends for such a purpose. "a delicate and sensitive appreciation of his attitude, as one of the earliest, strongest, and most open of those opposed to the dealings of our present member of congress with the matter of the mexican war, determined mr. sumner, although looked to by--may i not say every individual who sympathizes in this present movement of opposition, as the man to bear our standard on the field of controversy?--determined him to resist every effort to draw him forth from the humblest station in our ranks. "he would think, write, and speak as his own mind and heart were moved; but he would do nothing, he would permit nothing to be done, for himself, for his own personal promotion." * * * * * mr. andrew then proceeded to mention what induced the committee to disregard mr. sumner's known wishes. the resolutions were adopted unanimously. a committee of vigilance was appointed. mr. sumner's letter to mr. winthrop, with the report of this meeting, signed by the president and secretaries, was printed on a broad-side. meanwhile mr. sumner returned from maine, when, on learning what had passed, he at once withdrew his name in the following notice. late last evening, on my return from bangor, where i had been in pursuance of an engagement made last august, i was surprised to find myself nominated as candidate for congress. i have never on any occasion sought or desired public office of any kind. i do not now. my tastes are alien to official life; and i have long been accustomed to look to other fields of usefulness. my name has been brought forward, in my absence, without any knowledge or suspicion on my part of such a purpose, and contrary to express declarations, repeatedly made, that i would not, under any circumstances, consent to be a candidate. grateful for the kindness of friends who have thought me worthy of political confidence, and regretting much that it is not bestowed upon some one else, who would fitly represent the idea of opposition to the longer continuance of the unjust war with mexico, i beg leave respectfully, but explicitly, to withdraw my name from the canvass. charles sumner. saturday, october . slavery and the mexican war. speech at a public meeting in the tremont temple, boston, november , . the sentiment against slavery and the mexican war found expression in the independent nomination of dr. s.g. howe as representative to congress. at a meeting of citizens to support this nomination, john a. andrew, esq., was called to the chair. the following resolution was reported from the district committee by john s. eldridge, esq. * * * * * "_resolved_, that in the determination of our candidate, dr. samuel g. howe, 'to stand and be shot at,' we recognize the spirit of a man distinguished by a life of service in various fields of humanity; and, confidently trusting in the triumph of sound principles, we heartily pledge ourselves to make, with untiring zeal, every honorable effort to secure the election of a candidate who has boldly identified himself with the cause of truth, peace, justice, the liberties of the north, and the rights of man." * * * * * on this resolution mr. sumner made the speech given below. he was followed by hon. c.f. adams, who reviewed the anti-slavery policy pursued for several years by the massachusetts legislature, and the obstacles they encountered. at the election, which took place on monday, november th, the vote was as follows: winthrop (whig), , ; howe (anti-slavery), , ; homer (democrat), , ; whiton (independent), . mr. chairman,--when, in the month of july, , the people of paris rose against the arbitrary ordinances of charles the tenth, and, after three days of bloody contest, succeeded in that revolution which gave the dynasty of orléans to the throne of france, lafayette, votary of liberty in two hemispheres, placing himself at the head of the movement, made his way on foot to the city hall, through streets impassable to carriages, filled with barricades, and strewn with wrecks of war. moving along with a thin attendance, he was unexpectedly joined by a gallant bostonian, who, though young in life, was already eminent by seven years of disinterested service in the struggle for grecian independence against the turks, who had listened to the whizzing of bullets, and narrowly escaped the descending scimitar. lafayette, considerate as brave, turned to his faithful friend, and said, "do not join me; this is a danger for frenchmen only; reserve yourself for your own country, where you will be needed." our fellow-citizen heeded him not, but continued by his side, sharing his perils. that bostonian was dr. howe. and now the words of lafayette are verified. he is needed by his country. at the present crisis, in our revolution of "three days," he comes forward to the post of danger. i do not disguise the satisfaction i shall feel in voting for him, beyond even the gratification of personal friendship, because he is not a politician. his life is thickly studded with labors in the best of all causes, the good of man. he is the friend of the poor, the blind, the prisoner, the slave. wherever there is suffering, there his friendship is manifest. generosity, disinterestedness, self-sacrifice, and courage have been his inspiring sentiments, directed by rare sagacity and intelligence; and now, wherever humanity is regarded, wherever bosoms beat responsive to philanthropic effort, his name is cherished. such a character reflects lustre upon the place of his birth, far more than if he had excelled only in the strife of politics or the servitude of party. he has qualities which especially commend him at this time. he is firm, ever true, honest, determined, a lover of the right. with a courage that charms opposition, he would not fear to stand alone against a fervid majority. knowing war by fearful familiarity, he is an earnest defender of peace. with a singular experience of life in other countries, he now brings the stores he has garnered up, and his noble spirit, to the service of his fellow-citizens. but we are assembled to-night less to consider his praises--grateful as these would be to me, who claim him as friend--than to examine the principles now in issue. not names, but principles, are now in issue. proud as we may be of our candidate, we feel, and he too feels, that his principles on the grave questions now pending are his truest recommendation. in examining these questions, i shall regard those only which are put in issue by the whigs. it is with the whigs that i have heretofore acted, and may hereafter act,--always confessing loyalty to principles above any party. the resolutions of the recent whig state convention present five different questions, with the opinions of the party thereupon. these are the veto of the president, the sub-treasury, the tariff, _slavery_, and _the mexican war_. now, of these five questions, it will not be disguised that the last two are the most important. slavery is a wrong which justice and humanity alike condemn. the mexican war is an enormity born of slavery. viewed as a question of dollars and cents, it overshadows the others; while the blackness of its guilt compels them to the darkness of a total eclipse. base in object, atrocious in beginning, immoral in all its influences, vainly prodigal of treasure and life; it is a war of infamy, which must blot the pages of our history. no success, no bravery, no victory can change its character. vainly will our flag wave in triumph over twenty fields. shame, and not glory, will attend our footsteps, while, in the spirit of a bully, we employ superior resources of wealth and numbers in carrying death and devastation to a poor, distracted, long afflicted sister republic. without disparaging the other questions, every just and humane person will recognize slavery and the mexican war as paramount to all else,--so much so, that whoever is wrong on these must be so entirely wrong as not to deserve the votes of massachusetts men. the whig convention has furnished a rule or measure of opinion. it has expressly pledged the whigs "to promote all constitutional measures for the overthrow of slavery, and to oppose at all times, with uncompromising zeal and firmness, any further addition of slaveholding states to this union, out of whatever territory formed." the mexican war it has denounced as having its origin in _an invasion of mexico by our troops_. now on these subjects dr. howe's opinions are clear and explicit. he is an earnest, hearty, conscientious opponent of slavery, and in his speech at your former meeting he denounced the injustice of the mexican war, and, as a natural consequence, demanded the instant _retreat_ of general taylor's troops to the nueces. and this brings me to mr. winthrop. here let me carefully disclaim any sentiment except of kindness towards him as a citizen. it is of mr. winthrop the politician that i speak, and not of mr. winthrop the honorable gentleman. and, _first_, what may we expect from him against _slavery_? will he promote all constitutional measures for its overthrow? clearly one of these is the abolition of slavery in the district of columbia. this is within the constitutional powers of congress, and has been called for expressly by our state. it has sometimes occurred to me that slavery in our country is like the image in nebuchadnezzar's dream, whose feet of clay are in the district of columbia, where they may be shivered by congressional legislation, directed by an enlightened northern sentiment, so that the whole image shall tumble to the earth. other measures against slavery are sanctioned by the massachusetts whigs, and by the legislature of our state, in formal resolutions, duly transmitted to washington. i have never heard of mr. winthrop's voice for any of these,--nor, judging by the past, have i any reason to believe that he will support them earnestly. on these important points he fails, if tried by whig standards. will he oppose, at all times, without compromise, any further addition of slaveholding states? here again, if we judge him by the past, he is wanting. none can forget that in , on the fourth of july, a day ever sacred to memories of freedom, in a speech at faneuil hall, he volunteered, in advance of any other northern whig, to receive texas with a welcome into the family of states, although on that very day she was preparing a constitution placing slavery beyond the reach of legislative change. the conclusion is irresistible, that mr. winthrop cannot fitly represent the feeling palpitating in massachusetts bosoms, and so often expressed by our legislature, with regard to slavery. what may we expect from him as to the _mexican war_? this brings me to a melancholy inquiry, on which i am the less disposed to dwell because it has already been so fully considered. will he ascend to the heights of a true civilization, and, while branding the war as unjust, call at once for its cessation, and the withdrawal of our forces? there is no reason to believe that he will. he voted for the act of congress under which it is now waged, and by that disastrous vote made his constituents partakers in a wicked and bloody war. at a later day, in an elaborate speech,[ ] he vindicated his action, and promised "not to withhold his vote from any reasonable supplies which may be called for" in the prosecution of the war,--adding, that he should vote for them "to enable the president to achieve that _honorable peace_ which he has solemnly promised to bring about at the earliest possible moment" _by the sword_. and, pray, what is mr. winthrop's idea of an "honorable peace"? is it peace imposed upon a weak neighbor by brute force, the successful consummation of unrighteous war? is it the triumph of wrong? is it the saturnalia of slavery? is it the fruit of sin? is it a baptism of blood unjustly shed? in the same speech, with grievous insensibility to the sordid character of the suggestion, he pleads for the maintenance of the old tariff, as necessary to meet "the exigencies" of the mexican war. "in a time of war, like the present, more especially," he says, "_an ample revenue should be the primary aim and end of all our custom-house duties_." perish manufactures, let me rather say, if the duties by which they seem to be protected are swollen to feed "the exigencies" of unjust war! afterwards, at faneuil hall, before the whig convention, he shows a similar insensibility. nowhere does he sound the word _duty_. nowhere does he tell his country to begin by doing right. nowhere does he give assurance of aid by calling for the instant stay of the war. [ ] speech on the tariff, june , . there are those who, admitting that his vote was a mistake, say that we are not to judge him on this account. can we afford to send a representative who can make such a mistake? but it is a mistake never by him acknowledged as such. it is still persisted in, and hugged. among the last words of warning from the lips of chatham, as he fell at his post in the british senate, almost his dying words, were "against co-operation with men who still persist in unretracted error." in his vote for the mexican war mr. winthrop was not a whig. he then left the party: for surely the party is not where numbers prevail, but where its principles are recognized. the true whigs are the valiant minority of _fourteen_. once in roman history, the vestal fire, the archives, the sacred volumes of the republic, were in the custody of a single individual, in a humble vehicle, fleeing from the burning city. with him was the life of the republic. so in that small minority was the life of the whig party, with its principles and its sacred fire. the true whig ground, the only ground consistent with professed loyalty to the sentiment of duty, is uncompromising opposition to the war, wheresoever and howsoever opposition may be made. expecting right from mexico, we must begin by doing right. we are aggressors, and must cease to be so. this is the proper course, having its foundations in immutable laws. let me repeat, that our country must do as an individual in like circumstances. for, though politicians may disown it, there is but one rule for nations and for individuals. if any one of you, fellow-citizens, finding yourself in dispute with a neighbor, had unfortunately felled him to earth, but, with returning reason, discovered that you were wrong, what would you do? of course, cease instantly from _wrong-doing_. you would help your neighbor to his feet, and with awakened benevolence soothe his wounded nature. precisely so must our country do now. this can be only by the withdrawal of our forces. peace would then follow. the very response sent to the roman senate by a province of italy might be repeated by the mexicans: "the romans, having preferred _justice_ to _conquest_, have taught us to be satisfied with submission instead of liberty." that i may not found these conclusions upon general principles only, i would invoke the example of english whigs, chatham, camden, burke, fox, and sheridan, in opposition to the war of our revolution,--denouncing it at the outset as unjust, and ever, during its whole progress, declaring their condemnation of it,--voting against supplies for its prosecution, and against thanks for the military services by which it was waged. holding their example as of the highest practical authority on the present question, and as particularly fit to be regarded by all professing to be whigs in america, i make no apology for introducing the authentic evidence which places it beyond doubt. this is to be found in the volumes of the parliamentary debates. i am not aware that it has ever before been applied to the present discussion, although it is in every word especially applicable. i begin with that famous instance where two officers--one the son of lord chatham, and the other the earl of effingham--flung up their commissions rather than fight against constitutional liberty as upheld by our fathers. in the case of the latter especially the sacrifice was great; for he was bred to arms, and enjoyed the service. from his place in the house of lords, may , , he vindicated his act in the following terms. "ever since i was of an age to have any ambition at all, my highest has been to serve my country in a military capacity. if there was on earth an event i dreaded, it was to see this country so situated as to make that profession incompatible with my duty as a citizen. that period is in my opinion arrived.... when the duties of a soldier and a citizen become inconsistent, i shall always think myself obliged to sink the character of the soldier in that of the citizen, till such time as those duties shall again, by the malice of our real enemies, become united." these generous words found an echo at the time. a note in the parliamentary history says, "the twenty-second regiment of foot, in which he held a captain's commission, being ordered to america, he resolved, though not possessed of an ample patrimony, to resign a darling profession, and all hopes of advancement, rather than bear arms in a cause he did not approve"; and the record proceeds to say that "the cities of london and dublin voted him their thanks for this conduct."[ ] if a soldier could bear testimony against an unjust war, it was easy for others not under the constraint of martial prejudice to do so. the sequel shows how the example prevailed. [ ] vol. xviii., col. . see also annual register for , vol. xix. p. first came the famous duke of grafton, who, in the house of lords, on the address of thanks, october , , after the battles of lexington and bunker hill, said:-- "i pledge myself to your lordships and my country, that, if necessity should require it, and my health not otherwise permit it, i mean to come down to this house in a litter, in order to express my full and hearty disapprobation of the measures now pursuing, and, as i understand from the noble lords in office, meant to be pursued. i do protest to your lordships, that, if my brother or my dearest friend were to be affected by the vote i mean to give this evening, i could not possibly resist the faithful discharge of my conscience and my duty. were i to lose my fortune and every other thing i esteem, were i to be reduced to beggary itself, the strong conviction and compulsion at once operating on my mind and conscience would not permit me to take any other part on the present occasion than that i now mean to adopt." a protest at the close of this debate was signed by several peers, containing the following emphatic clause:-- "because we cannot, as englishmen, as christians, or as men of common humanity, consent to the prosecution of a cruel civil war, so little supported by justice, and so very fatal in its necessary consequences, as that which is now waging against our brethren and fellow-subjects in america." this was echoed in the house of commons, where, on the same address, mr. wilkes said:-- "i call the war with our brethren in america an unjust, felonious war.... i assert that it is a murderous war, because it is an effort to deprive men of their lives for standing up in the just cause of the defence of their property and their clear rights. it becomes no less a murderous war with respect to many of our fellow-subjects of this island; for every man, either of the navy or army, who has been sent by government to america, and fallen a victim in this unnatural and unjust contest, has in my opinion been murdered by administration, and his blood lies at their door. such a war, i fear, sir, will draw down the vengeance of heaven upon this devoted kingdom." mr. fox expressed himself as follows:-- "_he could not consent to the bloody consequences of so silly a contest_ about so silly an object, conducted in the silliest manner that history or observation had ever furnished an instance of, and from which we were likely to derive nothing but poverty, misery, disgrace, defeat, and ruin." he was followed by the eminent lawyer, serjeant adair:-- "i am against the present war, because i think it unjust in its commencement, injurious to both countries in its prosecution, and ruinous in its event.... i think, from the bottom of my soul, that the colonies are engaged in a noble and glorious struggle.... sir, i could not be easy in my own mind without entering the strongest and most public protestations against measures which appear to me to be fraught with the destruction of this mighty empire. _i wash my hands of the blood of my fellow-subjects_, and shall at least have this satisfaction, amidst the impending calamities of the public, not only to think that i have not contributed to, but that i have done all in my power to oppose and avert, the ruin of my country." during another debate in the lords, november , , that strenuous friend of freedom and upholder of whig principles, lord camden, declared himself thus:-- "peace is still within our power; nay, we may command it. a suspension of arms on our part, if adopted in time, will secure it for us, and, i may add, on our own terms. _from which it is plain, as we have been the original aggressors in this business, if we obstinately persist, we are fairly answerable for all the consequences._ i again repeat, what i often urged before, that i was against this unnatural war from the beginning. i was equally against every measure, from the instant the first tax was proposed to this minute. when, therefore, it is insisted that we aim only to defend and enforce our own rights, i positively deny it. i contend that america has been driven by cruel necessity to defend her rights from the united attacks of violence, oppression, and injustice. i contend that america has been indisputably aggrieved.... i must still think, and shall uniformly continue to assert, that great britain was the aggressor, that most, if not all, the acts were founded in oppression, and that, if i were an american, i should resist to the last such manifest exertion of tyranny, violence, and injustice." on another occasion, in the commons, december , , mr. fox expressed himself thus sententiously:-- "i have always said that the war carrying on against the americans is unjust." again, in the lords, march , , the earl of effingham said:-- "i never can stand up in your lordships' presence without throwing in a few words on the justice of this unnatural war." in the commons, march , , colonel barré, mr. burke, mr. fox, all vied in eulogy of general montgomery, the account of whose death before quebec had arrived a few days before. the same spirit was constantly manifest. in the commons, april , , in the debate on the budget, embodying taxes to carry on the war against america, mr. fox laid down the constitutional rule of opposition to an unjust war. "to the resolutions he should give his flat negative, and that not because of any particular objections to the taxes proposed (although there might be a sufficient ground for urging many), _but because he could not conscientiously agree to grant any money for so destructive, so ignoble a purpose as the carrying on a war commenced unjustly, and supported with no other view than to the extirpation of freedom_ and the violation of every social compact. this he conceived to be the strict line of conduct to be observed by a member of parliament.... he then painted the quarrel with america as unjust, and the pursuance of the war as blood-thirsty and oppressive." colonel barré followed, and adopted the phrase of mr. fox, "giving his flat negative to the resolutions, _as they were calculated to tax the subject for an unjust purpose_." the duke of grafton, in the lords, october , , repeated the sentiments he had avowed at an earlier day. "he pledged himself to the house, and to the public, that, while he had a leg to stand on, he would come down day after day to express the most marked abhorrence of the measures hitherto pursued, and meant to be adhered to, in respect to america." on the same night, in the commons, mr. fox exclaimed:-- "the noble lord who moved the amendment said that we were in the dilemma of _conquering or abandoning america. if we are reduced to that, i am for abandoning america._" in the commons, november , , mr. burke likened england to a "cruel conqueror." "you simply tell the colonists to lay down their arms, and then you will do just as you please. could the most cruel conqueror say less? had you conquered the devil himself in hell, could you be less liberal?" colonel barré, in the commons, february , , insisted:-- "america must be reclaimed, _not conquered or subdued_. conciliation or concession are the only sure means of either gaining or retaining america." the budget came up again in the commons, may , , when mr. burke spoke nobly:-- "he was, and ever would be, ready to support a just war, whether against subjects or alien enemies; but where justice, or a color of justice, was wanting, he should ever be the first to oppose it." all these declarations were crowned by lord chatham's motion in the lords, may , , to put a stop to american hostilities, when he spoke so wisely and bravely. "we have tried for unconditional submission: _try what can be gained by unconditional redress_.... we are the aggressors. we have invaded them. we have invaded them as much as the spanish armada invaded england.... in the sportsman's phrase, when you have found yourselves at fault, _you must try back_.... i shall no doubt hear it objected, 'why should we submit or concede? has america done anything, on her part, to induce us to agree to so large a ground of concession?' i will tell you, my lords, why i think you should. _you have been the aggressors from the beginning.... if, then, we are the aggressors, it is your lordships' business to make the first overture._ i say again, this country has been the aggressor. you have made descents upon their coasts; you have burnt their towns, plundered their country, made war upon the inhabitants, confiscated their property, proscribed and imprisoned their persons. _i do therefore affirm, that, instead of exacting unconditional submission from the colonies, we should grant them unconditional redress._ we have injured them; we have endeavored to enslave and oppress them. upon this clear ground, instead of chastisement, they are entitled to redress." again lord chatham broke out, november , , in words most applicable to the present occasion. "i would sell my shirt off my back to assist in proper measures, properly and wisely conducted; _but i would not part with a single shilling to the present ministers_. their plans are founded in destruction and disgrace. it is, my lords, a ruinous and destructive war; it is full of danger; it teems with disgrace, and must end in ruin.... if i were an american, as i am an englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, i never would lay down my arms!--never!--never!--never!" the duke of richmond, in the lords, on the same occasion, returned to the charge in a similar spirit. "can we too soon put a stop to such a scene of carnage? my lords, i know that what i am going to say is not fashionable language; but a time will come when every one of us must account to god for his actions, and how can we justify causing so many innocent lives to be lost?" in the commons, december , , mr. hartley, the constant friend of america, brought forward a motion:-- "that it is unbecoming the wisdom and prudence of parliament to proceed any farther in the support of this fruitless, expensive, and destructive war, more especially without any specific terms of accommodation declared." the marquis of rockingham, in the lords, february , , exclaimed:-- "he was determined to serve his country _by making peace at any rate_." at last, in the lords, march , , the duke of richmond brought forward a motion for the withdrawal of the forces from america. the same question was presented again in the commons, november , , on a motion to thank general clinton and others for their military services in america, when mr. wilkes laid down the true rule. "i think it my duty to oppose this motion, because in my idea every part of it conveys an approbation of the american war,--a war unfounded in principle, and fatal in its consequences to this country.... _sir, i will not thank for victories which only tend to protract a destructive war...._ as i reprobate the want of principle in the origin of the american war, i the more lament all the spirited exertions of valor and the wisdom of conduct which in a good cause i should warmly applaud. thinking as i do, i see more matter of grief than of triumph, of bewailing than thanksgiving, in this civil contest, and the deluge of blood which has overflowed america.... i deeply lament that the lustre of such splendid victories is obscured and darkened by the want of a good cause, without which no war, in the eye of truth and reason, before god or man, can be justified." mr. fox followed in similar strain. "he allowed the merits of the officers now in question, but he made a distinction between thanks and praise. he might, admire their valor, but he could not separate the intention from the action; they were united in his mind; there they formed one whole, and he would not attempt to divide them." mr. sheridan joined in these declarations. "there were in that house different descriptions of men _who could not assent to a vote that seemed to imply a recognition or approbation of the american war_." all these words are memorable from the occasion of their utterance, from the statesmen who uttered them, and from the sentiments avowed. the occasion was the war of great britain upon our fathers. the statesmen were the greatest masters of political wisdom and eloquence that england has given to the world. the sentiments were all in harmony with what i have urged on the present occasion. orators contended with each other in the strength of their language. lord camden averred that "great britain was the aggressor." the duke of grafton declared, that, "while he had a leg to stand on," he would express his "abhorrence" of the war. chatham gave utterance to the same sentiment in one of his most magnificent orations. and wilkes, sheridan, fox, and burke echoed this strain, all insisting that the war was unjust, and must therefore be stopped. thus far i have quoted testimony from parliamentary debates on our own revolution; but going farther back, we find similar authority. when charles the first sent assistance to the french against the huguenots in rochelle, the officers and men did more than murmur; and here our authority is hume. the commander of one of the ships "declared that he would rather be hanged in england for disobedience than fight against his brother protestants in france."[ ] [ ] hume, history of england, chap. l. they went back to the downs. having received new orders, they sailed again for france. "when they arrived at dieppe, they found that they had been deceived. sir ferdinando gorges, who commanded one of the vessels, broke through and returned to england. all the officers and sailors of all the other ships, notwithstanding great offers made them by the french, immediately deserted. one gunner alone preferred duty towards his king to the cause of religion, and he was afterwards killed in charging a cannon before rochelle."[ ] [ ] hume, history of england, chap. l. the same sentiment prevailed also in the war upon spain by cromwell, when several naval officers, having scruples of conscience with regard to the justice of the war, threw up their commissions and retired. here again hume is our authority. "no commands, they thought, of their superiors could justify a war which was contrary to the principles of natural equity, and which the civil magistrate had no right to order. individuals, they maintained, in resigning to the public their natural liberty, could bestow on it only what they themselves were possessed of, a right of performing lawful actions, and could invest it with no authority of commanding what is contrary to the decrees of heaven."[ ] [ ] ibid., chap. lxi. here again it is soldiers who refuse to fight in unjust war. such is the doctrine of morals sanctioned by english examples. such should be the doctrine of an american statesman. if we apply it to the existing exigency, or try the candidates by this standard, we find, that, as dr. howe is unquestionably right, so mr. winthrop is too certainly wrong. exalting our own candidate, i would not unduly disparage another. it is for the sake of the cause in which we are engaged, by the side of which individuals dwindle into insignificance, that we now oppose mr. winthrop, bearing our testimony against slavery and the longer continuance of the mexican war, demanding the retreat of general taylor and the instant withdrawal of the american forces. even if we seem to fail in this election, we shall not fail in reality. the influence of this effort will help to awaken and organize that powerful public opinion by which this war will at last be arrested. hang out, fellow-citizens, the white banner of peace; let the citizens of boston rally about it; and may it be borne forward by an enlightened, conscientious people, aroused to condemnation of this murderous war, until mexico, now wet with blood unjustly shed, shall repose undisturbed beneath its folds. invalidity of enlistments in the massachusetts regiment of volunteers for the mexican war. argument before the supreme court of massachusetts, january, . by the mexican war bill (approved may , ) the president was authorized "to call for and accept the services of any number of volunteers, not exceeding fifty thousand," and provision was made for their organization. the governor of massachusetts, by proclamation, called for a regiment in this commonwealth, which was organized under the act of congress. before it had left the commonwealth, applications for discharge were made to the supreme court of massachusetts in behalf of several persons repenting their too hasty enlistment. at the hearing, the proceedings by which the regiment had been organized were called in question. their validity was denied on the ground that the act of congress, in some of its essential provisions concerning volunteers, was unconstitutional,--that the enlistments were not in conformity with the act,--and also that the militia laws of massachusetts had been fraudulently used in forming the regiment. these points, and the further question, whether a minor is bound by his contract of enlistment under the act, were argued by mr. sumner, who appeared as counsel for one of the petitioners. the court sustained the validity of the proceedings, but discharged the minors.--see _in re_ kimball, murray, and stone, law reporter, , where the case is reported. may it please your honors, this cause has a strong claim upon the careful consideration of the court. it comes with a _trinoda necessitas_, a triple cord, to bind its judgment. it is important as respects the parties, the public, and the principles involved. to the _parties_, it is one of the highest questions known to the law, being a question of _human freedom_. it is proposed to hold the petitioner in the servitude of the army for an indefinite space of time, namely, "for the duration of the war with mexico." during all this period, he will be subject to martial law, and to the articles of war, with the terrible penalties of desertion. he will be under the command of officers, at whose word he must move from place to place beyond the confines of the country, and perform unwelcome duties, involving his own life and the lives of others. to the _public_, it is important, as it is surely of especial consequence, in whose hands is placed the power of life and death. the soldier is vested with extraordinary attributes. he is at times more than marshal or sheriff. he is also surrounded by the law with certain immunities, one of which is exemption from imprisonment for debt. it is important from the _principles_ involved. these are the distinctions between the different kinds of military force under the constitution of the united states, the constitutionality of the act of congress of may, , and the legality of the enlistments under it. the determination of these questions will establish or annul the immense and complex volunteer system now set in motion. in a case of such magnitude, i shall be pardoned for dwelling carefully upon the different questions. in the course of my argument i hope to establish the following propositions. _first._ that the forces contemplated by the act of may, , are a part of the "army" of the united states, or its general military force, and not of the "militia." _secondly._ that the part of the act of congress of providing for the officering of the companies is unconstitutional, and the proceedings thereunder are void. _thirdly._ that the present contract is illegal, inasmuch as it is not according to the terms of the statute, which prescribes that it shall be for "twelve months or the war," whereas it is "for the war" only. _fourthly._ that it is illegal, being entered into by an improper use of the militia laws of massachusetts, so as to be a _fraud_ on those laws. _fifthly._ that minors cannot be held by contract of enlistment under the present act. i shall now consider these different propositions. _first._ the force contemplated by the act of may, , is a part of the _army_ of the united states, or of its general military force, and not of the _militia_. it is called "volunteers"; but on inquiry it will appear that it has elements _inconsistent_ with militia, while it wants elements _essential_ to militia. without stopping to consider what these elements are, it will be proper, first, to consider the powers of congress over the land forces. congress is not omnipotent, like the british parliament. it can do only what is permitted by the constitution of the united states, and _in the manner permitted_. we are, then, to search the constitution. here we find two different species of land forces, and only two. these are "armies" and "militia." there is between the two no hybrid or heteroclite,--no _tertium quid_. these forces are referred to and sanctioned by the following clauses, and by no others: "the congress shall have power _to raise and support armies_; to provide for calling forth _the militia_ to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions; to provide for organizing arming, and disciplining _the militia_, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the united states, _reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers_, and the authority of training the militia, according to the discipline prescribed by congress." (art. i. § .) and again: "the president shall be commander-in-chief of the _army_ and navy of the united states, and of _the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the united states_." (art. ii. § .) it has been ably argued by mr. lanier, in the virginia assembly, that the distinction between _army_ and _militia_ is, that the first stands on _contract_ or _voluntary enlistment_, and the second on _the law compelling parties to serve_; that this simple test determines the character of the service, did the party enter _voluntarily_ or by _operation of law_? if voluntarily, then he is in the "army"; if compulsorily, or by operation of law, then he is in the "militia." this distinction is palpable, and is true, i think, beyond question, with regard to the "army" and "militia" under existing laws. i am not prepared to say that congress, under the clause authorizing it "to raise and support armies," may not, following the example of other countries, enforce a conscription, or levy, which shall act compulsorily throughout the country, being in this respect like the _militia_, although unlike it in other respects. such a plan was recommended by mr. monroe, when secretary of war, october , , who speaks of it as follows. "the limited power which the united states have in organizing the militia may be urged as an argument against their right to raise _regular troops in the mode proposed_. if any argument could be drawn from that circumstance, i should suppose that it would be in favor of an opposite conclusion. the power of the united states over the militia has been limited, and that for raising regular armies granted without limitation. there was, doubtless, some object in this arrangement. the fair inference seems to be, that it was made on great consideration,--that the limitation in the first instance was intentional, the consequence of the unqualified grant of the second. "but it is said, that by drawing the men from the militia service into the regular army and putting them under regular officers you violate a principle of the constitution _which provides that the militia shall be commanded by their own officers_. if this was the fact, the conclusion would follow. but it is not the fact. the men are not drawn from the militia, but from the population of the country. _when they enlist voluntarily, it is not as militia-men that they act, but as citizens._ if they are drafted, it must be in the same sense. in both instances they are enrolled in the militia corps; but that, as is presumed, cannot prevent the voluntary act in one instance or the compulsive in the other. the whole population of the united states, within certain ages, belong to these corps. if the united states could not form regular armies from them, they could raise none."[ ] [ ] niles's register, vol. vii. p. : november , . if mr. monroe's views are sound, the "army" of the united states, as well as the "militia," may be raised by draft. it may consist of _regulars_ and _irregulars_. but whatever may be the powers of congress on this subject, it is certain that there is no legislation now in force, providing for the "army," except by means of _voluntary enlistment_. the whole army of the united states is, at present, an army of _volunteers_; and all persons who are _volunteers_ are of the _army_, and not of the _militia_. to call them _volunteers_ does not take them out of the category of the _army_, or general military force of the united states. on the other hand, the _militia_, when in the service of the united states _as militia_, are not _volunteers_. they come by draft or conscription. this distinction is derived from england, to whom we are indebted for so much of our jurisprudence, and so many principles of constitutional law. we find from blackstone (vol. i. p. ), that the english militia consists of "the inhabitants of the county, chosen by lot for three years." they are called "the constitutional security which the laws have provided for the public peace and for protecting the realm against foreign or domestic violence"; and "they are _not compellable to march out of their counties, unless in case of invasion or actual rebellion within the realm, nor in any case compellable to march out of the kingdom_." they are "officered by the lord-lieutenant, the deputy-lieutenants, and other principal landholders, under a commission from the crown." it will be observed, from this description, that there are four distinct elements in the english militia. . it is in its nature a draft or conscription. . it is local in its character. . it is officered by persons in the county. . it can be called out only on peculiar exigencies, expressly designated. in all these respects it is distinguishable from what is called the _army_ of england. mr. burke somewhere says that nearly half of the early editions of blackstone's commentaries found their way to america. the framers of our constitution were familiar with this work, and they have reproduced all these four features of the english militia, substituting "state" for "county," and adopting even the peculiar exigencies when they are compellable to march "out of the state." thus following blackstone, they have recognized an "_army_" and a "_militia_," without any third or intermediate military body. this same distinction between the militia and army was recognized by mr. charles turner, in the british parliament, in a speech on the bill for embodying the militia, november , . "the proper men," he says, "_to recruit and supply your troops_ are the scum and outcast of cities and manufactories: fellows who _voluntarily submit to be slaves_ by an apprenticeship of seven years are the proper persons to be military ones. but to take the honest, sober, industrious fellow from the plough is doing an essential mischief to the community, and laying a double tax."[ ] [ ] hansard, parl. hist., vol. xviii. col. . let us now apply these general considerations to the present case. the act of may, , recognizes a clear distinction between _militia_ and _volunteers_. it authorizes the president "to employ the _militia_, naval, and military forces of the united states, and to call for and accept the services of any number of _volunteers_, not exceeding fifty thousand, ... to serve twelve months after they shall have arrived at the place of rendezvous, or to the end of the war, unless sooner discharged." the next section (§ ) provides that "the _militia_, when called into the service of the united states by virtue of this act or any other act, may, if in the opinion of the president of the united states the public interest requires it, be compelled to serve _for a term not exceeding six months_ after their arrival at the place of rendezvous." the ninth section speaks of "militia or volunteers," referring to the two distinct classes. now on the face of this act there are at least two distinct recognitions that "volunteers" are not of the _militia_: st, in providing for the employment of _volunteers_ and also of _militia_, treating the two as distinct; and, d, in providing that the service for volunteers shall be "twelve months or the war," while that of the militia is "six months" only. there are other reasons. st, the volunteers do not come by draft, but by contract. d, then, again, the president is expressly empowered to apportion the staff, field, and general officers among the respective states and territories from which the volunteers shall tender their services, while, in the supplementary act of june , major-generals and brigadier-generals are to be appointed by the president by and with the advice and consent of the senate, all of which, notwithstanding the sop to the states in the apportionment provision, is inconsistent with the character of _militia_. d, another reason why these cannot be _militia_ is, that no such exigency has occurred as authorizes the president to call for the militia,--as, for instance, "to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." thus far i have sought to bring the proposed body of volunteers to the touchstone of the constitution and laws of the united states. let us now see how they conform to the constitution and laws of massachusetts. . by the constitution of massachusetts, the governor is commander-in-chief of the militia; but he cannot command these volunteers. . by our state laws (chap. , march , ) volunteers in the militia are "to do duty for five years", while volunteers under the act in question are for "twelve months or the war." . "a uniform such as the commander-in-chief shall prescribe" is appointed for the volunteer militia, while volunteers under the act are subject to no such regulation. . the statute of , chap. , § , provides that each company shall have "one first, one second, one third, and one fourth lieutenant." mr. secretary marcy's requisition (p. of mr. cushing's report[ ]) allows to each company "one first lieutenant and two second lieutenants." [ ] mass. house doc. , no. . by provisions like these massachusetts has marked her militia that she may know them. she tells them how they shall be apparelled and officered. but the body now called out is so apparelled and officered that the commonwealth cannot recognize it as her militia. it seems clear, that, in the light of the constitution and laws of the united states, and also of the constitution and laws of massachusetts, this body cannot be a part of the _militia_. but it is suggested on the other side that the companies now raised may be regarded as companies of militia who _volunteer as companies_ into the army of the united states; and it is urged that the requisitions of the constitution are complied with, inasmuch as the officers of the regiment are commissioned by the governor. to this it may be replied, that the militia of the commonwealth have certain specific duties detailed in the statute on the subject (chap. , ). for instance (§ ), three parades in each year, and inspection on the last wednesday of may; (§ ) an inspection and review in each year; (§ ) and particularly to aid the _posse comitatus_ in case of riot. these all contemplate that they shall remain _at home_. now it is not to be questioned, that, in any of the _exigencies_ mentioned by the constitution, they may be ordered from home, _in the manner prescribed by the constitution and laws_; but it certainly cannot be allowable for a company of militia to volunteer _as a company_ into a service _inconsistent with the duties prescribed by the laws under which it is established_. adopting mr. monroe's distinction, the individuals can volunteer _as citizens_, but not _as a company_. let us try this point by an analogy. the commonwealth by its legislation (rev. stat., chap. ) establishes companies of engine-men, who are to be appointed by the selectmen of towns, to protect from fires. is it supposed that these companies can volunteer, _as companies_, to enter the army of the united states, and go far away from the scene of the duties for which they were established? but the companies of militia are hardly less local and home-abiding in character than the companies of engine-men. it is impossible to suppose that they can volunteer as companies into the "army" of the united states. but suppose, for the sake of argument, that companies of militia, as such, may volunteer into the service of the united states, under the act of may, ,--do they continue to be _militia_? clearly not. they are in no wise subject to the laws of massachusetts. her governor, who was so unfortunately prompt to put them in motion, cannot recall them, although he is commander-in-chief of her militia. they have not her uniform. their officers are not her officers, but officers of the united states. the corps has become part of the _army_ of the united states, or of its general military force. and this is the legal character of the present massachusetts regiment, if it have any _legal character_. "if shape it may be called, that shape has none distinguishable in member, joint, or limb, or substance may be called that shadow seems." it is part of the "army" of the united states, and not of the "militia." _secondly._ it being established that it is not of the _militia_, but of the _army_, the way is prepared for the consideration of the other questions. the first of these relates to the _constitutionality_ of part of the act under which the regiment is raised. looking at captain webster's return in the present case, it will be perceived that he claims to hold the petitioner "because the said samuel a. stone has been duly enrolled and enlisted as a member of company a of the first regiment of massachusetts infantry, whereof the said edward webster has been duly commissioned captain by his excellency the governor of this commonwealth." on this return we have a question of double aspect. . has edward webster a right to detain the petitioner? . is the petitioner liable to be detained by anybody? it is possible that the petitioner may be liable, although edward webster has no right to detain him. in other words, he may be legally enlisted as a soldier in the "army" of the united states, although webster is not a legal officer. and, first, is edward webster legally commissioned as "an officer of the united states"? this is an important question, which concerns the validity of his acts. he should be anxious to know if he is a legal officer, that he may not bear the sword in vain. the attributes of a military officer are of a high order. he has power over human life and property to an extraordinary degree. he has power at once executive and judicial; he is sheriff and judge. in these peculiar powers he is distinguishable from common citizens. such powers the government can impart,--but only in certain ways _precisely prescribed_ by the constitution and laws,--only constitutionally, legally, and rightfully. and the question recurs, have these powers been imparted in such wise to edward webster? this is determined by the constitution of the united states. that instrument provides explicitly the manner of appointing "officers of the united states." it says (art. , § ), "the president shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the senate shall appoint, ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, judges of the supreme court, _and all other officers of the united states_ whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law; but the congress may by law vest the appointment of such _inferior officers_ as they think proper in the president alone, in the courts of law, or in the in the heads of departments." in the next clause it declares, that "the president shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the senate, _by granting commissions_ which shall expire at the end of their next session." from these clauses it appears that all "officers of the united states" are nominated, and by and with the advice and consent of the senate are appointed, by the president; and it is inferred that they are "commissioned" by the president. now two questions arise: whether an officer in the "army" of the united states is an "officer of the united states" in the sense of the constitution, and whether he is an "inferior officer." he is not an "inferior officer" in the sense of the constitution; for his appointment has never been vested "in the president alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments." he is an "officer of the united states." in support of this is universal custom, which has always treated him as such, the express action of president monroe and congress in with regard to the office of adjutant-general ( story, com. on const. § , note), and sundry precedents. i conclude, therefore, that edward webster, assuming to be an "officer of the united states," but not having been "nominated by the president, and by and with the advice and consent of the senate appointed," nor being "commissioned" by the president, is not constitutionally an officer of the "army" of the united states, nor entitled to detain the petitioner. he is commissioned by the governor of massachusetts, who cannot give any power in the "army" of the united states. the question next arises, whether any person is authorized to detain the petitioner. webster is not. who is? the petitioner has been mustered into the service of the united states, not as an individual citizen, but _as a member of the company of which webster assumes to be captain_. if the company has no legal existence as a company, all the proceedings are void. but the company becomes such only through its officers. until its officers are chosen, it is an embryo, not a legal body. but its officers never have been chosen in any constitutional way. the company is, therefore, still unborn. or rather, to adopt the illustration of the roman tribune, the "belly" is produced, but the "head and hands" are wanting; so that it is impossible to present a complete body. the conclusion is, that the petitioner is not liable to be held in the service of the united states. this stands upon the _unconstitutionality_ of that part of the law of congress relating to the peculiar organization of this corps. this same error congress has committed before. the act of february , (statutes at large, vol. ii. p. ), provides for volunteers in companies, "whose commissioned officers shall be appointed in the manner prescribed by law in the several states and territories to which such companies shall respectively belong." in the act of february , (statutes at large, vol. ii. p. ), these words are repeated. but at a later day it seems the mistake was discovered. by the act of january , , it is provided (§ ) "that the officers of the said volunteers shall be commissioned by the president of the united states"; and also (§ ) "that the appointment of the officers of the said volunteers, if received into the service of the united states for the term of twelve months, or for a longer term, shall be submitted to the senate, for their advice and consent, at their next session after commissions for the same shall have been issued." this bill was much considered in congress.[ ] notwithstanding all this, the same error is repeated in the act of may, . [ ] see niles's register, vol. vii. pp. , , . i submit, that it will be the duty of the court to declare the act of may, so far as it relates to the organization of the _volunteers_, unconstitutional, and all the proceedings under it a nullity. _thirdly._ but if the law should be regarded as constitutional, it is further submitted that the proceedings under it in massachusetts have been _illegal_ in two respects: _first_, by the action of the national government; and, _secondly_, by the action of the commonwealth. at present we will consider the illegality on the part of the national government. the act of may provides for volunteers "to serve twelve months after they shall have arrived at the place of rendezvous, or to the end of the war, unless sooner discharged." but by the requisition of mr. secretary marcy they are to serve "during the war with mexico, unless sooner discharged," which is a different term from that in the law. the right to enlist soldiers is determined by the laws. its exact extent is measured there. it is not dependent upon the judgment or conscience of any secretary,--as if his foot were the standard of physical measure. the law expressly says, that the enlistment is to be for "twelve months or the war." now it cannot have been the intention of congress to obtain enlistments for the indefinite period of the war,--for ten years, like the trojan war, or thirty years, like that of wallenstein, in germany. they wished to hold volunteers for twelve months, or even for a shorter time, if the war should be ended sooner; and at the time of this untoward act it was supposed that it would be ended sooner. the militia, in this act, are called out for "six months" only. by the act of february , (statutes at large, vol. ii. p. ), the volunteers are "for the term of twelve months after they shall have arrived at the place of rendezvous, unless sooner discharged"; and for the same term by the act of february , (vol. ii. p. ). but by the act of february , (vol. iii. p. ), the term was "five years, or during the war." by the act of january , (vol. iii. p. ), the term was "not less than twelve months." by the act of january , (vol. iii. p. ), the term of soldiers in the regular army was "five years, or during the war." i mention these precedents, to show that this question may have arisen before, although we have no reports of it from any judicial tribunal. but we have the express opinion of the late mr. justice johnson, of the supreme court of the united states, in a note to his elaborate life of general greene, written not long after the acts of congress to which i have referred. it was printed in . he says: "the point on which the pennsylvania line really grounded their revolt was the same which has been more recently much agitated between the american government and its army. the soldiers were enlisted for a certain number of years, _or the war_. at the expiration of the term of years they demanded their discharge; and after resisting this just claim, and sustaining all the terrors and real dangers of a revolt, ... the government was obliged to acquiesce. _for so many years or the war_ certainly meant for that time, if the war should so long last. else why specify a term of years?--as enlistments for the war would have expressed the sense of the contracting parties." (vol. ii. p. , note.) on the authority of mr. justice johnson, the question seems to be clear. but if there be any doubt, the inclination must be against the government. they are the powerful and intelligent party; the soldier is powerless and ignorant. the government are the inviting, offering, promising party. to them applies the rule, _verba fortius accipiuntur contra proferentem._[ ] [ ] bacon, maxims of the law, reg. iii. but it is said on the other side, that the "twelve months" have not yet expired; and it does not follow that the volunteers will be detained beyond that period. but the case now is to be judged on the _contract_. is the contract legal or illegal, under the act of congress? it is submitted that it is illegal. _fourthly._ i submit that the proceedings in massachusetts under the act of march are _illegal_, inasmuch as they are a _fraud_ upon the militia laws of the commonwealth. this brings me to a part of the case humiliating to massachusetts. we have already seen the purpose of these laws, contemplating the performance of duties _at home_,--as, in preserving the peace, and aiding the _posse comitatus_. these purposes are distinctly declared by the legislature. (chap. , .) but by the agency of state officers these laws have been employed--i would say, prostituted--to a purpose widely different: not to help preserve the peace at home, but to destroy peace abroad. it appears from the communication of the adjutant-general, that he resorted to the device or invention of using the militia laws of the state in order to enlist soldiers to make war on mexico. the following is the form of an application to be organized as a company of the massachusetts militia,--the applicant expressly setting forth objects inconsistent with the duties of the militia. "charlestown, january , . "_to his excellency, george n. briggs, governor and commander-in-chief of the commonwealth of massachusetts._ "sir,--the undersigned, in behalf of himself and his associates, whose names are duly enrolled therefor, respectfully requests that they may be duly organized as a company, to be annexed to the first regiment of massachusetts infantry: _it being understood, that, when so organized, they desire and assent to be placed at the disposal of the president of the united states, to serve during the existing war with mexico_. and as in duty bound will ever pray. (signed,) "john s. barker." thus the executive of the commonwealth placed all the apparatus and energy of the adjutant-general, and of the militia laws, at the service of certain petitioners, well knowing that these persons were not to enlist _bona fide_ in the honest militia of massachusetts, but with the distinct understanding that they should be placed at the disposal of the president of the united states, to serve during the existing war with mexico. i do not complain that the governor or the adjutant-general lent himself officially or personally to this purpose, though i have my regrets on this score; but i do complain that _the laws of massachusetts_ are prostituted to this purpose. it has been decided by the supreme court of the united states, in _prigg_ v. _pennsylvania_, ( peters, ), that state officers are not obliged to enforce united states laws. the nation must execute its laws by its own officers. under the lead of this decision, the legislature of massachusetts passed a law making it penal for state officers to arrest or detain in public buildings any person for the reason that he is claimed as a fugitive slave (act of , chap. ), although the act of congress of contemplates the action of state officers. by this legislation massachusetts has clearly shown her determination to take advantage of the principle in prigg's case. the governor and the adjutant-general, not heeding the spirit of our commonwealth, made themselves _recruiting officers_ of the united states, as much as if they had enlisted sailors for the ship-of-war ohio, now lying in our harbor. how much soever this may be deplored, it forms no ground for any legal questioning of their acts. what they did, under the directions of an act of congress, as _agents_ of the united states, would be legal, provided it was not forbidden by the laws of the state. but although they might volunteer as _agents_ of the united states in raising troops for the mexican war, acting under the law of congress, _they cannot employ the state laws for this purpose_. they cannot be justified in _diverting_ the laws of the state to purposes not originally contemplated by these laws, and _inconsistent with their whole design and character_. such was the employment of the militia laws of massachusetts. these laws have been made by the executive the instruments, the "decoy-ducks," to get together the falstaff regiment whose existence is now drawn in question. the whole proceeding is a _fraud_ on those laws. it is the duty of this court, as conservators of the laws of the commonwealth, bound to see that they receive no detriment, to guard them from such a perversion from their true and original purpose. this can be done only by annulling the proceedings that have taken place under them. such are the objections to the legal character of the massachusetts regiment. if either of these should prevail, then the whole regiment is virtually dissolved. it becomes a mere name. _stat nominis umbra._ or it is left a mere voluntary association, without that quickening principle which is necessary to a military organization under the constitution and laws of the united states. it is like the monster frankenstein, the creation of audacious human hands, endowed with a human form, but wanting a soul. _fifthly._ but suppose the court should hesitate to pronounce the nullity of these proceedings, and should recognize the legal existence of the regiment, it then becomes important to determine whether there are any special circumstances in the case of the petitioner which will justify his discharge. the party that i represent is a _minor_, and as such entitled to his discharge. the question on this point i have reserved to the last, because i wished to consider it after the inquiry whether the regiment was a part of the "army" or the "militia," in order to disembarrass it of considerations that might arise from the circumstance that the militia laws embrace minors. i assume now that the regiment, if it have any legal existence, is a part of the "army." the jurisprudence of all countries wisely provides a certain period of majority, at which persons are supposed to be able to make contracts. this by the common law is the age of twenty-one. now enlistment in the army of the united states is a _contract_. the parties are volunteers, and the term implies contract. and the question arises, whether this contract is governed by the common law, so as to be voidable when made by a minor. is the circumstance that the contract is made with the government any ground of exception? if an infant were to contract with the government to sell a piece of land, he would not be bound by it any more than if the contract were with a private person. is the circumstance that the contract is _military_ any ground of exception? if an infant were to contract to furnish military supplies to government, he could not be held more than by any private individual. the rule of the common law as to the incapacity of infants is specific. an exception to it must be established by express legislation,--as, in the case of capacity to make a will, to marry, or to serve in the militia. congress has recognized this principle by expressly declaring, on several occasions, that persons between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one may be enlisted. the argument from this is clear, that without _express provision_ such enlistments would not be binding. the acts of january , (statutes at large, vol. ii. p. ), and december , (ibid., vol. iii. p. ), contain such provisions. and we are able from contemporary history to ascertain what was the understanding concerning them. i refer particularly to niles's register, vol. iii. p. , and the discussion there on the first of these acts; also to vol. vii. p. , where will be found an important document making this legislation of congress a special subject of complaint. it is argued, however, that the united states have no common law, and cannot, therefore, be governed by the rules of majority therein established. although it may be decided that the united states have no common law as a source of jurisdiction, yet it cannot be questioned that they have a common law so far as may be necessary in determining the signification of words and the capacity of persons. idiots and femes-coverts would not be held as _volunteers_ in the army of the united states; but their capacity is determined by the common law, and not by any special legislation. i conclude, therefore, that the contract of enlistment in this regiment may be avoided by a minor. it may be in the power of the court to discharge the petitioner without passing upon all the grave questions which i have now presented. but i confidently submit, that, if these proceedings are unconstitutional and illegal, as i have urged, if the regiment is a nullity, as i believe, the truth should be declared. the regiment is soon to embark for foreign war, when its members will be beyond the kindly protection of this court. it will be for the court to determine whether it may not, by a just judgment, vindicate the injured laws of massachusetts, and discharge many fellow-citizens from obligations imposed in violation of the constitution and laws of the land. withdrawal of american troops from mexico. speech at a public meeting in faneuil hall, boston, february , . hon. samuel greele presided at this meeting. the other speakers, besides mr. sumner, were rev. james freeman clarke, hon. john m. williams, rev. theodore parker, elizur wright, and dr. walter channing. there was interruption at times from lawless persons trying to drown the voice of the speaker. one of the papers remarks, that "a number of the volunteers were among the most active." mr. chairman and fellow-citizens,-- in the winter of , five years after what was called the "massacre" in king street, now state street, a few months only before the battles of lexington and bunker hill, boston was occupied by a british army under general gage,--as mexican monterey, a town not far from the size of boston in those days, is now occupied by american troops under general taylor. the people of boston felt keenly all the grievance of this garrison, holding the control of massachusetts bay with iron hand. with earnest voice they called for its withdrawal, as the beginning of reconciliation and peace. their remonstrances found unexpected echo in the house of lords, when lord chatham, on the th of january, brought forward his memorable motion for the withdrawal of the troops from boston. josiah quincy, jr., dear to bostonians for his own services, and for the services of his descendants in two generations, was present on this occasion, and has preserved an interesting and authentic sketch of lord chatham's speech. from his report i take the following important words. "there ought to be no delay in entering upon this matter. we ought to proceed to it immediately. we ought to seize the first moment to open the door of reconciliation. the americans will never be in a temper or state to be reconciled,--they ought not to be,--till the troops are withdrawn. the troops are a perpetual irritation to these people; they are a bar to all confidence and all cordial reconcilement. i, therefore, my lords, move, 'that an humble address be presented to his majesty, most humbly to advise and beseech his majesty, that, in order to open the way towards an happy settlement of the dangerous troubles in america, by beginning to allay ferments and soften animosities there, and above all for preventing in the mean time any sudden and fatal catastrophe at boston, now suffering under the daily irritation of an army before their eyes, posted in their town, it may graciously please his majesty _that immediate orders may be despatched to general gage for removing his majesty's forces from the town of boston_, as soon as the rigor of the season, and other circumstances indispensable to the safety and accommodation of the said troops, may render the same practicable.'"[ ] [ ] life of josiah quincy, jr., p. . it is to promote a similar measure of justice and reconciliation that we are now assembled. adopting the language of chatham, we ask the cessation of this unjust war, and the withdrawal of the american forces from mexico, "as soon as the rigor of the season, and other circumstances indispensable to the safety and accommodation of the said troops, may render the same practicable." it is hoped that this movement will extend throughout the country, but it is proper that it should begin here. boston herself in former times suffered. the war-horse was stalled in one of her most venerable churches. her streets echoed to the tread of hostile troops. her inhabitants were waked by the morning drum-beat of oppressors. on their own narrow peninsula they have seen the smoke of an enemy's camp. though these things are beyond the memory of any in this multitude, yet faithful history has entered them on her record, so that they can never be forgotten. it is proper, then, that boston, mindful of the past and of her own trials, mindful of her own pleadings for the withdrawal of the british troops, as the beginning of reconciliation, should now come forward and ask for _others_ what she once so earnestly asked for _herself_. it is proper that boston should confess her obligations to the generous eloquence of chatham, by vindicating his arguments of policy, humanity, and justice, in their application to the citizens of a sister republic. franklin, in dispensing a charity, said to the receiver, "when you are able, return this,--not to me, but to some one in need, like yourself now." in the same spirit, boston should now repay her debt by insisting on the withdrawal of the american troops from mexico. other considerations call upon her to take the lead. boston has always led the generous actions of our history. boston led the cause of the revolution. here commenced that discussion, pregnant with independence, which, at first occupying a few warm, but true spirits only, finally absorbed all the best energies of the continent, the eloquence of adams, the patriotism of jefferson, the wisdom of washington. boston is the home of noble charities, the nurse of true learning, the city of churches. by all these tokens she stands conspicuous; and other parts of the country are not unwilling to follow her example. athens was called "the eye of greece." boston may be called "the eye of america"; and the influence which she exerts proceeds not from size,--for there are other cities larger far,--but from moral and intellectual character. it is only just, then, that a town foremost in the struggles of the revolution, foremost in all the humane and enlightened labors of our country, should take the lead now. the war in which the united states are engaged has been from this platform pronounced unconstitutional. such was the judgment of him who has earned the title of _defender of the constitution_. would that, instead of innocuous threat to impeach its alleged author, he had spoken in the spirit of another time, when, branding an appropriation as unconstitutional, he boldly said he would not vote for it, if the enemy were thundering at the gates of the capitol! assuming that the war commenced in violation of the constitution, we have ample reason for its arrest on this account alone. of course the troops should be withdrawn to where they were, when, in defiance of the constitution, they moved upon disputed territory. but the war is not only unconstitutional, it is unjust, and it is vile in object and character. it had its origin in a well-known series of measures to extend and perpetuate slavery. it is a war which must ever be odious in history, beyond the outrages of brutality which disgrace other nations and times. it is a slave-driving war. in principle it is only a little above those miserable conflicts between barbarian chiefs of central africa to obtain slaves for the inhuman markets of brazil. such a war must be accursed in the sight of god. why is it not accursed in the sight of man? we are told that the country is engaged in the war, and therefore it must be maintained, or, as it is sometimes expressed, vigorously prosecuted. in other words, the violation of the constitution and the outrage upon justice sink out of sight, and we are urged to these same acts again. by what necromancy do these pass from wrong to right? in what book of morals is it written, that what is bad before it is undertaken becomes righteous merely from the circumstance that it is commenced? who on earth is authorized to transmute wrong into right? whoso admits the unconstitutionality and injustice of the war, and yet sanctions its prosecution, must approve the heaven-defying sentiment, "our country, right or wrong." can this be the sentiment of boston? if so, in vain are her children nurtured in the churches of the pilgrims, in vain fed from the common table of knowledge bountifully supplied by our common schools. who would profess allegiance to wrong? who would deny allegiance to right? right is one of the attributes of god, or rather it is part of his divinity, immortal as himself. the mortal cannot be higher than the immortal. had this sentiment been received by our english defenders in the war of the revolution, no fiery tongue of chatham, burke, fox, or camden would have been heard in our behalf. their great testimony would have failed. all would have been silenced, while crying that the country, right or wrong, must be carried through the war. here is a gross confusion of opposite duties in cases of _defence_ and of _offence_. when a country is invaded, its soil pressed by hostile footsteps, its churches desecrated, its inhabitants despoiled of homes, its national life assailed, then the indignant spirit of a free people rises to repel the aggressor. such an occasion challenges all the energies of _self-defence_. it has about it all that dismal glory which can be earned in scenes of human strife. but if it be right to persevere in _defence_, it must be wrong to persevere in _offence_. if the mexicans are right in defending their homes, we certainly are wrong in invading them. the present war is _offensive_ in essence. as such it loses all shadow of title to support. the acts of courage and hardihood which in a just cause might excite regard, when performed in an unrighteous cause, have no quality that can commend them to virtuous sympathy. the victories of aggression and injustice are a grief and shame. blood wrongfully shed cries from the ground drenched with the fraternal tide. the enormous expenditures lavished upon this war, now extending to fifty millions of dollars,--we have been told recently on the floor of the senate that they were near one hundred millions,--are another reason for its cessation. the soul sickens at the contemplation of this incalculable sum diverted from purposes of usefulness and beneficence, from railroads, colleges, hospitals, schools, and churches, under whose genial influences the country would blossom as a rose, and desecrated to the wicked purposes of unjust war. in any righteous self-defence even these expenditures would be readily incurred. the saying of an early father of the republic, which roused its enthusiasm to unwonted pitch, was, "millions for defence, not a cent for tribute." another sentiment more pertinent to our times would be, "not a cent for offence." and why is this war to be maintained? according to the jargon of the day, "to conquer a peace." but if we ask for peace in the spirit of peace, we must begin by doing justice to mexico. we are the aggressors. we are now in the wrong. we must do all in our power to set ourselves right. this surely is not by brutal effort to conquer mexico. our military force is so far greater than hers, that even conquest must be without the wretched glory which men covet, while honor is impossible from successful adherence to original acts of wrong. "to conquer a peace" may have a sensible signification, when a nation is acting in _self-defence_; but it is base, unjust, and atrocious, when the war is of _offence_. peace in such a war, if founded on conquest, must be the triumph of injustice, the consummation of wrong. it is unlike that true peace won by justice or forbearance. it cannot be sanctioned by the god of christians. to the better divinities of heathenism it would be offensive. it is of such a peace that the roman historian, whose pen is as keen as a sword's sharp point, says, "_auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus_, imperium; _atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt_, pacem _appellant_": with lying names, they call spoliation, murder, and rapine, _empire_; and when they have produced the desolation of solitude, they call it _peace_.[ ] [ ] tacitus, agricola, c. . the present course of our country, i have said, is opposed to those principles which govern men in private life. few, if any, of the conspicuous advocates for the maintenance of this war would hesitate, if found wrong in any private transaction, to _retreat_ at once. with proper apology they would repair their error, while they recoiled from the very suspicion of perseverance. such should be the conduct of the nation; for it cannot be said too often, that the general rules of morals are the same for individuals and states. "a commonwealth," says milton, "ought to be but as one huge christian personage, one mighty growth and stature of an honest man, as big and compact in virtue as in body. for look what the grounds and causes are of single happiness to one man, the same ye shall find them to a whole state; by consequence, therefore, that which is good and agreeable to the state will appear soonest to be so by being good and agreeable to the true welfare of every christian, and that which can be justly proved hurtful and offensive to every true christian will be evinced to be alike hurtful to the state."[ ] [ ] of reformation in england, book ii.: prose works, vol. i. p. . i adopt the sentiments of milton, and ask, is not perseverance in wrong-doing hurtful and offensive to every christian? is not perseverance in wrong-doing hurtful and offensive to every christian commonwealth? and is it not doubly so, when the opposite party is weak and the offender strong? there are other considerations, arising from our fellowship with mexico, which plead for her. she is our neighbor and sister republic, who caught her first impulse to independence from our example, rejecting the ensigns of royalty to follow simpler, purer forms. she has erred often, and suffered much, under the rule of selfish and bad men. but she is our neighbor and sister still, entitled to the rights of neighborhood and sisterhood. many of her citizens are well known in our country, where they established relations of respect and amity. one of them, general almonte, her recent minister at washington, was a favored guest in the social circles of the capital. he is personally known to many who voted the supplies for this cruel war upon his country. the representative from boston refers to him in terms of personal regard. addressing any of these friends, how justly might this mexican adopt the words of franklin, in his remarkable letter to mr. strahan, of the british parliament! "philadelphia, july, . "mr. strahan,--you are a member of parliament, and one of that majority which doomed my country to destruction. you have begun to burn our towns and murder our people. _look upon your hands: they are stained with the blood of your relations!_ you and i were long friends: you are now my enemy, and i am yours, "b. franklin."[ ] [ ] works, ed. sparks, vol. viii. p. . the struggle in mexico against the united states, and that of our fathers against england, have their points of resemblance. prominent among these is the aggressive character of the proceedings, in the hope of crushing a weaker people. but the parallel fails as yet in an important particular. the injustice of england roused her most distinguished sons, in her own parliament, to call for the cessation of the war. it inspired the eloquence of chatham to those strains of undying fame. in the senate of the united states there is a favorite son of massachusetts, to whom has been accorded powers unsurpassed by those of any english orator. he has now before him the cause of chatham. his country is engaged in unrighteous war. join now in asking him to raise his eloquent voice in behalf of justice, and of peace founded on justice; and may the spirit of chatham descend upon him! let us call upon the whole country to rally in this cause. and may a voice go forth from faneuil hall to-night, awakening fresh echoes throughout the valleys of new england,--swelling as it proceeds, and gathering new reverberations in its ample volume,--traversing the whole land, and still receiving other voices, till it reaches our rulers at washington, and, in tones of thunder, demands the cessation of this unjust war! * * * * * transcriber's notes. the punctuation and spelling are as in the original publication with the exception of the following: line enfore is now enforce. line gibeon is now gideon. page was a numbered blank page. the oe ligature has been expanded. [illustration: frederick douglass] masterpieces of negro eloquence the best speeches delivered by the negro from the days of slavery to the present time edited by alice moore dunbar copyright, , by robert john nelson printed in the united states of america _to the boys and girls of the negro race, this book is dedicated, with the hope that it may help inspire them with a belief in their own possibilities_ preface it seems eminently fitting and proper in this year, the fiftieth anniversary of the proclamation of emancipation that the negro should give pause and look around him at the things which he has done, those which he might have done, and those which he intends to do. we pause, just at the beginning of another half century, taking stock of past achievements, present conditions, future possibilities. in considering the literary work of the negro, his pre-eminence in the field of oratory is striking. since the early nineteenth century until the present time, he is found giving eloquent voice to the story of his wrongs and his proscriptions. crude though the earlier efforts may be, there is a certain grim eloquence in them that is touching, there must be, because of the intensity of feeling behind the words. therefore, it seems appropriate in putting forth a volume commemorating the birth of the negro into manhood, to collect some few of the speeches he made to help win his manhood, his place in the economy of the nation, his right to stand with his face to the sun. the present volume does not aim to be a complete collection of negro eloquence; it does not even aim to present the best that the negro has done on the platform, it merely aims to present to the public some few of the best speeches made within the past hundred years. much of the best is lost; much of it is hidden away in forgotten places. we have not always appreciated our own work sufficiently to preserve it, and thus much valuable material is wasted. sometimes it has been difficult to obtain good speeches from those who are living because of their innate modesty, either in not desiring to appear in print, or in having thought so little of their efforts as to have lost them. the editor is conscious that many names not in the table of contents will suggest themselves to the most casual reader, but the omissions are not intentional nor yet of ignorance always, but due to the difficulty of procuring the matter in time for the publication of the volume before the golden year shall have closed. in collecting and arranging the matter, for the volume, i am deeply indebted first to the living contributors who were so gracious and generous in their responses to the request for their help, and to the relatives of those who have passed into silence, for the loan of valuable books and manuscripts. i cannot adequately express my gratitude to mr. john e. bruce and mr. arthur a. schomburg, president and secretary of the negro society for historical research, for advice, suggestion, and best of all, for help in lending priceless books and manuscripts and for aid in copying therefrom. again, we repeat, this volume is not a complete anthology; not the final word in negro eloquence of to-day, nor yet a collection of all the best; it is merely a suggestion, a guide-post, pointing the way to a fuller work, a slight memorial of the birth-year of the race. the editor. _october, ._ table of contents page prince saunders the people of hayti and a plan of emigration james mccune smith toussaint l'ouverture and the haytian revolution hilary teague liberia: its struggles and its promises frederick douglass what to the slave is the fourth of july on the unveiling of the lincoln monument charles h. langston should colored men be subject to the pains and penalties of the fugitive slave law? richard t. greener young men to the front robert browne elliot the civil rights bill john r. lynch civil rights and social equality alexander dumas, fils on the occasion of taking his seat in the french academy john m. langston centennial anniversary of the pennsylvania abolition society frances ellen watkins harper centennial anniversary of the pennsylvania abolition society henry highland garnet a memorial discourse george l. ruffin crispus attucks p. b. s. pinchback address during presidential campaign of alexander crummell the black woman of the south josephine st. pierre ruffin an open letter to the educational league of georgia james madison vance in the wake of the coming ages booker t. washington at the opening of the cotton states and international exposition, atlanta robert gould shaw christian a. fleetwood the negro as a soldier charles w. anderson the limitless possibilities of the negro race william sanders scarborough the party of freedom and the freedmen nathan f. mossell the teaching of history george h. white a defense of the negro race levi j. coppin the negro's part in the redemption of africa fanny jackson coppin a plea for industrial opportunity william j. gaines an appeal to our brother in white edward wilmot blyden the political outlook for africa w. justin carter the duty and responsibility of the anglo-saxon theophilus g. steward the army as a trained force d. webster davis the sunday-school and church as a solution of the negro problem reverdy c. ransom william lloyd garrison james l. curtis abraham lincoln abraham walters abraham lincoln and fifty years of freedom archibald h. grimke on the presentation of a loving cup to senator foraker francis h. grimke equality of rights for all citizens james e. shapard is the game worth the candle? robert russa moton some elements necessary to race development george william cook the two seals j. milton waldron a solution of the race problem j. francis gregory the social bearings of the fifth commandment william c. jason life's morn william h. lewis abraham lincoln alice m. dunbar david livingstone kelly miller education for manhood robert t. jones on making a life ernest lyon emancipation and racial advancement john c. dancy the future of the negro church w. ashbie hawkins the negro lawyer w. e. b. dubois the training of negroes for social reform the people of hayti and a plan of emigration[ ] by prince saunders [note : extracts from an address delivered at the american convention for promoting the abolition of slavery and improving the condition of the african race, philadelphia, pa., december , .] _respected gentlemen and friends_: at a period so momentous as the present, when the friends of abolition and emancipation, as well as those whom observation and experience might teach us to beware to whom we should apply the endearing appellations, are professedly concerned for the establishment of an asylum for those free persons of color, who may be disposed to remove to it, and for such persons as shall hereafter be emancipated from slavery, a careful examination of this subject is imposed upon us. so large a number of abolitionists, convened from different sections of the country, is at all times and under any circumstances, an interesting spectacle to the eye of the philanthropist, how doubly delightful then is it, to me, whose interests and feelings so largely partake in the object you have in view, to behold this convention engaged in solemn deliberation upon those subjects employed to promote the improvement of the condition of the african race. * * * * * assembled as this convention is, for the promotion and extension of its beneficent and humane views and principles, i would respectfully beg leave to lay before it a few remarks upon the character, condition, and wants of the afflicted and divided people of hayti, as they, and that island, may be connected with plans for the emigration of the free people of color of the united states. god in the mysterious operation of his providence has seen fit to permit the most astonishing changes to transpire upon that naturally beautiful and (as to soil and productions) astonishingly luxuriant island. the abominable principles, both of action and belief, which pervaded france during the long series of vicissitudes which until recently she has experienced, extended to hayti, or santo domingo have undoubtedly had an extensive influence upon the character, sentiments, and feelings of all descriptions of its present inhabitants. this magnificent and extensive island which has by travellers and historians been often denominated the "paradise of the new world," seems from its situation, extent, climate, and fertility peculiarly suited to become an object of interest and attention to the many distinguished and enlightened philanthropists whom god has been graciously pleased to inspire with a zeal for the promotion of the best interests of the descendants of africa. the recent proceedings in several of the slave states toward the free population of color in those states seem to render it highly probable that that oppressed class of the community will soon be obliged to flee to the free states for protection. if the two rival governments of hayti were consolidated into one well-balanced pacific power, there are many hundred of the free people in the new england and middle states who would be glad to repair there immediately to settle, and believing that the period has arrived, when many zealous friends to abolition and emancipation are of opinion that it is time for them to act in relation to an asylum for such persons as shall be emancipated from slavery, or for such portion of the free colored population at present existing in the united states, as shall feel disposed to emigrate, and being aware that the authorities of hayti are themselves desirous of receiving emigrants from this country, are among the considerations which have induced me to lay this subject before the convention. the present spirit of rivalry which exists between the two chiefs in the french part of the island, and the consequent belligerent aspect and character of the country, may at first sight appear somewhat discouraging to the beneficent views and labors of the friends of peace; but these i am inclined to think are by no means to be considered as insurmountable barriers against the benevolent exertions of those christian philanthropists whose sincere and hearty desire it is to reunite and pacify them. there seems to be no probability of their ever being reconciled to each other without the philanthropic interposition and mediation of those who have the welfare of the african race at heart. and where, in the whole circle of practical christian philanthropy and active beneficence, is there so ample a field for the exertion of those heaven-born virtues as in that hitherto distracted region? in those unhappy divisions which exist in hayti is strikingly exemplified the saying which is written in the sacred oracles, "that when men forsake the true worship and service of the only true god, and bow down to images of silver, and gold, and four-footed beasts and creeping things, and become contentious with each other," says the inspired writer, "in such a state of things trust ye not a friend, put ye not confidence in a guide; keep the doors of thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom; for there the son dishonoreth the father, and the daughter riseth up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man's enemies shall be those of his own house." had the venerable prophet in the foregoing predictions alluded expressly and entirely to the actual moral, political, and above all, to the religious character and condition of the haytians, he could scarcely have given a more correct description of it. for there is scarcely a family whose members are not separated from each other, and arrayed under the banners of the rival chiefs, in virtual hostility against each other. in many instances the husband is with henry, and the wife and children with boyer, and there are other instances in which the heads of the family are with boyer, and the other members with henry. let it be distinctly remembered, that these divided and distressed individuals are not permitted to hold any intercourse with each other; so that it is only when some very extraordinary occurrence transpires, that persons in the different sections of the country receive any kind of information from their nearest relatives and friends. "blessed are the peacemakers," is the language of that celestial law-giver, who taught as never man taught; and his religion uniformly assures the obedient recipients of his spirit, that they shall be rewarded according to the extent, fidelity, and sincerity of their works of piety and beneficence. and if, according to the magnitude of the object in all its political, benevolent, humane, and christian relations, the quantum of recompense is to be awarded and apprised to the just, to how large a share of the benediction of our blessed savior to the promoters of peace shall those be authorized to expect who may be made the instruments of the pacification and reunion of the haytian people? surely the blessings of thousands who are, as it were, ready to perish, must inevitably come upon them. when i reflect that it was in this city that the first abolition society that was formed in the world was established, i am strongly encouraged to hope, that here also there may originate a plan, which shall be the means of restoring many of our fellow beings to the embraces of their families and friends, and place that whole country upon the basis of unanimity and perpetual peace. if the american convention should in their wisdom think it expedient to adopt measures for attempting to affect a pacification of the haytians, it is most heartily believed, that their benevolent views would be hailed and concurred in with alacrity and delight by the english philanthropists. it is moreover believed that a concern so stupendous in its relations, and bearing upon the cause of universal abolition and emancipation, and to the consequent improvement and elevation of the african race, would tend to awaken an active and a universally deep and active interest in the minds of that numerous host of abolitionists in great britain, whom we trust have the best interests of the descendants of africa deeply at heart. toussaint l'ouverture and the haytian revolutions[ ] by james mccune smith, m. a., m. d. [note : extracts from a lecture delivered at the stuyvesant institute, new york, for the benefit of the colored orphan asylum, february , .] _ladies and gentlemen:_ whilst the orgies of the french revolution thrust forward a being whose path was by rivers of blood, the horrors of santo domingo produced one who was pre-eminently a peacemaker--toussaint l'ouverture. in estimating the character of toussaint l'ouverture, regard must be paid, not to the enlightened age in which he lived, but to the rank in society from which he sprang--a rank which must be classed with a remote and elementary age of mankind. born forty-seven years before the commencement of the revolt, he had reached the prime of manhood, a slave, with a soul uncontaminated by the degradation which surrounded him. living in a state of society where worse than polygamy was actually urged, we find him at this period faithful to one wife--the wife of his youth--and the father of an interesting family. linked with such tender ties, and enlightened with some degree of education, which his indulgent master, m. bayou, had given him, he fulfilled, up to the moment of the revolt, the duties of a christian man in slavery. at the time of the insurrection--in which he took no part--he continued in the peaceable discharge of his duties as coachman; and when the insurgents approached the estate whereon he lived, he accomplished the flight of m. bayou, whose kind treatment (part of this kindness was teaching this slave to read and write) he repaid by forwarding to him produce for his maintenance while in exile in these united states. having thus faithfully acquitted himself as a slave, he turned towards the higher destinies which awaited him as a freeman. with a mind stored with patient reflection upon the biographies of men, the most eminent in civil and military affairs; and deeply versed in the history of the most remarkable revolutions that had yet occurred amongst mankind, he entered the army of the insurgents under jean françois. this chief rapidly promoted him to the offices of physician to the forces, aid-de-camp, and colonel. jean françois, in alliance with the spaniards, maintained war at this time for the cause of royalty. whilst serving under this chief, toussaint beheld another civil war agitating the french colony. on one side, the french commissioners, who had acknowledged the emancipation of the slaves, maintained war for the republic; on the other side, the old noblesse, or planters, fought under the royal banner, having called in the aid of the british forces in order to re-establish slavery and the ancient regime. in this conflict, unmindful of their solemn oaths against the decree of the th of may, , the whites of both parties, including the planters, hesitated not to fight in the same ranks, shoulder to shoulder, with the blacks. caste was forgotten in the struggle for principles! at this juncture jean françois, accompanied by his principal officers, and possessed of all the honors and emoluments of a captain-general in the service of his catholic majesty, retired to spain, leaving toussaint at liberty to choose his party. almost immediately joining that standard which acknowledged and battled for equal rights to all men, he soon rendered signal service to the commissioners, by driving the spaniards from the northern, and by holding the british at bay in the eastern part of the island. for these services he was raised to the rank of general by the french commander at porte-aux-paix, general laveaux, a promotion which he soon repaid by saving that veteran's life under the following circumstances: villate, a mulatto general, envious of the honors bestowed on toussaint, treacherously imprisoned general laveaux in cape françois. immediately upon hearing this fact, toussaint hastened to the cape at the head of , men and liberated his benefactor. and, at the very moment of his liberation, a commission arrived from france appointing general laveaux governor of the colony; his first official act was to proclaim toussaint his lieutenant. "this is the black," said laveaux, "predicted by raynal, and who is destined to avenge the outrages committed against his whole race." a remark soon verified, for on his attainment of the supreme power, toussaint avenged those injuries--by forgiveness! as an acknowledgment for his eminent services against the british, and against the mulattoes, who, inflamed with all the bitterness of _caste_, had maintained a sanguinary war under their great leader rigaud, in the southern part of the colony, the commissioners invested toussaint with the office and dignity of general-in-chief of santo domingo. from that moment began the full development of the vast and versatile genius of this extraordinary man. standing amid the terrible, because hostile, fragments of two revolutions, harassed by the rapacious greed of commissioners upon commissioners, who, successively dispatched from france, hid beneath a republican exterior a longing after the spoils; with an army in the field accustomed by five years' experience to all the license of civil war, toussaint, with a giant hand, seized the reins of government, reduced these conflicting elements to harmony and order, and raised the colony to nearly its former prosperity, his lofty intellect always delighting to effect its object rather by the tangled mazes of diplomacy than by the strong arm of physical force, yet maintaining a steadfast and unimpeached adherence to truth, his word, and his honor. general maitland, commander of the british forces, finding the reduction of the island to be utterly hopeless, signed a treaty with toussaint for the evacuation of all the posts which he held. "toussaint then paid him a visit, and was received with military honors. after partaking of a grand entertainment, he was presented by general maitland, in the name of his majesty, with a splendid service of plate, and put in possession of the government-house which had been built and furnished by the english." * * * * * buonaparte, on becoming first consul, sent out the confirmation of toussaint as commander-in-chief, who, with views infinitely beyond the short-sighted and selfish vision of the commissioners, proclaimed a general amnesty to the planters who had fled during the revolutions, earnestly invited their return to the possession of their estates, and, with a delicate regard to their feelings, decreed that the epithet "emigrant" should not be applied to them. many of the planters accepted the invitation, and returned to the peaceful possession of their estates. in regard to the army of toussaint, general lacroix, one of the planters who returned, affirms "that never was a european army subjected to a more rigid discipline than that which was observed by the troops of toussaint." yet this army was converted by the commander-in-chief into industrious laborers, by the simple expedient of _paying them for their labor_. "when he restored many of the planters to their estates, there was no restoration of their former property in human beings. no human being was to be bought or sold. severe tasks, flagellations, and scanty food were no longer to be endured. the planters were obliged to employ their laborers on the footing of hired servants." "and under this system," says lacroix, "the colony advanced, as if by enchantment towards its ancient splendor; cultivation was extended with such rapidity that every day made its progress more perceptible. all appeared to be happy, and regarded toussaint as their guardian angel. in making a tour of the island, he was hailed by the blacks with universal joy, nor was he less a favorite of the whites." toussaint, having effected a bloodless conquest of the spanish territory, had now become commander of the entire island. performing all the executive duties, he made laws to suit the exigency of the times. his egeria was temperance accompanied with a constant activity of body and mind. the best proof of the entire success of his government is contained in the comparative views of the exports of the island, before the revolutions, and during the administration of toussaint. bear in mind that, "before the revolution there were , slave laborers working with a capital in the shape of buildings, mills, fixtures, and implements, which had been accumulating during a century. under toussaint there were , free laborers, many of them just from the army or the mountains, working on plantations that had undergone the devastation of insurrection and a seven years' war." * * * * * in consequence of the almost entire cessation of official communication with france, and for other reasons equally good, toussaint thought it necessary for the public welfare to frame a new constitution for the government of the island. with the aid of m. pascal, abbe moliere, and marinit, he drew up a constitution, and submitted the same to a general assembly convened from every district, and by that assembly the constitution was adopted. it was subsequently promulgated in the name of the people. and, on the st of july, , the island was declared to be an independent state, in which _all men_, without regard to complexion or creed, possessed _equal rights_. this proceeding was subsequently sanctioned by napoleon buonaparte, whilst first consul. in a letter to toussaint, he says, "we have conceived for you esteem, and we wish to recognize and proclaim the great services you have rendered the french people. if their colors fly on santo domingo, it is to you and your brave blacks that we owe it. called by your talents and the force of circumstances to the chief command, you have terminated the civil war, put a stop to the persecutions of some ferocious men, and restored to honor the religion and the worship of god, from whom all things come. the situation in which you were placed, surrounded on all sides by enemies, and without the mother country being able to succor or sustain you, has rendered legitimate the articles of that constitution." although toussaint enforced the duties of religion, he entirely severed the connection between church and state. he rigidly enforced all the duties of morality, and would not suffer in his presence even the approach to indecency of dress or manner. "modesty," said he, "is the defense of woman." the chief, nay the idol of an army of , well-trained and acclimated troops ready to march or sail where he wist, toussaint refrained from raising the standard of liberty in any one of the neighboring island, at a time when, had he been fired with what men term ambition, he could easily have revolutionized the entire archipelago of the west. but his thoughts were bent on conquest of another kind; he was determined to overthrow an _error_ which designing and interested men had craftily instilled into the civilized world,--a belief in the natural inferiority of the negro race. it was the glory and the warrantable boast of toussaint that he had been the instrument of demonstrating that, even with the worst odds against them, this race is entirely capable of achieving liberty and of self-government. he did more: by abolishing caste he proved the artificial nature of such distinctions, and further demonstrated that even slavery cannot unfit men for the full exercise of all the functions which belong to free citizens. "some situations of trust were filled by free negroes and mulattoes, who had been in respectable circumstances under the old government; but others were occupied by negroes, and even by africans, who had recently emerged from the lowest condition of slavery." but the bright and happy state of things which the genius of toussaint had almost created out of elements the most discordant was doomed to be of short duration. for the dark spirit of napoleon, glutted, but not satiated with the glory banquet afforded at the expense of europe and africa, seized upon this, the most beautiful and happy of the hesperides, as the next victim of its remorseless rapacity. with the double intention of getting rid of the republican army, and reducing back to slavery the island of hayti, he sent out his brother-in-law, general leclerc, with ships of war and , men. like leonidas at thermopylæ, or the bruce at bannockburn, toussaint determined to defend from thraldom his sea-girt isle, made sacred to liberty by the baptism of blood. on the th of january, , leclerc arrived off the bay of samana, from the promontory of which toussaint, in anxious alarm, beheld for the first time in his life so large an armament. "we must all perish," said he, "all france has come to santo domingo!" but this despondency passed away in a moment, and then this man, who had been a kindly-treated slave, prepared to oppose to the last that system which he now considered worse than death. it is impossible, after so long a tax on your patience, to enter on a detailed narration of the conflict which ensued. the hour of trial served only to develop and ennoble the character of toussaint, who rose, with misfortune, above the allurements of rank and wealth which were offered as the price of his submission; and the very ties of parental love he yielded to the loftier sentiment of patriotism. on the d of february, a division of leclerc's army, commanded by general rochambeau, an old planter, landed at fort dauphin, and ruthlessly murdered many of the inhabitants (freedmen) who, unarmed, had been led by curiosity to the beach, in order to witness the disembarkation of the troops. christophe, one of the generals of toussaint, commanding at cape françois, having resisted the menaces and the flattery of leclerc, reduced that ill-fated town to ashes, and retired with his troops into the mountains, carrying with him , of the white inhabitants of the cape, who were protected from injury during the fierce war which ensued. having full possession of the plain of the cape, leclerc, with a proclamation of liberty in his hand, in march following re-established slavery with all its former cruelties. this treacherous movement thickened the ranks of toussaint, who thenceforward so vigorously pressed his opponent, that as a last resort, leclerc broke the shackles of the slave, and proclaimed "liberty and equality to all the inhabitants of santo domingo." this proclamation terminated the conflict for the time. christophe and dessalines, general officers, and at length toussaint himself, capitulated, and, giving up the command of the island to leclerc, he retired, at the suggestion of that officer, to enjoy rest and the sweet endearments of his family circle, on one of his estates near gonaives. at this place he had remained about one month, when, without any adequate cause, leclerc caused him to be seized, and to be placed on board of a ship of war, in which he was conveyed to france, where, without trial or condemnation, he was imprisoned in a loathsome and unhealthy dungeon. unaccustomed to the chill and damp of this prison-house, the aged frame of toussaint gave way, and he died. in this meagre outline of his life i have presented simply facts, gleaned, for the most part, from the unwilling testimony of his foes, and therefore resting on good authority. the highest encomium on his character is contained in the fact that napoleon believed that by capturing him he would be able to re-enslave hayti; and even this encomium is, if possible, rendered higher by the circumstances which afterward transpired, which showed that his principles were so thoroughly disseminated among his brethren, that, without the presence of toussaint, they achieved that liberty which he had taught them so rightly to estimate. the capture of toussaint spread like wild-fire through the island, and his principal officers again took the field. a fierce and sanguinary war ensued, in which the french gratuitously inflicted the most awful cruelties on their prisoners, many of whom having been hunted with bloodhounds, were carried in ships to some distance from the shore, murdered in cold blood, and cast into the sea; their corpses were thrown by the waves back upon the beach, and filled the air with pestilence, by which the french troops perished in large numbers. leclerc having perished by pestilence, his successor, rochambeau, when the conquest of the island was beyond possibility, became the cruel perpetrator of these bloody deeds. thus it will be perceived that treachery and massacre were begun on the side of the french. i place emphasis on these facts in order to endeavor to disabuse the public mind of an attempt to attribute to emancipation the acts of retaliation resorted to by the haytians in _imitation_ of what the enlightened french had taught them. in two daily papers of this city there were published, a year since, a series of articles entitled the "massacres of santo domingo." the "massacres" are not attributable to emancipation, for we have proved otherwise in regard to the first of them. the other occurred in , twelve years after the slaves had disenthralled themselves. fearful as the latter may have been, it did not equal the atrocities previously committed on the haytians by the french. and the massacre was restricted to the white french inhabitants, whom dessalines, the robespierre of the island, suspected of an attempt to bring back slavery, with the aid of a french force yet hovering in the neighborhood. and if we search for the cause of this massacre, we may trace it to the following source: nations which are pleased to term themselves civilized have one sort of faith which they hold to one another, and another sort which they entertain towards people less advanced in refinement. the faith which they entertain towards the latter is, very often, treachery, in the vocabulary of the civilized. it was treachery towards toussaint that caused the massacre of santo domingo; it was treachery towards osceola that brought bloodhounds into florida! general rochambeau, with the remnant of the french army, having been reduced to the dread necessity of striving "to appease the calls of hunger by feeding on horses, mules, and the very dogs that had been employed in hunting down and devouring the negroes," evacuated the island in the autumn of , and hayti thenceforward became an independent state. ladies and gentlemen, i have now laid before you a concise view of the revolutions of hayti in the relation of cause and effect; and i trust you will now think, that, so far from being scenes of indiscriminate massacre from which we should turn our eyes in horror, these revolutions constitute an epoch worthy of the anxious study of every american citizen. among the many lessons that may be drawn from this portion of history is one not unconnected with the present occasion. from causes to which i need not give a name, there is gradually creeping into our otherwise prosperous state the incongruous and undermining influence of _caste_. one of the local manifestations of this unrepublican sentiment is, that while children, chiefly of foreign parents, are educated and taught trades at the expense of all the citizens, colored children are excluded from these privileges. with the view to obviate the evils of such an unreasonable proscription, a few ladies of this city, by their untiring exertions, have organized an "asylum for colored orphans." their zeal in this cause is infinitely beyond all praise of mine, for their deeds of mercy are smiled on by him who has declared, that "whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water, shall in no wise lose her reward." were any further argument needed to urge them on in their blessed work, i would point out to them the revolutions of hayti, where, in the midst of the orgies and incantations of civil war, there appeared, as a spirit of peace, the patriot, the father, the benefactor of mankind--toussaint l'ouverture, a freedman, who had been taught to read while in slavery! liberia: its struggles and its promises[ ] by hon. hilary teague _senator at monrovia, liberia_ [note : a speech delivered in , on the anniversary of the founding of the republic of liberia.] as far back towards the infancy of our race as history and tradition are able to conduct us, we have found the custom everywhere prevailing among mankind, to mark by some striking exhibition, those events which were important and interesting, either in their immediate bearing or in their remote consequences upon the destiny of those among whom they occurred. these events are epochs in the history of man; they mark the rise and fall of kingdoms and of dynasties; they record the movements of the human mind, and the influence of those movements upon the destinies of the race; and whilst they frequently disclose to us the sad and sickening spectacle of innocence bending under the yoke of injustice, and of weakness robbed and despoiled by the hand of an unscrupulous oppression, they occasionally display, as a theme for admiring contemplation, the sublime spectacle of the human mind, roused by a concurrence of circumstances, to vigorous advances in the career of improvement. the utility of thus marking the progress of time--of recording the occurrence of events, and of holding up remarkable personages to the contemplation of mankind--is too obvious to need remark. it arises from the instincts of mankind, the irrepressible spirit of emulation, and the ardent longings after immortality; and this restless passion to perpetuate their existence which they find it impossible to suppress, impels them to secure the admiration of succeeding generations in the performance of deeds, by which, although dead, they may yet speak. in commemorating events thus powerful in forming the manners and sentiments of mankind, and in rousing them to strenuous exertion and to high and sustained emulation, it is obvious that such, and such only, should be selected as virtue and humanity would approve; and that, if any of an opposite character be held up, they should be displayed only as beacons, or as towering pharos throwing a strong but lurid light to mark the melancholy grave of mad ambition, and to warn the inexperienced voyager of the existing danger. thanks to the improved and humanized spirit--or should i not rather say, the chastened and pacific civilization of the age in which we live?--that laurels gathered upon the field of mortal strife, and bedewed with the tears of the widow and the orphan, are regarded now, not with admiration, but with horror; that the armed warrior, reeking in the gore of murdered thousands, who, in the age that is just passing away, would have been hailed with noisy acclamation by the senseless crowd, is now regarded only as the savage commissioner of an unsparing oppression, or at best, as the ghostly executioner of an unpitying justice. he who would embalm his name in the grateful remembrance of coming generations; he who would secure for himself a niche in the temple of undying fame; he who would hew out for himself a monument of which his country may boast; he who would entail upon heirs a name which they may be proud to wear, must seek some other field than that of battle as the theatre of his exploits. we have not yet numbered twenty-six years since he who is the oldest colonist amongst us was the inhabitant--not the citizen--of a country, and that, too, the country of his birth, where the prevailing sentiment is, that he and his race are incapacitated by an inherent defect in their mental constitution, to enjoy that greatest of all blessings, and to exercise that greatest of all rights, bestowed by a beneficent god upon his rational creatures, namely, the government of themselves by themselves. acting upon this opinion, an opinion as false as it is foul--acting upon this opinion, as upon a self-evident proposition, those who held it proceeded with a fiendish consistency to deny the rights of citizens to those whom they had declared incapable of performing the duties of citizens. it is not necessary, and therefore i will not disgust you with the hideous picture of that state of things which followed upon the prevalence of this blasphemous theory. the bare mention that such an opinion prevailed would be sufficient to call up in the mind, even of those who had never witnessed its operation, images of the most sickening and revolting character. under the iron reign of this crushing sentiment, most of us who are assembled here to-day drew our first breath, and sighed away the years of our youth. no hope cheered us; no noble object looming in the dim and distant future kindled our ambition. oppression--cold, cheerless oppression, like the dreary region of eternal winter,--chilled every noble passion and fettered and paralyzed every arm. and if among the oppressed millions there were found here and there one in whose bosom the last glimmer of a generous passion was not yet extinguished--one, who, from the midst of inglorious slumberers in the deep degradation around him, would lift up his voice and demand those rights which the god of nature hath bestowed in equal gift upon all his rational creatures, he was met at once, by those who had at first denied and then enforced, with the stern reply that for him and for all his race, liberty and expatriation are inseparable. dreadful as the alternative was, fearful as was the experiment now proposed to be tried, there were hearts equal to the task; hearts which quailed not at the dangers which loomed and frowned in the distance, but calm, cool, and fixed in their purpose, prepared to meet them with the watchword, "give me liberty or give me death." passing by intermediate events, which, did the time allow, it would be interesting to notice, we hasten to the grand event--the era of our separate existence, when the american flag first flung out its graceful folds to the breeze on the heights of mesurado, and the pilgrims, relying upon the protection of heaven and the moral grandeur of their cause, took solemn possession of the land in the name of virtue, humanity, and religion. it would discover an unpardonable apathy were we to pass on without pausing a moment to reflect upon the emotions which heaved the bosoms of the pilgrims, when they stood for the first time where we now stand. what a prospect spread out before them! they stood in the midst of an ancient wilderness, rank and compacted with the growth of a thousand years, unthinned and unreclaimed by a single stroke of the woodman's axe. few and far between might be found inconsiderable openings, where the ignorant native erected his rude habitation, or savage as his patrimonial wilderness, celebrated his bloody rites, and presented his votive gifts to demons. the rainy season--that terrible ordeal of foreign constitutions--was about setting in; the lurid lightning shot its fiery bolts into the forest around them, the thunder muttered its angry tones over their head, and the frail tenements, the best which their circumstances could afford, to shield them from a scorching sun by day and drenching rains at night, had not yet been completed. to suppose that at this time, when all things above and around them seemed to combine their influence against them; to suppose they did not perceive the full danger and magnitude of the enterprise they had embarked in, would be to suppose, not that they were heroes, but that they had lost the sensibility of men. true courage is equally remote from blind recklessness and unmanning timidity; and true heroism does not consist in insensibility to danger. he is a hero who calmly meets, and fearlessly grapples with the dangers which duty and honor forbid him to decline. the pilgrims rose to a full perception of all the circumstances of their condition. but when they looked back to that country from which they had come, and remembered the degradations in that house of bondage out of which they had been so fortunate as to escape, they bethought themselves; and, recollecting the high satisfaction with which they knew success would gladden their hearts, the rich inheritance they would entail upon their children, and the powerful aid it would lend to the cause of universal humanity, they yielded to the noble inspiration and girded them to the battle either for doing or for suffering. let it not be supposed, because i have laid universal humanity under a tribute of gratitude to the founders of liberia, that i have attached to their humble achievements too important an influence in that grand system of agencies which is now at work, renovating human society, and purifying and enlarging the sources of its enjoyment. in the system of that almighty being, without whose notice not a sparrow falls to the ground, "who sees, with equal eye as god of all, a hero perish, or a sparrow fall, atoms or systems into ruin hurled, and now a bubble-burst, and now a world." "righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people." all attempts to correct the depravity of man, to stay the headlong propensity to vice, to abate the madness of ambition, will be found deplorably inefficient, unless we apply the restrictions and the tremendous sanctions of religion. a profound regard and deference for religion, a constant recognition of our dependence upon god, and of our obligation and accountability to him; an ever-present, ever-pressing sense of his universal and all-controlling providence, this, and only this, can give energy to the arm of law, cool the raging fever of the passions, and abate the lofty pretensions of mad ambition. in prosperity, let us bring out our thank-offering, and present it with cheerful hearts in orderly, virtuous, and religious conduct. in adversity, let us consider, confess our sins, and abase ourselves before the throne of god. in danger, let us go to him, whose prerogative it is to deliver; let us go to him, with the humility and confidence which a deep conviction that the battle is not to the strong nor the race to the swift, is calculated to inspire. fellow citizens! we stand now on ground never occupied by a people before. however insignificant we may regard ourselves, the eyes of europe and america are upon us, as a germ, destined to burst from its enclosure in the earth, unfold its petals to the genial air, rise to the height and swell to the dimensions of the full-grown tree, or (inglorious fate) to shrivel, to die, and to be buried in oblivion. rise, fellow citizens, rise to a clear and full perception of your tremendous responsibilities! upon you, rely upon it, depends in a measure you can hardly conceive the future destiny of your race. you--you are to give the answer, whether the african race is doomed to unterminable degradation, a hideous blot on the fair face of creation, a libel upon the dignity of human nature, or whether it is capable to take an honorable rank amongst the great family of nations! the friends of the colony are trembling: the enemies of the colored man are hoping. say, fellow citizens, will you palsy the hands of your friends and sicken their hearts, and gladden the souls of your enemies, by a base refusal to enter upon a career of glory which is now opening so propitiously before you? the genius of universal emancipation, bending from her lofty seat, invites you to accept the wreath of national independence. the voice of your friends, swelling upon the breeze, cries to you from afar--raise your standard! assert your independence! throw out your banners to the wind! and will the descendants of the mighty pharaohs, that awed the world; will the sons of him who drove back the serried legions of rome and laid siege to the "eternal city"--will they, the achievements of whose fathers are yet the wonder and admiration of the world--will they refuse the proffered boon? never! never!! never!!! shades of the mighty dead! spirits of departed great ones! inspire us, animate us to the task; nerve us for the battle! pour into our bosom a portion of that ardor and patriotism which bore you on to battle, to victory, and to conquest. shall liberia live? yes; in the generous emotions now swelling in your bosom; in the high and noble purpose--now fixing itself in your mind, and referring into the unyieldingness of indomitable principle, we hear the inspiring response--liberia shall live before god and before the nations of the earth! the night is passing away; the dusky shades are fleeing and even now "jocund day stands tiptoe on the misty mountain top." what to the slave is the fourth of july?[ ] by frederick douglass [note : extract from an oration delivered by frederick douglass at rochester, n. y., july , .] frederick douglass, _the greatest of negro orators, though born and reared a slave, attained great eminence in the world. after a successful career as lecturer and editor and author, he held successively the positions of secretary to the santo domingo commission, ; presidential elector for the state of new york, ; united states marshal for the district of columbia, - ; recorder of deeds for the district, - ; minister to hayti, - ._ _fellow citizens:_ pardon me, and allow me to ask, why am i called upon to speak here to-day? what have i or those i represent to do with your national independence? are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that declaration of independence, extended to us? and am i, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits, and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us? would to god, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions. then would my task be light, and my burden easy and delightful. for who is there so cold that a nation's sympathy could not warm him? who so obdurate and dead to the claims of gratitude, that would not thankfully acknowledge such priceless benefits? who so stolid and selfish that would not give his voice to swell the halleluiahs of a nation's jubilee, when the chains of servitude had been torn from his limbs? i am not that man. in a case like that, the dumb might eloquently speak, and the "lame man leap like a hart." but such is not the state of the case. i say it with a sad sense of disparity between us. i am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. the blessings in which you this day rejoice are not enjoyed in common. the rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity, and independence bequeathed by your fathers is shared by you, not by me. the sunlight that brought life and healing to you has brought stripes and death to me. this fourth of july is _yours_, not _mine_. _you_ may rejoice, _i_ must mourn. to drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak today? if so, there is a parallel to your conduct. and let me warn you, that it is dangerous to copy the example of a nation whose crimes, towering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the almighty, burying that nation in irrecoverable ruin. i can to-day take up the lament of a peeled and woe-smitten people. "by the rivers of babylon, there we sat down. yes! we wept when we remembered zion. we hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. for there they that carried us away captive, required of us a song; and they who wasted us, required of us mirth, saying, sing us one of the songs of zion. how can we sing the lord's song in a strange land? if i forget thee, o jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. if i do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth." fellow citizens, above your national, tumultuous joy, i hear the mournful wail of millions, whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are to-day rendered more intolerable by the jubilant shouts that reach them. if i do forget, if i do not remember those bleeding children of sorrow this day, "may my right hand forget her cunning, and may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!" to forget them, to pass lightly over their wrongs, and to chime in with the popular theme, would be treason most scandalous and shocking, and would make me a reproach before god and the world. my subject, then, fellow citizens, is "american slavery." i shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slave's point of view. standing here, identified with the american bondman, making his wrongs mine, i do not hesitate to declare, with all my soul, that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this fourth of july. whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. america is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. standing with god and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, i will, in the name of humanity, which is outraged, in the name of liberty, which is fettered, in the name of the constitution and the bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis i can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery--the great sin and shame of america! "i will not equivocate; i will not excuse;" i will use the severest language i can command, and yet not one word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slave-holder, shall not confess to be right and just. but i fancy i hear some one of my audience say it is just in this circumstance that you and your brother abolitionists fail to make a favorable impression on the public mind. would you argue more and denounce less, would you persuade more and rebuke less, your cause would be much more likely to succeed. but, i submit, where all is plain there is nothing to be argued. what point in the anti-slavery creed would you have me argue? on what branch of the subject do the people of this country need light? must i undertake to prove that the slave is a man? that point is conceded already. nobody doubts it. the slave-holders themselves acknowledge it in the enactment of laws for their government. they acknowledge it when they punish disobedience on the part of the slave. there are seventy-two crimes in the state of virginia, which, if committed by a black man (no matter how ignorant he be), subject him to the punishment of death; while only two of these same crimes will subject a white man to like punishment. what is this but the acknowledgment that the slave is a moral, intellectual, and responsible being? the manhood of the slave is conceded. it is admitted in the fact that southern statute-books are covered with enactments, forbidding, under severe fines and penalties, the teaching of the slave to read or write. when you can point to any such laws in reference to the beasts of the field, then i may consent to argue the manhood of the slave. when the dogs in your streets, when the fowls of the air, when the cattle on your hills, when the fish of the sea, and the reptiles that crawl, shall be unable to distinguish the slave from a brute, then will i argue with you that the slave is a man! for the present it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the negro race. is it not astonishing that, while we are plowing, planting, and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in metals of brass, iron, copper, silver, and gold; that while we are reading, writing, and cyphering, acting as clerks, merchants, and secretaries, having among us lawyers, doctors, ministers, poets, authors, editors, orators, and teachers; that while we are engaged in all manner of enterprises common to other men--digging gold in california, capturing the whale in the pacific, feeding sheep and cattle on the hillside, living, moving, acting, thinking, planning, living in families as husbands, wives, and children, and above all, confessing and worshiping the christian god, and looking hopefully for life and immortality beyond the grave--we are called upon to prove that we are men? would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? that he is the rightful owner of his own body? you have already declared it. must i argue the wrongfulness of slavery? is that a question for republicans? is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of justice, hard to be understood? how should i look to-day in the presence of americans, dividing and subdividing a discourse, to show that men have a natural right to freedom, speaking of it relatively and positively, negatively and affirmatively? to do so would be to make myself ridiculous, and to offer an insult to your understanding. there is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven who does not know that slavery is wrong _for him_. what! am i to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters? must i argue that a system thus marked with blood and stained with pollution is wrong? no; i will not. i have better employment for my time and strength that such arguments would imply. what, then, remains to be argued? is it that slavery is not divine; that god did not establish it; that our doctors of divinity are mistaken? there is blasphemy in the thought. that which is inhuman cannot be divine. who can reason on such a proposition? they that can, may; i cannot. the time for such argument is past. at a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. oh! had i the ability, and could i reach the nation's ear, i would to-day pour out a fiery streak of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. for it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. we need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. the feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against god and man must be denounced. what to the american slave is your fourth of july? i answer, a day that reveals to him, more than all other days of the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. to him your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass-fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy--a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. there is not a nation on the earth guilty of practises more shocking and bloody than are the people of these united states at this very hour. go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the monarchies and despotisms of the old world, travel through south america, search out every abuse and when you have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the every-day practises of this nation, and you will say with me that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, america reigns without a rival. should colored men be subject to the pains and penalties of the fugitive slave law?[ ] by charles h. langston charles h. langston, _a native of ohio, was the first to counsel resistance to the fugitive slave act, and lost no opportunity himself to disobey it. he was found guilty of violating the law in rescuing john price, an alleged fugitive from service in kentucky. this speech is his answer to the question of the judge why the sentence should not be pronounced upon him. he was sentenced to one hundred and twenty days' imprisonment, and fined $ . and costs, amounting to $ . ._ [note : speech of charles h. langston before the united states district court for the northern district of ohio, may , . delivered when about to be sentenced for rescuing a man from slavery.] after a trial of twenty-three days in the united states district court for the northern district of ohio, hiram v. willson presiding, and at a cost to the united states government of more than two thousand dollars, c. h. langston was found guilty of violating the fugitive slave law, by rescuing john price, an alleged fugitive from service in kentucky, from the custody of one, anderson jennings, at wellington, on the th day of september, . mr. langston was sentenced to twenty days' imprisonment in the jail of cuyahoga county, and also to pay a fine of one hundred dollars and a portion of the costs of prosecution, amounting to nine hundred and seventy-two dollars and seventy cents. bill of costs fine and bill of costs as copied from the journal of the court: fine $ . clerk's fees . marshal's fees . united states' witnesses . docket fees . ------- total $ . on the morning of the th of may, , c. h. langston was brought into court to receive his sentence. the judge, having entered the "oyez, oyez" of the crier, announced the opening of the court, and the rattling of the gavel of the bailiff soon brought the immense crowd to silence. the business then proceeded as follows: the court.--mr. langston, you will stand up, sir. mr. langston arose. the court.--you have been tried, mr. langston, by a jury, and convicted of a violation of the criminal laws of the united states. have you or your counsel anything to say why the sentence of the law should not be pronounced upon you? mr. langston.--i am for the first time in my life before a court of justice, charged with the violation of law, and am now about to be sentenced. but before receiving that sentence i propose to say one or two words in regard to the mitigation of that sentence, if it may be so construed. i can not, of course, and do not expect that what i may say will in any way change your predetermined line of action. i ask no such favor at your hands. i know that the courts of this country, that the laws of this country, that the governmental machinery of this country are so constituted as to oppress and outrage colored men, men of my complexion. i cannot then, of course, expect, judging from the past history of the country, any mercy from the laws, from the constitution, or from the courts of the country. some days prior to the th of september, , happening to be in oberlin on a visit, i found the country round about there, and the village itself, filled with alarming rumors as to the fact that slave-catchers, kidnappers, and negro stealers were lying hidden and skulking about, awaiting some opportunity to get their bloody hands on some helpless creature, to drag him back,--or for the first time,--into helpless and lifelong bondage. these reports becoming current all over that neighborhood, old men and innocent women and children became exceedingly alarmed for their safety. it was not uncommon to hear mothers say that they dare not send their children to school, for fear that they would be caught up and carried off by the way. some of these people had become free by long and patient toil at night, after working the long, long day for cruel masters, and thus at length getting money enough to buy their liberty. others had become free by means of the good will of their masters. and there were others who had become free--to their everlasting honor, i say it--by the intensest exercise of their own god-given powers;--by escaping from the plantations of their masters, eluding the blood-thirsty patrols and sentinels so thickly scattered all along their path, outrunning blood-hounds and horses, swimming rivers and fording swamps, and reaching at last, through incredible difficulties, what they, in their delusion, supposed to be free soil. these three classes were in oberlin, trembling alike for their safety because they well knew their fate should these men-hunters get their hands on them. in the midst of such excitement, the th day of september was ushered in--a day ever memorable in the history of oberlin, and i presume also, in the history of this court. these men-hunters had, by lying devices, decoyed into a place, where they could get their hands on him--i will not say a slave, for i do not know that--but a _man_, _a brother_, who had the right to his liberty under the laws of god, under the laws of nature, and under the declaration of american independence. in the midst of all this excitement the news came to us like a flash of lightning that an actual seizure under and by means of fraudulent pretenses, had been made! being identified with that man by color, by race, by manhood, by sympathies, such as god has implanted in us all, i felt it my duty to go and do what i could towards liberating him. i had been taught by my revolutionary father--and i say this with all due respect to him--and by his honored associates, that the fundamental doctrine of this government was, that _all_ men have a right to life and liberty, and coming from the old dominion i had brought into ohio these sentiments deeply impressed upon my heart. i went to wellington, and hearing from the parties themselves by what authority the boy was held in custody, i conceived from what little knowledge i had of law that they had no right to hold him. and as your honor has repeatedly laid down the law in this court, a man is free until he is proven to be legally restrained of his liberty. i believed that upon that principle of law those men were bound to take their prisoner before the very first magistrate they found and there establish the facts set forth in their warrant, and that until they did this every man should presume that their claim was unfounded, and to institute such proceedings for the purpose of securing an investigation as they might find warranted by the laws of this state. now, sir, if that is not the plain common sense and correct view of the law, then i have been misled, both by your honor and by the prevalent received opinion. it is said that they had a warrant. why then, should they not establish its validity before the proper officers? and i stand here to-day, sir, to say that with an exception, of which i shall soon speak, _to procure such a lawful investigation of the authority under which they claimed to act, was the part i took in that day's proceedings, and the only part_. i supposed it to be my duty as a citizen of ohio--excuse me for saying that, sir,--as an _outlaw of the united states_, (much sensation) to do what i could to secure at least this form of justice to my brother, whose liberty was at peril.--_whatever more than that has been sworn to on this trial, as act of mine, is false, ridiculously false._ when i found these men refusing to go, according to the law, as i apprehended it, and subject their claim to an official inspection, and that nothing short of a _habeas corpus_ would oblige such an inspection, i was willing to go even thus far, supposing in that county a sheriff might, perhaps, be found with nerve enough to serve it. in this again, i failed. nothing then was left to me, nothing to the boy in custody, but the confirmation of my first belief that the pretended authority was worthless, and the employment of those means of liberation which belong to us. with regard to the part i took in the forcible rescue, which followed, i have nothing to say, further than i have already said. the evidence is before you. it is alleged that i said "_we_ will have him anyhow." _this i never said._ i did say to mr. lowe, what i honestly believe to be the truth, that the crowd was very much excited, many of them averse to longer delay and bent upon a rescue at all hazards; and that he being an old acquaintance and friend of mine, i was anxious to extricate him from the dangerous position he occupied, and therefore advised jennings to give the boy up. further than this i did not say, either to him or to anyone else. the law under which i am arraigned is an unjust one, one made to crush the colored man, and one that outrages every feeling of humanity, as well as every rule of right. with its constitutionality i have nothing to do; about that i know but little and care much less. but suppose it is constitutional, what then? to tell me a law is constitutional which robs me of my _liberty_ is simply ridiculous. i would curse the constitution that authorized the enactment of such a law; i would trample the provisions of such a law under my feet and defy its pains and penalties. i would respect and obey such an inhuman law no more than our revolutionary fathers did the odious and absurd doctrine that kings and tyrants reign and rule by divine _right_. but it has often been said by learned and good men that this law is unconstitutional. i remember the excitement that prevailed throughout all the free states when it was passed; i remember, too, how often it has been said by individuals, conventions, legislatures, and even _judges_ that it is not only unconstitutional, but that it never could be, never should be, and never was meant to be enforced. i had always believed, until the contrary appeared in the actual institution of proceedings, that the provisions of this odious statute would never be enforced within the bounds of this state. but i have another reason to offer why i should not be sentenced, and one that i think pertinent to the case. the common law of england--and you will excuse me for referring to that, since i am not a lawyer, but a private man--was that every man should be tried by a jury of men occupying the same political and legal status _with himself_. lords should be tried before a jury of lords; peers of the realm should be tried before peers of the realm; vassals before vassals. and even "where an _alien_ was indicted, the jury _shall be demenietate_, or _half foreigners_"; and a jury thus constituted were sworn "well and truly to try and true deliverance make between the sovereign lord, the king, and the prisoner whom they have in charge; and a true verdict to give according to the evidence and without prejudice." the constitution of the united states guarantees--not merely to its citizens, but to _all persons_--a trial before an impartial jury. i have had no such trial. the colored man is oppressed by certain universal and deeply fixed prejudices. those jurors are well known to have shared largely in these prejudices, and i therefore consider that they were neither impartial, nor were they a jury of my peers. politically and legally they are not my equals. they have aided to form a state constitution which denies to colored men citizenship, and under that constitution laws have been enacted withholding from us many of our most valuable rights. these unjust laws exclude colored men from the jury box and force us to be tried in every case by jurors, not only filled with prejudices against us, but far above us politically and legally, made so both by the statute laws and by the constitution. the prejudices which white people have against colored men grow out of the fact that we have, as a people, _consented_ for two hundred years to be _slaves_ of the whites. we have been scourged, crushed, and cruelly oppressed, and have submitted to it all tamely, meekly, peaceably; i mean, as a people, with rare individual exceptions,--and to-day you see us thus meekly submitting to the penalties of an infamous law. now the americans have this feeling, and it is an honorable one, that they will respect those who rebel at oppression, but despise those who tamely submit to outrage and wrong; and while our people as a people submit, they will as a people be despised. why, they will hardly meet on terms of equality with us in a whiskey shop, in a car, at a table, or even at the altar of god, so thorough and hearty a contempt have they for those who _lie still_ under the heel of the oppressor. the jury came into the box with that feeling. they knew that they had that feeling, and so the court knows now, and knew then. the gentlemen who prosecuted me, the court itself, and even the counsel who defended me, have that feeling. i was tried by a jury which was prejudiced; before a court that was prejudiced; prosecuted by an officer who was prejudiced, and defended, though ably, by counsel who were prejudiced. and therefore it is, your honor, that i urge by all that is good and great in manhood, that i should not be subjected to the pains and penalties of this oppressive law, when i have not been tried, either by a jury of my peers, according to the principles of the common law, or by an impartial jury according to the constitution of the united states. one more word, sir, and i have done. i went to wellington, knowing that colored men have no rights in the united states which white men are bound to respect; that the courts had so decided; that congress had so enacted; that the people had so decreed. there is not a spot in this wide country, not even by the altars of god, nor in the shadow of the shafts that tell the imperishable fame and glory of the heroes of the revolution; no, nor in the old philadelphia hall, where any colored man may dare to ask mercy of a white man. let me stand in that hall and tell a united states marshal that my father was a revolutionary soldier; that he served under lafayette, and fought through the whole war, and that he fought for my freedom as much as for his own; and he would sneer at me, and clutch me with his bloody fingers, and say he has a _right_ to make me a slave! and when i appeal to congress, they say he has a right to make me a slave, and when i appeal to your honor, _your honor_ says he has a right to make me a slave. and if any man, white or black, seeks an investigation of that claim, he makes himself amenable to the pains and penalties of the fugitive slave act, for black men have no rights which white men are bound to respect. (great applause.) i, going to wellington with the full knowledge of all this, knew that if that man was taken to columbus he was hopelessly gone, no matter whether he had ever been in slavery before or not. i knew that i was in the same situation myself, and that by the decision of your honor, if any man whatever were to claim me as his slave and seize me, and my brother, being a lawyer, should seek to get out a writ of _habeas corpus_ to expose the falsity of the claim, he would be thrust into prison under one provision of the fugitive slave law, for interfering with the man claiming to be in pursuit of a fugitive, and i, by the perjury of a solitary wretch, would by another of its provisions be helplessly doomed to lifelong bondage, without the possibility of escape. some may say that there is no danger of free persons being seized and carried off as slaves. no one need labor under such a delusion. sir, _four_ of the eight persons who were first carried back under the act of were afterwards proved to be _free men_. they were free persons, but wholly at the mercy of the oath of one man. and but last sabbath afternoon a letter came to me from a gentleman in st. louis informing me that a young lady, who was formerly under my instructions at columbus, a free person, is now lying in jail at that place, claimed as the slave of some wretch who never saw her before, and waiting for testimony of relatives at columbus to establish her freedom. i could stand here by the hour and relate such instances. in the very nature of the case, they must be constantly occurring. a letter was not long since found upon the person of a counterfeiter, when arrested, addressed to him by some southern gentleman, in which the writer says: "go among the niggers, find out their marks and scars; make good descriptions and send to me, and i'll find masters for 'em." that is the way men are carried _back_ to slavery. but in view of all the facts, i say that, if ever again a man is seized near me, and is about to be carried southward as a slave before any legal investigation has been had, i shall hold it to be my duty, as i held it that day, to secure for him, if possible, a legal inquiry into the character of the claim by which he is held. and i go farther; i say that if it is adjudged illegal to procure even such an investigation, then we are thrown back upon those last defenses of our rights which cannot be taken from us, and which god gave us that we need not be slaves. i ask your honor, while i say this, to place yourself in my situation, and you will say with me that, if your brother, if your friend, if your wife, if your child, had been seized by men who claimed them as fugitives, and the law of the land forbade you to ask any investigation, and precluded the possibility of any legal protection or redress--then you will say with me that you would not only demand the protection of the law, but you would call in your neighbors and your friends, and would ask them to say with you, that, these, your friends, _could not_ be taken into slavery. and now, i thank you for this leniency, this indulgence, in giving a man unjustly condemned, by a tribunal before which he is declared to have no rights, the privilege of speaking in his own behalf. i know that it will do nothing toward mitigating your sentence, but it is a privilege to be allowed to speak, and i thank you for it. i shall submit to the penalty, be it what it may. but i stand up here to say that if for doing what i did on that day at wellington, i am to go to jail for six months, and pay a fine of a thousand dollars, according to the fugitive slave law, and if such is the protection the laws of this country afford me, i must take upon myself the responsibility of self-protection; when i come to be claimed by some perjured wretch as his slave, i shall never be taken into slavery. and in that trying hour, i would have others do to me, as i would call upon my friends to help me; as i would call upon you, your honor, to help me, as i would call upon you (to the district attorney) to help me, and upon you (to judge bliss), and you (his counsel) _so help me god_! i stand here to say that i will do all i can for any man thus seized and held, though the inevitable penalty of six months' imprisonment and one thousand dollars fine for each offense hang over me! we have all a common humanity, and that humanity will, if rightly exercised, compel us to aid each other when our rights are invaded. the man who can see a fellow man wronged and outraged without assisting him must have lost all the manly feelings of his nature. you would all assist any man under such circumstances; your manhood would require it; and no matter what the laws might be, you would honor yourself for doing it, while your friends and your children to all generations would honor you for doing it, and every good and honest man would say you had done _right_! (great and prolonged applause, in spite of the efforts of the court and marshal.) judge willson remarked: mr. langston, you do the court injustice in supposing the remarks were called out as a mere idle form, or would not get a respectful consideration from the court. it is not the duty of the court to make the laws--that is left to other tribunals; but our duty, under an official oath, is to administer the laws, good or bad, as we find them. i find many mitigating circumstances in your case, and the sentence will therefore be, that you pay a fine of one hundred dollars and the costs of suit, and be imprisoned in jail for twenty days, and it shall be the duty of the marshal to see the imprisonment carried out in this or some other county jail in this district. young men, to the front! by hon. richard t. greener, ll. d. richard t. greener, _as far as is known, was the first negro to be graduated from harvard university with the degree of bachelor of arts. he received the degree of ll.d. both from howard university and from liberia college, monrovia, of which he was the dean for some time. in he was appointed united states consul to vladivostok, and served through the russian-japanese war. while in this official capacity he was decorated by the chinese government with the order of the "double dragon," the only negro ever so honored._ the adage which was once so common, if not so thoroughly axiomatic as to gain universal credence--"old men for council and young men for war"--assumes additional notoriety to-day, when the old men are quarreling in the council chamber and the young men are kept outside the door. while the young men are willing to allow much to the school of experience, many of them are the followers of locke, and believe in the doctrine of innate ideas. they believe, to continue the comparison, that experience and wisdom do not always spring from length of years, nor does ignorance appertain to youth as a necessity. they dare assert that, as there are those who would never be men, lived they to be as old as methuselah, so there are some whose minds are as well filled, whose judgments are as mature at twenty-five and eight, and their energy as decisive as though they were in their tenth lustrum. conscious of this fact, it is the absurdity of folly for the young colored men of the country to sit idly by and see the grandest opportunities slipping away, the best cases lost by default because of the lack of energy displayed by many of our so-called leaders who have been longer on the field. with some very few exceptions, honorable as they are rare, they have done well for their day and generation; but with regard to the needs and policy of the negroes of the present hour they are as innocent as babes. men for the most part of excellent temper and good working capacity, they lack that which is the handmaid and often the indispensable auxiliary of knowledge and all effective work--judgment. unconscious puppets often, they dance to unseen music, moved themselves by hidden wires. the convention was the favorite resort of the leading negro of ten years ago. he convened and resolved, resolved and unconvened--read his own speeches, was delighted with his own frothy rhetoric, and really imagined himself a great man. he talked eloquently then, it must be granted, because he spoke of his wrongs; but when the war overturned the edifice of slavery "othello's occupation" was "gone," indeed. the number who have survived and held their own under the new order of things may be counted upon one hand. they survive through that grand old law so much combated but ever true--the survival of the fittest. they alone give character and reputation to the negro. they make for him a fame which begets respect where his wrongs only excited pity. the field is comparatively clear now some of the older hacks have fallen by the way or lie spavined at the roadside. the question is, will the young men of color throughout the country resolve to begin now to take part in public affairs, asserting their claim wherever it is denied, maintaining it wherever contested, and show that the young may be safe in counsel as well as good for war? there are some who arrogate to themselves wisdom because of their years, just as some equally absurd people think they are wise because they never went to a high school or an academy--men, heaven save the mark! who pride themselves on having never slaked their thirst at the fount of knowledge. it is not our purpose to disparage age. we remember what cicero has written, so delightfully, of its pleasures; what cephalus and socrates thought of it in the republic. we look "toward sunset" with reverence and respect; but it is with a reverence that makes us conscious of our own duty. the young men are now studying, working, some, alas! idling away their time who ought to be the active, earnest men in the next presidential campaign; young men who are to control the destinies of the race. many of them are of marked ability and decidedly energetic in character. not so fluent, perhaps, as their fathers, they are more thoughtful. they are found throughout the country. we feel that, if like roderick dhu, we should put the whistle to our lips and blow a stirring blast, they would spring up in every part of the country ready with voice, pen, or muscle to do their share in any honorable work. in spirit we do this, as young men ourselves, willing to blow a blast which, would that the young men of the country would hear and heed! young men, to the front! young men, rouse yourselves! take the opportunities; make them where they are denied! "quit you like men; be strong." _young men, to the front!_ the civil rights' bell[ ] by robert browne elliot _representative from south carolina_ [note : extracts from a speech delivered in the house of representatives, january , .] _mr. speaker:_ while i am sincerely grateful for this high mark of courtesy that has been accorded to me by this house, it is a matter of regret to me that it is necessary at this day that i should rise in the presence of an american congress to advocate a bill which simply asserts equal rights and equal public privileges for all classes of american citizens. i regret, sir, that the dark hue of my skin may lend a color to the imputation that i am controlled by motives personal to myself in my advocacy of this great measure of national justice. sir, the motive that impels me is restricted by no such narrow boundary, but is as broad as your constitution. i advocate it, sir, because it is right. the bill, however, not only appeals to your justice, but it demands a response from your gratitude. in the events that led to the achievement of american independence the negro was not an inactive or unconcerned spectator. he bore his part bravely upon many battlefields, although uncheered by that certain hope of political elevation which victory would secure to the white man. the tall granite shaft, which a grateful state has reared above its sons who fell in defending fort griswold against the attack of benedict arnold, bears the name of jordan, freeman, and other brave men of the african race, who there cemented with their blood the corner-stone of the republic. in the state which i have the honor in part to represent (south carolina) the rifle of the black man rang out against the troops of the british crown in the darkest days of the american revolution. said general greene, who has been justly termed the "washington of the north," in a letter written by him to alexander hamilton, on the th of january, , from the vicinity of camden, south carolina: "there is no such thing as national character or national sentiment. the inhabitants are numerous, but they would be rather formidable abroad than at home. there is a great spirit of enterprise among the black people, and those that come out as volunteers are not a little formidable to the enemy." at the battle of new orleans under the immortal jackson, a colored regiment held the extreme right of the american line unflinchingly, and drove back the british column that pressed upon them at the point of the bayonet. so marked was their valor on that occasion that it evoked from their great commander the warmest encomiums, as will be seen from his dispatch announcing the brilliant victory. as the gentleman from kentucky (mr. beck), who seems to be the leading exponent on this floor of the party that is arrayed against the principle of this bill, has been pleased, in season and out of season, to cast odium upon the negro and to vaunt the chivalry of his state, i may be pardoned for calling attention to another portion of the same dispatch. referring to the various regiments under his command, and their conduct on that field which terminated the second war of american independence, general jackson says. "at the very moment when the entire discomfiture of the enemy was looked for with a confidence amounting to certainty, the kentucky reinforcements, in whom so much reliance had been placed, ingloriously fled." in quoting this indisputable piece of history, i do so only by way of admonition and not to question the well-attested gallantly of the true kentuckian, and to the gentleman that it would be well that he should not flaunt his heraldry so proudly while he bears this bar-sinister on the military escutcheon of his state--a state which answered the call of the republic in , when treason thundered at the very gates of the capital, by coldly declaring her neutrality in the impending struggle. the negro, true to that patriotism and love of country that have ever marked and characterized his history on this continent, came to the aid of the government in its efforts to maintain the constitution. to that government he now appeals; that constitution he now invokes for protection against outrage and unjust prejudices founded upon caste. but, sir, we are told by the distinguished gentleman from georgia (mr. stephens) that congress has no power under the constitution to pass such a law, and that the passage of such an act is in direct contravention of the rights of the states. i cannot assent to any such proposition. the constitution of a free government ought always to be construed in favor of human rights. indeed, the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments, in positive words, invest congress with the power to protect the citizen in his civil and political rights. now, sir, what are civil rights? rights natural, modified by civil society. mr. lieber says: "by civil liberty is meant, not only the absence of individual restraint, but liberty within the social system and political organism--a combination of principles, and laws which acknowledge, protect, and favor the dignity of man * * * civil liberty is the result of man's two fold character as an individual and social being, so soon as both are equally respected."[ ] [note : lieber on civil liberty, page .] alexander hamilton, the right-hand man of washington in the perilous days of the then infant republic; the great interpreter and expounder of the constitution, says: "natural liberty is the gift of a beneficent creator to the whole human race; civil liberty is founded on it, civil liberty is only natural liberty modified and secured by civil society."[ ] [note : hamilton's history of the american republic, vol. i, page .] * * * * * are we then, sir, with the amendments to our constitution staring us in the face; with these grand truths of history before our eyes; with innumerable wrongs daily inflicted upon five million citizens demanding redress, to commit this question to the diversity of legislation? in the words of hamilton--"is it the interest of the government to sacrifice individual rights to the preservation of the rights of an artificial being called the states? there can be no truer principle than this, that every individual of the community at large has an equal right to the protection of government. can this be a free government if partial distinctions are tolerated or maintained?" the rights contended for in this bill are among "the sacred rights of mankind, which are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records; they are written as with a sunbeam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power." but the slaughter-house cases!--the slaughter-house cases! the honorable gentleman from kentucky, always swift to sustain the failing and dishonored cause of proscription, rushes forward and flaunts in our faces the decision of the supreme court of the united states in the slaughter-house cases, and in that act he has been willingly aided by the gentleman from georgia. hitherto, in the contests which have marked the progress of the cause of equal civil rights, our opponents have appealed sometimes to custom, sometimes to prejudice, more often to pride of race, but they have never sought to shield themselves behind the supreme court. but now for the first time, we are told that we are barred by a decision of that court, from which there is no appeal. if this be true we must stay our hands. the cause of equal civil rights must pause at the command of a power whose edicts must be obeyed till the fundamental law of our country is changed. has the honorable gentleman from kentucky considered well the claim he now advances? if it were not disrespectful i would ask, has he ever read the decision which he now tells us is an insuperable barrier to the adoption of this great measure of justice? in the consideration of this subject, has not the judgment of the gentleman from georgia been warped by the ghost of the dead doctrines of states-rights? has he been altogether free from prejudices engendered by long training in that school of politics that well-nigh destroyed this government? mr. speaker, i venture to say here in the presence of the gentleman from kentucky, and the gentleman from georgia, and in the presence of the whole country, that there is not a line or word, not a thought or dictum even, in the decision of the supreme court in the great slaughter-house cases, which casts a shadow of doubt on the right of congress to pass the pending bill, or to adopt such other legislation as it may judge proper and necessary to secure perfect equality before the law to every citizen of the republic. sir, i protest against the dishonor now cast upon our supreme court by both the gentleman from kentucky and the gentleman from georgia. in other days, when the whole country was bowing beneath the yoke of slavery, when press, pulpit, platform, congress and courts felt the fatal power of the slave oligarchy, i remember a decision of that court which no american now reads without shame and humiliation. but those days are past; the supreme court of to-day is a tribunal as true to freedom as any department of this government, and i am honored with the opportunity of repelling a deep disgrace which the gentleman from kentucky, backed and sustained as he is by the gentleman from georgia, seeks to put upon it. * * * * * the amendments in the slaughter-house cases one and all, are thus declared to have as their all-pervading design and ends the security of the recently enslaved race, not only their nominal freedom, but their complete protection from those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over them. it is in this broad light that all these amendments must be read, the purpose to secure the perfect equality before the law of all citizens of the united states. what you give to one class you must give to all, what you deny to one class you shall deny to all, unless in the exercise of the common and universal police power of the state, you find it needful to confer exclusive privileges on certain citizens, to be held and exercised still for the common good of all. such are the doctrines of the slaughter-house cases--doctrines worthy of the republic, worthy of the age, worthy of the great tribunal which thus loftily and impressively enunciates them. do they--i put it to any man, be he lawyer or not; i put it to the gentleman from georgia--do they give color even to the claim that this congress may not now legislate against a plain discrimination made by state laws or state customs against that very race for whose complete freedom and protection these great amendments were elaborated and adopted? is it pretended, i ask the honorable gentleman from kentucky or the honorable gentleman from georgia--is it pretended anywhere that the evils of which we complain, our exclusion from the public inn, from the saloon and table of the steamboat, from the sleeping-coach on the railway, from the right of sepulture in the public burial-ground, are an exercise of the police power of the state? is such oppression and injustice nothing but the exercise by the state of the right to make regulations for the health, comfort, and security of all her citizens? is it merely enacting that one man shall so use his own as not to injure anothers? is the colored race to be assimilated to an unwholesome trade or to combustible materials, to be interdicted, to be shut up within prescribed limits? let the gentleman from kentucky or the gentleman from georgia answer. let the country know to what extent even the audacious prejudice of the gentleman from kentucky will drive him, and how far even the gentleman from georgia will permit himself to be led captive by the unrighteous teachings of a false political faith. if we are to be likened in legal view to "unwholesome trades," to "large and offensive collections of animals" to "noxious slaughter-houses," to "the offal and stench which attend on certain manufactures" let it be avowed. if that is still the doctrine of the political party, to which the gentlemen belong, let it be put upon record. if state laws which deny us the common rights and privileges of other citizens, upon no possible or conceivable ground save one of prejudice, or of "taste" as the gentleman from texas termed it, and as i suppose the gentlemen will prefer to call it, are to be placed under the protection of a decision which affirms the right of a state to regulate the police power of her great cities, then the decision is in conflict with the bill before us. no man will dare maintain such a doctrine. it is as shocking to the legal mind as it is offensive to the heart and conscience of all who love justice or respect manhood. i am astonished that the gentleman from kentucky or the gentleman from georgia should have been so grossly misled as to rise here and assert that the decision of the supreme court in these cases was a denial to congress of the power to legislate against discriminations on account of race, color, or previous conditions of servitude because that court has decided that exclusive privileges conferred for the common protection of the lives and health of the whole community are not in violation of the recent amendments. the only ground upon which the grant of exclusive privileges to a portion of the community is ever defended is that the substantial good of all is promoted; that in truth it is for the welfare of the whole community that certain persons should alone pursue certain occupations. it is not the special benefit conferred on the few that moves the legislature, but the ultimate and real benefit of all, even of those who are denied the right to pursue those specified occupations. does the gentleman from kentucky say that my good is promoted when i am excluded from the public inn? is the health or safety of the community promoted? doubtless his prejudice is gratified. doubtless his democratic instincts are pleased; but will he or his able coadjutor say that such exclusion is a lawful exercise of the police power of the state, or that it is not a denial to me of the equal protection of the laws? they will not so say. but each of these gentlemen quote at some length from the decision of the court to show that the court recognizes a difference between citizenship of the united states and citizenship of the states. that is true and no man here who supports this bill questions or overlooks the difference. there are privileges and immunities which belong to me as a citizen of the united states, and there are other privileges and immunities which belong to me as a citizen of my state. the former are under the protection of the constitution and laws of the united states, and the latter are under the protection of the constitution and laws of my state. but what of that? are the rights which i now claim--the right to enjoy the common public conveniences of travel on public highways, of rest and refreshment at public inns, of education in public schools, of burial in public cemeteries--rights which i hold as a citizen of the united states or of my state? or, to state the question more exactly, is not the denial of such privileges to me a denial to me of the equal protection of the laws? for it is under this clause of the fourteenth amendment that we place the present bill, no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." no matter, therefore, whether his rights are held under the united states or under his particular state he is equally protected by this amendment. he is always and everywhere entitled to the equal protection of the laws. all discrimination is forbidden; and while the rights of citizens of a state as such are not defined or conferred by the constitution of the united states, yet all discrimination, all denial of equality before the law, all denial of equal protection of the laws whether state or national laws, is forbidden. the distinction between the two kinds of citizenship is clear, and the supreme court has clearly pointed out this distinction, but it has nowhere written a word or line which denies to congress the power to prevent a denial of equality of rights whether those rights exist by virtue of citizenship of the united states or of a state. let honorable members mark well this distinction. there are rights which are conferred on us by the united states. there are other rights conferred on us by the states of which we are individually the citizens. the fourteenth amendment does not forbid a state to deny to all its citizens any of those rights which the state itself has conferred with certain exceptions which are pointed out in the decision which we are examining. what it does forbid is inequality, is discrimination or, to use the words of the amendment itself, is the denial "to any person within its jurisdiction, the equal protection of the laws." if a state denies to me rights which are common to all her other citizens, she violates this amendment, unless she can show, as was shown in the slaughter-house cases, that she does it in the legitimate exercise of her police power. if she abridges the rights of all her citizens equally, unless those rights are specifically guarded by the constitution of the united states, she does not violate this amendment. this is not to put the rights which i hold by virtue of my citizenship of south carolina under the protection of the national government; it is not to blot out or overlook in the slightest particular the distinction between rights held under the united states and rights held under the states; but it seeks to secure equality to prevent discrimination, to confer as complete and ample protection on the humblest as on the highest. the gentleman from kentucky, in the course of the speech to which i am now replying, made a reference to the state of massachusetts which betrays again the confusion which exists in his mind on this precise point. he tells us that massachusetts excludes from the ballot-box all who cannot read and write, and points to that fact as the exercise of a right which this bill would abridge or impair. the honorable gentleman from massachusetts (mr. dawes) answered him truly and well, but i submit that he did not make the best reply, why did he not ask the gentleman from kentucky if massachusetts had ever discriminated against any of her citizens on account of color, or race, or previous condition of servitude? when did massachusetts sully her proud record by placing on her statute-book any law which admitted to the ballot the white man and shut out the black man. she has never done it; she will not do it; she cannot do it so long as we have a supreme court which reads the constitution of our country with the eyes of justice; nor can massachusetts or kentucky deny to any man on account of his race, color, or previous condition of servitude, that perfect equality of protection under the laws so long as congress shall exercise the power to enforce by appropriate legislation the great and unquestionable securities embodied in the fourteenth amendment to the constitution. * * * * * now, sir, having spoken of the prohibition imposed by massachusetts, i may be pardoned for a slight inquiry as to the effect of this prohibition. first, it did not in any way abridge or curtail the exercise of the suffrage by any person who enjoyed such right. nor did it discriminate against the illiterate native and the illiterate foreigner. being enacted for the good of the entire commonwealth, like all just laws, its obligations fell equally and impartially on all its citizens. and as a justification for such a measure, it is a fact too well known almost for mention here that massachusetts had, from the beginning of her history, recognized the inestimable value of an educated ballot, by not only maintaining a system of free schools, but also enforcing an attendance thereupon, as one of the safeguards for the preservation of a real republican form of government. recurring then, sir, to the possible contingency alluded to by the gentleman from kentucky, should the state of kentucky, having first established a system of common schools whose doors shall swing open freely to all, as contemplated by the provisions of this bill, adopt a provision similar to that of massachusetts, no one would have cause justly to complain. and if in the coming years the result of such legislation should produce a constituency rivaling that of the old bay state, no one would be more highly gratified than i. mr. speaker, i have neither the time nor the inclination to notice the many illogical and forced conclusions, the numerous transfers of terms, or the vulgar insinuations which further encumber the argument of the gentleman from kentucky. reason and argument are worse than wasted upon those who meet every demand for political and civil liberty by such ribaldry as this--extracted from the speech of the gentleman from kentucky: "i suppose there are gentlemen on this floor who would arrest, imprison, and fine a young woman in any state of the south if she were to refuse to marry a negro man on account of color, race, or previous condition of servitude, in the event of his making her a proposal of marriage, and her refusing on that ground. that would be depriving him of a right he had under the amendment, and congress would be asked to take it up and say, 'this insolent white woman must be taught to know that it is a misdemeanor to deny a man marriage because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,' and congress will be urged to say after a while that that sort of thing must be put a stop to, and your conventions of colored men will come here asking you to enforce that right." now, sir, recurring to the venerable and distinguished gentleman from georgia (mr. stephens) who has added his remonstrance against the passage of this bill, permit me to say that i share in the feeling of high personal regard for that gentleman which pervades this house. his years, his ability, and his long experience in public affairs entitle him to the measure of consideration which has been accorded to him on this floor. but in this discussion i cannot and will not forget that the welfare and rights of my whole race in this country are involved. when, therefore, the honorable gentleman from georgia lends his voice and influence to defeat this measure, i do not shrink from saying that it is not from him that the american house of representatives should take lessons in matters touching human rights or the joint relations of the state and national governments. while the honorable gentleman contented himself with harmless speculations in his study, or in the columns of a newspaper, we might well smile at the impotence of his efforts to turn back the advancing tide of opinion and progress; but, when he comes again upon this national arena, and throws himself with all his power and influence across the path which leads to the full enfranchisement of my race, i meet him only as an adversary; nor shall age or any other consideration restrain me from saying that he now offers this government which he has done his utmost to destroy, a very poor return for its magnanimous treatment, to come here and seek to continue, by the assertion of doctrines obnoxious to the true principles of our government, the burdens and oppressions which rest upon five millions of his countrymen who never failed to lift their earnest prayers for the success of this government when the gentleman was seeking to break up the union of these states and to blot the american republic from the galaxy of nations. sir, it is scarcely twelve years since that gentleman shocked the civilized world by announcing the birth of a government which rested on human slavery as its corner-stone. the progress of events has swept away that pseudo-government which rested on greed, pride, and tyranny; and the race whom he then ruthlessly spurned and trampled on is here to meet him in debate, and to demand that the rights which are enjoyed by its former oppressors--who vainly sought to overthrow a government which they could not prostitute to the base uses of slavery--shall be accorded to those who even in the darkness of slavery kept their allegiance true to freedom and the union. sir, the gentleman from georgia has learned much since ; but he is still a laggard. let him put away entirely the false and fatal theories which have so greatly marred an otherwise enviable record. let him accept, in its fullness and beneficence, the great doctrine that american citizenship carries with it every civil and political right which manhood can confer. let him lend his influence with all his masterly ability, to complete the proud structure of legislation which makes this nation worthy of the great declaration which heralded its birth and he will have done that which will most nearly redeem his reputation in the eyes of the world, and best vindicate the wisdom of that policy which has permitted him to regain his seat upon this floor. to the diatribe of the gentleman from virginia (mr. harris) who spoke yesterday, and who so far transcended the limits of decency and propriety as to announce upon this floor that his remarks were addressed to white men alone, i shall have no word of reply. let him feel that a negro was not only too magnanimous to smite him in his weakness, but was even charitable enough to grant him the mercy of his silence. i shall, sir, leave to others less charitable the unenviable and fatiguing task of sifting out of that mass of chaff the few grains of sense that may, perchance deserve notice. assuring the gentleman that the negro in this country aims at a higher degree of intellect than that exhibited by him in this debate, i cheerfully commend him to the commiseration of all intelligent men the world over--black men as well as white men. sir, equality before the law is now the broad, universal, glorious rule and mandate of the republic. no state can violate that. kentucky and georgia may crowd their statute-books with retrograde and barbarous legislation; they may rejoice in the odious eminence of their consistent hostility to all the great steps of human progress which have marked our national history since slavery tore down the stars and stripes on fort sumter; but, if congress shall do its duty, if congress shall enforce the great guarantees which the supreme court has declared to be the one pervading purpose of all the recent amendments, then their unwise and unenlightened conduct will fall with the same weight upon the gentlemen from those states who now lend their influence to defeat this bill, as upon the poorest slave who once had no rights which the honorable gentlemen were bound to respect. but, sir, not only does the decision in the slaughter-house cases contain nothing which suggests a doubt of the power of congress to pass the pending bill, but it contains an express recognition and affirmance of such power. i quote from page of the volume: "nor shall any state deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." in the light of the history of these amendments, and the pervading purpose of them which we have already discussed, it is not difficult to give a meaning to this clause. the existence of laws in the states where the newly emancipated negroes resided, which discriminated with gross injustice and hardship against them as a class, was the evil to be remedied by this clause, and by it such laws are forbidden. if, however, the states did not conform their views to its requirements, then, by the fifth section of the article of amendment, congress was authorized to enforce it by suitable legislation. we doubt very much whether any action of a state not directed by way of discrimination against the negroes as a class, or on account of their race, will ever be held to come within the purview of this provision. it is so clearly a provision for that race and that emergency, that a strong case would be necessary for its application to any other. but as it is a state that is to be dealt with, and not alone the validity of its laws, we may safely leave that matter until congress shall have exercised its power, or some case of state oppression, by denial of equal justice in its courts, shall have claimed a decision at our hands. no language could convey a more complete assertion of the power of congress over the subject embraced in the present bill than is here expressed. if the states do not conform to the requirements of this clause, if they continue to deny to any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, or as the supreme court had said "deny equal justice in its courts" then congress is here said to have power to enforce the constitutional guarantee by appropriate legislation. that is the power which this bill now seeks to put in exercise. it proposes to enforce the constitutional guarantee against inequality and discrimination by appropriate legislation. it does not seek to confer new rights, nor to place rights conferred by state citizenship under the protection of the united states, but simply to prevent and forbid inequality and discrimination on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. never was there a bill which appealed for support more strongly to that sense of justice and fair play which has been said, and in the main with justice, to be a characteristic of the anglo-saxon race. the constitution warrants it; the supreme court sanctions it; justice demands it. sir, i have replied to the extent of my ability to the arguments which have been presented by the opponents of this measure. i have replied also to some of the legal propositions advanced by gentlemen on the other side; and now that i am about to conclude, i am deeply sensible of the imperfect manner in which i have performed the task. technically, this bill is to decide upon the civil status of the colored american citizen; a point disputed at the very formation of our present form of government, when by a short-sighted policy, a policy repugnant to true republican government, one negro counted as three-fifth of a man. the logical result of this mistake of the framers of the constitution strengthened the cancer of slavery, which finally spread its poisonous tentacles over the southern portion of the body politic. to arrest its growth and save the nation we have passed through the harrowing operation of intestine war, dreaded at all times, resorted to at the last extremity, like the surgeon's knife, but absolutely necessary to extirpate the disease which threatened with the life of the nation the overthrow of civil and political liberty on this continent. in that dire extremity the members of the race which i have the honor in part to represent--the race which pleads for justice at your hands to-day,--forgetful of their inhuman and brutalizing servitude at the south, their degradation and ostracism at the north, flew willingly and gallantly to the support of the national government. their sufferings, assistance, privations, and trials in the swamps and in the rice-fields, their valor on the land and on the sea, form a part of the ever-glorious record which makes up the history of a nation preserved, and might, should i urge the claim, incline you to respect and guarantee their rights and privileges as citizens of our common republic. but i remember that valor, devotion, and loyalty are not always rewarded according to their just deserts, and that after the battle some who have borne the brunt of the fray may, through neglect or contempt, be assigned to a subordinate place, while the enemies in war may be preferred to the sufferers. the results of the war, as seen in reconstruction, have settled forever the political status of my race. the passage of this bill will determine the civil status, not only of the negro, but of any other class of citizens who may feel themselves discriminated against. it will form the cap-stone of that temple of liberty, begun on this continent under discouraging circumstances, carried on in spite of the sneers of monarchists and the cavils of pretended friends of freedom, until at last it stands, in all its beautiful symmetry and proportions, a building the grandest which the world has ever seen, realizing the most sanguine expectations and the highest hopes of those who, in the name of equal, impartial, and universal liberty, laid the foundation-stone. the holy scriptures tell us of an humble handmaiden who long, faithfully, and patiently gleaned in the rich fields of her wealthy kinsman, and we are told further that at last, in spite of her humble antecedents she found favor in his sight. for over two centuries our race has "reaped down your fields," the cries and woes which we have uttered have "entered into the ears of the lord of sabaoth" and we are at last politically free. the last vestiture only is needed--civil rights. having gained this, we may, with hearts overflowing with gratitude and thankful that our prayer has been answered, repeat the prayer of ruth: "entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee; for whither thou goest, i will go; and where thou lodgest, i will lodge; thy people shall be my people, and thy god my god; where thou diest i will die, and there will i be buried; the lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me." civil rights and social equality[ ] by hon. john r. lynch [note : a speech delivered in the house of representatives, february , .] the house having under consideration the civil-rights bill, mr. lynch said: _mr. speaker:_ i will now endeavor to answer the arguments of those who have been contending that the passage of this bill is an effort to bring about social equality between the races. that the passage of this bill can in any manner affect the social status of any one seems to me to be absurd and ridiculous. i have never believed for a moment that social equality could be brought about even between persons of the same race. i have always believed that social distinctions existed among white people the same as among colored people. but those who contend that the passage of this bill will have a tendency to bring about social equality between the races virtually and substantially admit that there are no social distinctions among white people whatever, but that all white persons, regardless of their moral character, are the social equals of each other; for if by conferring upon colored people the same rights and privileges that are now exercised and enjoyed by whites indiscriminately will result in bringing about social equality between the races, then the same process of reasoning must necessarily bring us to the conclusion that there are no social distinctions among whites, because all white persons, regardless of their social standing, are permitted to enjoy these rights. see then how unreasonable, unjust, and false is the assertion that social equality is involved in this legislation. i cannot believe that gentlemen on the other side of the house mean what they say when they admit as they do that the immoral, the ignorant, and the degraded of their own race are the social equals of themselves and their families. if they do, then i can only assure them that they do not put as high an estimate upon their own social standing as respectable and intelligent colored people place upon theirs; for there are hundreds and thousands of white people of both sexes whom i know to be the social inferiors of respectable and intelligent colored people. i can then assure that portion of my democratic friends on the other side of the house whom i regard as my social inferiors that if at any time i should meet any one of you at a hotel and occupy a seat at the same table with you, or the same seat in a car with you, do not think that i have thereby accepted you as my social equal. not at all. but if any one should attempt to discriminate against you for no other reason than because you are identified with a particular race or religious sect, i would regard it as an outrage; as a violation of the principles of republicanism; and i would be in favor of protecting you in the exercise and enjoyment of your rights by suitable and appropriate legislation. no, mr. speaker, it is not social rights that we desire. we have enough of that already. what we ask is protection in the enjoyment of _public_ rights. rights which are or should be accorded to every citizen alike. under our present system of race distinctions a white woman of a questionable social standing, yea, i may say, of an admitted immoral character, can go to any public place or upon any public conveyance and be the recipient of the same treatment, the same courtesy, and the same respect that is usually accorded to the most refined and virtuous; but let an intelligent, modest, refined colored lady present herself and ask that the same privileges be accorded to her that have just been accorded to her social inferior of the white race, and in nine cases out of ten, except in certain portions of the country, she will not only be refused, but insulted for making the request. mr. speaker, i ask the members of this house in all candor, is this right? i appeal to your sensitive feelings as husbands, fathers, and brothers, is this just? you who have affectionate companions, attractive daughters, and loving sisters, is this just? if you have any of the ingredients of manhood in your composition you will answer the question most emphatically, no! what a sad commentary upon our system of government, our religion, and our civilization! think of it for a moment; here am i, a member of your honorable body, representing one of the largest and wealthiest districts in the state of mississippi, and possibly in the south; a district composed of persons of different races, religions, and nationalities and yet, when i leave my home to come to the capital of the nation, to take part in the deliberations of the house and to participate with you in making laws for the government of this great republic, in coming through the god-forsaken states of kentucky and tennessee, if i come by the way of louisville or chattanooga, i am treated, not as an american citizen, but as a brute. forced to occupy a filthy smoking-car both night and day, with drunkards, gamblers, and criminals; and for what? not that i am unable or unwilling to pay my way; not that i am obnoxious in my personal appearance or disrespectful in my conduct; but simply because i happen to be of a darker complexion. if this treatment was confined to persons of our own sex we could possibly afford to endure it. but such is not the case. our wives and our daughters, our sisters and our mothers, are subjected to the same insults and to the same uncivilized treatment. you may ask why we do not institute civil suits in the state courts. what a farce! talk about instituting a civil-rights suit in the state courts of kentucky, for instance, where decision of the judge is virtually rendered before he enters the court-house, and the verdict of the jury substantially rendered before it is impaneled. the only moments of my life when i am necessarily compelled to question my loyalty to my government or my devotion to the flag of my country is when i read of outrages having been committed upon innocent colored people and the perpetrators go unwhipped of justice, and when i leave my home to go traveling. mr. speaker, if this unjust discrimination is to be longer tolerated by the american people, which i do not, cannot, and will not believe until i am forced to do so, then i can only say with sorrow and regret that our boasted civilization is a fraud; our republican institutions a failure; our social system a disgrace; and our religion a complete hypocrisy. but i have an abiding confidence--(though i must confess that that confidence was seriously shaken a little over two months ago)--but still i have an abiding confidence in the patriotism of this people, in their devotion to the cause of human rights, and in the stability of our republican institutions. i hope that i will not be deceived. i love the land that gave me birth; i love the stars and stripes. this country is where i intend to live, where i expect to die. to preserve the honor of the national flag and to maintain perpetually the union of the states hundreds, and i may say thousands, of noble, brave, and true-hearted colored men have fought, bled, and died. and now, mr. speaker, i ask, can it be possible that that flag under which they fought is to be a shield and a protection to all races and classes of persons except the colored race? god forbid! * * * * * in conclusion, mr. speaker, i say to the republican members of the house that the passage of this bill is expected of you. if any of our democratic friends will vote for it, we will be agreeably surprised. but if republicans should vote against it, we will be sorely disappointed; it will be to us a source of deep mortification as well as profound regret. we will feel as though we are deserted in the house of our friends. but i have no fears whatever in this respect. you have stood by the colored people of this country when it was more unpopular to do so than it is to pass this bill. you have fulfilled every promise thus far, and i have no reason to believe that you will not fulfill this one. then give us this bill. the white man's government negro-hating democracy will, in my judgment, soon pass out of existence. the progressive spirit of the american people will not much longer tolerate the existence of an organization that lives upon the passions and prejudices of the hour. i appeal to all the members of the house--republicans and democrats, conservatives and liberals--to join with us in the passage of this bill, which has its object the protection of human rights. and when every man, woman, and child can feel and know that his, her, and their rights are fully protected by the strong arm of a generous and grateful republic, then we can all truthfully say that this beautiful land of ours, over which the "star-spangled banner" so triumphantly waves, is, in truth and in fact, the "land of the free and the home of the brave." alexander dumas, fils[ ] _the following public tribute was paid to his father by the younger dumas on the occasion of taking his seat in the french academy (february , )._ [note : from "the life of a. dumas," by arthur e. davidson, (p. ).] "the fact," said he, "that so many men superior to me have had to knock many times at your door before it was opened to them would fill me with pride, did i not know the real reason of your sympathy. in order to reach my place among you, gentlemen, i have employed magical spells, i have used witchcraft. standing on my own merits alone i should not have dared to face your judgment, but i knew that a good genius--that is the right word--was fighting on my behalf, and that you were determined to offer no defense. i have sheltered myself under a name which you would have wished long ago to honor in itself, and which you are now able to honor only in me. believe me, gentlemen, it is with the greatest modesty that i come to-day to accept a reward which has been so easily granted to me only because it was reserved for another. i cannot--i may not--receive it except in trust; allow me then, at once and publicly, to make restitution of it to the man who, unhappily, can no longer receive it himself. thus you will be granting me the highest honor which i can covet, and the only one _to which_ i have any real right." an address delivered at the centennial anniversary of the pennsylvania society for promoting the abolition of slavery[ ] by john mercer langston [note : philadelphia, wednesday, april , .] _ladies and gentlemen:_ the history of this association, owing to its objects and achievements, sweep in an interest that is not confined to any class: an interest that is not confined to any people, and whose scope and consequences cannot be foretold by human inspiration. it affects the emancipation of a whole race; and in that it touches the progress and character of all who are brought in contact with that race, the forms of government over the world and the world's progress in all departments. there was a recent time in american history when no man, in all its length and breadth, could read the declaration of independence and say that he possessed all of his civil and political liberties. garrison could not speak in new orleans, nor could the silver-tongued phillips address an audience south of mason and dixon's line. nor was it expedient for john c. calhoun to address his arguments in independence hall, or for davis and yulee and mason to propound theirs in faneuil hall. speech was itself in thrall, and bound to the section in which it found voice. when garrison and phillips had been invited to speak in cincinnati, they were counseled by their friends not to do so. there was danger that the mobs of covington and cincinnati would assassinate them publicly; and it is notorious that the opposing arguments that reached washington from the north and from the south advanced no further in either direction. this impugned and belied the very freedom declared in the declaration and constitution; and made both the mockery of europe. the contradiction is reconciled; the taunt is silenced; speech is legally free and protected over all the union, and the pennsylvania abolition society has done more than any other agency--more than all other agencies combined--to vitalize the constitution and give being to the declaration. this society fought for the glowing assertion of all the centuries: that men are born free and equal, and are endowed with inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. it kept the contrast between the declaration and its practise in a clear light. it repeated the assertion and reasserted it. it argued the justice with the very facts and reasons that had been presented to the congress by whom the declaration was framed. undisturbed by ridicule, unchecked by hostility, undaunted by persecution, it has kept the law in the van of the fight; sustained it by reserves of humane reason; by appeals to national strength and welfare, and growth, and influence, and wealth; it disseminated the truth in churches, at the polls, in lyceums, by the press; it was unanswerable because its claim was founded in equity, and recognized in religion, and had ineradicable place in the great muniment of national being. it appealed to the individual conscience as well as to pride, patriotism, piety, and interest, and it won, and now celebrates a victory immeasurably greater than that of yorktown or waterloo or marathon. those were the victories of nation over nation, or at the utmost of a principle of limited application. we celebrate the successful battle of the grandest principle in human organization; that is confined to no race, limited to no country, cramped by no restriction, but is as broad as the world, as applicable as humanity itself and as enduring as time. the sentiment which elected abraham lincoln was contained in an address delivered before the pennsylvania abolition society by benjamin rush, one of its earliest and most honored members. it was: "freedom and slavery cannot long exist together!" ladies and gentlemen of the abolition society, those who see the american citizens of african descent one hundred years hence will be proud of them, and convinced that the great century struggle that won their enfranchisement was worth infinitely more than it cost. we are now leaving politics. we have gained through them the rights and opportunities they conferred, that could be secured in no other way. we are devoting ourselves to learning and industry; the attainment of wealth and manufacture of character. we shall never leave our home. there are but two facts to be recognized. we are here. the white race is here. both share the same rights; make and obey the same laws; struggle for progress under the same conditions. the logical conclusion of our birthright and of our proclaimed and perfected equality before the law is that we shall remain, and remaining strive with equal advantages with our white fellow citizens for our own good and the nation's welfare. an address delivered at the centennial anniversary of the pennsylvania society for promoting the abolition of slavery[ ] by mrs. frances ellen watkins harper frances ellen watkins harper _was a distinguished anti-slavery lecturer, writer and poet, born in baltimore, maryland, in , of free parents. after the close of the civil war she went south and worked as a teacher and lecturer, but later returned to philadelphia, where she devoted her time to lecturing and writing for the temperance cause, having charge, for a number of years, of the w. c. t. u. work among negroes. "iola leroy, or the shadows uplifted," is her best-known work, besides which she published a number of small books of verses._ [note : philadelphia, wednesday, april , .] _ladies and gentlemen:_ the great problem to be solved by the american people, if i understand it, is this: whether or not there is strength enough in democracy, virtue enough in our civilization, and power enough in our religion to have mercy and deal justly with four millions of people but lately translated from the old oligarchy of slavery to the new commonwealth of freedom; and upon the right solution of this question depends in a large measure the future strength, progress, and durability of our nation. the most important question before us colored people is not simply what the democratic party may do against us or the republican party do for us; but what are we going to do for ourselves? what shall we do towards developing our character, adding our quota to the civilization and strength of the country, diversifying our industry, and practising those lordly virtues that conquer success, and turn the world's dread laugh into admiring recognition? the white race has yet work to do in making practical the political axiom of equal rights, and the christian idea of human brotherhood; but while i lift mine eyes to the future i would not ungratefully ignore the past. one hundred years ago and africa was the privileged hunting-ground of europe and america, and the flag of different nations hung a sign of death on the coasts of congo and guinea, and for years unbroken silence had hung around the horrors of the african slave-trade. since then great britain and other nations have wiped the bloody traffic from their hands, and shaken the gory merchandise from their fingers, and the brand of piracy has been placed upon the african slave-trade. less than fifty years ago mob violence belched out its wrath against the men who dared to arraign the slaveholder before the bar of conscience and christendom. instead of golden showers upon his head, he who garrisoned the front had a halter around his neck. since, if i may borrow the idea, the nation has caught the old inspiration from his lips and written it in the new organic world. less than twenty-five years ago slavery clasped hands with king cotton, and said slavery fights and cotton conquers for american slavery. since then slavery is dead, the colored man has exchanged the fetters on his wrist for the ballot in his hand. freedom is king, and cotton a subject. it may not seem to be a gracious thing to mingle complaint in a season of general rejoicing. it may appear like the ancient egyptians seating a corpse at their festal board to avenge the americans for their shortcomings when so much has been accomplished. and yet with all the victories and triumphs which freedom and justice have won in this country, i do not believe there is another civilized nation under heaven where there are half so many people who have been brutally and shamefully murdered, with or without impunity, as in this republic within the last ten years. and who cares? where is the public opinion that has scorched with red-hot indignation the cowardly murderers of vicksburg and louisiana? sheridan lifts up the vail from southern society, and behind it is the smell of blood, and our bones scattered at the grave's mouth; murdered people; a white league with its "covenant of death and agreement with hell." and who cares? what city pauses one hour to drop a pitying tear over these mangled corpses, or has forged against the perpetrator one thunderbolt of furious protest? but let there be a supposed or real invasion of southern rights by our soldiers, and our great commercial emporium will rally its forces from the old man in his classic shades, to clasp hands with "dead rabbits" and "plug-uglies" in protesting against military interference. what we need to-day in the onward march of humanity is a public sentiment in favor of common justice and simple mercy. we have a civilization which has produced grand and magnificent results, diffused knowledge, overthrown slavery, made constant conquests over nature, and built up a wonderful material prosperity. but two things are wanting in american civilization--a keener and deeper, broader and tenderer sense of justice--a sense of humanity, which shall crystallize into the life of the nation the sentiment that justice, simple justice, is the right, not simply of the strong and powerful, but of the weakest and feeblest of all god's children; a deeper and broader humanity, which will teach men to look upon their feeble brethren not as vermin to be crushed out, or beasts of burden to be bridled and bitted, but as the children of the living god; of that god whom we may earnestly hope is in perfect wisdom and in perfect love working for the best good of all. ethnologists may differ about the origin of the human race. huxley may search for it in protoplasms, and darwin send for the missing links, but there is one thing of which we may rest assured,--that we all come from the living god and that he is the common father. the nation that has no reverence for man is also lacking in reverence for god and needs to be instructed. as fellow citizens, leaving out all humanitarian views--as a mere matter of political economy it is better to have the colored race a living force animated and strengthened by self-reliance and self-respect, than a stagnant mass, degraded and self-condemned. instead of the north relaxing its efforts to diffuse education in the south, it behooves us for our national life, to throw into the south all the healthful reconstructing influences we can command. our work in this country is grandly constructive. some races have come into this world and overthrown and destroyed. but if it is glory to destroy, it is happiness to save; and oh! what a noble work there is before our nation! where is there a young man who would consent to lead an aimless life when there are such glorious opportunities before him? before our young men is another battle--not a battle of flashing swords and clashing steel--but a moral warfare, a battle against ignorance, poverty, and low social condition. in physical warfare the keenest swords may be blunted and the loudest batteries hushed; but in the great conflict of moral and spiritual progress your weapons shall be brighter for their service and better for their use. in fighting truly and nobly for others you win the victory for yourselves. give power and significance to your own life, and in the great work of upbuilding there is room for woman's work and woman's heart. oh, that our hearts were alive and our vision quickened, to see the grandeur of the work that lies before. we have some culture among us, but i think our culture lacks enthusiasm. we need a deep earnestness and a lofty unselfishness to round out our lives. it is the inner life that develops the outer, and if we are in earnest the precious things lie all around our feet, and we need not waste our strength in striving after the dim and unattainable. women, in your golden youth; mother, binding around your heart all the precious ties of life,--let no magnificence of culture, or amplitude of fortune, or refinement of sensibilities, repel you from helping the weaker and less favored. if you have ampler gifts, hold them as larger opportunities with which you can benefit others. oh, it is better to feel that the weaker and feebler our race the closer we will cling to them, than it is to isolate ourselves from them in selfish, or careless unconcern, saying there is a lion without. inviting you to this work i do not promise you fair sailing and unclouded skies. you may meet with coolness where you expect sympathy; disappointment where you feel sure of success; isolation and loneliness instead of heart-support and co-operation. but if your lives are based and built upon these divine certitudes, which are the only enduring strength of humanity, then whatever defeat and discomfiture may overshadow your plans or frustrate your schemes, for a life that is in harmony with god and sympathy for man there is no such word as fail. and in conclusion, permit me to say, let no misfortunes crush you; no hostility of enemies or failure of friends discourage you. apparent failure may hold in its rough shell the germs of a success that will blossom in time, and bear fruit throughout eternity. what seemed to be a failure around the cross of calvary and in the garden has been the grandest recorded success. a memorial discourse[ ] by rev. henry highland garnet henry highland garnet, _who at the time of the delivery of this speech was in charge of the fifteenth street presbyterian church in washington, d. c., was one of the foremost figures in the great anti-slavery movement in new york. he was the first colored man to speak in the national capitol._ matthew xxiii- . "for they bind heavy burdens, and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders, but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers." [note : delivered in the hall of the house of representatives, washington, d. c., at the request of the chaplain, rev. william h. channing.] in this chapter, of which my text is a sentence, the lord jesus addressed his disciples, and the multitude that hung spell-bound upon the words that fell from his lips. he admonished them to beware of the religion of the scribes and pharisees, which was distinguished for great professions, while it succeeded in urging them to do but a little, or nothing that accorded with the law of righteousness. in theory they were right; but their practices were inconsistent and wrong. they were learned in the law of moses, and in the traditions of their fathers, but the principles of righteousness failed to affect their hearts. they knew their duty but did it not. the demands which they made upon others proved that they themselves knew what things men ought to do. in condemning others they pronounced themselves guilty. they demanded that others should be just, merciful, pure, peaceable, and righteous. but they were unjust, impure, unmerciful--they hated and wronged a portion of their fellowmen, and waged a continual war against the government of god. * * * * * such was their conduct in the church and in the state. we have modern scribes and pharisees, who are faithful to their prototypes of ancient times. with sincere respect and reverence for the instruction, and the warning given by our lord, and in humble dependence upon him for his assistance, i shall speak this morning of the scribes and pharisees of our times who rule the state. in discharging this duty, i shall keep my eyes upon the picture which is painted so faithfully and life-like by the hand of the saviour. allow me to describe them. they are intelligent and well-informed, and can never say, either before an earthly tribunal or at the bar of god, "we knew not of ourselves what was right." they are acquainted with the principles of the law of nations. they are proficient in the knowledge of constitutional law. they are teachers of common law, and frame and execute statute law. they acknowledge that there is a just and impartial god, and are not altogether unacquainted with the law of christian love and kindness. they claim for themselves the broadest freedom. boastfully they tell us that they have received from the court of heaven the magna charta of human rights that was handed down through the clouds, and amid the lightnings of sinai, and given again by the son of god on the mount of beatitudes, while the glory of the father shone around him. they tell us that from the declaration of independence and the constitution they have obtained a guaranty of their political freedom, and from the bible they derive their claim to all the blessings of religious liberty. with just pride they tell us that they are descended from the pilgrims, who threw themselves upon the bosom of the treacherous sea, and braved storms and tempests, that they might find in a strange land, and among savages, free homes, where they might build their altars that should blaze with acceptable sacrifice unto god. yes! they boast that their fathers heroically turned away from the precious light of eastern civilization, and taking their lamps with oil in their vessels, joyfully went forth to illuminate this land, that then dwelt in the darkness of the valley of the shadow of death. with hearts strengthened by faith they spread out their standard to the winds of heaven, near plymouth rock; and whether it was stiffened in the sleet and frosts of winter, or floated on the breeze of summer, it ever bore the motto, "freedom to worship god." but others, their fellow-men, equal before the almighty, and made by him of the same blood, and glowing with immortality, they doom to life-long servitude and chains. yes, they stand in the most sacred places on earth, and beneath the gaze of the piercing eye of jehovah, the universal father of all men, and declare, "that the best possible condition of the negro is slavery." in the name of the triune god i denounce the sentiment as unrighteous beyond measure, and the holy and the just of the whole earth say in regard to it, anathema-maranatha. what is slavery? too well do i know what it is. i will present to you a bird's-eye view of it; and it shall be no fancy picture, but one that is sketched by painful experience. i was born among the cherished institutions of slavery. my earliest recollections of parents, friends, and the home of my childhood are clouded with its wrongs. the first sight that met my eyes was a christian mother enslaved by professed christians, but, thank god, now a saint in heaven. the first sounds that startled my ear, and sent a shudder through my soul, were the cracking of the whip and the clanking of chains. these sad memories mar the beauties of my native shores, and darken all the slave-land, which, but for the reign of despotism, had been a paradise. but those shores are fairer now. the mists have left my native valleys, and the clouds have rolled away from the hills, and maryland, the unhonored grave of my fathers, is now the free home of their liberated and happier children. let us view this demon, which the people have worshiped as a god. come forth, thou grim monster, that thou mayest be critically examined! there he stands. behold him, one and all. its work is to chattelize man; to hold property in human beings. great god! i would as soon attempt to enslave gabriel or michael as to enslave a man made in the image of god, and for whom christ died. slavery is snatching man from the high place to which he was lifted by the hand of god, and dragging him down to the level of the brute creation, where he is made to be the companion of the horse and the fellow of the ox. it tears the crown of glory from his head, and as far as possible obliterates the image of god that is in him. slavery preys upon man, and man only. a brute cannot be made a slave. why? because a brute has not reason, faith, nor an undying spirit, nor conscience. it does not look forward to the future with joy or fear, nor reflect upon the past with satisfaction or regret. but who in this vast assembly, who in all this broad land, will say that the poorest and most unhappy brother in chains and servitude has not every one of these high endowments? who denies it? is there one? if so, let him speak. there is not one; no, not one. but slavery attempts to make a man a brute. it treats him as a beast. its terrible work is not finished until the ruined victim of its lusts, and pride, and avarice, and hatred, is reduced so low that with tearful eyes and feeble voice he faintly cries, "i am happy and contented--i love this condition." "proud nimrod first the bloody chase began, a mighty hunter he; his prey was man." the caged lion may cease to roar, and try no longer the strength of the bars of his prison, and lie with his head between his mighty paws and snuff the polluted air as though he heeded not. but is he contented? does he not instinctively long for the freedom of the forest and the plain? yes, he is a lion still. our poor and forlorn brother whom thou hast labelled "slave," is also a man. he may be unfortunate, weak, helpless, and despised, and hated, nevertheless he is a man. his god and thine has stamped on his forehead his title to his inalienable rights in characters that can be read by every intelligent being. pitiless storms of outrage may have beaten upon his defenseless head and he may have descended through ages of oppression, yet he is a man. god made him such, and his brother cannot unmake him. woe, woe to him who attempts to commit the accursed crime. slavery commenced its dreadful work in kidnapping unoffending men in a foreign and distant land, and in piracy on the seas. the plunderers were not the followers of mahomet, nor the devotees of hindooism, nor benighted pagans, nor idolaters, but people called christians, and thus the ruthless traders in the souls and bodies of men fastened upon christianity a crime and stain at the sight of which it shudders and shrieks. it is guilty of the most heinous iniquities ever perpetrated upon helpless women and innocent children. go to the shores of the land of my forefathers, poor bleeding africa, which, although she has been bereaved, and robbed for centuries, is nevertheless beloved by all her worthy descendants wherever dispersed. behold a single scene that there meets your eyes. turn not away neither from shame, pity, nor indifference, but look and see the beginning of this cherished and petted institution. behold a hundred youthful mothers seated on the ground, dropping their tears upon the hot sands, and filling the air with their lamentations. why do they weep? ah, lord god, thou knowest! their babes have been torn from their bosoms and cast upon the plains to die of hunger, or to be devoured by hyenas or jackals. the little innocents would die on the "middle passage," or suffocate between the decks of the floating slave-pen, freighted and packed with unparalleled human woe, and the slavers in mercy have cast them out to perish on their native shores. such is the beginning, and no less wicked is the end of that system which scribes and pharisees in the church and the state pronounce to be just, humane, benevolent and christian. if such are the deeds of mercy wrought by angels, then tell me what works of iniquity there remain for devils to do? * * * * * it is the highly concentrated essence of all conceivable wickedness. theft, robbery, pollution, unbridled passion, incest, cruelty, cold-blooded murder, blasphemy, and defiance of the laws of god. it teaches children to disregard parental authority. it tears down the marriage altar, and tramples its sacred ashes under its feet. it creates and nourishes polygamy. it feeds and pampers its hateful handmaid, prejudice. it has divided our national councils. it has engendered deadly strife between brethren. it has wasted the treasure of the commonwealth, and the lives of thousands of brave men, and driven troops of helpless women and children into yawning tombs. it has caused the bloodiest civil war recorded in the book of time. it has shorn this nation of its locks of strength that was rising as a young lion in the western world. it has offered us as a sacrifice to the jealousy and cupidity of tyrants, despots, and adventurers of foreign countries. it has opened a door through which a usurper, a perjured, but a powerful prince, might stealthily enter and build an empire on the golden borders of our southwestern frontier, and which is but a stepping-stone to further and unlimited conquests on this continent. it has desolated the fairest portions of our land, "until the wolf long since driven back by the march of civilization returns after the lapse of a hundred years and howls amidst its ruins." it seals up the bible, and mutilates its sacred truths, and flies into the face of the almighty, and impiously asks, "who art thou that i should obey thee?" such are the outlines of this fearful national sin; and yet the condition to which it reduces man, it is affirmed, is the best that can possibly be devised for him. when inconsistencies similar in character, and no more glaring, passed beneath the eye of the son of god, no wonder he broke forth in language of vehement denunciation. ye scribes, pharisees, and hypocrites! ye blind guides! ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful without, but within are full of dead men's bones, and all uncleanness! let us here take up the golden rule, and adopt the self-application mode of reasoning to those who hold these erroneous views. come, gird up thy loins and answer like a man, if thou canst. is slavery, as it is seen in its origin, continuance, and end the best possible condition for thee? oh, no! wilt thou bear that burden on thy shoulders, which thou wouldest lay upon thy fellow-man? no. wilt thou bear a part of it, or remove a little of its weight with one of thy fingers? the sharp and indignant answer is no, no! then how, and when, and where, shall we apply to thee the golden rule, which says, "therefore all things that ye would that others should do to you, do ye even so unto them, for this is the law and the prophets." let us have the testimony of the wise and great of ancient and modern times: "sages who wrote and warriors who bled." plato declared that "slavery is a system of complete injustice." socrates wrote that "slavery is a system of outrage and robbery." cyrus said, "to fight in order not to be a slave is noble." if cyrus had lived in our land a few years ago he would have been arrested for using incendiary language, and for inciting servile insurrection, and the royal fanatic would have been hanged on a gallows higher than haman. but every man is fanatical when his soul is warmed by the generous fires of liberty. is it then truly noble to fight in order not to be a slave? the chief magistrate of the nation, and our rulers, and all truly patriotic men think so; and so think legions of black men, who for a season were scorned and rejected, but who came quickly and cheerfully when they were at last invited, bearing a heavy burden of proscriptions upon their shoulders, and having faith in god, and in their generous fellow-countrymen, they went forth to fight a double battle. the foes of their country were before them, while the enemies of freedom and of their race surrounded them. augustine, constantine, ignatius, polycarp, maximus, and the most illustrious lights of the ancient church denounced the sin of slave-holding. thomas jefferson said at a period of his life, when his judgment was matured, and his experience was ripe, "there is preparing, i hope, under the auspices of heaven, a way for a total emancipation." the sainted washington said, near the close of his moral career, and when the light of eternity was beaming upon him, "it is among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by which slavery in this country shall be abolished by law. i know of but one way by which this can be done, and that is by legislative action, and so far as my vote can go, it shall not be wanting." the other day, when the light of liberty streamed through this marble pile, and the hearts of the noble band of patriotic statesmen leaped for joy, and this our national capitol shook from foundation to dome with the shouts of a ransomed people, then methinks the spirits of washington, jefferson, the jays, the adamses, and franklin, and lafayette, and giddings, and lovejoy, and those of all the mighty, and glorious dead, remembered by history, because they were faithful to truth, justice, and liberty, were hovering over the august assembly. though unseen by mortal eyes, doubtless they joined the angelic choir, and said, amen. pope leo x. testifies, "that not only does the christian religion, but nature herself, cry out against a state of slavery." patrick henry said, "we should transmit to posterity our abhorrence of slavery." so also thought the thirty-eighth congress. lafayette proclaimed these words: "slavery is a dark spot on the face of the nation." god be praised, that stain will soon be wiped out. jonathan edwards declared "that to hold a man in slavery is to be every day guilty of robbery, or of man stealing." rev. dr. william ellery channing, in a letter on the annexation of texas in , writes as follows: "the evil of slavery speaks for itself. to state is to condemn the institution. the choice which every freeman makes of death for his child and for every thing he loves in preference to slavery shows what it is. * * * "every principle of our government and religion condemns slavery. the spirit of our age condemns it. the decree of the civilized world has gone out against it." * * * * * moses, the greatest of all lawgivers and legislators, said, while his face was yet radiant with the light of sinai: "whoso stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." the destroying angel has gone forth through this land to execute the fearful penalties of god's broken law. the representatives of the nation have bowed with reverence to the divine edict, and laid the axe at the root of the tree, and thus saved succeeding generations from the guilt of oppression, and from the wrath of god. statesmen, jurists, and philosophers, most renowned for learning, and most profound in every department of science and literature, have testified against slavery; while oratory has brought its costliest, golden treasures, and laid them on the altar of god and of freedom, it has aimed its fiercest lightning and loudest thunder at the strongholds of tyranny, injustice, and despotism. from the days of balak to those of isaiah and jeremiah, up to the times of paul, and through every age of the christian church, the sons of thunder have denounced the abominable thing. the heroes who stood in the shining ranks of the hosts of the friends of human progress, from cicero to chatham, and burke, sharp, wilberforce, and thomas clarkson, and curran, assaulted the citadel of despotism. the orators and statesmen of our own land, whether they belong to the past, or to the present age, will live and shine in the annals of history, in proportion as they have dedicated their genius and talents to the defence of justice and man's god-given rights. all the poets who live in sacred and profane history have charmed the world with their most enchanting strains, when they have tuned their lyres to the praise of liberty. when the muses can no longer decorate her altars with their garlands, then they hang their harps upon the willows and weep. from moses to terence and homer, from thence to milton and cowper, thomson and thomas campbell, and on to the days of our own bards, our bryants, longfellows, whittiers, morrises, and bokers, all have presented their best gifts to the interests and rights of man. every good principle, and every great and noble power, have been made the subjects of the inspired verse, and the songs of poets. but who of them has attempted to immortalize slavery? you will search in vain the annals of the world to find an instance. should any attempt the sacrilegious work, his genius would fall to the earth as if smitten by the lightning of heaven. should he lift his hand to write a line in its praise, or defence, the ink would freeze on the point of his pen. could we array in one line, representatives of all the families of men, beginning with those lowest in the scale of being, and should we put to them the question, is it right and desirable that you should be reduced to the condition of slaves, to be registered with chattels, to have your persons, and your lives, and the products of your labor, subjected to the will and the interests of others? is it right and just that the persons of your wives and children should be at the disposal of others, and be yielded to them for the purpose of pampering their lusts and greed of gain? is it right to lay heavy burdens on other men's shoulders which you would not remove with one of your fingers? from the rude savage and barbarian the negative response would come, increasing in power and significance as it rolled up the line. and when those should reply, whose minds and hearts are illuminated with the highest civilization and with the spirit of christianity, the answer deep-toned and prolonged would thunder forth, no, no! with all the moral attributes of god on our side, cheered as we are by the voices of universal human nature,--in view of the best interests of the present and future generations--animated with the noble desire to furnish the nations of the earth with a worthy example, let the verdict of death which has been brought in against slavery, by the thirty-eighth congress, be affirmed and executed by the people. let the gigantic monster perish. yes, perish now, and perish forever! it is often asked when and where will the demands of the reformers of this and coming ages end? it is a fair question, and i will answer. when all unjust and heavy burdens shall be removed from every man in the land. when all invidious and proscriptive distinctions shall be blotted out from our laws, whether they be constitutional, statute, or municipal laws. when emancipation shall be followed by enfranchisement, and all men holding allegiance to the government shall enjoy every right of american citizenship. when our brave and gallant soldiers shall have justice done unto them. when the men who endure the sufferings and perils of the battle-field in the defence of their country, and in order to keep our rulers in their places, shall enjoy the well-earned privilege of voting for them. when in the army and navy, and in every legitimate and honorable occupation, promotion shall smile upon merit without the slightest regard to the complexion of a man's face. when there shall be no more class-legislation, and no more trouble concerning the black man and his rights, than there is in regard to other american citizens. when, in every respect, he shall be equal before the law, and shall be left to make his own way in the social walks of life. we ask, and only ask, that when our poor frail barks are launched on life's ocean-- "bound on a voyage of awful length and dangers little known," that, in common with others, we may be furnished with rudder, helm, and sails, and charts, and compass. give us good pilots to conduct us to the open seas; lift no false lights along the dangerous coasts, and if it shall please god to send us propitious winds, or fearful gales, we shall survive or perish as our energies or neglect shall determine. we ask no special favors, but we plead for justice. while we scorn unmanly dependence; in the name of god, the universal father, we demand the right to live, and labor, and to enjoy the fruits of our toil. the good work which god has assigned for the ages to come, will be finished, when our national literature shall be so purified as to reflect a faithful and a just light upon the character and social habits of our race, and the brush, and pencil, and chisel, and lyre of art, shall refuse to lend their aid to scoff at the afflictions of the poor, or to caricature, or ridicule a long-suffering people. when caste and prejudice in christian churches shall be utterly destroyed, and shall be regarded as totally unworthy of christians, and at variance with the principles of the gospel. when the blessings of the christian religion, and of sound, religious education, shall be freely offered to all, then, and not till then, shall the effectual labors of god's people and god's instruments cease. if slavery has been destroyed merely from _necessity_, let every class be enfranchised at the dictation of _justice_. then we shall have a constitution that shall be reverenced by all: rulers who shall be honored, and revered, and a union that shall be sincerely loved by a brave and patriotic people, and which can never be severed. great sacrifices have been made by the people; yet, greater still are demanded ere atonement can be made for our national sins. eternal justice holds heavy mortgages against us, and will require the payment of the last farthing. we have involved ourselves in the sin of unrighteous gain, stimulated by luxury, and pride, and the love of power and oppression; and prosperity and peace can be purchased only by blood, and with tears of repentance. we have paid some of the fearful installments, but there are other heavy obligations to be met. the great day of the nation's judgment has come, and who shall be able to stand? even we, whose ancestors have suffered the afflictions which are inseparable from a condition of slavery, for the period of two centuries and a half, now pity our land and weep with those who weep. upon the total and complete destruction of this accursed sin depends the safety and perpetuity of our republic and its excellent institutions. let slavery die. it has had a long and fair trial. god himself has pleaded against it. the enlightened nations of the earth have condemned it. its death warrant is signed by god and man. do not commute its sentence. give it no respite, but let it be ignominiously executed. honorable senators and representatives! illustrious rulers of this great nation! i cannot refrain this day from invoking upon you, in god's name, the blessings of millions who were ready to perish, but to whom a new and better life has been opened by your humanity, justice, and patriotism. you have said, "let the constitution of the country be so amended that slavery and involuntary servitude shall no longer exist in the united states, except in punishment for crime." surely, an act so sublime could not escape divine notice; and doubtless the deed has been recorded in the archives of heaven. volumes may be appropriated to your praise and renown in the history of the world. genius and art may perpetuate the glorious act on canvass and in marble, but certain and more lasting monuments in commemoration of your decision are already erected in the hearts and memories of a grateful people. the nation has begun its exodus from worse than egyptian bondage; and i beseech you that you say to the people, "that they go forward." with the assurance of god's favor in all things done in obedience to his righteous will, and guided by day and by night by the pillars of cloud and fire, let us not pause until we have reached the other and safe side of the stormy and crimson sea. let freemen and patriots mete out complete and equal justice to all men, and thus prove to mankind the superiority of our democratic, republican government. favored men, and honored of god as his instruments, speedily finish the work which he has given you to do. emancipate, enfranchise, educate, and give the blessings of the gospel to every american citizen. then before us a path of prosperity will open, and upon us will descend the mercies and favors of god. then shall the people of other countries, who are standing tip-toe on the shores of every ocean, earnestly looking to see the end of this amazing conflict, behold a republic that is sufficiently strong to outlive the ruin and desolations of civil war, having the magnanimity to do justice to the poorest and weakest of her citizens. thus shall we give to the world the form of a model republic, founded on the principles of justice, and humanity, and christianity, in which the burdens of war and the blessings of peace are equally borne and enjoyed by all. crispus attucks[ ] by george l. ruffin george l. ruffin _( - ) the first negro judge to be appointed in massachusetts, graduated in law from harvard, . he served in the legislature of massachusetts two terms, and in the boston council two terms._ [note : extracts from an address delivered before the banneker literary club, of boston, mass., on the occasion of the commemoration of the "boston massacre," march , .] the fifth of march, , had been a cold day, and a slight fall of snow had covered the ground, but at nine o'clock at night it was clear and cold, not a cloud to be seen in the sky, and the moon was shining brightly. a british guard was patrolling the streets with clanking swords and overbearing swagger. a sentry was stationed in dock square. a party of young men, four in number, came out of a house in cornhill. one of the soldiers was whirling his sword about his head, striking fire with it; the sentry challenged one of the four young men; there was no good blood between them, and it took but little to start a disturbance. an apprentice boy cried out to one of the guards, "you haven't paid my master for dressing your hair!" a soldier said, "where are the d---- d yankee boogers, i'll kill them!" a boy's head was split, there was more quarrelling between the young men and the guard, great noise and confusion; a vast concourse of excited people soon collected; cries of "kill them!" "drive them out!" "they have no business here!" were heard; some citizens were knocked down, as also were some soldiers. generally speaking, the soldiers got the worst of it; they were reinforced, but steadily the infuriated citizens drove them back until they were forced to take refuge in the custom-house, upon the steps of which they were pelted with snowballs and pieces of ice. by this time the whole town was aroused; exaggerated accounts of the event in dock square flew like wild-fire all over the settlement; the people turned out _en masse_ in the streets and, to add to the general din, the bells of the town were rung. the regiment which held the town at that time was the th. captain preston seemed to have been in command. he was sent for, went to the custom-house, learned what had occurred, and at once put troops in motion. on they came up king street, now state street, with fixed bayonets, clearing everything before them as they came. they had nearly reached the head of king street, when they met with opposition. a body of citizens had been formed nearby, and came pushing violently through the street then called cornhill, around into king street. they were armed only with clubs, sticks, and pieces of ice, but on they came. nothing daunted, they went up to the points of the soldiers' bayonets. the long pent-up feeling of resentment against a foreign soldiery was finding a vent. this was the time and the opportunity to teach tyrants that freemen can at least strike back, though for the time they strike in vain. at the head of this body of citizens was a stalwart colored man, crispus attucks. he was the leading spirit of their body, and their spokesman. they pressed the british sorely on all sides, making the best use of their rude arms, crying, "they dare not strike!" "let us drive them out!" the soldiers stood firm; the reach of their long bayonets protected them from any serious injury for a while. from time to time attucks' voice could be heard urging his companions on. said he, "the way to get rid of these soldiers is to attack the main guard; strike at the root! this is the nest!" at that time some one gave the order to fire. captain preston said he did not; at any rate the order was given. the soldiers fired. it was a death dealing volley. of the citizens three lay dead, two mortally wounded, and a number more or less injured. crispus attucks, james caldwell, and samuel gray were killed outright. attucks fell, his face to the foe, with two bullets in his breast. that night closed an eventful day. the first martyr-blood had reddened the streets of boston, and the commencement of the downfall of british rule in america had set in. said daniel webster, "from that moment we may date the severance of the british empire. the patriotic fires kindled in the breasts of those earnest and true men, upon whose necks the british yoke never sat easily, never were quenched after that massacre, until the invader had been driven from the land and independence had been achieved. the sight of the blood of their comrades in king street quickened their impulses, and hastened the day for a more general outbreak, which we now call the revolutionary war." this was no mob, as some have been disposed to call it. they had not the low and groveling spirit which usually incites mobs. this was resistance to tyranny; this was striking for homes and firesides; this was the noblest work which a patriot can ever perform. as well call lexington a mob and bunker hill a mob. i prefer to call this skirmish in king street on the th of march, , as anson burlingame called it, "the dawn of the revolution." about that time the american people set out to found a government to be dedicated to freedom, which was to remain an asylum to the oppressed of all lands forever. the central idea of this government was to be liberty, and a declaration was made by them to the world that all men are created free and equal, and have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. this was the government to be established in the land which had been fought for and won in the sacrifice of the blood of both black and white men. did they do it? did they intend to do it? did they believe in and intend to carry out this magnificent declaration of principles--a declaration which startled the crowned heads of europe and sent a thrill of delight to the hearts of the lovers of liberty through christendom? no, they did not do it, neither did they intend to do it! this manifesto of july , , was a fraud and a deception; it was the boldest falsification known to history; it was a sham and a lie. instead of establishing freedom, they built, fostered and perpetuated slavery; instead of equality, they gave us inequality; instead of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, they gave us death, bondage, and misery; instead of rearing on these shores a beautiful temple to liberty, they made a foul den for slavery; and this country, which should have been the garden-spot of the world, covered with a prosperous and happy population of freemen, was, under the guidance of traitors to liberty, made the prison-house of slaves, and betrayed in the house of her friends. the goddess of liberty, for nearly one hundred years after the establishment of our government, sat in chains. attucks was in feelings, sympathies, and in all other respects, essentially an american, and so were the other colored patriots of the revolution, and why shouldn't they be? they were born and bred here, and knew no other country; as was true of their fathers. they had been here as long as the puritans. they came here the same year, ; in fact, had been here a little longer, for while plymouth rock was only reached in december of that year, the blacks were at jamestown in the early spring. in every difficulty with the mother country, the colored men took sides with the colonists, and on every battle-field, when danger was to be met, they were found shoulder to shoulder with the rest of the republicans, sharing the burden of war. at lexington, where the farmers hastily seized their muskets and gathered on the plain, and at the bridge, to resist with the sacrifice of their lives the approach of the british forces, prince estabrook, "negro man" as the _salem gazette_ of that day called him, rallied with his neighbors and comrades in arms, and fell on the field, a wounded man, fighting the foe. he, like attucks, was both of and with the people. their cause was his cause, their home was his home, their fight was his fight. at bunker hill, a few months later, we know there was a goodly number of colored men; history has saved to us the names of some of them; how many there were whose names were not recorded, of course, we cannot now tell. andover sent tites coburn, alexander ames, and barzilai low; plymouth sent cato howe, and peter salem immortalized his name by leveling the piece in that battle which laid low major pitcairn. it is fair to presume that other towns, like andover, sent in the ranks of their volunteers colored americans. in the town of raynham, within forty miles of boston, there is now a settlement of colored people who have been there for three or four generations, the founder of which, toby gilmore, was an old revolutionary veteran who had served his country faithfully. stoughton corner contributed quack matrick to the ranks of the revolutionary soldiers; lancaster sent job lewis, east bridgewater prince richards. so did many other towns and states in this commonwealth. rhode island raised a regiment which did signal service at red bank in completely routing the hessian force under colonel donop, but it was not in distinctively colored regiments or companies that colored men chiefly fought in the revolution; it was in the ranks of any and all regiments, and by the side of their white companions in arms they were mainly to be found. attucks was born not a great way from boston, at farmingham, where his brothers and sisters lived for a long time. at some time during his life he was a slave; whether he was a slave at the time of the occurrence of the events i am now relating is not so clear. one of the witnesses at the trial of the soldiers testified that attucks "belonged to new providence, and was here on his way to north carolina." i am inclined to think that at this time, in , he was in the possession of his liberty, having got it in the same manner that very many slaves since obtained their freedom, by giving "leg-bail." nearly twenty years before he had run away from his master, as appears from an advertisement in the _boston gazette_ of november , . from this advertisement it would appear that at the time of the engagement in king street, attucks was about years of age, a powerful man, and an ugly foe to encounter. twenty years of freedom, and moving from one part of the country to the other as far away as north carolina, must have enlarged his views and given him the spirit of a free man. that he partook of the spirit which animated those of his countrymen who would throw off the british yoke is shown by the language used by him on this memorable occasion. "let us drive out the rebels; they have no business here!" said he, and they re-echoed them. these words are full of meaning; they tell the story of the revolution. one hundred and six years have passed away. king street and royal exchange lane have lost their names. cornhill has lost its identity. the king's collectors no longer gather at the custom-house, and epauletted british officers no longer lounge away winter evenings in the reading-room of concert hall; that once stately pile is no more. one hundred and six years ago, george the third was king, and these colonies were british dependencies. since that time marvelous changes have been made in the world's history. probably never before have so many and so great changes taken place in the same space of time. slavery then existed in massachusetts, as it did in the other colonies. it grew to huge proportions, and dominated all other interests in the land, and for years brought shame and disgrace upon us. but our country now stands redeemed, disenthralled. the promises of are now realized. the immortal heroes of that age did not die in vain. we have now, thanks to the author of all good, a free country, a republic of imperial proportions, a domain as extensive and a government as powerful as that of the nations of antiquity, or of the present time, and better than all over all this broad land there does not walk a slave. in this centennial anniversary of the nation's existence it is quite in order to suggest, and i do suggest that a monument be erected to the memory of the first martyr of the revolution--crispus attucks. oration on the occasion of the unveiling of freedmen's monument[ ] by frederick douglass [note : oration delivered by frederick douglass on the occasion of the unveiling of the freedmen's monument, in memory of abraham lincoln, in lincoln park, washington, d. c., april , .] _friends and fellow citizens:_ i warmly congratulate you upon the highly interesting object which has caused you to assemble in such numbers and spirit as you have to-day. this occasion is, in some respects, remarkable. wise and thoughtful men of our race, who shall come after us and study the lesson of our history in the united states; who shall survey the long and dreary spaces over which we have traveled; who shall count the links in the great chain of events by which we have reached our present position, will make a note of this occasion; they will think of it and speak of it with a sense of manly pride and complacency. i congratulate you, also, upon the very favorable circumstances in which we meet to-day. they are high, inspiring, and uncommon. they lend grace, glory, and significance to the object for which we have met. nowhere else in this great country, with its uncounted towns and cities, unlimited wealth, and immeasurable territory extending from sea to sea, could conditions be found more favorable to the success of this occasion than at this place. we stand to-day at the national center to perform something like a national act--an act which is to go into history; and we are here where every pulsation of the national heart can be heard, felt, and reciprocated. a thousand wires, fed with thought and winged with lightning, put us in instantaneous communication with the loyal and true men over this country. few facts could better illustrate the vast and wonderful change which has taken place in our condition as a people than the fact of our assembling here for the purpose we have to-day. harmless, beautiful, proper, and praiseworthy as this demonstration is, i cannot forget that no such demonstration would have been tolerated here twenty years ago. the spirit of slavery and barbarism, which still lingers to blight and destroy in some dark and distant parts of our country, would have made our assembling here the signal and excuse for opening upon us the flood-gates of wrath and violence. that we are here in peace to-day is a compliment and a credit to american civilization, and a prophecy of still greater enlightenment and progress in the future. i refer to the past, not in malice, but simply to place more distinctly in front the gratifying and glorious change which has come both to our white fellow citizens and ourselves, and to congratulate all upon the contrast between now and then; the new dispensation of freedom with its thousand blessings to both races, and the old dispensation of slavery with its ten thousand evils to both races--white and black. in view, then, of the past, the present, and the future, with the long and dark history of our bondage behind us, and with liberty, progress, and enlightenment before us, i again congratulate you upon this auspicious day and hour. friends and fellow citizens, the story of our presence here is soon and easily told. we are here in the district of columbia, here in the city of washington, the most luminous point of american territory, a city recently transformed and made beautiful in its body and in its spirit; we are here, in the place where the ablest and best men of the country are sent to devise the policy, enact the laws, and shape the destiny of the republic; we are here, with the stately pillars and majestic dome of the capitol of the nation looking down upon us; we are here, with the broad earth freshly adorned with the foliage and flowers of spring for our church, and all races, colors, and conditions of men for our congregation--in a word, we are here to express, as best we may, by appropriate forms and ceremonies, our grateful sense of the vast, high, and pre-eminent services rendered to ourselves, to our race, to our country, and to the whole world by abraham lincoln. the sentiment that brings us here to-day is one of the noblest that can stir and thrill the human heart. it has crowned and made glorious the high places of all civilized nations with the grandest and most enduring works of art, designed to illustrate the characters and perpetuate the memories of great public men. it is the sentiment, which from year to year adorns with fragrant and beautiful flowers the graves of our loyal, brave, and patriotic soldiers who fell in defense of the union and liberty. it is the sentiment of gratitude and appreciation, which often, in the presence of many who hear me, has filled yonder heights of arlington with the eloquence of eulogy and the sublime enthusiasm of poetry and song; a sentiment which can never die while the republic lives. for the first time in the history of our people, and in the history of the whole american people, we join in this high worship, and march conspicuously in the line of this time-honored custom. first things are always interesting, and this is one of our first things. it is the first time that, in this form and manner, we have sought to do honor to an american great man, however deserving and illustrious. i commend the fact to notice; let it be told in every part of the republic; let men of all parties and opinions hear it; let those who despise us, not less than those who respect us, know that now and here, in the spirit of liberty, loyalty, and gratitude, let it be known everywhere, and by everybody who takes an interest in human progress and in the amelioration of the condition of mankind, that, in the presence and with the approval of the members of the american house of representatives, reflecting the general sentiment of the country; that in the presence of that august body, the american senate, representing the highest intelligence and the calmest judgment in the country; in the presence of the supreme court and chief justice of the united states, to whose decisions we all patriotically bow; in the presence and under the steady eye of the honored and trusted president of the united states, with the members of his wise and patriotic cabinet, we, the colored people, newly emancipated and rejoicing in our blood-bought freedom, near the close of the first century in the life of this republic, have now and here unveiled, set apart, and dedicated a monument of enduring granite and bronze, in every line, feature, and figure of which the men of this generation may read, and those of after-coming generations may read, something of the exalted character and great works of abraham lincoln, the first martyr president of the united states. fellow citizens, in what we have said and done today, and in what we may say and do hereafter, we disclaim everything like arrogance and assumption. we claim for ourselves no superior devotion to the character, history, and memory of the illustrious name whose monument we have here dedicated to-day. we fully comprehend the relations of abraham lincoln, both to ourselves and to the white people of the united states. truth is proper and beautiful at all times and in all places, and it is never more proper and beautiful in any case than when speaking of a great public man whose example is likely to be commended for honor and imitation long after his departure to the solemn shades--the silent continents of eternity. it must be admitted, truth compels me to admit, even here in the presence of the monument we have erected to his memory, abraham lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. in his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man. he was pre-eminently the white man's president, entirely devoted to the welfare of the white man. he was ready and willing at any time during the first years of his administration to deny, postpone, and sacrifice the rights of humanity in the colored people to promote the welfare of the white people of this country. in all his education and feeling he was an american of the americans. he came into the presidential chair upon one principle alone, namely, opposition to the extension of slavery. his arguments in furtherance of this policy had their motive and mainspring in his patriotic devotion to the interests of his own race. to protect, defend, and perpetuate slavery in the states where it existed abraham lincoln was not less ready than any other president to draw the sword of the nation. he was ready to execute all the supposed constitutional guarantees of the united states constitution in favor of the slave system anywhere inside of the slave states. he was willing to pursue, re-capture, and send back the fugitive slave to his master, and to suppress a slave rising for liberty, though his guilty master were already in arms against the government. the race to which we belong was not the special object of his consideration. knowing this, i concede to you, my white fellow citizens, a pre-eminence in this worship at once full and supreme. first, midst, and last, you and yours were the objects of his deepest affection and his most earnest solicitude. you are the children of abraham lincoln. we are at best, only his step-children; children by adoption, children by force of circumstances and necessity. to you it especially belongs to sound his praises, to preserve and perpetuate his memory, to multiply his statues, to hang his pictures high upon your walls, and commend his example, for to you he was a great and glorious friend and benefactor. instead of supplanting you at this altar, we would exhort you to build high his monuments; let them be of the most costly material, of the most cunning workmanship; let their forms be symmetrical, beautiful, and perfect; let their bases be upon solid rocks, and their summits lean against the unchanging blue, overhanging sky, and let them endure forever! but while, in the abundance of your wealth, and in the fullness of your just and patriotic devotion, you do all this, we entreat you to despise not the humble offering we this day unveil to view; for while abraham lincoln saved for you a country, he delivered us from a bondage, according to jefferson, one hour of which was worse than ages of the oppression your fathers rose in rebellion to oppose. fellow citizens, ours is no new-born zeal and devotion--merely a thing of the moment. the name of abraham lincoln was near and dear to our hearts in the darkest and most perilous hours of the republic. we were no more ashamed of him when shrouded in clouds of darkness, of doubt and defeat, than when we saw him crowned with victory, honor, and glory. our faith in him was often taxed and strained to the uttermost, but it never failed. when he tarried long in the mountains; when he strangely told us that we were the cause of the war; when he still more strangely told us to leave the land in which we were born; when he refused to employ our arms in defense of the union; when, after accepting our services as colored soldiers, he refused to retaliate our murder and torture as colored prisoners; when he told us he would save the union, if he could, with slavery; when he revoked the proclamation of emancipation of general fremont; when he refused to remove the popular commander of the army of the potomac, in the days of its inaction and defeat, who was more zealous in his efforts to protect slavery than to suppress rebellion; when we saw all this and more, we were at times grieved, stunned, and greatly bewildered, but our hearts believed, while they ached and bled. nor was this, at that time, a blind and unreasoning superstition. despite the mist and haze that surround him; despite the tumult, the hurry, and confusion of the hour, we were able to take a comprehensive view of abraham lincoln, and to make reasonable allowance for the circumstances of his position. we saw him, measured him, and estimated him; not by stray utterances to injudicious and tedious delegations, who often tried his patience; not by isolated facts, torn from their connection; not by partial and imperfect glimpses caught at inopportune moments; but by a broad survey, in the light of the stern logic of great events, and in view of that divinity which "shapes our ends, rough hew them as we will," we came to the conclusion that the hour and the man of our redemption had somehow met in the person of abraham lincoln. it mattered little to us what language he might employ on special occasions; it mattered little to us when we fully knew him, whether he was swift or slow in his movements; it was enough for us that abraham lincoln was at the head of a great movement, and was in living and earnest sympathy with that movement, which, in the nature of things, must go on until slavery should be utterly and forever abolished in the united states. when, therefore, it shall be asked what we have to do with the memory of abraham lincoln, or what abraham lincoln had to do with us, the answer is ready, full, and complete. though he loved cæsar less than rome, though the union was more to him than our freedom or our future, under his wise and beneficent rule, and by measures approved and vigorously pressed by him, we saw that the handwriting of ages, in the form of prejudice and proscription, was rapidly fading away from the face of our whole country; under his rule, and in due time, about as soon, after all, as the country could tolerate the strange spectacle, we saw our brave sons and brothers laying off the rags of bondage, and being clothed all over in the blue uniforms of the soldiers of the united states; under his rule, we saw two hundred thousand of our dark and dusky people responding to the call of abraham lincoln, and with muskets on their shoulders, and eagles on their buttons, timing their high footsteps to liberty and union under the national flag; under his rule, we saw the independence of the black republic of haiti, the special object of slave-holding aversion and horror, fully recognized, and her minister, a colored gentleman, duly received here in the city of washington; under his rule, we saw the internal slave-trade, which so long disgraced the nation, abolished, and slavery abolished in the district of columbia; under his rule, we saw, for the first time, the law enforced against the foreign slave-trade, and the first slave-trader hanged like any other pirate or murderer; under his rule, assisted by the greatest captain of our age, and his inspiration, we saw the confederate states, based upon the idea that our race must be slaves, and slaves forever, battered to pieces and scattered to the four winds; under his rule, and in the fullness of time, we saw abraham lincoln, after giving the slave-holders three months' grace in which to save their hateful slave system, penning the immortal paper, which, though special in its language, was general in its principles and effect, making slavery forever impossible in the united states. though we waited long, we saw all this and more. can any colored man, or any white man friendly to the freedom of all men, ever forget the night which followed the first day of january, , when the world was to see if abraham lincoln would prove to be as good as his word? i shall never forget that memorable night, when in a distant city, i waited and watched at a public meeting, with three thousand others not less anxious than myself, for the word of deliverance which we have heard read to-day. nor shall i ever forget the outburst of joy and thanksgiving that rent the air when the lightning brought to us the emancipation proclamation. in that happy hour we forgot all delay, and forgot all tardiness, forgot that the president had bribed the rebels to lay down their arms by a promise to withhold the bolt that should smite the slave-system with destruction; and we were thenceforward willing to allow the president all the latitude of time, phraseology, and every honorable device that statesmanship might require for the achievement of a great and beneficent measure of liberty and progress. fellow citizens, there is little necessity on this occasion to speak at length and critically of this great and good man, and of his high mission in the world. that ground has been fully occupied and completely covered both here and elsewhere. the whole field of fact and fancy has been gleaned and garnered. any man can say things that are true of abraham lincoln, but no man can say anything that is new of abraham lincoln. his personal traits and public acts are better known to the american people than are those of any other man of his age. he was a mystery to no man who saw and heard him. though high in position, the humblest could approach him and feel at home in his presence. though deep, he was transparent; though strong, he was gentle; though decided and pronounced in his convictions, he was tolerant towards those who differed from him, and patient under reproaches. even those who only knew him through his public utterances obtained a tolerably clear idea of his character and personality. the image of the man went out with his words, and those who read them knew him. i have said that president lincoln was a white man and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may safely be set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal american people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. his great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and secondly, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. to do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful co-operation of his loyal fellow countrymen. without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of american people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. viewed from the genuine abolition ground, mr. lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined. though mr. lincoln shared the prejudices of his white countrymen against the negro, it is hardly necessary to say that in his heart of hearts he loathed and hated slavery.[ ] the man who could say "fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war shall soon pass away, yet if god wills it continue till all the wealth piled by two hundred years of bondage shall have been wasted, and each drop of blood drawn by the lash shall have been paid for by one drawn by the sword, the judgments of the lord are true and righteous altogether," gives all needed proof of his feeling on the subject of slavery. he was willing, while the south was loyal, that it should have its pound of flesh, because he thought it was so nominated in the bond; but farther than this, no earthly power could make him go. [note : "i am naturally anti-slavery. if slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. i cannot remember when i did not so think and feel."--letter of mr. lincoln to mr. hodges of kentucky, april , .] fellow citizens, whatever else in the world may be partial, unjust, and uncertain, time--time--is impartial, just, and certain in its action. in the realm of mind, as well as in the realm of matter, it is a great worker, and often works wonders. the honest and comprehensive statesman, clearly discerning the needs of his country, and earnestly endeavoring to do his whole duty, though covered and blistered with reproaches, may safely leave his course to the silent judgment of time. few great public men have ever been the victims of fiercer denunciation than abraham lincoln was during his administration. he was often wounded in the house of his friends. reproaches came thick and fast from within and from without, and from opposite quarters. he was assailed by abolitionists; he was assailed by slave-holders; he was assailed by the men who were for peace at any price; he was assailed by those who were for a more vigorous prosecution of the way; he was assailed for not making the war an abolition war; and he was most bitterly assailed for making the war an abolition war. but now behold the change; the judgment of the present hour is, that taking him for all in all, measuring the tremendous magnitude of the work before him, considering the necessary means to ends, and surveying the end from the beginning, infinite wisdom has seldom sent any man into the world better fitted for his mission than abraham lincoln. his birth, his training, and his natural endowments, both mental and physical, were strongly in his favor. born and reared among the lowly, a stranger to wealth and luxury, compelled to grapple single-handed with the flintiest hardships of life, from tender youth to sturdy manhood, he grew strong in the manly and heroic qualities demanded by the great mission to which he was called by the votes of his countrymen. the hard condition of his early life, which would have depressed and broken down weaker men, only gave greater life, vigor, and buoyancy to the heroic spirit of abraham lincoln. he was ready for any kind and quality of work. what other young men dreaded in the shape of toil, he took hold of with the utmost cheerfulness. "a spade, a rake, a hoe, a pick-axe, or a bill, a hook to reap, a scythe to mow a flail, or what you will." all day long he could split heavy rails in the woods, and half the night long he could study his english grammar by the uncertain flare and glare of the light made by a pine-knot. he was at home on the land with his axe, with his maul, with gluts, and his wedges; and he was equally at home on water, with his oars, with his poles, with his planks, and with his boat-hooks. and whether in his flat-boat on the mississippi river, or on the fireside of his frontier cabin, he was a man of work. a son of toil himself, he was linked in brotherly sympathy with the sons of toil in every loyal part of the republic. this very fact gave him tremendous power with the american people, and materially contributed not only to selecting him to the presidency, but in sustaining his administration of the government. upon his inauguration as president of the united states, an office, even where assumed under the most favorable conditions, fitted to tax and strain the largest abilities, abraham lincoln was met by a tremendous crisis. he was called upon, not merely to administer the government, but to decide in the face of terrible odds, the fate of the republic. a formidable rebellion rose in his path before him; the union was practically dissolved; his country was torn and rent asunder at the center. hostile armies were already organized against the republic, armed with the munitions of war which the republic had provided for its own defense. the tremendous question for him to decide was whether his country should survive the crisis and flourish, or be dismembered and perish. his predecessor in office had already decided the question in favor of national dismemberment, by denying to it the right of self-defense and self-preservation--a right which belongs to the meanest insect. happily for the country, happily for you and me, the judgment of james buchanan, the patrician, was not the judgment of abraham lincoln, the plebeian. he brought his strong common sense, sharpened in the school of adversity, to bear upon the question. he did not hesitate, he did not doubt, he did not falter but at once resolved, at whatever peril, at whatever cost, the union of the states should be preserved. a patriot himself, his faith was strong and unwavering in the patriotism of his countrymen. timid men said, before mr. lincoln's inauguration, that we had seen the last president of the united states. a voice in influential quarters said, "let the union slide." some said that a union maintained by the sword was worthless. others said that a rebellion of , , , cannot be suppressed; but in the midst of all this tumult and timidity, and against all this, abraham lincoln was clear in his duty, and had an oath in heaven. he calmly and bravely heard the voice of doubt and fear all around him; but he had an oath in heaven, and there was not power enough on earth to make this honest boatman, backwoodsman, and broad-handed splitter of rails evade or violate that sacred oath. he had not been schooled in the ethics of slavery; his plain life had favored his love of truth. he had not been taught that treason and perjury were the proofs of honor and honesty. his moral training was against his saying one thing when he meant another. the trust which abraham lincoln had in himself and in the people was surprising and grand, but it was also enlightened and well-founded. he knew the american people better than they knew themselves, and his truth was based upon this knowledge. fellow citizens, the fourteenth day of april, , of which this is the eleventh anniversary, is now, and will ever remain a memorable day in the annals of this republic. it was on the evening of this day, while a fierce and sanguinary rebellion was in the last stages of its desolating power; while its armies were broken and scattered before the invincible armies of grant and sherman; while a great nation, torn and rent by war, was already beginning to raise to the skies loud anthems of joy at the dawn of peace, it was startled, amazed, and overwhelmed by the crowning crime of slavery--the assassination of abraham lincoln. it was a new crime, a pure act of malice. no purpose of the rebellion was to be served by it. it was the simple gratification of a hell-black spirit of revenge. but it has done good, after all. it has filled the country with a deeper abhorrence of slavery and a deep love for the great liberator. had abraham lincoln died from any of the numerous ills to which flesh is heir; had he reached that good old age of which his vigorous constitution and his temperate habits gave promise; had he been permitted to see the end of his great work; had the solemn curtain of death come down but gradually--we should still have been smitten with a heavy grief, and treasured his name lovingly. but dying, as he did die, by the red hand of violence, killed, assassinated, taken off without warning, not because of personal hate,--for no man who knew abraham lincoln could hate him--but because of his fidelity to union and liberty, he is doubly dear to us, and his memory will be precious forever. fellow citizens, i end, as i began, with congratulations. we have done a good work for our race to-day. in doing honor to the memory of our friend and liberator, we have been doing highest honors to ourselves and those who come after us; we have been fastening ourselves to a name and fame imperishable and immortal; we have also been defending ourselves from a blighting scandal. when now it shall be said that the colored man is soulless, that he has no appreciation of benefits or benefactors; when the foul reproach of ingratitude is hurled at us, and it is attempted to scourge us beyond the range of human brotherhood, we may calmly point to the monument we have this day erected to the memory of abraham lincoln. address during the presidential campaign of [ ] by pinkney benton stewart pinchback pinkney benton stewart pinchback _is one of the most interesting and picturesque figures in the race. a staunch fighter in the reconstruction period in louisiana, a delegate to many national republican conventions; ex-lieutenant-governor of louisiana._ [note : delivered at indianapolis, indiana.] _mr. president and fellow citizens:_ the founders of the republican party were aggressive men. they believed in the declaration of independence and the great truths it contains; and their purpose was to make these truths living realities. possessing the courage of their convictions and regarding slavery as the arch enemy of the republic--the greatest obstruction to its maintenance, advancement and prosperity,--they proclaimed an eternal war against it and, marshalling their forces under the banner of freedom and equality before the law for all men, boldly and defiantly met the enemy at every point and fairly routed it all along the line. those men believed in and relied upon the conscience of the people. to touch and arouse public conscience and to convince it of the justice of their cause, they felt was all that was necessary to enlist the people on their side. ridiculed, threatened, ostracised, and assaulted, they could not be turned from their purpose, and their achievements constitute the grandeur and glory of the republican party. there were no apologists for wrong-doers among those men, and there ought to be none in the republican party to-day. the south was the great disturbing element then as it is now; and the causes which rendered it so are, in a large measure, the same. the people were divided into three classes--slave-holders, slaves, and poor whites, or "poor white trash" as the latter were called by the colored people because of their utter insignificance in that community. its peculiar condition established in the large land and slave-owning portion of the people a sort of privileged class who claimed and exercised the right not only to rule the south, but the nation; and for many years that class controlled both. gorged with wealth and drunk with power, considering themselves born to command and govern, being undisputed rulers, almost by inheritance in their states, the southern politicians naturally became aggressive, dictatorial, and determined to ruin the country and sever the union rather than consent to relinquish power, even though called upon to do so by constituted methods. hence it was that, when the people of the great north and northwest concluded to assert their rights and choose a man from among themselves for president, they rebelled and forced upon the country so far as they were concerned, the most causeless and unnatural war recorded in history. i shall not dwell upon the history of the war or attempt to detail its horrors and sum up its cost. i leave that task to others. if the wounds made by it have been healed, which i do not concede, far be it from my purpose to re-open them. my sole reason for referring to the war at all is to remind the northern people of some of the agencies employed in its successful prosecution. when it commenced, the principal labor element of the south--the source of its production and wealth--was the colored race. four millions and a half of these unfortunate people were there, slaves and property of the men who refused to submit to the will of the people lawfully expressed through the ballot-box. they were the bone and sinew of the confederacy, tilling its fields and producing sustenance for its armies, while many of the best men of the north were compelled to abandon northern fields to shoulder a musket in defense of the union. as a war measure and to deprive the south of such a great advantage, your president, the immortal lincoln, issued a proclamation in september, , in which he gave public notice that it was his purpose to declare the emancipation of the slaves in the states wherein insurrection existed on january , , unless the offenders therein lay down their arms. that notice, thank god, was disregarded, and the proclamation of january , , proclaiming universal emancipation followed. had the requirements of the first proclamation been observed by the people to whom it was addressed who can doubt what would have been the fate of the colored people in the south? it is reasonable to assume, inasmuch as the war was waged to perpetuate the union and not to destroy slavery--that they would have remained in hopeless bondage. on more than one occasion president lincoln officially declared that he would save the union with slavery if he could, and not until it became manifest that slavery was the mainstay of the confederacy, and the prosecution of the war to a successful close would be difficult without its destruction, did he dare touch it. i do not think that president lincoln's hesitancy to act upon the question arose from sympathy with the accursed institution, for i believe every pulsation of his heart was honest and pure and that he was an ardent and devoted lover of universal liberty; but he doubted whether his own people would approve of his interference with it. assured by the manner in which the people of the north received his first proclamation that they appreciated the necessity of destroying this great aid of the enemy, he went forward bravely declaring that, "possibly for every drop of blood drawn by the lash one might have to be drawn by the sword, but if so, as was said over eighteen hundred years ago, the judgments of the lord are just and righteous altogether," and abolished human slavery from the land forever. that this great act was a godsend and an immeasurable blessing to the colored race, i admit, but i declare in the same breath that it was dictated and performed more in the interest of the white people of the north and to aid them in conquering the rebellion than from love of or a disposition to help the negro. the enfranchisement of the colored race also sprang from the necessities of the nation. at the close of the war the southern states had to be rehabilitated with civil governments and re-admitted into the union. the men who had plunged the country into war and had tried to destroy the government were about to resume their civil and political rights, and, through the election of representatives and senators in congress, regain influence and power in national councils. apprehending danger from the enormous power they would possess if reinstated in absolute control of eleven states, some means had to be devised to prevent this. a political element, loyal to the union and the flag, must be created; and again the ever faithful colored people were brought into requisition, and without their asking for it, the elective franchise was conferred upon them. there was no question about the loyalty of these people, and the supposition that they would be a valuable political force and form the basis of a loyal political party in the south was both natural and just, and the wisdom of their enfranchisement was demonstrated by the establishment of republican governments in several of the states, and the sending of mixed delegations of republican and democratic members of congress therefrom so long as the laws conferring citizenship upon the colored man were enforced. if the south is to remain politically democratic as it is to-day, it is not the fault of the colored people. their fealty to the north and the republican party is without parallel in the world's history. in louisiana alone more than five thousand lives attest it. while in nearly every other southern state fully as many lie in premature graves, martyrs to the cause. considering themselves abandoned and left to the choice of extermination or the relinquishment of the exercise of their political rights, they have, in large districts in the south, wisely preferred the latter. kept in a constant condition of suspense and dread by the peculiar methods of conducting canvasses and elections in that section, who can blame them? it is my firm conviction that no other people under god's sun, similarly situated, would have done half so well. the fault is attributable to the vicious practise, which obtains largely even here in the civilized north, of apologizing for and condoning crimes committed for political purposes. men love power everywhere and southern democrats are no exception. on the contrary, deeming themselves "born to command," as i have already remarked, and knowing that there is no power to restrain or punish them for crimes committed upon the poor and defenseless colored citizens, of course they have pushed them to the wall. the inequality between the two races in all that constitutes protective forces was such as to render that result inevitable as soon as federal protection was withdrawn, and i do not hesitate to affirm that unless some means are devised to enforce respect for the rights of the colored citizens of the south, their enfranchisement will prove a curse instead of a benefit to the country. emancipated to cripple the south and enfranchised to strengthen the north, the colored race was freed and its people made citizens in the interest of the republic. its fundamental law declares them citizens, and the fifteenth amendment expressly states that: "the right of citizens of the united states to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." the faith and honor of the nation are pledged to the rigid enforcement of the law in this, as in every other respect, and the interests of the , , white people in the republic demand it. if the law, both constitutional and statutory, affecting the rights and privileges of the colored citizens can be defiantly ignored and disobeyed in eleven states of the union in a matter of such grave import as this--a matter involving the very essence of republican government, _i. e._, the right of the majority to rule--who can tell where it will end and how long it will be before elections in all of the states will be armed conflicts, to be decided by the greatest prowess and dexterity in the use of the bowie knife, pistol, shot-gun and rifle? white men of the north, i tell you this practise of controlling elections in the south by force and fraud is contagious! it spreads with alarming rapidity and unless eradicated, will overtake and overwhelm you as it has your friends in the south. it showed its horrid head in maine, and came very near wresting that state from a lawful majority. employed in the south first to drive republicans from a few counties, it has grown from "autumnal outbreaks" into an almost perpetual hurricane and, gathering force as it goes, has violently seized state after state, mastered the entire south, and is even now thundering at the gates of the national capital. whether it shall capture it too, and spread its blighting influence all over the land, is the question _you_ must answer at the poles in this election. it was the intention of the great men who founded this republic that it should be "a government of the people, for the people, and by the people"; that its citizens, from the highest to the lowest, should enjoy perfect equality before the law. to realize this idea the rule of the majority, to be ascertained through the processes provided by law, was wisely adopted, and the laws providing for and regulating elections are respected and obeyed in the northern, eastern, and western states. the democracy of the south alone seems privileged to set at defiance the organic as well as every statutory enactment, national and state, designed to secure this essential principle of free government. those men must be taught that such an exceptional and unhealthy condition of things will not be tolerated; that the rights of citizens of every nationality are sacred in the eyes of the law, and their right to vote for whom they please and have their ballots honestly counted shall not be denied or abridged with impunity; that the faith of the nation is pledged to the defense and maintenance of these obligations, and it will keep its pledge at whatever cost may be found necessary. the black woman of the south: her neglects and her needs[ ] by alexander crummell, d. d., ll. d. alexander crummell, d.d., _an eminent negro episcopal clergyman; a graduate of oxford university, england; professor in a liberian college; rector of st. luke's in washington and founder of the negro academy._ [note : address before the "freedman's aid society," methodist episcopal church, ocean grove, n. j., august th, .] it is an age clamorous everywhere for the dignities, the grand prerogatives, and the glory of woman. there is not a country in europe where she has not risen somewhat above the degradation of centuries, and pleaded successfully for a new position and a higher vocation. as the result of this new reformation we see her, in our day, seated in the lecture-rooms of ancient universities, rivaling her brothers in the fields of literature, the grand creators of ethereal art, the participants in noble civil franchises, the moving spirit in grand reformations, and the guide, agent, or assistant in all the noblest movements for the civilization and regeneration of man. in these several lines of progress the american woman has run on in advance of her sisters in every other quarter of the globe. the advantage, she has received, the rights and prerogatives she has secured for herself, are unequaled by any other class of women in the world. it will not be thought amiss, then, that i come here to-day to present to your consideration the one grand exception to this general superiority of women, viz., _the black woman of the south_. * * * * * the rural or plantation population of the south was made up almost entirely of people of pure negro blood. and this brings out also the other disastrous fact, namely, that this large black population has been living from the time of their introduction into america, a period of more than two hundred years, in a state of unlettered rudeness. the negro all this time has been an intellectual starveling. this has been more especially the condition of the black woman of the south. now and then a black man has risen above the debased condition of his people. various causes would contribute to the advantage of the _men_: the relation of servants to superior masters; attendance at courts with them; their presence at political meetings; listening to table-talk behind their chairs; traveling as valets; the privilege of books and reading in great houses, and with indulgent masters--all these served to lift up a black _man_ here and there to something like superiority. but no such fortune fell to the lot of the plantation woman. the black woman of the south was left perpetually in a state of hereditary darkness and rudeness. * * * * * in her girlhood all the delicate tenderness of her sex was rudely outraged. in the field, in the rude cabin, in the press-room, in the factory, she was thrown into the companionship of coarse and ignorant men. no chance was given her for delicate reserve or tender modesty. from her girlhood she was the doomed victim of the grossest passions. all the virtues of her sex were utterly ignored. if the instinct of chastity asserted itself, then she had to fight like a tigress for the ownership and possession of her own person; and, ofttimes, had to suffer pains and lacerations for her virtuous self-assertion. when she reached maturity all the tender instincts of her womanhood were ruthlessly violated. at the age of marriage--always prematurely anticipated under slavery--she was mated, as the stock of the plantation were mated, _not_ to be the companion of a loved and chosen husband, but to be the breeder of human cattle, for the field or the auction-block. with that mate she went out, morning after morning to toil, as a common field-hand. as it was _his_, so likewise was it her lot to wield the heavy hoe, or to follow the plow, or to gather in the crops. she was a "hewer of wood and a drawer of water." she was a common field-hand. she had to keep her place in the gang from morn till eve, under the burden of a heavy task, or under the stimulus or the fear of a cruel lash. she was a picker of cotton. she labored at the sugar-mill and in the tobacco-factory. when, through weariness or sickness, she has fallen behind her allotted task, there came, as punishment, the fearful stripes upon her shrinking, lacerated flesh. her home life was of the most degrading nature. she lived in the rudest huts, and partook of the coarsest food, and dressed in the scantiest garb, and slept, in multitudinous cabins, upon the hardest boards. thus she continued a beast of burden down to the period of those maternal anxieties which, in ordinary civilized life, give repose, quiet, and care to expectant mothers. but, under the slave system, few such relaxations were allowed. and so it came to pass that little children were ushered into this world under conditions which many cattle-raisers would not suffer for their flocks or herds. thus she became the mother of children. but even then there was for her no suretyship of motherhood, or training, or control. her own offspring were _not_ her own. she and husband and children were all the property of others. all these sacred ties were constantly snapped and cruelly sundered. _this_ year she had one husband; and next year, through some auction sale, she might be separated from him and mated to another. there was no sanctity of family, no binding tie of marriage, none of the fine felicities and the endearing affections of home. none of these things was the lot of southern black women. instead thereof, a gross barbarism which tended to blunt the tender sensibilities, to obliterate feminine delicacy and womanly shame, came down as her heritage from generation to generation; and it seems a miracle of providence and grace that, notwithstanding these terrible circumstances, so much struggling virtue lingered amid these rude cabins, that so much womanly worth and sweetness abided in their bosoms, as slave-holders themselves have borne witness to. but some of you will ask: "why bring up these sad memories of the past? why distress us with these dead and departed cruelties?" alas, my friends, these are not dead things. remember that "the evil that men do lives after them." the evil of gross and monstrous abominations, the evil of great organic institutions crop out long after the departure of the institutions themselves. if you go to europe you will find not only the roots, but likewise many of the deadly fruits of the old feudal system still surviving in several of its old states and kingdoms. so, too, with slavery. the eighteen years of freedom have not obliterated all its deadly marks from either the souls or bodies of the black woman. the conditions of life, indeed, have been modified since emancipation; but it still maintains that the black woman is the pariah woman of this land! we have, indeed, degraded women, immigrants, from foreign lands. in their own countries some of them were so low in the social scale that they were yoked with the cattle to plow the fields. they were rude, unlettered, coarse, and benighted. but when they reach _this_ land there comes an end to their degraded condition. "they touch our country and their shackles fall." as soon as they become grafted into the stock of american life they partake at once of all its large gifts and its noble resources. not so with the black woman of the south. freed, legally she has been; but the act of emancipation had no talismanic influence to reach to and alter and transform her degrading social life. when that proclamation was issued she might have heard the whispered words in her every hut, "open, sesame;" but, so far as her humble domicile and her degraded person were concerned, there was no invisible but gracious genii who, on the instant, could transmute the rudeness of her hut into instant elegance, and change the crude surroundings of her home into neatness, taste, and beauty. the truth is, "emancipation day" found her a prostrate and degraded being; and, although it has brought numerous advantages to her sons, it has produced but the simplest changes in her social and domestic condition. she is still the crude, rude, ignorant mother. remote from cities, the dweller still in the old plantation hut, neighboring to the sulky, disaffected master class, who still think her freedom was a personal robbery of themselves, none of the "fair humanities" have visited her humble home. the light of knowledge has not fallen upon her eyes. the fine domesticities which give the charm to family life, and which, by the refinement and delicacy of womanhood, preserve the civilization of nations, have not come to _her_. she has still the rude, coarse labor of men. with her rude husband she still shares the hard service of a field-hand. her house, which shelters, perhaps, some six or eight children, embraces but two rooms. her furniture is of the rudest kind. the clothing of the household is scant and of the coarsest material, has ofttimes the garniture of rags; and for herself and offspring is marked, not seldom, by the absence of both hats and shoes. she has rarely been taught to sew, and the field labor of slavery times has kept her ignorant of the habitudes of neatness, and the requirements of order. indeed, coarse food, coarse clothes, coarse living, coarse manners, coarse companions, coarse surroundings, coarse neighbors, both black and white, yea, every thing coarse, down to the coarse, ignorant, senseless religion, which excites her sensibilities and starts her passions, go to make up the life of the masses of black women in the hamlets and villages of the rural south. this is the state of black womanhood. take the girlhood of this same region, and it presents the same aspect, save that in large districts the white man has not forgotten the olden times of slavery and with indeed the deepest sentimental abhorrence of "amalgamation," still thinks that the black girl is to be perpetually the victim of his lust! in the larger towns and in cities our girls in common schools and academies are receiving superior culture. of the , colored school teachers in the south, more than half are colored young women, educated since emancipation. but even these girls, as well as their more ignorant sisters in rude huts, are followed and tempted and insulted by the ruffianly element of southern society, who think that black _men_ have no rights which white men should regard, and black _women_ no virtue which white men should respect! and now look at the _vastness_ of this degradation. if i had been speaking of the population of a city, or a town, or even a village, the tale would be a sad and melancholy one. but i have brought before you the condition of millions of women. according to the census of there were, in the southern states, , , females of all ages of the african race. of these there were , girls between twelve and twenty, , , between twenty and eighty. "these figures," remarks an observing friend of mine, "are startling!" and when you think that the masses of these women live in the rural districts; that they grow up in rudeness and ignorance; that their former masters are using few means to break up their hereditary degradation, you can easily take in the pitiful condition of this population, and forecast the inevitable future to multitudes of females unless a mighty special effort is made for the improvement of the black womanhood of the south. i know the practical nature of the american mind, i know how the question of values intrudes itself into even the domain of philanthropy; and, hence, i shall not be astonished if the query suggests itself, whether special interest in the black woman will bring any special advantage to the american nation. let me dwell for a few moments upon this phase of the subject. possibly the view i am about suggesting has never before been presented to the american mind. but, negro as i am, i shall make no apology for venturing the claim that the negress is one of the most interesting of all the classes of women on the globe. i am speaking of her, not as a perverted and degraded creature, but in her natural state, with her native instincts and peculiarities. let me repeat just here the words of a wise, observing, tender-hearted philanthropist, whose name and worth and words have attained celebrity. it is fully forty years ago since the celebrated dr. channing said: "we are holding in bondage one of the best races of the human family. the negro is among the mildest, gentlest of men. he is singularly susceptible of improvement from abroad.... his nature is affectionate, easily touched, and hence he is more open to religious improvement than the white man.... the african carries with him much more than _we_ the genius of a meek, long-suffering, loving virtue." i should feel ashamed to allow these words to fall from my lips if it were not necessary to the lustration of the character of my black sisters of the south. i do not stand here to-day to plead for the black _man_. he is a man; and if he is weak he must go the wall. he is a man; he must fight his own way, and if he is strong in mind and body, he can take care of himself. but for the mothers, sisters, and daughters of my race i have a right to speak. and when i think of their sad condition down south; think, too, that since the day of emancipation hardly any one has lifted up a voice in their behalf, i feel it a duty and a privilege to set forth their praises and to extol their excellencies. for, humble and benighted as she is, the black woman of the south is one of the queens of womanhood. if there is any other woman on this earth who in native aboriginal qualities is her superior, i know not where she is to be found; for, i do say, that in tenderness of feeling, in genuine native modesty, in large disinterestedness, in sweetness of disposition and deep humility, in unselfish devotedness, and in warm, motherly assiduities, the negro woman is unsurpassed by any other woman on this earth. the testimony to this effect is almost universal--our enemies themselves being witnesses. you know how widely and how continuously, for generations, the negro has been traduced, ridiculed, derided. some of you may remember the journals and the hostile criticisms of coleridge and trollope and burton, west indian and african travelers. very many of you may remember the philosophical disquisitions of the ethnological school of , the contemptuous dissertations of hunt and gliddon. but it is worthy of notice in all these cases that the sneer, the contempt, the bitter gibe, have been invariably leveled against the black _man_--never against the black woman! on the contrary, _she_ has almost everywhere been extolled and eulogized. the black man was called a stupid, thick-lipped, flat-nosed, long-heeled, empty-headed animal; the link between the baboon and the human being, only fit to be a slave! but everywhere, even in the domains of slavery, how tenderly has the negress been spoken of! she has been the nurse of childhood. to her all the cares and heart-griefs of youth have been intrusted. thousands and tens of thousands in the west indies and in our southern states have risen up and told the tale of her tenderness, of her gentleness, patience, and affection. no other woman in the world has ever had such tributes to a high moral nature, sweet, gentle love, and unchanged devotedness. and by the memory of my own mother and dearest sisters i can declare it to be true! hear the tribute of michelet: "the negress, of all others, is the most loving, the most generating; and this, not only because of her youthful blood, but we must also admit, for the richness of her heart. she is loving among the loving, good among the good. (ask the travelers whom she has so often saved.) goodness is creative; it is fruitfulness; it is the very benediction of a holy act. the fact that woman is so fruitful i attribute to her treasures of tenderness, to that ocean of goodness which permeates her heart.... africa is a woman. her races are feminine.... in many of the black tribes of central africa the women rule, and they are as intelligent as they are amiable and kind." the reference in michelet to the generosity of the african woman to travelers brings to mind the incident in mungo park's travels, where the african women fed, nourished, and saved him. the men had driven him away. they would not even allow him to feed with the cattle; and so, faint, weary, and despairing, he went to a remote hut and lay down on the earth to die. one woman, touched with compassion, came to him, brought him food and milk, and at once he revived. then he tells us of the solace and the assiduities of these gentle creatures for his comfort. i give you his own words: "the rites of hospitality thus performed toward a stranger in distress, my worthy benefactress, pointing to the mat, and telling me that i might sleep there without apprehension, called to the female part of her family which had stood gazing on me all the while in fixed astonishment, to resume the task of spinning cotton, in which they continued to employ themselves a great part of the night. they lightened their labors by songs, one of which was composed extempore, for i was myself the subject of it. it was sung by one of the young women, the rest joining in a sort of chime. the air was sweet and plaintive, and the words, literally translated, were these: 'the winds roared and the rains fell; the poor white man, faint and weary, came and sat under our tree. he has no mother to bring him milk, no wife to grind his corn. let us pity the white man, no mother has he,'" etc. perhaps i may be pardoned the intrusion, just here, on my own personal experience. during a residence of nigh twenty years in west africa, i saw the beauty and felt the charm of the native female character. i saw the native woman in her _heathen_ state, and was delighted to see, in numerous tribes, that extraordinary sweetness, gentleness, docility, modesty, and especially those maternal solicitudes which make every african boy both gallant and defender of his mother. i saw her in her _civilized_ state, in sierra leone; saw precisely the same characteristics, but heightened, dignified, refined, and sanctified by the training of the schools, the refinements of civilization, and the graces of christian sentiment and feeling. of all the memories of foreign travel there are none more delightful than those of the families and the female friends of freetown. a french traveler speaks with great admiration of the black ladies of hayti. "in the towns," he says, "i met all the charms of civilized life. the graces of the ladies of port-au-prince will never be effaced from my recollections." it was, without doubt, the instant discernment of these fine and tender qualities which prompted the touching sonnet of wordsworth, written in , on the occasion of the cruel exile of negroes from france by the french government: "driven from the soil of france, a female came from calais with us, brilliant in array, a negro woman like a lady gay, yet downcast as a woman fearing blame; meek, destitute, as seemed, of hope or aim she sat, from notice turning not away, but on all proffered intercourse did lay a weight of languid speech--or at the same was silent, motionless in eyes and face. meanwhile those eyes retained their tropic fire which burning independent of the mind, joined with the luster of her rich attire to mock the outcast--o ye heavens, be kind! and feel, thou earth, for this afflicted race!" but i must remember that i am to speak not only of the neglects of the black woman, but also of her needs. and the consideration of her needs suggests the remedy which should be used for the uplifting of this woman from a state of brutality and degradation. * * * * * ladies and gentlemen, since the day of emancipation millions of dollars have been given by the generous christian people of the north for the intellectual training of the black race in this land. colleges and universities have been built in the south, and hundreds of youth have been gathered within their walls. the work of your own church in this regard has been magnificent and unrivaled, and the results which have been attained have been grand and elevating to the entire negro race in america. the complement to all this generous and ennobling effort is the elevation of the black woman. up to this day and time your noble philanthropy has touched, for the most part, the male population of the south, given them superiority, and stimulated them to higher aspirations. but a true civilization can only then be attained when the life of woman is reached, her whole being permeated by noble ideas, her fine taste enriched by culture, her tendencies to the beautiful gratified and developed, her singular and delicate nature lifted up to its full capacity; and then, when all these qualities are fully matured, cultivated and sanctified, all their sacred influences shall circle around ten thousand firesides, and the cabins of the humblest freedmen shall become the homes of christian refinement and of domestic elegance through the influence and the charm of the uplifted and cultivated black woman of the south! an open letter to the educational league of georgia[ ] by josephine st. pierre ruffin, of boston, mass. _founder of the national association of negro women_ [note : june, .] _ladies of the georgia educational league:_ the telegram which you sent to governor northern to read to his audience, informing the people of the north of your willingness to undertake the moral training of the colored children of georgia, merits more than a passing notice. it is the first time, we believe, in the history of the south where a body of representative southern white women have shown such interest in the moral welfare of the children of their former slaves as to be willing to undertake to make them more worthy the duties and responsibilities of citizenship. true, there have been individual cases where courageous women have felt their moral responsibility, and have nobly met it, but one of the saddest things about the sad condition of affairs in the south has been the utter indifference which southern women, who were guarded with unheard of fidelity during the war, have manifested to the mental and moral welfare of the children of their faithful slaves, who, in the language of henry grady, placed a black mass of loyalty between them and dishonor. this was a rare opportunity for you to have shown your gratitude to your slaves and your interest in their future welfare. the children would have grown up in utter ignorance had not the north sent thousands of her noblest daughters to the south on this mission of heroic love and mercy; and it is worthy of remark of those fair daughters of the north, that, often eating with negroes, and in the earlier days sleeping in their humble cabins, and always surrounded by thousands of them, there is not one recorded instance where one has been the victim of violence or insult. if because of the bitterness of your feelings, of your deep poverty at the close of the war, conditions were such that you could not do this work yourselves, you might have give a christian's welcome to the women who came a thousand miles to do the work, that, in all gratitude and obligation belonged to you,--but instead, these women were often persecuted, always they have been ruthlessly ostracised, even until this day; often they were lonely, often longed for a word of sympathy, often craved association with their own race, but for thirty years they have been treated by the christian white women of the south,--simply because they were doing your work,--the work committed to you by your saviour, when he said, "inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it unto me,"--with a contempt that would serve to justify a suspicion that instead of being the most cultured women, the purest, bravest missionaries in america, they were outcasts and lepers. but at last a change has come. and so you have "decided to take up the work of moral and industrial training of the negroes," as you "have been doing this work among the whites with splendid results." this is one of the most hopeful stars that have shot through the darkness of the southern sky. what untold blessings might not the educated christian women of the south prove to the negro groping blindly in the darkness of the swamps and bogs of prejudice for a highway out of servitude, oppression, ignorance, and immorality! * * * * * the leading women of georgia should not ask northern charity to do what they certainly must have the means for making a beginning of themselves. if your heart is really in this work--and we do not question it--the very best way for you to atone for your negligence in the past is to make a start yourselves. surely if the conditions are as serious as you represent them to be, your husbands, who are men of large means, who are able to run great expositions and big peace celebrations, will be willing to provide you with the means to protect your virtue and that of your daughters by the moral training you propose to give in the kindergartens. there is much you might do without the contribution of a dollar from any pocket, northern or southern. on every plantation there are scores, if not hundreds, of little colored children who could be gathered about you on a sabbath afternoon and given many helpful inspiring lessons in morals and good conduct. * * * * * it is a good augury of better days, let us hope, when the intelligent, broad-minded women of georgia, spurning the incendiary advice of that human firebrand who would lynch a thousand negroes a month, are willing to join in this great altruistic movement of the age and endeavor to lift up the degraded and ignorant, rather than to exterminate them. your proposition implies that they may be uplifted and further, imports a tacit confession that if you had done your duty to them at the close of the war, which both gratitude and prudence should have prompted you to do, you would not now be confronted with a condition which you feel it necessary to check, in obedience to the great first law of nature--self-protection. if you enter upon this work you will doubtless be criticised by a class of your own people who think you are lowering your own dignity, but the south has suffered too much already from that kind of false pride to let it longer keep her recreant to the spirit of the age. if, when you have entered upon it, you need the co-operation, either by advice or other assistance, of the colored women of the north, we beg to assure you that they will not be lacking,--until then, the earnest hope goes out that you will bravely face and sternly conquer your former prejudices and quickly undertake this missionary work which belongs to you. in the wake of the coming ages[ ] by j. madison vance, of new orleans, la. [note : extract from an address delivered at the music hall, boston, mass., october , , before the seventh biennial meeting of the grand united order of odd fellows of america.] in these trying times of peace with tears of blood; these times of crimes so horrible and fiendish that christianity bows in supplication for surcease of sorrow, and the advance of civilization seems in vain; in these times when the negro is compared to the brute, and his mentality limited to the ordinary; in these times when the holy robes of the church are used to decry, villify and malign the race; in these times when the subsidized press of the country loudly proclaims the negro's incapacity for government; in these times i turn with pardonable pride to the grand united order of odd fellows, an organization the affairs of which are administered entirely by colored men, an organization that typifies the possibilities of the race; the organization whose very existence gives the lie to the damnable aspersions cast upon us by the enemies of humanity. this grand organization is but a collection of individuals, and as individuals we must shape our destiny. the time is past for pleading; these are days of action. the higher we rise, the sharper will become the prejudice of color. the laboring white is jealous of the competition of the blacks. the problem is to be worked out _in the south_, and largely by ourselves. with all the disadvantages and proscriptive doctrines that encroach upon us in that southland, i honestly believe that this land with all its natural beauties and advantages, this land below the mountains; this land of passion and pleasure, of fever and fret, this land famed in history, song, and story as the "land of dixie," is the negro's coming arcadia. from its lowlands and marshes will yet come forth the peerless leader, who will not only point out the way, but will climb the battlements of tolerance and race prejudice, backed by the march of civilization, and, with his face to the enemy, fight the battle of common humanity. the romance of "emancipation" is fading out. the old slave is rapidly passing. the mythology of his period is extinct. the republic has declared against the "force bill." the "prætorian guard" is mustered out, and the sentiment of the times is against paternalism. "every tub must stand on its own bottom," and the eloquence of the orator cannot arrest the trend of the times. a problem is half solved when facts are apprehended; it is more than half solved when the facts are comprehended, and practical sense succeeds sentiment. the negro confronts destiny. he must be the architect of his own fortune. he must demonstrate capacity and independence, because mendicancy is always destructive. the living present calls us away from the ashes of the dead and buried past. our hopes are brighter and our ambitions higher. let us stand on our own racial pride, and prove our claim for equality by showing the fruits of thrift, talent, and frugality. the brotherhood of genius will not refuse the need of merit, and within the sweep of our constant observations great artists, musicians, poets, and orators are more than hinted possibilities. we would be criminals to despair. the negro is here, and here to stay, and traveling rapidly in "the wake of coming ages." we know not how far the goal may still be distant, but at least we think we see it and our most fervent hope is to approach it more and more nearly-- "till each man find his own in all men's good, and all men work in noble brotherhood, breaking their mailed fleets and armed towers, and ruling by obeying nature's powers, and gathering all the fruits of earth and crowned with her flowers." as the shadows come creeping over the dial of time, the nineteenth century faces the setting sun; a century replete with the grandest inventions of modern times, and with a fullness of scientific investigation beyond the possible conception of man one hundred years ago. this century has emancipated woman, and like the "dreamers on the brow of parnassus," she is not forgetful of the toilers on other altitudes within the horizon's rim. she is not blind to the signal lights, which in their blaze proclaim new knowledge, new power for man, new triumphs, new glory for the human spirit in its march on chaos and the dark. any message of love would be incomplete without her gentle voice. her love is her life, white-winged and eternal. her welcome is spontaneous, fervid, whole-souled, generous. her influence is felt everywhere, throughout the ramifications of our "order." the wholesome power of her persuasive counsel is ofttimes needed, and the tender mercies of her tireless devotion have smoothed away the grim visage of discontent, brought solace to the fevered brain, and made peaceful that dreary journey from life to death. * * * * * we look out upon our vast army of followers, and glory in our stalwart band. * * * * * out of the darkness of the night, imposing in our numbers, stand we forth, splendid and terrible, in "the wake of the coming ages." and when we look at all the magnificent fabric we call civilization, its incalculable material, its wealth, its amazing mechanical resources, its wonderful scientific discoveries, its many-sided literature, its sleepless and ubiquitous journalism, its lovely art, its abounding charities, its awful fears and sublime hopes, we get a magnificent conception of the possibilities of life, as this latest of the centuries draws its purple robe about its majestic form and stands up to die as the old roman cæsar stood, in all the magnificence of its riches, and the plenitude of its power. but after all, the measure of its value is the character of it humanity. an address delivered at the opening of the cotton states and international exposition[ ] by booker t. washington, a. m. ll.d. _of tuskegee institute_ [note : atlanta, georgia, september , .] _mr. president and gentlemen of the board of directors, and citizens:_ one-third of the population of the south is of the negro race. no enterprise seeking the material, civil, or moral welfare of this section can disregard this element of our population and reach the highest success. i but convey to you, mr. president and directors, the sentiment of the masses of my race when i say that in no way have the value and manhood of the american negro been more fittingly and generously recognized than by the managers of this magnificent exposition at every stage of its progress. it is a recognition that will do more to cement the friendship of the two races than any occurrence since the dawn of our freedom. not only this, but the opportunity here afforded will awaken among us a new era of industrial progress. ignorant and inexperienced, it is not strange that in the first years of our new life we began at the top instead of at the bottom; that a seat in congress or the state legislature was more sought than real estate or industrial skill; that the political convention or stump-speaking had more attractions than starting a dairy-farm or truck-garden. a ship lost at sea for many days suddenly sighted a friendly vessel. from the mast of the unfortunate vessel was seen a signal: "water, water; we die of thirst!" the answer from the friendly vessel at once came back: "cast down your bucket where you are." a second time the signal, "water, water; send us water!" ran up from the distressed vessel, and was answered: "cast down your bucket where you are." and a third and fourth signal for water was answered: "cast down your bucket where you are." the captain of the distressed vessel, at last heeding the injunction, cast down his bucket, and it came up full of fresh, sparkling water from the mouth of the amazon river. to those of my race who depend on bettering their condition in a foreign land, or who underestimate the importance of cultivating friendly relations with the southern white man, who is their next-door neighbor, i would say: "cast down your bucket where you are"--cast it down in making friends in every manly way of the people of all races by whom we are surrounded. cast it down in agriculture, mechanics, in commerce, in domestic service, and in the professions. and in this connection it is well to bear in mind that whatever other sins the south may be called to bear, when it comes to business, pure and simple, it is in the south that the negro is given a man's chance in the commercial world, and in nothing is this exposition more eloquent than in emphasizing this chance. our greatest danger is, that in the great leap from slavery to freedom we may overlook the fact that the masses of us are to live by the productions of our hands, and fail to keep in mind that we shall prosper in proportion as we learn to dignify and glorify common labor and put brains and skill into the common occupations of life; shall prosper in proportion as we learn to draw the line between the superficial and the substantial, the ornamental gewgaws of life and the useful. no race can prosper till it learns that there is as much dignity in tilling a field as in writing a poem. it is at the bottom of life we must begin, and not at the top. nor should we permit our grievances to overshadow our opportunities. to those of the white race who look to the incoming of those of foreign birth and strange tongue and habits for the prosperity of the south, were i permitted i would repeat what i say to my own race, "cast down your bucket where you are." cast it down among the , , negroes whose habits you know, whose fidelity and love you have tested in days when to have proved treacherous meant the ruin of your firesides. cast down your bucket among these people who have, without strikes and labor wars, tilled your fields, cleared your forests, builded your railroads and cities, and brought forth treasures from the bowels of the earth and helped make possible this magnificent representation of the progress of the south. casting down your bucket among my people, helping and encouraging them as you are doing on these grounds, and to education of head, hand, and heart, you will find that they will buy your surplus land, make blossom the waste places in your fields, and run your factories. while doing this, you can be sure in the future, as in the past, that you and your families will be surrounded by the most patient, faithful, law-abiding, and unresentful people that the world has seen. as we have proved our loyalty to you in the past, in nursing your children, watching by the sick-beds of your mothers and fathers, and often following them with tear-dimmed eyes to their graves, so in the future, in our humble way, we shall stand by you with a devotion that no foreigner can approach, ready to lay down our lives, if need be, in defense of yours, interlacing our industrial, commercial, civil, and religious life with yours in a way that shall make the interests of both races one. in all things that are purely social we can be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress. there is no defense or security for any of us except in the highest intelligence and development of all. if anywhere there are efforts tending to curtail the fullest growth of the negro, let these efforts be turned into stimulating, encouraging, and making him the most useful and intelligent citizen. efforts or means so invested will pay a thousand per cent. interest. these efforts will be twice blessed--"blessing him that gives and him that takes." there is no escape through law of man or god from the inevitable: "the laws of changeless justice bind oppressor with oppressed; and close as sin and suffering joined we march to fate abreast." nearly sixteen millions of hands will aid you in pulling the load upwards, or they will pull against you the load downwards. we shall constitute one-third and more of the ignorance and crime of the south, or one-third its intelligence and progress; we shall contribute one-third to the business and industrial prosperity of the south, or we shall prove a veritable body of death, stagnating, depressing, retarding every effort to advance the body politic. gentlemen of the exposition, as we present to you our humble effort at an exhibition of our progress, you must not expect overmuch. starting thirty years ago with ownership here and there in a few quilts and pumpkins and chickens, remember the path, that has led from these to the invention and production of agricultural implements, buggies, steam-engines, newspapers, books, statuary, carving, paintings, the management of drug stores and banks, has not been trodden without contact with thorns and thistles. while we take pride in what we exhibit as a result of our independent efforts, we do not for a moment forget that our part in this exhibition would fall far short of your expectations but for the constant help that has come to our educational life, not only from the southern states, but especially from northern philanthropists, who have made their gifts a constant stream of blessing and encouragement. the wisest among my race understand that the agitation of questions of social equality is the extremest folly, and that progress in the enjoyment of all the privileges that will come to us must be the result of severe and constant struggle rather than of artificial forcing. no race that has anything to contribute to the markets of the world is long in any degree ostracized. it is important and right that all privileges of the law be ours, but it is vastly more important that we be prepared for the exercises of these privileges. the opportunity to earn a dollar in a factory just now is worth infinitely more than the opportunity to spend a dollar in an opera-house. in conclusion, may i repeat that nothing in thirty years has given us more hope and encouragement, and drawn us so near to you of the white race, as this opportunity offered by the exposition; and here bending, as it were, over the altar that represents the results of the struggles of your race and mine, both starting practically empty-handed three decades ago, i pledge that in your effort to work out the great and intricate problem which god has laid at the doors of the south you shall have at all times the patient, sympathetic help of my race; only let this be constantly in the mind that, while from representations in these buildings of the product of field, of forest, of mine, of factory, letters, and art, much good will come, yet far above and beyond material benefits will be that higher good, that let us pray god will come, in a blotting out of sectional differences and racial animosities and suspicions, in a determination to administer absolute justice, in a willing obedience among all classes to the mandates of law. this, this, coupled with our material prosperity, will bring into our beloved southland a new heaven and a new earth. the negro as a soldier[ ] by christian a. fleetwood christian a. fleetwood, _sergeant-major, united states volunteer infantry, - . received a medal of honor from congress for meritorious action in saving the colors at chapin farm, september , , where he seized them after two color-bearers had been shot down, and bore them throughout the fight. also has a general b. f. butler medal for bravery and courage before richmond._ [note : delivered at the negro congress, at the cotton states and international exposition, atlanta ga., november to november , .] for years prior to the war between great britain and the colonies, the pages of history bear no record of the negro as a soldier. tracing his separate history in the revolutionary war is a task of much difficulty, for the reason that while individual instances of valor and patriotism abound, there were so few separate bodies of negro troops that no separate record appears to have been made. the simple fact is that the fathers as a rule enlisted men both for the army and navy, just as now it is only continued by the navy; that is to say, they were assigned wherever needed, without regard to race or color. varner's rhode island battalion appears to have been the only large aggregation of negroes in this war, though connecticut, new york, and new hampshire each furnished one separate company in addition to individuals scattered through their other organizations, so that ere the close of the war, there were very few brigades, regiments, or companies in which the negro was not in evidence. the free negro appears to have gone in from the beginning without attracting or calling out special comment. later, as men grew scarcer and necessity more pressing, slaves were taken in also, and then the trouble began. those who held slaves did not care to lose them in this way. others who had not did not think it just the thing in a war for avowed freedom to place an actual slave in the ranks to fight. some did not want the negro, bonded or free, to take part as a soldier in the struggle. so that in may, , the massachusetts committee of safety voted that thereafter only free men should be enlisted. in july, general gates issued an order prohibiting further enlistments of negroes, but saying nothing of those already in the service. in october a council of war presided over by general washington, comprising three major-generals and six brigadier-generals, voted unanimously against the enlistment of slaves, and by a decided majority against further enlistments of negroes. ten days later in a conference held at cambridge, mass., participated in by general washington, benjamin franklin, benjamin harrison, thomas lynch, and the deputy governors of connecticut and rhode island, a similar action was taken. on the th november, , earl dundore, commanding the force of his majesty the king, issued a proclamation offering freedom and equal pay to all slaves who would join his armies as soldiers. it did not take the colonists long to find out their mistake, although general washington, in accordance with the expressed will of his officers and of the committee of safety, did on the th of november, , issue a proclamation forbidding the further enlistment of negroes. less than two months later, that is to say on the th of december, , he issued a second proclamation again authorizing the enlistment of free negroes. he advised congress of his action, and stated that he would recall it if so directed. but he was not. the splendid service rendered by the negro and the great and pressing need of men were such, that although the opposition continued from some sections, it was not thereafter strong enough to obtain recognition. so the negroes went and came, much as other men. in all the events of the war, from bunker hill to yorktown, they bore an honorable part. the history of the doings of the armies is their history, as in everything they took part and did their share. their total enlistment was about , men,--a very fair percentage for the population of that period. i might instance the killing of major pitcairn, at bunker hill, by peter salem, and of major montgomery, at fort griswold, by jordan freeman. the part they took in the capture of major-general prescott at newport; their gallant defense of colonel greene, their beloved commander, when he was surprised and murdered at croton river, may , , when it was only after the last of his faithful guards had been shot and cut down that he was reached; or the battle of rhode island, when a battalion of negroes withstood three separate and distinct charges from , hessians under count donop, and beat them back with such tremendous loss that count donop at once applied for an exchange, fearing that his men would kill him, if he went into battle with them again, for having exposed them to such slaughter; and many other instances that are of record. the letter following, written december , , explains itself: "to the honorable general court of the massachusetts bay: "the subscribers beg leave to report to your honorable house (which we do in justice to the character of so brave a man) that under our own observation we declare that a negro man named salem poor, of colonel frye's regiment, captain ames' company, in the late battle at charleston, behaved like an experienced officer as well as an excellent soldier. to set forth particulars of his conduct would be tedious. we would only beg to say, in the person of this negro centers a brave and gallant soldier. the reward due to so great and distinguished a character we submit to congress." this is a splendid and well-attested tribute to a gallant and worthy negro. there were many such, but, beyond receiving and reading, no action was taken thereon by congress. there is no lack of incidents, and the temptation to quote many of them is great, but the time allotted me is too brief for extended mention, and i must bring this branch of my subject to a close. it is in evidence that while so many negroes were offering their lives a willing sacrifice for the country, in some sections the officers of the continental forces received their bounty and pay in negroes, "grown" and "small," instead of "dollars" and "cents." fighting for _liberty_ and taking pay in _slaves_! when the war was over the free men returned to meet their same difficulties; the slaves were caught when possible and re-enslaved by their former masters. in boston a few years later we find a party of black patriots of the revolution mobbed on boston common while celebrating the anniversary of the abolition of the slave-trade. the captain of a vessel trading along the coast tells of a negro who had fought in the war and been distinguished for bravery and soldierly conduct. he was reclaimed and re-enslaved by his master after the war, and served him faithfully until old age rendered him useless. the master then brought the poor old slave to this captain and asked him to take him along on his trip and try to sell him. the captain hated to sell a man who had fought for his country, but finally agreed, took the poor old man to mobile, and sold him for $ to a man who put him to attending a chicken-coop. his former master continued to draw the old slave's pension as a soldier in the revolution, until he died. the war of was mainly fought upon the water, and in the american navy at that time the negro stood in the ratio of about one to six. we find record of complaint by commodore perry at the beginning because of the large number of negroes sent him, but later the highest tribute to their bravery and efficiency. captain shaler, of the armed brig _general thompson_, writing of an engagement between his vessel and a british frigate, says: "the name of one of my poor fellows who was killed ought to be registered in the book of fame, and remembered as long as bravery is a virtue. he was a black man, by name john johnson. a twenty-four pound shot struck him in the hip, and took away all the lower part of his body. in this state the poor brave fellow lay on the deck, and several times exclaimed to his shipmates: 'fire away, my boys; nor haul a color down!' another black man, by the name of john davis, who was struck in much the same manner, repeatedly requested to be thrown overboard, saying that he was only in the way of the others." i know of nothing finer in history than these incidents of valor and patriotism. as before, the negro was not universally welcomed to the ranks of the american army; but later, continued reverses and a lack of enthusiasm in enlistments made it necessary to seek his aid, and from mobile, ala., on september , , general jackson issued a stirring call to the free colored people of louisiana for aid. in a remarkably short period, two battalions were raised, under majors lacaste and savary, which did splendid service in the battle of new orleans. new york enrolled two battalions, and sent them to sacketts harbor. pennsylvania enrolled , and sent them to gray's ferry at the capture of washington, to prepare for the invading column. another battalion also was raised, armed, equipped, and ready to start to the front, when peace was declared. in one of the actions of this war, a charging column of the american army was repulsed and thrown into great disorder. a negro private named jeffreys, seeing the disaster, sprang upon a horse, and by heroic effort rallied the troops, led them back upon a second charge, and completely routed the enemy. he was rewarded by general jackson with the honorary title of major. under the laws he could not commission him. when the war was over, this gallant man returned to his home in nashville, tenn., where he lived for years afterward, highly respected by its citizens of all races. at the age of seventy years, this black hero was obliged, _in self-defense_, to strike a white ruffian, who had assaulted him. under the laws of the state he was arrested and given nine and thirty lashes on his bare back. it broke his heart, and major jeffreys died. it seems a little singular that in the tremendous struggle between the states in - , the south should have been the first to take steps toward the enlistment of negroes. yet such is the fact. two weeks after the fall of fort sumter, the _charleston mercury_ records the passing through augusta of several companies of the the rd and th georgia regiment, and of sixteen well-drilled companies _and one negro company_ from nashville, tenn. _the memphis avalanche_ and _the memphis appeal_ of may , , and , , gave notice of the appointment by the "committee of safety" of a committee of three persons "to organize a volunteer company composed of our patriotic freemen of color of the city of memphis, for the service of our common defense." a telegram from new orleans dated november , , notes the review by governor moore of over , troops, and that one regiment comprised "_ , colored men_." the _new orleans picayune_, referring to a review held february , , says: "we must also pay a deserved compliment to the companies of free colored men, all very well drilled and comfortably equipped." it is a little odd, too, that in the evacuation of new orleans a little later, in april, , all of the troops succeeded in getting away except the negroes. they "got left." it is not in our line to speculate upon what would have been the result of the war had the south kept up this policy, enlisted the freemen, and emancipated the enlisting slaves and their families. the immense addition to their fighting force, the quick recognition of them by great britain, to which slavery was the greatest bar, and the fact that the heart of the negro was with the south but for slavery, and the case stands clear. but the primary successes of the south closed its eyes to its only chance of salvation, while at the same time the eyes of the north were opened. in , the south saw, and endeavored to remedy, its error. on march , , the confederate congress passed a bill, recommended by general lee, authorizing the enlistment of , negroes; but it was then too late. the north came slowly and reluctantly to recognize the negro as a factor for good in the war. "this is a white man's war," met the negroes at every step of their first efforts to gain admission to the armies of the union. to general david hunter, more than to any other one man, is due the credit for the successful entry upon the stage of the negro as a soldier in this war. in the spring of , he raised and equipped a regiment of negroes in south carolina, and when the fact because known in washington and throughout the country, such a storm was raised about the ears of the administration that they gracefully stood aside and left the brave general to fight his enemies in the front and rear as best he might. he was quite capable to do both, as it proved. * * * * * the beginning of saw the opening of the doors to the negro in every direction. general lorenzo thomas went in person to the valley of the mississippi to supervise it there. massachusetts was authorized to fill its quota with negroes. the states of maryland, missouri, delaware, and tennessee were thrown open by order of the war department, and all slaves enlisting therefrom declared free. ohio, connecticut, pennsylvania, and new york joined the band and sent the stalwart black boy in blue to the front singing, "give us a flag, all free, without a slave." for two years the fierce and determined opposition had kept them out, but now the bars were down and they came pouring in. some one said, "he cared not who made the laws of a people if he could make their songs." a better exemplification of this would be difficult to find than is the song written by "miles o'reilly" (colonel halpine), of the old th army corps. i cannot resist the temptation to quote it here. with general hunter's letter and this song to quote from, the episode was closed: "some say it is a burning shame to make the naygurs fight, an' that the trade o' being kilt belongs but to the white; but as for me, upon me sowl, so liberal are we here, i'll let sambo be murthered, in place of meself, on every day of the year. on every day of the year, boys, and every hour in the day, the right to be kilt i'll divide wid him, and divil a word i'll say. in battles' wild commotion i shouldn't at all object if sambo's body should stop a ball that was coming for me direct, an' the prod of a southern bayonet; so liberal are we here, i'll resign and let sambo take it, on every day in the year, on every day in the year, boys, an' wid none of your nasty pride, all right in southern baynet prod, wid sambo i'll divide. the men who object to sambo should take his place and fight, an' it is betther to have a naygur's hue, than a liver that's weak an' white, though sambo's black as the ace of spades, his finger a thryger can pull, an' his eye runs straight on the barrel-sight from under its thatch of wool. so hear me all, boys, darlin', don't think i'm tipping you chaff,-- the right to be kilt, i'll divide with him, an' give him the largest half." it took three years of war to place the enlisted negro upon the same ground as the enlisted white man as to pay and emoluments; _perhaps_ six years of war might have given him shoulder-straps, but the war ended without authorization of law for that step. at first they were received, under an act of congress that allowed each one, without regard to rank, ten dollars per month, three dollars thereof to be retained for clothing and equipments. i think it was in may, , when the act was passed equalizing the pay, but not opening the doors to promotion. under an act of the confederate congress, making it a crime punishable with death for any white person to train negroes or mulattoes to arms, or aid them in any military enterprise, and devoting the negro caught under arms to the tender mercies of the "present or future laws of the state" in which caught, a large number of _promotions_ were made by the way of a rope and a tree along the first year of the negro's service. (i can even recall one instance as late as april, , though it had been long before then generally discontinued.) what the negro did, how he did it, and where, it would take volumes to properly record, i can however give but briefest mention to a few of the many evidences of his fitness for the duties of the war, and his aid to the cause of the union. the first fighting done by organized negro troops appears to have been done by company a, st south carolina negro regiment, at st. helena island, november to , , while participating in an expedition along the coast of georgia and florida under lieutenant-colonel o. t. beard, of the th new york infantry, who says in his report: "the colored men fought with astonishing coolness and bravery. i found them all i could desire,--more than i had hoped. they behaved gloriously, and deserve all praise." the testimony thus inaugurated runs like a cord of gold through the web and woof of the history of the negro as a soldier from that date to their final charge, the last made at clover hill, va., april , . necessarily the first actions in which the negro bore a part commanded most attention. friends and enemies were looking eagerly to see how they would acquit themselves, and so it comes to pass that the names of fort wagner, olustee, millikens bend, port hudson, and fort pillow are as familiar as bull run, antietam, shiloh and gettysburg, and while those first experiences were mostly severe reverses, they were by that very fact splendid exemplifiers of the truth that the negroes could be relied upon to fight under the most adverse circumstances, against any odds, and could not be discouraged. let us glance for a moment at port hudson, la., in may, , assaulted by general banks with a force of which the st and nd regiments, louisiana native guards, formed a part. when starting upon their desperate mission, colonel stafford of the st regiment, in turning over the regimental colors to the color-guard, made a brief and patriotic address, closing with the words: "color-guard: protect, defend, die for, but do not surrender, these colors." the gallant flag-sergeant, plancianos, taking them replied: "colonel: i will bring back these colors to you in honor, or report to god the reason why." six times with desperate valor they charged over ground where success was hopeless, a deep bayou between them and the works of the enemy at the point of attack rendering it impossible to reach them, yet strange to say, six times they were ordered forward and six times they went to useless death, until swept back by the blazing breath of shot and shell before which nothing living could stand. here fell the gallant captain cailloux, black as the ace of spades. refusing to leave the field though his arm had been shattered by a bullet, he returned to the charge until killed by a shell. a soldier limping painfully to the front was halted and asked where he was going. he replied, "i am shot bad in de leg, and dey want me to go to de hospital, but i guess i can give 'em a little more yet." the colors came back, but crimsoned with the blood of the gallant plancianos, who reported to god from that bloody field. shall we glance from this to millikens bend, la., in january, , garrisoned by the th and th louisiana and the st mississippi, all negroes, and about of the rd iowa (white), about fighting men in all? attacked by a force of six confederate regiments, crushed out of their works by sheer weight of numbers, borne down toward the levee, fighting every step of the way, hand to hand--clubbed musket, bayonets, and swords,--from three a. m. to twelve noon, they fought desperately until a union gun-boat came to the rescue and shelled the desperate foe back to the woods, with a total loss to the defenders of men,--two-fifths of their strength. shall we turn with sadness to fort wagner, s. c., in july, , when the th massachusetts won its deathless fame, and its grand young commander, colonel robert gould shaw, passed into the temple of immortality? after a march of all day, under a burning sun, and all night through a tempest of wind and rain, drenched, exhausted, hungry, they wheeled into line, without a murmur for that awful charge, that dance of death, the struggle against hopeless odds, and the shattered remnants were hurled back as from the mouth of hell, leaving the dead bodies of their young commander and his noble followers to be buried in a common grave. its total loss was about one-third of its strength. here it was that the gallant flag-sergeant, carney, though grievously wounded, bore back his flag to safety, and fell fainting and exhausted with loss of blood, saying, "boys, the old flag never touched the ground!" or another glance, at ill-starred olustee, where the gallant th united states colored troops lost killed of its effective fighting force, the largest loss in any one colored regiment in any one action of the war. and so on, by fort pillow, which let us pass in merciful silence, and to honey hill, s. c., perhaps the last desperate fight in the far south, in which the nd, th, and nd united states colored troops and the th and th massachusetts infantry won fresh and fadeless laurels for splendid fighting against hopeless odds and insurmountable difficulties, and then to nashville, tenn., with its recorded loss of killed in the effectives of the th united states colored troops. these were all brilliant actions, and they covered the actors with, and reflected upon the race, a blaze of glory. but it was in the armies of the james and of the potomac that the true metal of the negro as a soldier rang out its clearest notes amid the tremendous diapasons that rolled back and forth between the embattled hosts. here was war indeed, upon its grandest scale and in all its infinite variety: the tireless march under burning sun, chilling frosts, and driven tempests; the lonely vigil of the picket under starless skies, the rush and roar of countless "hosts to battle driven" in the mad charge and the victorious shout that pursued the fleeing foe; the grim determination that held its line of defenses with set teeth, blood-shot eye, and strained muscle, beating back charge after charge of the foe; the patient labor in trench and mine, on hill and in valley, swamp and jungle, with disease adding its horrors to the decimation of shot and shell. here the negro stood in the full glare of the greatest search-light, part and parcel of the grandest armies ever mustered upon this continent, competing side by side with the best and bravest of the union army against the flower of the confederacy, the best and bravest of lee's army, and losing nothing in the contrast. never again while time lasts will the doubt arise as in , "will the negro fight?" as a problem, it has been solved; as a question, it has been answered; and as a fact, it is as established as the eternal hills. it was the negroes who rang up the curtain upon the last act of the bloody tragedy at petersburg, va., june , , and they who rang it down at clover hill, va., april , . they were one of the strong fingers upon the mighty hand that grasped the giant's throat at petersburg and never flexed until the breath went out at appomattox. in this period it would take page on page to recount their deeds of valor and their glorious victories. see them on the th of june, , carrying the out-post at baylor's field in early morning, and all that long, hot, summer day advancing, a few yards at a time, then lying down to escape the fire from the works, but still gradually creeping nearer and nearer, until, just as the sun went down, they swept like a tornado over the works and started upon a race for the city, close at the heels of the flying foe, until mistakenly ordered back. of this day's experience general badeau writes: "no worse strain on the nerves of troops is possible, for it is harder to remain quiet under cannon fire, even though comparatively harmless, than to advance against a storm of musketry." general w. f. "baldy" smith, speaking of their conduct, says: "no nobler effort has been put forth to-day, and no greater success achieved than that of the colored troops." * * * * * or, again, at the terrible mine explosion of july , , on the petersburg line, and at the fearful slaughter of september , , at new market heights and fort harrison. on this last date in the fourth united states colored troops, out of a color-guard of twelve men, but one came off the field on his own feet. the gallant flag-sergeant, hilton, the last to fall, cried out as he went down, "boys, save the colors"; and they were saved. * * * * * some ten or more years later, in congress, in the midst of a speech advocating the giving of civil rights to the negro, general butler said, referring to this incident: "there, in a space not wider than the clerk's desk, and three hundred yards long, lay the dead bodies of of my colored comrades, slain in the defense of their country, who had laid down their lives to uphold its flag and its honor, as a willing sacrifice. and as i rode along, guiding my horse this way and that, lest he should profane with his hoofs what seemed to me the sacred dead, and as i looked at their bronzed faces upturned in the shining sun, as if in mute appeal against the wrongs of the country for which they had given their lives, and whose flag had been to them a flag of stripes, in which no star of glory had ever shone for them--feeling i had wronged them in the past, and believing what was the future duty of my country to them,--i swore to myself a solemn oath: 'may my right hand forget its cunning, and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if ever i fail to defend the rights of the men who have given their blood for me and my country this day and for their race forever.' and, god helping me, i will keep that oath." * * * * * history further repeats itself in the fact that in every war so far known to this country, the first blood, and, in some cases, the last also, has been shed by the faithful negro, and this in spite of all the years of bondage and oppression, and of wrongs unspeakable. under the sun there has nothing been known in the history of any people more marvellous than these facts! oh, to the living few, comrades, be just, be true. hail them as heroes tried, fight with them side by side; never in field or tent, scorn the black regiment. it is but a little thing to ask, they could ask no less: _be just_; but, oh, the shame of it for those who need be asked! there is no need for panegyric, for sounding phrases or rounded periods. the simple story is eloquent with all that is necessary to make the heart swell with pride. in the hour allotted me to fill, it is possible only to indicate in skeleton the worth of the negro as a soldier. if this brief sketch should awaken even a few to interest in his achievements, and one be found willing and fitted to write the history that is their due, that writer shall achieve immortality. an address at the unveiling of the robert gould shaw monument[ ] by booker t. washington, a. m., ll.d. [note : an address by booker t. washington, a. m., delivered on the occasion of the unveiling of the robert gould shaw monument, boston, mass., may , .] _mr. chairman and fellow citizens:_ in this presence, and on this sacred and memorable day, in the deeds and death of our hero, we recall the old, old story, ever old yet ever new, that when it was the will of the father to lift humanity out of wretchedness and bondage, the precious task was delegated to him who, among ten thousand, was altogether lovely, and was willing to make himself of no reputation that he might save and lift up others. if that heart could throb and if those lips could speak, what would be the sentiment and words that robert gould shaw would have us feel and speak at this hour? he would not have us dwell long on the mistakes, the injustice, the criticisms of the days "of storm and cloud, of doubt and fears, across the eternal sky must lower; before the glorious noon appears," he would have us bind up with his own undying fame and memory and retain by the side of his monument, the name of john a. andrews, who, with prophetic vision and strong arm, helped to make the existence of the th regiment possible; and that of george l. stearns, who, with hidden generosity and a great sweet heart, helped to turn the darkest hour into day, and in doing so, freely gave service, fortune, and life itself to the cause which this day commemorates. nor would he have us forget those brother officers, living and dead, who by their baptism in blood and fire, in defense of union and freedom, gave us an example of the highest and purest patriotism. to you who fought so valiantly in the ranks, the scarred and scattered remnant of the th regiment, who, with empty sleeve and wanting leg, have honored this occasion with your presence, to you, your commander is not dead. though boston erected no monument and history recorded no story, in you and the loyal race which you represent robert gould shaw would have a monument which time could not wear away. but an occasion like this is too great, too sacred for mere individual eulogy. the individual is the instrument, national virtue the end. that which was years being woven into the warp and woof of our democratic institutions could not be effaced by a single battle, as magnificent as was that battle; that which for three centuries had bound master and slave, yea, north and south, to a body of death, could not be blotted out by four years of war, could not be atoned for by shot and sword, nor by blood and tears. not many days ago in the heart of the south, in a large gathering of the people of my race, there were heard from many lips praises and thanksgiving to god for his goodness in setting them free from physical slavery. in the midst of that assembly there arose a southern white man the former owner of many slaves, gray of hair and with hands which trembled, and from his quivering lips, there came the words; "my friends, you forget in your rejoicing that, in setting you free, god was also good to me and my race in setting us free." but there is a higher and deeper sense in which both races must be free than that represented by the bill of sale. the black man who cannot let love and sympathy go out to the white man is but half free. the white man who would close the shop or factory against a black man seeking an opportunity to earn an honest living is but half free. the white man who retards his own development by opposing a black man is but half free. the full measure of the fruit of fort wagner and all that this monument stands for will not be realized until every man covered with a black skin shall, by patience and natural effort, grow to that height in industry, property, intelligence, and moral responsibility, where no man in all our land will be tempted to degrade himself by withholding from his black brother any opportunity which he himself would possess. until that time comes this monument will stand for effort, not victory complete. what these heroic souls of the th regiment began, we must complete. it must be completed not in malice, not in narrowness; nor artificial progress, nor in efforts at mere temporary political gain, nor in abuse of another section or race. standing as i do to-day in the home of garrison and phillips and sumner, my heart goes out to those who wore gray as well as to those clothed in blue; to those who returned defeated, to destitute homes, to face blasted hopes and a shattered political and industrial system. to them there can be no prouder reward for defeat than by a supreme effort to place the negro on that footing where he will add material, intellectual, and civil strength to every department of state. this work must be completed in public school, industrial school, and college. the most of it must be completed in the effort of the negro himself, in his effort to withstand temptation, to economize, to exercise thrift, to disregard the superficial for the real--the shadow for the substance, to be great and yet small, in his effort to be patient in the laying of a firm foundation, so to grow in skill and knowledge that he shall place his services in demand by reason of his intrinsic and superior worth. this is the key that unlocks every door of opportunity, and all others fail. in this battle of peace the rich and poor, the black and white, may have a part. what lesson has this occasion for the future? what of hope, what of encouragement, what of caution? "watchman, tell us of the night; what the signs of promise are." if through me, an humble representative, nearly ten millions of my people might be permitted to send a message to massachusetts, to the survivors of the th regiment, to the committee whose untiring energy has made this memorial possible, to the family who gave their only boy that we might have life more abundantly, that message would be, "tell them that the sacrifice was not in vain, that up from the depth of ignorance and poverty, we are coming, and if we come through oppression out of the struggle, we are gaining strength. by the way of the school, the well-cultivated field, the skilled hand, the christian home, we are coming up; that we propose to invite all who will to step up and occupy this position with us. tell them that we are learning that standing-ground for the race, as for the individual, must be laid in intelligence, industry, thrift, and property, not as an end, but as a means to the highest privileges; that we are learning that neither the conqueror's bullet nor fiat of law could make an ignorant voter an intelligent voter, could make a dependent man an independent man, could give one citizen respect for another, a bank account, a foot of land, or an enlightened fireside. tell them that, as grateful as we are to artist and patriotism for placing the figures of shaw and his comrades in physical form of beauty and magnificence, that after all, the real monument, the greater monument, is being slowly but safely builded among the lowly in the south, in the struggles and sacrifices of a race to justify all that has been done and suffered for it." one of the wishes that lay nearest colonel shaw's heart was, that his black troops might be permitted to fight by the side of white soldiers. have we not lived to see that wish realized, and will it not be further realized in the future? not at wagner, not with rifle and bayonet, but on the field of peace, in the battle of industry, in the struggle for good government, in the lifting up of the lowest to the fullest opportunities. in this we shall fight by the side of white men, north and south. and if this be true, as under god's guidance it will, that old flag, that emblem of progress and security, which brave sergeant carney never permitted to fall on the ground, will still be borne aloft by southern soldier and northern soldier, and, in a more potent and higher sense, we shall all realize that "the slave's chain and the master's alike are broken; the one curse of the race held both in tether; they are rising, all are rising-- the black and the white together." the limitless possibilities of the negro race[ ] by charles w. anderson, of new york [note : an address delivered before the tennessee centennial exposition, nashville, tenn., june , .] _mr. chairman, ladies and gentlemen:_ i sometimes feel that we, as a race, do not fully appreciate the importance of industrial education. i feel that the day is near at hand when the physical apparatus of civil education will play a larger part in the progress of the world than it has hitherto done. in other words, i firmly believe that the industrial victories are in the future and not in the past. we have done much and wrought many miracles, but the miracles are but evidences of possible powers rather than the high-tide marks of development. in my mind the possibilities of physical and scientific achievement are limitless, and beyond the compass of human conception. look at iron alone. see what has been done with it in the last fifty years. see what you are able to do with it here in tennessee. from it are made things dainty and things dangerous, carriages and cannon, spatula and spade, sword and pen, wheel, axle and rail, as well as screw, file, and saw. it is bound around the hull of ships and lifted into tower and steeple. it is drawn into wire, coiled into springs, woven into gauze, twisted into rope, and sharpened into needles. it is stretched into a web, finer by comparison than the gossamer of the morning along the bed of the ocean, and made to tick out the yesterday of europe on the to-day of america. all of this variety of use has been made out of the stubbornness of metals by the sovereign touch of industrial and scientific education. there is inexhaustible promise in this development. it has brought, and is still bringing, the two great races closer together. these iron veins and arteries which interlock our cities and confederate our states do much to familiarize each race with the hopes and aspirations of the other, and to weave their histories into one harmonious contexture, as telegraphic messages fly instantaneously across them, and screaming trains rush back and forth like shuttles upon a mighty loom. when our fullest expectations shall have been fulfilled, both races will have the freest opportunity for the development of their varied capabilities, and, through mutual bonds of interest and affection and mutual bonds of sympathy and purpose, will rise the unmatched harmonies of a united people to the imperial accompaniment of two mighty oceans. it is a peculiar fact that immediately after the abolition of human slavery the country started upon an unparalleled career of prosperity. the west, then almost unexplored, began to develop, and has continued to do so until now it is studded with proud cities, teeming with throbbing life, growing like the grass of the prairies in spring-time, advancing like the steam-engine, baffling distance like the telegraph, and spreading the pulsations of their mighty hearts to the uttermost parts of the world. there they stand with their echoing marts of trade, their stately spires of worship and their magnificent institutions of learning, as free as the encircling air, as independent as the soaring eagle, and more powerful than the roman empire when in the plenitude of her power. all of this has been accomplished since the energies of men were unfettered. thus it may be said that both races started almost simultaneously on their careers to fulfill the destiny of this great country among the countries of the world. and as we started together substantially, we must end together. we started with most unequal equipment, to be sure, and under conditions as far apart as the sky from this pavilion, but we have marched to the same music and in the same direction ever since, with varying fortunes and unequal steps, but with no steps backward, until to-day we are able to recognize in each other and be recognized by all mankind as equals in our attachment to the land, the laws, the institutions, and the flag of our common country. the responsibility now rests upon you to improve each minute of your lives in fitting yourselves for a wiser, better and worthier discharge of the obligations of american citizenship. you may be constrained to ask, "what shall we do?" or, with archimedes of old, exclaim "give me where to stand and i will move the world." let me advise you to stand where you are. that's the place. act well your part, and you shall have accomplished all that is expected of you. my friends, a country like ours is not governed by law, or courts of justice, or judges, however wise or puissant. it is governed by public sentiment. once poison it, and courts are impotent and judges powerless. therefore we are responsible, each and all of us, according to our talents and influence, for the public sentiment of the day. if it is healthy and just, it is we who have made it so; if it is unhealthy and unjust, it is we who have made it or permitted it to become so. and what is this all-powerful, but imperceptible, entity, this potent influence which controls presidents, cabinets, congresses, courts, judges, juries, the press and--i regret to say it--the pulpit? what is public sentiment or public opinion? it is the multiplied, accumulated opinion of all the people. every word spoken or written by man or woman goes to make up this great stream of public opinion, just as every drop of dew or water goes to make up that mighty river which divides this imperial continent and turns the spindles of the ten thousand factories which hug its shores. hence we are all responsible for our contribution to the public opinion of the day, whether our contribution be a raindrop or a niagara. we are responsible for what we say and what we leave unsaid, for what we do and what we leave undone, for what we write and what is unwritten. we are responsible for the errors we have committed and for those we have taken no part in overthrowing. so, whether we realize it or not, we are consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally, directly or indirectly, according to our opportunities and our influence, responsible for the public sentiment which secures or deprives every citizen of his rights and of the opportunity for the highest intellectual and industrial development. i know that it is sometimes said that we have done very little. be that as it may. thirty years is but a brief time compared with the centuries in which norman, saxon, and dane have been fusing into the english race. and yet, we have something to remember when great names are counted, something to show when great deeds are told. at the same time i would not have you sit supinely down and wait for the millennium. far from it. it is said that all things come to him who waits. that is in part true, but it is only fifty per cent. of the whole truth. all things come to him who waits, if he hustles while he waits. you will need not only education and character, but you also need level-headedness and accuracy of judgment. acquire intellectuality, but acquire practicality at the same time. do not join that large and constantly increasing class in this country to whom nothing is desirable but the impossible. do not indulge in the pastime of throwing stones at the stars. learn to be practical, and, whatever you attempt in life, remember to think out a plan and a policy before you begin the work. when you are called upon to go out and do battle, stop and reflect, and see if there is a reasonable probability of your whipping anybody. if the probability is not apparent, i would advise you to decline the glove and reserve your lance for a more "convenient season." martyrdom is very attractive, especially attractive to vigorous young men, but it "butters no parsnips." therefore, cultivate prudence as well as valor, and study men as well as books; for you will needs be prepared to meet the living issues of the present; and if you are wise, you will anticipate the possible exigencies of the future. to do this you will want both courage and discretion. learn the proper value of organization and union, and never cease to remember that an army divided is an army defeated. you will neither be able to help yourself nor hurt the enemy by firing paper bullets. you must organize. to make steam effective you must bind it up in an engine; to make water serviceable, you must harness it in a mill; to make electricity manageable, you must mask it in a battery; and to make men useful in reformatory or remedial work, you must recruit them into an organization. and to those present who have not enjoyed the advantages of an education, let me direct a few remarks. you must not believe that you cannot assist in the work of building character for the race. every man or woman who plays his or her part according to the best lights, who bears a respected name, or bears the proud title of a "good citizen," who is industrious, temperate, upright, law-abiding, and devoted to whatever is lovely and of good report, is unconsciously pleading the cause of the race before the great tribunal of the civilized world. to all such we can only render the tribute which history accords to those who fight as privates in the battles of human progress, with all the more devotion and fidelity because their names will never be known. whenever a man earns the respect of the community in which he resides, some part of that respect, some breath of that fragrance is reflected upon the race of which he is a member. as a race, we have done much, but we must not forget how much more there is still to do. we have already demonstrated the possession of powers, but we must now bring forth the fruits of sustained racial achievement. to some extent we have been given opportunity, but we must not cease to remember that no race can be given relative rank--it must win equality of rating for itself. hence, we must not only acquire education, but character as well. it is not only necessary that we should speak well, but it is more necessary that we should speak the truth. we must not only acquire that culture which is the golden key that unlocks all doors and unbars all gates, but we must cultivate that straightforwardness of purpose and unconquerable determination which enables a people to face conditions "without fear and without reproach." and so the last suggestion comes which the hour presents. in the work of race advancement, we need the service and assistance of all true men and women. we must have the co-operation of all sections and all conditions. the cotton-fields of alabama, the sugar-plantations of louisiana, and the coal-mines of tennessee; the great lakes of the north which winter roofs with ice, and from which drips refreshing coolness through the hot summer months, from the fisheries and the factories, from wheat-fields and pine forests, from meadows billowed with golden grain and orchards bending beneath their burdens of golden fruit, this advance movement must receive support. the humble laborer following his plow afield must do his part; the blacksmith at his forge, the lawyer at the bar, the fisherman on the banks, the man of science putting nature to the question, all, without distinction and without exception, must contribute, according to his station and his opportunity, to the hastening of the day when the negro shall take his place by the side of the other great race of men and form that grand spectacle which tennyson had in mind when he spoke of "the parliament of man, the federation of the world." the party of freedom and the freedmen--a reciprocal duty[ ] by william sanders scarborough, d.d., ll.d william sanders scarborough, m. a., ph. d., ll.d., _president of wilberforce university, ohio. author of "first lessons in greek," the first and only greek book written by a negro, largely used as text-book in both white and negro schools. author of a large number of classical interpretations, and philological pamphlets._ [note : address delivered at the lincoln day banquet, dayton, ohio, feb. , .] slavery has been well called the "perfected curse of the ages." every civilization, ancient and modern, has experienced its blighting, withering effect, and it has cost thrones to learn the lesson that "the laws of changeless justice blind oppressor and oppressed"; that "close as sin and suffering joined," these two "march to fate--abreast." since the world began, freedom has been at war with all that savored of servitude. the sentiment of liberty is innate in every human breast. freedom of speech and of action--the right of every man to be his own master--has ever been the inestimable privilege sought, the boon most craved. for this guerdon men have fought; for this they have even gladly died. it was the unquenchable desire for liberty that brought the pilgrim fathers to plymouth rock. they knew that all that is highest and noblest in the human soul is fostered to its greatest development only under the blazing sunlight of freedom. and it was the same flame burning in the heart of the young nation planted on these western shores that led to the ratification of the sentiment placed by the hand of thomas jefferson in the corner-stone of our american independence: "we hold these truths to be self-evident--that all men are created free and equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." here was heralded to the nation prophetic freedom for all mankind and for all generations. however, the years of bondage for africa's sons and daughters in this fair land stretched on over a half century more before the issue was raised. but at last the grasping arms of the gigantic octopus, that was feeding at the nation's heart, reached out too far, and the combat with the monster was begun. then that laurelled champion and leader of freedom's cause, charles s. sumner, laid his hand upon that declaration of independence and declared that the nation was "dedicated to liberty and the rights of human nature." i count it the glory of that gifted humanitarian that he gave his magnificent talents and energies to the organization of a party that could add to its _amor patriæ_ the larger, broader, nobler love of freedom for all mankind; and i count it the glory of that party that it stood for "the voice of a people--uprisen, awake"; that it was "born to make men free." no matter what name has been inscribed on its banner during its existence of a full half century, the cause that the party of freedom espoused has given its standard-bearer a right to claim that it, and it alone, is the legitimate heir to power in this land where the forefathers sought the liberty the old world denied. who dares dispute the claim? who dares challenge the assertion? time and events have sanctioned it; age has but strengthened it. and to-day, holding as tenaciously the same principles of truth and justice, the party that, among the parties of this republic, alone stands as the synonym of freedom is the republican party. none dare gainsay it. and, among the growing multitudes in this broad land of ours, none know this better than ten millions of afro-americans who but for its strong arm of power might still be suffering from "man's inhumanity to man." forget it? the mightiest draughts from lethe's stream could not blot from the remembrance of the race the deed of that republican leader enthroned upon the seat of government, the deed of the immortal lincoln, whose birth we commemorate here to-night, the deed of that second abraham who, true to his name as the "father of the faithful," struck the chains from the negro's limbs and bade him stand forever free. but did the great work stop there? no; the fast following amendments to the constitution show that the party of freedom never paused; and the bond forged during the long years of struggle and riveted by emancipation was indissolubly welded when that party crowned the freedman with the glorious rights and privileges of citizenship. ah, what lamentations loud and long filled the land! what dire predictions smote the nation's ear! what a multitude of evils imagination turned loose like a horde of furies! what a war of opinion raged 'twixt friends and foes of the race that drew the first full breath of freedom! more than three decades have passed. have these dismal prophecies been fulfilled? no race under the sun has been so patient under calumny, under oppression, under mob violence; no race has ever shown itself so free from resentment. but it has been said the negro was not worth the struggle. not worth the struggle when, at every call to arms in the nation's history, the black man has nobly responded, whether slave or freeman? not worth the struggle when, in the revolution, on lake erie with perry, at port hudson, at millikens bend, in that fearful crater at petersburg, he shed his blood freely in the nation's behalf? not worth the struggle, when he won his way from spade to epaulet in the defense of the nation's honor? _the freedmen fathers were neither cowards nor traitors. nor do the sons disgrace their sires._ who saved the rough riders from annihilation at las guasimas? who stormed with unparalleled bravery the heights at el caney and swept gallantly foremost in that magnificent charge up san juan hill? comrades, leaders, onlookers--all with one voice have made reply: "the negro soldier." aye; the race has proved its worth, and the whole country, irrespective of party or section, owes it a debt, not only for its heroic service on the battle-field in times of national peril, which was its duty, but for its splendid self-control generally, under the most harassing situations, under most inexcusable assaults. no; the faith of the party of freedom in the negro has not been unfounded. in all these years the race has been steadily gaining wealth, education, refinement, places of responsibility and power. it might have done far more for the lasting good of all concerned, had it learned that in all things the "... heights are not gained by a single bound, but we built the ladder by which we rise,... and we mount to its summit round by round." but the prophecies of the past are far behind us. the world has passed its verdict on what has been. mistakes must yield us profit as the problems of the future confront us. we are to look forward with hope. and in preparation for that future, "the riddling sphynx puts dim things from our minds, and sets us to the questions at our doors." as the republican party and the negro face the coming years, one question is of equal moment to both. what shall be the mutual relations in the future? shall the party of freedom declare at an end its duty toward the party it made men and citizens? on the other hand, shall the negro say: "indebtedness ceased with our fathers; we are free to make alliance where we will"? in view of the blood shed so freely for republican principles by the negro as slave and freeman; in view of the loyalty, the courage, the patriotism, the strength, and the needs of the race; in view of this country's prospective broadened domain and the millions of dusky wards to be added to the nation o'er which the american eagle hovers to-day; and in view of the principles that inhere in republicanism, the party of freedom should find but one answer: "it is and shall be our duty to view you ever as men and citizens, to see that no chain of our forging manacles you to lower planes, that no bar is thrown by us across your pathway up the hill of progress, to help maintain your rights, to throw the weight of our influence for fair treatment, for the side of law and order and justice. the republican party must not forget for a moment the truth of the argument that demosthenes once made against philip with such striking force,--"_all power is unstable that is founded on injustice._" this party cannot afford to be less than just. the negro should not ask for more. this duty laid upon itself on the one hand, it becomes incumbent upon the negro to reciprocate, and the reciprocation calls for his support of the party. this should be a support, wise and open-eyed, born of appreciation and intelligence. it should be a support, steadfast and loyal, based upon faith in the party's motives and the knowledge that it has stood and still stands for all that the negro holds most dear. it should be a support that frees itself from selfish leaders and ranting demagogues, that puts aside all mere personal gain, and seeks the good of the race as a whole that it, too, may be lifted up. and lastly, it should be a support that looks for no reward but that which comes because of true worth and ability. reciprocity becomes a mutual duty, for there are mutual needs. the negro's strength is not to be ignored by the party; but the race cannot stand alone. it needs alliance with friendly power; and there is no friend like the tried friend, no party for the freedman like the party that stands upon the high, broad platform of freedom and human rights, irrespective of race, or color, or previous condition. but having said this, i would be false to the race and my own convictions did i not pause to give the warning that, after all, neither parties nor politics alone can save the negro. he needs to make a new start in his civil and political career. he must pay less attention to politics and more to business, to industry, to education, to the building up of a strong and sturdy manhood everywhere--to the assimilation generally of all that goes to demand the world's respect and consideration. he must lop off, as so many _incubi_, the professional negro office-seeker, the professional negro office-holder, and the negro politician who aspires to lead the race, for the revenue that is in it. the best men, the wisest, the most unselfish, and above all, the men of the most profound integrity and uprightness, must take the helm or retrogression will be the inevitable result. politics followed as an end has been the curse of the race. under it problems have multiplied, and under it the masses have remained longer than they should in the lower stages of development. only in the hands of men of noble mold, and used only as a _means_ to an end, can politics accomplish the highest good for all the race. the negro can keep all this in view and yet yield loyal support to the party that set him free. let the party of freedom and the freedmen recognize and observe these duties as reciprocal, and a force may be created, having its basis on undying principles, that will pave the way for the ultimate success of the highest aspirations of each--a force that will stretch southward and westward bearing, wherever old glory floats, the promise to the oppressed: freedom, equality, prosperity. and though men may apostatize, this mutual righteous cause shall live to sway for unnumbered years the fortunes of this grand republic, for the god who reared the continents above the seas and peopled them with nations, who gave these nations freedom of conscience and will, and who has watched their rise and fall from the dawn of creation, still guides the destinies of races and of parties, and standeth "... within the shadow, keeping watch above his own." the teachings of history considered in relation to race problems in america[ ] by nathan f. mossell, a. m., m. d. _surgeon-in-chief, frederick douglass hospital, philadelphia, pa._ [note : from _howard's american magazine_.] those who are familiar with history will testify that the blacks were a fundamental element in the civilized races of antiquity, as also of the primitive races of southern europe. in fact, all history is pregnant with traces of the negro element. the world will ever look with wonder and amazement upon the marks of ancient culture in the valley of the nile, and we may continue to look as far back as records and inscriptions lend us light, only to find the black man, above all others, leading in the ancient arts and sciences. history places the earliest civilization in egypt. the ruling tribes among the people were called the hamites, the "sunburnt race," according to dr. winchell. says professor j. boughton: "the wanderings of these people since prehistoric history began has not been confined to the american continent. in paleolithic times the black man roamed all over the fairer portions of the old world; europe, as well as asia and africa, acknowledged his sway. no white man had, so far, appeared to dispute his authority in the vine-clad valleys of france or germany, or upon the classic hills of greece or rome. the black man preceded all others, and carried paleolithic culture to its very height." the history of all the lands has been but the history of succeeding races; more often, however, by fusion of different racial types and by the mingling of various tribes and peoples, have been evolved new races, superior to any of the original types. greece and rome, the study of history will tell you, had their race and social problems. inter-marriage at last settled the question. the ethnology of spain tells the same story. there is not a nation on the globe of pure ethnic character. from the ethnic standpoint, the blood of the black race is everywhere apparent. ask the frenchman, the italian, the spaniard, whence comes his dark skin and hair; it surely does not come from the aryan blonde. ethnology alone can give the answer. in considering the future of our racial problems, it is fitting that we shall recall these facts of history to know the negro's past place in the world's annals. * * * * * american slavery, the most accursed institution the world has ever known, did more to degrade the master than the slave, a truth most often overlooked. it is here i take strong exception to the literal interpretation of the injunction, "whosoever will smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also," and "if any man take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." not so; but, on the contrary, we should resist evil with our energy. the tyrant who smites you on one cheek is only made more of a brute by permitting him to continue in the practise by smiting you on the other. it is our moral duty, therefore, to resist him, and not more for our own sake than for his. the brutalizing influence of slavery upon the master class is the curse of the southern states to-day, and has much more to do with the difficulties of solving the race problems than does the ignorance of the blacks. the government is not guiltless in this matter of interpretation of the scriptural injunction. in the matter of state rights, southern election laws, and mob violence, our government has turned the other cheek also. what has been the result? why the tyrants continue to become more and more brutal, until they are not only running black men out, but they have recently, at the muzzle of the shot gun, forced their own kith and kin, men to the manor born, to leave the states. i have no hesitancy in proclaiming that this brutality is a legacy left us by slavery, against which we have to contend, making itself felt in the organized mob and in disregard of constituted authority. in these days of imperialism and territorial expansion, when there is, likewise, much discussion on the subject of inferior races, it is fitting that we should place ourselves aright upon the question of suffrage and rights of franchise. william lloyd garrison, jr., says: "whosoever laments the scope of suffrage, and talks of disfranchising men on account of ignorance or poverty, has as little comprehension of the meaning of self-government as a blind man has of the colors of the rainbow. i declare my belief that we are suffering, not from a too extended ballot, but from one too limited and unrepresentative. we enunciate a principle of government, and then deny it in practise. if experience has established anything, it is that the interest of one class is never safe in the hands of another. there is no class so poor or ignorant in a republic that it does not know its own suffering and needs better than the wealthy or educated classes. by the rule of justice, it has the same right precisely to give it legal expression. that expression is bound to come, and it is wiser to have it come through the ballot-box than through mobs and violence, born of a feeling of despair and misery." those states in the south which are passing laws restricting suffrage, to promote the selfish ends of a class, are sowing to the wind and will surely reap the whirlwind. in a republican government, supposed to be ruled by the popular vote, a people's liberty has practically been taken when the right to vote is denied them. in such states, personal liberty, the right to testify in courts of law, the right to hold, buy, and sell real estate, and, in fact, all other rights, become mere privileges, held at the option of others. people are no longer free when the rights of franchise have been annulled. slavery is truly re-enacted in those states which have succeeded in disfranchising the negro. i have neither patience nor respect for those among us who are truckling to the prejudice of our enemies by giving credence to the lie that the ballot was placed in the black man's hand too soon. lowell was right when he said: "the right to vote makes a safety-valve of every voter, and the best way to teach a man to vote is to give him a chance to practise. it is cheaper in the long run to lift men up than to hold them down; the ballot in their hands is less dangerous to society than a sense of wrong in their heads." the so-called negro domination of the reconstruction period has no record of misrule such as exists in most of the southern states to-day. it is our privilege (an oppressed people, who know by bitter experience whereof we speak) to give this government timely warnings as to its duties toward the inhabitants of our newly acquired territory. i have no confidence in the government's ability to ameliorate the race conflicts of the south through the course recently outlined by the president of this nation in speeches of flattery and encomiums upon the dead and living heroes of the southern confederacy. this policy of conciliation was repeatedly attempted before the war, with the results that the slave influence continued to spread further north and west. it was proved then, as it ever shall be, that no nation can succeed by making a compact with the devil. one must tremble for this country's future when they read upon the statute-books of the southern states these diabolical laws against social purity, against the civil and political rights of our citizens. it is hoped that the coming congress will rise to a sense of our impending danger, and see to it that the strong arm of the government is brought forward to protect each and every citizen in his civil and political rights. until this is done, we are by no means prepared to add nine millions more of a dark race to those with which we now have to deal. there are those already high in the nation's council who predict that the result of our present war[ ] will be a _curse_ instead of a _blessing_, that the nation's incapacity to deal justly with our recently liberated slaves proves our inability to deal with nine millions more of untutored and so-called inferior people. [note : war with spain.] * * * * * the final conclusion of the whole matter may be forecasted thus: the negro element in this country is permanent and indestructible. so great are the numbers of the negroes, and so intimate their relations with the white people, that it is safe to say without fear of contradiction that the status of the negro element will determine in a large degree the future of the white. let this truth once be learned. let the thoughtful people of the nation cease trying to deceive themselves. the inevitable teachings of history will not be reversed. the blood of these varied races will finally be mingled until race distinctions will ultimately be obliterated. the docile nature of the negro race, his intimate domestic and other relations with the whites, make this conclusion inevitable. the two races are complements of each other and cannot be separated. a defense of the negro race[ ] by hon. george h. white _member of congress from north carolina_ [note : extracts from a speech delivered in the house of representatives, january , .] _mr. chairman:_ i want to enter a plea for the colored man, the colored woman, the colored boy, and the colored girl of this country. i would not thus digress from the question at issue and detain the house in a discussion of the interests of this particular people at this time but for the constant and the persistent efforts of certain gentlemen upon this floor to mold and rivet public sentiment against us as a people, and to lose no opportunity to hold up the unfortunate few, who commit crimes and depredations and lead lives of infamy and shame, as other races do, as fair specimens of representatives of the entire colored race. and at no time, perhaps, during the th congress were these charges and countercharges, containing, as they do, slanderous statements, more persistently magnified and pressed upon the attention of the nation than during the consideration of the recent reapportionment bill, which is now a law. as stated some days ago on this floor by me, i then sought diligently to obtain an opportunity to answer some of the statements made by gentlemen from different states, but the privilege was denied me; and i therefore must embrace this opportunity to say, out of season, perhaps, that which i was not permitted to say in season. in the catalogue of members of congress in this house perhaps none have been more persistent in their determination to bring the black man into disrepute and, with a labored effort, to show that he was unworthy of the right of citizenship than my colleague from north carolina, mr. kitchin. during the first session of this congress, while the constitutional amendment was pending in north carolina, he labored long and hard to show that the white race was at all times and under all circumstances superior to the negro by inheritance if not otherwise, and the excuse for his party supporting that amendment, which has since been adopted, was that an illiterate negro was unfit to participate in making the laws of a sovereign state and the administration and execution of them; but an illiterate white man living by his side, with no more or perhaps not as much property, with no more exalted character, no higher thoughts of civilization, no more knowledge of the handicraft of government, had by birth, because he was white, inherited some peculiar qualification, clear, i presume, only in the mind of the gentleman who endeavored to impress it upon others, that entitled him to vote, though he knew nothing whatever of letters. it is true, in my opinion, that men brood over things at times which they would have exist until they delude themselves and actually, sometimes honestly, believe that such things do exist. i would like to call the gentleman's attention to the fact that the constitution of the united states forbids the granting of any title of nobility to any citizen thereof, and while it does not in letters forbid the inheritance of this superior caste, i believe in the fertile imagination of the gentleman promulgating it, his position is at least in conflict with the spirit of that organic law of the land. he insists and, i believe, has introduced a resolution in this house for the repeal of the fifteenth amendment to the constitution. * * * * * it would be unfair, however, for me to leave the inference upon the minds of those who hear me that all of the white people of the state of north carolina hold views with mr. kitchin and think as he does. thank god there are many noble exceptions to the example he sets, that, too, in the democratic party; men who have never been afraid that one uneducated, poor, depressed negro could put to flight and chase into degradation two educated, wealthy, thrifty white men. there never has been, nor ever will be, any negro domination in that state, and no one knows it any better than the democratic party. it is a convenient howl, however, often resorted to in order to consummate a diabolical purpose by scaring the weak and gullible whites into support of measures and men suitable to the demagogue and the ambitious office-seeker, whose craving for office overshadows and puts to flight all other considerations, fair or unfair. as i stated on a former occasion, this young statesman has ample time to learn better and more useful knowledge than he has exhibited in many of his speeches upon this floor, and i again plead for him the statute of youth for the wild and spasmodic notions which he has endeavored to rivet upon his colleagues and this country. but i regret that mr. kitchin is not alone upon this floor in these peculiar notions advanced. i refer to another young member of congress, hailing from the state of alabama, mr. underwood. * * * * * it is an undisputed fact that the negro vote in the state of alabama, as well as most of the other southern states, has been effectively suppressed, either one way or the other--in some instances by constitutional amendment and state legislation, in others by cold-blooded fraud and intimidation, but whatever the method pursued, it is not denied, but frankly admitted in the speeches in this house, that the black vote has been eliminated to a large extent. then, when some of us insist that the plain letter of the constitution of the united states, which all of us have sworn to support, should be carried out, as expressed in the second section of the fourteenth amendment thereof. that section makes the duty of every member of congress plain, and yet the gentleman from alabama [mr. underwood] says that the attempt to enforce this section of the organic law is the throwing down of fire-brands, and notifies the world that this attempt to execute the highest law of the land will be retaliated by the south, and the inference is that the negro will be even more severely punished than the horrors through which he has already come. let me make it plain: the divine law, as well as most of the state laws, says, in substance: "he that sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." a highwayman commits murder, and when the officers of the law undertake to arrest, try, and punish him commensurate with the enormity of his crime, he straightens himself up to his full height and defiantly says to them: "let me alone; i will not be arrested, i will not be tried, i'll have none of the execution of your laws, and in the event you attempt to execute your laws upon me, i will see to it many more men, women, or children are murdered." here's the plain letter of the constitution, the plain, simple, sworn duty of every member of congress; yet these gentlemen from the south say "yes, we have violated your constitution of the nation; we regarded it as a local necessity; and now, if you undertake to punish us as the constitution prescribes, we will see to it that our former deeds of disloyalty to that instrument, our former acts of disfranchisement and opposition to the highest law of the land will be repeated manifoldly." not content with all that has been done to the black man, not because of any deeds that he has done, mr. underwood advances the startling information that these people have been thrust upon the whites of the south, forgetting, perhaps, the horrors of the slave-trade, the unspeakable horrors of the transit from the shores of africa by means of the middle passage to the american clime; the enforced bondage of the blacks and their descendants for two and a half centuries in the united states. now, for the first time perhaps in the history of our lives, the information comes that these poor, helpless, and in the main inoffensive people were thrust upon our southern brethren. * * * * * if the gentleman to whom i have referred will pardon me, i would like to advance the statement that the musty records of , filed away in the archives of southern capitols, as to what the negro was thirty-two years ago, is not a proper standard by which the negro living on the threshold of the twentieth century should be measured. since that time we have reduced the illiteracy of the race at least per cent. we have written and published near books. we have nearly newspapers, of which are dailies. we have now in practise over , lawyers and a corresponding number of doctors. we have accumulated over $ , , worth of school property and about $ , , worth of church property. we have about , farms and homes, valued at in the neighborhood of $ , , , and personal property valued at about $ , , . we have raised about $ , , for educational purposes, and the property per capita for every colored man, woman, and child in the united states is estimated at $ . we are operating successfully several banks, commercial enterprises among our people in the southland, including silk-mill and cotton-factory. we have , teachers in the schools of the country; we have built, with the aid of our friends, about , churches, and support colleges, academies, high schools, law schools, medical schools, and theological seminaries. we have over , acres of land in the south alone. the cotton produced, mainly by black labor, has increased from , , bales in to , , in . all this we have done under the most adverse circumstances. we have done it in the face of lynching, burning at the stake, with the humiliation of "jim crow" cars, the disfranchisement of our male citizens, slander and degradation of our women, with the factories closed against us, no negro permitted to be conductor on the railway-cars, whether run through the streets of our cities or across the prairies of our great country, no negro permitted to run as engineer on a locomotive, most of the mines closed against us. labor-unions--carpenters, painters, brick-masons, machinists, hackmen, and those supplying nearly every conceivable avocation for livelihood have banded themselves together to better their condition, but, with few exceptions, the black face has been left out. the negroes are seldom employed in our mercantile stores. at this we do not wonder. some day we hope to have them employed in our own stores. with all these odds against us, we are forging our way ahead, slowly, perhaps, but surely. you tie us and then taunt us for a lack of bravery, but one day we will break the bonds. you may use our labor for two and a half centuries and then taunt us for our poverty, but let me remind you we will not always remain poor. you may withhold even the knowledge of how to read god's word and learn the way from earth to glory and then taunt us for our ignorance, but we would remind you that there is plenty of room at the top, and we are climbing. after enforced debauchery, with the many kindred horrors incident to slavery, it comes with ill grace from the perpetrators of these deeds to hold up the shortcomings of some of our race to ridicule and scorn. "the new man, the slave who has grown out of the ashes of thirty-five years ago, is inducted into the political and social system, cast into the arena of manhood, where he constitutes a new element and becomes a competitor for all its emoluments. he is put upon trial to test his ability to be counted worthy of freedom, worthy of the elective franchise; and after thirty-five years of struggling against almost insurmountable odds, under conditions but little removed from slavery itself, he asks a fair and just judgment, not of those whose prejudice has endeavored to forestall, to frustrate his every forward movement, rather those who have lent a helping hand, that he might demonstrate the truth of 'the fatherhood of god and the brotherhood of man.'" * * * * * now, mr. chairman, before concluding my remarks i want to submit a brief recipe for the solution of the so-called american negro problem. he asks no special favors, but simply demands that he be given the same chance for existence, for earning a livelihood, for raising himself in the scales of manhood and womanhood that are accorded to kindred nationalities. treat him as a man; go into his home and learn of his social conditions; learn of his cares, his troubles, and his hopes for the future; gain his confidence; open the doors of industry to him; let the word "negro," "colored," and "black" be stricken from all the organizations enumerated in the federation of labor. help him to overcome his weaknesses, punish the crime-committing class by the courts of the land, measure the standard of the race by its best material, cease to mold prejudicial and unjust public sentiment against him, and my word for it, he will learn to support, hold up the hands of, and join in with that political party, that institution, whether secular or religious, in every community where he lives, which is destined to do the greatest good for the greatest number. obliterate race hatred, party prejudice, and help us to achieve nobler ends, greater results, and become more satisfactory citizens to our brother in white. this, mr. chairman, is perhaps the negroes' temporary farewell to the american congress; but let me say, ph[oe]nix-like he will rise up some day and come again. these parting words are in behalf of an outraged, heart-broken, bruised, and bleeding, but god-fearing people, faithful, industrious, loyal people--rising people, full of potential force. mr. chairman, in the trial of lord bacon, when the court disturbed the counsel for the defendant, sir walter raleigh raised himself up to his full height and, addressing the court, said: "sir, i am pleading for the life of a human being." the only apology that i have to make for the earnestness with which i have spoken is that i am pleading for the life, the liberty, the future happiness, and manhood-suffrage for one-eight of the entire population of the united states. the negro's part in the redemption of africa[ ] by levi j. coppin, _bishop a. m. e. church_ [note : delivered at cape town, south africa, february .] the land once lying in darkness, but now fast coming to the light, is claiming the best thought and the best energies of the civilized world. africa, on account of a lack of coast indentations, has been the last among the continents to be penetrated by the beneficent influence of commerce; and this largely accounts for that long obscurity, during which it was given the name, the "dark continent." its situation beneath the line of the equator has had also something to do with staying the onward march of civilization from without. the world learned first to think only of the enervating influence of a torrid sun upon the inhabitants of the great continent, and this was not inviting to immigration. nations have reached their highest and best development, not by isolation, but by taking advantage of whatever of good they found among others. but as the years and centuries have passed, it has dawned upon the world that africa enjoys the unique distinction of occupying a place in three zones, and hence offering the largest variety of climatic influences that are favorable to life and health. abounding in mineral wealth, with millions of acres suitable for agriculture, and with immense forests of valuable wood; with palm oil, ivory, and other desirable products, africa is now being sought by the world's capital, and is giving rich rewards to combined capital and labor. but what of her peoples? when as a christian church we speak of the redemption of africa, we do not refer to her material resources chiefly, though these are a means to an end. the one supreme thought with us is, how the millions of her inhabitants may be reached by the light of the gospel and saved. in their isolated condition, the people have for long centuries become the victims of customs and habits not in keeping with the better life which is the result only of christian civilization. the customs and habits formed and fixed by centuries cannot be thoroughly changed by a few years of effort. the success already attained by missionary enterprise in africa is not to be measured by the years of effort it has cost, nor by the amount of money expended. missionary records from other fields will fully justify this statement. in all such work we may expect to have the exemplification of nature's course, "first the blade, then the ear; after that, the full corn in the ear." one hundred and sixty-six years have passed since the moravians, as pioneer protestant missionaries began work on the gold coast. from to , much effort was expended by a number of societies on the west coast, during which more or less progress was made, accompanied with no little sacrifice, and a large death-roll of missionaries. but, at this time the missionary field is no longer confined to any particular section of africa. the missionary has followed in the wake of the explorer and planted his stations. in south africa the work is most hopeful. in west africa, the foothold is permanent; in central africa the work proceeds, and is not likely to stop until every tribe shall read the story of the cross in his own dialect. those missionaries who have studied the native tongues--of which there are many--and translated the bible in the vernacular of various tribes, have done a work that is of inestimable value. the difficulty of language, is, after all, the greatest obstacle in evangelistic progress in africa. if there were but one tongue to contend with, the work of the missionary would be comparatively easy; but there are many tongues. in my own district in south africa, we have the bible in three native dialects, namely: the zulu, bechauna, and the so-called kaffir. besides these, we have the dutch as well as the english bible. so much has been accomplished by missionaries, and at so great a sacrifice, that it seems quite out of place to suggest a criticism or complaint, and yet all the christian workers should be ready to receive any suggestion that would help them to achieve better results. in carrying the gospel to an unenlightened people, there is a strong temptation to emphasize unduly the commercial element that very naturally accompanies it. civilization and evangelization must go hand in hand, but the greater importance should always be given to the work of evangelization. in our highest civilization are to be found objectionable and hurtful elements, and these are likely to be the first to intrude themselves upon an unsuspecting people. it is ever to be regretted, that the civilization that opened the way for the missionary, also gave an opportunity for the introduction of evils, among which none have wrought greater harm than the introduction of alcoholic beverages. to what extent, anyone directly connected with missionary enterprise has ever been responsible for such a sad result, we do not know; but it does seem evident that the idea of pecuniary gain has not always been kept away from the missionary field. the acquisition of lands for other than ecclesiastical purposes, and traffic in native products, offer a great temptation to the missionary, some of whom have availed themselves of these advantages, to the detriment of their legitimate work. it is not always an easy thing for one to become so forgetful of himself in his efforts to bless others as to be in his life, and work a perfect exemplar of the divine master, whose kingdom he seeks to promote, but whose kingdom is not of this world. professor drummond, in a speech in , among other important statements upon foreign missionary works, made the following: "i was taught to believe that the essential to a missionary was strong faith. i have since learned that it is more essential for him to have strong love. i was taught, out there in the missionary field, that he needed to have great knowledge. i have learned that, more than knowledge even, is required personal character. i have met men in mission fields in different parts of the world who could make zealous addresses, at evangelistic meetings at home, who left for their fields of labor, laden with testimonials from churches and sunday-schools, but who became utterly demoralized within a year's time, because they had not learned that love is a greater thing than faith. that is a neglected part of a missionary's education, it seems to me, and yet it is a most essential one. i would say that the thing to be certain of in picking out a man for such a field as africa, where the strain upon a man's character is tremendous, and the strain upon his spiritual life owing to the isolation, is more tremendous, that we must be sure that we are sending a man of character and heart; morally sound to the core, with a large and brotherly sympathy for the native." these are the words of professor drummond, and in my opinion he spoke the exact truth; and in making this quotation, i am glad that it is from such an eminent authority; one who could have no sinister motives for such utterances. he does not arraign the missionaries as a whole but frankly states some thing that he had learned from observation. the native african, as a rule, is virtuous and honest. the uncivilized tribes, in striving for the mastery among themselves, commit many acts that would not be approved by the rules governing modern warfare: deeds of cruelty, that made the need of the gospel among them imperative. but, in their individual lives, free from the exciting influence of war they have rules and customs governing their home life that are entirely in keeping with the highest state of christian civilization. to them, polygamy is not a sinful practise. without light beyond that which comes from their own fireside, they do not see the necessity of breaking away from a practise that is peculiar to mankind in the earliest stages of social life. but they hold tenaciously to the rule, that all men and all women among them must respect the matrimonial customs by which they are governed. these customs cannot be violated with impunity, and the penalty for such violations is often death. they are disposed to be true to their professions, and faithful in what they believe. when they are persuaded that there is a better life, and induced to embrace it, they bring with them their characteristic sincerity. how great, then, is the need of missionaries who will not, by the deplorable example set by their own unfaithfulness and insincerity, lower the standard of the native. the spirit which impels one to work in the foreign field generally leaves him without a choice as to post of duty. the first thought to him is: "lord what wilt thou have me to do?" and hence the missionary goes forth without questioning the race variety among which his lot should be cast. but in this day of systematic method even in christian effort, and when missionaries from every race variety are being prepared for the work, i think it would not be out of place to maintain a closer respect for the laws of adaptation and fitness. * * * * * the religious field, and especially the great continent of africa, seems to offer the greatest opportunity for the man of color to do his best work. as we stand in the open door of a new century, god is calling us to new duties and responsibilities. the preparation for this work was through a school of hard experiences, but perhaps the trials were no harder than those which had been borne by others. we waited long for the call to take our place among other agencies for the redemption of the world; and now that it has come, we have no time nor disposition to brood over past experiences. our business is now with the exacting present, and the portentious future, and we must adjust ourselves to the new situation. god is calling men of every race and clime to take a part in the world's redemption and face the responsibilities that come with the unfolding years. if we are found ready and willing to take our place, then may we claim the promise of his presence and help: but, if we are found to be unwilling, and unworthy, the call may not come to us again. "stretch forth thy hand; jehovah bids thee come and claim the promise; thou hast had thy doom, if forth in sorrow, weeping, thou hast gone, rejoicing to thy god thou shalt return. "stretch forth thy hand, no longer doubt, arise; look! see the 'signo' in the vaulted skies! greet the new century with faith sublime, for god is calling now, this is thy time. "stretch forth thy hand to god, the night is past; the morning cometh, thou art free at last. no brigands draw thee from thy peaceful home, but messengers of love to greet thee come. "stretch forth thy hand to kindred o'er the sea; our cause is one, and brothers still are we. bone of our bone, one destiny we claim; flesh of our flesh, thy god and ours the same. "stretch forth thy hand: "what tho' the heathen rage" and fiends of darkness all their wrath engage. the hand of god still writes upon the wall, "thy days are numbered; all the proud shall fall." "stretch forth thy hand, nor yet in terror flee; thick darkness but a swaddling-band shall be the waves and billows which thy way oppose shall in their bosom bury all thy foes. "stretch forth thy hand to god, 'tis not for thee to question aught, nor all his purpose see. the hand that led thee through the dreary night does not thy counsel need when comes the light. "stretch forth thy hand; stretch forth thy hand to god; nor falter thou, nor stumble at his word. and if in service thou shalt faithful be, his promise of salvation thou shalt see." a plea for industrial opportunity[ ] by fanny jackson coppin fanny miriam jackson coppin, _the first negro woman in america to graduate from college--oberlin, . from to , teacher and principal of the institute for colored youth in philadelphia._ [note : delivered at a fair in philadelphia, held in the interest of the _christian recorder_.] the great lesson to be taught by this fair is the value of co-operative effort to make our cents dollars, and to show us what help there is for ourselves in ourselves. that the colored people of this country have enough money to materially alter their financial condition, was clearly demonstrated by the millions of dollars deposited in the freedmen's bank; that they have the good sense, and the unanimity to use this power, are now proved by this industrial exhibition and fair. it strikes me that much of the recent talk about the exodus has proceeded upon the high-handed assumption that, owing largely to the credit system of the south, the colored people there are forced to the alternative, to "curse god, and die," or else "go west." not a bit of it. the people of the south, it is true, cannot at this time produce hundreds of dollars, but they have millions of pennies; and millions of pennies make tens of thousands of dollars. by clubbing together and lumping their pennies, a fund might be raised in the cities of the south that the poorer classes might fall back upon while their crops are growing; or else, by the opening of co-operative stores, become their own creditors and so effectually rid themselves of their merciless extortioners. "oh, they won't do anything; you can't get them united on anything!" is frequently expressed. the best way for a man to prove that he can do a thing is to do it, and that is what we have shown we can do. this fair, participated in by twenty four states in the union, and gotten up for a purpose which is of no pecuniary benefit to those concerned in it, effectually silences all slanders about "we won't or we can't do," and teaches its own instructive and greatly needed lessons of self-help,--the best help that any man can have, next to god's. those in charge, who have completed the arrangement of the fair, have studiously avoided preceding it with noisy and demonstrative babblings, which are so often the vapid precursors of promises as empty as those who make them; therefore, in some quarters, our fair has been overlooked. it is not, we think, a presumptuous interpretation of this great movement, to say, that the voice of god now seems to utter "speak to the people that they go forward." "go forward" in what respect? teach the millions of poor colored laborers of the south how much power they have in themselves, by co-operation of effort, and by a combination of their small means, to change the despairing poverty which now drives them from their homes, and makes them a millstone around the neck of any community, south or west. secondly, that we shall go forward in asking to enter the same employments which other people enter. within the past ten years we have made almost no advance in getting our youth into industrial and business occupations. it is just as hard for instance, to get a boy into a printing-office now as it was ten years ago. it is simply astonishing when we consider how many of the common vocations of life colored people are shut out of. colored men are not admitted to the printers' trade-union, nor, with very rare exceptions are they employed in any city of the united states in a paid capacity as printers or writers; one of the rare exceptions being the employment of h. price williams, on the _sunday press_ of this city. we are not employed as salesmen or pharmacists, or saleswomen, or bank clerks, or merchants' clerks, or tradesmen, or mechanics, or telegraph operators, or to any degree as state or government officials, and i could keep on with the string of "ors" until to-morrow morning, but the patience of an audience has its limit. slavery made us poor, and its gloomy, malicious shadow tends to keep us so. i beg to say, kind hearers, that this is not spoken in a spirit of recrimination. we have no quarrel with our fate, and we leave your christianity to yourselves. our faith is firmly fixed in that "eternal providence," that in its own good time will "justify the ways of god to man." but, believing that to get the right men into the right places is a "consummation most devoutly to be wished," it is a matter of serious concern to us to see our youth with just as decided diversity of talent as any other people, herded together into but three or four occupations. it is cruel to make a teacher or a preacher of a man who ought to be a printer or a blacksmith, and that is exactly the condition we are now obliged to submit to. the greatest advance that has been made since the war has been effected by political parties, and it is precisely the political positions that we think it least desirable our youth should fill. we have our choice of the professions, it is true, but, as we have not been endowed with an overwhelming abundance of brains, it is not probable that we can contribute to the bar a great lawyer except once in a great while. the same may be said of medicine; nor are we able to tide over the "starving time," between the reception of a diploma and the time that a man's profession becomes a paying one. being determined to know whether this industrial and business ostracism lay in ourselves or "in our stars," we have from time to time, knocked, shaken, and kicked, at these closed doors of employment. a cold, metallic voice from within replies, "we do not employ colored people." ours not to make reply, ours not to question why. thank heaven, we are not obliged to do and die; having the preference to do or die, we naturally prefer to do. but we cannot help wondering if some ignorant or faithless steward of god's work and god's money hasn't blundered. it seems necessary that we should make known to the good men and women who are so solicitous about our souls, and our minds, that we haven't quite got rid of our bodies yet, and until we do, we must feed and clothe them; and this attitude of keeping us out of work forces us back upon charity. that distinguished thinker, mr. henry c. carey, in his valuable works on political economy, has shown by the truthful and forceful logic of history, that the elevation of all peoples to a higher moral and intellectual plane, and to a fuller investiture of their civil rights, has always steadily kept pace with the improvement in their physical condition. therefore we feel that resolutely and in unmistakable language, yet in the dignity of moderation, we should strive to make known to all men the justice of our claims to the same employments as other's under the same conditions. we do not ask that anyone of our people shall be put into a position because he is a colored person, but we do most emphatically ask that he shall not be kept out of a position because he is a colored person. "an open field and no favors" is all that is requested. the time was when to put a colored girl or boy behind a counter would have been to decrease custom; it would have been a tax upon the employer, and a charity that we were too proud to accept; but public sentiment has changed. i am satisfied that the employment of a colored clerk or a colored saleswoman wouldn't even be a "nine days' wonder." it is easy of accomplishment, and yet it is not. to thoughtless and headstrong people who meet duty with impertinent dictation i do not now address myself; but to those who wish the most gracious of all blessings, a fuller enlightment as to their duty,--to those i beg to say, think of what is suggested in this appeal. an appeal to our brother in white[ ] by w. j. gaines, d. d. _bishop of the a.m.e. church in georgia_ [note : from "the negro and the white man," .] providence, in wisdom, has decreed that the lot of the negro should be cast with the white people of america. condemn as we may the means through which we were brought here, recount as we may the suffering through which, as a race, we passed in the years of slavery, yet the fact remains that today our condition is far in advance of that of the negroes who have never left their native africa. we are planted in the midst of the highest civilization mankind has ever known, and are rapidly advancing in knowledge, property, and moral enlightenment. we might, with all reason, thank god even for slavery, if this were the only means through which we could arrive at our present progress and development. we should indeed count ourselves blest if our white brethren would always extend to us that kindness, justice, and sympathy which our services to them in the past should inspire, and our dependence upon them as the more enlightened and wealthy race should prompt them to bestow. why should there be prejudice and dislike on the part of the white man to his colored brother? is it because he was once a slave, and a slave must forever wear the marks of degradation? is there no effacement for the stigma of slavery--no erasement for this blot of shame? will our white brother not remember that it was his hand that forged the links of that chain and that riveted them around the necks of the people who had roved for thousands of years in the unrestrained liberty of the boundless forests in far-away africa? as well might the seducer blacken the name and reputation of the fair and spotless maiden he has cruelly and wantonly seduced. go far enough back and it is more than probable that you will find the taint of slavery in your line and its blot upon your escutcheon. the proud saxon became the slave to the norman, and yet to-day millions are proud to be called anglo-saxons. will our white brother refuse us his cordial fellowship because of our ignorance? ignorance is indeed a great evil and hindrance. the enlightened and refined cannot find fellowship with the ignorant, the benighted, the untutored. if this be the line of demarkation, we can and will remove it. no people ever made more heroic efforts to rise from ignorance to enlightenment. forty-three per cent. of the negro race can read and write, and with time we can bring our race up to a high degree of civilization. we are determined, by the help of providence, and the strength of our own right arms, to educate our people until the reproach of ignorance can no longer be brought against us. when we do, will our white brothers accord that respect which is the due of intelligence and culture? does our white brother look with disdain upon us because we are not cleanly and neat? it is true that the masses of our race have not shown that regard for personal cleanliness and nicety of dress, which a wealthy and educated people have the means and the time for. our people by the exigencies of their lot, have had to toil and toil in menial places, the places where drudgery was demanded and where contact with dust and filth was necessary to the accomplishment of their work. but even this can be remedied, and cleanliness and neatness can be made a part of the negro's education until he can present, as thousands of his race are now doing, a creditable appearance. will improvement along these lines help us to gain the esteem and respectful consideration of our white brothers? if so, the time is not far distant when this barrier will be removed. education will help solve this difficulty as it does all others, and give to our race that touch of refinement which insures physical as well as mental soundness.--_mens sana in corpore sano._ but is our moral condition the true reason of our ostracism? are we remanded to the back seats and ever held in social dishonor because we are morally unclean? would that we could reply by a denial of the allegation and rightly claim that purity which would be at the foundation of all respectable social life. but here we ask the charitable judgment of our white brethren, and point them to the heroic efforts we have made and are making for the moral elevation of our race. even a superficial glance at the social side of the negro's life will convince the unprejudiced that progress is being made among the better classes of our people toward virtuous living. chastity is being urged everywhere in the school house, and the church, and the home, for our women, and honesty and integrity for our men. we can and will lift the shadow of immorality from the great masses of our race, and demonstrate to the whole world what religion and education can do for a people. we are doing it. among the thoroughly cultured and rightly trained of our women, virtue is as sacred as life, and among our men of similar advantages, honor and integrity are prized as highly as among any people on the globe. is our poverty the barrier that divides us from a closer fellowship with our white brethren? would wealth cure all the evils of our condition, and give us the cordial recognition we ask from them? if so, we can remove even this barrier. our labor has already created much of the wealth of the south, and it only needs intelligence to turn it into our own coffers and make it the possession of our own people. among the whites money seems to be the _sesame_ that opens the doors to social recognition, and converts the shoddy into a man of influence and rank. barney barnato, a london jew, who began life with a trained donkey, became at length the "south african diamond king," and then all london paid homage to this despised son of a hated race. would money thus convert our despised people into honorable citizens, give them kindly recognition at the hands of our white neighbors, and take from them the stigma which has so long marked them with dishonor and shame? if so, we can hope to secure even this coveted prize, and claim like barney barnato the respect of mankind. but if it is none of these things that doom us to ostracism and degradation, as a people, i ask finally is it our _color_? alas, if it be this, we can do nothing to remove the line of separation, unless it be to wait the slow process of amalgamation which despite our efforts, the white people of this country seem bound to consummate. if we knew of any chemical preparation by which we could change the color of our skins and straighten our hair we might hope to bring about the desired consummation at once, but alas, there is no catholicon for this ill, no mystic concoction in all the pharmacies of earth to work this miracle of color. we must fold our hands in despair and submit to our fate with heavy hearts. to be serious, however, i would plead with our white brothers not to despise us on account of our color. it is the inheritance we received from god, and it could be no mark of shame or dishonor. "can the leopard change his spots or the ethiopian his skin?" no disgrace can be attached to physical characteristics which are the result of heredity, and cannot be removed by any volition or effort. how cruel it is to visit upon the colored man contempt and dishonor because of the hue of his skin, or the curling peculiarity of his hair. let him stand or fall upon his merit. let him be respected if he is worthy. let him be despised if he is unworthy. we appeal to our white brothers to accord us simple justice. if we deserve good treatment give it to us, and do not consider the question of color any more than you would refuse kindness to a man because he is blind. all we ask is a fair show in the struggle of life. we have nothing but the sentiment of kindness for our white brethren. take us into your confidence, trust us with responsibility, and above all, show us cordial kindness. thus will you link our people to you by the chains of love which nothing can break, and we will march hand in hand up the steep pathway of progress. the political outlook for africa[ ] by edward wilmot blyden edward wilmot blyden, _one of the greatest scholars of the race; native of st. thomas, west indies. secretary of state of the republic of liberia; sent on diplomatic missions to the interior of africa, and reported proceedings before royal geographical society; minister plenipotentiary of the republic of liberia at the court of st. james; secretary of state for foreign affairs; ambassador to france from liberia; fellow of the american philological association; honorary member athaneum club. presented with medal by the sultan of turkey in recognition of his services as mohammedan commissioner of education._ [note : extracts from a speech made at a banquet given in his honor by native africans at holborn, england, august , .] ...now as to our political relations, the gift of the african does not lie in the direction of political aggrandizement. his sphere is the church, the school, the farm, the workshop. with us, the tools are the proper instruments of the man. this is why our country has been partitioned among the political agencies of the world--the japhetic powers, for they can best do the work to be done in the interest of the temporal as a basis for the spiritual advancement of humanity. the african and the jew are the spiritual races, and to them political ascendence among the nations of the earth is not promised. it was m. renan, the great french agnostic, who said: "the fate of the jewish people was not to form a separate nationality; it is a race which always cherishes a dream of something that transcends nations." this truth will stand, though we cannot help sympathizing with the intense and glowing patriotism of mr. zangwill as described in the _daily news_ the other day. then as africans we must sympathize with and assist the powers that be, as ordained by god, whom he will hold to a strict account for their proceedings. we cannot alter this arrangement, whatever our opinion as to the rudeness and ruggedness of the methods by which the human instruments have arrived at it. it is a fact. let us then, to the best of our ability, assist those to whom has been committed rule over our country. their task is not an easy one. they are giving direction to a state of things that must largely influence the future. as conscientious men, they are often in perplexity. the actual rulers of british west african colonies are to-day an exceptional class of men. and in keeping with the spirit of the times, and in the critical circumstances in which they labor, they are doing their best under the guidance of a chief in this country of large sympathies and a comprehensive grasp of situations. the duty and responsibility of the anglo-saxon idea of citizenship[ ] by w. justin carter _of harrisburg, pennsylvania_ [note : extract from an address delivered before the eureka literary society at penbrooke, pa., december , .] _mr. chairman, ladies and gentlemen:_ i am going to speak to you to-night of what your race has contributed and is contributing to this great stream on whose bosom is borne the freighted destiny of the human race, and whose currents wash every shore. more than two and one half centuries of progress and achievement, on this continent alone, may well vaunt your pride and give you the resolution which belongs to the children themselves of destiny. exult copiously, if you will, over the triumphal march of a great material civilization, the marvelous expansion of your territory, your wonderful development of hidden resources, your power and dignity at home or abroad, but invite not, nor condone that spirit of listless satiety, nor sink into that national egotism which lets the dagger steal to the heart of the nation while your reveling conceals the presence of the foe. for, remember, pomp and splendor, wealth, ease, and power's pride and heraldry's boast once echoed "through haughty rome's imperial street." if american citizenship contains a hope and promise, a wealth, a blessing, and a content, aye! and immortality and just renown, it lives to-day in hearts, and not in stones; it lives in feelings and not in lands; it resides in aspirations and not in coffers, it lives in ideals and not in vaunt and splendor. it is yours to fulfill its duties; to meet well its responsibilities; it is what your fathers builded out of heart and soul, out of love, compassion, and generous fellowship, and not out of blood and brawn; it is humanity's own; yours be it to study and repeat, if need be, the sacrifices of those who planted its first seeds with the sword, nourished them with their blood and suffering, and with wisdom, blessed by heaven, consecrated by heroic sacrifices and sanctified by prayer, left it to you and to all of us, more wisely fashioned, more glittering in its prospect and more alluring to our fancy than anything political wisdom ever offered to human hope. but in order to know and feel what there is of universal interest which we have to do, what there is for humanity's glory and weal we have to preserve; what is the task set to us, as our work in forwarding the current of human life and liberty, we must look to the past, and learn what fundamental, essential truths have grown from its toil and achievement. many such the american idea of citizenship contains; but of one let us speak. the american idea of citizenship and its ideal, its aims, possibilities, and destiny, had its origin and enshrinement in that anglo-saxon spirit of freedom which has been the peculiar characteristic of a race whose civil and judicial development in the remotest and darkest days of its history distanced all rival clans and, from alfred to william iii, from tribe to empire, has cherished and sustained a system of civil and religious liberty, which, intolerant of every form of oppression, has made the english language the vernacular of liberty. in the earliest periods of these peoples' history we find the germinal elements of those great charters of liberty which are to become the chief corner-stone of free government and mighty guarantees of personal liberty. a philosophical review of the evolution of these early ideas of personal liberty to their full growth into a free constitutional government would make an instructive and interesting study; but i lack the learning and the ability for such disquisitions. i must therefore content myself for the purpose of unfolding the duties and destinies of american citizenship, to review but historically, how from simple communities seeking to free themselves from the rule of individuals or classes, to govern themselves by law, and make that law supreme in every exigency, great charters were established and the reign of law instead of the rule of princes permanently established. even in the establishing of their free system of public administration, the anglo-saxon aim and purpose was to secure the most absolute guarantees of personal security. the liberty of the individual unit of society secured in the exercise of the largest liberty consistent with the public welfare, and that liberty protected by the just and righteous administration of public laws, was the ideal of the anglo-saxon state. in their religion, philosophy, poetry, oratory, and literature they have always confessed that oppression was venal and wrong. if selfishness, greed, or pride have allured them for a while from that royal path of national rectitude and honor, they have in the final test returned conquering to their true and higher selves. their inborn hate of oppression, their magnanimous and tolerant spirit of freedom gloriously in the ascendant. thus it is that the free institutions of great britain and america have grown and towered in strength, and in their onward march startled the world by their progress, and appalled the very lips of prophecy by their bold and daring sweep. they will not stop, for liberty is fearless and the current of freedom is irresistible. but in the early anglo-saxon commonwealth, the rights, liberties, and privileges of the citizen were not as broad and full as we find them to-day. the spirit of liberty was weak at first, but her demands grew apace with her strength. neither by the generosity of princes, nor by the wisdom of legislation, were the ordinary english rights of free citizenship enlarged and established. nor are the first and elemental principles of free government which we find springing up on english soil after the conquests, and whose history in the re-establishment of political liberty we shall trace through countless struggles and repressions, the original of that divine idea of freedom which it has been the mission of the anglo-saxon race to give to the world. it is but a part of that great race spirit which the conqueror could not conquer; the lingering spirit of freedom which the iron heel of despotic usurpation could not stamp out, the memory of a lost freedom ranking in the hearts of men determined to restore in their island home those ancient rights which no man dared to question in the days of the saxon, edward the confessor. the condition of the early saxon as it was raised by the wisdom and benevolence of good king alfred, and as it remained until the end of the reign of the unfortunate harold, was that of a freeman, a freeman not merely in the sense of being his own master, but "he was a living unit in the state." he held his lands in his own right. he attended the courts, and entered in their deliberations. he bore arms and, by authority of law, could use them in his own defense. the animating principle of anglo-saxon government was local sovereignty. matters from the smallest to the greatest were vested in the local power. * * * * * the establishment, after the granting of the magna charta, thus firmly of the liberties of england has been accomplished by bitter and fierce struggles; the obstructive forces were strong, but yielded in the end to the onward sweep of liberty directed by the aggressive spirit of intelligence, manhood, and humanity. at the end of the sixteenth century this much had been gained for freedom. the principles of liberty, which had been constantly acknowledged in written documents or had been established by precedents and examples (some of which were the remains of their ancient liberties) had been embodied as a part of the fundamental law of the land; those local institutions, which a while ago we found among the free saxons, and even now pregnant with the seeds of liberty,--the jury, the right of holding public meetings, of bearing arms, and finally the parliament itself had become a part of the common law of england. then came the reformation and its demand for religious freedom. against the claim of a divinely ordained kingly power, the cavalier was found ready to revolt. the puritans writhed under their religious restraint. the puritan and the cavalier joined their cause; political liberty invoked the aid of faith, and faith hallowed and strengthened the crusade of human liberty. the struggle increased against absolute power, spiritual and political, now concentrated in kingly hands. giants they were who took up the quarrel of liberty in those dark days of civil strife. men they were who inherited the blood of the saintly langton and of his lordly barons. five centuries of heroic strife against oppression had sanctified the name of liberty. they were mad with the hatred of tyranny, and centuries of bitter, heart-rending experience had made them wise and valorous for the fray. liberty is now about to win on saxon soil, but not there alone, for those of her yeomanry, who were hardiest for the fight and cherished the broadest liberty, transplanted themselves now upon this new soil of america and laid the foundation of a new empire, which then and forever should be untrammeled by the conservation of princes and unabashed by the sneers of monarchs. they rejected primogeniture and the other institutions of the middle ages, and adopted the anti-feudal custom of equal inheritance. they brought with them the magna charta and the bill of rights; they threw around themselves the safeguard of anglo-saxon liberty purified and burned by those years of oppression. they transplanted saxon england freed from the dross of norman rule and feudal aristocracy. liberty and law are henceforth to work out the destinies of men. and who contemplating the manner of men and whence they derived their faith, their hopes and fears, can quibble about the aims and purposes of the founders of this republic? the fathers did not borrow their political ideals from the juriscounsuls of rome; not from the free democracy of greece; nor did they fuse into their system the feudal aristocratic imperialism of europe. to govern themselves by law, and secure therewith the largest liberty with the greatest security of individual rights and property, was their ideal of statecraft, and this idea, inseparable from the principles they laid down, must endure while the fabric lasts. i have told you that the government the fathers planted was anglo-saxon in law; but it was anglo-saxon too in religion and spirit. nothing has been so conquering in its influence as the anglo-saxon spirit; it has assimilated wherever it has gone, and like the leaven that leaveneth the whole, homogeneity has followed in its fierce wake of progress with not a whit lost of its great and fearless impulse of law and freedom. no race has been so domineering, none stronger and with a more exclusive spirit of caste, none with a more contemptuous dislike of inferiority, none more violent in prejudice once formed, or dislikes once engendered; yet doth the spirit and impulse of freedom move majestic "in the chambers of their soul," raising them finally above those hated obliquities, conquering their repugnance, enfeebling and vanishing their hates. thus one by one grave wrongs inflicted upon weaker races by the cold, calculating hand of greed have been arrested and blotted out in the holy names of right. thus it is, and has been, that nations, sects, and creeds coming to these shores lose, in the fascination of free institutions and the august majesty of liberty, the distinctive qualities of their old allegiance, and thus it is that over a broad land composed of all nations, sects, and creeds there reigns one grand homogeneity and a single patriotic impulse of faith and destiny. few there are of americans who can to-day trace even the faintest spark of their lineage to an english or even a norman source. yet the spirit of the anglo-saxon is the presiding genius of our destiny. its spirit is the spirit of our law, and its religion is the evangel of our political faith. inheritors of this great circumstance of power and rule, need i remind you that, though you sacrifice your labor and toil, though you may have brought forth this jewel of liberty regulated by law, you cannot keep it unless you share it with the world. the evils which in days past men had to wipe out in tears and blood will arise again and precipitate convulsions in which liberty may expire. the very spectacle of seeming grandeur and the outward cast of luxury and splendor invite the enemies' quest and fans into blood-red heat his latent ire, while pride, vanity, and hate surround the heart with the humor of death-breeding slime into which the corroding worm is spawned. i care nothing for the shell; the fleshy parts are no longer food for the living, but the pearl contained in this anglo-saxon mollusk has for me an irresistible charm. the pure spirit of its lofty ideals, distilled from his life and struggles, and living in quickening touch with human thought and aspiration, like the exaltation which lingers after some hosanna chorus; his sublimated actions and deeds, whose swelling flood of cadence throb with the heart-beat of universal man,--these i love with inexpressible devotion; these are worth preserving. all else, cast in the rubbish heap with past delusions. mr. chairman, men are great and small, they roam the vast wilderness of the stars, and soar the very empyrean of thought and action, and they fear and crouch and kneel; and in their quaking fears and driveling doubts seem like puny things crawling on the ground; they are saints and sinners; sometimes emissaries of light and love, and yet again harbingers of ill, and sometimes the very nemesis of hate; but in the composite elements of their human thinking, throbbing energies of heart and mind, they are as but a single soul, governed by one law, imbued with one spirit, hearkening to one voice, touched by the one sympathy, inspired by one hope, and in trend of aspiration, love and ideal, impelled by the onward flux of one great life-struggle and purpose. what, then, are you and i but sentient units in one great evolving process of life-activity and thought; and yet so circumvolved in that process that the impulse, which we irradiate from the point of our single particular seat of energy and feeling, thrills through the vast spheres of human purpose and endeavor, and raises the standard of truth or forwards the advance of enlightened order like each rhythmic melody is gathered in the mightier confluence of chime and strain to swell the torrent of a mighty symphony. the work we have to do is not outside, but deep down in the teeming flow of struggling human souls. think of them as your other self, and your own souls will interpret the meaning of their complaints, the quality of their striving, and the measure of their justice. you will then behold the race of men as i have beheld them once when my single soul seemed with sympathy winged and i sat with the lowly outcast and felt his outrage and his shame; i brooded with him over all his wrongs; i felt within my breast the poison shaft of hate, and clinched like him my fist, scowled, and vengeance swore on them who drove my despair and misery to crime by scoff and rancor and unforgiving hate. i stood amidst a motley throng and felt my brain bereft of noble thought; i lived in a squalid home and despised the pity which the disdainful cast upon my lot; laughed at ribald jests and quaffed the liquid flame, and the dark-hued nectar which concealed the serpent beneath its foam; i held my head aloft to seem with pride imbued; i gibed at fortune's whim and grinned a soulless sneer at my fate to conceal a deep despair. i roamed with the savage indians across the arid plains, stood with them in lonely worship of the great _unknown_, and dropped like him a silent tear for the woodlands gone; the fleet-footed game no longer at his door; his father's dust, scattered by winds over consecrated and hallowed battle-plains. i stood beside the enchanted nile and wondered at the mystery of the sphinx; i felt the lure, the wanderlust of the mysterious arid plains and laid my body down on the desert sand to sleep, a weapon by my side; i arose to greet the rising sun and, with "_allah_" on my tongue, bowed my head in solemn worship towards mecca's distant domes. i wandered through africa's torrid forest and scorching plains and sat naked before a bamboo hut; i felt the savage's freedom and his ease; i learned the songs of birds, the shriek of beasts, the omens of the moons, and kenned the dread and sacred lore which tradition single tongue had brought from the ages past and gone. i walked beside the ganges' sacred shores, worshiped at the shrine of mighty gods and felt the spirit of the mighty _all_ vibrate through my being. i chanted the songs whose authors are forgot, and studied strange philosophies of sages passed; i starved and hungered on his arid plains; i felt the whips and scorn of cast; the curse of fated birth and the iron rule of oppression's heartless greed. i was slave, and by fortune scorned; i felt the whip cut into my quivering flesh and my blood rush hot to the gaping wound; i knew the agony of unrequited toil, and with aching limbs dragged my hopeless body to my hut, to think, but not to sleep. i learned to dream and hate, and at nemesis' bloody altar immolated in thought and hope the whole detested tribe of human oppressors and cried _content_. and thus i know the bondage which men endure, the realty and the delusion in what they think and feel; and the subtlety and strength of those evil forces which color his disposition and becloud his prospect. and i stand amidst his turbulent fortunes and above the storm and rage of his contentions and despairs to proclaim the divinity of his soul, and to herald a new awakening under which his quickened energies will yet surge forward in mighty waves of better things. if the republic is true to the great principles of liberty and justice which it proclaims; if you have learned the lesson of your own history, and appropriated the experience coined out of your own struggles, then will anglo-saxon genius and achievement glow like a mighty flame to light the path of struggling men, and anglo-saxon glory light angels to restore the rights of man. the army as a trained force[ ] by theophilus g. steward, d. d. _chaplain th united states infantry_ [note : delivered before general conference, chicago, ill., .] _reverend bishops, and brethren of the ministry, and my brethren of the laity:_ i thank the honorable commission from my heart for the distinguished favor they have conferred upon me in inviting me to address this august assembly. never before, during all my forty years of public life, have i been granted so majestic a privilege; never before have i ventured to assume so grave a responsibility; and, i may add, never before have i felt so keenly my inability to do justice to the occasion. i am encouraged, however, by the reflection that i am in the house of my friends, where i may hope for an indulgent hearing, and especially upon the subject which i have the high honor to bring before you. the purport of my address is the conservation of life; the development of physical and moral power as well as of mental alertness; the creation of bravery and the evolution of that higher and broader element--courage; the formation of character sturdy enough to upbear a state, and intelligent enough to direct its government. what i have to say will be toward the production of a robust and chivalric manhood, the only proper shelter for a pure and glorious womanhood. noble women are the crown of heroic men. none but the brave deserve the fair, and none but the brave can have them. for the purpose of illustrating and enforcing these great social, physical, and moral truths, i have chosen the army of our country, or the character and training of the american soldier. in this i do not depart from biblical practise. how many hearts have been cheered and strengthened by the thrilling pictures painted by st. paul of the soldiers of his times! how many have in thought beheld his armed hosts and heard his stirring exhortation: "fight the good fight of faith!" we owe our existence as a nation to the men in arms who for eight years met the force of great britain with counter force, and thus cleared the field for the statesmanship that can make the proverbial two blades of grass grow. the man with the gun opened the way for the man with the hoe. we who are here, and the race we represent, owe our deliverance from chattel slavery to the men in arms who conquered the slaveholders' rebellion. it is a sad thought, but nevertheless one too true thus far in human history, that liberty, man's greatest earthly boon, can be reached only through a pathway of blood. the army made good our declaration of independence; and upon the army and navy lincoln relied for the efficacy of his plan of emancipation. abstract right is fair to look upon, and has furnished the theme for charming essays by such beautiful writers as ruskin and emerson; but right, backed up by battalions, is the right that prevails. when the men of blood and iron come, there is no longer time for the song or the essay. it is, "get in line or be shot." the days of rhetoricals are over. the eloquence of the soldier silences all. even the laws are dumb when the sword is unsheathed. is this horrible doctrine? it is only god overthrowing pharaoh by means more humane than his fearful plagues, and less destructive than the billows of that relentless sea over which redeemed israel so exultingly sang. no, brethren; the sword of the lord and of gideon has not ceased to be a useful instrument. it is the proper thing for evil doers. the army is the national sword, and the "powers that be" bear it "not in vain." it is a fearful engine of destruction, pure and simple. von moltke says: "the immediate aim of the soldier's life is destruction, and nothing but destruction; and whatever constructions wars result in are remote and non-military." an austrian officer says: "live and let live is no device for an army. contempt for one's own comrades, for the troops of the enemy, and, above all, fierce contempt for one's own person, are what war demands of every one. far better is it for an army to be too savage, too cruel, too barbarous, than to possess too much sentimentality and human reasonableness. if the soldier is to be good for anything as a soldier, he must be exactly the opposite of a reasoning and thinking man. the measure of goodness in him is his possible use in war. war, and even peace, require of the soldier absolutely peculiar standards of morality. the recruit brings with him common moral notions of which he must seek immediately to get rid. for him, victory--success--must be everything. the most barbaric tendencies in man come to life again in war, and for war's uses they are incommensurably good." perhaps the greatest of american psychologists, professor william james, adds to these remarks: "consequently the soldier can not train himself to be too feelingless to all those usual sympathies and respects, whether for persons or for things that make for conservation. yet," he says, "the fact remains that war is a school of strenuous life and heroism and, being in the line of aboriginal instinct, is the only school that as yet is universally available." emerson says: "war educates the senses, calls into action the will, perfects the physical constitution, brings men into such swift and close collision in critical moments that man measures man." it is not my purpose, however, to glorify war. war to me is horrible beyond description or conception, and it is for war that armies are trained; yet the training of an army, like the training of even a pugilist, is a work of great moral value. notwithstanding the fact that the army gave us our independence, when the revolution had succeeded, and the constitution had been framed, and the country launched on her career, there was a tendency to forget joseph. so strong was the feeling against a standing army that it was with difficulty that even a nucleus was maintained. the first legislation on this subject gave us but one battalion of artillery and one regiment of infantry, the whole consisting of officers and men. in , because of the war with england, the army ran up to , ; but the next year fell to , , and continued even below that number up to , when it again went up to about , . in , during the mexican war, it reached about , . when the civil war broke out it was about , . there were in the army, at the time of the beginning of the civil war, over , officers. two hundred and eighty-six of these left the service of the united states, and subsequently served in the confederate army. of these , had been educated at west point. but so far as i am able to say now, not a single enlisted man followed the example of these officers. beside the staff departments, the army now consists of regiments of cavalry, batteries of field artillery, companies of coast artillery, and regiments of infantry. these different classes are known as the three arms of the service: cavalry, artillery, and infantry. our whole army to-day numbers , men. we are the greatest nation, with the smallest army. our army, however, is capable of rapid expansion; and, with our national guard, we need not fear any emergency. this army, though so small, is in one sense a trained athlete, ready to defend the nation's honor and flag. in another sense, it is a vast practical school, in which the military profession is taught. the students are not only the , who are now serving, but the many thousands also, who come and go. men enlist for three years, and although many re-enlist, the army is constantly receiving recruits, and constantly discharging trained soldiers. these discharged soldiers are often found among our best citizens. the entire corps of over , officers may be regarded as professors or instructors, whose duty it is to bring the army up to a state of perfection. to this corps of , commissioned officers must be added, also, the large number of intelligent non-commissioned officers, who are assistant instructors of the very highest utility. the work of the army consists of study and practice, instruction and drill. it is an incessant school. there are officers' school, non-commissioned officers' school, school of the soldier, school of the company, school of the battalion, post school,--besides drills and lectures without number. the actual scientific information imparted to the enlisted men is considerable. to specify only in small part: it includes all methods of signaling, up to telegraphy; all methods of preserving and preparing food; all methods of first treatment of wounds; how to estimate distance, to map a country, to care for property and stock, and the most thorough knowledge of weapons and warfare. to become a second lieutenant in the army, a man must either go through west point, or have the equivalent of a college education, especially in mathematics, history, and law; and have, besides, an accurate knowledge of what is purely military. and when he is made a second lieutenant and enters upon his career as an officer, his studies begin afresh. he must study to prepare himself for subsequent promotions. failure in this means dismission. the army officer to-day must be exceedingly thorough and accurate in his knowledge. general corbin says: "never before in the history of the army have there been so many acceptable candidates for promotion as there are at this time. never before has the army been in a higher state of efficiency and in more perfect accord than it is to-day. until within a short time, an officer graduated at the military academy at west point was looked upon as a man with 'a finished education'; but to-day, and for the last four years, we accept that education merely as the foundation upon which a more advanced education is to be built. this theory is in general practice, and has been so accepted. the service schools at fort monroe, fort totten, fort riley, fort leavenworth, and the war college at washington are, in most respects, high-class post-graduate schools. in addition of this, every post is a school of application, educating officers and men for the duties now required of them." what, then, is this training of the army for which the officer must possess this most accurate, thorough, and scientific education? he is required to have this education that he may train the soldier up to the highest point of efficiency. the officer must know, and must be able to impress the soldier with the fact that he _does_ know. the officer must have the full _science_ of everything pertaining to the soldier's work, in order that he may teach the soldier the _art_ of it. the nature of the training to which the soldier is subjected may be best understood by considering its end. this, as in all training, is more important than the method. the primary object of the training is to unify the army and make it the efficient instrument for executing the nation's will. by discipline, individual efforts are brought under control of the chief. a company is well disciplined when, in its movement, its collective soul, so to speak, is identified with that of its commander. the officer must have possession of his men, so that when the command is given, an electric current will seem to pass through the company, and the movement will, as it were, execute itself. in a well-drilled and well-disciplined company, the orders do not seem to pass through the intellects of the men. without reflection, but simply by concentrated attention, the work is done. the wills of the men are not only temporarily dislodged, but in their place is substituted the dominant will of the commander. this is the psychological end sought; and this condition secures instantaneous obedience to orders. it is this which brings about those marvels of execution which occur among disciplined men. men perform acts in which neither their personal reason nor even their personal will has any part. a second end of the training is to habituate the men so firmly in the performance of certain movements that no emotion can interfere with their action. upon the battle-field there is nothing left of the exercises of the times of peace, but that which has become a habit, or in a word, an instinct. the soldier must be so trained that he will go on with his work as long as he has the ability to do so. one has said: "it must be the aim of the new discipline to make the private soldier capable of keeping steadfastly in mind for the whole of the day, or even for several days, and striving with all his might to carry out, what he has been told by a superior who is no longer present, and who, for all he may know, is dead." a third end sought in military training is to render the soldier strong and agile, so that he can move with rapidity, sustain long marches, and handle his weapon with dexterity. * * * * * every consideration in feeding, clothing, sheltering, both men and animals, has but one object,--efficiency. all questions of moral duty, all ideas of the spiritual or immortal interests, are completely submerged beneath the ever-present thought of material force. power must be had by men, horses, machinery; power, aggressive power, is the all-pervading and all-controlling thought of the army. * * * * * an army is properly an incarnation of the fiend of destruction. every part of its legitimate work is to destroy. if it constructs bridges and builds roads, erects forts and digs trenches, these are all that it may destroy, or prevent some other incarnation from destroying _it_. armies lay waste and destroy. cornfields, orchards, lawns, life, and treasure are all prey for the voracious destroyer. the motive employed in bringing the soldier to the high state of excellence here described is always that of duty. the word "duty" is very prominent and very full of meaning in the army. military duty is made a moral obligation founded upon patriotism. this sentiment of duty is the moral force in the army that gives dignity to its obedience. the army develops, strengthens, and educates this _sense of duty_, until it becomes supreme. it is this _sense of duty_ which produces endurance to undergo privations, and leads men to be patient under the greatest sacrifices. the physical force which we see in the army depends upon the moral or spiritual which we do not see. the whole life of the army, its very soul, the breath which animates its every part, is _preparation for war_. to be _ready for war_ is the supreme end toward which all its efforts tend. the mechanical parts of the work are so numerous and various that i can barely outline them here. there are those exercises which conduce to health and vigor, known as the setting-up drill. these exercises correct the form of the body and transform the recruit into a soldier. the constant drills all have their effect upon the bearing and gait of the men. the extensive system of calisthenics gives to the body suppleness. all this work is done under direction, so that obedience and discipline are taught at the same time with physical culture. apart from these exercises are _voluntary athletics_, which are greatly encouraged. it is believed that athletic exercises, by bettering the bodies of the men, better also their minds; that, for the welfare of the army, these exercises rank next to training in shooting. i know you will take pride in the fact that the black soldiers, both of infantry and cavalry, occupy a place in the very front rank in all these manly exercises. they are equal to america's best on the drillground, on the athletic grounds, and on the field of bloody strife. the practise of cleanliness is enjoined all the time, along with these exercises. the soldier is taught how to make his bed and to put all his effects in order, and is then compelled to do it; and thus there is established within him a love of order. punctuality, cleanliness, and order are the soldier's three graces. the hygiene of his body, care of his arms and equipments, respect for his uniform, are driven into his inmost soul. our regiment lived in the midst of cholera, without suffering from the disease. hence the army is a great object-lesson of what care and training can make of men. but the army in our republic is of far greater value in a moral sense than in a physical sense. in these days when authority is departing from the home, the church, and the school, it is well that it can find refuge somewhere in the country. the working of the army rests entirely upon authority. one single will pervades every part of it, although this will is participated in by thousands. every subordinate is independent within limits; but one general will controls all. respect for authority is enforced, and thus taught, not in theory alone, but by practice. the corporal is not the same as a private. the man who holds a commission from the president represents the high authority of the republic; and the true soldier yields him both obedience and respect. everywhere the soldier is taught obedience to law. after all that i have said, it is scarcely necessary to emphasize the fact that the soldier's obedience becomes voluntary, and that he takes pride in his profession. hence the army is a body of men, not moving according to their own wills, not a deliberative assembly, but a purely executive body, the incarnation of law and of force. it is silent, but powerful. it does not talk, but acts; army spells action. the men who are trained in our army are not likely to become members of the lawless element. they have learned too well the lessons of order and the necessity of subordination. the attitude of the army upon the vexed race question is better than that of any other secular institution of our country. when the fifth army corps returned from cuba and went into camp at montauk point, broken down as it was by a short but severe campaign, it gave to the country a fine exhibition of the moral effects of military training. there was seen the broadest comradeship. the four black regiments were there, and cordially welcomed by their companions in arms. in the maneuvers at fort riley, no infantry regiment on the ground was more popular than the th; and in contests the men of the th proved their mettle by carrying off nearly every medal and trophy in sight. "perhaps the most notable series of events, in the light of the popular notion of negro inferiority, were the athletic sports. the first of these was the baseball game for the championship of the department of the missouri and a silk banner. this contest had gone through the several organizations, and was finally narrowed down to the th cavalry and the th infantry. on october th, which was set apart as a field day for athletic sports, the officers of the encampment, many women and civilians, as well as the soldiers of the regular army present, assembled on the athletic grounds at . a. m. to witness the game. a most interesting and thoroughly scientific game was played, the th winning in the eleventh inning by a score of to . the banner would have gone to colored soldiers in either case." we must not expect too much of the army. it is not a church, not a sunday-school, not a missionary society. its code of morals is very short, very narrow, but it enforces what it has. its commandments are: . thou shalt not fail to obey thy superior officer. . thou shalt not miss any calls sounded out by the trumpeter. . thou shalt not appear at inspection with anything out of order in thy person, clothing, or equipment. . thou shalt not lie. . thou shalt not steal. . thou shalt not leave the post or garrison without permission. i would say, further, that warfare now requires so much from the man who carries it on, that it is impossible to unite the general and the statesman in one person. the army must be purely executive, carrying out the mandates of the state. the moral and political questions must be resolved by men of other professions. the soldier has all that he can do to attend to the exigencies of the battle. the army of our republic has a great moral mission which it is performing almost unconsciously. it is a most influential witness against lawlessness. by its own perfect order and obedience to discipline it gives the force of a powerful example in favor of loyalty to the republic and respect for the laws. the best school of loyalty in the land is the army. every evening in the camp, to see ten thousand men stand in respectful attention to our song to the national banner is a lesson of great moral force. in still another sense our army is also a great moral force. when men see what a terrific engine of destruction it is, the good people rejoice because they know this engine is in safe hands; and the evil-disposed look on and are enlightened. fierce anarchists will stop to count ten, at least, before they begin their attack upon the government. lastly, the army, by the very aristocracy of its constitution, contributes much to make effective the doctrines of equality. the black soldier and the white soldier carry the same arms, eat the same rations, serve under the same laws, participate in the same experience, wear the same uniforms, are nursed in the same hospitals, and buried in the same cemeteries. the roman catholic church, by its priestly aristocracy, has always been a bulwark against caste. so, in the same manner, the army of our republic, by its aristocracy of commission, has proven itself the most effectual barrier against the inundating waves of race discrimination that the country has as yet produced. the sunday-school and church as a solution of the negro problem[ ] by d. webster davis, d. d. _of richmond, virginia_ [note : delivered at the international, interdenominational sunday-school convention, massey hall, toronto, canada, june , .] if i were asked to name the most wonderful and far-reaching achievement of the splendid, all-conquering anglo-saxon race, i would ignore the pass of thermopylæ, the immortal six hundred at balaklava, trafalgar, waterloo, quebec, bunker hill, yorktown, and appomattox; i would forget its marvelous accumulations of wealth; its additions to the literature of the world, and point to the single fact that it has done the most to spread the religion of jesus christ, as the greatest thing it has accomplished for the betterment of the human family. the jews preserved the idea of a one god, and gave the ethics to religion--the ten commandements, the lord's prayer, and the sermon on the mount; the greeks contributed philosophy; the romans, polity; the teutons, liberty and breadth of thought; but it remained to the anglo-saxon implicitly to obey the divine command: "go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." if some man would ask me the one act on the part of my own race that gives to me the greatest hope for the negro's ultimate elevation to the heights of civilization and culture, i would not revel in ancient lore to prove them the pioneers in civilization, nor would i point to their marvelous progress since emancipation that has surprised their most sanguine friends, but i would take the single idea of their unquestioned acceptance of the dogmas and tenets of the christian religion as promulgated by the anglo-saxon, as the highest evidence of the future possibilities of the race. ours was indeed a wonderful faith that overleaped the barriers of ecclesiastical juggling to justify from holy writ the iniquitous traffic in human flesh and blood; forgot the glaring inconsistencies of a religion that prayed, on sunday, "our father which art in heaven," and on monday sold a brother, who, though cut in ebony, was yet the image of the divine. the negro had in very truth, "that faith that would not shrink, tho' pressed by every foe; that would not tremble on the brink of any earthly woe. that faith that shone more bright and clear when trials reigned without; that, when in danger, knew no fear, in darkness felt no doubt." if it is indeed true that "by faith are ye saved," not only in this world, but in the world to come, then god will vouchsafe to us a most abundant salvation. it is my blessed privilege to-night, while you are pleading for the "winning of a generation," and at this special session for "the relation of the sunday-school to missions, both home and foreign," to plead for my people, and my prayer is that god may help me to make my plea effective. for the people for whom i plead are bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. i plead for help for my own bright-eyed boy and girl, and for all the little black boys and girls in my far-off southern home. if the great race problem is to be settled (and it is a problem, notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary), it is to be settled, not in blood and carnage, not by material wealth and accumulation of lands and houses, not in literary culture nor on the college campus, not in industrial education, or in the marts of trade, but by the religion of him who said, "and i, if i be lifted up, will draw all men unto me." these things are resultant factors in the problem, but the problem itself lies far deeper than these. calhoun is reported to have said, "if i could find a negro who could master the greek syntax, i would believe in his possibilities of development." a comparatively few years have passed away, and a negro not only masters the greek syntax, but writes a greek grammar accepted as authority by some of the ablest scholars of the states. but abbé gregori of france published, in the fifteenth century, "literature of the negro," telling of the achievements of negro writers, scholars, priests, philosophers, painters, and roman prelates in spain, portugal, france, italy, holland, and turkey, which prompted blumenbach to declare it would be difficult to meet with such in the french academy; and yet, literature and learning have not settled the problem. no, the religion of jesus christ is the touchstone to settle all the problems of human life. more than nineteen hundred years ago, christ gave solution when he said, "ye are brethern," "love is the fulfilling of the law," and "whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." is the negro in any measure deserving of the help for which i plead? the universal brotherhood, and common instincts of humanity should be enough. i bring more. othello, in speaking of desdemona, says, "she loved me for the dangers i had passed, i loved her that she did pity me." if pity and suffering can awaken sympathy, then we boldly claim our right to the fullest measure of consideration. two hundred and fifty years of slavery, with all its attendant evils, is one of our most potent weapons to enlist sympathy and aid. i come with no bitterness to north or south. for slavery i acknowledge all the possible good that came to us from it; the contact with superior civilization, the knowledge of the true god, the crude preparation for citizenship, the mastery of some handicraft; yet, slavery had its side of suffering and degradation. north and south rejoice that it is gone forever, and yet, many of its evils cling to us, like the old man of the sea to sinbad the sailor, and, like banquo's ghost, they haunt us still. as i stand here to-night, my mind is carried back to a plantation down in "old virginia." it is the first day of january, . lincoln's immortal proclamation is a year old, and yet i see an aunt of mine, the unacknowledged offspring of her white master, being sent away from the old homestead to be sold. the proud anglo-saxon blood in her veins will assert itself as she resists with all the power of her being the attempts of the overseer to ply lash to her fair skin, and for this she must be sold "way down souf." i see her now as she comes down from the "great house," chained to twelve others, to be carried to lumpkin's jail in richmond to be put upon the "block." she had been united to a slave of her choice some two years before, and a little innocent babe had been born to them. the husband, my mother with the babe in her arms, and other slaves watch them from the "big gate" as they come down to the road to go to their destination some twenty miles away. as she saw us, great tears welled up in her big black eyes; not a word could she utter as she looked her last sad farewell. she thought of one of the old slave-songs we used to sing in the cabin prayer-meetings at night as we turned up the pots and kettles, and filled them up with water to drown the sound. being blessed, as is true of most of my race, with a splendid voice, she raised her eyes, and began to sing: "brethren, fare you well, brethren, fare you well, may god almighty bless you until we meet again." singing these touching lines she passed out of sight. more than forty years have passed, and she and her loved ones have never met again, unless they have met in the morning land, where partings are no more. for the sufferings we have endured, leaving their traces indelibly stamped upon us, i claim your aid that we may have for our children this blessed gospel, the panacea for all human ills. the negro has elements in his nature that make him peculiarly susceptible to religious training. he stands as a monument to faithfulness to humble duty, one of the highest marks of the christ-life. he is humble and faithful, but not from cowardice, in evidence of which i recall his achievements at boston, bunker hill, new orleans, milikens bend, wilson's landing, and san juan hill. he fought when a slave, some would say, from compulsion, but would he fight for love of the flag of the union? god gave him a chance to answer the question at san juan hill. the story is best understood as told to me by one of the brave th cavalry as he lay wounded at old point comfort, va. * * * * * up go the splendid rough riders amid shot and shell from enemies concealed in fields, trees, ditches, and the block-house on the hill. the galling fire proves too much for them and back they come. a second and third assault proves equally unavailing. they must have help. help arrives, in the form of a colored regiment. see them as they come, black as the sable plume of midnight, yet irresistible as the terrible cyclone. as is the custom of my race under excitement of any kind, they are singing, not "my country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee i sing," though fighting willingly for the land that gave them birth; not, "the bonnie blue flag," though they were willing to die for the flag they loved; they sing a song never heard on battle-field before, "there's a hot time in the old town to-night." on they come, trampling on the dead bodies of their comrades; they climb the hill. "to the rear!" is the command. "to the front!" they cry; and leaderless, with officers far in the rear, they plant the flag on san juan hill, and prove to the world that negroes can fight for love of country. they were faithful to humble duty in the dark days of the south from to . when jefferson davis had called for troops until he had well-nigh decimated the fair southland, and even boys, in their devotion to the cause they loved dearly, were willing to go to the front, my young master came to my old mistress and asked to be allowed to go. calling my uncle isaac, my old mistress said to him, "isaac, go along with your young mars edmund, take good care of him, and bring him home to me." "i gwy do de bes i kin," was his reply. off these two went, amid the tears of the whole plantation, and we heard no more of them for some time. one night we were startled to hear the dogs howling down in the pasture-lot, always to the southern heart a forewarning of death. a few nights thereafter, my mother heard a tapping on the kitchen window, and, on going to the door, saw uncle isaac standing there--alone. "what in the world are you doing here?" was the question of my mother. "whar's mistis'?" was the interrogative answer. my mother went to call the mistress, who, white as a sheet repeated the question. "mistis', i done de bes' i could." going a few paces from the door, while the soft southern moon shone pitilessly through the solemn pines, he brought the dead body of his young master and laid it tenderly at his mother's feet. he had brought his dead "massa" on his back a distance of more than twenty miles from the battle-field, thus faithfully keeping his promise. such an act of devotion can never be forgotten while memory holds its sacred office. not one case of nameless crime was ever heard in those days, though the flower of the womanhood of the south was left practically helpless in the hands of black men in southern plantations. "but as a faithful watch-dog stands and guards with jealous eye, he cared for master's wife and child, and at the door would lie, to shed his blood in their defense, 'gainst traitors, thieves, and knaves, altho' those masters went to fight to keep them helpless slaves." some have claimed that, instead of putting so much money in churches, the negro, after the war, should have built mills and factories, and thus would have advanced more rapidly in civilization; but i rejoice that he did build churches, and to-day can say that of the three hundred millions he has accumulated, more than forty millions are in church property in the sixteen southern states. this shows his fidelity and gratitude to god, and that by intuition he had grasped the fundamental fact that faith and love and morality are greater bulwarks for the perpetuity of a nation than material wealth; that somehow he was in accord with god's holy mandate that "man does not live by bread alone." guided by a superior wisdom, he first sought the kingdom of heaven, and it does seem that "all these things" are slowly being added to him. education and wealth, unsanctified by the grace of god, are after all, curses rather than a blessing. we are to rise, not by our strong bodies, our intellectual powers, or material wealth, although these are necessary concomitants, but by the virtue, character, and honesty of our men and women. we are proud of our , teachers, , graduated doctors, , lawyers, , ordained ministers, , business men, patentees, and , farms all paid for, as evidences of our possibilities, but proudest of the fact that nearly three millions of our almost ten millions of negroes are professing christians. it is true that the black man is not always the best kind of a christian. he is often rather crude in worship, with a rather hazy idea of the connection between religion and morality. a colored man, on making a loud profession of religion, was asked if he were going to pay a certain debt he had contracted, remarked, "'ligun is 'ligun, an' bisnes' is bisnes', an' i aint gwy mix um," yet i am afraid ours is not the only race that fails to "mix um," and he does not have to go far to find others with advantages far superior to his, who have not reached the delectable mountain. we, like others, are seeking higher ground, and some have almost reached it. thank god we can point to thousands of negro christians whose faith is as strong as that of the prophets of old, and whose lives are as pure and sweet as the morning dew. our greatest curse to-day is the rum-shop, kept far too often by men of the developed and forward race to filch from us our hard earnings, and give us shame and misery in return. and a man who would deliberately debauch and hinder a backward race, struggling for the light, would "rob the dead, steal the orphan's bread, pillage the palace of the king of kings, and clip the angels' pinions while they sing." right by the side of this hindrance, especially in the country districts, is our ignorant, and, in too many cases, venial ministry, for ignorance is the greatest curse on earth, save sin. the sunday-school is destined to be the most potent factor in the removal of this evil. as our children see the light as revealed in the sunday-school by the teachers of god's word, they will demand an intelligent and moral ministry and will support no other. let me say to you that there is no agency doing more in that absolutely necessary and fundamental line than this god-sent association. wherever your missionaries have gone, there have been magical and positive changes for good, and the elevating power of this work for us can never be told. god bless the thousands of sunday-school teachers whose names may never be known outside their immediate circles, and yet are doing a work so grand and noble that angels would delight to come down and bear them company. there is a beautiful story told in greek mythology that when ulysses was passing in his ship by the isle of the sirens, the beautiful sirens began to play their sweetest music to lure the sailors from their posts of duty. ulysses and his sailors stuffed wax in their ears, and lashed themselves to the masts that they might not be lured away; but, when orpheus passed by in the search of the golden fleece and heard the same sweet songs, he simply took out his harp and played sweeter music, and not a sailor desired to leave the vessel. the sirens of sin and crime are doing all in their power to lure us from the highest and best things in life. wealth, education, political power are, after all, but wax in the ears, the ropes that may or may not hold us to the masts of safety; but that sweeter music of the heart, played on the harp of love by the fingers of faith will hold us stronger than "hoops of steel." let the great sunday-school movement continue to play for us this sweeter music, and no sirens can lure us away from truth and right and heaven. the mission that will be of real help to us will be the mission dictated by love, for no race is more susceptible to kindness than ours. it must be undertaken in the spirit of the master who said, "i call ye not servants, for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth; but i have called you friends." the negro loves his own and is satisfied to be with them, and yet, the man who would really help him must be a man who has seen the vision. peter was unwilling to go to the gentiles, being an orthodox jew, until god put him in a trance upon the house top, let down the sheet from heaven with all manner of beasts, and bid him rise up, slay, and eat. peter strenuously objected, saying, "lord, i have touched nothing unclean." but god said, "what i have cleansed, call thou not unclean." then peter said, "i see of a truth that god is no respector of persons, but has made of one blood all men to dwell upon all the face of the earth." i pray, i believe, that you have seen this vision, and in this spirit have come to help us. sir launfal, in searching for the holy grail, found it in ministering to the suffering and diseased at his own door. ye who are in search of god's best gift can find it to-day in lifting up these ten millions of people at your door, broken by slavery, bound by ignorance, yet groping for the light. if we go down in sin and ignorance, we can not go alone, but must contaminate and curse millions unborn. if we go up, as in god's name we will, we will constitute the brightest star in your crown. what religion has done for others, it will do for us. see the triumphs of king emanuel in africa, burmah, china, and the isles of the sea. it was christianity that liberated four millions of slaves, and brought them to their better position. christian men, north and south, are helping them to-day. we could not rise alone. * * * * * has the negro made improvement commensurate with the help he has received from north and south? i believe he has, and that each year finds him better than the last. good dr. talmage was visiting a parishioner when a little girl sat on his knee. seeing his seamed and wrinkled face, she asked, "doctor, did god make you?" "yes," was the reply. then, looking at her own sweet, rosy face in a glass opposite, she asked, "did god make me, too?" "yes." "did god make me after he made you?" "yes, my child, why?" looking again at his face and hers, she said, "well. doctor, god is doing better work these days." god bless our mothers and fathers; no nobler souls ever lived under such circumstances; but god has answered their prayers, and with the young folks will do better work. the convention helps us to help ourselves, the only true help, and in this the conveners are investing in soul-power that pays the biggest dividends, and its bonds are always redeemable at the bank of heaven. in a terrible storm at sea, when all the passengers were trembling with fear, one little boy stood calm and serene. "why so calm, my little man?" asked one. "my father runs this ship," was the reply. i have too much confidence in what religion has done and too much faith in what it can do, to be afraid. "god's in his heaven, all's right with the world." let each do his part to help on the cause. "there is never a rose in all the world but makes some green spray sweeter; there is never a wind in all the sky but makes some bird's wing fleeter; there is never a star but brings to earth some silvery radiance tender, and never a sunset cloud but helps to cheer the sunset's splendor. no robin but may cheer some heart, its dawnlight gladness voicing; god gives us all some small sweet way to set the world rejoicing." america, i believe, is destined of god to be the land that shall flow with milk and honey, the king's highway, when the "ransomed of the lord shall return and come to zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads; they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and mourning shall flee away." i see gathered upon our fair western plain nations of all the earth. the italian is there and thinks of "italia, fair italia!" the frenchman sings his "marsellaise." the solid, phlegmatic german sings his "die wacht am rhein." the irish sing "killarney" and "wearin' the green"; the scotchman his "blue bells"; the englishman, "god save the king!"; the american, the "star-spangled banner." god bless the patriot, but the ultimate end of all governments is that the kingdom of christ may prevail. one towering christian man thinks of this, and seeing a black man standing by without home or country remembers that "all are christ's and christ's is god's." he swings a baton high in air and starts a grand hallelujah chorus. forgot is all else as the grand chorus, white and black, of every age and every clime, sing till heaven's arches ring again, while angels from the battlements of heaven listen and wave anew the palm-branches from the trees of paradise, and the angels' choir that sang on the plains of bethlehem more than nineteen hundred years ago join in the grand refrain, "all hail the power of jesus' name, let angels prostrate fall; bring forth the royal diadem, and crown him lord of all." william lloyd garrison: a centennial oration[ ] by reverdy c. ransom, d. d. _editor a. m. e. church review_ [note : delivered on the occasion of the citizen's celebration of th anniversary of the birth of william lloyd garrison, held under the auspices of the boston suffrage league, in faneuil hall, boston, mass., u.s.a., dec. , .] _friends, citizens:_ we have assembled here to-night to celebrate the one hundredth birth of william lloyd garrison. not far from this city he was born. within the gates of this city, made famous by some of america's most famous men, he spent more than two-thirds of his long and eventful career, enriching its history and adding to the glory of its renown. this place, of all places, is in keeping with the hour. it is most appropriate that we should meet in faneuil hall, the cradle of american liberty, a spot hallowed and made sacred by the statesmen, soldiers, orators, scholars, and reformers who have given expression to burning truths and found a hearing within these walls. of all people it is most fitting that the negro americans of boston should be the ones to take the lead in demonstrating to their fellow-citizens, and to the world, that his high character is cherished with affection, and the priceless value of his unselfish labors in their behalf shall forever be guarded as a sacred trust. only succeeding generations and centuries can tell the carrying power of a man's life. some men, whose contemporaries thought their title to enduring fame secure, have not been judged worthy in a later time to have their names recorded among the makers of history. some men are noted, some are distinguished, some are famous,--only a few are great. the men whose deeds are born to live in history do not appear more than once or twice in a century. of the millions of men who toil and strive, the number is not large whose perceptible influence reaches beyond the generation in which they lived. it does not take long to call the roll of honor of any generation, and when this roll is put to the test of the unprejudiced scrutiny of a century, only a very small and select company have sufficient carrying power to reach into a second century. when the roll of the centuries is called, we may mention almost in a single breath the names which belong to the ages. abraham and moses stand out clearly against the horizon of thirty centuries. st. paul, from his roman prison, in the days of the cæsars, is still an articulate and authoritative voice; savonarola, rising from the ashes of his funeral-pyre in the streets of florence, still pleads for civic righteousness; the sound of martin luther's hammer nailing his thesis to the door of his wittenberg church continues to echo around the world; the battle-cry of cromwell's ironsides shouting, "the lord of hosts!" still causes the tyrant and the despot to tremble upon their thrones; out of the fire and blood of the french revolution, "liberty and equality" survive; abraham lincoln comes from the backwoods of kentucky, and the prairies of illinois, to receive the approval of all succeeding generations of mankind for his proclamation of emancipation; john brown was hung at harper's ferry that his soul might go marching on in the tread of every northern regiment that fought for the "union forever;" william lloyd garrison, mobbed in the streets of boston for pleading the cause of the slave, lived to see freedom triumph, and to-night, a century after his birth, his name is cherished, not only in america, but around the world, wherever men aspire to individual liberty and personal freedom. william lloyd garrison was in earnest. he neither temporized nor compromised with the enemies of human freedom. he gave up all those comforts, honors, and rewards which his unusual talents would easily have won for him in behalf of the cause of freedom which he espoused. he stood for righteousness with all the rugged strength of a prophet. like some elijah of the gilead forests, he pleaded with this nation to turn away from the false gods it had enshrined upon the altars of human liberty. like some john the baptist crying in the wilderness, he called upon this nation to repent of its sin of human slavery, and to bring forth the fruits of its repentance in immediate emancipation. william lloyd garrison was born in newburyport, mass., dec. , . he came of very poor and obscure parentage. his father, who was a seafaring man, early abandoned the family for causes supposed to relate to his intemperance. the whole career of garrison was a struggle against poverty. his educational advantages were limited. he became a printer's apprentice when quite a lad, and learned the printing trade. when he launched his paper, _the liberator_, which was to deal such destructive blows to slavery, the type was set by his own hands. the motto of _the liberator_ was "our country is the world, our countrymen mankind." garrison did not worship the golden calf. his course could not be changed, nor his opinion influenced by threats of violence or the bribe of gold. money could not persuade him to open his mouth against the truth, or buy his silence from uncompromising denunciation of the wrong. he put manhood above money, humanity above race, the justice of god above the justices of the supreme court, and conscience above the constitution. because he took his stand upon new testament righteousness as taught by christ, he was regarded as a fanatic in a christian land. when he declared that "he determined at every hazard to lift up a standard of emancipation in the eyes of the nation, within sight of bunker hill and in the birthplace of liberty," he was regarded as a public enemy, in a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to freedom! garrison drew his arguments from the bible and the declaration of independence, only to be jeered as a wild enthusiast. he would not retreat a single inch from the straight path of liberty and justice. he refused to purchase peace at the price of freedom. he would not drift with the current of the public opinion of his day. his course was up-stream; his battle against the tide. he undertook to create a right public sentiment on the question of freedom, a task as great as it was difficult. garrison thundered warnings to arouse the public conscience before the lightnings of his righteous wrath and the shafts of his invincible logic wounded the defenders of slavery in all the vulnerable joints of their armor. he declared: "let southern oppressors tremble--let their secret abettors tremble; let their northern apologists tremble; let all the enemies of the persecuted blacks tremble." for such utterances as these his name throughout the nation became one of obloquy and reproach. he was not bound to the slave by the ties of race, but by the bond of common humanity which he considered a stronger tie. in his struggle for freedom there was no hope of personal gain; he deliberately chose the pathway of financial loss and poverty. there were set before his eyes no prospect of honor, no pathways leading to promotion, no voice of popular approval, save that of his conscience and his god. his friends and neighbors looked upon him as one who brought a stigma upon the fair name of the city in which he lived. the business interests regarded him as an influence which disturbed and injured the relations of commerce and of trade; the church opposed him; the press denounced him; the state regarded him as an enemy of the established order; the north repudiated him; the south burned him in effigy. yet, almost single-handed and alone, garrison continued to fight on, declaring that "his reliance for the deliverance of the oppressed universally is upon the nature of man, the inherent wrongfulness of oppression, the power of truth, and the omnipotence of god." after the greatest civil war that ever immersed a nation in a baptism of blood and tears, garrison, unlike most reformers, lived to see the triumph of the cause for which he fought and every slave not only acknowledged as a free man, but clothed with the dignity and powers of american citizenship. william lloyd garrison has passed from us, but the monumental character of his work and the influence of his life shall never perish. while there are wrongs to be righted, despots to be attacked, oppressors to be overthrown, peace to find and advocate, and freedom a voice, the name of william lloyd garrison will live. those who would honor garrison and perpetuate his memory and his fame must meet the problems that confront them with the same courage and in the same uncompromising spirit that garrison met the burning questions of the day. those who would honor garrison in one breath, while compromising our manhood and advocating the surrender of our political rights in another, not only dishonor his memory, not only trample the flag of our country with violent and unholy feet, but they spit upon the grave which holds the sacred dust of this chiefest of the apostles of freedom. the status of the negro in this country was not settled by emancipation; the th amendment to the constitution, which it was confidently believed would clothe him forever with political influence and power, is more bitterly opposed to-day than it was a quarter of a century ago. the place which the negro is to occupy is still a vital and burning question. the newspaper press and magazines are full of it; literature veils its discussion of the theme under the guise of romance; political campaigns are waged with this question as a paramount issue; it is written into the national platform of great political parties; it tinges legislation; it has invaded the domain of dramatic art, until to-day, it is enacted upon the stage; philanthropy, scholarship, and religion are, each from their point of view, more industriously engaged in its solution than they have been in any previous generation. if the life and labors of garrison, and the illustrious men and women who stood with him, have a message for the present, we should seek to interpret its meaning and lay the lesson to heart. the scenes have shifted, but the stage is the same; the leading characters have not changed. we still have with us powerful influences trying to keep the negro down by unjust and humiliating legislation and degrading treatment; while on the other hand, the negro and his friends are still contending for the same privileges and opportunities that are freely accorded to other citizens whose skins do not happen to be black. we, of this nation, are slow to learn the lessons taught by history; the passions which feed on prejudice and tyranny can neither be mollified nor checked by subjection, surrender, or compromise. self-appointed representatives of the negro, his enemies and his would-be friends, are pointing to many diverse paths, each claiming that the one they have marked for his feet is the proper one in which he should walk. there is but one direction in which the negro should steadfastly look and but one path, in which he should firmly plant his feet--that is, toward the realization of complete manhood and equality, and the full justice that belongs to an american citizen clothed with all of his constitutional power. this is a crucial hour for the negro american; men are seeking to-day to fix his industrial, political, and social status under freedom as completely as they did under slavery. as this nation continued unstable, so long as it rested upon the foundation-stones of slavery so will it remain insecure as long as one-eighth of its citizens can be openly shorn of political power, while confessedly they are denied "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." we have no animosity against the south or against southern people. we would see the wounds left by the war of the rebellion healed; but we would have them healed so effectually that they could not be trodden upon and made to bleed afresh by inhuman barbarities and unjust legislation; we would have the wounds of this nation bound up by the hands of those who are friendly to the patient, so that they might not remain a political running sore. we would have the bitter memories of the war effaced, but they cannot fade while the spirit of slavery walks before the nation in a new guise. we, too, would have a reunited country; but we would have the re-union to include not only white men north and south, but a union so endearing, because so just, as to embrace all of our fellow-countrymen, regardless of section or of race. * * * * * it is not a man's right, it is his duty to support and defend his family and his home; he should therefore resist any influence exerted to prevent him from maintaining his dependants in comfort; while he should oppose with his life the invader or despoiler of his home. god had created man with a mind capable of infinite development and growth; it is not, therefore, a man's right, it is his duty to improve his mind and to educate his children; he should not, therefore, submit to conditions which would compel them to grow up in ignorance. man belongs to society; it is his duty to make his personal contribution of the best that is within him to the common good; he can do this only as he is given opportunity to freely associate with his fellow-man. he should, therefore, seek to overthrow the artificial social barriers which would intervene to separate him from realizing the highest and best there are within him by freedom of association. it is a man's duty to be loyal to his country and his flag, but when his country becomes a land of oppression and his flag an emblem of injustice and wrong, it becomes as much his duty to attack the enemies within the nation as to resist the foreign invader. tyrants and tyranny everywhere should be attacked and overthrown. this is a period of transition in the relations of the negro to this nation. the question which america is trying to answer, and which is must soon definitely settle, is this: _what kind of negroes do the american people want?_ that they must have the negro in some relation is no longer a question of serious debate. the negro is here , , strong, and, for weal or woe, he is here to stay--he is here to remain forever. in the government he is a political factor; in education and in wealth he is leaping forward with giant strides; he counts his taxable property by the millions, his educated men and women by the scores of thousands; in the south he is the backbone of industry; in every phase of american life his presence may be noted; he is also as thoroughly imbued with american principles and ideals as any class of people beneath our flag. when garrison started his fight for freedom, it was the prevailing sentiment that the negro could have no place in this country save that of a slave, but he has proven himself to be more valuable as a free man than as a slave. what kind of negroes do the american people want? do they want a voteless negro in a republic founded upon universal suffrage? do they want a negro who shall not be permitted to participate in the government which he must support with his treasure and defend with his blood? do they want a negro who shall consent to be set apart as forming a distinct industrial class, permitted to rise no higher than the level of serfs or peasants? do they want a negro who shall accept an inferior social position, not as a degradation, but as the just operation of the laws of caste based upon color? do they want a negro who will avoid friction between the races by consenting to occupy the place to which white men may choose to assign him? what kind of a negro do the american people want? do they want a negro who will accept the doctrine, that however high he may rise in the scale of character, wealth, and education, he may never hope to associate as an equal with white men? do white men believe that , , blacks, after having imbibed the spirit of american institutions, and having exercised the rights of free men for more than a generation, will ever accept a place of permanent inferiority in the republic? taught by the declaration of independence, sustained by the constitution of the united states, enlightened by the education of our schools, this nation can no more resist the advancing tread of the hosts of the oncoming blacks than it can bind the stars or halt the resistless motion of the tide. the answer which the american people may give to the question proposed cannot be final. there is another question of greater importance which must be answered by the negro, and by the negro alone: _what kind of an american does the negro intend to be?_ the answer to this question he must seek and find in every field of human activity and endeavor. first, he must answer it by negation. he does not intend to be an alien in the land of his birth, nor an outcast in the home of his fathers. he will not consent to his elimination as a political factor; he will refuse to camp forever on the borders of the industrial world; as an american he will consider that his destiny is united by indissoluble bonds with the destiny of america forever; he will strive less to be a great negro in this republic and more to be an influential and useful american. as intelligence is one of the chief safeguards of the republic, he will educate his children. knowing that a people cannot perish whose morals are above reproach, he will ally himself on the side of the forces of righteousness; having been the object of injustice and wrong, he will be the foe of anarchy and the advocate of the supremacy of law. as an american citizen, he will allow no man to protest his title, either at home or abroad. he will insist more and more, _not only upon voting, but upon being voted for_, to occupy any position within the gift of the nation. as an american whose title to citizenship is without a blemish or flaw, he will resist without compromise every law upon the statute-books which is aimed at his degradation as a human being and humiliation as a citizen. he will be no less ambitious and aspiring than his fellow-countrymen; he will assert himself, not as a negro, but as a man; he will beat no retreat in the face of his enemies and opposers; his gifted sons and daughters, children of genius who may be born to him, will make their contribution to the progress of humanity on these shores, accepting nothing but the honors and rewards that belong to merit. what kind of an american does the negro intend to be? he intends to be an american who will never mar the image of god, reproach the dignity of his manhood, or tarnish the fair title of his citizenship, by apologizing to men or angels for associating as an equal, with some other american who does not happen to be black. he will place the love of country above the love of race; he will consider no task too difficult, no sacrifice too great, in his effort to emancipate his country from the un-christlike feelings of race hatred and the american bondage of prejudice. there is nothing that injustice so much respects, that americans so much admire, and the world so much applauds, as a man who stands erect like a man, has the courage to speak in the tones of a man, and to fearlessly act a man's part. there are two views of the negro question now at last clearly defined. one is that the negro should stoop to conquer; that he should accept in silence the denial of his political rights; that he should not brave the displeasure of white men by protesting when he is segregated in humiliating ways upon the public carriers and in places of public entertainment; that he may educate his children, buy land, and save money, but he must not insist upon his children taking their place in the body politic to which their character and intelligence entitle them; he must not insist on ruling the land which he owns or farms; he must have no voice as to how the money he has accumulated is to be expended through taxation and the various forms of public improvement. there are others who believe that the negro owes this nation no apology for his presence in the united states; that, being black, he is still no less a man; that he should not yield one syllable of his title to american citizenship; that he should refuse to be assigned to an inferior plane by his fellow-countrymen; though foes conspire against him and powerful friends desert him, he should refuse to abdicate his sovereignty as a citizen, and to lay down his honor as a man. if americans become surfeited with wealth, haughty with the boasting pride of race superiority, morally corrupt in the high places of honor and of trust, enervated through the pursuit of pleasure, or the political bondmen of some strong man plotting to seize the reins of power, the negro american will continue his steadfast devotion to the flag, and the unyielding assertion of his constitutional rights, that "this government of the people, for the people, and by the people, may not perish from the earth." it is so marvelous as to be like a miracle of god, to behold the transformation that has taken place in the position of the negro in this land since william lloyd garrison first saw the light a century ago. when the negro had no voice, garrison pleaded his cause; to-night the descendants of the slave stand in faneuil hall, while from ocean to ocean every foot of american soil is dedicated to freedom. the negro american has found his voice; he is able to speak for himself; he stands upon this famous platform here and thinks it no presumption to declare that he seeks nothing more, and will be satisfied with nothing less than the full measure of american citizenship! i feel inspired to-night. the spirits of the champions of freedom hover near. high above the stars, lincoln and garrison, sumner and phillips, douglass and lovejoy, look down to behold their prayers answered, their labors rewarded, and their prophecies fulfilled. they were patriots; the true saviors of a nation that esteemed them not. they have left us a priceless heritage. is there to be found among us now one who would so dishonor the memory of these sainted dead; one so lost to love of country and loyalty to his race, as to offer to sell our birthright for a mess of pottage? when we were slaves, garrison labored to make us free; when our manhood was denied, he proclaimed it. shall we in the day of freedom be less loyal to our country and true to ourselves than were the friends who stood for us in our night of woe? many victories have been won for us; there are still greater victories we must win for ourselves. the proclamation of freedom and the bestowal of citizenship were not the ultimate goal we started out to reach, they were but the beginnings of progress. we, of this generation, must so act our part that, a century hence, our children and our children's children may honor our memory and be inspired to press on as they receive from us untarnished the banner of freedom, of manhood, and of equality among men. the negro went aboard the ship of state when she was first launched upon the uncertain waters of our national existence. he booked as through passenger until she should reach "the utmost sea-mark of her farthest sail." when those in command treated him with injustice and brutality, he did not mutiny or rebel; when placed before the mast as a lookout, he did not fall asleep at his post. he has helped to keep her from being wrecked upon the rocks of treachery; he has imperiled his life by standing manfully to his task while she outrode the fury of a threatening sea; when the pirate-craft of rebellion bore down upon her and sought to place the black flag of disunion at her masthead, he was one of the first to respond when the captain called all hands up on deck. if the enemies of liberty should ever again attempt to wreck our ship of state, the negro american will stand by the guns; he will not desert her when she is sinking, but with the principles of the declaration of independence nailed to the masthead, with the flag afloat, he would prefer rather to perish with her than to be numbered among those who deserted her when assailed by an overwhelming foe. if she weathers the storms that beat upon her, outsails the enemies that pursue her, avoids the rocks that threaten her, and anchors at last in the port of her desired haven, black americans and white americans, locked together in brotherly embrace, will pledge each other to remain aboard forever on terms of equality, because they shall have learned by experience that neither one of them can be saved, except they thus abide in the ship. for the present our strivings are not in vain. the injustice that leans upon the arm of oppression for support must fall; truth perverted or suppressed gains in momentum while it waits; generations may perish, but humanity will survive; out of the present conflict of opinion and the differences of race and color that divide, once the tides of immigration have ceased to flow to our shores, this nation will evolve a people who shall be one in purpose, one in spirit, one in destiny--a composite american by the co-mingling of blood. abraham lincoln[ ] by james l. curtis, of new york [note : speech delivered on the centenary of his birth, february , .] since the curtain rang down on the tragedy of calvary, consummating the vicarious sacrifice of jesus of nazareth, there has been no parallel in history, sacred or profane, to the deeds of abraham lincoln and their perennial aftermath. for two hundred years this nation writhed in the pain and anguish of travail; and as a happy sequel to this long night of suffering, in the dawn of the nineteenth century, she bore a son who was destined to awaken a nation's somnolent conscience to a monstrous evil; to lead a nation through a fierce siege of fratricidal strife; to strike the shackles of slavery from the limbs of four millions of bondsmen; to fall a victim to the assassin's bullet; to be enshrined in the hearts of a grateful nation; and to have an eternal abode in the pantheon of immortals. * * * * * abraham lincoln! what mighty magic is this name! erstwhile it made the tyrant tremble on his throne and the hearts of the down-trodden leap for joy. now, over the chasm of two score years, it causes the drooping hopes of freemen to bud anew, and the smoldering embers of their ambition to leap into flame. with talismanic power, it swerves the darts of hate and malice aimed at a defenseless race, so that though they wound, they do not destroy. with antidotal efficacy, it nullifies the virus of proscription so that it does not stagnate the blood nor paralyze the limb of an up-treading and on-going race. when the nation was rent in twain, lincoln, the propitiator, counselled conciliation. when the states of the south sought to secede, lincoln, the concatenator, welded them into a solid chain, one and inseparable. when brother sought the life of brother and father that of son, lincoln, the pacificator, advised peace with honor. when the nation was stupefied with the miasma of human slavery, lincoln, the alleviator, broke its horrid spell by diffusing through the fire of war the sweet incense of liberty. the cynic has sneered at the proclamation of emancipation. the dogmatist has called the great emancipator a compromiser. the scholar, with the eccentricity peculiar to genius, has solemnly declared that the slaves were freed purely as a war necessity and not because of any consideration for the slave. the undergraduate, in imitation of his erudite tutors, has asserted that the freedmen owe more to the pride of the haughty southerner than to the magnanimity of president lincoln. but the mists of doubt and misconception have been so dissipated by the sunlight of history, that we, of this generation, may clearly see the martyred president as he really was. * * * * * all honor to abraham lincoln, the performer, not the preacher; the friend of humanity, the friend of the north, the friend of the south, the friend of the white man, the friend of the black man; the man whose heart, like the christ's, was large enough to bring within the range of its sensibilities every human being beneath the stars. the man who, when god's clock struck the hour, swung back on its creaking hinges the door of opportunity that the slaves might walk over its portals into the army and into new fields of usefulness in civil life. one hundred years have rolled into eternity since freedom's greatest devotee made his advent on this earth. one hundred years, as but a moment compared with the life of nations; yet, changes in our form of government, in the interpretation of our laws, in the relation between the north and the south, in the status of the negro, have been wrought, that were beyond the wildest dreams of lincoln. and wonderful as have been these changes to our advantage, in the acquisition of property, in moral and mental development, in the cultivation of sturdy manhood and womanhood, yet, all these have come to us as a direct result of the labors of lincoln, who, with the ken of a prophet and the vision of a seer, in those dark and turbulent days, wrought more nobly than he knew. from these prodigious tasks so well performed, i adjure you, my friends, that you catch inspiration; that you take no backward step in the future; that you prove worthy heirs and joint heirs to the heritage of golden opportunities bequeathed you; that you demand every right with which his labors have endowed you; and that the righteous sentiment of "equal and exact justice" be emblazoned on a banner and flaunted in the breezes till every foe of justice is vanquished and right rules supreme. that you will do this, i doubt not, for in my heart of hearts, i believe with henry clay that "before you can repress the tendencies to liberty, or the tendencies to absolute emancipation from every form of serfdom, you must go back to the era of our independence and muzzle the cannon which thunders its joyous return; you must penetrate the human soul and eradicate there the love of liberty." then, and not till then, can you stifle the ennobling aspiration of the american negro for the unabridged enjoyment of every right guaranteed under the constitution and the laws. abraham lincoln and fifty years of freedom[ ] by alexander walters, d. d., _bishop of a. m. e. zion church_ [note : extract from address given at carnegie hall, new york, february , .] the distinguished person whom we pause to honor was not born great, if to be born great means to be born in a mansion, surrounded at the start of life with opulence, "dangled on the knee of indulgence and charmed to sleep by the voice of liveried servants"; if this is the measure of greatness, then abraham lincoln was not born great,--but if to be born great is to be ushered into the world with embryonic qualities of heart, elements calculated to unfold into the making of the stature of a complete man, a manly man, a brave, a god-fearing man--a statesman equal to the greatest emergency of a nation, then the little fellow of destiny who made his initial bow to the goddess of light in hardin county, kentucky, february , , was born great. if to achieve greatness is to win the hearts of one's youthful companions, one's associates in professional life, and to merit the confidence and genuine love of a nation to the extent of securing its greatest honors and to perform the mightiest work of a century, then abraham lincoln achieved greatness. * * * * * the assertion has been made that president lincoln was not in favor of universal freedom. i beg to take issue with this view. a careful study of this sincere, just, and sympathetic man will serve to show that from his earliest years he was against slavery. he declared again and again; "if slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong; i cannot remember when i did not so think and feel." back in the thirties this young man clad in homespun was standing in the slave-mart of new orleans, watching husbands and wives being separated forever, and children being doomed never again to look into the faces of their parents. as the hammer of the auctioneer fell, this young flat-boatman, with quivering lips, turned to his companion and said: "if ever i get a chance to hit that thing (slavery), i will hit it hard, by the eternal god i will." in march, , he had placed upon the _house journal of illinois_ a formal protest against pro-slavery resolutions which he could get but one other member beside himself to sign. long before he was made president, in a speech at charleston, illinois, he said: "yes we will speak for freedom, and against slavery, as long as the constitution of our country guarantees free speech, until everywhere on this wide land the sun shall shine, and the rain shall fall, and the winds shall blow upon no man who goes forth to unrequited toil." while in congress in he offered a bill to abolish slavery in the district of columbia. it was his opinion that congress had control over the institution of slavery in the district of columbia and the territories, and he evidenced his desire for the freedom of the slaves by offering a bill to abolish it in the district, and he afterwards strenuously advocated the elimination of slavery from the territories. in , about the time of the repeal of the fugitive slave law, president lincoln said to some gentlemen from the west: "there have been men base enough to propose to me to return to slavery our black warriors of port hudson and olustee, and thus win the respect of the masters they fought. should i do so, i should deserve to be damned in time and eternity." through all the mighty struggle of the civil war when bowed in sorrow, and when it was truly said of him "that he was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief," he was ever heard to say, "it is my desire that all men be free." if president lincoln were not in favor of the freedom of the slaves, why did he write the emancipation proclamation without the knowledge of his cabinet and, when reading it to them, informed them that he did not do so to have them make any changes, but simply to apprise them of its contents? i answer, because he saw the time had come, the opportune time for which he had longed, when he, as president of these united states, could free the slaves. the south was so certain that it was mr. lincoln's intention to liberate the slaves, that, upon his election as president, they seceded from the union. they felt that the institution which they had struggled so long to maintain was doomed. his famous letter to horace greeley, so diplomatically written, shows him to be in favor of the emancipation of slaves. said he; "my paramount object is to save the union, and not either to save or destroy slavery. if i could save the union without freeing any slaves i would do it; if i could save it by freeing all the slaves i would do it; and if i could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, i would also do that. i shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors, and i shall adopt new views as fast as they shall appear to be true views. i have here stated my purpose according to my views of official duty, and i intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free." had president lincoln not desired the freedom of the slaves would he have written this last sentence? professor pickens, of talladega college, says: "he was a patriot statesman; although he abhored slavery in his own inclination, he was wise enough to see that the question of slavery was subordinate to the immediate object of saving the union. if slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong; he declared as his private opinion; but it was his public duty and his oath to save the union, regardless of slavery. his logic and clear seizure of the main point stood him in good stead against the over-zealous abolitionists on the one hand, while on the other hand, as soon as the interests of negro freedom and the interests of the union coincided, the same unchanged and consistent logic answered those who assailed him on constitutional grounds." mr. lincoln believed that the constitution protected slavery in the states wherein it existed, and his aim was to let it alone where it had a constitutional right to exist. not because he thought slavery right, but because of his respect for the law. his original position was that, since slavery was protected by the law, the friends of freedom would have to abide their time and continue to create sentiment sufficient to change the law and thus overthrow the iniquitous institution. this is the only interpretation that can be put upon his doctrine. "the house divided against itself." is it reasonable to think that a man so thoughtful and sincere as was mr. lincoln could give a life to the advocacy of the freedom of the slaves, and in his heart not be in favor of their liberation. mr. lincoln often expressed ideas on the emancipation calculated to jeopardize his political future, which he would not have done but for the fact that in his heart of hearts he was committed to the cause of freedom. the slaves hailed him as their savior, which he proved to be by emancipating , , of them, and he will be held in loving remembrance by afro-americans as long as the world shall stand. it is fitting that we assemble ourselves together on the anniversary of his birth to honor his memory, and tell of his noble deeds to the rising generation. president lincoln was truly a great man; a giant in intellect, a peerless diplomat, a fearless advocate of the rights of humanity and a wise ruler. in council he stood head and shoulders above the members of his cabinet and other advisers, notwithstanding he was surrounded by some of the greatest scholars and statesmen of his time. allow me to apply to lincoln the words of wendell phillips in his address "toussaint l'ouverture": "lincoln was greater than cæsar; cæsar fought to further his ambition and to extend a great empire. lincoln was an advocate of principle, justice, and fair play. he was greater than alexander; alexander fought for glory--to conquer all the world, all at the sacrifice of happy homes and the desolation and ruin of countries. lincoln sacrificed comfort and ease to save a nation and liberate an enslaved people. he was greater than napoleon; napoleon made wives to be widows, and children to be fatherless and homeless, and drenched europe and egypt in blood for fame and the desire to found a greater empire than the roman dynasty; but lincoln perished because he dared to defend an oppressed people." when the last scarred veteran shall gather around the last campfire and shall rehearse stories of valor, he will close his tale of sorrow with the name of lincoln. when the last poet shall compose his last poem on america's greatest struggle,--yea of the victories of vicksburg, fort donaldson, lookout mountain, gettysburg, appomattox, petersburg, and the fall of richmond, he will close it by paying a tribute to the memory of the sainted lincoln. when the last statesman of the world shall pronounce a farewell anathema upon the world's oppression, when he shall write the names of those foremost in the work of emancipation, after he shall have written the name of moses,--long ere he reaches the name of wilberforce or clarkson, he shall have written high on the scroll of fame the name of lincoln. when the last flag bearing the "stars and stripes" shall wave over this great commonwealth, telling of its glory and tremendous influence, on the wings of the eagle upon the staff of that flag will be written for her to bear away on the eternal breezes the name of the immortal lincoln,--the savior of his country, the emancipator of its people. * * * * * the dying legacy bequeathed to the american nation by the martyred lincoln was a united country and a free people. it gave us a nation which to-day stands first in the galaxy of the nations of the world--in character, thought, wealth, and all the qualities which make for the highest civilizations--a glorious country, whose natural resources stand unsurpassed. all honor to mr. lincoln, the nation's chieftain, the giant of the conflict, the statesman of the age, the immortal emancipator; and all honor to the men who wore the blue, both white and black; and all honor to the men and women who gave their sons to the cause and furnished the sinews of war; and all praise be to the god of heaven who was behind the conflict controlling all. if we would properly honor this great and good man we must finish the work which he so nobly began,--the lifting up of the negro race to the highest point of civilization. this can be accomplished; first, by being good and loyal citizens ourselves, and by teaching our children to be the same. the groundwork of our material advancement is industry. as a race we are generally industrious, but we need to become more skillfully so. unskilled labor cannot compete with skilled labor, neither north or south. in the past you gave us certain positions as the result of sympathy, not because we could perform the work as skillfully as others. the sentiment which actuated you to help us was a noble one, but that kind of sentiment is a thing of the past; now we are required to stand or fall according to our merits. when goods are to be manufactured, machines constructed, houses and bridges built, clothing fashioned, or any sort of work performed, none but skilled workmen are considered; there are a great number of employers that care but little about the color of the workmen; with them the question is, can he do the work? we must continue the struggle for our civil and political rights. i have no sympathy with that class of leaders who are advising the negro to eschew politics in deference to color prejudice. does it make for permanent peace to deny to millions of citizens their political rights when they are equal to the average electorate in intelligence and character? fitness, and not color or previous condition of servitude, should be the standard of recognition in political matters. indeed the negro should not be denied any civil or political right on account of his color, and to the extent this is done there is bound to be disquietude in the nation. we have already seen that temporizing with slavery at the formation of the union resulted in a hundred years of strife and bitterness, and finally brought on devastation and death. and may we not profit by this bitter experience? the enlightened american conscience will not tolerate injustice forever. the same spirit of liberty and fair play which enveloped the nation in the days of mr. lincoln and that was recognized by his astute mind, clear to his mental vision and so profoundly appreciated by his keen sense of justice and which he had the courage to foster against all opposition is abroad in our land to-day, will ultimately triumph. mr. lincoln was the first to suggest to his party the enfranchisement of the negro. he wrote governor hahn, of louisiana, advising that the ballot should be given to the colored man; said he, "let in, as for instance, the very intelligent and especially those who have fought gallantly in our ranks. they would probably help in some trying time in the future to keep the jewel of liberty in the family of freedom." it seems to me right and proper on this memorable day, when the nation has stopped to consider the work of the man above all others who started the negro on his upward way, that we should appeal to the enlightened conscience of the nation, to unloose further the fetters which bind the black man, especially the industrial bands placed upon him in the north. i appeal to the white people of the south, the sentiment-makers of that section, to create sentiment in favor of law and order, and that they demand a cessation of lynchings. i appeal to the legislature of the south to allow the civil and political door of hope to remain open to my people, and in all things which make for quietness and permanent peace, let us be brethren. the negro should no longer be considered a serf, but a citizen of this glorious republic which both white and black alike have done so much to develop. mr. edwin d. mead, in the _new york independent_ of january , , says, "has the country been faithful to lincoln's memory and task? has the evolution of emancipation been pushed with proper persistence and earnestness? are we ceasing our discrimination against men because they are black? it is not a question put by north to south. it is a question put to springfield, illinois, the old home of lincoln himself, as directly as to men in maryland busy with their pitiful disfranchising chicanery." to the still lingering cry of "black men down" this salutary commemoration rings back, the "all men up," whose echoes after forty years were growing faint in too many american hearts. had they not grown faint in many, the recent words of justice harlan, so like lincoln's own, upon the berea college decision confirming the kentucky law that, however, they themselves desired it, and even in private institutions, a black boy and a white boy may not study together the rule of three or the law of gravitation, the golden rule, or the emancipation proclamation,--would have aroused a vastly profounder and louder response. "if the views of the highest court of kentucky be sound, that commonwealth may, without infringing on the constitution of the united states, forbid the association in the same private school of pupils of the anglo-saxon and latin races respectively, or pupils of christian and jewish faith respectively. have we become so inoculated with prejudice of race that any american government professedly based on the principles of freedom and charged with the protection of all citizens alike can make distinctions between such citizens in the manner of their voluntary meeting for innocent purposes, simply because of their respective races? if the court be right, then the state may make it a crime for white and colored persons to frequent the same market-places at the same time or to appear in an assemblage of citizens convened to consider questions of a public or political nature, in which all citizens without regard to race are equally interested; and other illustrations would show the mischievous, not to say cruel, character of the statute in question, and how inconsistent such legislation is with the principle of the equality of citizens before the law." mr. mead further says that abraham lincoln was called upon to make his memorable and mighty protest with reference to a single race. in our time the problem becomes vastly more complex and pressing. but, however complex, there is but one way of solving it--the simple, christian, fraternal way. it is well for us that the lincoln centennial comes to say this to us persuasively and commandingly. address on the occasion of the presentation of a loving cup to hon. joseph benson foraker, united states senator[ ] by hon. archibald h. grimke [note : delivered, in appreciation of his service on behalf of the members of companies a, b and c, th infantry, march th, , at metropolitan a. m. e. church, washington, d. c.] _the honorable joseph benson foraker, and colored citizens:_ a little more than two years ago the country was startled one november morning by a presidential order for which there is no precedent in the history of the government. it was an act not only without precedent, but, as it appeared at the time to many americans and as it appears to them now for that matter, not warranted either by law or justice. the punishment which that order inflicted on a whole battalion of american soldiers, without trial of any kind seemed unmerited and cruel in the highest degree, and a wanton abuse of executive power. the history of this case is known of all men, thanks and yet again thanks and love without limit to the illustrious man whom we have met to honor to-night. for it is now and it must forever remain the history of the black battalion and of senator foraker. it is the history of the most masterly and heroic struggle in defense of the rights and liberties of the individual citizen against executive usurpation and oppression which this country has witnessed for a generation. the act of the president, while it affected the rights of all americans, bore with peculiar hardship, with crushing injustice, on the one hundred and sixty-seven men of the black battalion who were discharged from the army without honor and on a mere assumption of their guilt in the "brownsville" affray. that act was a sad blow to the colored race of the country likewise, and fell upon them with cruel surprise. for they are people without many friends and are hard pressed in this boasted land of the free and home of the brave. they are hard pressed in every part of the republic by an increasing race prejudice, by a bitter colorphobia which forgets that they are weak, forgets their claim at the hands of a christian nation to just and equal treatment to the end that they may do and become as other men with a race and color different from their own. blows they are receiving thick and fast from their enemies whose name is legion, blows against their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the south and in the north. we are accustomed as a race to such blows. cruel as they are and hard to bear, yet they do not take us by surprise. for we have learned by long and bitter experience to look for them from a people who loudly proclaim, in season and out, their belief in the principles of democracy and of christianity. but when an old friend turns against us, and strikes too like an ancient enemy, such a blow is more grievous to bear, and seems crueler than death itself. the blow of an old friend is always the unkindest blow of all. one is never prepared for it, and when it falls the wound which it inflicts cuts deeper than flesh and blood, for the iron of it enters the soul itself. and so it happened to us, when, two years ago, the cruel wrong of that executive order was done to our brave boys in blue by the hand of a trusted friend, the apostle of the "square deal." who can describe the shock of that first terrible amazement, the hot indignation felt by a race at the huge injustice, at the draconian severity of that order which expelled from the american army one hundred and sixty-seven men without trial of any kind and on a mere suspicion of their guilt, and which made them forever ineligible to employment thereafter in any department of the national government, whether on its civil, military, or naval side, and the deep consternation which filled the homes of every colored man in the land--north and south alike? i for one can not describe those feelings, although i experienced in unison with the race at the time the amazement, the indignation, and the consternation which swept us together and caused us to feel and speak and act as one man under the wrong done us by the hand of an old friend whose golden words of hope and fair play we had sometime written in letters of light on the tablets of our hearts. it is no slight matter for any man, whether he be president or private citizen, so to wound the sense of right of a whole race, so to shock its faith in the justice and righteousness of its rulers and government, as that cruel blunder of the president of the united states produced among the colored people of the entire country. we lifted up our voice as the voice of many waters from one end of the land to the other in loud protest against the wrong, in stern denunciation of it, and the press of the north came nobly to our assistance and swelled the volume of our protest and denunciation. but alas, all this volume of protest and denunciation on the part of the race and of the press would have passed over the nation and the government like a summer storm of wind and rain--so little do our outcries against injustice and oppression excite the attention and sympathy of the republic any more--had there not arisen in the senate of the united states a man for the hour, had not god raised him up to defend his little ones against the slings and arrows of a sleepless energy, of an almost omnipotent power seated in the highest place of the government. it was the genius, the grandeur of soul of a great man who was able to gather into thunderbolt after thunderbolt all the sense of outraged justice on the part of race and press, and to hurl them with marvelous precision and overwhelming might against that cruel executive order and the hosts of words and messages and other hordes of blood-dyed epithets which the president marshalled and sent forth from time to time in defense of his draconian decree. if there was sleepless energy in the white house, there was an energy just as sleepless on the floor of the senate. the almost omnipotent power wielded for the destruction of the black battalion by the formidable occupant of the executive mansion was met and matched, ay, overmatched again and again by an omnipotence in discussion which a just cause and genius as orator, lawyer, and debater of the first rank could alone have put into the strong right arm of the brave redresser of a race's wrongs on the floor of the senate. for more than two years he carried the case of the black battalion in his big and tireless brain, in his big and gentle heart, as a mother carries under her bosom her unborn babe. god alone knows what sums of money, what deep thought and solicitude, what unflagging energy, what unceasing labor, he spent in his holy and self-imposed task to right the wrongs of those helpless and persecuted men. in the senate their case pursued him like a shadow, and at home it sat with him like a ghost in his library, and slept for a few hours only when the great brain slept and the generous heart rested from the pain which was torturing it. sir, did you know what love went out to you during those tremendous months of toil and struggle, and what prayers from the grateful hearts of ten millions of people? yes, he was one man against the whole power of the administration and all that that meant. perhaps we do not fully understand what a colossal power that was to confront and grapple with. almost single-handed he met that power and threw it again and again in the arena of debate. every speech he made in behalf of his clients, whether on the floor of the senate or outside of that body, was as terrible as an army with banners to the enemies of the black battalion who had now, alas, become his enemies too, and who were bent on the destruction of both, the defender and the defended alike. but he did not hesitate or quail before that power and the danger which threatened his political life. as the battle thickened and perils gathered fast about his head he fought the fight of the black battalion as few men in the history of the republic have ever fought for the weak, for a just cause against organized power and oppression in the high places of the government. senator foraker was one man, but senator foraker was a host in himself. we know this, but the enemies of the black battalion know it better than we do, for wherever they appeared on the field of action during those two years, whether with their sappers and miners or assaulting columns, there they found him alert, dauntless, invincible--their sappers and miners hoisted with their own petard, their assaulting columns routed and driven to cover before the withering, the deadly fire from the flashing cannon of his facts, his logic, his law, and his eloquence. sir, god knows that i would rather have fought the fight which you fought so gloriously than be a senator of the united states, day, than be president of the republic itself. for it is better to be a brave and just and true man than to be either senator or president, or both. "greater love hath no man than this that a man lay down his life for his friends." this is what senator foraker has done for the black battalion and for the principles of law and liberty which underlie their case. he has given his political life, his seat in the senate, all the honor and power which were his had he chosen to defend the order of the president, discharging those one hundred and sixty-seven men without trial of any kind from the army which their valor had helped to make glorious--instead of the soldiers whom he did not know but whose pitiful case, whose unjust and cruel punishment, enlisted the sympathy of his great heart and the masterly labors of his tireless brain. yes, i repeat, and do not let it ever be forgotten by us as a race, that senator foraker might to-day be his own successor in the united states senate had he chosen to play in the "brownsville" affair the part of defender of president roosevelt's wanton abuse and usurpation of executive power, instead of taking the side of the black battalion and the fundamental principle of our law and constitution that each man accused of crime is entitled to trial before he is condemned and punished. he chose the side of the weak, of justice, and the constitution in this great struggle, and not that of power and the administration. this was the sin which brought upon him all the wrath of that power and of that administration, but of which all good men and true absolve and for which they honor him, and for which, besides, a grateful race enshrines him in its heart of hearts. for he preferred to suffer affliction with the black battalion and to suffer defeat for the senatorship rather than enjoy power and office as the price of his desertion of the cause of those helpless men. no man can give as much as senator foraker has given to a just cause, give as generously, as unselfishly, gloriously as he has given of his very self in this "brownsville" case and lose that which is best striving for in life. he may lose place in the government and power as a political leader. but what are these but the ephemera of man's fevered existence and strivings here below? "what shadows we are," burke said on a memorable occasion in his contest for a seat in parliament, "and what shadows we pursue." office, power, popularity; what are they but shadows of passing clouds which a breath blows to us and a breath blows from us again. no man loses anything in reality when he loses such fleeting, such shadowy possessions. but if for the sake of them he loses truth, justice, goodness, his love of the right and his hatred of the wrong, his sympathy for the oppressed, his passion to help god's little ones, such a man has bartered away his soul, the immortal part of him for a rood of grass, which to-day flourisheth and to-morrow withereth and is cast into the oven of all transitory and perishable possessions. how many men who now hold seats in the united states senate or the house of representatives do we even know the names of? how many of all that long procession of them who have been passing for more than a century though those halls of power have we so much as heard the names of? they have filed through those stately chambers to dusty death and oblivion, and the places which knew them once know them no more forever. a few names only are remembered among all the multitude of them, not because of the places they occupied or the power they wielded, but because while in those houses they chose the better part--chose not to busy themselves with shadows, with the things which perish, but seized and held fast to the eternal verities of justice and freedom and human brotherhood. the vast majority of them magnified their brief authority and neglected the opportunity which their offices offered them to link their names and official lives with some noble movement or measure for the betterment of their kind, for the lifting up of those who were down, the strengthening of those who were weak, the succor of those who were hard pressed by man's inhumanity to man. it is beautiful to defend those who can not defend themselves, to lift up the weak, to succor those who are ready to perish. it is heroic, divine, when the doing so involves peril and sacrifice of self. it is the essence of the gospel preached and lived by one who spoke and lived as never man spoke and lived. it is simple and undefiled christianity. nothing avails to make senator or president or people christian but just this one thing--not race or color or creed, not learning and wealth and civilization--but kindness to god's poor, to christ's little ones. did you feed them when they were hungry; did you give them to drink when they were thirsty; did you visit and comfort them when they were in prison? those who do these things to the humblest and the blackest of these little ones of the republic have done them unto the divine master, are in truth his disciples; and those who do them not are not his followers, whatever may be their profession, but quite the contrary. they have no part or lot with him but belong to the evil forces of the world which are forever opposing the coming of his righteous kingdom on earth when all men shall be brothers, when the strong shall everywhere bear the burdens of the weak. inasmuch as william lloyd garrison, charles sumner, wendell phillips, john brown, and abraham lincoln did it to the least of his little ones in this republic, they did it unto him. they are a goodly company, the glorious company of the elect of the republic, its prophets, its priests, and its kings. and, sir, inasmuch as you, too, did it to the black battalion in their dire need, you did it unto christ, and you are now henceforth and forevermore to enter into the supreme joy of that supreme service and sacrifice. you lost, sir, your seat in the senate, it is true, but you have won an enduring place in a race's heart, its enduring love and gratitude, and the plaudit of the divine master, "well done, good and faithful servant," uttered from the lips of all good men and true the country over. equality of rights for all citizens, black and white, alike[ ] by rev. francis j. grimke, d. d. _i cor. : . "watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong."_ [note : a discourse delivered in the fifteenth street presbyterian church, washington, d. c., sunday, march , .] it has been my custom for many years to speak during the inaugural week on some phase of the race question. i have done it because usually at such times there are representatives of our race here from all parts of the country, and an opportunity is thus afforded of reaching a larger number than would be possible at any other time. such occasions, it seems to me, should be utilized in the interest of the race, in the discussion of matters pertaining to the race. the inauguration of a president is an event in which the whole nation is interested, and which emphasizes the fact of citizenship, as perhaps nothing else does, coming as it does after the election, and growing out of it. on such occasions it is well for us, therefore, especially at this juncture of our history, not to be unmindful of our own citizenship, of our own status in the body politic. we have just been celebrating, all over the country, the centennial of the birth of abraham lincoln, our great war president, and this inauguration coming so soon after, makes it especially a good time to talk about some of the questions which grew out of the war, and which were settled by it. and this is what i want to do this morning. over forty years ago the great struggle ended, the "irrepressible conflict" came to a close. it marked an epoch in the history of our country, and in the history of the black race in this country. certain great questions, which had agitated the country for years, were settled, and settled for all time. * * * * * it is now no longer a question as to whether we are a nation, or a confederation of sovereign and independent states. that question is settled, and settled once for all by the issue of the war. it is not likely that any southern state will ever again attempt to withdraw from the union, or to act on the assumption that it has the right to do so. even if it is foolish enough to entertain such a view, it will be sure never again to act upon it. the issue of the war has removed forever from the field of serious discussion this question of the right of a state to secede. the ghost of secession will never again arise to disturb the peace of the union. the stars and stripes, the old flag, will float, as long as it floats, over all these states, from the atlantic to the pacific, from the lakes to the gulf. if the time ever comes when we shall go to pieces, it will not be from any desire or disposition on the part of the states to pull apart, but from inward corruption, from the disregard of right principles, from the spirit of greed, from the narrowing lust of gold, from losing sight of the fact that "righteousness exalteth a nation, but that sin is a reproach to any people." it is here where our real danger lies--not in the secession of states from the union, but in the secession of the union itself from the great and immutable principles of right, of justice, of fair play for all regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. the fact that the union has been saved, that these rebellious states have been brought back into it, will amount to nothing unless it can be saved from this still greater peril that threatens it. the secession of the southern states in was a small matter compared with the secession of the union itself from the great principles enunciated in the declaration of independence, in the golden rule, in the ten commandments, in the sermon on the mount. unless we hold, and hold firmly to these great fundamental principles of righteousness, of social, political, and economic wisdom, our union, as mr. garrison expressed it, will be "only a covenant with death and an agreement with hell." if it continues to exist it will be a curse, and not a blessing. our brave boys in blue, whose bodies lie moldering in the grave, but whose souls are marching on, settled the question of the union of the states. it is for the patriotic men who are living to-day, and those who are to follow in their footsteps, to deal with this larger and more important question. it isn't enough that these states are held together, they must be held together on right principles--principles of justice, of equity, of fair play, of equality before the law for all alike. whether there is patriotism, political wisdom, moral insight and stamina enough to lead men to forget their differences on minor matters and to unite their forces for the attainment of this greater and more important end, remains to be seen. there are so many who are controlled by their petty prejudices, whose views are so narrow and contracted, that they seem incapable of appreciating the things of prime importance, the things that are fundamental in the life of the nation, and upon which its future peace and prosperity depend. the fear of rebellion is forever gone. it is not so, however, with regard to the danger of which i am speaking--the danger of the nation divorcing itself from sound political and moral principles. * * * * * in the scheme of citizenship of our country for years following the close of the war the negro had no part; and he had no part because he was looked upon as an inferior. "subordination to the superior race is declared to be his natural and moral condition." his inferiority was asserted to be a "great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." and this is exactly the southern view to-day; and is exactly the programme to which it is committed. its whole attitude to-day is in harmony with the great principle upon which the southern confederacy was founded--the non-recognition of the negro as an equal in any respect--socially, civilly, politically. the south holds to this view just as tenaciously to-day as it did when mr. stephens made his great cornerstone speech in . the ku klux klan, the white caps, the red shirt brigade, tissue ballots, the revised constitutions with their grandfather clauses, jim crow car legislation, the persistent effort of the south to disfranchise the negro--all these things have grown out of the idea that the rightful place of the negro is that of subordination to the white man, that he has no rightful place in the body politic. * * * * * but i cannot believe that the nation is always going to leave its loyal black citizens to be despoiled of their civil and political rights by the men who sought to destroy the union. a better day is coming, and coming soon, i trust. while we are waiting, however, for the nation to come to its senses--waiting for a revival of the spirit of justice and of true democracy in the land--it is important for us to remember that much, very much, will depend upon ourselves. in the passage of scripture read in our hearing at the beginning of this discourse, three things we are exhorted to do, and must do, if we are ever to secure our rights in this land: we are exhorted to be watchful. "watch ye," is the exhortation. we are to be on our guard. "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." there are enemies ever about us and are ever plotting our ruin--enemies within the race and without it. we have got to live in the consciousness of this fact. if we assume that all is well, that there is nothing to fear, and so relax our vigilance, so cease to be watchful, we need not be surprised if our enemies get the better of us, if we are worsted in the conflict. ( ) we are exhorted to stand fast in the faith. in the faith we feel that, as american citizens, we are entitled to the same rights and privileges as other citizens of the republic. in this faith we are to stand, and stand fast. we are not to give it up; we are not to allow anyone, white or black, friend or foe, to induce us to retreat a single inch from this position. ( ) we are exhorted to quit ourselves like men, to be strong. and by this, i understand, is meant that we are to stand up in a manly way for our rights; that we are to seek by every honorable means the full enjoyment of our rights. it is still true-- "who would be free himself must strike the blow." and, if we are ever to be free from invidious distinctions in this country, based upon race, color, previous condition, we have got to be alive, wide-awake to our own interest. if we are not, we have no right to expect others to be; we have no right to expect anything but failure, but defeat. and we deserve defeat if ours is the spirit of indifference, of unconcern. we are not going to secure our rights in this land without a struggle. we have got to contend, and contend earnestly, for what belongs to us. victory isn't coming in any other way. no silent acquiescence on our part in the wrongs from which we are suffering, contrary to law; no giving of ourselves merely to the work of improving our condition, materially, intellectually morally, spiritually, however zealously pursued, is going to bring relief. we have got, in addition to the effort we are making to improve ourselves, to keep up the agitation, and keep it up until right triumphs and wrong is put down. a programme of silence on the part of the race is a fool's programme. reforms, changes in public sentiment, the righting of wrongs, are never effected in that way; and our wrongs will never be. a race that sits quietly down and rests in sweet content in the midst of the wrongs from which it is suffering is not worth contending for, is not worth saving. this is not true of this race, however. we are not sitting down in sweet content, let it be said to our credit. i thank god from the bottom of my heart for these mutterings of discontent that are heard in all parts of the land. the fact that we are dissatisfied with present conditions, and that we are becoming more and more so, shows that we are growing in manhood, in self-respect, in the qualities that will enable us to win out in the end. it is our duty to keep up the agitation for our rights, not only for our sakes, but also for the sake of the nation at large. it would not only be against our own interest not to do so, but it would be unpatriotic for us quietly to acquiesce in the present condition of things, for it is a wrong condition of things. if justice sleeps in this land, let it not be because we have helped to lull it to sleep by our silence, our indifference; let it not be from lack of effort on our part to arouse it from its slumbers. elijah said to the prophets of baal, while they were crying to their god, "peradventure he sleepeth." and it may be that he was asleep; but it was not their fault that he continued asleep, for they kept up a continual uproar about his altar. and so here, sleeping justice in this land may go on slumbering, but let us see to it that it is due to no fault of ours. even baalam's ass cried out in protest when smitten by his brutal master, and god gave him the power to cry out, endowed him miraculously with speech in which to voice his protest. it is not necessary for god to work a miracle to enable us to protest against our wrong; he has already given us the power. let us see to it that we use it. if we are wise we will be able to take care of ourselves. if we are not wise, however, if we adopt the policy of silence, and if we continue to feel that it is our duty to follow blindly, slavishly, any one political party, we will receive only such treatment as is accorded to slaves, and will go on pleading for our rights in vain. the only wise course for us to pursue is to keep on agitating, and to cast our votes where they will tell most for the race. as to what party we affiliate with is a matter of no importance whatever; the important thing is our rights. and until we recognize that fact, and act upon it, we will be the football of all political parties. john boyle o'reilly, in speaking on the race question years ago, said: "if i were a colored man i should use parties as i would a club--to break down prejudice against my people. i shouldn't talk about being true to any party, except so far as that party was true to me. parties care nothing for you, only to use you. you should use parties; the highest party you have in this country is your own manhood. that is the thing in danger from all parties; that is the thing that every colored man is bound in duty to himself and his children to defend and protect." and that is good advice. it embodies the highest political wisdom for us as a people. the exhortation of the text is, "watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong." and this is the message that i bring to you, who are here this morning, and to the members of our race all over the country. we must be watchful; we must hold firmly to our faith in our citizenship, and in our rights as citizens; and we must act the part of men in the maintenance of those rights. in the end the victory is sure to be ours. the right is bound, sooner or later, to triumph. "before the monstrous wrong he sits him down-- one man against a stone-walled city of sin. for centuries those walls have been a-building; smooth porphyry, they slope and coldly glass the flying storm and wheeling sun. "no chinks, no crevice, lets the thinnest arrow in. he fights alone, and from the cloudy ramparts a thousand evil faces gibe and jeer him. let him lie down and die; what is the right and where is justice in a world like this? "but by and by earth shakes herself, impatient; and down, in one great roar of ruin, crash watch-tower and citadel and battlements. when the red dust has cleared, the lonely soldier stands with strange thoughts beneath the friendly stars." and so, in the end, will it be with this great evil of race prejudice against which we are contending in this country, if, like the lonely soldier, we show the same earnestness, the same patient determination, the same invincible courage. a better day is coming; but we have got to help to bring it about. it isn't coming independently of our efforts, and it isn't coming by quietly, timidly, cowardly acquiescing in our wrongs. is the game worth the candle?[ ] by dr. james e. shepard _founder and president of the national religious training school at durham, n. c._ [note : an address delivered before the young men of the national religious training school, durham, n. c.] _students and friends:_ i am not unmindful of the vast opportunity that is mine as i stand before young men. the opportunity is great, but the responsibility is greater. it was the thought of the responsibility that decided me to speak on the subject, "is the game worth the candle?"; the meaning simplified being--is the object pursued worth the price paid for its attainment. once during an all-night ride en route for arkansas in the latter part of the year just closed, i fell into a retrospective mood, and the scroll of the past years unfolded itself before my memory, and as i reviewed it and marked the possibilities which had passed with the years, life took on even a greater aspect than it had already possessed. i shall not discuss my life, but life with its probabilities and possibilities of power and achievement; life in its earnestness and life that is merely drifting with the tide, of no benefit to itself or to humanity. a man's life depends upon his emotions, his aspirations, his determinations. a young man, somebody's son, starts out with the determination that the world is indebted to him for a good time. "dollars were made to spend. i am young, and every man must sow his wild oats and then settle down. i want to be a 'hail fellow well met' with every one." so he is ever ready to drink a social glass, to give a pun and to be a "masher on the girls." with this determination uppermost in his life purpose he starts out to be a good-timer. perhaps some mother expects to hear great things of her boy, some father's hopes are centered in him, but what does that matter? "i am a good-timer." from one gayety to another, from one glass to another, from one sin to another, and the good-timer at last is broken in health, deserted by friends, and left alone to die. thus the "man about town" passes off the stage. when you ask some of his friends about him, the answer is, "oh, john was all right, but he lived too fast. i like good time as well as anyone, but i could not keep up with john." was the game worth the candle? two pictures come before my mind; two cousins, both of them young men. one started out early in life with the determination of getting along "easy," shirking work, and looking for a soft snap. his motto was, "the world owes me a living, and i am going to get mine." he was employed first by one firm and then by another; if anything that he considered hard came along, he would pay another fellow to do the work and he "took things easy." it was not long before no one would hire him. he continued to hold the idea that the world was indebted to him and furthermore, he arrogated a belief that what another man had accumulated he could borrow without his knowledge. he forged another's name, was detected, and sentenced to the penitentiary and is now wearing the badge of felony and shame--the convicts' stripes. young men, the world owes no man a living, but those who work faithfully and make contributions to the happiness of mankind and the advancement of civilization. these will ever be honored and rewarded. is the game worth the candle? the other cousin started out with a determination altogether different. he believed with lord brougham, that if he were a bootblack, he would strive to be the best bootblack in england. he began in a store as a window-washer, and washed windows so well that they sparkled like diamonds under the sun. as a clerk, no customer was too insignificant to be greeted with a smile or pleasant word; no task was too great for him to attempt. thus step by step, he advanced, each day bringing new duties and difficulties but each day also bringing new strength and determination to master them, and to-day that cousin is a man of wealth and an honored citizen, blessed too, with a happy home. some young men start life with the idea that every dollar made requires that one dollar and a half shall be spent; in order to be noticed they must make a big show, give big dinners, carriage drives, and parties, invite friends to the theatres, and have a "swell" time; must do like mr. "so-and-so." they forget in their desire to copy, that mr. "so-and-so," their pattern, has already made his fortune; that he began to save before he began to spend. but no, his name appears often in the papers and they think also that theirs must. so they begin their careers. a few years pass. the young men marry; their debts begin to accumulate and to press them, their countenances are always woe-begone; where once were smiles, now are frowns, and the homes are pictures of gloom and shadows. the lesson is plain. debt is the greatest burden that can be put upon a man; it makes him afraid to look honest men in the face. no man can be a leader in the fullest sense who is burdened by a great debt. if there is any young men in the audience who is spending more than he is making let him ask himself the question, is the game worth the candle? i know another young man who believed he could be happy by spending one-third of what he made and saving the other portion. he said to me, "some day i want to marry and i want to treat my wife better, if possible, than she was treated at home. i want the respect of my fellow man, i want to be a leader, and i know i can only do so by saving a part of what i make." it was my good pleasure, a few weeks ago, to visit the city where this young man is practising medicine. he carried me over that town in an automobile, he entertained me in his $ home, he showed me other property which he owned. ah, my friends, his indeed was a happy home. life to him was blessedly real. some young men start life with the idea that sunday school is a place for children, the church for old people and the y. m. c. a. a place for young men with no life. what a wrong idea! why, the young men who are alive in all walks of life, and who are in the forward ranks, are found in these places. the other young men with distorted views of life think that they must frequent places where the social glass is passed. they do so; after a while it becomes a necessity, the drink habit grows upon them; they die drunkards. do you remember the story of robert ferguson who, better known as the "laureate of edinburgh," was the poet of scottish city-life? his dissipations were great, his tavern and boon companions hastening him on to a premature and painful death. his reason gave way. he was sent to an asylum for the insane. after about two months' confinement he died in his cell. what a sad climax to a promising career! young men, be masters of yourselves. dare to do the right. dare to say no. have strong faith not only in yourself but faith in the unseen power, who holds the destinies of all in his hands. the world needs you. a good many young men think that to be great they must go into the broad fields of politics, waiting for an office, waiting on the changing whims of men, instead of waiting upon self; waiting for something to turn up instead of turning up something; going to the capital "because i helped to elect someone." "i leave behind me a good job but i have been promised something better." so the poor fellow starts out to the capital of the nation, spends what little money he has saved at home, because he is going to get a job and make barrels of money. the mecca of his hopes is reached. he finds himself a little man at the great center of the nation, the few dollars he brings with him soon melt away; his friends run when they see him coming because he wants to borrow a dollar. at home he was a little king, but at the capital he is a "would-be statesman seeking a job." was the game worth the candle? my friends, good men are needed in politics, men who are safe and tried, men who will not yield to prejudice or sentiment, but will do the right as they see the right. god give us such men. politics for a helpless, dependent race will never prove a relief or blessing until we have strong, safe leaders who, losing sight of self and a few self-constituted leaders, will see the whole people. the race will never come into its own until we have such a condition. a young man starts out in life with the determination to fight his way by physical force to the front ranks. bruised, disfigured, or killed, he is forced back even beyond the lines again. a religiously inclined youth asked his pastor, "do you think it would be wrong for me to learn the noble art of self-defense?" "certainly not," replied the pastor, "i learned it in youth myself, and i have found it of great value in my life." "indeed, sir, did you learn the old english system or the sullivan system?" "neither; i learned solomon's system!" replied the minister. "yes, you will find it laid down in the first verse of the fifteenth chapter of proverbs, 'a soft answer turneth away wrath'; it is the best system of self-defense i know." too many of us starting out on life's journey have a warped ambition. this ambition is a love of self in the desire that self might gain the ascendency over our fellows, not that we might be of benefit to humanity, but that we aim to derive personal gain only. we follow the standard of this or that man, not because we believe in him or his policies, but because he is on the successful top round of the ladder now, so away with principles, away with conscience, away with right,--i must follow the man who will give most! a sad awakening comes, the idol tumbles or else turns against you, and you are left like a stranded ship on some vast ocean, alone, amidst the lashing of the billows and the roaring of the waves. remember cardinal wolsey's experience. you may recall these lines, "would that i had served my god with half the zeal i served my king, he would not in mine old age have left me naked to my enemies." was the game worth the candle? another young man starts life with a wrong idea regarding city and country life. born in the country he is free, his thoughts and ambitions can feed on a pure atmosphere, but he thinks his conditions and his surroundings are circumscribed, he longs for the city, with its bigness, its turmoil, and its conflicts. he leaves the old homestead, the quiet village, the country people, and hies himself to the city. he forgets to a large extent the good boy he used to be, in the desire to keep up with the fashions and to make the people forget that he was once a country boy. city life, as is often the case, breaks up his youth, destroys his morals, undermines his character, steals his reputation, and finally leaves the promising youth a wrecked man. was the game worth the candle? young men, never be ashamed of the old log-cabin in the country, or the old bonnet your mother used to wear, or the jean pants your father used to toil in. i had rather be a poor country boy with limited surroundings and a pure heart than to be a city man bedecked in the latest fashions and weighted down with money, having no morals, no character. i had rather have the religion and faith of my fathers than to have the highest offices. i had rather have glorious life, pure and lofty, than to have great riches. sir walter scott was right when he said, "sound, sound the clarion, fill the fife, to all the sensual world proclaim: one crowded hour of glorious life is worth an age without a name." young men, what is the basis of your life and what is its goal? have you digged deeply and thrown out all the waste material of follies and vice and built upon a substantial foundation of honest manhood and sterling character? if not, you are a failure. however, chords that are broken may vibrate once more; take up the angled threads again and weave another pattern. the book that will always be the best and safest guide for weaving life's pattern is the bible,--the truest and best friend any young man can have. if you want oratory, you need not talk about demosthenes walking along the shores of greece with pebbles in his mouth, nor about that great american orator, daniel webster, but if you turn almost to the beginning of that wonderful book and listen to the pleadings of jacob's sons as they begged for the life of their father, it will surpass your demosthenes or webster in true eloquence. if you want logic, even though aristotle may be world famous as the "father of logic," yet if you listen to the hunch-backed, red faced, crooked nosed, baldheaded jew, saul of tarsus, you will find his logic stands unsurpassed in all the ages of the world. the history of four thousand years and more you will find there. you will discover the beginnings and the end of things. reason, with her flickering torch, cannot point to any such sublime truths as are found in the bible. philosophy with her school stands amazed when confronted with the philosophy of the bible. science, itself the greatest contributor to the happiness of man, having penetrated the arcana of nature, sunk her shafts into earth's recesses, measured the heights of its massive pillars to the very pedestal of primeval granite, tracked the tornadoes, uncurtained the distant planets, and foretold the coming of the comets and the return of the eclipses, has never as yet been able to lift up a degraded man and point him to a higher path. i commend the bible to you. no life is great unless that life is good. each day is a life, and that day is wasted that is not filled with lofty desire, with actual achievement, that does not bring us nearer to god, nearer to our fellow-man and nearer to the things god has created. in such a plan of life will we find real and lasting happiness. god means every man to be happy. he sends us no sorrows that have not some recompense. there are two old dutch words which have resounded through the world, "_neen nimmer_," "no, never." the fleets of spain heard it, and understood it fully, when they saw the sinking dutch ships with the flags nailed to the shattered mainmast, crying "_neen nimmer_," which indicated that they would never surrender. will the young men who are to be the leaders, spend their hours in riotous living? no, never! will they be false to duty? no, never! will they shirk? no, never! will they be disloyal to self, to home, to country, and to god? no, never! i close with an illustration. croesus was a rich man, a king. one day croesus said to solon, the philosopher, "do you not think i am a happy man?" solon answered, "alas, i do not know, croesus; that life is happy that ends well." a few years later when croesus had lost his wealth, his kingdom, and his health, and had been deserted by those who in his days of glory ran to do his slightest bidding, croesus in anguish and misery exclaimed, "solon, solon, thou saidst truly that life is well and happy that ends well." some elements necessary to race development[ ] by robert russa moton _commandant of cadets, hampton institute, virginia_ [note : an address delivered at the tuskegee commencement, may, .] _students, friends:_ among the most highly developed races we observe certain dominant characteristics, certain very essential elements of character, by which they have so influenced mankind and helped the world that they were enabled to write their names in history so indelibly as to withstand and endure the test of time. your education, your observation, your occupation, have brought you into close touch and into personal and vital relations with the fundamental problems of life. we may call it the truth problem, the labor problem, the indian problem, or perhaps the negro problem. i like to call it the "human race problem." the dawn of history breaks upon a world at strife, a universal conflict of man at war with his brother. the very face of the earth has been dyed in blood and its surface whitened with human bones in an endeavor to establish a harmonious and helpful adjustment between man and man. there can be no interest more fundamental or of greater concern to the human family than the proper adjustment of man's relations to his brother. you and i belong to an undeveloped, backward race that is rarely for its own sake taken into account in the adjustment of man's relation to man, but is considered largely with reference to the impression which it makes upon the dominant anglo-saxon. the negro's very existence is itself somewhat satellitious, and secondary only, to the great white orb around which he revolves. if by chance any light does appear in the black man's sphere of operations, it is usually assumed that it is reflected from his association with his white brother. the black is generally projected against the white and usually to the disadvantage and embarrassment of the former. it becomes very easy, therefore, to see in our minds and hearts what is so apparent in our faces, "darkness there and nothing more." but you must keep in mind that the negro is a tenth part of a great cosmopolitan commonwealth; he is a part of a nation to which god has given many very intricate problems to work out. who knows but that this nation is god's great laboratory which is being used by the creator to show the rest of the world, what it does not seem thoroughly to understand, that it is possible for all god's people, even the two most extreme types, the black and the white, to live together harmoniously and helpfully? the question that the american nation must face, and which the negro as a part of the nation should soberly and dispassionately consider, is the mutual, social, civic, and industrial adjustment upon common ground of two races, differing widely in characteristics and diverse in physical peculiarities, but alike suspicious and alike jealous, and alike more or less biased and prejudiced each toward the other. without doubt the physical peculiarities of the negro, which are perhaps the most superficial of all the distinctions, are nevertheless the most difficult of adjustment. while i do not believe that a man's color is ever a disadvantage to him, he is very likely to find it an inconvenience sometimes, in some places. we might as well be perfectly frank and perfectly honest with ourselves; it is not an easy task to adjust the relations of ten millions of people who, while they may be mature in passion and perhaps in prejudice, are yet to a large extent children in judgment and in experience, to a race of people not only mature in civilization, but the principles of whose government were based upon more or less mature judgment and experience at the beginning of this nation; and when we take into also account the wide difference in ethnic types of the two races that are here brought together, the problem becomes one of the gravest intricacy that has ever taxed human wisdom and human patience for solution. this situation makes it necessary for the negro as a race to grasp firmly two or three fundamental elements. the first is _race consciousness_. the negro must play essentially the primary part in the solution of this problem. since his emancipation he has conclusively demonstrated to most people that he possesses the same faculties and susceptibilities as the rest of human mankind; this is the greatest victory the race has achieved during its years of freedom. having demonstrated that his faculties and susceptibilities are capable of the highest development, it must be true of the black race as it has been true of other races, that it must go through the same process and work out the same problem in about the same way as other races have done. we can and we have profited very much by the examples of progressive races. this is a wonderful advantage, and we have not been slow to grasp it. but we must remember that we are subject to the same natural factor in the solution of this problem, and that it cannot be solved without considering this factor. the negro must first of all have a conscientious pride and absolute faith and belief in himself. he must not unduly depreciate race distinctions and allow himself to think that, because out of one blood god created all nations of the earth, brotherhood is already an accomplished reality. let us not deceive ourselves, blighted as we are with a heritage of moral leprosy from our past history and hard pressed as we are in the economic world by foreign immigrants and by native prejudice; our one surest haven of refuge is in ourselves; our one safest means of advance is our belief in and implicit trust in our own ability and worth. no race that despises itself, that laughs at and ridicules itself, that wishes to god it were anything else but itself, can ever be a great people. there is no power under heaven that can stop the onward march of ten millions of earnest, honest, inspired, god-fearing, race-loving, and united people. secondly, we must have a _high moral ideal_. with a strong race consciousness and reasonable prudence, a people with a low, vacillating, and uncertain moral ideal may, for a time, be able to stem the tide of outraged virtue, but this is merely transitory. ultimate destruction and ruin follow absolutely in the wake of moral degeneracy; this, all history shows;--this, experience teaches. god visits the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations. "the judgments of the lord are true and righteous all together." not long ago i stood in the city of rome amid its ruined fountains, crumbling walls, falling aqueducts, ancient palaces, and amphitheatres, to-day mere relics of ancient history. one is struck with wonder and amazement at the magnificent civilization which that people was able to evolve. it does not seem possible that the roman people, who could so perfect society in its organic and civic relations and leave to the world the organic principles which must always lie at the base of all subsequent social development,--it does not seem possible that such a people should so decay as to leave hardly a vestige of its original stock, and that such cities as the romans erected should so fall as to leave scarcely one stone upon another. neither does it seem credible that a people who could so work out in its philosophical aspect man's relation to the eternal mystery, and come as near a perfect solution as is perhaps possible for the human mind to reach, that a people who could give to the world such literature, such art, such ideals of physical and intellectual beauty, as did the greeks, could so utterly perish from the face of the earth; yet this is the case not only with rome and greece, but with a score or more of nations which were once masters of the world. the greeks, romans, persians, egyptians, and even god's chosen people, allowed corruption and vice to so dwarf their moral sense that there was, according to the universal law of civilization, nothing left for them but death and destruction. it is no reproach to the negro to say that his history and environment in this country have well-nigh placed him at the bottom of the moral scale. this must be remedied, if the negro is ever to reach his full status of civilized manhood and womanhood. it must come through the united efforts of the educated among us. we must be united to stop the ravages of disease among our people; united to keep black boys from idleness, vice, gambling, and crime; united to guard the purity of black womanhood and, i might add, black manhood also. it is not enough to simply protest that ninety-five out of every hundred negroes are orderly and law-abiding. the ninety-five must be banded together to restrain and suppress the vicious five. the people must be impressed with the idea that a high moral character is absolutely essential to the highest development of every race, white quite as much as black. there is no creature so low and contemptible as he who does not seek first the approval of his own conscience and his god; for, after all, how poor is human recognition when you and your god are aware of your inward integrity of soul! if the negro will keep clean hands and a pure heart, he can stand up before all the world and say, "doubtless thou, o lord, art our father, though abraham be ignorant of us and israel acknowledge us not." thirdly, and lastly, _the negro needs intelligent industry_. slavery taught the negro many things for which he should be profoundly thankful--the christian religion, the english language, and, in a measure, civilization, which in many aspects may be crude in form, but these have placed him a thousand years ahead of his african ancestors. slavery taught the negro to work by rule and rote but not by principle and method. it did not and, perhaps, could not teach him to love and respect labor, but left him, on the contrary, with the idea that manual industry was a thing to be despised and gotten rid of, if possible; that to work with one's hands was a badge of inferiority. a tropical climate is not conducive to the development of practical energy. add to the negro's natural tendency his unfortunate heritage from slavery, and we see at once that the race needs especially to be rooted and grounded in the underlying scientific principles of concrete things. the time when the world bowed before merely abstract, impractical knowledge has well-nigh passed; the demand of this age and hour is not so much what a man knows,--though the world respects and reveres knowledge and always will, i hope,--what the world wants to know is what a man can do and how well he can do it. we must not be misled by high-sounding phrases as to the kind of education the race should receive, but we should remember that the education of a people should be conditioned upon their capacity, social environment, and the probable life which they will lead in the immediate future. we fully realize that the ignorant must be taught, the poor must have the gospel, and the vicious must be restrained, but we also realize that these do not strike the "bed-rock" of a permanent, lasting citizenship. if the negro will add his proportionate contribution to the economic aspect of the world's civilization, it must be done through intelligent, well-directed, conscientious, skilled industry. indeed, the feasible forms of civilization are nothing but the concrete actualization of intelligent thought applied to what are sometimes called common things. the primary sources of wealth are agriculture, mining, manufacturing, and commerce. these are the lines along which the thoughtful energy of the black race must be directed. i mean by agriculture, _farming_--the raising of corn, cotton, peas, and potatoes, pigs, chickens, horses, and cows. land may be bought practically anywhere in the south almost at our own price. twenty years hence, with the rapidly developing southern country and the strenuous efforts to fill it up with foreign immigrants, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for us to buy land. god gave the children of israel the "land of canaan" but, oh, what a life and death struggle they had to take possession of it and hold on to it. god has given to the negro here in this southern country two of the most fundamental necessities in his development--_land_ and _labor_. if you don't possess this land and hold this labor, god will tell you as he has often told other races--"to move on." the creator never meant that this beautiful land should be forever kept as a great hunting-ground for the indian to roam in savage bliss, but he intended that it should be used. the indian, having for scores of generations failed to develop this land, god asked the anglo-saxon to take possession and dig out the treasures of wheat, corn, cotton, gold and silver, coal and iron, and the poor indian was told "to move on." the negro in africa sits listlessly in the sunshine of barbarous idleness while the same progressive, indomitable, persevering, white man is taking possession; the same edict has gone forth to the native african--he is being told "to move on." the same god will tell the white man in america and in africa, if he does not mete out absolute justice and absolute fairness to his weaker and less-advantaged brother, black or red or brown, if he cannot do justly and love mercy, just as he told the patricians of rome, he will tell the white man "to move on." whatever question there may be about the white man's part in this situation, there is no doubt about ours. don't let us delude ourselves but keep in mind the fact that the man who owns his home and cultivates his land and lives a decent, self-respecting, useful, and helpful life is no problem anywhere. we talk about the "color line," but you know and i know that the blackest negro in alabama or mississippi or africa or anywhere else who puts the same amount of skill and energy into his farming gets as large returns for his labor as the whitest anglo-saxon. the earth yields up her increase as willingly to the skill and persuasions of the black as of the white husbandman. wind, wave, heat, stream, and electricity are absolutely blind forces and see no race distinction and draw no "color line." the world's market does not care and it asks no question about the shade of the hand that produces the commodity, but it does insist that it shall be up to the world's requirements. i thank god for the excellent chance to work that my race had in this southern country; the negro in america has a real, good, healthy job, and i hope he may always keep it. i am not particular what he does or where he does it, so he is engaged in honest, useful work. remember always that building a house is quite as important as building a poem; that the science of cooking is as useful to humanity as the science of music; that the thing most to be desired is a harmonious and helpful adaptation of all the arts and sciences to the glory of god and the good of humanity; that whether we labor with muscle or with brain, both need divine inspiration. let us consecrate our brain and muscle to the highest and noblest service, to god, and humanity. * * * * * there is no reason why any negro should become discouraged or morbid. we believe in god; his providence is mysterious and inscrutible; but his ways are just and righteous altogether. suffering and disappointment have always found their place in divine economy. it took four hundred years of slavery in egypt and a sifting process of forty years in the "wilderness" to teach israel to respect their race and to fit them for entrance into the "promised land." the black man has not as yet thoroughly learned to have the respect for his race that is so necessary to the making of a great people. i believe the woes that god has sent him are but the fiery furnace through which he is passing, that is separating the dross from the pure gold, and is welding the negroes together as a great people for a great purpose. there is every reason for optimism, hopefulness. the negro never had more the respect and confidence of his neighbors, black and white, than he has to-day. neither has he because of his real worth deserved that respect more than he does to-day. could anybody, amid the inspiration of these grounds and buildings, be discouraged about the future of the negro? the race problem in this country, i repeat, is simply a part of the problem of life. it is the adjustment of man's relation to his brother, and this adjustment began when cain slew abel. race prejudice is as much a fact as the law of gravitation, and it is as foolish to ignore the operation of one as of the other. mournful complaint and arrogant criticism are as useless as the crying of a baby against the fury of a great wind. the path of moral progress, remember, has never taken a straight line, but i believe that, unless democracy is a failure and christianity a mockery, it is entirely feasible and practicable for the black and white races of america to develop side by side, in peace, in harmony, and in mutual helpfulness each toward the other; living together as "brothers in christ without being brothers-in-law," each making its contributions to the wealth and culture of our beloved country. * * * * * i close with these lines, from an anonymous poet, on "the water lily": "o star on the breast of the river, o marvel of bloom and grace, did you fall straight down from heaven, out of the sweetest place? you are white as the thought of the angel, your heart is steeped in the sun; did you grow in the golden city, my pure and radiant one? "nay, nay, i fell not out of heaven; none gave me my saintly white; it slowly grew in the blackness, down in the dreary night, from the ooze of the silent river i won my glory and grace; while souls fall not, o my poet, they _rise_ to the sweetest place." the two seals[ ] by professor george william cook _secretary of howard university_ [note : an address delivered at a banquet given in his honor, may , .] _mr. toastmaster and friends:_ let me first thank the committee and you all for your generosity in tendering me this evidence of good wishes and good will. it is stated in your invitation, "in honor of george william cook, secretary of howard university"--a double compliment, at once personal and official. surely it is an honor to find so many men of varied occupations and duties turning aside to spend time and money to express appreciation of one's character. dull indeed must the creature be who cannot find gratitude enough to return thanks; for grateful minds always return thanks. to be direct i deeply feel the personal and non-official side of the compliment you pay me, but will you pardon me, gentlemen, if i confess that to compliment me as secretary of howard university touches me in a tender and vulnerable spot. "i love old howard," and always have been and am now anxious to be in the team to tug at the administrative phase of howard's movements. accept then, my sincere thanks. now let us then turn aside in sweet communion as brothers to talk about our alma mater. let us trace her from foundation to present eminence; re-affirm our family pledges and form resolutions new. howard men will spring up with both money and spirit, not far in the future, when the mother's cry in want will be met with a generous hand from her sons and daughters. a little more time for preparation and accumulation; then will be the time when endowment will precede request for preferment. when black philanthropists can turn desert spots into oases of learning and build halls of culture, then will howard be reaping the reward in her own harvest and justify her being in the great family of universities. though i wax warm in sentiment, i crave your indulgence but for a short while, for i pledge you my honor, and i say it seriously, that there is an affection underlying my words that makes howard but second in love to my wife and child. she has been a gracious mother to me, supplying my necessities and defending me in my adversities, for which i have ever sought with might and main to return loyalty and service. when i am referred to as a howard man, i have an uplift in the consciousness of relationship and fealty to an institution which to honor is but to be honored. visible manifestations of thought and idea have ever marked the purposes of man. monuments and cities but express precurrent mental objects. god, in his message to moses, directed that a tabernacle be built and that it should be the sign of his pleasure and approbation, a veritable indwelling of the spirit of god. living thought can be said to have habitation. greek and roman art, egyptian architecture, catholic grandeur, or quaker simplicity, all speak some great and noble soul-moving and world-moving power. within the temple area was centered the devotion of the jew, both political and religious. the hebrew theocratic system of government made it so. st. peter's at rome, no more nor less than st. paul's at london, speaks of god and the mission of his son. the mosque of omar, saint sophia at constantinople, point that allah is god and mohammed is his prophet; the taj-mahal is at once the emblem and creation of love; the sistine chapel teaches the glories and joys of maternity and god incarnate in man. the pan-american building at washington, the carnegie peace building at the hague, teach unity of mankind, and but heighten the angelic chorus of "peace and good will to men." from yon virginia hill, a galaxy of institutions may be discerned, bringing lessons to a listening world. as one may stand on arlington's sacred heights, looking about him, he will find the indices in the graves and monuments there of sacrifice for a national union "indissoluble and forever"; and as his eyes sweep the horizon, scanning through mist and sunshine, the emblem and insignia of thought and policy will block the view. he will see the gold-tipped dome of the library of congress glinting in the light, and know its scintillations but herald the purpose to keep the light of learning and knowledge bright. yon stately capitol dome interrupts his line of vision but to remind him that it covers the chancel of legislation, and that representative government is a fixed and permanent fact. that single towering shaft on yon potomac bed speaks of individual and unselfish devotion to a nation--washingtonian patriotism, unique in history--and at the same time reflects the appreciation of a grateful and worshipful people. hast thou seen it in its lonely grandeur on a moonlight night? it is well worth a trip across the ocean to read its message. sweeping westward, the eye sees planted on a hill-top georgetown college, the outward symbol of tenet and propaganda. raising the visual angle and dropping back to the northwest, the white marble walls of the american university come to view, planted that methodism with justification by faith might preach the gospel for the redemption of man. turning to the northeast, the great catholic university presents itself as a repository and, at the same time, a vehicle of catholic love of learning; and in juxtaposition towers high in alabastine whiteness the spanish architecture of the soldiers home; though standing mute in immaculate marble, expressing to the defenders of a country an appreciation of their patriotism and sacrifice; the _ensemble_ preaching to an active world. then, the line of vision is obtruded upon by the stately main building of howard university, of her structures the noblest. observed from the high palisades or the low bed of the potomac, that ever-present object of view from any point of the district is veritably "a city on a hill that cannot be hid,"--symbolic and typical of her mission. and then the inquiry comes as to her significance. why standeth thou there absorbing space? vying in sunshine and moonshine with the capitol in conspicuous aspect, the two stand as twin sentinels on opposite ramparts of the potomac valley, overlooking in midnight vigil the slumbering city, each challenging the attention of the wayfarer. what art thou to justify thyself to man? what mission hast thou to excuse thy being? what road of profit? what principle of uplift hast thou to send forth? thy halls resound to the murmur of what message from the divine? what, we ask, is thy mission? the answer is echoed from the archives: "consult her founders; learn of them if thou wouldst know." therefore, friends, we turn to the records of howard university and the declaration of her founders--her founders, men fresh from the fortunes of war, battle-scarred and blood-stained, desiring further to perpetuate the object of their militant victories by the forces of peace and brotherhood; men who failed to die at gettysburg, chancellorsville, and lookout mountain, and continued the fight on this hill; men who, not satisfied with loosening the shackles of bondage, turned their powers to driving darkness from human souls, though encased in ebony; men who wrought under god's hand, and dying dissatisfied that the full fruition of their labors were not yet come to pass, leaving to survivors and posterity an unmistaken task and warfare. howard has had two seals. the first reading "equal rights and knowledge for all"; the second, "for god and the republic"; the former breathing the spirit of the civil war period and the pauline doctrine declared before the areopagus, announced in the preaching and work of christ and emphasized by the declaration of independence; the latter pregnant with reverence, piety, and patriotism; the twain compassing man's duty higher than which human conception is lost. privileged indeed is one to live under the ægis of such twin declarations. fortunate indeed to have the authorization of official acts blessed by the benediction of such battle-cries. the preamble to the charter explains comprehensively, though not in detail, the great purpose of howard university: "section . that there be established, and is hereby established in the district of columbia, a university for the education of youth in the liberal arts and sciences, under the name, seal, and title of howard university," stated as simple and plain as the decalogue itself. i glean from the fourth annual report on schools for freedmen for july , , by j. w. alvord, then general superintendent of schools, bureau for refugees and abandoned lands, what i conceive to be the first catalogue of howard university, and, if you will bear with me, i will read the entire catalogue. "howard university. a charter has been granted by congress for the howard university, which is to be open to all of both sexes without discrimination of color. this institution bids fair to do great good. its beautiful site, so opportunely and wisely secured, is an earnest of success. large and commodious buildings are soon to be erected thereon. the normal and preparatory departments of the university were opened on the first of may, under the instruction of rev. e. f. williams, an accomplished scholar and a thorough teacher. at the close of the month the school numbered thirty-one scholars; it has now increased to about sixty. miss lord, so long a popular teacher of this city, has been appointed assistant. the grade of this school is low for its name, but the students are making good advancement." it may be thought by casual consideration, as was said by eminent men, that the name was the largest thing about it, but i prefer to disagree and to say that the purpose as set forth in the charter is the greatest thing about it. these are the words: "we urge all friends of the freedmen to increasing confidence and to look forward with assured expectation to greater things than these. this people are to be prepared for what is being prepared for them. they are to become a 'people which in time past were not a people'; and there is increasing evidence that 'god hath made of one blood all the nations of men.' equal endowments substantially, with equal culture, will produce that equality common to all mankind." in them we get the quintescence, we get the crystallization, we get the high purpose, we get the spiritual foundation, of howard university. conceived in prayer, born of the faith and convictions as embodied in its original seal which reads, "equal rights and knowledge for all," an offspring of plymouth rock, howard university is set before you--a cross between religious fervor and prophetic educational enthusiasm. she is, then, the essence filtrating from the declaration of paul at athens, that "of one blood hath god created all men to dwell upon earth." for forty-five years, howard has been living her life. she has been more or less doing her work as circumstances allowed and dictated, but now we ask of you "watchman, what of the night?" how far has this work been progressing along the line of basal principles that we find embodied in all these authoritative extracts? unfortunate i think it is that the discussions in the early meetings of the board of trustees were not preserved in stenographic report, for the time will come when the spiritual history of howard university must be written as well as its material history, and then the historian will be at a loss to find the true afflatus that gave birth to our alma mater, unless we keep it in evidence. the imagination has oft painted howard university as a temple--a temple of knowledge,--a temple for the teaching of justice; a temple for the upbuild of mankind. let us then hold its form to our imagination, pearly white as the palaces of the south, straight in its construction as rectitude, and let us present it to an admiring world, not only for æsthetic culture but ethical grandeur, religious progress, and political righteousness; and let us say to all, be he high or low, "who touches a stone in yon god-given edifice" is guilty of vandalism, is an iconoclast not at any time to be tolerated. he is tampering with the rights and privileges of a worthy people and deserves to have visited upon him the excoriation of a fiery indignation. howard was created to meet the dire needs of a meritorious class, and insensible indeed must the man be who for sentimental or personal reasons or for profit, swerves one degree from the line of the highest form of education in administration or instruction. there should be launched upon him the anathema of an outraged people. sound the alarm that no man must hinder the true mission of howard university. it were better for him that a millstone were hung about his neck and that he be cast into the deep. for him there is punishment even after death in the sure infamy that will attach to his name. the old motto, "equal rights and knowledge for all," is a necessary constituent of the howard university life and purpose. there can be no howard university without equal rights and highest culture for all, based upon merit and capacity. to be plain, we know of no negro education. political rights and civic privileges are accompaniments of citizenship and are therefore part of the warp and woof of howard university's curricula; the salt and savor without which wherewith will it be salted? mathematics has no color; ethics and philosophy are of no creed or class; culture was not fashioned for race monopoly; knowledge is in no plan or department an exclusive goal; justice is universal. freedom in striving for the acquisition of god's bounty as revealed by nature is the birthright of all and an inalienable right of all. these are god-given privileges, and any contravention of them is born of evil and belongs to the evil powers. our privileges have imposed a trust and we are the trustees. let no man deceive himself. whatever the opportunity of approval now for betrayal of trust bequeathed to us, the time will come for the court of public opinion to find whom to blame and whom to thank. what the founders demanded for howard, we must still demand. what william clark and martha spaulding by their gifts meant, must still be meant by howard's activities. being justified in the past, it must be maintained in the future. then to-night let us re-baptize in howard spirit and issue the mandate of loyalty and endeavor. * * * * * let no howard man ever expatriate himself. necessity driving him from howard, let him consider himself domiciled elsewhere, but his scholastic citizenship intact in howard. we will sing the old song of howard, though there be other songs greater. yale, cambridge, oxford, and leipsic may sing their songs, but, for me and my house, we will sing "howard, i love old howard." let us imitate the psalmist: "we will meditate also of all thy work, and talk of thy doings." we will exalt howard and delight in her good work. where she is weak we will endeavor to strengthen, and where she is strong we will direct to the uplift of the race. she may be lacking in equipment; that can be tolerated; but as to principle, she must not be weak at any point. from stem to stern she must carry the marks of her purpose, and at mast-head must float the pennant of her seals. neither time nor purpose can ever erase the fitness of "equal rights and knowledge for all," "for god and the republic,"--_the two seals_. a solution of the race problem[ ] by j. milton waldron, s. t. d. j. milton waldron, d.d., _of washington, d. c. noted as having erected and operated the first institutional church among negroes in america in jacksonville, florida, - ._ [note : delivered at cooper institute, new york, .] that fearless, able, and broad-minded author of "the negro and the sunny south"--a book, by the way, every american citizen should read--samuel creed cross, a white man of west virginia, takes up an entire chapter in giving with the briefest comments even a partial list of the crimes committed by the whites of the south against the negroes during the author's recent residence of six months in the section. last year eighty or ninety colored persons, some of them women and children, were murdered, lynched, or burned for "the nameless crime," for murder or suspected murder, for barn-burning, for insulting white women and "talking back" to white men, for striking an impudent white lad, for stealing a white boy's lunch and for no crime at all--unless it be a crime for a black man to ask southern men to accord him the rights guaranteed him by the constitution. within the last twelve months georgia disfranchised her colored citizens by a constitutional subterfuge and florida attempted the same crime. and within the same period almost every white secular newspaper, and many of the religious journals, of the south contained in every issue of their publications abusive and malicious articles concerning the negro in which they inflamed the whites against the brother in black and sought to justify the south in robbing him of his labor, his self-respect, his franchise, his liberty, and life itself. many of the officials of southern states, including numerous judges and not a few christian ministers, helped or sanctioned these negro-hating editors and reporters in their despicable onslaught upon the negro, while tens of thousands of white business men of the south fattened upon negro convict labor and the proceeds of the "order system." not satisfied with the wrongs and outrages she has heaped upon the colored people in her own borders the south is industriously preaching her wicked doctrine of negro inferiority, negro suppression, and negro oppression everywhere in the north, east, and west. and yet, in the face of this terrible record of crime against the liberty, manhood, and political rights and the life of the colored man which is being rewritten in the south every day, there are those in high places who have the temerity to tell us that "the southern people are the negro's best friends," and that the negro problem is a southern problem and the south should be allowed to solve it in her own way without any interference on the part of the north. the north and the south together stole the black man from his home in africa and enslaved him in this land, and this whole nation has reaped the benefits of his two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil, and this whole nation must see to it that the black man is fully emancipated, enfranchised, thoroughly educated in heart, head, and hand, and permitted to exercise his rights as a citizen and earn, wherever and however he can, an honest and sufficient living for himself, his wife, and children--this the south cannot do alone and unaided. nearly three millions of the ten million negroes in this country live north of mason and dixon's line, and thousands of others are coming north and going west every month; over four hundred thousand of the three millions mentioned above live in washington, baltimore, philadelphia, new york, st. louis, and chicago; if the negro problem was ever a southern problem, the colored brother has taken it with him into the north and the west and made it a national problem. the life, liberty, and happiness of the black man and of the white man of this country are so wrapped up together that it is impossible to oppress the one without eventually oppressing the other. the white man of the south was cursed by slavery as much almost as the black man whom he robbed of life, liberty, and virtue. in many parts of the south to-day the masses of poor white men are no better off in any sphere of life than the colored people, with the single exception that their faces are white. the rights and liberties of the common people of this entire country have grown less secure, and their ballots have steadily diminished in power, while the colored man has been robbed of his franchise by the south. the trusts and the favored classes of this country have seen the rights of millions of loyal black citizens taken from them by the south in open violation of the federal constitution, and that with the indirect approval of the highest courts of the land. and these trusts and interests have come to feel that constitutions and laws are not binding upon them, and that the common people--white and black--have no rights which they are bound to respect. the south alone cannot right these gigantic wrongs nor restore to the white people (not to mention the negroes) within her own borders the liberties and privileges guaranteed them by the constitution of the united states. in discussing the south's attitude towards the colored man we seek only to hold up to scorn and contempt the spirit which pervades the majority of the people who live in that section; and we desire to condemn only the men of the south who hate their fellow men; we wish to bear testimony now and here to the truth that there is an undercurrent in the south which is making for righteousness, and that there are a few noble and heroic souls in every southern state who believe that the negro ought to be treated as a man and be given all the rights and privileges accorded any other man. this righteous spirit must, however, be encouraged and strengthened, and the number of noble and fair-minded men and women in the south must be greatly augmented, or the battle for human liberty and the manhood and political rights of both races in that section will never be won. we beg to say that all the enemies of human rights in general, and of the rights of black men in particular, are not in the south; the wrongs complained of by the negro in that section are, for the most part, the same as those bewailed by him in the north, with this difference: the northern negro's right to protest against the wrongs heaped upon him is less restricted, and, his means of protection and defense are more numerous in the north than in the south. already in at least one state north of mason and dixon's line herculean efforts are being put forth to disfranchise the colored man by constitutional enactment; the discrimination against a man on account of his color, and the lynching of negroes and the burning of their houses by infuriated mobs of white men, are not unheard of things in the north and west. most of the labor-unions of these sections are still closed to the brother in black, and most white working-men in the northern and western states are determined that the negro shall not earn a living in any respectable calling if they can prevent it. many of the newspapers north and west (and a few right here in new york city) often use their columns to misrepresent and slander the colored man, and it was only last week when one of the highest courts in the empire state rendered a decision in which it justified discrimination against a man on the grounds of his color and his condition of servitude. verily, the negro problem is not a southern, but a national problem! * * * * * many solutions for the negro problem have been proposed, but to our mind there is one and only one practical and effective answer to the question. in the first place we claim that the early friends of the negro grasped the true solution, which is that his needs and possibilities are the same as those of the other members of the human family; that he must be educated not only for industrial efficiency and for private gain, but to share in the duties and responsibilities of a free democracy; that he must have equality of rights, for his own sake, for the sake of the human race, and for the perpetuity of free institutions. america will not have learned the full lesson of her system of human slavery until she realizes that a rigid caste system is inimical to the progress of the human race and to the perpetuity of democratic government. in the second place, the negro must make common cause with the working class which to-day is organizing and struggling for better social and economic conditions. the old slave oligarchy maintained its ascendency largely by fixing a gulf between the negro slave and the white free laborer, and the jealousies and animosities of the slave period have survived to keep apart the negro and the laboring white man. powerful influences are at work even to-day to impress upon the negro the fact that he must look to the business men of the south alone for protection and recognition of his rights, while at the same time these very same influences inflame the laboring white man against the black man with fears of social equality and race fusion. the negro, being a laborer, must see that the cause of labor is his cause, that his elevation can be largely achieved by having the sympathy, support, and co-operation of that growing organization of working men the world over which is working out the larger problems of human freedom and economic opportunity. in the third place, wherever in this country the negro has the franchise, and where by complying with requirements he can regain it, let him exercise it faithfully and constantly, but let him do so as an independent and not as a partisan, for his political salvation in the future depends upon his voting for men and measures, rather than with any particular party. for two hundred and fifty years the black man of america toiled in the south without pay and without thanks; he cleared her forests, tunneled her mountains, bridged her streams, built her cottages and palaces, enriched her fields with his sweat and blood, nursed her children, protected her women and guarded her homes from the midnight marauder, the devouring flames, and approaching disease and death. the colored american willingly and gladly enlisted and fought in every war waged by this country, from the first conflict with the indians to the last battle in cuba and the philippines; when enfranchised he voted the rebellious states back into the union, and from that day until this he has, as a race, never used his ballot, unless corrupted or intimidated by white men, to the detriment of any part of america. when in power in the south, though for the most part ignorant and just out of slavery and surrounded by vindictive ex-slave owners and mercenary, corrupted and corrupting "carpet baggers," he did what his former masters had failed for centuries to do--he established the free school system, erected asylums for the insane and indigent poor, purged the statute-books of disgraceful marriage laws and oppressive and inhuman labor regulations, revised and improved the penal code, and by many other worthy acts proved that the heart of the race was, and is, in the right place, and that whenever the american negro has been trusted, he has proven himself trustworthy and manly. and when the colored man is educated, and is treated with fairness and justice, and is accorded the rights and privileges which are the birthright of every american citizen, he will show himself a man among men, and the race problem will vanish as the mist before the rising sun. the social bearings of the fifth commandment by james francis gregory, b. d. _vice principal manual training and industrial school, bordentown, new jersey_ "honor thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long in the land which the lord thy god giveth thee." while obedience to parents is the primary significance of this command, its widening scope is seen in the comprehensive authority of the father of the old hebrew family. he was the ruler and the protector of the family, and as human society enlarged and much of the original authority of the parent passed from him, the child was prepared to give honor to such authority and wisdom as he had recognized in the father. thus generically the command may cover the wide range suggested by the westminster assembly: "the fifth commandment requireth the preserving the honor and performing the duties belonging to every one in their several places and relations as superiors, inferiors or equals." and this honor idea in the home not only spreads out, but it climbs, and we may say that as the hebrew family contained the beginning of government, all other authorities of this world wind up and out of the home, ascending in spiral form until the little coil of the domestic circle eventuates. * * * * * last summer, while seated in a crowded train, my attention was attracted by a little family group. the heat-worn mother held a baby in one arm, and the other hand was steadying a toddling boy. she had repeatedly reproved her half-grown daughter and finally spoke sharply to her, when the child suddenly lifted the heavy umbrella in her hand and struck her mother! these are the facts that impressed me: the unmasked powerlessness of the mother, the cool unconcern of the father, but above all the apathetic indifference of the passengers. the modern family is without discipline, all of the elements in the home having a tendency to wander from the hearth center. there is the father whose absence, because of occupational absorption, is lengthened by many extraneous interests. the mother, too, is receding from the home center in her misguided enthusiasm for so-called equality in business, professional, and political life. and the children? as one sad-faced mother said to me the other day, "they get out of the home so early!" * * * * * all the reverence for parents in the world's history, is hallowed by the lofty example of jesus in his dutiful subjection to his earthly parents, and in the marvelous solicitude of his dying words, "son, behold thy mother!" * * * * * a great light is thrown on this economic relation of the commandment by the attitude of the centurion pleading with the master for his servant's life. here was an employer whose stretched-out arm of authority could be transformed into a gesture of appeal, for his servant lying sick at home. indeed only as the spirit of this commandment makes itself felt in our business life will the clenched hands of capital and labor relax from the hilts of their dripping blades and grasp each other with the warm pressure of brotherly sympathy. * * * * * then there are the mutual relations between the young and the aged. oh, for a return in our youth to that ancient bowing deference to old age a beautiful instance of which cicero preserves for us. into the crowded amphitheatre at athens, with the multitudes' expectant hush, there staggered an aged man, who made his tottering progress, beneath tier after tier of indifferent or averted faces, looking in vain for a place, until finally he came in front of the section occupied by the lacaedemonians, who rose as one man and offered him a seat! * * * * * then there are the superiors and inferiors in wisdom. as we look back through the mists of years to our student years, there stand out sharply distinguished the kindly figures of our intellectual fathers. i recall at this moment that man of infinite reserve behind the desk at yale, whose eye could flash with authority and yet kindle with concern at the sight of the necessity of one of his boys--in browning's thought, "as sheathes a film the mother eagle's eye when her bruised eaglet breathes!" * * * * * i need scarcely suggest the obvious pertinence of this command to the relations of the pastor and his congregation. we cling very jealously to the term, "father," as it has been applied to the men of god in the history of the church. the picture is beautiful of the roman catholic priest, conscious of the reluctance of her neighbors to bear to the poor widow the evil news of the sudden death of her only son, walking quietly up the gravel path, and covering with his healthy hands the two withered ones as he met her at the doorway, answering her searching inquiry, "father?" with an unmistakable inflection of the words, "my child!" that also of the american protestant episcopal bishop, leaving his little birthday gathering already interrupted for three successive years, and foregoing a breath of country air, after weary months of toil in the hot city, to comfort a simple family hovering piteously about a little white casket:--these are attitudes far more impressive than the ceremonious exercise of their loftiest ecclesiastical functions. * * * * * many lines of evidence from the side of reason converge on the biblical teaching that civil government is a divine institution. perhaps one of the most striking features of our later american growth is the colossal selfishness of our people. the habit of freedom from restraint is fast hardening into a lawlessness of character. * * * * * listen to some of the palliating expressions with which our legal atmosphere is permeated: "indiscreet and untactful," "the unwritten law," "swift justice," "murder a fine art," and remember that these are the terms that play around that triangle of corrupt judge, dallying lawyer, and bribed and illiterate jury--all conspiring to "shove by justice" with technicalities. and what are those sinister figures, flitting and stalking through the land--the law-maker with his spoils, the rioter with his rock, the anarchist with his bomb, the assassin thrusting out his black hand, the lyncher with his battering ram, his rope and his rifle; these are some of the outside lawless who conspire with the inside lawless to make a scarecrow of american law, making it the perch and not the terror of the birds of prey. and who knows how soon all of these lawless ones may stand up together and, with a monarch's voice cry, havoc in the confines of this republic! * * * * * but we must be conscious of our heavenly father behind the earthly type. this unmistakably is the significance of the biblical words: "to obey your parents in the lord"; "to be obedient unto your masters as unto christ"; "to fear god in honoring the face of the old man"; "to be subject unto rulers as the ministers of god." and this leads us to the great levelling truth, that we are all equally accountable to our heavenly father, that we are nations and individuals, in the high thought of lincoln, "under god." * * * * * this command carries with it the promise of a reward restated by paul, "honor thy father and thy mother that it may be well with thee and that thou mayest live long on the earth." in fact this is the logic of life. this retributive justice is bound up in the laws of nature. plants that array themselves against these laws wither and die. and higher up in the animal kingdom, kipling's verse tells us that this inexorable sequence prevails: "and these are the laws of the jungle, and many and mighty are they; but the head and the hoof of the law is, and the haunch and the hump is--obey." and it is true that obedience in a human being conduces to a long and prosperous life. the beautiful truth is gradually emerging in science and theology that religion is healthful. as one of my discerning fathers was often wont to say, "the whole bible is a text-book of advanced biology, telling men how they may gain the fuller life." * * * * * here and there the obedient die early, you say.--yes; and this fact sounds the deeper spiritual import of this promise, for they, sooner than we, enter upon that eternal life, and pass over into that greener canaan, to that inheritance incorruptible and undefiled. standing one afternoon in the gallery of the louvre in paris, a vision of the perfect adjustment of our seemingly conflicting relations to cæsar and to god shone forth to me, in the divine gesture of the master in da vinci's wonderful painting of the last supper, where the hand turned downward lays hold of the things of earth, and the hand turned upward grips the things which are eternal, both of which obligations are glorified in those later words of the saviour spoken out of the agony of the cross: "son, behold thy mother! father, into thy hands i commend my spirit." life's morn[ ] by william c. jason, d. d. _principal state college for colored students, dover, delaware_ [note : an address delivered before the wilmington district epworth league convention.] "nature," says one, "is like a woman; in the morning she is fresh from her bath, at noon she has on her working-dress, and at night she wears her jewels." nature is most charming in the morning. the following extract from "a picture of dawn" is a tribute edward everett pays to the morning. "as we proceeded, the timid approach of the twilight became more perceptible; the intense blue of the sky began to soften; the smaller stars, like little children, went first to rest; the sister beams of the pleiades soon melted together; but the bright constellations of the west and north remained unchanged. steadily the wondrous transfiguration went on. hands of angels, hidden from mortal eyes, shifted the scenery of the heavens; the glories of the night dissolved into the glories of the dawn. the blue sky now turned more softly gray; the great watch-stars shut up their holy eyes; the east began to kindle. faint streaks of purple soon blushed along the sky; the whole celestial concave was filled with the inflowing tides of the morning light which came pouring down from above in one great ocean of radiance; till at length, as we reached the blue hills, a flash of purple fire blazed out from above the horizon, and turned the dewy teardrops of flower and leaf into rubies and diamonds. in a few seconds, the everlasting gates of the morning were thrown wide open, and the lord of day, arrayed in glories too severe for the gaze of man, began his state." nothing but the morning itself is more beautiful than this sublime description. the best of the day is the morning. the brain is clearer, the nerves more steady, the physical powers at their best before the sun reaches its zenith. weariness waits for noon, and the wise man chooses the morning as the period for his most exacting toil. of all the year, the spring-time is the fairest. nature wakes from the restful sleep of winter. grasses grow, flowers bloom, trees put forth their leaves, birds build their nests, and he who hopes for harvest lays the foundations of his future gain. the whole year is lost to him who sleeps or idles away the seed-time. late planting will grow, perhaps, if excessive heat does not kill the seed or wither the shoot; but before it comes to fruitage the frosts of autumn will blight it, flower and stem and root. man cannot alter god's plan. there is a time to sow and a time to reap. life has its seasons also--its spring-time, its winter; morning, noon, and night. the scriptures enjoin us to work while it is called day; for the night cometh when no man can work. in the parable the rich man who went on a journey appointed each servant a task. to each of us is entrusted some treasure; each is commanded to work. to labor is man's appointed lot. this is his supreme mission in the world. he cannot avoid it. even the servant who sought to evade his responsibility went and _digged_ in the earth. resisting the forces which tend to destroy life; surmounting the obstacles to substantial success; breaking down barriers, commercial, civil, social, political, and becoming a factor in the best life of his community--the peer of any in mental and moral qualities, a representative and an advocate of the principles of justice and equality--this is the work of a man. such efforts do not tax the muscles only. they call forth the energies of the entire being. foresight, calculation, enterprise, courage, self-control; fertility in resources; the ability to recognize and embrace an opportunity, are all required. the inspiration must come from above. all the powers of mind and body must be enlisted. flagging energies, lashed by an indomitable will, must persevere. "life is real and life is earnest" wrote the poet. he who does not take life seriously has woefully failed to comprehend its significance. toil, service, sacrifice--these are the words which tell the true story of a life. willingly, it should be, but if not so, then reluctantly man must toil, serve, sacrifice. for noble ends, it should be, but if not so, then for base ends, he must toil, serve, sacrifice. with buoyant, hopeful spirit, or with cheerless, heavy heart; toil, service, sacrifice is the divine decree, irrevocable, eternal. * * * * * it is my privilege to address the members of the epworth league but my thought embraces young people everywhere, especially those of my own race. you live. a definite responsibility is thereby placed upon you. not as a burden to be borne with sadness, but rather as an act of beneficence has the creator called you into being and sent you forth upon your mission in the world. he sends you to a world full of beauty. sunshine, fragrance, and melody are about you. yet you may not be conscious of it. blindness or perverted vision may cloud the sky and fill the earth with shadows. the clamors of selfish interest or lawless passion may change the harmony into perpetual discord and din. evil associations, impure thoughts, and unholy practises create false ideas of life. "faults in the life breed errors in the brain, and these reciprocally those again; the mind and conduct mutually imprint, and stamp their image in each other's mint." yet for him who hath eyes to see, the world is full of beauty. nor beauty only; but design is everywhere manifested, revealing the presence of a supreme intelligence and immeasurable love in fitting out for man a perfect habitation. whatever of wretchedness the world holds is man-made. it is proof positive of a purpose to make man happy that so many instruments of pleasure are placed at his hand. each sense and organ has its objects of exercise and enjoyment. every natural instinct, desire, and appetite is recognized, and its proper, legitimate indulgence provided for. blessed are they who find life joyous and who choose it, not from a fear of death, but for what there is in life--who can say: "i find death perfectly desirable, but i find life perfectly beautiful." you have life and you have youth. you live in life's morn; the spring-time of your existence is upon you. quick perceptions, swift and keen intelligence, strong limbs, rich, pure blood, and a hope that "springs eternal," are a portion of the heritage of youth. with faculties unimpaired by age or excesses, you awake to an existence which shall never end, and begin a destiny which shall be whatever you, by the use or abuse of those faculties, shall determine. hereditary influences count for something. environment has much to do with the shaping of a life. yet a responsibility without evasion rests upon each individual soul. not one is saved or lost without his own voluntary contribution toward that end. it is an awful responsibility, commensurate with the rewards offered to integrity and fidelity. the thought that you must stand at the judgment-seat and answer for this life should impress the most thoughtless with the importance of seed-time. young people are the life-blood of the nation, the pillars of the state. the future of the world is wrapped up in the lives of its youth. as these unfold, the pages of history will tell the story of deeds noble and base. characters resplendent with jewels and ornaments of virtue will be held up for the admiration of the world and the emulation of generations not yet born. others, thoughtlessly or wilfully ignoring the plain path of duty, dwarfed, blighted, rejected of god and man, will be sign-posts marking the road to ruin. think not that moderation will escape notice; you cannot slip by with the crowd. exceptional instances of vice or virtue attract more temporary notice; but the thought, tone, and general sentiment of a community give the inspiration and the impulse to those who outstrip the masses in the race for the goal of honor or of shame. none so humble but he has his share in moulding the destiny of the race. at the last, a just balance will determine your share of praise or blame. young people should recognize their own worth and resolve to act a noble part. "let no man despise thy youth," says the word. despise not thou thy youth. fully appreciating your high privilege and your rich estate, go forth into the world's broad field of battle, determined to make no misuse of your day of opportunity. be bold, vigilant, and strong. be true to the noblest instincts of your nature and have strong faith in god. "call up thy noble spirit; rouse all the generous energies of virtue, and, with the strength of heaven-endued man, repel the hideous foe." "manhood, like gold, is tested in the furnace: a fire that purifies is fierce and strong; rare statues gain art's ideal of perfection, by skilful strokes of chisel, wielded long." an address delivered before the house of representatives of massachusetts[ ] by william h. lewis _assistant attorney-general of the united states_ [note : boston, massachusetts, wednesday, february , .] _mr. speaker and members of the house of representatives:_ the power of the house to summons forthwith any citizen of the commonwealth has never been resisted; and so by designation of the honorable speaker, in accordance with the order of the house, i am here in answer to your summons. you have invited me, as a member of the liberated race, to address you upon this lincoln's birthday in commemoration of the th anniversary of the emancipation proclamation. words would be futile to express my deep appreciation of this high honor, however unworthily bestowed. twice before have i met this honorable house. i came first as an humble petitioner seeking redress against discrimination on account of color. you then granted my prayer. some years later, i came as a member of this house, the last representative of my race to sit in this body. you treated me then as a man and an equal. and now the honors of an invited guest i shall cherish as long as memory lasts. to-day is the anniversary of the birth of abraham lincoln, the preserver of the union, the liberator of a race. "the mystic chords of memory," stretching from heart to heart of millions of americans at this hour, "swell the chorus of thanksgiving" to the almighty for the life, character, and service of the great president. four brief, crucial years he represented the soul of the union struggling for immortality--for perpetuity; in him was the spirit of liberty struggling for a new birth among the children of men. "slavery must die," he said, "that the union may live." we have a union to-day because we have emancipation; we have emancipation because we have a united country. though nearly fifty years have elapsed since his martyr death and we see his images everywhere, yet lincoln is no mere legendary figure of an heroic age done in colors, cast in bronze, or sculptured in marble; he is a living, vital force in american politics and statecraft. the people repeat his wise sayings; politicians invoke his principles; men of many political stripes profess to be following in his footsteps. we of this generation can almost see him in the flesh and blood and hear falling from his lips the sublime words of gettysburg, the divine music of the second inaugural and the immortal proclamation of emancipation. we see this man of mighty thews and sinews, his feet firmly planted in mother earth, his head towering in the heavens. he lived among men but he walked with god. he was himself intensely human, but his sense of right, of justice, seemed to surpass the wisdom of men. a true child of nature, he beheld the races of men in the raw without the artificial trappings of civilization and the adventitious circumstances of birth or wealth or place, and could see no difference in their natural rights. "the negro is a man," said he, "my ancient faith tells me that all men are created equal." as a man he was brave yet gentle, strong yet tender and sympathetic, with the intellect of a philosopher, yet with the heart of a little child. as a statesman he was prudent, wise, sagacious, far-seeing and true. as president he was firm, magnanimous, merciful, and just. as a liberator and benefactor of mankind, he has no peer in all human history. as lowell said in his famous commemoration ode, it still must be said: "great captains, with their guns and drums, disturb our judgment for the hour, but at last silence comes; these are all gone, and, standing like a tower, our children shall behold his fame, the kindly-earnest, brave, foreseeing man, sagacious, patient, dreading praise, not blame, new birth of our new soil, the first american." there are only three great charters of freedom among anglo-saxon peoples: the magna charta, which the barons wrung from king john at runnymede; the declaration of independence, which a few colonials threw at the head of an obstinate king; the emancipation proclamation, which lincoln cast into the balance for the union. the magna charta gave freedom to the nobility; the declaration of independence brought freedom down to the plain people; the proclamation of abraham lincoln set free the under-man, and proclaimed liberty to the slave and the serf throughout the world. massachusetts had no small part in the second great charter of liberty. this is attested not only by the signatures of hancock, the adams's, paine, and gerry to that great document, but here are boston, concord, lexington, and bunker hill, and a thousand memorials of the revolution besides. great indeed as was the part that massachusetts played in achieving independence, greater still was her share in the emancipation of the slave. lincoln himself said that boston had done more to bring on the war than any other city; and when emancipation had been achieved he generously credited the result "to the logic and moral power of garrison and the anti-slavery people." this day, therefore, belongs to massachusetts. it is a part of her glorious history. emancipation was but the triumph of puritan principle--the right of each individual to eat his bread out of the sweat of his own brow or not at all. the history of the abolition of slavery in america could not be written with massachusetts left out; the history of massachusetts herself, since the revolution, would be but a dreary, barren waste without the chapter of her part in the emancipation. the house does well to pause in its deliberations to commemorate this anniversary. in your predecessors threw open the old hall of representatives to the first meeting of the new england anti-slavery society. a year later, the legislature adopted resolutions against the slave-trade, for the abolition of slavery in the district of columbia, and the prohibition of slavery in the territories. the fathers early enacted that there should be neither bond slaves nor villeinage amongst us except captives taken in just wars and those condemned judicially to serve. when it was attempted to land the first cargo of slaves upon her soil, the people seized them and sent them back to their own country and clime. in spite of the prayers and resolutions and acts of the early fathers, a form of slavery grew up here, but it was milder than the english villeinage: it resembled apprenticeship except in the duration. the slave had many of the rights of free men; the right to marry and the right to testify in court. either with the decision of somerset's case in england or the adoption of the first constitution of the commonwealth, during the revolution, that institution passed away forever. the voices of freedom were first raised here. whittier, lowell, and longfellow sang the songs of emancipation. garrison, phillips, and parker were the prophets and disciples of lincoln. in the darkest days of slavery, john quincy adams held aloft the torch of liberty and fed its flame with his own intrepid spirit. sumner was the scourge of god, the conscience of the state incarnate. the people of massachusetts were not only idealists, dreamers, and molders of public opinion, but when thirty years of agitation had reached its culmination in the civil war, massachusetts sent , of her sons to sustain upon the battle-fields of the republic the ideals which she had advocated in the halls of congress, in the forum and the market-place. the people of massachusetts, true to their history and traditions, have abolished here, so far as laws can do so, every discrimination between race and color, and every inequality between man and man. i have recalled these things for no vainglorious purpose. we should remind ourselves constantly that we have a history behind us, that we have a character to sustain. are we of this generation worthy descendants of tea spillers and abolitionists? are we living up to the traditions of the commonwealth, to the principles of the fathers in relation to the treatment of citizens of color? i have observed with aching heart and agonizing spirit during the last twenty years not only the growing coldness and indifference on the part of our people to the fate of the negro elsewhere; but here in our own city the breaking up of the old ties of friendship that once existed between people of color and all classes of citizens, just after emancipation; the gradual falling away of that sympathy and support upon which we could always confidently rely in every crisis. i have watched the spirit of race prejudice raise its sinister shape in the labor market, in the business house, the real-estate exchange, in public places, and even in our schools, colleges, and churches. i say all this with pain and sorrow. i would be the last to "soil my own nest" or to utter one word that would reflect in the slightest degree upon massachusetts or her people. i love inexpressibly every foot of massachusetts soil, from the berkshires to essex, from the capes to the islands off our southern coast. i have studied her history; i know her people, and when i have played out the little game with destiny, i want to rest upon some massachusetts hillside. i can never forget the emotions that filled my breast when first i set foot in boston just a quarter of a century ago, a negro lad in search of education, freedom, and opportunity. as i walked these sacred streets i lived over the revolution, i saw them peopled with the mighty men of the past. i hastened to make my obeisance first to the spot where attucks fell, the first martyr of the revolution. i next looked out upon bunker hill where peter salem stood guard over the fallen warren. i said to myself "here at last no black man need be ashamed of his race, here he has made history." and then to scenes of still another period i turned my gaze. i looked upon the narrow streets where garrison was mobbed for my sake. i viewed the place where a few brave men gave shadrach to freedom and to fame. the pictured walls of the old "cradle of liberty" seemed still to echo to the silvery tones of phillips. the molded face of governor andrew spoke a benediction: "i know not what record of sins awaits me in that other life, but this i do know, i never despised any man because he was ignorant, because he was poor or because he was black." i felt that here at last was liberty, and here i would make my home. you say to me, "certainly you can find no fault." i gratefully acknowledge the debt which i owe the people of massachusetts, but i cannot forget my brethren here. i cannot forget my children too, who were born here and by the blessings of god and your help i will leave to them and their children a freer and better massachusetts even than i have found her. "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." i want upon this day to remind massachusetts of her old ideals of liberty, justice, equality for all beneath her pure white flag. laws, customs, institutions are nothing unless behind them stands a vital, living, throbbing public sentiment in favor of their enforcement in the spirit as well as in the letter. my friends, unless we can stay the rising tide of prejudice; unless we can hark back to our old ideals and old faiths, our very statues and memorials will some day mock us and cry shame upon us. national emancipation was the culmination of a moral revolution, such as the world has never seen. it was not as garrison intended, a peaceful revolution, the unanimous verdict of an awakened national conscience. thirty years of fierce agitation and fiercer politics made an appeal to arms absolutely certain. a conflict of arms brought on by a conflict of opinion was bound to be followed by a conflict of opinion, whichever side won. so for fifty years since emancipation, there has been more or less conflict over the negro and his place in the republic. the results of that conflict have in many instances been oppressive and even disastrous to his freedom. many things incidental to emancipation and vital to complete freedom are unfortunately still in the controversial stages. the right of the negro to cast a ballot on the same qualifications as his other fellow citizens is not yet conceded everywhere. public sentiment has not yet caught up with the constitution, nor is it in accord with the principles of true democracy. the right of the negro to free access to all public places and to exact similar treatment therein is not universal in this country. he is segregated by law in some sections; he is segregated by custom in others. he is subjected to many petty annoyances and injustices and ofttimes deep humiliation solely on account of his color. the explanation of this reactionary tendency sometimes given is that the negro is only a generation from slavery. it should not be forgotten that individuals of every other race in history have at some time been held slaves. the bondage of israel is to-day only an epic poem. the greek slave adorns simply a niche in some palace of art. the servii of rome instructed the masters of the world. the anglo-saxon has not only worn the roman and norman collars, but individuals of that race were sold as slaves in the west indies as late as the seventeenth century. white men have enslaved white men, black men have enslaved black men. the place of human slavery in the divine economy i do not understand, nor do i defend it; i am glad that the human race has long since passed that stage in its development. no race has a right to lord it over another or seek to degrade it because of a history of servitude; all have passed through this cruel experience; the history of the black race is a little more recent, that is all. the fact of slavery, therefore, should not impose the slightest limitation upon the liberty of the negro or restriction upon his rights as a man and citizen. the one great phase of the race question agitating the country to-day is that of intermarriage and miscegenation. it is a serious question; it is a vital question. no one will deny the right of any man to protect his family stock, or the right of a group to preserve its racial integrity. the facts show, however, that laws, however stringent, will not accomplish it. i submit for the serious consideration of the american people that the only danger of infusion from the negro side is simply one thing, and that is summed up in one word "injustice." why is it that thousands of colored men and women go over to the other side, "pass" as we say? it is for no other purpose than to escape the social ostracism and civic disabilities of the negro. why is it that we see so many pathetic attempts to be white? it is simply to escape injustice. in a country where every opportunity is open to the white, in business, in society, in government, and the door shut against or reluctantly opened to the black, the natural unconscious effort of the black is to get white. where black is a badge of an inferior caste position in society, the natural effort of the black is to find some method of escape. i do not advocate intermarriage; i do not defend miscegenation. the same thing is true to-day as it was true in the time of lincoln. in his debates with douglass in , he noted "that among the free states, those which make the colored man the nearest equal to the white have proportionally the fewest mulattoes, the least amalgamation." i submit therefore, that the only sure way to put an end to this tendency or desire, so far as the negro is concerned, is to accord him all his public and political rights and to treat each individual upon his merits as a man and citizen, according to him such recognition as his talents, his genius, his services to the community or the state entitles him. make black, brown, yellow, the "open sesame" to the same privileges and the same opportunities as the white, and no one will care to become white. upon this day which commemorates the emancipation of the black and the larger freedom of the white race, the redemption of the state and the birth of a new nation, i would bring to you a message not of blackness and despair but of hope--hope triumphant, hope, that watts has pictured as blind with one string to her lyre, that sees not the star just ahead, but sits supreme at the top of the world. emancipation redeemed the precious promises of the declaration of independence. it rid the republic of its one great inconsistency, a government of the people resting upon despotism; it rescued the ship of state from the rocks of slavery and sectionalism, and set her with sails full and chart and compass true once more upon the broad ocean of humanity to lead the world to the haven of true human brotherhood. we have encountered storms and tempests at times; the waves of race antipathy have run high, and the political exigencies of the hour seem to overcast the heavens with clouds of darkness and despair, yet i have never lost faith, because the fathers set her course, and god, the master mariner, has ever been at the helm. "in giving freedom to the slave we insured freedom to the free." in a country where all men were free none could be slaves. emancipation raised labor to its true dignity and gave a new impetus to industry, commerce, and civilization. under free labor men of many climes have come here to help develop the natural resources of the country, and the nation has entered upon a period of progress such as the world has never before witnessed in any time or place. what of the negro himself? has he justified emancipation? the statistics of his physical, intellectual, and material progress are known to all. he has increased his numbers nearly threefold. the negro population is to-day nearly three times that of the whole country at the time of the adoption of the constitution. it is nearly three times that of new england in . he has reduced his illiteracy to thirty per cent. he owns nearly $ , , worth of property including nearly one million homes. he has shown that his tutelage in american civilization has not been vain; that he could live under the most trying and oppressive conditions. three milestones in his progress have been reached and passed: first: the north and south agree that the abolition of slavery was right and just. second: the people of the north and south agree that every industrial opportunity shall be given to the negro. third: the right of the negro to be educated and the duty of the state to see to it that he has every opportunity for education are established. public opinion has settled forever the right of the negro to be free to labor and to educate. these three things constitute no slight advance; they are the fundamental rights of civilization. the prophecy of lincoln has been fulfilled, that emancipation would be "an act, which the world will forever applaud and god must forever bless." moreover it should not be forgotten, as bancroft the historian has said, that "it is in part to the aid of the negro in freedom that the country owes its success, in its movement of regeneration--that the world of mankind owes the continuance of the united states as an example of a republic." the american negro in freedom has brought new prestige and glory to his country in many ways. tanner, a georgia boy, is no longer a negro artist, but an american artist whose works adorn the galleries of the world. paul laurence dunbar, an american poet, who singing songs of his race, voicing its sorrows and griefs with unrivalled lyric sweetness and purity, has caught the ear of the world. the matchless story of booker washington, the american educator, is told in many tongues and in many lands. the history of the world has no such chapter as the negro's fifty years of freedom. _the duty of the hour is to unshackle him and make him wholly free._ when the negro is free from the vexatious annoyances of color and has only the same problems of life as any other men, his contribution to the general welfare of his country will be greater than ever before. whatever be his present disadvantages and inequalities, one thing is absolutely certain, that nowhere else in the world does so large a number of people of african descent enjoy so many rights and privileges as here in america. god has not placed these , , here upon the american continent in the american republic for naught. there must be some work for them to do. he has given to each race some particular part to play in our great national drama. i predict that within the next fifty years all these discriminations, disfranchisements, and segregation will pass away. antipathy to color is not natural, and the fear of ten by eighty millions of people is only a spook of politics, a ghost summoned to the banquet to frighten the timid and foolish. i care nothing for the past; i look beyond the present; i see a great country with her territories stretching from the rising to the setting sun, with a climate as varied as a tropical day and an arctic night, with a soil blessed by the fruits of the earth and nourished by the waters under it; i see a great country tenanted by untold millions of happy, healthy human beings; men of every race that god has made out of one blood to inherit the earth, a great human family, governed by righteousness and justice, not by greed and fear--in which peace and happiness shall reign supreme. men more and more are beginning to realize that the common origin and destiny of the human race give to each species the right to occupy the earth in peace, prosperity, and plenty, and that the duty of each race is to promote the happiness of all. the movements for social and industrial justice and the right of the people to rule are world-wide. the american people are fast losing their provincial character. they are to-day a great world power with interests and possessions upon every part of the globe. their horizon is the world; they are thinking in terms of the universe, and speaking in the tongues of all men. with the widening of men's visions they must realize that the basis of true democracy and human brotherhood is the common origin and destiny of the human race; that we are all born alike, live alike, and die alike, that the laws of man's existence make absolutely no distinction. i wandered recently into westminster abbey. i beheld all around me the images and effigies of the illustrious and the great,--kings, rulers, statesmen, poets, patriots, explorers, and scientists; i trampled upon the graves of some; i stood before the tombs of kings, some dead twelve centuries; there the wisest and merriest of monarchs and the most pious and dissolute of kings slept side by side. as illustrating the vanity of triumphs of personal glory, on one side of the chapel of henry vii, rests mary, queen of scots, and almost directly opposite, all that remains of elizabeth, her executioner. i stood before the tomb of the great napoleon; i wandered through his palaces at versailles and fontainebleau with all of their magnificence and splendor, and i recalled the period of his power and glory among men, and yet, he too died. then i passed a potter's field and i looked upon the graves of the unknown, graves of the pauper and the pleb, and i realized that they were at last equal, those who slept in valhalla and those who slept in the common burying-ground, and that they would each and all hear the first or the second trump of the resurrection "according to the deeds done in the body and the flesh, according to whether they were good or evil." in the democracy of death all are equal. then men, my brothers, our duty is to make life in human society the same great democracy of equality of rights, of privileges, of opportunities, for all the children of men. there is nothing else worth while. god grant to the american people this larger view of humanity, this greater conception of human duty. in a movement for democracy, for social and industrial justice, for the complete emancipation of the negro from the disabilities of color, massachusetts must now, as in the past, point the way. if we fail here, with traditions and history such as are ours behind us, can we succeed elsewhere? the great emancipator speaks to us at this hour and furnishes the solution for all our race problems. "let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man, this race and the other race, and the other race being inferior and therefore must be placed in an inferior position. let us discard all these things and unite as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that 'all men are created equal.'" god grant that the american people, year by year, may grow more like lincoln in charity, justice, and righteousness to the end that "the government of the people, for the people, by the people, shall not perish from the earth." the life of social service as exemplified in david livingstone[ ] by alice moore dunbar [note : delivered at lincoln university, pennsylvania, on the occasion of the centenary of the birth of david livingstone, march , .] hamilton wright mabie says that the question for each man to settle is not what he _would_ do if he had means, time, influence, and educational advantages, but what he _will_ do with the things he has. in all history there are few men who have answered this question. among them none have answered it more effectively than he whom we have gathered to honor to-night--david livingstone. the term "social service," which is on every one's lips now, was as yet uncoined when david livingstone was born. but it was none the less true, that without overmuch prating of the ideal which is held up to the man of to-day as the only one worth striving for, the sturdy pioneers of livingstone's day and ilk realized to the highest the ideal of man's duty to his fellow-man. the life of david livingstone is familiar to all of you. from your childhood you have known the brief data of his days. he was born in lanarkshire, scotland, march , . he began working in a cotton-factory at the age of ten, and for ten years thence, educated himself, reading latin, greek, and finally pursuing a course of medicine and theology in which he graduated. in , firmly believing in his call, he offered his services to the london missionary society, by whom he was ordained, and sent as a medical missionary to south africa, where he commenced his labors. in , he discovered lake ngami; in , he explored the zambezi river. in , he discovered the wonderful victoria falls, and then returned to england, where he was overwhelmed with honors. in , he published his first book, hardly realizing that it was an epoch-making volume, and that he had made an unprecedented contribution alike to literature, science, and religion. in the same year, he severed his connection with the missionary society, believing that he could best work unhampered by its restrictions. he was appointed british consul for the east coast of africa, and commander of an expedition to explore eastern and central africa. he discovered the lakes shirwa and nyassa in ; published his second book during a visit to england, - . he returned to africa, started to explore the interior, and was lost to the world for two years. he re-appeared in , having solved the problem of the sources of the nile. from then until , when he was found by stanley, suffering the most pitiful privations, his was a record of important discoveries and explorations. after parting with stanley in , he continued his explorations, and died in . his body was interred in westminster abbey in . this is a meagre account of the life of david livingstone. the romance and wonder of it do not appear on the surface; the splendor of the heroic soul is lost in the dry chronology of dates; the marvelous achievement of self-sacrifice is not visible. yet the wildest fantasies of medieval troubadours pale into insignificance when placed side by side with the life-story of david livingstone. what has this modern romance in it for the man of to-day? an infinity of example, of hope, of the gleam to follow. the most salient thing about livingstone's early life is the toil and the privation which he endured gladly, in order to accomplish that which he had set himself to do. listen to his own words in describing the long hours spent in the cotton-mill. here he kept up his studies by placing his book on the top of the machine, so that he could catch sentence after sentence as he passed his work, learning how completely to abstract his mind from the noises about him. "looking back now on that life of toil, i cannot but feel thankful that it formed such a material part of my early education, and were it possible, i would like to begin life over again in the same lowly style, and to pass through the same hardy training." i wonder how many of the modern men, whose privations in early life in no wise approached those of our hero look back with gratitude upon their early days? are we not prone to excuse and condone our shortcomings, either of character or of achievement, by murmuring at the hard fate which deprived us of those advantages which more fortunate brothers and sisters enjoyed in infancy and youth? do we not to-day swing too far in the direction of sickly sentimentality and incline to wrap ourselves, and those about us, in the deadening cotton-wool of too much care? were it not better if a bit more of the leaven of sturdy struggle were introduced into the life of the present-day youth? strength of character and strength of soul will rise to their own, no matter what the struggles be to force them upward. in keeping with this studious concentration which is shown in his work in the cotton-mill, was livingstone's ideal of thorough preparation for his work. on his first missionary journey, before penetrating into the interior, he stopped at a little station, lepelole, and there for six months cut himself off from all european society in order to gain an insight into the habits, ways of thinking, laws, and language of the natives. to this he ascribed most of his success as a missionary and explorer, for livingstone's way was ever the gentle method of those who comprehend--not the harsh cruelty of those who feel superior to the ones among whom they work. in a day whose superficiality is only equalled by the ease with which we gloze over the faults of the unprepared, this bit of information of livingstone's preparation comes like a refreshing reminder that true worth is always worth while. when livingstone gave up his purely missionary labors and turned his life channel into the stream of scientific investigation, the same thoroughness of preparation is shown. he did not work for immediate results, attained by shallow touching of the surface, or for hasty conclusions. his was the close observation and careful and accurate deductions of the mind trained by science to be patient and await results. rather than be inaccurate, he would wait until he knew he was correct. a quarter of a century after livingstone died a compatriot of his, robert louis stevenson, said that among the hardest tasks that life sets for a man is "to await occasions, and hurry never." livingstone learned this thoroughly. in keeping with the quietness, simplicity, and thoroughness of this truly great man was the meeting between him and stanley when that redoubtable youth found him in the heart of the dark continent. life is essentially a dramatic thing, for as carlyle says, "is not every deathbed the fifth act of a tragedy?" but i sometimes think that we miss the drama and poetry of every-day life because it seems so commonplace. we look abroad and afar for great moments, and great moments pass unheeded each hour. so to those two--the toil-worn and weary explorer and the youthful stanley, full of enthusiasm, albeit dimmed by the hardships and disappointments of his long search, that moment of first meeting must have seemed essentially commonplace. there was a wonder in the encounter, but like all great emotions and great occasions there was a simplicity, so that the greetings were as commonplace as if occurring in a crowded street. thirty years had passed since the explorer had dedicated himself to the task of making the world know africa, and he was an old man, worn-out, bent, frail, and sorrow-stricken. but courage was unfaltering, faith undimmed, power unabated. had stanley been a few months later, much of his work would have been lost, and his death even more pitiful than it was--yet he could smile and be patient and unhurried. as stanley phrases it, "suppose livingstone, following the custom of other travellers, had hurried to the coast, after he had discovered lake bangweolo, to tell the news to the geographical world; then had returned to discover moero, and run away again, then come back once more to discover kamolondo, and to race back again. but no, he not only discovers the chambezi, lake bangweolo, luapula river, lake moero, lualaba river, and lake kamolondo, but he still tirelessly urges his steps forward to put the final completion to the map of the grand lacustrine river system. had he followed the example of ordinary explorers, he would have been running backwards and forwards to tell the news, instead of exploring, and he might have been able to write a volume upon the discovery of each lake and earn much money thereby." this was no negative exploration. it was the hard, earnest labor of years, self-abnegation, enduring patience, and exalted fortitude, such as ordinary men fail to exhibit. and he had achieved a wonderful deed. the finding of the poles, north and south, is no greater feat than his. for, after all, what is it to humanity that the magnetic pole, north or south, is a few degrees east or west of a certain point in the frozen seas and barren ice mountains? what can humanity offer as a reward to those whose bodies lie under cairns of ice save a barren recognition of their heroism? what have their lives served, beyond that of examples of heroism and determination? bronze tablets will record their deeds, but no races will arise in future years to call them blessed. cold marble will enshrine their memory; but there will be no fair commerce, nor civilization, nor the thankful prayers of those who have been led to know god. in his earlier years of exploration, livingstone became convinced that the success of the white missionary in a field like africa is not to be reckoned by the tale of doubtful conversions he can send home each year, that the proper work of such men was that of pioneering, opening up, starting new ground, leaving native agents to work it out in detail. the whole of his subsequent career was a carrying out of this idea. it was the idea of commerce, bringing the virgin country within the reach of the world, putting the natives in that relation to the rest of humanity which would most nearly make for their efficiency, if not in their own generation, at least in the next. shall we not say that this is the truest ideal of social service--to plan, not for the present, but for the future; to be content, not with the barren achievement of exploration, the satisfaction that comes with the saying, "i am the first who has trod this soil!" but to be able to say, "through me, generations may be helped?" says a biographer of dr. livingstone, "his work in exploration is marked by rare precision and by a breadth of observation which will make it forever a monument to the name of one of the most intrepid travellers of the nineteenth century. his activity embraced the field of the geographer, naturalist, benefactor of mankind, and it can justly be said that his labors were the first to lift the veil from the 'dark continent.'" during the thirty years of his work he explored alone over one-third of the vast continent; a feat which no single explorer has ever equalled. but it must be remembered that even though he had severed his connection with the missionary society that he regarded himself to the last as a "pioneer missionary." one of the most fascinating subjects of controversy since the time of herodotus was the problem of the source of the nile. poetry, from the description of the garden of eden and the writings of ptolemy to the kubla kahn of coleridge, ran rife over the four fountains out of which flowed the wonderful river. to livingstone was reserved the supreme honor of settling for all time the secret of this most poetic river of mystery. long ere this he had been honored with a gold medal from the royal geographical society. how futile must the bit of metal have seemed to this dark, silent man, whose mind had grown away from bauble and tinsel, and who had learned in the silences the real value of the trinkets of the world. when he had discovered the victoria falls, he had completed in two years and a half the most remarkable and most fruitful journey on record, reconstructed the map of africa, and given the world some of the most valuable land it ever could possess. the vast commercial fields of ivory were opened up to trade; the magnificent power of the victoria falls laid bare to the sight of civilized man. we can imagine him standing on the brink of the thunderous cataract of the victoria gazing at its waters as they dashed and roared over the brink of the precipice, "--like stout cortez--when with eagle eyes he stared at the pacific, and all his men look'd at each other with a wild surmise, silent, upon a peak in darien." to this man, who had opened up a continent; who had penetrated not only into the heart of the forest, but had made himself one with the savages who were its denizens; who knew and understood them as human beings, and not as beasts, the slavery trade was, as he expressed it, "the open sore of africa." over and again he voiced his belief that the negro freeman was a hundred times more valuable than the slave. he repeatedly enjoined those who had the fitting out of his expeditions not to send him slaves to accompany him on his journeys, but freemen, as they were more trustworthy. he voiced the fundamental truth that he who is his own master is he who obeys and believes in his master. the slave trade in africa was dealt its death-blow by dr. livingstone. portugal had foisted the shame of centuries upon the dark continent, and openly defied decency and honor. livingstone's example and his death acted like an inspiration, filling africa with an army of explorers and missionaries, and raising in europe so powerful a feeling against the slave trade that it may be considered as having received its death-blow. dear to his heart was lincoln, the emancipator, an ideal hero whom he consistently revered. away to the southwest from kamolondo is a large lake which discharges its waters by the important river, lomami, into the great lualaba. to this lake, known as the chobungo by the natives, dr. livingstone gave the name of lincoln, in memory of him for whom your noble institution was named. this was done because of a vivid impression produced on his mind by hearing a portion of lincoln's inauguration speech from an english pulpit, which related to the causes that induced him to issue the emancipation proclamation. to the memory of the man whom livingstone revered he has contributed a monument more durable than brass or stone. this strange, seemingly almost ascetic man sets before us of to-day an almost impossible standard of living. one idea mastered him--to give africa to the world. his life was a success, as all lives must be which have a single aim. life was clear, elemental almost to him, and to the man whose ambition is a unit; who sees but one goal, shining clearly ahead, success is inevitable, though it may be masked under the guise of poverty and hardship. livingstone had a higher and nobler ambition than the mere pecuniary sum he might receive, or the plaudits of the unthinking multitude; he followed the dictates of duty. never was such a willing slave to that abstract virtue. his inclination impelled him home, the fascinations of which it required the sternest resolves to resist. with every foot of new ground he travelled over, he forged a chain of sympathy which should hereafter bind all other nations to africa. if he were able to complete this chain, a chain of love, by actual discovery and description of the people and nations that still lived in darkness, so as to attract the good and charitable of his own land to bestir themselves for their redemption and salvation--this, livingstone would consider an ample reward. "a delirious and fatuous enterprise, a quixotic scheme!" some will say. not so; he builded better than even he knew or dared hope, and posterity will reap the reward. the missionary starting out must resolve to bear poverty, suffering, hardship, and, if need be, to lose his life. the explorer must resolve to be impervious to exquisite little tortures, to forget comforts, and be a stranger to luxuries; to lose _his_ life, even, in order that the world may add another line or dot to its maps. the explorer-missionary must do all these things, and add to them the zeal for others that shall illumine his labors, and make him at one with god. david livingstone had all these qualities, coupled with the sublime indifference of the truly great to the mere side issues of life. you and i sit down to our comfortable meals, sleep in our well-appointed beds, read our bibles with perfunctory boredom, and babble an occasional prayer for those who endure hardships--when we are reminded from the pulpit to do so. when we read of some awful calamity, such as has blazoned across the pages of history within the past few weeks, we shudder that men should lay down their lives in the barren wastes of ice. when we read of the thirty years of steady suffering which livingstone endured in the forests of africa, the littleness of our own lives comes home to us with awful realization. you who fear to walk the streets with a coat of last year's cut, listen to his half whimsical account of how he "came to the cape in , with a black coat eleven years out of fashion, and mrs. livingstone and the children half naked." you who shudder at the tale of a starving child in the papers, and lamely wonder why the law allows such things, read his recital of the sufferings of his wife and little ones during the days without water under a tropic sun, and of the splendid heroism of the mother who did not complain, and the father who did not dare meet her eye, for fear of the unspoken reproach therein. he was never in sufficient funds, and what little means he could gather here and there were often stolen from him, or he found himself cheated out of what few supplies he could get together to carry on his travels. months of delay occurred, and sometimes it seemed that all his labors and struggles would end in futility; that the world would be little better for his sufferings; yet that patient, christian fortitude sustained him with unfaltering courage through the most distressing experiences. disease, weakening, piteous, unromantic, unheroic, wasted his form; ulcers, sores, horrible and hideous, made his progress slow and his work sometimes a painful struggle over what many a man would have deemed impossible barriers. the loss of his wife came to him twelve years after she had elected to cast in her lot with his, but like brutus of old, he could exclaim, "with meditating that she must die once, i have the patience to endure it now. stanley could but marvel at such patience. on that memorable day when they met, and the younger man gave the doctor his letters, he tells how "livingstone kept the letter-bag on his knee, then, presently opened it, looked at the letters contained there, read one or two of his children's letters, his face in the meanwhile lighting up. he asked me to tell him the news, "no, doctor," said i, "read your letters first, which i am sure you must be impatient to read." "ah," said he, "i have waited years for letters, and i have been taught patience." to you, of the younger generation, what a marvel, what a world of meaning in those words--"i have been taught patience." we, who fret and chafe because the whole world will not bend its will to our puny strivings, and turn its whole course that we might have our unripe desires fulfilled, should read and re-read of the man who could wait, because he knew that time and all eternity would be bent to meet his desires in time. livingstone's is a character that we cannot help but venerate; that calls forth all one's enthusiasm; that evokes nothing but sincerest admiration. he was sensitive, but so is any man of a high mind and generous nature; he was sensitive on the point of being doubted or criticised by the easy-chair geographers, lolling comfortably in their clubs and scanning through their monocles the maps which the hard working travellers had made. he was humble-souled, as are all the truly great. his gentleness never forsook him; his hopefulness never deserted him. no harassing anxiety, distraction of mind, long separation from home and kindred, could make him complain. he thought all would come out right at last, such faith had he in the goodness of providence. the sport of adverse circumstances; the plaything of the miserable slaves, which were persistently sent him from zanzibar, baffled and worried, even almost to the grave; yet he would not desert the charge imposed upon him. to the stern dictates of duty alone did he sacrifice his home and ease, the pleasures, refinements, and luxuries of civilized life. his was the spartan heroism, the inflexibility of the roman, the enduring heroism of the englishman--never to relinquish his work, though his heart yearned for home; never to surrender his obligations, until he could write "finis" to his work. yet who shall say that the years spent alone at the very heart of nature had not made him the possessor of that "inward eye," which, as wordsworth says, "is the bliss of solitude." for many years he lived in africa deprived of books, and yet when stanley found him, he learned to his surprise, that livingstone could still recite whole poems from byron, burns, tennyson, longfellow, and other great poets. the reason is found in the fact that all his life he lived within himself. he lived in a world in which he revolved inwardly, out of which he awoke only to attend to his immediate practical necessities. it was a happy inner world, peopled with his own friends, acquaintances, relatives, readings, ideas, and associations. blessed is the man who has found the inner life more real than the trivial outer one. to him mere external annoyances are but as the little insects, which he may brush away at will. no man can be truly great who has not built up for himself a subjective world into which he may retire at will. the little child absorbed in a mythical land peopled by fairies and prince charmings is nearest to possessing such an inner life; and we must become as little children. to some it is a god-given gift; others may acquire it, as jack london tells us, by "going into the waste places, and there sitting down with our souls." there comes then, the overwhelming realization of the charms and beauties of nature--man is a pygmy, an abstraction, an unreality. this had come to our hero. added to the strength of his inner life livingstone had the deep sympathy with nature in all her moods. he became enthusiastic when he described the beauties of the moero scenery. the splendid mountains, tropical vegetation, thundering cataracts, noble rivers, stirred his soul into poetic expression. his tired spirit expanded in the presence of the charms of nature. he could never pass through an african forest, with its solemn stillness and serenity, without wishing to be buried quietly under the dead leaves where he would be sure to rest undisturbed. in england, there was no elbow-room, the graves were often desecrated, and ever since he had buried his wife in the woods of shupanga, he had sighed for just such a spot, where his weary bones would receive the eternal rest they coveted. but even this last wish was denied him, and the noisy honors and crowded crypt of westminster abbey claimed him, far away from the splendid solitude he craved. all africa should have been his tomb. he should never have been forced to share with hundreds of others a meagre and scant resting-place. yet there is food for rejoicing in the knowledge, that though his body was borne away, his heart was buried by his beloved natives in the forest. the study of dr. livingstone would not be even superficially complete if we did not take the religious side of his character into consideration. by religion, we do not mean the faith he professed, the particular tenets he believed, the especial catechism he studied, or any hair-splitting doctrine he might have upheld, but that deeper ethical side of manhood, without which there can be no true manhood. livingstone's religion was not of the theoretical kind, but it was a constant, earnest, sincere practise. it was neither demonstrative nor loud, but manifested itself in a quiet, practical way, and was always at work. it was not aggressive, nor troublesome, nor impertinent. in him, religion exhibited its loveliest features; it governed his conduct not only towards his servants, but towards the natives, the bigoted mohammedans, and all with whom he came in contact. without it, livingstone, with his ardent temperament, his enthusiasm, his high spirit and courage, must have become uncompanionable, and a hard master. religion had tamed him, and made him a christian gentleman; the crude and wilful were refined and subdued; religion had made him the most companionable of men and indulgent of masters--a man whose society was pleasurable to a high degree. if his life held for us no other message than this, it would hold enough. unfortunately the youth of to-day is apt to chafe when the ideal of christianity and manly religion is held up to him. he thinks of the religious man as a milksop, a mollycoddle. he cannot associate him in his mind with the doing of great deeds, the thinking of great thoughts. his ideal of manhood is the ruthless man on horseback, with too often a disregard of the sacred things of life. sometimes, if the youth of to-day thinks at all, he runs riot into ethics, forgetting that, after all, there could be no ethics without a firm base of religion. and so he wastes many precious years before he learns that all the greatest men whom the world has known drew their strength and power from the unseen and the spiritual. we have noticed that livingstone's religion was not aggressive nor impertinent. early in his career as a missionary, he recognized the truth that if he were to exercise any influence on the native africans, it would not be by bringing to them an abstraction in place of their own savage ideals. his influence depended entirely upon persuasion, and by awakening within their minds the sense of right and wrong. "we never wished them to do right," he says, "because it would be pleasing to us, nor think themselves to blame when they did wrong." worldly affairs, and temporal benefits with the natives were paramount, so he did not force abstractions upon them but, with a keen insight into human nature, as well as into savage human nature, he reached their higher selves through the more worldly. his was a pure and tender-hearted nature, full of humanity and sympathy, modest as a maiden, unconscious of his own greatness, with the simplicity we have noted before, the simplicity of the truly great. his soul could be touched to its depths by the atrocities of the arab slave-traders, yet he forgot his own sufferings in the desire to make others immune from suffering. he had but one rule of life, that which he gave to the scotch school children, whom he once addressed: "fear god and work hard!" * * * * * it is one hundred years since this quiet, high-souled man was given the world, in the little scotch village, and yet another hundred may pass away and still his life will be as a clarion call to the youth of the world to emulate his manhood. for the world needs men now, as it never needed them before, "men, high-minded men, with powers as far above dull brutes endued in forest brake or den, as beasts excel cold rocks and rambles rude." such a man was livingstone, not afraid to be meek in order to be great; not afraid to "fear god and work hard;" not ashamed to stoop in order that he might raise others to his high estate. he gave the world a continent and a conscience; with the lavishness almost of nature herself he bestowed cataracts and rivers, lakes and mountains, forests and valleys, upon his native land. he stirred the soul of the civilized world to the atrocities of the slave trade, and he made it realize that humanity may be found even in the breast of a savage. when he laid down his life in the forest he loved, he laid upon the altar of humanity and science the costliest and sweetest sacrifice that it had known for many a weary age. what message has this life for us to-day, we the commonplace, the mediocre, the unknown to fame and fortune? shall we fold our hands when we read of such heroes and say, "ah, yes, he could be great, but i? i am weak and humble, i have not the opportunity?" who was more humble than the poor boy spinning in the cotton-mill; who was less constrained by fortune's frowns than the humble missionary? his life brings to us the message of doing well with that little we have. we cannot all be with peary at the north pole, nor die the death of the hero, scott, on the frozen antarctic continent. it is not given to us to be explorers; it is not given us to be pioneers; we may not discover vast continents, name great lakes, nor gaze with wonder-stricken eyes upon the rolling of a mighty unknown river. but to each and all of us comes the divine opportunity to carve for himself a niche, be it ever so tiny, in the memories of men. we can heed the admonition of carlyle, "be no longer a chaos, but a world, or even a worldkin. produce! produce! were it but the pitifullest infinitesimal fraction of a product, produce it in god's name! 'tis the utmost thou hast in thee, out with it then!" the life of service; the life of unselfish giving--this must livingstone's life mean to us. unselfish, ungrudging lavishing of life and soul, even to the last drop of heart's blood. service that does not hesitate because the task seems small, or the waiting weary; service that does not fear to be of no account in the eyes of the world. truly, indeed, might wordsworth's apostrophe to milton be ascribed to him: "thy soul was like a star and dwelt apart; thou hadst a voice whose sound was like the sea; pure as the naked heavens, majestic, free, so didst thou travel on life's common way in cheerful godliness, and yet thy heart the lowliest duties on itself did lay." education for manhood[ ] by kelly miller [note : reprinted from _kelly miller's monographic magazine_, april, .] we must keep clearly in mind the proposition that the educational process is always under domination of contemporary opinion. the education prescribed for any class is likely to be conditioned upon the presumed relationship of that class to the social body. when woman was regarded as an inferior creature, whose destiny was to serve as a tool and plaything of man, she was accorded only such education as would fit her for this subsidiary function. any other training was regarded as unnecessary and mischievous. it is only within comparatively recent times, when man began to realize the essential human quality and powers of the female sex, and deemed it not mockery to place her on the same footing with himself, that the comprehensive education of woman has become a possibility. the traditional relation of the american negro to the society of which he forms a part is too well known to need extensive treatment in this connection. the african slave was introduced into this country as a pure animal instrumentality to perform the rougher work under dominion of his white lord and master. there was not the remotest thought of his human personality. no more account was taken of his higher qualities than of the higher susceptibilities of the lower animals. his mission was considered to be as purely mechanical as that of the ox which pulls the plow. indeed, his human capabilities were emphatically denied. it was stoutly contended that he did not possess a soul to be saved in the world to come nor a mind to be enlightened in the world that now is. under the dominion of this dogma, education was absolutely forbidden him. it became a crime even to attempt to educate this _tertium quid_ which was regarded as little more than brute and little less than human. the white race, in its arrogant conceit, constituted the personalities and the negro the instrumentalities. man may be defined as a distinction-making animal. he is ever prone to set up barriers between members of his own species and to deny one part of god's human creatures the inalienable birthright vouchsafed to all alike. but the process was entirely logical and consistent with the prevailing philosophy. the anti-slavery struggle stimulated the moral energy of the american people in a manner that perhaps has never had a parallel in the history of vicarious endeavor. "one touch of nature makes the whole world kin." in dealing with fundamental principles of human rights and human wrongs involved in the issue of slavery, these moral reformers found that the negro was a human being, endowed with heart and mind and conscience like as themselves; albeit these powers of personality had long been smothered and imbruted by centuries of suppression and harsh usage. these philanthropists believed in the essential manhood of the negro. this belief was the chief dynamic of their endeavor. upon this foundation they not only broke the negro's chain, but clothed him with political and civic prerogative as an american citizen. they established schools and colleges and universities for him because they believed in his higher susceptibilities. to-day we are almost astounded at the audacity of their faith. they projected a scheme of education comparable with the standards set up for the choicest european youth for a race which had hitherto been submerged below the zero point of intelligence. these schools and colleges founded and fostered on this basis were the beginnings of the best that there is in the race and the highest which it can hope to be. but, alas, as the passion engendered by the war grew weaker and weaker, the corresponding belief in the negro has also declined, and the old dogma concerning his mission as a human tool has begun to reassert itself. in certain sections the white race has always claimed that the negro should not be encouraged in the development of personality. the denial of the designation "mister" is suggestive of this disposition. with them the term "mister" is made to mean a direct designation of personality. there is no objection to such titles as "doctor," "reverend" or "professor," as these connote professional rather than personal quality. our whole educational activities are under the thrall of this retrograde spirit. we are marking time rather than moving forward. the work is being carried on rather than up. our bepuzzled pedagogues are seriously reflecting over the query, _cui bono?_--is it worth while? few, indeed, are left who have the intensity of belief and the intrepidity of spirit to defend the higher pretentions of the negro without apology or equivocation. the old form of appeal has become insipid and uninspiring; the ear has become dull to its dinging. the old blade has become blunt and needs a new sharpness of point and keenness of edge. where now is heard the tocsin call whose key-note a generation ago resounded from the highlands of kentucky and tennessee to the plains of the carolinas calling the black youths, whose hopes ran high within their bosoms, to rise and make for higher things? this clarion note, though still for the nonce, shall not become a lost chord. its inspiring tones must again appeal to the youth to arise to their higher assertion and exertion. if you wish to reach and inspire the life of the people, the approach must be made not to the intellectual, nor yet to the feelings, as the final basis of appeal, but to the manhood that lies back of these. that education of youth, especially the suppressed class, that does not make insistent and incessant appeals to the smothered manhood (i had almost said godhood) within, will prove to be but vanity and vexation of spirit. what boots a few chapters in chemistry, or pages in history, or paragraphs in philosophy, unless they result in an enlarged appreciation of one's own manhood? those who are to stand in the high places of intellectual, moral, and spiritual leadership of such a people in such a time as this must be made to feel deep down in their own souls their own essential manhood. they must believe that they are created in the image of god and that nothing clothed in human guise is a more faithful likeness of the original. this must be the dominant note in the education of the negro. if the note itself is not new, there must at least be a newness of emphasis and insistence. the negro must learn in school what the white boy absorbs from association and environment. the american white man in his ordinary state is supremely conscious of his manhood prerogative. he may be ignorant or poor or vicious; yet he never forgets that he is a man. but every feature of our civilization is calculated to impress upon the negro a sense of his inferiority and to make him feel and believe that he is good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of other men. a race, like an individual, that compromises its own self-respect, paralyzes and enfeebles its own energies. the motto which should be engraved upon the conscience of every american negro is that which milton places in the mouth of his satanic majesty: "the mind is its own place and of itself can make a heaven of hell; a hell of heaven." to inculcate this principle is the highest mission of the higher education. the old theologians used to insist upon the freedom of the will, but the demand of the negro to-day is for the freedom and independence of his own spirit. destroy this and all is lost; preserve it, and though political rights, civil privileges, industrial opportunities be taken away for the time, they will all be regained. by the development of manhood on the part of the negro nothing is farther from my thought than the inculcation of that pugnacious, defiant disposition which vents itself in wild ejaculations and impotent screaming against the evils of society. i mean the full appreciation of essential human qualities and claims, and the firm, unyielding determination to press forward to the mark of this calling, and not to be swerved from its pursuit by doubt, denial, danger, rebuff, ridicule, insult, and contemptuous treatment. while the negro may not have it within his power to resist or overcome these things, he must preserve the integrity of his own soul. the higher education of the negro up to this point has been very largely under the direction and control of philanthropy. the support has come almost wholly from that source. the development of this sense of manhood should be the highest concern of a wise, discriminating philanthropy, for if this is once developed the negro will be able to handle his own situation and relieve his philanthropic friends from further consideration or concern; but, if he fails to develop this spirit of manhood, he will be but a drag upon the resources of philanthropy for all times to come. the negro must develop courage and self-confidence. a grasp upon the principles of knowledge gives the possessor the requisite spirit of confidence. to the timid, the world is full of mystery manipulated and controlled by forces and powers beyond their ken to comprehend. but knowledge convinces us that there is no mystery in civilization. the railroad, the steamship, and the practical projects that loom so large to the unreflecting, are but the result of the application of thought to things. the mechanical powers and forces of nature are open secrets for all who will undertake to unravel the mystery. and so it is with essential and moral principles. the one who will have himself rooted and grounded in the fundamental principles of things can look with complacence upon the panorama of the world's progress. the negro should plant one foot on the ten commandments and the other on the binomial theorem: he can then stand steadfast and immovable, however the rain of racial wrath may fall or the angry winds of prejudice may blow and beat upon him. the educated negro must learn to state his own case and to plead his own cause before the bar of public opinion. no people who raise up from out their midst a cultivated class, who can plead their own cause and state their own case, will fail of a hearing before the just judgment of mankind. the educated negro to-day represents the first generation grown to the fullness of the stature of manhood under the influence and power of education. they are the first ripened fruit of philanthropy, and by them alone will the wisdom or folly of that philanthropy be justified. the hope of the race is focused in them. they are the headlight to direct the pathway through the dangers and vicissitudes of the wilderness. for want of vision, the people perish; for want of wise direction, they stumble and fall. there is no body of men in the world to-day, nor in the history of the world, who have, or ever have had, greater responsibilities or more coveted opportunities than devolves upon the educated negro to-day. it is, indeed, a privilege to be a negro of light and leading in such a time as this. the incidental embarrassments and disadvantages which for the time being must be endured are not to be compared with the far more exceeding weight of privileges and glory which awaits him if he rises to these high demands. for such a privilege well may he forego the pleasure of civilization for a season. his world consists of , , souls, who have wrapped up in them all the needs and necessities, powers and possibilities, of human nature; they contain all the norms of civilization, from its roots to its florescence. his is the task to develop and vitalize these smothered faculties and potentialities. his education will prove to be but vanity and vexation of spirit, unless it ultimates in this task. he is the salt of the earth, and if the salt lose its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? if the light within the racial world be darkness, how great is that darkness? the highest call of the civilization of the world to-day is to the educated young men of the belated races. the educated young manhood of japan, china, india, egypt, and turkey must lift their own people up to the level of their own high conception. they must partake of the best things in the civilization of europe and show them unto their own people. the task of the educated american negro is the same as theirs, intensified, perhaps, by the more difficult and intricate tangle of circumstances and conditions with which he has to deal. he cannot afford to sink into slothful satisfaction and enjoy a tasteless leisure or with inane self-deception hide his head under the shadows of his wings, like the foolish bird, which thereby hopes to escape the wrath to come. the white race, through philanthropy, has done much; but its vicarious task culminated when it developed the first generation of educated men and women. they must do the rest. these philanthropists spoke for us when our tongues were tied. they pleaded our cause when we were speechless; but now our faculties have been unloosed. we must stand upon our own footing. in buffeting the tempestuous torrents of the world we must either swim on the surface or sink out of sight. the greatest gratitude that the beneficiary can show to the benefactor is, as soon as possible, to do without his benefaction. the task of race statesmanship and reclamation devolves upon the educated negro of this day and generation. moral energy must be brought to bear upon the task, whether the negro be engaged in the production of wealth or in the more recondite pursuits which minister to the higher needs of man. the white race is fast losing faith in the negro as an efficient and suitable factor in the equation of our civilization. curtailment of political, civil, and religious privilege and opportunity is but the outward expression of this apostasy. as the white man's faith decreases, our belief in ourselves must increase. every negro in america should utter this prayer, with his face turned toward the light: "lord, i believe in my own inherent manhood; help thou my unbelief." the educated negro must express his manhood in terms of courage, in the active as well as in the passive voice: courage to do, as well as to endure; courage to contend for the right while suffering wrong; the courage of self-belief that is always commensurate with the imposed task. the world believes in a race that believes in itself; but justly despises the self-bemeaned. such is the mark and the high calling to which the educated negro of to-day is called. may he rise to the high level of it. never was there a field whiter unto harvest; never was there louder cry for laborers in the vineyard of the lord. a few remarks on making a life[ ] by robert e. jones, ll. d. _editor southwestern christian advocate, new orleans, la._ [note : extracts from commencement address delivered at tuskegee institute, may , .] i have a story to relate, and at once i want to present to you my hero,--a hero more inspiring than achilles of the "iliad," or odysseus of the "odyssey," or Ã�neas of the "Ã�neid." my hero is not a myth, not a creation of literature, not a tradition, but not unlike the grecian hero in that he sprung from the union of a god and a mortal. my hero is not reckoned among the high and mighty nor will his name ever be carved on stone or raised on bronze. neither has my hero accomplished startling feats. as a hero he may be a paradox. inconspicuous, humble in station, modest, hid far away from the maddening, jealous, curious, bickering, taunting, striving, restless crowd of life. too long already i have held him from you. his name? i do not know. his birthplace? i do not know. his age? i do not know. is he living now? here my ignorance is painful. i do not know. my hero, however, is an actual man of flesh and blood. i met him but twice in life, but was so charmed i did not ask his name. his personality thrilled and he in a measure has become my patron saint. he is not a hero of large and commanding stature, but a cripple--doubly so. his arms were palsied and turned in so that he could not use a crutch, his lower limbs turned in also. he sat in an ordinary cane-bottomed chair and could easily move himself about by throwing the weight of his body from one back leg of the chair to the other, lifting the front legs at the same time. i saw him along the train side at spartanburg, s. c. a beggar? no, my young friends, beggars are seldom heroes. he was a merchant prince. he carried his goods around his neck and shoulders and in his outer coat pockets. he was selling shoe-strings and pencils. if you gave him a dime he would insist on your taking one or both of the articles he had for sale. in his activities he was a fine lesson of the first requirement of life. he was self-sustaining. by the sweat of his brow he earned his bread. did he complain of his lot? not a bit of it. his handicap he did not make nor could undo. he therefore accepted his condition philosophically; he was self-respecting. he knew his limitations; he knew what he could do and what he could not do; he was self-knowing. knowing his handicap and that it was quite unlike any other man's and that he needed a means of locomotion, he found it; he had, therefore, initiative. he leaned not upon the strength of others, but used his own resources; he was therefore self-reliant. he did not wait for business to come to him, he put himself in the path of business; he was a hustler. he saw life through a cheerful lens and kept a stout heart; he was optimistic. he recognized his own personality apart from the personalities of the crowded throng through which he passed; he was a self-contented individual. he had but one life to live and he was making the most of life. when i left him i crowned him, honored him, and i love him for his worth as a true man. "i like a man who faces what he must, with step triumphant and a heart of cheer; who fights the daily battles without fear; nor loses faith in man; but does his best, nor ever murmurs at his humble lot, but, with a smile, and words of hope, gives zest to every toiler; he alone is great who by a life heroic conquers fate." when once away from my hero, as i thought of him in my deepest soul, i cried: "thou art my chastiser and my inspirator. thou art simple yet great; untaught thyself, thou art the teacher of all. henceforth thou shalt be my hero and guide. doubting myself, bemoaning my limitations, depressed by my failure, ashamed of my achievements, my seeing you has given me a new interpretation of life. i own you my friend, my life's inspiration and hero." there is my hero. you ask his color? what difference does it make? men have often refused to recognize worth because of color. but to satisfy you i will tell you. he is a negro. give a seat of honor to my hero. gather inspiration and learn from him the lessons of life, if you will. here is an individual doubly afflicted, without a word of complaint, or a fret or whine, depending upon his own initiative and resources, making the most of life under the circumstances which surround him. upon the basis of what has been said, in closing this address to the graduating class of of the tuskegee normal and industrial institute i desire to offer a personal word: in the first place, you will know a year from now, more than you can realize at this present moment, that this is a commencement. this is not the climax of your life. it is but the beginning, and however paradoxical it may seem, you are not at the top of the ladder, you are at the foot. we are here to applaud you to-day not so much on what you have already accomplished as to give you a send-off for the strenuous tasks that lie before you. to be frank with you, young men and young women, the life in earnest that awaits you without will tax every bit of your strength. your moral strength will be drawn upon, as well as your intellectual resources. secondly; had i my way i would have each of you burn your diploma and never refer to it as an indication of what you are and what you know. do not attempt to pass through the world on your diploma or your class standing. the world cares little for these. i would urge that you prove to the world what you are by what you can do--that you let your achievements point to your diploma. thirdly; you go forth to-day as a representative of this institution, mantled with all the sacred honors, prestige, and commendation that this institution, state, and your admirers can bestow. see to it that you keep the honors of this hour unsoiled and that you disgrace not the noble history of your alma mater. fourthly; i do not believe that this institution is fostered with the idea that the few students who gather here from time to time only shall be reached. i rather suspect that the dollars that come from the state and generous friends come with the hope that as you have been helped and lifted to culture and refinement, you in turn will carry culture to those who may never be permitted to stay in these walls. you are to carry light into dark places and unto those who sit in darkness. by your arm of strength you are to lift the poor who are beneath you. and then your education comes not for self-culture, not for self-enjoyment, not for self-use, but for the betterment of those who are about you. fifthly; you go forth as the embodiment of a new generation. you stand to-day upon the foundation built by those who have gone before you. they have wrought well. by their toil and suffering you are blest. you are to carry your generation one notch higher and thus help the onward march of the world's progress. be thou faithful. lift your eyes heavenward and aspire to do the best and be the noblest according to god's heritage to you. there are no chosen depths, no prescribed heights to which you may climb. "honor and shame from no condition rise, act well your part, there all the honor lies." make the most of life! emancipation and racial advancement[ ] by the rev. ernest lyon, d.d., ll.d. [note : an address delivered upon the invitation of the citizens of brownsville, pa., on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the emancipation proclamation and also to celebrate the event of decoration day, may , .] _mr. chairman, members of the celebration committee, ladies and gentlemen:_ we are not here to-day in the capacity of the priest performing the funeral rights over the graves of the dead; neither are we here simply to offer tribute to their memory, by the time-honored custom of decorating their graves with the faded tokens of a nation's love and gratitude; but we are here, ladies and gentlemen, to cheer the hearts of the living--not by an optimism impossible of realization--but by a candid and truthful report of the conduct of that legacy of freedom, which came to us fifty years ago, through the sacrifice and death of the patriots, living and dead, whose memories are honored to-day all over this broad land of ours. the civilized world will watch for the newspaper reports of to-morrow to learn the sentiments of the american people uttered to-day upon many of the burning issues before the congress of the united states, relating to our domestic and foreign policies. the opportunities, which this day gives, will be seized by national orators to record their convictions upon matters of morality, politics, and diplomacy. japan will listen with keen, diplomatic interest to every utterance, official or unofficial, touching the vexing problems involved in the so-called "yellow peril" and in the anti-alien land legislation, which, like segregation and the jimcrowism of the south, have been enacted into laws discriminating against citizens, not aliens, but citizens of the united states of america, such as we are. many to-day believe that the gravity of these international matters will force the decoration day orators to ignore the negro question, which, in some form or other, has been the livest question in american politics for nearly three centuries. in this belief i think they will be disappointed, for no question before the american people to-day, whether national or international, can overshadow the negro question in america, and no day as historic as this would be complete in its observance without some reference to it. we, therefore, gladly welcome the japanese, or any other members of the colored race in the earth, to come and share with us that notoriety which our presence begets in this country, for no other people on the face of the globe, so far as the united states is concerned, will be able to dispossess us from the limelight of public discussion. we have not only helped, but we have made history in this country. we are wrapped up in the history of the united states of america, despite the attempt in certain quarters to deny us a respectful place therein. there is not a single page, from the period of its colonial existence to its present standard of greatness and renown, from which we are absent. from the landing of the pilgrims at plymouth rock to the advent of the cavaliers at jamestown; from the stirring periods of the revolution, which resulted in the emancipation of the colonists from british imperialism, to the rebellion in --resulting in the salvation of the federal union--we have ever and always been a potent factor in the history of this country. our presence here has made this day possible. there would have been no decoration day had the american kidnappers left us in africa--our fatherland. the world must, therefore, hear from us upon these special occasions. so, like other elements of the population, we come to-day to make our annual report. we come, in company with the others, to review the past, to study the present, and, if possible, to forecast the future. in measuring the progress of any successful commercial enterprise, the mode of procedure is to compare beginnings with balance-sheets. commercially speaking, it is to take an inventory. what, therefore, is true of any commercial enterprise is equally true of races and individuals. the _modus operandi_ is the same. in fact, we proceed by comparing beginnings with beginnings; environments with environments, and the advantages and disadvantages of the past and present. this is the mode by which the progress of a race or the attainments of an individual must be measured, and the negro race offers no exception to this rule. it was wendell phillips, one of america's greatest statesmen, jurists, and orators, who said in that marvellous lecture on toussaint l'ouverture--beyond doubt the greatest military genius of the nineteenth century--that there are two ways by which anglo-saxon civilization measures races. first, by the great men produced by that race; secondly, by the average merit of the mass of that race. in support of the first he bravely summoned to his presence, from the regions of the dead, the immortal bacon, shakespeare, hampden, hancock, washington, and franklin, offering them as stars, who, in their day, had lent lustre in the galaxy of history. and with equal pride he gloried in the average merit of anglo-saxon blood, since it first streamed from its german home, in support of the contention of the second way. as a race, we shall offer no objection to this principle of judgment. in fact, we cannot even if we so desired. we shall, therefore, accept it without any reluctance. we think it is a good principle upon which to base a judgment. the only consideration we demand, in connection with it, is that the white american, in his judgment of the afro-american, shall strictly observe the rule which the race he represents has set for itself; that is to say, let him measure our race by the great and useful men it has produced, since the immortal abraham lincoln issued that proclamation, whose fiftieth anniversary we celebrate to-day, giving freedom to four and one-half millions of human beings. let him measure us by the average merit of afro-american blood, since it first streamed from the land of the pharaohs, whose wills were inscribed in hieroglyphics--long before ph[oe]nicia invented the alphabet; long before the conquest of alexander the great had enabled eratosthenes and appollodorus to construct their synchrony of egyptian antiquity; long before the construction of the pyramids (those silent but eloquent tributes to the grandeur and majesty of the african intellect) had proclaimed the immortality of the soul. our record in this country, mr. chairman, must begin with the emancipation period. the emancipation is our birthday. mankind, therefore, in measuring our progress, must, in order to be just, make emancipation its starting point. previous to that period we were like the earth in its primeval condition, as described by moses, the great lawgiver, in the book of the generations; namely, that the "earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep." so, too, were we before the issuance of the emancipation proclamation; we were without national form; void of civic rights; and moral and intellectual darkness covered the minds and souls and spirits of the race. what was the condition of the race when the emancipation proclamation was first issued, a half century ago? commercially speaking, what were the assets of this race? had it anything to its credit in the balance-sheets of human progress, save the evils accruing from a long period of bondage? the facts will prove that it had nothing to its credit but the virtues of patience and endurance, under trials and afflictions, the horrors of which will form one of the darkest chapters in the history of this country. the twenty africans, brought by the slave-traders to jamestown, in , representing the introduction of african slavery into the united states, in two hundred and forty-three years had increased to four and one-half millions of human souls; and it is fair to presume that an equal, if not a greater number than this, had perished on account of the rigors of transmission in crossing the atlantic ocean and the indescribable cruelties of the slave system at home. the proclamation of emancipation found these four and one-half millions of human beings practically homeless, penniless, and friendless, and absolutely dependent upon the very same people to whom they were in bondage for two hundred and forty years, and against whom they had taken up arms in a civil war. the forty acres of land and two mules, which were promised by the federal government, never materialized. that promise was like the proverbial pie-crust, made to be broken; and the descendants of these four and a half millions are to-day entitled, by every humane consideration, to all the benefits and the equities in the case. the federal government at washington can only purge itself of this breach of promise by paying the bill, with legal interest; if not, according to the legal terms of the agreement (forty acres and two mules), then in its just equivalents, either by pensioning the survivors of the slave system--many who are to-day in abject squalor and want--or by a liberal grant of money to the schools of the land charged with the educational development of their much proscribed posterity. what of the race's mental condition at the time of its civic birth? there were scarcely any at that time who could either read or write with any degree of proficiency. not because they were incapable of learning; not because of any mental inferiority; but because of the cruel and unjust law prohibiting their education and making it a criminal offense, not only for the negro himself, but for any white man who should undertake to instruct him. punishment was so severe along this line that the very sight of a book awed him into fear and fright. the very existence of such a law was, indeed, an admission of the educational possibilities of the race. in the year there were about twenty members of the race who had received collegiate training. mathematically speaking, it took three hundred years to pull twenty negroes through the colleges of the land, so great was the combination against our mental development. what was our status in the business pursuits and gainful occupations at that time? the year is as far back as we desire to go for this enquiry, when the entire race, with but a few exceptions, were servants, restricted to menial employment and plantation occupations. what was the moral status of the race at that period? here there are two sides involved in any answer which might be given to this question. the evidences of unlawful miscegenation present themselves to every traveler throughout this country, and is in itself a pertinent answer to this query. our women have had to fight against indescribable odds in order to preserve their womanhood from the attacks of moral lepers, who, very often, were their masters and overseers. yet, in spite of these well-known facts, we have produced women among us of pure and good morals, with unimpeachable reputation for virtue and purity. sometimes it is a little amusing to hear the white american expatiate on the immorality of negro women. they certainly cannot forget their own record in their dealings with the helpless negro women of this country. but here, we will let the curtain of secrecy fall upon such a scene, while we shall advance to a higher and nobler plane upon this day when nothing but good feeling must be allowed a place on the programme. "watchman, what of the night?" what tidings does the morning bring, if any? has the future nothing in store for america's greatest factors in her industrial and commercial development? let us turn from the past; what of the present? in spite of the dehumanizing and other efforts to destroy the fecundity of the race, the twenty africans of , by the close of the revolution, had increased to , , and these , , at the close of the civil war, had reached the alarming number of four and one-half millions; and these four and a half millions, had, according to the last federal census, reached the astonishing number of ten millions or more of native-born citizens--entitled, though sometimes denied, to every right and privilege granted by the constitution of the united states and by the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments thereof; the making and sustaining of which our fathers contributed much of their blood and sacrifice, in peace, as well as in war. for we have been present, not only as spectators, but as active participants in every trying crisis in the history of this nation. in the beginning of the seventeenth century, when labor troubles threatened the very life of the infant colony and continuing to the founding of the republic--when white men were held in peonage or actual bondage for the uncanceled financial obligations due to the nobility of great britain--who furnished the labor which solved the vexed problem? who furnished the brawn and muscle which cleared the forests, leveled the hills, tunneled the mountains, bridged the rivers, laid the tracks and cultivated the fields, until this broad land had become as beautiful as the lily of the valley and as fragrant as the rose of sharon? in , when despotism was enthroned and liberty languished in the streets of boston, was it not the blood of a negro--crispus attucks--which animated the sinking spirit of the goddess, who was almost ready to die under the oppression of king george and the despotism of cornwallis? in the sixties--when lincoln, despairing of the outcome of the civil war, on account of the treachery in his own ranks and repeated reverses on the battle-field, called for , volunteers to suppress the rebellion in the south--who came to the rescue of the union? in spite of the effort of mcclellan and his company of , soldiers, who went to richmond to prevent "niggers," as they were called, from enlisting, who came to the rescue of the union? whose blood helped to render the testament of liberty valid? ask port hudson and milligan's bend, and fort wagner, and fort pillow, and pittsburg landing, how the nearly , negro soldiers behaved themselves under the fire of the enemy on these memorable battlefields--rendered sacred by their patriotic blood. who saved the rough riders and colonel roosevelt in the late spanish-american war, when san juan was illuminated with the fire of spanish cannonading? hark! methinks i hear the tramp of the black boys of the th and the th cavalry, chanting to the strains of martial music,--"glory hallelujah, we are going to have a hot time in the old town to-night," as they dashed up the dangerous parapet to defend the honor of their country, and to keep "old glory" from trailing in the dust. at the close of the civil war we were without homes, lands, or money. to-day, according to the last census of the united states, we own , homes, , , acres of farm land, covering an area equal to the political dominions of the kingdoms of belgium and holland. we have under cultivation , , acres of farm lands, including those farms rented by our people and those owned in fee-simple, and worth $ , , . the gross incomes from the farms conducted by negroes amount to $ , , annually. we own , business establishments, drug stores, and banks. at the close of the civil war we were without schools, without men of letters, without men in the various professions and lucrative avocations of life. to-day, we have universities, colleges, and schools of lower grade supported by the race. we have , , negro children attending these schools and the public schools of the land. we have written , books. we edit and conduct periodicals and magazines. in forty years we have contributed, as levies for school purposes, $ , , . with a membership of , , we have , churches, valued at $ , , , and contribute annually $ , , to their support. we contribute annually $ , , to secret and benevolent societies. we have about , teachers, , lawyers, , doctors, , preachers, and , business men--marvellous!--marvellous! a race that can produce in fifty years, beginning with nothing, such a report as this, whose minutest detail is supported by official statistics, needs no pity, mr. chairman. a race that can produce a douglass, a langston, a hood, a scott, a turner, a harvey johnson, a bruce, a payne, an arnett, a revells, a price, an elliott, a montgomery, a bowen, a mason, a dunbar, a du bois, and last but not least, a booker t. washington--the foremost genius of our vocational and industrial training--asks not for pity. it only asks for an equal opportunity in the race of life; it asks not for special legislation to accommodate any necessity; it simply asks for a just application of existing laws to all citizens alike, without any reference to race or color or previous condition of servitude. the representatives of this race, in this year of our lord, , ask the american people to judge them upon the record of their great and useful men and women which the race has produced in less than a half century--and upon the average merit of the mass of the race since the emancipation proclamation was issued by the immortal lincoln. in concluding this brief summary--for at best it can only be regarded as a brief summary of the doings of the race--and standing on the threshold of a new era in politics, in commerce, in religion and in ethics--a new era in the feeling and temper of the white american towards the afro-american, i ask you, ladies and gentlemen, what shall be our conduct in the future? watchman, what shall be the forecast? mr. chairman, the forecast is bright--brighter than it has ever been in any previous period of the race's history in this nation--and i make this statement in the fullest appreciation of the efforts which are being made all over this land, by adverse legislation, to weed us out of politics and other public preferments; to push us into a corner to ourselves, in both church and state--a propaganda which has brought gloom to many of our leaders, producing a pessimism inimical to progress. but why a pessimistic outlook, mr. chairman? is it possible to deprive ten million native-born american citizens from the enjoyment of their rights and privileges, guaranteed alike to all by the constitution of the united states? i think not. such a condition, mr. chairman, would be like an established government with no diplomatic representative at court. no matter what methods are adopted, some of the representative men of our race, unexpectedly or otherwise, in the final analysis, will slip in; if not in the congress of the united states, then in the legislatures and in the municipal governments of the state--such, for example, as lawyer bass in philadelphia, pa.; councilman cummings in baltimore; smith in the legislature of ohio; fitzgerald in new jersey, and jackson in illinois. no arrangement, no matter how planned, can ultimately defeat this logical result which _patience_ alone will produce. god and time, ladies and gentlemen, are important factors in the solution of these questions. fifty years are not sufficient to determine the possibilities of a race. no seer who knew the ancestors of the anglo-saxons as cæsar knew them, would have foretold such a future as they now enjoy. this anglo-saxon race, whose ancestors worshipped the mistletoe, offered human sacrifices, and drank wine out of human skulls, have now become the conquerors and the dominant race on the earth. their literature is the cream of the human intellect, and their tongue promises to become the official lingua of the earth. _god and time_ have wrought these things for them, and what god and time have wrought for one race, _god and time_ can accomplish for another race--if that race remain true to itself and to god. if you ask me for the ground of my optimism, i reply it is based upon two things, namely, the ability of the race itself to overcome difficulties and obstacles, and the over-ruling providence of god, based upon his justice and his righteousness. it is hardly possible for this negro race to experience any greater difficulties and obstacles in the future than it has already experienced in the past. it has overcome every obstacle with heroic courage--from slavery to the present period of its marvellous success. without discounting the human efforts of the race, it has accomplished all of this by an heroic faith in god and in the justice and righteousness of his character as practised by our ancestors in the days of their bitterest afflictions--when weakness characterized the arm of flesh. personally, i believe in god and in his justice and righteousness, and i have never lost faith in the benevolent brotherhood of mankind. i believe that "right, like god is eternal and unchangeable; and since right is right and god is god, right must ultimately prevail; though its final triumph may be retarded by the operation of wicked devices--nevertheless--it must prevail." the future of the negro church[ ] by hon. john c. dancy, ll.d. _secretary church extension society, a. m. e. church_ [note : delivered at the celebration of the emancipation proclamation, philadelphia, september, .] there is only one safe way to judge the future of the negro church, and that is by its past. and the past of this church, despite its shortcomings, is safe. to the curious it would seem strange that the negro church as such should exist at all. but in the light of its history, covering almost the entire history of this government, its existence has been proved a necessity, as its records abundantly testify. until we had the negro church we had nothing of which the race could boast. we early discovered that it was religious rights which first opened our eyes to all our rights, but until we were secure in the enjoyment of our religious liberty, we were not fully aroused to the importance and value of civil liberty. we had not learned that they were twin blessings often dearly bought, but of inestimable value. the negro church, therefore, became the basis upon which would be reared the superstructure of all our subsequent achievements. the men who laid the foundation for the negro church, whether of methodist, or baptist, or episcopalian, or presbyterian, or of congregational predilection, were wise in their day and generation, and paved the way for the best work of negro development ever undertaken in this country. until we had the negro church, we had not the negro school, and the one was the natural forerunner and concomitant of the other, opening up avenues for the preacher, the teacher, the lawyer, the physician, the editor, the orator, and the spokesman of and for the race. * * * * * the negro church has passed the experimental stage. it is no longer in a stage of incubation. it is an actuality,--an active, aggressive, and progressive reality. it has thoroughly established its rights to existence and its indispensability as a religious force and influence. our religious fervor may at times appear to be unduly emotional and lacking in solemnity, but even this is pardonable, and we are reminded that this is an emotional age, and we must not forget that the great penticostal awakening, in the early days of christianity, provoked a similar criticism from the unaroused and unaffected unbelievers. the negro church of the future may be less emotional, but if the church is to survive and throw off a cold formality which threatens to sap its very life-blood, it must not get away from its time-honored, deep spirituality, for without the spirit the seemingly religious body is dead. our church of the future as well as our church of the present will take care that no new dogmas of exotic growth will deprive it of those eternal verities which constitute the fundamentals of our christian faith. these verities of our religion have their foundation in the teachings of our great redeemer himself, who is the very embodiment of all truth. the negro church of the future will address itself to the correction of present-day evils in both church and state. it will emphasize the teaching that the highest form of virtue is the purest form of love. it will demand that men and women, and christian professors especially, exemplify in their own lives and habits the religion they make bold to proclaim. it will insist upon the remedying of great wrongs from which countless numbers suffer,--whether these wrongs be unfair and unjust discriminations in public places, on the common thoroughfares, in the courts and halls of justice, in the congress, the legislature or the municipal councils,--everywhere the church will condemn and protest and fulminate against these injustices, until they melt away with the certainty of april snow. the church of the future will more fully realize that where great principles are involved, concessions are dangerous and compromises disastrous. the future will disclose a negro church with men in all its pulpits equal to the great task which the responsibilities thereof impose. they will be qualified men from every viewpoint--deeply spiritual, well trained, pious, influential, impressive, strong. they will lead their people, and be a part of their life, their indomitable spirit, their ambitions, their achievements. they will be absolutely trusted and trustworthy. they will be an inspiration to our youth, to our manhood and our womanhood. they will speak as one having authority and they will boldly assert their authority to speak. they will take up where the fathers left off, and they in their possession of so great an inheritance of religious fervor and unshrinking faith, will arouse christianity from its lethargy, and start as a nation of believers, arousing, as it were, from its spell of years. they will be as bold as lions, wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. they will win their way because the things for which they stand and the gospel which they preach, will deserve to win. they will not seek so much to impress their own personality, but their cause, and they will lose themselves in the cause by magnifying the cause. * * * * * the negro church of the future will take greater interest in the young people, will give greater attention to the sunday-school work, to the young people's societies, to the young men's christian association, to the full development of all the departments of all the churches of whatever denomination, to the end that the churches will be thoroughly organized for work, and such work as will lead eventually to the thorough evangelization of the world. the redemption of africa, one of the forward movements of the world to-day, must come largely through the efforts, the service, and the personal sacrifices of our own churches, our own ministers and teachers, our own men and women. once fully aroused to the importance of the obligation we owe to the land of our forefathers, we will enter upon the task with all the zest and spirit of david livingstone, whose one hundredth anniversary we are celebrating this year, as we are also celebrating the first half century of our emancipation from human slavery. livingstone sacrificed himself in the heart of africa in order to give life and light to the aborigines of the dark continent. our church of the future must take up the task so grandly undertaken by him, and cease not until the work he so nobly began finds its full fruitage in africa's redemption from heathendom, superstition, and ignorance, that she may take her place among the civilized and enlightened people of the world. * * * * * the church of the future will have to do with the life of its membership. it will take heed to its health, and will teach hygiene and the laws which safeguard one's health in the home, in the church, in the public schools and public places, in the open air and where not. it will impress the lesson of a sound mind in a sound body, and the great need of a sound body in order to have a sound mind. it will not fear to declare in favor of pure athletics as a means of developing the physical system, which is so essential to sound health and a strong manhood. the boys and young men will be urged to identify themselves with young men's christian associations so as to have advantage of the reading-rooms, the swimming-pools, the gymnasiums, and other young men's society, thus eschewing the dens of vice and haunts of infamy which might otherwise attract them and blight their precious young lives for all time, it may be. it will take knowledge of human life and its means of existence everywhere. it will seek to know what the man and woman in the alley as well as those on the broad thoroughfare are doing,--whether they are oppressed or distressed in body or in mind, and to go to their relief. it will discover that man _is_ his brother's keeper, and is largely responsible for him and must seek to take care of him. the church, yea, will come to itself and be shorn of a great part of its pride, when it fully realizes that its real growth and prosperity are dependent upon the attention it pays to god's poor and god's neglected. our churches will re-echo with the sentiment of that song, "god will take care of you," but there must be a refreshing application of it, knowing that caretaking reaches further than ourselves and extends to our neglected brother, whom we, so oftentimes, have forgotten. if the church is no stronger than it is to-day it is due chiefly to the neglect of the unfortunate _many_ who have been unreached and need to be reached. the church of the future must humble its pride, buckle on its armor, and cease not in its labors until this great army of unreached is reached and helped, and impressed and convinced and saved. "go ye into all the world and preach my gospel," does not mean to distant people merely, but to people at home as well, many of whom know as little of the gospel as many others in distant africa. there must be, there will be, a religious awakening along this line, so that if the people do not go to the church, then the church must go to the people, and there will be thousands, in the next few years in answer to the question, "who will go?" who will answer in language which cannot be misunderstood, "here am i, send me." the church of the future will have to do with the greater problems of every day life. it will have to aid in teaching the people life and duty and how best to meet and battle with these. it will have to impress the importance of home-getting,--whether in city or on farm,--and the possessing of these in fee simple, by actual purchase, and we will become more valuable as citizens as we acquire more in our individual right in real and personal property. * * * * * the church of the future will urge the starting of savings accounts with the youth, and the organization of savings banks among our people in all sections, and the opening, incidentally, of opportunities for our boys and girls to get in close touch with business life and business habits. we will thus make the church an influence, as it has been in the past, in paving the way for the future financial and substantial importance of the race. the negro church of the future will be less fettered by denominational lines and possessed of a broader christian spirit, recognizing denominational names of course, but laying greater stress on christianity, than on any church allegiance. methodists, baptists, and presbyterians, and congregationalists, and episcopalians will interchange pulpits and preach one gospel in the name of our common lord, who is in all, and through all and over all. there will be inter-denominational sunday-school unions, church conventions and conferences, and the ministers and congregations will be in closer union, praying for the same spiritual power, the same common blessings, and the removal of the same great evils. judah will not vex ephraim, and ephraim will not vex judah. under the mighty influence of this commingling and oneness of heart and purpose "error will decay and truth grow strong and right shall rule supreme and conquer wrong." * * * * * to thee! god of our fathers, we render praise and thanksgiving for such abundant evidence of thy guiding presence during these fifty years of freedom and civil liberty. we predict for the future on the basis of our achievement during the past; and since the negro church has been a great factor in lifting us up and enabling us to see the new light, in spite of many obstacles, we are confident that by following the same omnipotent hand, that never errs and never fails, we will, in the coming years, prove that no sacrifice, either in war or in peace, made in our behalf has been made in vain, and no service rendered us has been without its subsequent reward. we rejoice, and are glad in our gladness and rich in our wealth. in the midst of it all, the negro church survives and is steadily moving on. the negro lawyer; his opportunity, his duty[ ] by w. ashbie hawkins _of the baltimore bar_ [note : an address at the opening of howard university law school, washington, d. c., oct. st, .] _gentlemen:_ the legal profession is without doubt in the lead. its devotees outrank all others in service to the government and they come the closest in personal contact to the individual. this is denied of course, and always will be denied by men of all other professions, but when the roster of the world's lawyers who have faithfully and efficiently served humanity in every conceivable way is pitted against that of the others, the question is relieved of all doubt. the negro lawyer is no longer an experiment. he has been severely tried from within and without, and he has proved his worth. his place in our economy is fixed. he has demonstrated his capacity to serve, and to serve well, and for all of this both the lawyer and the race he is helping to advance are under lasting obligations to howard university. she has to her credit more men who are actively and successfully pursuing their calling than any other institution of learning in this land. * * * * * the negro race is probably to-day in greater need of consecrated lawyers than it is of pious priests. the time has come for the lawyer to take his place in the lead. we are celebrating this year the th anniversary of our emancipation, and, paradoxical though it may be, we appear further from emancipation to-day than when lincoln signed his emancipation proclamation, or when lee surrendered at appomattox. it is quite true that we have an immensely larger realty-holding to our credit, that our financial worth is constantly on the increase, that our illiteracy is rapidly reaching the vanishing-point, and that in all matters, spiritual as well as temporal, we seem to have improved, but the closer we approximate the standard of life and living of the dominant race, all the harder apparently have we to fight to maintain our self-respect, and preserve the rights and privileges which the letter of our american law guarantees. when we were slaves and had nothing except our muscles, there was no thought of separate-car laws. when we were ignorant and powerless to think coherently, there were no efforts at our disfranchisement. when we were poverty-stricken and satisfied if we might live in the alleys of our great american cities, there was no thought of segregation, whether in the matter of our residences, or in that of the employees of our much-heralded republican government. with every increase in accomplishment, or worth, or demand for the better things of life, comes the burden of wrongs, injustice, and rash discrimination. it would be idle here to attempt to recount in detail the grievances we justly have against the government in city, state and nation; to do so further than the purpose i have in view would be but to tell you what you full well know. the negro race needs a change of viewpoint; another leadership is an absolute necessity, and i see no reason why men of our profession should not attain it. for years we have had in the ascendency the prophets of submission and silence, and we have been taught to declare for peace when we knew there was no peace. no other element in our great nation, except that of ourselves is content with things as they are, accepting without protest every new injustice, in the vain hope that some day would bring about a change for the better. we have lulled ourselves to sleep with this fatalism, and what is the result? we have noted the practical nullification of every act suggested or inspired by the changing conditions in the lives and property of freedmen brought about by the civil war. disfranchisement in every southern state is as fixed and determinate, as the indifference of the negroes of those sections, or the practises of all political parties can make it. separate, and therefore inferior, accommodations on public conveyances are the rule, and we have endured these conditions so long that it would appear almost cruel now to undertake, or to ask a change. we have noted further, and this is the saddest of all, that our inactivity in claiming our rights, or our indifference about their recognition, has not only emboldened our enemies, but it has silenced our friends. we have seen with increasing alarm the judicial construction of statutes and the constitution itself, which all but vitiate and annul the basis of our citizenship; we have seen repeated attempts made to discredit the war amendments to the national constitution, and some have in all seriousness gone so far even as to question their constitutionality. every student of our common law has always been sure of the right to private property, and the corollaries thereto, but it is just in the present year that a court of last resort in a neighboring state, in an interpretation of one of these new conceptions, a segregation ordinance, declared that while the one under investigation was invalid, that the municipality enacting it might under its police powers make provision for the segregation of the races in the matter of their residences, schools, churches, and places of public assembly. the law is not a fixed science; it is more properly growth, a development. what is not regarded as law to-day may, by the inactivity or indifference of those most deeply concerned, become the law of the next decade. so we behold to-day our rights and liberties drifting away from us, and that regarded as the law which years ago we deemed impossible. what are we to do, you say? what can we do? the lawyers trained here and in other institutions of learning must answer these questions, and in finding their answers will be their opportunity. the adjudication of the conflicting interests of mankind, the interpretation of our statutes and our common law the determination of rights and privileges of all men, is a judicial function. what rights we enjoy to-day have come in the final analysis from the courts. what rights we find ourselves to-day deprived of, and which we hope to enjoy to-morrow, must come, if at all, from the same source. the courts have the last word, and it is to that instrument of government we must appeal, and to that last word we must look for our safety, or fear our doom. but courts are not self-acting institutions, and they are not engaged in academic discussions of abstractions. they are severely serious. it may be that, like so many americans, we have lost faith in the courts, and heaven knows we have had abundant reason for so doing, but there's hope. they have too often and too long listened to the clamors of public opinion, put too much faith and credit in the utterances of latter-day journalism, coloring their opinions to suit the one, or to escape the criticism of the other. under the pernicious doctrine of public policy and in fortifying that undefined and indefinable legal notion of police power, courts have wiped aside constitutional limitations, and disregarded what the profession at least had learned to consider as almost fixed precedents of the law, but even with all these defects admitted, there remains the startling truth that to these governmental agencies we must look for the righting of our wrongs and the redress of our grievances. we have shunned the courts too often in our temporal affairs, fearing, it seems, further adverse decisions, or waiting a proper adjustment at some other forum. in my own state it might now be compulsory upon you, or any other decent self-respecting person of the race, in travelling from here to new york or elsewhere in the north, to ride in the so-called "jim-crow" cars provided by an indulgent maryland legislature for negro patrons of its railroads, had it not have been for a member of the faculty of this institution. william h. h. hart knew that legislation of that character was an attempt to restrict interstate traffic, and the court of appeals of maryland agreed with him. the case of state vs. hart, reported in md. at page , is a landmark in our maryland law, and under its influence "jim-crow" cars have almost disappeared from the railroads of our state. another distinguished member of the faculty of howard university, but of another department, in travelling over the railroads in the eastern part of our state last fall, discovered that the compartments provided by the roads for their colored passengers, in point of cleanliness, appointment, and convenience, were notably inferior to those furnished others. he complained to the public service commission and, after a full hearing, the commission passed a decree requiring these railroads to furnish accommodations to its colored passengers equal in all respects to that furnished others. this is exactly what the separate-car law provides, but it is exactly what the railroads had never intended to furnish and, without the complaint of professor t. w. turner, no other course would have been followed. here are two, and there are numerous other concrete examples of what may be accomplished by sane and timely appeals to our judicial tribunals. our government has three well defined departments separate and distinct, each operating in a manner as a check on the other, and all together working for the common good of the whole. we have resorted generally to the executive and have been satisfied with its appointment of a few men to office, and with its passive execution of the laws affecting us. in recent years we have arisen to the point of seeking legislation in the defense of our civil rights, and it is hoped that as the years pass more of this will be done. but in the judicial branch of the government is where, after all, we must place our reliance. we need a body of trained lawyers in full sympathy with our community life, eager, anxious, and capable, prepared at any emergency to present our cause fairly and intelligently before any tribunal; and with this accomplished, i have faith in the american people that justice will prevail, and right triumph over every wrong. i do not mean that the lawyer is to seek such service by the fomenting of litigation; far from it, but let him be prepared for it by study and devotion to racial ideals, and when the hour comes he will be called on to marshal its forces and take charge of the legal contests of a race. this will never be if he dreams only of his money, if he thinks only of present material gain, if he counts his successes in terms of houses and lands. he must be willing to serve for the sake of the service. the failures in our professional life come almost wholly from those who had no high ideals of their calling, and no devotion to the interests of their race or country. country and race in this matter are synonymous; you can't serve one without at the same time serving the other. the lawyer who advocates the protection of the lives, the property, and the civic welfare of ten millions of americans of whatever hue, or origin, is not a racial zealot, but a patriot of the highest character, and his worth in preserving the nation's ideals is beyond calculation. young men, you who are either about to leave these halls for the active life of the lawyer, or you who are just beginning the pursuit of your studies here looking to the same end, i bring you, i hope, no discouraging note. my aim is to do the contrary. the heavy burdens the race is bearing in the form of unjust laws and practises, in strained constructions of statutes, constitutions, and the common law; in the thousand ways which the ingenuity of the prejudiced find to bar us from the full enjoyment of american liberty and freedom, these will some day, along with those of us who are now at the bar, furnish your greatest opportunity. your duty then, as now, will be to fortify yourselves with all the learning which this institution provides, with all that the libraries in your reach contain, with all that close and intimate association with others of your profession will secure, with sincere devotion to the ideals and traditions of our noble profession, and with no less devotion to the interest of your clients, and a determination faithfully and loyally and efficiently to serve your race, your nation and your god. the training of negroes for social reform[ ] by w. e. burghardt du bois, ph. d. _editor and founder "the crisis"_ [note : from the new york _outlook_.] the responsibility for their own social regeneration ought to be placed largely upon the shoulders of the negro people. but such responsibility must carry with it a grant of power; responsibility without power is a mockery and a farce. if, therefore, the american people are sincerely anxious that the negro shall put forth his best efforts to help himself, they must see to it that he is not deprived of the freedom and power to strive. the responsibility for dispelling their own ignorance implies that the power to overcome ignorance is to be placed in black men's hands; the lessening of poverty calls for the power of effective work; and the responsibility for lessening crime calls for control over social forces which produce crime. such social power means, assuredly, the growth of initiative among negroes, the spread of independent thought, the expanding consciousness of manhood; and these things to-day are looked upon by many with apprehension and distrust. men openly declare their design to train these millions as a subject caste, as men to be thought for, but not to think; to be led, but not to lead themselves. those who advocate these things forget that such a solution flings them squarely on the other horn of the dilemma: such a subject child-race could never be held accountable for its own misdeeds and shortcomings; its ignorance would be part of the nation's design, its poverty would arise partly from the direct oppression of the strong and partly from thriftlessness which such oppression breeds; and, above all, its crime would be the legitimate child of that lack of self-respect which caste systems engender. such a solution of the negro problem is not one which the saner sense of the nation for a moment contemplates; it is utterly foreign to american institutions, and is unthinkable as a future for any self-respecting race of men. the sound afterthought of the american people must come to realize that the responsibility for dispelling ignorance and poverty, and uprooting crime among negroes cannot be put upon their own shoulders unless they are given such independent leadership in intelligence, skill, and morality as will inevitably lead to an independent manhood which cannot and will not rest in bonds. let me illustrate my meaning particularly in the matter of educating negro youth. the negro problem, it has often been said, is largely a problem of ignorance--not simply of illiteracy, but a deeper ignorance of the world and its ways, of the thought and experience of men; an ignorance of self and the possibilities of human souls. this can be gotten rid of only by training; and primarily such training must take the form of that sort of social leadership which we call education. to apply such leadership to themselves and to profit by it, means that negroes would have among themselves men of careful training and broad culture, as teachers and teachers of teachers. there are always periods of educational evolution when it is deemed quite proper for pupils in the fourth reader to teach those in the third. but such a method, wasteful and ineffective at all times, is peculiarly dangerous when ignorance is widespread and when there are few homes and public institutions to supplement the work of the school. it is, therefore, of crying necessity among negroes that the heads of their educational system--the teachers in the normal schools, the heads of high schools, the principals of public systems, should be unusually well trained men; men trained not simply in common-school branches, not simply in the technique of school management and normal methods, but trained beyond this, broadly and carefully, into the meaning of the age whose civilization it is their peculiar duty to interpret to the youth of a new race, to the minds of untrained people. such educational leaders should be prepared by long and rigorous courses of study similar to those which the world over have been designed to strengthen the intellectual powers, fortify character, and facilitate the transmission from age to age of the stores of the world's knowledge. not all men--indeed, not the majority of men, only the exceptional few among american negroes or among any other people--are adapted to this higher training, as, indeed, only the exceptional few are adapted to higher training in any line; but the significance of such men is not to be measured by their numbers, but rather by the numbers of their pupils and followers who are destined to see the world through their eyes, hear it through their trained ears, and speak to it through the music of their words. such men, teachers of teachers and leaders of the untaught, atlanta university and similar colleges seek to train. we seek to do our work thoroughly and carefully. we have no predilections or prejudices as to particular studies or methods, but we do cling to those time-honored sorts of discipline which the experience of the world has long since proven to be of especial value. we sift as carefully as possible the student material which offers itself, and we try by every conscientious method to give to students who have character and ability such years of discipline as shall make them stronger, keener, and better for their peculiar mission. the history of civilization seems to prove that no group or nation which seeks advancement and true development can despise or neglect the power of well-trained minds; and this power of intellectual leadership must be given to the talented tenth among american negroes before this race can seriously be asked to assume the responsibility of dispelling its own ignorance. upon the foundation-stone of a few well-equipped negro colleges of high and honest standards can be built a proper system of free common schools in the south for the masses of the negro people; any attempt to found a system of public schools on anything less than this--on narrow ideals, limited or merely technical training--is to call blind leaders for the blind. the very first step toward the settlement of the negro problem is the spread of intelligence. the first step toward wider intelligence is a free public-school system; and the first and most important step toward a public-school system is the equipment and adequate support of a sufficient number of negro colleges. these are first steps, and they involve great movements: first, the best of the existent colleges must not be abandoned to slow atrophy and death, as the tendency is to-day; secondly, systematic attempt must be made to organize secondary education. below the colleges and connected with them must come the normal and high schools, judiciously distributed and carefully manned. in no essential particular should this system of common and secondary schools differ from educational systems the world over. their chief function is the quickening and training of human intelligence; they can do much in the teaching of morals and manners incidentally, but they cannot and ought not to replace the home as the chief moral teacher; they can teach valuable lessons as to the meaning of work in the world, but they cannot replace technical schools and apprenticeship in actual life, which are the real schools of work. manual training can and ought to be used in these schools, but as a means and not as an end--to quicken intelligence and self-knowledge and not to teach carpentry; just as arithmetic is used to train minds and not skilled accountants. whence, now, is the money coming for this educational system? for the common schools the support should come from local communities, the state governments, and the united states government; for secondary education, support should come from local and state governments and private philanthropy; for the colleges, from private philanthropy and the united states government. i make no apology for bringing the united states government in thus conspicuously. the general government must give aid to southern education if illiteracy and ignorance are to cease threatening the very foundations of civilization within any reasonable time. aid to common school education could be appropriated to the different states on the basis of illiteracy. the fund could be administered by state officials, and the results and needs reported upon by united states educational inspectors under the bureau of education. the states could easily distribute the funds so as to encourage local taxation and enterprise and not result in pauperizing the communities. as to higher training, it must be remembered that the cost of a single battle-ship like the massachusetts would endow all the distinctively college work necessary for negroes during the next half-century; and it is without doubt true that the unpaid balance from bounties withheld from negroes in the civil war would, with interest, easily supply this sum. but spread of intelligence alone will not solve the negro problem. if this problem is largely a question of ignorance, it is also scarcely less a problem of poverty. if negroes are to assume the responsibility of raising the standards of living among themselves, the power of intelligent work and leadership toward proper industrial ideals must be placed in their hands. economic efficiency depends on intelligence, skill and thrift. the public school system is designed to furnish the necessary intelligence for the ordinary worker, the secondary school for the more gifted workers, and the college for the exceptional few. technical knowledge and manual dexterity in learning branches of the world's work are taught by industrial and trade schools, and such schools are of prime importance in the training of colored children. trade-teaching can not be effectively combined with the work of the common schools because the primary curriculum is already too crowded, and thorough common-school training should precede trade-teaching. it is, however, quite possible to combine some of the work of the secondary schools with purely technical training, the necessary limitations being matters of time and cost: _e. g._, the question whether the boy can afford to stay in school long enough to add parts of a high-school course to the trade course, and particularly the question whether the school can afford or ought to afford to give trade training to high-school students who do not intend to become artisans. a system of trade-schools, therefore, supported by state and private aid, should be added to the secondary school system. an industrial school, however, does not merely teach technique. it is also a school--a center of moral influence and of mental discipline. as such it has peculiar problems in securing the proper teaching force. it demands broadly trained men: the teacher of carpentry must be more than a carpenter, and the teacher of the domestic arts more than a cook; for such teachers must instruct, not simply in manual dexterity, but in mental quickness and moral habits. in other words, they must be teachers as well as artisans. it thus happens that college-bred men and men from other higher schools have always been in demand in technical schools. if the college graduates were to-day withdrawn from the teaching force of the chief negro industrial schools, nearly every one of them would have to close its doors. these facts are forgotten by such advocates of industrial training as oppose the higher schools. strong as the argument for industrial schools is--and its strength is undeniable--its cogency simply increases the urgency of the plea for higher training-schools and colleges to furnish broadly educated teachers. but intelligence and skill alone will not solve the southern problem of poverty. with these must go that combination of homely habits and virtues which we may loosely call thrift. something of thrift may be taught in school, more must be taught at home; but both these agencies are helpless when organized economic society denies to workers the just rewards of thrift and efficiency. and this has been true of black laborers in the south from the time of slavery down through the scandal of the freedmen's bank to the peonage and crop-lien system of to-day. if the southern negro is shiftless, it is primarily because over large areas a shiftless negro can get on in the world about as well as an industrious black man. this is not universally true in the south, but it is true to so large an extent as to discourage striving in precisely that class of negroes who most need encouragement. what is the remedy? intelligence--not simply the ability to read and write or to sew--but the intelligence of a society permeated by that larger vision of life and broader tolerance which are fostered by the college and university. not that all men must be college-bred, but that some men, black and white, must be, to leaven the ideals of the lump. can any serious student of the economic south doubt that this to-day is her crying need? ignorance and poverty are the vastest of the negro problems. but to these later years have added a third--the problem of negro crime. that a great problem of social morality must have become eventually the central problem of emancipation is as clear as day to any student of history. in its grosser form as a problem of serious crime it is already upon us. of course it is false and silly to represent that white women in the south are in daily danger of black assaulters. on the contrary, white womanhood in the south is absolutely safe in the hands of ninety-five per cent. of the black men--ten times safer than black womanhood is in the hands of white men. nevertheless, there is a large and dangerous class of negro criminals, paupers, and outcasts. the existence and growth of such a class far from causing surprise, should be recognized as the natural result of that social disease called the negro problem; nearly every untoward circumstance known to human experience has united to increase negro crime: the slavery of the past, the sudden emancipation, the narrowing of economic opportunity, the lawless environment of wide regions, the stifling of natural ambition, the curtailment of political privilege, the disregard of the sanctity of black men's homes, and, above all, a system of treatment for criminals calculated to breed crime far faster than all other available agencies could repress it. such a combination of circumstances is as sure to increase the numbers of the vicious and outcast as the rain is to wet the earth. the phenomenon calls for no delicately drawn theories of race differences; it is a plain case of cause and effect. but plain as the causes may be, the results are just as deplorable, and repeatedly to-day the criticism is made that negroes do not recognize sufficiently their responsibility in this matter. such critics forget how little power to-day negroes have over their own lower classes. before the black murderer who strikes his victim to-day, the average black man stands far more helpless than the average white, and, too, suffers ten times more from the effects of the deed. the white man has political power, accumulated wealth, and knowledge of social forces; the black man is practically disfranchised, poor, and unable to discriminate between the criminal and the martyr. the negro needs the defense of the ballot, the conserving power of property, and, above all, the ability to cope intelligently with such vast questions of social regeneration and moral reform as confront him. if social reform among negroes be without organization or trained leadership from within, if the administration of law is always for the avenging of the white victim and seldom for the reformation of the black criminal, if ignorant black men misunderstand the functions of government because they have had no decent instruction, and intelligent black men are denied a voice in government because they are black--under such circumstances to hold negroes responsible for the suppression of crime among themselves is the cruelest of mockeries. on the other hand, a sincere desire among the american people to help the negroes undertake their own social regeneration means, first, that the negro be given the ballot on the same terms as other men, to protect him against injustice and to safeguard his interests in the administration of law; secondly, that through education and social organization he be trained to work, and save, and earn a decent living. but these are not all: wealth is not the only thing worth accumulating; experience and knowledge can be accumulated and handed down, and no people can be truly rich without them. can the negro do without these? can this training in work and thrift be truly effective without the guidance of trained intelligence and deep knowledge--without that same efficiency which has enabled modern peoples to grapple so successfully with the problems of the submerged tenth? there must surely be among negro leaders the philanthropic impulse, the uprightness of character and strength of purpose, but there must be more than these; philanthropy and purpose among blacks as well as among whites must be guided and curbed by knowledge and mental discipline--knowledge of the forces of civilization that make for survival, ability to organize and guide those forces, and realization of the true meaning of those broader ideals of human betterment which may in time bring heaven and earth a little nearer. this is social power--it is gotten in many ways by experience, by social contact, by what we loosely call the chances of life. but the systematic method of acquiring and imparting it is by the training of youth to thought, power, and knowledge in the school and college. and that group of people whose mental grasp is by heredity weakest, and whose knowledge of the past is for historic reasons most imperfect, that group is the very one which needs above all, for the talented of its youth, this severe and careful course of training; especially if they are expected to take immediate part in modern competitive life, if they are to hasten the slower courses of human development, and if the responsibility for this is to be in their own hands. three things american slavery gave the negro--the habit of work, the english language, and the christian religion; but one priceless thing it debauched, destroyed, and took from him, and that was the organized home. for the sake of intelligence and thrift, for the sake of work and morality, this home-life must be restored and regenerated with newer ideals. how? the normal method would be by actual contact with a higher home-life among his neighbors, but this method the social separation of white and black precludes. a proposed method is by schools of domestic arts, but, valuable as these are, they are but subsidiary aids to the establishment of homes; for real homes are primarily centers of ideals and teaching and only incidentally centers of cooking. the restoration and raising of home ideals must, then, come from social life among negroes themselves; and does that social life need no leadership? it needs the best possible leadership of pure hearts and trained heads, the highest leadership of carefully trained men. such are the arguments for the negro college, and such is the work that atlanta university and a few similar institutions seek to do. we believe that a rationally arranged college course of study for men and women able to pursue it is the best and only method of putting into the world negroes with ability to use the social forces of their race so as to stamp out crime, strengthen the home, eliminate degenerates, and inspire and encourage the higher tendencies of the race not only in thought and aspiration but in every-day toil. and we believe this, not simply because we have argued that such training ought to have these effects, or merely because we hope for such results in some dim future, but because already for years we have seen in the work of our graduates precisely such results as i have mentioned: successful teachers of teachers, intelligent and upright ministers, skilled physicians, principals of industrial schools, business men, and above all, makers of model homes and leaders of social groups, out from which radiate subtle but tangible forces of uplift and inspiration. the proof of this lies scattered in every state of the south, and, above all, in the half-unwilling testimony of men disposed to decry our work. between the negro college and industrial school there are the strongest grounds for co-operation and unity. it is not a matter of mere emphasis, for we would be glad to see ten industrial schools to every college. it is not a fact that there are to-day too few negro colleges, but rather that there are too many institutions attempting to do college work. but the danger lies in the fact that the best of the negro colleges are poorly equipped and are to-day losing support and countenance, and that, unless the nation awakens to its duty, ten years will see the annihilation of higher negro training in the south. we need a few strong, well-equipped negro colleges, and we need them now, not to-morrow; unless we can have them and have them decently supported, negro education in the south, both common-school and industrial, is doomed to failure, and the forces of social regeneration will be fatally weakened, for the college to-day among negroes is, just as truly as it was yesterday among whites, the beginning and not the end of human training, the foundation and not the cap-stone of popular education. strange is it not, my brothers, how often in america those great watchwords of human energy--"be strong!" "know thyself!" "hitch your wagon to a star!"--how often these die away into dim whispers when we face these seething millions of black men? and yet do they not belong to them? are they not their heritage as well as yours? can they bear burdens without strength, know without learning, and aspire without ideals? are you afraid to let them try? fear rather, in this our common fatherland, lest we live to lose those great watchwords of liberty and opportunity which yonder in the eternal hills their fathers fought with your fathers to preserve. index a abel, abolition, abolitionists, , , , , , , , , , , , , abraham, , academy, french, , negro, achilles, adams, john quincy, , , advocate, southwestern christian, Ã�neid, Ã�neas, africa, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , africa, central, , east, east coast of, south, west, african, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , afro-american, , , alabama, , , alexander the great, , alfred the great, , allah, alvord, j. w., amazon river, amendment, th, th, , , , th, , , , ames, alexander, ames, capt., a. m. e. church, america, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , america, south, american, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , american university, anderson, charles w., andover, andrews, gov. john a., , anglo-saxon, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , antietam, appeal, memphis, appolodorus, appomatox, , , , arab, arcadia, , archimedes, arctic, areopagus, arkansas, arlington heights, , army, american, , , th corps, united states, , aristotle, arnett, bishop, arnold, benedict, aryan, asia, athaneum club, athens, , atlanta, , atlanta university, , atlantic, ocean, attucks, crispus, , , , , , , , augusta, augustine, austrian, avalanche, memphis, b baal, babylon, bacon, lord, , badeau, general, balaam, balak, balaklava, baltimore, , , bancroft, bangweolo, lake, bank, freedmen's, banks, gen., banneker literary club, bannockburn, battle of, banquo, baptist, , barnato, barney, , bass, harry w., baylor's field, bayou, m., , beard, gen. o. t., beatitudes, mount of, bechauna, beck, mr., belgium, berea college, berkshires, bethlehem, bible, , , , , , black battalion, , , , bliss, judge, blue bells, blumenbach, blyden, edward wilmot, boker, bonaparte, napoleon, , , , , , bordentown, manual training and industrial school, boston, , , , , , , , , , boston common, boston council, boston gazette, boston suffrage league, boston massacre, british, , , , , , , brougham, lord, boughton, prof. j., bowen, j. w. e., boyer, brown, john, , browning, robert, brownsville, pa., brownsville, texas, , bruce, robert, bruce, b. k., brutus, bryant, buchanan, james, bull run, bunker hill, , , , , , , , burke, edmund, , burlingame, anson, burmah, burns, robert, burton, butler, gen. b. f., , byron, c cæsar, , , , , , cailloux, capt., cain, calais, caldwell, james, calhoun, john c., , california, calvary, cambridge university, , camden, campbell, thomas, canaan, , capital, carey, henry c., carlyle, , carnegie peace building, carney, sergeant, , , carolinas, carolina, north, , , , carolina, south, , , carolina, south regulars, carter, w. justin, catholic, catholic university, cavalier, , cavalry, united states, th, th, th, census federal, centurion, cephalus, chambezi river, chancellorsville, channing, dr., , chapin farm, charleston, , chatham, chattanooga, chicago, , chinese, , chinese government, christian, , , christianity, , , , christian church, christophe, chobungo, church extension society, cicero, , , cincinnati, civil liberty, civil rights, , , , civil rights bill, , civil war, , , , , , , , , clark, william, clarkson, , clay, henry, clover hill, va., , , coburn, tites, coleridge, coleridge, samuel t., colored orphan asylum, , colored soldiers, , , colored troops, u. s., th, th, th, d, th, d, columbus, committee of safety (tenn.), concord, confederacy, , , , confederate army, confederate congress, , confederate states, congregational, , congress, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , th, , th, congo, connecticut, , constantine, constantinople, constitution, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , convention, sunday school, cook, george william, cooper institute, coppin, fanny jackson, coppin, levi j., corbin, gen., cornhill, , , cornwallis, cortez, cotton states and international exposition, , court of st. james, court, dist. of u. s., court, supreme, , , , , , , covington, cowper, crisis, the, croesus, cromwell, cross, samuel creed, croton river, crummell, alexander, cuba, , curran, cummings, harry, curtis, james l., cuyahoga county, cyrus, d dancy, john c., dane, darien, darwin, davidson, arthur e., davis, davis, jefferson, davis, john, davis, d. webster, dawes, dauphin, fort, da vinci, dayton, o., declaration of independence, , , , , , , , , , , , , delaware, democratic, , , , demosthenes, , desdemona, dessalines, , disfranchisement, district of columbia, , , , , , , donaldson fort, dock square, donop, count, , double dragon, douglass, frederick, , , , douglass hospital, douglass, stephen a., dover, del., state college, draconian, , drummond, , dubois, w. e. b., , dumas, alexander, fils, dunbar, alice m., dunbar, paul laurence, , dundore, earl, durham, n. c., dutch, e east bridgewater, edward the confessor, edwards, jonathan, edinburgh, egypt, , , , , egyptians, , , , , el caney, elijah, , elliott, robert brown, , elizabeth, queen, emancipation, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , emancipation day, emancipation proclamation, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , emancipator, the great, , , , emerson, england, , , , , , , english, , , , englishman, , ephraim, episcopal, protestant, episcopalian, , epworth league, , eratosthenes, erie, lake, essex, ethiopian, estabrook, prince, eureka, literary society, europe, , , , , , , , , , , everett, edward, f faneuil hall, , , federal government, federal union, ferguson, robert, feudal system, fifteenth street presbyterian church, fitzgerald, fleetwood, c. a., florence, florida, , , fontainebleau, france, , , , , , françois, jean, , franklin, benjamin, , , freedman, aid society, bank, monument, schools for, freeman, jordan, , fremont, gen., french, , , , , , frenchman, , foraker, joseph benson, , , , force bill, frye, col., fugitive slave law, , , , , g gaines, w. j., ganges river, garrison, william lloyd, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , garden of eden, gates, gen., general assembly, george iii, , georgetown college, georgia, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , gerry, german, germany, gettysburg, , , giddings, gideon, gilead, forest of, gilmore, toby, gliddon, gold coast, golden rule, , gonaves, grady, henry a., grant, u. s., gray, samuel, gray's ferry, great britain, , , , , great cornerstone speech, greece, , , , , greek, , , , , greek grammar, , greek slave, greeley, horace, greene, col., greene, gen., greener, richard t., gregoire, abbe, gregory, james francis, grimke, archibald, grimke, francis j., griswold, fort, guards, louisiana native, guards, national, guinea, guasimas, las, h hague, the, hahn, gov., hall, philadelphia, halpine, col., haman, hamilton, alexander, , , hamilton's history of the american people, hamites, hampden, hampton institute, hancock, john, , hardin county, harlan, justice, harper, frances ellen watkins, harper's ferry, harris, harrison, benjamin, harrison, fort, harrisburg, pa., harold, hart, william h. h., harvard, , hawkins, w. ashbie, hayti, , , , , , , , , haytians, , , , , , hebrew, , henry, henry vii, chapel of, henry, patrick, herodotus, hesperides, hessians, , hilton, sergeant, hodges, holland, , holy grail, honey hill, s. c., hood, solomon p., house of representatives, , , howard's american magazine, howard university, , , , , , , , , , , , howe, cato, hudson, port, , , , hunt, hunter, gen. david, , huxley, i ignatius, iliad, illinois, , , , independence hall, independent, new york, india, indian, , , indianapolis, infantry, th, , th new york, institute for colored youth, institutional church, irish, israel, , , , italia, fair, italian, , italy, j jacksonville, jackson, gen., , , , , jacob, james, william, jamestown, , , japan, , japanese, japhetic, jason, william c., jay, jefferson, thomas, , , jeffreys, jennings, anderson, jeremiah, jerusalem, jews, , , , , , jewish, , jim crow, , , , john the baptist, john, king, johnson, harvey, johnson, john, jones, robert e., jordan, joseph, judah, k kaffir, kamolondo, , keats, kentucky, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , killarney, kipling, kitchin, , , kubla khan, ku klux klan, l lacaedemonians, lacroix, gen., la caste, lafayette, , lanarkshire, lancaster, langston, charles h., , langston, john mercer, , langton, launfal, sir, latin, , laveaux, leavenworth, fort, leclerc, gen., , , lee, gen. robt. e., , , leipsic, leo, x, pope, leonidas, lepelole, leroy, iola, lethe, lewis, job, lewis, william h., lexington, , liberator, the, liberia, , , , , liberian college, library of congress, lieber, lincoln, abraham, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , lincoln, lake, lincoln, park, lincoln university, livingstone, david, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , livingstone, mrs., locke, lomami, london, jack, london missionary society, longfellow, , , lookout mountain, , lord, miss, louisiana, , , , , , louisville, l'ouverture, toussaint, , , , , , , , , , , , , , louvre, lovejoy, , low, barzilai, lowe, lowell, james russell, , , lualaba river, , luapula river, lumpkin's jail, luther, lynch, john r., lynch, thomas, lyon, ernest, m mabie, hamilton wright, magna charta, , , mead, edwin d., , maine, maitland, gen., marathon, marinit, marsellaise, mary, queen of scots, maryland, , , mason, , mason and dixon's line, , , massachusetts, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , massachusetts committee of safety, , massachusetts, th regiment of, , , , , , , th regiment of, massachusetts house of representatives, massey hall, matrick, quack, maximus, mcclellan, mecca, , medal of honor, memphis, mercury, charleston, mesurado, methodism, methodist, , metropolitan a. m. e. church, methusalah, mexican war, michelet, , miller, kelly, millikin's bend, , , , , milton, , , mississippi, , river, missouri, department of, mobile, , moero, , mohammed, mohammedan, moliere, abbe, monographic magazine, monroe, fort, monrovia, , montauk point, montgomery, montgomery, major, moore, gov., moravians, morris, moses, , , , , , mossell, n. f., moton, r. r., n nashville, , , national association of negro women, national religious training school, navy, american, nemesis, , new england, , new england anti-slavery society, new hampshire, new jerusalem, new market heights, new orleans, , , , , , battle of, new york, , , , , , , newburyport, newport, ngami, lake, niagara, nile, , , , norman, , , , north pole, northern, gov., nyassa, o oberlin, , , ocean grove, n. j., odd fellows, g. u. o., odysseus, odyssey, ohio, , , , , olustee, , , omar, mosque of, o'reilly, john boyle, o'reilly, miles, orpheus, osceola, othello, , oxford, , p pacific ocean, , , paine, paleolithic, pan-american building, pariah, paris, park, mungo, parker, theodore, parliament, , parnassus, pascal, m., pauline, payne, peary, penbrooke, pa., pennsylvania, , , penticostal, perry, , persians, peter, , petersburg, va., , , pharaoh, , , pharos, philadelphia, , philip, philippines, phillips, wendell, , , , , , , , , phoenicia, phoenix, picayune, new orleans, pickens, prof., pilgrim fathers, pilgrims, pillow, fort, , , pinchback, p. b. s., pitcaim, major, , pittsburg, landing, plancianos, plato, pleiades, plymouth, plymouth rock, , , , polycarp, poor, salem, port-au-paix, port-au-prince, portugal, , potomac, potomac, army of the, , potomac, valley of the, potter's field, prætorian guard, presbyterian, , prescott, maj. gen., preston, capt., , price, price, john, proverbs, providence, new, ptolemy, puritan, , , pyramids, q quaker, quebec, quixotic, r raleigh, sir walter, ransom, r. c., raynal, raynham, rebellion, war of the, , , reconstruction, recorder, christian, red bank, red shirt brigade, reformation, renan, m., representatives, house of, republic, , , , , , , , , , revells, review, a. m. e. church, revolution, , , , , revolution, american, , , , , revolution, french, revolutionary veteran, revolutionary war, , rhode island, , , battalion, richmond, , , , , rigaud, gen., riley, fort, , robespierre, rochambeau, gen., , , rochester, roderick dhu, roman, , , roman catholic church, , roman empire, romans, , , , , rome, , , , , , , , , roosevelt, , rough riders, , , royal geographical society, , ruffin, j. st. p., ruffin, george l., runnymede, rush, benjamin, ruskin, russian-japanese war, ruth, s sackett's harbor, salem gazette, salem, peter, , , samana, san juan, , san juan hill, , santo domingo, , , , , , , , saul of tarsus, saunders, prince, savary, savonarola, saxon, scarborough, w. s., , scotch, scotchman, scotland, scott, sir walter, , scottish, scriptures, senate, , , , sermon on the mount, , servii, shakespeare, shaler, capt., sharpe, shaw, robert gould, , , shepard, j. e., sheridan, sherman, shiloh, shirwa, lake, shupanga, sierra leone, sinbad, sirens, sistine chapel, slaughter-house cases, , , , slavery, slave trade, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , smith, james mccune, smith, harry, smith, gen. w. f., socrates, , soldier's home, solomon, solon, somerset, spain, , , , spaniard, , , spanish, , spanish-american war, spartan, spartanburg, n. c., spaulding, martha, sphinx, springfield, st. helena island, st. louis, , st. luke, st. paul, , , , st. paul's cathedral, st. peter's cathedral, st. sophia, st. thomas, stafford, slaughter-house cases, , , , star spangled banner, states rights, stearns, george l., stephens, , , stevenson, r. l., steward, t. g., stoughton corner, stuyvesant institute, sullivan, sultan, sumner, charles, , , , sumter, fort, , supreme court, t taj-mahal, talladega college, talmage, dr., tanner, h.o., teague, hilary, tennessee, , , , tennessee centennial exposition, , tennyson, , terence, teutons, texas, texas, annexation of, thermopylæ, , thomas, gen. lorenzo, thompson, toronto, canada, totten, fort, trafalgar, trollope, turkey, , turner, bishop, turner, prof. j. w., tuskegee, , , u ulysses, underwood, , union army, united states, , , , , , , , , , , , , v valhalla, vance, j. m., varner, versailles, vicksburg, victoria falls, , villate, virginia, , , , , virginia, west, vladivostok, von moltke, w wacht am rhein, wagner, fort, , , , waldron, j. m., war college, war department, war of , warren, washington, booker t., , , , washington, d. c., , , , , , , , , , , , washington, george, , , , , , washingtonian, water lily, the, waterloo, , watts, wearin' o' the green, webster, , wellington, , , , west indies, , westminster abbey, , , westminster assembly, west point, , , white caps, white league, white, george h., whittier, , wilberforce university, , william iii, , williams, e. f., williams, h. price, willson, hiram, , wilmington, del., wilson's landing, winchell, dr., wittenberg, wolsey, cardinal, wordsworth, , , y yale university, , yorktown, , , yulee, y. m. c. a., , , z zambezi river, zangwill, israel, zanzibar, zion, , , zulu, state of the union addresses of john quincy adams the addresses are separated by three asterisks: *** dates of addresses by john quincy adams in this ebook: december , december , december , december , *** state of the union address john quincy adams december , fellow citizens of the senate and of the house of representatives: in taking a general survey of the concerns of our beloved country, with reference to subjects interesting to the common welfare, the first sentiment which impresses itself upon the mind is of gratitude to the omnipotent disposer of all good for the continuance of the signal blessings of his providence, and especially for that health which to an unusual extent has prevailed within our borders, and for that abundance which in the vicissitudes of the seasons has been scattered with profusion over our land. nor ought we less to ascribe to him the glory that we are permitted to enjoy the bounties of his hand in peace and tranquillity--in peace with all the other nations of the earth, in tranquillity among our selves. there has, indeed, rarely been a period in the history of civilized man in which the general condition of the christian nations has been marked so extensively by peace and prosperity. europe, with a few partial and unhappy exceptions, has enjoyed ten years of peace, during which all her governments, what ever the theory of their constitutions may have been, are successively taught to feel that the end of their institution is the happiness of the people, and that the exercise of power among men can be justified only by the blessings it confers upon those over whom it is extended. during the same period our intercourse with all those nations has been pacific and friendly; it so continues. since the close of your last session no material variation has occurred in our relations with any one of them. in the commercial and navigation system of great britain important changes of municipal regulation have recently been sanctioned by acts of parliament, the effect of which upon the interests of other nations, and particularly upon ours, has not yet been fully developed. in the recent renewal of the diplomatic missions on both sides between the two governments assurances have been given and received of the continuance and increase of the mutual confidence and cordiality by which the adjustment of many points of difference had already been effected, and which affords the surest pledge for the ultimate satisfactory adjustment of those which still remain open or may hereafter arise. the policy of the united states in their commercial intercourse with other nations has always been of the most liberal character. in the mutual exchange of their respective productions they have abstained altogether from prohibitions; they have interdicted themselves the power of laying taxes upon exports, and when ever they have favored their own shipping by special preferences or exclusive privileges in their own ports it has been only with a view to countervail similar favors and exclusions granted by the nations with whom we have been engaged in traffic to their own people or shipping, and to the disadvantage of ours. immediately after the close of the last war a proposal was fairly made by the act of congress of march rd, , to all the maritime nations to lay aside the system of retaliating restrictions and exclusions, and to place the shipping of both parties to the common trade on a footing of equality in respect to the duties of tonnage and impost. this offer was partially and successively accepted by great britain, sweden, the netherlands, the hanseatic cities, prussia, sardinia, the duke of oldenburg, and russia. it was also adopted, under certain modifications, in our late commercial convention with france, and by the act of congress of january st, , it has received a new confirmation with all the nations who had acceded to it, and has been offered again to all those who are or may here after be willing to abide in reciprocity by it. but all these regulations, whether established by treaty or by municipal enactments, are still subject to one important restriction. the removal of discriminating duties of tonnage and of impost is limited to articles of the growth, produce, or manufacture of the country to which the vessel belongs or to such articles as are most usually first shipped from her ports. it will deserve the serious consideration of congress whether even this remnant of restriction may not be safely abandoned, and whether the general tender of equal competition made in the act of january th, , maynot be extended to include all articles of merchandise not prohibited, of what country so ever they may be the produce or manufacture. propositions of this effect have already been made to us by more than one european government, and it is probable that if once established by legislation or compact with any distinguished maritime state it would recommend itself by the experience of its advantages to the general accession of all. the convention of commerce and navigation between the united states and france, concluded on june th, , was, in the understanding and intent of both parties, as appears upon its face, only a temporary arrangement of the points of difference between them of the most immediate and pressing urgency. it was limited in the first instance to two years from january th, , but with a proviso that it should further continue in force 'til the conclusion of a general and definitive treaty of commerce, unless terminated by a notice, six months in advance, of either of the parties to the other. its operation so far as it extended has been mutually advantageous, and it still continues in force by common consent. but it left unadjusted several objects of great interest to the citizens and subjects of both countries, and particularly a mass of claims to considerable amount of citizens of the united states upon the government of france of indemnity for property taken or destroyed under circumstances of the most aggravated and outrageous character. in the long period during which continual and earnest appeals have been made to the equity and magnanimity of france in behalf of these claims their justice has not been, as it could not be, denied. it was hoped that the accession of a new sovereign to the throne would have afforded a favorable opportunity for presenting them to the consideration of his government. they have been presented and urged hither to without effect. the repeated and earnest representations of our minister at the court of france remain as yet even without an answer. were the demands of nations upon the justice of each other susceptible of adjudication by the sentence of an impartial tribunal, those to which i now refer would long since have been settled and adequate indemnity would have been obtained. there are large amounts of similar claims upon the netherlands, naples, and denmark. for those upon spain prior to indemnity was, after many years of patient forbearance, obtained; and those upon sweden have been lately compromised by a private settlement, in which the claimants themselves have acquiesced. the governments of denmark and of naples have been recently reminded of those yet existing against them, nor will any of them be forgotten while a hope may be indulged of obtaining justice by the means within the constitutional power of the executive, and without resorting to those means of self-redress which, as well as the time, circumstances, and occasion which may require them, are within the exclusive competency of the legislature. it is with great satisfaction that i am enabled to bear witness to the liberal spirit with which the republic of colombia has made satisfaction for well-established claims of a similar character, and among the documents now communicated to congress will be distinguished a treaty of commerce and navigation with that republic, the ratifications of which have been exchanged since the last recess of the legislature. the negotiation of similar treaties with all of the independent south american states has been contemplated and may yet be accomplished. the basis of them all, as proposed by the united states, has been laid in two principles--the one of entire and unqualified reciprocity, the other the mutual obligation of the parties to place each other permanently upon the footing of the most favored nation. these principles are, indeed, indispensable to the effectual emancipation of the american hemisphere from the thralldom of colonizing monopolies and exclusions, an event rapidly realizing in the progress of human affairs, and which the resistance still opposed in certain parts of europe to the acknowledgment of the southern american republics as independent states will, it is believed, contribute more effectually to accomplish. the time has been, and that not remote, when some of those states might, in their anxious desire to obtain a nominal recognition, have accepted of a nominal independence, clogged with burdensome conditions, and exclusive commercial privileges granted to the nation from which they have separated to the disadvantage of all others. they are all now aware that such concessions to any european nation would be incompatible with that independence which they have declared and maintained. among the measures which have been suggested to them by the new relations with one another, resulting from the recent changes in their condition, is that of assembling at the isthmus of panama a congress, at which each of them should be represented, to deliberate upon objects important to the welfare of all. the republics of colombia, of mexico, and of central america have already deputed plenipotentiaries to such a meeting, and they have invited the united states to be also represented there by their ministers. the invitation has been accepted, and ministers on the part of the united states will be commissioned to attend at those deliberations, and to take part in them so far as may be compatible with that neutrality from which it is neither our intention nor the desire of the other american states that we should depart. the commissioners under the th article of the treaty of ghent have so nearly completed their arduous labors that, by the report recently received from the agent on the part of the united states, there is reason to expect that the commission will be closed at their next session, appointed for may of the ensuing year. the other commission, appointed to ascertain the indemnities due for slaves carried away from the united states after the close of the late war, have met with some difficulty, which has delayed their progress in the inquiry. a reference has been made to the british government on the subject, which, it may be hoped, will tend to hasten the decision of the commissioners, or serve as a substitute for it. among the powers specifically granted to congress by the constitution are those of establishing uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the united states and of providing for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the services of the united states. the magnitude and complexity of the interests affected by legislation upon these subjects may account for the fact that, long and often as both of them have occupied the attention and animated the debates of congress, no systems have yet been devised for fulfilling to the satisfaction of the community the duties prescribed by these grants of power. to conciliate the claim of the individual citizen to the enjoyment of personal liberty, with the effective obligation of private contracts, is the difficult problem to be solved by a law of bankruptcy. these are objects of the deepest interest to society, affecting all that is precious in the existence of multitudes of persons, many of them in the classes essentially dependent and helpless, of the age requiring nurture, and of the sex entitled to protection from the free agency of the parent and the husband. the organization of the militia is yet more indispensable to the liberties of the country. it is only by an effective militia that we can at once enjoy the repose of peace and bid defiance to foreign aggression; it is by the militia that we are constituted an armed nation, standing in perpetual panoply of defense in the presence of all the other nations of the earth. to this end it would be necessary, if possible, so to shape its organization as to give it a more united and active energy. there are laws establishing an uniform militia throughout the united states and for arming and equipping its whole body. but it is a body of dislocated members, without the vigor of unity and having little of uniformity but the name. to infuse into this most important institution the power of which it is susceptible and to make it available for the defense of the union at the shortest notice and at the smallest expense possible of time, of life, and of treasure are among the benefits to be expected from the persevering deliberations of congress. among the unequivocal indications of our national prosperity is the flourishing state of our finances. the revenues of the present year, from all their principal sources, will exceed the anticipations of the last. the balance in the treasury on the first of january last was a little short of $ , , , exclusive of $ , , , being the moiety of the loan of $ , , authorized by the act of may th, . the receipts into the treasury from the first of january to the th of september, exclusive of the other moiety of the same loan, are estimated at $ , , , and it is expected that those of the current quarter will exceed $ , , , forming an aggregate of receipts of nearly $ , , , independent of the loan. the expenditures of the year will not exceed that sum more than $ , , . by those expenditures nearly $ , , of the principal of the public debt that have been discharged. more than $ , , has been devoted to the debt of gratitude to the warriors of the revolution; a nearly equal sum to the construction of fortifications and the acquisition of ordnance and other permanent preparations of national defense; $ , to the gradual increase of the navy; an equal sum for purchases of territory from the indians and payment of annuities to them; and upward of $ , , for objects of internal improvement authorized by special acts of the last congress. if we add to these $ , , for payment of interest upon the public debt, there remains a sum of $ , , , which have defrayed the whole expense of the administration of government in its legislative, executive, and judiciary departments, including the support of the military and naval establishments and all the occasional contingencies of a government coextensive with the union. the amount of duties secured on merchandise imported since the commencement of the year is about $ , , , and that which will accrue during the current quarter is estimated at $ , , ; from these $ , , , deducting the draw-backs, estimated at less than $ , , , a sum exceeding $ , , will constitute the revenue of the year, and will exceed the whole expenditures of the year. the entire amount of the public debt remaining due on the first of january next will be short of $ , , . by an act of congress of the d of march last a loan of $ , , was authorized at . %, or an exchange of stock to that amount of . % for a stock of %, to create a fund for extinguishing an equal amount of the public debt, bearing an interest of %, redeemable in . an account of the measures taken to give effect to this act will be laid before you by the secretary of the treasury. as the object which it had in view has been but partially accomplished, it will be for the consideration of congress whether the power with which it clothed the executive should not be renewed at an early day of the present session, and under what modifications. the act of congress of the d of march last, directing the secretary of the treasury to subscribe, in the name and for the use of the united states, for , shares of the capital stock of the chesapeake and delaware canal company, has been executed by the actual subscription for the amount specified; and such other measures have been adopted by that officer, under the act, as the fulfillment of its intentions requires. the latest accounts received of this important undertaking authorize the belief that it is in successful progress. the payments into the treasury from the proceeds of the sales of the public lands during the present year were estimated at $ , , . the actual receipts of the first two quarters have fallen very little short of that sum; it is not expected that the second half of the year will be equally productive, but the income of the year from that source may now be safely estimated at $ , , . the act of congress of may th, , to provide for the extinguishment of the debt due to the united states by the purchasers of public lands, was limited in its operation of relief to the purchaser to the th of april last. its effect at the end of the quarter during which it expired was to reduce that debt from $ , , to $ , , by the operation of similar prior laws of relief, from and since that of march d, , the debt had been reduced from upward of $ , , to $ , , . it is exceedingly desirable that it should be extinguished altogether; and to facilitate that consummation i recommend to congress the revival for one year more of the act of may th, , with such provisional modification as may be necessary to guard the public interests against fraudulent practices in the resale of the relinquished land. the purchasers of public lands are among the most useful of our fellow citizens, and since the system of sales for cash alone has been introduced great indulgence has been justly extended to those who had previously purchased upon credit. the debt which had been contracted under the credit sales had become unwieldy, and its extinction was alike advantageous to the purchaser and to the public. under the system of sales, matured as it has been by experience, and adapted to the exigencies of the times, the lands will continue as they have become, an abundant source of revenue; and when the pledge of them to the public creditor shall have been redeemed by the entire discharge of the national debt, the swelling tide of wealth with which they replenish the common treasury may be made to reflow in unfailing streams of improvement from the atlantic to the pacific ocean. the condition of the various branches of the public service resorting from the department of war, and their administration during the current year, will be exhibited in the report of the secretary of war and the accompanying documents herewith communicated. the organization and discipline of the army are effective and satisfactory. to counteract the prevalence of desertion among the troops it has been suggested to withhold from the men a small portion of their monthly pay until the period of their discharge; and some expedient appears to be necessary to preserve and maintain among the officers so much of the art of horsemanship as could scarcely fail to be found wanting on the possible sudden eruption of a war, which should take us unprovided with a single corps of cavalry. the military academy at west point, under the restrictions of a severe but paternal superintendence, recommends itself more and more to the patronage of the nation, and the numbers of meritorious officers which it forms and introduces to the public service furnishes the means of multiplying the undertakings of the public improvements to which their acquirements at that institution are peculiarly adapted. the school of artillery practice established at fortress monroe hampton, virginia is well suited to the same purpose, and may need the aid of further legislative provision to the same end. the reports of the various officers at the head of the administrative branches of the military service, connected with the quartering, clothing, subsistence, health, and pay of the army, exhibit the assiduous vigilance of those officers in the performance of their respective duties, and the faithful accountability which has pervaded every part of the system. our relations with the numerous tribes of aboriginal natives of this country, scattered over its extensive surface and so dependent even for their existence upon our power, have been during the present year highly interesting. an act of congress of may th, , made an appropriation to defray the expenses of making treaties of trade and friendship with the indian tribes beyond the mississippi. an act of march d, , authorized treaties to be made with the indians for their consent to the making of a road from the frontier of missouri to that of new mexico, and another act of the same date provided for defraying the expenses of holding treaties with the sioux, chippeways, menomenees, sauks, foxes, etc., for the purpose of establishing boundaries and promoting peace between said tribes. the first and last objects of these acts have been accomplished, and the second is yet in a process of execution. the treaties which since the last session of congress have been concluded with the several tribes will be laid before the senate for their consideration conformably to the constitution. they comprise large and valuable acquisitions of territory, and they secure an adjustment of boundaries and give pledges of permanent peace between several tribes which had been long waging bloody wars against each other. on the th of february last a treaty was signed at the indian springs between commissioners appointed on the part of the united states and certain chiefs and individuals of the creek nation of indians, which was received at the seat of government only a very few days before the close of the last session of congress and of the late administration. the advice and consent of the senate was given to it on the d of march, too late for it to receive the ratification of the then president of the united states; it was ratified on the th of march, under the unsuspecting impression that it had been negotiated in good faith and in the confidence inspired by the recommendation of the senate. the subsequent transactions in relation to this treaty will form the subject of a separate communication. the appropriations made by congress for public works, as well in the construction of fortifications as for purposes of internal improvement, so far as they have been expended, have been faithfully applied. their progress has been delayed by the want of suitable officers for superintending them. an increase of both the corps of engineers, military and topographical, was recommended by my predecessor at the last session of congress. the reasons upon which that recommendation was founded subsist in all their force and have acquired additional urgency since that time. the military academy at west point will furnish from the cadets there officers well qualified for carrying this measure into effect. the board of engineers for internal improvement, appointed for carrying into execution the act of congress of april th, , "to procure the necessary surveys, plans, and estimates on the subject of roads and canals", have been actively engaged in that service from the close of the last session of congress. they have completed the surveys necessary for ascertaining the practicability of a canal from the chesapeake bay to the ohio river, and are preparing a full report on that subject, which, when completed, will be laid before you. the same observation is to be made with regard to the two other objects of national importance upon which the board have been occupied, namely, the accomplishment of a national road from this city to new orleans, and the practicability of uniting the waters of lake memphramagog with connecticut river and the improvement of the navigation of that river. the surveys have been made and are nearly completed. the report may be expected at an early period during the present session of congress. the acts of congress of the last session relative to the surveying, marking, or laying out roads in the territories of florida, arkansas, and michigan, from missouri to mexico, and for the continuation of the cumberland road, are, some of them, fully executed, and others in the process of execution. those for completing or commencing fortifications have been delayed only so far as the corps of engineers has been inadequate to furnish officers for the necessary superintendence of the works. under the act confirming the statutes of virginia and maryland incorporating the chesapeake and ohio canal company, three commissioners on the part of the united states have been appointed for opening books and receiving subscriptions, in concert with a like number of commissioners appointed on the part of each of those states. a meeting of the commissioners has been postponed, to await the definitive report of the board of engineers. the light-houses and monuments for the safety of our commerce and mariners, the works for the security of plymouth beach and for the preservation of the islands in boston harbor, have received the attention required by the laws relating to those objects respectively. the continuation of the cumberland road, the most important of them all, after surmounting no inconsiderable difficulty in fixing upon the direction of the road, has commenced under the most promising of auspices, with the improvements of recent invention in the mode of construction, and with advantage of a great reduction in the comparative cost of the work. the operation of the laws relating to the revolutionary pensioners may deserve the renewed consideration of congress. the act of march th, , while it made provision for many meritorious and indigent citizens who had served in the war of independence, opened a door to numerous abuses and impositions. to remedy this the act of may st, , exacted proofs of absolute indigence, which many really in want were unable and all susceptible of that delicacy which is allied to many virtues must be deeply reluctant to give. the result has been that some among the least deserving have been retained, and some in whom the requisites both of worth and want were combined have been stricken from the list. as the numbers of these venerable relics of an age gone by diminish; as the decays of body, mind, and estate of those that survive must in the common course of nature increase, should not a more liberal portion of indulgence be dealt out to them? may not the want in most instances be inferred from the demand when the service can be proved, and may not the last days of human infirmity be spared the mortification of purchasing a pittance of relief only by the exposure of its own necessities? i submit to congress the expediency of providing for individual cases of this description by special enactment, or of revising the act of may st, , with a view to mitigate the rigor of its exclusions in favor of persons to whom charity now bestowed can scarcely discharge the debt of justice. the portion of the naval force of the union in actual service has been chiefly employed on three stations--the mediterranean, the coasts of south america bordering on the pacific ocean, and the west indies. an occasional cruiser has been sent to range along the african shores most polluted by the traffic of slaves; one armed vessel has been stationed on the coast of our eastern boundary, to cruise along the fishing grounds in hudsons bay and on the coast of labrador, and the first service of a new frigate has been performed in restoring to his native soil and domestic enjoyments the veteran hero whose youthful blood and treasure had freely flowed in the cause of our country's independence, and whose whole life has been a series of services and sacrifices to the improvement of his fellow men. the visit of general lafayette, alike honorable to himself and to our country, closed, as it had commenced, with the most affecting testimonials of devoted attachment on his part, and of unbounded gratitude of this people to him in return. it will form here-after a pleasing incident in the annals of our union, giving to real history the intense interest of romance and signally marking the unpurchasable tribute of a great nation's social affections to the disinterested champion of the liberties of human-kind. the constant maintenance of a small squadron in the mediterranean is a necessary substitute for the humiliating alternative of paying tribute for the security of our commerce in that sea, and for a precarious peace, at the mercy of every caprice of four barbary states, by whom it was liable to be violated. an additional motive for keeping a respectable force stationed there at this time is found in the maritime war raging between the greeks and the turks, and in which the neutral navigation of this union is always in danger of outrage and depredation. a few instances have occurred of such depredations upon our merchant vessels by privateers or pirates wearing the grecian flag, but without real authority from the greek or any other government. the heroic struggles of the greeks themselves, in which our warmest sympathies as free men and christians have been engaged, have continued to be maintained with vicissitudes of success adverse and favorable. similar motives have rendered expedient the keeping of a like force on the coasts of peru and chile on the pacific. the irregular and convulsive character of the war upon the shores has been extended to the conflicts upon the ocean. an active warfare has been kept up for years with alternate success, though generally to the advantage of the american patriots. but their naval forces have not always been under the control of their own governments. blockades, unjustifiable upon any acknowledged principles of international law, have been proclaimed by officers in command, and though disavowed by the supreme authorities, the protection of our own commerce against them has been made cause of complaint and erroneous imputations against some of the most gallant officers of our navy. complaints equally groundless have been made by the commanders of the spanish royal forces in those seas; but the most effective protection to our commerce has been the flag and the firmness of our own commanding officers. the cessation of the war by the complete triumph of the patriot cause has removed, it is hoped, all cause of dissension with one party and all vestige of force of the other. but an unsettled coast of many degrees of latitude forming a part of our own territory and a flourishing commerce and fishery extending to the islands of the pacific and to china still require that the protecting power of the union should be displayed under its flag as well upon the ocean as upon the land. the objects of the west india squadron have been to carry into execution the laws for the suppression of the african slave trade; for the protection of our commerce against vessels of piratical character, though bearing commissions from either of the belligerent parties; for its protection against open and unequivocal pirates. these objects during the present year have been accomplished more effectually than at any former period. the african slave trade has long been excluded from the use of our flag, and if some few citizens of our country have continued to set the laws of the union as well as those of nature and humanity at defiance by persevering in that abominable traffic, it has been only by sheltering themselves under the banners of other nations less earnest for the total extinction of the trade of ours. the active, persevering, and unremitted energy of captain warrington and of the officers and men under his command on that trying and perilous service have been crowned with signal success, and are entitled to the approbation of their country. but experience has shown that not even a temporary suspension or relaxation from assiduity can be indulged on that station without reproducing piracy and murder in all their horrors; nor is it probably that for years to come our immensely valuable commerce in those seas can navigate in security without the steady continuance of an armed force devoted to its protection. it were, indeed, a vain and dangerous illusion to believe that in the present or probable condition of human society a commerce so extensive and so rich as ours could exist and be pursued in safety without the continual support of a military marine--the only arm by which the power of this confederacy can be estimated or felt by foreign nations, and the only standing military force which can never be dangerous to our own liberties at home. a permanent naval peace establishment, therefore, adapted to our present condition, and adaptable to that gigantic growth with which the nation is advancing in its career, is among the subjects which have already occupied the foresight of the last congress, and which will deserve your serious deliberations. our navy, commenced at an early period of our present political organization upon a scale commensurate with the incipient energies, the scanty resources, and the comparative indigence of our infancy, was even then found adequate to cope with all the powers of barbary, save the first, and with one of the principle maritime powers of europe. at a period of further advancement, but with little accession of strength, it not only sustained with honor the most unequal of conflicts, but covered itself and our country with unfading glory. but it is only since the close of the late war that by the numbers and force of the ships of which it was composed it could deserve the name of a navy. yet it retains nearly the same organization as when it consisted only of five frigates. the rules and regulations by which it is governed earnestly call for revision, and the want of a naval school of instruction, corresponding with the military academy at west point, for the formation of scientific and accomplished officers, is felt with daily increasing aggravation. the act of congress of may th, , authorizing an examination and survey of the harbor of charleston, in south carolina, of st. marys, in georgia, and of the coast of florida, and for other purposes, has been executed so far as the appropriation would admit. those of the d of march last, authorizing the establishment of a navy yard and depot on the coast of florida, in the gulf of mexico, and authorizing the building of ten sloops of war, and for other purposes, are in the course of execution, for the particulars of which and other objects connected with this department i refer to the report of the secretary of the navy, herewith communicated. a report from the post master general is also submitted, exhibiting the present flourishing condition of that department. for the first time for many years the receipts for the year ending on the first of july last exceeded the expenditures during the same period to the amount of more than $ , . other facts equally creditable to the administration of this department are that in two years from july st, , an improvement of more than $ , in its pecuniary affairs has been realized; that in the same interval the increase of the transportation of the mail has exceeded , , miles annually, and that , new post offices have been established. it hence appears that under judicious management the income from this establishment may be relied on as fully adequate to defray its expenses, and that by the discontinuance of post roads altogether unproductive, others of more useful character may be opened, 'til the circulation of the mail shall keep pace with the spread of our population, and the comforts of friendly correspondence, the exchanges of internal traffic, and the lights of the periodical press shall be distributed to the remotest corners of the union, at a charge scarcely perceptible to any individual, and without the cost of a dollar to the public treasury. upon this first occasion of addressing the legislature of the union, with which i have been honored, in presenting to their view the execution so far as it has been effected of the measures sanctioned by them for promoting the internal improvement of our country, i can not close the communication without recommending to their calm and persevering consideration the general principle in a more enlarged extent. the great object of the institution of civil government is the improvement of the condition of those who are parties to the social compact, and no government, in what ever form constituted, can accomplish the lawful ends of its institution but in proportion as it improves the condition of those over whom it is established. roads and canals, by multiplying and facilitating the communications and intercourse between distant regions and multitudes of men, are among the most important means of improvement. but moral, political, intellectual improvement are duties assigned by the author of our existence to social no less than to individual man. for the fulfillment of those duties governments are invested with power, and to the attainment of the end--the progressive improvement of the condition of the governed--the exercise of delegated powers is a duty as sacred and indispensable as the usurpation of powers not granted is criminal and odious. among the first, perhaps the very first, instrument for the improvement of the condition of men is knowledge, and to the acquisition of much of the knowledge adapted to the wants, the comforts, and enjoyments of human life public institutions and seminaries of learning are essential. so convinced of this was the first of my predecessors in this office, now first in the memory, as, living, he was first in the hearts, of our country-men, that once and again in his addresses to the congresses with whom he cooperated in the public service he earnestly recommended the establishment of seminaries of learning, to prepare for all the emergencies of peace and war--a national university and a military academy. with respect to the latter, had he lived to the present day, in turning his eyes to the institution at west point he would have enjoyed the gratification of his most earnest wishes; but in surveying the city which has been honored with his name he would have seen the spot of earth which he had destined and bequeathed to the use and benefit of his country as the site for a university still bare and barren. in assuming her station among the civilized nations of the earth it would seem that our country had contracted the engagement to contribute her share of mind, of labor, and of expense to the improvement of those parts of knowledge which lie beyond the reach of individual acquisition, and particularly to geographical and astronomical science. looking back to the history only of the half century since the declaration of our independence, and observing the generous emulation with which the governments of france, great britain, and russia have devoted the genius, the intelligence, the treasures of their respective nations to the common improvement of the species in these branches of science, is it not incumbent upon us to inquire whether we are not bound by obligations of a high and honorable character to contribute our portion of energy and exertion to the common stock? the voyages of discovery prosecuted in the course of that time at the expense of those nations have not only redounded to their glory, but to the improvement of human knowledge. we have been partakers of that improvement and owe for it a sacred debt, not only of gratitude, but of equal or proportional exertion in the same common cause. of the cost of these undertakings, if the mere expenditures of outfit, equipment, and completion of the expeditions were to be considered the only charges, it would be unworthy of a great and generous nation to take a second thought. one hundred expeditions of circumnavigation like those of cook and la prouse would not burden the exchequer of the nation fitting them out so much as the ways and means of defraying a single campaign in war. but if we take into account the lives of those benefactors of man-kind of which their services in the cause of their species were the purchase, how shall the cost of those heroic enterprises be estimated, and what compensation can be made to them or to their countries for them? is it not by bearing them in affectionate remembrance? is it not still more by imitating their example--by enabling country-men of our own to pursue the same career and to hazard their lives in the same cause? in inviting the attention of congress to the subject of internal improvements upon a view thus enlarged it is not my desire to recommend the equipment of an expedition for circumnavigating the globe for purposes of scientific research and inquiry. we have objects of useful investigation nearer home, and to which our cares may be more beneficially applied. the interior of our own territories has yet been very imperfectly explored. our coasts along many degrees of latitude upon the shores of the pacific ocean, though much frequented by our spirited commercial navigators, have been barely visited by our public ships. the river of the west, first fully discovered and navigated by a country-man of our own, still bears the name of the ship in which he ascended its waters, and claims the protection of our armed national flag at its mouth. with the establishment of a military post there or at some other point of that coast, recommended by my predecessor and already matured in the deliberations of the last congress, i would suggest the expediency of connecting the equipment of a public ship for the exploration of the whole north-west coast of this continent. the establishment of an uniform standard of weights and measures was one of the specific objects contemplated in the formation of our constitution, and to fix that standard was on of the powers delegated by express terms in that instrument to congress. the governments of great britain and france have scarcely ceased to be occupied with inquiries and speculations on the same subject since the existence of our constitution, and with them it has expanded into profound, laborious, and expensive researches into the figure of the earth and the comparative length of the pendulum vibrating seconds in various latitudes from the equator to the pole. these researches have resulted in the composition and publication of several works highly interesting to the cause of science. the experiments are yet in the process of performance. some of them have recently been made on our own shores, within the walls of one of our own colleges, and partly by one of our own fellow citizens. it would be honorable to our country if the sequel of the same experiments should be countenanced by the patronage of our government, as they have hitherto been by those of france and britain. connected with the establishment of an university, or separate from it, might be undertaken the erection of an astronomical observatory, with provision for the support of an astronomer, to be in constant attendance of observation upon the phenomena of the heavens, and for the periodical publication of his observances. it is with no feeling of pride as an american that the remark may be made that on the comparatively small territorial surface of europe there are existing upward of of these light-houses of the skies, while throughout the whole american hemisphere there is not one. if we reflect a moment upon the discoveries which in the last four centuries have been made in the physical constitution of the universe by the means of these buildings and of observers stationed in them, shall we doubt of their usefulness to every nation? and while scarcely a year passes over our heads without bringing some new astronomical discovery to light, which we must fain receive at second hand from europe, are we not cutting ourselves off from the means of returning light for light while we have neither observatory nor observer upon our half of the globe and the earth revolves in perpetual darkness to our unsearching eyes? when, on october th, , the first president of the united states announced to congress the result of the first enumeration of the inhabitants of this union, he informed them that the returns gave the pleasing assurance that the population of the united states bordered on , , persons. at the distance of years from that time the last enumeration, five years since completed, presented a population bordering on , , . perhaps of all the evidence of a prosperous and happy condition of human society the rapidity of the increase of population is the most unequivocal. but the demonstration of our prosperity rests not alone upon this indication. our commerce, our wealth, and the extent of our territories have increased in corresponding proportions, and the number of independent communities associated in our federal union has since that time nearly doubled. the legislative representation of the states and people in the two houses of congress has grown with the growth of their constituent bodies. the house, which then consisted of members, now numbers upward of . the senate, which consisted of members, has now . but the executive and, still more, the judiciary departments are yet in a great measure confined to their primitive organization, and are now not adequate to the urgent wants of a still growing community. the naval armaments, which at an early period forced themselves upon the necessities of the union, soon led to the establishment of a department of the navy. but the departments of foreign affairs and of the interior, which early after the formation of the government had been united in one, continue so united to this time, to the unquestionable detriment of the public service. the multiplication of our relations with the nations and governments of the old world has kept pace with that of our population and commerce, while within the last ten years a new family of nations in our own hemisphere has arisen among the inhabitants of the earth, with whom our intercourse, commercial and political, would of itself furnish occupation to an active and industrious department. the constitution of the judiciary, experimental and imperfect as it was even in the infancy of our existing government, is yet more inadequate to the administration of national justice at our present maturity. nine years have elapsed since a predecessor in this office, now not the last, the citizen who, perhaps, of all others throughout the union contributed most to the formation and establishment of our constitution, in his valedictory address to congress, immediately preceding his retirement from public life, urgently recommended the revision of the judiciary and the establishment of an additional executive department. the exigencies of the public service and its unavoidable deficiencies, as now in exercise, have added yearly cumulative weight to the considerations presented by him as persuasive to the measure, and in recommending it to your deliberations i am happy to have the influence of this high authority in aid of the undoubting convictions of my own experience. the laws relating to the administration of the patent office are deserving of much consideration and perhaps susceptible of some improvement. the grant of power to regulate the action of congress upon this subject has specified both the end to be obtained and the means by which it is to be effected, "to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". if an honest pride might be indulged in the reflection that on the records of that office are already found inventions the usefulness of which has scarcely been transcended in the annals of human ingenuity, would not its exultation be allayed by the inquiry whether the laws have effectively insured to the inventors the reward destined to them by the constitution--even a limited term of exclusive right to their discoveries? on december th, , it was resolved by congress that a marble monument should be erected by the united states in the capitol at the city of washington; that the family of general washington should be requested to permit his body to be deposited under it, and that the monument be so designed as to commemorate the great events of his military and political life. in reminding congress of this resolution and that the monument contemplated by it remains yet without execution, i shall indulge only the remarks that the works at the capitol are approaching to completion; that the consent of the family, desired by the resolution, was requested and obtained; that a monument has been recently erected in this city over the remains of another distinguished patriot of the revolution, and that a spot has been reserved within the walls where you are deliberating for the benefit of this and future ages, in which the mortal remains may be deposited of him whose spirit hovers over you and listens with delight to every act of the representatives of his nation which can tend to exalt and adorn his and their country. the constitution under which you are assembled is a charter of limited powers. after full and solemn deliberation upon all or any of the objects which, urged by an irresistible sense of my own duty, i have recommended to your attention should you come to the conclusion that, however desirable in themselves, the enactment of laws for effecting them would transcend the powers committed to you by that venerable instrument which we are all bound to support, let no consideration induce you to assume the exercise of powers not granted to you by the people. but if the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases what so ever over the district of columbia; if the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the united states; if the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and with the indian tribes, to fix the standard of weights and measures, to establish post offices and post roads, to declare war, to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a navy, to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the united states, and to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying these powers into execution--if these powers and others enumerated in the constitution may be effectually brought into action by laws promoting the improvement of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, the cultivation and encouragement of the mechanic and of the elegant arts, the advancement of literature, and the progress of the sciences, ornamental and profound, to refrain from exercising them for the benefit of the people themselves would be to hide in the earth the talent committed to our charge--would be treachery to the most sacred of trusts. the spirit of improvement is abroad upon the earth. it stimulates the hearts and sharpens the faculties not of our fellow citizens alone, but of the nations of europe and of their rulers. while dwelling with pleasing satisfaction upon the superior excellence of our political institutions, let us not be unmindful that liberty is power; that the nation blessed with the largest portion of liberty must in proportion to its numbers be the most powerful nation upon earth, and that the tenure of power by man is, in the moral purposes of his creator, upon condition that it shall be exercised to ends of beneficence, to improve the condition of himself and his fellow men. while foreign nations less blessed with that freedom which is power than ourselves are advancing with gigantic strides in the career of public improvement, were we to slumber in indolence or fold up our arms and proclaim to the world that we are palsied by the will of our constituents, would it not be to cast away the bounties of providence and doom ourselves to perpetual inferiority? in the course of the year now drawing to its close we have beheld, under the auspices and at the expense of one state of this union, a new university unfolding its portals to the sons of science and holding up the torch of human improvement to eyes that seek the light. we have seen under the persevering and enlightened enterprise of another state the waters of our western lakes mingle with those of the ocean. if undertakings like these have been accomplished in the compass of a few years by the authority of single members of our confederation, can we, the representative authorities of the whole union, fall behind our fellow servants in the exercise of the trust committed to us for the benefit of our common sovereign by the accomplishment of works important to the whole and to which neither the authority nor the resources of any one state can be adequate? finally, fellow citizens, i shall await with cheering hope and faithful cooperation the result of your deliberations, assured that, without encroaching upon the powers reserved to the authorities of the respective states or to the people, you will, with a due sense of your obligations to your country and of the high responsibilities weighing upon yourselves, give efficacy to the means committed to you for the common good. and may he who searches the hearts of the children of men prosper your exertions to secure the blessings of peace and promote the highest welfare of your country. john quincy adams *** state of the union address john quincy adams december , fellow citizens of the senate and of the house of representatives: the assemblage of the representatives of our union in both houses of the congress at this time occurs under circumstances calling for the renewed homage of our grateful acknowledgments to the giver of all good. with the exceptions incidental to the most felicitous condition of human existence, we continue to be highly favored in all the elements which contribute to individual comfort and to national prosperity. in the survey of our extensive country we have generally to observe abodes of health and regions of plenty. in our civil and political relations we have peace without and tranquillity within our borders. we are, as a people, increasing with unabated rapidity in population, wealth, and national resources, and whatever differences of opinion exist among us with regard to the mode and the means by which we shall turn the beneficence of heaven to the improvement of our own condition, there is yet a spirit animating us all which will not suffer the bounties of providence to be showered upon us in vain, but will receive them with grateful hearts, and apply them with unwearied hands to the advancement of the general good. of the subjects recommended to congress at their last session, some were then definitively acted upon. others, left unfinished, but partly matured, will recur to your attention without needing a renewal of notice from me. the purpose of this communication will be to present to your view the general aspect of our public affairs at this moment and the measures which have been taken to carry into effect the intentions of the legislature as signified by the laws then and heretofore enacted. in our intercourse with the other nations of the earth we have still the happiness of enjoying peace and a general good understanding, qualified, however, in several important instances by collisions of interest and by unsatisfied claims of justice, to the settlement of which the constitutional interposition of the legislative authority may become ultimately indispensable. by the decease of the emperor alexander of russia, which occurred contemporaneously with the commencement of the last session of congress, the united states have been deprived of a long tried, steady, and faithful friend. born to the inheritance of absolute power and trained in the school of adversity, from which no power on earth, however absolute, is exempt, that monarch from his youth had been taught to feel the force and value of public opinion and to be sensible that the interests of his own government would best be promoted by a frank and friendly intercourse with this republic, as those of his people would be advanced by a liberal intercourse with our country. a candid and confidential interchange of sentiments between him and the government of the united states upon the affairs of southern america took place at a period not long preceding his demise, and contributed to fix that course of policy which left to the other governments of europe no alternative but that of sooner or later recognizing the independence of our southern neighbors, of which the example had by the united states already been set. the ordinary diplomatic communications between his successor, the emperor nicholas, and the united states have suffered some interruption by the illness, departure, and subsequent decease of his minister residing here, who enjoyed, as he merited, the entire confidence of his new sovereign, as he had eminently responded to that of his predecessor. but we have had the most satisfactory assurances that the sentiments of the reigning emperor toward the united states are altogether conformable to those which had so long and constantly animated his imperial brother, and we have reason to hope that they will serve to cement that harmony and good understanding between the two nations which, founded in congenial interests, can not but result in the advancement of the welfare and prosperity of both. our relations of commerce and navigation with france are, by the operation of the convention of june th, , with that nation, in a state of gradual and progressive improvement. convinced by all our experience, no less than by the principles of fair and liberal reciprocity which the united states have constantly tendered to all the nations of the earth as the rule of commercial intercourse which they would universally prefer, that fair and equal competition is most conducive to the interests of both parties, the united states in the negotiation of that convention earnestly contended for a mutual renunciation of discriminating duties and charges in the ports of the two countries. unable to obtain the immediate recognition of this principle in its full extent, after reducing the duties of discrimination so far as was found attainable it was agreed that at the expiration of two years from october st, , when the convention was to go into effect, unless a notice of six months on either side should be given to the other that the convention itself must terminate, those duties should be reduced one quarter, and that this reduction should be yearly repeated, until all discrimination should cease, while the convention itself should continue in force. by the effect of this stipulation three quarters of the discriminating duties which had been levied by each party upon the vessels of the other in its ports have already been removed; and on the first of next october, should the convention be still in force, the remaining one quarter will be discontinued. french vessels laden with french produce will be received in our ports on the same terms as our own, and ours in return will enjoy the same advantages in the ports of france. by these approximations to an equality of duties and of charges not only has the commerce between the two countries prospered, but friendly dispositions have been on both sides encouraged and promoted. they will continue to be cherished and cultivated on the part of the united states. it would have been gratifying to have had it in my power to add that the claims upon the justice of the french government, involving the property and the comfortable subsistence of many of our fellow citizens, and which have been so long and so earnestly urged, were in a more promising train of adjustment than at your last meeting; but their condition remains unaltered. with the government of the netherlands the mutual abandonment of discriminating duties had been regulated by legislative acts on both sides. the act of congress of april th, , abolished all discriminating duties of impost and tonnage upon the vessels and produce of the netherlands in the ports of the united states upon the assurance given by the government of the netherlands that all such duties operating against the shipping and commerce of the united states in that kingdom had been abolished. these reciprocal regulations had continued in force several years when the discriminating principle was resumed by the netherlands in a new and indirect form by a bounty of % in the shape of a return of duties to their national vessels, and in which those of the united states are not permitted to participate. by the act of congress of january th, , all discriminating duties in the united states were again suspended, so far as related to the vessels and produce of the netherlands, so long as the reciprocal exemption should be extended to the vessels and produce of the united states in the netherlands. but the same act provides that in the event of a restoration of discriminating duties to operate against the shipping and commerce of the united states in any of the foreign countries referred to therein the suspension of discriminating duties in favor of the navigation of such foreign country should cease and all the provisions of the acts imposing discriminating foreign tonnage and impost duties in the united states should revive and be in full force with regard to that nation. in the correspondence with the government of the netherlands upon this subject they have contended that the favor shown to their own shipping by this bounty upon their tonnage is not to be considered a discriminating duty; but it can not be denied that it produces all the same effects. had the mutual abolition been stipulated by treaty, such a bounty upon the national vessels could scarcely have been granted consistent with good faith. yet as the act of congress of january th, has not expressly authorized the executive authority to determine what shall be considered as a revival of discriminating duties by a foreign government to the disadvantage of the united states, and as the retaliatory measure on our part, however just and necessary, may tend rather to that conflict of legislation which we deprecate than to that concert to which we invite all commercial nations, as most conducive to their interest and our own, i have thought it more consistent with the spirit of our institutions to refer to the subject again to the paramount authority of the legislature to decide what measure the emergency may require than abruptly by proclamation to carry into effect the minatory provisions of the act of . during the last session of congress treaties of amity, navigation, and commerce were negotiated and signed at this place with the government of denmark, in europe, and with the federation of central america, in this hemisphere. these treaties then received the constitutional sanction of the senate, by the advice and consent to their ratification. they were accordingly ratified on the part of the united states, and during the recess of congress have been also ratified by the other respective contracting parties. the ratifications have been exchanged, and they have been published by proclamations, copies of which are herewith communicated to congress. these treaties have established between the contracting parties the principles of equality and reciprocity in their broadest and most liberal extent, each party admitting the vessels of the other into its ports, laden with cargoes the produce or manufacture of any quarter of the globe, upon the payment of the same duties of tonnage and impost that are chargeable upon their own. they have further stipulated that the parties shall hereafter grant no favor of navigation or commerce to any other nation which shall not upon the same terms be granted to each other, and that neither party will impose upon articles of merchandise the produce or manufacture of the other any other or higher duties than upon the like articles being the produce or manufacture of any other country. to these principles there is in the convention with denmark an exception with regard to the colonies of that kingdom in the arctic seas, but none with regard to her colonies in the west indies. in the course of the last summer the term to which our last commercial treaty with sweden was limited has expired. a continuation of it is in the contemplation of the swedish government, and is believed to be desirable on the part of the united states. it has been proposed by the king of sweden that pending the negotiation of renewal the expired treaty should be mutually considered as still in force, a measure which will require the sanction of congress to be carried into effect on our part, and which i therefore recommend to your consideration. with prussia, spain, portugal, and, in general, all the european powers between whom and the united states relations of friendly intercourse have existed their condition has not materially varied since the last session of congress. i regret not to be able to say the same of our commercial intercourse with the colonial possessions of great britain in america. negotiations of the highest importance to our common interests have been for several years in discussion between the two governments, and on the part of the united states have been invariably pursued in the spirit of candor and conciliation. interests of great magnitude and delicacy had been adjusted by the conventions of and , while that of , mediated by the late emperor alexander, had promised a satisfactory compromise of claims which the government of the united states, in justice to the rights of a numerous class of their citizens, was bound to sustain. but with regard to the commercial intercourse between the united states and the british colonies in america, it has been hitherto found impracticable to bring the parties to an understanding satisfactory to both. the relative geographical position and the respective products of nature cultivated by human industry had constituted the elements of a commercial intercourse between the united states and british america, insular and continental, important to the inhabitants of both countries; but it had been interdicted by great britain upon a principle heretofore practiced upon by the colonizing nations of europe, of holding the trade of their colonies each in exclusive monopoly to herself. after the termination of the late war this interdiction had been revived, and the british government declined including this portion of our intercourse with her possessions in the negotiation of the convention of . the trade was then carried on exclusively in british vessels 'til the act of congress, concerning navigation, of and the supplemental act of met the interdict by a corresponding measure on the part of the united states. these measures, not of retaliation, but of necessary self defense, were soon succeeded by an act of parliament opening certain colonial ports to the vessels of the united states coming directly from them, and to the importation from them of certain articles of our produce burdened with heavy duties, and excluding some of the most valuable articles of our exports. the united states opened their ports to british vessels from the colonies upon terms as exactly corresponding with those of the act of parliament as in the relative position of the parties could be made, and a negotiation was commenced by mutual consent, with the hope on our part that a reciprocal spirit of accommodation and a common sentiment of the importance of the trade to the interests of the inhabitants of the two countries between whom it must be carried on would ultimately bring the parties to a compromise with which both might be satisfied. with this view the government of the united states had determined to sacrifice something of that entire reciprocity which in all commercial arrangements with foreign powers they are entitled to demand, and to acquiesce in some inequalities disadvantageous to ourselves rather than to forego the benefit of a final and permanent adjustment of this interest to the satisfaction of great britain herself. the negotiation, repeatedly suspended by accidental circumstances, was, however, by mutual agreement and express assent, considered as pending and to be speedily resumed. in the mean time another act of parliament, so doubtful and ambiguous in its import as to have been misunderstood by the officers in the colonies who were to carry it into execution, opens again certain colonial ports upon new conditions and terms, with a threat to close them against any nation which may not accept those terms as prescribed by the british government. this act, passed july, , not communicated to the government of the united states, not understood by the british officers of the customs in the colonies where it was to be enforced, was never the less submitted to the consideration of congress at their last session. with the knowledge that a negotiation upon the subject had long been in progress and pledges given of its resumption at an early day, it was deemed expedient to await the result of that negotiation rather than to subscribe implicitly to terms the import of which was not clear and which the british authorities themselves in this hemisphere were not prepared to explain. immediately after the close of the last session of congress one of our most distinguished citizens was dispatched as envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to great britain, furnished with instructions which we could not doubt would lead to a conclusion of this long controverted interest upon terms acceptable to great britain. upon his arrival, and before he had delivered his letters of credence, he was bet by an order of the british council excluding from and after the first of december now current the vessels of the united states from all the colonial british ports excepting those immediately bordering on our territories. in answer to his expostulations upon a measure thus unexpected he is informed that according to the ancient maxims of policy of european nations having colonies their trade is an exclusive possession of the mother country; that all participation in it by other nations is a boon or favor not forming a subject of negotiation, but to be regulated by the legislative acts of the power owning the colony; that the british government therefore declines negotiating concerning it, and that as the united states did not forthwith accept purely and simply the terms offered by the act of parliament of july, , great britain would not now admit the vessels of the united states even upon the terms on which she has opened them to the navigation of other nations. we have been accustomed to consider the trade which we have enjoyed with the british colonies rather as an interchange of mutual benefits than as a mere favor received; that under every circumstance we have given an ample equivalent. we have seen every other nation holding colonies negotiate with other nations and grant them freely admission to the colonies by treaty, and so far are the other colonizing nations of europe now from refusing to negotiate for trade with their colonies that we ourselves have secured access to the colonies of more than one of them by treaty. the refusal, however, of great britain to negotiate leaves to the united states no other alternative than that of regulating or interdicting altogether the trade on their part, according as either measure may effect the interests of our own country, and with that exclusive object i would recommend the whole subject to your calm and candid deliberations. it is hoped that our unavailing exertions to accomplish a cordial good understanding on this interest will not have an unpropitious effect upon the other great topics of discussion between the two governments. our north-eastern and north-western boundaries are still unadjusted. the commissioners under the th article of the treaty of ghent have nearly come to the close of their labors; nor can we renounce the expectation, enfeebled as it is, that they may agree upon their report to the satisfaction or acquiescence of both parties. the commission for liquidating the claims for indemnity for slaves carried away after the close of the war has been sitting, with doubtful prospects of success. propositions of compromise have, however, passed between the two governments, the result of which we flatter ourselves may yet prove unsatisfactory. our own dispositions and purposes toward great britain are all friendly and conciliatory; nor can we abandon but with strong reluctance the belief that they will ultimately meet a return, not of favors, which we neither as nor desire, but of equal reciprocity and good will. with the american governments of this hemisphere we continue to maintain an intercourse altogether friendly, and between their nations and ours that commercial interchange of which mutual benefit is the source of mutual comfort and harmony the result is in a continual state of improvement. the war between spain and them since the total expulsion of the spanish military force from their continental territories has been little more than nominal, and their internal tranquillity, though occasionally menaced by the agitations which civil wars never fail to leave behind them, has not been affected by any serious calamity. the congress of ministers from several of those nations which assembled at panama, after a short session there, adjourned to meet again at a more favorable season in the neighborhood of mexico. the decease of one of our ministers on his way to the isthmus, and the impediments of the season, which delayed the departure of the other, deprived united states of the advantage of being represented at the first meeting of the congress. there is, however, no reason to believe that any transactions of the congress were of a nature to affect injuriously the interests of the united states or to require the interposition of our ministers had they been present. their absence has, indeed, deprived united states of the opportunity of possessing precise and authentic information of the treaties which were concluded at panama; and the whole result has confirmed me in the conviction of the expediency to the united states of being represented at the congress. the surviving member of the mission, appointed during your last session, has accordingly proceeded to his destination, and a successor to his distinguished and lamented associate will be nominated to the senate. a treaty of amity, navigation, and commerce has in the course of the last summer been concluded by our minister plenipotentiary at mexico with the united states of that confederacy, which will also be laid before the senate for their advice with regard to its ratification. in adverting to the present condition of our fiscal concerns and to the prospects of our revenue the first remark that calls our attention is that they are less exuberantly prosperous than they were at the corresponding period of the last year. the severe shock so extensively sustained by the commercial and manufacturing interests in great britain has not been without a perceptible recoil upon ourselves. a reduced importation from abroad is necessarily succeeded by a reduced return to the treasury at home. the net revenue of the present year will not equal that of the last, and the receipts of that which is to come will fall short of those in the current year. the diminution, however, is in part attributable to the flourishing condition of some of our domestic manufactures, and so far is compensated by an equivalent more profitable to the nation. it is also highly gratifying to perceive that the deficiency in the revenue, while it scarcely exceeds the anticipations of the last year's estimate from the treasury, has not interrupted the application of more than $ millions during the present year to the discharge of the principal and interest of the debt, nor the reduction of upward of $ , , of the capital of the debt itself. the balance in the treasury on the first of january last was $ , , . ; the receipts from that time to the th of september last were $ , , . ; the receipts of the current quarter, estimated at $ , , , yield, with the sums already received, a revenue of about $ , , for the year; the expenditures for the first quarters of the year have amounted to $ , , . ; the expenditures of the current quarter are expected, including the $ , , of the principal of the debt to be paid, to balance the receipts; so that the expense of the year, amounting to upward of $ , , less than its income, will leave a proportionally increased balance in the treasury on january st, , over that of the first of january last; instead of $ , , there will be $ , , . the amount of duties secured on merchandise imported from the commence of the year 'til september is estimated at $ , , , and the amount that will probably accrue during the present quarter is estimated at $ , , , making for the whole year $ , , , from which the draw-backs being deducted will leave a clear revenue from the customs receivable in the year of about $ , , , which, with the sums to be received from the proceeds of public lands, the bank dividends, and other incidental receipts, will form an aggregate of about $ , , , a sum falling short of the whole expenses of the present year little more than the portion of those expenditures applied to the discharge of the public debt beyond the annual appropriation of $ , , by the act of march d, . at the passage of that act the public debt amounted to $ , , . on the first of january next it will be short of $ , , . in the lapse of these years $ , , of public debt, with the annual charge of upward of $ , , of interest upon them, have been extinguished. at the passage of tat act, of the annual appropriation of $ , , , $ , , were absorbed in the payment of interest, and not more than $ , , went to reduce the capital of the debt. of the same $ , , , at this time scarcely $ , , are applicable to the interest and upward of $ , , are effective in melting down the capital. yet our experience has proved that a revenue consisting so largely of imposts and tonnage ebbs and flows to an extraordinary extent, with all the fluctuations incident to the general commerce of the world. it is within our recollection that even in the compass of the same last ten years the receipts of the treasury were not adequate to the expenditures of the year, and that in two successive years it was found necessary to resort to loans to meet the engagements of the nation. the returning tides of the succeeding years replenished the public coffers until they have again begun to feel the vicissitude of a decline. to produce these alternations of fullness and exhaustion the relative operation of abundant or unfruitful seasons, the regulations of foreign governments, political revolutions, the prosperous or decaying condition of manufactures, commercial speculations, and many other causes, not always to be traced, variously combine. we have found the alternate swells and diminutions embracing periods of from two to three years. the last period of depression to united states was from to . the corresponding revival was from to the commencement of the present year. still, we have no cause to apprehend a depression comparable to that of the former period, or even to anticipate a deficiency which will intrench upon the ability to apply the annual $ millions to the reduction of the debt. it is well for us, however, to be admonished of the necessity of abiding by the maxims of the most vigilant economy, and of resorting to all honorable and useful expedients for pursuing with steady and inflexible perseverance the total discharge of the debt. besides the $ , , of the loans of which will have been discharged in the course of the present year, there are $ , , which by the terms of the contracts would have been and are now redeemable. $ , , more of the loan of will become redeemable from and after the expiration of the present month, and $ , , other from and after the close of the ensuing year. they constitute a mass of $ , , , all bearing an interest of %, more than $ , , of which will be immediately redeemable, and the rest within little more than a year. leaving of this amount $ , , to continue at the interest of %, but to be paid off as far as shall be found practicable in the years and , there is scarcely a doubt that the remaining $ , , might within a few months be discharged by a loan at not exceeding %, redeemable in the years and . by this operation a sum of nearly $ , may be saved to the nation, and the discharge of the whole $ , , within the four years may be greatly facilitated if not wholly accomplished. by an act of congress of march d, , a loan for the purpose now referred to, or a subscription to stock, was authorized, at an interest not exceeding . %. but at that time so large a portion of the floating capital of the country was absorbed in commercial speculations and so little was left for investment in the stocks that the measure was but partially successful. at the last session of congress the condition of the funds was still unpropitious to the measure; but the change so soon afterwards occurred that, had the authority existed to redeem the $ millions now redeemable by an exchange of stocks or a loan at %, it is morally certain that it might have been effected, and with it a yearly saving of $ , . with regard to the collection of the revenue of imposts, certain occurrences have within the last year been disclosed in one or two of our principal ports, which engaged the attention of congress at their last session and may hereafter require further consideration. until within a very few years the execution of the laws for raising the revenue, like that of all our other laws, has been insured more by the moral sense of the community than by the rigors of a jealous precaution or by penal sanction. confiding in the exemplary punctuality and unsullied integrity of our importing merchants, a gradual relaxation from the provisions of the collection laws, a close adherence to which have caused inconvenience and expense to them, had long become habitual, and indulgences had been extended universally because they had never been abused. it may be worthy of your serious consideration whether some further legislative provision may not be necessary to come in aid of this state of unguarded security. from the reports herewith communicated of the secretaries of war and of the navy, with the subsidiary documents annexed to them, will be discovered the present condition and administration of our military establishment on the land and on the sea. the organization of the army having undergone no change since its reduction to the present peace establishment in , it remains only to observe that it is yet found adequate to all the purposes for which a permanent armed force in time of peace can be needed or useful. it may be proper to add that, from a difference of opinion between the late president of the united states and the senate with regard to the construction of the act of congress of march d, , to reduce and fix the military peace establishment of the united states, it remains hitherto so far without execution that no colonel has been appointed to command one of the regiments of artillery. a supplementary or explanatory act of the legislature appears to be the only expedient practicable for removing the difficulty of this appointment. in a period of profound peace the conduct of the mere military establishment forms but a very inconsiderable portion of the duties devolving upon the administration of the department of war. it will be seen by the returns from the subordinate departments of the army that every branch of the service is marked with order, regularity, and discipline; that from the commanding general through all the gradations of superintendence the officers feel themselves to have been citizens before they were soldiers, and that the glory of a republican army must consist in the spirit of freedom, by which it is animated, and of patriotism, by which it is impelled. it may be confidently stated that the moral character of the army is in a state of continual improvement, and that all the arrangements for the disposal of its parts have a constant reference to that end. but to the war department are attributed other duties, having, indeed, relation to a future possible condition of war, but being purely defensive, and in their tendency contributing rather to the security and permanency of peace--the erection of the fortifications provided for by congress, and adapted to secure our shores from hostile invasion; the distribution of the fund of public gratitude and justice to the pensioners of the revolutionary war; the maintenance of our relations of peace and protection with the indian tribes, and the internal improvements and surveys for the location of roads and canals, which during the last three sessions of congress have engaged so much of their attention, and may engross so large a share of their future benefactions to our country. by the act of april th, , suggested and approved by my predecessor, the sum of $ , was appropriated for the purpose of causing to be made the necessary surveys, plans, and estimates of the routes of such roads and canals as the president of the united states might deem of national importance in a commercial or military point of view, or necessary for the transportation of the public mail. the surveys, plans, and estimates for each, when completed, will be laid before congress. in execution of this act a board of engineers was immediately instituted, and have been since most assiduously and constantly occupied in carrying it into effect. the first object to which their labors were directed, by order of the late president, was the examination of the country between the tide waters of the potomac, the ohio, and lake erie, to ascertain the practicability of a communication between them, to designate the most suitable route for the same, and to form plans and estimates in detail of the expense of execution. on march d, , they made their first report, which was immediately communicated to congress, and in which they declared that having maturely considered the circumstances observed by them personally, and carefully studied the results of such of the preliminary surveys as were then completed, they were decidedly of opinion that the communication was practicable. at the last session of congress, before the board of engineers were enabled to make up their second report containing a general plan and preparatory estimate for the work, the committee of the house of representatives upon roads and canals closed the session with a report expressing the hope that the plan and estimate of the board of engineers might at this time be prepared, and that the subject be referred to the early and favorable consideration of congress at their present session. that expected report of the board of engineers is prepared, and will forthwith be laid before you. under the resolution of congress authorizing the secretary of war to have prepared a complete system of cavalry tactics, and a system of exercise and instruction of field artillery, for the use of the militia of the united states, to be reported to congress at the present session, a board of distinguished officers of the army and of the militia has been convened, whose report will be submitted to you with that of the secretary of war. the occasion was thought favorable for consulting the same board, aided by the results of a correspondence with the governors of the several states and territories and other citizens of intelligence and experience, upon the acknowledged defective condition of our militia system, and of the improvements of which it is susceptible. the report of the board upon this subject is also submitted for your consideration. in the estimates of appropriations for the ensuing year upward of $ millions will be submitted for the expenditures to be paid from the department of war. less than two fifths of this will be applicable to the maintenance and support of the army. $ , , , in the form of pensions, goes as a scarcely adequate tribute to the services and sacrifices of a former age, and a more than equal sum invested in fortifications, or for the preparations of internal improvement, provides for the quiet, the comfort, and happier existence of the ages to come. the appropriations to indemnify those unfortunate remnants of another race unable alike to share in the enjoyments and to exist in the presence of civilization, though swelling in recent years to a magnitude burdensome to the treasury, are generally not without their equivalents in profitable value, or serve to discharge the union from engagements more burdensome than debt. in like manner the estimate of appropriations for the navy department will present an aggregate sum of upward of $ , , . about half of these, however, covers the current expenditures of the navy in actual service, and half constitutes a fund of national property, the pledge of our future glory and defense. it was scarcely one short year after the close of the late war, and when the burden of its expenses and charges was weighing heaviest upon the country, that congress, by the act of april th, , appropriated $ , , annually for eight years to the gradual increase of the navy. at a subsequent period this annual appropriation was reduced to $ , for six years, of which the present year is the last. a yet more recent appropriation the last two years, for building ten sloops of war, has nearly restored the original appropriation of of $ , , for every year. the result is before united states all. we have line-of-battle ships, frigates, and sloops of war in proportion, which, with a few months preparation, may present a line of floating fortifications along the whole range of our coast ready to meet any invader who might attempt to set foot upon our shores. combining with a system of fortifications upon the shores themselves, commenced about the same time under the auspices of my immediate predecessor, and hitherto systematically pursued, it has placed in our possession the most effective sinews of war and has left us at once an example and a lesson from which our own duties may be inferred. the gradual increase of the navy was the principle of which the act of april th, , was the first development. it was the introduction of a system to act upon the character and history of our country for an indefinite series of ages. it was a declaration of that congress to their constituents and to posterity that it was the destiny and the duty of these confederated states to become in regular process of time and by no petty advances a great naval power. that which they proposed to accomplish in eight years is rather to be considered as the measure of their means that the limitation of their design. they looked forward for a term of years sufficient for the accomplishment of a definite portion of their purpose, and they left to their successors to fill up the canvas of which they had traced the large and prophetic outline. the ships of the line and frigates which they had in contemplation will be shortly completed. the time which they had allotted for the accomplishment of the work has more than elapsed. it remains for your consideration how their successors may contribute their portion of toil and of treasure for the benefit of the succeeding age in the gradual increase of our navy. there is perhaps no part of the exercise of the constitutional powers of the federal government which has given more general satisfaction to the people of the union than this. the system has not been thus vigorously introduced and hitherto sustained to be now departed from or abandoned. in continuing to provide for the gradual increase of the navy it may not be necessary or expedient to add for the present any more to the number of our ships; but should you deem it advisable to continue the yearly appropriation of $ . millions to the same objects, it may be profitably expended in a providing a supply of timber to be seasoned and other materials for future use in the construction of docks or in laying the foundations of a school for naval education, as to the wisdom of congress either of those measures may appear to claim the preference. of the small portions of this navy engaged in actual service during the peace, squadrons have continued to be maintained in the pacific ocean, in the west india seas, and in the mediterranean, to which has been added a small armament to cruise on the eastern coast of south america. in all they have afforded protection to our commerce, have contributed to make our country advantageously known to foreign nations, have honorably employed multitudes of our sea men in the service of their country, and have inured numbers of youths of the rising generation to lives of manly hardihood and of nautical experience and skill. the piracies with which the west india seas were for several years infested have been totally suppressed, but in the mediterranean they have increased in a manner afflictive to other nations, and but for the continued presence of our squadron would probably have been distressing to our own. the war which has unfortunately broken out between the republic of buenos ayres and the brazilian government has given rise to very great irregularities among the naval officers of the latter, by whom principles in relation to blockades and to neutral navigation have been brought forward to which we can not subscribe and which our own commanders have found it necessary to resist. from the friendly disposition toward the united states constantly manifested by the emperor of brazil, and the very useful and friendly commercial intercourse between the united states and his dominions, we have reason to believe that the just reparation demanded for the injuries sustained by several of our citizens from some of his officers will not be withheld. abstracts from the recent dispatches of the commanders of our several squadrons are communicated with the report of the secretary of the navy to congress. a report from the post master general is likewise communicated, presenting in a highly satisfactory manner the result of a vigorous, efficient, and economical administration of that department. the revenue of the office, even of the year including the latter half of and the first half of , had exceeded its expenditures by a sum of more than $ , . that of the succeeding year has been still more productive. the increase of the receipts in the year preceding the first of july last over that of the year before exceeds $ , , and the excess of the receipts over the expenditures of the year has swollen from $ , to yearly $ , . during the same period contracts for additional transportation of the mail in stages for about , miles have been made, and for , miles annually on horse back. new post offices have been established within the year, and the increase of revenue within the last three years, as well as the augmentation of the transportation by mail, is more than equal to the whole amount of receipts and of mail conveyance at the commencement of the present century, when the seat of the general government was removed to this place. when we reflect that the objects effected by the transportation of the mail are among the choicest comforts and enjoyments of social life, it is pleasing to observe that the dissemination of them to every corner of our country has out-stripped in their increase even the rapid march of our population. by the treaties with france and spain, respectively ceding louisiana and the floridas to the united states, provision was made for the security of land titles derived from the governments of those nations. some progress has been made under the authority of various acts of congress in the ascertainment and establishment of those titles, but claims to a very large extent remain unadjusted. the public faith no less than the just rights of individuals and the interest of the community itself appears to require further provision for the speedy settlement of those claims, which i therefore recommend to the care and attention of the legislature. in conformity with the provisions of the act of may th, , to provide for erecting a penitentiary in the district of columbia, and for other purposes, three commissioners were appointed to select a site for the erection of a penitentiary for the district, and also a site in the county of alexandria for a county jail, both of which objects have been effected. the building of the penitentiary has been commenced, and is in such a degree of forwardness as to promise that it will be completed before the meeting of the next congress. this consideration points to the expediency of maturing at the present session a system for the regulation and government of the penitentiary, and of defining a system for the regulation and government of the penitentiary, and of defining the class of offenses which shall be punishable by confinement in this edifice. in closing this communication i trust that it will not be deemed inappropriate to the occasion and purposes upon which we are here assembled to indulge a momentary retrospect, combining in a single glance the period of our origin as a national confederation with that of our present existence, at the precise interval of half a century from each other. since your last meeting at this place the th anniversary of the day when our independence was declared has been celebrated throughout our land, and on that day, while every heart was bounding with joy and every voice was tuned to gratulation, amid the blessings of freedom and independence which the sires of a former age had handed down to their children, two of the principal actors in that solemn scene--the hand that penned the ever memorable declaration and the voice that sustained it in debate--were by one summons, at the distance of miles from each other, called before the judge of all to account for their deeds done upon earth. they departed cheered by the benedictions of their country, to whom they left the inheritance of their fame and the memory of their bright example. if we turn our thoughts to the condition of their country, in the contrast of the first and last day of that half century, how resplendent and sublime is the transition from gloom to glory! then, glancing through the same lapse of time, in the condition of the individuals we see the first day marked with the fullness and vigor of youth, in the pledge of their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the cause of freedom and of man-kind; and on the last, extended on the bed of death, with but sense and sensibility left to breathe a last aspiration to heaven of blessing upon their country, may we not humbly hope that to them too it was a pledge of transition from gloom to glory, and that while their mortal vestments were sinking into the clod of the valley their emancipated spirits were ascending to the bosom of their god! john quincy adams *** state of the union address john quincy adams december , fellow citizens of the senate and of the house of representatives: a revolution of the seasons has nearly been completed since the representatives of the people and states of this union were last assembled at this place to deliberate and to act upon the common important interests of their constituents. in that interval the never slumbering eye of a wise and beneficent providence has continued its guardian care over the welfare of our beloved country; the blessing of health has continued generally to prevail throughout the land; the blessing of peace with our brethren of the human race has been enjoyed without interruption; internal quiet has left our fellow citizens in the full enjoyment of all their rights and in the free exercise of all their faculties, to pursue the impulse of their nature and the obligation of their duty in the improvement of their own condition; the productions of the soil, the exchanges of commerce, the vivifying labors of human industry, have combined to mingle in our cup a portion of enjoyment as large and liberal as the indulgence of heaven has perhaps ever granted to the imperfect state of man upon earth; and as the purest of human felicity consists in its participation with others, it is no small addition to the sum of our national happiness at this time that peace and prosperity prevail to a degree seldom experienced over the whole habitable globe, presenting, though as yet with painful exceptions, a foretaste of that blessed period of promise when the lion shall lie down with the lamb and wars shall be no more. to preserve, to improve, and to perpetuate the sources and to direct in their most effective channels the streams which contribute to the public weal is the purpose for which government was instituted. objects of deep importance to the welfare of the union are constantly recurring to demand the attention of the federal legislature, and they call with accumulated interest at the first meeting of the two houses after their periodical renovation. to present to their consideration from time to time subjects in which the interests of the nation are most deeply involved, and for the regulation of which the legislative will is alone competent, is a duty prescribed by the constitution, to the performance of which the first meeting of the new congress is a period eminently appropriate, and which it is now my purpose to discharge. our relations of friendship with the other nations of the earth, political and commercial, have been preserved unimpaired, and the opportunities to improve them have been cultivated with anxious and unremitting attention. a negotiation upon subjects of high and delicate interest with the government of great britain has terminated in the adjustment of some of the questions at issue upon satisfactory terms and the postponement of others for future discussion and agreement. the purposes of the convention concluded at st. petersburg on july th, , under the mediation of the late emperor alexander, have been carried into effect by a subsequent convention, concluded at london on november th, , the ratifications of which were exchanged at that place on february th, . a copy of the proclamations issued on march th, , publishing this convention, is herewith communicated to congress. the sum of $ , , , therein stipulated to be paid to the claimants of indemnity under the first article of the treaty of ghent, has been duly received, and the commission instituted, conformably to the act of congress of march d, , for the distribution of the indemnity of the persons entitled to receive it are now in session and approaching the consummation of their labors. this final disposal of one of the most painful topics of collision between the united states and great britain not only affords an occasion of gratulation to ourselves, but has had the happiest effect in promoting a friendly disposition and in softening asperities upon other objects of discussion; nor ought it to pass without the tribute of a frank and cordial acknowledgment of the magnanimity with which an honorable nation, by the reparation of their own wrongs, achieves a triumph more glorious than any field of blood can ever bestow. the conventions of march th, , and of october th, , will expire by their own limitation on october th, . these have regulated the direct commercial intercourse between the united states and great britain upon terms of the most perfect reciprocity; and they effected a temporary compromise of the respective rights and claims to territory westward of the rocky mountains. these arrangements have been continued for an indefinite period of time after the expiration of the above mentioned conventions, leaving each party the liberty of terminating them by giving twelve months' notice to the other. the radical principle of all commercial intercourse between independent nations is the mutual interest of both parties. it is the vital spirit of trade itself; nor can it be reconciled to the nature of man or to the primary laws of human society that any traffic should long be willingly pursued of which all the advantages are on one side and all the burdens on the other. treaties of commerce have been found by experience to be among the most effective instruments for promoting peace and harmony between nations whose interests, exclusively considered on either side, are brought into frequent collisions by competition. in framing such treaties it is the duty of each party not simply to urge with unyielding pertinacity that which suits its own interest, but to concede liberally to that which is adapted to the interest of the other. to accomplish this, little more is generally required than a simple observance of the rule of reciprocity, and were it possible for the states-men of one nation by stratagem and management to obtain from the weakness or ignorance of another an over-reaching treaty, such a compact would prove an incentive to war rather than a bond of peace. our conventions with great britain are founded upon the principles of reciprocity. the commercial intercourse between the two countries is greater in magnitude and amount than between any two other nations on the globe. it is for all purposes of benefit or advantage to both as precious, and in all probability far more extensive, than if the parties were still constituent parts of one and the same nation. treaties between such states, regulating the intercourse of peace between them and adjusting interests of such transcendent importance to both, which have been found in a long experience of years mutually advantageous, should not be lightly cancelled or discontinued. two conventions for continuing in force those above mentioned have been concluded between the plenipotentiaries of the two governments on august th, , and will be forthwith laid before the senate for the exercise of their constitutional authority concerning them. in the execution of the treaties of peace of november, and september, , between the united states and great britain, and which terminated the war of our independence, a line of boundary was drawn as the demarcation of territory between the two countries, extending over nearly degrees of latitude, and ranging over seas, lakes, and mountains, then very imperfectly explored and scarcely opened to the geographical knowledge of the age. in the progress of discovery and settlement by both parties since that time several questions of boundary between their respective territories have arisen, which have been found of exceedingly difficult adjustment. at the close of the last war with great britain four of these questions pressed themselves upon the consideration of the negotiators of the treaty of ghent, but without the means of concluding a definitive arrangement concerning them. they were referred to three separate commissions consisting, of two commissioners, one appointed by each party, to examine and decide upon their respective claims. in the event of a disagreement between the commissioners, one appointed by each party, to examine and decide upon their respective claims. in the event of a disagreement between the commissioners it was provided that they should make reports to their several governments, and that the reports should finally be referred to the decision of a sovereign the common friend of both. of these commissions two have already terminated their sessions and investigations, one by entire and the other by partial agreement. the commissioners of the th article of the treaty of ghent have finally disagreed, and made their conflicting reports to their own governments. but from these reports a great difficulty has occurred in making up a question to be decided by the arbitrator. this purpose has, however, been effected by a th convention, concluded at london by the plenipotentiaries of the two governments on september th, . it will be submitted, together with the others, to the consideration of the senate. while these questions have been pending incidents have occurred of conflicting pretensions and of dangerous character upon the territory itself in dispute between the two nations. by a common understanding between the governments it was agreed that no exercise of exclusive jurisdiction by either party while the negotiation was pending should change the state of the question of right to be definitively settled. such collision has, never the less, recently taken place by occurrences the precise character of which has not yet been ascertained. a communication from the governor of the state of maine, with accompanying documents, and a correspondence between the secretary of state and the minister of great britain on this subject are now communicated. measures have been taken to ascertain the state of the facts more correctly by the employment of a special agent to visit the spot where the alleged outrages have occurred, the result of those inquiries, when received, will be transmitted to congress. while so many of the subjects of high interest to the friendly relations between the two countries have been so far adjusted, it is a matter of regret that their views respecting the commercial intercourse between the united states and the british colonial possessions have not equally approximated to a friendly agreement. at the commencement of the last session of congress they were informed of the sudden and unexpected exclusion by the british government of access in vessels of the united states to all their colonial ports except those immediately bordering upon our own territories. in the amicable discussions which have succeeded the adoption of this measure which, as it affected harshly the interests of the united states, became subject of expostulation on our part, the principles upon which its justification has been placed have been of a diversified character. it has been at once ascribed to a mere recurrence to the old, long established principle of colonial monopoly and at the same time to a feeling of resentment because the offers of an act of parliament opening the colonial ports upon certain conditions had not been grasped at with sufficient eagerness by an instantaneous conformity to them. at a subsequent period it has been intimated that the new exclusion was in resentment because a prior act of parliament, of , opening certain colonial ports, under heavy and burdensome restrictions, to vessels of the united states, had not been reciprocated by an admission of british vessels from the colonies, and their cargoes, without any restriction or discrimination what ever. but be the motive for the interdiction what it may, the british government have manifested no disposition, either by negotiation or by corresponding legislative enactments, to recede from it, and we have been given distinctly to understand that neither of the bills which were under the consideration of congress at their last session would have been deemed sufficient in their concessions to have been rewarded by any relaxation from the british interdict. it is one of the inconveniences inseparably connected with the attempt to adjust by reciprocal legislation interests of this nature that neither party can know what would be satisfactory to the other, and that after enacting a statute for the avowed and sincere purpose of conciliation it will generally be found utterly inadequate to the expectation of the other party, and will terminate in mutual disappointment. the session of congress having terminated without any act upon the subject, a proclamation was issued on march , , conformably to the provisions of the th section of the act of march rd, declaring the fact that the trade and intercourse authorized by the british act of parliament of june th, , between the united states and the british enumerated colonial ports had been by the subsequent acts of parliament of july th, , and the order of council of july th, prohibited. the effect of this proclamation, by the terms of the act under which it was issued, has been that each and every provision of the act concerning navigation of april th, , and of the act supplementary thereto of may th, , revived and is in full force. such, then is the present condition of the trade that, useful as it is to both parties it can, with a single momentary exception, be carried on directly by the vessels of neither. that exception itself is found in a proclamation of the governor of the island of st. christopher and of the virgin islands, inviting for three months from august th, the importation of the articles of the produce of the united states which constitute their export portion of this trade in the vessels of all nations. that period having already expired, the state of mutual interdiction has again taken place. the british government have not only declined negotiation upon this subject, but by the principle they have assumed with reference to it have precluded even the means of negotiation. it becomes not the self respect of the united states either to solicit gratuitous favors or to accept as the grant of a favor that for which an ample equivalent is exacted. it remains to be determined by the respective governments whether the trade shall be opened by acts of reciprocal legislation. it is, in the mean time, satisfactory to know that apart from the inconvenience resulting from a disturbance of the usual channels of trade no loss has been sustained by the commerce, the navigation, or the revenue of the united states, and none of magnitude is to be apprehended from this existing state of mutual interdict. with the other maritime and commercial nations of europe our intercourse continues with little variation. since the cessation by the convention of june th, , of all discriminating duties upon the vessels of the united states and of france in either country our trade with that nation has increased and is increasing. a disposition on the part of france has been manifested to renew that negotiation, and in acceding to the proposal we have expressed the wish that it might be extended to other subjects upon which a good understanding between the parties would be beneficial to the interests of both. the origin of the political relations between the united states and france is coeval with the first years of our independence. the memory of it is interwoven with that of our arduous struggle for national existence. weakened as it has occasionally been since that time, it can by us never be forgotten, and we should hail with exultation the moment which should indicate a recollection equally friendly in spirit on the part of france. a fresh effort has recently been made by the minister of the united states residing at paris to obtain a consideration of the just claims of citizens of the united states to the reparation of wrongs long since committed, many of them frankly acknowledged and all of them entitled upon every principle of justice to a candid examination. the proposal last made to the french government has been to refer the subject which has formed an obstacle to this consideration to the determination of a sovereign the common friend of both. to this offer no definitive answer has yet been received, but the gallant and honorable spirit which has at all times been the pride and glory of france will not ultimately permit the demands of innocent sufferers to be extinguished in the mere consciousness of the power to reject them. a new treaty of amity, navigation, and commerce has been concluded with the kingdom of sweden, which will be submitted to the senate for their advice with regard to its ratification. at a more recent date a minister plenipotentiary from the hanseatic republics of hamburg, lubeck, and bremen has been received, charged with a special mission for the negotiation of a treaty of amity and commerce between that ancient and renowned league and the united states. this negotiation has accordingly been commenced, and is now in progress, the result of which will, if successful, be also submitted to the senate for their consideration. since the accession of the emperor nicholas to the imperial throne of all the russias the friendly dispositions toward the united states so constantly manifested by his predecessor have continued unabated, and have been recently testified by the appointment of a minister plenipotentiary to reside at this place. from the interest taken by this sovereign in behalf of the suffering greeks and from the spirit with which others of the great european powers are cooperating with him the friends of freedom and of humanity may indulge the hope that they will obtain relief from that most unequal of conflicts which they have so long and so gallantly sustained; that they will enjoy the blessing of self government, which by their sufferings in the cause of liberty they have richly earned, and that their independence will be secured by those liberal institutions of which their country furnished the earliest examples in the history of man-kind, and which have consecrated to immortal remembrance the very soil for which they are now again profusely pouring forth their blood. the sympathies which the people and government of the united states have so warmly indulged with their cause have been acknowledged by their government in a letter of thanks, which i have received from their illustrious president, a translation of which is now communicated to congress, the representatives of that nation to whom this tribute of gratitude was intended to be paid, and to whom it was justly due. in the american hemisphere the cause of freedom and independence has continued to prevail, and if signalized by none of those splendid triumphs which had crowned with glory some of the preceding years it has only been from the banishment of all external force against which the struggle had been maintained. the shout of victory has been superseded by the expulsion of the enemy over whom it could have been achieved. our friendly wishes and cordial good will, which have constantly followed the southern nations of america in all the vicissitudes of their war of independence, are succeeded by a solicitude equally ardent and cordial that by the wisdom and purity of their institutions they may secure to themselves the choicest blessings of social order and the best rewards of virtuous liberty. disclaiming alike all right and all intention of interfering in those concerns which it is the prerogative of their independence to regulate as to them shall seem fit, we hail with joy every indication of their prosperity, of their harmony, of their persevering and inflexible homage to those principles of freedom and of equal rights which are alone suited to the genius and temper of the american nations. it has been, therefore, with some concern that we have observed indications of intestine divisions in some of the republics of the south, and appearances of less union with one another than we believe to be the interest of all. among the results of this state of things has been that the treaties concluded at panama do not appear to have been ratified by the contracting parties, and that the meeting of the congress at tacubaya has been indefinitely postponed. in accepting the invitations to be represented at this congress, while a manifestation was intended on the part of the united states of the most friendly disposition toward the southern republics by whom it had been proposed, it was hoped that it would furnish an opportunity for bringing all the nations of this hemisphere to the common acknowledgment and adoption of the principles in the regulation of their internal relations which would have secured a lasting peace and harmony between them and have promoted the cause of mutual benevolence throughout the globe. but as obstacles appear to have arisen to the reassembling of the congress, one of the two ministers commissioned on the part of the united states has returned to the bosom of his country, while the minister charged with the ordinary mission to mexico remains authorized to attend the conferences of the congress when ever they may be resumed. a hope was for a short time entertained that a treaty of peace actually signed between the government of buenos ayres and of brazil would supersede all further occasion for those collisions between belligerent pretensions and neutral rights which are so commonly the result of maritime war, and which have unfortunately disturbed the harmony of the relations between the united states and the brazilian governments. at their last session congress were informed that some of the naval officers of that empire had advanced and practiced upon principles in relation to blockades and to neutral navigation which we could not sanction, and which our commanders found it necessary to resist. it appears that they have not been sustained by the government of brazil itself. some of the vessels captured under the assumed authority of these erroneous principles have been restored, and we trust that our just expectations will be realized that adequate indemnity will be made to all the citizens of the united states who have suffered by the unwarranted captures which the brazilian tribunals themselves have pronounced unlawful. in the diplomatic discussions at rio de janeiro of these wrongs sustained by citizens of the united states and of others which seemed as if emanating immediately from that government itself the charge d'affaires of the united states, under an impression that his representations in behalf of the rights and interests of his country- men were totally disregarded and useless, deemed it his duty, without waiting for instructions, to terminate his official functions, to demand his pass-ports, and return to the united states. this movement, dictated by an honest zeal for the honor and interests of his country-- motives which operated exclusively on the mind of the officer who resorted to it--has not been disapproved by me. the brazilian government, however, complained of it as a measure for which no adequate intentional cause had been given by them, and upon an explicit assurance through their charge d'affaires residing here that a successor to the late representative of the united states near that government, the appointment of whom they desired, should be received and treated with the respect due to his character, and that indemnity should be promptly made for all injuries inflicted on citizens of the united states or their property contrary to the laws of nations, a temporary commission as charge d'affaires to that country has been issued, which it is hopes will entirely restore the ordinary diplomatic intercourse between the two governments and the friendly relations between their respective nations. turning from the momentous concerns of our union in its intercourse with foreign nations to those of the deepest interest in the administration of our internal affairs, we find the revenues of the present year corresponding as nearly as might be expected with the anticipations of the last, and presenting an aspect still more favorable in the promise of the next. the balance in the treasury on january st, was $ , , . . the receipts from that day to september th, , as near as the returns of them yet received can show, amount to $ , , . . the receipts of the present quarter, estimated at $ , , , added to the above form an aggregate of $ , , of receipts. the expenditures of the year may perhaps amount to $ , , presenting a small excess over the receipts. but of these $ , , , upward of $ , , have been applied to the discharge of the principal of the public debt, the whole amount of which, approaching $ , , on january st, , will on january st, fall short of $ , , . the balance in the treasury on january st, it is expected will exceed $ , , , a sum exceeding that of january st, , though falling short of that exhibited on january st, . it was foreseen that the revenue of the present year would not equal that of the last, which had itself been less than that of the next preceding year. but the hope has been realized which was entertained, that these deficiencies would in no wise interrupt the steady operation of the discharge of the public debt by the annual $ , , devoted to that object by the act of march d, . the amount of duties secured on merchandise imported from the commencement of the year until september th, is $ , , , and the probably amount of that which will be secured during the remainder of the year is $ , , , forming a sum total of $ , , . with the allowances for draw-backs and contingent deficiencies which may occur, though not specifically foreseen, we may safely estimate the receipts of the ensuing year at $ , , --a revenue for the next equal to the expenditure of the present year. the deep solicitude felt by our citizens of all classes throughout the union for the total discharge of the public debt will apologize for the earnestness with which i deem it my duty to urge this topic upon the consideration of congress--of recommending to them again the observance of the strictest economy in the application of the public funds. the depression upon the receipts of the revenue which had commenced with the year continued with increased severity during the two first quarters of the present year. the returning tide began to flow with the third quarter, and, so far as we can judge from experience, may be expected to continue through the course of the ensuing year. in the mean time an alleviation from the burden of the public debt will in the three years have been effected to the amount of nearly $ , , , and the charge of annual interest will have been reduced upward of $ , , . but among the maxims of political economy which the stewards of the public moneys should never suffer without urgent necessity to be transcended is that of keeping the expenditures of the year within the limits of its receipts. the appropriations of the two last years, including the yearly $ , , of the sinking fund, have each equaled the promised revenue of the ensuing year. while we foresee with confidence that the public coffers will be replenished from the receipts as fast as they will be drained by the expenditures, equal in amount to those of the current year, it should not be forgotten that they could ill suffer the exhaustion of larger disbursements. the condition of the army and of all the branches of the public service under the superintendence of the secretary of war will be seen by the report from that officer and the documents with which it is accompanied. during the last summer a detachment of the army has been usefully and successfully called to perform their appropriate duties. at the moment when the commissioners appointed for carrying into execution certain provisions of the treaty of august th, , with various tribes of the north western indians were about to arrive at the appointed place of meeting the unprovoked murder of several citizens and other acts of unequivocal hostility committed by a party of the winnebago tribe, one of those associated in the treaty, followed by indications of a menacing character among other tribes of the same region, rendered necessary an immediate display of the defensive and protective force of the union in that quarter. it was accordingly exhibited by the immediate and concerted movements of the governors of the state of illinois and of the territory of michigan, and competent levies of militia, under their authority, with a corps of men of united states troops, under the command of general atkinson, who, at the call of governor cass, immediately repaired to the scene of danger from their station at st. louis. their presence dispelled the alarms of our fellow citizens on those disorders, and overawed the hostile purposes of the indians. the perpetrators of the murders were surrendered to the authority and operation of our laws, and every appearance of purposed hostility from those indian tribes has subsided. although the present organization of the army and the administration of its various branches of service are, upon the whole, satisfactory, they are yet susceptible of much improvement in particulars, some of which have been heretofore submitted to the consideration of congress, and others are now first presented in the report of the secretary of war. the expediency of providing for additional numbers of officers in the two corps of engineers will in some degree depend upon the number and extent of the objects of national importance upon which congress may think it proper that surveys should be made conformably to the act of april th, . of the surveys which before the last session of congress had been made under the authority of that act, reports were made--of the board of internal improvement, on the chesapeake and ohio canal. on the continuation of the national road from cumberland to the tide waters within the district of columbia. on the continuation of the national road from canton to zanesville. on the location of the national road from zanesville to columbus. on the continuation of the same to the seat of government in missouri. on a post road from baltimore to philadelphia. of a survey of kennebec river (in part). on a national road from washington to buffalo. on the survey of saugatuck harbor and river. on a canal from lake pont chartrain to the mississippi river. on surveys at edgartown, newburyport, and hyannis harbor. on survey of la plaisance bay, in the territory of michigan. and reports are now prepared and will be submitted to congress--on surveys of the peninsula of florida, to ascertain the practicability of a canal to connect the waters of the atlantic with the gulf of mexico across that peninsula; and also of the country between the bays of mobile and of pensacola, with the view of connecting them together by a canal. on surveys of a route for a canal to connect the waters of james and great kenhawa rivers. on the survey of the swash, in pamlico sound, and that of cape fear, below the town of wilmington, in north carolina. on the survey of the muscle shoals, in the tennessee river, and for a route for a contemplated communication between the hiwassee and coosa rivers, in the state of alabama. other reports of surveys upon objects pointed out by the several acts of congress of the last and preceding sessions are in the progress of preparation, and most of them may be completed before the close of this session. all the officers of both corps of engineers, with several other persons duly qualified, have been constantly employed upon these services from the passage of the act of april th, , to this time. were no other advantage to accrue to the country from their labors than the fund of topographical knowledge which they have collected and communicated, that alone would have been a profit to the union more than adequate to all the expenditures which have been devoted to the object; but the appropriations for the repair and continuation of the cumberland road, for the construction of various other roads, for the removal of obstructions from the rivers and harbors, for the erection of light houses, beacons, piers, and buoys, and for the completion of canals undertaken by individual associations, but needing the assistance of means and resources more comprehensive than individual enterprise can command, may be considered rather as treasures laid up from the contributions of the present age for the benefit of posterity than as unrequited applications of the accruing revenues of the nation. to such objects of permanent improvement to the condition of the country, of real addition to the wealth as well as to the comfort of the people by whose authority and resources they have been effected, from $ , , to $ , , of the annual income of the nation have, by laws enacted at the three most recent sessions of congress, been applied, without intrenching upon the necessities of the treasury, without adding a dollar to the taxes or debts of the community, without suspending even the steady and regular discharge of the debts contracted in former days, which within the same three years have been diminished by the amount of nearly $ , , . the same observations are in a great degree applicable to the appropriations made for fortifications upon the coasts and harbors of the united states, for the maintenance of the military academy at west point, and for the various objects under the superintendence of the department of the navy. the report from the secretary of the navy and those from the subordinate branches of both the military departments exhibit to congress in minute detail the present condition of the public establishments dependent upon them, the execution of the acts of congress relating to them, and the views of the officers engaged in the several branches of the service concerning the improvements which may tend to their perfection. the fortification of the coasts and the gradual increase and improvement of the navy are parts of a great system of national defense which has been upward of ten years in progress, and which for a series of years to come will continue to claim the constant and persevering protection and superintendence of the legislative authority. among the measures which have emanated from these principles the act of the last session of congress for the gradual improvement of the navy holds a conspicuous place. the collection of timber for the future construction of vessels of war, the preservation and reproduction of the species of timber peculiarly adapted to that purpose, the construction of dry docks for the use of the navy, the erection of a marine railway for the repair of the public ships, and the improvement of the navy yards for the preservation of the public property deposited in them have all received from the executive the attention required by that act, and will continue to receive it, steadily proceeding toward the execution of all its purposes. the establishment of a naval academy, furnishing the means of theoretic instruction to the youths who devote their lives to the service of their country upon the ocean, still solicits the sanction of the legislature. practical seamanship and the art of navigation may be acquired on the cruises of the squadrons which from time to time are dispatched to distant seas, but a competent knowledge even of the art of ship building, the higher mathematics, and astronomy; the literature which can place our officers on a level of polished education with the officers of other maritime nations; the knowledge of the laws, municipal and national, which in their intercourse with foreign states and their governments are continually called into operation, and, above all, that acquaintance with the principles of honor and justice, with the higher obligations of morals and of general laws, human and divine, which constitutes the great distinction between the warrior-patriot and the licensed robber and pirate--these can be systematically taught and eminently acquired only in a permanent school, stationed upon the shore and provided with the teachers, the instruments, and the books conversant with and adapted to the communication of the principles of these respective sciences to the youthful and inquiring mind. the report from the post master general exhibits the condition of that department as highly satisfactory for the present and still more promising for the future. its receipts for the year ending july st, amounted to $ , , , and exceeded its expenditures by upward of $ , . it can not be an over sanguine estimate to predict that in less than ten years, of which half have elapsed, the receipts will have been more than doubled. in the mean time a reduced expenditure upon established routes has kept pace with increased facilities of public accommodation and additional services have been obtained at reduced rates of compensation. within the last year the transportation of the mail in stages has been greatly augmented. the number of post offices has been increased to , , and it may be anticipated that while the facilities of intercourse between fellow citizens in person or by correspondence will soon be carried to the door of every villager in the union, a yearly surplus of revenue will accrue which may be applied as the wisdom of congress under the exercise of their constitutional powers may devise for the further establishment and improvement of the public roads, or by adding still further to the facilities in the transportation of the mails. of the indications of the prosperous condition of our country, none can be more pleasing than those presented by the multiplying relations of personal and intimate intercourse between the citizens of the union dwelling at the remotest distances from each other. among the subjects which have heretofore occupied the earnest solicitude and attention of congress is the management and disposal of that portion of the property of the nation which consists of the public lands. the acquisition of them, made at the expense of the whole union, not only in treasury but in blood, marks a right of property in them equally extensive. by the report and statements from the general land office now communicated it appears that under the present government of the united states a sum little short of $ , , has been paid from the common treasury for that portion of this property which has been purchased from france and spain, and for the extinction of the aboriginal titles. the amount of lands acquired is near , , acres, of which on january st, , about , , acres had been surveyed, and little more than , , acres had been sold. the amount paid into the treasury by the purchasers of the public lands sold is not yet equal to the sums paid for the whole, but leaves a small balance to be refunded. the proceeds of the sales of the lands have long been pledged to the creditors of the nation, a pledge from which we have reason to hope that they will in a very few years be redeemed. the system upon which this great national interest has been managed was the result of long, anxious, and persevering deliberation. matured and modified by the progress of our population and the lessons of experience, it has been hitherto eminently successful. more than nine tenths of the lands still remain the common property of the union, the appropriation and disposal of which are sacred trusts in the hands of congress. of the lands sold, a considerable part were conveyed under extended credits, which in the vicissitudes and fluctuations in the value of lands and of their produce became oppressively burdensome to the purchasers. it can never be the interest or the policy of the nation to wring from its own citizens the reasonable profits of their industry and enterprise by holding them to the rigorous import of disastrous engagements. in march, , a debt of $ , , , due by purchasers of the public lands, had accumulated, which they were unable to pay. an act of congress of march nd, , came to their relief, and has been succeeded by others, the latest being the act of may th, , the indulgent provisions of which expired on july th, . the effect of these laws has been to reduce the debt from the purchasers to a remaining balance of about $ , , due, more than three fifths of which are for lands within the state of alabama. i recommend to congress the revival and continuance for a further term of the beneficent accommodations to the public debtors of that statute, and submit to their consideration, in the same spirit of equity, the remission, under proper discriminations, of the forfeitures of partial payments on account of purchases of the public lands, so far as to allow of their application to other payments. there are various other subjects of deep interest to the whole union which have heretofore been recommended to the consideration of congress, as well by my predecessors as, under the impression of the duties devolving upon me, by myself. among these are the debt, rather of justice than gratitude, to the surviving warriors of the revolutionary war; the extension of the judicial administration of the federal government to those extensive since the organization of the present judiciary establishment, now constitute at least one third of its territory, power, and population; the formation of a more effective and uniform system for the government of the militia, and the amelioration in some form or modification of the diversified and often oppressive codes relating to insolvency. amidst the multiplicity of topics of great national concernment which may recommend themselves to the calm and patriotic deliberations of the legislature, it may suffice to say that on these and all other measures which may receive their sanction my hearty cooperation will be given, conformably to the duties enjoined upon me and under the sense of all the obligations prescribed by the constitution. john quincy adams *** state of the union address john quincy adams december , fellow citizens of the senate and of the house of representatives: if the enjoyment in profusion of the bounties of providence forms a suitable subject of mutual gratulation and grateful acknowledgment, we are admonished at this return of the season when the representatives of the nation are assembled to deliberate upon their concerns to offer up the tribute of fervent and grateful hearts for the never failing mercies of him who ruleth over all. he has again favored us with healthful seasons and abundant harvests; he has sustained us in peace with foreign countries and in tranquillity within our borders; he has preserved us in the quiet and undisturbed possession of civil and religious liberty; he has crowned the year with his goodness, imposing on us no other condition than of improving for our own happiness the blessings bestowed by his hands, and, in the fruition of all his favors, of devoting his faculties with which we have been endowed by him to his glory and to our own temporal and eternal welfare. in the relations of our federal union with our brethren of the human race the changes which have occurred since the close of your last session have generally tended to the preservation of peace and to the cultivation of harmony. before your last separation a war had unhappily been kindled between the empire of russia, one of those with which our intercourse has been no other than a constant exchange of good offices, and that of the ottoman porte, a nation from which geographical distance, religious opinions and maxims of government on their part little suited to the formation of those bonds of mutual benevolence which result from the benefits of commerce had department us in a state, perhaps too much prolonged, of coldness and alienation. the extensive, fertile, and populous dominions of the sultan belong rather to the asiatic than the european division of the human family. they enter but partially into the system of europe, nor have their wars with russia and austria, the european states upon which they border, for more than a century past disturbed the pacific relations of those states with the other great powers of europe. neither france nor prussia nor great britain has ever taken part in them, nor is it to be expected that they will at this time. the declaration of war by russia has received the approbation or acquiescence of her allies, and we may indulge the hope that its progress and termination will be signalized by the moderation and forbearance no less than by the energy of the emperor nicholas, and that it will afford the opportunity for such collateral agency in behalf of the suffering greeks as will secure to them ultimately the triumph of humanity and of freedom. the state of our particular relations with france has scarcely varied in the course of the present year. the commercial intercourse between the two countries has continued to increase for the mutual benefit of both. the claims of indemnity to numbers of our fellow citizens for depredations upon their property, heretofore committed during the revolutionary governments, remain unadjusted, and still form the subject of earnest representation and remonstrance. recent advices from the minister of the united states at paris encourage the expectation that the appeal to the justice of the french government will ere long receive a favorable consideration. the last friendly expedient has been resorted to for the decision of the controversy with great britain relating to the north-eastern boundary of the united states. by an agreement with the british government, carrying into effect the provisions of the th article of the treaty of ghent, and the convention of september th, , his majesty the king of the netherlands has by common consent been selected as the umpire between the parties. the proposal to him to accept the designation for the performance of this friendly office will be made at an early day, and the united states, relying upon the justice of their cause, will cheerfully commit the arbitrament of it to a prince equally distinguished for the independence of his spirit, his indefatigable assiduity to the duties of his station, and his inflexible personal probity. our commercial relations with great britain will deserve the serious consideration of congress and the exercise of a conciliatory and forbearing spirit in the policy of both governments. the state of them has been materially changed by the act of congress, passed at their last session, in alteration of several acts imposing duties on imports, and by acts of more recent date of the british parliament. the effect of the interdiction of direct trade, commenced by great britain and reciprocated by the united states, has been, as was to be foreseen, only to substitute different channels for an exchange of commodities indispensable to the colonies and profitable to a numerous class of our fellow citizens. the exports, the revenue, the navigation of the united states have suffered no diminution by our exclusion from direct access to the british colonies. the colonies pay more dearly for the necessaries of life which their government burdens with the charges of double voyages, freight, insurance, and commission, and the profits of our exports are somewhat impaired and more injuriously transferred from one portion of our citizens to another. the resumption of this old and otherwise exploded system of colonial exclusion has not secured to the shipping interest of great britain the relief which, at the expense of the distant colonies and of the united states, it was expected to afford. other measures have been resorted to more pointedly bearing upon the navigation of the united states, and more pointedly bearing upon the navigation of the united states, and which, unless modified by the construction given to the recent acts of parliament, will be manifestly incompatible with the positive stipulations of the commercial convention existing between the two countries. that convention, however, may be terminated with months' notice, at the option of either party. a treaty of amity, navigation, and commerce between the united states and his majesty the emperor of austria, king of hungary and bohemia, has been prepared for signature by the secretary of state and by the baron de lederer, intrusted with full powers of the austrian government. independently of the new and friendly relations which may be thus commenced with one of the most eminent and powerful nations of the earth, the occasion has been taken in it, as in other recent treaties concluded by the united states, to extend those principles of liberal intercourse and of fair reciprocity which intertwine with the exchanges of commerce the principles of justice and the feelings of mutual benevolence. this system, first proclaimed to the world in the first commercial treaty ever concluded by the united states--that of february th, , with france--has been invariably the cherished policy of our union. it is by treaties of commerce alone that it can be made ultimately to prevail as the established system of all civilized nations. with this principle our fathers extended the hand of friendship to every nation of the globe, and to this policy our country has ever since adhered. what ever of regulation in our laws has ever been adopted unfavorable to the interest of any foreign nation has been essentially defensive and counteracting to similar regulations of theirs operating against us. immediately after the close of the war of independence commissioners were appointed by the congress of the confederation authorized to conclude treaties with every nation of europe disposed to adopt them. before the wars of the french revolution such treaties had been consummated with the united netherlands, sweden, and prussia. during those wars treaties with great britain and spain had been effected, and those with prussia and france renewed. in all these some concessions to the liberal principles of intercourse proposed by the united states had been obtained; but as in all the negotiations they came occasionally in collision with previous internal regulations or exclusive and excluding compacts of monopoly with which the other parties had been trammeled, the advances made in them toward the freedom of trade were partial and imperfect. colonial establishments, chartered companies, and ship building influence pervaded and encumbered the legislation of all the great commercial states; and the united states, in offering free trade and equal privilege to all, were compelled to acquiesce in many exceptions with each of the parties to their treaties, accommodated to their existing laws and anterior agreements. the colonial system by which this whole hemisphere was bound has fallen into ruins, totally abolished by revolutions converting colonies into independent nations throughout the two american continents, excepting a portion of territory chiefly at the northern extremity of our own, and confined to the remnants of dominion retained by great britain over the insular archipelago, geographically the appendages of our part of the globe. with all the rest we have free trade, even with the insular colonies of all the european nations, except great britain. her government also had manifested approaches to the adoption of a free and liberal intercourse between her colonies and other nations, though by a sudden and scarcely explained revulsion the spirit of exclusion has been revived for operation upon the united states alone. the conclusion of our last treaty of peace with great britain was shortly afterwards followed by a commercial convention, placing the direct intercourse between the two countries upon a footing of more equal reciprocity than had ever before been admitted. the same principle has since been much further extended by treaties with france, sweden, denmark, the hanseatic cities, prussia, in europe, and with the republics of colombia and of central america, in this hemisphere. the mutual abolition of discriminating duties and charges upon the navigation and commercial intercourse between the parties is the general maxim which characterizes them all. there is reason to expect that it will at no distant period be adopted by other nations, both of europe and america, and to hope that by its universal prevalence one of the fruitful sources of wars of commercial competition will be extinguished. among the nations upon whose governments many of our fellow citizens have had long-pending claims of indemnity for depredations upon their property during a period when the rights of neutral commerce were disregarded was that of denmark. they were soon after the events occurred the subject of a special mission from the united states, at the close of which the assurance was given by his danish majesty that at a period of more tranquillity and of less distress they would be considered, examined, and decided upon in a spirit of determined purpose for the dispensation of justice. i have much pleasure in informing congress that the fulfillment of this honorable promise is now in progress; that a small portion of the claims has already been settled to the satisfaction of the claimants, and that we have reason to hope that the remainder will shortly be placed in a train of equitable adjustment. this result has always been confidently expected, from the character of personal integrity and of benevolence which the sovereign of the danish dominions has through every vicissitude of fortune maintained. the general aspect of the affairs of our neighboring american nations of the south has been rather of approaching than of settled tranquillity. internal disturbances have been more frequent among them than their common friends would have desired. our intercourse with all has continued to be that of friendship and of mutual good will. treaties of commerce and of boundaries with the united mexican states have been negotiated, but, from various successive obstacles, not yet brought to a final conclusion. the civil war which unfortunately still prevails in the republics of central america has been unpropitious to the cultivation of our commercial relations with them; and the dissensions and revolutionary changes in the republics of colombia and of peru have been seen with cordial regret by us, who would gladly contribute to the happiness of both. it is with great satisfaction, however, that we have witnessed the recent conclusion of a peace between the governments of buenos ayres and of brazil, and it is equally gratifying to observe that indemnity has been obtained for some of the injuries which our fellow citizens had sustained in the latter of those countries. the rest are in a train of negotiation, which we hope may terminate to mutual satisfaction, and that it may be succeeded by a treaty of commerce and navigation, upon liberal principles, propitious to a great and growing commerce, already important to the interests of our country. the condition and prospects of the revenue are more favorable than our most sanguine expectations had anticipated. the balance in the treasury on january st, , exclusive of the moneys received under the convention of november th, , with great britain, was $ , , . . the receipts into the treasury from january st, to september th, , so far as they have been ascertained to form the basis of an estimate, amount to $ , , . , which, with the receipts of the present quarter, estimated at $ , , . , form an aggregate of receipts during the year of $ , , . . the expenditures of the year may probably amount to $ , , . , and leave in the treasury on january st, the sum of $ , , . . the receipts of the present year have amounted to near $ , , more than was anticipated at the commencement of the last session of congress. the amount of duties secured on importations from the first of january to the th of september was about $ , , , and that of the estimated accruing revenue is $ , , , forming an aggregate for the year of near $ , , . this is $ , , more than the estimate last december for the accruing revenue of the present year, which, with allowances for draw-backs and contingent deficiencies, was expected to produce an actual revenue of $ , , . had these only been realized the expenditures of the year would have been also proportionally reduced, for of these $ , , received upward of $ , , have been applied to the extinction of public debt, bearing an interest of % a year, and of course reducing the burden of interest annually payable in future by the amount of more than $ , . the payments on account of interest during the current year exceed $ , , , presenting an aggregate of more than $ , , applied during the year to the discharge of the public debt, the whole of which remaining due on january st, will amount only to $ , , . . that the revenue of the ensuing year will not fall short of that received in the one now expiring there are indications which can scarcely prove deceptive. in our country an uniform experience of years has shown that what ever the tariff of duties upon articles imported from abroad has been, the amount of importations has always borne an average value nearly approaching to that of the exports, though occasionally differing in the balance, some times being more and some times less. it is, indeed, a general law of prosperous commerce that the real value of exports should by a small, and only a small, balance exceed that of imports, that balance being a permanent addition to the wealth of the nation. the extent of the prosperous commerce of the nation must be regulated by the amount of its exports, and an important addition to the value of these will draw after it a corresponding increase of importations. it has happened in the vicissitudes of the seasons that the harvests of all europe have in the late summer and autumn fallen short of their usual average. a relaxation of the interdict upon the importation of grain and flour from abroad has ensued, a propitious market has been opened to the granaries of our country, and a new prospect of reward presented to the labors of the husband-man, which for several years has been denied. this accession to the profits of agriculture in the middle and western portions of our union is accidental and temporary. it may continue only for a single year. it may be, as has been often experienced in the revolutions of time, but the first of several scanty harvests in succession. we may consider it certain that for the approaching year it has added an item of large amount to the value of our exports and that it will produce a corresponding increase of importations. it may therefore confidently be foreseen that the revenue of will equal and probably exceed that of , and will afford the means of extinguishing $ , , more of the principal of the public debt. this new element of prosperity to that part of our agricultural industry which is occupied in producing the first article of human subsistence is of the most cheering character to the feelings of patriotism. proceeding from a cause which humanity will view with concern, the sufferings of scarcity in distant lands, it yields a consolatory reflection that this scarcity is in no respect attributable to us; that it comes from the dispensation of him who ordains all in wisdom and goodness, and who permits evil itself only as an instrument of good; that, far from contributing to this scarcity, our agency will be applied only to the alleviation of its severity, and that in pouring forth from the abundance of our own garners the supplies which will partially restore plenty to those who are in need we shall ourselves reduce our stores and add to the price of our own bread, so as in some degree to participate in the wants which it will be the good fortune of our country to relieve. the great interests of an agricultural, commercial, and manufacturing nation are so linked in union together that no permanent cause of prosperity to one of them can operate without extending its influence to the others. all these interests are alike under the protecting power of the legislative authority, and the duties of the representative bodies are to conciliate them in harmony together. so far as the object of taxation is to raise a revenue for discharging the debts and defraying the expenses of the community, its operation should be adapted as much as possible to suit the burden with equal hand upon all in proportion with their ability of bearing it without oppression. but the legislation of one nation is some times intentionally made to bear heavily upon the interests of another. that legislation, adapted, as it is meant to be, to the special interests of its own people, will often press most unequally upon the several component interests of its neighbors. thus the legislation of great britain, when, as has recently been avowed, adapted to the depression of a rival nation, will naturally abound with regulations to interdict upon the productions of the soil or industry of the other which come in competition with its own, and will present encouragement, perhaps even bounty, to the raw material of the other state which it can not produce itself, and which is essential for the use of its manufactures, competitors in the markets of the world with those of its commercial rival. such is the state of commercial legislation of great britain as it bears upon our interests. it excludes with interdicting duties all importation (except in time of approaching famine) of the great staple of production of our middle and western states; it proscribes with equal rigor the bulkier lumber and live stock of the same portion and also of the northern and eastern part of our union. it refuses even the rice of the south unless aggravated with a charge of duty upon the northern carrier who brings it to them. but the cotton, indispensable for their looms, they will receive almost duty free to weave it into a fabric for our own wear, to the destruction of our own manufactures, which they are enabled thus to under-sell. is the self-protecting energy of this nation so helpless that there exists in the political institutions of our country no power to counter-act the bias of this foreign legislation; that the growers of grain must submit to this exclusion from the foreign markets of their produce; that the shippers must dismantle their ships, the trade of the north stagnate at the wharves, and the manufacturers starve at their looms, while the whole people shall pay tribute to foreign industry to be clad in a foreign garb; that the congress of the union are impotent to restore the balance in favor of native industry destroyed by the statutes of another realm? more just and generous sentiments will, i trust, prevail. if the tariff adopted at the last session of congress shall be found by experience to bear oppressively upon the interests of any one section of the union, it ought to be, and i can not doubt will be, so modified as to alleviate its burden. to the voice of just complaint from any portion of their constituents the representatives of the states and of the people will never turn away their ears. but so long as the duty of the foreign shall operate only as a bounty upon the domestic article; while the planter and the merchant and the shepherd and the husbandman shall be found thriving in their occupations under the duties imposed for the protection of domestic manufactures, they will not repine at the prosperity shared with themselves by their fellow citizens of other professions, nor denounce as violations of the constitution the deliberate acts of congress to shield from the wrongs of foreigns the native industry of the union. while the tariff of the last session of congress was a subject of legislative deliberation it was foretold by some of its opposers that one of its necessary consequences would be to impair the revenue. it is yet too soon to pronounce with confidence that this prediction was erroneous. the obstruction of one avenue of trade not unfrequently opens an issue to another. the consequence of the tariff will be to increase the exportation and to diminish the importation of some specific articles; but by the general law of trade the increase of exportation of one article will be followed by an increased importation of others, the duties upon which will supply the deficiencies which the diminished importation would otherwise occasion. the effect of taxation upon revenue can seldom be foreseen with certainty. it must abide the test of experience. as yet no symptoms of diminution are perceptible in the receipts of the treasury. as yet little addition of cost has even been experienced upon the articles burdened with heavier duties by the last tariff. the domestic manufacturer supplies the same or a kindred article at a diminished price, and the consumer pays the same tribute to the labor of his own country-man which he must otherwise have paid to foreign industry and toil. the tariff of the last session was in its details not acceptable to the great interests of any portion of the union, not even to the interest which it was specially intended to subserve. its object was to balance the burdens upon native industry imposed by the operation of foreign laws, but not to aggravate the burdens of one section of the union by the relief afforded to another. to the great principle sanctioned by that act--one of those upon which the constitution itself was formed--i hope and trust the authorities of the union will adhere. but if any of the duties imposed by the act only relieve the manufacturer by aggravating the burden of the planter, let a careful revisal of its provisions, enlightened by the practical experience of its effects, be directed to retain those which impart protection to native industry and remove or supply the place of those which only alleviate one great national interest by the depression of another. the united states of america and the people of every state of which they are composed are each of them sovereign powers. the legislative authority of the whole is exercised by congress under authority granted them in the common constitution. the legislative power of each state is exercised by assemblies deriving their authority from the constitution of the state. each is sovereign within its own province. the distribution of power between them presupposes that these authorities will move in harmony with each other. the members of the state and general governments are all under oath to support both, and allegiance is due to the one and to the other. the case of a conflict between these two powers has not been supposed, nor has any provision been made for it in our institutions; as a virtuous nation of ancient times existed more than five centuries without a law for the punishment of parricide. more than once, however, in the progress of our history have the people and the legislatures of one or more states, in moments of excitement, been instigated to this conflict; and the means of effecting this impulse have been allegations that the acts of congress to be resisted were unconstitutional. the people of no one state have ever delegated to their legislature the power of pronouncing an act of congress unconstitutional, but they have delegated to them powers by the exercise of which the execution of the laws of congress within the state may be resisted. if we suppose the case of such conflicting legislation sustained by the corresponding executive and judicial authorities, patriotism and philanthropy turn their eyes from the condition in which the parties would be placed, and from that of the people of both, which must be its victims. the reports from the secretary of war and the various subordinate offices of the resort of that department present an exposition of the public administration of affairs connected with them through the course of the current year. the present state of the army and the distribution of the force of which it is composed will be seen from the report of the major general. several alterations in the disposal of the troops have been found expedient in the course of the year, and the discipline of the army, though not entirely free from exception, has been generally good. the attention of congress is particularly invited to that part of the report of the secretary of war which concerns the existing system of our relations with the indian tribes. at the establishment of the federal government under the present constitution of the united states the principle was adopted of considering them as foreign and independent powers and also as proprietors of lands. they were, moreover, considered as savages, whom it was our policy and our duty to use our influence in converting to christianity and in bringing within the pale of civilization. as independent powers, we negotiated with them by treaties; as proprietors, we purchased of them all the lands which we could prevail upon them to sell; as brethren of the human race, rude and ignorant, we endeavored to bring them to the knowledge of religion and letters. the ultimate design was to incorporate in our own institutions that portion of them which could be converted to the state of civilization. in the practice of european states, before our revolution, they had been considered as children to be governed; as tenants at discretion, to be dispossessed as occasion might require; as hunters to be indemnified by trifling concessions for removal from the grounds from which their game was extirpated. in changing the system it would seem as if a full contemplation of the consequences of the change had not been taken. we have been far more successful in the acquisition of their lands than in imparting to them the principles or inspiring them with the spirit of civilization. but in appropriating to ourselves their hunting grounds we have brought upon ourselves the obligation of providing them with subsistence; and when we have had the rare good fortune of teaching them the arts of civilization and the doctrines of christianity we have unexpectedly found them forming in the midst of ourselves communities claiming to be independent of ours and rivals of sovereignty within the territories of the members of our union. this state of things requires that a remedy should be provided--a remedy which, while it shall do justice to those unfortunate children of nature, may secure to the members of our confederation their rights of sovereignty and of soil. as the outline of a project to that effect, the views presented in the report of the secretary of war are recommended to the consideration of congress. the report from the engineer department presents a comprehensive view of the progress which has been made in the great systems promotive of the public interest, commenced and organized under authority of congress, and the effects of which have already contributed to the security, as they will hereafter largely contribute to the honor and dignity, of the nation. the first of these great systems is that of fortifications, commenced immediately after the close of our last war, under the salutary experience which the events of that war had impressed upon our country- men of its necessity. introduced under the auspices of my immediate predecessor, it has been continued with the persevering and liberal encouragement of the legislature, and, combined with corresponding exertions for the gradual increase and improvement of the navy, prepares for our extensive country a condition of defense adapted to any critical emergency which the varying course of events may bring forth. our advances in these concerted systems have for the last ten years been steady and progressive, and in a few years more will be so completed as to leave no cause for apprehension that our sea coast will ever again offer a theater of hostile invasion. the next of these cardinal measures of policy is the preliminary to great and lasting works of public improvement in the surveys of roads, examination for the course of canals, and labors for the removal of the obstructions of rivers and harbors, first commenced by the act of congress of april th, . the report exhibits in one table the funds appropriated at the last and preceding sessions of congress for all these fortifications, surveys, and works of public improvement, the manner in which these funds have been applied, the amount expended upon the several works under construction, and the further sums which may be necessary to complete them; in a second, the works projected by the board of engineers which have not been commenced, and the estimate of their cost; in a third, the report of the annual board of visitors at the military academy at west point. for thirteen fortifications erecting on various points of our atlantic coast, from rhode island to louisiana, the aggregate expenditure of the year has fallen little short of $ , , . for the preparation of five additional reports of reconnoissances and surveys since the last session of congress, for the civil construction upon different public works commenced, eight others for which specific appropriations have been made by acts of congress, and twenty other incipient surveys under the authority given by the act of april th, , about $ , , more has been drawn from the treasury. to these $ , , is to be added the appropriation of $ , to commence the erection of a break-water near the mouth of the delaware river, the subscriptions to the delaware and chesapeake, the louisville and portland, the dismal swamp, and the chesapeake and ohio canals, the large donations of lands to the states of ohio, indiana, illinois, and alabama for objects of improvements within those states, and the sums appropriated for light-houses, buoys, and piers on the coast; and a full view will be taken of the munificence of the nation in the application of its resources to the improvement of its own condition. of these great national under-takings the academy at west point is among the most important in itself and the most comprehensive in its consequences. in that institution a part of the revenue of the nation is applied to defray the expense of educating a competent portion of her youth chiefly to the knowledge and the duties of military life. it is the living armory of the nation. while the other works of improvement enumerated in the reports now presented to the attention of congress are destined to ameliorate the face of nature, to multiply the facilities of communication between the different parts of the union, to assist the labors, increase the comforts, and enhance the enjoyments of individuals, the instruction acquired at west point enlarges the dominion and expands the capacities of the mind. its beneficial results are already experienced in the composition of the army, and their influence is felt in the intellectual progress of society. the institution is susceptible still of great improvement from benefactions proposed by several successive boards of visitors, to whose earnest and repeated recommendations i cheerfully add my own. with the usual annual reports from the secretary of the navy and the board of commissioners will be exhibited to the view of congress the execution of the laws relating to that department of the public service. the repression of piracy in the west indian and in the grecian seas has been effectually maintained, with scarcely any exception. during the war between the governments of buenos ayres and of brazil frequent collisions between the belligerent acts of power and the rights of neutral commerce occurred. licentious blockades, irregularly enlisted or impressed sea men, and the property of honest commerce seized with violence, and even plundered under legal pretenses, are disorders never separable from the conflicts of war upon the ocean. with a portion of them the correspondence of our commanders on the eastern aspect of the south american coast and among the islands of greece discover how far we have been involved. in these the honor of our country and the rights of our citizens have been asserted and vindicated. the appearance of new squadrons in the mediterranean and the blockade of the dardanelles indicate the danger of other obstacles to the freedom of commerce and the necessity of keeping our naval force in those seas. to the suggestions repeated in the report of the secretary of the navy, and tending to the permanent improvement of this institution, i invite the favorable consideration of congress. a resolution of the house of representatives requesting that one of our small public vessels should be sent to the pacific ocean and south sea to examine the coasts, islands, harbors, shoals, and reefs in those seas, and to ascertain their true situation and description, has been put in a train of execution. the vessel is nearly ready to depart. the successful accomplishment of the expedition may be greatly facilitated by suitable legislative provisions, and particularly by an appropriation to defray its necessary expense. the addition of a nd, and perhaps a rd, vessel, with a slight aggravation of the cost, would contribute much to the safety of the citizens embarked on this under- taking, the results of which may be of the deepest interest to our country. with the report of the secretary of the navy will be submitted, in conformity to the act of congress of march d, , for the gradual improvement of the navy of the united states, statements of the expenditures under that act and of the measures for carrying the same into effect. every section of that statute contains a distinct provision looking to the great object of the whole--the gradual improvement of the navy. under its salutary sanction stores of ship timber have been procured and are in process of seasoning and preservation for the future uses of the navy. arrangements have been made for the preservation of the live oak timber growing on the lands of the united states, and for its reproduction, to supply at future and distant days the waste of that most valuable material for ship building by the great consumption of it yearly for the commercial as well as for the military marine of our country. the construction of the two dry docks at charlestown and at norfolk is making satisfactory progress toward a durable establishment. the examinations and inquiries to ascertain the practicability and expediency of a marine railway at pensacola, though not yet accomplished, have been postponed but to be more effectually made. the navy yards of the united states have been examined, and plans for their improvement and the preservation of the public property therein at portsmouth, charlestown, philadelphia, washington, and gosport, and to which two others are to be added, have been prepared and received my sanction; and no other portion of my public duties has been performed with a more intimate conviction of its importance to the future welfare and security of the union. with the report from the post master general is exhibited a comparative view of the gradual increase of that establishment, from five to five years, since 'til this time in the number of post offices, which has grown from less than to nearly , ; in the revenue yielded by them, which from $ , has swollen to upward of $ , , , and in the number of miles of post roads, which from , have multiplied to , . while in the same period of time the population of the union has about thrice doubled, the rate of increase of these offices is nearly , and of the revenue and of traveled miles from to for one. the increase of revenue within the last five years has been nearly equal to the whole revenue of the department in . the expenditures of the department during the year which ended on july st, have exceeded the receipts by a sum of about $ , . the excess has been occasioned by the increase of mail conveyances and facilities to the extent of near , miles. it has been supplied by collections from the post masters of the arrearages of preceding years. while the correct principle seems to be that the income levied by the department should defray all its expenses, it has never been the policy of this government to raise from this establishment any revenue to be applied to any other purposes. the suggestion of the post master general that the insurance of the safe transmission of moneys by the mail might be assumed by the department for a moderate and competent remuneration will deserve the consideration of congress. a report from the commissioner of the public buildings in this city exhibits the expenditures upon them in the course of the current year. it will be seen that the humane and benevolent intentions of congress in providing, by the act of may th, , for the erection of a penitentiary in this district have been accomplished. the authority of further legislation is now required for the removal to this tenement of the offenders against the laws sentenced to atone by personal confinement for their crimes, and to provide a code for their employment and government while thus confined. the commissioners appointed, conformably to the act of march d, , to provide for the adjustment of claims of persons entitled to indemnification under the first article of the treaty of ghent, and for the distribution among such claimants of the sum paid by the government of great britain under the convention of november th, , closed their labors on august th, last by awarding to the claimants the sum of $ , , . , leaving a balance of $ , . , which was distributed ratably amongst all the claimants to whom awards had been made, according to the directions of the act. the exhibits appended to the report from the commissioner of the general land office present the actual condition of that common property of the union. the amount paid into the treasury from the proceeds of lands during the year and for the first half of falls little short of $ , , . the propriety of further extending the time for the extinguishment of the debt due to the united states by the purchasers of the public lands, limited by the act of march st, to july th, , will claim the consideration of congress, to whose vigilance and careful attention the regulation, disposal, and preservation of this great national inheritance has by the people of the united states been intrusted. among the important subjects to which the attention of the present congress has already been invited, and which may occupy their further and deliberate discussion, will be the provision to be made for taking the th census of enumeration of the inhabitants of the united states. the constitution of the united states requires that this enumeration should be made within every term of ten years, and the date from which the last enumeration commenced was the first monday of august of the year . the laws under which the former enumerations were taken were enacted at the session of congress immediately preceding the operation; but considerable inconveniences were experienced from the delay of legislation to so late a period. that law, like those of the preceding enumerations, directed that the census should be taken by the marshals of the several districts and territories of the union under instructions from the secretary of state. the preparation and transmission to the marshals of those instructions required more time than was then allowed between the passage of the law and the day when the enumeration was to commence. the term of six months limited for the returns of the marshals was also found even then too short, and must be more so now, when an additional population of at least , , must be presented upon the returns. as they are to be made at the short session of congress, it would, as well as from other considerations, be more convenient to commence the enumeration from an earlier period of the year than the first of august. the most favorable season would be the spring. on a review of the former enumerations it will be found that the plan for taking every census has contained many improvements upon that of its predecessor. the last is still susceptible of much improvement. the rd census was the first at which any account was taken of the manufactures of the country. it was repeated at the last enumeration, but the returns in both cases were necessarily very imperfect. they must always be so, resting, of course, only upon the communications voluntarily made by individuals interested in some of the manufacturing establishments. yet they contained much valuable information, and may by some supplementary provision of the law be rendered more effective. the columns of age, commencing from infancy, have hitherto been confined to a few periods, all under the number of years. important knowledge would be obtained by extending these columns, in intervals of ten years, to the utmost boundaries of human life. the labor of taking them would be a trifling addition to that already prescribed, and the result would exhibit comparative tables of longevity highly interesting to the country. i deem it my duty further to observe that much of the imperfections in the returns of the last and perhaps of preceding enumerations proceeded from the inadequateness of the compensations allowed to the marshals and their assistants in taking them. in closing this communication it only remains for me to assure the legislature of my continued earnest wish for the adoption of measures recommended by me heretofore and yet to be acted on by them, and of the cordial concurrence on my part in every constitutional provision which may receive their sanction during the session tending to the general welfare. john quincy adams none none the great speeches and orations of daniel webster with an essay on daniel webster as a master of english style by edwin p. whipple [illustration] preface. the object of the present volume is not to supersede the standard edition of daniel webster's works, in six octavo volumes, edited by edward everett, and originally issued in the year , by the publishers of this volume of selections. it is rather the purpose of the present publication to call attention anew to the genius and character of daniel webster, as a lawyer, statesman, diplomatist, patriot, and, citizen, and, by republishing some of his prominent orations and speeches of universally acknowledged excellence, to revive public interest in the great body of his works. in the task of selection, it has been impossible to do full justice to his powers; for among the speeches omitted in this collection are to be found passages of superlative eloquence, maxims of political and moral wisdom which might be taken as mottoes for elaborate treatises on the philosophy of law and legislation, and important facts and principles which no student of history of the united states can overlook without betraying an ignorance of the great forces which influenced the legislation of the two houses of congress, from the time mr. webster first entered public life to the day of his death. it is to be supposed that, when mr. everett consented to edit the six volumes of his works, mr. webster indicated to him the orations, speeches, and diplomatic despatches which he really thought might be of service to the public, and that he intended them as a kind of legacy,--a bequest to his countrymen. the publishers of this volume believe that a study of mr. webster's mind, heart, and character, as exhibited in the selections contained in the present volume, will inevitably direct all sympathetic readers to the great body of mr. webster's works. among the eminent men who have influenced legislative assemblies in great britain and the united states, during the past hundred and twenty years, it is curious that only two have established themselves as men of the first class in english and american literature. these two men are edmund burke and daniel webster; and it is only by the complete study of every thing which they authorized to be published under their names, that we can adequately comprehend either their position among the political forces of their time, or their rank among the great masters of english eloquence and style. contents. daniel webster as a master of english style the dartmouth college case argument before the supreme court of the united states, at washington, on the th of march, . first settlement of new england a discourse delivered at plymouth, on the d of december, . defence of judge james prescott the closing appeal to the senate of massachusetts, in mr. webster's "argument on the impeachment of james prescott," april th, . the revolution in greece a speech delivered in the house of representatives of the united states, on the th of january, . the tariff a speech delivered in the house of representatives of the united states, on the st and d of april, . the case of gibbons and ogden an argument made in the case of gibbons and ogden, in the supreme court of the united states, february term, . the bunker hill monument an address delivered at the laying of the corner-stone of the bunker hill monument at charlestown, massachusetts, on the th of june, . the completion of the bunker hill monument an address delivered on bunker hill, on the th of june, , on occasion of the completion of the monument. our relations to the south american republics extracts from the speech on "the panama mission," delivered in the house of representatives of the united states, on the th of april, . adams and jefferson a discourse in commemoration of the lives and services of john adams and thomas jefferson, delivered in faneuil hall, boston, on the d of august, . the case of ogden and saunders an argument made in the case of ogden and saunders, in the supreme court of the united states, january term, . the murder of captain joseph white an argument on the trial of john francis knapp, for the murder of joseph white, of salem, in essex county, massachusetts, on the night of the th of april, . the reply to hayne second speech on "foot's resolution," delivered in the senate of the united states, on the th and th of january, . the constitution not a compact between sovereign states a speech delivered in the senate of the united states, on the th of february, , in reply to mr. calhoun's speech on the bill "further to provide for the collection of duties on imports." public dinner at new york a speech delivered at a public dinner given by a large number of citizens of new york, in honor of mr. webster, on march th, . the presidential veto of the united states bank bill a speech delivered in the senate of the united states, on the th of july, , on the president's veto of the bank bill. the character of washington a speech delivered at a public dinner in the city of washington, on the d of february, , the centennial anniversary of washington's birthday. executive patronage and removals from office from a speech delivered at the national republican convention, held at worcester (mass.), on the th of october, . executive usurpation from the same speech at worcester. the natural hatred of the poor to the rich from a speech in the senate of the united states, january st, , on "the removal of the deposits." a redeemable paper currency from a speech delivered in the senate of the united states, on the d of february, . the presidential protest a speech delivered in the senate of the united states, on the th of may, , on the subject of the president's protest against the resolution of the senate of the th of march. the appointing and removing power delivered in the senate of the united states, on the th of february, , on the passage of the bill entitled "an act to repeal the first and second sections of the act to limit the term of service of certain officers therein named." on the loss of the fortification bill in a speech delivered in the senate of the united states, on the th of january, , on mr. benton's resolutions for appropriating the surplus revenue to national defence. reception at new york a speech delivered at niblo's saloon, in new york, on the th of march, . slavery in the district of columbia remarks made in the senate of the united states, on the th of january, , upon a resolution moved by mr. clay as a substitute for the resolution offered by mr. calhoun on the subject of slavery in the district of columbia. the credit system and the labor of the united states from the second speech on the sub-treasury, delivered in the senate of the united states, on the th of march, . remarks on the political course of mr. calhoun, in from the same speech. reply to mr. calhoun a speech delivered in the senate of the united states, on the d of march, , in answer to mr. calhoun. a uniform system of bankruptcy from a speech delivered in the senate of the united states, on the th of may, , on the proposed amendment to the bill establishing a uniform system of bankruptcy. "the log cabin candidate" from a speech delivered at the great mass meeting at saratoga, new york, on the th of august, . address to the ladies of richmond remarks at a public reception by the ladies of richmond, virginia, on the th of october, . reception at boston a speech made in faneuil hall, on the th of september, , at a public reception given to mr. webster, on his return to boston, after the negotiation of the treaty of washington. the landing at plymouth a speech delivered on the d of december, , at the public dinner of the new england society of new york, in commemoration of the landing of the pilgrims. the christian ministry and the religious instruction of the young a speech delivered in the supreme court at washington, on the th of february, , in the girard will case. mr. justice story the rhode island government an argument made in the supreme court of the united states, on the th of january, , in the dorr rebellion cases. objects of the mexican war a speech delivered in the senate of the united states, on the d of march, , on the bill from the house of representatives for raising a loan of sixteen millions of dollars. exclusion of slavery from the territories remarks made in the senate of the united states, on the th of august, . speech at marshfield delivered at a meeting of the citizens of marshfield, mass., on the st of september, . jeremiah mason kossuth from a speech delivered in boston, on the th of november, , at a festival of the natives of new hampshire established in massachusetts. the constitution and the union a speech delivered in the senate of the united states, on the th of march, . reception at buffalo a speech delivered before a large assembly of the citizens of buffalo and the county of erie, at a public reception, on the d of may, . the addition to the capitol an address delivered at the laying of the corner-stone of the addition to the capitol, on the th of july, . appendix. impressment the right of search letters to general cass on the treaty of washington the hÜlsemann letter daniel webster as a master of english style. from my own experience and observation i should say that every boy, who is ready enough in spelling, grammar, geography, and arithmetic, is appalled when he is commanded to write what is termed "a composition." when he enters college the same fear follows him and the professor of rhetoric is a more terrible personage to his imagination than the professors of greek, latin, mathematics, and moral and intellectual philosophy. both boys at school and young men in college show no lack of power in speaking their native language with a vehemence and fluency which almost stuns the ears of their seniors. why, then, should they find such difficulty in writing it? when you listen to the animated talk of a bright school-boy or college student, full of a subject which really interests him, you say at once that such command of racy and idiomatic english words must of course be exhibited in his "compositions" or his "themes"; but when the latter are examined, they are commonly found to be feeble and lifeless, with hardly a thought or a word which bears any stamp of freshness or originality, and which are so inferior to his ordinary conversation, that we can hardly believe they came from the same mind. the first quality which strikes an examiner of these exercises in english composition is their _falseness_. no boy or youth writes what he personally thinks and feels, but writes what a good boy or youth is expected to think or feel. this hypocrisy vitiates his writing from first to last, and is not absent in his "class oration," or in his "speech at commencement." i have a vivid memory of the first time the boys of my class, in a public school, were called upon to write "composition." the themes selected were the prominent moral virtues or vices. how we poor innocent urchins were tormented by the task imposed upon us! how we put more ink on our hands and faces than we shed upon the white paper on our desks! our conclusions generally agreed with those announced by the greatest moralists of the world. socrates and plato, cicero and seneca, cudworth and butler, could not have been more austerely moral than were we little rogues, as we relieved the immense exertion involved in completing a single short baby-like sentence, by shying at one companion a rule, or hurling at another a paper pellet intended to light plump on his forehead or nose. our custom was to begin every composition with the proposition that such or such a virtue "was one of the greatest blessings we enjoy"; and this triumph of accurate statement was not discovered by our teacher to be purely mechanical, until one juvenile thinker, having avarice to deal with, declared it to be "one of the greatest evils we enjoy." the whole thing was such a piece of monstrous hypocrisy, that i once timidly suggested to the schoolmaster that it would be well to allow me to select my own subject. the request was granted; and, as narrative is the natural form of composition which a boy adopts when he has his own way, i filled, in less than half the time heretofore consumed in writing a quarter of a page, four pages of letter-paper with an account of my being in a ship taken by a pirate; of the heroic defiance i launched at the pirate captain; and the sagacity i evinced in escaping the fate of my fellow-passengers, in not being ordered to "walk the plank." the story, though trashy enough, was so much better than any of the moral essays of the other pupils, that the teacher commanded me to read it before the whole school, as an evidence of the rapid strides i had made in the art of "composition." this falseness of thought and feeling is but too apt to characterize the writing of the student, after he has passed from the common school to the academy or the college. the term "sophomorical" is used to describe speeches which are full of emotion which the speaker does not feel, full of words in four or five syllables that mean nothing, and, in respect to imagery and illustrations, blazing with the cheap jewelry of rhetoric,--with those rubies and diamonds that can be purchased for a few pennies an ounce. the danger is that this "sophomorical" style may continue to afflict the student after he has become a clergyman, a lawyer, or a legislator. practical men who may not be "college educated" still have the great virtue of using the few words they employ as identical with facts. when they meet a man who has half the dictionary at his disposal, and yet gives no evidence of apprehending the real import and meaning of one word among the many thousands he glibly pours forth, they naturally distrust him, as a person who does not know the vital connection of all good words with the real things they represent. indeed, the best rule that a professor of rhetoric could adopt would be to insist that no student under his care should use an unusual word until he had _earned the right to use it_ by making it the verbal sign of some new advance in his thinking, in his acquirements, or in his feelings. shakspeare, the greatest of english writers, and perhaps the greatest of all writers, required fifteen thousand words to embody all that his vast exceptional intelligence acquired, thought, imagined, and discovered; and he had earned the right to use every one of them. milton found that eight thousand words could fairly and fully represent all the power, grandeur, and creativeness of his almost seraphic soul, when he attempted to express his whole nature in a literary form. all the words used by shakspeare and milton are _alive_; "cut them and they will _bleed_." but it is ridiculous for a college student to claim that he has the mighty resources of the english language at his supreme disposal, when he has not verified, by his own thought, knowledge, and experience, one in a hundred of the words he presumptuously employs. now daniel webster passed safely through all the stages of the "sophomoric" disease of the mind, as he passed safely through the measles, the chicken-pox, and other eruptive maladies incident to childhood and youth. the process, however, by which he purified his style from this taint, and made his diction at last as robust and as manly, as simple and as majestic, as the nature it expressed, will reward a little study. the mature style of webster is perfect of its kind, being in words the express image of his mind and character,--plain, terse, clear, forcible; and rising from the level of lucid statement and argument into passages of superlative eloquence only when his whole nature is stirred by some grand sentiment of freedom, patriotism, justice, humanity, or religion, which absolutely lifts him, by its own inherent force and inspiration, to a region above that in which his mind habitually lives and moves. at the same time it will be observed that these thrilling passages, which the boys of two generations have ever been delighted to declaim in their shrillest tones, are strictly illustrative of the main purpose of the speech in which they appear. they are not mere purple patches of rhetoric, loosely stitched on the homespun gray of the reasoning, but they seem to be inwoven with it and to be a vital part of it. indeed we can hardly decide, in reading these magnificent bursts of eloquence in connection with what precedes and follows them, whether the effect is due to the logic of the orator becoming suddenly morally impassioned, or to his moral passion becoming suddenly logical. what gave webster his immense influence over the opinions of the people of new england was, first, his power of so "putting things" that everybody could understand his statements; secondly, his power of so framing his arguments that all the steps, from one point to another, in a logical series, could be clearly apprehended by every intelligent farmer or mechanic who had a thoughtful interest in the affairs of the country; and thirdly, his power of inflaming the sentiment of patriotism in all honest and well-intentioned men by overwhelming appeals to that sentiment, so that, after convincing their understandings, he clinched the matter by sweeping away their wills. perhaps to these sources of influence may be added another which many eminent statesmen have lacked. with all his great superiority to average men in force and breadth of mind, he had a genuine respect for the intellect, as well as for the manhood, of average men. he disdained the ignoble office of misleading the voters he aimed to instruct; and the farmers and mechanics who read his speeches felt ennobled when they found that the greatest statesman of the country frankly addressed them, as man to man, without pluming himself on his exceptional talents and accomplishments. up to the crisis of , he succeeded in domesticating himself at most of the pious, moral, and intelligent firesides of new england. through his speeches he seemed to be almost bodily present wherever the family, gathered in the evening around the blazing hearth, discussed the questions of the day. it was not the great mr. webster, "the godlike daniel," who had a seat by the fire. it was a person who talked _to_ them, and argued _with_ them, as though he was "one of the folks,"--a neighbor dropping in to make an evening call; there was not the slightest trace of assumption in his manner; but suddenly, after the discussion had become a little tiresome, certain fiery words would leap from his lips and make the whole household spring to their feet, ready to sacrifice life and property for "the constitution and the union." that webster was thus a kind of invisible presence in thousands of homes where his face was never seen, shows that his rhetoric had caught an element of power from his early recollections of the independent, hard-headed farmers whom he met when a boy in his father's house. the bodies of these men had become tough and strong in their constant struggle to force scanty harvests from an unfruitful soil, which only persistent toil could compel to yield any thing; and their brains, though forcible and clear, were still not stored with the important facts and principles which it was his delight to state and expound. in truth, he ran a race with the demagogues of his time in an attempt to capture such men as these, thinking them the very backbone of the country. whether he succeeded or failed, it would be vain to hunt through his works to find a single epithet in which he mentioned them with contempt. he was as incapable of insulting one member of this landed democracy,--sterile as most of their acres were,--as of insulting the memory of his father, who belonged to this class. the late mr. peter harvey used to tell with much zest a story illustrating the hold which these early associations retained on webster's mind throughout his life. some months after his removal from portsmouth to boston, a servant knocked at his chamber door late in an april afternoon in the year , with the announcement that three men were in the drawing-room who insisted on seeing him. webster was overwhelmed with fatigue, the result of his congressional labors and his attendance on courts of law; and he had determined, after a night's sleep, to steal a vacation in order to recruit his energies by a fortnight's fishing and hunting. he suspected that the persons below were expectant clients; and he resolved, in descending the stairs, not to accept their offer. he found in the parlor three plain, country-bred, honest-looking men, who were believers in the innocence of levi and laban kenniston, accused of robbing a certain major goodridge on the highway, and whose trial would take place at ipswich the next day. they could find, they said, no member of the essex bar who would undertake the defence of the kennistons, and they had come to boston to engage the services of mr. webster. would he go down to ipswich and defend the accused? mr. webster stated that he could not and would not go. he had made arrangements for an excursion to the sea-side; the state of his health absolutely demanded a short withdrawal from all business cares; and that no fee could tempt him to abandon his purpose. "well," was the reply of one of the delegation, "it isn't the fee that we think of at all, though we are willing to pay what you may charge; but it's justice. here are two new hampshire men who are believed in exeter, and newbury, and newburyport, and salem to be rascals; but we in newmarket believe, in spite of all evidence against them, that they are the victims of some conspiracy. we think you are the man to unravel it, though it seems a good deal tangled even to us. still we suppose that men whom we know to have been honest all their lives can't have become such desperate rogues all of a sudden." "but i cannot take the case," persisted mr. webster; "i am worn to death with over-work. i have not had any real sleep for forty-eight hours. besides, i know nothing of the case." "it's hard, i can see," continued the leader of the delegation; "but you're a new hampshire man, and the _neighbors_ thought that you would not allow two innocent new hampshire men, however humble they may be in their circumstances, to suffer for lack of your skill in exposing the wiles of this scoundrel goodridge. the _neighbors_ all desire you to take the case." that phrase "the neighbors" settled the question. no resident of a city knows what the phrase means. but webster knew it in all the intense significance of its meaning. his imagination flew back to the scattered homesteads of a new england village, where mutual sympathy and assistance are the necessities, as they are the commonplaces, of village life. the phrase remotely meant to him the combination of neighbors to resist an assault of indian savages, or to send volunteers to the war which wrought the independence of the nation. it specially meant to him the help of neighbor to neighbor, in times of sickness, distress, sorrow, and calamity. in his childhood and boyhood the christian question, "who is my neighbor?" was instantly solved the moment a matron in good health heard that the wife of farmer a, or farmer b, was stricken down by fever, and needed a friendly nurse to sit by her bedside all night, though she had herself been toiling hard all day. every thing philanthropists mean when they talk of brotherhood and sisterhood among men and women was condensed in that homely phrase, "the neighbors." "oh!" said webster, ruefully, "if the neighbors think i may be of service, of course i must go";--and, with his three companions, he was soon seated in the stage for ipswich, where he arrived at about midnight. the court met the next morning; and his management of the case is still considered one of his masterpieces of legal acumen and eloquence. his cross-examination of goodridge rivalled, in mental torture, every thing martyrologists tell us of the physical agony endured by the victim of the inquisitor, when roasted before slow fires or stretched upon the rack. still it seemed impossible to assign any motive for the self-robbery and the self-maiming of goodridge, which any judge or jury would accept as reasonable. the real motive has never been discovered. webster argued that the motive might have originated in a desire to escape from the payment of his debts, or in a whimsical ambition to have his name sounded all over maine and massachusetts as the heroic tradesman who had parted with his money only when overpowered by superior force. it is impossible to say what motives may impel men who are half-crazed by vanity, or half-demonized by malice. coleridge describes iago's hatred of othello as the hatred which a base nature instinctively feels for a noble one, and his assignment of motives for his acts as the mere "motive-hunting of a motiveless malignity." whatever may have been goodridge's motive in his attempt to ruin the innocent men he falsely accused, it is certain that webster saved these men from the unjust punishment of an imputed crime. only the skeleton of his argument before the jury has been preserved; but what we have of it evidently passed under his revision. he knew that the plot of goodridge had been so cunningly contrived, that every man of the twelve before him, whose verdict was to determine the fate of his clients, was inwardly persuaded of their guilt. some small marked portions of the money which goodridge swore he had on his person on the night of the pretended robbery were found in their house. circumstantial evidence brought their guilt with a seemingly irresistible force literally "home" to them. it was the conviction of the leaders of the essex bar that no respectable lawyer could appear in their defence without becoming, in some degree, their accomplice. but webster, after damaging the character of the prosecutor by his stern cross-examination, addressed the jury, not as an advocate bearing down upon them with his arguments and appeals, but rather as a thirteenth juryman, who had cosily introduced himself into their company, and was arguing the case with them after they had retired for consultation among themselves. the simplicity of the language employed is not more notable than the power evinced in seizing the main points on which the question of guilt or innocence turned. at every quiet but deadly stab aimed at the theory of the prosecution, he is careful to remark, that "it is for the jury to say under their oaths" whether such inconsistencies or improbabilities should have any effect on their minds. every strong argument closes with the ever-recurring phrase, "it is for the jury to say"; and, at the end, the jury, thoroughly convinced, said, "not guilty." the kennistons were vindicated; and the public, which had been almost unanimous in declaring them fit tenants for the state prison, soon blamed the infatuation which had made them the accomplices of a villain in hunting down two unoffending citizens, and of denouncing every lawyer who should undertake their defence as a legal rogue. the detected scoundrel fled from the place where his rascality had been exposed, to seek some other locality, where the mingled jeers and curses of his dupes would be unheard. some twenty years after the trial, mr. webster, while travelling in western new york, stopped at an obscure village tavern to get a glass of water. the hand of the man behind the bar, who gave it to him, trembled violently; and webster, wondering at the cause, looked the fellow steadily in the eye. he recognized goodridge, and understood at once that goodridge had just before recognized _him_. not a word passed between the felon and the intrepid advocate who had stripped his villany of all its plausible disguises; but what immense meaning must there have been in the swift interchange of feeling as their eyes met! mr. webster entered his carriage and proceeded on his journey; but goodridge,--who has since ever heard of him? this story is a slight digression, but it illustrates that hold on reality, that truth to fact, which was one of the sources of the force and simplicity of mr. webster's mature style. he, however, only obtained these good qualities of rhetoric by long struggles with constant temptations, in his early life, to use resounding expressions and flaring images which he had not earned the right to use. his fourth of july oration at hanover, when he was only eighteen, and his college addresses, must have been very bad in their diction if we can judge of them by the style of his private correspondence at the time. the verses he incorporates in his letters are deformed by all the faults of false thinking and borrowed expression which characterized contemporary american imitators of english imitators of pope and gray. think of the future orator, lawyer, and senator writing, even at the age of twenty, such balderdash as this! "and heaven grant me, whatever luck betide, be fame or fortune given or denied, some cordial friend to meet my warm desire, honest as john and good as nehemiah." in reading such couplets we are reminded of the noted local poet of new hampshire (or was it maine?) who wrote "the shepherd's songs," and some of whose rustic lines still linger in the memory to be laughed at, such, for instance, as these:-- "this child who perished in the fire,-- his father's name was nehemiah." or these:-- "napoleon, that great ex_ile_, who scoured all europe like a file." and webster's prose was then almost as bad as his verse, though it was modelled on what was considered fine writing at the opening of the present century. he writes to his dearest student friends in a style which is profoundly insincere, though the thoughts are often good, and the fact of his love for his friends cannot be doubted. he had committed to memory fisher ames's noble speech on the british treaty, and had probably read some of burke's great pamphlets on the french revolution. the stripling statesman aimed to talk in their high tone and in their richly ornamented language, before he had earned the right even to mimic their style of expression. there is a certain swell in some of his long sentences, and a kind of good sense in some of his short ones, which suggest that the writer is a youth endowed with elevation as well as strength of nature, and is only making a fool of himself because he thinks he must make a fool of himself in order that he may impress his correspondents with the idea that he is a master of the horrible jargon which all bright young fellows at that time innocently supposed to constitute eloquence. thus, in february, , he writes thus to his friend bingham: "in my melancholy moments i presage the most dire calamities. i already see in my imagination the time when the banner of civil war shall be unfurled; when discord's hydra form shall set up her hideous yell, and from her hundred mouths shall howl destruction through our empire; and when american blood shall be made to flow in rivers by american swords! but propitious heaven prevent such dreadful calamities! internally secure, we have nothing to fear. let europe pour her embattled millions around us, let her thronged cohorts cover our shores, from st. lawrence to st. marie's, yet united columbia shall stand unmoved; the manes of her deceased washington shall guard the liberties of his country, and direct the sword of freedom in the day of battle." and think of this, not in a fourth of july oration, but in a private letter to an intimate acquaintance! the bones of daniel webster might be supposed to have moved in their coffin at the thought that this miserable trash--so regretted and so amply atoned for--should have ever seen the light; but it is from such youthful follies that we measure the vigor of the man who outgrows them. it was fortunate that webster, after he was admitted to the bar, came into constant collision, in the courts of new hampshire, with one of the greatest masters of the common law that the country has ever produced, jeremiah mason. it has been said that mr. mason educated webster into a lawyer by opposing him. he did more than this; he cured webster of all the florid foolery of his early rhetorical style. of all men that ever appeared before a jury, mason was the most pitiless realist, the most terrible enemy of what is--in a slang term as vile almost as itself--called "hifalutin"; and woe to the opposing lawyer who indulged in it! he relentlessly pricked all rhetorical bubbles, reducing them at once to the small amount of ignominious suds, which the orator's breath had converted into colored globes, having some appearance of stability as well as splendor. six feet and seven inches high, and corpulent in proportion, this inexorable representative of good sense and sound law stood, while he was arguing a case, "quite near to the jury," says webster,--"so near that he might have laid his finger on the foreman's nose; and then he talked to them in a plain conversational way, in short sentences, and using no word that was not level to the comprehension of the least educated man on the panel. this led me," he adds, "to examine my own style, and i set about reforming it altogether." mr. mason was what the lawyers call a "cause-getting man," like sir james scarlett, brougham's great opponent at the english bar. it was said of scarlett, that he gained his verdicts because there were twelve scarletts in the jury-box; and mason so contrived to blend his stronger mind with the minds of the jurymen, that his thoughts appeared to be theirs, expressed in the same simple words and quaint illustrations which they would have used if asked to give their opinions on the case. it is to be added, that mason's almost cynical disregard of ornament in his addresses to the jury gave to an opponent like webster the advantage of availing himself of those real ornaments of speech which spring directly from a great heart and imagination. webster, without ever becoming so supremely plain and simple in style as mason, still strove to emulate, in his legal statements and arguments, the homely, robust common-sense of his antagonist; but, wherever the case allowed of it, he brought into the discussion an element of _un_-common sense, the gift of his own genius and individuality, which mason could hardly comprehend sufficiently to controvert, but which was surely not without its effect in deciding the verdicts of juries. it is probable that webster was one of the few lawyers and statesmen that mason respected. mason's curt, sharp, "vitriolic" sarcasms on many men who enjoyed a national reputation, and who were popularly considered the lights of their time, still remain in the memories of his surviving associates, as things which may be quoted in conversation, but which it would be cruel to put into print. of webster, however, he never seems to have spoken a contemptuous word. indeed, mason, though fourteen years older than webster, and fighting him at the portsmouth bar with all the formidable force of his logic and learning, was from the first his cordial friend. that friendship, early established between strong natures so opposite in character, was never disturbed by any collision in the courts. in a letter written, i think, a few weeks after he had made that "reply to hayne" which is conceded to be one of the great masterpieces of eloquence in the recorded oratory of the world, webster wrote jocularly to mason: "i have been written to, to go to new hampshire, to try a cause against you next august.... if it were an easy and plain case on our side, i might be willing to go; but i have some of your _pounding in my bones yet_, and i don't care about any more till that wears out." it may be said that webster's argument in the celebrated "dartmouth college case," before the supreme court of the united states, placed him, at the age of thirty-six, in the foremost rank of the constitutional lawyers of the country. for the main points of the reasoning, and for the exhaustive citation of authorities by which the reasoning was sustained, he was probably indebted to mason, who had previously argued the case before the superior court of new hampshire; but his superiority to mason was shown in the eloquence, the moral power, he infused into his reasoning, so as to make the dullest citation of legal authority _tell_ on the minds he addressed. there is one incident connected with this speech which proves what immense force is given to simple words when a great man--great in his emotional nature as well as great in logical power--is behind the words. "it is, sir, as i have said, a small college. and yet there are those who love it." at this point the orator's lips quivered, his voice choked, his eyes filled with tears,--all the memories of sacrifices endured by his father and mother, his brothers and sisters, in order that he might enjoy its rather scanty advantages of a liberal education, and by means of which he was there to plead its cause before the supreme tribunal of the nation, rushed suddenly upon his mind in an overwhelming flood. the justices of the supreme court--great lawyers, tried and toughened by experience into a certain obdurate sense of justice, and insensible to any common appeal to their hearts--melted into unwonted tenderness, as, in broken words, the advocate proceeded to state his own indebtedness to the "small college," whose rights and privileges he was there to defend. chief justice marshall's eyes were filled with tears; and the eyes of the other justices were suffused with a moisture similar to that which afflicted the eyes of the chief. as the orator gradually recovered his accustomed stern composure of manner, he turned to the counsel on the other side,--one of whom, at least, was a graduate of dartmouth,--and in his deepest and most thrilling tones, thus concluded his argument: "sir, i know not how others may feel; but for myself, when i see my alma mater surrounded, like caesar in the senate-house, by those who are reiterating stab after stab, i would not, for this right hand, have her turn to me and say, _et tu quoque, mi fili!_--and thou too, my son." the effect was overwhelming; yet by what simple means was it produced, and with what small expenditure of words! the eloquence was plainly "in the man, in the subject, and in the occasion," but most emphatically was it in the man. webster's extreme solicitude to make his style thoroughly _websterian_--a style unimitated because it is in itself inimitable--is observable in the care he took in revising all his speeches and addresses which were published under his own authority. his great plymouth oration of did not appear in a pamphlet form until a year after its delivery. the chief reason of this delay was probably due to his desire of stating the main political idea of the oration, that government is founded on property, so clearly that it could not be misconceived by any honest mind, and could only be perverted from its plain democratic meaning by the ingenious malignity of such minds as are deliberately dishonest, and consider lying as justifiable when lying will serve a party purpose. it is probable that webster would have been president of the united states had it not been for one short sentence in this oration,--"government is founded on property." it was of no use for his political friends to prove that he founded on this general proposition the most democratic views as to the distribution of property, and advised the enactment of laws calculated to frustrate the accumulation of large fortunes in a few hands. there were the words, words horrible to the democratic imagination, and webster was proclaimed an aristocrat, and an enemy to the common people. but the delay in the publication of the oration may also be supposed to have been due to his desire to prune all its grand passages of eloquence of every epithet and image which should not be rigorously exact as expressions of his genuine sentiments and principles. it is probable that the plymouth oration, as we possess it in print, is a better oration, in respect to composition, than that which was heard by the applauding crowd before which it was originally delivered. it is certain that the largeness, the grandeur, the weight of webster's whole nature, were first made manifest to the intelligent portion of his countrymen by this noble commemorative address. yet it is also certain that he was not himself altogether satisfied with this oration; and his dissatisfaction with some succeeding popular speeches, memorable in the annals of american eloquence, was expressed privately to his friends in the most emphatic terms. on the day he completed his magnificent bunker hill oration, delivered on the th of june, , he wrote to mr. george ticknor: "i did the deed this morning, i.e. i finished my speech; and i am pretty well persuaded that it will _finish_ me as far as reputation is concerned. there is no more tone in it than in the weather in which it has been written; it is perpetual dissolution and thaw." every critic will understand the force of that word "tone." he seemed to feel that it had not enough robust manliness,--that the ribs and backbone, the facts, thoughts, and real substance of the address, were not sufficiently prominent, owing to the frequency of those outbursts of magnetic eloquence, which made the immense audience that listened to it half crazy with the vehemence of their applause. on the morning after he had delivered his eulogy on adams and jefferson, he entered his office with his manuscript in his hand, and threw it down on the desk of a young student at law whom he specially esteemed, with the request, "there, tom, please to take that discourse, and weed out all the latin words." webster's liking for the saxon element of our composite language was, however, subordinate to his main purpose of self-expression. every word was good, whether of saxon or latin derivation, which aided him to embody the mood of mind dominant at the time he was speaking or writing. no man had less of what has been called "the ceremonial cleanliness of academical pharisees;" and the purity of expression he aimed at was to put into a form, at once intelligible and tasteful, his exact thoughts and emotions. he tormented reporters, proof-readers, and the printers who had the misfortune to be engaged in putting one of his performances into type, not because this or that word was or was not saxon or latin, but because it was inadequate to convey perfectly his meaning. mr. kemble, a great anglo-saxon scholar, once, in a company of educated gentlemen, defied anybody present to mention a single latin phrase in our language for which he could not furnish a more forcible saxon equivalent. "the impenetrability of matter" was suggested; and kemble, after half a minute's reflection, answered, "the un-thorough-fareableness of stuff." still, no english writer would think of discarding such an abstract, but convenient and accurate, term as "impenetrability," for the coarsely concrete and terribly ponderous word which declares that there is no possible thoroughfare, no road, by which we can penetrate that substance which we call "matter," and which our saxon forefathers called "stuff." wherever the latin element in our language comes in to express ideas and sentiments which were absent from the anglo-saxon mind, webster uses it without stint; and some of the most resounding passages of his eloquence owe to it their strange power to suggest a certain vastness in his intellect and sensibility, which the quaint, idiomatic, homely prose of his friend, mason, would have been utterly incompetent to convey. still, he preferred a plain, plump, simple verb or noun to any learned phrase, whenever he could employ it without limiting his opulent nature to a meagre vocabulary, incompetent fully to express it. yet he never departed from simplicity; that is, he rigidly confined himself to the use of such words as he had earned the right to use. whenever the report of one of his extemporaneous speeches came before him for revision, he had an instinctive sagacity in detecting every word that had slipped unguardedly from his tongue, which he felt, on reflection, did not belong to _him_. among the reporters of his speeches, he had a particular esteem for henry j. raymond, afterwards so well known as the editor of the new york times. mr. raymond told me that, after he had made a report of one of webster's speeches, and had presented it to him for revision, his conversation with him was always a lesson in rhetoric. "did i use that phrase? i hope not. at any rate, substitute for it this more accurate definition." and then again: "that word does not express my meaning. wait a moment, and i will give you a better one. that sentence is slovenly,--that image is imperfect and confused. i believe, my young friend, that you have a remarkable power of reporting what i say; but, if i said that, and that, and that, it must have been owing to the fact that i caught, in the hurry of the moment, such expressions as i could command at the moment; and you see they do not accurately represent the idea that was in my mind." and thus, mr. raymond said, the orator's criticism upon his own speech would go on,--correction following correction,--until the reporter feared he would not have it ready for the morning edition of his journal. webster had so much confidence in raymond's power of reporting him accurately, that, when he intended to make an important speech in the senate, he would send a note to him, asking him to come to washington as a personal favor; for he knew that the accomplished editor had a rare power of apprehending a long train of reasoning, and of so reporting it that the separate thoughts would not only be exactly stated, but the relations of the thoughts to each other--a much more difficult task--would be preserved throughout, and that the argument would be presented in the symmetrical form in which it existed in the speaker's mind. then would follow, as of old, the severe scrutiny of the phraseology of the speech; and webster would give, as of old, a new lesson in rhetoric to the accomplished reporter who was so capable of following the processes of his mind. the great difficulty with speakers who may be sufficiently clear in statement and cogent in argument is that turn in their discourse when their language labors to become figurative. imagery makes palpable to the bodily eye the abstract thought seen only by the eye of the mind; and all orators aim at giving vividness to their thinking by thus making their thoughts _visible_. the investigation of the process of imagination by which this end is reached is an interesting study. woe to the speaker who is ambitious to rise into the region of imagination without possessing the faculty! everybody remembers the remark of sheridan, when tierney, the prosaic whig leader of the english house of commons, ventured to bring in, as an illustration of his argument, the fabulous but favorite bird of untrained orators, the phoenix, which is supposed always to spring up alive out of its own ashes. "it was," said sheridan, "a poulterer's description of a phoenix." that is, tierney, from defect of imagination, could not lift his poetic bird above the rank of a common hen or chicken. the test that may be most easily applied to all efforts of the imagination is sincerity; for, like other qualities of the mind, it acts strictly within the limits of a man's character and experience. the meaning of the word "experience," however, must not be confined to what he has personally seen and felt, but is also to be extended to every thing he has seen and felt through vital sympathy with facts, scenes, events, and characters, which he has learned by conversation with other men and through books. webster laid great emphasis on conversation as one of the most important sources of imagery as well as of positive knowledge. "in my education," he once remarked to charles sumner, "i have found that conversation with the intelligent men i have had the good fortune to meet has done more for me than books ever did; for i learn more from them in a talk of half an hour than i could possibly learn from their books. their minds, in conversation, come into intimate contact with my own mind; and i absorb certain secrets of their power, whatever may be its quality, which i could not have detected in their works. converse, _converse_, converse with living men, face to face, and mind to mind,--that is one of the best sources of knowledge." but my present object is simply to give what may be called the natural history of metaphor, comparison, image, trope, and the like, whether imagery be employed by an uneducated husbandman, or by a great orator and writer. many readers may recollect the anecdote of the new hampshire farmer, who was once complimented on the extremely handsome appearance of a horse which he was somewhat sullenly urging on to perform its work. "yaas," was the churlish reply, "the critter looks well enough, but then he is as slow as--as--as--well, as slow as cold molasses." this perfectly answers to bacon's definition of imagination, as "thought immersed in matter." the comparison is exactly on a level with the experience of the person who used it. he had seen his good wife, on so many bitter winter mornings, when he was eager for his breakfast, turn the molasses-jug upside down, and had noted so often the reluctance of the congealed sweetness to assume its liquid nature, that the thing had become to him the visible image of the abstract notion of slowness of movement. an imaginative dramatist or novelist, priding himself on the exactness with which he represented character, could not have invented a more appropriate comparison to be put into the mouth of an imagined new england farmer. the only objection to such rustic poets is, that a comparatively few images serve them for a lifetime; and one tires of such "originals" after a few days' conversation has shown the extremely limited number of apt illustrations they have added to the homely poetry of agricultural life. the only person, belonging to this class, that i ever met, who possessed an imagination which was continually creative in quaint images, was a farmer by the name of knowlton, who had spent fifty years in forcing some few acres of the rocky soil of cape ann to produce grass, oats, potatoes, and, it may be added, those ugly stone walls which carefully distinguish, at the cape, one patch of miserable sterile land from another. he was equal, in quickness of imaginative illustration, to the whole crowd of clergymen, lawyers, poets, and artists, who filled the boarding-houses of "pigeon cove"; and he was absolutely inexhaustible in fresh and original imagery. on one hot summer day, the continuation of fourteen hot summer days, when there was fear all over cape ann that the usual scanty crops would be withered up by the intense heat, and the prayer for rain was in almost every farmer's heart, i met mr. knowlton, as he was looking philosophically over one of his own sun-smitten fields of grass. thinking that i was in full sympathy with his own feeling at the dolorous prospect before his eyes, i said, in accosting him, that it was bad weather for the farmers. he paused for half a minute; and then his mind flashed back on an incident of his weekly experience,--that of his wife "ironing" the somewhat damp clothes of the monday's "washing,"--and he replied: "i see you've been talking with our farmers, who are too stupid to know what's for their good. ye see the spring here was uncommonly rainy, and the ground became wet and cold; but now, for the last fortnight, _god has been putting his flat-iron over it_, and 'twill all come out right in the end." thus mr. knowlton went on, year after year, speaking poetry without knowing it, as molière's monsieur jourdain found he had been speaking prose all his life without knowing it. but the conception of the sun as god's flat-iron, smoothing out and warming the moist earth, as a housewife smooths and warms the yet damp shirts, stockings, and bed-linen brought into the house from the clothes-lines in the yard, is an astounding illustration of that "familiar grasp of things divine," which obtains in so many of our rustic households. dante or chaucer, two of the greatest poets of the world, would, had they happened to be "uneducated" men, have seized on just such an image to express their idea of the divine beneficence. this natural, this instinctive operation of the imaginative faculty, is often observed in children. numberless are the stories told by fond mothers of the wonderful things uttered by their babies, shortly after they have left their cradles. the most striking peculiarity running through them all is the astonishing audacity with which the child treats the most sacred things. he or she seems to have no sense of awe. all children are taught to believe that god resides above them in the sky; and i shall never forget the shock of surprise i felt at the answer of a boy of five years--whom i found glorying over the treasures of his first paint-box--to my question: "which color do you like best?" "oh," he carelessly replied, "i like best sky-blue,--god's color." and the little rogue went on, daubing the paper before him with a mixture of all colors, utterly unconscious that he had said any thing remarkable; and yet what mrs. browning specially distinguishes as the characteristic of the first and one of the greatest of english poets, chaucer, namely, his "familiar grasp of things divine," could not have found a more appropriate illustration than in this chance remark of a mere child, expressing the fearlessness of his faith in the almighty father above him. now in all these instinctive operations of the imagination, whether in the mind of a child or in that of a grown man, it is easy to discern the mark of sincerity. if the child is petted, and urged by his mother to display his brightness before a company of other mothers and other babies, he is in danger of learning early that trick of falsehood, which clings to him when he goes to school, when he leaves the school for the college, and when he leaves the college for the pursuits of professional life. the farmer or mechanic, not endowed with "college larnin'," is sure to become a bad declaimer, perhaps a demagogue, when he abandons those natural illustrations and ornaments of his speech which spring from his individual experience, and strives to emulate the grandiloquence of those graduates of colleges who have the heathen mythology at the ends of their fingers and tongues, and can refer to jove, juno, minerva, diana, venus, vulcan, and neptune, as though they were resident deities and deesses of the college halls. the trouble with most "uneducated" orators is, that they become enamored of these shining gods and goddesses, after they have lost, through repetition, all of their old power to give point or force to any good sentence of modern oratory. during the times when, to be a speaker at abolitionist meetings, the speaker ran the risk of being pelted with rotten eggs, i happened to be present, as one of a small antislavery audience, gathered in an equally small hall. among the speakers was an honest, strong-minded, warm-hearted young mechanic, who, as long as he was true to his theme, spoke earnestly, manfully, and well; but alas! he thought he could not close without calling in some god or goddess to give emphasis--after the method of college students--to his previous statements. he selected, of course, that unfortunate phantom whom he called the goddess of liberty. "here, in boston," he thundered, "where she was cradled in faneuil hall, can it be that liberty should be trampled under foot, when, after two generations have passed,--yes, sir, have elapsed,--she has grown--yes, sir, i repeat it, has grown--grown up, sir, into a great man?" the change in sex was, in this case, more violent than usual; but how many instances occur to everybody's recollection, where that poor goddess has been almost equally outraged, through a puerile ambition on the part of the orator to endow her with an exceptional distinction by senseless rhodomontade, manufactured by the word-machine which he presumes to call his imagination! all imitative imagery is the grave of common-sense. now let us pass to an imagination which is, perhaps, the grandest in american oratory, but which was as perfectly natural as that of the "cold molasses," or "god's flat-iron," of the new england farmer,--as natural, indeed, as the "sky-blue, god's color," of the new england boy. daniel webster, standing on the heights of quebec at an early hour of a summer morning, heard the ordinary morning drum-beat which called the garrison to their duty. knowing that the british possessions belted the globe, the thought occurred to him that the morning drum would go on beating in some english post to the time when it would sound again in quebec. afterwards, in a speech on president jackson's protest, he dwelt on the fact that our revolutionary forefathers engaged in a war with great britain on a strict question of principle, "while actual suffering was still afar off." how could he give most effect to this statement? it would have been easy for him to have presented statistical tables, showing the wealth, population, and resources of england, followed by an enumeration of her colonies and military stations, all going to prove the enormous strength of the nation against which the united american colonies raised their improvised flag. but the thought which had heretofore occurred to him at quebec happily recurred to his mind the moment it was needed; and he flashed on the imagination an image of british power which no statistics could have conveyed to the understanding,--"a power," he said, "which has dotted over the surface of the whole globe with her possessions and military posts, whose morning drum-beat, following the sun, and keeping company with the hours, circles the earth with one continuous and unbroken strain of the martial airs of england." perhaps a mere rhetorician might consider superfluous the word "whole," as applied to "globe," and "unbroken," as following "continuous"; yet they really add to the force and majesty of the expression. it is curious that, in great britain, this magnificent impersonation of the power of england is so little known. it is certain that it is unrivalled in british patriotic oratory. not chatham, not even burke, ever approached it in the noblest passages in which they celebrated the greatness and glory of their country. webster, it is to be noted, introduced it in his speech, not for the purpose of exalting england, but of exalting our revolutionary forefathers, whose victory, after a seven years' war of terrible severity, waged in vindication of a principle, was made all the more glorious from having been won over an adversary so formidable and so vast. it is reported that, at the conclusion of this speech on the president's protest, john sergeant, of philadelphia, came up to the orator, and, after cordially shaking hands with him, eagerly asked, "where, webster, did you get that idea of the morning drum-beat?" like other public men, accustomed to address legislative assemblies, he was naturally desirous of knowing the place, if place there was, where such images and illustrations were to be found. the truth was that, if webster had ever read goethe's faust,--which he of course never had done,--he might have referred his old friend to that passage where faust, gazing at the setting sun, aches to follow it in its course for ever. "see," he exclaims, "how the green-girt cottages shimmer in the setting sun. he bends and sinks,--the day is outlived. yonder he hurries off, and quickens other life. oh, that i have no wing to lift me from the ground, to struggle after--for ever after--him! i should see, in everlasting evening beams, the stilly world at my feet, every height on fire, every vale in repose, the silver brook flowing into golden streams. the rugged mountain, with all its dark defiles, would not then break my godlike course. already the sea, with its heated bays, opens on my enraptured sight. yet the god seems at last to sink away. but the new impulse wakes. i hurry on to drink his everlasting light,--_the day before me and the night behind_,--and under me the waves." in faust, the wings of the mind follow the setting sun; in webster, they follow the rising sun; but the thought of each circumnavigates the globe, in joyous companionship with the same centre of life, light, and heat,--though the suggestion which prompts the sublime idea is widely different. the sentiment of webster, calmly meditating on the heights of quebec, contrasts strangely with the fiery feeling of faust, raging against the limitations of his mortal existence. a humorist, charles dickens, who never read either goethe or webster, has oddly seized on the same general idea: "the british empire," as he says, in one of his novels,--"on which the sun never sets, and where the tax-gatherer never goes to bed." this celebrated image of the british "drum-beat" is here cited simply to indicate the natural way in which all the faculties of webster are brought into harmonious co-operation, whenever he seriously discusses any great question. his understanding and imagination, when both are roused into action, always cordially join hands. his statement of facts is so combined with the argument founded on them, that they are interchangeable; his statement having the force of argument, and his argument having the "substantiality" which properly belongs to statement; and to these he commonly adds an imaginative illustration, which gives increased reality to both statement and argument. in rapidly turning over the leaves of the six volumes of his works, one can easily find numerous instances of this instinctive operation of his mind. in his first bunker hill oration, he announces that "the _principle_ of free governments adheres to the american soil. it is bedded in it, immovable as its mountains." again he says: "a call for the representative system, wherever it is not enjoyed, and where there is already intelligence enough to estimate its value, is perseveringly made. where men may speak out, they demand it where the bayonet is at their throats, they pray for it." and yet again: "if the true spark of religious and civil liberty be kindled, it will burn. human agency cannot extinguish it. like the earth's central fire, it may be smothered for a time; the ocean may overwhelm it; mountains may press it down; but its inherent and unconquerable force will heave both the ocean and the land, and at some time or other, in some place or other, the volcano will break out, and flame up to heaven." it would be difficult to find in any european literature a similar embodiment of an elemental sentiment of humanity, in an image which is as elemental as the sentiment to which it gives vivid expression. and then with what majesty, with what energy, and with what simplicity, can he denounce a political transaction which, had it not attracted his ire, would hardly have survived in the memory of his countrymen! thus, in his protest against mr. benton's expunging resolution, speaking for himself and his senatorial colleague, he says: "we rescue our own names, character, and honor from all participation in this matter; and, whatever the wayward character of the times, the headlong and plunging spirit of party devotion, or the fear or the love of power, may have been able to bring about elsewhere, we desire to thank god that they have not, as yet, overcome the love of liberty, fidelity to true republican principles, and a sacred regard for the constitution in that state whose soil was drenched to a mire by the first and best blood of the revolution." perhaps the peculiar power of webster in condemning a measure by a felicitous epithet, such as that he employs in describing "the _plunging_ spirit of party devotion," was never more happily exercised. in that word "plunging," he intended to condense all his horror and hatred of a transaction which he supposed calculated to throw the true principles of constitutional government into a bottomless abyss of personal government, where right constitutional principles would cease to have existence, as well as cease to have authority. there is one passage in his oration at the completion of the bunker hill monument, which may be quoted as an illustration of his power of compact statement, and which, at the same time, may save readers from the trouble of reading many excellent histories of the origin and progress of the spanish dominion in america, condensing, as it does, all which such histories can tell us in a few smiting sentences. "spain," he says, "stooped on south america, like a vulture on its prey. every thing was force. territories were acquired by fire and sword. cities were destroyed by fire and sword. hundreds of thousands of human beings fell by fire and sword. even conversion to christianity was attempted by fire and sword." one is reminded, in this passage, of macaulay's method of giving vividness to his confident generalization of facts by emphatic repetitions of the same form of words. the repetition of "fire and sword," in this series of short, sharp sentences, ends in forcing the reality of what the words mean on the dullest imagination; and the climax is capped by affirming that "fire and sword" were the means by which the religion of peace was recommended to idolaters, whose heathenism was more benignant, and more intrinsically christian, than the military christianity which was forced upon them. and then, again, how easily webster's imagination slips in, at the end of a comparatively bald enumeration of the benefits of a good government, to vitalize the statements of his understanding! "everywhere," he says, "there is order, everywhere there is security. everywhere the law reaches to the highest, and reaches to the lowest, to protect all in their rights, and to restrain all from wrong; and over all hovers liberty,--that liberty for which our fathers fought and fell on this very spot, with her eye ever watchful, and her eagle wing ever wide outspread." there is something astonishing in the dignity given in the last clause of this sentence to the american eagle,--a bird so degraded by the rhodomontade of fifth-rate declaimers, that it seemed impossible that the highest genius and patriotism could restore it to its primacy among the inhabitants of the air, and its just eminence as a symbol of american liberty. it is also to be noted, that webster here alludes to "the bird of freedom" only as it appears on the american silver dollar that passes daily from hand to hand, where the watchful eye and the outspread wing are so inartistically represented that the critic is puzzled to account for the grandeur of the image which the orator contrived to evolve from the barbaric picture on the ugliest and clumsiest of civilized coins. the compactness of webster's statements occasionally reminds us of the epigrammatic point which characterizes so many of the statements of burke. thus, in presenting a memorial to congress, signed by many prominent men of business, against president jackson's system of finance, he saw at once that the democrats would denounce it as another manifesto of the "moneyed aristocracy." accordingly webster introduced the paper to the attention of the senate, with the preliminary remark: "the memorialists are not unaware, that, if rights are attacked, attempts will be made to render odious those whose rights are violated. power always seeks such subjects on which to try its experiments." it is difficult to resist the impression that webster must have been indebted to burke for this maxim. again, we are deluded into the belief that we must be reading burke, when webster refers to the _minimum_ principle as the right one to be followed in imposing duties on certain manufactures. "it lays the impost," he says, "exactly where it will do good, and leaves the rest free. it is an intelligent, discerning, discriminating principle; not a blind, headlong, generalizing, uncalculating operation. simplicity undoubtedly, is a great beauty in acts of legislation, as well as in the works of art; but in both it must be a simplicity resulting from congruity of parts and adaptation to the end designed; not a rude generalization, which either leaves the particular object unaccomplished, or, in accomplishing it, accomplishes a dozen others also, which were not desired. it is a simplicity wrought out by knowledge and skill; not the rough product of an undistinguishing, sweeping general principle." an ingenuous reader, who has not learned from his historical studies that men generally act, not from arguments addressed to their understandings, but from vehement appeals which rouse their passions to defend their seeming interests, cannot comprehend why webster's arguments against nullification and secession, which were apparently unanswerable, and which were certainly unanswered either by hayne or calhoun, should not have settled the question in debate between the north and the south. such a reader, after patiently following all the turns and twists of the logic, all the processes of the reasoning employed on both sides of the intellectual contest, would naturally conclude that the party defeated in the conflict would gracefully acknowledge the fact of its defeat; and, as human beings, gifted with the faculty of reason, would cheerfully admit the demonstrated results of its exercise. he would find it difficult to comprehend why the men who were overcome in a fair gladiatorial strife in the open arena of debate, with brain pitted against brain, and manhood against manhood, should resort to the rough logic of "blood and iron," when the nobler kind of logic, that which is developed in the struggle of mind with mind, had failed to accomplish the purposes which their hearts and wills, independent of their understandings, were bent on accomplishing. it may be considered certain that so wise a statesman as webster--a statesman whose foresight was so palpably the consequence of his insight, and whose piercing intellect was so admirably adapted to read events in their principles--never indulged in such illusions as those which cheered so many of his own adherents, when they supposed his triumph in argumentation was to settle a matter which was really based on organic differences in the institutions of the two sections of the union. he knew perfectly well that, while the webster men were glorying in his victory over calhoun, the calhoun men were equally jubilant in celebrating calhoun's victory over him. which of them had the better in the argument was of little importance in comparison with the terrible fact that the people of the southern states were widening, year by year, the distance which separated them from the people of the northern states. we have no means of judging whether webster clearly foresaw the frightful civil war between the two sections, which followed so soon after his own death. we only know that, to him, it was a conflict constantly impending, and which could be averted for the time only by compromises, concessions, and other temporary expedients. if he allowed his mind to pass from the pressing questions of the hour, and to consider the radical division between the two sections of the country which were only formally united, it would seem that he must have felt, as long as the institution of negro slavery existed, that he was only laboring to postpone a conflict which it was impossible for him to prevent. but my present purpose is simply to indicate the felicity of webster's intrepid assault on the principles which the southern disunionists put forward in justification of their acts. mr. calhoun's favorite idea was this,--that nullification was a conservative principle, to be exercised within the union, and in accordance with a just interpretation of the constitution. "to begin with nullification," webster retorted, "with the avowed intent, nevertheless, not to proceed to secession, dismemberment, and general revolution, is as if one were to take the plunge of niagara, and cry out that he would stop half-way down. in the one case, as in the other, the rash adventurer must go to the bottom of the dark abyss below, were it not that the abyss has no discovered bottom." how admirable also is his exposure of the distinction attempted to be drawn between secession, as a state right to be exercised under the provisions of what was called "the constitutional compact," and revolution. "secession," he says, "as a revolutionary right, is intelligible; as a right to be proclaimed in the midst of civil commotions, and asserted at the head of armies, i can understand it. but as a practical right, existing under the constitution, and in conformity with its provisions, it seems to me nothing but a plain absurdity; for it supposes resistance to government, under the authority of government itself; it supposes dismemberment, without violating the principles of union; it supposes opposition to law, without crime, it supposes the total overthrow of government, without revolution." after putting some pertinent interrogatories--which are arguments in themselves--relating to the inevitable results of secession, he adds, that "every man must see that these are all questions which can arise only after a revolution. they presuppose the breaking up of the government. while the constitution lasts, they are repressed";--and then, with that felicitous use of the imagination as a handmaid of the understanding, which is the peculiar characteristic of his eloquence, he closes the sentence by saying, that "they spring up to annoy and startle us only from its grave." a mere reasoner would have stopped at the word "repressed"; the instantaneous conversion of "questions" into spectres, affrighting and annoying us as they spring up from the grave of the constitution,--which is also by implication impersonated,--is the work of webster's ready imagination; and it thoroughly vitalizes the statements which precede it. a great test of the sincerity of a statesman's style is his moderation. now, if we take the whole body of mr. webster's speeches, whether delivered in the senate or before popular assemblies, during the period of his opposition to president jackson's administration, we may well be surprised at their moderation of tone and statement. everybody old enough to recollect the singular virulence of political speech at that period must remember it as disgraceful equally to the national conscience and the national understanding. the spirit of party, always sufficiently fierce and unreasonable, was then stimulated into a fury resembling madness. almost every speaker, democrat or whig, was in that state of passion which is represented by the physical sign of "foaming at the mouth." few mouths then opened that did not immediately begin to "foam." so many fortunes were suddenly wrecked by president jackson's financial policy, and the business of the country was so disastrously disturbed, that, whether the policy was right or wrong, those who assailed and those who defended it seemed to be equally devoid of common intellectual honesty. "i do well to be angry," appears to have been the maxim which inspired democratic and whig orators alike; and what reason there was on either side was submerged in the lies and libels, in the calumnies and caricatures, in the defamations and execrations, which accompanied the citation of facts and the affirmation of principles. webster, during all this time, was selected as a shining mark, at which every puny writer or speaker who opposed him hurled his small or large contribution of verbal rotten eggs; and yet webster was almost the only whig statesman who preserved sanity of understanding during the whole progress of that political riot, in which the passions of men became the masters of their understandings. pious whig fathers, who worshipped the "godlike daniel," went almost to the extent of teaching their children to curse jackson in their prayers; equally pious democratic fathers brought up their sons and daughters to anathematize the fiend-like daniel as the enemy of human rights; and yet, in reading webster's speeches, covering the whole space between and , we can hardly find a statement which an historian of our day would not admit as a candid generalization of facts, or an argument which would not stand the test of logical examination. such an historian might entirely disagree with the opinions of webster; but he would certainly award to him the praise of being an honest reasoner and an honest rhetorician, in a time when reason was used merely as a tool of party passion, and when rhetoric rushed madly into the worst excesses of rhodomontade. it is also to be said that webster rarely indulged in personalities. when we consider how great were his powers of sarcasm and invective, how constant were the provocations to exercise them furnished by his political enemies, and how atrociously and meanly allusions to his private affairs were brought into discussions which should have been confined to refuting his reasoning, his moderation in this matter is to be ranked as a great virtue. he could not take a glass of wine without the trivial fact being announced all over the country as indisputable proof that he was an habitual drunkard, though the most remarkable characteristic of his speeches is their temperance,--their "total abstinence" from all the intoxicating moral and mental "drinks" which confuse the understanding and mislead the conscience. he could not borrow money on his note of hand, like any other citizen, without the circumstance being trumpeted abroad as incontrovertible evidence that nick biddle had paid him that sum to defend his diabolical bank in the senate of the united states. the plain fact that his speeches were confined strictly to the exposition and defence of sound opinions on trade and finance, and that it was difficult to answer them, only confirmed his opponents in the conviction that old nick was at the bottom of it all. his great intellect was admitted; but on the high, broad brow, which was its manifestation to the eye, his enemies pasted the words, "to be let," or, "for sale." the more impersonal he became in his statements and arguments, the more truculently was he assailed by the personalities of the political gossip and scandal-monger. indeed, from the time he first came to the front as a great lawyer, statesman, and patriot, he was fixed upon by the whole crew of party libellers as a man whose arguments could be answered most efficiently by staining his character. he passed through life with his head enveloped "in a cloud of poisonous flies"; and the head was the grandest-looking head that had ever been seen on the american continent. it was so pre-eminently noble and impressive, and promised so much more than it could possibly perform, that only one felicitous sarcasm of party malice, among many thousands of bad jokes, has escaped oblivion; and that was stolen from charles fox's remark on lord chancellor thurlow, as fox once viewed him sitting on the wool-sack, frowning on the english house of lords, which he dominated by the terror of his countenance, and by the fear that he might, at any moment, burst forth in one of his short bullying, thundering retorts, should any comparatively weak baron, earl, marquis, or duke dare to oppose him. "thurlow," said fox, "must be an impostor, for nobody can be as wise as he looks." the american version of this was, "webster must be a charlatan, for no one can be as great as he looks." but during all the time that his antagonists attempted to elude the force of his arguments by hunting up the evidences of his debts, and by trying to show that the most considerate, the most accurate, and the most temperate of his lucid statements were the products of physical stimulants, webster steadily kept in haughty reserve his power of retaliation. in his speech in reply to hayne he hinted that, if he were imperatively called upon to meet blows with blows, he might be found fully equal to his antagonists in that ignoble province of intellectual pugilism; but that he preferred the more civilized struggle of brain with brain, in a contest which was to decide questions of principle. in the senate, where he could meet his political opponents face to face, few dared to venture to degrade the subject in debate from the discussion of principles to the miserable subterfuge of imputing bad motives as a sufficient answer to good arguments; but still many of these dignified gentlemen smiled approval on the efforts of the low-minded, small-minded caucus-speakers of their party, when they declared that webster's logic was unworthy of consideration, because he was bought by the bank, or bought by the manufacturers of massachusetts, or bought by some other combination of persons who were supposed to be the deadly enemies of the laboring men of the country. on some rare occasions webster's wrath broke out in such smiting words that his adversaries were cowed into silence, and cursed the infatuation which had led them to overlook the fact that the "logic-machine" had in it invectives more terrible than its reasonings. but generally he refrained from using the giant's power "like a giant"; and it is almost pathetic to remember that, when mr. everett undertook to edit, in , the standard edition of his works, webster gave directions to expunge all personalities from his speeches, even when those personalities were the just punishment of unprovoked attacks on his integrity as a man. readers will look in vain, in this edition of his works, for some of the most pungent passages which originally attracted their attention in the first report of the defence of the treaty of washington. at the time these directions were given, webster was himself the object of innumerable personalities, which were the natural, the inevitable results of his speech of the th of march, . it seems to be a law, that the fame of all public men shall be "half disfame." we are specially warned to beware of the man of whom all men speak well. burke, complimenting his friend fox for risking every thing, even his "darling popularity," on the success of the east india bill, nobly says: "he is traduced and abused for his supposed motives. he will remember, that obloquy is a necessary ingredient in all true glory; he will remember, that it was not only in the roman customs, but it is in the nature of human things, that calumny and abuse are essential parts of triumph." it may be said, however, that webster's virtue in this general abstinence from personalities is to be offset by the fact that he could throw into a glance of his eye, a contortion of his face, a tone of his voice, or a simple gesture of his hand, more scorn, contempt, and hatred than ordinary debaters could express by the profuse use of all the scurrilous terms in the english language. probably many a sentence, which we now read with an even pulse, was, as originally delivered, accompanied by such pointing of the finger, or such flashing of the eye, or such raising of the voice, that the seemingly innocent words were poisoned arrows that festered in the souls of those against whom they were directed, and made deadly enemies of a number of persons whom he seems, in his printed speeches, never to have mentioned without the respect due from one senator to another. in his speech in defence of the treaty of washington, he had to repel mr. ingersoll's indecent attack on his integrity, and his dreadful retort is described by those who heard it as coming within the rules which condemn cruelty to animals. but the "noble rage" which prompted him to indulge in such unwonted invective subsided with the occasion that called it forth, and he was careful to have it expunged when the speech was reprinted. an eminent judge of the supreme court of massachusetts, in commending the general dignity and courtesy which characterized webster's conduct of a case in a court of law, noted one exception. "when," he said, "the opposite counsel had got him into a corner, the way he 'trampled out' was something frightful to behold. the court itself could hardly restrain him in his gigantic efforts to extricate himself from the consequences of a blunder or an oversight." great writers and orators are commonly economists in the use of words. they compel common words to bear a burden of thought and emotion, which mere rhetoricians, with all the resources of the language at their disposal, would never dream of imposing upon them. but it is also to be observed, that some writers have the power of giving a new and special significance to a common word, by impressing on it a wealth of meaning which it cannot claim for itself. three obvious examples of this peculiar power may be cited. among poets, chaucer infused into the simple word "green" a poetic ecstasy which no succeeding english poet, not even wordsworth, has ever rivalled, in describing an english landscape in the month of may. jonathan edwards fixed upon the term "sweetness" as best conveying his loftiest conception of the bliss which the soul of the saint can attain to on earth, or expect to be blessed with in heaven; but not one of his theological successors has ever caught the secret of using "sweetness" in the sense attached to it by him. dr. barrow gave to the word "rest," as embodying his idea of the spiritual repose of the soul fit for heaven, a significance which it bears in the works of no other great english divine. to descend a little, webster was fond of certain words, commonplace enough in themselves, to which he insisted on imparting a more than ordinary import. two of these, which meet us continually in reading his speeches, are "interesting" and "respectable." the first of these appears to him competent to express that rapture of attention called forth by a thing, an event, or a person, which other writers convey by such a term as "absorbing," or its numerous equivalents. if we should select one passage from his works which, more than any other, indicates his power of seeing and feeling, through a process of purely imaginative vision and sympathy, it is that portion of his plymouth oration, where he places himself and his audience as spectators on the barren shore, when the _mayflower_ came into view. he speaks of "the _interesting_ group upon the deck" of the little vessel. the very word suggests that we are to have a very commonplace account of the landing, and the circumstances which followed it. in an instant, however, we are made to "feel the cold which benumbed, and listen to the winds which pierced" this "interesting" group; and immediately after, the picture is flashed upon the imagination of "chilled and shivering childhood, houseless, but for a mother's arms, couchless, but for a mother's breast,"--an image which shows that the orator had not only transported himself into a spectator of the scene, but had felt his own blood "almost freeze" in intense sympathy with the physical sufferings of the shelterless mothers and children. there is no word which the novelists, satirists, philanthropic reformers, and bohemians of our day have done so much to discredit, and make dis-respectable to the heart and the imagination, as the word "respectable." webster always uses it as a term of eulogy. a respectable man is, to his mind, a person who performs all his duties to his family, his country, and his god; a person who is not only virtuous, but who has a clear perception of the relation which connects one virtue with another by "the golden thread" of moderation, and who, whether he be a man of genius, or a business man of average talent, or an intelligent mechanic, or a farmer of sound moral and mental character, is to be considered "respectable" because he is one of those citizens whose intelligence and integrity constitute the foundation on which the republic rests. as late as , in his noble oration on the completion of the bunker hill monument, he declared that if our american institutions had done nothing more than to produce the character of washington, that alone would entitle them to the respect of mankind. "washington is all our own!... i would cheerfully put the question to-day to the intelligence of europe and the world, what character of the century, upon the whole, stands out in the relief of history, most pure, most _respectable_, most sublime; and i doubt not, that, by a suffrage approaching to unanimity, the answer would be washington!" it is needless to quote other instances of the peculiar meaning he put into the word "respectable," when we thus find him challenging the europe of the eighteenth century to name a match for washington, and placing "most respectable" after "most pure," and immediately preceding "most sublime," in his enumeration of the three qualities in which washington surpassed all men of his century. it has been often remarked that webster adapted his style, even his habits of mind and modes of reasoning, to the particular auditors he desired to influence; but that, whether he addressed an unorganized crowd of people, or a jury, or a bench of judges, or the senate of the united states, he ever proved himself an orator of the first class. his admirers commonly confine themselves to the admirable sagacity with which he discriminated between the kind of reasoning proper to be employed when he addressed courts and juries, and the kind of reasoning which is most effective in a legislative assembly. the lawyer and the statesman were, in webster, kept distinct, except so far as he was a lawyer who had argued before the supreme court questions of constitutional law. an amusing instance of this abnegation of the lawyer, while incidentally bringing in a lawyer's knowledge of judicial decisions, occurs in a little episode in his debate with mr. calhoun, in , as to the relation of congress to the territories. mr. calhoun said that he had been told that the supreme court of the united states had decided, in _one_ case, that the constitution did not extend to the territories, but that he was "incredulous of the fact." "oh!" replied mr. webster, "i can remove the gentleman's incredulity very easily, for i can assure him that the same thing has been decided by the united states courts over and over again for the last thirty years." it will be observed, however, that mr. webster, after communicating this important item of information, proceeded to discuss the question as if the supreme court had no existence, and bases his argument on the plain terms of the constitution, and the plain facts recorded in the history of the government established by it. macaulay, in his lively way, has shown the difficulty of manufacturing english statesmen out of english lawyers, though, as lawyers, their rank in the profession may be very high. "their arguments," he says, "are intellectual prodigies, abounding with the happiest analogies and the most refined distinctions. the principles of their arbitrary science being once admitted, the statute-books and the reports being once assumed as the foundations of reasoning, these men must be allowed to be perfect masters of logic. but if a question arises as to the postulates on which their whole system rests, if they are called upon to vindicate the fundamental maxims of that system which they have passed their lives in studying, these very men often talk the language of savages or of children. those who have listened to a man of this class in his own court, and who have witnessed the skill with which he analyzes and digests a vast mass of evidence, or reconciles a crowd of precedents which at first sight seem contradictory, scarcely know him again when, a few hours later, they hear him speaking on the other side of westminster hall in his capacity of legislator. they can scarcely believe that the paltry quirks which are faintly heard through a storm of coughing, and which do not impose on the plainest country gentleman, can proceed from the same sharp and vigorous intellect which had excited their admiration under the same roof, and on the same day." and to this keen distinction between an english lawyer, and an english lawyer as a member of the house of commons, may be added the peculiar kind of sturdy manliness which is demanded in any person who aims to take a leading part in parliamentary debates. erskine, probably the greatest advocate who ever appeared in the english courts of law, made but a comparatively poor figure in the house of commons, as a member of the whig opposition. "the truth is, erskine," sheridan once said to him, "you are afraid of pitt, and that is the flabby part of your character." but macaulay, in another article, makes a point against the leaders of party themselves. his definition of parliamentary government is "government by speaking"; and he declares that the most effective speakers are commonly ill-informed, shallow in thought, devoid of large ideas of legislation, hazarding the loosest speculations with the utmost intellectual impudence, and depending for success on volubility of speech, rather than on accuracy of knowledge or penetration of intelligence. "the tendency of institutions like those of england," he adds, "is to encourage readiness in public men, at the expense both of fulness and of exactness. the keenest and most vigorous minds of every generation, minds often admirably fitted for the investigation of truth, are habitually employed in producing arguments such as no man of sense would ever put into a treatise intended for publication, arguments which are just good enough to be used once, when aided by fluent delivery and pointed language." and he despairingly closes with the remark, that he "would sooner expect a great original work on political science, such a work, for example, as the wealth of nations, from an apothecary in a country town, or from a minister in the hebrides, than from a statesman who, ever since he was one-and-twenty, had been a distinguished debater in the house of commons." now it is plain that neither of these contemptuous judgments applies to webster. he was a great lawyer; but as a legislator the precedents of the lawyer did not control the action or supersede the principles of the statesman. he was one of the most formidable debaters that ever appeared in a legislative assembly; and yet those who most resolutely grappled with him in the duel of debate would be the last to impute to him inaccuracy of knowledge or shallowness of thought. he carried into the senate of the united states a trained mind, disciplined by the sternest culture of his faculties, disdaining any plaudits which were not the honest reward of robust reasoning on generalized facts, and "gravitating" in the direction of truth, whether he hit or missed it. in his case, at least, there was nothing in his legal experience, or in his legislative experience, which would have unfitted him for producing a work on the science of politics. the best speeches in the house of commons of lord palmerston and lord john russell appear very weak indeed, as compared with the reply to hayne, or the speech on "the constitution not a compact between sovereign states," or the speech on the president's protest. in this connection it may be said, when we remember the hot contests between the two men, that there is something plaintive in calhoun's dying testimony to webster's austere intellectual conscientiousness. mr. venables, who attended the south carolina statesman in his dying hours, wrote to webster: "when your name was mentioned he remarked that 'mr. webster has as high a standard of truth as any statesman i have met in debate. convince him, and he cannot reply; he is silenced; he cannot look truth in the face and oppose it by argument. i think that it can be readily perceived by his manner when he felt the unanswerable force of a reply.' he often spoke of you in my presence, and always kindly and most respectfully." now it must be considered that, in debate, the minds of webster and calhoun had come into actual contact and collision. each really felt the force of the other. an ordinary duel might be ranked among idle pastimes when compared with the stress and strain and pain of their encounters in the duel of debate. a sword-cut or pistol-bullet, maiming the body, was as nothing in comparison with the wounds they mutually inflicted on that substance which was immortal in both. it was a duel, or series of duels, in which mind was opposed to mind, and will to will, and where the object appeared to be to inflict moral and mental annihilation on one of the combatants. there never passed a word between them on which the most ingenious southern jurists, in their interpretations of the "code" of honor, could have found matter for a personal quarrel; and yet these two proud and strong personalities knew that they were engaged in a mortal contest, in which neither gave quarter nor expected quarter. mr. calhoun's intellectual egotism was as great as his intellectual ability. he always supposed that he was the victor in every close logical wrestle with any mind to which his own was opposed. he never wrestled with a mind, until he met webster's, which in tenacity, grasp, and power was a match for his own. he, of course, thought his antagonist was beaten by his superior strength and amplitude of argumentation; but it is still to be noted that he, the most redoubtable opponent that webster ever encountered, testified, though in equivocal terms, to webster's intellectual honesty. when he crept, half dead, into the senate-chamber to hear webster's speech of the th of march, , he objected emphatically at the end to webster's declaration that the union could not be dissolved. after declaring that calhoun's supposed case of justifiable resistance came within the definition of the ultimate right of revolution, which is lodged in all oppressed communities, webster added that he did not at that time wish to go into a discussion of the nature of the united states government. "the honorable gentleman and myself," he said, "have broken lances sufficiently often before on that subject." "i have no desire to do it now," replied calhoun; and webster blandly retorted, "i presume the gentleman has not, and i have quite as little." one is reminded here of dr. johnson's remark, when he was stretched on a sick-bed, with his gladiatorial powers of argument suspended by physical exhaustion. "if that fellow burke were now present," the doctor humorously murmured, "he would certainly kill me." but to webster's eminence as a lawyer and a statesman, it is proper to add, that he has never been excelled as a writer of state papers among the public men of the united states. mr. emerson has a phrase which is exactly applicable to these efforts of webster's mind. that phrase is, "superb propriety." throughout his despatches, he always seems to feel that he impersonates his country; and the gravity and weight of his style are as admirable as its simplicity and majestic ease. "daniel webster, his mark," is indelibly stamped on them all. when the treaty of washington was criticised by the whigs in the english parliament, macaulay specially noticed the difference in the style of the two negotiators. lord ashburton, he said, had compromised the honor of his country by "the humble, caressing, wheedling tone" of his letters, a tone which contrasted strangely with "the firm, resolute, vigilant, and unyielding manner" of the american secretary of state. it is to be noticed that no other opponent of sir robert peel's administration, not even lord palmerston and lord john russell, struck at the essential weakness of lord ashburton's despatches with the force and sagacity which characterized macaulay's assault on the treaty. indeed, a rhetorician and critic less skilful than macaulay can easily detect that "america" is represented fully in webster's despatches, while "britannia" has a very amiable, but not very forcible, representative in lord ashburton. had palmerston been the british plenipotentiary, we can easily imagine how different would have been the task imposed on webster. as the american secretary was generally in the right in every position he assumed, he would probably have triumphed even over palmerston; but the letters of the "pluckiest" of english statesmen would, we may be sure, have never been criticised in the house of commons as "humble, wheedling, and caressing." in addition, however, to his legal arguments, his senatorial speeches, and his state papers, webster is to be considered as the greatest orator our country has produced in his addresses before miscellaneous assemblages of the people. in saying this we do not confine the remark to such noble orations as those on the "first settlement of new england," "the bunker hill monument," and "adams and jefferson," but extend it so as to include speeches before great masses of people who could be hardly distinguished from a mob, and who were under no restraint but that imposed by their own self-respect and their respect for the orator. on these occasions he was uniformly successful. it is impossible to detect, in any reports of these popular addresses, that he ever stooped to employ a style of speech or mode of argument commonly supposed appropriate to a speaker on the "stump"; and yet he was the greatest "stump" orator that our country has ever seen. he seemed to delight in addressing five, or ten, or even twenty thousand people, in the open air, trusting that the penetrating tones of his voice would reach even the ears of those who were on the ragged edges of the swaying crowd before him; and he would thus speak to the sovereign people, in their unorganized state as a collection of uneasy and somewhat belligerent individuals, with a dignity and majesty similar to the dignity and majesty which characterized his arguments before the senate of the united states, or before a bench of judges. a large portion of his published works consist of such speeches, and they rank only second among the remarkable productions of his mind. the question arises, how could he hold the attention of such audiences without condescending to flatter their prejudices, or without occasionally acting the part of the sophist and the buffoon? much may be said, in accounting for this phenomenon, about his widely extended reputation, his imposing presence, the vulgar curiosity to see a man whom even the smallest country newspaper thought of sufficient importance to defame, his power of giving vitality to simple words which the most ignorant of his auditors could easily understand, and the instinctive respect which the rudest kind of men feel for a grand specimen of robust manhood. but the real, the substantial source of his power over such audiences proceeded from his respect for _them_; and their respect for him was more or less consciously founded on the perception of this fact. indeed, a close scrutiny of his speeches will show how conscientiously he regards the rights of other minds, however inferior they may be to his own; and this virtue, for it is a virtue, is never more apparent than in his arguments and appeals addressed to popular assemblies. no working-man, whether farmer, mechanic, factory "hand," or day-laborer, ever deemed himself insulted by a word from the lips of daniel webster; he felt himself rather exalted in his own esteem, for the time, by coming in contact with that beneficent and comprehensive intelligence, which cherished among its favorite ideas a scheme for lifting up the american laborer to a height of comfort and respectability which the european laborer could hardly hope to attain. prominent politicians, men of wealth and influence, statesmen of high social and political rank, may, at times, have considered webster as arrogant and bad-tempered, and may, at times, have felt disposed to fasten a quarrel upon him; even in massachusetts this disposition broke out in conventions of the party to which he belonged; but it would be in vain to find a single laboring-man, whether he met webster in private, or half pushed and half fought his way into a mass meeting, in order to get his ears into communication with the orator's voice, who ever heard a word from him which did not exalt the dignity of labor, or which was not full of sympathy for the laborer's occasional sorrows and privations. webster seemed to have ever present to his mind the poverty of the humble home of his youth. his father, his brothers, he himself, had all been brought up to consider manual toil a dignified occupation, and as consistent with the exercise of all the virtues which flourish under the domestic roof. more than this, it may be said that, with the exception of a few intimate friends, his sympathies to the last were most warmly with common laborers. indeed, if we closely study the private correspondence of this statesman, who was necessarily brought into relations, more or less friendly, with the conventionally great men of the world, european as well as american, we shall find that, after all, he took more real interest in seth peterson, and john taylor, and porter wright, men connected with him in fishing and farming, than he did in the ambassadors of foreign states whom he met as senator or as secretary of state, or in all the members of the polite society of washington, new york, and boston. he was very near to nature himself; and the nearer a man was to nature, the more he esteemed him. thus persons who superintended his farms and cattle, or who pulled an oar in his boat when he ventured out in search of cod and halibut, thought "squire webster" a man who realized their ideal and perfection of good-fellowship while it may confidently be said that many of his closest friends among men of culture, including lawyers, men of letters, and statesmen of the first rank, must have occasionally resented the "anfractuosities" of his mood and temper. but seth peterson, and porter wright, and john taylor, never complained of these "anfractuosities." webster, in fact, is one of the few public men of the country in whose championship of the rights and sympathy with the wrongs of labor there is not the slightest trace of the arts of the demagogue; and in this fact we may find the reason why even the "roughs," who are present in every mass meeting, always treated him with respect. perhaps it would not be out of place to remark here, that, in his speech of the th of march, he missed a grand opportunity to vindicate northern labor, in the reference he made to a foolish tirade of a senator from louisiana, who "took pains to run a contrast between the slaves of the south and the laboring people of the north, giving the preference, in all points of condition, of comfort, and happiness, to the slaves of the south." webster made a complete reply to this aspersion on northern labor; but, as his purpose was to conciliate, he did not blast the libeller by quoting the most eminent example that could be named demonstrating the falsehood of the slave-holding senator's assertion. without deviating from the conciliatory attitude he had assumed, one could easily imagine him as lifting his large frame to its full height, flashing from his rebuking eyes a glance of scorn at the "amiable senator," and simply saying, "_i_ belong to the class which the senator from louisiana stigmatizes as more degraded than the slaves of the south." there was not at the time any senator from the south, except mr. calhoun, that the most prejudiced southern man would have thought of comparing with webster in respect to intellectual eminence; and, if webster had then and there placed himself squarely on his position as the son of a northern laborer, we should have been spared all the rhetoric about northern "mud-sills," with which the senate was afterwards afflicted. webster was our man of men; and it would seem that he should have crushed such talk at the outset, by proudly assuming that northern labor was embodied and impersonated in him,--that he had sprung from its ranks, and was proud of his ancestry. an ingenious and powerful, but paradoxical thinker, once told me that i was mistaken in calling jonathan edwards and daniel webster great reasoners. "they were bad reasoners," he added, "but great poets." without questioning the right of the author of "an enquiry into the modern prevailing notion of that freedom of the will, which is supposed to be essential to moral agency," to be ranked among the most eminent of modern logicians, i could still understand why he was classed among poets; for whether edwards paints the torments of hell or the bliss of heaven, his imagination almost rivals that of dante in intensity of realization. but it was at first puzzling to comprehend why webster should be depressed as a reasoner in order to be exalted as a poet. the images and metaphors scattered over his speeches are so evidently brought in to illustrate and enforce his statements and arguments, that, grand as they often are, the imagination displayed in them is still a faculty strictly subsidiary to the reasoning power. it was only after reflecting patiently for some time on the seeming paradox that i caught a glimpse of my friend's meaning; and it led me at once to consider an entirely novel question, not heretofore mooted by any of webster's critics, whether friendly or unfriendly, in their endeavors to explain the reason of his influence over the best minds of the generation to which he belonged. in declaring that, as a poet, he far exceeded any capacity he evinced as a reasoner, my paradoxical friend must have meant that webster had the poet's power of so _organizing_ a speech, that it stood out to the eye of the mind as a palpable intellectual product and fact, possessing, not merely that vague reality which comes from erecting a plausible mental structure of deductive argumentation, based on strictly limited premises, but a positive reality, akin to the products of nature herself, when she tries her hand in constructing a ledge of rocks or rearing a chain of hills. in illustration, it may be well to cite the example of poets with whom webster, of course, cannot be compared. among the great mental facts, palpable to the eyes of all men interested in literature, are such creations as the iliad, the divine comedy, the great shakspearian dramas, the paradise lost, and faust. the commentaries and criticisms on these are numerous enough to occupy the shelves of a large library; some of them attempt to show that homer, dante, shakspeare, milton, and goethe were all wrong in their methods of creation; but they still cannot obscure, to ordinary vision, the lustre of these luminaries as they placidly shine in the intellectual firmament, which is literally _over_ our heads. they are as palpable, to the eye of the mind, as sirius, arcturus, the southern cross, and the planets venus, mars, jupiter, and saturn, are to the bodily sense. m. taine has recently assailed the paradise lost with the happiest of french epigrams; he tries to prove that, in construction, it is the most ridiculously inartistic monstrosity that the imagination of a great mind ever framed out of chaos; but, after we have thoroughly enjoyed the play of his wit, there the paradise lost remains, an undisturbed object in the intellectual heavens, disdaining to justify its right to exist on any other grounds than the mere fact of its existence; and, certainly, not more ridiculous than saturn himself, as we look at him through a great equatorial telescope, swinging through space encumbered with his clumsy ring, and his wrangling family of satellites, but still, in spite of peculiarities on which m. taine might exercise his wit until doomsday, one of the most beautiful and sublime objects which the astronomer can behold in the whole phenomena of the heavens. indeed, in reading criticisms on such durable poetic creations and organizations as we have named, one is reminded of sydney smith's delicious chaffing of his friend jeffrey, on account of jeffrey's sensitiveness of literary taste, and his inward rage that events, men, and books, outside of him, do not correspond to the exacting rules which are the products of his own subjective and somewhat peevish intelligence. "i like," says sydney, "to tell you these things, because you never do so well as when you are humbled and frightened, and, if _you could be alarmed into the semblance of modesty_, you would charm everybody; but remember my joke against you about the moon: 'd--n the solar system! bad light--planets too distant--pestered with comets--feeble contrivance; could make a better with great ease.'" now when a man, in whatever department or direction of thought his activity is engaged, succeeds in organizing, or even welding together, the materials on which he works, so that the product, as a whole, is _visible_ to the mental eye, as a new creation or construction, he has an immense advantage over all critics of his performance. refined reasonings are impotent to overthrow it; epigrams glance off from it, as rifle-bullets rebound when aimed at a granite wall; and it stands erect long after the reasonings and the epigrams are forgotten. even when its symmetry is destroyed by a long and destructive siege, a pile of stones still remains, as at fort sumter, to attest what power of resistance it opposed to all the resources of modern artillery. if we look at webster's greatest speeches, as, for instance, "the reply to hayne," "the constitution not a compact between sovereign states," "the president's protest," and others that might be mentioned, we shall find that they partake of the character of organic formations, or at least of skilful engineering or architectural constructions. even mr. calhoun never approached him in this art of giving objective reality to a speech, which, after all, is found, on analysis, to consist only of a happy collocation and combination of words, but in webster the words are either all alive with the creative spirit of the poet, or, at the worst, resemble the blocks of granite or marble which the artisan piles, one on the other, and the result of which, though it may represent a poor style of architecture, is still a rude specimen of a gothic edifice. the artist and artificer are both observable in webster's work; but the reality and solidity of the construction cannot be questioned. at the present time, an educated reader would be specially interested in the mental processes by which webster thus succeeded in giving objective existence and validity to the operations of his mind, and, whether sympathizing with his opinions or not, would as little think of refusing to read them because of their whiggism, as he would think of refusing to read homer because of his heathenism, or dante because of his catholicism, or milton because of his compound of arianism and calvinism, or goethe because of his pantheism. the fact which would most interest such a reader would be, that webster had, in some mysterious way, translated and transformed his abstract propositions into concrete substance and form. the form might offend his reason, his taste, or his conscience; but he could not avoid admitting that it _had_ a form, while most speeches, even those made by able men, are comparatively formless, however lucid they may be in the array of facts, and plausible in the order and connection of arguments. in trying to explain this power, the most obvious comparison which would arise in the mind of an intelligent reader would be, that webster, as a rhetorician, resembled vauban and cohorn as military engineers. in the war of debate, he so _fortified_ the propositions he maintained, that they could not be carried by direct assault, but must be patiently besieged. the words he employed were simple enough, and fell short of including the vocabulary of even fifth-rate declaimers; but he had the art of so disposing them that, to an honest reasoner, the position he took appeared to be impregnable. to assail it by the ordinary method of passionate protest and illogical reasoning, was as futile as a dash of light cavalry would have been against the defences of such cities as namur and lille. indeed, in his speech, "the constitution not a compact between sovereign states," he erected a whole torres vedras line of fortifications, on which legislative massenas dashed themselves in vain, and, however strong in numbers in respect to the power of voting him down, recoiled defeated in every attempt to reason him down. in further illustration of this peculiar power of webster, the speech of the th of march, , may be cited, for its delivery is to be ranked with the most important historical events. for some years it was the object of the extremes of panegyric and the extremes of execration. but this effort is really the most loosely constructed of all the great productions of webster's mind. in force, compactness, and completeness, in closeness of thought to things, in closeness of imagery to the reasoning it illustrates, and in general intellectual fibre, muscle, and bone, it cannot be compared to such an oration as that on the "first settlement of new england," or such a speech as that which had for its theme, "the constitution not a compact between sovereign states"; but, after all deductions have been made, it was still a speech which frowned upon its opponents as a kind of verbal fortress constructed both for the purpose of defence and aggression. its fame is due, in a great degree, to its resistance to a storm of assaults, such as had rarely before been concentrated on any speech delivered in either branch of the congress of the united states. indeed, a very large portion of the intellect, the moral sentiment, and the moral passion of the free states was directed against it. there was not a weapon in the armory of the dialectician or the rhetorician which was not employed with the intent of demolishing it. contempt of webster was vehemently taught as the beginning of political wisdom. that a speech, thus assailed, should survive the attacks made upon it, appeared to be impossible. and yet it did survive, and is alive now, while better speeches, or what the present writer thought, at the time, to be more convincing speeches, have not retained individual existence, however deeply they may have influenced that public opinion which, in the end, determines political events. "i still live," was webster's declaration on his death-bed, when the friends gathered around it imagined he had breathed his last; and the same words might be uttered by the speech of the th of march, could it possess the vocal organ which announces personal existence. between the time it was originally delivered and the present year there runs a great and broad stream of blood, shed from the veins of northern and southern men alike; the whole political and moral constitution of the country has practically suffered an abrupt change; new problems engage the attention of thoughtful statesmen; much is forgotten which was once considered of the first importance; but the th of march speech, battered as it is by innumerable attacks, is still remembered at least as one which called forth more power than it embodied in itself. this persistence of life is due to the fact that it was "organized." is this power of organization common among orators? it seems to me that, on the contrary, it is very rare. in some of burke's speeches, in which his sensibility and imagination were thoroughly under the control of his judgment, as, for instance, his speech on conciliation with america, that on economical reform, and that to the electors of bristol, we find the orator to be a consummate master of the art of so constructing a speech that it serves the immediate object which prompted its delivery, while at the same time it has in it a principle of vitality which makes it survive the occasion that called it forth. but the greatest of burke's speeches, if we look merely at the richness and variety of mental power and the force and depth of moral passion displayed in it, is his speech on the nabob of arcot's debts. no speech ever delivered before any assembly, legislative, judicial, or popular, can rank with this in respect to the abundance of its facts, reasonings, and imagery, and the ferocity of its moral wrath. it resembles the el dorado that voltaire's candide visited, where the boys played with precious stones of inestimable value, as our boys play with ordinary marbles; for to the inhabitants of el dorado diamonds and pearls were as common as pebbles are with us. but the defect of this speech, which must still be considered, on the whole, the most inspired product of burke's great nature, was this,-- that it did not strike its hearers or readers as having _reality_ for its basis or the superstructure raised upon it. englishmen could not believe then, and most of them probably do not believe now, that it had any solid foundation in incontrovertible facts. it did not "fit in" to their ordinary modes of thought; and it has never been ranked with burke's "organized" orations; it has never come home to what bacon called the "business and bosoms" of his countrymen. they have generally dismissed it from their imaginations as "a phantasmagoria and a hideous dream" created by burke under the impulse of the intense hatred he felt for the administration which succeeded the overthrow of the government, which was founded on the coalition of fox and north. now, in simple truth, the speech is the most masterly statement of facts, relating to the oppression of millions of the people of india, which was ever forced on the attention of the house of commons,--a legislative assembly which, it may be incidentally remarked, was practically responsible for the just government of the immense indian empire of great britain. it is curious that the main facts on which the argument of burke rests have been confirmed by james mill, the coldest-blooded historian that ever narrated the enormous crimes which attended the rise and progress of the british power in hindostan, and a man who also had a strong intellectual antipathy to the mind of burke. in making the speech, burke had documentary evidence of a large portion of the transactions he denounced, and had _divined_ the rest. mill supports him both as regards the facts of which burke had positive knowledge, and the facts which he deductively inferred from the facts he knew. having thus a strong foundation for his argument, he exerted every faculty of his mind, and every impulse of his moral sentiment and moral passion, to overwhelm the leading members of the administration of pitt, by attempting to make them accomplices in crimes which would disgrace even slave-traders on the guinea coast. the merely intellectual force of his reasoning is crushing; his analysis seems to be sharpened by his hatred; and there is no device of contempt, scorn, derision, and direct personal attack, which he does not unsparingly use. in the midst of all this mental tumult, inestimable maxims of moral and political wisdom are shot forth in short sentences, which have so much of the sting and brilliancy of epigram, that at first we do not appreciate their depth of thought; and through all there burns such a pitiless fierceness of moral reprobation of cruelty, injustice, and wrong, that all the accredited courtesies of debate are violated, once, at least, in every five minutes. in any american legislative assembly he would have been called to order at least once in five minutes. the images which the orator brings in to give vividness to his argument are sometimes coarse; but, coarse as they are, they admirably reflect the moral turpitude of the men against whom he inveighs. among these is the image with which he covers dundas, the special friend of pitt, with a ridicule which promises to be immortal. dundas, on the occasion when fox and burke called for papers by the aid of which they proposed to demonstrate the iniquity of the scheme by which the ministry proposed to settle the debts of the nabob of arcot, pretended that the production of such papers would be indelicate,--"that this inquiry is of a delicate nature, and that the state will suffer detriment by the exposure of this transaction." as dundas had previously brought out six volumes of reports, generally confirming burke's own views of the corruption and oppression which marked the administration of affairs in india, he laid himself open to burke's celebrated assault. dundas and delicacy, he said, were "a rare and singular coalition." and then follows an image of colossal coarseness, such as might be supposed capable of rousing thunder-peals of laughter from a company of festive giants,--an image which lord brougham declared offended _his_ sensitive taste,--the sensitive taste of one of the most formidable legal and legislative bullies that ever appeared before the juries or parliament of great britain, and who never hesitated to use any illustration, however vulgar, which he thought would be effective to degrade his opponents. but whatever may be thought of the indelicacy of burke's image, it was one eminently adapted to penetrate through the thick hide of the minister of state at whom it was aimed, and it shamed him as far as a profligate politician like dundas was capable of feeling the sensation of shame. but there are also flashes, or rather flames, of impassioned imagination, in the same speech, which rush up from the main body of its statements and arguments, and remind us of nothing so much as of those jets of incandescent gas which, we are told by astronomers, occasionally leap, from the extreme outer covering of the sun, to the height of a hundred or a hundred and sixty thousand miles, and testify to the terrible forces raging within it. after reading this speech for the fiftieth time, the critic cannot free himself from the rapture of admiration and amazement which he experienced in his first fresh acquaintance with it. yet its delivery in the house of commons (february , ) produced an effect so slight, that pitt, after a few minutes' consultation with grenville, concluded that it was not worth the trouble of being answered; and the house of commons, obedient to the prime minister's direction, negatived, by a large majority, the motion in advocating which burke poured out the wonderful treasures of his intellect and imagination. to be sure, the house was tired to death with the discussion, was probably very sleepy, and the orator spoke five hours after the members had already shouted, "question! question!" the truth is, that this speech, unmatched though it is in the literature of eloquence, had not, as has been previously stated, the air of reality. it struck the house as a magnificent oriental dream, as an arabian nights' entertainment, as a tale told by an inspired madman, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"; and the evident partisan intention of the orator to blast pitt's administration by exhibiting its complicity in one of the most enormous frauds recorded in history, confirmed the dandies, the cockneys, the bankers, and the country gentlemen, who, as members of the house of commons, stood by pitt with all the combined force of their levity, their venality, and their stupidity, in the propriety of voting burke down. and even now, when the substantial truth of all the facts he alleged is established on evidence which convinces historians, the admiring reader can understand why it failed to convince burke's contemporaries, and why it still appears to lack the characteristics of a speech thoroughly organized. indeed, the mind of burke, when it was delivered, can only be compared to a volcanic mountain in eruption;--not merely a volcano like that of vesuvius, visited by scientists and amateurs in crowds, when it deigns to pour forth its flames and lava for the entertainment of the multitude; but a lonely volcano, like that of etna, rising far above vesuvius in height, far removed from all the vulgar curiosity of a body of tourists, but rending the earth on which it stands with the mighty earthquake throes of its fiery centre and heart. the moral passion,--perhaps it would be more just to say the moral fury,--displayed in the speech, is elemental, and can be compared to nothing less intense than the earth's interior fire and heat. now in webster's great legislative efforts, his mind is never exhibited in a state of eruption. in the most excited debates in which he bore a prominent part, nothing strikes us more than the admirable self-possession, than the majestic inward calm, which presides over all the operations of his mind and the impulses of his sensibility, so that, in building up the fabric of his speech, he has his reason, imagination, and passion under full control,--using each faculty and feeling as the occasion may demand, but never allowing himself to be used _by_ it,--and always therefore conveying the impression of power in reserve, while he may, in fact, be exercising all the power he has to the utmost. in laboriously erecting his edifice of reasoning he also studiously regards the intellects and the passions of ordinary men; strives to bring his mind into cordial relations with theirs; employs every faculty he possesses to give reality, to give even visibility, to his thoughts; and though he never made a speech which rivals that of burke on the nabob of arcot's debts, in respect to grasp of understanding, astounding wealth of imagination and depth of moral passion, he always so contrived to organize his materials into a complete whole, that the result stood out clearly to the sight of the mind, as a structure resting on strong foundations, and reared to due height by the mingled skill of the artisan and the artist. when he does little more than weld his materials together, he is still an artificer of the old school of giant workmen, the school that dates its pedigree from tubal cain. after all this wearisome detail and dilution of the idea attempted to be expressed, it may be that i have failed to convey an adequate impression of what constitutes webster's distinction among orators, as far as orators have left speeches which are considered an invaluable addition to the literature of the language in which they were originally delivered. everybody understands why any one of the great sermons of jeremy taylor, or the sermon of dr. south on "man created in the image of god," or the sermon of dr. barrow on "heavenly rest," differs from the millions on millions of doubtless edifying sermons that have been preached and printed during the last two centuries and a half; but everybody does not understand the distinction between one brilliant oration and another, when both made a great sensation at the time, while only one survived in literature. probably charles james fox was a more effective speaker in the house of commons than edmund burke, probably henry clay was a more effective speaker in congress than daniel webster; but when the occasions on which their speeches were made are found gradually to fade from the memory of men, why is it that the speeches of fox and clay have no recognized position in literature, while those of burke and webster are ranked with literary productions of the first class? the reason is as really obvious as that which explains the exceptional value of some of the efforts of the great orators of the pulpit. jeremy taylor, dr. south, and dr. barrow, different as they were in temper and disposition, succeeded in "organizing" some masterpieces in their special department of intellectual and moral activity; and the same is true of burke and webster in the departments of legislation and political science. the "occasion" was merely an opportunity for the consolidation into a speech of the rare powers and attainments, the large personality and affluent thought, which were the spiritual possessions of the man who made it,--a speech which represented the whole intellectual manhood of the speaker,--a manhood in which knowledge, reason, imagination, and sensibility were all consolidated under the directing power of will. a pertinent example of the difference we have attempted to indicate may be easily found in contrasting fox's closing speech on the east india bill with burke's on the same subject. for immediate effect on the house of commons, it ranks with the most masterly of fox's parliamentary efforts. the hits on his opponents were all "telling." the _argumentum ad hominem_, embodied in short, sharp statements, or startling interrogatories, was never employed with more brilliant success. the reasoning was rapid, compact, encumbered by no long enumeration of facts, and, though somewhat unscrupulous here and there, was driven home upon his adversaries with a skill that equalled its audacity. it may be said that there is not a sentence in the whole speech which was not calculated to sting a sleepy audience into attention, or to give delight to a fatigued audience which still managed to keep its eyes and minds wide open. even in respect to the principles of liberty and justice, which were the animating life of the bill, fox's terse sentences contrast strangely with the somewhat more lumbering and elaborate paragraphs of burke. "what," he exclaims, putting his argument in his favorite interrogative form,--"what is the most odious species of tyranny? precisely that which this bill is meant to annihilate. that a handful of men, free themselves, should exercise the most base and abominable despotism over millions of their fellow-creatures; that innocence should be the victim of oppression; that industry should toil for rapine; that the harmless laborer should sweat, not for his own benefit, but for the luxury and rapacity of tyrannic depredation;--in a word, that thirty millions of men, gifted by providence with the ordinary endowments of humanity, should groan under a system of despotism unmatched in all the histories of the world? what is the end of all government? certainly, the happiness of the governed. others may hold different opinions; but this is mine, and i proclaim it. what, then, are we to think of a government whose good fortune is supposed to spring from the calamities of its subjects, whose aggrandizement grows out of the miseries of mankind? this is the kind of government exercised under the east indian company upon the natives of hindostan; and the subversion of that infamous government is the main object of the bill in question." and afterwards he says, with admirable point and pungency of statement: "every line in both the bills which i have had the honor to introduce, presumes the possibility of bad administration; for every word breathes suspicion. this bill supposes that men are but men. it confides in no integrity; it trusts no character; it inculcates the wisdom of a jealousy of power, and annexes responsibility, not only to every _action_, but even to the _inaction_ of those who are to dispense it. the necessity of these provisions must be evident, when it is known that the different misfortunes of the company have resulted not more from what their servants _did_, than from what the _masters did not_." there is a directness in such sentences as these which we do not find in burke's speech on the east india bill; but burke's remains as a part of english literature, and in form and substance, especially in substance, is so immensely superior to that of fox, that, in quoting sentences from the latter, one may almost be supposed to rescue them from that neglect which attends all speeches which do not reach beyond the occasion which calls them forth. in bacon's phrase, the speech of fox shows "small matter, and infinite agitation of wit"; in burke's, we discern large matter with an abundance of "wit" proper to the discussion of the matter, but nothing which suggests the idea of mere "agitation." fox, in his speeches, subordinated every thing to the immediate impression he might make on the house of commons. he deliberately gave it as his opinion, that a speech that read well must be a bad speech; and, in a literary sense, the house of commons, which he entered before he was twenty, may be called both the cradle and the grave of his fame. it has been said that he was a debater whose speeches should be studied by every man who wishes "to learn the science of logical defence"; that he alone, among english orators, resembles demosthenes, inasmuch as his reasoning is "penetrated and made red-hot by passion"; and that nothing could excel the effect of his delivery when "he was in the full paroxysm of inspiration, foaming, screaming, choked by the rushing multitude of his words." but not one of his speeches, not even that on the east india bill, or on the westminster scrutiny, or on the russian armament, or on parliamentary reform, or on mr. pitt's rejection of bonaparte's overtures for peace, has obtained an abiding place in the literature of great britain. it would be no disparagement to an educated man, if it were said that he had never read these speeches; but it would be a serious bar to his claim to be considered an english scholar, if he confessed to be ignorant of the great speeches of burke; for such a confession would be like admitting that he had never read the first book of hooker's ecclesiastical polity, bacon's essays and advancement of learning, milton's areopagitica, butler's analogy, and adam smith's wealth of nations. when we reflect on the enormous number of american speeches which, when they were first delivered, were confidently predicted, by appreciating friends, to insure to the orators a fame which would be immortal, one wonders a little at the quiet persistence of the speeches of webster in refusing to die with the abrupt suddenness of other orations, which, at the time of their delivery, seemed to have an equal chance of renown. the lifeless remains of such unfortunate failures are now entombed in that dreariest of all mausoleums, the dingy quarto volumes, hateful to all human eyes, which are lettered on the back with the title of "congressional debates,"--a collection of printed matter which members of congress are wont to send to a favored few among their constituents, and which are immediately consigned to the dust-barrel or sold to pedlers in waste paper, according as the rage of the recipients takes a scornful or an economical direction. it would seem that the speeches of webster are saved from this fate, by the fact that, in them, the mental and moral life of a great man, and of a great master of the english language, are organized in a palpable intellectual form. the reader feels that they have some of the substantial qualities which he recognizes in looking at the gigantic constructions of the master workmen among the crowd of the world's engineers and architects, in looking at the organic products of nature herself, and in surveying, through the eye of his imagination, those novel reproductions of nature which great poets have embodied in works which are indelibly stamped with the character of deathlessness. but webster is even more obviously a poet--subordinating "the shows of things to the desires of the mind"--in his magnificent idealization, or idolization, of the constitution and the union. by the magic of his imagination and sensibility he contrived to impress on the minds of a majority of the people of the free states a vague, grand idea that the constitution was a sacred instrument of government,--a holy shrine of fundamental law, which no unhallowed hands could touch without profanation,--a digested system of rights and duties, resembling those institutes which were, in early times, devised by the immortal gods for the guidance of infirm mortal man; and the mysterious creatures, half divine and half human, who framed this remarkable document, were always reverently referred to as "the fathers,"--as persons who excelled all succeeding generations in sagacity and wisdom; as inspired prophets, who were specially selected by divine providence to frame the political scriptures on which our political faith was to be based, and by which our political reason was to be limited. the splendor of the glamour thus cast over the imaginations and sentiments of the people was all the more effective because it was an effluence from the mind of a statesman who, of all other statesmen of the country, was deemed the most practical, and the least deluded by any misguiding lights of fancy and abstract speculation. there can be little doubt that webster's impressive idealization of the constitution gave a certain narrowness to american thinking on constitutional government and the science of politics and legislation. foreigners, of the most liberal views, could not sometimes restrain an expression of wonder, when they found that our most intelligent men, even our jurists and publicists, hardly condescended to notice the eminent european thinkers on the philosophy of government, so absorbed were they in the contemplation of the perfection of their own. when the great civil war broke out, hundreds of thousands of american citizens marched to the battle-field with the grand passages of webster glowing in their hearts. they met death cheerfully in the cause of the "constitution and union," as by him expounded and idealized; and if they were so unfortunate as not to be killed, but to be taken captive, they still rotted to death in southern prisons, sustained by sentences of webster's speeches which they had declaimed as boys in their country schools. of all the triumphs of webster as a leader of public opinion, the most remarkable was his infusing into the minds of the people of the free states the belief that the constitution as it existed in his time was an organic fact, springing from the intelligence, hearts, and wills of the people of the united states, and not, as it really was, an ingenious mechanical contrivance of wise men, to which the people, at the time, gave their assent. the constitutions of the separate states of the union were doubtless rooted in the habits, sentiments, and ideas of their inhabitants. but the constitution of the united states could not possess this advantage, however felicitously it may have been framed for the purpose of keeping, for a considerable period, peace between the different sections of the country. as long, therefore, as the institution of negro slavery lasted, it could not be called a constitution of states organically "united"; for it lacked the principle of _growth_, which characterizes all constitutions of government which are really adapted to the progressive needs of a people, if the people have in them any impulse which stimulates them to advance. the unwritten constitution of great britain has this advantage, that a decree of parliament can alter the whole representative system, annihilating by a vote of the two houses all laws which the parliament had enacted in former years. in great britain, therefore, a measure which any imperial parliament passes becomes at once the supreme law of the land, though it may nullify a great number of laws which previous parliaments had passed under different conditions of the sentiment of the nation. our constitution, on the other hand, provides for the contingencies of growth in the public sentiment only by amendments to the constitution. these amendments require more than a majority of all the political forces represented in congress; and mr. calhoun, foreseeing that a collision must eventually occur between the two sections, carried with him, not only the south, but a considerable minority of the north, in resisting any attempt to limit the _extension_ of slavery. on this point the passions and principles of the people of the slave-holding and the majority of the people of the non-slave-holding states came into violent opposition; and there was no possibility that any amendment to the constitution could be ratified, which would represent either the growth of the southern people in their ever-increasing belief that negro slavery was not only a good in itself, but a good which ought to be extended, or the growth of the northern people in their ever-increasing hostility both to slavery and its extension. thus two principles, each organic in its nature, and demanding indefinite development, came into deadly conflict under the mechanical forms of a constitution which was not organic. a considerable portion of the speeches in this volume is devoted to denunciations of violations of the constitution perpetrated by webster's political opponents. these violations, again, would seem to prove that written constitutions follow practically the same law of development which marks the progress of the unwritten. by a strained system of congressional interpretation, the constitution has been repeatedly compelled to yield to the necessities of the party dominant, for the time, in the government; and has, if we may believe webster, been repeatedly changed without being constitutionally "amended." the causes which led to the most terrible civil war recorded in history were silently working beneath the forms of the constitution,--both parties, by the way, appealing to its provisions,--while webster was idealizing it as the utmost which humanity could come to in the way of civil government. in , when nearly all europe was in insurrection against its rulers, he proudly said that our constitution promised to be the _oldest_, as well as the best, in civilized states. meanwhile the institution of negro slavery was undermining the whole fabric of the union. the moral division between the south and north was widening into a division between the religion of the two sections. the southern statesmen, economists, jurists, publicists, and ethical writers had adapted their opinions to the demands which the defenders of the institution of slavery imposed on the action of the human intellect and conscience; but it was rather startling to discover that the christian religion, as taught in the southern states, was a religion which had no vital connection with the christianity taught in the northern states. there is nothing more astounding, to a patient explorer of the causes which led to the final explosion, than this opposition of religions. the mere form of the dogmas common to the religion of both sections might be verbally identical; but a volume of sermons by a southern doctor of divinity, as far as he touched on the matter of slavery, was as different from one published by his northern brother, in the essential moral and humane elements of christianity, as though they were divided from each other by a gulf as wide as that which yawns between a druid priest and a christian clergyman. the politicians of the south, whether they were the mouthpieces of the ideas and passions of their constituents, or were, as webster probably thought, more or less responsible for their foolishness and bitterness, were ever eager to precipitate a conflict, which webster was as eager to prevent, or at least to postpone. it was fortunate for the north, that the inevitable conflict did not come in , when the free states were unprepared for it. ten years of discussion and preparation were allowed; when the war broke out, it found the north in a position to meet and eventually to overcome the enemies of the union; and the constitution, not as it _was_, but as it _is_, now represents a form of government which promises to be permanent; for after passing through its baptism of fire and blood, the constitution contains nothing which is not in harmony with any state government founded on the principle of equal rights which it guarantees, and is proof against all attacks but those which may proceed from the extremes of human folly and wickedness. but that, before the civil war, it was preserved so long under conditions which constantly threatened it with destruction, is due in a considerable degree to the circumstance that it found in daniel webster its poet as well as its "expounder." in conclusion it may be said that the style of webster is pre-eminently distinguished by manliness. nothing little, weak, whining, or sentimental can be detected in any page of the six volumes of his works. a certain strength and grandeur of personality is prominent in all his speeches. when he says "i," or "my," he never appears to indulge in the bravado of self-assertion, because the words are felt to express a positive, stalwart, almost colossal manhood, which had already been implied in the close-knit sentences in which he embodied his statements and arguments. he is an eminent instance of the power which character communicates to style. though evidently proud, self-respecting, and high-spirited, he is ever above mere vanity and egotism. whenever he gives emphasis to the personal pronoun the reader feels that he had as much earned the right to make his opinion an authority, as he had earned the right to use the words he employs to express his ideas and sentiments. thus, in the celebrated _smith will_ trial, his antagonist, mr. choate, quoted a decision of lord chancellor camden. in his reply, webster argued against its validity as though it were merely a proposition laid down by mr. choate. "but it is not mine, it is lord camden's" was the instant retort. webster paused for half a minute, and then, with his eye fixed on the presiding judge, he replied: "lord camden was a great judge; he is respected by every american, for he was on our side in the revolution; but, may it please your honor, _i_ differ from my lord camden." there was hardly a lawyer in the united states who could have made such a statement without exposing himself to ridicule; but it did not seem at all ridiculous, when the "i" stood for daniel webster. in his early career as a lawyer, his mode of reasoning was such as to make him practically a thirteenth juror in the panel; when his fame was fully established, he contrived, in some mysterious way, to seat himself by the side of the judges on the bench, and appear to be consulting with them as a jurist, rather than addressing them as an advocate. the personality of the man was always suppressed until there seemed to be need of asserting it; and then it was proudly pushed into prominence, though rarely passing beyond the limits which his acknowledged eminence as a statesman and lawyer did not justify him in asserting it. among the selections in the present volume where his individuality becomes somewhat aggressive, and breaks loose from the restraints ordinarily self-imposed on it, may be mentioned his speech on his reception at boston ( ), his marshfield speech ( ), and his speech at his reception at buffalo ( ). whatever may be thought of the course of argument pursued in these, they are at least thoroughly penetrated with a manly spirit,--a manliness somewhat haughty and defiant, but still consciously strong in its power to return blow for blow, from whatever quarter the assault may come. but the real intellectual and moral manliness of webster underlies all his great orations and speeches, even those where the animating life which gives them the power to persuade, convince, and uplift the reader's mind, seems to be altogether impersonal; and this plain force of manhood, this sturdy grapple with every question that comes before his understanding for settlement, leads him contemptuously to reject all the meretricious aids and ornaments of mere rhetoric, and is prominent, among the many exceptional qualities of his large nature, which have given him a high position among the prose-writers of his country as a consummate master of english style. the great orations and speeches of daniel webster. the dartmouth college case. argument before the supreme court of the united states, at washington, on the th of march, . [the action, the trustees of dartmouth college v. william h. woodward, was commenced in the court of common pleas, grafton county, state of new hampshire, february term, . the declaration was trover for the books of record, original charter, common seal, and other corporate property of the college. the conversion was alleged to have been made on the th day of october, . the proper pleas were filed, and by consent the cause was carried directly to the superior court of new hampshire, by appeal, and entered at the may term, . the general issue was pleaded by the defendant, and joined by the plaintiffs. the facts in the case were then agreed upon by the parties, and drawn up in the form of a special verdict, reciting the charter of the college and the acts of the legislature of the state, passed june and december, , by which the said corporation of dartmouth college was _enlarged_ and _improved_, and the said charter _amended_. the question made in the case was, whether those acts of the legislature were valid and binding upon the corporation, without their acceptance or assent, and not repugnant to the constitution of the united states. if so, the verdict found for the defendants; otherwise, it found for the plaintiffs. the cause was continued to the september term of the court in rockingham county, where it was argued; and at the november term of the same year, in grafton county, the opinion of the court was delivered by chief justice richardson, in favor of the validity and constitutionality of the acts of the legislature; and judgment was accordingly entered for the defendant on the special verdict. thereupon a writ of error was sued out by the original plaintiffs, to remove the cause to the supreme court of the united states; where it was entered at the term of the court holden at washington on the first monday of february, . the cause came on for argument on the th day of march, , before all the judges. it was argued by mr. webster and mr. hopkinson for the plaintiffs in error, and by mr. holmes and the attorney-general (wirt) for the defendant in error. at the term of the court holden in february, , the opinion of the judges was delivered by chief justice marshall, declaring the acts of the legislature unconstitutional and invalid, and reversing the judgment of the state court. the court, with the exception of mr. justice duvall, were unanimous. the following was the argument of mr. webster for the plaintiffs in error.] the general question is, whether the acts of the legislature of new hampshire of the th of june, and of the th and th of december, , are valid and binding on the plaintiffs, _without their acceptance or assent_. the charter of created and established a corporation, to consist of twelve persons, and no more; to be called the "trustees of dartmouth college." the preamble to the charter recites, that it is granted on the application and request of the rev. eleazer wheelock: that dr. wheelock, about the year , established a charity school, at his own expense, and on his own estate and plantation: that for several years, through the assistance of well-disposed persons in america, granted at his solicitation, he had clothed, maintained, and educated a number of native indians, and employed them afterwards as missionaries and schoolmasters among the savage tribes: that, his design promising to be useful, he had constituted the rev. mr. whitaker to be his attorney, with power to solicit contributions, in england, for the further extension and carrying on of his undertaking; and that he had requested the earl of dartmouth, baron smith, mr. thornton, and other gentlemen, to receive such sums as might be contributed, in england, towards supporting his school, and to be trustees thereof, for his charity; which these persons had agreed to do: that thereupon dr. wheelock had executed to them a deed of trust, in pursuance of such agreement between him and them, and, for divers good reasons, had referred it to these persons to determine the place in which the school should be finally established: and, to enable them to form a proper decision on this subject, had laid before them the several offers which had been made to him by the several governments in america, in order to induce him to settle and establish his school within the limits of such governments for their own emolument, and the increase of learning in their respective places, as well as for the furtherance of his general original design: and inasmuch as a number of the proprietors of lands in new hampshire, animated by the example of the governor himself and others, and in consideration that, without any impediment to its original design, the school might be enlarged and improved, to promote learning among the english, and to supply ministers to the people of that province, had promised large tracts of land, provided the school should be established in that province, the persons before mentioned, having weighed the reasons in favor of the several places proposed, had given the preference to this province, and these offers: that dr. wheelock therefore represented the necessity of a legal incorporation, and proposed that certain gentlemen in america, whom he had already named and appointed in his will to be trustees of his charity after his decease, should compose the corporation. upon this recital, and in consideration of the laudable original design of dr. wheelock, and willing that the best means of education be established in new hampshire, for the benefit of the province, the king granted the charter, by the advice of his provincial council. the substance of the facts thus recited is, that dr. wheelock had founded a charity, on funds owned and procured by himself; that he was at that time the sole dispenser and sole administrator, as well as the legal owner, of these funds; that he had made his will, devising this property in trust, to continue the existence and uses of the school, and appointed trustees; that, in this state of things, he had been invited to fix his school permanently in new hampshire, and to extend the design of it to the education of the youth of that province; that before he removed his school, or accepted this invitation, which his friends in england had advised him to accept, he applied for a charter, to be granted, not to whomsoever the king or government of the province should please, but to such persons as he named and appointed, namely, the persons whom he had already appointed to be the future trustees of his charity by his will. the charter, or letters patent, then proceed to create such a corporation, and to appoint twelve persons to constitute it, by the name of the "trustees of dartmouth college"; to have perpetual existence as such corporation, and with power to hold and dispose of lands and goods, for the use of the college, with all the ordinary powers of corporations. they are in their discretion to apply the funds and property of the college to the support of the president, tutors, ministers, and other officers of the college, and such missionaries and schoolmasters as they may see fit to employ among the indians. there are to be twelve trustees for ever, _and no more_; and they are to have the right of filling vacancies occurring in their own body. the rev. mr. wheelock is declared to be the founder of the college, and is, by the charter, appointed first president, with power to appoint a successor by his last will. all proper powers of government, superintendence, and visitation are vested in the trustees. they are to appoint and remove all officers at their discretion; to fix their salaries, and assign their duties; and to make all ordinances, orders, and laws for the government of the students. to the end that the persons who had acted as depositaries of the contributions in england, and who had also been contributors themselves, might be satisfied of the good use of their contributions, the president was annually, or when required, to transmit to them an account of the progress of the institution and the disbursements of its funds, so long as they should continue to act in that trust. these letters patent are to be good and effectual, in law, _against the king, his heirs and successors for ever_, without further grant or confirmation; and the trustees are to hold all and singular these privileges, advantages, liberties, and immunities to them and to their successors for ever. no funds are given to the college by this charter. a corporate existence and capacity are given to the trustees, with the privileges and immunities which have been mentioned, to enable the founder and his associates the better to manage the funds which they themselves had contributed, and such others as they might afterwards obtain. after the institution thus created and constituted had existed, uninterruptedly and usefully, nearly fifty years, the legislature of new hampshire passed the acts in question. the first act makes the twelve trustees under the charter, and nine other individuals, to be appointed by the governor and council, a corporation, by a new name; and to this new corporation transfers all the _property, rights, powers, liberties, and privileges_ of the old corporation; with further power to establish new colleges and an institute, and to apply all or any part of the funds to these purposes; subject to the power and control of a board of twenty-five overseers, to be appointed by the governor and council. the second act makes further provisions for executing the objects of the first, and the last act authorizes the defendant, the treasurer of the plaintiffs, to retain and hold their property, against their will. if these acts are valid, the old corporation is abolished, and a new one created. the first act does, in fact, if it can have any effect, create a new corporation, and transfer to it all the property and franchises of the old. the two corporations are not the same in anything which essentially belongs to the existence of a corporation. they have different names, and different powers, rights, and duties. their organization is wholly different. the powers of the corporation are not vested in the same, or similar hands. in one, the trustees are twelve, and no more. in the other, they are twenty-one. in one, the power is in a single board. in the other, it is divided between two boards. although the act professes to include the old trustees in the new corporation, yet that was without their assent, and against their remonstrance; and no person can be compelled to be a member of such a corporation against his will. it was neither expected nor intended that they should be members of the new corporation. the act itself treats the old corporation as at an end, and, going on the ground that all its functions have ceased, it provides for the first meeting and organization of the new corporation. it expressly provides, also, that the new corporation shall have and hold all the property of the old; a provision which would be quite unnecessary upon any other ground, than that the old corporation was dissolved. but if it could be contended that the effect of these acts was not entirely to abolish the old corporation, yet it is manifest that they impair and invade the rights, property, and powers of the trustees under the charter, as a corporation, and the legal rights, privileges, and immunities which belong to them, as individual members of the corporation. the twelve trustees were the _sole_ legal owners of all the property acquired under the charter. by the acts, others are admitted, against _their_ will, to be joint owners. the twelve individuals who are trustees were possessed of all the franchises and immunities conferred by the charter. by the acts, _nine_ other trustees and _twenty-five_ overseers are admitted, against their will, to divide these franchises and immunities with them. if, either as a corporation or as individuals, they have any legal rights, this forcible intrusion of others violates those rights, as manifestly as an entire and complete ouster and dispossession. these acts alter the whole constitution of the corporation. they affect the rights of the whole body as a corporation, and the rights of the individuals who compose it. they revoke corporate powers and franchises. they alienate and transfer the property of the college to others. by the charter, the trustees had a right to fill vacancies in their own number. this is now taken away. they were to consist of twelve, and, by express provision, of no more. this is altered. they and their successors, appointed by themselves, were for ever to hold the property. the legislature has found successors for them, before their seats are vacant. the powers and privileges which the twelve were to exercise exclusively, are now to be exercised by others. by one of the acts, they are subjected to heavy penalties if they exercise their offices, or any of those powers and privileges granted them by charter, and which they had exercised for fifty years. they are to be punished for not accepting the new grant and taking its benefits. this, it must be confessed, is rather a summary mode of settling a question of constitutional right. not only are new trustees forced into the corporation, but new trusts and uses are created. the college is turned into a university. power is given to create new colleges, and, to authorize any diversion of the funds which may be agreeable to the new boards, sufficient latitude is given by the undefined power of establishing an institute. to these new colleges, and this institute, the funds contributed by the founder, dr. wheelock, and by the original donors, the earl of dartmouth and others, are to be applied, in plain and manifest disregard of the uses to which they were given. the president, one of the old trustees, had a right to his office, salary, and emoluments, subject to the twelve trustees alone. his title to these is now changed, and he is made accountable to new masters. so also all the professors and tutors. if the legislature can at pleasure make these alterations and changes in the rights and privileges of the plaintiffs, it may, with equal propriety, abolish these rights and privileges altogether. the same power which can do any part of this work can accomplish the whole. and, indeed, the argument on which these acts have been hitherto defended goes altogether on the ground, that this is such a corporation as the legislature may abolish at pleasure; and that its members have no _rights, liberties, franchises, property, or privileges_, which the legislature may not revoke, annul, alienate, or transfer to others, whenever it sees fit. it will be contended by the plaintiffs, that these acts are not valid and binding on them without their assent,-- . because they are against common right, and the constitution of new hampshire. . because they are repugnant to the constitution of the united states. i am aware of the limits which bound the jurisdiction of the court in this case, and that on this record nothing can be decided but the single question, whether these acts are repugnant to the constitution of the united states. yet it may assist in forming an opinion of their true nature and character to compare them with those fundamental principles introduced into the state governments for the purpose of limiting the exercise of the legislative power, and which the constitution of new hampshire expresses with great fulness and accuracy. it is not too much to assert, that the legislature of new hampshire would not have been competent to pass the acts in question, and to make them binding on the plaintiffs without their assent, even if there had been, in the constitution of new hampshire, or of the united states, no special restriction on their power, because these acts are not the exercise of a power properly legislative.[ ] their effect and object are to take away, from one, rights, property, and franchises, and to grant them to another. this is not the exercise of a legislative power. to justify the taking away of vested rights there must be a forfeiture, to adjudge upon and declare which is the proper province of the judiciary. attainder and confiscation are acts of sovereign power, not acts of legislation. the british parliament, among other unlimited powers, claims that of altering and vacating charters; not as an act of ordinary legislation, but of uncontrolled authority. it is theoretically omnipotent. yet, in modern times, it has very rarely attempted the exercise of this power. in a celebrated instance, those who asserted this power in parliament vindicated its exercise only in a case in which it could be shown, st. that the charter in question was a charter of political power; d. that there was a great and overruling state necessity, justifying the violation of the charter; d. that the charter had been abused and justly forfeited.[ ] the bill affecting this charter did not pass. its history is well known. the act which afterwards did pass, passed _with the assent of the corporation_. even in the worst times, this power of parliament to repeal and rescind charters has not often been exercised. the illegal proceedings in the reign of charles the second were under color of law. judgments of forfeiture were obtained in the courts. such was the case of the _quo warranto_ against the city of london, and the proceedings by which the charter of massachusetts was vacated. the legislature of new hampshire has no more power over the rights of the plaintiffs than existed somewhere, in some department of government, before the revolution. the british parliament could not have annulled or revoked this grant as an act of ordinary legislation. if it had done it at all, it could only have been in virtue of that sovereign power, called omnipotent, which does not belong to any legislature in the united states. the legislature of new hampshire has the same power over this charter which belonged to the king who granted it, and no more. by the law of england, the power to create corporations is a part of the royal prerogative.[ ] by the revolution, this power may be considered as having devolved on the legislature of the state, and it has accordingly been exercised by the legislature. but the king cannot abolish a corporation, or new-model it, or alter its powers, without its assent. this is the acknowledged and well-known doctrine of the common law. "whatever might have been the notion in former times," says lord mansfield, "it is most certain now that the corporations of the universities are lay corporations; and that the crown cannot take away from them any rights that have been formerly subsisting in them under old charters or prescriptive usage."[ ] after forfeiture duly found, the king may re-grant the franchises; but a grant of franchises already granted, and of which no forfeiture has been found, is void. corporate franchises can only be forfeited by trial and judgment.[ ] in case of a new charter or grant to an existing corporation, it may accept or reject it as it pleases.[ ] it may accept such part of the grant as it chooses, and reject the rest.[ ] in the very nature of things, a charter cannot be forced upon any body. no one can be compelled to accept a grant; and without acceptance the grant is necessarily void.[ ] it cannot be pretended that the legislature, as successor to the king in this part of his prerogative, has any power to revoke, vacate, or alter this charter. if, therefore, the legislature has not this power by any specific grant contained in the constitution; nor as included in its ordinary legislative powers; nor by reason of its succession to the prerogatives of the crown in this particular, on what ground would the authority to pass these acts rest, even if there were no prohibitory clauses in the constitution and the bill of rights? but there _are_ prohibitions in the constitution and bill of rights of new hampshire, introduced for the purpose of limiting the legislative power and protecting the rights and property of the citizens. one prohibition is, "that no person shall be deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, put out of the protection of the law, or deprived of his life, liberty, or estate, but by judgment of his peers or the law of the land." in the opinion, however, which was given in the court below, it is denied that the trustees under the charter had any property, immunity, liberty, or privilege in this corporation, within the meaning of this prohibition in the bill of rights. it is said that it is a public corporation and public property; that the trustees have no greater interest in it than any other individuals; that it is not private property, which they can sell or transmit to their heirs, and that therefore they have no interest in it; that their office is a public trust, like that of the governor or a judge, and that they have no more concern in the property of the college than the governor in the property of the state, or than the judges in the fines which they impose on the culprits at their bar; that it is nothing to them whether their powers shall be extended or lessened, any more than it is to their honors whether their jurisdiction shall be enlarged or diminished. it is necessary, therefore, to inquire into the true nature and character of the corporation which was created by the charter of . there are divers sorts of corporations; and it may be safely admitted that the legislature has more power over some than others.[ ] some corporations are for government and political arrangement; such, for example, as cities, counties, and towns in new england. these may be changed and modified as public convenience may require, due regard being always had to the rights of property. of such corporations, all who live within the limits are of course obliged to be members, and to submit to the duties which the law imposes on them as such. other civil corporations are for the advancement of trade and business, such as banks, insurance companies, and the like. these are created, not by general law, but usually by grant. their constitution is special. it is such as the legislature sees fit to give, and the grantees to accept. the corporation in question is not a civil, although it is a lay corporation. it is an eleemosynary corporation. it is a private charity, originally founded and endowed by an individual, with a charter obtained for it at his request, for the better administration of his charity. "the eleemosynary sort of corporations are such as are constituted for the perpetual distributions of the free alms or bounty of the founder of them, to such persons as he has directed. of this are all hospitals for the maintenance of the poor, sick, and impotent; and all colleges both in our universities and out of them."[ ] eleemosynary corporations are for the management of private property, according to the will of the donors. they are private corporations. a college is as much a private corporation as a hospital; especially a college founded, as this was, by private bounty. a college is a charity. "the establishment of learning," says lord hardwicke, "is a charity, and so considered in the statute of elizabeth. a devise to a college, for their benefit, is a laudable charity, and deserves encouragement."[ ] the legal signification of _a charity_ is derived chiefly from the statute eliz. ch. . "those purposes," says sir william grant, "are considered _charitable_ which that statute enumerates."[ ] colleges are enumerated as charities in that statute. the government, in these cases, lends its aid to perpetuate the beneficent intention of the donor, by granting a charter under which his private charity shall continue to be dispensed after his death. this is done either by incorporating the objects of the charity, as, for instance, the scholars in a college or the poor in a hospital, or by incorporating those who are to be governors or trustees of the charity.[ ] in cases of the first sort, the founder is, by the common law, visitor. in early times it became a maxim, that he who gave the property might regulate it in future. "cujus est dare, ejus est disponere." this right of visitation descended from the founder to his heir as a right of property, and precisely as his other property went to his heir; and in default of heirs it went to the king, as all other property goes to the king for the want of heirs. the right of visitation arises from the property. it grows out of the endowment. the founder may, if he please, part with it at the time when he establishes the charity, and may vest it in others. therefore, if he chooses that governors, trustees, or overseers should be appointed in the charter, he may cause it to be done, and his power of visitation may be transferred to them, instead of descending to his heirs. the persons thus assigned or appointed by the founder will be visitors, with all the powers of the founder, in exclusion of his heir.[ ] the right of visitation, then, accrues to them, as a matter of property, by the gift, transfer, or appointment of the founder. this is a private right, which they can assert in all legal modes, and in which they have the same protection of the law as in all other rights. as visitors they may make rules, ordinances, and statutes, and alter and repeal them, as far as permitted so to do by the charter.[ ] although the charter proceeds from the crown or the government, it is considered as the will of the donor. it is obtained at his request. he imposes it as the rule which is to prevail in the dispensation of his bounty in all future times. the king or government which grants the charter is not thereby the founder, but he who furnishes the funds. the gift of the revenues is the foundation.[ ] the leading case on this subject is _phillips v. bury_.[ ] this was an ejectment brought to recover the rectory-house, &c. of exeter college in oxford. the question was whether the plaintiff or defendant was legal rector. exeter college was founded by an individual, and incorporated by a charter granted by queen elizabeth. the controversy turned upon the power of the visitor, and, in the discussion of the cause, the nature of college charters and corporations was very fully considered. lord holt's judgment, copied from his own manuscript, is found in term reports. . the following is an extract:-- "that we may the better apprehend the nature of a visitor, we are to consider that there are in law two sorts of corporations aggregate; such as are for public government, and such as are for private charity. those that are for the public government of a town, city, mystery, or the like, being for public advantage, are to be governed according to the laws of the land. if they make any particular private laws and constitutions, the validity and justice of them is examinable in the king's courts. of these there are no particular private founders, and consequently no particular visitor; there are no patrons of these; therefore, if no provision be in the charter how the succession shall continue, the law supplieth the defect of that constitution, and saith it shall be by election; as mayor, aldermen, common council, and the like. but _private_ and particular corporations for charity, founded and endowed by private persons, are subject to the private government of those who erect them; and therefore, if there be no visitor appointed by the founder, the law appoints the founder and his heirs to be visitors, who are to act and proceed according to the particular laws and constitutions assigned them by the founder. it is now admitted on all hands that the founder is patron, and, as founder, is visitor, if no particular visitor be assigned; so that patronage and visitation are necessary consequents one upon another. for this visitatorial power was not introduced by any canons or constitutions ecclesiastical (as was said by a learned gentleman whom i have in my eye, in his argument of this case); it is an appointment of law. it ariseth from the property which the founder had in the lands assigned to support the charity; and as he is the author of the charity, the law gives him and his heirs a visitatorial power, that is, an authority to inspect the actions and regulate the behavior of the members that partake of the charity. for it is fit the members that are endowed, and that have the charity bestowed upon them, should not be left to themselves, but pursue the intent and design of him that bestowed it upon them. _now, indeed, where the poor, or those that receive the charity, are not incorporated, but there are certain trustees who dispose of the charity, there is no visitor, because the interest of the revenue is not vested in the poor that have the benefit of the charity, but they are subject to the orders and directions of the trustees._ but where they who are to enjoy the benefit of the charity are incorporated, there to prevent all perverting of the charity, or to compose differences that may happen among them, there is by law a visitatorial power; and it being a creature of the founder's own, it is reason that he and his heirs should have that power, unless by the founder it is vested in some other. now there is no manner of difference between a college and a hospital, except only in degree. a hospital is for those that are poor, and mean, and low, and sickly; a college is for another sort of indigent persons; but it hath another intent, to study in and breed up persons in the world that have no otherwise to live; but still it is as much within the reasons as hospitals. and if in a hospital the master and poor are incorporated, it is a college having a common seal to act by, although it hath not the name of a college (which always supposeth a corporation), because it is of an inferior degree; and in the one case and in the other there must be a visitor, either the founder and his heirs or one appointed by him; and both are eleemosynary." lord holt concludes his whole argument by again repeating, that that college was a _private corporation_, and that the founder had a right to appoint a visitor, and to give him such power as he saw fit.[ ] the learned bishop stillingfleet's argument in the same cause, as a member of the house of lords, when it was there heard, exhibits very clearly the nature of colleges and similar corporations. it is to the following effect: "that this absolute and conclusive power of visitors is no more than the law hath appointed in other cases, upon commissions of charitable uses: that the common law, and not any ecclesiastical canons, do place the power of visitation in the founder and his heirs, _unless he settle it upon others_: that although corporations for public government be subject to the courts of westminster hall, which have no particular or special visitors, yet corporations for charity, founded and endowed by private persons, are subject to the rule and government of those that erect them; but where the persons to whom the charity is given are not incorporated, there is no such visitatorial power, because the interest of the revenue is not invested in them; but where they are, the right of visitation ariseth from the foundation, and the founder may convey _it to whom and in what manner he pleases; and the visitor acts as founder, and by the same authority which he had, and consequently is no more accountable than he had been_: that the king by his charter can make a society to be incorporated so as to have the rights belonging to persons, as to legal capacities: that colleges, although founded by private persons, are yet incorporated by the king's charter; but although the kings by their charter made the colleges to be such in law, that is, to be legal corporations, yet they left to the particular founders authority to appoint what statutes they thought fit for the regulation of them. and not only the statutes, but the appointment of visitors, was left to them, and the manner of government, and the several conditions on which any persons were to be made or continue partakers of their bounty."[ ] these opinions received the sanction of the house of lords, and they seem to be settled and undoubted law. where there is a charter, vesting proper powers in trustees, or governors, they are visitors; and there is no control in any body else; except only that the courts of equity or of law will interfere so far as to preserve the revenues and prevent the perversion of the funds, and to keep the visitors within their prescribed bounds. "if there be a charter with proper powers, the charity must be regulated in the manner prescribed by the charter. there is no ground for the controlling interposition of the courts of chancery. the interposition of the courts, therefore, in those instances in which the charities were founded on charters or by act of parliament, and a visitor or governor and trustees appointed, must be referred to the general jurisdiction of the courts in all cases in which a trust conferred appears to have been abused, and not to an original right to direct the management of the charity, or the conduct of the governors or trustees."[ ] "the original of all _visitatorial_ power is the property of the donor, and the power every one has to dispose, direct, and regulate his own property; like the case of patronage; _cujus est dare_, &c. therefore, if either the crown or the subject creates an eleemosynary foundation, and vests the charity in the persons who are to receive the benefit of it, since a contest might arise about the government of it, the law allows the founder or his heirs, or the person specially appointed by him to be visitor, to determine concerning his own creature. if the charity is not vested in the persons who are to partake, but in trustees for their benefit, no visitor can arise by implication, but the trustees have that power."[ ] "there is nothing better established," says lord commissioner eyre, "than that this court does not entertain a general jurisdiction, or regulate and control charities _established by charter_. there the establishment is fixed and determined; and the court has no power to vary it. if the governors established for the regulation of it are not those who have the management of the revenue, this court has no jurisdiction, and if it is ever so much abused, as far as it respects the jurisdiction of this court it is without remedy; but if those established as governors have also the management of the revenues, this court does assume a jurisdiction of necessity, so far as they are to be considered as trustees of the revenue."[ ] "the foundations of colleges," says lord mansfield, "are to be considered in two views; namely, as they are _corporations_ and as they are _eleemosynary_. as eleemosynary, they are the creatures of the founder; he may delegate his power, either generally or specially; he may prescribe particular modes and manners, as to the exercise of part of it. if he makes a general visitor (as by the general words _visitator sit_), the person so constituted has all incidental power; but he may be restrained as to particular instances. the founder may appoint a special visitor for a particular purpose, and no further. the founder may make a general visitor; and yet appoint an inferior particular power, to be executed without going to the visitor in the first instance."[ ] and even if the king be founder, if he grant a charter, incorporating trustees and governors, _they are visitors_, and the king cannot visit.[ ] a subsequent donation, or ingrafted fellowship, falls under the same general visitatorial power, if not otherwise specially provided.[ ] in new england, and perhaps throughout the united states, eleemosynary corporations have been generally established in the latter mode; that is, by incorporating governors, or trustees, and vesting in them the right of visitation. small variations may have been in some instances adopted; as in the case of harvard college, where some power of inspection is given to the overseers, but not, strictly speaking, a visitatorial power, which still belongs, it is apprehended, to the fellows or members of the corporation. in general, there are many donors. a charter is obtained, comprising them all, or some of them, and such others as they choose to include, with the right of appointing successors. they are thus the visitors of their own charity, and appoint others, such as they may see fit, to exercise the same office in time to come. all such corporations are private. the case before the court is clearly that of an eleemosynary corporation. it is, in the strictest legal sense, a private charity. in king v. st. catherine's hall,[ ] that college is called a private eleemosynary lay corporation. it was endowed by a private founder, and incorporated by letters patent. and in the same manner was dartmouth college founded and incorporated. dr. wheelock is declared by the charter to be its founder. it was established by him, on funds contributed and collected by himself. as such founder, he had a right of visitation, which he assigned to the trustees, and they received it by his consent and appointment, and held it under the charter.[ ] he appointed these trustees visitors, and in that respect to take place of his heir; as he might have appointed devisees, to take his estate instead of his heir. little, probably, did he think, at that time, that the legislature would ever take away this property and these privileges, and give them to others. little did he suppose that this charter secured to him and his successors no legal rights. little did the other donors think so. if they had, the college would have been, what the university is now, a thing upon paper, existing only in name. the numerous academies in new england have been established substantially in the same manner. they hold their property by the same tenure, and no other. nor has harvard college any surer title than dartmouth college. it may to-day have more friends; but to-morrow it may have more enemies. its legal rights are the same. so also of yale college; and, indeed, of all the others. when the legislature gives to these institutions, it may and does accompany its grants with such conditions as it pleases. the grant of lands by the legislature of new hampshire to dartmouth college, in , was accompanied with various conditions. when donations are made, by the legislature or others, to a charity already existing, without any condition, or the specification of any new use, the donation follows the nature of the charity. hence the doctrine, that all eleemosynary corporations are private bodies. they are founded by private persons, and on private property. the public cannot be charitable in these institutions. it is not the money of the public, but of private persons, which is dispensed. it may be public, that is general, in its uses and advantages; and the state may very laudably add contributions of its own to the funds; but it is still private in the tenure of the property, and in the right of administering the funds. if the doctrine laid down by lord holt, and the house of lords, in _phillips v. bury_, and recognized and established in all the other cases, be correct, the property of this college was private property; it was vested in the trustees by the charter, and to be administered by them, according to the will of the founder and donors, as expressed in the charter. they were also visitors of the charity, in the most ample sense. they had, therefore, as they contend, privileges, property, and immunities, within the true meaning of the bill of rights. they had rights, and still have them, which they can assert against the legislature, as well as against other wrong-doers. it makes no difference, that the estate is holden for certain trusts. the legal estate is still theirs. they have a right in the property, and they have a right of visiting and superintending the trust; and this is an object of legal protection, as much as any other right. the charter declares that the powers conferred on the trustees are "privileges, advantages, liberties, and immunities"; and that they shall be for ever holden by them and their successors. the new hampshire bill of rights declares that no one shall be deprived of his "property, privileges, or immunities," but by judgment of his peers, or the law of the land. the argument on the other side is, that, although these terms may mean something in the bill of rights, they mean nothing in this charter. but they are terms of legal signification, and very properly used in the charter. they are equivalent with _franchises_. blackstone says that _franchise_ and _liberty_ are used as synonymous terms. and after enumerating other liberties and franchises, he says: "it is likewise a franchise for a number of persons to be incorporated and subsist as a body politic, with a power to maintain perpetual succession and do other corporate acts; and each individual member of such a corporation is also said to have a franchise or freedom."[ ] _liberties_ is the term used in magna charta as including franchises, privileges, immunities, and all the rights which belong to that class. professor sullivan says, the term signifies the "_privileges_ that some of the subjects, whether single persons or bodies corporate, have above others by the lawful grant of the king; as the chattels of felons or outlaws, and the lands _and privileges of corporations_."[ ] the privilege, then, of being a member of a corporation, under a lawful grant, and of exercising the rights and powers of such member, is such a privilege, _liberty_, or _franchise_, as has been the object of legal protection, and the subject of a legal interest, from the time of magna charta to the present moment. the plaintiffs have such an interest in this corporation, individually, as they could assert and maintain in a court of law, not as agents of the public, but in their own right. each trustee has a _franchise_, and if he be disturbed in the enjoyment of it, he would have redress, on appealing to the law, as promptly as for any other injury. if the other trustees should conspire against any one of them to prevent his equal right and voice in the appointment of a president or professor, or in the passing of any statute or ordinance of the college, he would be entitled to his action, for depriving him of his franchise. it makes no difference, that this property is to be holden and administered, and these franchises exercised, for the purpose of diffusing learning. no principle and no case establishes any such distinction. the public may be benefited by the use of this property. but this does not change the nature of the property, or the rights of the owners. the object of the charter may be public good; so it is in all other corporations; and this would as well justify the resumption or violation of the grant in any other case as in this. in the case of an advowson, the use is public, and the right cannot be turned to any private benefit or emolument. it is nevertheless a legal private right, and the _property_ of the owner, as emphatically as his freehold. the rights and privileges of trustees, visitors, or governors of incorporated colleges, stand on the same foundation. they are so considered, both by lord holt and lord hardwicke.[ ] to contend that the rights of the plaintiffs may be taken away, because they derive from them no pecuniary benefit or private emolument, or because they cannot be transmitted to their heirs, or would not be assets to pay their debts, is taking an extremely narrow view of the subject. according to this notion, the case would be different, if, in the charter, they had stipulated for a commission on the disbursement of the funds; and they have ceased to have any interest in the property, because they have undertaken to administer it gratuitously. it cannot be necessary to say much in refutation of the idea, that there cannot be a legal interest, or ownership, in any thing which does not yield a pecuniary profit; as if the law regarded no rights but the rights of money, and of visible, tangible property. of what nature are all rights of suffrage? no elector has a particular personal interest; but each has a legal right, to be exercised at his own discretion, and it cannot be taken away from him. the exercise of this right directly and very materially affects the public; much more so than the exercise of the privileges of a trustee of this college. consequences of the utmost magnitude may sometimes depend on the exercise of the right of suffrage by one or a few electors. nobody was ever yet heard to contend, however, that on that account the public might take away the right, or impair it. this notion appears to be borrowed from no better source than the repudiated doctrine of the three judges in the aylesbury case.[ ] that was an action against a returning officer for refusing the plaintiff's vote, in the election of a member of parliament. three of the judges of the king's bench held, that the action could not be maintained, because, among other objections, "it was not any matter of profit, either _in presenti_, or _in futuro_." it would not enrich the plaintiff _in presenti_, nor would it _in futuro_ go to his heirs, or answer to pay his debts. but lord holt and the house of lords were of another opinion. the judgment of the three judges was reversed, and the doctrine they held, having been exploded for a century, seems now for the first time to be revived. individuals have a right to use their own property for purposes of benevolence, either towards the public, or towards other individuals. they have a right to exercise this benevolence in such lawful manner as they may choose; and when the government has induced and excited it, by contracting to give perpetuity to the stipulated manner of exercising it, it is not law, but violence, to rescind this contract, and seize on the property. whether the state will grant these franchises, and under what conditions it will grant them, it decides for itself. but when once granted, the constitution holds them to be sacred, till forfeited for just cause. that all property, of which the use may be beneficial to the public, belongs therefore to the public, is quite a new doctrine. it has no precedent, and is supported by no known principle. dr. wheelock might have answered his purposes, in this case, by executing a private deed of trust. he might have conveyed his property to trustees, for precisely such uses as are described in this charter. indeed, it appears that he had contemplated the establishing of his school in that manner, and had made his will, and devised the property to the same persons who were afterwards appointed trustees in the charter. many literary and other charitable institutions are founded in that manner, and the trust is renewed, and conferred on other persons, from time to time, as occasion may require. in such a case, no lawyer would or could say, that the legislature might divest the trustees, constituted by deed or will, seize upon the property, and give it to other persons, for other purposes. and does the granting of a charter, which is only done to perpetuate the trust in a more convenient manner, make any difference? does or can this change the nature of the charity, and turn it into a public political corporation? happily, we are not without authority on this point. it has been considered and adjudged. lord hardwicke says, in so many words, "the charter of the crown cannot make a charity more or less public, but only more permanent than it would otherwise be."[ ] the granting of the corporation is but making the trust perpetual, and does not alter the nature of the charity. the very object sought in obtaining such charter, and in giving property to such a corporation, is to make and keep it private property, and to clothe it with all the security and inviolability of private property. the intent is, that there shall be a legal private ownership, and that the legal owners shall maintain and protect the property, for the benefit of those for whose use it was designed. who ever endowed the public? who ever appointed a legislature to administer his charity? or who ever heard, before, that a gift to a college, or a hospital, or an asylum, was, in reality, nothing but a gift to the state? the state of vermont is a principal donor to dartmouth college. the lands given lie in that state. this appears in the special verdict. is vermont to be considered as having intended a gift to the state of new hampshire in this case, as, it has been said, is to be the reasonable construction of all donations to the college? the legislature of new hampshire affects to represent the public, and therefore claims a right to control all property destined to public use. what hinders vermont from considering herself equally the representative of the public, and from resuming her grants, at her own pleasure? her right to do so is less doubtful than the power of new hampshire to pass the laws in question. in _university v. foy_,[ ] the supreme court of north carolina pronounced unconstitutional and void a law repealing a grant to the university of north carolina, although that university was originally erected and endowed by a statute of the state. that case was a grant of lands, and the court decided that it could not be resumed. this is the grant of a power and capacity to hold lands. where is the difference of the cases, upon principle? in _terrett v. taylor_,[ ] this court decided that a legislative grant or confirmation of lands, for the purposes of moral and religious instruction, could no more be rescinded than other grants. the nature of the use was not holden to make any difference. a grant to a parish or church, for the purposes which have been mentioned, cannot be distinguished, in respect to the title it confers, from a grant to a college for the promotion of piety and learning. to the same purpose may be cited the case of _pawlett v. clark_. the state of vermont, by statute, in , granted to the respective towns in that state certain glebe lands lying within those towns for the sole use and support of religious worship. in , an act was passed to repeal the act of ; but this court declared, that the act of , "so far as it granted the glebes to the towns, could not afterwards be repealed by the legislature, so as to divest the rights of the towns under the grant."[ ] it will be for the other side to show that the nature of the use decides the question whether the legislature has power to resume its grants. it will be for those who maintain such a doctrine to show the principles and cases upon which it rests. it will be for them also to fix the limits and boundaries of their doctrine, and to show what are and what are not such uses as to give the legislature this power of resumption and revocation. and to furnish an answer to the cases cited, it will be for them further to show that a grant for the use and support of religious worship stands on other ground than a grant for the promotion of piety and learning. i hope enough has been said to show that the trustees possessed vested liberties, privileges, and immunities, under this charter; and that such liberties, privileges, and immunities, being once lawfully obtained and vested, are as inviolable as any vested rights of property whatever. rights to do certain acts, such, for instance, as the visitation and superintendence of a college and the appointment of its officers, may surely be vested rights, to all legal intents, as completely as the right to possess property. a late learned judge of this court has said, "when i say that a _right_ is vested in a citizen, i mean that he has the power to do _certain actions_, or to possess _certain things_, according to the law of the land."[ ] if such be the true nature of the plaintiffs' interests under this charter, what are the articles in the new hampshire bill of rights which these acts infringe? they infringe the second article; which says, that the citizens of the state have a right to hold and possess property. the plaintiffs had a legal property in this charter; and they had acquired property under it. the acts deprive them of both. they impair and take away the charter; and they appropriate the property to new uses, against their consent. the plaintiffs cannot now hold the property acquired by themselves, and which this article says they have a right to hold. they infringe the twentieth article. by that article it is declared that, in questions of property, there is a right to trial. the plaintiffs are divested, without trial or judgment. they infringe the twenty-third article. it is therein declared that no retrospective laws shall be passed. this article bears directly on the case. these acts must be deemed to be retrospective, within the settled construction of that term. what a retrospective law is, has been decided, on the construction of this very article, in the circuit court for the first circuit. the learned judge of that circuit says: "every statute which takes away or impairs vested rights, acquired under existing laws, must be deemed retrospective."[ ] that all such laws are retrospective was decided also in the case of _dash v. van kleek_,[ ] where a most learned judge quotes this article from the constitution of new hampshire, with manifest approbation, as a plain and clear expression of those fundamental and unalterable principles of justice, which must lie at the foundation of every free and just system of laws. can any man deny that the plaintiffs had rights, under the charter, which were legally vested, and that by these acts those rights are impaired? "it is a principle in the english law," says chief justice kent, in the case last cited, "as ancient as the law itself, that a statute, even of its omnipotent parliament, is not to have a retrospective effect. 'nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet, et non praeteritis.'[ ] the maxim in bracton was taken from the civil law, for we find in that system the same principle, expressed substantially in the same words, that the lawgiver cannot alter his mind to the prejudice of a vested right. 'nemo potest mutare concilium suum in alterius injuriam.'[ ] this maxim of papinian is general in its terms, but dr. taylor[ ] applies it directly as a restriction upon the lawgiver, and a declaration in the code leaves no doubt as to the sense of the civil law. 'leges et constitutiones futuris certum est dare formam negotiis, non ad facta praeterita revocari, nisi nominatim, et de praeterito tempore, et adhuc pendentibus negotiis cautum sit.'[ ] this passage, according to the best interpretation of the civilians, relates not merely to future suits, but to future, as contradistinguished from past, contracts and vested rights.[ ] it is indeed admitted that the prince may enact a retrospective law, provided it be done _expressly_; for the will of the prince under the despotism of the roman emperors was paramount to every obligation. great latitude was anciently allowed to legislative expositions of statutes; for the separation of the judicial from the legislative power was not then distinctly known or prescribed. the prince was in the habit of interpreting his own laws for particular occasions. this was called the 'interlocutio principis'; and this, according to huber's definition, was, 'quando principes inter partes loquuntur et jus dicunt.'[ ] no correct civilian, and especially no proud admirer of the ancient republic (if any such then existed), could have reflected on this interference with private rights and pending suits without disgust and indignation; and we are rather surprised to find that, under the violent and arbitrary genius of the roman government, the principle before us should have been acknowledged and obeyed to the extent in which we find it. the fact shows that it must be founded in the clearest justice. our case is happily very different from that of the subjects of justinian. with us the power of the lawgiver is limited and defined; the judicial is regarded as a distinct, independent power; private rights are better understood and more exalted in public estimation, as well as secured by provisions dictated by the spirit of freedom, and unknown to the civil law. our constitutions do not admit the power assumed by the roman prince, and the principle we are considering is now to be regarded as sacred." these acts infringe also the thirty-seventh article of the constitution of new hampshire; which says, that the powers of government shall be kept separate. by these acts, the legislature assumes to exercise a judicial power. it declares a forfeiture, and resumes franchises, once granted, without trial or hearing. if the constitution be not altogether waste-paper, it has restrained the power of the legislature in these particulars. if it has any meaning, it is that the legislature shall pass no act directly and manifestly impairing private property and private privileges. it shall not judge by act. it shall not decide by act. it shall not deprive by act. but it shall leave all these things to be tried and adjudged by the law of the land. the fifteenth article has been referred to before. it declares that no one shall be "deprived of his property, immunities, or privileges, but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land." notwithstanding the light in which the learned judges in new hampshire viewed the rights of the plaintiffs under the charter, and which has been before adverted to, it is found to be admitted in their opinion, that those rights are privileges within the meaning of this fifteenth article of the bill of rights. having quoted that article, they say: "that the right to manage the affairs of this college is a privilege, within the meaning of this clause of the bill of rights, is not to be doubted." in my humble opinion, this surrenders the point. to resist the effect of this admission, however, the learned judges add: "but how a privilege can be protected from the operation of the law of the land by a clause in the constitution, declaring that it shall not be taken away but by the law of the land, is not very easily understood." this answer goes on the ground, that the acts in question are laws of the land, within the meaning of the constitution. if they be so, the argument drawn from this article is fully answered. if they be not so, it being admitted that the plaintiffs' rights are "privileges," within the meaning of the article, the argument is not answered, and the article is infringed by the acts. are, then, these acts of the legislature, which affect only particular persons and their particular privileges, laws of the land? let this question be answered by the text of blackstone. "and first it (i.e. law) is a _rule_: not a transient, sudden order from a superior to or concerning a particular person; but something permanent, uniform, and universal. therefore a particular act of the legislature to confiscate the goods of titius, or to attaint him of high treason, does not enter into the idea of a municipal law; for the operation of this act is spent upon titius only, and has no relation to the community in general; it is rather a sentence than a law."[ ] lord coke is equally decisive and emphatic. citing and commenting on the celebrated twenty-ninth chapter of magna charta, he says: "no man shall be disseized, &c., unless it be by the lawful judgment, that is, verdict of equals, or by the law of the land, that is (to speak it once for all), by the due course and process of law."[ ] have the plaintiffs lost their franchises by "due course and process of law"? on the contrary, are not these acts "particular acts of the legislature, which have no relation to the community in general, and which are rather sentences than laws"? by the law of the land is most clearly intended the general law; a law which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial. the meaning is, that every citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities under the protection of the general rules which govern society. every thing which may pass under the form of an enactment is not therefore to be considered the law of the land. if this were so, acts of attainder, bills of pains and penalties, acts of confiscation, acts reversing judgments, and acts directly transferring one man's estate to another, legislative judgments, decrees, and forfeitures in all possible forms, would be the law of the land. such a strange construction would render constitutional provisions of the highest importance completely inoperative and void. it would tend directly to establish the union of all powers in the legislature. there would be no general, permanent law for courts to administer or men to live under. the administration of justice would be an empty form, an idle ceremony. judges would sit to execute legislative judgments and decrees; not to declare the law or to administer the justice of the country. "is that the law of the land," said mr. burke, "upon which, if a man go to westminster hall, and ask counsel by what title or tenure he holds his privilege or estate _according to the law of the land_, he should be told, that the law of the land is not yet known; that no decision or decree has been made in his case; that when a decree shall be passed, he will then know _what the law of the land is_? will this be said to be the law of the land, by any lawyer who has a rag of a gown left upon his back, or a wig with one tie upon his head?" that the power of electing and appointing the officers of this college is not only a right of the trustees as a corporation, generally, and in the aggregate, but that each individual trustee has also his own individual franchise in such right of election and appointment, is according to the language of all the authorities. lord holt says: "it is agreeable to reason and the rules of law, that a franchise should be vested in the corporation aggregate, and yet the benefit of it to redound to the particular members, and to be enjoyed by them in their private capacity. where the privilege of election is used by particular persons, _it is a particular right, vested in every particular man_."[ ] it is also to be considered, that the president and professors of this college have rights to be affected by these acts. their interest is similar to that of fellows in the english colleges; because they derive their living, wholly or in part, from the founders' bounty. the president is one of the trustees or corporators. the professors are not necessarily members of the corporation; but they are appointed by the trustees, are removable only by them, and have fixed salaries payable out of the general funds of the college. both president and professors have freeholds in their offices; subject only to be removed by the trustees, as their legal visitors, for good cause. all the authorities speak of fellowships in colleges as freeholds, notwithstanding the fellows may be liable to be suspended or removed, for misbehavior, by their constituted visitors. nothing could have been less expected, in this age, than that there should have been an attempt, by acts of the legislature, to take away these college livings, the inadequate but the only support of literary men who have devoted their lives to the instruction of youth. the president and professors were appointed by the twelve trustees. they were accountable to nobody else, and could be removed by nobody else. they accepted their offices on this tenure. yet the legislature has appointed other persons, with power to remove these officers and to deprive them of their livings; and those other persons have exercised that power. no description of private property has been regarded as more sacred than college livings. they are the estates and freeholds of a most deserving class of men; of scholars who have consented to forego the advantages of professional and public employments, and to devote themselves to science and literature and the instruction of youth in the quiet retreats of academic life. whether to dispossess and oust them; to deprive them of their office, and to turn them out of their livings; to do this, not by the power of their legal visitors or governors, but by acts of the legislature, and to do it without forfeiture and without fault; whether all this be not in the highest degree an indefensible and arbitrary proceeding, is a question of which there would seem to be but one side fit for a lawyer or a scholar to espouse. of all the attempts of james the second to overturn the law, and the rights of his subjects, none was esteemed more arbitrary or tyrannical than his attack on magdalen college, oxford; and yet that attempt was nothing but to put out one president and put in another. the president of that college, according to the charter and statutes, is to be chosen by the fellows, who are the corporators. there being a vacancy, the king chose to take the appointment out of the hands of the fellows, the legal electors of a president, into his own hands. he therefore sent down his mandate, commanding the fellows to admit for president a person of his nomination; and, inasmuch as this was directly against the charter and constitution of the college, he was pleased to add a _non obstante_ clause of sufficiently comprehensive import. the fellows were commanded to admit the person mentioned in the mandate, "any statute, custom, or constitution to the contrary notwithstanding, wherewith we are graciously pleased to dispense, in this behalf." the fellows refused obedience to this mandate, and dr. hough, a man of independence and character, was chosen president by the fellows, according to the charter and statutes. the king then assumed the power, in virtue of his prerogative, to send down certain commissioners to turn him out; which was done accordingly; and parker, a creature suited to the times, put in his place. because the president, who was rightfully and legally elected, _would not deliver the keys, the doors were broken open_. "the nation as well as the university," says bishop burnet,[ ] "looked on all these proceedings with just indignation. it was thought an open piece of robbery and burglary when men, authorized by no legal commission, came and forcibly turned men out of their possession and freehold." mr. hume, although a man of different temper, and of other sentiments, in some respects, than dr. burnet, speaks of this arbitrary attempt of prerogative in terms not less decisive. "the president, and all the fellows," says he, "except two, who complied, were expelled the college, and parker was put in possession of the office. this act of violence, of all those which were committed during the reign of james, is perhaps the most illegal and arbitrary. when the dispensing power was the most strenuously insisted on by court lawyers, it had still been allowed that the statutes which regard private property could not legally be infringed by that prerogative. yet, in this instance, it appeared that even these were not now secure from invasion. the privileges of a college are attacked; men are illegally dispossessed of their property for adhering to their duty, to their oaths, and to their religion." this measure king james lived to repent, after repentance was too late. when the charter of london was restored, and other measures of violence were retracted, to avert the impending revolution, the expelled president and fellows of magdalen college were permitted to resume their rights. it is evident that this was regarded as an arbitrary interference with private property. yet private property was no otherwise attacked than as a person was appointed to administer and enjoy the revenues of a college in a manner and by persons not authorized by the constitution of the college. a majority of the members of the corporation would not comply with the king's wishes. a minority would. the object was therefore to make this minority a majority. to this end the king's commissioners were directed to interfere in the case, and they united with the two complying fellows, and expelled the rest; and thus effected a change in the government of the college. the language in which mr. hume and all other writers speak of this abortive attempt of oppression, shows that colleges were esteemed to be, as they truly are, private corporations, and the property and privileges which belong to them _private_ property and _private_ privileges. court lawyers were found to justify the king in dispensing with the laws; that is, in assuming and exercising a legislative authority. but no lawyer, not even a court lawyer, in the reign of king james the second, as far as appears, was found to say that, even by this high authority, he could infringe the franchises of the fellows of a college, and take away their livings. mr. hume gives the reason; it is, that such franchises were regarded, in a most emphatic sense, as _private property_.[ ] if it could be made to appear that the trustees and the president and professors held their offices and franchises during the pleasure of the legislature, and that the property holden belonged to the state, then indeed the legislature have done no more than they had a right to do. but this is not so. the charter is a charter of privileges and immunities; and these are holden by the trustees expressly against the state for ever. it is admitted that the state, by its courts of law, can enforce the will of the donor, and compel a faithful execution of the trust. the plaintiffs claim no exemption from legal responsibility. they hold themselves at all times answerable to the law of the land, for their conduct in the trust committed to them. they ask only to hold the property of which they are owners, and the franchises which belong to them, until they shall be found, by due course and process of law, to have forfeited them. it can make no difference whether the legislature exercise the power it has assumed by removing the trustees and the president and professors, directly and by name, or by appointing others to expel them. the principle is the same, and in point of fact the result has been the same. if the entire franchise cannot be taken away, neither can it be essentially impaired. if the trustees are legal owners of the property, they are sole owners. if they are visitors, they are sole visitors. no one will be found to say, that, if the legislature may do what it has done, it may not do any thing and every thing which it may choose to do, relative to the property of the corporation, and the privileges of its members and officers. if the view which has been taken of this question be at all correct, this was an eleemosynary corporation, a private charity. the property was private property. the trustees were visitors, and the right to hold the charter, administer the funds, and visit and govern the college, was a franchise and privilege, solemnly granted to them. the use being public in no way diminishes their legal estate in the property, or their title to the franchise. there is no principle, nor any case, which declares that a gift to such a corporation is a gift to the public. the acts in question violate property. they take away privileges, immunities, and franchises. they deny to the trustees the protection of the law; and they are retrospective in their operation. in all which respects they are against the constitution of new hampshire. the plaintiffs contend, in the second place, that the acts in question are repugnant to the tenth section of the first article of the constitution of the united states. the material words of that section are: "no state shall pass any bill of attainder, _ex post facto_ law, or law impairing the obligation of contacts." the object of these most important provisions in the national constitution has often been discussed, both here and elsewhere. it is exhibited with great clearness and force by one of the distinguished persons who framed that instrument. "bills of attainder, _ex post facto_ laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. the two former are expressly prohibited by the declarations prefixed to some of the state constitutions, and all of them are prohibited by the spirit and scope of these fundamental charters. our own experience has taught us, nevertheless, that additional fences against these dangers ought not to be omitted. very properly, therefore, have the convention added this constitutional bulwark, in favor of personal security and private rights; and i am much deceived, if they have not, in so doing, as faithfully consulted the genuine sentiments as the undoubted interests of their constituents. the sober people of america are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. they have seen with regret, and with indignation, that sudden changes, and legislative interferences in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more industrious and less informed part of the community. they have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the link of a long chain of repetitions; every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding."[ ] it has already been decided in this court, that a _grant_ is a contract, within the meaning of this provision; and that a grant by a state is also a contract, as much as the grant of an individual. in the case of _fletcher v. peck_[ ] this court says: "a contract is a compact between two or more parties, and is either executory or executed. an executory contract is one in which a party binds himself to do, or not to do, a particular thing; such was the law under which the conveyance was made by the government. a contract executed is one in which the object of contract is performed; and this, says blackstone, differs in nothing from a grant. the contract between georgia and the purchasers was executed by the grant. a contract executed, as well as one which is executory, contains obligations binding on the parties. a grant, in its own nature, amounts to an extinguishment of the right of the grantor, and implies a contract not to reassert that right. if, under a fair construction of the constitution, grants are comprehended under the term contracts, is a grant from the state excluded from the operation of the provision? is the clause to be considered as inhibiting the state from impairing the obligation of contracts between two individuals, but as excluding from that inhibition contracts made with itself? the words themselves contain no such distinction. they are general, and are applicable to contracts of every description. if contracts made with the state are to be exempted from their operation, the exception must arise from the character of the contracting party, not from the words which are employed. whatever respect might have been felt for the state sovereignties, it is not to be disguised that the framers of the constitution viewed with some apprehension the violent acts which might grow out of the feelings of the moment; and that the people of the united states, in adopting that instrument, have manifested a determination to shield themselves and their property from the effects of those sudden and strong passions to which men are exposed. the restrictions on the legislative power of the states are obviously founded in this sentiment; and the constitution of the united states contains what may be deemed a bill of rights for the people of each state." it has also been decided, that a grant by a state before the revolution is as much to be protected as a grant since.[ ] but the case of _terrett v. taylor_, before cited, is of all others most pertinent to the present argument. indeed, the judgment of the court in that case seems to leave little to be argued or decided in this. "a private corporation," say the court, "created by the legislature, may lose its franchises by a _misuser_ or a _nonuser_ of them; and they may be resumed by the government under a judicial judgment upon a _quo warranto_ to ascertain and enforce the forfeiture. this is the common law of the land, and is a tacit condition annexed to the creation of every such corporation. upon a change of government, too, it may be admitted, that such exclusive privileges attached to a private corporation as are inconsistent with the new government may be abolished. in respect, also, to _public_ corporations which exist only for public purposes, such as counties, towns, cities, and so forth, the legislature may, under proper limitations, have a right to change, modify, enlarge, or restrain them, securing, however, the property for the uses of those for whom and at whose expense it was originally purchased. but that the legislature can repeal statutes creating private corporations, or confirming to them property already acquired under the faith of previous laws, and by such repeal can vest the property of such corporations exclusively in the state, or dispose of the same to such purposes as they please, without the consent or default of the corporators, we are not prepared to admit; and we think ourselves standing upon the principles of natural justice, upon the fundamental laws of every free government, upon the spirit and letter of the constitution of the united states, and upon the decisions of most respectable judicial tribunals, in resisting such a doctrine." this court, then, does not admit the doctrine, that a legislature can repeal statutes creating private corporations. if it cannot repeal them altogether, of course it cannot repeal any part of them, or impair them, or essentially alter them, without the consent of the corporators. if, therefore, it has been shown that this college is to be regarded as a private charity, this case is embraced within the very terms of that decision. a grant of corporate powers and privileges is as much a contract as a grant of land. what proves all charters of this sort to be contracts is, that they must be accepted to give them force and effect. if they are not accepted, they are void. and in the case of an existing corporation, if a new charter is given it, it may even accept part and reject the rest. in _rex v. vice-chancellor of cambridge_,[ ] lord mansfield says: "there is a vast deal of difference between a new charter granted to a new corporation, (who must take it as it is given,) and a new charter given to a corporation already in being, and acting either under a former charter or under prescriptive usage. the latter, a corporation already existing, are not obliged to accept the new charter _in toto_, and to receive either all or none of it; they may act partly under it, and partly under their old charter or prescription. the validity of these new charters must turn upon the acceptance of them." in the same case mr. justice wilmot says: "it is the concurrence and acceptance of the university that gives the force to the charter of the crown." in the _king v. pasmore_,[ ] lord kenyon observes: "some things are clear: when a corporation exists capable of discharging its functions, the crown cannot obtrude another charter upon them; they may either accept or reject it."[ ] in all cases relative to charters, the acceptance of them is uniformly alleged in the pleadings. this shows the general understanding of the law, that they are grants or contracts; and that parties are necessary to give them force and validity. in _king v. dr. askew_,[ ] it is said: "the crown cannot oblige a man to be a corporator, without his consent; he shall not be subject to the inconveniences of it, without accepting it and assenting to it." these terms, "acceptance" and "assent," are the very language of contract. in _ellis v. marshall_,[ ] it was expressly adjudged that the naming of the defendant among others, in an act of incorporation, did not of itself make him a corporator; and that his assent was necessary to that end. the court speak of the act of incorporation as a grant, and observe: "that a man may refuse a grant, whether from the government or an individual, seems to be a principle too clear to require the support of authorities." but justice buller, in _king v. pasmore_, furnishes, if possible, a still more direct and explicit authority. speaking of a corporation for government, he says: "i do not know how to reason on this point better than in the manner urged by one of the relator's counsel; who considered the grant of incorporation to be a compact between the crown and a certain number of the subjects, the latter of whom undertake, in consideration of the privileges which are bestowed, to exert themselves for the good government of the place." this language applies with peculiar propriety and force to the case before the court. it was in consequence of the "privileges bestowed," that dr. wheelock and his associates undertook to exert themselves for the instruction and education of youth in this college; and it was on the same consideration that the founder endowed it with his property. and because charters of incorporation are of the nature of contracts, they cannot be altered or varied but by consent of the original parties. if a charter be granted by the king, it may be altered by a new charter granted by the king, and accepted by the corporators. but if the first charter be granted by parliament, the consent of parliament must be obtained to any alteration. in _king v. miller_,[ ] lord kenyon says: "where a corporation takes its rise from the king's charter, the king by granting, and the corporation by accepting another charter, may alter it, because it is done with the consent of all the parties who are competent to consent to the alteration."[ ] there are, in this case, all the essential constituent parts of a contract. there is something to be contracted about, there are parties, and there are plain terms in which the agreement of the parties on the subject of the contract is expressed. there are mutual considerations and inducements. the charter recites, that the founder, on his part, has agreed to establish his seminary in new hampshire, and to enlarge it beyond its original design, among other things, for the benefit of that province; and thereupon a charter is given to him and his associates, designated by himself, promising and assuring to them, under the plighted faith of the state, the right of governing the college and administering its concerns in the manner provided in the charter. there is a complete and perfect grant to them of all the power of superintendence, visitation, and government. is not this a contract? if lands or money had been granted to him and his associates, for the same purposes, such grant could not be rescinded. and is there any difference, in legal contemplation, between a grant of corporate franchises and a grant of tangible property? no such difference is recognized in any decided case, nor does it exist in the common apprehension of mankind. it is therefore contended, that this case falls within the true meaning of this provision of the constitution, as expounded in the decisions of this court; that the charter of is a contract, a stipulation or agreement, mutual in its considerations, express and formal in its terms, and of a most binding and solemn nature. that the acts in question impair this contract, has already been sufficiently shown. they repeal and abrogate its most essential parts. a single observation may not be improper on the opinion of the court of new hampshire, which has been published. the learned judges who delivered that opinion have viewed this question in a very different light from that in which the plaintiffs have endeavored to exhibit it. after some general remarks, they assume that this college is a public corporation; and on this basis their judgment rests. whether all colleges are not regarded as private and eleemosynary corporations, by all law writers and all judicial decisions; whether this college was not founded by dr. wheelock; whether the charter was not granted at his request, the better to execute a trust, which he had already created; whether he and his associates did not become visitors, by the charter; and whether dartmouth college be not, therefore, in the strictest sense, a private charity, are questions which the learned judges do not appear to have discussed. it is admitted in that opinion, that, if it be a private corporation, its rights stand on the same ground as those of an individual. the great question, therefore, to be decided is, to which class of corporations do colleges thus founded belong? and the plaintiffs have endeavored to satisfy the court, that, according to the well-settled principles and uniform decisions of law, they are private, eleemosynary corporations. much has heretofore been said on the necessity of admitting such a power in the legislature as has been assumed in this case. many cases of possible evil have been imagined, which might otherwise be without remedy. abuses, it is contended, might arise in the management of such institutions, which the ordinary courts of law would be unable to correct. but this is only another instance of that habit of supposing extreme cases, and then of reasoning from them, which is the constant refuge of those who are obliged to defend a cause, which, upon its merits, is indefensible. it would be sufficient to say in answer, that it is not pretended that there was here any such case of necessity. but a still more satisfactory answer is, that the apprehension of danger is groundless, and therefore the whole argument fails. experience has not taught us that there is danger of great evils or of great inconvenience from this source. hitherto, neither in our own country nor elsewhere have such cases of necessity occurred. the judicial establishments of the state are presumed to be competent to prevent abuses and violations of trust, in cases of this kind, as well as in all others. if they be not, they are imperfect, and their amendment would be a most proper subject for legislative wisdom. under the government and protection of the general laws of the land, these institutions have always been found safe, as well as useful. they go on, with the progress of society, accommodating themselves easily, without sudden change or violence, to the alterations which take place in its condition, and in the knowledge, the habits, and pursuits of men. the english colleges were founded in catholic ages. their religion was reformed with the general reformation of the nation; and they are suited perfectly well to the purpose of educating the protestant youth of modern times. dartmouth college was established under a charter granted by the provincial government; but a better constitution for a college, or one more adapted to the condition of things under the present government, in all material respects, could not now be framed. nothing in it was found to need alteration at the revolution. the wise men of that day saw in it one of the best hopes of future times, and commended it as it was, with parental care, to the protection and guardianship of the government of the state. a charter of more liberal sentiments, of wiser provisions, drawn with more care, or in a better spirit, could not be expected at any time or from any source. the college needed no change in its organization or government. that which it did need was the kindness, the patronage, the bounty of the legislature; not a mock elevation to the character of a university, without the solid benefit of a shilling's donation to sustain the character; not the swelling and empty authority of establishing institutes and other colleges. this unsubstantial pageantry would seem to have been in derision of the scanty endowment and limited means of an unobtrusive, but useful and growing seminary. least of all was there a necessity, or pretence of necessity, to infringe its legal rights, violate its franchises and privileges, and pour upon it these overwhelming streams of litigation. but this argument from necessity would equally apply in all other cases. if it be well founded, it would prove, that, whenever any inconvenience or evil is experienced from the restrictions imposed on the legislature by the constitution, these restrictions ought to be disregarded. it is enough to say, that the people have thought otherwise. they have, most wisely, chosen to take the risk of occasional inconvenience from the want of power, in order that there might be a settled limit to its exercise, and a permanent security against its abuse. they have imposed prohibitions and restraints; and they have not rendered these altogether vain and nugatory by conferring the power of dispensation. if inconvenience should arise which the legislature cannot remedy under the power conferred upon it, it is not answerable for such inconvenience. that which it cannot do within the limits prescribed to it, it cannot do at all. no legislature in this country is able, and may the time never come when it shall be able, to apply to itself the memorable expression of a roman pontiff: "licet hoc _de jure_ non possumus, volumus tamen _de plenitudine potestatis_." the case before the court is not of ordinary importance, nor of every-day occurrence. it affects not this college only, but every college, and all the literary institutions of the country. they have nourished hitherto, and have become in a high degree respectable and useful to the community. they have all a common principle of existence, the inviolability of their charters. it will be a dangerous, a most dangerous experiment, to hold these institutions subject to the rise and fall of popular parties, and the fluctuations of political opinions. if the franchise may be at any time taken away, or impaired, the property also may be taken away, or its use perverted. benefactors will have no certainty of effecting the object of their bounty; and learned men will be deterred from devoting themselves to the service of such institutions, from the precarious title of their offices. colleges and halls will be deserted by all better spirits, and become a theatre for the contentions of politics. party and faction will be cherished in the places consecrated to piety and learning. these consequences are neither remote nor possible only. they are certain and immediate. when the court in north carolina declared the law of the state, which repealed a grant to its university, unconstitutional and void, the legislature had the candor and the wisdom to repeal the law. this example, so honorable to the state which exhibited it, is most fit to be followed on this occasion. and there is good reason to hope that a state, which has hitherto been so much distinguished for temperate counsels, cautious legislation, and regard to law, will not fail to adopt a course which will accord with her highest and best interests, and in no small degree elevate her reputation. it was for many and obvious reasons most anxiously desired that the question of the power of the legislature over this charter should have been finally decided in the state court. an earnest hope was entertained that the judges of the court might have viewed the case in a light favorable to the rights of the trustees. that hope has failed. it is here that those rights are now to be maintained, or they are prostrated for ever. "omnia alia perfugia bonorum, subsidia, consilia, auxilia, jura ceciderunt. quem enim alium appellem? quem obtester? quem implorem? nisi hoc loco, nisi apud vos, nisi per vos, judices, salutem nostram, quae spe exigua extremaque pendet, tenuerimus; nihil est praeterea quo confugere possimus." [footnote : calder et ux. v. bull, dallas, .] [footnote : annual register, , p. ; parl. reg. ; mr. burke's speech on mr. fox's east india bill, burke's works, vol. ii. pp. , , , , .] [footnote : black. , .] [footnote : burr. .] [footnote : king v. pasmore, term rep. .] [footnote : king v. vice-chancellor of cambridge, burr. ; term rep. ,--lord kenyon.] [footnote : burr. , and king v. pasmore, _ubi supra_.] [footnote : ellis v. marshall, mass. rep. ; kyd on corporations, , .] [footnote : wooddeson, ; black. .] [footnote : black. .] [footnote : ves. .] [footnote : ves. jun. .] [footnote : wood. .] [footnote : black. .] [footnote : term rep. , .] [footnote : black. .] [footnote : lord raymond, ; comb. ; holt, ; shower. ; mod. ; skinn. .] [footnote : lord raymond, .] [footnote : burn's eccles. law, , appendix no. ] [footnote : forb. , .] [footnote : green v. rutherforth, ves. , per lord hardwicke.] [footnote : attorney-general v. foundling hospital, ves. jun. . see also kyd on corporations, ; cooper's equity pleading, .] [footnote : st. john's college, cambridge, v. todington, burr. .] [footnote : attorney-general v. middleton, ves. .] [footnote : green v. rutherforth, _ubi supra_; st. john's college v. todington, _ubi supra_.] [footnote : term rep. .] [footnote : black., _ubi supra_.] [footnote : black. com. .] [footnote : sull. st lect.] [footnote : phillips v. bury, and green v. rutherforth, _ubi supra_. see also black. .] [footnote : ashby v. white, lord raymond, .] [footnote : attorney-general v. pearce, atk. .] [footnote : haywood's rep.] [footnote : cranch, .] [footnote : cranch. .] [footnote : dallas, .] [footnote : society v. wheeler, gal. .] [footnote : johnson's rep. .] [footnote : bracton, lib. , fol. . inst. .] [footnote : dig. . . .] [footnote : elements of the civil law, p. .] [footnote : cod. . . .] [footnote : perezii praelect. h. t.] [footnote : praelect. juris. civ., vol. ii. p. .] [footnote : black. com. .] [footnote : coke, inst. .] [footnote : lord raymond, .] [footnote : history of his own times, vol. iii. p. .] [footnote : see a full account of this case in state trials, th ed., vol. iv. p. .] [footnote : the federalist, no. , by mr. madison.] [footnote : cranch, .] [footnote : new jersey v. wilson, cranch, .] [footnote : burr. .] [footnote : term rep. .] [footnote : see also kyd on corp. .] [footnote : burr. .] [footnote : mass. rep. .] [footnote : term rep. .] [footnote : see also ex parte bolton school, brown's ch. rep. .] first settlement of new england. a discourse delivered at plymouth, on the d of december, . [the first public anniversary celebration of the landing of the pilgrims at plymouth took place under the auspices of the "old colony club," of whose formation an account may be found in the interesting little work of william s. russell, esq., entitled "guide to plymouth and recollections of the pilgrims." this club was formed for general purposes of social intercourse, in ; but its members determined, by a vote passed on monday, the th of december, of that year, "to keep" friday, the d, in commemoration of the landing of the fathers. a particular account of the simple festivities of this first public celebration of the landing of the pilgrims will be found at page of mr. russell's work. the following year, the anniversary was celebrated much in the same manner as in , with the addition of a short address, pronounced "with modest and decent firmness, by a member of the club, edward winslow, jr., esq.," being the first address ever delivered on this occasion. in , it was suggested by rev. chandler robbins, pastor of the first church at plymouth, in a letter addressed to the club, "whether it would not be agreeable, for the entertainment and instruction of the rising generation on these anniversaries, to have a sermon in public, some part of the day, peculiarly adapted to the occasion." this recommendation prevailed, and an appropriate discourse was delivered the following year by the rev. dr. robbins. in the old colony club was dissolved, in consequence of the conflicting opinions of its members on the great political questions then agitated. notwithstanding this event, the anniversary celebrations of the d of december continued without interruption till , when they were suspended. after an interval of fourteen years, a public discourse was again delivered by the rev. dr. robbins. private celebrations took place the four following years, and from that time till the year , with one or two exceptions, the day was annually commemorated, and public addresses were delivered by distinguished clergymen and laymen of massachusetts. in the "pilgrim society" was formed by the citizens of plymouth and the descendants of the pilgrims in other places, desirous of uniting "to commemorate the landing, and to honor the memory of the intrepid men who first set foot on plymouth rock." the foundation of this society gave a new impulse to the anniversary celebrations of this great event. the hon. daniel webster was requested to deliver the public address on the d of december of that year, and the following discourse was pronounced by him on the ever-memorable occasion. great public expectation was awakened by the fame of the orator; an immense concourse assembled at plymouth to unite in the celebration; and it may be safely anticipated, that some portion of the powerful effect of the following address on the minds of those who were so fortunate as to hear it, will be perpetuated by the press to the latest posterity. from to the present day, with occasional interruptions, the d of december has been celebrated by the pilgrim society. a list of all those by whom anniversary discourses have been delivered since the first organization of the old colony club, in , may be found in mr. russell's work. nor has the notice of the day been confined to new england. public celebrations of the landing of the pilgrims have been frequent in other parts of the country, particularly in new york. the new england society of that city has rarely permitted the day to pass without appropriate honors. similar societies have been formed at philadelphia, charleston, s.c., and cincinnati, and the day has been publicly commemorated in several other parts of the country.] let us rejoice that we behold this day. let us be thankful that we have lived to see the bright and happy breaking of the auspicious morn, which commences the third century of the history of new england. auspicious, indeed,--bringing a happiness beyond the common allotment of providence to men,--full of present joy, and gilding with bright beams the prospect of futurity, is the dawn that awakens us to the commemoration of the landing of the pilgrims. living at an epoch which naturally marks the progress of the history of our native land, we have come hither to celebrate the great event with which that history commenced. for ever honored be this, the place of our fathers' refuge! for ever remembered the day which saw them, weary and distressed, broken in every thing but spirit, poor in all but faith and courage, at last secure from the dangers of wintry seas, and impressing this shore with the first footsteps of civilized man! it is a noble faculty of our nature which enables us to connect our thoughts, our sympathies, and our happiness with what is distant in place or time; and, looking before and after, to hold communion at once with our ancestors and our posterity. human and mortal although we are, we are nevertheless not mere insulated beings, without relation to the past or the future. neither the point of time, nor the spot of earth, in which we physically live, bounds our rational and intellectual enjoyments. we live in the past by a knowledge of its history; and in the future, by hope and anticipation. by ascending to an association with our ancestors; by contemplating their example and studying their character; by partaking their sentiments, and imbibing their spirit; by accompanying them in their toils, by sympathizing in their sufferings, and rejoicing in their successes and their triumphs; we seem to belong to their age, and to mingle our own existence with theirs. we become their contemporaries, live the lives which they lived, endure what they endured, and partake in the rewards which they enjoyed. and in like manner, by running along the line of future time, by contemplating the probable fortunes of those who are coming after us, by attempting something which may promote their happiness, and leave some not dishonorable memorial of ourselves for their regard, when we shall sleep with the fathers, we protract our own earthly being, and seem to crowd whatever is future, as well as all that is past, into the narrow compass of our earthly existence. as it is not a vain and false, but an exalted and religious imagination, which leads us to raise our thoughts from the orb, which, amidst this universe of worlds, the creator has given us to inhabit, and to send them with something of the feeling which nature prompts, and teaches to be proper among children of the same eternal parent, to the contemplation of the myriads of fellow-beings with which his goodness has peopled the infinite of space; so neither is it false or vain to consider ourselves as interested and connected with our whole race, through all time; allied to our ancestors; allied to our posterity; closely compacted on all sides with others; ourselves being but links in the great chain of being, which begins with the origin of our race, runs onward through its successive generations, binding together the past, the present, and the future, and terminating at last, with the consummation of all things earthly, at the throne of god. there may be, and there often is, indeed, a regard for ancestry, which nourishes only a weak pride; as there is also a care for posterity, which only disguises an habitual avarice, or hides the workings of a low and grovelling vanity. but there is also a moral and philosophical respect for our ancestors, which elevates the character and improves the heart. next to the sense of religious duty and moral feeling, i hardly know what should bear with stronger obligation on a liberal and enlightened mind, than a consciousness of alliance with excellence which is departed; and a consciousness, too, that in its acts and conduct, and even in its sentiments and thoughts, it may be actively operating on the happiness of those who come after it. poetry is found to have few stronger conceptions, by which it would affect or overwhelm the mind, than those in which it presents the moving and speaking image of the departed dead to the senses of the living. this belongs to poetry, only because it is congenial to our nature. poetry is, in this respect, but the handmaid of true philosophy and morality; it deals with us as human beings, naturally reverencing those whose visible connection with this state of existence is severed, and who may yet exercise we know not what sympathy with ourselves; and when it carries us forward, also, and shows us the long continued result of all the good we do, in the prosperity of those who follow us, till it bears us from ourselves, and absorbs us in an intense interest for what shall happen to the generations after us, it speaks only in the language of our nature, and affects us with sentiments which belong to us as human beings. standing in this relation to our ancestors and our posterity, we are assembled on this memorable spot, to perform the duties which that relation and the present occasion impose upon us. we have come to this rock, to record here our homage for our pilgrim fathers; our sympathy in their sufferings; our gratitude for their labors; our admiration of their virtues; our veneration for their piety; and our attachment to those principles of civil and religious liberty, which they encountered the dangers of the ocean, the storms of heaven, the violence of savages, disease, exile, and famine, to enjoy and to establish. and we would leave here, also, for the generations which are rising up rapidly to fill our places, some proof that we have endeavored to transmit the great inheritance unimpaired; that in our estimate of public principles and private virtue, in our veneration of religion and piety, in our devotion to civil and religious liberty, in our regard for whatever advances human knowledge or improves human happiness, we are not altogether unworthy of our origin. there is a local feeling connected with this occasion, too strong to be resisted; a sort of _genius of the place_, which inspires and awes us. we feel that we are on the spot where the first scene of our history was laid; where the hearths and altars of new england were first placed; where christianity, and civilization, and letters made their first lodgement, in a vast extent of country, covered with a wilderness, and peopled by roving barbarians. we are here, at the season of the year at which the event took place. the imagination irresistibly and rapidly draws around us the principal features and the leading characters in the original scene. we cast our eyes abroad on the ocean, and we see where the little bark, with the interesting group upon its deck, made its slow progress to the shore. we look around us, and behold the hills and promontories where the anxious eyes of our fathers first saw the places of habitation and of rest. we feel the cold which benumbed, and listen to the winds which pierced them. beneath us is the rock,[ ] on which new england received the feet of the pilgrims. we seem even to behold them, as they struggle with the elements, and, with toilsome efforts, gain the shore. we listen to the chiefs in council; we see the unexampled exhibition of female fortitude and resignation; we hear the whisperings of youthful impatience, and we see, what a painter of our own has also represented by his pencil,[ ] chilled and shivering childhood, houseless, but for a mother's arms, couchless, but for a mother's breast, till our own blood almost freezes. the mild dignity of carver and of bradford; the decisive and soldier-like air and manner of standish; the devout brewster; the enterprising allerton;[ ] the general firmness and thoughtfulness of the whole band; their conscious joy for dangers escaped; their deep solicitude about dangers to come; their trust in heaven; their high religious faith, full of confidence and anticipation; all of these seem to belong to this place, and to be present upon this occasion, to fill us with reverence and admiration. the settlement of new england by the colony which landed here[ ] on the twenty-second[ ] of december, sixteen hundred and twenty, although not the first european establishment in what now constitutes the united states, was yet so peculiar in its causes and character, and has been followed and must still be followed by such consequences, as to give it a high claim to lasting commemoration. on these causes and consequences, more than on its immediately attendant circumstances, its importance, as an historical event, depends. great actions and striking occurrences, having excited a temporary admiration, often pass away and are forgotten, because they leave no lasting results, affecting the prosperity and happiness of communities. such is frequently the fortune of the most brilliant military achievements. of the ten thousand battles which have been fought, of all the fields fertilized with carnage, of the banners which have been bathed in blood, of the warriors who have hoped that they had risen from the field of conquest to a glory as bright and as durable as the stars, how few that continue long to interest mankind! the victory of yesterday is reversed by the defeat of to-day; the star of military glory, rising like a meteor, like a meteor has fallen; disgrace and disaster hang on the heels of conquest and renown; victor and vanquished presently pass away to oblivion, and the world goes on in its course, with the loss only of so many lives and so much treasure. but if this be frequently, or generally, the fortune of military achievements, it is not always so. there are enterprises, military as well as civil, which sometimes check the current of events, give a new turn to human affairs, and transmit their consequences through ages. we see their importance in their results, and call them great, because great things follow. there have been battles which have fixed the fate of nations. these come down to us in history with a solid and permanent interest, not created by a display of glittering armor, the rush of adverse battalions, the sinking and rising of pennons, the flight, the pursuit, and the victory; but by their effect in advancing or retarding human knowledge, in overthrowing or establishing despotism, in extending or destroying human happiness. when the traveller pauses on the plain of marathon, what are the emotions which most strongly agitate his breast? what is that glorious recollection, which thrills through his frame, and suffuses his eyes? not, i imagine, that grecian skill and grecian valor were here most signally displayed; but that greece herself was saved. it is because to this spot, and to the event which has rendered it immortal, he refers all the succeeding glories of the republic. it is because, if that day had gone otherwise, greece had perished. it is because he perceives that her philosophers and orators, her poets and painters, her sculptors and architects, her governments and free institutions, point backward to marathon, and that their future existence seems to have been suspended on the contingency, whether the persian or the grecian banner should wave victorious in the beams of that day's setting sun. and, as his imagination kindles at the retrospect, he is transported back to the interesting moment; he counts the fearful odds of the contending hosts; his interest for the result overwhelms him; he trembles, as if it were still uncertain, and seems to doubt whether he may consider socrates and plato, demosthenes, sophocles, and phidias, as secure, yet, to himself and to the world. "if we conquer," said the athenian commander on the approach of that decisive day, "if we conquer, we shall make athens the greatest city of greece."[ ] a prophecy how well fulfilled! "if god prosper us," might have been the more appropriate language of our fathers, when they landed upon this rock, "if god prosper us, we shall here begin a work which shall last for ages; we shall plant here a new society, in the principles of the fullest liberty and the purest religion; we shall subdue this wilderness which is before us; we shall fill this region of the great continent, which stretches almost from pole to pole, with civilization and christianity; the temples of the true god shall rise, where now ascends the smoke of idolatrous sacrifice; fields and gardens, the flowers of summer, and the waving and golden harvest of autumn, shall spread over a thousand hills, and stretch along a thousand valleys, never yet, since the creation, reclaimed to the use of civilized man. we shall whiten this coast with the canvas of a prosperous commerce; we shall stud the long and winding shore with a hundred cities. that which we sow in weakness shall be raised in strength. from our sincere, but houseless worship, there shall spring splendid temples to record god's goodness; from the simplicity of our social union, there shall arise wise and politic constitutions of government, full of the liberty which we ourselves bring and breathe; from our zeal for learning, institutions shall spring which shall scatter the light of knowledge throughout the land, and, in time, paying back where they have borrowed, shall contribute their part to the great aggregate of human knowledge; and our descendants, through all generations, shall look back to this spot, and to this hour, with unabated affection and regard." a brief remembrance of the causes which led to the settlement of this place; some account of the peculiarities and characteristic qualities of that settlement, as distinguished from other instances of colonization; a short notice of the progress of new england in the great interests of society, during the century which is now elapsed; with a few observations on the principles upon which society and government are established in this country; comprise all that can be attempted, and much more than can be satisfactorily performed, on the present occasion. of the motives which influenced the first settlers to a voluntary exile, induced them to relinquish their native country, and to seek an asylum in this then unexplored wilderness, the first and principal, no doubt, were connected with religion. they sought to enjoy a higher degree of religious freedom, and what they esteemed a purer form of religious worship, than was allowed to their choice, or presented to their imitation, in the old world. the love of religious liberty is a stronger sentiment, when fully excited, than an attachment to civil or political freedom. that freedom which the conscience demands, and which men feel bound by their hope of salvation to contend for, can hardly fail to be attained. conscience, in the cause of religion and the worship of the deity, prepares the mind to act and to suffer beyond almost all other causes. it sometimes gives an impulse so irresistible, that no fetters of power or of opinion can withstand it. history instructs us that this love of religious liberty, a compound sentiment in the breast of man, made up of the clearest sense of right and the highest conviction of duty, is able to look the sternest despotism in the face, and, with means apparently most inadequate, to shake principalities and powers. there is a boldness, a spirit of daring, in religious reformers, not to be measured by the general rules which control men's purposes and actions. if the hand of power be laid upon it, this only seems to augment its force and its elasticity, and to cause its action to be more formidable and violent. human invention has devised nothing, human power has compassed nothing, that can forcibly restrain it, when it breaks forth. nothing can stop it, but to give way to it; nothing can check it, but indulgence. it loses its power only when it has gained its object. the principle of toleration, to which the world has come so slowly, is at once the most just and the most wise of all principles. even when religious feeling takes a character of extravagance and enthusiasm, and seems to threaten the order of society and shake the columns of the social edifice, its principal danger is in its restraint. if it be allowed indulgence and expansion, like the elemental fires, it only agitates, and perhaps purifies, the atmosphere; while its efforts to throw off restraint would burst the world asunder. it is certain, that, although many of them were republicans in principle, we have no evidence that our new england ancestors would have emigrated, as they did, from their own native country, would have become wanderers in europe, and finally would have undertaken the establishment of a colony here, merely from their dislike of the political systems of europe. they fled not so much from the civil government, as from the hierarchy, and the laws which enforced conformity to the church establishment. mr. robinson had left england as early as , on account of the persecutions for non-conformity, and had retired to holland. he left england from no disappointed ambition in affairs of state, from no regrets at the want of preferment in the church, nor from any motive of distinction or of gain. uniformity in matters of religion was pressed with such extreme rigor, that a voluntary exile seemed the most eligible mode of escaping from the penalties of non-compliance. the accession of elizabeth had, it is true, quenched the fires of smithfield, and put an end to the easy acquisition of the crown of martyrdom. her long reign had established the reformation, but toleration was a virtue beyond her conception, and beyond the age. she left no example of it to her successor; and he was not of a character which rendered a sentiment either so wise or so liberal would originate with him. at the present period it seems incredible that the learned, accomplished, unassuming, and inoffensive robinson should neither be tolerated in his peaceable mode of worship in his own country, nor suffered quietly to depart from it. yet such was the fact. he left his country by stealth, that he might elsewhere enjoy those rights which ought to belong to men in all countries. the departure of the pilgrims for holland is deeply interesting, from its circumstances, and also as it marks the character of the times, independently of its connection with names now incorporated with the history of empire. the embarkation was intended to be made in such a manner that it might escape the notice of the officers of government. great pains had been taken to secure boats, which should come undiscovered to the shore, and receive the fugitives; and frequent disappointments had been experienced in this respect. at length the appointed time came, bringing with it unusual severity of cold and rain. an unfrequented and barren heath, on the shores of lincolnshire, was the selected spot, where the feet of the pilgrims were to tread, for the last time, the land of their fathers. the vessel which was to receive them did not come until the next day, and in the mean time the little band was collected, and men and women and children and baggage were crowded together, in melancholy and distressed confusion. the sea was rough, and the women and children were already sick, from their passage down the river to the place of embarkation on the sea. at length the wished-for boat silently and fearfully approaches the shore, and men and women and children, shaking with fear and with cold, as many as the small vessel could bear, venture off on a dangerous sea. immediately the advance of horses is heard from behind, armed men appear, and those not yet embarked are seized and taken into custody. in the hurry of the moment, the first parties had been sent on board without any attempt to keep members of the same family together, and on account of the appearance of the horsemen, the boat never returned for the residue. those who had got away, and those who had not, were in equal distress. a storm, of great violence and long duration, arose at sea, which not only protracted the voyage, rendered distressing by the want of all those accommodations which the interruption of the embarkation had occasioned, but also forced the vessel out of her course, and menaced immediate shipwreck; while those on shore, when they were dismissed from the custody of the officers of justice, having no longer homes or houses to retire to, and their friends and protectors being already gone, became objects of necessary charity, as well as of deep commiseration. as this scene passes before us, we can hardly forbear asking whether this be a band of malefactors and felons flying from justice. what are their crimes, that they hide themselves in darkness? to what punishment are they exposed, that, to avoid it, men, and women, and children, thus encounter the surf of the north sea and the terrors of a night storm? what induces this armed pursuit, and this arrest of fugitives, of all ages and both sexes? truth does not allow us to answer these inquiries in a manner that does credit to the wisdom or the justice of the times. this was not the flight of guilt, but of virtue. it was an humble and peaceable religion, flying from causeless oppression. it was conscience, attempting to escape from the arbitrary rule of the stuarts. it was robinson and brewster, leading off their little band from their native soil, at first to find shelter on the shore of the neighboring continent, but ultimately to come hither; and having surmounted all difficulties and braved a thousand dangers, to find here a place of refuge and of rest. thanks be to god, that this spot was honored as the asylum of religious liberty! may its standard, reared here, remain for ever! may it rise up as high as heaven, till its banner shall fan the air of both continents, and wave as a glorious ensign of peace and security to the nations! the peculiar character, condition, and circumstances of the colonies which introduced civilization and an english race into new england, afford a most interesting and extensive topic of discussion. on these, much of our subsequent character and fortune has depended. their influence has essentially affected our whole history, through the two centuries which have elapsed; and as they have become intimately connected with government, laws, and property, as well as with our opinions on the subjects of religion and civil liberty, that influence is likely to continue to be felt through the centuries which shall succeed. emigration from one region to another, and the emission of colonies to people countries more or less distant from the residence of the parent stock, are common incidents in the history of mankind; but it has not often, perhaps never, happened, that the establishment of colonies should be attempted under circumstances, however beset with present difficulties and dangers, yet so favorable to ultimate success, and so conducive to magnificent results, as those which attended the first settlements on this part of the american continent. in other instances, emigration has proceeded from a less exalted purpose, in periods of less general intelligence, or more without plan and by accident; or under circumstances, physical and moral, less favorable to the expectation of laying a foundation for great public prosperity and future empire. a great resemblance exists, obviously, between all the english colonies established within the present limits of the united states; but the occasion attracts our attention more immediately to those which took possession of new england, and the peculiarities of these furnish a strong contrast with most other instances of colonization. among the ancient nations, the greeks, no doubt, sent forth from their territories the greatest number of colonies. so numerous, indeed, were they, and so great the extent of space over which they were spread, that the parent country fondly and naturally persuaded herself, that by means of them she had laid a sure foundation for the universal civilization of the world. these establishments, from obvious causes, were most numerous in places most contiguous; yet they were found on the coasts of france, on the shores of the euxine sea, in africa, and even, as is alleged, on the borders of india. these emigrations appear to have been sometimes voluntary and sometimes compulsory; arising from the spontaneous enterprise of individuals, or the order and regulation of government. it was a common opinion with ancient writers, that they were undertaken in religious obedience to the commands of oracles, and it is probable that impressions of this sort might have had more or less influence; but it is probable, also, that on these occasions the oracles did not speak a language dissonant from the views and purposes of the state. political science among the greeks seems never to have extended to the comprehension of a system, which should be adequate to the government of a great nation upon principles of liberty. they were accustomed only to the contemplation of small republics, and were led to consider an augmented population as incompatible with free institutions. the desire of a remedy for this supposed evil, and the wish to establish marts for trade, led the governments often to undertake the establishment of colonies as an affair of state expediency. colonization and commerce, indeed, would naturally become objects of interest to an ingenious and enterprising people, inhabiting a territory closely circumscribed in its limits, and in no small part mountainous and sterile; while the islands of the adjacent seas, and the promontories and coasts of the neighboring continents, by their mere proximity, strongly solicited the excited spirit of emigration. such was this proximity, in many instances, that the new settlements appeared rather to be the mere extension of population over contiguous territory, than the establishment of distant colonies. in proportion as they were near to the parent state, they would be under its authority, and partake of its fortunes. the colony at marseilles might perceive lightly, or not at all, the sway of phocis; while the islands in the aegean sea could hardly attain to independence of their athenian origin. many of these establishments took place at an early age; and if there were defects in the governments of the parent states, the colonists did not possess philosophy or experience sufficient to correct such evils in their own institutions, even if they had not been, by other causes, deprived of the power. an immediate necessity, connected with the support of life, was the main and direct inducement to these undertakings, and there could hardly exist more than the hope of a successful imitation of institutions with which they were already acquainted, and of holding an equality with their neighbors in the course of improvement. the laws and customs, both political and municipal, as well as the religious worship of the parent city, were transferred to the colony; and the parent city herself, with all such of her colonies as were not too far remote for frequent intercourse and common sentiments, would appear like a family of cities, more or less dependent, and more or less connected. we know how imperfect this system was, as a system of general politics, and what scope it gave to those mutual dissensions and conflicts which proved so fatal to greece. but it is more pertinent to our present purpose to observe, that nothing existed in the character of grecian emigrations, or in the spirit and intelligence of the emigrants, likely to give a new and important direction to human affairs, or a new impulse to the human mind. their motives were not high enough, their views were not sufficiently large and prospective. they went not forth, like our ancestors, to erect systems of more perfect civil liberty, or to enjoy a higher degree of religious freedom. above all, there was nothing in the religion and learning of the age, that could either inspire high purposes, or give the ability to execute them. whatever restraints on civil liberty, or whatever abuses in religious worship, existed at the time of our fathers' emigration, yet even then all was light in the moral and mental world, in comparison with its condition in most periods of the ancient states. the settlement of a new continent, in an age of progressive knowledge and improvement, could not but do more than merely enlarge the natural boundaries of the habitable world. it could not but do much more even than extend commerce and increase wealth among the human race. we see how this event has acted, how it must have acted, and wonder only why it did not act sooner, in the production of moral effects, on the state of human knowledge, the general tone of human sentiments, and the prospects of human happiness. it gave to civilized man not only a new continent to be inhabited and cultivated, and new seas to be explored; but it gave him also a new range for his thoughts, new objects for curiosity, and new excitements to knowledge and improvement. roman colonization resembled, far less than that of the greeks, the original settlements of this country. power and dominion were the objects of rome, even in her colonial establishments. her whole exterior aspect was for centuries hostile and terrific. she grasped at dominion, from india to britain, and her measures of colonization partook of the character of her general system. her policy was military, because her objects were power, ascendency, and subjugation. detachments of emigrants from rome incorporated themselves with, and governed, the original inhabitants of conquered countries. she sent citizens where she had first sent soldiers; her law followed her sword. her colonies were a sort of military establishment; so many advanced posts in the career of her dominion. a governor from rome ruled the new colony with absolute sway, and often with unbounded rapacity. in sicily, in gaul, in spain, and in asia, the power of rome prevailed, not nominally only, but really and effectually. those who immediately exercised it were roman; the tone and tendency of its administration, roman. rome herself continued to be the heart and centre of the great system which she had established. extortion and rapacity, finding a wide and often rich field of action in the provinces, looked nevertheless to the banks of the tiber, as the scene in which their ill-gotten treasures should be displayed; or, if a spirit of more honest acquisition prevailed, the object, nevertheless, was ultimate enjoyment in rome itself. if our own history and our own times did not sufficiently expose the inherent and incurable evils of provincial government, we might see them portrayed, to our amazement, in the desolated and ruined provinces of the roman empire. we might hear them, in a voice that terrifies us, in those strains of complaint and accusation, which the advocates of the provinces poured forth in the roman forum:--"quas res luxuries in flagitiis, crudelitas in suppliciis, avaritia in rapinis, superbia in contumeliis, efficere potuisset, eas omnes sese pertulisse." as was to be expected, the roman provinces partook of the fortunes, as well as of the sentiments and general character, of the seat of empire. they lived together with her, they flourished with her, and fell with her. the branches were lopped away even before the vast and venerable trunk itself fell prostrate to the earth. nothing had proceeded from her which could support itself, and bear up the name of its origin, when her own sustaining arm should be enfeebled or withdrawn. it was not given to rome to see, either at her zenith or in her decline, a child of her own, distant, indeed, and independent of her control, yet speaking her language and inheriting her blood, springing forward to a competition with her own power, and a comparison with her own great renown. she saw not a vast region of the earth peopled from her stock, full of states and political communities, improving upon the models of her institutions, and breathing in fuller measure the spirit which she had breathed in the best periods of her existence; enjoying and extending her arts and her literature; rising rapidly from political childhood to manly strength and independence; her offspring, yet now her equal; unconnected with the causes which might affect the duration of her own power and greatness; of common origin, but not linked to a common fate; giving ample pledge, that her name should not be forgotten, that her language should not cease to be used among men; that whatsoever she had done for human knowledge and human happiness should be treasured up and preserved; that the record of her existence and her achievements should not be obscured, although, in the inscrutable purposes of providence, it might be her destiny to fall from opulence and splendor; although the time might come, when darkness should settle on all her hills; when foreign or domestic violence should overturn her altars and her temples; when ignorance and despotism should fill the places where laws, and arts, and liberty had flourished; when the feet of barbarism should trample on the tombs of her consuls, and the walls of her senate-house and forum echo only to the voice of savage triumph. she saw not this glorious vision, to inspire and fortify her against the possible decay or downfall of her power. happy are they who in our day may behold it, if they shall contemplate it with the sentiments which it ought to inspire! the new england colonies differ quite as widely from the asiatic establishments of the modern european nations, as from the models of the ancient states. the sole object of those establishments was originally trade; although we have seen, in one of them, the anomaly of a mere trading company attaining a political character, disbursing revenues, and maintaining armies and fortresses, until it has extended its control over seventy millions of people. differing from these, and still more from the new england and north american colonies, are the european settlements in the west india islands. it is not strange, that, when men's minds were turned to the settlement of america, different objects should be proposed by those who emigrated to the different regions of so vast a country. climate, soil, and condition were not all equally favorable to all pursuits. in the west indies, the purpose of those who went thither was to engage in that species of agriculture, suited to the soil and climate, which seems to bear more resemblance to commerce than to the hard and plain tillage of new england. the great staples of these countries, being partly an agricultural and partly a manufactured product, and not being of the necessaries of life, become the object of calculation, with respect to a profitable investment of capital, like any other enterprise of trade or manufacture. the more especially, as, requiring, by necessity or habit, slave labor for their production, the capital necessary to carry on the work of this production is very considerable. the west indies are resorted to, therefore, rather for the investment of capital than for the purpose of sustaining life by personal labor. such as possess a considerable amount of capital, or such as choose to adventure in commercial speculations without capital, can alone be fitted to be emigrants to the islands. the agriculture of these regions, as before observed, is a sort of commerce; and it is a species of employment in which labor seems to form an inconsiderable ingredient in the productive causes, since the portion of white labor is exceedingly small, and slave labor is rather more like profit on stock or capital than _labor_ properly so called. the individual who undertakes an establishment of this kind takes into the account the cost of the necessary number of slaves, in the same manner as he calculates the cost of the land. the uncertainty, too, of this species of employment, affords another ground of resemblance to commerce. although gainful on the whole, and in a series of years, it is often very disastrous for a single year, and, as the capital is not readily invested in other pursuits, bad crops or bad markets not only affect the profits, but the capital itself. hence the sudden depressions which take place in the value of such estates. but the great and leading observation, relative to these establishments, remains to be made. it is, that the owners of the soil and of the capital seldom consider themselves _at home_ in the colony. a very great portion of the soil itself is usually owned in the mother country; a still greater is mortgaged for capital obtained there; and, in general, those who are to derive an interest from the products look to the parent country as the place for enjoyment of their wealth. the population is therefore constantly fluctuating. nobody comes but to return. a constant succession of owners, agents, and factors takes place. whatsoever the soil, forced by the unmitigated toil of slavery, can yield, is sent home to defray rents, and interest, and agencies, or to give the means of living in a better society. in such a state, it is evident that no spirit of permanent improvement is likely to spring up. profits will not be invested with a distant view of benefiting posterity. roads and canals will hardly be built; schools will not be founded; colleges will not be endowed. there will be few fixtures in society; no principles of utility or of elegance, planted now, with the hope of being developed and expanded hereafter. profit, immediate profit, must be the principal active spring in the social system. there may be many particular exceptions to these general remarks, but the outline of the whole is such as is here drawn. another most important consequence of such a state of things is, that no idea of independence of the parent country is likely to arise; unless, indeed, it should spring up in a form that would threaten universal desolation. the inhabitants have no strong attachment to the place which they inhabit. the hope of a great portion of them is to leave it; and their great desire, to leave it soon. however useful they may be to the parent state, how much soever they may add to the conveniences and luxuries of life, these colonies are not favored spots for the expansion of the human mind, for the progress of permanent improvement, or for sowing the seeds of future independent empire. different, indeed, most widely different, from all these instances of emigration and plantation, were the condition, the purposes, and the prospects of our fathers, when they established their infant colony upon this spot. they came hither to a land from which they were never to return. hither they had brought, and here they were to fix, their hopes, their attachments, and their objects in life. some natural tears they shed, as they left the pleasant abodes of their fathers, and some emotions they suppressed, when the white cliffs of their native country, now seen for the last time, grew dim to their sight. they were acting, however, upon a resolution not to be daunted. with whatever stifled regrets, with whatever occasional hesitation, with whatever appalling apprehensions, which might sometimes arise with force to shake the firmest purpose, they had yet committed themselves to heaven and the elements; and a thousand leagues of water soon interposed to separate them for ever from the region which gave them birth. a new existence awaited them here; and when they saw these shores, rough, cold, barbarous, and barren, as then they were, they beheld their country. that mixed and strong feeling, which we call love of country, and which is, in general, never extinguished in the heart of man, grasped and embraced its proper object here. whatever constitutes _country_, except the earth and the sun, all the moral causes of affection and attachment which operate upon the heart, they had brought with them to their new abode. here were now their families and friends, their homes, and their property. before they reached the shore, they had established the elements of a social system,[ ] and at a much earlier period had settled their forms of religious worship. at the moment of their landing, therefore, they possessed institutions of government, and institutions of religion: and friends and families, and social and religious institutions, framed by consent, founded on choice and preference, how nearly do these fill up our whole idea of country! the morning that beamed on the first night of their repose saw the pilgrims already _at home_ in their country. there were political institutions, and civil liberty, and religious worship. poetry has fancied nothing, in the wanderings of heroes, so distinct and characteristic. here was man, indeed, unprotected, and unprovided for, on the shore of a rude and fearful wilderness; but it was politic, intelligent, and educated man. every thing was civilized but the physical world. institutions, containing in substance all that ages had done for human government, were organized in a forest. cultivated mind was to act on uncultivated nature; and, more than all, a government and a country were to commence, with the very first foundations laid under the divine light of the christian religion. happy auspices of a happy futurity! who would wish that his country's existence had otherwise begun? who would desire the power of going back to the ages of fable? who would wish for an origin obscured in the darkness of antiquity? who would wish for other emblazoning of his country's heraldry, or other ornaments of her genealogy, than to be able to say, that her first existence was with intelligence, her first breath the inspiration of liberty, her first principle the truth of divine religion? local attachments and sympathies would ere long spring up in the breasts of our ancestors, endearing to them the place of their refuge. whatever natural objects are associated with interesting scenes and high efforts obtain a hold on human feeling, and demand from the heart a sort of recognition and regard. this rock soon became hallowed in the esteem of the pilgrims,[ ] and these hills grateful to their sight. neither they nor their children were again to till the soil of england, nor again to traverse the seas which surround her.[ ] but here was a new sea, now open to their enterprise, and a new soil, which had not failed to respond gratefully to their laborious industry, and which was already assuming a robe of verdure. hardly had they provided shelter for the living, ere they were summoned to erect sepulchres for the dead. the ground had become sacred, by enclosing the remains of some of their companions and connections. a parent, a child, a husband, or a wife, had gone the way of all flesh, and mingled with the dust of new england. we naturally look with strong emotions to the spot, though it be a wilderness, where the ashes of those we have loved repose. where the heart has laid down what it loved most, there it is desirous of laying itself down. no sculptured marble, no enduring monument, no honorable inscription, no ever-burning taper that would drive away the darkness of the tomb, can soften our sense of the reality of death, and hallow to our feelings the ground which is to cover us, like the consciousness that we shall sleep, dust to dust, with the objects of our affections. in a short time other causes sprung up to bind the pilgrims with new cords to their chosen land. children were born, and the hopes of future generations arose, in the spot of their new habitation. the second generation found this the land of their nativity, and saw that they were bound to its fortunes. they beheld their fathers' graves around them, and while they read the memorials of their toils and labors, they rejoiced in the inheritance which they found bequeathed to them. under the influence of these causes, it was to be expected that an interest and a feeling should arise here, entirely different from the interest and feeling of mere englishmen; and all the subsequent history of the colonies proves this to have actually and gradually taken place. with a general acknowledgment of the supremacy of the british crown, there was, from the first, a repugnance to an entire submission to the control of british legislation. the colonies stood upon their charters, which, as they contended, exempted them from the ordinary power of the british parliament, and authorized them to conduct their own concerns by their own counsels. they utterly resisted the notion that they were to be ruled by the mere authority of the government at home, and would not endure even that their own charter governments should be established on the other side of the atlantic. it was not a controlling or protecting board in england, but a government of their own, and existing immediately within their limits, which could satisfy their wishes. it was easy to foresee, what we know also to have happened, that the first great cause of collision and jealousy would be, under the notion of political economy then and still prevalent in europe, an attempt on the part of the mother country to monopolize the trade of the colonies. whoever has looked deeply into the causes which produced our revolution has found, if i mistake not, the original principle far back in this claim, on the part of england, to monopolize our trade, and a continued effort on the part of the colonies to resist or evade that monopoly; if, indeed, it be not still more just and philosophical to go farther back, and to consider it decided, that an independent government must arise here, the moment it was ascertained that an english colony, such as landed in this place, could sustain itself against the dangers which surrounded it, and, with other similar establishments, overspread the land with an english population. accidental causes retarded at times, and at times accelerated, the progress of the controversy. the colonies wanted strength, and time gave it to them. they required measures of strong and palpable injustice, on the part of the mother country, to justify resistance; the early part of the late king's reign furnished them. they needed spirits of high order, of great daring, of long foresight, and of commanding power, to seize the favoring occasion to strike a blow, which should sever, for all time, the tie of colonial dependence; and these spirits were found, in all the extent which that or any crisis could demand, in otis, adams, hancock, and the other immediate authors of our independence. still, it is true that, for a century, causes had been in operation tending to prepare things for this great result. in the year the english act of navigation was passed; the first and grand object of which seems to have been, to secure to england the whole trade with her plantations.[ ] it was provided by that act, that none but english ships should transport american produce over the ocean, and that the principal articles of that produce should be allowed to be sold only in the markets of the mother country. three years afterwards another law was passed, which enacted, that such commodities as the colonies might wish to purchase should be bought only in the markets of the mother country. severe rules were prescribed to enforce the provisions of these laws, and heavy penalties imposed on all who should violate them. in the subsequent years of the same reign, other statutes were enacted to re-enforce these statutes, and other rules prescribed to secure a compliance with these rules. in this manner was the trade to and from the colonies restricted, almost to the exclusive advantage of the parent country. but laws, which rendered the interest of a whole people subordinate to that of another people, were not likely to execute themselves, nor was it easy to find many on the spot, who could be depended upon for carrying them into execution. in fact, these laws were more or less evaded or resisted, in all the colonies. to enforce them was the constant endeavor of the government at home; to prevent or elude their operation, the perpetual object here. "the laws of navigation," says a living british writer, "were nowhere so openly disobeyed and contemned as in new england." "the people of massachusetts bay," he adds, "were from the first disposed to act as if independent of the mother country, and having a governor and magistrates of their own choice, it was difficult to enforce any regulation which came from the english parliament, adverse to their interests." to provide more effectually for the execution of these laws, we know that courts of admiralty were afterwards established by the crown, with power to try revenue causes, as questions of admiralty, upon the construction given by the crown lawyers to an act of parliament; a great departure from the ordinary principles of english jurisprudence, but which has been maintained, nevertheless, by the force of habit and precedent, and is adopted in our own existing systems of government. "there lie," says another english writer, whose connection with the board of trade has enabled him to ascertain many facts connected with colonial history, "there lie among the documents in the board of trade and state-paper office, the most satisfactory proofs, from the epoch of the english revolution in , throughout every reign, and during every administration, of the settled purpose of the colonies to acquire direct independence and positive sovereignty." perhaps this may be stated somewhat too strongly; but it cannot be denied, that, from the very nature of the establishments here, and from the general character of the measures respecting their concerns early adopted and steadily pursued by the english government, a division of the empire was the natural and necessary result to which every thing tended.[ ] i have dwelt on this topic, because it seems to me, that the peculiar original character of the new england colonies, and certain causes coeval with their existence, have had a strong and decided influence on all their subsequent history, and especially on the great event of the revolution. whoever would write our history, and would understand and explain early transactions, should comprehend the nature and force of the feeling which i have endeavored to describe. as a son, leaving the house of his father for his own, finds, by the order of nature, and the very law of his being, nearer and dearer objects around which his affections circle, while his attachment to the parental roof becomes moderated, by degrees, to a composed regard and an affectionate remembrance; so our ancestors, leaving their native land, not without some violence to the feelings of nature and affection, yet, in time, found here a new circle of engagements, interests, and affections; a feeling, which more and more encroached upon the old, till an undivided sentiment, _that this was their country_, occupied the heart; and patriotism, shutting out from its embraces the parent realm, became _local_ to america. some retrospect of the century which has now elapsed is among the duties of the occasion. it must, however, necessarily be imperfect, to be compressed within the limits of a single discourse. i shall content myself, therefore, with taking notice of a few of the leading and most important occurrences which have distinguished the period. when the first century closed, the progress of the country appeared to have been considerable; notwithstanding that, in comparison with its subsequent advancement, it now seems otherwise. a broad and lasting foundation had been laid; excellent institutions had been established; many of the prejudices of former times had been removed; a more liberal and catholic spirit on subjects of religious concern had begun to extend itself, and many things conspired to give promise of increasing future prosperity. great men had arisen in public life, and the liberal professions. the mathers, father and son, were then sinking low in the western horizon; leverett, the learned, the accomplished, the excellent leverett, was about to withdraw his brilliant and useful light. in pemberton great hopes had been suddenly extinguished, but prince and colman were in our sky; and along the east had begun to flash the crepuscular light of a great luminary which was about to appear, and which was to stamp the age with his own name, as the age of franklin. the bloody indian wars, which harassed the people for a part of the first century; the restrictions on the trade of the colonies, added to the discouragements inherently belonging to all forms of colonial government; the distance from europe, and the small hope of immediate profit to adventurers, are among the causes which had contributed to retard the progress of population. perhaps it may be added, also, that during the period of the civil wars in england, and the reign of cromwell, many persons, whose religious opinions and religious temper might, under other circumstances, have induced them to join the new england colonists, found reasons to remain in england; either on account of active occupation in the scenes which were passing, or of an anticipation of the enjoyment, in their own country, of a form of government, civil and religious, accommodated to their views and principles. the violent measures, too, pursued against the colonies in the reign of charles the second, the mockery of a trial, and the forfeiture of the charters, were serious evils. and during the open violences of the short reign of james the second, and the tyranny of andros, as the venerable historian of connecticut observes, "all the motives to great actions, to industry, economy, enterprise, wealth, and population, were in a manner annihilated. a general inactivity and languishment pervaded the public body. liberty, property, and every thing which ought to be dear to men, every day grew more and more insecure." with the revolution in england, a better prospect had opened on this country, as well as on that. the joy had been as great at that event, and far more universal, in new than in old england. a new charter had been granted to massachusetts, which, although it did not confirm to her inhabitants all their former privileges, yet relieved them from great evils and embarrassments, and promised future security. more than all, perhaps, the revolution in england had done good to the general cause of liberty and justice. a blow had been struck in favor of the rights and liberties, not of england alone, but of descendants and kinsmen of england all over the world. great political truths had been established. the champions of liberty had been successful in a fearful and perilous conflict. somers, and cavendish, and jekyl, and howard, had triumphed in one of the most noble causes ever undertaken by men. a revolution had been made upon principle. a monarch had been dethroned for violating the original compact between king and people. the rights of the people to partake in the government, and to limit the monarch by fundamental rules of government, had been maintained; and however unjust the government of england might afterwards be towards other governments or towards her colonies, she had ceased to be governed herself by the arbitrary maxims of the stuarts. new england had submitted to the violence of james the second not longer than old england. not only was it reserved to massachusetts, that on her soil should be acted the first scene of that great revolutionary drama, which was to take place near a century afterwards, but the english revolution itself, as far as the colonies were concerned, commenced in boston. the seizure and imprisonment of andros, in april, , were acts of direct and forcible resistance to the authority of james the second. the pulse of liberty beat as high in the extremities as at the heart. the vigorous feeling of the colony burst out before it was known how the parent country would finally conduct herself. the king's representative, sir edmund andros, was a prisoner in the castle at boston, before it was or could be known that the king himself had ceased to exercise his full dominion on the english throne. before it was known here whether the invasion of the prince of orange would or could prove successful, as soon as it was known that it had been undertaken, the people of massachusetts, at the imminent hazard of their lives and fortunes, had accomplished the revolution as far as respected themselves. it is probable that, reasoning on general principles and the known attachment of the english people to their constitution and liberties, and their deep and fixed dislike of the king's religion and politics, the people of new england expected a catastrophe fatal to the power of the reigning prince. yet it was neither certain enough, nor near enough, to come to their aid against the authority of the crown, in that crisis which had arrived, and in which they trusted to put themselves, relying on god and their own courage. there were spirits in massachusetts congenial with the spirits of the distinguished friends of the revolution in england. there were those who were fit to associate with the boldest asserters of civil liberty; and mather himself, then in england, was not unworthy to be ranked with those sons of the church, whose firmness and spirit in resisting kingly encroachments in matters of religion, entitled them to the gratitude of their own and succeeding ages. the second century opened upon new england under circumstances which evinced that much had already been accomplished, and that still better prospects and brighter hopes were before her. she had laid, deep and strong, the foundations of her society. her religious principles were firm, and her moral habits exemplary. her public schools had begun to diffuse widely the elements of knowledge; and the college, under the excellent and acceptable administration of leverett, had been raised to a high degree of credit and usefulness. the commercial character of the country, notwithstanding all discouragements, had begun to display itself, and _five hundred vessels_, then belonging to massachusetts, placed her, in relation to commerce, thus early at the head of the colonies. an author who wrote very near the close of the first century says:--"new england is almost deserving that _noble name_, so mightily hath it increased; and from a small settlement at first, is now become a _very populous_ and _flourishing_ government. the _capital city_, boston, is a place of _great wealth and trade_; and by much the largest of any in the english empire of america; and not exceeded but by few cities, perhaps two or three, in all the american world." but if our ancestors at the close of the first century could look back with joy and even admiration, at the progress of the country, what emotions must we not feel, when, from the point on which we stand, we also look back and run along the events of the century which has now closed! the country which then, as we have seen, was thought deserving of a "noble name,"--which then had "mightily increased," and become "very populous,"--what was it, in comparison with what our eyes behold it? at that period, a very great proportion of its inhabitants lived in the eastern section of massachusetts proper, and in plymouth colony. in connecticut, there were towns along the coast, some of them respectable, but in the interior all was a wilderness beyond hartford. on connecticut river, settlements had proceeded as far up as deerfield, and fort dummer had been built near where is now the south line of new hampshire. in new hampshire no settlement was then begun thirty miles from the mouth of piscataqua river, and in what is now maine the inhabitants were confined to the coast. the aggregate of the whole population of new england did not exceed one hundred and sixty thousand. its present amount ( ) is probably one million seven hundred thousand. instead of being confined to its former limits, her population has rolled backward, and filled up the spaces included within her actual local boundaries. not this only, but it has overflowed those boundaries, and the waves of emigration have pressed farther and farther toward the west. the alleghany has not checked it; the banks of the ohio have been covered with it. new england farms, houses, villages, and churches spread over and adorn the immense extent from the ohio to lake erie, and stretch along from the alleghany onwards, beyond the miamis, and toward the falls of st. anthony. two thousand miles westward from the rock where their fathers landed, may now be found the sons of the pilgrims, cultivating smiling fields, rearing towns and villages, and cherishing, we trust, the patrimonial blessings of wise institutions, of liberty, and religion. the world has seen nothing like this. regions large enough to be empires, and which, half a century ago, were known only as remote and unexplored wildernesses, are now teeming with population, and prosperous in all the great concerns of life; in good governments, the means of subsistence, and social happiness. it may be safely asserted, that there are now more than a million of people, descendants of new england ancestry, living, free and happy, in regions which scarce sixty years ago were tracts of unpenetrated forest. nor do rivers, or mountains, or seas resist the progress of industry and enterprise. erelong, the sons of the pilgrims will be on the shores of the pacific.[ ] the imagination hardly keeps pace with the progress of population, improvement, and civilization. it is now five-and-forty years since the growth and rising glory of america were portrayed in the english parliament, with inimitable beauty, by the most consummate orator of modern times. going back somewhat more than half a century, and describing our progress as foreseen from that point by his amiable friend lord bathurst, then living, he spoke of the wonderful progress which america had made during the period of a single human life. there is no american heart, i imagine, that does not glow, both with conscious, patriotic pride, and admiration for one of the happiest efforts of eloquence, so often as the vision of "that little speck, scarce visible in the mass of national interest, a small seminal principle, rather than a formed body," and the progress of its astonishing development and growth, are recalled to the recollection. but a stronger feeling might be produced, if we were able to take up this prophetic description where he left it, and, placing ourselves at the point of time in which he was speaking, to set forth with equal felicity the subsequent progress of the country. there is yet among the living a most distinguished and venerable name, a descendant of the pilgrims; one who has been attended through life by a great and fortunate genius; a man illustrious by his own great merits, and favored of heaven in the long continuation of his years.[ ] the time when the english orator was thus speaking of america preceded but by a few days the actual opening of the revolutionary drama at lexington. he to whom i have alluded, then at the age of forty, was among the most zealous and able defenders of the violated rights of his country. he seemed already to have filled a full measure of public service, and attained an honorable fame. the moment was full of difficulty and danger, and big with events of immeasurable importance. the country was on the very brink of a civil war, of which no man could foretell the duration or the result. something more than a courageous hope, or characteristic ardor, would have been necessary to impress the glorious prospect on his belief, if, at that moment, before the sound of the first shock of actual war had reached his ears, some attendant spirit had opened to him the vision of the future;--if it had said to him, "the blow is struck, and america is severed from england for ever!"--if it had informed him, that he himself, during the next annual revolution of the sun, should put his own hand to the great instrument of independence, and write his name where all nations should behold it and all time should not efface it; that erelong he himself should maintain the interests and represent the sovereignty of his newborn country in the proudest courts of europe; that he should one day exercise her supreme magistracy; that he should yet live to behold ten millions of fellow-citizens paying him the homage of their deepest gratitude and kindest affections; that he should see distinguished talent and high public trust resting where his name rested; that he should even see with his own unclouded eyes the close of the second century of new england, who had begun life almost with its commencement, and lived through nearly half the whole history of his country; and that on the morning of this auspicious day he should be found in the political councils of his native state, revising, by the light of experience, that system of government which forty years before he had assisted to frame and establish; and, great and happy as he should then behold his country, there should be nothing in prospect to cloud the scene, nothing to check the ardor of that confident and patriotic hope which should glow in his bosom to the end of his long protracted and happy life. it would far exceed the limits of this discourse even to mention the principal events in the civil and political history of new england during the century; the more so, as for the last half of the period that history has, most happily, been closely interwoven with the general history of the united states. new england bore an honorable part in the wars which took place between england and france. the capture of louisburg gave her a character for military achievement; and in the war which terminated with the peace of , her exertions on the frontiers wore of most essential service, as well to the mother country as to all the colonies. in new england the war of the revolution commenced. i address those who remember the memorable th of april, ; who shortly after saw the burning spires of charlestown; who beheld the deeds of prescott, and heard the voice of putnam amidst the storm of war, and saw the generous warren fall, the first distinguished victim in the cause of liberty. it would be superfluous to say, that no portion of the country did more than the states of new england to bring the revolutionary struggle to a successful issue. it is scarcely less to her credit, that she saw early the necessity of a closer union of the states, and gave an efficient and indispensable aid to the establishment and organization of the federal government. perhaps we might safely say, that a new spirit and a new excitement began to exist here about the middle of the last century. to whatever causes it may be imputed, there seems then to have commenced a more rapid improvement. the colonies had attracted more of the attention of the mother country, and some renown in arms had been acquired. lord chatham was the first english minister who attached high importance to these possessions of the crown, and who foresaw any thing of their future growth and extension. his opinion was, that the great rival of england was chiefly to be feared as a maritime and commercial power, and to drive her out of north america and deprive her of her west indian possessions was a leading object in his policy. he dwelt often on the fisheries, as nurseries for british seamen, and the colonial trade, as furnishing them employment. the war, conducted by him with so much vigor, terminated in a peace, by which canada was ceded to england. the effect of this was immediately visible in the new england colonies; for, the fear of indian hostilities on the frontiers being now happily removed, settlements went on with an activity before that time altogether unprecedented, and public affairs wore a new and encouraging aspect. shortly after this fortunate termination of the french war, the interesting topics connected with the taxation of america by the british parliament began to be discussed, and the attention and all the faculties of the people drawn towards them. there is perhaps no portion of our history more full of interest than the period from to the actual commencement of the war. the progress of opinion in this period, though less known, is not less important than the progress of arms afterwards. nothing deserves more consideration than those events and discussions which affected the public sentiment and settled the revolution in men's minds, before hostilities openly broke out. internal improvement followed the establishment and prosperous commencement of the present government. more has been done for roads, canals, and other public works, within the last thirty years, than in all our former history. in the first of these particulars, few countries excel the new england states. the astonishing increase of their navigation and trade is known to every one, and now belongs to the history of our national wealth. we may flatter ourselves, too, that literature and taste have not been stationary, and that some advancement has been made in the elegant, as well as in the useful arts. the nature and constitution of society and government in this country are interesting topics, to which i would devote what remains of the time allowed to this occasion. of our system of government the first thing to be said is, that it is really and practically a free system. it originates entirely with the people, and rests on no other foundation than their assent. to judge of its actual operation, it is not enough to look merely at the form of its construction. the practical character of government depends often on a variety of considerations, besides the abstract frame of its constitutional organization. among these are the condition and tenure of property; the laws regulating its alienation and descent; the presence or absence of a military power; an armed or unarmed yeomanry; the spirit of the age, and the degree of general intelligence. in these respects it cannot be denied that the circumstances of this country are most favorable to the hope of maintaining the government of a great nation on principles entirely popular. in the absence of military power, the nature of government must essentially depend on the manner in which property is holden and distributed. there is a natural influence belonging to property, whether it exists in many hands or few; and it is on the rights of property that both despotism and unrestrained popular violence ordinarily commence their attacks. our ancestors began their system of government here under a condition of comparative equality in regard to wealth, and their early laws were of a nature to favor and continue this equality. a republican form of government rests not more on political constitutions, than on those laws which regulate the descent and transmission of property. governments like ours could not have been maintained, where property was holden according to the principles of the feudal system; nor, on the other hand, could the feudal constitution possibly exist with us. our new england ancestors brought hither no great capitals from europe; and if they had, there was nothing productive in which they could have been invested. they left behind them the whole feudal policy of the other continent. they broke away at once from the system of military service established in the dark ages, and which continues, down even to the present time, more or less to affect the condition of property all over europe. they came to a new country. there were, as yet, no lands yielding rent, and no tenants rendering service. the whole soil was unreclaimed from barbarism. they were themselves, either from their original condition, or from the necessity of their common interest, nearly on a general level in respect to property. their situation demanded a parcelling out and division of the lands, and it may be fairly said, that this necessary act _fixed the future frame and form of their government_. the character of their political institutions was determined by the fundamental laws respecting property. the laws rendered estates divisible among sons and daughters. the right of primogeniture, at first limited and curtailed, was afterwards abolished. the property was all freehold. the entailment of estates, long trusts, and the other processes for fettering and tying up inheritances, were not applicable to the condition of society, and seldom made use of. on the contrary, alienation of the land was every way facilitated, even to the subjecting of it to every species of debt. the establishment of public registries, and the simplicity of our forms of conveyance, have greatly facilitated the change of real estate from one proprietor to another. the consequence of all these causes has been a great subdivision of the soil, and a great equality of condition; the true basis, most certainly, of a popular government. "if the people," says harrington, "hold three parts in four of the territory, it is plain there can neither be any single person nor nobility able to dispute the government with them; in this case, therefore, _except force be interposed_, they govern themselves." the history of other nations may teach us how favorable to public liberty are the division of the soil into small freeholds, and a system of laws, of which the tendency is, without violence or injustice, to produce and to preserve a degree of equality of property. it has been estimated, if i mistake not, that about the time of henry the seventh four fifths of the land in england was holden by the great barons and ecclesiastics. the effects of a growing commerce soon afterwards began to break in on this state of things, and before the revolution, in , a vast change had been wrought. it may be thought probable, that, for the last half-century, the process of subdivision in england has been retarded, if not reversed; that the great weight of taxation has compelled many of the lesser freeholders to dispose of their estates, and to seek employment in the army and navy, in the professions of civil life, in commerce, or in the colonies. the effect of this on the british constitution cannot but be most unfavorable. a few large estates grow larger; but the number of those who have no estates also increases; and there may be danger, lest the inequality of property become so great, that those who possess it may be dispossessed by force; in other words, that the government may be overturned. a most interesting experiment of the effect of a subdivision of property on government is now making in france. it is understood, that the law regulating the transmission of property in that country, now divides it, real and personal, among all the children equally, both sons and daughters; and that there is, also, a very great restraint on the power of making dispositions of property by will. it has been supposed, that the effects of this might probably be, in time, to break up the soil into such small subdivisions, that the proprietors would be too poor to resist the encroachments of executive power. i think far otherwise. what is lost in individual wealth will be more than gained in numbers, in intelligence, and in a sympathy of sentiment. if, indeed, only one or a few landholders were to resist the crown, like the barons of england, they must, of course, be great and powerful landholders, with multitudes of retainers, to promise success. but if the proprietors of a given extent of territory are summoned to resistance, there is no reason to believe that such resistance would be less forcible, or less successful, because the number of such proprietors happened to be great. each would perceive his own importance, and his own interest, and would feel that natural elevation of character which the consciousness of property inspires. a common sentiment would unite all, and numbers would not only add strength, but excite enthusiasm. it is true, that france possesses a vast military force, under the direction of an hereditary executive government; and military power, it is possible, may overthrow any government. it is in vain, however, in this period of the world, to look for security against military power to the arm of the great landholders. that notion is derived from a state of things long since past; a state in which a feudal baron, with his retainers, might stand against the sovereign and his retainers, himself but the greatest baron. but at present, what could the richest landholder do, against one regiment of disciplined troops? other securities, therefore, against the prevalence of military power must be provided. happily for us, we are not so situated as that any purpose of national defence requires, ordinarily and constantly, such a military force as might seriously endanger our liberties. in respect, however, to the recent law of succession in france, to which i have alluded, i would, presumptuously perhaps, hazard a conjecture, that, if the government do not change the law, the law in half a century will change the government; and that this change will be, not in favor of the power of the crown, as some european writers have supposed, but against it. those writers only reason upon what they think correct general principles, in relation to this subject. they acknowledge a want of experience. here we have had that experience; and we know that a multitude of small proprietors, acting with intelligence, and that enthusiasm which a common cause inspires, constitute not only a formidable, but an invincible power.[ ] the true principle of a free and popular government would seem to be, so to construct it as to give to all, or at least to a very great majority, an interest in its preservation; to found it, as other things are founded, on men's interest. the stability of government demands that those who desire its continuance should be more powerful than those who desire its dissolution. this power, of course, is not always to be measured by mere numbers. education, wealth, talents, are all parts and elements of the general aggregate of power; but numbers, nevertheless, constitute ordinarily the most important consideration, unless, indeed, there be _a military force_ in the hands of the few, by which they can control the many. in this country we have actually existing systems of government, in the maintenance of which, it should seem, a great majority, both in numbers and in other means of power and influence, must see their interest. but this state of things is not brought about solely by written political constitutions, or the mere manner of organizing the government; but also by the laws which regulate the descent and transmission of property. the freest government, if it could exist, would not be long acceptable, if the tendency of the laws were to create a rapid accumulation of property in few hands, and to render the great mass of the population dependent and penniless. in such a case, the popular power would be likely to break in upon the rights of property, or else the influence of property to limit and control the exercise of popular power. universal suffrage, for example, could not long exist in a community where there was great inequality of property. the holders of estates would be obliged, in such case, in some way to restrain the right of suffrage, or else such right of suffrage would, before long, divide the property. in the nature of things, those who have not property, and see their neighbors possess much more than they think them to need, cannot be favorable to laws made for the protection of property. when this class becomes numerous, it grows clamorous. it looks on property as its prey and plunder, and is naturally ready, at all times, for violence and revolution. it would seem, then, to be the part of political wisdom to found government on property; and to establish such distribution of property, by the laws which regulate its transmission and alienation, as to interest the great majority of society in the support of the government. this is, i imagine, the true theory and the actual practice of our republican institutions. with property divided as we have it, no other government than that of a republic could be maintained, even were we foolish enough to desire it. there is reason, therefore, to expect a long continuance of our system. party and passion, doubtless, may prevail at times, and much temporary mischief be done. even modes and forms may be changed, and perhaps for the worse. but a great revolution in regard to property must take place, before our governments can be moved from their republican basis, unless they be violently struck off by military power. the people possess the property, more emphatically than it could ever be said of the people of any other country, and they can have no interest to overturn a government which protects that property by equal laws. let it not be supposed, that this state of things possesses too strong tendencies towards the production of a dead and uninteresting level in society. such tendencies are sufficiently counteracted by the infinite diversities in the characters and fortunes of individuals. talent, activity, industry, and enterprise tend at all times to produce inequality and distinction; and there is room still for the accumulation of wealth, with its great advantages, to all reasonable and useful extent. it has been often urged against the state of society in america, that it furnishes no class of men of fortune and leisure. this may be partly true, but it is not entirely so, and the evil, if it be one, would affect rather the progress of taste and literature, than the general prosperity of the people. but the promotion of taste and literature cannot be primary objects of political institutions; and if they could, it might be doubted whether, in the long course of things, as much is not gained by a wide diffusion of general knowledge, as is lost by diminishing the number of those who are enabled by fortune and leisure to devote themselves exclusively to scientific and literary pursuits. however this may be, it is to be considered that it is the spirit of our system to be equal and general, and if there be particular disadvantages incident to this, they are far more than counterbalanced by the benefits which weigh against them. the important concerns of society are generally conducted, in all countries, by the men of business and practical ability; and even in matters of taste and literature, the advantages of mere leisure are liable to be overrated. if there exist adequate means of education and a love of letters be excited, that love will find its way to the object of its desire, through the crowd and pressure of the most busy society. connected with this division of property, and the consequent participation of the great mass of people in its possession and enjoyments, is the system of representation, which is admirably accommodated to our condition, better understood among us, and more familiarly and extensively practised, in the higher and in the lower departments of government, than it has been by any other people. great facility has been given to this in new england by the early division of the country into townships or small districts, in which all concerns of local police are regulated, and in which representatives to the legislature are elected. nothing can exceed the utility of these little bodies. they are so many councils or parliaments, in which common interests are discussed, and useful knowledge acquired and communicated. the division of governments into departments, and the division, again, of the legislative department into two chambers, are essential provisions in our system. this last, although not new in itself, yet seems to be new in its application to governments wholly popular. the grecian republics, it is plain, knew nothing of it; and in rome, the check and balance of legislative power, such as it was, lay between the people and the senate. indeed, few things are more difficult than to ascertain accurately the true nature and construction of the roman commonwealth. the relative power of the senate and the people, of the consuls and the tribunes, appears not to have been at all times the same, nor at any time accurately defined or strictly observed. cicero, indeed, describes to us an admirable arrangement of political power, and a balance of the constitution, in that beautiful passage, in which he compares the democracies of greece with the roman commonwealth. "o morem preclarum, disciplinamque, quam a majoribus accepimus, si quidem teneremus! sed nescio quo pacto jam de manibus elabitur. nullam enim illi nostri sapientissimi et sanctissimi viri vim concionis esse voluerunt, quae scisseret plebs, aut quae populus juberet; summota concione, distributis partibus, tributim et centuriatim descriptis ordinibus, classibus, aetatibus, auditis auctoribus, re multos dies promulgata et cognita, juberi vetarique voluerunt. graecorum autem totae respublicae sedentis concionis temeritate administrantur."[ ] but at what time this wise system existed in this perfection at rome, no proofs remain to show. her constitution, originally framed for a monarchy, never seemed to be adjusted in its several parts after the expulsion of the kings. liberty there was, but it was a disputatious, an uncertain, an ill-secured liberty. the patrician and plebeian orders, instead of being matched and joined, each in its just place and proportion, to sustain the fabric of the state, were rather like hostile powers, in perpetual conflict. with us, an attempt has been made, and so far not without success, to divide representation into chambers, and, by difference of age, character, qualification, or mode of election, to establish salutary checks, in governments altogether elective. having detained you so long with these observations, i must yet advert to another most interesting topic,--the free schools. in this particular, new england may be allowed to claim, i think, a merit of a peculiar character. she early adopted, and has constantly maintained the principle, that it is the undoubted right and the bounden duty of government to provide for the instruction of all youth. that which is elsewhere left to chance or to charity, we secure by law.[ ] for the purpose of public instruction, we hold every man subject to taxation in proportion to his property, and we look not to the question, whether he himself have, or have not, children to be benefited by the education for which he pays. we regard it as a wise and liberal system of police, by which property, and life, and the peace of society are secured. we seek to prevent in some measure the extension of the penal code, by inspiring a salutary and conservative principle of virtue and of knowledge in an early age. we strive to excite a feeling of respectability, and a sense of character, by enlarging the capacity and increasing the sphere of intellectual enjoyment. by general instruction, we seek, as far as possible, to purify the whole moral atmosphere; to keep good sentiments uppermost, and to turn the strong current of feeling and opinion, as well as the censures of the law and the denunciations of religion, against immorality and crime. we hope for a security beyond the law, and above the law, in the prevalence of an enlightened and well-principled moral sentiment. we hope to continue and prolong the time, when, in the villages and farm-houses of new england, there may be undisturbed sleep within unbarred doors. and knowing that our government rests directly on the public will, in order that we may preserve it we endeavor to give a safe and proper direction to that public will. we do not, indeed, expect all men to be philosophers or statesmen; but we confidently trust, and our expectation of the duration of our system of government rests on that trust, that, by the diffusion of general knowledge and good and virtuous sentiments, the political fabric may be secure, as well against open violence and overthrow, as against the slow, but sure, undermining of licentiousness. we know that, at the present time, an attempt is making in the english parliament to provide by law for the education of the poor, and that a gentleman of distinguished character (mr. brougham) has taken the lead in presenting a plan to government for carrying that purpose into effect. and yet, although the representatives of the three kingdoms listened to him with astonishment as well as delight, we hear no principles with which we ourselves have not been familiar from youth; we see nothing in the plan but an approach towards that system which has been established in new england for more than a century and a half. it is said that in england not more than _one child in fifteen_ possesses the means of being taught to read and write; in wales, _one in twenty_; in france, until lately, when some improvement was made, not more than _one in thirty-five_. now, it is hardly too strong to say, that in new england _every child possesses_ such means. it would be difficult to find an instance to the contrary, unless where it should be owing to the negligence of the parent; and, in truth, the means are actually used and enjoyed by nearly every one. a youth of fifteen, of either sex, who cannot both read and write, is very seldom to be found. who can make this comparison, or contemplate this spectacle, without delight and a feeling of just pride? does any history show property more beneficently applied? did any government ever subject the property of those who have estates to a burden, for a purpose more favorable to the poor, or more useful to the whole community? a conviction of the importance of public instruction was one of the earliest sentiments of our ancestors. no lawgiver of ancient or modern times has expressed more just opinions, or adopted wiser measures, than the early records of the colony of plymouth show to have prevailed here. assembled on this very spot, a hundred and fifty-three years ago, the legislature of this colony declared, "forasmuch as the maintenance of good literature doth much tend to the advancement of the weal and flourishing state of societies and republics, this court doth therefore order, that in whatever township in this government, consisting of fifty families or upwards, any meet man shall be obtained to teach a grammar school, such township shall allow at least twelve pounds, to be raised by rate on all the inhabitants." having provided that all youth should be instructed in the elements of learning by the institution of free schools, our ancestors had yet another duty to perform. men were to be educated for the professions and the public. for this purpose they founded the university, and with incredible zeal and perseverance they cherished and supported it, through all trials and discouragements.[ ] on the subject of the university, it is not possible for a son of new england to think without pleasure, or to speak without emotion. nothing confers more honor on the state where it is established, or more utility on the country at large. a respectable university is an establishment which must be the work of time. if pecuniary means were not wanting, no new institution could possess character and respectability at once. we owe deep obligation to our ancestors, who began, almost on the moment of their arrival, the work of building up this institution. although established in a different government, the colony of plymouth manifested warm friendship for harvard college. at an early period, its government took measures to promote a general subscription throughout all the towns in this colony, in aid of its small funds. other colleges were subsequently founded and endowed, in other places, as the ability of the people allowed; and we may flatter ourselves, that the means of education at present enjoyed in new england are not only adequate to the diffusion of the elements of knowledge among all classes, but sufficient also for respectable attainments in literature and the sciences. lastly, our ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. moral habits, they believed, cannot safely be trusted on any other foundation than religious principle, nor any government be secure which is not supported by moral habits. living under the heavenly light of revelation, they hoped to find all the social dispositions, all the duties which men owe to each other and to society, enforced and performed. whatever makes men good christians, makes them good citizens. our fathers came here to enjoy their religion free and unmolested; and, at the end of two centuries, there is nothing upon which we can pronounce more confidently, nothing of which we can express a more deep and earnest conviction, than of the inestimable importance of that religion to man, both in regard to this life and that which is to come. if the blessings of our political and social condition have not been too highly estimated, we cannot well overrate the responsibility and duty which they impose upon us. we hold these institutions of government, religion, and learning, to be transmitted, as well as enjoyed. we are in the line of conveyance, through which whatever has been obtained by the spirit and efforts of our ancestors is to be communicated to our children. we are bound to maintain public liberty, and, by the example of our own systems, to convince the world that order and law, religion and morality, the rights of conscience, the rights of persons, and the rights of property, may all be preserved and secured, in the most perfect manner, by a government entirely and purely elective. if we fail in this, our disaster will be signal, and will furnish an argument, stronger than has yet been found, in support of those opinions which maintain that government can rest safely on nothing but power and coercion. as far as experience may show errors in our establishments, we are bound to correct them; and if any practices exist contrary to the principles of justice and humanity within the reach of our laws or our influence, we are inexcusable if we do not exert ourselves to restrain and abolish them. i deem it my duty on this occasion to suggest, that the land is not yet wholly free from the contamination of a traffic, at which every feeling of humanity must for ever revolt,--i mean the african slave-trade.[ ] neither public sentiment, nor the law, has hitherto been able entirely to put an end to this odious and abominable trade. at the moment when god in his mercy has blessed the christian world with a universal peace, there is reason to fear, that, to the disgrace of the christian name and character, new efforts are making for the extension of this trade by subjects and citizens of christian states, in whose hearts there dwell no sentiments of humanity or of justice, and over whom neither the fear of god nor the fear of man exercises a control. in the sight of our law, the african slave-trader is a pirate and a felon; and in the sight of heaven, an offender far beyond the ordinary depth of human guilt. there is no brighter page of our history, than that which records the measures which have been adopted by the government at an early day, and at different times since, for the suppression of this traffic; and i would call on all the true sons of new england to co-operate with the laws of man, and the justice of heaven. if there be, within the extent of our knowledge or influence, any participation in this traffic, let us pledge ourselves here, upon the rock of plymouth, to extirpate and destroy it. it is not fit that the land of the pilgrims should bear the shame longer. i hear the sound of the hammer, i see the smoke of the furnaces where manacles and fetters are still forged for human limbs. i see the visages of those who by stealth and at midnight labor in this work of hell, foul and dark, as may become the artificers of such instruments of misery and torture. let that spot be purified, or let it cease to be of new england. let it be purified, or let it be set aside from the christian world; let it be put out of the circle of human sympathies and human regards, and let civilized man henceforth have no communion with it. i would invoke those who fill the seats of justice, and all who minister at her altar, that they execute the wholesome and necessary severity of the law. i invoke the ministers of our religion, that they proclaim its denunciation of these crimes, and add its solemn sanctions to the authority of human laws. if the pulpit be silent whenever or wherever there may be a sinner bloody with this guilt within the hearing of its voice, the pulpit is false to its trust. i call on the fair merchant, who has reaped his harvest upon the seas, that he assist in scourging from those seas the worst pirates that ever infested them. that ocean, which seems to wave with a gentle magnificence to waft the burden of an honest commerce, and to roll along its treasures with a conscious pride,--that ocean, which hardy industry regards, even when the winds have ruffled its surface, as a field of grateful toil,--what is it to the victim of this oppression, when he is brought to its shores, and looks forth upon it, for the first time, loaded with chains, and bleeding with stripes? what is it to him but a wide-spread prospect of suffering, anguish, and death? nor do the skies smile longer, nor is the air longer fragrant to him. the sun is cast down from heaven. an inhuman and accursed traffic has cut him off in his manhood, or in his youth, from every enjoyment belonging to his being, and every blessing which his creator intended for him. the christian communities send forth their emissaries of religion and letters, who stop, here and there, along the coast of the vast continent of africa, and with painful and tedious efforts make some almost imperceptible progress in the communication of knowledge, and in the general improvement of the natives who are immediately about them. not thus slow and imperceptible is the transmission of the vices and bad passions which the subjects of christian states carry to the land. the slave-trade having touched the coast, its influence and its evils spread, like a pestilence, over the whole continent, making savage wars more savage and more frequent, and adding new and fierce passions to the contests of barbarians. i pursue this topic no further, except again to say, that all christendom, being now blessed with peace, is bound by every thing which belongs to its character, and to the character of the present age, to put a stop to this inhuman and disgraceful traffic. we are bound, not only to maintain the general principles of public liberty, but to support also those existing forms of government which have so well secured its enjoyment, and so highly promoted the public prosperity. it is now more than thirty years that these states have been united under the federal constitution, and whatever fortune may await them hereafter, it is impossible that this period of their history should not be regarded as distinguished by signal prosperity and success. they must be sanguine indeed, who can hope for benefit from change. whatever division of the public judgment may have existed in relation to particular measures of the government, all must agree, one should think, in the opinion, that in its general course it has been eminently productive of public happiness. its most ardent friends could not well have hoped from it more than it has accomplished; and those who disbelieved or doubted ought to feel less concern about predictions which the event has not verified, than pleasure in the good which has been obtained. whoever shall hereafter write this part of our history, although he may see occasional errors or defects, will be able to record no great failure in the ends and objects of government. still less will he be able to record any series of lawless and despotic acts, or any successful usurpation. his page will contain no exhibition of provinces depopulated, of civil authority habitually trampled down by military power, or of a community crushed by the burden of taxation. he will speak, rather, of public liberty protected, and public happiness advanced; of increased revenue, and population augmented beyond all example; of the growth of commerce, manufactures, and the arts; and of that happy condition, in which the restraint and coercion of government are almost invisible and imperceptible, and its influence felt only in the benefits which it confers. we can entertain no better wish for our country, than that this government may be preserved; nor have a clearer duty than to maintain and support it in the full exercise of all its just constitutional powers. the cause of science and literature also imposes upon us an important and delicate trust. the wealth and population of the country are now so far advanced, as to authorize the expectation of a correct literature and a well formed taste, as well as respectable progress in the abstruse sciences. the country has risen from a state of colonial subjection; it has established an independent government, and is now in the undisturbed enjoyment of peace and political security. the elements of knowledge are universally diffused, and the reading portion of the community is large. let us hope that the present may be an auspicious era of literature. if, almost on the day of their landing, our ancestors founded schools and endowed colleges, what obligations do not rest upon us, living under circumstances so much more favorable both for providing and for using the means of education? literature becomes free institutions. it is the graceful ornament of civil liberty, and a happy restraint on the asperities which political controversies sometimes occasion. just taste is not only an embellishment of society, but it rises almost to the rank of the virtues, and diffuses positive good throughout the whole extent of its influence. there is a connection between right feeling and right principles, and truth in taste is allied with truth in morality. with nothing in our past history to discourage us, and with something in our present condition and prospects to animate us, let us hope, that, as it is our fortune to live in an age when we may behold a wonderful advancement of the country in all its other great interests, we may see also equal progress and success attend the cause of letters. finally, let us not forget the religious character of our origin. our fathers were brought hither by their high veneration for the christian religion. they journeyed by its light, and labored in its hope. they sought to incorporate its principles with the elements of their society, and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions, civil, political, or literary. let us cherish these sentiments, and extend this influence still more widely; in the full conviction, that that is the happiest society which partakes in the highest degree of the mild and peaceful spirit of christianity. the hours of this day are rapidly flying, and this occasion will soon be passed. neither we nor our children can expect to behold its return. they are in the distant regions of futurity, they exist only in the all-creating power of god, who shall stand here a hundred years hence, to trace, through us, their descent from the pilgrims, and to survey, as we have now surveyed, the progress of their country, during the lapse of a century. we would anticipate their concurrence with us in our sentiments of deep regard for our common ancestors. we would anticipate and partake the pleasure with which they will then recount the steps of new england's advancement. on the morning of that day, although it will not disturb us in our repose, the voice of acclamation and gratitude, commencing on the rock of plymouth, shall be transmitted through millions of the sons of the pilgrims, till it lose itself in the murmurs of the pacific seas. we would leave for the consideration of those who shall then occupy our places, some proof that we hold the blessings transmitted from our fathers in just estimation; some proof of our attachment to the cause of good government, and of civil and religious liberty; some proof of a sincere and ardent desire to promote every thing which may enlarge the understandings and improve the hearts of men. and when, from the long distance of a hundred years, they shall look back upon us, they shall know, at least, that we possessed affections, which, running backward and warming with gratitude for what our ancestors have done for our happiness, run forward also to our posterity, and meet them with cordial salutation, ere yet they have arrived on the shore of being. advance, then, ye future generations! we would hail you, as you rise in your long succession, to fill the places which we now fill, and to taste the blessings of existence where we are passing, and soon shall have passed, our own human duration. we bid you welcome to this pleasant land of the fathers. we bid you welcome to the healthful skies and the verdant fields of new england. we greet your accession to the great inheritance which we have enjoyed. we welcome you to the blessings of good government and religious liberty. we welcome you to the treasures of science and the delights of learning. we welcome you to the transcendent sweets of domestic life, to the happiness of kindred, and parents, and children. we welcome you to the immeasurable blessings of rational existence, the immortal hope of christianity, and the light of everlasting truth! * * * * * notes. note a.--page . the allusion in the discourse is to the large historical painting of the landing of the pilgrims at plymouth, executed by henry sargent, esq., of boston, and, with great liberality, presented by him to the pilgrim society. it appeared in their hall (of which it forms the chief ornament) for the first time at the celebration of . it represents the principal personages of the company at the moment of landing, with the indian samoset, who approaches them with a friendly welcome. a very competent judge, himself a distinguished artist, the late venerable colonel trumbull, has pronounced that this painting has great merit. an interesting account of it will be found in dr. thacher's history of plymouth, pp. and . an historical painting, by robert n. weir, esq., of the largest size, representing the embarkation of the pilgrims from delft-haven, in holland, and executed by order of congress, fills one of the panels of the rotunda of the capitol at washington. the moment chosen by the artist for the action of the picture is that in which the venerable pastor robinson, with tears, and benedictions, and prayers to heaven, dismisses the beloved members of his little flock to the perils and the hopes of their great enterprise. the characters of the personages introduced are indicated with discrimination and power, and the accessories of the work marked with much taste and skill. it is a painting of distinguished historical interest and of great artistic merit. the "landing of the pilgrims" has also been made the subject of a very interesting painting by mr. flagg, intended to represent the deep religious feeling which so strikingly characterized the first settlers of new england. with this object in view, the central figure is that of elder brewster. it is a picture of cabinet size, and is in possession of a gentleman of new haven, descended from elder brewster, and of that name. note b.--page . as the opinion of contemporaneous thinkers on this important subject cannot fail to interest the general reader, it is deemed proper to insert here the following extract from a letter, written in , to show how powerfully the truths uttered in , in the spirit of prophecy, as it were, impressed themselves upon certain minds, and how closely the verification of the prediction has been watched. "i do not remember any political prophecy, founded on the spirit of a wide and far-reaching statesmanship, that has been so remarkably fulfilled as the one made by mr. webster, in his discourse delivered at plymouth in , on the effect which the laws of succession to property in france, then in operation, would be likely to produce on the forms and working of the french government. but to understand what he said, and what he foresaw, i must explain a little what had been the course of legislation in france on which his predictions were founded. "before the revolution of , there had been a great accumulation of the landed property of the country, and, indeed, of all its property,--by means of laws of entail, _majorats_, and other legal contrivances,--in the hands of the privileged classes; chiefly in those of the nobility and the clergy. the injury and injustice done by long continued legislation in this direction were obviously great; and it was not, perhaps, unnatural, that the opposite course to that which had brought on the mischief should be deemed the best one to cure it. at any rate, such was the course taken. "in a law was passed, preventing any man from having any interest beyond the period of his own life in any of his property, real, personal, or mixed, and distributing all his possessions for him, immediately after his death, among his children, in equal shares, or if he left no children, then among his next of kin, on the same principle. this law, with a slight modification, made under the influence of robespierre, was in force till . but the period was entirely revolutionary, and probably quite as much property changed hands from violence and the consequences of violence, during the nine years it continued, as was transmitted by the laws that directly controlled its succession. "with the coming in of bonaparte, however, there was established a new order of things, which has continued, with little modification, ever since, and has had its full share in working out the great changes in french society which we now witness. a few experiments were first made, and then the great civil code, often called the _code napoleon_, was adopted. this was in . by this remarkable code, which is still in force, a man, if he has but one child, can give away by his last will, as he pleases, half of his property,--the law insuring the other half to the child; if he has two children, then he can so give away only one third,--the law requiring the other two thirds to be given equally to the two children; if three, then only one fourth under similar conditions; but if he has a greater number, it restricts the rights of the parent more and more, and makes it more and more difficult for him to distribute his property according to his own judgment; the restrictions embarrassing him even in his lifetime. "the consequences of such laws are, from their nature, very slowly developed. when mr. webster spoke in , the french code had been in operation sixteen years, and similar principles had prevailed for nearly a generation. but still its wide results were not even suspected. those who had treated the subject at all supposed that the tendency was to break up the great estates in france, and make the larger number of the holders of small estates more accessible to the influence of the government, then a limited monarchy, and so render it stronger and more despotic. "mr. webster held a different opinion. he said, 'in respect, however, to the recent law of succession in france, to which i have alluded, _i would, presumptuously perhaps, hazard a conjecture, that, if the government do not change the law, the law in half a century will change the government; and that this change will be, not in favor of the power of the crown, as some european writers have supposed, but against it_. those writers only reason upon what they think correct general principles, in relation to this subject. they acknowledge a want of experience. here we have had that experience; and we know that a multitude of small proprietors, acting with intelligence, and that enthusiasm which a common cause inspires, constitute not only a formidable, but an invincible power.' "in less than six years after mr. webster uttered this remarkable prediction, the king of france himself, at the opening of the legislative chambers, thus strangely echoed it:--'legislation ought to provide, by successive improvements, for all the wants of society. the progressive partitioning of landed estates, essentially contrary to the spirit of a monarchical government, would enfeeble the guaranties which the charter has given to my throne and to my subjects. measures will be proposed to you, gentlemen, to establish the consistency which ought to exist between the political law and the civil law, and to preserve the patrimony of families, without restricting the liberty of disposing of one's property. the preservation of families is connected with, and affords a guaranty to, political stability, which is the first want of states, and which is especially that of france, after so many vicissitudes.' "still, the results to which such subdivision and comminution of property tended were not foreseen even in france. the revolution of came, and revealed a part of them; for that revolution was made by the influence of men possessing very moderate estates, who believed that the guaranties of a government like that of the elder branch of the bourbons were not sufficient for their safety. but when the revolution was made, and the younger branch of the bourbons reigned instead of the elder, the laws for the descent of property continued to be the same, and the subdivision went on as if it were an admitted benefit to society. "in consequence of this, in it was found that there were in france at least five millions and a half of families, or about twenty-seven millions of souls, who were proprietary families, and that of these about four millions of families had each less than nine english acres to the family on the average. of course, a vast majority of these twenty-seven millions of persons, though they might be interested in some small portion of the soil, were really poor, and multitudes of them were dependent. "now, therefore, the results began to appear in a practical form. one third of all the rental of france was discovered to be absolutely mortgaged, and another third was swallowed up by other encumbrances, leaving but one third free for the use and benefit of its owners. in other words, a great proportion of the people of france were embarrassed and poor, and a great proportion of the remainder were fast becoming so. "such a state of things produced, of course, a wide-spread social uneasiness. part of this uneasiness was directed against the existing government; another and more formidable portion was directed against _all_ government, and against the very institution of property. the convulsion of followed; france is still unsettled; and mr. webster's prophecy seems still to be in the course of a portentous fulfilment." in the london quarterly review for there is an interesting discussion on so much of the matter as relates to the subdivision of real estate for agricultural purposes in france, as far as it had then advanced, and from which many of the facts here alluded to are taken. [footnote : an interesting account of the rock may be found in dr. thacher's history of the town of plymouth, pp. , , .] [footnote : see note a, at the end of the discourse.] [footnote : for notices of carver, bradford, standish, brewster, and allerton, see young's chronicles of plymouth and massachusetts; morton's memorial, p. ; belknap's american biography, vol. ii.; hutchinson's history, vol. ii., app., pp. _et seq._; collections of the massachusetts historical society; winthrop's journal; and thacher's history.] [footnote : for the original name of what is now plymouth, see lives of american governors, p. , note, a work prepared with great care by j.b. moore, esq.] [footnote : the twenty-first is now acknowledged to be the true anniversary. see the report of the pilgrim society on the subject.] [footnote : herodot. vi. § .] [footnote : for the compact to which reference is made in the text, signed on board the mayflower, see hutchinson's history, vol. ii., appendix, no. i. for an eloquent description of the manner in which the first christian sabbath was passed on board the mayflower, at plymouth, see barne's discourse at worcester.] [footnote : the names of the passengers in the mayflower, with some account of them, may be found in the new england genealogical register, vol. i. p. , and a narration of some of the incidents of the voyage, vol. ii. p. . for an account of mrs. white, the mother of the first child born in new england, see baylies's history of plymouth, vol. ii. p. , and for a notice of her son peregrine, see moore's lives of american governors, vol. i. p. , note.] [footnote : see the admirable letter written on board the arbella, in hutchinson's history, vol. i. appendix, no. i.] [footnote : in reference to the british policy respecting colonial manufactures, see representations of the board of trade to the house of lords, d jan., ; also, th june, . for an able vindication of the british colonial policy, see "political essays concerning the present state of the british empire." london. .] [footnote : many interesting papers, illustrating the early history of the colony, may be found in hutchinson's "collection of original papers relating to the history of the colony of massachusetts bay."] [footnote : in reference to the fulfilment of this prediction, see mr. webster's address at the celebration of the new england society of new york, on the d of december, .] [footnote : john adams, second president of the united states.] [footnote : see note b, at the end of the discourse.] [footnote : oratio pro flacco, § .] [footnote : the first free school established by law in the plymouth colony was in - . one of the early teachers in boston taught school more than _seventy_ years. see cotton mather's "funeral sermon upon mr. ezekiel cheever, the ancient and honorable master of the free school in boston." for the impression made upon the mind of an intelligent foreigner by the general attention to popular education, as characteristic of the american polity, see mackay's western world, vol. iii. p. _et seq._ also, edinburgh review, no. .] [footnote : by a law of the colony of massachusetts bay, passed as early as , it was ordered, that, "when any town shall increase to the number of one hundred families or householders, they shall set up a grammar school, the master thereof being able to instruct youth so far as they may be fitted for the university."] [footnote : in reference to the opposition of the colonies to the slave-trade, see a representation of the board of trade to the house of lords, d january, - .] defence of judge james prescott. the closing appeal to the senate of massachusetts, in mr. webster's "argument on the impeachment of james prescott," april th, . mr. president, the case is closed! the fate of the respondent is in your hands. it is for you now to say, whether, from the law and the facts as they have appeared before you, you will proceed to disgrace and disfranchise him. if your duty calls on you to convict him, let justice be done, and convict him; but, i adjure you, let it be a clear, undoubted case. let it be so for his sake, for you are robbing him of that for which, with all your high powers, you can yield him no compensation; let it be so for your own sakes, for the responsibility of this day's judgment is one which you must carry with you through life. for myself, i am willing here to relinquish the character of an advocate, and to express opinions by which i am prepared to be bound as a citizen and a man. and i say upon my honor and conscience, that i see not how, with the law and constitution for your guides, you can pronounce the respondent guilty. i declare that i have seen no case of wilful and corrupt official misconduct, set forth according to the requisitions of the constitution, and proved according to the common rules of evidence. i see many things imprudent and ill-judged; many things that i could wish had been otherwise; but corruption and crime i do not see. sir, the prejudices of the day will soon be forgotten; the passions, if any there be, which have excited or favored this prosecution will subside; but the consequence of the judgment you are about to render will outlive both them and you. the respondent is now brought, a single, unprotected individual, to this formidable bar of judgment, to stand against the power and authority of the state. i know you can crush him, as he stands before you, and clothed as you are with the sovereignty of the state. you have the power "to change his countenance and to send him away." nor do i remind you, that your judgment is to be rejudged by the community; and, as you have summoned him for trial to this high tribunal, that you are soon to descend yourselves from these seats of justice, and stand before the higher tribunal of the world. i would not fail so much in respect to this honorable court as to hint that it could pronounce a sentence which the community will reverse. no, sir, it is not the world's revision which i would call on you to regard; but that of your own consciences, when years have gone by and you shall look back on the sentence you are about to render. if you send away the respondent, condemned and sentenced, from your bar, you are yet to meet him in the world on which you cast him out. you will be called to behold him a disgrace to his family, a sorrow and a shame to his children, a living fountain of grief and agony to himself. if you shall then be able to behold him only as an unjust judge, whom vengeance has overtaken and justice has blasted, you will be able to look upon him, not without pity, but yet without remorse. but if, on the other hand, you shall see, whenever and wherever you meet him, a victim of prejudice or of passion, a sacrifice to a transient excitement; if you shall see in him a man for whose condemnation any provision of the constitution has been violated or any principle of law broken down, then will he be able, humble and low as may be his condition, then will he be able to turn the current of compassion backward, and to look with pity on those who have been his judges. if you are about to visit this respondent with a judgment which shall blast his house; if the bosoms of the innocent and the amiable are to be made to bleed under your infliction, i beseech you to be able to state clear and strong grounds for your proceeding. prejudice and excitement are transitory, and will pass away. political expediency, in matters of judicature, is a false and hollow principle, and will never satisfy the conscience of him who is fearful that he may have given a hasty judgment. i earnestly entreat you, for your own sakes, to possess yourselves of solid reasons, founded in truth and justice, for the judgment you pronounce, which you can carry with you till you go down into your graves; reasons which it will require no argument to revive, no sophistry, no excitement, no regard to popular favor, to render satisfactory to your consciences; reasons which you can appeal to in every crisis of your lives, and which shall be able to assure you, in your own great extremity, that you have not judged a fellow-creature without mercy. sir, i have done with the case of this individual, and now leave it in your hands. but i would yet once more appeal to you as public men; as statesmen; as men of enlightened minds, capable of a large view of things, and of foreseeing the remote consequences of important transactions; and, as such, i would most earnestly implore you to consider fully of the judgment you may pronounce. you are about to give a construction to constitutional provisions which may adhere to that instrument for ages, either for good or evil. i may perhaps overrate the importance of this occasion to the public welfare; but i confess it does appear to me that, if this body give its sanction to some of the principles which have been advanced on this occasion, then there is a power in the state above the constitution and the law; a power essentially arbitrary and despotic, the exercise of which may be most dangerous. if impeachment be not under the rule of the constitution and the laws, then may we tremble, not only for those who may be impeached, but for all others. if the full benefit of every constitutional provision be not extended to the respondent, his case becomes the case of all the people of the commonwealth. the constitution is their constitution. they have made it for their own protection, and for his among the rest. they are not eager for his conviction. they desire not his ruin. if he be condemned, without having his offences set forth in the manner which they, by their constitution, have prescribed, and in the manner which they, by their laws, have ordained, then not only is he condemned unjustly, but the rights of the whole people are disregarded. for the sake of the people themselves, therefore, i would resist all attempts to convict by straining the laws or getting over their prohibitions. i hold up before him the broad shield of the constitution; if through that he be pierced and fall, he will be but one sufferer in a common catastrophe. the revolution in greece. a speech delivered in the house of representatives of the united states, on the th of january, . [the rise and progress of the revolution in greece attracted great attention in the united states. many obvious causes contributed to this effect, and their influence was seconded by the direct appeal made to the people of america, by the first political body organized in greece after the breaking out of the revolution, viz. "the messenian senate of calamata." a formal address was made by that body to the people of the united states, and forwarded by their committee (of which the celebrated koray was chairman), to a friend and correspondent in this country. this address was translated and widely circulated; but it was not to be expected that any great degree of confidence should be at once generally felt in a movement undertaken against such formidable odds. the progress of events, however, in and , was such as to create an impression that the revolution in greece had a substantial foundation in the state of affairs, in the awakened spirit of that country, and in the condition of public opinion throughout christendom. the interest felt in the struggle rapidly increased in the united states. local committees were formed, animated appeals were made, and funds collected, with a view to the relief of the victims of the war. on the assembling of congress, in december, , president monroe made the revolution in greece the subject of a paragraph in his annual message, and on the th of december mr. webster moved the following resolution in the house of representatives:-- "_resolved_, that provision ought to be made, by law, for defraying the expense incident to the appointment of an agent or commissioner to greece, whenever the president shall deem it expedient to make such appointment." these, it is believed, are the first official expressions favorable to the independence of greece uttered by any of the governments of christendom, and no doubt contributed powerfully towards the creation of that feeling throughout the civilized world which eventually led to the battle of navarino, and the liberation of a portion of greece from the turkish yoke. the house of representatives having, on the th of january, resolved itself into a committee of the whole, and this resolution being taken into consideration, mr. webster spoke to the following effect.] i am afraid, mr. chairman, that, so far as my part in this discussion is concerned, those expectations which the public excitement existing on the subject, and certain associations easily suggested by it, have conspired to raise, may be disappointed. an occasion which calls the attention to a spot so distinguished, so connected with interesting recollections, as greece, may naturally create something of warmth and enthusiasm. in a grave, political discussion, however, it is necessary that those feelings should be chastised. i shall endeavor properly to repress them, although it is impossible that they should be altogether extinguished. we must, indeed, fly beyond the civilized world; we must pass the dominion of law and the boundaries of knowledge; we must, more especially, withdraw ourselves from this place, and the scenes and objects which here surround us,--if we would separate ourselves entirely from the influence of all those memorials of herself which ancient greece has transmitted for the admiration and the benefit of mankind. this free form of government, this popular assembly, the common council held for the common good,--where have we contemplated its earliest models? this practice of free debate and public discussion, the contest of mind with mind, and that popular eloquence, which, if it were now here, on a subject like this, would move the stones of the capitol,--whose was the language in which all these were first exhibited? even the edifice in which we assemble, these proportioned columns, this ornamented architecture, all remind us that greece has existed, and that we, like the rest of mankind, are greatly her debtors.[ ] but i have not introduced this motion in the vain hope of discharging any thing of this accumulated debt of centuries. i have not acted upon the expectation, that we who have inherited this obligation from our ancestors should now attempt to pay it to those who may seem to have inherited from _their_ ancestors a right to receive payment. my object is nearer and more immediate. i wish to take occasion of the struggle of an interesting and gallant people, in the cause of liberty and christianity, to draw the attention of the house to the circumstances which have accompanied that struggle, and to the principles which appear to have governed the conduct of the great states of europe in regard to it; and to the effects and consequences of these principles upon the independence of nations, and especially upon the institutions of free governments. what i have to say of greece, therefore, concerns the modern, not the ancient; the living, and not the dead. it regards her, not as she exists in history, triumphant over time, and tyranny, and ignorance; but as she now is, contending, against fearful odds, for being, and for the common privileges of human nature. as it is never difficult to recite commonplace remarks and trite aphorisms, so it may be easy, i am aware, on this occasion, to remind me of the wisdom which dictates to men a care of their own affairs, and admonishes them, instead of searching for adventures abroad, to leave other men's concerns in their own hands. it may be easy to call this resolution _quixotic_, the emanation of a crusading or propagandist spirit. all this, and more, may be readily said; but all this, and more, will not be allowed to fix a character upon this proceeding, until that is proved which it takes for granted. let it first be shown, that in this question there is nothing which can affect the interest, the character, or the duty of this country. let it be proved, that we are not called upon, by either of these considerations, to express an opinion on the subject to which the resolution relates. let this be proved, and then it will indeed be made out, that neither ought this resolution to pass, nor ought the subject of it to have been mentioned in the communication of the president to us. but, in my opinion, this cannot be shown. in my judgment, the subject is interesting to the people and the government of this country, and we are called upon, by considerations of great weight and moment, to express our opinions upon it. these considerations, i think, spring from a sense of our own duty, our character, and our own interest. i wish to treat the subject on such grounds, exclusively, as are truly _american_; but then, in considering it as an american question, i cannot forget the age in which we live, the prevailing spirit of the age, the interesting questions which agitate it, and our own peculiar relation in regard to these interesting questions. let this be, then, and as far as i am concerned i hope it will be, purely an american discussion; but let it embrace, nevertheless, every thing that fairly concerns america. let it comprehend, not merely her present advantage, but her permanent interest, her elevated character as one of the free states of the world, and her duty towards those great principles which have hitherto maintained the relative independence of nations, and which have, more especially, made her what she is. at the commencement of the session, the president, in the discharge of the high duties of his office, called our attention to the subject to which this resolution refers. "a strong hope," says that communication, "has been long entertained, founded on the heroic struggle of the greeks, that they would succeed in their contest, and resume their equal station among the nations of the earth. it is believed that the whole civilized world takes a deep interest in their welfare. although no power has declared in their favor, yet none, according to our information, has taken part against them. their cause and their name have protected them from dangers which might ere this have overwhelmed any other people. the ordinary calculations of interest, and of acquisition with a view to aggrandizement, which mingle so much in the transactions of nations, seem to have had no effect in regard to them. from the facts which have come to our knowledge, there is good cause to believe that their enemy has lost for ever all dominion over them; that greece will become again an independent nation." it has appeared to me that the house should adopt some resolution reciprocating these sentiments, so far as it shall approve them. more than twenty years have elapsed since congress first ceased to receive such a communication from the president as could properly be made the subject of a general answer. i do not mean to find fault with this relinquishment of a former and an ancient practice. it may have been attended with inconveniences which justified its abolition. but, certainly, there was one advantage belonging to it; and that is, that it furnished a fit opportunity for the expression of the opinion of the houses of congress upon those topics in the executive communication which were not expected to be made the immediate subjects of direct legislation. since, therefore, the president's message does not now receive a general answer, it has seemed to me to be proper that, in some mode, agreeable to our own usual form of proceeding, we should express our sentiments upon the important and interesting topics on which it treats. if the sentiments of the message in respect to greece be proper, it is equally proper that this house should reciprocate those sentiments. the present resolution is designed to have that extent, and no more. if it pass, it will leave any future proceeding where it now is, in the discretion of the executive government. it is but an expression, under those forms in which the house is accustomed to act, of the satisfaction of the house with the general sentiments expressed in regard to this subject in the message, and of its readiness to defray the expense incident to any inquiry for the purpose of further information, or any other agency which the president, in his discretion, shall see fit, in whatever manner and at whatever time, to institute. the whole matter is still left in his judgment, and this resolution can in no way restrain its unlimited exercise. i might well, mr. chairman, avoid the responsibility of this measure, if it had, in my judgment, any tendency to change the policy of the country. with the general course of that policy i am quite satisfied. the nation is prosperous, peaceful, and happy; and i should very reluctantly put its peace, prosperity, or happiness at risk. it appears to me, however, that this resolution is strictly conformable to our general policy, and not only consistent with our interests, but even demanded by a large and liberal view of those interests. it is certainly true that the just policy of this country is, in the first place, a peaceful policy. no nation ever had less to expect from forcible aggrandizement. the mighty agents which are working out our greatness are time, industry, and the arts. our augmentation is by growth, not by acquisition; by internal development, not by external accession. no schemes can be suggested to us so magnificent as the prospects which a sober contemplation of our own condition, unaided by projects, uninfluenced by ambition, fairly spreads before us. a country of such vast extent, with such varieties of soil and climate, with so much public spirit and private enterprise, with a population increasing so much beyond former example, with capacities of improvement not only unapplied or unexhausted, but even, in a great measure, as yet unexplored,--so free in its institutions, so mild in its laws, so secure in the title it confers on every man to his own acquisitions,--needs nothing but time and peace to carry it forward to almost any point of advancement. in the next place, i take it for granted that the policy of this country, springing from the nature of our government and the spirit of all our institutions, is, so far as it respects the interesting questions which agitate the present age, on the side of liberal and enlightened sentiments. the age is extraordinary; the spirit that actuates it is peculiar and marked; and our own relation to the times we live in, and to the questions which interest them, is equally marked and peculiar. we are placed, by our good fortune and the wisdom and valor of our ancestors, in a condition in which we _can_ act no obscure part. be it for honor, or be it for dishonor, whatever we do is sure to attract the observation of the world. as one of the free states among the nations, as a great and rapidly rising republic, it would be impossible for us, if we were so disposed, to prevent our principles, our sentiments, and our example from producing some effect upon the opinions and hopes of society throughout the civilized world. it rests probably with ourselves to determine whether the influence of these shall be salutary or pernicious. it cannot be denied that the great political question of this age is that between absolute and regulated governments. the substance of the controversy is whether society shall have any part in its own government. whether the form of government shall be that of limited monarchy, with more or less mixture of hereditary power, or wholly elective or representative, may perhaps be considered as subordinate. the main controversy is between that absolute rule, which, while it promises to govern well, means, nevertheless, to govern without control, and that constitutional system which restrains sovereign discretion, and asserts that society may claim as matter of right some effective power in the establishment of the laws which are to regulate it. the spirit of the times sets with a most powerful current in favor of these last-mentioned opinions. it is opposed, however, whenever and wherever it shows itself, by certain of the great potentates of europe; and it is opposed on grounds as applicable in one civilized nation as in another, and which would justify such opposition in relation to the united states, as well as in relation to any other state or nation, if time and circumstances should render such opposition expedient. what part it becomes this country to take on a question of this sort, so far as it is called upon to take any part, cannot be doubtful. our side of this question is settled for us, even without our own volition. our history, our situation, our character, necessarily decide our position and our course, before we have even time to ask whether we have an option. our place is on the side of free institutions. from the earliest settlement of these states, their inhabitants were accustomed, in a greater or less degree, to the enjoyment of the powers of self-government; and for the last half-century they have sustained systems of government entirely representative, yielding to themselves the greatest possible prosperity, and not leaving them without distinction and respect among the nations of the earth. this system we are not likely to abandon; and while we shall no farther recommend its adoption to other nations, in whole or in part, than it may recommend itself by its visible influence on our own growth and prosperity, we are, nevertheless, interested to resist the establishment of doctrines which deny the legality of its foundations. we stand as an equal among nations, claiming the full benefit of the established international law; and it is our duty to oppose, from the earliest to the latest moment, any innovations upon that code which shall bring into doubt or question our own equal and independent rights. i will now, mr. chairman, advert to those pretensions put forth by the allied sovereigns of continental europe, which seem to me calculated, if unresisted, to bring into disrepute the principles of our government, and, indeed, to be wholly incompatible with any degree of national independence. i do not introduce these considerations for the sake of topics. i am not about to declaim against crowned heads, nor to quarrel with any country for preferring a form of government different from our own. the right of choice that we exercise for ourselves, i am quite willing to leave also to others. but it appears to me that the pretensions to which i have alluded are wholly inconsistent with the independence of nations generally, without regard to the question whether their governments be absolute, monarchical and limited, or purely popular and representative. i have a most deep and thorough conviction, that a new era has arisen in the world, that new and dangerous combinations are taking place, promulgating doctrines and fraught with consequences wholly subversive in their tendency of the public law of nations and of the general liberties of mankind. whether this be so, or not, is the question which i now propose to examine, upon such grounds of information as are afforded by the common and public means of knowledge. everybody knows that, since the final restoration of the bourbons to the throne of france, the continental powers have entered into sundry alliances, which have been made public, and have held several meetings or congresses, at which the principles of their political conduct have been declared. these things must necessarily have an effect upon the international law of the states of the world. if that effect be good, and according to the principles of that law, they deserve to be applauded. if, on the contrary, their effect and tendency be most dangerous, their principles wholly inadmissible, their pretensions such as would abolish every degree of national independence, then they are to be resisted. i begin, mr. chairman, by drawing your attention to the treaty concluded at paris in september, , between russia, prussia, and austria, commonly called the holy alliance. this singular alliance appears to have originated with the emperor of russia; for we are informed that a draft of it was exhibited by him, personally, to a plenipotentiary of one of the great powers of europe, before it was presented to the other sovereigns who ultimately signed it.[ ] this instrument professes nothing, certainly, which is not extremely commendable and praiseworthy. it promises only that the contracting parties, both in relation to other states, and in regard to their own subjects, will observe the rules of justice and christianity. in confirmation of these promises, it makes the most solemn and devout religious invocations. now, although such an alliance is a novelty in european history, the world seems to have received this treaty, upon its first promulgation, with general charity. it was commonly understood as little or nothing more than an expression of thanks for the successful termination of the momentous contest in which those sovereigns had been engaged. it still seems somewhat unaccountable, however, that these good resolutions should require to be confirmed by treaty. who doubted that these august sovereigns would treat each other with justice, and rule their own subjects in mercy? and what necessity was there for a solemn stipulation by treaty, to insure the performance of that which is no more than the ordinary duty of every government? it would hardly be admitted by these sovereigns, that by this compact they consider themselves bound to introduce an entire change, or any change in the course of their own conduct. nothing substantially new, certainly, can be supposed to have been intended. what principle, or what practice, therefore, called for this solemn declaration of the intention of the parties to observe the rules of religion and justice? it is not a little remarkable, that a writer of reputation upon the public law, described, many years ago, not inaccurately, the character of this alliance. i allude to puffendorf. "it seems useless," says he, "to frame any pacts or leagues, barely for the defence and support of universal peace; for by such a league nothing is superadded to the obligation of natural law, and no agreement is made for the performance of any thing which the parties were not previously bound to perform; nor is the original obligation rendered firmer or stronger by such an addition. men of any tolerable culture and civilization might well be ashamed of entering into any such compact, the conditions of which imply only that the parties concerned shall not offend in any clear point of duty. besides, we should be guilty of great irreverence towards god, should we suppose that his injunctions had not already laid a sufficient obligation upon us to act justly, unless we ourselves voluntarily consented to the same engagement; as if our obligation to obey his will depended upon our own pleasure. "if one engage to serve another, he does not set it down expressly and particularly among the terms and conditions of the bargain, that he will not betray nor murder him, nor pillage nor burn his house. for the same reason, that would be a dishonorable engagement in which men should bind themselves to act properly and decently, and not break the peace."[ ] such were the sentiments of that eminent writer. how nearly he had anticipated the case of the holy alliance will appear from the preamble to that alliance. after stating that the allied sovereigns had become persuaded, by the events of the last three years, that "their relations with each other ought to be regulated exclusively by the sublime truths taught by the eternal religion of god the saviour," they solemnly declare their fixed resolution "to adopt as the sole rule of their conduct, both in the administration of their respective states, and in their political relations with every other government, the precepts of that holy religion, namely, the precepts of justice, charity, and peace, which, far from being applicable to private life alone, ought, on the contrary, to have a direct influence upon the counsels of princes, and guide all their steps, as being the only means of consolidating human institutions, and remedying their imperfections."[ ] this measure, however, appears principally important, as it was the first of a series, and was followed afterwards by others of a more marked and practical nature. these measures, taken together, profess to establish two principles, which the allied powers would introduce as a part of the law of the civilized world; and the establishment of which is to be enforced by a million and a half of bayonets. the first of these principles is, that all popular or constitutional rights are held no otherwise than as grants from the crown. society, upon this principle, has no rights of its own; it takes good government, when it gets it, as a boon and a concession, but can demand nothing. it is to live by that favor which emanates from royal authority, and if it have the misfortune to lose that favor, there is nothing to protect it against any degree of injustice and oppression. it can rightfully make no endeavor for a change, by itself; its whole privilege is to receive the favors that may be dispensed by the sovereign power, and all its duty is described in the single word _submission_. this is the plain result of the principal continental state papers; indeed, it is nearly the identical text of some of them. the circular despatch addressed by the sovereigns assembled at laybach, in the spring of , to their ministers at foreign courts, alleges, "that useful and necessary changes in legislation and in the administration of states ought only to emanate from the free will and intelligent and well-weighed conviction of those whom god has rendered responsible for power. all that deviates from this line necessarily leads to disorder, commotions, and evils far more insufferable than those which they pretend to remedy."[ ] now, sir, this principle would carry europe back again, at once, into the middle of the dark ages. it is the old doctrine of the divine right of kings, advanced now by new advocates, and sustained by a formidable array of power. that the people hold their fundamental privileges as matter of concession or indulgence from the sovereign power, is a sentiment not easy to be diffused in this age, any farther than it is enforced by the direct operation of military means. it is true, certainly, that some six centuries ago the early founders of english liberty called the instrument which secured their rights a _charter_. it was, indeed, a concession; they had obtained it sword in hand from the king; and in many other cases, whatever was obtained, favorable to human rights, from the tyranny and despotism of the feudal sovereigns, was called by the names of _privileges_ and _liberties_, as being matter of special favor. though we retain this language at the present time, the principle itself belongs to ages that have long passed by us. the civilized world has done with "the enormous faith, of many made for one." society asserts its own rights, and alleges them to be original, sacred, and unalienable. it is not satisfied with having kind masters; it demands a participation in its own government; and in states much advanced in civilization, it urges this demand with a constancy and an energy that cannot well nor long be resisted. there are, happily, enough of regulated governments in the world, and those among the most distinguished, to operate as constant examples, and to keep alive an unceasing panting in the bosoms of men for the enjoyment of similar free institutions. when the english revolution of took place, the english people did not content themselves with the example of runnymede; they did not build their hopes upon royal charters; they did not, like the authors of the laybach circular, suppose that all useful changes in constitutions and laws must proceed from those only whom god has rendered responsible for power. they were somewhat better instructed in the principles of civil liberty, or at least they were better lovers of those principles than the sovereigns of laybach. instead of petitioning for charters, they declared their rights, and while they offered to the prince of orange the crown with one hand, they held in the other an enumeration of those privileges which they did not profess to hold as favors, but which they demanded and insisted upon as their undoubted rights. i need not stop to observe, mr. chairman, how totally hostile are these doctrines of laybach to the fundamental principles of our government. they are in direct contradiction; the principles of good and evil are hardly more opposite. if these principles of the sovereigns be true, we are but in a state of rebellion or of anarchy, and are only tolerated among civilized states because it has not yet been convenient to reduce us to the true standard. but the second, and, if possible, the still more objectionable principle, avowed in these papers, is the right of forcible interference in the affairs of other states. a right to control nations in their desire to change their own government, wherever it maybe conjectured, or pretended, that such change might furnish an example to the subjects of other states, is plainly and distinctly asserted. the same congress that made the declaration at laybach had declared, before its removal from troppau, "that the powers have an undoubted right to take a hostile attitude in regard to those states in which the overthrow of the government may operate as an example." there cannot, as i think, be conceived a more flagrant violation of public law, or national independence, than is contained in this short declaration. no matter what be the character of the government resisted; no matter with what weight the foot of the oppressor bears on the neck of the oppressed; if he struggle, or if he complain, he sets a dangerous example of resistance,--and from that moment he becomes an object of hostility to the most powerful potentates of the earth. i want words to express my abhorrence of this abominable principle. i trust every enlightened man throughout the world will oppose it, and that, especially, those who, like ourselves, are fortunately out of the reach of the bayonets that enforce it, will proclaim their detestation of it, in a tone both loud and decisive. the avowed object of such declarations is to preserve the peace of the world. but by what means is it proposed to preserve this peace? simply, by bringing the power of all governments to bear against all subjects. here is to be established a sort of double, or treble, or quadruple, or, for aught i know, quintuple allegiance. an offence against one king is to be an offence against all kings, and the power of all is to be put forth for the punishment of the offender. a right to interfere in extreme cases, in the case of contiguous states, and where imminent danger is threatened to one by what is occurring in another, is not without precedent in modern times, upon what has been called the law of vicinage; and when confined to extreme cases, and limited to a certain extent, it may perhaps be defended upon principles of necessity and self-defence. but to maintain that sovereigns may go to war upon the subjects of another state to repress an example, is monstrous indeed. what is to be the limit to such a principle, or to the practice growing out of it? what, in any case, but sovereign pleasure, is to decide whether the example be good or bad? and what, under the operation of such a rule, may be thought of our example? why are we not as fair objects for the operation of the new principle, as any of those who may attempt a reform of government on the other side of the atlantic? the ultimate effect of this alliance of sovereigns, for objects personal to themselves, or respecting only the permanence of their own power, must be the destruction of all just feeling, and all natural sympathy, between those who exercise the power of government and those who are subject to it. the old channels of mutual regard and confidence are to be dried up, or cut off. obedience can now be expected no longer than it is enforced. instead of relying on the affections of the governed, sovereigns are to rely on the affections and friendship of other sovereigns. there are, in short, no longer to be nations. princes and people are no longer to unite for interests common to them both. there is to be an end of all patriotism, as a distinct national feeling. society is to be divided horizontally; all sovereigns above, and all subjects below; the former coalescing for their own security, and for the more certain subjection of the undistinguished multitude beneath. this, sir, is no picture drawn by imagination. i have hardly used language stronger than that in which the authors of this new system have commented on their own work. m. de chateaubriand, in his speech in the french chamber of deputies, in february last, declared, that he had a conference with the emperor of russia at verona, in which that august sovereign uttered sentiments which appeared to him so precious, that he immediately hastened home, and wrote them down while yet fresh in his recollection. "the emperor declared," said he, "that there can no longer be such a thing as an english, french, russian, prussian, or austrian policy; there is henceforth but one policy, which, for the safety of all, should be adopted both by people and kings. it was for me first to show myself convinced of the principles upon which i founded the alliance; an occasion offered itself,--the rising in greece. nothing certainly could occur more for my interests, for the interests of my people, nothing more acceptable to my country, than a religious war in turkey. but i have thought i perceived in the troubles of the morea the sign of revolution, and i have held back. providence has not put under my command eight hundred thousand soldiers to satisfy my ambition, but to protect religion, morality, and justice, and to secure the prevalence of those principles of order on which human society rests. it may well be permitted, that kings may have public alliances to defend themselves against secret enemies." these, sir, are the words which the french minister thought so important that they deserved to be recorded; and i, too, sir, am of the same opinion. but if it be true that there is hereafter to be neither a russian policy, nor a prussian policy, nor an austrian policy, nor a french policy, nor even, which yet i will not believe, an english policy, there will be, i trust in god, an american policy. if the authority of all these governments be hereafter to be mixed and blended, and to flow in one augmented current of prerogative over the face of europe, sweeping away all resistance in its course, it will yet remain for us to secure our own happiness by the preservation of our own principles; which i hope we shall have the manliness to express on all proper occasions, and the spirit to defend in every extremity. the end and scope of this amalgamated policy are neither more nor less than this: to interfere, by force, for any government against any people who may resist it. be the state of the people what it may, they shall not rise; be the government what it will, it shall not be opposed. the practical commentary has corresponded with the plain language of the text. look at spain, and at greece. if men may not resist the spanish inquisition, and the turkish cimeter, what is there to which humanity must not submit? stronger cases can never arise. is it not proper for us, at all times, is it not our duty, at this time, to come forth, and deny, and condemn, these monstrous principles? where, but here, and in one other place, are they likely to be resisted? they are advanced with equal coolness and boldness; and they are supported by immense power. the timid will shrink and give way, and many of the brave may be compelled to yield to force. human liberty may yet, perhaps, be obliged to repose its principal hopes on the intelligence and the vigor of the saxon race. as far as depends on us, at least, i trust those hopes will not be disappointed; and that, to the extent which may consist with our own settled, pacific policy, our opinions and sentiments may be brought to act on the right side, and to the right end, on an occasion which is, in truth, nothing less than a momentous question between an intelligent age, full of knowledge, thirsting for improvement, and quickened by a thousand impulses, on one side, and the most arbitrary pretensions, sustained by unprecedented power, on the other. this asserted right of forcible intervention in the affairs of other nations is in open violation of the public law of the world. who has authorized these learned doctors of troppau to establish new articles in this code? whence are their diplomas? is the whole world expected to acquiesce in principles which entirely subvert the independence of nations? on the basis of this independence has been reared the beautiful fabric of international law. on the principle of this independence, europe has seen a family of nations flourishing within its limits, the small among the large, protected not always by power, but by a principle above power, by a sense of propriety and justice. on this principle, the great commonwealth of civilized states has been hitherto upheld. there have been occasional departures or violations, and always disastrous, as in the case of poland; but, in general, the harmony of the system has been wonderfully preserved. in the production and preservation of this sense of justice, this predominating principle, the christian religion has acted a main part. christianity and civilization have labored together; it seems, indeed, to be a law of our human condition, that they can live and flourish only together. from their blended influence has arisen that delightful spectacle of the prevalence of reason and principle over power and interest, so well described by one who was an honor to the age;-- "and sovereign law, the state's collected will, o'er thrones and globes elate, sits empress,--crowning good, repressing ill: smit by her sacred frown, the fiend, discretion, like a vapor, sinks, and e'en the all-dazzling crown hides his faint rays, and at her bidding shrinks." but this vision is past. while the teachers of laybach give the rule, there will be no law but the law of the strongest. it may now be required of me to show what interest _we_ have in resisting this new system. what is it to _us_, it may be asked, upon what principles, or what pretences, the european governments assert a right of interfering in the affairs of their neighbors? the thunder, it may be said, rolls at a distance. the wide atlantic is between us and danger; and, however others may suffer, _we_ shall remain safe. i think it is a sufficient answer to this to say, that we are one of the nations of the earth; that we have an interest, therefore, in the preservation of that system of national law and national intercourse which has heretofore subsisted, so beneficially for all. our system of government, it should also be remembered, is, throughout, founded on principles utterly hostile to the new code; and if we remain undisturbed by its operation, we shall owe our security either to our situation or our spirit. the enterprising character of the age, our own active, commercial spirit, the great increase which has taken place in the intercourse among civilized and commercial states, have necessarily connected us with other nations, and given us a high concern in the preservation of those salutary principles upon which that intercourse is founded. we have as clear an interest in international law, as individuals have in the laws of society. but apart from the soundness of the policy, on the ground of direct interest, we have, sir, a duty connected with this subject, which i trust we are willing to perform. what do _we_ not owe to the cause of civil and religious liberty? to the principle of lawful resistance? to the principle that society has a right to partake in its own government? as the leading republic of the world, living and breathing in these principles, and advanced, by their operation, with unequalled rapidity in our career, shall we give _our_ consent to bring them into disrepute and disgrace? it is neither ostentation nor boasting to say, that there lies before this country, in immediate prospect, a great extent and height of power. we are borne along towards this without effort, and not always even with a full knowledge of the rapidity of our own motion. circumstances which never combined before have co-operated in our favor, and a mighty current is setting us forward which we could not resist even if we would, and which, while we would stop to make an observation, and take the sun, has set us, at the end of the operation, far in advance of the place where we commenced it. does it not become us, then, is it not a duty imposed on us, to give our weight to the side of liberty and justice, to let mankind know that we are not tired of our own institutions, and to protest against the asserted power of altering at pleasure the law of the civilized world? but whatever we do in this respect, it becomes us to do upon clear and consistent principles. there is an important topic in the message to which i have yet hardly alluded. i mean the rumored combination of the european continental sovereigns against the newly established free states of south america. whatever position this government may take on that subject, i trust it will be one which can be defended on known and acknowledged grounds of right. the near approach or the remote distance of danger may affect policy, but cannot change principle. the same reason that would authorize us to protest against unwarrantable combinations to interfere between spain and her former colonies, would authorize us equally to protest if the same combination were directed against the smallest state in europe, although our duty to ourselves, our policy, and wisdom, might indicate very different courses as fit to be pursued by us in the two cases. we shall not, i trust, act upon the notion of dividing the world with the holy alliance, and complain of nothing done by them in their hemisphere if they will not interfere with ours. at least this would not be such a course of policy as i could recommend or support. we have not offended, and i hope we do not intend to offend, in regard to south america, against any principle of national independence or of public law. we have done nothing, we shall do nothing, that we need to hush up or to compromise by forbearing to express our sympathy for the cause of the greeks, or our opinion of the course which other governments have adopted in regard to them. it may, in the next place, be asked, perhaps, supposing all this to be true, what can _we_ do? are we to go to war? are we to interfere in the greek cause, or any other european cause? are we to endanger our pacific relations? no, certainly not. what, then, the question recurs, remains for us? if we will not endanger our own peace, if we will neither furnish armies nor navies to the cause which we think the just one, what is there within our power? sir, this reasoning mistakes the age. the time has been, indeed, when fleets, and armies, and subsidies, were the principal reliances even in the best cause. but, happily for mankind, a great change has taken place in this respect. moral causes come into consideration, in proportion as the progress of knowledge is advanced; and the public opinion of the civilized world is rapidly gaining an ascendency over mere brutal force. it is already able to oppose the most formidable obstruction to the progress of injustice and oppression; and as it grows more intelligent and more intense, it will be more and more formidable. it may be silenced by military power, but it cannot be conquered. it is elastic, irrepressible, and invulnerable to the weapons of ordinary warfare. it is that impassible, inextinguishable enemy of mere violence and arbitrary rule, which, like milton's angels, "vital in every part, ... cannot, but by annihilating, die." until this be propitiated or satisfied, it is vain for power to talk either of triumphs or of repose. no matter what fields are desolated, what fortresses surrendered, what armies subdued, or what provinces overrun. in the history of the year that has passed by us, and in the instance of unhappy spain, we have seen the vanity of all triumphs in a cause which violates the general sense of justice of the civilized world. it is nothing that the troops of france have passed from the pyrenees to cadiz; it is nothing that an unhappy and prostrate nation has fallen before them; it is nothing that arrests, and confiscation, and execution, sweep away the little remnant of national resistance. there is an enemy that still exists to check the glory of these triumphs. it follows the conqueror back to the very scene of his ovations; it calls upon him to take notice that europe, though silent, is yet indignant; it shows him that the sceptre of his victory is a barren sceptre; that it shall confer neither joy nor honor, but shall moulder to dry ashes in his grasp. in the midst of his exultation, it pierces his ear with the cry of injured justice; it denounces against him the indignation of an enlightened and civilized age; it turns to bitterness the cup of his rejoicing, and wounds him with the sting which belongs to the consciousness of having outraged the opinion of mankind. in my opinion, sir, the spanish nation is now nearer, not only in point of time, but in point of circumstance, to the acquisition of a regulated government, than at the moment of the french invasion. nations must, no doubt, undergo these trials in their progress to the establishment of free institutions. the very trials benefit them, and render them more capable both of obtaining and of enjoying the object which they seek. i shall not detain the committee, sir, by laying before it any statistical, geographical, or commercial account of greece. i have no knowledge on these subjects which is not common to all. it is universally admitted, that, within the last thirty or forty years, the condition of greece has been greatly improved. her marine is at present respectable, containing the best sailors in the mediterranean, better even, in that sea, than our own, as more accustomed to the long quarantines and other regulations which prevail in its ports. the number of her seamen has been estimated as high as , , but i suppose that estimate must be much too large. she has, probably, , tons of shipping. it is not easy to ascertain the amount of the greek population. the turkish government does not trouble itself with any of the calculations of political economy, and there has never been such a thing as an accurate census, probably, in any part of the turkish empire. in the absence of all official information, private opinions widely differ. by the tables which have been communicated, it would seem that there are , , greeks in greece proper and the islands; an amount, as i am inclined to think, somewhat overrated. there are, probably, in the whole of european turkey, , , greeks, and , , more in the asiatic dominions of that power. the moral and intellectual progress of this numerous population, under the horrible oppression which crushes it, has been such as may well excite regard. slaves, under barbarous masters, the greeks have still aspired after the blessings of knowledge and civilization. before the breaking out of the present revolution, they had established schools, and colleges, and libraries, and the press. wherever, as in scio, owing to particular circumstances, the weight of oppression was mitigated, the natural vivacity of the greeks, and their aptitude for the arts, were evinced. though certainly not on an equality with the civilized and christian states of europe,--and how is it possible, under such oppression as they endured, that they should be?--they yet furnished a striking contrast with their tartar masters. it has been well said, that it is not easy to form a just conception of the nature of the despotism exercised over them. conquest and subjugation, as known among european states, are inadequate modes of expression by which to denote the dominion of the turks. a conquest in the civilized world is generally no more than an acquisition of a new dominion to the conquering country. it does not imply a never-ending bondage imposed upon the conquered, a perpetual mark,--an opprobrious distinction between them and their masters; a bitter and unending persecution of their religion; an habitual violation of their rights of person and property, and the unrestrained indulgence towards them of every passion which belongs to the character of a barbarous soldiery. yet such is the state of greece. the ottoman power over them, obtained originally by the sword, is constantly preserved by the same means. wherever it exists, it is a mere military power. the religious and civil code of the state being both fixed in the koran, and equally the object of an ignorant and furious faith, have been found equally incapable of change. "the turk," it has been said, "has been _encamped_ in europe for four centuries." he has hardly any more participation in european manners, knowledge, and arts, than when he crossed the bosphorus. but this is not the worst. the power of the empire is fallen into anarchy, and as the principle which belongs to the head belongs also to the parts, there are as many despots as there are pachas, beys, and viziers. wars are almost perpetual between the sultan and some rebellious governor of a province; and in the conflict of these despotisms, the people are necessarily ground between the upper and the nether millstone. in short, the christian subjects of the sublime porte feel daily all the miseries which flow from despotism, from anarchy, from slavery, and from religious persecution. if any thing yet remains to heighten such a picture, let it be added, that every office in the government is not only actually, but professedly, venal,--the pachalics, the vizierates, the cadiships, and whatsoever other denomination may denote the depositary of power. in the whole world, sir, there is no such oppression felt as by the christian greeks. in various parts of india, to be sure, the government is bad enough; but then it is the government of barbarians over barbarians, and the feeling of oppression is, of course, not so keen. there the oppressed are perhaps not better than their oppressors; but in the case of greece, there are millions of christian men, not without knowledge, not without refinement, not without a strong thirst for all the pleasures of civilized life, trampled into the very earth, century after century, by a pillaging, savage, relentless soldiery. sir, the case is unique. there exists, and has existed, nothing like it. the world has no such misery to show; there is no case in which christian communities can be called upon with such emphasis of appeal. but i have said enough, mr. chairman, indeed i need have said nothing to satisfy the house, that it must be some new combination of circumstances, or new views of policy in the cabinets of europe, which have caused this interesting struggle not merely to be regarded with indifference, but to be marked with opprobrium. the very statement of the case, as a contest between the turks and greeks, sufficiently indicates what must be the feeling of every individual, and every government, that is not biassed by a particular interest, or a particular feeling, to disregard the dictates of justice and humanity. and now, sir, what has been the conduct pursued by the allied powers in regard to this contest? when the revolution broke out, the sovereigns were assembled in congress at laybach; and the papers of that assembly sufficiently manifest their sentiments. they proclaim their abhorrence of those "criminal combinations which had been formed in the eastern parts of europe"; and, although it is possible that this denunciation was aimed, more particularly, at the disturbances in the provinces of wallachia and moldavia, yet no exception is made, from its general terms, in favor of those events in greece which were properly the commencement of her revolution, and which could not but be well known at laybach, before the date of these declarations. now it must be remembered, that russia was a leading party in this denunciation of the efforts of the greeks to achieve their liberation; and it cannot but be expected by russia, that the world should also remember what part she herself has heretofore acted in the same concern. it is notorious, that within the last half-century she has again and again excited the greeks to rebellion against the porte, and that she has constantly kept alive in them the hope that she would, one day, by her own great power, break the yoke of their oppressor. indeed, the earnest attention with which russia has regarded greece goes much farther back than to the time i have mentioned. ivan the third, in , having espoused a grecian princess, heiress of the last greek emperor, discarded st. george from the russian arms, and adopted the greek two-headed black eagle, which has continued in the russian arms to the present day. in virtue of the same marriage, the russian princes claim the greek throne as their inheritance. under peter the great, the policy of russia developed itself more fully. in , he rendered himself master of azof, and, in , obtained the right to pass the dardanelles, and to maintain, by that route, commercial intercourse with the mediterranean. he had emissaries throughout greece, and particularly applied himself to gain the clergy. he adopted the _labarum_ of constantine, "in hoc signo vinces"; and medals were struck, with the inscription, "petrus i. russo-graecorum imperator." in whatever new direction the principles of the holy alliance may now lead the politics of russia, or whatever course she may suppose christianity now prescribes to her, in regard to the greek cause, the time has been when she professed to be contending for that cause, as identified with christianity. the white banner under which the soldiers of peter the first usually fought, bore, as its inscription, "in the name of the prince, and for our country." relying on the aid of the greeks, in his war with the porte, he changed the white flag to red, and displayed on it the words, "in the name of god, and for christianity." the unfortunate issue of this war is well known. though anne and elizabeth, the successors of peter, did not possess his active character, they kept up a constant communication with greece, and held out hopes of restoring the greek empire. catharine the second, as is well known, excited a general revolt in . a russian fleet appeared in the mediterranean, and a russian army was landed in the morea. the greeks in the end were disgusted at being expected to take an oath of allegiance to russia, and the empress was disgusted because they refused to take it. in , peace was signed between russia and the porte, and the greeks of the morea were left to their fate. by this treaty the porte acknowledged the independence of the khan of the crimea; a preliminary step to the acquisition of that country by russia. it is not unworthy of remark, as a circumstance which distinguished this from most other diplomatic transactions, that it conceded to the cabinet of st. petersburg the right of intervention in the interior affairs of turkey, in regard to whatever concerned the religion of the greeks. the cruelties and massacres that happened to the greeks after the peace between russia and the porte, notwithstanding the general pardon which had been stipulated for them, need not now be recited. instead of retracing the deplorable picture, it is enough to say, that in this respect the past is justly reflected in the present. the empress soon after invaded and conquered the crimea, and on one of the gates of kerson, its capital, caused to be inscribed, "the road to byzantium." the present emperor, on his accession to the throne, manifested an intention to adopt the policy of catharine the second as his own, and the world has not been right in all its suspicions, if a project for the partition of turkey did not form a part of the negotiations of napoleon and alexander at tilsit. all this course of policy seems suddenly to be changed. turkey is no longer regarded, it would appear, as an object of partition or acquisition, and greek revolts have all at once become, according to the declaration of laybach, "criminal combinations." the recent congress at verona exceeded its predecessor at laybach in its denunciations of the greek struggle. in the circular of the th of december, , it declared the grecian resistance to the turkish power to be rash and culpable, and lamented that "the firebrand of rebellion had been thrown into the ottoman empire." this rebuke and crimination we know to have proceeded on those settled principles of conduct which the continental powers had prescribed for themselves. the sovereigns saw, as well as others, the real condition of the greeks; they knew as well as others that it was most natural and most justifiable, that they should endeavor, at whatever hazard, to change that condition. they knew that they themselves, or at least one of them, had more than once urged the greeks to similar efforts; that they themselves had thrown the same firebrand into the midst of the ottoman empire. and yet, so much does it seem to be their fixed object to discountenance whatsoever threatens to disturb the actual government of any country, that, christians as they were, and allied, as they professed to be, for purposes most important to human happiness and religion, they have not hesitated to declare to the world that they have wholly forborne to exercise any compassion to the greeks, simply because they thought that they saw, in the struggles of the morea, the sign of revolution. this, then, is coming to a plain, practical result. the grecian revolution has been discouraged, discountenanced, and denounced, solely because it _is_ a revolution. independent of all inquiry into the reasonableness of its causes or the enormity of the oppression which produced it; regardless of the peculiar claims which greece possesses upon the civilized world; and regardless of what has been their own conduct towards her for a century; regardless of the interest of the christian religion,--the sovereigns at verona seized upon the case of the greek revolution as one above all others calculated to illustrate the fixed principles of their policy. the abominable rule of the porte on one side, the value and the sufferings of the christian greeks on the other, furnished a case likely to convince even an incredulous world of the sincerity of the professions of the allied powers. they embraced the occasion with apparent ardor: and the world, i trust, is satisfied. we see here, mr. chairman, the direct and actual application of that system which i have attempted to describe. we see it in the very case of greece. we learn, authentically and indisputably, that the allied powers, holding that all changes in legislation and administration ought to proceed from kings alone, were wholly inexorable to the sufferings of the greeks, and entirely hostile to their success. now it is upon this practical result of the principle of the continental powers that i wish this house to intimate its opinion. the great question is a question of principle. greece is only the signal instance of the application of that principle. if the principle be right, if we esteem it conformable to the law of nations, if we have nothing to say against it, or if we deem ourselves unfit to express an opinion on the subject, then, of course, no resolution ought to pass. if, on the other hand, we see in the declarations of the allied powers principles, not only utterly hostile to our own free institutions, but hostile also to the independence of all nations, and altogether opposed to the improvement of the condition of human nature; if, in the instance before us, we see a most striking exposition and application of those principles, and if we deem our opinions to be entitled to any weight in the estimation of mankind,--then i think it is our duty to adopt some such measure as the proposed resolution. it is worthy of observation, sir, that as early as july, , baron strogonoff, the russian minister at constantinople, represented to the porte, that, if the undistinguished massacres of the greeks, both of such as were in open resistance and of those who remained patient in their submission were continued, and should become a settled habit, they would give just cause of war against the porte to all christian states. this was in .[ ] it was followed, early in the next year, by that indescribable enormity, that appalling monument of barbarian cruelty, the destruction of scio; a scene i shall not attempt to describe; a scene from which human nature shrinks shuddering away; a scene having hardly a parallel in the history of fallen man. this scene, too, was quickly followed by the massacres in cyprus; and all these things were perfectly known to the christian powers assembled at verona. yet these powers, instead of acting upon the case supposed by baron strogonoff, and which one would think had been then fully made out,--instead of being moved by any compassion for the sufferings of the greeks,--these powers, these christian powers, rebuke their gallantry and insult their sufferings by accusing them of "throwing a firebrand into the ottoman empire." such, sir, appear to me to be the principles on which the continental powers of europe have agreed hereafter to act; and this, an eminent instance of the application of those principles. i shall not detain the committee, mr. chairman, by any attempt to recite the events of the greek struggle up to the present time. its origin may be found, doubtless, in that improved state of knowledge which, for some years, has been gradually taking place in that country. the emancipation of the greeks has been a subject frequently discussed in modern times. they themselves are represented as having a vivid remembrance of the distinction of their ancestors, not unmixed with an indignant feeling that civilized and christian europe should not ere now have aided them in breaking their intolerable fetters. in a society was founded in vienna for the encouragement of grecian literature. it was connected with a similar institution at athens, and another in thessaly, called the "gymnasium of mount pelion." the treasury and general office of the institution were established at munich. no political object was avowed by these institutions, probably none contemplated. still, however, they had their effect, no doubt, in hastening that condition of things in which the greeks felt competent to the establishment of their independence. many young men have been for years annually sent to the universities in the western states of europe for their education; and, after the general pacification of europe, many military men, discharged from other employment, were ready to enter even into so unpromising a service as that of the revolutionary greeks. in , war commenced between the porte and ali, the well-known pacha of albania. differences existed also with persia and with russia. in this state of things, at the beginning of , an insurrection broke out in moldavia, under the direction of alexander ypsilanti, a well-educated soldier, who had been major-general in the russian service. from his character, and the number of those who seemed inclined to join him, he was supposed to be countenanced by the court of st. petersburg. this, however, was a great mistake, which the emperor, then at laybach, took an early opportunity to rectify. the turkish government was alarmed at these occurrences in the northern provinces of european turkey, and caused search to be made of all vessels entering the black sea, lest arms or other military means should be sent in that manner to the insurgents. this proved inconvenient to the commerce of russia, and caused some unsatisfactory correspondence between the two powers. it may be worthy of remark, as an exhibition of national character, that, agitated by these appearances of intestine commotion, the sultan issued a proclamation, calling on all true mussulmans to renounce the pleasures of social life, to prepare arms and horses, and to return to the manner of their ancestors, the life of the plains. the turk seems to have thought that he had, at last, caught something of the dangerous contagion of european civilization, and that it was necessary to reform his habits, by recurring to the original manners of military roving barbarians. it was about this time, that is to say, at the commencement of , that the revolution burst out in various parts of greece and the isles. circumstances, certainly, were not unfavorable to the movement, as one portion of the turkish army was employed in the war against ali pacha in albania, and another part in the provinces north of the danube. the greeks soon possessed themselves of the open country of the morea, and drove their enemy into the fortresses. of these, that of tripolitza, with the city, fell into their hands, in the course of the summer. having after these first movements obtained time to breathe, it became, of course, an early object to establish a government. for this purpose delegates of the people assembled, under that name which describes the assembly in which we ourselves sit, that name which "freed the atlantic," a _congress_. a writer, who undertakes to render to the civilized world that service which was once performed by edmund burke, i mean the compiler of the english annual register, asks, by what authority this assembly could call itself a congress. simply, sir, by the same authority by which the people of the united states have given the same name to their own legislature. we, at least, should be naturally inclined to think, not only as far as names, but things also, are concerned, that the greeks could hardly have begun their revolution under better auspices; since they have endeavored to render applicable to themselves the general principles of our form of government, as well as its name. this constitution went into operation at the commencement of the next year. in the mean time, the war with ali pacha was ended, he having surrendered, and being afterwards assassinated, by an instance of treachery and perfidy, which, if it had happened elsewhere than under the government of the turks, would have deserved notice. the negotiation with russia, too, took a turn unfavorable to the greeks. the great point upon which russia insisted, beside the abandonment of the measure of searching vessels bound to the black sea, was, that the porte should withdraw its armies from the neighborhood of the russian frontiers; and the immediate consequence of this, when effected, was to add so much more to the disposable force ready to be employed against the greeks. these events seemed to have left the whole force of the ottoman empire, at the commencement of , in a condition to be employed against the greek rebellion; and, accordingly, very many anticipated the immediate destruction of the cause. the event, however, was ordered otherwise. where the greatest effort was made, it was met and defeated. entering the morea with an army which seemed capable of bearing down all resistance, the turks were nevertheless defeated and driven back, and pursued beyond the isthmus, within which, as far as it appears, from that time to the present, they have not been able to set their foot. it was in april of this year that the destruction of scio took place. that island, a sort of appanage of the sultana mother, enjoyed many privileges peculiar to itself. in a population of , or , , it had no more than , or , turks; indeed, by some accounts, not near as many. the absence of these ruffian masters had in some degree allowed opportunity for the promotion of knowledge, the accumulation of wealth, and the general cultivation of society. here was the seat of modern greek literature; here were libraries, printing-presses, and other establishments, which indicate some advancement in refinement and knowledge. certain of the inhabitants of samos, it would seem, envious of this comparative happiness of scio, landed upon the island in an irregular multitude, for the purpose of compelling its inhabitants to make common cause with their countrymen against their oppressors. these, being joined by the peasantry, marched to the city and drove the turks into the castle. the turkish fleet, lately reinforced from egypt, happened to be in the neighboring seas, and, learning these events, landed a force on the island of fifteen thousand men. there was nothing to resist such an army. these troops immediately entered the city and began an indiscriminate massacre. the city was fired; and in four days the fire and sword of the turk rendered the beautiful scio a clotted mass of blood and ashes. the details are too shocking to be recited. forty thousand women and children, unhappily saved from the general destruction, were afterwards sold in the market of smyrna, and sent off into distant and hopeless servitude. even on the wharves of our own cities, it has been said, have been sold the utensils of those hearths which now exist no longer. of the whole population which i have mentioned, not above nine hundred persons were left living upon the island. i will only repeat, sir, that these tragical scenes were as fully known at the congress of verona, as they are now known to us; and it is not too much to call on the powers that constituted that congress, in the name of conscience and in the name of humanity, to tell us if there be nothing even in these unparalleled excesses of turkish barbarity to excite a sentiment of compassion; nothing which they regard as so objectionable as even the very idea of popular resistance to power. the events of the year which has just passed by, as far as they have become known to us, have been even more favorable to the greeks than those of the year preceding. i omit all details, as being as well known to others as to myself. suffice it to say, that with no other enemy to contend with, and no diversion of his force to other objects, the porte has not been able to carry the war into the morea; and that, by the last accounts, its armies were acting defensively in thessaly. i pass over, also, the naval engagements of the greeks, although that is a mode of warfare in which they are calculated to excel, and in which they have already performed actions of such distinguished skill and bravery, as would draw applause upon the best mariners in the world. the present state of the war would seem to be, that the greeks possess the whole of the morea with the exception of the three fortresses of patras, coron, and modon; all candia, but one fortress; and most of the other islands. they possess the citadel of athens, missolonghi, and several other places in livadia. they have been able to act on the offensive, and to carry the war beyond the isthmus. there is no reason to believe their marine is weakened; more probably, it is strengthened. but, what is most important of all, they have obtained time and experience. they have awakened a sympathy throughout europe and throughout america; and they have formed a government which seems suited to the emergency of their condition. sir, they have done much. it would be great injustice to compare their achievements with our own. we began our revolution, already possessed of government, and, comparatively, of civil liberty. our ancestors had from the first been accustomed in a great measure to govern themselves. they were familiar with popular elections and legislative assemblies, and well acquainted with the general principles and practice of free governments. they had little else to do than to throw off the paramount authority of the parent state. enough was still left, both of law and of organization, to conduct society in its accustomed course, and to unite men together for a common object. the greeks, of course, could act with little concert at the beginning; they were unaccustomed to the exercise of power, without experience, with limited knowledge, without aid, and surrounded by nations which, whatever claims the greeks might seem to have upon them, have afforded them nothing but discouragement and reproach. they have held out, however, for three campaigns; and that, at least, is something. constantinople and the northern provinces have sent forth thousands of troops;--they have been defeated. tripoli, and algiers, and egypt, have contributed their marine contingents;--they have not kept the ocean. hordes of tartars have crossed the bosphorus;--they have died where the persians died. the powerful monarchies in the neighborhood have denounced their cause, and admonished them to abandon it and submit to their fate. they have answered them, that, although two hundred thousand of their countrymen have offered up their lives, there yet remain lives to offer; and that it is the determination of _all_, "yes, of all," to persevere until they shall have established their liberty, or until the power of their oppressors shall have relieved them from the burden of existence. it may now be asked, perhaps, whether the expression of our own sympathy, and that of the country, may do them good? i hope it may. it may give them courage and spirit, it may assure them of public regard, teach them that they are not wholly forgotten by the civilized world, and inspire them with constancy in the pursuit of their great end. at any rate, sir, it appears to me that the measure which i have proposed is due to our own character, and called for by our own duty. when we shall have discharged that duty, we may leave the rest to the disposition of providence. i do not see how it can be doubted that this measure is entirely _pacific_. i profess my inability to perceive that it has any possible tendency to involve our neutral relations. if the resolution pass, it is not of necessity to be immediately acted on. it will not be acted on at all, unless, in the opinion of the president, a proper and safe occasion for acting upon it shall arise. if we adopt the resolution to-day, our relations with every foreign state will be to-morrow precisely what they now are. the resolution will be sufficient to express our sentiments on the subjects to which i have adverted. useful for that purpose, it can be mischievous for no purpose. if the topic were properly introduced into the message, it cannot be improperly introduced into discussion in this house. if it were proper, which no one doubts, for the president to express his opinions upon it, it cannot, i think, be improper for us to express ours. the only certain effect of this resolution is to signify, in a form usual in bodies constituted like this, our approbation of the general sentiment of the message. do we wish to withhold that approbation? the resolution confers on the president no new power, nor does it enjoin on him the exercise of any new duty; nor does it hasten him in the discharge of any existing duty. i cannot imagine that this resolution can add any thing to those excitements which it has been supposed, i think very causelessly, might possibly provoke the turkish government to acts of hostility. there is already the message, expressing the hope of success to the greeks and disaster to the turks, in a much stronger manner than is to be implied from the terms of this resolution. there is the correspondence between the secretary of state and the greek agent in london, already made public, in which similar wishes are expressed, and a continuance of the correspondence apparently invited. i might add to this, the unexampled burst of feeling which this cause has called forth from all classes of society, and the notorious fact of pecuniary contributions made throughout the country for its aid and advancement. after all this, whoever can see cause of danger to our pacific relations from the adoption of this resolution has a keener vision than i can pretend to. sir, there is no augmented danger; there is no danger. the question comes at last to this, whether, on a subject of this sort, this house holds an opinion which is worthy to be expressed. even suppose, sir, an agent or commissioner were to be immediately sent,--a measure which i myself believe to be the proper one,--there is no breach of neutrality, nor any just cause of offence. such an agent, of course, would not be accredited; he would not be a public minister. the object would be inquiry and information; inquiry which we have a right to make, information which we are interested to possess. if a dismemberment of the turkish empire be taking place, or has already taken place; if a new state be rising, or be already risen, in the mediterranean,--who can doubt, that, without any breach of neutrality, we may inform ourselves of these events for the government of our own concerns? the greeks have declared the turkish coasts in a state of blockade; may we not inform ourselves whether this blockade be _nominal_ or _real_? and, of course, whether it shall be regarded or disregarded? the greater our trade may happen to be with smyrna, a consideration which seems to have alarmed some gentlemen, the greater is the reason, in my opinion, why we should seek to be accurately informed of those events which may affect its safety. it seems to me impossible, therefore, for any reasonable man to imagine that this resolution can expose us to the resentment of the sublime porte. as little reason is there for fearing its consequences upon the conduct of the allied powers. they may, very naturally, dislike our sentiments upon the subject of the greek revolution; but what those sentiments are they will much more explicitly learn in the president's message than in this resolution. they might, indeed, prefer that we should express no dissent from the doctrines which they have avowed, and the application which they have made of those doctrines to the case of greece. but i trust we are not disposed to leave them in any doubt as to our sentiments upon these important subjects. they have expressed their opinions, and do not call that expression of opinion an interference; in which respect they are right, as the expression of opinion in such cases is not such an interference as would justify the greeks in considering the powers at war with them. for the same reason, any expression which we may make of different principles and different sympathies is no interference. no one would call the president's message an interference; and yet it is much stronger in that respect than this resolution. if either of them could be construed to be an interference, no doubt it would be improper, at least it would be so according to my view of the subject; for the very thing which i have attempted to resist in the course of these observations is the right of foreign interference. but neither the message nor the resolution has that character. there is not a power in europe which can suppose, that, in expressing our opinions on this occasion, we are governed by any desire of aggrandizing ourselves or of injuring others. we do no more than to maintain those established principles in which we have an interest in common with other nations, and to resist the introduction of new principles and new rules, calculated to destroy the relative independence of states, and particularly hostile to the whole fabric of our government. i close, then, sir, with repeating, that the object of this resolution is to avail ourselves of the interesting occasion of the greek revolution to make our protest against the doctrines of the allied powers, both as they are laid down in principle and as they are applied in practice. i think it right, too, sir, not to be unseasonable in the expression of our regard, and, as far as that goes, in a manifestation of our sympathy with a long oppressed and now struggling people. i am not of those who would, in the hour of utmost peril, withhold such encouragement as might be properly and lawfully given, and, when the crisis should be past, overwhelm the rescued sufferer with kindness and caresses. the greeks address the civilized world with a pathos not easy to be resisted. they invoke our favor by more moving considerations than can well belong to the condition of any other people. they stretch out their arms to the christian communities of the earth, beseeching them, by a generous recollection of their ancestors, by the consideration of their desolated and ruined cities and villages, by their wives and children sold into an accursed slavery, by their blood, which they seem willing to pour out like water, by the common faith, and in the name, which unites all christians, that they would extend to them at least some token of compassionate regard. [footnote : the interior of the hall of the house of representatives is surrounded by a magnificent colonnade of the composite order. [ .]] [footnote : see lord castlereagh's speech in the house of commons, february , . debates in parliament, vol. xxxvi. p. ; where also the treaty may be found at length.] [footnote : law of nature and nations, book ii. cap. , § .] [footnote : martens, recueil des traités, tome xiii. p. .] [footnote : annual register for , p. .] [footnote : annual register for , p. .] the tariff. a speech delivered in the house of representatives of the united states, on the st and d of april, . [at an early period of the session of congress of - a bill was introduced into the house of representatives to amend the several acts laying duties on imports. the object of the bill was a comprehensive revision of the existing laws, with a view to the extension of the protective system. the bill became the subject of a protracted debate, in which much of the talent of the house on both sides was engaged. mr. webster took an active part in the discussion, and spoke upon many of the details of the bill, while it remained in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union. several objectionable provisions were removed, and various amendments were introduced upon his motion; and it was a matter of regret to him, as seen in the following speech, that the friends of the bill were not able or willing to bring it into a form in which, as a whole, he could give it his support. on the th and st of march, mr. clay, speaker of the house, addressed the committee of the whole, at length and with great ability, on the general principles of the bill; and he was succeeded by mr. webster, on the st and d of april, in the following speech.] mr. chairman,--i will avail myself of the present occasion to make some remarks on certain principles and opinions which have been recently advanced, and on those considerations which, in my judgment, ought to govern us in deciding upon the several and respective parts of this very important and complex measure. i can truly say that this is a painful duty. i deeply regret the necessity which is likely to be imposed upon me of giving a general affirmative or negative vote on the whole of the bill. i cannot but think this mode of proceeding liable to great objections. it exposes both those who support and those who oppose the measure to very unjust and injurious misapprehensions. there may be good reasons for favoring some of the provisions of the bill, and equally strong reasons for opposing others; and these provisions do not stand to each other in the relation of principal and incident. if that were the case, those who are in favor of the principal might forego their opinions upon incidental and subordinate provisions. but the bill proposes enactments entirely distinct and different from one another in character and tendency. some of its clauses are intended merely for revenue; and of those which regard the protection of home manufactures, one part stands upon very different grounds from those of other parts. so that probably every gentleman who may ultimately support the bill will vote for much which his judgment does not approve; and those who oppose it will oppose something which they would very gladly support. being intrusted with the interests of a district highly commercial, and deeply interested in manufactures also, i wish to state my opinions on the present measure, not as on a whole, for it has no entire and homogeneous character, but as on a collection of different enactments, some of which meet my approbation and some of which do not. and allow me, sir, in the first place, to state my regret, if indeed i ought not to express a warmer sentiment, at the names or designations which mr. speaker[ ] has seen fit to adopt for the purpose of describing the advocates and the opposers of the present bill. it is a question, he says, between the friends of an "american policy" and those of a "foreign policy." this, sir, is an assumption which i take the liberty most directly to deny. mr. speaker certainly intended nothing invidious or derogatory to any part of the house by this mode of denominating friends and enemies. but there is power in names, and this manner of distinguishing those who favor and those who oppose particular measures may lead to inferences to which no member of the house can submit. it may imply that there is a more exclusive and peculiar regard to american interests in one class of opinions than in another. such an implication is to be resisted and repelled. every member has a right to the presumption, that he pursues what he believes to be the interest of his country with as sincere a zeal as any other member. i claim this in my own case; and while i shall not, for any purpose of description or convenient arrangement use terms which may imply any disrespect to other men's opinions, much less any imputation upon other men's motives, it is my duty to take care that the use of such terms by others be not, against the will of those who adopt them, made to produce a false impression. indeed, sir, it is a little astonishing, if it seemed convenient to mr. speaker, for the purposes of distinction, to make use of the terms "american policy" and "foreign policy," that he should not have applied them in a manner precisely the reverse of that in which he has in fact used them. if names are thought necessary, it would be well enough, one would think, that the name should be in some measure descriptive of the thing; and since mr. speaker denominates the policy which he recommends "a new policy in this country"; since he speaks of the present measure as a new era in our legislation; since he professes to invite us to depart from our accustomed course, to instruct ourselves by the wisdom of others, and to adopt the policy of the most distinguished foreign states,--one is a little curious to know with what propriety of speech this imitation of other nations is denominated an "american policy," while, on the contrary, a preference for our own established system, as it now actually exists and always has existed, is called a "foreign policy." this favorite american policy is what america has never tried; and this odious foreign policy is what, as we are told, foreign states have never pursued. sir, that is the truest american policy which shall most usefully employ american capital and american labor, and best sustain the whole population. with me it is a fundamental axiom, it is interwoven with all my opinions, that the great interests of the country are united and inseparable; that agriculture, commerce, and manufactures will prosper together or languish together; and that all legislation is dangerous which proposes to benefit one of these without looking to consequences which may fall on the others. passing from this, sir, i am bound to say that mr. speaker began his able and impressive speech at the proper point of inquiry,--i mean the present state and condition of the country,--although i am so unfortunate, or rather although i am so happy, as to differ from him very widely in regard to that condition. i dissent entirely from the justice of that picture of distress which he has drawn. i have not seen the reality, and know not where it exists. within my observation, there is no cause for so gloomy and terrifying a representation. in respect to the new england states, with the condition of which i am of course best acquainted, the present appears to me a period of very general prosperity. not, indeed, a time for sudden acquisition and great profits, not a day of extraordinary activity and successful speculation. there is no doubt a considerable depression of prices, and, in some degree, a stagnation of business. but the case presented by mr. speaker was not one of _depression_, but of _distress_; of universal, pervading, intense distress, limited to no class and to no place. we are represented as on the very verge and brink of national ruin. so far from acquiescing in these opinions, i believe there has been no period in which the general prosperity was better secured, or rested on a more solid foundation. as applicable to the eastern states, i put this remark to their representatives, and ask them if it is not true. when has there been a time in which the means of living have been more accessible and more abundant? when has labor been rewarded, i do not say with a larger, but with a more certain success? profits, indeed, are low; in some pursuits of life, which it is not proposed to benefit, but to _burden_, by this bill, very low. but still i am unacquainted with any proofs of extraordinary distress. what, indeed, are the general indications of the state of the country? there is no famine nor pestilence in the land, nor war, nor desolation. there is no writhing under the burden of taxation. the means of subsistence are abundant; and at the very moment when the miserable condition of the country is asserted, it is admitted that the wages of labor are high in comparison with those of any other country. a country, then, enjoying a profound peace, perfect civil liberty, with the means of subsistence cheap and abundant, with the reward of labor sure, and its wages higher than anywhere else, cannot be represented as in gloom, melancholy, and distress, but by the effort of extraordinary powers of tragedy. even if, in judging of this question, we were to regard only those proofs to which we have been referred, we shall probably come to a conclusion somewhat different from that which has been drawn. our exports, for example, although certainly less than in some years, were not, last year, so much below an average formed upon the exports of a series of years, and putting those exports at a fixed value, as might be supposed. the value of the exports of agricultural products, of animals, of the products of the forest and of the sea, together with gunpowder, spirits, and sundry unenumerated articles, amounted in the several years to the following sums, viz.:-- in , $ , , , , , , , , coming up now to our own times, and taking the exports of the years , , and , of the same articles and products, at the same prices, they stand thus:-- in , $ , , , , , , , , mr. speaker has taken the very extraordinary year of , and, adding to the exportation of that year what he thinks ought to have been a just augmentation, in proportion to the increase of our population, he swells the result to a magnitude, which, when compared with our actual exports, would exhibit a great deficiency. but is there any justice in this mode of calculation? in the first place, as before observed, the year was a year of extraordinary exportation. by reference to the accounts, that of the article of flour, for example, there was an export that year of thirteen hundred thousand barrels; but the very next year it fell to eight hundred thousand, and the next year to seven hundred thousand. in the next place, there never was any reason to expect that the increase of our exports of agricultural products would keep pace with the increase of our population. that would be against all experience. it is, indeed, most desirable, that there should be an augmented demand for the products of agriculture; but, nevertheless, the official returns of our exports do not show that absolute want of all foreign market which has been so strongly stated. but there are other means by which to judge of the general condition of the people. the quantity of the means of subsistence consumed, or, to make use of a phraseology better suited to the condition of our own people, the quantity of the comforts of life enjoyed, is one of those means. it so happens, indeed, that it is not so easy in this country as elsewhere to ascertain facts of this sort with accuracy. where most of the articles of subsistence and most of the comforts of life are taxed, there is, of course, great facility in ascertaining, from official statements, the amount of consumption. but in this country, most fortunately, the government neither knows, nor is concerned to know, the annual consumption; and estimates can only be formed in another mode, and in reference only to a few articles. of these articles, tea is one. it is not quite a luxury, and yet is something above the absolute necessaries of life. its consumption, therefore, will be diminished in times of adversity, and augmented in times of prosperity. by deducting the annual export from the annual import, and taking a number of years together, we may arrive at a probable estimate of consumption. the average of eleven years, from to , inclusive, will be found to be two millions and a half of pounds. from to , inclusive, the average was three millions seven hundred thousand; and the average of the last three years, to wit, , , and , was five millions and a half. having made a just allowance for the increase of our numbers, we shall still find, i think, from these statements, that there is no distress which has limited our means of subsistence and enjoyment. in forming an opinion of the degree of general prosperity, we may regard, likewise, the progress of internal improvements, the investment of capital in roads, bridges, and canals. all these prove a balance of income over expenditure; they afford evidence that there is a surplus of profits, which the present generation is usefully vesting for the benefit of the next. it cannot be denied, that, in this particular, the progress of the country is steady and rapid. we may look, too, to the sums expended for education. are our colleges deserted? do fathers find themselves less able than usual to educate their children? it will be found, i imagine, that the amount paid for the purpose of education is constantly increasing, and that the schools and colleges were never more full than at the present moment. i may add, that the endowment of public charities, the contributions to objects of general benevolence, whether foreign or domestic, the munificence of individuals towards whatever promises to benefit the community, are all so many proofs of national prosperity. and, finally, there is no defalcation of revenue, no pressure of taxation. the general result, therefore, of a fair examination of the present condition of things, seems to me to be, that there is a considerable depression of prices, and curtailment of profit; and in some parts of the country, it must be admitted, there is a great degree of pecuniary embarrassment, arising from the difficulty of paying debts which were contracted when prices were high. with these qualifications, the general state of the country may be said to be prosperous; and these are not sufficient to give to the whole face of affairs any appearance of general distress. supposing the evil, then, to be a depression of prices, and a partial pecuniary pressure, the next inquiry is into the causes of that evil; and it appears to me that there are several; and in this respect, i think, too much has been imputed by mr. speaker to the single cause of the diminution of exports. connected, as we are, with all the commercial nations of the world, and having observed great changes to take place elsewhere, we should consider whether the causes of those changes have not reached us, and whether we are not suffering by the operation of them, in common with others. undoubtedly, there has been a great fall in the price of all commodities throughout the commercial world, in consequence of the restoration of a state of peace. when the allies entered france in , prices rose astonishingly fast, and very high. colonial produce, for instance, in the ports of this country, as well as elsewhere, sprung up suddenly from the lowest to the highest extreme. a new and vast demand was created for the commodities of trade. these were the natural consequences of the great political changes which then took place in europe. we are to consider, too, that our own war created new demand, and that a government expenditure of twenty-five or thirty million dollars a year had the usual effect of enhancing prices. we are obliged to add, that the paper issues of our banks carried the same effect still further. a depreciated currency existed in a great part of the country; depreciated to such an extent, that, at one time, exchange between the centre and the north was as high as twenty per cent. the bank of the united states was instituted to correct this evil; but, for causes which it is not necessary now to enumerate, it did not for some years bring back the currency of the country to a sound state. this depreciation of the circulating currency was so much, of course, added to the nominal prices of commodities, and these prices, thus unnaturally high, seemed, to those who looked only at the appearance, to indicate great prosperity. but such prosperity is more specious than real. it would have been better, probably, as the shock would have been less, if prices had fallen sooner. at length, however, they fell; and as there is little doubt that certain events in europe had an influence in determining the time at which this fall took place, i will advert shortly to some of the principal of those events. in may, , the british house of commons decided, by a unanimous vote, that the resumption of cash payments by the bank of england should not be deferred beyond the ensuing february. the restriction had been continued from time to time, and from year to year, parliament always professing to look to the restoration of a specie currency whenever it should be found practicable. having been, in july, , continued to july, , it was understood that, in the interim, the important question of the time at which cash payments should be resumed should be finally settled. in the latter part of the year , the circulation of the bank had been greatly reduced, and a severe scarcity of money was felt in the london market. such was the state of things in england. on the continent, other important events took place. the french indemnity loan had been negotiated in the summer of , and the proportion of it belonging to austria, russia, and prussia had been sold. this created an unusual demand for gold and silver in those countries. it has been stated, that the amount of the precious metals transmitted to austria and russia in that year was at least twenty millions sterling. other large sums were sent to prussia and to denmark. the effect of this sudden drain of specie, felt first at paris, was communicated to amsterdam and hamburg, and all other commercial places in the north of europe. the paper system of england had certainly communicated an artificial value to property. it had encouraged speculation, and excited over-trading. when the shock therefore came, and this violent pressure for money acted at the same moment on the continent and in england, inflated and unnatural prices could be kept up no longer. a reduction took place, which has been estimated to have been at least equal to a fall of thirty, if not forty per cent. the depression was universal; and the change was felt in the united states severely, though not equally so in every part. there are those, i am aware, who maintain that the events to which i have alluded did not cause the great fall of prices, but that that fall was natural and inevitable, from the previously existing state of things, the abundance of commodities, and the want of demand. but that would only prove that the effect was produced in another way, rather than by another cause. if these great and sudden calls for money did not reduce prices, but prices fell, as of themselves, to their natural state, still the result is the same; for we perceive that, after these new calls for money, prices could not be kept longer at their unnatural height. about the time of these foreign events, our own bank system underwent a change; and all these causes, in my view of the subject, concurred to produce the great shock which took place in our commercial cities, and in many parts of the country. the year was a year of numerous failures, and very considerable distress, and would have furnished far better grounds than exist at present for that gloomy representation of our condition which has been presented. mr. speaker has alluded to the strong inclination which exists, or has existed, in various parts of the country, to issue paper money, as a proof of great existing difficulties. i regard it rather as a very productive cause of those difficulties; and the committee will not fail to observe, that there is, at this moment, much the loudest complaint of distress precisely where there has been the greatest attempt to relieve it by systems of paper credit. and, on the other hand, content, prosperity, and happiness are most observable in those parts of the country where there has been the least endeavor to administer relief by law. in truth, nothing is so baneful, so utterly ruinous to all true industry, as interfering with the legal value of money, or attempting to raise artificial standards to supply its place. such remedies suit well the spirit of extravagant speculation, but they sap the very foundation of all honest acquisition. by weakening the security of property, they take away all motive for exertion. their effect is to transfer property. whenever a debt is allowed to be paid by any thing less valuable than the legal currency in respect to which it was contracted, the difference between the value of the paper given in payment and the legal currency is precisely so much property taken from one man and given to another, by legislative enactment. when we talk, therefore, of protecting industry, let us remember that the first measure for that end is to secure it in its earnings; to assure it that it shall receive its own. before we invent new modes of raising prices, let us take care that existing prices are not rendered wholly unavailable, by making them capable of being paid in depreciated paper. i regard, sir, this issue of irredeemable paper as the most prominent and deplorable cause of whatever pressure still exists in the country; and, further, i would put the question to the members of this committee, whether it is not from that part of the people who have tried this paper system, and tried it to their cost, that this bill receives the most earnest support? and i cannot forbear to ask, further, whether this support does not proceed rather from a general feeling of uneasiness under the present condition of things, than from the clear perception of any benefit which the measure itself can confer? is not all expectation of advantage centred in a sort of vague hope, that change may produce relief? debt certainly presses hardest where prices have been longest kept up by artificial means. they find the shock lightest who take it soonest; and i fully believe that, if those parts of the country which now suffer most had not augmented the force of the blow by deferring it, they would have now been in a much better condition than they are. we may assure ourselves, once for all, sir, that there can be no such thing as payment of debts by legislation. we may abolish debts indeed; we may transfer property by visionary and violent laws. but we deceive both ourselves and our constituents, if we flatter either ourselves or them with the hope that there is any relief against whatever pressure exists, but in economy and industry. the depression of prices and the stagnation of business have been in truth the necessary result of circumstances. no government could prevent them, and no government can altogether relieve the people from their effect. we have enjoyed a day of extraordinary prosperity; we had been neutral while the world was at war, and had found a great demand for our products, our navigation, and our labor. we had no right to expect that that state of things would continue always. with the return of peace, foreign nations would struggle for themselves, and enter into competition with us in the great objects of pursuit. now, sir, what is the remedy for existing evils? what is the course of policy suited to our actual condition? certainly it is not our wisdom to adopt any system that may be offered to us, without examination, and in the blind hope that whatever changes our condition may improve it. it is better that we should "bear those ills we have, than fly to others that we know not of." we are bound to see that there is a fitness and an aptitude in whatever measures may be recommended to relieve the evils that afflict us; and before we adopt a system that professes to make great alterations, it is our duty to look carefully to each leading interest of the community, and see how it may probably be affected by our proposed legislation. and, in the first place, what is the condition of our commerce? here we must clearly perceive, that it is not enjoying that rich harvest which fell to its fortune during the continuance of the european wars. it has been greatly depressed, and limited to small profits. still, it is elastic and active, and seems capable of recovering itself in some measure from its depression. the shipping interest, also, has suffered severely, still more severely, probably, than commerce. if any thing should strike us with astonishment, it is that the navigation of the united states should be able to sustain itself. without any government protection whatever, it goes abroad to challenge competition with the whole world; and, in spite of all obstacles, it has yet been able to maintain eight hundred thousand tons in the employment of foreign trade. how, sir, do the ship-owners and navigators accomplish this? how is it that they are able to meet, and in some measure overcome, universal competition? it is not, sir, by protection and bounties: but by unwearied exertion, by extreme economy, by unshaken perseverance, by that manly and resolute spirit which relies on itself to protect itself. these causes alone enable american ships still to keep their element, and show the flag of their country in distant seas. the rates of insurance may teach us how thoroughly our ships are built, and how skilfully and safely they are navigated. risks are taken, as i learn, from the united states to liverpool, at one per cent; and from the united states to canton and back, as low as three per cent. but when we look to the low rate of freight, and when we consider, also, that the articles entering into the composition of a ship, with the exception of wood, are dearer here than in other countries, we cannot but be utterly surprised that the shipping interest has been able to sustain itself at all. i need not say that the navigation of the country is essential to its honor and its defence. yet, instead of proposing benefits for it in this hour of its depression, we threaten by this measure to lay upon it new and heavy burdens. in the discussion, the other day, of that provision of the bill which proposes to tax tallow for the benefit of the oil-merchants and whalemen, we had the pleasure of hearing eloquent eulogiums upon that portion of our shipping employed in the whale-fishery, and strong statements of its importance to the public interest. but the same bill proposes a severe tax upon that interest, for the benefit of the iron-manufacturer and the hemp-grower. so that the tallow-chandlers and soapboilers are sacrificed to the oil-merchants, in order that these again may contribute to the manufacturers of iron and the growers of hemp. if such be the state of our commerce and navigation, what is the condition of our home manufactures? how are they amidst the general depression? do they need further protection? and if any, how much? on all these points, we have had much general statement, but little precise information. in the very elaborate speech of mr. speaker, we are not supplied with satisfactory grounds of judging with respect to these various particulars. who can tell, from any thing yet before the committee, whether the proposed duty be too high or too low on any one article? gentlemen tell us, that they are in favor of domestic industry; so am i. they would give it protection; so would i. but then all domestic industry is not confined to manufactures. the employments of agriculture, commerce, and navigation are all branches of the same domestic industry; they all furnish employment for american capital and american labor. and when the question is, whether new duties shall be laid, for the purpose of giving further encouragement to particular manufactures, every reasonable man must ask himself, both whether the proposed new encouragement be necessary, and whether it can be given without injustice to other branches of industry. it is desirable to know, also, somewhat more distinctly, how the proposed means will produce the intended effect. one great object proposed, for example, is the increase of the home market for the consumption of agricultural products. this certainly is much to be desired; but what provisions of the bill are expected wholly or principally to produce this, is not stated. i would not deny that some increase of the home market may follow, from the adoption of this bill, but all its provisions have not an equal tendency to produce this effect. those manufactures which employ most labor, create, of course, most demand for articles of consumption; and those create least in the production of which capital and skill enter as the chief ingredients of cost. i cannot, sir, take this bill merely because a committee has recommended it. i cannot espouse a side, and fight under a flag. i wholly repel the idea that we must take this law, or pass no law on the subject. what should hinder us from exercising our own judgments upon these provisions, singly and severally? who has the power to place us, or why should we place ourselves, in a condition where we cannot give to every measure, that is distinct and separate in itself, a separate and distinct consideration? sir, i presume no member of the committee will withhold his assent from what he thinks right, until others will yield their assent to what they think wrong. there are many things in this bill acceptable, probably, to the general sense of the house. why should not these provisions be passed into a law, and others left to be decided upon their own merits, as a majority of the house shall see fit? to some of these provisions i am myself decidedly favorable; to others i have great objections; and i should have been very glad of an opportunity of giving my own vote distinctly on propositions which are, in their own nature, essentially and substantially distinct from one another. but, sir, before expressing my own opinion upon the several provisions of this bill, i will advert for a moment to some other general topics. we have heard much of the policy of england, and her example has been repeatedly urged upon us, as proving, not only the expediency of encouragement and protection, but of exclusion and direct prohibition also. i took occasion the other day to remark, that more liberal notions were becoming prevalent on this subject; that the policy of restraints and prohibitions was getting out of repute, as the true nature of commerce became better understood; and that, among public men, those most distinguished were most decided in their reprobation of the broad principle of exclusion and prohibition. upon the truth of this representation, as matter of fact, i supposed there could not be two opinions among those who had observed the progress of political sentiment in other countries, and were acquainted with its present state. in this respect, however, it would seem that i was greatly mistaken. we have heard it again and again declared, that the english government still adheres, with immovable firmness, to its old doctrines of prohibition; that although journalists, theorists, and scientific writers advance other doctrines, yet the practical men, the legislators, the government of the country, are too wise to follow them. it has even been most sagaciously hinted, that the promulgation of liberal opinions on these subjects is intended only to delude other governments, to cajole them into the folly of liberal ideas, while england retains to herself all the benefits of the admirable old system of prohibition. we have heard from mr. speaker a warm commendation of the complex mechanism of this system. the british empire, it is said, is, in the first place, to be protected against the rest of the world; then the british isles against the colonies; next, the isles respectively against each other, england herself, as the heart of the empire, being protected most of all, and against all. truly, sir, it appears to me that mr. speaker's imagination has seen system, and order, and beauty, in that which is much more justly considered as the result of ignorance, partiality, or violence. this part of english legislation has resulted, partly from considering ireland as a conquered country, partly from the want of a complete union, even with scotland, and partly from the narrow views of colonial regulation, which in early and uninformed periods influenced the european states. nothing, i imagine, would strike the public men of england more singularly, than to find gentlemen of real information and much weight in the councils of this country expressing sentiments like these, in regard to the existing state of these english laws. i have never said, indeed, that prohibitory laws do not exist in england; we all know they do; but the question is, does she owe her prosperity and greatness to these laws? i venture to say, that such is not the opinion of public men now in england, and the continuance of the laws, even without any alteration, would not be evidence that their opinion is different from what i have represented it; because the laws having existed long, and great interests having been built up on the faith of them, they cannot now be repealed without great and overwhelming inconvenience. because a thing has been wrongly done, it does not therefore follow that it can now be undone; and this is the reason, as i understand it, for which exclusion, prohibition, and monopoly are suffered to remain in any degree in the english system; and for the same reason, it will be wise in us to take our measures, on all subjects of this kind, with great caution. we may not be able, but at the hazard of much injury to individuals, hereafter to retrace our steps. and yet, whatever is extravagant or unreasonable is not likely to endure. there may come a moment of strong reaction; and if no moderation be shown in laying on duties, there may be as little scruple in taking them off. it may be here observed, that there is a broad and marked distinction between entire prohibition and reasonable encouragement. it is one thing, by duties or taxes on foreign articles, to awaken a home competition in the production of the same articles; it is another thing to remove all competition by a total exclusion of the foreign article; and it is quite another thing still, by total prohibition, to raise up at home manufactures not suited to the climate, the nature of the country, or the state of the population. these are substantial distinctions, and although it may not be easy in every case to determine which of them applies to a given article, yet the distinctions themselves exist, and in most cases will be sufficiently clear to indicate the true course of policy; and, unless i have greatly mistaken the prevailing sentiment in the councils of england, it grows every day more and more favorable to the diminution of restrictions, and to the wisdom of leaving much (i do not say every thing, for that would not be true) to the enterprise and the discretion of individuals. i should certainly not have taken up the time of the committee to state at any length the opinions of other governments, or of the public men of other countries, upon a subject like this; but an occasional remark made by me the other day, having been so directly controverted, especially by mr. speaker, in his observations yesterday, i must take occasion to refer to some proofs of what i have stated. what, then, is the state of english opinion? everybody knows that, after the termination of the late european war, there came a time of great pressure in england. since her example has been quoted, let it be asked in what mode her government sought relief. did it aim to maintain artificial and unnatural prices? did it maintain a swollen and extravagant paper circulation? did it carry further the laws of prohibition and exclusion? did it draw closer the cords of colonial restraint? no, sir, but precisely the reverse. instead of relying on legislative contrivances and artificial devices, it trusted to the enterprise and industry of the people, which it sedulously sought to excite, not by imposing restraint, but by removing it, wherever its removal was practicable. in may, , the attention of the government having been much turned to the state of foreign trade, a distinguished member[ ] of the house of peers brought forward a parliamentary motion upon that subject, followed by an ample discussion and a full statement of his own opinions. in the course of his remarks, he observed, "that there ought to be no prohibitory duties as such; for that it was evident, that, where a manufacture could not be carried on, or a production raised, but under the protection of a prohibitory duty, that manufacture, or that produce, could not be brought to market but at a loss. in his opinion, the name of strict prohibition might, therefore, in commerce, be got rid of altogether; but he did not see the same objection to protecting duties, which, while they admitted of the introduction of commodities from abroad similar to those which we ourselves manufactured, placed them so much on a level as to allow a competition between them." "no axiom," he added, "was more true than this: that it was by growing what the territory of a country could grow most cheaply, and by receiving from other countries what it could not produce except at too great an expense, that the greatest degree of happiness was to be communicated to the greatest extent of population." in assenting to the motion, the first minister[ ] of the crown expressed his own opinion of the great advantage resulting from unrestricted freedom of trade. "of the soundness of that general principle," he observed, "i can entertain no doubt. i can entertain no doubt of what would have been the great advantages to the civilized world, if the system of unrestricted trade had been acted upon by every nation from the earliest period of its commercial intercourse with its neighbors. if to those advantages there could have been any exceptions, i am persuaded that they would have been but few; and i am also persuaded that the cases to which they would have referred would not have been, in themselves, connected with the trade and commerce of england. but we are now in a situation in which, i will not say that a reference to the principle of unrestricted trade can be of no use, because such a reference may correct erroneous reasoning, but in which it is impossible for us, or for any country in the world but the united states of america, to act unreservedly on that principle. the commercial regulations of the european world have been long established, and cannot suddenly be departed from." having supposed a proposition to be made to england by a foreign state for free commerce and intercourse, and an unrestricted exchange of agricultural products and of manufactures, he proceeds to observe: "it would be impossible to accede to such a proposition. we have risen to our present greatness under a different system. some suppose that we have risen in consequence of that system; _others, of whom i am one, believe that we have risen in spite of that system_. but, whichever of these hypotheses be true, certain it is that we have risen under a very different system than that of free and unrestricted trade. it is utterly impossible, with our debt and taxation, even if they were but half their existing amount, that we can suddenly adopt the system of free trade." lord ellenborough, in the same debate, said, "that he attributed the general distress then existing in europe to the regulations that had taken place since the destruction of the french power. most of the states on the continent had surrounded themselves as with walls of brass, to inhibit intercourse with other states. intercourse was prohibited, even in districts of the same state, as was the case in austria and sardinia. thus, though the taxes on the people had been lightened, the severity of their condition had been increased. he believed that the discontent which pervaded most parts of europe, and especially germany, was more owing to commercial restrictions than to any theoretical doctrines on government; and that a free communication among them would do more to restore tranquillity, than any other step that could be adopted. he objected to all attempts to frustrate the benevolent intentions of providence, which had given to various countries various wants, in order to bring them together. he objected to it as anti-social; he objected to it as making commerce the means of barbarizing instead of enlightening nations. the state of the trade with france was most disgraceful to both countries; the two greatest civilized nations of the world, placed at a distance of scarcely twenty miles from each other, had contrived, by their artificial regulations, to reduce their commerce with each other to a mere nullity." every member speaking on this occasion agreed in the general sentiments favorable to unrestricted intercourse, which had thus been advanced; one of them remarking, at the conclusion of the debate, that "the principles of free trade, which he was happy to see so fully recognized, were of the utmost consequence; for, though, in the present circumstances of the country, a free trade was unattainable, yet their task hereafter was to approximate to it. considering the prejudices and interests which were opposed to the recognition of that principle, it was no small indication of the firmness and liberality of government to have so fully conceded it." sir, we have seen, in the course of this discussion, that several gentlemen have expressed their high admiration of the _silk manufacture_ of england. its commendation was begun, i think, by the honorable member from vermont, who sits near me, who thinks that that alone gives conclusive evidence of the benefits produced by attention to manufactures, inasmuch as it is a great source of wealth to the nation, and has amply repaid all the cost of its protection. mr. speaker's approbation of this part of the english example was still warmer. now, sir, it does so happen, that both these gentlemen differ very widely on this point from the opinions entertained in england, by persons of the first rank, both as to knowledge and power. in the debate to which i have already referred, the proposer of the motion urged the expediency of providing for the admission of the silks of france into england. "he was aware," he said, "that there was a poor and industrious body of manufacturers, whose interests must suffer by such an arrangement; and therefore he felt that it would be the duty of parliament to provide for the present generation by a large parliamentary grant. it was conformable to every principle of sound justice to do so, when the interests of a particular class were sacrificed to the good of the whole." in answer to these observations, lord liverpool said that, with reference to several branches of manufactures, time, and the change of circumstances, had rendered the system of protecting duties merely nominal; and that, in his opinion, if all the protecting laws which regarded both the woollen and cotton manufactures were to be repealed, no injurious effects would thereby be occasioned. "but," he observes, "with respect to silk, that manufacture in this kingdom is so completely artificial, that any attempt to introduce the principles of free trade with reference to it might put an end to it altogether. i allow that the silk manufacture is not natural to this country. _i wish we had never had a silk manufactory._ i allow that it is natural to france; i allow that it might have been better, had each country adhered exclusively to that manufacture in which each is superior; and had the silks of france been exchanged for british cottons. but i must look at things as they are; and when i consider the extent of capital, and the immense population, consisting, i believe, of about fifty thousand persons, engaged in our silk manufacture, i can only say, that one of the few points in which i totally disagree with the proposer of the motion is the expediency, under existing circumstances, of holding out any idea that it would be possible to relinquish the silk manufacture, and to provide for those who live by it, by parliamentary enactment. whatever objections there may be to the continuance of the protecting system, i repeat, that it is impossible altogether to relinquish it. i may regret that the system was ever commenced; but as i cannot recall that act, i must submit to the inconvenience by which it is attended, rather than expose the country to evils of greater magnitude." let it be remembered, sir, that these are not the sentiments of a theorist, nor the fancies of speculation; but the operative opinions of the first minister of england, acknowledged to be one of the ablest and most practical statesmen of his country. gentlemen could have hardly been more unfortunate than in the selection of the silk manufacture in england as an example of the beneficial effects of that system which they would recommend. it is, in the language which i have quoted, completely artificial. it has been sustained by i know not how many laws, breaking in upon the plainest principles of general expediency. at the last session of parliament, the manufacturers petitioned for the repeal of three or four of these statutes, complaining of the vexatious restrictions which they impose on the wages of labor; setting forth, that a great variety of orders has from time to time been issued by magistrates under the authority of these laws, interfering in an oppressive manner with the minutest details of the manufacture,--such as limiting the number of threads to an inch, restricting the widths of many sorts of work, and determining the quantity of labor not to be exceeded without extra wages; that by the operation of these laws, the rate of wages, instead of being left to the recognized principles of regulation, has been arbitrarily fixed by persons whose ignorance renders them incompetent to a just decision; that masters are compelled by law to pay an equal price for all work, whether well or ill performed; and that they are wholly prevented from using improved machinery, it being ordered, that work, in the weaving of which machinery is employed, shall be paid precisely at the same rate as if done by hand; that these acts have frequently given rise to the most vexatious regulations, the unintentional breach of which has subjected manufacturers to ruinous penalties; and that the introduction of all machinery being prevented, by which labor might be cheapened, and the manufacturers being compelled to pay at a fixed price, under all circumstances, they are unable to afford employment to their workmen, in times of stagnation of trade, and are compelled to stop their looms. and finally, they complain that, notwithstanding these grievances under which they labor, while carrying on their manufacture in london, the law still prohibits them, while they continue to reside there, from employing any portion of their capital in the same business in any other part of the kingdom, where it might be more beneficially conducted. now, sir, absurd as these laws must appear to be to every man, the attempt to repeal them did not, as far as i recollect, altogether succeed. the weavers were too numerous, their interests too great, or their prejudices too strong; and this notable instance of protection and monopoly still exists, to be lamented in england with as much sincerity as it seems to be admired here. in order further to show the prevailing sentiment of the english government, i would refer to a report of a select committee of the house of commons, at the head of which was the vice-president of the board of trade (mr. wallace), in july, . "the time," say that committee, "when monopolies could be successfully supported, or would be patiently endured, either in respect to subjects against subjects, or particular countries against the rest of the world, seems to have passed away. commerce, to continue undisturbed and secure, must be, as it was intended to be, a source of reciprocal amity between nations, and an interchange of productions to promote the industry, the wealth, and the happiness of mankind." in moving for the re-appointment of the committee in february, , the same gentleman said: "we must also get rid of that feeling of appropriation which exhibited itself in a disposition to produce every thing necessary for our own consumption, and to render ourselves independent of the world. no notion could be more absurd or mischievous; it led, even in peace, to an animosity and rancor greater than existed in time of war. undoubtedly there would be great prejudices to combat, both in this country and elsewhere, in the attempt to remove the difficulties which are most obnoxious. it would be impossible to forget the attention which was in some respects due to the present system of protections, although that attention ought certainly not to be carried beyond the absolute necessity of the case." and in a second report of the committee, drawn by the same gentleman, in that part of it which proposes a diminution of duties on timber from the north of europe, and the policy of giving a legislative preference to the importation of such timber in the log, and a discouragement of the importation of deals, it is stated that the committee reject this policy, because, among other reasons, "it is founded on a principle of exclusion, which they are most averse to see brought into operation, in any _new instance_, without the warrant of some evident and great political expediency." and on many subsequent occasions the same gentleman has taken occasion to observe, that he differed from those who thought that manufactures could not nourish without restrictions on trade; that old prejudices of that sort were dying away, and that more liberal and just sentiments were taking their place. these sentiments appear to have been followed by important legal provisions, calculated to remove restrictions and prohibitions where they were most severely felt; that is to say, in several branches of navigation and trade. they have relaxed their colonial system, they have opened the ports of their islands, and have done away the restriction which limited the trade of the colony to the mother country. colonial products can now be carried directly from the islands to any part of europe; and it may not be improbable, considering our own high duties on spirits, that that article may be exchanged hereafter by the english west india colonies directly for the timber and deals of the baltic. it may be added, that mr. lowe, whom the gentleman has cited, says, that nobody supposes that the three great staples of english manufactures, cotton, woollen, and hardware, are benefited by any existing protecting duties; and that one object of all these protecting laws is usually overlooked, and that is, that they have been intended to reconcile the various interests to taxation; the corn law, for example, being designed as some equivalent to the agricultural interest for the burden of tithes and of poor-rates. in fine, sir, i think it is clear, that, if we now embrace the system of prohibitions and restrictions, we shall show an affection for what others have discarded, and be attempting to ornament ourselves with cast-off apparel. sir, i should not have gone into this prolix detail of opinions from any consideration of their special importance on the present occasion; but having happened to state that such was the actual opinion of the government of england at the present time, and the accuracy of this representation having been so confidently denied, i have chosen to put the matter beyond doubt or cavil, although at the expense of these tedious citations. i shall have occasion hereafter to refer more particularly to sundry recent british enactments, by way of showing the diligence and spirit with which that government strives to sustain its navigating interest, by opening the widest possible range to the enterprise of individual adventurers. i repeat, that i have not alluded to these examples of a foreign state as being fit to control our own policy. in the general principle, i acquiesce. protection, when carried to the point which is now recommended, that is, to entire prohibition, seems to me destructive of all commercial intercourse between nations. we are urged to adopt the system upon general principles; and what would be the consequence of the universal application of such a general principle, but that nations would abstain entirely from all intercourse with one another? i do not admit the general principle; on the contrary, i think freedom of trade to be the general principle, and restriction the exception. and it is for every state, taking into view its own condition, to judge of the propriety, in any case, of making an exception, constantly preferring, as i think all wise governments will, not to depart without urgent reason from the general rule. there is another point in the existing policy of england to which i would most earnestly invite the attention of the committee; i mean the warehouse system, or what we usually call the system of drawback. very great prejudices appear to me to exist with us on that subject. we seem averse to the extension of the principle. the english government, on the contrary, appear to have carried it to the extreme of liberality. they have arrived, however, at their present opinions and present practice by slow degrees. the transit system was commenced about the year , but the first law was partial and limited. it admitted the importation of raw materials for exportation, but it excluded almost every sort of manufactured goods. this was done for the same reason that we propose to prevent the transit of canadian wheat through the united states, the fear of aiding the competition of the foreign article with our own in foreign markets. better reflection or more experience has induced them to abandon that mode of reasoning, and to consider all such means of influencing foreign markets as nugatory; since, in the present active and enlightened state of the world, nations will supply themselves from the best sources, and the true policy of all producers, whether of raw materials or of manufactured articles, is, not vainly to endeavor to keep other vendors out of the market, but to conquer them in it by the quality and the cheapness of their articles. the present policy of england, therefore, is to allure the importation of commodities into england, there to be deposited in english warehouses, thence to be exported in assorted cargoes, and thus enabling her to carry on a general export trade to all quarters of the globe. articles of all kinds, with the single exception of tea, may be brought into england, from any part of the world, in foreign as well as british ships, there warehoused, and again exported, at the pleasure of the owner, without the payment of any duty or government charge whatever. while i am upon this subject, i would take notice also of the recent proposition in the english parliament to abolish the tax on imported wool; and it is observable that those who support this proposition give the same reasons that have been offered here, within the last week, against the duty which we propose on the same article. they say that their manufacturers require a cheap and coarse wool, for the supply of the mediterranean and levant trade, and that, without a more free admission of the wool of the continent, that trade will all fall into the hands of the germans and italians, who will carry it on through leghorn and trieste. while there is this duty on foreign wool to protect the wool-growers of england, there is, on the other hand, a prohibition on the exportation of the native article in aid of the manufacturers. the opinion seems to be gaining strength, that the true policy is to abolish both. laws have long existed in england preventing the emigration of artisans and the exportation of machinery; but the policy of these, also, has become doubted, and an inquiry has been instituted in parliament into the expediency of repealing them. as to the emigration of artisans, say those who disapprove the laws, if that were desirable, no law could effect it; and as to the exportation of machinery, let us make it and export it as we would any other commodity. if france is determined to spin and weave her own cotton, let us, if we may, still have the benefit of furnishing the machinery. i have stated these things, sir, to show what seems to be the general tone of thinking and reasoning on these subjects in that country, the example of which has been so much pressed upon us. whether the present policy of england be right or wrong, wise or unwise, it cannot, as it seems clearly to me, be quoted as an authority for carrying further the restrictive and exclusive system, either in regard to manufactures or trade. to re-establish a sound currency, to meet at once the shock, tremendous as it was, of the fall of prices, to enlarge her capacity for foreign trade, to open wide the field of individual enterprise and competition, and to say plainly and distinctly that the country must relieve itself from the embarrassments which it felt, by economy, frugality, and renewed efforts of enterprise,--these appear to be the general outline of the policy which england has pursued. mr. chairman, i will now proceed to say a few words upon a topic, but for the introduction of which into this debate i should not have given the committee on this occasion the trouble of hearing me. some days ago, i believe it was when we were settling the controversy between the oil-merchants and the tallow-chandlers, the _balance of trade_ made its appearance in debate, and i must confess, sir, that i spoke of it, or rather spoke to it, somewhat freely and irreverently. i believe i used the hard names which have been imputed to me, and i did it simply for the purpose of laying the spectre, and driving it back to its tomb. certainly, sir, when i called the old notion on this subject nonsense, i did not suppose that i should offend any one, unless the dead should happen to hear me. all the living generation, i took it for granted, would think the term very properly applied. in this, however, i was mistaken. the dead and the living rise up together to call me to account, and i must defend myself as well as i am able. let us inquire, then, sir, what is meant by an unfavorable balance of trade, and what the argument is, drawn from that source. by an unfavorable balance of trade, i understand, is meant that state of things in which importation exceeds exportation. to apply it to our own case, if the value of goods imported exceed the value of those exported, then the balance of trade is said to be against us, inasmuch as we have run in debt to the amount of this difference. therefore it is said, that, if a nation continue long in a commerce like this, it must be rendered absolutely bankrupt. it is in the condition of a man that buys more than he sells; and how can such a traffic be maintained without ruin? now, sir, the whole fallacy of this argument consists in supposing, that, whenever the value of imports exceeds that of exports, a debt is necessarily created to the extent of the difference, whereas, ordinarily, the import is no more than the result of the export, augmented in value by the labor of transportation. the excess of imports over exports, in truth, usually shows the gains, not the losses, of trade; or, in a country that not only buys and sells goods, but employs ships in carrying goods also, it shows the profits of commerce, and the earnings of navigation. nothing is more certain than that, in the usual course of things, and taking a series of years together, the value of our imports is the aggregate of our exports and our freights. if the value of commodities imported in a given instance did not exceed the value of the outward cargo, with which they were purchased, then it would be clear to every man's common sense, that the voyage had not been profitable. if such commodities fell far short in value of the cost of the outward cargo, then the voyage would be a very losing one; and yet it would present exactly that state of things, which, according to the notion of a balance of trade, can alone indicate a prosperous commerce. on the other hand, if the return cargo were found to be worth much more than the outward cargo, while the merchant, having paid for the goods exported, and all the expenses of the voyage, finds a handsome sum yet in his hands, which he calls profits, the balance of trade is still against him, and, whatever he may think of it, he is in a very bad way. although one individual or all individuals gain, the nation loses; while all its citizens grow rich, the country grows poor. this is the doctrine of the balance of trade. allow me, sir, to give an instance tending to show how unaccountably individuals deceive themselves, and imagine themselves to be somewhat rapidly mending their condition, while they ought to be persuaded that, by that infallible standard, the balance of trade, they are on the high road to ruin. some years ago, in better times than the present, a ship left one of the towns of new england with , specie dollars. she proceeded to mocha, on the red sea, and there laid out these dollars in coffee, drugs, spices, and other articles procured in that market. with this new cargo she proceeded to europe; two thirds of it were sold in holland for $ , , which the ship brought back, and placed in the same bank from the vaults of which she had taken her original outfit. the other third was sent to the ports of the mediterranean, and produced a return of $ , in specie, and $ , in italian merchandise. these sums together make $ , imported, which is $ , more than was exported, and is therefore proof of an unfavorable balance of trade, to that amount, in this adventure. we should find no great difficulty, sir, in paying off our balances, if this were the nature of them all. the truth is, mr. chairman, that all these obsolete and exploded notions had their origin in very mistaken ideas of the true nature of commerce. commerce is not a gambling among nations for a stake, to be won by some and lost by others. it has not the tendency necessarily to impoverish one of the parties to it, while it enriches the other; all parties gain, all parties make profits, all parties grow rich, by the operations of just and liberal commerce. if the world had but one clime and but one soil; if all men had the same wants and the same means, on the spot of their existence, to gratify those wants,--then, indeed, what one obtained from the other by exchange would injure one party in the same degree that it benefited the other; then, indeed, there would be some foundation for the balance of trade. but providence has disposed our lot much more kindly. we inhabit a various earth. we have reciprocal wants, and reciprocal means for gratifying one another's wants. this is the true origin of commerce, which is nothing more than an exchange of equivalents, and, from the rude barter of its primitive state, to the refined and complex condition in which we see it, its principle is uniformly the same, its only object being, in every stage, to produce that exchange of commodities between individuals and between nations which shall conduce to the advantage and to the happiness of both. commerce between nations has the same essential character as commerce between individuals, or between parts of the same nation. cannot two individuals make an interchange of commodities which shall prove beneficial to both, or in which the balance of trade shall be in favor of both? if not, the tailor and the shoemaker, the farmer and the smith, have hitherto very much misunderstood their own interests. and with regard to the internal trade of a country, in which the same rule would apply as between nations, do we ever speak of such an intercourse as prejudicial to one side because it is useful to the other? do we ever hear that, because the intercourse between new york and albany is advantageous to one of those places, it must therefore be ruinous to the other? may i be allowed, sir, to read a passage on this subject from the observations of a gentleman, in my opinion one of the most clear and sensible writers and speakers of the age upon subjects of this sort?[ ] "there is no political question on which the prevalence of false principles is so general, as in what relates to the nature of commerce and to the pretended balance of trade; and there are few which have led to a greater number of practical mistakes, attended with consequences extensively prejudicial to the happiness of mankind. in this country, our parliamentary proceedings, our public documents, and the works of several able and popular writers, have combined to propagate the impression, that we are indebted for much of our riches to what is called the balance of trade." "our true policy would surely be to profess, as the object and guide of our commercial system, that which every man who has studied the subject must know to be the true principle of commerce, the interchange of reciprocal and equivalent benefit. we may rest assured that it is not in the nature of commerce to enrich one party at the expense of the other. this is a purpose at which, if it were practicable, we ought not to aim; and which, if we aimed at, we could not accomplish." these remarks, i believe, sir, were written some ten or twelve years ago. they are in perfect accordance with the opinions, advanced in more elaborate treatises, and now that the world has returned to a state of peace, and commerce has resumed its natural channels, and different nations are enjoying, or seeking to enjoy, their respective portions of it, all see the justness of these ideas,--all see, that, in this day of knowledge and of peace, there can be no commerce between nations but that which shall benefit all who are parties to it. if it were necessary, mr. chairman, i might ask the attention of the committee to refer to a document before us, on this subject of the balance of trade. it will be seen by reference to the accounts, that, in the course of the last year, our total export to holland exceeded two millions and a half; our total import from the same country was but seven hundred thousand dollars. now, can any man be wild enough to make any inference from this as to the gain or loss of our trade with holland for that year? our trade with russia for the same year produced a balance the other way, our import being two millions, and our export but half a million. but this has no more tendency to show the russian trade a losing trade, than the other statement has to show that the dutch trade has been a gainful one. neither of them, by itself, proves any thing. springing out of this notion of a balance of trade, there is another idea, which has been much dwelt upon in the course of this debate; that is, that we ought not to buy of nations who do not buy of us; for example, that the russian trade is a trade disadvantageous to the country, and ought to be discouraged, because, in the ports of russia, we buy more than we sell. now allow me to observe, in the first place, sir, that we have no account showing how much we do sell in the ports of russia. our official returns show us only what is the amount of our direct trade with her ports. but then we all know that the proceeds of another portion of our exports go to the same market, though indirectly. we send our own products, for example, to cuba, or to brazil; we there exchange them for the sugar and the coffee of those countries, and these articles we carry to st. petersburg, and there sell them. again; our exports to holland and hamburg are connected directly or indirectly with our imports from russia. what difference does it make, in sense or reason, whether a cargo of iron be bought at st. petersburg, by the exchange of a cargo of tobacco, or whether the tobacco has been sold on the way, in a better market, in a port of holland, the money remitted to england, and the iron paid for by a bill on london? there might indeed have been an augmented freight, there might have been some saving of commissions, if tobacco had been in brisk demand in the russian market. but still there is nothing to show that the whole voyage may not have been highly profitable. that depends upon the original cost of the article here, the amount of freight and insurance to holland, the price obtained there, the rate of exchange between holland and england, the expense, then, of proceeding to st. petersburg, the price of iron there, the rate of exchange between that place and england, the amount of freight and insurance at home, and, finally, the value of the iron when brought to our own market. these are the calculations which determine the fortune of the adventure; and nothing can be judged of it, one way or the other, by the relative state of our imports or exports with holland, england, or russia. i would not be understood to deny, that it may often be our interest to cultivate a trade with countries that require most of such commodities as we can furnish, and which are capable also of directly supplying our own wants. this is the original and the simplest form of all commerce, and is no doubt highly beneficial. some countries are so situated, that commerce, in this original form, or something near it, may be all that they can, without considerable inconvenience, carry on. our trade, for example, with madeira and the western islands has been useful to the country, as furnishing a demand for some portion of our agricultural products, which probably could not have been bought had we not received their products in return. countries situated still farther from the great marts and highways of the commercial world may afford still stronger instances of the necessity and utility of conducting commerce on the original principle of barter, without much assistance from the operations of credit and exchange. all i would be understood to say is, that it by no means follows that we can carry on nothing but a losing trade with a country from which we receive more of her products than she receives of ours. since i was supposed, the other day, in speaking upon this subject, to advance opinions which not only this country ought to reject, but which also other countries, and those the most distinguished for skill and success in commercial intercourse, do reject, i will ask leave to refer again to the discussion which i first mentioned in the english parliament, relative to the foreign trade of that country. "with regard," says the mover[ ] of the proposition, "to the argument employed against renewing our intercourse with the north of europe, namely, that those who supplied us with timber from that quarter would not receive british manufactures in return, it appeared to him futile and ungrounded. if they did not send direct for our manufactures at home, they would send for them to leipsic and other fairs of germany. were not the russian and polish merchants purchasers there to a great amount? but he would never admit the principle, that a trade was not profitable because we were obliged to carry it on with the precious metals, or that we ought to renounce it, because our manufactures were not received by the foreign nation in return for its produce. whatever we received must be paid for in the produce of our land and labor, directly or circuitously, and he was glad to have the noble earl's[ ] marked concurrence in this principle." referring ourselves again, sir, to the analogies of common life, no one would say that a farmer or a mechanic should buy _only_ where he can do so by the exchange of his own produce, or of his own manufacture. such exchange may be often convenient; and, on the other hand, the cash purchase may be often more convenient. it is the same in the intercourse of nations. indeed, mr. speaker has placed this argument on very clear grounds. it was said, in the early part of the debate, that, if we cease to import english cotton fabrics, england will no longer continue to purchase our cotton. to this mr. speaker replied, with great force and justice, that, as she must have cotton in large quantities, she will buy the article where she can find it best and cheapest; and that it would be quite ridiculous in her, manufacturing as she still would be, for her own vast consumption and the consumption of millions in other countries, to reject our uplands because we had learned to manufacture a part of them for ourselves. would it not be equally ridiculous in us, if the commodities of russia were both cheaper and better suited to our wants than could be found elsewhere, to abstain from commerce with her, because she will not receive in return other commodities which we have to sell, but which she has no occasion to buy? intimately connected, sir, with this topic, is another which has been brought into the debate; i mean the evil so much complained of, the exportation of specie. we hear gentlemen imputing the loss of market at home to a want of money, and this want of money to the exportation of the precious metals. we hear the india and china trade denounced, as a commerce conducted on our side, in a great measure, with gold and silver. these opinions, sir, are clearly void of all just foundation, and we cannot too soon get rid of them. there are no shallower reasoners than those political and commercial writers who would represent it to be the only true and gainful end of commerce, to accumulate the precious metals. these are articles of use, and articles of merchandise, with this additional circumstance belonging to them, that they are made, by the general consent of nations, the standard by which the value of all other merchandise is to be estimated. in regard to weights and measures, something drawn from external nature is made a common standard, for the purposes of general convenience: and this is precisely the office performed by the precious metals, in addition to those uses to which, as metals, they are capable of being applied. there may be of these too much or too little in a country at a particular time, as there may be of any other articles. when the market is overstocked with them, as it often is, their exportation becomes as proper and as useful as that of other commodities, under similar circumstances. we need no more repine, when the dollars which have been brought here from south america are despatched to other countries, than when coffee and sugar take the same direction. we often deceive ourselves, by attributing to a scarcity of money that which is the result of other causes. in the course of this debate, the honorable member from pennsylvania[ ] has represented the country as full of every thing but money. but this i take to be a mistake. the agricultural products, so abundant in pennsylvania, will not, he says, sell for money; but they will sell for money as quick as for any other article which happens to be in demand. they will sell for money, for example, as easily as for coffee or for tea, at the prices which properly belong to those articles. the mistake lies in imputing that to want of money which arises from want of demand. men do not buy wheat because they have money, but because they want wheat. to decide whether money be plenty or not, that is, whether there be a large portion of capital unemployed or not, when the currency of a country is metallic, we must look, not only to the prices of commodities, but also to the rate of interest. a low rate of interest, a facility of obtaining money on loans, a disposition to invest in permanent stocks, all of which are proofs that money is plenty, may nevertheless often denote a state not of the highest prosperity. they may, and often do, show a want of employment for capital; and the accumulation of specie shows the same thing. we have no occasion for the precious metals as money, except for the purposes of circulation, or rather of sustaining a safe paper circulation. and whenever there is a prospect of a profitable investment abroad, all the gold and silver, except what these purposes require, will be exported. for the same reason, if a demand exist abroad for sugar and coffee, whatever amount of those articles might exist in the country, beyond the wants of its own consumption, would be sent abroad to meet that demand. besides, sir, how should it ever occur to anybody, that we should continue to export gold and silver, if we did not continue to import them also? if a vessel take our own products to the havana, or elsewhere, exchange them for dollars, proceed to china, exchange them for silks and teas, bring these last to the ports of the mediterranean, sell them there for dollars, and return to the united states,--this would be a voyage resulting in the importation of the precious metals. but if she had returned from cuba, and the dollars obtained there had been shipped direct from the united states to china, the china goods sold in holland, and the proceeds brought home in the hemp and iron of russia, this would be a voyage in which they were exported. yet everybody sees that both might be equally beneficial to the individual and to the public. i believe, sir, that, in point of fact, we have enjoyed great benefit in our trade with india and china, from the liberty of going from place to place all over the world, without being obliged in the mean time to return home, a liberty not heretofore enjoyed by the private traders of england, in regard to india and china. suppose the american ship to be at brazil, for example; she could proceed with her dollars direct to india, and, in return, could distribute her cargo in all the various ports of europe or america; while an english ship, if a private trader, being at brazil, must first return to england, and then could only proceed in the direct line from england to india. this advantage our countrymen have not been backward to improve; and in the debate to which i have already so often referred, it was stated, not without some complaint of the inconvenience of exclusion, and the natural sluggishness of monopoly, that american ships were at that moment fitting out in the thames, to supply france, holland, and other countries on the continent, with tea; while the east india company would not do this of themselves, nor allow any of their fellow-countrymen to do it for them. there is yet another subject, mr. chairman, upon which i would wish to say something, if i might presume upon the continued patience of the committee. we hear sometimes in the house, and continually out of it, of the rate of exchange, as being one proof that we are on the downward road to ruin. mr. speaker himself has adverted to that topic, and i am afraid that his authority may give credit to opinions clearly unfounded, and which lead to very false and erroneous conclusions. sir, let us see what the facts are. exchange on england has recently risen one or one and a half per cent, partly owing, perhaps, to the introduction of this bill into congress. before this recent rise, and for the last six months, i understand its average may have been about seven and a half per cent advance. now, supposing this to be the _real_, and not merely, as it is, the nominal, par of exchange between us and england, what would it prove? nothing, except that funds were wanted by american citizens in england for commercial operations, to be carried on either in england or elsewhere. it would not necessarily show that we were indebted to england; for, if we had occasion to pay debts in russia or holland, funds in england would naturally enough be required for such a purpose. even if it did prove that a balance was due england at the moment, it would have no tendency to explain to us whether our commerce with england had been profitable or unprofitable. but it is not true, in point of fact, that the _real_ price of exchange is seven and a half per cent advance, nor, indeed, that there is at the present moment any advance at all. that is to say, it is not true that merchants will give such an advance, or any advance, for _money_ in england, beyond what they would give for the same amount, in the same currency, here. it will strike every one who reflects upon it, that, if there were a real difference of seven and a half per cent, money would be immediately shipped to england; because the expense of transportation would be far less than that difference. or commodities of trade would be shipped to europe, and the proceeds remitted to england. if it could so happen, that american merchants should be willing to pay ten per cent premium for money in england, or, in other words, that a real difference to that amount in the exchange should exist, its effects would be immediately seen in new shipments of our own commodities to europe, because this state of things would create new motives. a cargo of tobacco, for example, might sell at amsterdam for the same price as before; but if its proceeds, when remitted to london, were advanced, as they would be in such case, ten per cent by the state of exchange, this would be so much added to the price, and would operate therefore as a motive for the exportation; and in this way national balances are, and always will be, adjusted. to form any accurate idea of the true state of exchange between two countries, we must look at their currencies, and compare the quantities of gold and silver which they may respectively represent. this usually explains the state of the exchanges; and this will satisfactorily account for the apparent advance now existing on bills drawn on england. the english standard of value is gold; with us that office is performed by gold, and by silver also, at a fixed relation to each other. but our estimate of silver is rather higher, in proportion to gold, than most nations give it; it is higher, especially, than in england, at the present moment. the consequence is, that silver, which remains a legal currency with us, stays here, while the gold has gone abroad; verifying the universal truth, that, if _two_ currencies be allowed to exist, of different values, that which is cheapest will fill up the whole circulation. for as much gold as will suffice to pay here a debt of a given amount, we can buy in england more silver than would be necessary to pay the same debt here; and from this difference in the value of silver arises wholly or in a great measure the present apparent difference in exchange. spanish dollars sell now in england for four shillings and nine pence sterling per ounce, equal to one dollar and six cents. by our standard the same ounce is worth one dollar and sixteen cents, being a difference of about nine per cent. the true par of exchange, therefore, is nine per cent. if a merchant here pay one hundred spanish dollars for a bill on england, at nominal par, in sterling money, that is for a bill of £ s., the proceeds of this bill, when paid in england in the legal currency, will there purchase, at the present price of silver, one hundred and nine spanish dollars. therefore, if the nominal advance on english bills do not exceed nine per cent, the real exchange is not against this country; in other words, it does not show that there is any pressing or particular occasion for the remittance of funds to england. as little can be inferred from the occasional transfer of united states stock to england. considering the interest paid on our stocks, the entire stability of our credit, and the accumulation of capital in england, it is not at all wonderful that investments should occasionally be made in our funds. as a sort of countervailing fact, it may be stated that english stocks are now actually held in this country, though probably not to any considerable amount. i will now proceed, sir, to state some objections of a more general nature to the course of mr. speaker's observations. he seems to me to argue the question as if all domestic industry were confined to the production of manufactured articles; as if the employment of our own capital and our own labor, in the occupations of commerce and navigation, were not as emphatically domestic industry as any other occupation. some other gentlemen, in the course of the debate, have spoken of the price paid for every foreign manufactured article as so much given for the encouragement of foreign labor, to the prejudice of our own. but is not every such article the product of our own labor as truly as if we had manufactured it ourselves? our labor has earned it, and paid the price for it. it is so much added to the stock of national wealth. if the commodity were dollars, nobody would doubt the truth of this remark; and it is precisely as correct in its application to any other commodity as to silver. one man makes a yard of cloth at home; another raises agricultural products and buys a yard of imported cloth. both these are equally the earnings of domestic industry, and the only questions that arise in the case are two: the first is, which is the best mode, under all the circumstances, of obtaining the article; the second is, how far this first question is proper to be decided by government, and how far it is proper to be left to individual discretion. there is no foundation for the distinction which attributes to certain employments the peculiar appellation of american industry; and it is, in my judgment, extremely unwise to attempt such discriminations. we are asked, what nations have ever attained eminent prosperity without encouraging manufactures? i may ask, what nation ever reached the like prosperity without promoting foreign trade? i regard these interests as closely connected, and am of opinion that it should be our aim to cause them to flourish together. i know it would be very easy to promote manufactures, at least for a time, but probably for a short time only, if we might act in disregard of other interests. we could cause a sudden transfer of capital, and a violent change in the pursuits of men. we could exceedingly benefit some classes by these means. but what, then, becomes of the interests of others? the power of collecting revenue by duties on imports, and the habit of the government of collecting almost its whole revenue in that mode, will enable us, without exceeding the bounds of moderation, to give great advantages to those classes of manufactures which we may think most useful to promote at home. what i object to is the immoderate use of the power,--exclusions and prohibitions; all of which, as i think, not only interrupt the pursuits of individuals, with great injury to themselves and little or no benefit to the country, but also often divert our own labor, or, as it may very properly be called, our own domestic industry, from those occupations in which it is well employed and well paid, to others in which it will be worse employed and worse paid. for my part, i see very little relief to those who are likely to be deprived of their employments, or who find the prices of the commodities which they need raised, in any of the alternatives which mr. speaker has presented. it is nothing to say that they may, if they choose, continue to buy the foreign article; the answer is, the price is augmented: nor that they may use the domestic article; the price of that also is increased. nor can they supply themselves by the substitution of their own fabric. how can the agriculturist make his own iron? how can the ship-owner grow his own hemp? but i have a yet stronger objection to the course of mr. speaker's reasoning; which is, that he leaves out of the case all that has been already done for the protection of manufactures, and argues the question as if those interests were now for the first time to receive aid from duties on imports. i can hardly express the surprise i feel that mr. speaker should fall into the common mode of expression used elsewhere, and ask if we will give our manufacturers no protection. sir, look to the history of our laws; look to the present state of our laws. consider that our whole revenue, with a trifling exception, is collected at the custom-house, and always has been; and then say what propriety there is in calling on the government for protection, as if no protection had heretofore been afforded. the real question before us, in regard to all the important clauses of the bill, is not whether we will _lay_ duties, but whether we will _augment_ duties. the demand is for something more than exists, and yet it is pressed as if nothing existed. it is wholly forgotten that iron and hemp, for example, already pay a very heavy and burdensome duty; and, in short, from the general tenor of mr. speaker's observations, one would infer that, hitherto, we had rather taxed our own manufactures than fostered them by taxes on those of other countries. we hear of the fatal policy of the tariff of ; and yet the law of was passed avowedly for the benefit of manufacturers, and, with very few exceptions, imposed on imported articles very great additions of tax; in some important instances, indeed, amounting to a prohibition. sir, on this subject, it becomes us at least to understand the real posture of the question. let us not suppose that we are _beginning_ the protection of manufactures, by duties on imports. what we are asked to do is, to render those duties much higher, and therefore, instead of dealing in general commendations of the benefits of protection, the friends of the bill, i think, are bound to make out a fair case for each of the manufactures which they propose to benefit. the government has already done much for their protection, and it ought to be presumed to have done enough, unless it be shown, by the facts and considerations applicable to each, that there is a necessity for doing more. on the general question, sir, allow me to ask if the doctrine of prohibition, as a general doctrine, be not preposterous. suppose all nations to act upon it; they would be prosperous, then, according to the argument, precisely in the proportion in which they abolished intercourse with one another. the less of mutual commerce the better, upon this hypothesis. protection and encouragement may be, and doubtless are, sometimes, wise and beneficial, if kept within proper limits; but when carried to an extravagant height, or the point of prohibition, the absurd character of the system manifests itself. mr. speaker has referred to the late emperor napoleon, as having attempted to naturalize the manufacture of cotton in france. he did not cite a more extravagant part of the projects of that ruler, that is, his attempt to naturalize the growth of that plant itself, in france; whereas, we have understood that considerable districts in the south of france, and in italy, of rich and productive lands, were at one time withdrawn from profitable uses, and devoted to raising, at great expense, a little bad cotton. nor have we been referred to the attempts, under the same system, to make sugar and coffee from common culinary vegetables; attempts which served to fill the print-shops of europe, and to show us how easy is the transition from what some think sublime to that which all admit to be ridiculous. the folly of some of these projects has not been surpassed, nor hardly equalled, unless it be by the philosopher in one of the satires of swift, who so long labored to extract sunbeams from cucumbers. the poverty and unhappiness of spain have been attributed to the want of protection to her own industry. if by this it be meant that the poverty of spain is owing to bad government and bad laws, the remark is, in a great measure, just. but these very laws are bad because they are restrictive, partial, and prohibitory. if prohibition were protection, spain would seem to have had enough of it. nothing can exceed the barbarous rigidity of her colonial system, or the folly of her early commercial regulations. unenlightened and bigoted legislation, the multitude of holidays, miserable roads, monopolies on the part of government, restrictive laws, that ought long since to have been abrogated, are generally, and i believe truly, reckoned the principal causes of the bad state of the productive industry of spain. any partial improvement in her condition, or increase of her prosperity, has been, in all cases, the result of relaxation, and the abolition of what was intended for favor and protection. in short, sir, the general sense of this age sets, with a strong current, in favor of freedom of commercial intercourse, and unrestrained individual action. men yield up their notions of monopoly and restriction, as they yield up other prejudices, slowly and reluctantly; but they cannot withstand the general tide of opinion. let me now ask, sir, what relief this bill proposes to some of those great and essential interests of the country, the condition of which has been referred to as proof of national distress; and which condition, although i do not think it makes out a case of _distress_, yet does indicate depression. and first, sir, as to our foreign trade. mr. speaker has stated that there has been a considerable falling off in the tonnage employed in that trade. this is true, lamentably true. in my opinion, it is one of those occurrences which ought to arrest our immediate, our deep, our most earnest attention. what does this bill propose for its relief? it proposes nothing but new burdens. it proposes to diminish its employment, and it proposes, at the same time, to augment its expense, by subjecting it to heavier taxation. sir, there is no interest, in regard to which a stronger case for protection can be made out, than the navigating interest. whether we look at its present condition, which is admitted to be depressed, the number of persons connected with it, and dependent upon it for their daily bread, or its importance to the country in a political point of view, it has claims upon our attention which cannot be surpassed. but what do we propose to do for it? i repeat, sir, simply to burden and to tax it. by a statement which i have already submitted to the committee, it appears that the shipping interest pays, annually, more than half a million of dollars in duties on articles used in the construction of ships. we propose to add nearly, or quite, fifty per cent to this amount, at the very moment that we appeal to the languishing state of this interest as a proof of national distress. let it be remembered that our shipping employed in foreign commerce has, at this moment, not the shadow of government protection. it goes abroad upon the wide sea to make its own way, and earn its own bread, in a professed competition with the whole world. its resources are its own frugality, its own skill, its own enterprise. it hopes to succeed, if it shall succeed at all, not by extraordinary aid of government, but by patience, vigilance, and toil. this right arm of the nation's safety strengthens its own muscle by its own efforts, and by unwearied exertion in its own defence becomes strong for the defence of the country. no one acquainted with this interest can deny that its situation, at this moment, is extremely critical. we have left it hitherto to maintain itself or perish; to swim if it can, and to sink if it must. but at this moment of its apparent struggle, can we as men, can we as patriots, add another stone to the weight that threatens to carry it down? sir, there is a limit to human power, and to human effort. i know the commercial marine of this country can do almost every thing, and bear almost every thing. yet some things are impossible to be done, and some burdens may be impossible to be borne; and as it was the last ounce that broke the back of the camel, so the last tax, although it were even a small one, may be decisive as to the power of our marine to sustain the conflict in which it is now engaged with all the commercial nations on the globe. again, mr. chairman, the failures and the bankruptcies which have taken place in our large cities have been mentioned as proving the little success attending _commerce_, and its general decline. but this bill has no balm for those wounds. it is very remarkable, that when the losses and disasters of certain manufacturers, those of iron, for instance, are mentioned, it is done for the purpose of invoking aid for the distressed. not so with the losses and disasters of commerce; these last are narrated, and not unfrequently much exaggerated, to prove the ruinous nature of the employment, and to show that it ought to be abandoned, and the capital engaged in it turned to other objects. it has been often said, sir, that our manufacturers have to contend, not only against the natural advantages of those who produce similar articles in foreign countries, but also against the action of foreign governments, who have great political interest in aiding their own manufactures to suppress ours. but have not these governments as great an interest to cripple our marine, by preventing the growth of our commerce and navigation? what is it that makes us the object of the highest respect, or the most suspicious jealousy, to foreign states? what is it that most enables us to take high relative rank among the nations? i need not say that this results, more than from any thing else, from that quantity of military power which we can cause to be water-borne, and from that extent of commerce which we are able to maintain throughout the world. mr. chairman, i am conscious of having detained the committee much too long with these observations. my apology for now proceeding to some remarks upon the particular clauses of the bill is, that, representing a district at once commercial and highly manufacturing, and being called upon to vote upon a bill containing provisions so numerous and so various, i am naturally desirous to state as well what i approve, as what i would reject. the first section proposes an augmented duty upon woollen manufactures. this, if it were unqualified, would no doubt be desirable to those who are engaged in that business. i have myself presented a petition from the woollen manufacturers of massachusetts, praying an augmented _ad valorem_ duty upon imported woollen cloths; and i am prepared to accede to that proposition, to a reasonable extent. but then this bill proposes, also, a very high duty upon imported wool; and, as far as i can learn, a majority of the manufacturers are at least extremely doubtful whether, taking these two provisions together, the state of the law is not better for them now than it would be if this bill should pass. it is said, this tax on raw wool will benefit the agriculturist; but i know it to be the opinion of some of the best informed of that class, that it will do them more hurt than good. they fear it will check the manufacturer, and consequently check his demand for their article. the argument is, that a certain quantity of coarse wool, cheaper than we can possibly furnish, is necessary to enable the manufacturer to carry on the general business, and that if this cannot be had, the consequence will be, not a greater, but a less, manufacture of our own wool. i am aware that very intelligent persons differ upon this point; but if we may safely infer from that difference of opinion, that the proposed benefit is at least doubtful, it would be prudent perhaps to abstain from the experiment. certain it is, that the same reasoning has been employed, as i have before stated, on the same subject, when a renewed application was made to the english parliament to repeal the duty on imported wool, i believe scarcely two months ago; those who supported the application pressing urgently the necessity of an unrestricted use of the cheap, imported raw material, with a view to supply with coarse cloths the markets of warm climates, such as those of egypt and turkey, and especially a vast newly created demand in the south american states. as to the manufactures of cotton, it is agreed, i believe, that they are generally successful. it is understood that the present existing duty operates pretty much as a prohibition over those descriptions of fabrics to which it applies. the proposed alteration would probably enable the american manufacturer to commence competition with higher-priced fabrics; and so, perhaps, would an augmentation less than is here proposed. i consider the cotton manufactures not only to have reached, but to have passed, the point of competition. i regard their success as certain, and their growth as rapid as the most impatient could well expect. if, however, a provision of the nature of that recommended here were thought necessary, to commence new operations in the same line of manufacture, i should cheerfully agree to it, if it were not at the cost of sacrificing other great interests of the country. i need hardly say, that whatever promotes the cotton and woollen manufactures promotes most important interests of my constituents. they have a great stake in the success of those establishments, and, as far as those manufactures are concerned, would be as much benefited by the provisions of this bill as any part of the community. it is obvious, too, i should think, that, for some considerable time, manufactures of this sort, to whatever magnitude they may rise, will be principally established in those parts of the country where population is most dense, capital most abundant, and where the most successful beginnings have already been made. but if these be thought to be advantages, they are greatly counterbalanced by other advantages enjoyed by other portions of the country. i cannot but regard the situation of the west as highly favorable to human happiness. it offers, in the abundance of its new and fertile lands, such assurances of permanent property and respectability to the industrious, it enables them to lay such sure foundations for a competent provision for their families, it makes such a nation of freeholders, that it need not envy the happiest and most prosperous of the manufacturing communities. we may talk as we will of well-fed and well-clothed day-laborers or journeymen; they are not, after all, to be compared, either for happiness or respectability, with him who sleeps under his own roof and cultivates his own fee-simple inheritance. with respect to the proposed duty on glass, i would observe, that, upon the best means of judging which i possess, i am of opinion that the chairman of the committee is right in stating that there is in effect a bounty upon the exportation of the british article. i think it entirely proper, therefore, to raise our own duty by such an amount as shall be equivalent to that bounty. and here, mr. chairman, before proceeding to those parts of the bill to which i most strenuously object, i will be so presumptuous as to take up a challenge which mr. speaker has thrown down. he has asked us, in a tone of interrogatory indicative of the feeling of anticipated triumph, to mention any country in which manufactures have flourished without the aid of prohibitory laws. he has demanded if it be not policy, protection, ay, and prohibition, that have carried other states to the height of their prosperity, and whether any one has succeeded with such tame and inert legislation as ours. sir, i am ready to answer this inquiry. there is a country, not undistinguished among the nations, in which the progress of manufactures has been far more rapid than in any other, and yet unaided by prohibitions or unnatural restrictions. that country, the happiest which the sun shines on, is our own. the woollen manufactures of england have existed from the early ages of the monarchy. provisions designed to aid and foster them are in the black-letter statutes of the edwards and the henrys. ours, on the contrary, are but of yesterday; and yet, with no more than the protection of existing laws, they are already at the point of close and promising competition. sir, nothing is more unphilosophical than to refer us, on these subjects, to the policy adopted by other nations in a very different state of society, or to infer that what was judged expedient by them, in their early history, must also be expedient for us, in this early part of our own. this would be reckoning our age chronologically, and estimating our advance by our number of years; when, in truth, we should regard only the state of society, the knowledge, the skill, the capital, and the enterprise which belong to our times. we have been transferred from the stock of europe, in a comparatively enlightened age, and our civilization and improvement date as far back as her own. her original history is also our original history; and if, since the moment of separation, she has gone ahead of us in some respects, it may be said, without violating truth, that we have kept up in others, and, in others again, are ahead ourselves. we are to legislate, then, with regard to the present actual state of society; and our own experience shows us, that, commencing manufactures at the present highly enlightened and emulous moment, we need not resort to the clumsy helps with which, in less auspicious times, governments have sought to enable the ingenuity and industry of their people to hobble along. the english cotton manufactures began about the commencement of the last reign. ours can hardly be said to have commenced with any earnestness, until the application of the power-loom, in , not more than ten years ago. now, sir, i hardly need again speak of its progress, its present extent, or its assurance of future enlargement. in some sorts of fabrics we are already exporters, and the products of our factories are, at this moment, in the south american markets. we see, then, what _can_ be done without prohibition or extraordinary protection, because we see what _has_ been done; and i venture to predict, that, in a few years, it will be thought wonderful that these branches of manufactures, at least, should have been thought to require additional aid from government. mr. chairman, the best apology for laws of prohibition and laws of monopoly will be found in that state of society, not only unenlightened but sluggish, in which they are most generally established. private industry, in those days, required strong provocatives, which governments were seeking to administer by these means. something was wanted to actuate and stimulate men, and the prospects of such profits as would, in our times, excite unbounded competition, would hardly move the sloth of former ages. in some instances, no doubt, these laws produced an effect, which, in that period, would not have taken place without them. but our age is of a wholly different character, and its legislation takes another turn. society is full of excitement; competition comes in place of monopoly; and intelligence and industry ask only for fair play and an open field. profits, indeed, in such a state of things, will be small, but they will be extensively diffused; prices will be low, and the great body of the people prosperous and happy. it is worthy of remark, that, from the operation of these causes, commercial wealth, while it is increased beyond calculation in its general aggregate, is, at the same time, broken and diminished in its subdivisions. commercial prosperity should be judged of, therefore, rather from the extent of trade, than from the magnitude of its apparent profits. it has been remarked, that spain, certainly one of the poorest nations, made very great profits on the amount of her trade; but with little other benefit than the enriching of a few individuals and companies. profits to the english merchants engaged in the levant and turkey trade were formerly very great, and there were richer merchants in england some centuries ago, considering the comparative value of money, than at the present highly commercial period. when the diminution of profits arises from the extent of competition, it indicates rather a salutary than an injurious change.[ ] the true course then, sir, for us to pursue, is, in my opinion, to consider what our situation is; what our means are; and how they can be best applied. what amount of population have we in comparison with our extent of soil, what amount of capital, and labor at what price? as to skill, knowledge, and enterprise, we may safely take it for granted that in these particulars we are on an equality with others. keeping these considerations in view, allow me to examine two or three of those provisions of the bill to which i feel the strongest objections. to begin with the article of iron. our whole annual consumption of this article is supposed by the chairman of the committee to be forty-eight or fifty thousand tons. let us suppose the latter. the amount of our own manufacture he estimates, i think, at seventeen thousand tons. the present duty on the imported article is $ per ton, and as this duty causes, of course, an equivalent augmentation of the price of the home manufacture, the whole increase of price is equal to $ , annually. this sum we pay on a raw material, and on an absolute necessary of life. the bill proposes to raise the duty from $ to $ . per ton, which would be equal to $ , , on the whole annual consumption. so that, suppose the point of prohibition which is aimed at by some gentlemen to be attained, the consumers of the article would pay this last-mentioned sum every year to the producers of it, over and above the price at which they could supply themselves with the same article from other sources. there would be no mitigation of this burden, except from the prospect, whatever that might be, that iron would fall in value, by domestic competition, after the importation should be prohibited. it will be easy, i think, to show that it cannot fall; and supposing for the present that it shall not, the result will be, that we shall pay annually the sum of $ , , , constantly augmented, too, by increased consumption of the article, _to support a business that cannot support itself_. it is of no consequence to the argument, that this sum is expended at home; so it would be if we taxed the people to support any other useless and expensive establishment, to build another capitol, for example, or incur an unnecessary expense of any sort. the question still is, are the money, time, and labor well laid out in these cases? the present price of iron at stockholm, i am assured by importers, is $ per ton on board, $ in the yard before loading, and probably not far from $ at the mines. freight, insurance, &c. may be fairly estimated at $ , to which add our present duty of $ more, and these two last sums, together with the cost on board at stockholm, give $ as the cost of swedes iron in our market. in fact, it is said to have been sold last year at $ . to $ per ton. we perceive, by this statement, that the cost of the iron is doubled in reaching us from the mine in which it is produced. in other words, our present duty, with the expense of transportation, gives an advantage to the american over the foreign manufacturer of one hundred per cent. why, then, cannot the iron be manufactured at home? our ore is said to be as good, and some of it better. it is under our feet, and the chairman of the committee tells us that it might be wrought by persons who otherwise will not be employed. why, then, is it not wrought? nothing could be more sure of constant sale. it is not an article of changeable fashion, but of absolute, permanent necessity, and such, therefore, as would always meet a steady demand. sir, i think it would be well for the chairman of the committee to revise his premises, for i am persuaded that there is an ingredient properly belonging to the calculation which he has misstated or omitted. swedes iron in england pays a duty, i think, of about $ per ton; yet it is imported in considerable quantities, notwithstanding the vast capital, the excellent coal, and, more important than all perhaps, the highly improved state of inland navigation in england; although i am aware that the english use of swedes iron may be thought to be owing in some degree to its superior quality. sir, the true explanation of this appears to me to lie in the different prices _of labor_; and here i apprehend is the grand mistake in the argument of the chairman of the committee. he says it would cost the nation, as a nation, nothing, to make our ore into iron. now, i think it would cost us precisely that which we can worst afford; that is, great _labor_. although bar-iron is very properly considered a raw material in respect to its various future uses, yet, as bar-iron, the principal ingredient in its cost is labor. of manual labor, no nation has more than a certain quantity, nor can it be increased at will. as to some operations, indeed, its place may be supplied by machinery; but there are other services which machinery cannot perform for it, and which it must perform for itself. a most important question for every nation, as well as for every individual, to propose to itself, is, how it can best apply that quantity of labor which it is able to perform. labor is the great producer of wealth; it moves all other causes. if it call machinery to its aid, it is still employed, not only in using the machinery, but in making it. now, with respect to the quantity of labor, as we all know, different nations are differently circumstanced. some need, more than any thing, work for hands, others require hands for work; and if we ourselves are not absolutely in the latter class, we are still most fortunately very near it. i cannot find that we have those idle hands, of which the chairman of the committee speaks. the price of labor is a conclusive and unanswerable refutation of that idea; it is known to be higher with us than in any other civilized state, and this is the greatest of all proofs of general happiness. labor in this country is independent and proud. it has not to ask the patronage of capital, but capital solicits the aid of labor. this is the general truth in regard to the condition of our whole population, although in the large cities there are doubtless many exceptions. the mere capacity to labor in common agricultural employments, gives to our young men the assurance of independence. we have been asked, sir, by the chairman of the committee, in a tone of some pathos, whether we will allow to the serfs of russia and sweden the benefit of making iron for us. let me inform the gentleman, sir, that those same serfs do not earn more than seven cents a day, and that they work in these mines for that compensation because they are serfs. and let me ask the gentleman further, whether we have any labor in this country that cannot be better employed than in a business which does not yield the laborer more than seven cents a day? this, it appears to me, is the true question for our consideration. there is no reason for saying that we will work iron because we have mountains that contain the ore. we might for the same reason dig among our rocks for the scattered grains of gold and silver which might be found there. the true inquiry is, can we produce the article in a useful state at the same cost, or nearly at the same cost, or at any reasonable approximation towards the same cost, at which we can import it? some general estimates of the price and profits of labor, in those countries from which we import our iron, might be formed by comparing the reputed products of different mines, and their prices, with the number of hands employed. the mines of danemora are said to yield about , tons, and to employ in the mines twelve hundred workmen. suppose this to be worth $ per ton; any one will find by computation, that the whole product would not pay, in this country, for one quarter part of the necessary labor. the whole export of sweden was estimated, a few years ago, at , ship pounds, or about , tons. comparing this product with the number of workmen usually supposed to be employed in the mines which produce iron for exportation, the result will not greatly differ from the foregoing. these estimates are general, and might not conduct us to a precise result; but we know, from intelligent travellers, and eye-witnesses, that the price of labor in the swedish mines does not exceed seven cents a day.[ ] the true reason, sir, why it is not our policy to compel our citizens to manufacture our own iron, is that they are far better employed. it is an unproductive business, and they are not poor enough to be obliged to follow it. if we had more of poverty, more of misery, and something of servitude, if we had an ignorant, idle, starving population, we might set up for iron makers against the world. the committee will take notice, mr. chairman, that, under our present duty, together with the expense of transportation, our manufacturers are able to supply their own immediate neighborhood; and this proves the magnitude of that substantial encouragement which these two causes concur to give. there is little or no foreign iron, i presume, used in the county of lancaster. this is owing to the heavy expense of land carriage; and as we recede farther from the coast, the manufacturers are still more completely secured, as to their own immediate market, against the competition of the imported article. but what they ask is to be allowed to supply the sea-coast, at such a price as shall be formed by adding to the cost at the mines the expense of land carriage to the sea; and this appears to me most unreasonable. the effect of it would be to compel the consumer to pay the cost of two land transportations; for, in the first place, the price of iron at the inland furnaces will always be found to be at, or not much below, the price of the imported article in the seaport, and the cost of transportation to the neighborhood of the furnace; and to enable the home product to hold a competition with the imported in the seaport, the cost of another transportation downward, from the furnace to the coast, must be added. until our means of inland commerce be improved, and the charges of transportation by that means lessened, it appears to me wholly impracticable, with such duties as any one would think of proposing, to meet the wishes of the manufacturers of this article. suppose we were to add the duty proposed by this bill, although it would benefit the capital invested in works near the sea and the navigable rivers, yet the benefit would not extend far in the interior. where, then, are we to stop, or what limit is proposed to us? the freight of iron has been afforded from sweden to the united states as low as eight dollars per ton. this is not more than the price of fifty miles of land carriage. stockholm, therefore, for the purpose of this argument, may be considered as within fifty miles of philadelphia. now, it is at once a just and a strong view of this case, to consider, that there are, within fifty miles of our market, vast multitudes of persons who are willing to labor in the production of this article for us, at the rate of seven cents per day, while we have no labor which will not command, upon the average, at least five or six times that amount. the question is, then, shall we buy this article of these manufacturers, and suffer our own labor to earn its greater reward, or shall we employ our own labor in a similar manufacture, and make up to it, by a tax on consumers, the loss which it must necessarily sustain. i proceed, sir, to the article of hemp. of this we imported last year, in round numbers, , tons, paying a duty of $ a ton, or $ , on the whole amount; and this article, it is to be remembered, is consumed almost entirely in the uses of navigation. the whole burden may be said to fall on one interest. it is said we can produce this article if we will raise the duties. but why is it not produced now? or why, at least, have we not seen some specimens? for the present is a very high duty, when expenses of importation are added. hemp was purchased at st. petersburg, last year, at $ . per ton. charges attending shipment, &c., $ . . freight may be stated at $ per ton, and our existing duty $ more. these three last sums, being the charges of transportation, amount to a protection of near seventy-five per cent in favor of the home manufacturer, if there be any such. and we ought to consider, also, that the price of hemp at st. petersburg is increased by all the expense of transportation from the place of growth to that port; so that probably the whole cost of transportation, from the place of growth to our market, including our duty, is equal to the first cost of the article; or, in other words, is a protection in favor of our own product of one hundred per cent. and since it is stated that we have great quantities of fine land for the production of hemp, of which i have no doubt, the question recurs, why is it not produced? i speak of the water-rotted hemp, for it is admitted that that which is dew-rotted is not sufficiently good for the requisite purposes. i cannot say whether the cause be in climate, in the process of rotting, or what else, but the fact is certain, that there is no american water-rotted hemp in the market. we are acting, therefore, upon an hypothesis. is it not reasonable that those who say that they _can_ produce the article shall at least prove the truth of that allegation, before new taxes are laid on those who use the foreign commodity? suppose this bill passes; the price of hemp is immediately raised $ . per ton, and this burden falls immediately on the ship-builder; and no part of it, for the present, will go for the benefit of the american grower, because he has none of the article than can be used, nor is it expected that much of it will be produced for a considerable time. still the tax takes effect upon the imported article; and the ship-owners, to enable the kentucky farmer to receive an additional $ on his ton of hemp, whenever he may be able to raise and manufacture it, pay, in the mean time, an equal sum per ton into the treasury on all the imported hemp which they are still obliged to use; and this is called "protection"! is this just or fair? a particular interest is here burdened, not only for the benefit of another particular interest, but burdened also beyond that, for the benefit of the treasury. it is said to be important for the country that this article should be raised in it; then let the country bear the expense, and pay the bounty. if it be for the good of the whole, let the sacrifice be made by the whole, and not by a part. if it be thought useful and necessary, from political considerations, to encourage the growth and manufacture of hemp, government has abundant means of doing it. it might give a direct bounty, and such a measure would, at least, distribute the burden equally; or, as government itself is a great consumer of this article, it might stipulate to confine its own purchases to the home product, so soon as it should be shown to be of the proper quality. i see no objection to this proceeding, if it be thought to be an object to encourage the production. it might easily, and perhaps properly, be provided by law, that the navy should be supplied with american hemp, the quality being good, at any price not exceeding, by more than a given amount, the current price of foreign hemp in our market. every thing conspires to render some such course preferable to the one now proposed. the encouragement in that way would be ample, and, if the experiment should succeed, the whole object would be gained; and, if it should fail, no considerable loss or evil would be felt by any one. i stated, some days ago, and i wish to renew the statement, what was the amount of the proposed augmentation of the duties on iron and hemp, in the cost of a vessel. take the case of a common ship of three hundred tons, not coppered, nor copper-fastened. it would stand thus, by the present duties:-- - / tons of iron, for hull, rigging, and and anchors, at $ per ton, $ . tons of hemp, at $ , . bolts russia duck, at $ , . bolts ravens duck, at $ . , . on articles of ship-chandlery, cabin furniture, hard-ware, &c., . _______ $ . ------- the bill proposes to add,-- $ . per ton on iron, which will be $ . $ . per ton on hemp, equal to . and on duck, by the late amendment of the bill, say per cent, . _______ $ . _______ but to the duties on iron and hemp should be added those paid on copper, whenever that article is used. by the statement which i furnished the other day, it appeared that the duties received by government on articles used in the construction of a vessel of three hundred and fifty-nine tons, with copper fastenings, amounted to $ , . with the augmentations of this bill, they would be equal to $ , . now i cannot but flatter myself, mr. chairman, that, before the committee will consent to this new burden upon the shipping interest, it will very deliberately weigh the probable consequences. i would again urgently solicit its attention to the condition of that interest. we are told that government has protected it, by discriminating duties, and by an exclusive right to the coasting trade. but it would retain the coasting trade by its own natural efforts, in like manner, and with more certainty, than it now retains any portion of foreign trade. the discriminating duties are now abolished, and while they existed, they were nothing more than countervailing measures; not so much designed to give our navigation an advantage over that of other nations, as to put it upon an equality; and we have, accordingly, abolished ours, when they have been willing to abolish theirs. look to the rate of freights. were they ever lower, or even so low? i ask gentlemen who know, whether the harbor of charleston, and the river of savannah, be not crowded with ships seeking employment, and finding none? i would ask the gentlemen from new orleans, if their magnificent mississippi does not exhibit, for furlongs, a forest of masts? the condition, sir, of the shipping interest is not that of those who are insisting on high profits, or struggling for monopoly; but it is the condition of men content with the smallest earnings, and anxious for their bread. the freight of cotton has formerly been three pence sterling, from charleston to liverpool, in time of peace. it is now i know not what, or how many fractions of a penny; i think, however, it is stated at five eighths. the producers, then, of this great staple, are able, by means of this navigation, to send it, for a cent a pound, from their own doors to the best market in the world. mr. chairman, i will now only remind the committee that, while we are proposing to add new burdens to the shipping interest, a very different line of policy is followed by our great commercial and maritime rival. it seems to be announced as the sentiment of the government of england, and undoubtedly it is its real sentiment, that the first of all manufactures is the manufacture of ships. a constant and wakeful attention is paid to this interest, and very important regulations, favorable to it, have been adopted within the last year, some of which i will beg leave to refer to, with the hope of exciting the notice, not only of the committee, but of all others who may feel, as i do, a deep interest in this subject. in the first place, a general amendment has taken place in the register acts, introducing many new provisions, and, among others, the following:-- a direct mortgage of the interest of a ship is allowed, without subjecting the mortgagee to the responsibility of an owner. the proportion of interest held by each owner is exhibited in the register, thereby facilitating both sales and mortgages, and giving a new value to shipping among the moneyed classes. shares, in the ships of copartnerships, may be registered as joint property, and subject to the same rules as other partnership effects. ships may be registered in the name of trustees, for the benefit of joint-stock companies. and many other regulations are adopted, with the same general view of rendering the mode of holding the property as convenient and as favorable as possible. by another act, british registered vessels, of every description, are allowed to enter into the general and the coasting trade in the india seas, and may now trade to and from india, with any part of the world except china. by a third, all limitations and restrictions, as to latitude and longitude, are removed from ships engaged in the southern whale-fishery. these regulations, i presume, have not been made without first obtaining the consent of the east india company; so true is it found, that real encouragement of enterprise oftener consists, in our days, in restraining or buying off monopolies and prohibitions, than in imposing or extending them. the trade with ireland is turned into a free coasting trade; light duties have been reduced, and various other beneficial arrangements made, and still others proposed. i might add, that, in favor of general commerce, and as showing their confidence in the principles of liberal intercourse, the british government has perfected the warehouse system, and authorized a reciprocity of duties with foreign states, at the discretion of the privy council. this, sir, is the attention which our great rival is paying to these important subjects, and we may assure ourselves that, if we do not cherish a proper sense of our own interests, she will not only beat us, but will deserve to beat us. sir, i will detain you no longer. there are some parts of this bill which i highly approve; there are others in which i should acquiesce; but those to which i have now stated my objections appear to me so destitute of all justice, so burdensome and so dangerous to that interest which has steadily enriched, gallantly defended, and proudly distinguished us, that nothing can prevail upon me to give it my support.[ ] * * * * * note. this is commonly called mr. webster's "free trade" speech. it has been found difficult to select one among his many speeches in support of the policy of protection which would fully represent his views on the subject; but the reasons for his change of opinion, and for his advocacy of protection, are fully stated in many of the speeches printed in this volume, delivered after the year . perhaps as good a statement as can be selected from his many speeches on the tariff, in explanation of his change of position as to the need, policy, and duty of protection to american manufactures, may be found in his speech delivered in the senate of the united states, on the th and th of july, , on the bill "to reduce the duties on imports, and for other purposes." in this speech, he made the following frank avowal of the reasons which induced him to reconsider and reverse his original opinions on the subject:-- "but, sir, before i proceed further with this part of the case, i will take notice of what appears, latterly, to be an attempt, by the republication of opinions and expressions, arguments and speeches of mine, at an earlier and later period of life, to found against me a charge of inconsistency, on this subject of the protective policy of the country. mr. president, if it be an inconsistency to hold an opinion upon a subject at one time and in one state of circumstances, and to hold a different opinion upon the same subject at another time and in a different state of circumstances, i admit the charge. nay, sir, i will go further; and in regard to questions which, from their nature, do not depend upon circumstances for their true and just solution, i mean constitutional questions, if it be an inconsistency to hold an opinion to-day, even upon such a question, and on that same question to hold a different opinion a quarter of a century afterwards, upon a more comprehensive view of the whole subject, with a more thorough investigation into the original purposes and objects of that constitution, and especially after a more thorough exposition of those objects and purposes by those who framed it, and have been trusted to administer it, i should not shrink even from that imputation. i hope i know more of the constitution of my country than i did when i was twenty years old. i hope i have contemplated its great objects more broadly. i hope i have read with deeper interest the sentiments of the great men who framed it. i hope i have studied with more care the condition of the country when the convention assembled to form it. and yet i do not know that i have much to retract or to change on these points. "but, sir, i am of the opinion of a very eminent person, who had occasion, not long since, to speak of this topic in another place. inconsistencies of opinion, arising from changes of circumstances, are often justifiable. but there is one sort of inconsistency which is culpable. it is the inconsistency between a man's conviction and his vote; between his conscience and his conduct. no man shall ever charge me with an inconsistency like that. and now, sir, allow me to say, that i am quite indifferent, or rather thankful, to those conductors of the public press who think they cannot do better than now and then to spread my poor opinions before the public. "i have said many times, and it is true, that, up to the year , the people of that part of the country to which i belong, being addicted to commerce, having been successful in commerce, their capital being very much engaged in commerce, were averse to entering upon a system of manufacturing operations. every member in congress from the state of massachusetts, with the exception, i think, of one, voted against the act of . but what were we to do? were we not bound, after and , to consider that the policy of the country was settled, had become settled, as a policy, to protect the domestic industry of the country by solemn laws? the leading speech[ ] which ushered in the act of was called a speech for the 'american system.' the bill was carried principally by the middle states. pennsylvania and new york would have it so; and what were we to do? were we to stand aloof from the occupations which others were pursuing around us? were we to pick clean teeth on a constitutional doubt which a majority in the councils of the nation had overruled? no, sir; we had no option. all that was left us was to fall in with the settled policy of the country; because, if any thing can ever settle the policy of the country, or if any thing can ever settle the practical construction of the constitution of the country, it must be these repeated decisions of congress, and enactments of successive laws conformable to these decisions. new england, then, did fall in. she went into manufacturing operations, not from original choice, but from the necessity of the circumstances in which the legislation of the country had placed her. and, for one, i resolved then, and have acted upon the resolution ever since, that, having compelled the eastern states to go into these pursuits for a livelihood, the country was bound to fulfil the just expectations which it had inspired." [footnote : mr. clay.] [footnote : lord lansdowne.] [footnote : lord liverpool.] [footnote : mr. huskisson, president of the english board of trade.] [footnote : the marquess of lansdowne.] [footnote : lord liverpool.] [footnote : mr. tod.] [footnote : "the present equable diffusion of moderate wealth cannot be better illustrated, than by remarking that in this age many palaces and superb mansions have been pulled down, or converted to other purposes, while none have been erected on a like scale. the numberless baronial castles and mansions, in all parts of england, now in ruins, may all be adduced as examples of the decrease of inordinate wealth. on the other hand, the multiplication of commodious dwellings for the upper and middle classes of society, and the increased comforts of all ranks, exhibit a picture of individual happiness, unknown in any other age."--_sir g. blane's letter to lord spencer, in_ .] [footnote : the price of labor in russia may be pretty well collected from tooke's "view of the russian empire." "the workmen in the mines and the founderies are, indeed, all called master-people; but they distinguish themselves into masters, under-masters, apprentices, delvers, servants, carriers, washers, and separators. in proportion to their ability their wages are regulated, which proceed from fifteen to upwards of thirty roubles per annum. the provisions which they receive from the magazines are deducted from this pay." the value of the rouble at that time ( ) was about twenty-four pence sterling, or forty-five cents of our money. "by the edict of ," it is added, "a laborer with a horse shall receive, daily, in summer, twenty, and in winter, twelve copecks; a laborer without a horse, in summer, ten, in winter, eight copecks." a copeck is the hundredth part of a rouble, or about half a cent of our money. the price of labor may have risen, in some degree, since that period, but probably not much.] [footnote : since the delivery of this speech, an arrival has brought london papers containing the speech of the english chancellor of the exchequer (mr. robinson), on the d of february last, in submitting to parliament the annual financial statement. abundant confirmation will be found in that statement of the remarks made in the preceding speech, as to the prevailing sentiment, in the english government, on the general subject of prohibitory laws, and on the silk manufacture and the wool tax particularly.] [footnote : that of mr. clay.] the case of gibbons and ogden. an argument made in the case of gibbons and ogden in the supreme court of the united states, february term, . [this was an appeal from the court for the trial of impeachments and correction of errors of the state of new york. aaron ogden filed his bill in the court of chancery of that state, against thomas gibbons, setting forth the several acts of the legislature thereof, enacted for the purpose of securing to robert r. livingston and robert fulton the exclusive navigation of all the waters within the jurisdiction of that state, with boats moved by fire or steam, for a term of years which had not then expired; and authorizing the chancellor to award an injunction, restraining any person whatever from navigating those waters with boats of that description. the bill stated an assignment from livingston and fulton to one john r. livingston, and from him to the complainant, ogden, of the right to navigate the waters between elizabethtown, and other places in new jersey, and the city of new york; and that gibbons, the defendant below, was in possession of two steamboats, called the stoudinger and the bellona, which were actually employed in running between new york and elizabethtown, in violation of the exclusive privilege conferred on the complainant, and praying an injunction to restrain the said gibbons from using the said boats, or any other propelled by fire or steam, in navigating the waters within the territory of new york. the injunction having been awarded, the answer of gibbons was filed, in which he stated, that the boats employed by him were duly enrolled and licensed to be employed in carrying on the coasting trade, under the act of congress, passed the th of february, , ch. , entitled, "an act for enrolling and licensing ships and vessels to be employed in the coasting trade and fisheries, and for regulating the same." and the defendant insisted on his right, in virtue of such licenses, to navigate the waters between elizabethtown and the city of new york, the said acts of the legislature of the state of new york to the contrary notwithstanding. at the hearing, the chancellor perpetuated the injunction, being of the opinion that the said acts were not repugnant to the constitution and laws of the united states, and were valid. this decree was affirmed in the court for the trial of impeachments and correction of errors, which is the highest court of law and equity in the state of new york before which the cause could be carried, and it was thereupon carried up to the supreme court of the united states by appeal. the following argument was made by mr. webster, for the plaintiff in error.] it is admitted, that there is a very respectable weight of authority in favor of the decision which is sought to be reversed. the laws in question, i am aware, have been deliberately re-enacted by the legislature of new york; and they have also received the sanction, at different times, of all her judicial tribunals, than which there are few, if any, in the country, more justly entitled to respect and deference. the disposition of the court will be, undoubtedly, to support, if it can, laws so passed and so sanctioned. i admit, therefore, that it is justly expected of us that we should make out a clear case; and unless we do so, we cannot hope for a reversal. it should be remembered, however, that the whole of this branch of power, as exercised by this court, is a power of revision. the question must be decided by the state courts, and decided in a particular manner, before it can be brought here at all. such decisions alone give this court jurisdiction; and therefore, while they are to be respected as the judgments of learned judges, they are yet in the condition of all decisions from which the law allows an appeal. it will not be a waste of time to advert to the existing state of the facts connected with the subject of this litigation. the use of steamboats on the coasts and in the bays and rivers of the country, has become very general. the intercourse of its different parts essentially depends upon this mode of conveyance and transportation. rivers and bays, in many cases, form the divisions between states; and thence it is obvious, that, if the states should make regulations for the navigation of these waters, and such regulations should be repugnant and hostile, embarrassment would necessarily be caused to the general intercourse of the community. such events have actually occurred, and have created the existing state of things. by the law of new york, no one can navigate the bay of new york, the north river, the sound, the lakes, or any of the waters of that state, by steam-vessels, without a license from the grantees of new york, under penalty of forfeiture of the vessel. by the law of the neighboring state of connecticut, no one can enter her waters with a steam-vessel having such license. by the law of new jersey, if any citizen of that state shall be restrained, under the new york law, from using steamboats between the ancient shores of new jersey and new york, he shall be entitled to an action for damages, in new jersey, with treble costs against the party who thus restrains or impedes him under the law of new york! this act of new jersey is called an act of retortion against the illegal and oppressive legislation of new york; and seems to be defended on those grounds of public law which justify reprisals between independent states. it will hardly be contended, that all these acts are consistent with the laws and constitution of the united states. if there is no power in the general government to control this extreme belligerent legislation of the states, the powers of the government are essentially deficient in a most important and interesting particular. the present controversy respects the earliest of these state laws, those of new york. on these, this court is now to pronounce; and if they should be declared to be valid and operative, i hope somebody will point out where the state right stops, and on what grounds the acts of other states are to be held inoperative and void. it will be necessary to advert more particularly to the laws of new york, as they are stated in the record. the first was passed march th, . by this act, a sole and exclusive right was granted to john fitch, of making and using every kind of boat or vessel impelled by steam, in all creeks, rivers, bays, and waters within the territory and jurisdiction of new york for fourteen years. on the th of march, , an act was passed, on the suggestion that fitch was dead, or had withdrawn from the state without having made any attempt to use his privilege, repealing the grant to him, and conferring similar privileges on robert r. livingston, for the term of twenty years, on a suggestion, made by him, that he was possessor of a mode of applying the steam-engine to propel a boat, on new and advantageous principles. on the th of april, , another act was passed, by which it was declared, that the rights and privileges granted to robert r. livingston by the last act should be extended to him and robert fulton, for twenty years from the passing of the act. then there is the act of april , , purporting to extend the monopoly, in point of time, five years for every additional boat, the whole duration, however, not to exceed thirty years; and forbidding any and all persons to navigate the waters of the state with any steam boat or vessel, without the license of livingston and fulton, under penalty of forfeiture of the boat or vessel. and lastly comes the act of april , , for enforcing the provisions of the last-mentioned act, and declaring, that the forfeiture of the boat or vessel found navigating against the provisions of the previous acts shall be deemed to accrue on the day on which such boat or vessel should navigate the waters of the state; and that livingston and fulton might immediately have an action for such boat or vessel, in like manner as if they themselves had been dispossessed thereof by force; and that, on bringing any such suit, the defendant therein should be prohibited, by injunction, from removing the boat or vessel out of the state, or using it within the state. there are one or two other acts mentioned in the pleadings, which principally respect the time allowed for complying with the condition of the grant, and are not material to the discussion of the case. by these acts, then, an exclusive right is given to livingston and fulton to use steam navigation on all the waters of new york, for thirty years from . it is not necessary to recite the several conveyances and agreements, stated in the record, by which ogden, the plaintiff below, derives title under livingston and fulton to the exclusive use of part of these waters for steam navigation. the appellant being owner of a steamboat, and being found navigating the waters between new jersey and the city of new york, over which waters ogden, the plaintiff below, claims an exclusive right, under livingston and fulton, this bill was filed against him by ogden, in october, , and an injunction granted, restraining him from such use of his boat. this injunction was made perpetual, on the final hearing of the cause, in the court of chancery; and the decree of the chancellor has been duly affirmed in the court of errors. the right, therefore, which the plaintiff below asserts, to have and maintain his injunction, depends obviously on the general validity of the new york laws, and especially on their force and operation as against the right set up by the defendant. this right he states in his answer to be, that he is a citizen of new jersey, and owner of the steamboat in question; that the boat is a vessel of more than twenty tons burden, duly enrolled and licensed for carrying on the coasting trade, and intended to be employed by him in that trade, between elizabethtown, in new jersey, and the city of new york; and that it was actually employed in navigating between those places at the time of, and until notice of, the injunction from the court of chancery was served on him. on these pleadings the substantial question is raised, are these laws such as the legislature of new york has a right to pass? if so, do they, secondly, in their operation, interfere with any right enjoyed under the constitution and laws of the united states, and are they therefore void, as far as such interference extends? it may be well to state again their general purport and effect, and the purport and effect of the other state laws which have been enacted by way of retaliation. a steam-vessel, of any description, going to new york, is forfeited to the representatives of livingston and fulton, unless she have their license. going from new york or elsewhere to connecticut, she is prohibited from entering the waters of that state if she have such license. if the representatives of livingston and fulton in new york carry into effect, by judicial process, the provision of the new york laws, against any citizen of new jersey, they expose themselves to a statute action in new jersey for all damages, and treble costs. the new york laws extend to all steam-vessels; to steam frigates, steam ferry-boats, and all intermediate classes. they extend to public as well as private ships; and to vessels employed in foreign commerce, as well as to those employed in the coasting trade. the remedy is as summary as the grant itself is ample; for immediate confiscation, without seizure, trial, or judgment, is the penalty of infringement. in regard to these acts, i shall contend, in the first place, that they exceed the power of the legislature; and, secondly, that, if they could be considered valid for any purpose, they are void still, as against any right enjoyed under the laws of the united states with which they come in collision; and that in this case they are found interfering with such rights. i shall contend that the power of congress to regulate commerce is complete and entire, and, to a certain extent, necessarily exclusive; that the acts in question are regulations of commerce, in a most important particular, affecting it in those respects in which it is under the exclusive authority of congress. i state this first proposition guardedly. i do not mean to say, that all regulations which may, in their operation, affect commerce, are exclusively in the power of congress; but that such power as has been exercised in this case does not remain with the states. nothing is more complex than commerce; and in such an age as this, no words embrace a wider field than _commercial regulation_. almost all the business and intercourse of life may be connected incidentally, more or less, with commercial regulations. but it is only necessary to apply to this part of the constitution the well-settled rules of construction. some powers are held to be exclusive in congress, from the use of exclusive words in the grant; others, from the prohibitions on the states to exercise similar powers; and others, again, from the nature of the powers themselves. it has been by this mode of reasoning that the court has adjudicated many important questions; and the same mode is proper here. and, as some powers have been held to be exclusive, and others not so, under the same form of expression, from the nature of the different powers respectively; so where the power, on any one subject, is given in general words, like the power to regulate commerce, the true method of construction will be to consider of what parts the grant is composed, and which of those, from the nature of the thing, ought to be considered exclusive. the right set up in this case, under the laws of new york, is a monopoly. now i think it very reasonable to say, that the constitution never intended to leave with the states the power of granting monopolies either of trade or of navigation; and therefore, that, as to this, the commercial power is exclusive in congress. it is in vain to look for a precise and exact _definition_ of the powers of congress on several subjects. the constitution does not undertake the task of making such exact definitions. in conferring powers, it proceeds by the way of _enumeration_, stating the powers conferred, one after another, in few words and where the power is general or complex in its nature, the extent of the grant must necessarily be judged of, and limited, by its object, and by the nature of the power. few things are better known than the immediate causes which led to the adoption of the present constitution; and there is nothing, as i think, clearer, than that the prevailing motive was _to regulate commerce_; to rescue it from the embarrassing and destructive consequences resulting from the legislation of so many different states, and to place it under the protection of a uniform law. the great objects were commerce and revenue; and they were objects indissolubly connected. by the confederation, divers restrictions had been imposed on the states; but these had not been found sufficient. no state, it is true, could send or receive an embassy; nor make any treaty; nor enter into any compact with another state, or with a foreign power; nor lay duties interfering with treaties which had been entered into by congress. but all these were found to be far short of what the actual condition of the country required. the states could still, each for itself, regulate commerce, and the consequence was a perpetual jarring and hostility of commercial regulation. in the history of the times, it is accordingly found, that the great topic, urged on all occasions, as showing the necessity of a new and different government, was the state of trade and commerce. to benefit and improve these was a great object in itself; and it became greater when it was regarded as the only means of enabling the country to pay the public debt, and to do justice to those who had most effectually labored for its independence. the leading state papers of the time are full of this topic. the new jersey resolutions[ ] complain that the regulation of trade was in the power of the several states, within their separate jurisdiction, to such a degree as to involve many difficulties and embarrassments; and they express an earnest opinion, that the sole and exclusive power of regulating trade with foreign states ought to be in congress. mr. witherspoon's motion in congress, in , is of the same general character; and the report of a committee of that body, in , is still more emphatic. it declares that congress ought to possess the sole and exclusive power of regulating trade, as well with foreign nations as between the states.[ ] the resolutions of virginia, in january, , which were the immediate cause of the convention, put forth this same great object. indeed, it is the only object stated in those resolutions. there is not another idea in the whole document. the sole purpose for which the delegates assembled at annapolis was to devise means for the uniform regulation of trade. they found no means but in a general government; and they recommended a convention to accomplish that purpose. over whatever other interests of the country this government may diffuse its benefits and its blessings, it will always be true, as matter of historical fact, that it had its immediate origin in the necessities of commerce; and for its immediate object, the relief of those necessities, by removing their causes, and by establishing a uniform and steady system. it will be easy to show, by reference to the discussions in the several state conventions, the prevalence of the same general topics; and if any one would look to the proceedings of several of the states, especially to those of massachusetts and new york, he would see very plainly, by the recorded lists of votes, that wherever this commercial necessity was most strongly felt, there the proposed new constitution had most friends. in the new york convention, the argument arising from this consideration was strongly pressed, by the distinguished person[ ] whose name is connected with the present question. we do not find, in the history of the formation and adoption of the constitution, that any man speaks of a general concurrent power, in the regulation of foreign and domestic trade, as still residing in the states. the very object intended, more than any other, was to take away such power. if it had not so provided, the constitution would not have been worth accepting. i contend, therefore, that the people intended, in establishing the constitution, to transfer from the several states to a general government those high and important powers over commerce, which, in their exercise, were to maintain a uniform and general system. from the very nature of the case, these powers must be exclusive; that is, the higher branches of commercial regulation must be exclusively committed to a single hand. what is it that is to be regulated? not the commerce of the several states, respectively, but the commerce of the united states. henceforth, the commerce of the states was to be a _unit_, and the system by which it was to exist and be governed must necessarily be complete, entire, and uniform. its character was to be described in the flag which waved over it, e pluribus unum. now, how could individual states assert a right of concurrent legislation, in a case of this sort, without manifest encroachment and confusion? it should be repeated, that the words used in the constitution, "to regulate commerce," are so very general and extensive, that they may be construed to cover a vast field of legislation, part of which has always been occupied by state laws; and therefore the words must have a reasonable construction, and the power should be considered as exclusively vested in congress so far, and so far only, as the nature of the power requires. and i insist, that the nature of the case, and of the power, did imperiously require, that such important authority as that of granting monopolies of trade and navigation should not be considered as still retained by the states. it is apparent from the prohibitions on the power of the states, that the general concurrent power was not supposed to be left with them. and the exception out of these prohibitions of the inspection laws proves this still more clearly. which most concerns the commerce of this country, that new york and virginia should have an uncontrolled power to establish their inspection of flour and tobacco, or that they should have an uncontrolled power of granting either a monopoly of trade in their own ports, or a monopoly of navigation over all the waters leading to those ports? yet the argument on the other side must be, that, although the constitution has sedulously guarded and limited the first of these powers, it has left the last wholly unlimited and uncontrolled. but although much has been said, in the discussion on former occasions, about this supposed concurrent power in the states, i find great difficulty in understanding what is meant by it. it is generally qualified by saying, that it is a power by which the states could pass laws on subjects of commercial regulation, which would be valid until congress should pass other laws controlling them, or inconsistent with them, and that then the state laws must yield. what sort of concurrent powers are these, which cannot exist together? indeed, the very reading of the clause in the constitution must put to flight this notion of a general concurrent power. the constitution was formed for all the states; and congress was to have power to regulate commerce. now, what is the import of this, but that congress is to give the rule, to establish the system, to exercise the control over the subject? and can more than one power, in cases of this sort, give the rule, establish the system, or exercise the control? as it is not contended that the power of congress is to be exercised by a supervision of state legislation, and as it is clear that congress is to give the general rule, i contend that this power of giving the general rule is transferred, by the constitution, from the states to congress, to be exercised as that body may see fit; and consequently, that all those high exercises of power, which might be considered as giving the rule, or establishing the system, in regard to great commercial interests, are necessarily left with congress alone. of this character i consider monopolies of trade or navigation; embargoes; the system of navigation laws; the countervailing laws, as against foreign states; and other important enactments respecting our connection with such states. it appears to me a most reasonable construction to say, that in these respects the power of congress is exclusive, from the nature of the power. if it be not so, where is the limit, or who shall fix a boundary for the exercise of the power of the states? can a state grant a monopoly of trade? can new york shut her ports to all but her own citizens? can she refuse admission to ships of particular nations? the argument on the other side is, and must be, that she might do all these things, until congress should revoke her enactments. and this is called _concurrent_ legislation! what confusion such notions lead to is obvious enough. a power in the states to do any thing, and every thing, in regard to commerce, till congress shall undo it, would suppose a state of things at least as bad as that which existed before the present constitution. it is the true wisdom of these governments to keep their action as distinct as possible. the general government should not seek to operate where the states can operate with more advantage to the community; nor should the states encroach on ground which the public good, as well as the constitution, refers to the exclusive control of congress. if the present state of things, these laws of new york, the laws of connecticut, and the laws of new jersey, had been all presented, in the convention of new york, to the eminent person whose name is on this record, and who acted on that occasion so important a part; if he had been told, that, after all he had said in favor of the new government, and of its salutary effects on commercial regulations, the time would yet come when the north river would be shut up by a monopoly from new york, the sound interdicted by a penal law of connecticut, reprisals authorized by new jersey against citizens of new york, and when one could not cross a ferry without transshipment, does any one suppose he would have admitted all this as compatible with the government which he was recommending? this doctrine of a general concurrent power in the states is insidious and dangerous. if it be admitted, no one can say where it will stop. the states may legislate, it is said, wherever congress has not made a plenary exercise of its power. but who is to judge whether congress has made this plenary exercise of power? congress has acted on this power; it has done all that it deemed wise; and are the states now to do whatever congress has left undone? congress makes such rules as, in its judgment, the case requires; and those rules, whatever they are, constitute the system. all useful regulation does not consist in restraint; and that which congress sees fit to leave free is a part of its regulation, as much as the rest. the practice under the constitution sufficiently evinces, that this portion of the commercial power is exclusive in congress. when, before this instance, have the states granted monopolies? when, until now, have they interfered with the navigation of the country? the pilot laws, the health laws, or quarantine laws, and various regulations of that class, which have been recognized by congress, are no arguments to prove, even if they are to be called commercial regulations (which they are not), that other regulations, more directly and strictly commercial, are not solely within the power of congress. there is a singular fallacy, as i venture to think, in the argument of very learned and most respectable persons on this subject. that argument alleges, that the states have a concurrent power with congress of regulating commerce; and the proof of this position is, that the states have, without any question of their right, passed acts respecting turnpike roads, toll-bridges, and ferries. these are declared to be acts of commercial regulation, affecting not only the interior commerce of the state itself, but also commerce between different states. therefore, as all these are commercial regulations, and are yet acknowledged to be rightfully established by the states, it follows, as is supposed, that the states must have a concurrent power to regulate commerce. now, what is the inevitable consequence of this mode of reasoning? does it not admit the power of congress, at once, upon all these minor objects of legislation? if all these be regulations of commerce, within the meaning of the constitution, then certainly congress, having a concurrent power to regulate commerce, may establish ferries, turnpike-roads, and bridges, and provide for all this detail of interior legislation. to sustain the interference of the state in a high concern of maritime commerce, the argument adopts a principle which acknowledges the right of congress over a vast scope of internal legislation, which no one has heretofore supposed to be within its powers. but this is not all; for it is admitted that, when congress and the states have power to legislate over the same subject, the power of congress, when exercised, controls or extinguishes the state power; and therefore the consequence would seem to follow, from the argument, that all state legislation over such subjects as have been mentioned is, at all times, liable to the superior power of congress; a consequence which no one would admit for a moment. the truth is, in my judgment, that all these things are, in their general character, rather regulations of police than of commerce, in the constitutional understanding of that term. a road, indeed, may be a matter of great commercial concern. in many cases it is so; and when it is so, there is no doubt of the power of congress to make it. but, generally speaking, roads, and bridges, and ferries, though of course they affect commerce and intercourse, do not possess such importance and elevation as to be deemed commercial regulations. a reasonable construction must be given to the constitution; and such construction is as necessary to the just power of the states, as to the authority of congress. quarantine laws, for example, may be considered as affecting commerce; yet they are, in their nature, health laws. in england, we speak of the power of regulating commerce as in parliament, or the king, as arbiter of commerce; yet the city of london enacts health laws. would any one infer from that circumstance, that the city of london had concurrent power with parliament or the crown to regulate commerce? or that it might grant a monopoly of the navigation of the thames? while a health law is reasonable, it is a health law; but if, under color of it, enactments should be made for other purposes, such enactments might be void. in the discussion in the new york courts, no small reliance was placed on the law of that state prohibiting the importation of slaves, as an example of a commercial regulation enacted by state authority. that law may or may not be constitutional and valid. it has been referred to generally, but its particular provisions have not been stated. when they are more clearly seen, its character may be better determined. it might further be argued, that the power of congress over these high branches of commerce is exclusive, from the consideration that congress possesses an exclusive admiralty jurisdiction. that it does possess such exclusive jurisdiction will hardly be contested. no state pretends to exercise any jurisdiction of that kind. the states abolished their courts of admiralty, when the constitution went into operation. over these waters, therefore, or at least some of them, which are the subject of this monopoly, new york has no jurisdiction whatever. they are a part of the high seas, and not within the body of any county. the authorities of that state could not punish for a murder, committed on board one of these boats, in some places within the range of this exclusive grant. this restraining of the states from all jurisdiction out of the body of their own counties, shows plainly enough that navigation on the high seas was understood to be a matter to be regulated only by congress. it is not unreasonable to say, that what are called the waters of new york are, for purposes of navigation and commercial regulation, the waters of the united states. there is no cession, indeed, of the waters themselves, but their use for those purposes seems to be intrusted to the exclusive power of congress. several states have enacted laws which would appear to imply their conviction of the power of congress over navigable waters to a greater extent. if there be a concurrent power of regulating commerce on the high seas, there must be a concurrent admiralty jurisdiction, and a concurrent control of the waters. it is a common principle, that arms of the sea, including navigable rivers, belong to the sovereign, so far as navigation is concerned. their use is navigation. the united states possess the general power over navigation, and, of course, ought to control, in general, the use of navigable waters. if it be admitted that, for purposes of trade and navigation, the north river and its bay are the river and bay of new york and the chesapeake the bay of virginia, very great inconveniences and much confusion might be the result. it may now be well to take a nearer view of these laws, to see more exactly what their provisions are, what consequences have followed from them, and what would and might follow from other similar laws. the first grant to john fitch gave him the sole and exclusive right of making, employing, and navigating all boats impelled by fire or steam, "in all creeks, rivers, bays, and waters within the territory and jurisdiction of the state." any other person navigating such boat, was to forfeit it, and to pay a penalty of a hundred pounds. the subsequent acts repeal this, and grant similar privileges to livingston and fulton; and the act of provides the extraordinary and summary remedy which has been already stated. the river, the bay, and the marine league along the shore, are all within the scope of this grant. any vessel, therefore, of this description, coming into any of those waters, without a license, whether from another state or from abroad, whether it be a public or private vessel, is instantly forfeited to the grantees of the monopoly. now it must be remembered that this grant is made as an exercise of sovereign political power. it is not an inspection law, nor a health law, nor passed by any derivative authority; it is professedly an act of sovereign power. of course, there is no limit to the power, to be derived from the purpose for which it is exercised. if exercised for one purpose, it may be also for another. no one can inquire into the motives which influence sovereign authority. it is enough that such power manifests its will. the motive alleged in this case is, to remunerate the grantees for a benefit conferred by them on the public. but there is no necessary connection between that benefit and this mode of rewarding it; and if the state could grant this monopoly for that purpose, it could also grant it for any other purpose. it could make the grant for money; and so make the monopoly of navigation over those waters a direct source of revenue. when this monopoly shall expire, in , the state may continue it, for any pecuniary consideration which the holders may see fit to offer, and the state to receive. if the state may grant this monopoly, it may also grant another, for other descriptions of vessels; for instance, for all sloops. if it can grant these exclusive privileges to a few, it may grant them to many; that is, it may grant them to all its own citizens, to the exclusion of everybody else. but the waters of new york are no more the subject of exclusive grants by that state, than the waters of other states are subjects of such grants by those other states. virginia may well exercise, over the entrance of the chesapeake, all the power that new york can exercise over the bay of new york, and the waters on her shores. the chesapeake, therefore, upon the principle of these laws, may be the subject of state monopoly; and so may the bay of massachusetts. but this is not all. it requires no greater power to grant a monopoly of trade, than a monopoly of navigation. of course, new york, if these acts can be maintained, may give an exclusive right of entry of vessels into her ports; and the other states may do the same. these are not extreme cases. we have only to suppose that other states should do what new york has already done, and that the power should be carried to its full extent. to all this, no answer is to be given but one, that the concurrent power of the states, concurrent though it be, is yet subordinate to the legislation of congress; and that therefore congress may, whenever it pleases, annul the state legislation; but until it does so annul it, the state legislation is valid and effectual. what is there to recommend a construction which leads to a result like this? here would be a perpetual hostility; one legislature enacting laws, till another legislature should repeal them; one sovereign power giving the rule, till another sovereign power should abrogate it; and all this under the idea of concurrent legislation! but, further, under this concurrent power, the state does that which congress cannot do; that is, it gives preferences to the citizens of some states over those of others. i do not mean here the advantages conferred by the grant on the grantees; but the disadvantages to which it subjects all the other citizens of new york. to impose an extraordinary tax on steam navigation visiting the ports of new york, and leaving it free everywhere else, is giving a preference to the citizens of other states over those of new york. this congress could not do; and yet the state does it; so that this power, at first subordinate, then concurrent, now becomes paramount. the people of new york have a right to be protected against this monopoly. it is one of the objects for which they agreed to this constitution, that they should stand on an equality in commercial regulations; and if the government should not insure them that, the promises made to them in its behalf would not be performed. i contend, therefore, in conclusion on this point, that the power of congress over these high branches of commercial regulation is shown to be exclusive, by considering what was wished and intended to be done, when the convention for forming the constitution was called; by what was understood, in the state conventions, to have been accomplished by the instrument; by the prohibitions on the states, and the express exception relative to inspection laws; by the nature of the power itself; by the terms used, as connected with the nature of the power; by the subsequent understanding and practice, both of congress and the states; by the grant of exclusive admiralty jurisdiction to the federal government; by the manifest danger of the opposite doctrine, and the ruinous consequences to which it directly leads. little is now required to be said, to prove that this exclusive grant is a law regulating commerce; although, in some of the discussions elsewhere, it has been called a law of police. if it be not a regulation of commerce, then it follows, against the constant admission on the other side, that congress, even by an express act, cannot annul or control it. for if it be not a regulation of commerce, congress has no concern with it. but the granting of monopolies of this kind is always referred to the power over commerce. it was as arbiter of commerce that the king formerly granted such monopolies.[ ] this is a law regulating commerce, inasmuch as it imposes new conditions and terms on the coasting trade, on foreign trade generally, and on foreign trade as regulated by treaties; and inasmuch as it interferes with the free navigation of navigable waters. if, then, the power of commercial regulation possessed by congress be, in regard to the great branches of it, exclusive; and if this grant of new york be a commercial regulation, affecting commerce in respect to these great branches, then the grant is void, whether any case of actual collision has happened or not. but i contend, in the second place, that whether the grant were to be regarded as wholly void or not, it must, at least, be inoperative, when the rights claimed under it come in collision with other rights, enjoyed and secured under the laws of the united states; and such collision, i maintain, clearly exists in this case. it will not be denied that the law of congress is paramount. the constitution has expressly provided for that. so that the only question in this part of the case is, whether the two rights be inconsistent with each other. the appellant has a right to go from new jersey to new york, in a vessel owned by himself, of the proper legal description, and enrolled and licensed according to law. this right belongs to him as a citizen of the united states. it is derived under the laws of the united states, and no act of the legislature of new york can deprive him of it, any more than such act could deprive him of the right of holding lands in that state, or of suing in its courts. it appears from the record, that the boat in question was regularly enrolled at perth amboy, and properly licensed for carrying on the coasting trade. under this enrolment, and with this license, she was proceeding to new york, when she was stopped by the injunction of the chancellor, on the application of the new york grantees. there can be no doubt that here is a collision, in fact; that which the appellant claimed as a right, the respondent resisted; and there remains nothing now but to determine whether the appellant had, as he contends, a right to navigate these waters; because, if he had such right, it must prevail. now, this right is expressly conferred by the laws of the united states. the first section of the act of february, , ch. , regulating the coasting trade and fisheries, declares, that all ships and vessels, enrolled and licensed as that act provides, "and no others, shall be deemed ships or vessels of the united states, entitled to the privileges of ships or vessels employed in the coasting trade or fisheries." the fourth section of the same act declares, "that, in order to the licensing of any ship or vessel, for carrying on the coasting trade or fisheries," bond shall be given, according to the provisions of the act. and the same section declares, that, the owner having complied with the requisites of the law, "it shall be the duty of the collector to grant a license for carrying on the coasting trade"; and the act proceeds to give the form and words of the license, which is, therefore, of course, to be received as a part of the act; and the words of the license, after the necessary recitals, are, "license is hereby granted for the said vessel to be employed in carrying on the coasting trade." words could not make this authority more express. the court below seems to me, with great deference, to have mistaken the object and nature of the license. it seems to have been of opinion, that the license has no other intent or effect than to ascertain the ownership and character of the vessel. but this is the peculiar office and object of the enrolment. that document ascertains that the regular proof of ownership and character has been given; and the license is given to confer the right to which the party has shown himself entitled. it is the authority which the master carries with him, to prove his right to navigate freely the waters of the united states, and to carry on the coasting trade. in some of the discussions which have been had on this question, it has been said, that congress has only provided for ascertaining the ownership and property of vessels, but has not prescribed to what use they may be applied. but this is an obvious error. the whole object of the act regulating the coasting trade is to declare what vessels shall enjoy the benefit of being employed in that trade. to secure this use to certain vessels, and to deny it to others, is precisely the purpose for which the act was passed. the error, or what i humbly suppose to be the error, in the judgment of the court below, consists in that court's having thought, that, although congress might act, it had not yet acted, in such a way as to confer a right on the appellant; whereas, if a right was not given by this law, it never could be given. no law can be more express. it has been admitted, that, supposing there is a provision in the act of congress, that all vessels duly licensed shall be at liberty to navigate, for the purpose of trade and commerce, all the navigable harbors, bays, rivers, and lakes within the several states, any law of the states creating particular privileges as to any particular class of vessels to the contrary notwithstanding, the only question that could arise, in such a case, would be, whether the law was constitutional; and that, if that was to be granted or decided, it would certainly, in all courts and places, overrule and set aside the state grant. now, i do not see that such supposed case could be distinguished from the present. we show a provision in an act of congress, that all vessels, duly licensed, may carry on the coasting trade; nobody doubts the constitutional validity of that law; and we show that this vessel was duly licensed according to its provisions. this is all that is essential in the case supposed. the presence or absence of a _non obstante_ clause cannot affect the extent or operation of the act of congress. congress has no power of revoking state laws, as a distinct power. it legislates over subjects; and over those subjects which are within its power, its legislation is supreme, and necessarily overrules all inconsistent or repugnant state legislation. if congress were to pass an act expressly revoking or annulling, in whole or in part, this new york grant, such an act would be wholly useless and inoperative. if the new york grant be opposed to, or inconsistent with, any constitutional power which congress has exercised, then, so far as the incompatibility exists, the grant is nugatory and void, necessarily, and by reason of the supremacy of the law of congress. but if the grant be not inconsistent with any exercise of the powers of congress, then, certainly, congress has no authority to revoke or annul it. such an act of congress, therefore, would be either unconstitutional or supererogatory. the laws of congress need no _non obstante_ clause. the constitution makes them supreme, when state laws come into opposition to them. so that in these cases there is no question except this; whether there be, or be not, a repugnancy or hostility between the law of congress and the law of the state. nor is it at all material, in this view, whether the law of the state be a law regulating commerce, or a law of police, nor by what other name or character it may be designated. if its provisions be inconsistent with an act of congress, they are void, so far as that inconsistency extends. the whole argument, therefore, is substantially and effectually given up, when it is admitted that congress might, by express terms, abrogate the state grant, or declare that it should not stand in the way of its own legislation; because such express terms would add nothing to the effect and operation of an act of congress. i contend, therefore, upon the whole of this point, that a case of actual collision has been made out between the state grant and the act of congress; and as the act of congress is entirely unexceptionable, and clearly in pursuance of its constitutional powers, the state grant must yield. there are other provisions of the constitution of the united states, which have more or less bearing on this question. "no state shall, without the consent of congress, lay any duty of tonnage." under color of grants like this, that prohibition might be wholly evaded. this grant authorizes messrs. livingston and fulton to license navigation in the waters of new york. they, of course, license it on their own terms. they may require a pecuniary consideration, ascertained by the tonnage of the vessel, or in any other manner. probably, in fact, they govern themselves, in this respect, by the size or tonnage of the vessels to which they grant licenses. now, what is this but substantially a tonnage duty, under the law of the state? or does it make any difference, whether the receipts go directly into her own treasury, or into the hands of those to whom she has made the grant? there is, lastly, that provision of the constitution which gives congress power to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing to authors and inventors, for a limited time, an exclusive right to their own writings and discoveries. congress has exercised this power, and made all the provisions which it deemed useful or necessary. the states may, indeed, like munificent individuals, exercise their own bounty towards authors and inventors, at their own discretion. but to confer reward by exclusive grants, even if it were but a part of the use of the writing or invention, is not supposed to be a power properly to be exercised by the states. much less can they, under the notion of conferring rewards in such cases, grant monopolies, the enjoyment of which is essentially incompatible with the exercise of rights possessed under the laws of the united states. i shall insist, however, the less on these points, as they are open to counsel who will come after me on the same side, and as i have said so much upon what appears to me the more important and interesting part of the argument. [footnote : laws u.s., p. , bioren and duane's ed.] [footnote : laws u.s., p. .] [footnote : chancellor livingston.] [footnote : black. com. ; black. com. .] the bunker hill monument. an address delivered at the laying of the corner-stone of the bunker hill monument at charlestown, massachusetts, on the th of june, . [as early as , some steps were taken toward the commemoration of the battle of bunker hill and the fall of general warren, who was buried upon the hill the day after the action. the massachusetts lodge of masons, over which he presided, applied to the provisional government of massachusetts, for permission to take up his remains and to bury them with the usual solemnities. the council granted this request, on condition that it should be carried into effect in such a manner that the government of _the colony_ might have an opportunity to erect a monument to his memory. a funeral procession was had, and a eulogy on general warren was delivered by perez morton, but no measures were taken toward building a monument. a resolution was adopted by the congress of the united states on the th of april, , directing that monuments should be erected to the memory of general warren, in boston, and of general mercer, at fredericksburg; but this resolution has remained to the present time unexecuted. on the th of november, , a committee was appointed by king solomon's lodge, at charlestown,[ ] to take measures for the erection of a monument to the memory of general joseph warren at the expense of the lodge. this resolution was promptly carried into effect. the land for this purpose was presented to the lodge by the hon. james russell, of charlestown, and it was dedicated with appropriate ceremonies on the d of december, . it was a wooden pillar of the tuscan order, eighteen feet in height, raised on a pedestal eight feet square, and of an elevation of ten feet from the ground. the pillar was surmounted by a gilt urn. an appropriate inscription was placed on the south side of the pedestal. in february, , a committee of the legislature of massachusetts was appointed to consider the expediency of building a monument of american marble of the memory of general warren, but this proposal was not carried into effect. as the half-century from the date of the battle drew toward a close, a stronger feeling of the duty of commemorating it began to be awakened in the community. among those who from the first manifested the greatest interest in the subject, was the late william tudor, esq. he expressed the wish, in a letter still preserved, to see upon the battle-ground "the noblest monument in the world," and he was so ardent and persevering in urging the project, that it has been stated that he first conceived the idea of it. the steps taken in execution of the project, from the earliest private conferences among the gentlemen first engaged in it to its final completion, are accurately sketched by mr. richard frothingham, jr., in his valuable history of the siege of boston. all the material facts contained in this note are derived from his chapter on the bunker hill monument. after giving an account of the organization of the society, the measures adopted for the collection of funds, and the deliberations on the form of the monument, mr. frothingham proceeds as follows:-- "it was at this stage of the enterprise that the directors proposed to lay the corner-stone of the monument, and ground was broken (june th) for this purpose. as a mark of respect to the liberality and patriotism of king solomon's lodge, they invited the grand master of the grand lodge of massachusetts to perform the ceremony. they also invited general lafayette to accompany the president of the association, hon. daniel webster, and assist in it. "this celebration was unequalled in magnificence by any thing of the kind that had been seen in new england. the morning proved propitious. the air was cool, the sky was clear, and timely showers the previous day had brightened the vesture of nature into its loveliest hue. delighted thousands flocked into boston to bear a part in the proceedings, or to witness the spectacle. at about ten o'clock a procession moved from the state house towards bunker hill. the military, in their fine uniforms, formed the van. about two hundred veterans of the revolution, of whom forty were survivors of the battle, rode in barouches next to the escort. these venerable men, the relics of a past generation, with emaciated frames, tottering limbs, and trembling voices, constituted a touching spectacle. some wore, as honorable decorations, their old fighting equipments, and some bore the scars of still more honorable wounds. glistening eyes constituted their answer to the enthusiastic cheers of the grateful multitudes who lined their pathway and cheered their progress. to this patriot band succeeded the bunker hill monument association. then the masonic fraternity, in their splendid regalia, thousands in number. then lafayette, continually welcomed by tokens of love and gratitude, and the invited guests. then a long array of societies, with their various badges and banners. it was a splendid procession, and of such length that the front nearly reached charlestown bridge ere the rear had left boston common. it proceeded to breed's hill, where the grand master of the freemasons, the president of the monument association, and general lafayette, performed the ceremony of laying the corner-stone, in the presence of a vast concourse of people." the procession then moved to a spacious amphitheatre on the northern declivity of the hill, when the following address was delivered by mr. webster, in the presence of as great a multitude as was ever perhaps assembled within the sound of a human voice.] this uncounted multitude before me and around me proves the feeling which the occasion has excited. these thousands of human faces, glowing with sympathy and joy, and from the impulses of a common gratitude turned reverently to heaven in this spacious temple of the firmament, proclaim that the day, the place, and the purpose of our assembling have made a deep impression on our hearts. if, indeed, there be any thing in local association fit to affect the mind of man, we need not strive to repress the emotions which agitate us here. we are among the sepulchres of our fathers. we are on ground, distinguished by their valor, their constancy, and the shedding of their blood. we are here, not to fix an uncertain date in our annals, nor to draw into notice an obscure and unknown spot. if our humble purpose had never been conceived, if we ourselves had never been born, the th of june, , would have been a day on which all subsequent history would have poured its light, and the eminence where we stand a point of attraction to the eyes of successive generations. but we are americans. we live in what may be called the early age of this great continent; and we know that our posterity, through all time, are here to enjoy and suffer the allotments of humanity. we see before us a probable train of great events; we know that our own fortunes have been happily cast; and it is natural, therefore, that we should be moved by the contemplation of occurrences which have guided our destiny before many of us were born, and settled the condition in which we should pass that portion of our existence which god allows to men on earth. we do not read even of the discovery of this continent, without feeling something of a personal interest in the event; without being reminded how much it has affected our own fortunes and our own existence. it would be still more unnatural for us, therefore, than for others, to contemplate with unaffected minds that interesting, i may say that most touching and pathetic scene, when the great discoverer of america stood on the deck of his shattered bark, the shades of night falling on the sea, yet no man sleeping; tossed on the billows of an unknown ocean, yet the stronger billows of alternate hope and despair tossing his own troubled thoughts; extending forward his harassed frame, straining westward his anxious and eager eyes, till heaven at last granted him a moment of rapture and ecstasy, in blessing his vision with the sight of the unknown world. nearer to our times, more closely connected with our fates, and therefore still more interesting to our feelings and affections, is the settlement of our own country by colonists from england. we cherish every memorial of these worthy ancestors; we celebrate their patience and fortitude; we admire their daring enterprise; we teach our children to venerate their piety; and we are justly proud of being descended from men who have set the world an example of founding civil institutions on the great and united principles of human freedom and human knowledge. to us, their children, the story of their labors and sufferings can never be without its interest. we shall not stand unmoved on the shore of plymouth, while the sea continues to wash it; nor will our brethren in another early and ancient colony forget the place of its first establishment, till their river shall cease to flow by it.[ ] no vigor of youth, no maturity of manhood, will lead the nation to forget the spots where its infancy was cradled and defended. but the great event in the history of the continent, which we are now met here to commemorate, that prodigy of modern times, at once the wonder and the blessing of the world, is the american revolution. in a day of extraordinary prosperity and happiness, of high national honor, distinction, and power, we are brought together, in this place, by our love of country, by our admiration of exalted character, by our gratitude for signal services and patriotic devotion. the society whose organ i am[ ] was formed for the purpose of rearing some honorable and durable monument to the memory of the early friends of american independence. they have thought, that for this object no time could be more propitious than the present prosperous and peaceful period; that no place could claim preference over this memorable spot; and that no day could be more auspicious to the undertaking, than the anniversary of the battle which was here fought. the foundation of that monument we have now laid. with solemnities suited to the occasion, with prayers to almighty god for his blessing, and in the midst of this cloud of witnesses, we have begun the work. we trust it will be prosecuted, and that, springing from a broad foundation, rising high in massive solidity and unadorned grandeur, it may remain as long as heaven permits the works of man to last, a fit emblem, both of the events in memory of which it is raised, and of the gratitude of those who have reared it. we know, indeed, that the record of illustrious actions is most safely deposited in the universal remembrance of mankind. we know, that if we could cause this structure to ascend, not only till it reached the skies, but till it pierced them, its broad surfaces could still contain but part of that which, in an age of knowledge, hath already been spread over the earth, and which history charges itself with making known to all future times. we know that no inscription on entablatures less broad than the earth itself can carry information of the events we commemorate where it has not already gone; and that no structure, which shall not outlive the duration of letters and knowledge among men, can prolong the memorial. but our object is, by this edifice, to show our own deep sense of the value and importance of the achievements of our ancestors; and, by presenting this work of gratitude to the eye, to keep alive similar sentiments, and to foster a constant regard for the principles of the revolution. human beings are composed, not of reason only, but of imagination also, and sentiment; and that is neither wasted nor misapplied which is appropriated to the purpose of giving right direction to sentiments, and opening proper springs of feeling in the heart. let it not be supposed that our object is to perpetuate national hostility, or even to cherish a mere military spirit. it is higher, purer, nobler. we consecrate our work to the spirit of national independence, and we wish that the light of peace may rest upon it for ever. we rear a memorial of our conviction of that unmeasured benefit which has been conferred on our own land, and of the happy influences which have been produced, by the same events, on the general interests of mankind. we come, as americans, to mark a spot which must for ever be dear to us and our posterity. we wish that whosoever, in all coming time, shall turn his eye hither, may behold that the place is not undistinguished where the first great battle of the revolution was fought. we wish that this structure may proclaim the magnitude and importance of that event to every class and every age. we wish that infancy may learn the purpose of its erection from maternal lips, and that weary and withered age may behold it, and be solaced by the recollections which it suggests. we wish that labor may look up here, and be proud, in the midst of its toil. we wish that, in those days of disaster, which, as they come upon all nations, must be expected to come upon us also, desponding patriotism may turn its eyes hitherward, and be assured that the foundations of our national power are still strong. we wish that this column, rising towards heaven among the pointed spires of so many temples dedicated to god, may contribute also to produce, in all minds, a pious feeling of dependence and gratitude. we wish, finally, that the last object to the sight of him who leaves his native shore, and the first to gladden his who revisits it, may be something which shall remind him of the liberty and the glory of his country. let it rise! let it rise, till it meet the sun in his coming; let the earliest light of the morning gild it, and parting day linger and play on its summit. we live in a most extraordinary age. events so various and so important that they might crowd and distinguish centuries are, in our times, compressed within the compass of a single life. when has it happened that history has had so much to record, in the same term of years, as since the th of june, ? our own revolution, which, under other circumstances, might itself have been expected to occasion a war of half a century, has been achieved; twenty-four sovereign and independent states erected; and a general government established over them, so safe, so wise, so free, so practical, that we might well wonder its establishment should have been accomplished so soon, were it not for the greater wonder that it should have been established at all. two or three millions of people have been augmented to twelve, the great forests of the west prostrated beneath the arm of successful industry, and the dwellers on the banks of the ohio and the mississippi become the fellow-citizens and neighbors of those who cultivate the hills of new england.[ ] we have a commerce, that leaves no sea unexplored; navies, which take no law from superior force; revenues, adequate to all the exigencies of government, almost without taxation; and peace with all nations, founded on equal rights and mutual respect. europe, within the same period, has been agitated by a mighty revolution, which, while it has been felt in the individual condition and happiness of almost every man, has shaken to the centre her political fabric, and dashed against one another thrones which had stood tranquil for ages. on this, our continent, our own example has been followed, and colonies have sprung up to be nations.[ ] unaccustomed sounds of liberty and free government have reached us from beyond the track of the sun; and at this moment the dominion of european power in this continent, from the place where we stand to the south pole, is annihilated for ever. in the mean time, both in europe and america, such has been the general progress of knowledge, such the improvement in legislation, in commerce, in the arts, in letters, and, above all, in liberal ideas and the general spirit of the age, that the whole world seems changed. yet, notwithstanding that this is but a faint abstract of the things which have happened since the day of the battle of bunker hill, we are but fifty years removed from it; and we now stand here to enjoy all the blessings of our own condition, and to look abroad on the brightened prospects of the world, while we still have among us some of those who were active agents in the scenes of , and who are now here, from every quarter of new england, to visit once more, and under circumstances so affecting, i had almost said so overwhelming, this renowned theatre of their courage and patriotism. venerable men! you have come down to us from a former generation. heaven has bounteously lengthened out your lives, that you might behold this joyous day. you are now where you stood fifty years ago, this very hour, with your brothers and your neighbors, shoulder to shoulder, in the strife for your country. behold, how altered! the same heavens are indeed over your heads; the same ocean rolls at your feet; but all else how changed! you hear now no roar of hostile cannon, you see no mixed volumes of smoke and flame rising from burning charlestown. the ground strewed with the dead and the dying; the impetuous charge; the steady and successful repulse; the loud call to repeated assault; the summoning of all that is manly to repeated resistance; a thousand bosoms freely and fearlessly bared in an instant to whatever of terror there may be in war and death;--all these you have witnessed, but you witness them no more. all is peace. the heights of yonder metropolis, its towers and roofs, which you then saw filled with wives and children and countrymen in distress and terror, and looking with unutterable emotions for the issue of the combat, have presented you to-day with the sight of its whole happy population, come out to welcome and greet you with a universal jubilee. yonder proud ships, by a felicity of position appropriately lying at the foot of this mount, and seeming fondly to cling around it, are not means of annoyance to you, but your country's own means of distinction and defence.[ ] all is peace; and god has granted you this sight of your country's happiness, ere you slumber in the grave. he has allowed you to behold and to partake the reward of your patriotic toils; and he has allowed us, your sons and countrymen, to meet you here, and in the name of the present generation, in the name of your country, in the name of liberty, to thank you! but, alas! you are not all here! time and the sword have thinned your ranks. prescott, putnam, stark, brooks, read, pomeroy, bridge! our eyes seek for you in vain amid this broken band. you are gathered to your fathers, and live only to your country in her grateful remembrance and your own bright example. but let us not too much grieve, that you have met the common fate of men. you lived at least long enough to know that your work had been nobly and successfully accomplished. you lived to see your country's independence established, and to sheathe your swords from war. on the light of liberty you saw arise the light of peace, like "another morn, risen on mid-noon"; and the sky on which you closed your eyes was cloudless. but ah! him! the first great martyr in this great cause! him! the premature victim of his own self-devoting heart! him! the head of our civil councils, and the destined leader of our military bands, whom nothing brought hither but the unquenchable fire of his own spirit! him! cut off by providence in the hour of overwhelming anxiety and thick gloom; falling ere he saw the star of his country rise; pouring out his generous blood like water, before he knew whether it would fertilize a land of freedom or of bondage!--how shall i struggle with the emotions that stifle the utterance of thy name![ ] our poor work may perish; but thine shall endure! this monument may moulder away; the solid ground it rests upon may sink down to a level with the sea; but thy memory shall not fail! wheresoever among men a heart shall be found that beats to the transports of patriotism and liberty, its aspirations shall be to claim kindred with thy spirit! but the scene amidst which we stand does not permit us to confine our thoughts or our sympathies to those fearless spirits who hazarded or lost their lives on this consecrated spot. we have the happiness to rejoice here in the presence of a most worthy representation of the survivors of the whole revolutionary army. veterans! you are the remnant of many a well-fought field. you bring with you marks of honor from trenton and monmouth, from yorktown, camden, bennington, and saratoga. veterans of half a century! when in your youthful days you put every thing at hazard in your country's cause, good as that cause was, and sanguine as youth is, still your fondest hopes did not stretch onward to an hour like this! at a period to which you could not reasonably have expected to arrive, at a moment of national prosperity such as you could never have foreseen, you are now met here to enjoy the fellowship of old soldiers, and to receive the overflowings of a universal gratitude. but your agitated countenances and your heaving breasts inform me that even this is not an unmixed joy. i perceive that a tumult of contending feelings rushes upon you. the images of the dead, as well as the persons of the living, present themselves before you. the scene overwhelms you, and i turn from it. may the father of all mercies smile upon your declining years, and bless them! and when you shall here have exchanged your embraces, when you shall once more have pressed the hands which have been so often extended to give succor in adversity, or grasped in the exultation of victory, then look abroad upon this lovely land which your young valor defended, and mark the happiness with which it is filled; yea, look abroad upon the whole earth, and see what a name you have contributed to give to your country, and what a praise you have added to freedom, and then rejoice in the sympathy and gratitude which beam upon your last days from the improved condition of mankind! the occasion does not require of me any particular account of the battle of the th of june, , nor any detailed narrative of the events which immediately preceded it. these are familiarly known to all. in the progress of the great and interesting controversy, massachusetts and the town of boston had become early and marked objects of the displeasure of the british parliament. this had been manifested in the act for altering the government of the province, and in that for shutting up the port of boston. nothing sheds more honor on our early history, and nothing better shows how little the feelings and sentiments of the colonies were known or regarded in england, than the impression which these measures everywhere produced in america. it had been anticipated, that, while the colonies in general would be terrified by the severity of the punishment inflicted on massachusetts, the other sea-ports would be governed by a mere spirit of gain; and that, as boston was now cut off from all commerce, the unexpected advantage which this blow on her was calculated to confer on other towns would be greedily enjoyed. how miserably such reasoners deceived themselves! how little they knew of the depth, and the strength, and the intenseness of that feeling of resistance to illegal acts of power, which possessed the whole american people! everywhere the unworthy boon was rejected with scorn. the fortunate occasion was seized, everywhere, to show to the whole world that the colonies were swayed by no local interest, no partial interest, no selfish interest. the temptation to profit by the punishment of boston was strongest to our neighbors of salem. yet salem was precisely the place where this miserable proffer was spurned, in a tone of the most lofty self-respect and the most indignant patriotism. "we are deeply affected," said its inhabitants, "with the sense of our public calamities; but the miseries that are now rapidly hastening on our brethren in the capital of the province greatly excite our commiseration. by shutting up the port of boston, some imagine that the course of trade might be turned hither and to our benefit; but we must be dead to every idea of justice, lost to all feelings of humanity, could we indulge a thought to seize on wealth and raise our fortunes on the ruin of our suffering neighbors." these noble sentiments were not confined to our immediate vicinity. in that day of general affection and brotherhood, the blow given to boston smote on every patriotic heart from one end of the country to the other. virginia and the carolinas, as well as connecticut and new hampshire, felt and proclaimed the cause to be their own. the continental congress, then holding its first session in philadelphia, expressed its sympathy for the suffering inhabitants of boston, and addresses were received from all quarters, assuring them that the cause was a common one, and should be met by common efforts and common sacrifices. the congress of massachusetts responded to these assurances; and in an address to the congress at philadelphia, bearing the official signature, perhaps among the last, of the immortal warren, notwithstanding the severity of its suffering and the magnitude of the dangers which threatened it, it was declared, that this colony "is ready, at all times, to spend and to be spent in the cause of america." but the hour drew nigh which was to put professions to the proof, and to determine whether the authors of these mutual pledges were ready to seal them in blood. the tidings of lexington and concord had no sooner spread, than it was universally felt that the time was at last come for action. a spirit pervaded all ranks, not transient, not boisterous, but deep, solemn, determined, "totamque infusa per artus mens agitat molem, et magno se corpore miscet." war, on their own soil and at their own doors, was, indeed, a strange work to the yeomanry of new england; but their consciences were convinced of its necessity, their country called them to it, and they did not withhold themselves from the perilous trial. the ordinary occupations of life were abandoned; the plough was staid in the unfinished furrow; wives gave up their husbands, and mothers gave up their sons, to the battles of a civil war. death might come, in honor, on the field; it might come, in disgrace, on the scaffold. for either and for both they were prepared. the sentiment of quincy was full in their hearts. "blandishments," said that distinguished son of genius and patriotism, "will not fascinate us, nor will threats of a halter intimidate; for, under god, we are determined that, wheresoever, whensoever, or howsoever we shall be called to make our exit, we will die free men." the th of june saw the four new england colonies standing here, side by side, to triumph or to fall together; and there was with them from that moment to the end of the war, what i hope will remain with them for ever, one cause, one country, one heart. the battle of bunker hill was attended with the most important effects beyond its immediate results as a military engagement. it created at once a state of open, public war. there could now be no longer a question of proceeding against individuals, as guilty of treason or rebellion. that fearful crisis was past. the appeal lay to the sword, and the only question was, whether the spirit and the resources of the people would hold out, till the object should be accomplished. nor were its general consequences confined to our own country. the previous proceedings of the colonies, their appeals, resolutions, and addresses, had made their cause known to europe. without boasting, we may say, that in no age or country has the public cause been maintained with more force of argument, more power of illustration, or more of that persuasion which excited feeling and elevated principle can alone bestow, than the revolutionary state papers exhibit. these papers will for ever deserve to be studied, not only for the spirit which they breathe, but for the ability with which they were written. to this able vindication of their cause, the colonies had now added a practical and severe proof of their own true devotion to it, and given evidence also of the power which they could bring to its support. all now saw, that, if america fell, she would not fall without a struggle. men felt sympathy and regard, as well as surprise, when they beheld these infant states, remote, unknown, unaided, encounter the power of england, and, in the first considerable battle, leave more of their enemies dead on the field, in proportion to the number of combatants, than had been recently known to fall in the wars of europe. information of these events, circulating throughout the world, at length reached the ears of one who now hears me.[ ] he has not forgotten the emotion which the fame of bunker hill, and the name of warren, excited in his youthful breast. sir, we are assembled to commemorate the establishment of great public principles of liberty, and to do honor to the distinguished dead. the occasion is too severe for eulogy of the living. but, sir, your interesting relation to this country, the peculiar circumstances which surround you and surround us, call on me to express the happiness which we derive from your presence and aid in this solemn commemoration. fortunate, fortunate man! with what measure of devotion will you not thank god for the circumstances of your extraordinary life! you are connected with both hemispheres and with two generations. heaven saw fit to ordain, that the electric spark of liberty should be conducted, through you, from the new world to the old; and we, who are now here to perform this duty of patriotism, have all of us long ago received it in charge from our fathers to cherish your name and your virtues. you will account it an instance of your good fortune, sir, that you crossed the seas to visit us at a time which enables you to be present at this solemnity. you now behold the field, the renown of which reached you in the heart of france, and caused a thrill in your ardent bosom. you see the lines of the little redoubt thrown up by the incredible diligence of prescott; defended, to the last extremity, by his lion-hearted valor; and within which the corner-stone of our monument has now taken its position. you see where warren fell, and where parker, gardner, mccleary, moore, and other early patriots, fell with him. those who survived that day, and whose lives have been prolonged to the present hour, are now around you. some of them you have known in the trying scenes of the war. behold! they now stretch forth their feeble arms to embrace you. behold! they raise their trembling voices to invoke the blessing of god on you and yours for ever. sir, you have assisted us in laying the foundation of this structure. you have heard us rehearse, with our feeble commendation, the names of departed patriots. monuments and eulogy belong to the dead. we give them this day to warren and his associates. on other occasions they have been given to your more immediate companions in arms, to washington, to greene, to gates, to sullivan, and to lincoln. we have become reluctant to grant these, our highest and last honors, further. we would gladly hold them yet back from the little remnant of that immortal band. _serus in coelum redeas._ illustrious as are your merits, yet far, o very far distant be the day, when any inscription shall bear your name, or any tongue pronounce its eulogy! the leading reflection to which this occasion seems to invite us, respects the great changes which have happened in the fifty years since the battle of bunker hill was fought. and it peculiarly marks the character of the present age, that, in looking at these changes, and in estimating their effect on our condition, we are obliged to consider, not what has been done in our own country only, but in others also. in these interesting times, while nations are making separate and individual advances in improvement, they make, too, a common progress; like vessels on a common tide, propelled by the gales at different rates, according to their several structure and management, but all moved forward by one mighty current, strong enough to bear onward whatever does not sink beneath it. a chief distinction of the present day is a community of opinions and knowledge amongst men in different nations, existing in a degree heretofore unknown. knowledge has, in our time, triumphed, and is triumphing, over distance, over difference of languages, over diversity of habits, over prejudice, and over bigotry. the civilized and christian world is fast learning the great lesson, that difference of nation does not imply necessary hostility, and that all contact need not be war. the whole world is becoming a common field for intellect to act in. energy of mind, genius, power, wheresoever it exists, may speak out in any tongue, and the _world_ will hear it. a great chord of sentiment and feeling runs through two continents, and vibrates over both. every breeze wafts intelligence from country to country; every wave rolls it; all give it forth, and all in turn receive it. there is a vast commerce of ideas; there are marts and exchanges for intellectual discoveries, and a wonderful fellowship of those individual intelligences which make up the mind and opinion of the age. mind is the great lever of all things; human thought is the process by which human ends are ultimately answered; and the diffusion of knowledge, so astonishing in the last half-century, has rendered innumerable minds, variously gifted by nature, competent to be competitors or fellow-workers on the theatre of intellectual operation. from these causes important improvements have taken place in the personal condition of individuals. generally speaking, mankind are not only better fed and better clothed, but they are able also to enjoy more leisure; they possess more refinement and more self-respect. a superior tone of education, manners, and habits prevails. this remark, most true in its application to our own country, is also partly true when applied elsewhere. it is proved by the vastly augmented consumption of those articles of manufacture and of commerce which contribute to the comforts and the decencies of life; an augmentation which has far outrun the progress of population. and while the unexampled and almost incredible use of machinery would seem to supply the place of labor, labor still finds its occupation and its reward; so wisely has providence adjusted men's wants and desires to their condition and their capacity. any adequate survey, however, of the progress made during the last half-century in the polite and the mechanic arts, in machinery and manufactures, in commerce and agriculture, in letters and in science, would require volumes. i must abstain wholly from these subjects, and turn for a moment to the contemplation of what has been done on the great question of politics and government. this is the master topic of the age; and during the whole fifty years it has intensely occupied the thoughts of men. the nature of civil government, its ends and uses, have been canvassed and investigated; ancient opinions attacked and defended; new ideas recommended and resisted, by whatever power the mind of man could bring to the controversy. from the closet and the public halls the debate has been transferred to the field; and the world has been shaken by wars of unexampled magnitude, and the greatest variety of fortune. a day of peace has at length succeeded; and now that the strife has subsided, and the smoke cleared away, we may begin to see what has actually been done, permanently changing the state and condition of human society. and, without dwelling on particular circumstances, it is most apparent, that, from the before-mentioned causes of augmented knowledge and improved individual condition, a real, substantial, and important change has taken place, and is taking place, highly favorable, on the whole, to human liberty and human happiness. the great wheel of political revolution began to move in america. here its rotation was guarded, regular, and safe. transferred to the other continent, from unfortunate but natural causes, it received an irregular and violent impulse; it whirled along with a fearful celerity; till at length, like the chariot-wheels in the races of antiquity, it took fire from the rapidity of its own motion, and blazed onward, spreading conflagration and terror around. we learn from the result of this experiment, how fortunate was our own condition, and how admirably the character of our people was calculated for setting the great example of popular governments. the possession of power did not turn the heads of the american people, for they had long been in the habit of exercising a great degree of self-control. although the paramount authority of the parent state existed over them, yet a large field of legislation had always been open to our colonial assemblies. they were accustomed to representative bodies and the forms of free government; they understood the doctrine of the division of power among different branches, and the necessity of checks on each. the character of our countrymen, moreover, was sober, moral, and religious; and there was little in the change to shock their feelings of justice and humanity, or even to disturb an honest prejudice. we had no domestic throne to overturn, no privileged orders to cast down, no violent changes of property to encounter. in the american revolution, no man sought or wished for more than to defend and enjoy his own. none hoped for plunder or for spoil. rapacity was unknown to it; the axe was not among the instruments of its accomplishment; and we all know that it could not have lived a single day under any well-founded imputation of possessing a tendency adverse to the christian religion. it need not surprise us, that, under circumstances less auspicious, political revolutions elsewhere, even when well intended, have terminated differently. it is, indeed, a great achievement, it is the master-work of the world, to establish governments entirely popular on lasting foundations; nor is it easy, indeed, to introduce the popular principle at all into governments to which it has been altogether a stranger. it cannot be doubted, however, that europe has come out of the contest, in which she has been so long engaged, with greatly superior knowledge, and, in many respects, in a highly improved condition. whatever benefit has been acquired is likely to be retained, for it consists mainly in the acquisition of more enlightened ideas. and although kingdoms and provinces may be wrested from the hands that hold them, in the same manner they were obtained; although ordinary and vulgar power may, in human affairs, be lost as it has been won; yet it is the glorious prerogative of the empire of knowledge, that what it gains it never loses. on the contrary, it increases by the multiple of its own power; all its ends become means; all its attainments, helps to new conquests. its whole abundant harvest is but so much seed wheat, and nothing has limited, and nothing can limit, the amount of ultimate product. under the influence of this rapidly increasing knowledge, the people have begun, in all forms of government, to think and to reason, on affairs of state. regarding government as an institution for the public good, they demand a knowledge of its operations, and a participation in its exercise. a call for the representative system, wherever it is not enjoyed, and where there is already intelligence enough to estimate its value, is perseveringly made. where men may speak out, they demand it; where the bayonet is at their throats, they pray for it. when louis the fourteenth said, "i am the state," he expressed the essence of the doctrine of unlimited power. by the rules of that system, the people are disconnected from the state; they are its subjects; it is their lord. these ideas, founded in the love of power, and long supported by the excess and the abuse of it, are yielding, in our age, to other opinions; and the civilized world seems at last to be proceeding to the conviction of that fundamental and manifest truth, that the powers of government are but a trust, and that they cannot be lawfully exercised but for the good of the community. as knowledge is more and more extended, this conviction becomes more and more general. knowledge, in truth, is the great sun in the firmament. life and power are scattered with all its beams. the prayer of the grecian champion, when enveloped in unnatural clouds and darkness, is the appropriate political supplication for the people of every country not yet blessed with free institutions:-- "dispel this cloud, the light of heaven restore, give me to see,--and ajax asks no more." we may hope that the growing influence of enlightened sentiment will promote the permanent peace of the world. wars to mantain family alliances, to uphold or to cast down dynasties, and to regulate successions to thrones, which have occupied so much room in the history of modern times, if not less likely to happen at all, will be less likely to become general and involve many nations, as the great principle shall be more and more established, that the interest of the world is peace, and its first great statute, that every nation possesses the power of establishing a government for itself. but public opinion has attained also an influence over governments which do not admit the popular principle into their organization. a necessary respect for the judgment of the world operates, in some measure, as a control over the most unlimited forms of authority. it is owing, perhaps, to this truth, that the interesting struggle of the greeks has been suffered to go on so long, without a direct interference, either to wrest that country from its present masters, or to execute the system of pacification by force, and, with united strength, lay the neck of christian and civilized greek at the foot of the barbarian turk. let us thank god that we live in an age when something has influence besides the bayonet, and when the sternest authority does not venture to encounter the scorching power of public reproach. any attempt of the kind i have mentioned should be met by one universal burst of indignation; the air of the civilized world ought to be made too warm to be comfortably breathed by any one who would hazard it. it is, indeed, a touching reflection, that, while, in the fulness of our country's happiness, we rear this monument to her honor, we look for instruction in our undertaking to a country which is now in fearful contest, not for works of art or memorials of glory, but for her own existence. let her be assured, that she is not forgotten in the world; that her efforts are applauded, and that constant prayers ascend for her success. and let us cherish a confident hope for her final triumph. if the true spark of religious and civil liberty be kindled, it will burn. human agency cannot extinguish it. like the earth's central fire, it may be smothered for a time; the ocean may overwhelm it; mountains may press it down; but its inherent and unconquerable force will heave both the ocean and the land, and at some time or other, in some place or other, the volcano will break out and flame up to heaven. among the great events of the half-century, we must reckon, certainly, the revolution of south america; and we are not likely to overrate the importance of that revolution, either to the people of the country itself or to the rest of the world. the late spanish colonies, now independent states, under circumstances less favorable, doubtless, than attended our own revolution, have yet successfully commenced their national existence. they have accomplished the great object of establishing their independence; they are known and acknowledged in the world; and although in regard to their systems of government, their sentiments on religious toleration, and their provisions for public instruction, they may have yet much to learn, it must be admitted that they have risen to the condition of settled and established states more rapidly than could have been reasonably anticipated. they already furnish an exhilarating example of the difference between free governments and despotic misrule. their commerce, at this moment, creates a new activity in all the great marts of the world. they show themselves able, by an exchange of commodities, to bear a useful part in the intercourse of nations. a new spirit of enterprise and industry begins to prevail; all the great interests of society receive a salutary impulse; and the progress of information not only testifies to an improved condition, but itself constitutes the highest and most essential improvement. when the battle of bunker hill was fought, the existence of south america was scarcely felt in the civilized world. the thirteen little colonies of north america habitually called themselves the "continent." borne down by colonial subjugation, monopoly, and bigotry, these vast regions of the south were hardly visible above the horizon. but in our day there has been, as it were, a new creation. the southern hemisphere emerges from the sea. its lofty mountains begin to lift themselves into the light of heaven; its broad and fertile plains stretch out, in beauty, to the eye of civilized man, and at the mighty bidding of the voice of political liberty the waters of darkness retire. and, now, let us indulge an honest exultation in the conviction of the benefit which the example of our country has produced, and is likely to produce, on human freedom and human happiness. let us endeavor to comprehend in all its magnitude, and to feel in all its importance, the part assigned to us in the great drama of human affairs. we are placed at the head of the system of representative and popular governments. thus far our example shows that such governments are compatible, not only with respectability and power, but with repose, with peace, with security of personal rights, with good laws, and a just administration. we are not propagandists. wherever other systems are preferred, either as being thought better in themselves, or as better suited to existing condition, we leave the preference to be enjoyed. our history hitherto proves, however, that the popular form is practicable, and that with wisdom and knowledge men may govern themselves; and the duty incumbent on us is, to preserve the consistency of this cheering example, and take care that nothing may weaken its authority with the world. if, in our case, the representative system ultimately fail, popular governments must be pronounced impossible. no combination of circumstances more favorable to the experiment can ever be expected to occur. the last hopes of mankind, therefore, rest with us; and if it should be proclaimed, that our example had become an argument against the experiment, the knell of popular liberty would be sounded throughout the earth. these are excitements to duty; but they are not suggestions of doubt. our history and our condition, all that is gone before us, and all that surrounds us, authorize the belief, that popular governments, though subject to occasional variations, in form perhaps not always for the better, may yet, in their general character, be as durable and permanent as other systems. we know, indeed, that in our country any other is impossible. the _principle_ of free governments adheres to the american soil. it is bedded in it, immovable as its mountains. and let the sacred obligations which have devolved on this generation, and on us, sink deep into our hearts. those who established our liberty and our government are daily dropping from among us. the great trust now descends to new hands. let us apply ourselves to that which is presented to us, as our appropriate object. we can win no laurels in a war for independence. earlier and worthier hands have gathered them all. nor are there places for us by the side of solon, and alfred, and other founders of states. our fathers have filled them. but there remains to us a great duty of defence and preservation; and there is opened to us, also, a noble pursuit, to which the spirit of the times strongly invites us. our proper business is improvement. let our age be the age of improvement. in a day of peace, let us advance the arts of peace and the works of peace. let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests, and see whether we also, in our day and generation, may not perform something worthy to be remembered. let us cultivate a true spirit of union and harmony. in pursuing the great objects which our condition points out to us, let us act under a settled conviction, and an habitual feeling, that these twenty-four states are one country. let our conceptions be enlarged to the circle of our duties. let us extend our ideas over the whole of the vast field in which we are called to act. let our object be, our country, our whole country, and nothing but our country. and, by the blessing of god, may that country itself become a vast and splendid monument, not of oppression and terror, but of wisdom, of peace, and of liberty, upon which the world may gaze with admiration for ever! [footnote : general warren, at the time of his decease, was grand master of the masonic lodges in america.] [footnote : an interesting account of the voyage of the early emigrants to the maryland colony, and of its settlement, is given in the official report of father white, written probably within the first month after the landing at st. mary's. the original latin manuscript is still preserved among the archives of the jesuits at rome. the "ark" and the "dove" are remembered with scarcely less interest by the descendants of the sister colony, than is the "mayflower" in new england, which thirteen years earlier, at the same season of the year, bore thither the pilgrim fathers.] [footnote : mr. webster was at this time president of the bunker hill monument association, chosen on the decease of governor john brooks, the first president.] [footnote : that which was spoken of figuratively in has, in the lapse of a quarter of a century, by the introduction of railroads and telegraphic lines, become a reality. it is an interesting circumstance, that the first railroad on the western continent was constructed for the purpose of accelerating the erection of this monument.] [footnote : see president monroe's message to congress in , and mr. webster's speech on the panama mission, in .] [footnote : it is necessary to inform those only who are unacquainted with the localities, that the united states navy yard at charlestown is situated at the base of bunker hill.] [footnote : see the north american review, vol. xiii. p. .] [footnote : among the earliest of the arrangements for the celebration of the th of june, , was the invitation to general lafayette to be present; and he had so timed his progress through the other states as to return to massachusetts in season for the great occasion.] the completion of the bunker hill monument. an address delivered on bunker hill, on the th of june, , on occasion of the completion of the monument. [in the introductory note to the preceding address, a brief account is given of the origin and progress of the measures adopted for the erection of the bunker hill monument, down to the time of laying the corner-stone, compiled from mr. frothingham's history of the siege of boston. the same valuable work (pp. - ) relates the obstacles which presented themselves to the rapid execution of the design, and the means by which they were overcome. in this narrative, mr. frothingham has done justice to the efforts and exertions of the successive boards of direction and officers of the association, to the skill and disinterestedness of the architect, to the liberality of distinguished individuals, to the public spirit of the massachusetts charitable mechanic association, in promoting a renewed subscription, and to the patriotic zeal of the ladies of boston and the vicinity, in holding a most successful fair. as it would be difficult farther to condense the information contained in this interesting summary, we must refer the reader to mr. frothingham's work for an adequate account of the causes which delayed the completion of the monument for nearly seventeen years, and of the resources and exertions by which the desired end was finally attained. the last stone was raised to its place on the morning of the d of july, . it was determined by the directors of the association, that the completion of the work should be celebrated in a manner not less imposing than that in which the laying of the corner-stone had been celebrated, seventeen years before. the co-operation of mr. webster was again invited, and, notwithstanding the pressure of his engagements as secretary of state at washington, was again patriotically yielded. many circumstances conspired to increase the interest of the occasion. the completion of the monument had been long delayed, but in the interval the subject had been kept much before the public mind. mr. webster's address on the th of june, , had obtained the widest circulation throughout the country; passages from it had passed into household words throughout the union. wherever they were repeated, they made the bunker hill monument a familiar thought with the people. meantime, boston and charlestown had doubled their population, and the multiplication of rail roads in every direction enabled a person, in almost any part of new england, to reach the metropolis in a day. the president of the united states and his cabinet had accepted invitations to be present; delegations of the descendants of new england were present from the remotest parts of the union; one hundred and eight surviving veterans of the revolution, among whom were some who were in the battle of bunker hill, imparted a touching interest to the scene. every thing conspired to promote the success of the ceremonial. the day was uncommonly fine; cool for the season, and clear. a large volunteer force from various parts of the country had assembled for the occasion, and formed a brilliant escort to an immense procession, as it moved from boston to the battle-ground on the hill. the bank which slopes down from the obelisk on the eastern side of monument square was covered with seats, rising in the form of an amphitheatre, under the open sky. these had been prepared for ladies, who had assembled in great numbers, awaiting the arrival of the procession. when it arrived, it was received into a large open area in front of these seats. mr. webster was stationed upon an elevated platform, in front of the audience and of the monument towering in the background. according to mr. frothingham's estimate, a hundred thousand persons were gathered about the spot, and nearly half that number are supposed to have been within the reach of the orator's voice. the ground rises slightly between the platform and the monument square, so that the whole of this immense concourse, compactly crowded together, breathless with attention, swayed by one sentiment of admiration and delight, was within the full view of the speaker. the position and the occasion were the height of the moral sublime. "when, after saying, 'it is not from my lips, it could not be from any human lips, that that strain of eloquence is this day to flow most competent to move and excite the vast multitude around me,--the powerful speaker stands motionless before us,'--he paused, and pointed in silent admiration to the sublime structure, the audience burst into long and loud applause. it was some moments before the speaker could go on with the address."] a duty has been performed. a work of gratitude and patriotism is completed. this structure, having its foundations in soil which drank deep of early revolutionary blood, has at length reached its destined height, and now lifts its summit to the skies. we have assembled to celebrate the accomplishment of this undertaking, and to indulge afresh in the recollection of the great event which it is designed to commemorate. eighteen years, more than half the ordinary duration of a generation of mankind, have elapsed since the corner-stone of this monument was laid. the hopes of its projectors rested on voluntary contributions, private munificence, and the general favor of the public. these hopes have not been disappointed. donations have been made by individuals, in some cases of large amount, and smaller sums have been contributed by thousands. all who regard the object itself as important, and its accomplishment, therefore, as a good attained, will entertain sincere respect and gratitude for the unwearied efforts of the successive presidents, boards of directors, and committees of the association which has had the general control of the work. the architect, equally entitled to our thanks and commendation, will find other reward, also, for his labor and skill, in the beauty and elegance of the obelisk itself, and the distinction which, as a work of art, it confers upon him. at a period when the prospects of further progress in the undertaking were gloomy and discouraging, the mechanic association, by a most praiseworthy and vigorous effort, raised new funds for carrying it forward, and saw them applied with fidelity, economy, and skill. it is a grateful duty to make public acknowledgments of such timely and efficient aid. the last effort and the last contribution were from a different source. garlands of grace and elegance were destined to crown a work which had its commencement in manly patriotism. the winning power of the sex addressed itself to the public, and all that was needed to carry the monument to its proposed height, and to give to it its finish, was promptly supplied. the mothers and the daughters of the land contributed thus, most successfully, to whatever there is of beauty in the monument itself, or whatever of utility and public benefit and gratification there is in its completion. of those with whom the plan originated of erecting on this spot a monument worthy of the event to be commemorated, many are now present; but others, alas! have themselves become subjects of monumental inscription. william tudor, an accomplished scholar, a distinguished writer, a most amiable man, allied both by birth and sentiment to the patriots of the revolution, died while on public service abroad, and now lies buried in a foreign land.[ ] william sullivan, a name fragrant of revolutionary merit, and of public service and public virtue, who himself partook in a high degree of the respect and confidence of the community, and yet was always most loved where best known, has also been gathered to his fathers. and last, george blake, a lawyer of learning and eloquence, a man of wit and of talent, of social qualities the most agreeable and fascinating, and of gifts which enabled him to exercise large sway over public assemblies, has closed his human career.[ ] i know that in the crowds before me there are those from whose eyes tears will flow at the mention of these names. but such mention is due to their general character, their public and private virtues, and especially, on this occasion, to the spirit and zeal with which they entered into the undertaking which is now completed. i have spoken only of those who are no longer numbered with the living. but a long life, now drawing towards its close, always distinguished by acts of public spirit, humanity, and charity, forming a character which has already become historical, and sanctified by public regard and the affection of friends, may confer even on the living the proper immunity of the dead, and be the fit subject of honorable mention and warm commendation. of the early projectors of the design of this monument, one of the most prominent, the most zealous, and the most efficient, is thomas h. perkins. it was beneath his ever-hospitable roof that those whom i have mentioned, and others yet living and now present, having assembled for the purpose, adopted the first step towards erecting a monument on bunker hill. long may he remain, with unimpaired faculties, in the wide field of his usefulness! his charities have distilled, like the dews of heaven; he has fed the hungry, and clothed the naked; he has given sight to the blind; and for such virtues there is a reward on high, of which all human memorials, all language of brass and stone, are but humble types and attempted imitations. time and nature have had their course, in diminishing the number of those whom we met here on the th of june, . most of the revolutionary characters then present have since deceased; and lafayette sleeps in his native land. yet the name and blood of warren are with us; the kindred of putnam are also here; and near me, universally beloved for his character and his virtues, and now venerable for his years, sits the son of the noble-hearted and daring prescott.[ ] gideon foster of danvers, enos reynolds of boxford, phineas johnson, robert andrews, elijah dresser, josiah cleaveland, jesse smith, philip bagley, needham maynard, roger plaisted, joseph stephens, nehemiah porter, and james harvey, who bore arms for their country either at concord and lexington, on the th of april, or on bunker hill, all now far advanced in age, have come here to-day, to look once more on the field where their valor was proved, and to receive a hearty outpouring of our respect. they have long outlived the troubles and dangers of the revolution; they have outlived the evils arising from the want of a united and efficient government; they have outlived the menace of imminent dangers to the public liberty; they have outlived nearly all their contemporaries;--but they have not outlived, they cannot outlive, the affectionate gratitude of their country. heaven has not allotted to this generation an opportunity of rendering high services, and manifesting strong personal devotion, such as they rendered and manifested, and in such a cause as that which roused the patriotic fires of their youthful breasts, and nerved the strength of their arms. but we may praise what we cannot equal, and celebrate actions which we were not born to perform. _pulchrum est benefacere reipublica, etiam bene dicere haud absurdum est._ the bunker hill monument is finished. here it stands. fortunate in the high natural eminence on which it is placed, higher, infinitely higher in its objects and purpose, it rises over the land and over the sea; and, visible, at their homes, to three hundred thousand of the people of massachusetts, it stands a memorial of the last, and a monitor to the present, and to all succeeding generations. i have spoken of the loftiness of its purpose. if it had been without any other design than the creation of a work of art, the granite of which it is composed would have slept in its native bed. it has a purpose, and that purpose gives it its character. that purpose enrobes it with dignity and moral grandeur. that well-known purpose it is which causes us to look up to it with a feeling of awe. it is itself the orator of this occasion. it is not from my lips, it could not be from any human lips, that that strain of eloquence is this day to flow most competent to move and excite the vast multitudes around me. the powerful speaker stands motionless before us. it is a plain shaft. it bears no inscriptions, fronting to the rising sun, from which the future antiquary shall wipe the dust. nor does the rising sun cause tones of music to issue from its summit. but at the rising of the sun, and at the setting of the sun; in the blaze of noonday, and beneath the milder effulgence of lunar light; it looks, it speaks, it acts, to the full comprehension of every american mind, and the awakening of glowing enthusiasm in every american heart. its silent, but awful utterance; its deep pathos, as it brings to our contemplation the th of june, , and the consequences which have resulted to us, to our country, and to the world, from the events of that day, and which we know must continue to rain influence on the destinies of mankind to the end of time; the elevation with which it raises us high above the ordinary feelings of life,--surpass all that the study of the closet, or even the inspiration of genius, can produce. to-day it speaks to us. its future auditories will be the successive generations of men, as they rise up before it and gather around it. its speech will be of patriotism and courage; of civil and religious liberty; of free government; of the moral improvement and elevation of mankind; and of the immortal memory of those who, with heroic devotion, have sacrificed their lives for their country.[ ] in the older world, numerous fabrics still exist, reared by human hands, but whose object has been lost in the darkness of ages. they are now monuments of nothing but the labor and skill which constructed them. the mighty pyramid itself, half buried in the sands of africa, has nothing to bring down and report to us, but the power of kings and the servitude of the people. if it had any purpose beyond that of a mausoleum, such purpose has perished from history and from tradition. if asked for its moral object, its admonition, its sentiment, its instruction to mankind, or any high end in its erection, it is silent; silent as the millions which lie in the dust at its base, and in the catacombs which surround it. without a just moral object, therefore, made known to man, though raised against the skies, it excites only conviction of power, mixed with strange wonder. but if the civilization of the present race of men, founded, as it is, in solid science, the true knowledge of nature, and vast discoveries in art, and which is elevated and purified by moral sentiment and by the truths of christianity, be not destined to destruction before the final termination of human existence on earth, the object and purpose of this edifice will be known till that hour shall come. and even if civilization should be subverted, and the truths of the christian religion obscured by a new deluge of barbarism, the memory of bunker hill and the american revolution will still be elements and parts of the knowledge which shall be possessed by the last man to whom the light of civilization and christianity shall be extended. this celebration is honored by the presence of the chief executive magistrate of the union. an occasion so national in its object and character, and so much connected with that revolution from which the government sprang at the head of which he is placed, may well receive from him this mark of attention and respect. well acquainted with yorktown, the scene of the last great military struggle of the revolution, his eye now surveys the field of bunker hill, the theatre of the first of those important conflicts. he sees where warren fell, where putnam, and prescott, and stark, and knowlton, and brooks fought. he beholds the spot where a thousand trained soldiers of england were smitten to the earth, in the first effort of revolutionary war, by the arm of a bold and determined yeomanry, contending for liberty and their country. and while all assembled here entertain towards him sincere personal good wishes and the high respect due to his elevated office and station, it is not to be doubted that he enters, with true american feeling, into the patriotic enthusiasm kindled by the occasion which animates the multitudes that surround him. his excellency, the governor of the commonwealth, the governor of rhode island, and the other distinguished public men whom we have the honor to receive as visitors and guests to-day, will cordially unite in a celebration connected with the great event of the revolutionary war. no name in the history of and is more distinguished than that borne by an ex-president of the united states, whom we expected to see here, but whose ill health prevents his attendance. whenever popular rights were to be asserted, an adams was present; and when the time came for the formal declaration of independence, it was the voice of an adams that shook the halls of congress. we wish we could have welcomed to us this day the inheritor of revolutionary blood, and the just and worthy representative of high revolutionary names, merit, and services. banners and badges, processions and flags, announce to us, that amidst this uncounted throng are thousands of natives of new england now residents in other states. welcome, ye kindred names, with kindred blood! from the broad savannas of the south, from the newer regions of the west, from amidst the hundreds of thousands of men of eastern origin who cultivate the rich valley of the genesee or live along the chain of the lakes, from the mountains of pennsylvania, and from the thronged cities of the coast, welcome, welcome! wherever else you may be strangers, here you are all at home. you assemble at this shrine of liberty, near the family altars at which your earliest devotions were paid to heaven, near to the temples of worship first entered by you, and near to the schools and colleges in which your education was received. you come hither with a glorious ancestry of liberty. you bring names which are on the rolls of lexington, concord, and bunker hill. you come, some of you, once more to be embraced by an aged revolutionary father, or to receive another, perhaps a last, blessing, bestowed in love and tears, by a mother, yet surviving to witness and to enjoy your prosperity and happiness. but if family associations and the recollections of the past bring you hither with greater alacrity, and mingle with your greeting much of local attachment and private affection, greeting also be given, free and hearty greeting, to every american citizen who treads this sacred soil with patriotic feeling, and respires with pleasure in an atmosphere perfumed with the recollections of ! this occasion is respectable, nay, it is grand, it is sublime, by the nationality of its sentiment. among the seventeen millions of happy people who form the american community, there is not one who has not an interest in this monument, as there is not one that has not a deep and abiding interest in that which it commemorates. woe betide the man who brings to this day's worship feeling less than wholly american! woe betide the man who can stand here with the fires of local resentments burning, or the purpose of fomenting local jealousies and the strifes of local interests festering and rankling in his heart! union, established in justice, in patriotism, and the most plain and obvious common interest,--union, founded on the same love of liberty, cemented by blood shed in the same common cause,--union has been the source of all our glory and greatness thus far, and is the ground of all our highest hopes. this column stands on union. i know not that it might not keep its position, if the american union, in the mad conflict of human passions, and in the strife of parties and factions, should be broken up and destroyed. i know not that it would totter and fall to the earth, and mingle its fragments with the fragments of liberty and the constitution, when state should be separated from state, and faction and dismemberment obliterate for ever all the hopes of the founders of our republic, and the great inheritance of their children. it might stand. but who, from beneath the weight of mortification and shame that would oppress him, could look up to behold it? whose eyeballs would not be seared by such a spectacle? for my part, should i live to such a time, i shall avert my eyes from it for ever. it is not as a mere military encounter of hostile armies that the battle of bunker hill presents its principal claim to attention. yet, even as a mere battle, there were circumstances attending it extraordinary in character, and entitling it to peculiar distinction. it was fought on this eminence; in the neighborhood of yonder city; in the presence of many more spectators than there were combatants in the conflict. men, women, and children, from every commanding position, were gazing at the battle, and looking for its results with all the eagerness natural to those who knew that the issue was fraught with the deepest consequences to themselves, personally, as well as to their country. yet, on the th of june, , there was nothing around this hill but verdure and culture. there was, indeed, the note of awful preparation in boston. there was the provincial army at cambridge, with its right flank resting on dorchester, and its left on chelsea. but here all was peace. tranquillity reigned around. on the th, every thing was changed. on this eminence had arisen, in the night, a redoubt, built by prescott, and in which he held command. perceived by the enemy at dawn, it was immediately cannonaded from the floating batteries in the river, and from the opposite shore. and then ensued the hurried movement in boston, and soon the troops of britain embarked in the attempt to dislodge the colonists. in an hour every thing indicated an immediate and bloody conflict. love of liberty on one side, proud defiance of rebellion on the other, hopes and fears, and courage and daring, on both sides, animated the hearts of the combatants as they hung on the edge of battle. i suppose it would be difficult, in a military point of view, to ascribe to the leaders on either side any just motive for the engagement which followed. on the one hand, it could not have been very important to the americans to attempt to hem the british within the town, by advancing one single post a quarter of a mile; while, on the other hand, if the british found it essential to dislodge the american troops, they had it in their power at no expense of life. by moving up their ships and batteries, they could have completely cut off all communication with the mainland over the neck, and the forces in the redoubt would have been reduced to a state of famine in forty-eight hours. but that was not the day for any such consideration on either side! both parties were anxious to try the strength of their arms. the pride of england would not permit the rebels, as she termed them, to defy her to the teeth; and, without for a moment calculating the cost, the british general determined to destroy the fort immediately. on the other side, prescott and his gallant followers longed and thirsted for a decisive trial of strength and of courage. they wished a battle, and wished it at once. and this is the true secret of the movements on this hill. i will not attempt to describe that battle. the cannonading; the landing of the british; their advance; the coolness with which the charge was met; the repulse; the second attack; the second repulse; the burning of charlestown; and, finally, the closing assault, and the slow retreat of the americans,--the history of all these is familiar. but the consequences of the battle of bunker hill were greater than those of any ordinary conflict, although between armies of far greater force, and terminating with more immediate advantage on the one side or the other. it was the first great battle of the revolution; and not only the first blow, but the blow which determined the contest. it did not, indeed, put an end to the war, but in the then existing hostile state of feeling, the difficulties could only be referred to the arbitration of the sword. and one thing is certain: that after the new england troops had shown themselves able to face and repulse the regulars, it was decided that peace never could be established, but upon the basis of the independence of the colonies. when the sun of that day went down, the event of independence was no longer doubtful. in a few days washington heard of the battle, and he inquired if the militia had stood the fire of the regulars. when told that they had not only stood that fire, but reserved their own till the enemy was within eight rods, and then poured it in with tremendous effect, "then," exclaimed he, "the liberties of the country are safe!" the consequences of this battle were just of the same importance as the revolution itself. if there was nothing of value in the principles of the american revolution, then there is nothing valuable in the battle of bunker hill and its consequences. but if the revolution was an era in the history of man favorable to human happiness, if it was an event which marked the progress of man all over the world from despotism to liberty, then this monument is not raised without cause. then the battle of bunker hill is not an event undeserving; celebrations, commemorations, and rejoicings, now and in all coming times. what, then, is the true and peculiar principle of the american revolution, and of the systems of government which it has confirmed and established? the truth is, that the american revolution was not caused by the instantaneous discovery of principles of government before unheard of, or the practical adoption of political ideas such as had never before entered into the minds of men. it was but the full development of principles of government, forms of society, and political sentiments, the origin of all which lay back two centuries in english and american history. the discovery of america, its colonization by the nations of europe, the history and progress of the colonies, from their establishment to the time when the principal of them threw off their allegiance to the respective states by which they had been planted, and founded governments of their own, constitute one of the most interesting portions of the annals of man. these events occupied three hundred years; during which period civilization and knowledge made steady progress in the old world; so that europe, at the commencement of the nineteenth century, had become greatly changed from that europe which began the colonization of america at the close of the fifteenth, or the commencement of the sixteenth. and what is most material to my present purpose is, that in the progress of the first of these centuries, that is to say, from the discovery of america to the settlements of virginia and massachusetts, political and religious events took place, which most materially affected the state of society and the sentiments of mankind, especially in england and in parts of continental europe. after a few feeble and unsuccessful efforts by england, under henry the seventh, to plant colonies in america, no designs of that kind were prosecuted for a long period, either by the english government or any of its subjects. without inquiring into the causes of this delay, its consequences are sufficiently clear and striking. england, in this lapse of a century, unknown to herself, but under the providence of god and the influence of events, was fitting herself for the work of colonizing north america, on such principles, and by such men, as should spread the english name and english blood, in time, over a great portion of the western hemisphere. the commercial spirit was greatly fostered by several laws passed in the reign of henry the seventh; and in the same reign encouragement was given to arts and manufactures in the eastern counties, and some not unimportant modifications of the feudal system took place, by allowing the breaking of entails. these and other measures, and other occurrences, were making way for a new class of society to emerge, and show itself, in a military and feudal age; a middle class, between the barons or great landholders and the retainers of the crown, on the one side, and the tenants of the crown and barons, and agricultural and other laborers, on the other side. with the rise and growth of this new class of society, not only did commerce and the arts increase, but better education, a greater degree of knowledge, juster notions of the true ends of government, and sentiments favorable to civil liberty, began to spread abroad, and become more and more common. but the plants springing from these seeds were of slow growth. the character of english society had indeed begun to undergo a change; but changes of national character are ordinarily the work of time. operative causes were, however, evidently in existence, and sure to produce, ultimately, their proper effect. from the accession of henry the seventh to the breaking out of the civil wars, england enjoyed much greater exemption from war, foreign and domestic, than for a long period before, and during the controversy between the houses of york and lancaster. these years of peace were favorable to commerce and the arts. commerce and the arts augmented general and individual knowledge; and knowledge is the only fountain, both of the love and the principles of human liberty. other powerful causes soon came into active play. the reformation of luther broke out, kindling up the minds of men afresh, leading to new habits of thought, and awakening in individuals energies before unknown even to themselves. the religious controversies of this period changed society, as well as religion; indeed, it would be easy to prove, if this occasion were proper for it, that they changed society to a considerable extent, where they did not change the religion of the state. they changed man himself, in his modes of thought, his consciousness of his own powers, and his desire of intellectual attainment. the spirit of commercial and foreign adventure, therefore, on the one hand, which had gained so much strength and influence since the time of the discovery of america, and, on the other, the assertion and maintenance of religious liberty, having their source indeed in the reformation, but continued, diversified, and constantly strengthened by the subsequent divisions of sentiment and opinion among the reformers themselves, and this love of religious liberty drawing after it, or bringing along with it, as it always does, an ardent devotion to the principle of civil liberty also, were the powerful influences under which character was formed, and men trained, for the great work of introducing english civilization, english law, and, what is more than all, anglo-saxon blood, into the wilderness of north america. raleigh and his companions may be considered as the creatures, principally, of the first of these causes. high-spirited, full of the love of personal adventure, excited, too, in some degree, by the hopes of sudden riches from the discovery of mines of the precious metals, and not unwilling to diversify the labors of settling a colony with occasional cruising against the spaniards in the west indian seas, they crossed and recrossed the ocean, with a frequency which surprises us, when we consider the state of navigation, and which evinces a most daring spirit. the other cause peopled new england. the mayflower sought our shores under no high-wrought spirit of commercial adventure, no love of gold, no mixture of purpose warlike or hostile to any human being. like the dove from the ark, she had put forth only to find rest. solemn supplications on the shore of the sea, in holland, had invoked for her, at her departure, the blessings of providence. the stars which guided her were the unobscured constellations of civil and religious liberty. her deck was the altar of the living god. fervent prayers on bended knees mingled, morning and evening, with the voices of ocean, and the sighing of the wind in her shrouds. every prosperous breeze, which, gently swelling her sails, helped the pilgrims onward in their course, awoke new anthems of praise; and when the elements were wrought into fury, neither the tempest, tossing their fragile bark like a feather, nor the darkness and howling of the midnight storm, ever disturbed, in man or woman, the firm and settled purpose of their souls, to undergo all, and to do all, that the meekest patience, the boldest resolution, and the highest trust in god, could enable human beings to suffer or to perform. some differences may, doubtless, be traced at this day between the descendants of the early colonists of virginia and those of new england, owing to the different influences and different circumstances under which the respective settlements were made; but only enough to create a pleasing variety in the midst of a general family resemblance. "facies, non omnibus una, nec diversa tamen, qualem decet esse sororum." but the habits, sentiments, and objects of both soon became modified by local causes, growing out of their condition in the new world; and as this condition was essentially alike in both, and as both at once adopted the same general rules and principles of english jurisprudence, and became accustomed to the authority of representative bodies, these differences gradually diminished. they disappeared by the progress of time, and the influence of intercourse. the necessity of some degree of union and co-operation to defend themselves against the savage tribes, tended to excite in them mutual respect and regard. they fought together in the wars against france. the great and common cause of the revolution bound them to one another by new links of brotherhood; and at length the present constitution of government united them happily and gloriously, to form the great republic of the world, and bound up their interests and fortunes, till the whole earth sees that there is now for them, in present possession as well as in future hope, but "one country, one constitution, and one destiny." the colonization of the tropical region, and the whole of the southern parts of the continent, by spain and portugal, was conducted on other principles, under the influence of other motives, and followed by far different consequences. from the time of its discovery, the spanish government pushed forward its settlements in america, not only with vigor, but with eagerness; so that long before the first permanent english settlement had been accomplished in what is now the united states, spain had conquered mexico, peru, and chili, and stretched her power over nearly all the territory she ever acquired on this continent. the rapidity of these conquests is to be ascribed in a great degree to the eagerness, not to say the rapacity, of those numerous bands of adventurers, who were stimulated by individual interests and private hopes to subdue immense regions, and take possession of them in the name of the crown of spain. the mines of gold and silver were the incitements to these efforts, and accordingly settlements were generally made, and spanish authority established immediately on the subjugation of territory, that the native population might be set to work by their new spanish masters in the mines. from these facts, the love of gold--gold, not produced by industry, nor accumulated by commerce, but gold dug from its native bed in the bowels of the earth, and that earth ravished from its rightful possessors by every possible degree of enormity, cruelty, and crime--was long the governing passion in spanish wars and spanish settlements in america. even columbus himself did not wholly escape the influence of this base motive. in his early voyages we find him passing from island to island, inquiring everywhere for gold; as if god had opened the new world to the knowledge of the old, only to gratify a passion equally senseless and sordid, and to offer up millions of an unoffending race of men to the destruction of the sword, sharpened both by cruelty and rapacity. and yet columbus was far above his age and country. enthusiastic, indeed, but sober, religious, and magnanimous; born to great things and capable of high sentiments, as his noble discourse before ferdinand and isabella, as well as the whole history of his life, shows. probably he sacrificed much to the known sentiments of others, and addressed to his followers motives likely to influence them. at the same time, it is evident that he himself looked upon the world which he discovered as a world of wealth, all ready to be seized and enjoyed. the conquerors and the european settlers of spanish america were mainly military commanders and common soldiers. the monarchy of spain was not transferred to this hemisphere, but it acted in it, as it acted at home, through its ordinary means, and its true representative, military force. the robbery and destruction of the native race was the achievement of standing armies, in the right of the king, and by his authority, fighting in his name, for the aggrandizement of his power and the extension of his prerogatives, with military ideas under arbitrary maxims,--a portion of that dreadful instrumentality by which a perfect despotism governs a people. as there was no liberty in spain, how could liberty be transmitted to spanish colonies? the colonists of english america were of the people, and a people already free. they were of the middle, industrious, and already prosperous class, the inhabitants of commercial and manufacturing cities, among whom liberty first revived and respired, after a sleep of a thousand years in the bosom of the dark ages. spain descended on the new world in the armed and terrible image of her monarchy and her soldiery; england approached it in the winning and popular garb of personal rights, public protection, and civil freedom. england transplanted liberty to america; spain transplanted power. england, through the agency of private companies and the efforts of individuals, colonized this part of north america by industrious individuals, making their own way in the wilderness, defending themselves against the savages, recognizing their right to the soil, and with a general honest purpose of introducing knowledge as well as christianity among them. spain stooped on south america, like a vulture on its prey. every thing was force. territories were acquired by fire and sword. cities were destroyed by fire and sword. hundreds of thousands of human beings fell by fire and sword. even conversion to christianity was attempted by fire and sword. behold, then, fellow-citizens, the difference resulting from the operation of the two principles! here, to-day, on the summit of bunker hill, and at the foot of this monument, behold the difference! i would that the fifty thousand voices present could proclaim it with a shout which should be heard over the globe. our inheritance was of liberty, secured and regulated by law, and enlightened by religion and knowledge; that of south america was of power, stern, unrelenting, tyrannical, military power. and now look to the consequences of the two principles on the general and aggregate happiness of the human race. behold the results, in all the regions conquered by cortéz and pizarro, and the contrasted results here. i suppose the territory of the united states may amount to one eighth, or one tenth, of that colonized by spain on this continent; and yet in all that vast region there are but between one and two millions of people of european color and european blood, while in the united states there are fourteen millions who rejoice in their descent from the people of the more northern part of europe. but we may follow the difference in the original principle of colonization, and in its character and objects, still further. we must look to moral and intellectual results; we must consider consequences, not only as they show themselves in hastening or retarding the increase of population and the supply of physical wants, but in their civilization, improvement, and happiness. we must inquire what progress has been made in the true science of liberty, in the knowledge of the great principles of self-government, and in the progress of man, as a social, moral, and religious being. i would not willingly say any thing on this occasion discourteous to the new governments founded on the demolition of the power of the spanish monarchy. they are yet on their trial, and i hope for a favorable result. but truth, sacred truth, and fidelity to the cause of civil liberty, compel me to say, that hitherto they have discovered quite too much of the spirit of that monarchy from which they separated themselves. quite too frequent resort is made to military force; and quite too much of the substance of the people is consumed in maintaining armies, not for defence against foreign aggression, but for enforcing obedience to domestic authority. standing armies are the oppressive instruments for governing the people, in the hands of hereditary and arbitrary monarchs. a military republic, a government founded on mock elections and supported only by the sword, is a movement indeed, but a retrograde and disastrous movement, from the regular and old-fashioned monarchical systems. if men would enjoy the blessings of republican government, they must govern themselves by reason, by mutual counsel and consultation, by a sense and feeling of general interest, and by the acquiescence of the minority in the will of the majority, properly expressed; and, above all, the military must be kept, according to the language of our bill of rights, in strict subordination to the civil authority. wherever this lesson is not both learned and practised, there can be no political freedom. absurd, preposterous is it, a scoff and a satire on free forms of constitutional liberty, for frames of government to be prescribed by military leaders, and the right of suffrage to be exercised at the point of the sword. making all allowance for situation and climate, it cannot be doubted by intelligent minds, that the difference now existing between north and south america is justly attributable, in a great degree, to political institutions in the old world and in the new. and how broad that difference is! suppose an assembly, in one of the valleys or on the side of one of the mountains of the southern half of the hemisphere, to be held, this day, in the neighborhood of a large city;--what would be the scene presented? yonder is a volcano, flaming and smoking, but shedding no light, moral or intellectual. at its foot is the mine, sometimes yielding, perhaps, large gains to capital, but in which labor is destined to eternal and unrequited toil, and followed only by penury and beggary. the city is filled with armed men; not a free people, armed and coming forth voluntarily to rejoice in a public festivity, but hireling troops, supported by forced loans, excessive impositions on commerce, or taxes wrung from a half-fed and a half-clothed population. for the great there are palaces covered with gold; for the poor there are hovels of the meanest sort. there is an ecclesiastical hierarchy, enjoying the wealth of princes; but there are no means of education for the people. do public improvements favor intercourse between place and place? so far from this, the traveller cannot pass from town to town, without danger, every mile, of robbery and assassination. i would not overcharge or exaggerate this picture; but its principal features are all too truly sketched. and how does it contrast with the scene now actually before us? look round upon these fields; they are verdant and beautiful, well cultivated, and at this moment loaded with the riches of the early harvest. the hands which till them are those of the free owners of the soil, enjoying equal rights, and protected by law from oppression and tyranny. look to the thousand vessels in our sight, filling the harbor, or covering the neighboring sea. they are the vehicles of a profitable commerce, carried on by men who know that the profits of their hardy enterprise, when they make them, are their own; and this commerce is encouraged and regulated by wise laws, and defended, when need be, by the valor and patriotism of the country. look to that fair city, the abode of so much diffused wealth, so much general happiness and comfort, so much personal independence, and so much general knowledge, and not undistinguished, i may be permitted to add, for hospitality and social refinement. she fears no forced contributions, no siege or sacking from military leaders of rival factions. the hundred temples in which her citizens worship god are in no danger of sacrilege. the regular administration of the laws encounters no obstacle. the long processions of children and youth, which you see this day, issuing by thousands from her free schools, prove the care and anxiety with which a popular government provides for the education and morals of the people. everywhere there is order; everywhere there is security. everywhere the law reaches to the highest and reaches to the lowest, to protect all in their rights, and to restrain all from wrong; and over all hovers liberty,--that liberty for which our fathers fought and fell on this very spot, with her eye ever watchful, and her eagle wing ever wide outspread. the colonies of spain, from their origin to their end, were subject to the sovereign authority of the mother country. their government, as well as their commerce, was a strict home monopoly. if we add to this the established usage of filling important posts in the administration of the colonies exclusively by natives of old spain, thus cutting off for ever all hopes of honorable preferment from every man born in the western hemisphere, causes enough rise up before us at once to account fully for the subsequent history and character of these provinces. the viceroys and provincial governors of spain were never at home in their governments in america. they did not feel that they were of the people whom they governed. their official character and employment have a good deal of resemblance to those of the proconsuls of rome, in asia, sicily, and gaul; but obviously no resemblance to those of carver and winthrop, and very little to those of the governors of virginia after that colony had established a popular house of burgesses. the english colonists in america, generally speaking, were men who were seeking new homes in a new world. they brought with them their families and all that was most dear to them. this was especially the case with the colonists of plymouth and massachusetts. many of them were educated men, and all possessed their full share, according to their social condition, of the knowledge and attainments of that age. the distinctive characteristic of their settlement is the introduction of the civilization of europe into a wilderness, without bringing with it the political institutions of europe. the arts, sciences, and literature of england came over with the settlers. that great portion of the common law which regulates the social and personal relations and conduct of men, came also. the jury came; the _habeas corpus_ came; the testamentary power came; and the law of inheritance and descent came also, except that part of it which recognizes the rights of primogeniture, which either did not come at all, or soon gave way to the rule of equal partition of estates among children. but the monarchy did not come, nor the aristocracy, nor the church, as an estate of the realm. political institutions were to be framed anew, such as should be adapted to the state of things. but it could not be doubtful what should be the nature and character of these institutions. a general social equality prevailed among the settlers, and an equality of political rights seemed the natural, if not the necessary consequence. after forty years of revolution, violence, and war, the people of france have placed at the head of the fundamental instrument of their government, as the great boon obtained by all their sufferings and sacrifices, the declaration that all frenchmen are equal before the law. what france has reached only by the expenditure of so much blood and treasure, and the perpetration of so much crime, the english colonists obtained by simply changing their place, carrying with them the intellectual and moral culture of europe, and the personal and social relations to which they were accustomed, but leaving behind their political institutions. it has been said with much vivacity, that the felicity of the american colonists consisted in their escape from the past. this is true so far as respects political establishments, but no further. they brought with them a full portion of all the riches of the past, in science, in art, in morals, religion, and literature. the bible came with them. and it is not to be doubted, that to the free and universal reading of the bible, in that age, men were much indebted for right views of civil liberty. the bible is a book of faith, and a book of doctrine, and a book of morals, and a book of religion, of especial revelation from god; but it is also a book which teaches man his own individual responsibility, his own dignity, and his equality with his fellow-man. bacon and locke, and shakspeare and milton, also came with the colonists. it was the object of the first settlers to form new political systems, but all that belonged to cultivated man, to family, to neighborhood, to social relations, accompanied them. in the doric phrase of one of our own historians, "they came to settle on bare creation"; but their settlement in the wilderness, nevertheless, was not a lodgement of nomadic tribes, a mere resting-place of roaming savages. it was the beginning of a permanent community, the fixed residence of cultivated men. not only was english literature read, but english, good english, was spoken and written, before the axe had made way to let in the sun upon the habitations and fields of plymouth and massachusetts. and whatever may be said to the contrary, a correct use of the english language is, at this day, more general throughout the united states, than it is throughout england herself. but another grand characteristic is, that, in the english colonies, political affairs were left to be managed by the colonists themselves. this is another fact wholly distinguishing them in character, as it has distinguished them in fortune, from the colonists of spain. here lies the foundation of that experience in self-government, which has preserved order, and security, and regularity, amidst the play of popular institutions. home government was the secret of the prosperity of the north american settlements. the more distinguished of the new england colonists, with a most remarkable sagacity and a long-sighted reach into futurity, refused to come to america unless they could bring with them charters providing for the administration of their affairs in this country.[ ] they saw from the first the evils of being governed in the new world by a power fixed in the old. acknowledging the general superiority of the crown, they still insisted on the right of passing local laws, and of local administration. and history teaches us the justice and the value of this determination in the example of virginia. the early attempts to settle that colony failed, sometimes with the most melancholy and fatal consequences, from want of knowledge, care, and attention on the part of those who had the charge of their affairs in england; and it was only after the issuing of the third charter, that its prosperity fairly commenced. the cause was, that by that third charter the people of virginia, for by this time they deserved to be so called, were allowed to constitute and establish the first popular representative assembly which ever convened on this continent, the virginia house of burgesses. the great elements, then, of the american system of government, originally introduced by the colonists, and which were early in operation, and ready to be developed, more and more, as the progress of events should justify or demand, were,-- escape from the existing political systems of europe, including its religious hierarchies, but the continued possession and enjoyment of its science and arts, its literature, and its manners; home government, or the power of making in the colony the municipal laws which were to govern it; equality of rights; representative assemblies, or forms of government founded on popular elections. few topics are more inviting, or more fit for philosophical discussion, than the effect on the happiness of mankind of institutions founded upon these principles; or, in other words, the influence of the new world upon the old. her obligations to europe for science and art, laws, literature, and manners, america acknowledges as she ought, with respect and gratitude. the people of the united states, descendants of the english stock, grateful for the treasures of knowledge derived from their english ancestors, admit also, with thanks and filial regard, that among those ancestors, under the culture of hampden and sydney and other assiduous friends, that seed of popular liberty first germinated, which on our soil has shot up to its full height, until its branches overshadow all the land. but america has not failed to make returns. if she has not wholly cancelled the obligation, or equalled it by others of like weight, she has, at least, made respectable advances towards repaying the debt. and she admits, that, standing in the midst of civilized nations, and in a civilized age, a nation among nations, there is a high part which she is expected to act, for the general advancement of human interests and human welfare. american mines have filled the mints of europe with the precious metals. the productions of the american soil and climate have poured out their abundance of luxuries for the tables of the rich, and of necessaries for the sustenance of the poor. birds and animals of beauty and value have been added to the european stocks; and transplantations from the unequalled riches of our forests have mingled themselves profusely with the elms, and ashes, and druidical oaks of england. america has made contributions to europe far more important. who can estimate the amount, or the value, of the augmentation of the commerce of the world that has resulted from america? who can imagine to himself what would now be the shock to the eastern continent, if the atlantic were no longer traversable, or if there were no longer american productions, or american markets? but america exercises influences, or holds out examples, for the consideration of the old world, of a much higher, because they are of a moral and political character. america has furnished to europe proof of the fact, that popular institutions, founded on equality and the principle of representation, are capable of maintaining governments, able to secure the rights of person, property, and reputation. america has proved that it is practicable to elevate the mass of mankind,--that portion which in europe is called the laboring, or lower class,--to raise them to self-respect, to make them competent to act a part in the great right and great duty of self-government; and she has proved that this may be done by education and the diffusion of knowledge. she holds out an example, a thousand times more encouraging than ever was presented before, to those nine tenths of the human race who are born without hereditary fortune or hereditary rank. america has furnished to the world the character of washington! and if our american institutions had done nothing else, that alone would have entitled them to the respect of mankind. washington! "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen!" washington is all our own! the enthusiastic veneration and regard in which the people of the united states hold him, prove them to be worthy of such a countryman; while his reputation abroad reflects the highest honor on his country. i would cheerfully put the question to-day to the intelligence of europe and the world, what character of the century, upon the whole, stands out in the relief of history, most pure, most respectable, most sublime; and i doubt not, that, by a suffrage approaching to unanimity, the answer would be washington! the structure now standing before us, by its uprightness, its solidity, its durability, is no unfit emblem of his character. his public virtues and public principles were as firm as the earth on which it stands; his personal motives, as pure as the serene heaven in which its summit is lost. but, indeed, though a fit, it is an inadequate emblem. towering high above the column which our hands have builded, beheld, not by the inhabitants of a single city or a single state, but by all the families of man, ascends the colossal grandeur of the character and life of washington. in all the constituents of the one, in all the acts of the other, in all its titles to immortal love, admiration, and renown, it is an american production. it is the embodiment and vindication of our transatlantic liberty. born upon our soil, of parents also born upon it; never for a moment having had sight of the old world; instructed, according to the modes of his time, only in the spare, plain, but wholesome elementary knowledge which our institutions provide for the children of the people; growing up beneath and penetrated by the genuine influences of american society; living from infancy to manhood and age amidst our expanding, but not luxurious civilization; partaking in our great destiny of labor, our long contest with unreclaimed nature and uncivilized man, our agony of glory, the war of independence, our great victory of peace, the formation of the union, and the establishment of the constitution,--he is all, all our own! washington is ours. that crowded and glorious life, "where multitudes of virtues passed along, each pressing foremost, in the mighty throng ambitious to be seen, then making room for greater multitudes that were to come,"-- that life was the life of an american citizen. i claim him for america. in all the perils, in every darkened moment of the state, in the midst of the reproaches of enemies and the misgiving of friends, i turn to that transcendent name for courage and for consolation. to him who denies or doubts whether our fervid liberty can be combined with law, with order, with the security of property, with the pursuits and advancement of happiness; to him who denies that our forms of government are capable of producing exaltation of soul, and the passion of true glory; to him who denies that we have contributed any thing to the stock of great lessons and great examples;--to all these i reply by pointing to washington! and now, friends and fellow-citizens, it is time to bring this discourse to a close. we have indulged in gratifying recollections of the past, in the prosperity and pleasures of the present, and in high hopes for the future. but let us remember that we have duties and obligations to perform, corresponding to the blessings which we enjoy. let us remember the trust, the sacred trust, attaching to the rich inheritance which we have received from our fathers. let us feel our personal responsibility, to the full extent of our power and influence, for the preservation of the principles of civil and religious liberty. and let us remember that it is only religion, and morals, and knowledge, that can make men respectable and happy, under any form of government. let us hold fast the great truth, that communities are responsible, as well as individuals; that no government is respectable, which is not just; that without unspotted purity of public faith, without sacred public principle, fidelity, and honor, no mere forms of government, no machinery of laws, can give dignity to political society. in our day and generation let us seek to raise and improve the moral sentiment, so that we may look, not for a degraded, but for an elevated and improved future. and when both we and our children shall have been consigned to the house appointed for all living, may love of country and pride of country glow with equal fervor among those to whom our names and our blood shall have descended! and then, when honored and decrepit age shall lean against the base of this monument, and troops of ingenuous youth shall be gathered round it, and when the one shall speak to the other of its objects, the purposes of its construction, and the great and glorious events with which it is connected, there shall rise from every youthful breast the ejaculation, "thank god, i--i also--am an american!" * * * * * note. page . the following description of the bunker hill monument and square is from mr. frothingham's history of the siege of boston, pp. , . "monument square is four hundred and seventeen feet from north to south, and four hundred feet from east to west, and contains nearly six acres. it embraces the whole site of the redoubt, and a part of the site of the breastwork. according to the most accurate plan of the town and the battle (page's), the monument stands where the southwest angle of the redoubt was, and the whole of the redoubt was between the monument and the street that bounds it on the west. the small mound in the northeast corner of the square is supposed to be the remains of the breastwork. warren fell about two hundred feet west of the monument. an iron fence encloses the square, and another surrounds the monument. the square has entrances on each of its sides, and at each of its corners, and is surrounded by a walk and rows of trees. "the obelisk is thirty feet in diameter at the base, about fifteen feet at the top of the truncated part, and was designed to be two hundred and twenty feet high; but the mortar and the seams between the stones make the precise height two hundred and twenty-one feet. within the shaft is a hollow cone, with a spiral stairway winding round it to its summit, which enters a circular chamber at the top. there are ninety courses of stone in the shaft,--six of them below the ground, and eighty-four above the ground. the capstone, or apex, is a single stone four feet square at the base, and three feet six inches in height, weighing two and half tons." [footnote : william tudor died at rio de janeiro, as chargé d'affaires of the united states, in .] [footnote : william sullivan died in boston in , george blake in , both gentlemen of great political and legal eminence.] [footnote : william prescott (since deceased, in ), son of colonel william prescott, who commanded on the th of june, , and father of william h. prescott, the historian.] [footnote : see the note at the end of the address.] [footnote : see the "records of the company of the massachusetts bay in new england," as published in the third volume of the transactions of the american antiquarian society, pp. - .] our relations to the south american republics. extracts from the speech on "the panama mission," delivered in the house of representatives of the united states, on the th of april, . it has been affirmed, that this measure, and the sentiments expressed by the executive relative to its objects, are an acknowledged departure from the neutral policy of the united states. sir, i deny that there is an acknowledged departure, or any departure at all, from the neutral policy of the country. what do we mean by our neutral policy? not, i suppose, a blind and stupid indifference to whatever is passing around us; not a total disregard to approaching events, or approaching evils, till they meet us full in the face. nor do we mean, by our neutral policy, that we intend never to assert our rights by force. no, sir. we mean by our policy of neutrality, that the great objects of national pursuit with us are connected with peace. we covet no provinces; we desire no conquests; we entertain no ambitious projects of aggrandizement by war. this is our policy. but it does not follow from this, that we rely less than other nations on our own power to vindicate our own rights. we know that the last logic of kings is also our last logic; that our own interests must be defended and maintained by our own arm; and that peace or war may not always be of our own choosing. our neutral policy, therefore, not only justifies, but requires, our anxious attention to the political events which take place in the world, a skilful perception of their relation to our own concerns, and an early anticipation of their consequences, and firm and timely assertion of what we hold to be our own rights and our own interests. our neutrality is not a predetermined abstinence, either from remonstrances, or from force. our neutral policy is a policy that protects neutrality, that defends neutrality, that takes up arms, if need be, for neutrality. when it is said, therefore, that this measure departs from our neutral policy, either that policy, or the measure itself, is misunderstood. it implies either that the object or the tendency of the measure is to involve us in the war of other states, which i think cannot be shown, or that the assertion of our own sentiments, on points affecting deeply our own interests, may place us in a hostile attitude toward other states, and that therefore we depart from neutrality; whereas the truth is, that the decisive assertion and the firm support of these sentiments may be most essential to the maintenance of neutrality. an honorable member from pennsylvania thinks this congress will bring a dark day over the united states. doubtless, sir, it is an interesting moment in our history; but i see no great proofs of thick-coming darkness. but the object of the remark seemed to be to show that the president himself saw difficulties on all sides, and, making a choice of evils, preferred rather to send ministers to this congress, than to run the risk of exciting the hostility of the states by refusing to send. in other words, the gentleman wished to prove that the president intended an alliance; although such intention is expressly disclaimed. much commentary has been bestowed on the letters of invitation from the ministers. i shall not go through with verbal criticisms on these letters. their general import is plain enough. i shall not gather together small and minute quotations, taking a sentence here, a word there, and a syllable in a third place, dovetailing them into the course of remark, till the printed discourse bristles in every line with inverted commas. i look to the general tenor of the invitations, and i find that we are asked to take part only in such things as concern ourselves. i look still more carefully to the answers, and i see every proper caution and proper guard. i look to the message, and i see that nothing is there contemplated likely to involve us in other men's quarrels, or that may justly give offence to any foreign state. with this i am satisfied. i must now ask the indulgence of the committee to an important point in the discussion, i mean the declaration of the president in .[ ] not only as a member of the house, but as a citizen of the country, i have an anxious desire that this part of our public history should stand in its proper light. the country has, in my judgment, a very high honor connected with that occurrence, which we may maintain, or which we may sacrifice. i look upon it as a part of its treasures of reputation; and, for one, i intend to guard it. sir, let us recur to the important political events which led to that declaration, or accompanied it. in the fall of , the allied sovereigns held their congress at verona. the great subject of consideration was the condition of spain, that country then being under the government of the cortes. the question was, whether ferdinand should be reinstated in all his authority, by the intervention of foreign force. russia, prussia, france, and austria were inclined to that measure; england dissented and protested; but the course was agreed on, and france, with the consent of these other continental powers, took the conduct of the operation into her own hands. in the spring of , a french army was sent into spain. its success was complete. the popular government was overthrown, and ferdinand re-established in all his power. this invasion, sir, was determined on, and undertaken, precisely on the doctrines which the allied monarchs had proclaimed the year before, at laybach; that is, that they had a right to interfere in the concerns of another state, and reform its government, in order to prevent the effects of its bad example; this bad example, be it remembered, always being the example of free government. now, sir, acting on this principle of supposed dangerous example, and having put down the example of the cortes in spain, it was natural to inquire with what eyes they would look on the colonies of spain, that were following still worse examples. would king ferdinand and his allies be content with what had been done in spain itself, or would he solicit their aid, and was it likely they would grant it, to subdue his rebellious american provinces? sir, it was in this posture of affairs, on an occasion which has already been alluded to, that i ventured to say, early in the session of december, , that these allied monarchs might possibly turn their attention to america; that america came within their avowed doctrine, and that her examples might very possibly attract their notice. the doctrines of laybach were not limited to any continent. spain had colonies in america, and having reformed spain herself to the true standard, it was not impossible that they might see fit to complete the work by reconciling, in their way, the colonies to the mother country. now, sir, it did so happen, that, as soon as the spanish king was completely re-established, he invited the co-operation of his allies in regard to south america. in the same month of december, of , a formal invitation was addressed by spain to the courts of st. petersburg, vienna, berlin, and paris, proposing to establish a conference at paris, in order that the plenipotentiaries there assembled might aid spain in adjusting the affairs of her revolted provinces. these affairs were proposed to be adjusted in such manner as should retain the sovereignty of spain over them; and though the co-operation of the allies by force of arms was not directly solicited, such was evidently the object aimed at. the king of spain, in making this request to the members of the holy alliance, argued as it has been seen he might argue. he quoted their own doctrines of laybach; he pointed out the pernicious example of america; and he reminded them that their success in spain itself had paved the way for successful operations against the spirit of liberty on this side of the atlantic. the proposed meeting, however, did not take place. england had already taken a decided course; for as early as october, mr. canning, in a conference with the french minister in london, informed him distinctly and expressly, that england would consider any foreign interference, by force or by menace, in the dispute between spain and the colonies, as a motive for recognizing the latter without delay. it is probable this determination of the english government was known here at the commencement of the session of congress; and it was under these circumstances, it was in this crisis, that mr. monroe's declaration was made. it was not then ascertained whether a meeting of the allies would or would not take place, to concert with spain the means of re-establishing her power; but it was plain enough they would be pressed by spain to aid her operations; and it was plain enough, also, that they had no particular liking to what was taking place on this side of the atlantic, nor any great disinclination to interfere. this was the posture of affairs; and, sir, i concur entirely in the sentiment expressed in the resolution of a gentleman from pennsylvania,[ ] that this declaration of mr. monroe was wise, seasonable, and patriotic. it has been said, in the course of this debate, to have been a loose and vague declaration. it was, i believe, sufficiently studied. i have understood, from good authority, that it was considered, weighed, and distinctly and decidedly approved, by every one of the president's advisers at that time. our government could not adopt on that occasion precisely the course which england had taken. england threatened the immediate recognition of the provinces, if the allies should take part with spain against them. we had already recognized them. it remained, therefore, only for our government to say how we should consider a combination of the allied powers, to effect objects in america, as affecting ourselves; and the message was intended to say, what it does say, that we should regard such combination as dangerous to us. sir, i agree with those who maintain the proposition, and i contend against those who deny it, that the message did mean something; that it meant much; and i maintain, against both, that the declaration effected much good, answered the end designed by it, did great honor to the foresight and the spirit of the government, and that it cannot now be taken back, retracted, or annulled, without disgrace. it met, sir, with the entire concurrence and the hearty approbation of the country. the tone which it uttered found a corresponding response in the breasts of the free people of the united states. that people saw, and they rejoiced to see, that, on a fit occasion, our weight had been thrown into the right scale, and that, without departing from our duty, we had done something useful, and something effectual, for the cause of civil liberty. one general glow of exultation, one universal feeling of the gratified love of liberty, one conscious and proud perception of the consideration which the country possessed, and of the respect and honor which belonged to it, pervaded all bosoms. possibly the public enthusiasm went too far; it certainly did go far. but, sir, the sentiment which this declaration inspired was not confined to ourselves. its force was felt everywhere, by all those who could understand its object and foresee its effect. in that very house of commons of which the gentleman from south carolina has spoken with such commendation, how was it received? not only, sir, with approbation, but, i may say, with no little enthusiasm. while the leading minister[ ] expressed his entire concurrence in the sentiments and opinions of the american president, his distinguished competitor[ ] in that popular body, less restrained by official decorum, and more at liberty to give utterance to all the feeling of the occasion, declared that no event had ever created greater joy, exultation, and gratitude among all the free men in europe; that he felt pride in being connected by blood and language with the people of the united states; that the policy disclosed by the message became a great, a free, and an independent nation; and that he hoped his own country would be prevented by no mean pride, or paltry jealousy, from following so noble and glorious an example. it is doubtless true, as i took occasion to observe the other day, that this declaration must be considered as founded on our rights, and to spring mainly from a regard to their preservation. it did not commit us, at all events, to take up arms on any indication of hostile feeling by the powers of europe towards south america. if, for example, all the states of europe had refused to trade with south america until her states should return to their former allegiance, that would have furnished no cause of interference to us. or if an armament had been furnished by the allies to act against provinces the most remote from us, as chili or buenos ayres, the distance of the scene of action diminishing our apprehension of danger, and diminishing also our means of effectual interposition, might still have left us to content ourselves with remonstrance. but a very different case would have arisen, if an army, equipped and maintained by these powers, had been landed on the shores of the gulf of mexico, and commenced the war in our own immediate neighborhood. such an event might justly be regarded as dangerous to ourselves, and, on that ground, call for decided and immediate interference by us. the sentiments and the policy announced by the declaration, thus understood, were, therefore, in strict conformity to our duties and our interest. sir, i look on the message of december, , as forming a bright page in our history. i will help neither to erase it nor tear it out; nor shall it be, by any act of mine, blurred or blotted. it did honor to the sagacity of the government, and i will not diminish that honor. it elevated the hopes, and gratified the patriotism, of the people. over those hopes i will not bring a mildew; nor will i put that gratified patriotism to shame. [footnote : in the message of president monroe to congress at the commencement of the session of - , the following passage occurs:--"in the wars of the european powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. it is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced, that we resent injuries or make preparations for defence. with the movements in this hemisphere we are of necessity more immediately connected, and by causes which must be obvious to all enlightened and impartial observers. the political system of the allied powers is essentially different, in this respect, from that of america. this difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective governments. and to the defence of our own, which has been achieved by the loss of so much blood and treasure, and matured by the wisdom of their most enlightened citizens, and under which we have enjoyed such unexampled felicity, this whole nation is devoted. we owe it, therefore, to candor, and to the amicable relations existing between the united states and those powers, to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety. with the existing colonies or dependencies of any european power, we have not interfered, and shall not interfere. but with the governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have on great consideration and on just principles acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the united states."] [footnote : mr. markley.] [footnote : mr. canning.] [footnote : mr. brougham.] adams and jefferson. discourse in commemoration of the lives and services of john adams and thomas jefferson, delivered in faneuil hall, boston, on the d of august, . [since the decease of general washington, on the th of december, , the public mind has never been so powerfully affected in this part of the country by any similar event, as by the death of john adams, on the th of july, . the news reached boston in the evening of that day. the decease of this venerable fellow-citizen must at all times have appealed with much force to the patriotic sympathies of the people of massachusetts. it acquired a singular interest from the year and the day on which it took place;--the th of july of the year completing the half-century from that ever memorable era in the history of this country and the world, the declaration of independence; a measure in which mr. adams himself had taken so distinguished a part. the emotions of the public were greatly increased by the indications given by mr. adams in his last hours, that he was fully aware that the day was the anniversary of independence, and by his dying allusion to the supposed fact that his colleague, jefferson, survived him. when, in the course of a few days, the news arrived from virginia, that he also had departed this life, on the same day and a few hours before mr. adams, the sensibility of the community, as of the country at large, was touched beyond all example. the occurrence was justly deemed without a parallel in history. the various circumstances of association and coincidence which marked the characters and careers of these great men, and especially those of their simultaneous decease on the th of july, were dwelt upon with melancholy but untiring interest. the circles of private life, the press, public bodies, and the pulpit, were for some time almost engrossed with the topic; and solemn rites of commemoration were performed throughout the country. an early day was appointed for this purpose by the city council of boston. the whole community manifested its sympathy in the extraordinary event; and on the d of august, , at the request of the municipal authorities, and in the presence of an immense audience, the following discourse was delivered in faneuil hall.] this is an unaccustomed spectacle. for the first time, fellow-citizens, badges of mourning shroud the columns and overhang the arches of this hall. these walls, which were consecrated, so long ago, to the cause of american liberty, which witnessed her infant struggles, and rung with the shouts of her earliest victories, proclaim, now, that distinguished friends and champions of that great cause have fallen. it is right that it should be thus. the tears which flow, and the honors that are paid, when the founders of the republic die, give hope that the republic itself may be immortal. it is fit that, by public assembly and solemn observance, by anthem and by eulogy, we commemorate the services of national benefactors, extol their virtues, and render thanks to god for eminent blessings, early given and long continued, through their agency, to our favored country. adams and jefferson are no more; and we are assembled, fellow-citizens, the aged, the middle-aged, and the young, by the spontaneous impulse of all, under the authority of the municipal government, with the presence of the chief magistrate of the commonwealth, and others its official representatives, the university, and the learned societies, to bear our part in those manifestations of respect and gratitude which pervade the whole land. adams and jefferson are no more. on our fiftieth anniversary, the great day of national jubilee, in the very hour of public rejoicing, in the midst of echoing and re-echoing voices of thanksgiving, while their own names were on all tongues, they took their flight together to the world of spirits. if it be true that no one can safely be pronounced happy while he lives, if that event which terminates life can alone crown its honors and its glory, what felicity is here! the great epic of their lives, how happily concluded! poetry itself has hardly terminated illustrious lives, and finished the career of earthly renown, by such a consummation. if we had the power, we could not wish to reverse this dispensation of the divine providence. the great objects of life were accomplished, the drama was ready to be closed. it has closed; our patriots have fallen; but so fallen, at such age, with such coincidence, on such a day, that we cannot rationally lament that that end has come, which we knew could not be long deferred. neither of these great men, fellow-citizens, could have died, at any time, without leaving an immense void in our american society. they have been so intimately, and for so long a time, blended with the history of the country, and especially so united, in our thoughts and recollections, with the events of the revolution, that the death of either would have touched the chords of public sympathy. we should have felt that one great link, connecting us with former times, was broken; that we had lost something more, as it were, of the presence of the revolution itself, and of the act of independence, and were driven on, by another great remove from the days of our country's early distinction, to meet posterity, and to mix with the future. like the mariner, whom the currents of the ocean and the winds carry along, till he sees the stars which have directed his course and lighted his pathless way descend, one by one, beneath the rising horizon, we should have felt that the stream of time had borne us onward till another great luminary, whose light had cheered us and whose guidance we had followed, had sunk away from our sight. but the concurrence of their death on the anniversary of independence has naturally awakened stronger emotions. both had been presidents, both had lived to great age, both were early patriots, and both were distinguished and ever honored by their immediate agency in the act of independence. it cannot but seem striking and extraordinary, that these two should live to see the fiftieth year from the date of that act; that they should complete that year; and that then, on the day which had fast linked for ever their own fame with their country's glory, the heavens should open to receive them both at once. as their lives themselves were the gifts of providence, who is not willing to recognize in their happy termination, as well as in their long continuance, proofs that our country and its benefactors are objects of his care? adams and jefferson, i have said, are no more. as human beings, indeed, they are no more. they are no more, as in , bold and fearless advocates of independence; no more, as at subsequent periods, the head of the government; no more, as we have recently seen them, aged and venerable objects of admiration and regard. they are no more. they are dead. but how little is there of the great and good which can die! to their country they yet live, and live for ever. they live in all that perpetuates the remembrance of men on earth; in the recorded proofs of their own great actions, in the offspring of their intellect, in the deep-engraved lines of public gratitude, and in the respect and homage of mankind. they live in their example; and they live, emphatically, and will live, in the influence which their lives and efforts, their principles and opinions, now exercise, and will continue to exercise, on the affairs of men, not only in their own country, but throughout the civilized world. a superior and commanding human intellect, a truly great man, when heaven vouchsafes so rare a gift, is not a temporary flame, burning brightly for a while, and then giving place to returning darkness. it is rather a spark of fervent heat, as well as radiant light, with power to enkindle the common mass of human mind; so that when it glimmers in its own decay, and finally goes out in death, no night follows, but it leaves the world all light, all on fire, from the potent contact of its own spirit. bacon died; but the human understanding, roused by the touch of his miraculous wand to a perception of the true philosophy and the just mode of inquiring after truth, has kept on its course successfully and gloriously. newton died; yet the courses of the spheres are still known, and they yet move on by the laws which he discovered, and in the orbits which he saw, and described for them, in the infinity of space. no two men now live, fellow-citizens, perhaps it may be doubted whether any two men have ever lived in one age, who, more than those we now commemorate, have impressed on mankind their own sentiments in regard to politics and government, infused their own opinions more deeply into the opinions of others, or given a more lasting direction to the current of human thought. their work doth not perish with them. the tree which they assisted to plant will flourish, although they water it and protect it no longer; for it has struck its roots deep, it has sent them to the very centre; no storm, not of force to burst the orb, can overturn it; its branches spread wide; they stretch their protecting arms broader and broader, and its top is destined to reach the heavens. we are not deceived. there is no delusion here. no age will come in which the american revolution will appear less than it is, one of the greatest events in human history. no age will come in which it shall cease to be seen and felt, on either continent, that a mighty step, a great advance, not only in american affairs, but in human affairs, was made on the th of july, . and no age will come, we trust, so ignorant or so unjust as not to see and acknowledge the efficient agency of those we now honor in producing that momentous event. we are not assembled, therefore, fellow-citizens, as men overwhelmed with calamity by the sudden disruption of the ties of friendship or affection, or as in despair for the republic by the untimely blighting of its hopes. death has not surprised us by an unseasonable blow. we have, indeed, seen the tomb close, but it has closed only over mature years, over long-protracted public service, over the weakness of age, and over life itself only when the ends of living had been fulfilled. these suns, as they rose slowly and steadily, amidst clouds and storms, in their ascendant, so they have not rushed from their meridian to sink suddenly in the west. like the mildness, the serenity, the continuing benignity of a summer's day, they have gone down with slow-descending, grateful, long-lingering light; and now that they are beyond the visible margin of the world, good omens cheer us from "the bright track of their fiery car"! there were many points of similarity in the lives and fortunes of these great men. they belonged to the same profession, and had pursued its studies and its practice, for unequal lengths of time indeed, but with diligence and effect. both were learned and able lawyers. they were natives and inhabitants, respectively, of those two of the colonies which at the revolution were the largest and most powerful, and which naturally had a lead in the political affairs of the times. when the colonies became in some degree united, by the assembling of a general congress, they were brought to act together in its deliberations, not indeed at the same time, but both at early periods. each had already manifested his attachment to the cause of the country, as well as his ability to maintain it, by printed addresses, public speeches, extensive correspondence, and whatever other mode could be adopted for the purpose of exposing the encroachments of the british parliament and animating the people to a manly resistance. both were not only decided, but early, friends of independence. while others yet doubted, they were resolved; where others hesitated, they pressed forward. they were both members of the committee for preparing the declaration of independence, and they constituted the sub-committee appointed by the other members to make the draft. they left their seats in congress, being called to other public employments, at periods not remote from each other, although one of them returned to it afterwards for a short time. neither of them was of the assembly of great men which formed the present constitution, and neither was at any time a member of congress under its provisions. both have been public ministers abroad, both vice-presidents and both presidents of the united states. these coincidences are now singularly crowned and completed. they have died together; and they died on the anniversary of liberty. when many of us were last in this place, fellow-citizens, it was on the day of that anniversary. we were met to enjoy the festivities belonging to the occasion, and to manifest our grateful homage to our political fathers. we did not, we could not here, forget our venerable neighbor of quincy. we knew that we were standing, at a time of high and palmy prosperity, where he had stood in the hour of utmost peril; that we saw nothing but liberty and security, where he had met the frown of power; that we were enjoying every thing, where he had hazarded every thing; and just and sincere plaudits rose to his name, from the crowds which filled this area, and hung over these galleries. he whose grateful duty it was to speak to us,[ ] on that day, of the virtues of our fathers, had, indeed, admonished us that time and years were about to level his venerable frame with the dust. but he bade us hope that "the sound of a nation's joy, rushing from our cities, ringing from our valleys, echoing from our hills, might yet break the silence of his aged ear; that the rising blessings of grateful millions might yet visit with glad light his decaying vision." alas! that vision was then closing for ever. alas! the silence which was then settling on that aged ear was an everlasting silence! for, lo! in the very moment of our festivities, his freed spirit ascended to god who gave it! human aid and human solace terminate at the grave; or we would gladly have borne him upward, on a nation's outspread hands; we would have accompanied him, and with the blessings of millions and the prayers of millions, commended him to the divine favor. while still indulging our thoughts, on the coincidence of the death of this venerable man with the anniversary of independence, we learn that jefferson, too, has fallen; and that these aged patriots, these illustrious fellow-laborers, have left our world together. may not such events raise the suggestion that they are not undesigned, and that heaven does so order things, as sometimes to attract strongly the attention and excite the thoughts of men? the occurrence has added new interest to our anniversary, and will be remembered in all time to come. the occasion, fellow-citizens, requires some account of the lives and services of john adams and thomas jefferson. this duty must necessarily be performed with great brevity, and in the discharge of it i shall be obliged to confine myself, principally, to those parts of their history and character which belonged to them as public men. john adams was born at quincy, then part of the ancient town of braintree, on the th day of october (old style), . he was a descendant of the puritans, his ancestors having early emigrated from england, and settled in massachusetts. discovering in childhood a strong love of reading and of knowledge, together with marks of great strength and activity of mind, proper care was taken by his worthy father to provide for his education. he pursued his youthful studies in braintree, under mr. marsh, a teacher whose fortune it was that josiah quincy, jr., as well as the subject of these remarks, should receive from him his instruction in the rudiments of classical literature. having been admitted, in , a member of harvard college, mr. adams was graduated, in course, in ; and on the catalogue of that institution, his name, at the time of his death, was second among the living alumni, being preceded only by that of the venerable holyoke. with what degree of reputation he left the university is not now precisely known. we know only that he was distinguished in a class which numbered locke and hemmenway among its members. choosing the law for his profession, he commenced and prosecuted its studies at worcester, under the direction of samuel putnam, a gentleman whom he has himself described as an acute man, an able and learned lawyer, and as being in large professional practice at that time. in he was admitted to the bar, and entered upon the practice of the law in braintree. he is understood to have made his first considerable effort, or to have attained his first signal success, at plymouth, on one of those occasions which furnish the earliest opportunity for distinction to many young men of the profession, a jury trial, and a criminal cause. his business naturally grew with his reputation, and his residence in the vicinity afforded the opportunity, as his growing eminence gave the power, of entering on a larger field of practice in the capital. in he removed his residence to boston, still continuing his attendance on the neighboring circuits, and not unfrequently called to remote parts of the province. in his professional firmness was brought to a test of some severity, on the application of the british officers and soldiers to undertake their defence, on the trial of the indictments found against them on account of the transactions of the memorable th of march. he seems to have thought, on this occasion, that a man can no more abandon the proper duties of his profession, than he can abandon other duties. the event proved, that, as he judged well for his own reputation, so, too, he judged well for the interest and permanent fame of his country. the result of that trial proved, that, notwithstanding the high degree of excitement then existing in consequence of the measures of the british government, a jury of massachusetts would not deprive the most reckless enemies, even the officers of that standing army quartered among them, which they so perfectly abhorred, of any part of that protection which the law, in its mildest and most indulgent interpretation, affords to persons accused of crimes. without following mr. adams's professional course further, suffice it to say, that on the first establishment of the judicial tribunals under the authority of the state, in , he received an offer of the high and responsible station of chief justice of the supreme court of massachusetts. but he was destined for another and a different career. from early life the bent of his mind was toward politics; a propensity which the state of the times, if it did not create, doubtless very much strengthened. public subjects must have occupied the thoughts and filled up the conversation in the circles in which he then moved; and the interesting questions at that time just arising could not but seize on a mind like his, ardent, sanguine, and patriotic. a letter, fortunately preserved, written by him at worcester, so early as the th of october, , is a proof of very comprehensive views, and uncommon depth of reflection, in a young man not yet quite twenty. in this letter he predicted the transfer of power, and the establishment of a new seat of empire in america; he predicted, also, the increase of population in the colonies; and anticipated their naval distinction, and foretold that all europe combined could not subdue them. all this is said, not on a public occasion or for effect, but in the style of sober and friendly correspondence, as the result of his own thoughts. "i sometimes retire," said he, at the close of the letter, "and, laying things together, form some reflections pleasing to myself. the produce of one of these reveries you have read above." this prognostication so early in his own life, so early in the history of the country, of independence, of vast increase of numbers, of naval force, of such augmented power as might defy all europe, is remarkable. it is more remarkable that its author should live to see fulfilled to the letter what could have seemed to others, at the time, but the extravagance of youthful fancy. his earliest political feelings were thus strongly american, and from this ardent attachment to his native soil he never departed. while still living at quincy, and at the age of twenty-four, mr. adams was present, in this town, at the argument before the supreme court respecting _writs of assistance_, and heard the celebrated and patriotic speech of james otis. unquestionably, that was a masterly performance. no flighty declamation about liberty, no superficial discussion of popular topics, it was a learned, penetrating, convincing, constitutional argument, expressed in a strain of high and resolute patriotism. he grasped the question then pending between england and her colonies with the strength of a lion; and if he sometimes sported, it was only because the lion himself is sometimes playful. its success appears to have been as great as its merits, and its impression was widely felt. mr. adams himself seems never to have lost the feeling it produced, and to have entertained constantly the fullest conviction of its important effects. "i do say," he observes, "in the most solemn manner, that mr. otis's oration against writs of assistance breathed into this nation the breath of life."[ ] in mr. adams laid before the public, anonymously, a series of essays, afterwards collected in a volume in london, under the title of "a dissertation on the canon and feudal law."[ ] the object of this work was to show that our new england ancestors, in consenting to exile themselves from their native land, were actuated mainly by the desire of delivering themselves from the power of the hierarchy, and from the monarchical and aristocratical systems of the other continent; and to make this truth bear with effect on the politics of the times. its tone is uncommonly bold and animated for that period. he calls on the people, not only to defend, but to study and understand, their rights and privileges; urges earnestly the necessity of diffusing general knowledge; invokes the clergy and the bar, the colleges and academies, and all others who have the ability and the means to expose the insidious designs of arbitrary power, to resist its approaches, and to be persuaded that there is a settled design on foot to enslave all america. "be it remembered," says the author, "that liberty must, at all hazards, be supported. we have a right to it, derived from our maker. but if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood. and liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings and a desire to know. but, besides this, they have a right, an indisputable unalienable, indefeasible, divine right, to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, i mean of the characters and conduct of their rulers. rulers are no more than attorneys, agents, and trustees for the people; and if the cause, the interest and trust, is insidiously betrayed, or wantonly trifled away, the people have a right to revoke the authority that they themselves have deputed, and to constitute abler and better agents, attorneys, and trustees." the citizens of this town conferred on mr. adams his first political distinction, and clothed him with his first political trust, by electing him one of their representatives, in . before this time he had become extensively known throughout the province, as well by the part he had acted in relation to public affairs, as by the exercise of his professional ability. he was among those who took the deepest interest in the controversy with england, and, whether in or out of the legislature, his time and talents were alike devoted to the cause. in the years and he was chosen a councillor by the members of the general court, but rejected by governor hutchinson in the former of those years, and by governor gage in the latter. the time was now at hand, however, when the affairs of the colonies urgently demanded united counsels throughout the country. an open rupture with the parent state appeared inevitable, and it was but the dictate of prudence that those who were united by a common interest and a common danger should protect that interest and guard against that danger by united efforts. a general congress of delegates from all the colonies having been proposed and agreed to, the house of representatives, on the th of june, , elected james bowdoin, thomas cushing, samuel adams, john adams, and robert treat paine, delegates from massachusetts. this appointment was made at salem, where the general court had been convened by governor gage, in the last hour of the existence of a house of representatives under the provincial charter. while engaged in this important business, the governor, having been informed of what was passing, sent his secretary with a message dissolving the general court. the secretary, finding the door locked, directed the messenger to go in and inform the speaker that the secretary was at the door with a message from the governor. the messenger returned, and informed the secretary that the orders of the house were that the doors should be kept fast; whereupon the secretary soon after read upon the stairs a proclamation dissolving the general court. thus terminated, for ever, the actual exercise of the political power of england in or over massachusetts. the four last-named delegates accepted their appointments, and took their seats in congress the first day of its meeting, the th of september, , in philadelphia. the proceedings of the first congress are well known, and have been universally admired. it is in vain that we would look for superior proofs of wisdom, talent, and patriotism. lord chatham said, that, for himself, he must declare that he had studied and admired the free states of antiquity, the master states of the world, but that for solidity of reasoning, force of sagacity, and wisdom of conclusion, no body of men could stand in preference to this congress. it is hardly inferior praise to say, that no production of that great man himself can be pronounced superior to several of the papers published as the proceedings of this most able, most firm, most patriotic assembly. there is, indeed, nothing superior to them in the range of political disquisition. they not only embrace, illustrate, and enforce every thing which political philosophy, the love of liberty, and the spirit of free inquiry had antecedently produced, but they add new and striking views of their own, and apply the whole, with irresistible force, in support of the cause which had drawn them together. mr. adams was a constant attendant on the deliberations of this body, and bore an active part in its important measures. he was of the committee to state the rights of the colonies, and of that also which reported the address to the king. as it was in the continental congress, fellow-citizens, that those whose deaths have given rise to this occasion were first brought together, and called upon to unite their industry and their ability in the service of the country, let us now turn to the other of these distinguished men, and take a brief notice of his life up to the period when he appeared within the walls of congress. thomas jefferson, descended from ancestors who had been settled in virginia for some generations, was born near the spot on which he died, in the county of albemarle, on the d of april (old style), . his youthful studies were pursued in the neighborhood of his father's residence until he was removed to the college of william and mary, the highest honors of which he in due time received. having left the college with reputation, he applied himself to the study of the law under the tuition of george wythe, one of the highest judicial names of which that state can boast. at an early age he was elected a member of the legislature, in which he had no sooner appeared than he distinguished himself by knowledge, capacity, and promptitude. mr. jefferson appears to have been imbued with an early love of letters and science, and to have cherished a strong disposition to pursue these objects. to the physical sciences, especially, and to ancient classic literature, he is understood to have had a warm attachment, and never entirely to have lost sight of them in the midst of the busiest occupations. but the times were times for action, rather than for contemplation. the country was to be defended, and to be saved, before it could be enjoyed. philosophic leisure and literary pursuits, and even the objects of professional attention, were all necessarily postponed to the urgent calls of the public service. the exigency of the country made the same demand on mr. jefferson that it made on others who had the ability and the disposition to serve it; and he obeyed the call; thinking and feeling in this respect with the great roman orator: "quis enim est tam cupidus in perspicienda cognoscendaque rerum natura, ut, si ei tractanti contemplantique res cognitione dignissimas subito sit allatum periculum discrimenque patriae, cui subvenire opitularique possit, non illa omnia relinquat atque abjiciat, etiam si dinumerare se stellas, aut metiri mundi magnitudinem posse arbitretur?"[ ] entering with all his heart into the cause of liberty, his ability, patriotism, and power with the pen naturally drew upon him a large participation in the most important concerns. wherever he was, there was found a soul devoted to the cause, power to defend and maintain it, and willingness to incur all its hazards. in he published a "summary view of the rights of british america," a valuable production among those intended to show the dangers which threatened the liberties of the country, and to encourage the people in their defence. in june, , he was elected a member of the continental congress, as successor to peyton randolph, who had resigned his place on account of ill health, and took his seat in that body on the st of the same month. and now, fellow-citizens, without pursuing the biography of these illustrious men further, for the present, let us turn our attention to the most prominent act of their lives, their participation in the declaration of independence. preparatory to the introduction of that important measure, a committee, at the head of which was mr. adams, had reported a resolution, which congress adopted on the th of may, recommending, in substance, to all the colonies which had not already established governments suited to the exigencies of their affairs, _to adopt such government as would, in the opinion of the representatives of the people, best conduce to the happiness and safety of their constituents in particular, and america in general_. this significant vote was soon followed by the direct proposition which richard henry lee had the honor to submit to congress, by resolution, on the th day of june. the published journal does not expressly state it, but there is no doubt, i suppose, that this resolution was in the same words, when originally submitted by mr. lee, as when finally passed. having been discussed on saturday, the th, and monday, the th of june, this resolution was on the last-mentioned day postponed for further consideration to the first day of july; and at the same time it was voted, that a committee be appointed to prepare a declaration to the effect of the resolution. this committee was elected by ballot, on the following day, and consisted of thomas jefferson, john adams, benjamin franklin, roger sherman, and robert r. livingston. it is usual, when committees are elected by ballot, that their members should be arranged in order, according to the number of votes which each has received. mr. jefferson, therefore, had received the highest, and mr. adams the next highest number of votes. the difference is said to have been but of a single vote. mr. jefferson and mr. adams, standing thus at the head of the committee, were requested by the other members to act as a subcommittee to prepare the draft; and mr. jefferson drew up the paper. the original draft, as brought by him from his study, and submitted to the other members of the committee, with interlineations in the handwriting of dr. franklin, and others in that of mr. adams, was in mr. jefferson's possession at the time of his death.[ ] the merit of this paper is mr. jefferson's. some changes were made in it at the suggestion of other members of the committee, and others by congress while it was under discussion. but none of them altered the tone, the frame, the arrangement, or the general character of the instrument. as a composition, the declaration is mr. jefferson's. it is the production of his mind, and the high honor of it belongs to him, clearly and absolutely. it has sometimes been said, as if it were a derogation from the merits of this paper, that it contains nothing new; that it only states grounds of proceeding, and presses topics of argument, which had often been stated and pressed before. but it was not the object of the declaration to produce any thing new. it was not to invent reasons for independence, but to state those which governed the congress. for great and sufficient causes, it was proposed to declare independence; and the proper business of the paper to be drawn was to set forth those causes, and justify the authors of the measure, in any event of fortune, to the country and to posterity. the cause of american independence, moreover, was now to be presented to the world in such manner, if it might so be, as to engage its sympathy, to command its respect, to attract its admiration; and in an assembly of most able and distinguished men, thomas jefferson had the high honor of being the selected advocate of this cause. to say that he performed his great work well, would be doing him injustice. to say that he did excellently well, admirably well, would be inadequate and halting praise. let us rather say, that he so discharged the duty assigned him, that all americans may well rejoice that the work of drawing the title-deed of their liberties devolved upon him. with all its merits, there are those who have thought that there was one thing in the declaration to be regretted; and that is, the asperity and apparent anger with which it speaks of the person of the king; the industrious ability with which it accumulates and charges upon him all the injuries which the colonies had suffered from the mother country. possibly some degree of injustice, now or hereafter, at home or abroad, may be done to the character of mr. jefferson, if this part of the declaration be not placed in its proper light. anger or resentment, certainly much less personal reproach and invective, could not properly find place in a composition of such high dignity, and of such lofty and permanent character. a single reflection on the original ground of dispute between england and the colonies is sufficient to remove any unfavorable impression in this respect. the inhabitants of all the colonies, while colonies, admitted themselves bound by their allegiance to the king; but they disclaimed altogether the authority of parliament; holding themselves, in this respect, to resemble the condition of scotland and ireland before the respective unions of those kingdoms with england, when they acknowledged allegiance to the same king, but had each its separate legislature. the tie, therefore, which our revolution was to break did not subsist between us and the british parliament, or between us and the british government in the aggregate, but directly between us and the king himself. the colonies had never admitted themselves subject to parliament. that was precisely the point of the original controversy. they had uniformly denied that parliament had authority to make laws for them. there was, therefore, no subjection to parliament to be thrown off.[ ] but allegiance to the king did exist, and had been uniformly acknowledged; and down to the most solemn assurances had been given that it was not intended to break that allegiance, or to throw it off. therefore, as the direct object and only effect of the declaration, according to the principles on which the controversy had been maintained on our part, were to sever the tie of allegiance which bound us to the king, it was properly and necessarily founded on acts of the crown itself, as its justifying causes. parliament is not so much as mentioned in the whole instrument. when odious and oppressive acts are referred to, it is done by charging the king with confederating with others "in pretended acts of legislation"; the object being constantly to hold the king himself directly responsible for those measures which were the grounds of separation. even the precedent of the english revolution was not overlooked, and in this case, as well as in that, occasion was found to say that the king had _abdicated_ the government. consistency with the principles upon which resistance began, and with all the previous state papers issued by congress, required that the declaration should be bottomed on the misgovernment of the king; and therefore it was properly framed with that aim and to that end. the king was known, indeed, to have acted, as in other cases, by his ministers, and with his parliament; but as our ancestors had never admitted themselves subject either to ministers or to parliament, there were no reasons to be given for now refusing obedience to their authority. this clear and obvious necessity of founding the declaration on the misconduct of the king himself, gives to that instrument its personal application, and its character of direct and pointed accusation. the declaration having been reported to congress by the committee, the resolution itself was taken up and debated on the first day of july, and again on the second, on which last day it was agreed to and adopted, in these words:-- "_resolved_, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the british crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of great britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved." having thus passed the main resolution, congress proceeded to consider the reported draught of the declaration. it was discussed on the second, and third, and fourth days of the month, in committee of the whole; and on the last of those days, being reported from that committee, it received the final approbation and sanction of congress. it was ordered, at the same time, that copies be sent to the several states, and that it be proclaimed at the head of the army. the declaration thus published did not bear the names of the members, for as yet it had not been signed by them. it was authenticated, like other papers of the congress, by the signatures of the president and secretary. on the th of july, as appears by the secret journal, congress "_resolved_, that the declaration, passed on the fourth, be fairly engrossed on parchment, with the title and style of 'the unanimous declaration of the thirteen united states of america'; and that the same, when engrossed, be signed by every member of congress." and on the second day of august following, "the declaration, being engrossed and compared at the table, was signed by the members." so that it happens, fellow-citizens, that we pay these honors to their memory on the anniversary of that day ( d of august) on which these great men actually signed their names to the declaration. the declaration was thus made, that is, it passed and was adopted as an act of congress, on the fourth of july; it was then signed, and certified by the president and secretary, like other acts. the fourth of july, therefore, is the anniversary of the declaration. but the signatures of the members present were made to it, being then engrossed on parchment, on the second day of august. absent members afterwards signed, as they came in; and indeed it bears the names of some who were not chosen members of congress until after the fourth of july. the interest belonging to the subject will be sufficient, i hope, to justify these details.[ ] the congress of the revolution, fellow-citizens, sat with closed doors, and no report of its debates was ever made. the discussion, therefore, which accompanied this great measure, has never been preserved, except in memory and by tradition. but it is, i believe, doing no injustice to others to say, that the general opinion was, and uniformly has been, that in debate, on the side of independence, john adams had no equal. the great author of the declaration himself has expressed that opinion uniformly and strongly. "john adams," said he, in the hearing of him who has now the honor to address you, "john adams was our colossus on the floor. not graceful, not elegant, not always fluent, in his public addresses, he yet came out with a power, both of thought and of expression, which moved us from our seats." for the part which he was here to perform, mr. adams doubtless was eminently fitted. he possessed a bold spirit, which disregarded danger, and a sanguine reliance on the goodness of the cause, and the virtues of the people, which led him to overlook all obstacles. his character, too, had been formed in troubled times. he had been rocked in the early storms of the controversy, and had acquired a decision and a hardihood proportioned to the severity of the discipline which he had undergone. he not only loved the american cause devoutly, but had studied and understood it. it was all familiar to him. he had tried his powers on the questions which it involved, often and in various ways; and had brought to their consideration whatever of argument or illustration the history of his own country, the history of england, or the stores of ancient or of legal learning, could furnish. every grievance enumerated in the long catalogue of the declaration had been the subject of his discussion, and the object of his remonstrance and reprobation. from , the colonies, the rights of the colonies, the liberties of the colonies, and the wrongs inflicted on the colonies, had engaged his constant attention; and it has surprised those who have had the opportunity of witnessing it, with what full remembrance and with what prompt recollection he could refer, in his extreme old age, to every act of parliament affecting the colonies, distinguishing and stating their respective titles, sections, and provisions; and to all the colonial memorials, remonstrances, and petitions, with whatever else belonged to the intimate and exact history of the times from that year to . it was, in his own judgment, between these years that the american people came to a full understanding and thorough knowledge of their rights, and to a fixed resolution of maintaining them; and bearing himself an active part in all important transactions, the controversy with england being then in effect the business of his life, facts, dates, and particulars made an impression which was never effaced. he was prepared, therefore, by education and discipline, as well as by natural talent and natural temperament, for the part which he was now to act. the eloquence of mr. adams resembled his general character, and formed, indeed, a part of it. it was bold, manly, and energetic; and such the crisis required. when public bodies are to be addressed on momentous occasions, when great interests are at stake, and strong passions excited, nothing is valuable in speech farther than as it is connected with high intellectual and moral endowments. clearness, force, and earnestness are the qualities which produce conviction. true eloquence, indeed, does not consist in speech. it cannot be brought from far. labor and learning may toil for it, but they will toil in vain. words and phrases may be marshalled in every way, but they cannot compass it. it must exist in the man, in the subject, and in the occasion. affected passion, intense expression, the pomp of declamation, all may aspire to it; they cannot reach it. it comes, if it come at all, like the outbreaking of a fountain from the earth, or the bursting forth of volcanic fires, with spontaneous, original, native force. the graces taught in the schools, the costly ornaments and studied contrivances of speech, shock and disgust men, when their own lives, and the fate of their wives, their children, and their country, hang on the decision of the hour. then words have lost their power, rhetoric is vain, and all elaborate oratory contemptible. even genius itself then feels rebuked and subdued, as in the presence of higher qualities. then patriotism is eloquent; then self-devotion is eloquent. the clear conception, outrunning the deductions of logic, the high purpose, the firm resolve, the dauntless spirit, speaking on the tongue, beaming from the eye, informing every feature, and urging the whole man onward, right onward to his object,--this, this is eloquence; or rather, it is something greater and higher than all eloquence,--it is action, noble, sublime, godlike action. in july, , the controversy had passed the stage of argument. an appeal had been made to force, and opposing armies were in the field. congress, then, was to decide whether the tie which had so long bound us to the parent state was to be severed at once, and severed for ever. all the colonies had signified their resolution to abide by this decision, and the people looked for it with the most intense anxiety. and surely, fellow-citizens, never, never were men called to a more important political deliberation. if we contemplate it from the point where they then stood, no question could be more full of interest; if we look at it now, and judge of its importance by its effects, it appears of still greater magnitude. let us, then, bring before us the assembly, which was about to decide a question thus big with the fate of empire. let us open their doors and look in upon their deliberations. let us survey the anxious and careworn countenances, let us hear the firm-toned voices, of this band of patriots. hancock presides over the solemn sitting; and one of those not yet prepared to pronounce for absolute independence is on the floor, and is urging his reasons for dissenting from the declaration. "let us pause! this step, once taken, cannot be retraced. this resolution, once passed, will cut off all hope of reconciliation. if success attend the arms of england, we shall then be no longer colonies, with charters and with privileges; these will all be forfeited by this act; and we shall be in the condition of other conquered people, at the mercy of the conquerors. for ourselves, we may be ready to run the hazard; but are we ready to carry the country to that length? is success so probable as to justify it? where is the military, where the naval power, by which we are to resist the whole strength of the arm of england,--for she will exert that strength to the utmost? can we rely on the constancy and perseverance of the people? or will they not act as the people of other countries have acted, and, wearied with a long war, submit, in the end, to a worse oppression? while we stand on our old ground, and insist on redress of grievances, we know we are right, and are not answerable for consequences. nothing, then, can be imputed to us. but if we now change our object, carry our pretensions farther, and set up for absolute independence, we shall lose the sympathy of mankind. we shall no longer be defending what we possess, but struggling for something which we never did possess, and which we have solemnly and uniformly disclaimed all intention of pursuing, from the very outset of the troubles. abandoning thus our old ground, of resistance only to arbitrary acts of oppression, the nations will believe the whole to have been mere pretence, and they will look on us, not as injured, but as ambitious subjects. i shudder before this responsibility. it will be on us, if, relinquishing the ground on which we have stood so long, and stood so safely, we now proclaim independence, and carry on the war for that object, while these cities burn, these pleasant fields whiten and bleach with the bones of their owners, and these streams run blood. it will be upon us, it will be upon us, if, failing to maintain this unseasonable and ill-judged declaration, a sterner despotism, maintained by military power, shall be established over our posterity, when we ourselves, given up by an exhausted, a harassed, a misled people, shall have expiated our rashness and atoned for our presumption on the scaffold." it was for mr. adams to reply to arguments like these. we know his opinions, and we know his character. he would commence with his accustomed directness and earnestness. "sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish, i give my hand and my heart to this vote. it is true, indeed, that in the beginning we aimed not at independence. but there's a divinity which shapes our ends. the injustice of england has driven us to arms; and, blinded to her own interest for our good, she has obstinately persisted, till independence is now within our grasp. we have but to reach forth to it, and it is ours. why, then, should we defer the declaration? is any man so weak as now to hope for a reconciliation with england, which shall leave either safety to the country and its liberties, or safety to his own life and his own honor? are not you, sir, who sit in that chair,--is not he, our venerable colleague near you,--are you not both already the proscribed and predestined objects of punishment and of vengeance? cut off from all hope of royal clemency, what are you, what can you be, while the power of england remains, but outlaws? if we postpone independence, do we mean to carry on, or to give up, the war? do we mean to submit to the measures of parliament, boston port bill and all? do we mean to submit, and consent that we ourselves shall be ground to powder, and our country and its rights trodden down in the dust? i know we do not mean to submit. we never shall submit. do we intend to violate that most solemn obligation ever entered into by men, that plighting, before god, of our sacred honor to washington, when, putting him forth to incur the dangers of war, as well as the political hazards of the times, we promised to adhere to him, in every extremity, with our fortunes and our lives? i know there is not a man here, who would not rather see a general conflagration sweep over the land, or an earthquake sink it, than one jot or tittle of that plighted faith fall to the ground. for myself, having, twelve months ago, in this place, moved you, that george washington be appointed commander of the forces raised, or to be raised, for defence of american liberty,[ ] may my right hand forget her cunning, and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if i hesitate or waver in the support i give him. "the war, then, must go on. we must fight it through. and if the war must go on, why put off longer the declaration of independence? that measure will strengthen us. it will give us character abroad. the nations will then treat with us, which they never can do while we acknowledge ourselves subjects, in arms against our sovereign. nay, i maintain that england herself will sooner treat for peace with us on the footing of independence, than consent, by repealing her acts, to acknowledge that her whole conduct towards us has been a course of injustice and oppression. her pride will be less wounded by submitting to that course of things which now predestinates our independence, than by yielding the points in controversy to her rebellious subjects. the former she would regard as the result of fortune; the latter she would feel as her own deep disgrace. why, then, why then, sir, do we not as soon as possible change this from a civil to a national war? and since we must fight it through, why not put ourselves in a state to enjoy all the benefits of victory, if we gain the victory? "if we fail, it can be no worse for us. but we shall not fail. the cause will raise up armies; the cause will create navies. the people, the people, if we are true to them, will carry us, and will carry themselves, gloriously, through this struggle. i care not how fickle other people have been found. i know the people of these colonies, and i know that resistance to british aggression is deep and settled in their hearts and cannot be eradicated. every colony, indeed, has expressed its willingness to follow, if we but take the lead. sir, the declaration will inspire the people with increased courage. instead of a long and bloody war for the restoration of privileges, for redress of grievances, for chartered immunities, held under a british king, set before them the glorious object of entire independeuce, and it will breathe into them anew the breath of life. read this declaration at the head of the army; every sword will be drawn from its scabbard, and the solemn vow uttered, to maintain it, or to perish on the bed of honor. publish it from the pulpit; religion will approve it, and the love of religious liberty will cling round it, resolved to stand with it, or fall with it. send it to the public halls; proclaim it there; let them hear it who heard the first roar of the enemy's cannon; let them see it who saw their brothers and their sons fall on the field of bunker hill, and in the streets of lexington and concord, and the very walls will cry out in its support. "sir, i know the uncertainty of human affairs, but i see, i see clearly, through this day's business. you and i, indeed, may rue it. we may not live to the time when this declaration shall be made good. we may die; die colonists; die slaves; die, it may be, ignominiously and on the scaffold. be it so. be it so. if it be the pleasure of heaven that my country shall require the poor offering of my life, the victim shall be ready, at the appointed hour of sacrifice, come when that hour may. but while i do live, let me have a country, or at least the hope of a country, and that a free country. "but whatever may be our fate, be assured, be assured that this declaration will stand. it may cost treasure, and it may cost blood; but it will stand, and it will richly compensate for both. through the thick gloom of the present, i see the brightness of the future, as the sun in heaven. we shall make this a glorious, an immortal day. when we are in our graves, our children will honor it. they will celebrate it with thanksgiving, with festivity, with bonfires, and illuminations. on its annual return they will shed tears, copious, gushing tears, not of subjection and slavery, not of agony and distress, but of exultation, of gratitude, and of joy. sir, before god, i believe the hour is come. my judgment approves this measure, and my whole heart is in it. all that i have, and all that i am, and all that i hope, in this life, i am now ready here to stake upon it; and i leave off as i begun, that live or die, survive or perish, i am for the declaration. it is my living sentiment, and by the blessing of god it shall be my dying sentiment, independence _now_, and independence for ever."[ ] and so that day shall be honored, illustrious prophet and patriot! so that day shall be honored, and as often as it returns, thy renown shall come along with it, and the glory of thy life, like the day of thy death, shall not fail from the remembrance of men. it would be unjust, fellow-citizens, on this occasion, while we express our veneration for him who is the immediate subject of these remarks, were we to omit a most respectful, affectionate, and grateful mention of those other great men, his colleagues, who stood with him, and with the same spirit, the same devotion, took part in the interesting transaction. hancock, the proscribed hancock, exiled from his home by a military governor, cut off by proclamation from the mercy of the crown,--heaven reserved for him the distinguished honor of putting this great question to the vote, and of writing his own name first, and most conspicuously, on that parchment which spoke defiance to the power of the crown of england. there, too, is the name of that other proscribed patriot, samuel adams, a man who hungered and thirsted for the independence of his country, who thought the declaration halted and lingered, being himself not only ready, but eager, for it, long before it was proposed; a man of the deepest sagacity, the clearest foresight, and the profoundest judgment in men. and there is gerry, himself among the earliest and the foremost of the patriots, found, when the battle of lexington summoned them to common counsels, by the side of warren; a man who lived to serve his country at home and abroad, and to die in the second place in the government. there, too, is the inflexible, the upright, the spartan character, robert treat paine. he also lived to serve his country through the struggle, and then withdrew from her councils, only that he might give his labors and his life to his native state, in another relation. these names, fellow-citizens, are the treasures of the commonwealth; and they are treasures which grow brighter by time. it is now necessary to resume the narrative, and to finish with great brevity the notice of the lives of those whose virtues and services we have met to commemorate. mr. adams remained in congress from its first meeting till november, , when he was appointed minister to france. he proceeded on that service in the february following, embarking in the frigate boston, from the shore of his native town, at the foot of mount wollaston. the year following, he was appointed commissioner to treat of peace with england. returning to the united states, he was a delegate from braintree in the convention for framing the constitution of this commonwealth, in .[ ] at the latter end of the same year, he again went abroad in the diplomatic service of the country, and was employed at various courts, and occupied with various negotiations, until . the particulars of these interesting and important services this occasion does not allow time to relate. in he concluded our first treaty with holland. his negotiations with that republic, his efforts to persuade the states-general to recognize our independence, his incessant and indefatigable exertions to represent the american cause favorably on the continent, and to counteract the designs of its enemies, open and secret, and his successful undertaking to obtain loans on the credit of a nation yet new and unknown, are among his most arduous, most useful, most honorable services. it was his fortune to bear a part in the negotiation for peace with england, and in something more than six years from the declaration which he had so strenuously supported, he had the satisfaction of seeing the minister plenipotentiary of the crown subscribe his name to the instrument which declared that his "britannic majesty acknowledged the united states to be free, sovereign, and independent." in these important transactions, mr. adams's conduct received the marked approbation of congress and of the country. while abroad, in , he published his "defence of the american constitutions"; a work of merit and ability, though composed with haste, on the spur of a particular occasion, in the midst of other occupations, and under circumstances not admitting of careful revision. the immediate object of the work was to counteract the weight of opinions advanced by several popular european writers of that day, m. turgot, the abbé de mably, and dr. price, at a time when the people of the united states were employed in forming and revising their systems of government. returning to the united states in , he found the new government about going into operation, and was himself elected the first vice-president, a situation which he filled with reputation for eight years, at the expiration of which he was raised to the presidential chair, as immediate successor to the immortal washington. in this high station he was succeeded by mr. jefferson, after a memorable controversy between their respective friends, in ; and from that period his manner of life has been known to all who hear me. he has lived, for five-and-twenty years, with every enjoyment that could render old age happy. not inattentive to the occurrences of the times, political cares have yet not materially, or for any long time, disturbed his repose. in he acted as elector of president and vice-president, and in the same year we saw him, then at the age of eighty-five, a member of the convention of this commonwealth called to revise the constitution. forty years before, he had been one of those who formed that constitution; and he had now the pleasure of witnessing that there was little which the people desired to change.[ ] possessing all his faculties to the end of his long life, with an unabated love of reading and contemplation, in the centre of interesting circles of friendship and affection, he was blessed in his retirement with whatever of repose and felicity the condition of man allows. he had, also, other enjoyments. he saw around him that prosperity and general happiness which had been the object of his public cares and labors. no man ever beheld more clearly, and for a longer time, the great and beneficial effects of the services rendered by himself to his country. that liberty which he so early defended, that independence of which he was so able an advocate and supporter, he saw, we trust, firmly and securely established. the population of the country thickened around him faster, and extended wider, than his own sanguine predictions had anticipated; and the wealth, respectability, and power of the nation sprang up to a magnitude which it is quite impossible he could have expected to witness in his day. he lived also to behold those principles of civil freedom which had been developed, established, and practically applied in america, attract attention, command respect, and awaken imitation, in other regions of the globe; and well might, and well did, he exclaim, "where will the consequences of the american revolution end?" if any thing yet remain to fill this cup of happiness, let it be added, that he lived to see a great and intelligent people bestow the highest honor in their gift where he had bestowed his own kindest parental affections and lodged his fondest hopes. thus honored in life, thus happy at death, he saw the jubilee, and he died; and with the last prayers which trembled on his lips was the fervent supplication for his country, "independence for ever!"[ ] mr. jefferson, having been occupied in the years and in the important service of revising the laws of virginia, was elected governor of that state, as successor to patrick henry, and held the situation when the state was invaded by the british arms. in he published his notes on virginia, a work which attracted attention in europe as well as america, dispelled many misconceptions respecting this continent, and gave its author a place among men distinguished for science. in november, , he again took his seat in the continental congress, but in the may following was appointed minister plenipotentiary, to act abroad, in the negotiation of commercial treaties, with dr. franklin and mr. adams. he proceeded to france, in execution of this mission, embarking at boston; and that was the only occasion on which he ever visited this place. in he was appointed minister to france, the duties of which situation he continued to perform until october, , when he obtained leave to retire, just on the eve of that tremendous revolution which has so much agitated the world in our times. mr. jefferson's discharge of his diplomatic duties was marked by great ability, diligence, and patriotism; and while he resided at paris, in one of the most interesting periods, his character for intelligence, his love of knowledge and of the society of learned men, distinguished him in the highest circles of the french capital. no court in europe had at that time in paris a representative commanding or enjoying higher regard, for political knowledge or for general attainments, than the minister of this then infant republic. immediately on his return to his native country, at the organization of the government under the present constitution, his talents and experience recommended him to president washington for the first office in his gift. he was placed at the head of the department of state. in this situation, also, he manifested conspicuous ability. his correspondence with the ministers of other powers residing here, and his instructions to our own diplomatic agents abroad, are among our ablest state papers. a thorough knowledge of the laws and usages of nations, perfect acquaintance with the immediate subject before him, great felicity, and still greater facility, in writing, show themselves in whatever effort his official situation called on him to make. it is believed by competent judges, that the diplomatic intercourse of the government of the united states, from the first meeting of the continental congress in to the present time, taken together, would not suffer, in respect to the talent with which it has been conducted, by comparison with any thing which other and older governments can produce; and to the attainment of this respectability and distinction mr. jefferson has contributed his full part. on the retirement of general washington from the presidency, and the election of mr. adams to that office in , he was chosen vice-president. while presiding in this capacity over the deliberations of the senate, he compiled and published a manual of parliamentary practice, a work of more labor and more merit than is indicated by its size. it is now received as the general standard by which proceedings are regulated, not only in both houses of congress, but in most of the other legislative bodies in the country. in he was elected president, in opposition to mr. adams, and re-elected in , by a vote approaching towards unanimity. from the time of his final retirement from public life, in , mr. jefferson lived as became a wise man. surrounded by affectionate friends, his ardor in the pursuit of knowledge undiminished, with uncommon health and unbroken spirits, he was able to enjoy largely the rational pleasures of life, and to partake in that public prosperity which he had so much contributed to produce. his kindness and hospitality, the charm of his conversation, the ease of his manners, the extent of his acquirements, and, especially, the full store of revolutionary incidents which he had treasured in his memory, and which he knew when and how to dispense, rendered his abode in a high degree attractive to his admiring countrymen, while his high public and scientific character drew towards him every intelligent and educated traveller from abroad. both mr. adams and mr. jefferson had the pleasure of knowing that the respect which they so largely received was not paid to their official stations. they were not men made great by office; but great men, on whom the country for its own benefit had conferred office. there was that in them which office did not give, and which the relinquishment of office did not, and could not, take away. in their retirement, in the midst of their fellow-citizens, themselves private citizens, they enjoyed as high regard and esteem as when filling the most important places of public trust. there remained to mr. jefferson yet one other work of patriotism and beneficence, the establishment of a university in his native state. to this object he devoted years of incessant and anxious attention, and by the enlightened liberality of the legislature of virginia, and the co-operation of other able and zealous friends, he lived to see it accomplished. may all success attend this infant seminary; and may those who enjoy its advantages, as often as their eyes shall rest on the neighboring height, recollect what they owe to their disinterested and indefatigable benefactor; and may letters honor him who thus labored in the cause of letters![ ] thus useful, and thus respected, passed the old age of thomas jefferson. but time was on its ever-ceaseless wing, and was now bringing the last hour of this illustrious man. he saw its approach with undisturbed serenity. he counted the moments as they passed, and beheld that his last sands were falling. that day, too, was at hand which he had helped to make immortal. one wish, one hope, if it were not presumptuous, beat in his fainting breast. could it be so, might it please god, he would desire once more to see the sun, once more to look abroad on the scene around him, on the great day of liberty. heaven, in its mercy, fulfilled that prayer. he saw that sun, he enjoyed its sacred light, he thanked god for this mercy, and bowed his aged head to the grave. "felix, non vitae tantum claritate, sed etiam opportunitate mortis." the last public labor of mr. jefferson naturally suggests the expression of the high praise which is due, both to him and to mr. adams, for their uniform and zealous attachment to learning, and to the cause of general knowledge. of the advantages of learning, indeed, and of literary accomplishments, their own characters were striking recommendations and illustrations. they were scholars, ripe and good scholars; widely acquainted with ancient, as well as modern literature, and not altogether uninstructed in the deeper sciences. their acquirements, doubtless, were different, and so were the particular objects of their literary pursuits; as their tastes and characters, in these respects, differed like those of other men. being, also, men of busy lives, with great objects requiring action constantly before them, their attainments in letters did not become showy or obtrusive. yet i would hazard the opinion, that, if we could now ascertain all the causes which gave them eminence and distinction in the midst of the great men with whom they acted, we should find not among the least their early acquisitions in literature, the resources which it furnished, the promptitude and facility which it communicated, and the wide field it opened for analogy and illustration; giving them thus, on every subject, a larger view and a broader range, as well for discussion as for the government of their own conduct. literature sometimes disgusts, and pretension to it much oftener disgusts, by appearing to hang loosely on the character, like something foreign or extraneous, not a part, but an ill-adjusted appendage; or by seeming to overload and weigh it down by its unsightly bulk, like the productions of bad taste in architecture, where there is massy and cumbrous ornament without strength or solidity of column. this has exposed learning, and especially classical learning, to reproach. men have seen that it might exist without mental superiority, without vigor, without good taste, and without utility. but in such cases classical learning has only not inspired natural talent; or, at most, it has but made original feebleness of intellect, and natural bluntness of perception, something more conspicuous. the question, after all, if it be a question, is, whether literature, ancient as well as modern, does not assist a good understanding, improve natural good taste, add polished armor to native strength, and render its possessor, not only more capable of deriving private happiness from contemplation and reflection, but more accomplished also for action in the affairs of life, and especially for public action. those whose memories we now honor were learned men; but their learning was kept in its proper place, and made subservient to the uses and objects of life. they were scholars, not common nor superficial; but their scholarship was so in keeping with their character, so blended and inwrought, that careless observers, or bad judges, not seeing an ostentatious display of it, might infer that it did not exist; forgetting, or not knowing, that classical learning in men who act in conspicuous public stations, perform duties which exercise the faculty of writing, or address popular, deliberative, or judicial bodies, is often felt where it is little seen, and sometimes felt more effectually because it is not seen at all. but the cause of knowledge, in a more enlarged sense, the cause of general knowledge and of popular education, had no warmer friends, nor more powerful advocates, than mr. adams and mr. jefferson. on this foundation they knew the whole republican system rested; and this great and all-important truth they strove to impress, by all the means in their power. in the early publication already referred to, mr. adams expresses the strong and just sentiment, that the education of the poor is more important, even to the rich themselves, than all their own riches. on this great truth, indeed, is founded that unrivalled, that invaluable political and moral institution, our own blessing and the glory of our fathers, the new england system of free schools. as the promotion of knowledge had been the object of their regard through life, so these great men made it the subject of their testamentary bounty. mr. jefferson is understood to have bequeathed his library to the university of virginia, and that of mr. adams is bestowed on the inhabitants of quincy. mr. adams and mr. jefferson, fellow-citizens, were successively presidents of the united states. the comparative merits of their respective administrations for a long time agitated and divided public opinion. they were rivals, each supported by numerous and powerful portions of the people, for the highest office. this contest, partly the cause and partly the consequence of the long existence of two great political parties in the country, is now part of the history of our government. we may naturally regret that any thing should have occurred to create difference and discord between those who had acted harmoniously and efficiently in the great concerns of the revolution. but this is not the time, nor this the occasion, for entering into the grounds of that difference, or for attempting to discuss the merits of the questions which it involves. as practical questions, they were canvassed when the measures which they regarded were acted on and adopted; and as belonging to history, the time has not come for their consideration. it is, perhaps, not wonderful, that, when the constitution of the united states first went into operation, different opinions should be entertained as to the extent of the powers conferred by it. here was a natural source of diversity of sentiment. it is still less wonderful, that that event, nearly contemporary with our government under the present constitution, which so entirely shocked all europe, and disturbed our relations with her leading powers, should be thought, by different men, to have different bearings on our own prosperity; and that the early measures adopted by the government of the united states, in consequence of this new state of things, should be seen in opposite lights. it is for the future historian, when what now remains of prejudice and misconception shall have passed away, to state these different opinions, and pronounce impartial judgment. in the mean time, all good men rejoice, and well may rejoice, that the sharpest differences sprung out of measures which, whether right or wrong, have ceased with the exigencies that gave them birth, and have left no permanent effect, either on the constitution or on the general prosperity of the country. this remark, i am aware, may be supposed to have its exception in one measure, the alteration of the constitution as to the mode of choosing president; but it is true in its general application. thus the course of policy pursued towards france in , on the one hand, and the measures of commercial restriction commenced in , on the other, both subjects of warm and severe opposition, have passed away and left nothing behind them. they were temporary, and, whether wise or unwise, their consequences were limited to their respective occasions. it is equally clear, at the same time, and it is equally gratifying, that those measures of both administrations which were of durable importance, and which drew after them momentous and long remaining consequences, have received general approbation. such was the organization, or rather the creation, of the navy, in the administration of mr. adams; such the acquisition of louisiana in that of mr. jefferson. the country, it may safely be added, is not likely to be willing either to approve, or to reprobate, indiscriminately, and in the aggregate, all the measures of either, or of any, administration. the dictate of reason and of justice is, that, holding each one his own sentiments on the points of difference, we imitate the great men themselves in the forbearance and moderation which they have cherished, and in the mutual respect and kindness which they have been so much inclined to feel and to reciprocate. no men, fellow-citizens, ever served their country with more entire exemption from every imputation of selfish and mercenary motives, than those to whose memory we are paying these proofs of respect. a suspicion of any disposition to enrich themselves or to profit by their public employments, never rested on either. no sordid motive approached them. the inheritance which they have left to their children is of their character and their fame. fellow-citizens, i will detain you no longer by this faint and feeble tribute to the memory of the illustrious dead. even in other hands, adequate justice could not be done to them, within the limits of this occasion. their highest, their best praise, is your deep conviction of their merits, your affectionate gratitude for their labors and their services. it is not my voice, it is this cessation of ordinary pursuits, this arresting of all attention, these solemn ceremonies, and this crowded house, which speak their eulogy. their fame, indeed, is safe. that is now treasured up beyond the reach of accident. although no sculptured marble should rise to their memory, nor engraved stone bear record of their deeds, yet will their remembrance be as lasting as the land they honored. marble columns may, indeed, moulder into dust, time may erase all impress from the crumbling stone, but their fame remains; for with american liberty it rose, and with american liberty only can it perish. it was the last swelling peal of yonder choir, "their bodies are buried in peace, but their name liveth evermore." i catch that solemn song, i echo that lofty strain of funeral triumph, "their name liveth evermore." of the illustrious signers of the declaration of independence there now remains only charles carroll. he seems an aged oak, standing alone on the plain, which time has spared a little longer after all its contemporaries have been levelled with the dust. venerable object! we delight to gather round its trunk, while yet it stands, and to dwell beneath its shadow. sole survivor of an assembly of as great men as the world has witnessed, in a transaction one of the most important that history records, what thoughts, what interesting reflections, must fill his elevated and devout soul! if he dwell on the past, how touching its recollections; if he survey the present, how happy, how joyous, how full of the fruition of that hope which his ardent patriotism indulged; if he glance at the future, how does the prospect of his country's advancement almost bewilder his weakened conception! fortunate, distinguished patriot! interesting relic of the past! let him know that, while we honor the dead, we do not forget the living; and that there is not a heart here which does not fervently pray that heaven may keep him yet back from the society of his companions. and now, fellow-citizens, let us not retire from this occasion without a deep and solemn conviction of the duties which have devolved upon us. this lovely land, this glorious liberty, these benign institutions, the dear purchase of our fathers, are ours; ours to enjoy, ours to preserve, ours to transmit. generations past and generations to come hold us responsible for this sacred trust. our fathers, from behind, admonish us, with their anxious paternal voices; posterity calls out to us, from the bosom of the future; the world turns hither its solicitous eyes; all, all conjure us to act wisely, and faithfully, in the relation which we sustain. we can never, indeed, pay the debt which is upon us; but by virtue, by morality, by religion, by the cultivation of every good principle and every good habit, we may hope to enjoy the blessing, through our day, and to leave it unimpaired to our children. let us feel deeply how much of what we are and of what we possess we owe to this liberty, and to these institutions of government. nature has, indeed, given us a soil which yields bounteously to the hand of industry, the mighty and fruitful ocean is before us, and the skies over our heads shed health and vigor. but what are lands, and seas, and skies, to civilized man, without society, without knowledge, without morals, without religious culture; and how can these be enjoyed, in all their extent and all their excellence, but under the protection of wise institutions and a free government? fellow-citizens, there is not one of us, there is not one of us here present, who does not, at this moment, and at every moment, experience, in his own condition, and in the condition of those most near and dear to him, the influence and the benefits of this liberty and these institutions. let us then acknowledge the blessing, let us feel it deeply and powerfully, let us cherish a strong affection for it, and resolve to maintain and perpetuate it. the blood of our fathers, let it not have been shed in vain; the great hope of posterity, let it not be blasted. the striking attitude, too, in which we stand to the world around us, a topic to which, i fear, i advert too often, and dwell on too long, cannot be altogether omitted here. neither individuals nor nations can perform their part well, until they understand and feel its importance, and comprehend and justly appreciate all the duties belonging to it. it is not to inflate national vanity, nor to swell a light and empty feeling of self-importance, but it is that we may judge justly of our situation, and of our own duties, that i earnestly urge upon you this consideration of our position and our character among the nations of the earth. it cannot be denied, but by those who would dispute against the sun, that with america, and in america, a new era commences in human affairs. this era is distinguished by free representative governments, by entire religious liberty, by improved systems of national intercourse, by a newly awakened and an unconquerable spirit of free inquiry, and by a diffusion of knowledge through the community, such as has been before altogether unknown and unheard of. america, america, our country, fellow-citizens, our own dear and native land, is inseparably connected, fast bound up, in fortune and by fate, with these great interests. if they fall, we fall with them; if they stand, it will be because we have maintained them. let us contemplate, then, this connection, which binds the prosperity of others to our own; and let us manfully discharge all the duties which it imposes. if we cherish the virtues and the principles of our fathers, heaven will assist us to carry on the work of human liberty and human happiness. auspicious omens cheer us. great examples are before us. our own firmament now shines brightly upon our path. washington is in the clear, upper sky. these other stars have now joined the american constellation; they circle round their centre, and the heavens beam with new light. beneath this illumination let us walk the course of life, and at its close devoutly commend our beloved country, the common parent of us all, to the divine benignity. * * * * * note. page . the question has often been asked, whether the anonymous speech against the declaration of independence, and the speech in support of it ascribed to john adams in the preceding discourse, are a portion of the debates which actually took place in in the continental congress. not only has this inquiry been propounded in the public papers, but several letters on the subject have been addressed to mr. webster and his friends. for this reason, it may be proper to state, that those speeches were composed by mr. webster, after the manner of the ancient historians, as embodying in an impressive form the arguments relied upon by the friends and opponents of the measure, respectively. they of course represent the speeches that were actually made on both sides, but no report of the debates of this period has been preserved, and the orator on the present occasion had no aid in framing these addresses, but what was furnished by general tradition and the known line of argument pursued by the speakers and writers of that day for and against the measure of independence. the first sentence of the speech ascribed to mr. adams was of course suggested by the parting scene with jonathan sewall, as described by mr. adams himself, in the preface to the letters of novanglus and massachusettensis. so much interest has been taken in this subject, that it has been thought proper, by way of settling the question in the most authentic manner, to give publicity to the following answer, written by mr. webster to one of the letters of inquiry above alluded to. "_washington, january, ._ "dear sir:-- "i have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the th instant. its contents hardly surprise me, as i have received very many similar communications. "your inquiry is easily answered. the congress of the revolution sat with closed doors. its proceedings were made known to the public from time to time, by printing its journal; but the debates were not published. so far as i know, there is not existing, in print or manuscript, the speech, or any part or fragment of the speech, delivered by mr. adams on the question of the declaration of independence. we only know, from the testimony of his auditors, that he spoke with remarkable ability and characteristic earnestness. "the day after the declaration was made, mr. adams, in writing to a friend,[ ] declared the event to be one that 'ought to be commemorated, as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to god almighty. it ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward, for evermore.' "and on the day of his death, hearing the noise of bells and cannon, he asked the occasion. on being reminded that it was 'independent day,' he replied, 'independence for ever!' these expressions were introduced into the speech _supposed_ to have been made by him. for the rest i must be answerable. the speech was written by me, in my house in boston, the day before the delivery of the discourse in faneuil hall; a poor substitute, i am sure it would appear to be, if we could now see the speech actually made by mr. adams on that transcendently important occasion. "i am, respectfully, "your obedient servant, "daniel webster." [footnote : hon. josiah quincy.] [footnote : nearly all that was known of this celebrated argument, at the time the present discourse was delivered, was derived from the recollections of john adams, as preserved in minot's history of massachusetts, vol. ii. p. . see life and works of john adams, vol. ii. p. , published in the course of the past year ( ), in the appendix to which, p. , will be found a paper hitherto unpublished, containing notes of the argument of otis, "which seem to be the foundation of the sketch published by minot." tudor's life of james otis, p. .] [footnote : see life and works of john adams, vol. ii. p. , vol. iii. p. , and north american review, vol. lxxi. p. .] [footnote : cicero de officiis, lib. i. § .] [footnote : a fac-simile of this ever-memorable state paper, as drafted by mr. jefferson, with the interlineations alluded to in the text, is contained in mr. jefferson's writings, vol. i. p. . see, also, in reference to the history of the declaration, the life and works of john adams, vol. ii. p. _et seq._] [footnote : this question, of the power of parliament over the colonies, was discussed, with singular ability, by governor hutchinson on the one side, and the house of representatives of massachusetts on the other, in . the argument of the house is in the form of an answer to the governor's message, and was reported by mr. samuel adams, mr. hancock, mr. hawley, mr. bowers, mr. hobson, mr. foster, mr. phillips, and mr. thayer. as the power of the parliament had been acknowledged, so far at least as to affect us by laws of trade, it was not easy to settle the line of distinction. it was thought, however, to be very clear, that the charters of the colonies had exempted them from the general legislation of the british parliament. see massachusetts state papers, p. . the important assistance rendered by john adams in the preparation of the answer of the house to the message of the governor may be learned from the life and works of john adams, vol. ii. p. _et seq._] [footnote : the official copy of the declaration, as engrossed and signed by the members of congress, is framed and preserved in the hall over the patent-office at washington.] [footnote : see life and works of john adams, vol. ii. p. _et seq._] [footnote : on the authorship of this speech, see note at the end of the discourse.] [footnote : in this convention he served as chairman of the committee for preparing the draft of a constitution.] [footnote : upon the organization of this body, th november, , john adams was elected its president; an office which the infirmities of age compelled him to decline. for the interesting proceedings of the convention on this occasion, the address of chief justice parker, and the reply of mr. adams, see journal of debates and proceedings in the convention of delegates chosen to revise the constitution of massachusetts, p. _et seq._] [footnote : for an account of mr. webster's last interview with mr. adams, see march's reminiscences of congress, p. .] [footnote : mr. jefferson himself considered his services in establishing the university of virginia as among the most important rendered by him to the country. in mr. wirt's eulogy, it is stated that a private memorandum was found among his papers, containing the following inscription to be placed on his monument.--"here was buried thomas jefferson, author of the declaration of independence, of the statutes of virginia for religious freedom, and father of the university of virginia." eulogies on adams and jefferson, p. .] [footnote : see letters of john adams to his wife, vol. i. p. , note.] the case of ogden and saunders. an argument made in the case of ogden and saunders, in the supreme court of the united states, january term, . [this was an action of _assumpsit_, brought originally in the circuit court of louisiana, by saunders, a citizen of kentucky, against ogden, a citizen of louisiana. the plaintiff below declared upon certain bills of exchange, drawn on the th of september, , by one jordan, at lexington, in the state of kentucky, upon the defendant below, ogden, in the city of new york, (the defendant then being a citizen and resident of the state of new york,) accepted by him at the city of new york, and protested for non-payment. the defendant below pleaded several pleas, among which was a certificate of discharge under the act of the legislature of the state of new york, of april d, , for the relief of insolvent debtors, commonly called the three-fourths act. the jury found the facts in the form of a special verdict, on which the court rendered a judgment for the plaintiff below, and the cause was brought by writ of error before this court. the question which arose under this plea, as to the validity of the law of new york as being repugnant to the constitution of the united states, was argued at february term, , by mr. clay, mr. d.b. ogden, and mr. haines, for the plaintiff in error, and by mr. webster and mr. wheaton, for the defendant in error, and the cause was continued for advisement until the present term. it was again argued at the present term, by mr. webster and mr. wheaton, against the validity, and by the attorney-general, mr. e. livingston, mr. d.b. ogden, mr. jones, and mr. sampson, for the validity. mr. wheaton opened the argument for the defendant in error; he was followed by the counsel for the plaintiff in error; and mr. webster replied as follows.] the question arising in this case is not more important, nor so important even, in its bearing on individual cases of private right, as in its character of a public political question. the constitution was intended to accomplish a great political object. its design was not so much to prevent injustice or injury in one case, or in successive single cases, as it was to make general salutary provisions, which, in their operation, should give security to all contracts, stability to credit, uniformity among all the states in those things which materially concern the foreign commerce of the country, and their own credit, trade, and intercourse with each other. the real question, is, therefore, a much broader one than has been argued. it is this: whether the constitution has not, for general political purposes, ordained that bankrupt laws should be established only by national authority? we contend that such was the intention of the constitution; an intention, as we think, plainly manifested in several of its provisions. the act of new york, under which this question arises, provides that a debtor may be discharged from all his debts, upon assigning his property to trustees for the use of his creditors. when applied to the discharge of debts contracted before the date of the law, this court has decided that the act is invalid.[ ] the act itself makes no distinction between past and future debts, but provides for the discharge of both in the same manner. in the case, then, of a debt already existing, it is admitted that the act does impair the obligation of contracts. we wish the full extent of this decision to be well considered. it is not merely that the legislature of the state cannot interfere by law, in the particular case of a or b, to injure or impair rights which have become vested under contracts; but it is, that they have no power by general law to regulate the manner in which all debtors may be discharged from subsisting contracts; in other wrords, they cannot pass general bankrupt laws to be applied _in presenti_. now, it is not contended that such laws are unjust, and ought not to be passed by any legislature. it is not said that they are unwise or impolitic. on the contrary, we know the general practice to be, that, when bankrupt laws are established, they make no distinction between present and future debts. while all agree that special acts, made for individual cases, are unjust, all admit that a general law, made for all cases, may be both just and politic. the question, then, which meets us on the threshold is this: if the constitution meant to leave the states the power of establishing systems of bankruptcy to act upon future debts, what great or important object of a political nature is answered by denying the power of making such systems applicable to existing debts? the argument used in _sturges v. crowninshield_ was, at least, a plausible and consistent argument. it maintained that the prohibition of the constitution was levelled only against interferences in individual cases, and did not apply to general laws, whether those laws were retrospective or prospective in their operation. but the court rejected that conclusion. it decided that the constitution was intended to apply to general laws or systems of bankruptcy; that an act providing that all debtors might be discharged from all creditors, upon certain conditions, was of no more validity than an act providing that a particular debtor, a, should be discharged on the same conditions from his particular creditor, b. it being thus decided that general laws are within the prohibition of the constitution, it is for the plaintiff in error now to show on what ground, consistent with the general objects of the constitution, he can establish a distinction which can give effect to those general laws in their application to future debts, while it denies them effect in their application to subsisting debts. the words are, that "no state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts." the general operation of all such laws is to impair that obligation; that is, to discharge the obligation without fulfilling it. this is admitted; and the only ground taken for the distinction to stand on is, that, when the law was in existence at the time of the making of the contract, the parties must be supposed to have reference to it, or, as it is usually expressed, the law is made a part of the contract. before considering what foundation there is for this argument, it may be well to inquire what is that obligation of contracts of which the constitution speaks, and whence is it derived. the definition given by the court in _sturges v. crowninshield_ is sufficient for our present purpose. "a contract," say the court, "is an agreement to do some particular thing; the law binds the party to perform this agreement, and this is the obligation of the contract." it is indeed probable that the constitution used the words in a somewhat more popular sense. we speak, for example, familiarly of a usurious contract, and yet we say, speaking technically, that a usurious agreement is no contract. by the obligation of a contract, we should understand the constitution to mean, the duty of performing a legal agreement. if the contract be lawful, the party is bound to perform it. but bound by what? what is it that binds him? and this leads us to what we regard as a principal fallacy in the argument on the other side. that argument supposes, and insists, that the whole obligation of a contract has its origin in the municipal law. this position we controvert. we do not say that it is that obligation which springs from conscience merely; but we deny that it is only such as springs from the particular law of the place where the contract is made. it must be a lawful contract, doubtless; that is, permitted and allowed; because society has a right to prohibit all such contracts, as well as all such actions, as it deems to be mischievous or injurious. but if the contract be such as the law of society tolerates, in other words, if it be lawful, then we say, the duty of performing it springs from universal law. and this is the concurrent sense of all the writers of authority. the duty of performing promises is thus shown to rest on universal law; and if, departing from this well-established principle, we now follow the teachers who instruct us that the obligation of a contract has its origin in the law of a particular state, and is in all cases what that law makes it, and no more, and no less, we shall probably find ourselves involved in inextricable difficulties. a man promises, for a valuable consideration, to pay money in new york. is the obligation of that contract created by the laws of that state, or does it subsist independent of those laws? we contend that the obligation of a contract, that is, the duty of performing it, is not created by the law of the particular place where it is made, and dependent on that law for its existence; but that it may subsist, and does subsist, without that law, and independent of it. the obligation is in the contract itself, in the assent of the parties, and in the sanction of universal law. this is the doctrine of grotius, vattel, burlamaqui, pothier, and rutherforth. the contract, doubtless, is necessarily to be enforced by the municipal law of the place where performance is demanded. the municipal law acts on the contract after it is made, to compel its execution, or give damages for its violation. but this is a very different thing from the same law being the origin or fountain of the contract. let us illustrate this matter by an example. two persons contract together in new york for the delivery, by one to the other, of a domestic animal, a utensil of husbandry, or a weapon of war. this is a lawful contract, and, while the parties remain in new york, it is to be enforced by the laws of that state. but if they remove with the article to pennsylvania or maryland, there a new law comes to act upon the contract, and to apply other remedies if it be broken. thus far the remedies are furnished by the laws of society. but suppose the same parties to go together to a savage wilderness, or a desert island, beyond the reach of the laws of any society. the obligation of the contract still subsists, and is as perfect as ever, and is now to be enforced by another law, that is, the law of nature; and the party to whom the promise was made has a right to take by force the animal, the utensil, or the weapon that was promised him. the right is as perfect here as it was in pennsylvania, or even in new york; but this could not be so if the obligation were created by the law of new york, or were dependent on that law for its existence, because the laws of that state can have no operation beyond its territory. let us reverse this example. suppose a contract to be made between two persons cast ashore on an uninhabited territory, or in a place over which no law of society extends. there are such places, and contracts have been made by individuals casually there, and these contracts have been enforced in courts of law in civilized communities. whence do such contracts derive their obligation, if not from universal law? if these considerations show us that the obligation of a lawful contract does not derive its force from the particular law of the place where made, but may exist where that law does not exist, and be enforced where that law has no validity, then it follows, we contend, that any statute which diminishes or lessens its obligation does impair it, whether it precedes or succeeds the contract in date. the contract having an independent origin, whenever the law comes to exist together with it, and interferes with it, it lessens, we say, and impairs, its own original and independent obligation. in the case before the court, the contract did not owe its existence to the particular law of new york; it did not depend on that law, but could be enforced without the territory of that state, as well as within it. nevertheless, though legal, though thus independently existing, though thus binding the party everywhere, and capable of being enforced everywhere, yet the statute of new york says that it shall be discharged without payment. this, we say, impairs the obligation of that contract. it is admitted to have been legal in its inception, legal in its full extent, and capable of being enforced by other tribunals according to its terms. an act, then, purporting to discharge it without payment, is, as we contend, an act impairing its obligation. here, however, we meet the opposite argument, stated on different occasions in different terms, but usually summed up in this, that the law itself is a part of the contract, and therefore cannot impair it. what does this mean? let us seek for clear ideas. it does not mean that the law gives any particular construction to the terms of the contract, or that it makes the promise, or the consideration, or the time of performance, other than is expressed in the instrument itself. it can only mean, that it is to be taken as a part of the contract, or understanding of the parties, that the contract itself shall be enforced by such laws and regulations, respecting remedy and for the enforcement of contracts, as are in being in the state where it is made at the time of entering into it. this is meant, or nothing very clearly intelligible is meant, by saying the law is part of the contract. there is no authority in adjudged cases for the plaintiff in error but the state decisions which have been cited, and, as has already been stated, they all rest on this reason, that the law is part of the contract. against this we contend,-- st. that, if the proposition were true, the consequence would not follow. d. that the proposition itself cannot be maintained. . if it were true that the law is to be considered as part of the contract, the consequence contended for would not follow; because, if this statute be part of the contract, so is every other legal or constitutional provision existing at the time which affects the contract, or which is capable of affecting it; and especially this very article of the constitution of the united states is part of the contract. the plaintiff in error argues in a complete circle. he supposes the parties to have had reference to it because it was a binding law, and yet he proves it to be a binding law only upon the ground that such reference was made to it. we come before the court alleging the law to be void, as unconstitutional; they stop the inquiry by opposing to us the law itself. is this logical? is it not precisely _objectio ejus, cujus dissolutio petitur_? if one bring a bill to set aside a judgment, is that judgment itself a good plea in bar to the bill? we propose to inquire if this law is of force to control our contract, or whether, by the constitution of the united states, such force be not denied to it. the plaintiff in error stops us by saying that it does control the contract, and so arrives shortly at the end of the debate. is it not obvious, that, supposing the act of new york to be a part of the contract, the question still remains as undecided as ever. what is that act? is it a law, or is it a nullity? a thing of force, or a thing of no force? suppose the parties to have contemplated this act, what did they contemplate? its words only, or its legal effect? its words, or the force which the constitution of the united states allows to it? if the parties contemplated any law, they contemplated all the law that bore on their contract, the aggregate of all the statute and constitutional provisions. to suppose that they had in view one statute without regarding others, or that they contemplated a statute without considering that paramount constitutional provisions might control or qualify that statute, or abrogate it altogether, is unreasonable and inadmissible. "this contract," says one of the authorities relied on, "is to be construed as if the law were specially recited in it." let it be so for the sake of argument. but it is also to be construed as if the prohibitory clause of the constitution were recited in it, and this brings us back again to the precise point from which we departed. the constitution always accompanies the law, and the latter can have no force which the former does not allow to it. if the reasoning were thrown into the form of special pleading, it would stand thus: the plaintiff declares on his debt; the defendant pleads his discharge under the law; the plaintiff alleges the law unconstitutional; but the defendant says, you knew of its existence; to which the answer is obvious and irresistible, i knew its existence on the statute-book of new york, but i knew, at the same time, it was null and void under the constitution of the united states. the language of another leading decision is, "a law in force at the time of making the contract does not violate that contract"; but the very question is, whether there be any such law "in force"; for if the states have no authority to pass such laws, then no such law can be in force. the constitution is a part of the contract as much as the law, and was as much in the contemplation of the parties. so that the proposition, if it be admitted that the law is part of the contract, leaves us just where it found us: that is to say, under the necessity of comparing the law with the constitution, and of deciding by such comparison whether it be valid or invalid. if the law be unconstitutional, it is void, and no party can be supposed to have had reference to a void law. if it be constitutional, no reference to it need be supposed. . but the proposition itself cannot be maintained. the law is no part of the contract. what part is it? the promise? the consideration? the condition? clearly, it is neither of these. it is no term of the contract. it acts upon the contract only when it is broken, or to discharge the party from its obligation after it is broken. the municipal law is the force of society employed to compel the performance of contracts. in every judgment in a suit on contract, the damages are given, and the imprisonment of the person or sale of goods awarded, not in performance of the contract, or as part of the contract, but as an indemnity for the breach of the contract. even interest, which is a strong case, where it is not expressed in the contract itself, can only be given as damages. it is all but absurd to say that a man's goods are sold on a _fieri facias_, or that he himself goes to jail, in pursuance of his contract. these are the penalties which the law inflicts for the breach of his contract. doubtless, parties, when they enter into contracts, may well consider both what their rights and what their liabilities will be by the law, if such contracts be broken; but this contemplation of consequences which can ensue only when the contract is broken, is no part of the contract itself. the law has nothing to do with the contract till it be broken; how, then, can it be said to form a part of the contract itself? but there are other cogent and more specific reasons against considering the law as part of the contract. ( .) if the law be part of the contract, it cannot be repealed or altered; because, in such case, the repealing or modifying law itself would impair the obligation of the contract. the insolvent law of new york, for example, authorizes the discharge of a debtor on the consent of two thirds of his creditors. a subsequent act requires the consent of three fourths; but if the existing law be part of the contract, this latter law would be void. in short, nothing which is part of the contract can be varied but by consent of the parties; therefore the argument runs _in absurdum_; for it proves that no laws for enforcing the contract, or giving remedies upon it, or any way affecting it, can be changed or modified between its creation and its end. if the law in question binds one party on the ground of assent to it, it binds both, and binds them until they agree to terminate its operation. ( .) if the party be bound by an implied assent to the law, as thereby making the law a part of the contract, how would it be if the parties had expressly dissented, and agreed that the law should make no part of the contract? suppose the promise to have been, that the promisor would pay at all events, and not take advantage of the statute; still, would not the statute operate on the whole,--on this particular agreement and all? and does not this show that the law is no part of the contract, but something above it? ( .) if the law of the place be part of the contract, one of its terms and conditions, how could it be enforced, as we all know it might be, in another jurisdiction, which should have no regard to the law of the place? suppose the parties, after the contract, to remove to another state, do they carry the law with them as part of their contract? we all know they do not. or take a common case. some states have laws abolishing imprisonment for debt; these laws, according to the argument, are all parts of the contract; how, then, can the party, when sued in another state, be imprisoned contrary to the terms of his contract? ( .) the argument proves too much, inasmuch as it applies as strongly to prior as to subsequent contracts. it is founded on a supposed assent to the exercise of legislative authority, without considering whether that exercise be legal or illegal. but it is equally fair to found the argument on an implied assent to the potential exercise of that authority. the implied reference to the control of legislative power is as reasonable and as strong when that power is dormant, as while it is in exercise. in one case, the argument is, "the law existed, you knew it, and acquiesced." in the other it is, "the power to pass the law existed, you knew it, and took your chance." there is as clear an assent in one instance as in the other. indeed, it is more reasonable and more sensible to imply a general assent to all the laws of society, present and to come, from the fact of living in it, than it is to imply a particular assent to a particular existing enactment. the true view of the matter is, that every man is presumed to submit to all power which may be lawfully exercised over him or his right, and no one should be presumed to submit to illegal acts of power, whether actual or contingent. ( .) but a main objection to this argument is, that it would render the whole constitutional provision idle and inoperative; and no explanatory words, if such words had been added in the constitution, could have prevented this consequence. the law, it is said, is part of the contract; it cannot, therefore, impair the contract, because a contract cannot impair itself. now, if this argument be sound, the case would have been the same, whatever words the constitution had used. if, for example, it had declared that no state should pass any law impairing contracts _prospectively_ or _retrospectively_; or any law impairing contracts, whether existing or future; or, whatever terms it had used to prohibit precisely such a law as is now before the court,--the prohibition would be totally nugatory if the law is to be taken as part of the contract; and the result would be, that, whatever may be the laws which the states by this clause of the constitution are prohibited from passing, yet, if they in fact do pass such laws, those laws are valid, and bind parties by a supposed assent. but further, this idea, if well founded, would enable the states to defeat the whole constitutional provision by a general enactment. suppose a state should declare, by law, that all contracts entered into therein should be subject to such laws as the legislature, at any time, or from time to time, might see fit to pass. this law, according to the argument, would enter into the contract, become a part of it, and authorize the interference of the legislative power with it, for any and all purposes, wholly uncontrolled by the constitution of the united states. so much for the argument that the law is a part of the contract. we think it is shown to be not so; and if it were, the expected consequence would not follow. the inquiry, then, recurs, whether the law in question be such a law as the legislature of new york had authority to pass. the question is general. we differ from our learned adversaries on general principles. we differ as to the main scope and end of this constitutional provision. they think it entirely remedial; we regard it as preventive. they think it adopted to secure redress for violated private rights; to us, it seems intended to guard against great public mischiefs. they argue it as if it were designed as an indemnity or protection for injured private rights, in individual cases of _meum_ and _tuum_; we look upon it as a great political provision, favorable to the commerce and credit of the whole country. certainly we do not deny its application to cases of violated private right. such cases are clearly and unquestionably within its operation. still, we think its main scope to be general and political. and this, we think, is proved by reference to the history of the country, and to the great objects which were sought to be attained by the establishment of the present government. commerce, credit, and confidence were the principal things which did not exist under the old confederation, and which it was a main object of the present constitution to create and establish. a vicious system of legislation, a system of paper money and tender laws, had completely paralyzed industry, threatened to beggar every man of property, and ultimately to ruin the country. the relation between debtor and creditor, always delicate, and always dangerous whenever it divides society, and draws out the respective parties into different ranks and classes, was in such a condition in the years , , and , as to threaten the overthrow of all government; and a revolution was menaced, much more critical and alarming than that through which the country had recently passed. the object of the new constitution was to arrest these evils; to awaken industry by giving security to property; to establish confidence, credit, and commerce, by salutary laws, to be enforced by the power of the whole community. the revolutionary war was over, the country had peace, but little domestic tranquillity; it had liberty, but few of its enjoyments, and none of its security. the states had struggled together, but their union was imperfect. they had freedom, but not an established course of justice. the constitution was therefore framed, as it professes, "to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, to secure the blessings of liberty, and to insure domestic tranquillity." it is not pertinent to this occasion to advert to all the means by which these desirable ends were to be obtained. some of them, closely connected with the subject now under consideration, are obvious and prominent. the objects were commerce, credit, and mutual confidence in matters of property; and these required, among other things, a uniform standard of value or medium of payments. one of the first powers given to congress, therefore, is that of coining money and fixing the value of foreign coins; and one of the first restraints imposed on the states is the total prohibition to coin money. these two provisions are industriously followed up and completed by denying to the states all power to emit bills of credit, or to make any thing but gold and silver a tender in the payment of debts. the whole control, therefore, over the standard of value and medium of payments is vested in the general government. and here the question instantly suggests itself. why should such pains be taken to confide to congress alone this exclusive power of fixing on a standard of value, and of prescribing the medium in which debts shall be paid, if it is, after all, to be left to every state to declare that debts may be discharged, and to prescribe how they may be discharged, without any payment at all? why say that no man shall be obliged to take, in discharge of a debt, paper money issued by the authority of a state, and yet say that by the same authority the debt may be discharged without any payment whatever? we contend, that the constitution has not left its work thus unfinished. we contend, that, taking its provisions together, it is apparent it was intended to provide for two things, intimately connected with each other. these are,-- . a medium for the payment of debts; and, . a uniform manner of discharging debts, when they are to be discharged without payment. the arrangement of the grants and prohibitions contained in the constitution is fit to be regarded on this occasion. the grant to congress and the prohibition on the states, though they are certainly to be construed together, are not contained in the same clauses. the powers granted to congress are enumerated one after another in the eighth section; the principal limitations on those powers, in the ninth section; and the prohibitions to the states, in the tenth section. now, in order to understand whether any particular power be exclusively vested in congress, it is necessary to read the terms of the grant, together with the terms of the prohibition. take an example from that power of which we have been speaking, the coinage power. here the grant to congress is, "to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coins." now, the correlative prohibition on the states, though found in another section, is undoubtedly to be taken in immediate connection with the foregoing, as much as if it had been found in the same clause. the only just reading of these provisions, therefore, is this: "congress shall have power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin; but no state shall coin money, emit bills of credit, or make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts." these provisions respect the medium of payment, or standard of value, and, thus collated, their joint result is clear and decisive. we think the result clear, also, of those provisions which respect the discharge of debts without payment. collated in like manner, they stand thus: "congress shall have power to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the united states, but no state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts." this collocation cannot be objected to, if they refer to the same subject-matter; and that they do refer to the same subject-matter we have the authority of this court for saying, because this court solemnly determined, in _sturges v. crowninshield_, that this prohibition on the states did apply to systems of bankruptcy. it must be now taken, therefore, that state bankrupt laws were in the mind of the convention when the prohibition was adopted, and therefore the grant to congress on the subject of bankrupt laws, and the prohibition to the states on the same subject, are properly to be taken and read together; and being thus read together, is not the intention clear to take away from the states the power of passing bankrupt laws, since, while enacted by them, such laws would not be uniform, and to confer the power exclusively on congress, by whom uniform laws could be established? suppose the order of arrangement in the constitution had been otherwise than it is, and that the prohibitions to the states had preceded the grants of power to congress, the two powers, when collated, would then have read thus: "no state shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts; but congress may establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies." could any man have doubted, in that case, that the meaning was, that the states should not pass laws discharging debts without payment, but that congress might establish uniform bankrupt acts? and yet this inversion of the order of the clauses does not alter their sense. we contend, that congress alone possesses the power of establishing bankrupt laws; and although we are aware that, in _sturges v. crowninshield_, the court decided that such an exclusive power could not be inferred from the words of the grant in the seventh section, we yet would respectfully request the bench to reconsider this point. we think it could not have been intended that both the states and general government should exercise this power; and therefore, that a grant to one implies a prohibition on the other. but not to press a topic which the court has already had under its consideration, we contend, that, even without reading the clauses of the constitution in the connection which we have suggested, and which is believed to be the true one, the prohibition in the tenth section, taken by itself, does forbid the enactment of state bankrupt laws, as applied to future as well as present debts. we argue this from the words of the prohibition, from the association they are found in, and from the objects intended. . the words are general. the states can pass no law impairing contracts; that is, any contract. in the nature of things a law may impair a future contract, and therefore such contract is within the protection of the constitution. the words being general, it is for the other side to show a limitation; and this, it is submitted, they have wholly failed to do, unless they shall have established the doctrine that the law itself is part of the contract. it may be added, that the particular expression of the constitution is worth regarding. the thing prohibited is called a _law_, not an _act_. a law, in its general acceptation, is a rule prescribed for future conduct, not a legislative interference with existing rights. the framers of the constitution would hardly have given the appellation of _law_ to violent invasions of individual right, or individual property, by acts of legislative power. although, doubtless, such acts fall within this prohibition, yet they are prohibited also by general principles, and by the constitutions of the states, and therefore further provision against such acts was not so necessary as against other mischiefs. . the most conclusive argument, perhaps, arises from the connection in which the clause stands. the words of the prohibition, so far as it applies to civil rights, or rights of property, are, that "no state shall coin money, emit bills of credit, make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in the payment of debts, or pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts." the prohibition of attainders, and _ex post facto_ laws, refers entirely to criminal proceedings, and therefore should be considered as standing by itself; but the other parts of the prohibition are connected by the subject-matter, and ought, therefore, to be construed together. taking the words thus together, according to their natural connection, how is it possible to give a more limited construction to the term "contracts," in the last branch of the sentence, than to the word "debts," in that immediately preceding? can a state make any thing but gold and silver a tender in payment of future debts? this nobody pretends. but what ground is there for a distinction? no state shall make any thing but gold and silver a tender in the payment of debts, nor pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts. now, by what reasoning is it made out that the debts here spoken of are any debts, either existing or future, but that the contracts spoken of are subsisting contracts only? such a distinction seems to us wholly arbitrary. we see no ground for it. suppose the article, where it uses the word _debts_, had used the word _contracts_. the sense would have been the same then that it now is; but the identity of terms would have made the nature of the distinction now contended for somewhat more obvious. thus altered, the clause would read, that no state should make any thing but gold and silver a tender in discharge of _contracts_, nor pass any law impairing the obligation of _contracts_; yet the first of these expressions would have been held to apply to all contracts, and the last to subsisting contracts only. this shows the consequence of what is now contended for in a strong light. it is certain that the substitution of the word _contracts_ for _debts_ would not alter the sense; and an argument that could not be sustained, if such substitution were made, cannot be sustained now. we maintain, therefore, that, if tender laws may not be made for future debts, neither can bankrupt laws be made for future contracts. all the arguments used here may be applied with equal force to tender laws for future debts. it may be said, for instance, that, when it speaks of _debts_, the constitution means existing debts, and not mere possibilities of future debt; that the object was to preserve vested rights; and that if a man, after a tender law had passed, had contracted a debt, the manner in which that tender law authorized that debt to be discharged became part of the contract, and that the whole debt, or whole obligation, was thus qualified by the pre-existing law, and was no more than a contract to deliver so much paper money, or whatever other article might be made a tender, as the original bargain expressed. arguments of this sort will not be found wanting in favor of tender laws, if the court yield to similar arguments in favor of bankrupt laws. these several prohibitions of the constitution stand in the same paragraph; they have the same purpose, and were introduced for the same object; they are expressed in words of similar import, in grammar, and in sense; they are subject to the same construction, and we think no reason has yet been given for imposing an important restriction on one part of them, which does not equally show that the same restriction might be imposed also on the other part. we have already endeavored to maintain, that one great political object intended by the constitution would be defeated, if this construction were allowed to prevail. as an object of political regulation, it was not important to prevent the states from passing bankrupt laws applicable to present debts, while the power was left to them in regard to future debts; nor was it at all important, in a political point of view, to prohibit tender laws as to future debts, while it was yet left to the states to pass laws for the discharge of such debts, which, after all, are little different in principle from tender laws. look at the law before the court in this view. it provides, that, if the debtor will surrender, offer, or tender to trustees, for the benefit of his creditors, all his estate and effects, he shall be discharged from all his debts. if it had authorized a tender of any thing but money to any one creditor, though it were of a value equal to the debt, and thereupon provided for a discharge, it would have been clearly invalid. yet it is maintained to be good, merely because it is made for all creditors, and seeks a discharge from all debts; although the thing tendered may not be equivalent to a shilling in the pound of those debts. this shows, again, very clearly, how the constitution has failed of its purpose, if, having in terms prohibited all tender laws, and taken so much pains to establish a uniform medium of payment, it has yet left the states the power of discharging debts, as they may see fit, without any payment at all. to recapitulate what has been said, we maintain, first, that the constitution, by its grants to congress and its prohibitions on the states, has sought to establish one uniform standard of value, or medium of payment. second, that, by like means, it has endeavored to provide for one uniform mode of discharging debts, when they are to be discharged without payment. third, that these objects are connected, and that the first loses much of its importance, if the last, also, be not accomplished. fourth, that, reading the grant to congress and the prohibition on the states together, the inference is strong that the constitution intended to confer an exclusive power to pass bankrupt laws on congress. fifth, that the prohibition in the tenth section reaches to all contracts, existing or future, in the same way that the other prohibition in the same section extends to all debts existing or future. sixthly, that, upon any other construction, one great political object of the constitution will fail of its accomplishment. [footnote : sturges v. crowninshield, wheat. rep. .] the murder of captain joseph white. an argument on the trial of john francis knapp, for the murder of joseph white, of salem, in essex county, massachusetts, on the night of the th of april, . [the following argument was addressed to the jury at a trial for a remarkable murder. a more extraordinary case never occurred in this country, nor is it equalled in strange interest by any trial in the french _causes célèbres_ or the english _state trials_. deep sensation and intense curiosity were excited through the whole country, at the time of the occurrence of the event, not only by the atrocity of the crime, but by the position of the victim, and the romantic incidents in the detection and fate of the assassin and his accomplices. the following outline of the facts will assist the reader to understand the bearings of the argument. joseph white, esq. was found murdered in his bed, in his mansion-house, on the morning of the th of april, . he was a wealthy merchant of salem, eighty-two years of age, and had for many years given up active business. his servant-man rose that morning at six o'clock, and on going down into the kitchen, and opening the shutters of the window, saw that the back window of the east parlor was open, and that a plank was raised to the window from the back yard; he then went into the parlor, but saw no trace of any person having been there. he went to the apartment of the maid-servant, and told her, and then into mr. white's chamber by its back door, and saw that the door of his chamber, leading into the front entry, was open. on approaching the bed, he found the bed-clothes turned down, and mr. white dead, his countenance pallid, and his night-clothes and bed drenched in blood. he hastened to the neighboring houses to make known the event. he and the maid-servant were the only persons who slept in the house that night, except mr. white himself, whose niece, mrs. beckford, his house-keeper, was then absent on a visit to her daughter, at wenham. the physicians and the coroner's jury, who were called to examine the body, found on it thirteen deep stabs, made as if by a sharp dirk or poniard, and the appearance of a heavy blow on the left temple, which had fractured the skull, but not broken the skin. the body was cold, and appeared to have been lifeless many hours. on examining the apartments of the house, it did not appear that any valuable articles had been taken, or the house ransacked for them; there was a _rouleau_ of doubloons in an iron chest in his chamber, and costly plate in other apartments, none of which was missing. the perpetration of such an atrocious crime, in the most populous and central part of the town and in the most compactly built street, and under circumstances indicating the utmost coolness, deliberation, and audacity, deeply agitated and aroused the whole community; ingenuity was baffled in attempting even to conjecture a _motive_ for the deed; and all the citizens were led to fear that the same fate might await them in the defenceless and helpless hours of slumber. for several days, persons passing through the streets might hear the continual sound of the hammer, while carpenters and smiths were fixing bolts to doors and fastenings to windows. many, for defence, furnished themselves with cutlasses, fire-arms, and watch-dogs. large rewards for the detection of the author or authors of the murder were offered by the heirs of the deceased, by the selectmen of the town, and by the governor of the state. the citizens held a public meeting, and appointed a committee of vigilance, of twenty-seven members, to make all possible exertions to ferret out the offenders. while the public mind was thus excited and anxious, it was announced that a bold attempt at highway robbery was made in wenham, by three footpads, on joseph j. knapp, jr. and john francis knapp, on the evening of the th of april, while they were returning in a chaise from salem to their residence in wenham. they appeared before the investigating committee, and testified that, after nine o'clock, near the wenham pond, they discovered three men approaching. one came near, seized the bridle, and stopped the horse, while the other two came, one on each side, and seized a trunk in the bottom of the chaise. frank knapp drew a sword from his cane and made a thrust at one, and joseph with the but-end of his whip gave the other a heavy blow across the face. this bold resistance made them fall back. joseph sprung from the chaise to assail the robbers. one of them then gave a shrill whistle, when they fled, and, leaping over the wall, were soon lost in the darkness. one had a weapon like an ivory dirk-handle, was clad in a sailor's short jacket, cap, and had whiskers; another wore a long coat, with bright buttons; all three were good-sized men. frank, too, sprung from the chaise, and pursued with vigor, but all in vain. the account of this unusual and bold attempt at robbery, thus given by the knapps was immediately published in the salem newspapers, with the editorial remark, that "these gentlemen are well known in this town, and their respectability and veracity are not questioned by any of our citizens." not the slightest clew to the murder could be found for several weeks, and the mystery seemed to be impenetrable. at length a rumor reached the ear of the committee that a prisoner in the jail at new bedford, seventy miles from salem, confined there on a charge of shoplifting, had intimated that he could make important disclosures. a confidential messenger was immediately sent, to ascertain what he knew on the subject. the prisoner's name was hatch; he had been committed before the murder. he stated that, some months before the murder, while he was at large, he had associated in salem with richard crowninshield, jr., of danvers, and had often heard crowninshield express his intention to destroy the life of mr. white. crowninshield was a young man, of bad reputation; though he had never been convicted of any offence, he was strongly suspected of several heinous robberies. he was of dark and reserved deportment, temperate and wicked, daring and wary, subtle and obdurate, of great adroitness, boldness, and self-command. he had for several years frequented the haunts of vice in salem; and though he was often spoken of as a dangerous man, his person was known to few, for he never walked the streets by daylight. among his few associates he was a leader and a despot. the disclosures of hatch received credit. when the supreme court met at ipswich, the attorney-general, morton, moved for a writ of _habeas corpus ad testif._, and hatch was carried in chains from new bedford before the grand jury, and on his testimony an indictment was found against crowninshield. other witnesses testified that, on the night of the murder, his brother, george crowninshield, colonel benjamin selman, of marblehead, and daniel chase, of lynn, were together in salem, at a gambling-house usually frequented by richard; these were indicted as accomplices in the crime. they were all arrested on the d of may, arraigned on the indictment, and committed to prison to await the sitting of a court that should have jurisdiction of the offence. the committee of vigilance, however, continued to hold frequent meetings in order to discover further proof, for it was doubted by many whether the evidence already obtained would be sufficient to convict the accused. a fortnight afterwards, on the th of may, captain joseph j. knapp, a shipmaster and merchant, a man of good character, received by mail the following letter:-- charles grant, jr., to joseph j. knapp. "_belfast, may , ._ "dear sir,--i have taken the pen at this time to address an utter stranger, and, strange as it may seem to you, it is for the purpose of requesting the loan of three hundred and fifty-dollars, for which i can give you no security but my word, and in this case consider this to be sufficient. my call for money at this time is pressing, or i would not trouble you; but with that sum, i have the prospect of turning it to so much advantage, as to be able to refund it with interest in the course of six months. at all events, i think it will be for your interest to comply with my request, and that immediately,--that is, not to put off any longer than you receive this. then set down and enclose me the money with as much despatch as possible, for your own interest. this, sir, is my advice; and if you do not comply with it, the short period between now and november will convince you that you have denied a request, the granting of which will never injure you, the refusal of which will ruin you. are you surprised at this assertion--rest assured that i make it, reserving to myself the reasons and a series of facts, which are founded on such a bottom as will bid defiance to property or quality. it is useless for me to enter into a discussion of facts which must inevitably harrow up your soul. no, i will merely tell you that i am acquainted with your brother franklin, and also the business that he was transacting for you on the d of april last; and that i think that you was very extravagant in giving one thousand dollars to the person that would execute the business for you. but you know best about that; you see that such things will leak out. to conclude, sir, i will inform you that there is a gentleman of my acquaintance in salem, that will observe that you do not leave town before the first of june, giving you sufficient time between now and then to comply with my request: and if i do not receive a line from you, together with the above sum, before the d of this month, i shall wait upon you with an assistant. i have said enough to convince you of my knowledge, and merely inform you that you can, when you answer, be as brief as possible. "direct yours to "charles grant, jr., of prospect, maine." this letter was an unintelligible enigma to captain knapp; he knew no man of the name of charles grant, jr., and had no acquaintance at belfast, a town in maine, two hundred miles distant from salem. after poring over it in vain, he handed it to his son, nathaniel phippen knapp, a young lawyer; to him also the letter was an inexplicable riddle. the receiving of such a _threatening_ letter, at a time when so many felt insecure, and were apprehensive of danger, demanded their attention. captain knapp and his son phippen, therefore, concluded to ride to wenham, seven miles distant, and show the letter to captain knapp's other two sons, joseph j. knapp, jr. and john francis knapp, who were then residing at wenham with mrs. beckford, the niece and late house-keeper of mr. white, and the mother of the wife of j.j. knapp, jr. the latter perused the letter, told his father it "contained a devilish lot of trash," and requested him to hand it to the committee of vigilance. captain knapp, on his return to salem that evening, accordingly delivered the letter to the chairman of the committee. the next day j.j. knapp, jr. went to salem, and requested one of his friends to drop into the salem post-office the two following pseudonymous letters. "_may , ._ "gentlemen of the committee of vigilance,--hearing that you have taken up four young men on suspicion of being concerned in the murder of mr. white, i think it time to inform you that steven white came to me one night and told me, if i would _remove_ the old gentleman, he would give me five thousand dollars; he said he was afraid he would alter his will if he lived any longer. i told him i would do it, but i was afeared to go into the house, so he said he would go with me, that he would try to get into the house in the evening and open the window, would then go home and go to bed and meet me again about eleven. i found him, and we both went into his chamber. i struck him on the head with a heavy piece of lead, and then stabbed him with a dirk; he made the finishing strokes with another. he promised to send me the money next evening, and has not sent it yet which is the reason that i mention this. "yours, &c., "grant." this letter was directed on the outside to the "hon. gideon barstow, salem," and put into the post-office on sunday evening, may , . "_lynn, may , ._ "mr. white will send the $ , , or a part of it, before to-morrow night, or suffer the painful consequences. "n. claxton, th." this letter was addressed to the "hon. stephen white, salem, mass.," and was also put into the post-office in salem on sunday evening. when knapp delivered these letters to his friend, he said his father had received an anonymous letter, and "what i want you for is to put these in the post-office in order to nip this silly affair in the bud." the hon. stephen white, mentioned in these letters, was a nephew of joseph white, and the legatee of the principal part of his large property. when the committee of vigilance read and considered the letter, purporting to be signed by charles grant, jr., which had been delivered to them by captain knapp, they were impressed with the belief that it contained a clew which might lead to important disclosures. as they had spared no pains or expense in their investigations, they immediately despatched a discreet messenger to prospect, in maine; he explained his business confidentially to the postmaster there, deposited a letter addressed to charles grant, jr., and awaited the call of grant to receive it. he soon called for it, when an officer, stationed in the house, stepped forward and arrested grant. on examining him, it appeared that his true name was palmer, a young man of genteel appearance, resident in the adjoining town of belfast. he had been a convict in maine, and had served a term in the state's prison in that state. conscious that the circumstances justified the belief that he had had a hand in the murder, he readily made known, while he protested his own innocence, that he could unfold the whole mystery. he then disclosed that he had been an associate of r. crowninshield, jr. and george crowninshield; had spent part of the winter at danvers and salem, under the name of carr; part of the time he had been their inmate, concealed in their father's house in danvers; that on the d of april he saw from the windows of the house frank knapp and a young man named allen ride up to the house; that george walked away with frank, and richard with allen; that on their return, george told richard that frank wished them to undertake to kill mr. white, and that j.j. knapp, jr. would pay one thousand dollars for the job. they proposed various modes of executing it, and asked palmer to be concerned, which he declined. george said the house-keeper would be away at the time; that the object of joseph j. knapp, jr. was to destroy the will, because it gave most of the property to stephen white; that joseph j. knapp, jr. was first to destroy the will; that he could get from the house-keeper the keys of the iron chest in which it was kept; that frank called again the same day, in a chaise, and rode away with richard; and that on the night of the murder palmer stayed at the half-way house, in lynn. the messenger, on obtaining this disclosure from palmer, without delay communicated it by mail to the committee, and on the th of may, a warrant was issued against joseph j. knapp, jr. and john francis knapp, and they were taken into custody at wenham, where they were residing in the family of mrs. beckford, mother of the wife of joseph j. knapp, jr. they were then imprisoned to await the arrival of palmer, for their examination. the two knapps were young shipmasters, of a respectable family. joseph j. knapp, jr., on the third day of his imprisonment, made a full confession that he projected the murder. he knew that mr. white had made his will, and given to mrs. beckford a legacy of fifteen thousand dollars; but if he died without leaving a will, he expected she would inherit nearly two hundred thousand dollars. in february he made known to his brother his desire to make way with mr. white, intending first to abstract and destroy the will. frank agreed to employ an assassin, and negotiated with r. crowninshield, jr., who agreed to do the deed for a reward of one thousand dollars; joseph agreed to pay that sum, and, as he had access to the house at his pleasure, he was to unbar and unfasten the back window, so that crowninshield might gain easy entrance. four days before the murder, while they were deliberating on the mode of compassing it, he went into mr. white's chamber, and, finding the key in the iron chest, unlocked it, took the will, put it in his chaise-box, covered it with hay, carried it to wenham, kept it till after the murder, and then burned it. after securing the will, he gave notice to crowninshield that all was ready. in the evening of that day he had a meeting with crowninshield at the centre of the common, who showed him a bludgeon and dagger, with which the murder was to be committed. knapp asked him if he meant to do it that night; crowninshield said he thought not, he did not feel like it; knapp then went to wenham. knapp ascertained on sunday, the th of april, that mr. white had gone to take tea with a relative in chestnut street. crowninshield intended to dirk him on his way home in the evening, but mr. white returned before dark. it was next arranged for the night of the th, and knapp was on some pretext to prevail on mrs. beckford to visit her daughters at wenham, and to spend the night there. he said that, all preparations being thus complete, crowninshield and frank met about ten o'clock in the evening of the th, in brown street, which passes the rear of the garden of mr. white, and stood some time in a spot from which they could observe the movements in the house, and perceive when mr. white and his two servants retired to bed. crowninshield requested frank to go home; he did so, but soon returned to the same spot. crowninshield, in the mean time, had started and passed round through newbury street and essex street to the front of the house, entered the postern gate, passed to the rear of the house, placed a plank against the house, climbed to the window, opened it, entered the house alone, passed up the staircase, opened the door of the sleeping-chamber, approached the bedside, gave mr. white a heavy and mortal blow on the head with a bludgeon, and then with a dirk gave him many stabs in his body. crowninshield said, that, after he had "done for the old man," he put his fingers on his pulse to make certain he was dead. he then retired from the house, hurried back through brown street, where he met frank, waiting to learn the event. crowninshield ran down howard street, a solitary place, and hid the club under the steps of a meeting-house. he then went home to danvers. joseph confessed further that the account of the wenham robbery, on the th of april, was a sheer fabrication. after the murder crowninshield went to wenham in company with frank to call for the one thousand dollars. he was not able to pay the whole, but gave him one hundred five-franc pieces. crowninshield related to him the particulars of the murder, told him where the club was hid, and said he was sorry joseph had not got the right will, for if he had known there was another, he would have got it. joseph sent frank afterwards to find and destroy the club, but he said he could not find it. when joseph made the confession, he told the place where the club was concealed, and it was there found; it was heavy, made of hickory, twenty-two and a half inches long, of a smooth surface and large oval head, loaded with lead, and of a form adapted to give a mortal blow on the skull without breaking the skin; the handle was suited for a firm grasp. crowninshield said he turned it in a lathe. joseph admitted he wrote the two anonymous letters. crowninshield had hitherto maintained a stoical composure of feeling; but when he was informed of knapp's arrest, his knees smote beneath him, the sweat started out on his stern and pallid face, and he subsided upon his bunk. palmer was brought to salem in irons on the d of june, and committed to prison. crowninshield saw him taken from the carriage. he was put in the cell directly under that in which crowninshield was kept. several members of the committee entered palmer's cell to talk with him; while they were talking, they heard a loud whistle, and, on looking up, saw that crowninshield had picked away the mortar from the crevice between the blocks of the granite floor of his cell. after the loud whistle, he cried out, "palmer! palmer!" and soon let down a string, to which were tied a pencil and a slip of paper. two lines of poetry were written on the paper, in order that, if palmer was really there, he should make it known by capping the verses. palmer shrunk away into a corner, and was soon transferred to another cell. he seemed to stand in awe of crowninshield. on the th of june a quantity of stolen goods was found concealed in the barn of crowninshield, in consequence of information from palmer. crowninshield, thus finding the proofs of his guilt and depravity thicken, on the th of june committed suicide by hanging himself to the bars of his cell with a handkerchief. he left letters to his father and brother, expressing in general terms the viciousness of his life, and his hopelessness of escape from punishment. when his associates in guilt heard his fate, they said it was not unexpected by them, for they had often heard him say he would never live to submit to an ignominious punishment. a special term of the supreme court was held at salem on the th of july, for the trial of the prisoners charged with the murder; it continued in session till the th of august, with a few days' intermission. an indictment for the murder was found against john francis knapp, as principal, and joseph j. knapp, jr. and george crowninshield, as accessories. selman and chase were discharged by the attorney-general. the principal, john francis knapp, was first put on trial. as the law then stood, an accessory in a murder could not be tried until a principal had been convicted. he was defended by messrs. franklin dexter and william h. gardiner, advocates of high reputation for ability and eloquence; the trial was long and arduous, and the witnesses numerous. his brother joseph, who had made a full confession, on the government's promise of impunity if he would in good faith testify the truth, was brought into court, called to the stand as a witness, but declined to testify. to convict the prisoner, it was necessary for the government to prove that he was _present_, actually or constructively, as an aider or abettor in the murder. the evidence was strong that there was a conspiracy to commit the murder, that the prisoner was one of the conspirators, that at the time of the murder he was in brown street at the rear of mr. white's garden, and the jury were satisfied that he was in that place to aid and abet in the murder, ready to afford assistance, if necessary. he was convicted. joseph j. knapp, jr. was afterwards tried as an accessory before the fact, and convicted. george crowninshield proved an _alibi_, and was discharged. the execution of john francis knapp and joseph j. knapp, jr. closed the tragedy. if joseph, after turning state's evidence, had not changed his mind, neither he nor his brother, nor any of the conspirators, could have been convicted; if he had testified, and disclosed the whole truth, it would have appeared that john francis knapp was in brown street, not to render assistance to the assassin; but that crowninshield, when he started to commit the murder, requested frank to go home and go to bed; that frank did go home, retire to bed, soon after arose, secretly left his father's house, and hastened to brown street, to await the coming out of the assassin, in order to learn whether the deed was accomplished, and all the particulars. if frank had not been convicted as principal, none of the accessories could by law have been convicted. joseph would not have been even tried, for the government stipulated, that, if he would be a witness for the state, he should go clear. the whole history of this occurrence is of romantic interest. the murder itself, the _corpus delicti_, was strange; planned with deliberation and sagacity, and executed with firmness and vigor. while conjecture was baffled in ascertaining either the motive or the perpetrator, it was certain that the assassin had acted upon design, and not at random. he must have had knowledge of the house, for the window had been unfastened from within. he had entered stealthily, threaded his way in silence through the apartments, corridors, and staircases, and coolly given the mortal blow. to make assurance doubly sure, he inflicted many fatal stabs, "the least a death to nature," and stayed not his hand till he had deliberately felt the pulse of his victim, to make certain that life was extinct. it was strange that crowninshield, the real assassin, should have been indicted and arrested on the testimony of hatch, who was himself in prison, in a distant part of the state, at the time of the murder, and had no actual knowledge on the subject. it was very strange that j.j. knapp, jr. should have been the instrument of bringing to light the mystery of the whole murderous conspiracy; for when he received from the hand of his father the threatening letter of palmer, consciousness of guilt so confounded his faculties, that, instead of destroying it, he stupidly handed it back and requested his father to deliver it to the committee of vigilance. it was strange that the murder should have been committed on a mistake in law. joseph, some time previous to the murder, had made inquiry how mr. white's estate would be distributed in case he died without a will, and had been erroneously told that mrs. beckford, his mother-in-law, the sole issue and representative of a deceased sister of mr. white, would inherit half of the estate, and that the four children and representatives of a deceased brother of mr. white, of whom the hon. stephen white was one, would inherit the other half. joseph had privately read the will, and knew that mr. white had bequeathed to mrs. beckford much less than half. it was strange that the murder should have been committed on a mistake in fact also. joseph furtively abstracted _a_ will, and expected mr. white would die intestate; but, after the decease, _the_ will, the _last_ will, was found by his heirs in its proper place; and it could never have been known, or conjectured, without the aid of joseph's confession, that he had made either of those blunders. finally, it was a strange fact that knapp should, on the night following the murder, have watched with the mangled corpse, and at the funeral followed the hearse as one of the chief mourners, without betraying on either occasion the slightest emotion which could awaken a suspicion of his guilt. * * * * * the following note was prefixed to this argument in the former edition:-- mr. white, a highly respectable and wealthy citizen of salem, about eighty years of age, was found, on the morning of the th of april, , in his bed, murdered, under such circumstances as to create a strong sensation in that town and throughout the community. richard crowninshield, george crowninshield, joseph j. knapp, and john f. knapp were, a few weeks after, arrested on a charge of having perpetrated the murder, and committed for trial. joseph j. knapp, soon after, under the promise of favor from government, made a full confession of the crime and the circumstances attending it. in a few days after this disclosure was made, richard crowninshield, who was supposed to have been the principal assassin, committed suicide. a special session of the supreme court was ordered by the legislature, for the trial of the prisoners, at salem, in july. at that time, john f. knapp was indicted as principal in the murder, and george crowninshield and joseph j. knapp as accessories. on account of the death of chief justice parker, which occurred on the th of july, the court adjourned to tuesday, the third day of august, when it proceeded in the trial of john f. knapp. joseph j. knapp, being called upon, refused to testify, and the pledge of the government was withdrawn. at the request of the prosecuting officers of the government, mr. webster appeared as counsel, and assisted in the trial. mr. franklin dexter addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner, and was succeeded by mr. webster in the following speech.] i am little accustomed, gentlemen, to the part which i am now attempting to perform. hardly more than once or twice has it happened to me to be concerned on the side of the government in any criminal prosecution whatever; and never, until the present occasion, in any case affecting life. but i very much regret that it should have been thought necessary to suggest to you that i am brought here to "hurry you against the law and beyond the evidence." i hope i have too much regard for justice, and too much respect for my own character, to attempt either; and were i to make such attempt, i am sure that in this court nothing can be carried against the law, and that gentlemen, intelligent and just as you are, are not, by any power, to be hurried beyond the evidence. though i could well have wished to shun this occasion, i have not felt at liberty to withhold my professional assistance, when it is supposed that i may be in some degree useful in investigating and discovering the truth respecting this most extraordinary murder. it has seemed to be a duty incumbent on me, as on every other citizen, to do my best and my utmost to bring to light the perpetrators of this crime. against the prisoner at the bar, as an individual, i cannot have the slightest prejudice. i would not do him the smallest injury or injustice. but i do not affect to be indifferent to the discovery and the punishment of this deep guilt. i cheerfully share in the opprobrium, how great soever it may be, which is cast on those who feel and manifest an anxious concern that all who had a part in planning, or a hand in executing, this deed of midnight assassination, may be brought to answer for their enormous crime at the bar of public justice. gentlemen, it is a most extraordinary case. in some respects, it has hardly a precedent anywhere; certainly none in our new england history. this bloody drama exhibited no suddenly excited, ungovernable rage. the actors in it were not surprised by any lion-like temptation springing upon their virtue, and overcoming it, before resistance could begin. nor did they do the deed to glut savage vengeance, or satiate long-settled and deadly hate. it was a cool, calculating, money-making murder. it was all "hire and salary, not revenge." it was the weighing of money against life; the counting out of so many pieces of silver against so many ounces of blood. an aged man, without an enemy in the world, in his own house, and in his own bed, is made the victim of a butcherly murder, for mere pay. truly, here is a new lesson for painters and poets. whoever shall hereafter draw the portrait of murder, if he will show it as it has been exhibited, where such example was last to have been looked for, in the very bosom of our new england society, let him not give it the grim visage of moloch, the brow knitted by revenge, the face black with settled hate, and the bloodshot eye emitting livid fires of malice. let him draw, rather, a decorous, smooth-faced, bloodless demon; a picture in repose, rather than in action; not so much an example of human nature in its depravity, and in its paroxysms of crime, as an infernal being, a fiend, in the ordinary display and development of his character. the deed was executed with a degree of self-possession and steadiness equal to the wickedness with which it was planned. the circumstances now clearly in evidence spread out the whole scene before us. deep sleep had fallen on the destined victim, and on all beneath his roof. a healthful old man, to whom sleep was sweet, the first sound slumbers of the night held him in their soft but strong embrace. the assassin enters, through the window already prepared, into an unoccupied apartment. with noiseless foot he paces the lonely hall, half lighted by the moon; he winds up the ascent of the stairs, and reaches the door of the chamber. of this, he moves the lock, by soft and continued pressure, till it turns on its hinges without noise; and he enters, and beholds his victim before him. the room is uncommonly open to the admission of light. the face of the innocent sleeper is turned from the murderer, and the beams of the moon, resting on the gray locks of his aged temple, show him where to strike. the fatal blow is given! and the victim passes, without a struggle or a motion, from the repose of sleep to the repose of death! it is the assassin's purpose to make sure work; and he plies the dagger, though it is obvious that life has been destroyed by the blow of the bludgeon. he even raises the aged arm, that he may not fail in his aim at the heart, and replaces it again over the wounds of the poniard! to finish the picture, he explores the wrist for the pulse! he feels for it, and ascertains that it beats no longer! it is accomplished. the deed is done. he retreats, retraces his steps to the window, passes out through it as he came in, and escapes. he has done the murder. no eye has seen him, no ear has heard him. the secret is his own, and it is safe! ah! gentlemen, that was a dreadful mistake. such a secret can be safe nowhere. the whole creation of god has neither nook nor corner where the guilty can bestow it, and say it is safe. not to speak of that eye which pierces through all disguises, and beholds every thing as in the splendor of noon, such secrets of guilt are never safe from detection, even by men. true it is, generally speaking, that "murder will out." true it is, that providence hath so ordained, and doth so govern things, that those who break the great law of heaven by shedding man's blood seldom succeed in avoiding discovery. especially, in a case exciting so much attention as this, discovery must come, and will come, sooner or later. a thousand eyes turn at once to explore every man, every thing, every circumstance, connected with the time and place; a thousand ears catch every whisper; a thousand excited minds intensely dwell on the scene, shedding all their light, and ready to kindle the slightest circumstance into a blaze of discovery. meantime the guilty soul cannot keep its own secret. it is false to itself; or rather it feels an irresistible impulse of conscience to be true to itself. it labors under its guilty possession, and knows not what to do with it. the human heart was not made for the residence of such an inhabitant. it finds itself preyed on by a torment, which it dares not acknowledge to god or man. a vulture is devouring it, and it can ask no sympathy or assistance, either from heaven or earth. the secret which the murderer possesses soon comes to possess him; and, like the evil spirits of which we read, it overcomes him, and leads him whithersoever it will. he feels it beating at his heart, rising to his throat, and demanding disclosure. he thinks the whole world sees it in his face, reads it in his eyes, and almost hears its workings in the very silence of his thoughts. it has become his master. it betrays his discretion, it breaks down his courage, it conquers his prudence. when suspicions from without begin to embarrass him, and the net of circumstance to entangle him, the fatal secret struggles with still greater violence to burst forth. it must be confessed, it will be confessed; there is no refuge from confession but suicide, and suicide is confession. much has been said, on this occasion, of the excitement which has existed, and still exists, and of the extraordinary measures taken to discover and punish the guilty. no doubt there has been, and is, much excitement, and strange indeed it would be had it been otherwise. should not all the peaceable and well-disposed naturally feel concerned, and naturally exert themselves to bring to punishment the authors of this secret assassination? was it a thing to be slept upon or forgotten? did you, gentlemen, sleep quite as quietly in your beds after this murder as before? was it not a case for rewards, for meetings, for committees, for the united efforts of all the good, to find out a band of murderous conspirators, of midnight ruffians, and to bring them to the bar of justice and law? if this be excitement, is it an unnatural or an improper excitement? it seems to me, gentlemen, that there are appearances of another feeling, of a very different nature and character; not very extensive, i would hope, but still there is too much evidence of its existence. such is human nature, that some persons lose their abhorrence of crime in their admiration of its magnificent exhibitions. ordinary vice is reprobated by them, but extraordinary guilt, exquisite wickedness, the high flights and poetry of crime, seize on the imagination, and lead them to forget the depths of the guilt, in admiration of the excellence of the performance, or the unequalled atrocity of the purpose. there are those in our day who have made great use of this infirmity of our nature, and by means of it done infinite injury to the cause of good morals. they have affected not only the taste, but i fear also the principles, of the young, the heedless, and the imaginative, by the exhibition of interesting and beautiful monsters. they render depravity attractive, sometimes by the polish of its manners, and sometimes by its very extravagance; and study to show off crime under all the advantages of cleverness and dexterity. gentlemen, this is an extraordinary murder, but it is still a murder. we are not to lose ourselves in wonder at its origin, or in gazing on its cool and skilful execution. we are to detect and to punish it; and while we proceed with caution against the prisoner, and are to be sure that we do not visit on his head the offences of others, we are yet to consider that we are dealing with a case of most atrocious crime, which has not the slightest circumstance about it to soften its enormity. it is murder; deliberate, concerted, malicious murder. although the interest of this case may have diminished by the repeated investigation of the facts; still, the additional labor which it imposes upon all concerned is not to be regretted, if it should result in removing all doubts of the guilt of the prisoner. the learned counsel for the prisoner has said truly, that it is your individual duty to judge the prisoner; that it is your individual duty to determine his guilt or innocence; and that you are to weigh the testimony with candor and fairness. but much at the same time has been said, which, although it would seem to have no distinct bearing on the trial, cannot be passed over without some notice. a tone of complaint so peculiar has been indulged, as would almost lead us to doubt whether the prisoner at the bar, or the managers of this prosecution, are now on trial. great pains have been taken to complain of the manner of the prosecution. we hear of getting up a case; of setting in motion trains of machinery; of foul testimony; of combinations to overwhelm the prisoner; of private prosecutors; that the prisoner is hunted, persecuted, driven to his trial; that everybody is against him; and various other complaints, as if those who would bring to punishment the authors of this murder were almost as bad as they who committed it. in the course of my whole life, i have never heard before so much said about the particular counsel who happen to be employed; as if it were extraordinary that other counsel than the usual officers of the government should assist in the management of a case on the part of the government. in one of the last criminal trials in this county, that of jackman for the "goodridge robbery" (so called), i remember that the learned head of the suffolk bar, mr. prescott, came down in aid of the officers of the government. this was regarded as neither strange nor improper. the counsel for the prisoner, in that case, contented themselves with answering his arguments, as far as they were able, instead of carping at his presence. complaint is made that rewards were offered, in this case, and temptations held out to obtain testimony. are not rewards always offered, when great and secret offences are committed? rewards were offered in the case to which i have alluded; and every other means taken to discover the offenders, that ingenuity or the most persevering vigilance could suggest. the learned counsel have suffered their zeal to lead them into a strain of complaint at the manner in which the perpetrators of this crime were detected, almost indicating that they regard it as a positive injury to them to have found out their guilt. since no man witnessed it, since they do not now confess it, attempts to discover it are half esteemed as officious intermeddling and impertinent inquiry. it is said, that here even a committee of vigilance was appointed. this is a subject of reiterated remark. this committee are pointed at, as though they had been officiously intermeddling with the administration of justice. they are said to have been "laboring for months" against the prisoner. gentlemen, what must we do in such a case? are people to be dumb and still, through fear of overdoing? is it come to this, that an effort cannot be made, a hand cannot be lifted, to discover the guilty, without its being said there is a combination to overwhelm innocence? has the community lost all moral sense? certainly, a community that would not be roused to action upon an occasion such as this was, a community which should not deny sleep to their eyes, and slumber to their eyelids, till they had exhausted all the means of discovery and detection, must indeed be lost to all moral sense, and would scarcely deserve protection from the laws. the learned counsel have endeavored to persuade you, that there exists a prejudice against the persons accused of this murder. they would have you understand that it is not confined to this vicinity alone; but that even the legislature have caught this spirit. that through the procurement of the gentleman here styled private prosecutor, who is a member of the senate, a special session of this court was appointed for the trial of these offenders. that the ordinary movements of the wheels of justice were too slow for the purposes devised. but does not everybody see and know, that it was matter of absolute necessity to have a special session of the court? when or how could the prisoners have been tried without a special session? in the ordinary arrangement of the courts, but one week in a year is allotted for the whole court to sit in this county. in the trial of all capital offences a majority of the court, at least, is required to be present. in the trial of the present case alone, three weeks have already been taken up. without such special session, then, three years would not have been sufficient for the purpose. it is answer sufficient to all complaints on this subject to say, that the law was drawn by the late chief justice himself,[ ] to enable the court to accomplish its duties, and to afford the persons accused an opportunity for trial without delay. again, it is said that it was not thought of making francis knapp, the prisoner at the bar, a principal till after the death of richard crowninshield, jr.; that the present indictment is an after-thought; that "testimony was got up" for the occasion. it is not so. there is no authority for this suggestion. the case of the knapps had not then been before the grand jury. the officers of the government did not know what the testimony would be against them. they could not, therefore, have determined what course they should pursue. they intended to arraign all as principals who should appear to have been principals, and all as accessories who should appear to have been accessories. all this could be known only when the evidence should be produced. but the learned counsel for the defendant take a somewhat loftier flight still. they are more concerned, they assure us, for the law itself, than even for their client. your decision in this case, they say, will stand as a precedent. gentlemen, we hope it will. we hope it will be a precedent both of candor and intelligence, of fairness and of firmness; a precedent of good sense and honest purpose pursuing their investigation discreetly, rejecting loose generalities, exploring all the circumstances, weighing each, in search of truth, and embracing and declaring the truth when found. it is said, that "laws are made, not for the punishment of the guilty, but for the protection of the innocent." this is not quite accurate, perhaps, but if so, we hope they will be so administered as to give that protection. but who are the innocent whom the law would protect? gentlemen, joseph white was innocent. they are innocent who, having lived in the fear of god through the day, wish to sleep in his peace through the night, in their own beds. the law is established that those who live quietly may sleep quietly; that they who do no harm may feel none. the gentleman can think of none that are innocent except the prisoner at the bar, not yet convicted. is a proved conspirator to murder innocent? are the crowninshields and the knapps innocent? what is innocence? how deep stained with blood, how reckless in crime, how deep in depravity may it be, and yet retain innocence? the law is made, if we would speak with entire accuracy, to protect the innocent by punishing the guilty. but there are those innocent out of a court, as well as in; innocent citizens not suspected of crime, as well as innocent prisoners at the bar. the criminal law is not founded in a principle of vengeance. it does not punish that it may inflict suffering. the humanity of the law feels and regrets every pain it causes, every hour of restraint it imposes, and more deeply still every life it forfeits. but it uses evil as the means of preventing greater evil. it seeks to deter from crime by the example of punishment. this is its true, and only true main object. it restrains the liberty of the few offenders, that the many who do not offend may enjoy their liberty. it takes the life of the murderer, that other murders may not be committed. the law might open the jails, and at once set free all persons accused of offences, and it ought to do so if it could be made certain that no other offences would hereafter be committed, because it punishes, not to satisfy any desire to inflict pain, but simply to prevent the repetition of crimes. when the guilty, therefore, are not punished, the law has so far failed of its purpose; the safety of the innocent is so far endangered. every unpunished murder takes away something from the security of every man's life. whenever a jury, through whimsical and ill-founded scruples, suffer the guilty to escape, they make themselves answerable for the augmented danger of the innocent. we wish nothing to be strained against this defendant. why, then, all this alarm? why all this complaint against the manner in which the crime is discovered? the prisoner's counsel catch at supposed flaws of evidence, or bad character of witnesses, without meeting the case. do they mean to deny the conspiracy? do they mean to deny that the two crowninshields and the two knapps were conspirators? why do they rail against palmer, while they do not disprove, and hardly dispute, the truth of any one fact sworn to by him? instead of this, it is made matter of sentimentality that palmer has been prevailed upon to betray his bosom companions and to violate the sanctity of friendship. again i ask, why do they not meet the case? if the fact is out, why not meet it? do they mean to deny that captain white is dead? one would have almost supposed even that, from some remarks that have been made. do they mean to deny the conspiracy? or, admitting a conspiracy, do they mean to deny only that frank knapp, the prisoner at the bar, was abetting in the murder, being present, and so deny that he was a principal? if a conspiracy is proved, it bears closely upon every subsequent subject of inquiry. why do they not come to the fact? here the defence is wholly indistinct. the counsel neither take the ground, nor abandon it. they neither fly, nor light. they hover. but they must come to a closer mode of contest. they must meet the facts, and either deny or admit them. had the prisoner at the bar, then, a knowledge of this conspiracy or not? this is the question. instead of laying out their strength in complaining of the _manner_ in which the deed is discovered, of the extraordinary pains taken to bring the prisoner's guilt to light, would it not be better to show there was no guilt? would it not be better to show his innocence? they say, and they complain, that the community feel a great desire that he should be punished for his crimes. would it not be better to convince you that he has committed no crime? gentlemen, let us now come to the case. your first inquiry, on the evidence, will be, was captain white murdered in pursuance of a conspiracy, and was the defendant one of this conspiracy? if so, the second inquiry is, was he so connected with the murder itself as that he is liable to be convicted as a _principal_? the defendant is indicted as a _principal_. if not guilty _as such_, you cannot convict him. the indictment contains three distinct classes of counts. in the first, he is charged as having done the deed with his own hand; in the second, as an aider and abettor to richard crowninshield, jr., who did the deed; in the third, as an aider and abettor to some person unknown. if you believe him guilty on either of these counts, or in either of these ways, you must convict him. it may be proper to say, as a preliminary remark, that there are two extraordinary circumstances attending this trial. one is, that richard crowninshield, jr., the supposed immediate perpetrator of the murder, since his arrest, has committed suicide. he has gone to answer before a tribunal of perfect infallibility. the other is, that joseph knapp, the supposed originator and planner of the murder, having once made a full disclosure of the facts, under a promise of indemnity, is, nevertheless, not now a witness. notwithstanding his disclosure and his promise of indemnity, he now refuses to testify. he chooses to return to his original state, and now stands answerable himself, when the time shall come for his trial. these circumstances it is fit you should remember, in your investigation of the case. your decision may affect more than the life of this defendant. if he be not convicted as principal, no one can be. nor can any one be convicted of a participation in the crime as accessory. the knapps and george crowninshield will be again on the community. this shows the importance of the duty you have to perform, and serves to remind you of the care and wisdom necessary to be exercised in its performance. but certainly these considerations do not render the prisoner's guilt any clearer, nor enhance the weight of the evidence against him. no one desires you to regard consequences in that light. no one wishes any thing to be strained, or too far pressed against the prisoner. still, it is fit you should see the full importance of the duty which devolves upon you. and now, gentlemen, in examining this evidence, let us begin at the beginning, and see first what we know independent of the disputed testimony. this is a case of circumstantial evidence. and these circumstances, we think, are full and satisfactory. the case mainly depends upon them, and it is common that offences of this kind must be proved in this way. midnight assassins take no witnesses. the evidence of the facts relied on has been somewhat sneeringly denominated, by the learned counsel, "circumstantial stuff," but it is not such stuff as dreams are made of. why does he not rend this stuff? why does he not scatter it to the winds? he dismisses it a little too summarily. it shall be my business to examine this stuff, and try its cohesion. the letter from palmer at belfast, is that no more than flimsy stuff? the fabricated letters from knapp to the committee and to mr. white, are they nothing but stuff? the circumstance, that the house-keeper was away at the time the murder was committed, as it was agreed she would be, is that, too, a useless piece of the same stuff? the facts, that the key of the chamber door was taken out and secreted; that the window was unbarred and unbolted; are these to be so slightly and so easily disposed of? it is necessary, gentlemen, to settle now, at the commencement, the great question of a conspiracy. if there was none, or the defendant was not a party, then there is no evidence here to convict him. if there was a conspiracy, and he is proved to have been a party, then these two facts have a strong bearing on others, and all the great points of inquiry. the defendant's counsel take no distinct ground, as i have already said, on this point, either to admit or to deny. they choose to confine themselves to a hypothetical mode of speech. they say, supposing there was a conspiracy, _non sequitur_ that the prisoner is guilty as principal. be it so. but still, if there was a conspiracy, and if he was a conspirator, and helped to plan the murder, this may shed much light on the evidence which goes to charge him with the execution of that plan. we mean to make out the conspiracy; and that the defendant was a party to it; and then to draw all just inferences from these facts. let me ask your attention, then, in the first place, to those appearances, on the morning after the murder, which have a tendency to show that it was done in pursuance of a preconcerted plan of operation. what are they? a man was found murdered in his bed. no stranger had done the deed, no one unacquainted with the house had done it. it was apparent that somebody within had opened, and that somebody without had entered. there had obviously and certainly been concert and co-operation. the inmates of the house were not alarmed when the murder was perpetrated. the assassin had entered without any riot or any violence. he had found the way prepared before him. the house had been previously opened. the window was unbarred from within, and its fastening unscrewed. there was a lock on the door of the chamber in which mr. white slept, but the key was gone. it had been taken away and secreted. the footsteps of the murderer were visible, out-doors, tending toward the window. the plank by which he entered the window still remained. the road he pursued had been thus prepared for him. the victim was slain, and the murderer had escaped. every thing indicated that somebody within had co-operated with somebody without. every thing proclaimed that some of the inmates, or somebody having access to the house, had had a hand in the murder. on the face of the circumstances, it was apparent, therefore, that this was a premeditated, concerted murder; that there had been a conspiracy to commit it. who, then, were the conspirators? if not now found out, we are still groping in the dark, and the whole tragedy is still a mystery. if the knapps and the crowninshields were not the conspirators in this murder, then there is a whole set of conspirators not yet discovered. because, independent of the testimony of palmer and leighton, independent of all disputed evidence, we know, from uncontroverted facts, that this murder was, and must have been, the result of concert and co-operation between two or more. we know it was not done without plan and deliberation; we see, that whoever entered the house, to strike the blow, was favored and aided by some one who had been previously in the house, without suspicion, and who had prepared the way. this is concert, this is co-operation, this is conspiracy. if the knapps and the crowninshields, then, were not the conspirators, who were? joseph knapp had a motive to desire the death of mr. white, and that motive has been shown. he was connected by marriage with the family of mr. white. his wife was the daughter of mrs. beckford, who was the only child of a sister of the deceased. the deceased was more than eighty years old, and had no children. his only heirs were nephews and nieces. he was supposed to be possessed of a very large fortune, which would have descended, by law, to his several nephews and nieces in equal shares; or, if there was a will, then according to the will. but as he had but two branches of heirs, the children of his brother, henry white, and of mrs. beckford, each of these branches, according to the common idea, would have shared one half of his property. this popular idea is not legally correct. but it is common, and very probably was entertained by the parties. according to this idea, mrs. beckford, on mr. white's death without a will, would have been entitled to one half of his ample fortune; and joseph knapp had married one of her three children. there was a will, and this will gave the bulk of the property to others; and we learn from palmer that one part of the design was to destroy the will before the murder was committed. there had been a previous will, and that previous will was known or believed to have been more favorable than the other to the beckford family. so that, by destroying the last will, and destroying the life of the testator at the same time, either the first and more favorable will would be set up, or the deceased would have no will, which would be, as was supposed, still more favorable. but the conspirators not having succeeded in obtaining and destroying the last will, though they accomplished the murder, that will being found in existence and safe, and that will bequeathing the mass of the property to others, it seemed at the time impossible for joseph knapp, as for any one else, indeed, but the principal devisee, to have any motive which should lead to the murder. the key which unlocks the whole mystery is the knowledge of the intention of the conspirators to steal the will. this is derived from palmer, and it explains all. it solves the whole marvel. it shows the motive which actuated those, against whom there is much evidence, but who, without the knowledge of this intention, were not seen to have had a motive. this intention is proved, as i have said, by palmer; and it is so congruous with all the rest of the case, it agrees so well with all facts and circumstances, that no man could well withhold his belief, though the facts were stated by a still less credible witness. if one desirous of opening a lock turns over and tries a bunch of keys till he finds one that will open it, he naturally supposes he has found _the_ key of _that_ lock. so, in explaining circumstances of evidence which are apparently irreconcilable or unaccountable, if a fact be suggested which at once accounts for all, and reconciles all, by whomsoever it may be stated, it is still difficult not to believe that such fact is the true fact belonging to the case. in this respect, palmer's testimony is singularly confirmed. if it were false, his ingenuity could not furnish us such clear exposition of strange appearing circumstances. some truth not before known can alone do that. when we look back, then, to the state of things immediately on the discovery of the murder, we see that suspicion would naturally turn at once, not to the heirs at law, but to those principally benefited by the will. they, and they alone, would be supposed or seem to have a direct object for wishing mr. white's life to be terminated. and, strange as it may seem, we find counsel now insisting, that, if no apology, it is yet mitigation of the atrocity of the knapps' conduct in attempting to charge this foul murder on mr. white, the nephew and principal devisee, that public suspicion was already so directed! as if assassination of character were excusable in proportion as circumstances may render it easy. their endeavors, when they knew they were suspected themselves, to fix the charge on others, by foul means and by falsehood, are fair and strong proof of their own guilt. but more of that hereafter. the counsel say that they might safely admit that richard crowninshield, jr. was the perpetrator of this murder. but how could they safely admit that? if that were admitted, every thing else would follow. for why should richard crowninshield, jr. kill mr. white? he was not his heir, nor his devisee; nor was he his enemy. what could be his motive? if richard crowninshield, jr. killed mr. white, he did it at some one's procurement who himself had a motive. and who, having any motive, is shown to have had any intercourse with richard crowninshield, jr., but joseph knapp, and this principally through the agency of the prisoner at the bar? it is the infirmity, the distressing difficulty of the prisoner's case, that his counsel cannot and dare not admit what they yet cannot disprove, and what all must believe. he who believes, on this evidence, that richard crowninshield, jr. was the immediate murderer, cannot doubt that both the knapps were conspirators in that murder. the counsel, therefore, are wrong, i think, in saying they might safely admit this. the admission of so important and so connected a fact would render it impossible to contend further against the proof of the entire conspiracy, as we state it. what, then, was this conspiracy? j.j. knapp, jr., desirous of destroying the will, and of taking the life of the deceased, hired a ruffian, who, with the aid of other ruffians, was to enter the house, and murder him in his bed. as far back as january this conspiracy began. endicott testifies to a conversation with j.j. knapp at that time, in which knapp told him that captain white had made a will, and given the principal part of his property to stephen white. when asked how he knew, he said, "black and white don't lie." when asked if the will was not locked up, he said, "there is such a thing as two keys to the same lock." and speaking of the then late illness of captain white, he said, that stephen white would not have been sent for if _he_ had been there. hence it appears, that as early as january knapp had a knowledge of the will, and that he had access to it by means of false keys. this knowledge of the will, and an intent to destroy it, appear also from palmer's testimony, a fact disclosed to him by the other conspirators. he says that he was informed of this by the crowninshields on the d of april. but then it is said, that palmer is not to be credited; that by his own confession he is a felon; that he has been in the state prison in maine; and, above all, that he was intimately associated with these conspirators themselves. let us admit these facts. let us admit him to be as bad as they would represent him to be; still, in law, he is a competent witness. how else are the secret designs of the wicked to be proved, but by their wicked companions, to whom they have disclosed them? the government does not select its witnesses. the conspirators themselves have chosen palmer. he was the confidant of the prisoners. the fact, however, does not depend on his testimony alone. it is corroborated by other proof; and, taken in connection with the other circumstances, it has strong probability. in regard to the testimony of palmer, generally, it may be said that it is less contradicted, in all parts of it, either by himself or others, than that of any other material witness, and that every thing he has told is corroborated by other evidence, so far as it is susceptible of confirmation. an attempt has been made to impair his testimony, as to his being at the half-way house on the night of the murder; you have seen with what success. mr. babb is called to contradict him. you have seen how little he knows, and even that not certainly; for he himself is proved to have been in an error by supposing palmer to have been at the half-way house on the evening of the th of april. at that time he is proved to have been at dustin's, in danvers. if, then, palmer, bad as he is, has disclosed the secrets of the conspiracy, and has told the truth, there is no reason why it should not be believed. truth is truth, come whence it may. the facts show that this murder had been long in agitation; that it was not a new proposition on the d of april; that it had been contemplated for five or six weeks. richard crowninshield was at wenham in the latter part of march, as testified by starrett. frank knapp was at danvers in the latter part of february, as testified by allen. richard crowninshield inquired whether captain knapp was about home, when at wenham. the probability is, that they would open the case to palmer as a new project. there are other circumstances that show it to have been some weeks in agitation. palmer's testimony as to the transaction on the d of april is corroborated by allen, and by osborn's books. he says that frank knapp came there in the afternoon, and again in the evening. so the book shows. he says that captain white had gone out to his farm on that day. so others prove. how could this fact, or these facts, have been known to palmer, unless frank knapp had brought the knowledge? and was it not the special object of this visit to give information of this fact, that they might meet him and execute their purpose on his return from his farm? the letter of palmer, written at belfast, bears intrinsic marks of genuineness. it was mailed at belfast, may th. it states facts that he could not have known, unless his testimony be true. this letter was not an after-thought; it is a genuine narrative. in fact, it says, "i know the business your brother frank was transacting on the d of april." how could he have possibly known this, unless he had been there? the "one thousand dollars that was to be paid,"--where could he have obtained this knowledge? the testimony of endicott, of palmer, and these facts, are to be taken together; and they most clearly show that the death of captain white was caused by somebody interested in putting an end to his life. as to the testimony of leighton, as far as manner of testifying goes, he is a bad witness; but it does not follow from this that he is not to be believed. there are some strange things about him. it is strange, that he should make up a story against captain knapp, the person with whom he lived; that he never voluntarily told any thing: all that he has said was screwed out of him. but the story could not have been invented by him; his character for truth is unimpeached; and he intimated to another witness, soon after the murder happened, that he knew something he should not tell. there is not the least contradiction in his testimony, though he gives a poor account of withholding it. he says that he was extremely _bothered_ by those who questioned him. in the main story that he relates, he is entirely consistent with himself. some things are for him, and some against him. examine the intrinsic probability of what he says. see if some allowance is not to be made for him, on account of his ignorance of things of this kind. it is said to be extraordinary, that he should have heard just so much of the conversation, and no more; that he should have heard just what was necessary to be proved, and nothing else. admit that this is extraordinary; still, this does not prove it untrue. it is extraordinary that you twelve gentlemen should be called upon, out of all the men in the county, to decide this case; no one could have foretold this three weeks since. it is extraordinary that the first clew to this conspiracy should have been derived from information given by the father of the prisoner at the bar. and in every case that comes to trial there are many things extraordinary. the murder itself is a most extraordinary one; but still we do not doubt its reality. it is argued, that this conversation between joseph and frank could not have been as leighton has testified, because they had been together for several hours before; this subject must have been uppermost in their minds, whereas this appears to have been the commencement of their conversation upon it. now this depends altogether upon the tone and manner of the expression; upon the particular word in the sentence which was emphatically spoken. if he had said, "when did you _see_ dick, frank?" this would not seem to be the beginning of the conversation. with what emphasis it was uttered, it is not possible to learn; and therefore nothing can be made of this argument. if this boy's testimony stood alone, it should be received with caution. and the same may be said of the testimony of palmer. but they do not stand alone. they furnish a clew to numerous other circumstances, which, when known, mutually confirm what would have been received with caution without such corroboration. how could leighton have made up this conversation? "when did you see dick?" "i saw him this morning." "when is he going to kill the old man?" "i don't know." "tell him, if he don't do it soon, i won't pay him." here is a vast amount in few words. had he wit enough to invent this? there is nothing so powerful as truth; and often nothing so strange. it is not ever suggested that the story was made for him. there is nothing so extraordinary in the whole matter, as it would have been for this ignorant country boy to invent this story. the acts of the parties themselves furnish strong presumption of their guilt. what was done on the receipt of the letter from maine? this letter was signed by charles grant, jr., a person not known to either of the knapps, nor was it known to them that any other person beside the crowninshields knew of the conspiracy. this letter, by the accidental omission of the word jr., fell into the hands of the father, when intended for the son. the father carried it to wenham, where both the sons were. they both read it. fix your eye steadily on this part of the _circumstantial stuff_ which is in the case, and see what can be made of it. this was shown to the two brothers on saturday, the th of may. neither of them knew palmer. and if they had known him, they could not have known him to have been the writer of this letter. it was mysterious to them how any one at belfast could have had knowledge of this affair. their conscious guilt prevented due circumspection. they did not see the bearing of its publication. they advised their father to carry it to the committee of vigilance, and it was so carried. on the sunday following, joseph began to think there might be something in it. perhaps, in the mean time, he had seen one of the crowninshields. he was apprehensive that they might be suspected; he was anxious to turn attention from their family. what course did he adopt to effect this? he addressed one letter, with a false name, to mr. white, and another to the committee; and to complete the climax of his folly, he signed the letter addressed to the committee, "grant," the same name as that which was signed to the letter received from belfast. it was in the knowledge of the committee, that no person but the knapps had seen this letter from belfast; and that no other person knew its signature. it therefore must have been irresistibly plain to them that one of the knapps was the writer of the letter received by the committee, charging the murder on mr. white. add to this the fact of its having been dated at lynn, and mailed at salem four days after it was dated, and who could doubt respecting it? have you ever read or known of folly equal to this? can you conceive of crime more odious and abominable? merely to explain the apparent mysteries of the letter from palmer, they excite the basest suspicions against a man, whom, if they were innocent, they had no reason to believe guilty; and whom, if they were guilty, they most certainly knew to be innocent. could they have adopted a more direct method of exposing their own infamy? the letter to the committee has intrinsic marks of a knowledge of this transaction. it tells the _time_ and the _manner_ in which the murder was committed. every line speaks the writer's condemnation. in attempting to divert attention from his family, and to charge the guilt upon another, he indelibly fixes it upon himself. joseph knapp requested allen to put these letters into the post-office, because, said he, "i wish to nip this silly affair in the bud." if this were not the order of an overruling providence, i should say that it was the silliest piece of folly that was ever practised. mark the destiny of crime. it is ever obliged to resort to such subterfuges; it trembles in the broad light; it betrays itself in seeking concealment. he alone walks safely who walks uprightly. who for a moment can read these letters and doubt of joseph knapp's guilt? the constitution of nature is made to inform against him. there is no corner dark enough to conceal him. there is no turnpike-road broad enough or smooth enough for a man so guilty to walk in without stumbling. every step proclaims his secret to every passenger. his own acts come out to fix his guilt. in attempting to charge another with his own crime, he writes his own confession. to do away the effect of palmer's letter, signed grant, he writes a letter himself and affixes to it the name of grant. he writes in a disguised hand; but could it happen that the same grant should be in salem that was at belfast? this has brought the whole thing out. evidently he did it, because he has adopted the same style. evidently he did it, because he speaks of the price of blood, and of other circumstances connected with the murder, that no one but a conspirator could have known. palmer says he made a visit to the crowninshields, on the th of april. george then asked him whether he had heard of the murder. richard inquired whether he had heard the music at salem. they said that they were suspected, that a committee had been appointed to search houses; and that they had melted up the dagger, the day after the murder, because it would be a suspicious circumstance to have it found in their possession. now this committee was not appointed, in fact, until friday evening. but this proves nothing against palmer; it does not prove that george did not tell him so; it only proves that he gave a false reason for a fact. they had heard that they were suspected; how could they have heard this, unless it were from the whisperings of their own consciences? surely this rumor was not then public. about the th of april, another attempt was made by the knapps to give a direction to public suspicion. they reported themselves to have been robbed, in passing from salem to wenham, near wenham pond. they came to salem and stated the particulars of the adventure. they described persons, their dress, size, and appearance, who had been suspected of the murder. they would have it understood that the community was infested by a band of ruffians, and that they themselves were the particular objects of their vengeance. now this turns out to be all fictitious, all false. can you conceive of any thing more enormous, any wickedness greater, than the circulation of such reports? than the allegation of crimes, if committed, capital? if no such crime had been committed, then it reacts with double force upon themselves, and goes very far to show their guilt. how did they conduct themselves on this occasion? did they make hue and cry? did they give information that they had been assaulted that night at wenham? no such thing. they rested quietly that night; they waited to be called on for the particulars of their adventure; they made no attempt to arrest the offenders; this was not their object. they were content to fill the thousand mouths of rumor, to spread abroad false reports, to divert the attention of the public from themselves; for they thought every man suspected them, because they knew they ought to be suspected. the manner in which the compensation for this murder was paid is a circumstance worthy of consideration. by examining the facts and dates, it will satisfactorily appear that joseph knapp paid a sum of money to richard crowninshield, in five-franc pieces, on the th of april. on the st of april, joseph knapp received five hundred five-franc pieces, as the proceeds of an adventure at sea. the remainder of this species of currency that came home in the vessel was deposited in a bank at salem. on saturday, the th of april, frank and richard rode to wenham. they were there with joseph an hour or more, and appeared to be negotiating private business. richard continued in the chaise; joseph came to the chaise and conversed with him. these facts are proved by hart and leighton, and by osborn's books. on saturday evening, about this time, richard crowninshield is proved, by lummus, to have been at wenham, with another person whose appearance corresponds with frank's. can any one doubt this being the same evening? what had richard crowninshield to do at wenham, with joseph, unless it were this business? he was there before the murder; he was there after the murder; he was there clandestinely, unwilling to be seen. if it were not upon this business, let it be told what it was for. joseph knapp could explain it; frank knapp might explain it. but they do not explain it; and the inference is against them. immediately after this, richard passes five-franc pieces; on the same evening, one to lummus, five to palmer; and near this time george passes three or four in salem. here are nine of these pieces passed by them in four days; this is extraordinary. it is an unusual currency; in ordinary business, few men would pass nine such pieces in the course of a year. if they were not received in this way, why not explain how they came by them? money was not so flush in their pockets that they could not tell whence it came, if it honestly came there. it is extremely important to them to explain whence this money came, and they would do it if they could. if, then, the price of blood was paid at this time, in the presence and with the knowledge of this defendant, does not this prove him to have been connected with this conspiracy? observe, also, the effect on the mind of richard of palmer's being arrested and committed to prison; the various efforts he makes to discover the fact; the lowering, through the crevices of the rock, the pencil and paper for him to write upon; the sending two lines of poetry, with the request that he would return the corresponding lines; the shrill and peculiar whistle; the inimitable exclamations of "palmer! palmer! palmer!" all these things prove how great was his alarm; they corroborate palmer's story, and tend to establish the conspiracy. joseph knapp had a part to act in this matter. he must have opened the window, and secreted the key; he had free access to every part of the house; he was accustomed to visit there; he went in and out at his pleasure; he could do this without being suspected. he is proved to have been there the saturday preceding. if all these things, taken in connection, do not prove that captain white was murdered in pursuance of a conspiracy, then the case is at an end. savary's testimony is wholly unexpected. he was called for a different purpose. when asked who the person was that he saw come out of captain white's yard between three and four o'clock in the morning, he answered, frank knapp. it is not clear that this is not true. there may be many circumstances of importance connected with this, though we believe the murder to have been committed between ten and eleven o'clock. the letter to dr. barstow states it to have been done about eleven o'clock; it states it to have been done with a blow on the head, from a weapon loaded with lead. here is too great a correspondence with the reality not to have some meaning in it. dr. peirson was always of the opinion, that the two classes of wounds were made with different instruments, and by different hands. it is possible that one class was inflicted at one time, and the other at another. it is possible that on the last visit the pulse might not have entirely ceased to beat, and then the finishing stroke was given. it is said, that, when the body was discovered, some of the wounds wept, while the others did not. they may have been inflicted from mere wantonness. it was known that captain white was accustomed to keep specie by him in his chamber; this perhaps may explain the last visit. it is proved, that this defendant was in the habit of retiring to bed, and leaving it afterwards, without the knowledge of his family; perhaps he did so on this occasion. we see no reason to doubt the fact; and it does not shake our belief that the murder was committed early in the night. what are the probabilities as to the time of the murder? mr. white was an aged man; he usually retired to bed at about half-past nine. he slept soundest in the early part of the night; usually awoke in the middle and latter part; and his habits were perfectly well known. when would persons, with a knowledge of these facts, be most likely to approach him? most certainly, in the first hour of his sleep. this would be the safest time. if seen then going to or from the house, the appearance would be least suspicious. the earlier hour would then have been most probably selected. gentlemen, i shall dwell no longer on the evidence which tends to prove that there was a conspiracy, and that the prisoner was a conspirator. all the circumstances concur to make out this point. not only palmer swears to it, in effect, and leighton, but allen mainly supports palmer, and osborn's books lend confirmation, so far as possible, from such a source. palmer is contradicted in nothing, either by any other witness, or any proved circumstance or occurrence. whatever could be expected to support him does support him. all the evidence clearly manifests, i think, that there was a conspiracy; that it originated with joseph knapp; that defendant became a party to it, and was one of its conductors, from first to last. one of the most powerful circumstances is palmer's letter from belfast. the amount of this is a direct charge on the knapps of the authorship of this murder. how did they treat this charge; like honest men, or like guilty men? we have seen how it was treated. joseph knapp fabricated letters, charging another person, and caused them to be put into the post-office. i shall now proceed on the supposition, that it is proved that there was a conspiracy to murder mr. white, and that the prisoner was party to it. the second and the material inquiry is, was the prisoner present at the murder, aiding and abetting therein? this leads to the legal question in the case. what does the law mean, when it says, that, in order to charge him as a principal, "he must be present aiding and abetting in the murder"? in the language of the late chief justice, "it is not required that the abettor shall be actually upon the spot when the murder is committed, or even in sight of the more immediate perpetrator of the victim, to make him a principal. if he be at a distance, co-operating in the act, by watching to prevent relief, or to give an alarm, or to assist his confederate in escape, having knowledge of the purpose and object of the assassin, this in the eye of the law is being present, aiding and abetting, so as to make him a principal in the murder." "if he be at a distance co-operating." this is not a distance to be measured by feet or rods; if the intent to lend aid combine with a knowledge that the murder is to be committed, and the person so intending be so situate that he can by any possibility lend this aid in any manner, then he is present in legal contemplation. he need not lend any actual aid; to be ready to assist is assisting. there are two sorts of murder; the distinction between them it is of essential importance to bear in mind: . murder in an affray, or upon sudden and unexpected provocation. . murder secretly, with a deliberate, predetermined intention to commit the crime. under the first class, the question usually is, whether the offence be murder or manslaughter, in the person who commits the deed. under the second class, it is often a question whether others than he who actually did the deed were present, aiding and assisting therein. offences of this kind ordinarily happen when there is nobody present except those who go on the same design. if a riot should happen in the court-house, and one should kill another, this may be murder, or it may not, according to the intention with which it was done; which is always matter of fact, to be collected from the circumstances at the time. but in secret murders, premeditated and determined on, there can be no doubt of the murderous intention; there can be no doubt, if a person be present, knowing a murder is to be done, of his concurring in the act. his being there is a proof of his intent to aid and abet; else, why is he there? it has been contended, that proof must be given that the person accused did actually afford aid, did lend a hand in the murder itself; and without this proof, although he may be near by, he may be presumed to be there for an innocent purpose; he may have crept silently there to hear the news, or from mere curiosity to see what was going on.[ ] preposterous, absurd! such an idea shocks all common sense. a man is found to be a conspirator to commit a murder; he has planned it; he has assisted in arranging the time, the place and the means; and he is found in the place, and at the time, and yet it is suggested that he might have been there, not for co-operation and concurrence, but from curiosity! such an argument deserves no answer. it would be difficult to give it one, in decorous terms. is it not to be taken for granted, that a man seeks to accomplish his own purposes? when he has planned a murder, and is present at its execution, is he there to forward or to thwart his own design? is he there to assist, or there to prevent? but "curiosity"! he may be there from mere "curiosity"! curiosity to witness the success of the execution of his own plan of murder! the very walls of a court-house ought not to stand, the ploughshare should run through the ground it stands on, where such an argument could find toleration.[ ] it is not necessary that the abettor should actually lend a hand, that he should take a part in the act itself; if he be present ready to assist, that is assisting. some of the doctrines advanced would acquit the defendant, though he had gone to the bedchamber of the deceased, though he had been standing by when the assassin gave the blow. this is the argument we have heard to-day. the court here said, they did not so understand the argument of the counsel for defendant. mr. dexter said, "the intent and power alone must co-operate." no doubt the law is, that being ready to assist is assisting, if the party has the power to assist, in case of need. it is so stated by foster, who is a high authority. "if a happeneth to be present at a murder, for instance, and taketh no part in it, nor endeavoreth to prevent it, nor apprehendeth the murderer, nor levyeth hue and cry after him, this strange behavior of his, though highly criminal, will not of itself render him either principal or accessory." "but if a fact amounting to murder should be committed in prosecution of some unlawful purpose, though it were but a bare trespass, to which a in the case last stated had consented, and he had gone in order to give assistance, if need were, for carrying it into execution, this would have amounted to murder in him, and in every person present and joining with him." "if the fact was committed in prosecution of the original purpose which was unlawful, the whole party will be involved in the guilt of him who gave the blow. for in combinations of this kind, the mortal stroke, though given by one of the party, is considered in the eye of the law, and of sound reason too, as given by every individual present and abetting. the person actually giving the stroke is no more than the hand or instrument by which the others strike." the author, in speaking of being present, means actual presence; not actual in opposition to constructive, for the law knows no such distinction. there is but one presence, and this is the situation from which aid, or supposed aid, may be rendered. the law does not say where the person is to go, or how near he is to go, but that he must be where he may give assistance, or where the perpetrator may believe that he may be assisted by him. suppose that he is acquainted with the design of the murderer, and has a knowledge of the time when it is to be carried into effect, and goes out with a view to render assistance, if need be; why, then, even though the murderer does not know of this, the person so going out will be an abettor in the murder. it is contended that the prisoner at the bar could not be a principal, he being in brown street, because he could not there render assistance; and you are called upon to determine this case, according as you may be of opinion whether brown street was, or was not, a suitable, convenient, well-chosen place to aid in this murder. this is not the true question. the inquiry is not whether you would have selected this place in preference to all others, or whether you would have selected it at all. if the parties chose it, why should we doubt about it? how do we know the use they intended to make of it, or the kind of aid that he was to afford by being there? the question for you to consider is, did the defendant go into brown street in aid of this murder? did he go there by agreement, by appointment with the perpetrator?[ ] if so, every thing else follows. the main thing, indeed the only thing, is to inquire whether he was in brown street by appointment with richard crowninshield. it might be to keep general watch; to observe the lights, and advise as to time of access; to meet the murderer on his return, to advise him as to his escape; to examine his clothes, to see if any marks of blood were upon them; to furnish exchange of clothes, or new disguise, if necessary; to tell him through what streets he could safely retreat, or whether he could deposit the club in the place designed; or it might be without any distinct object, but merely to afford that encouragement which would proceed from richard crowninshield's consciousness that he was near. it is of no consequence whether, in your opinion, the place was well chosen or not, to afford aid; if it was so chosen, if it was by appointment that he was there, it is enough. suppose richard crowninshield, when applied to to commit the murder, had said, "i won't do it unless there can be some one near by to favor my escape; i won't go unless you will stay in brown street." upon the gentleman's argument, he would not be an aider and abettor in the murder, because the place was not well chosen; though it is apparent that the being in the place chosen was a condition, without which the murder would never have happened. you are to consider the defendant as one in the league, in the combination to commit the murder. if he was there by appointment with the perpetrator, he is an abettor. the concurrence of the perpetrator in his being there is proved by the previous evidence of the conspiracy. if richard crowninshield, for any purpose whatsoever, made it a condition of the agreement, that frank knapp should stand as backer, then frank knapp was an aider and abettor; no matter what the aid was, or what sort it was, or degree, be it ever so little; even if it were to judge of the hour when it was best to go, or to see when the lights were extinguished, or to give an alarm if any one approached. who better calculated to judge of these things than the murderer himself? and if he so determined them, that is sufficient. now as to the facts. frank knapp knew that the murder was that night to be committed; he was one of the conspirators, he knew the object, he knew the time. he had that day been to wenham to see joseph, and probably to danvers to see richard crowninshield, for he kept his motions secret. he had that day hired a horse and chaise of osborn, and attempted to conceal the purpose for which it was used; he had intentionally left the _place_ and the _price_ blank on osborn's books. he went to wenham by the way of danvers; he had been told the week before to hasten dick; he had seen the crowninshields several times within a few days; he had a saddle-horse the saturday night before; he had seen mrs. beckford at wenham, and knew she would not return that night. she had not been away before for six weeks, and probably would not soon be again. he had just come from wenham. every day, for the week previous, he had visited one or another of these conspirators, save sunday, and then probably he saw them in town. when he saw joseph on the th, joseph had prepared the house, and would naturally tell him of it; there were constant communications between them; daily and nightly visitation; too much knowledge of these parties and this transaction, to leave a particle of doubt on the mind of any one, that frank knapp knew the murder was to be committed this night. the hour was come, and he knew it; if so, and he was in brown street, without explaining why he was there, can the jury for a moment doubt whether he was there to countenance, aid, or support; or for curiosity alone; or to learn how the wages of sin and death were earned by the perpetrator? here mr. webster read the law from hawkins. hawk. , lib. , ch. sec. . the perpetrator would derive courage, and strength, and confidence, from the knowledge that one of his associates was near by. if he was in brown street, he could have been there for no other purpose. if there for this purpose, then he was, in the language of the law, _present_, aiding and abetting in the murder. his interest lay in being somewhere else. if he had nothing to do with the murder, no part to act, why not stay at home? why should he jeopard his own life, if it was not agreed that he should be there? he would not voluntarily go where the very place would cause him to swing if detected. he would not voluntarily assume the place of danger. his taking this place proves that he went to give aid. his staying away would have made an _alibi_. if he had nothing to do with the murder, he would be at home, where he could prove his _alibi_. he knew he was in danger, because he was guilty of the conspiracy, and, if he had nothing to do, would not expose himself to suspicion or detection. did the prisoner at the bar countenance this murder? did he concur, or did he non-concur, in what the perpetrator was about to do? would he have tried to shield him? would he have furnished his cloak for protection? would he have pointed out a safe way of retreat? as you would answer these questions, so you should answer the general question, whether he was there consenting to the murder, or whether he was there as a spectator only. one word more on this presence, called constructive presence. what aid is to be rendered? where is the line to be drawn, between acting, and omitting to act? suppose he had been in the house, suppose he had followed the perpetrator to the chamber, what could he have done? this was to be a murder by stealth; it was to be a secret assassination. it was not their purpose to have an open combat; they were to approach their victim unawares, and silently give the fatal blow. but if he had been in the chamber, no one can doubt that he would have been an abettor; because of his presence, and ability to render services, if needed. what service could he have rendered, if there? could he have helped him to fly? could he have aided the silence of his movements? could he have facilitated his retreat, on the first alarm? surely, this was a case where there was more of safety in going alone than with another; where company would only embarrass. richard crowninshield would prefer to go alone. he knew his errand too well. his nerves needed no collateral support. he was not the man to take with him a trembling companion. he would prefer to have his aid at a distance. he would not wish to be encumbered by his presence. he would prefer to have him out of the house. he would prefer that he should be in brown street. but whether in the chamber, in the house, in the garden, or in the street, whatsoever is aiding in _actual presence_ is aiding in _constructive presence_; any thing that is aid in one case is aid in the other.[ ] if, then, the aid be anywhere, so as to embolden the perpetrator, to afford him hope or confidence in his enterprise, it is the same as though the person stood at his elbow with his sword drawn. his being there ready to act, with the power to act, is what makes him an abettor. here mr. webster referred to the cases of kelly, of hyde, and others, cited by counsel for the defendant, and showed that they did not militate with the doctrine for which he contended. the difference is, in those cases there was open violence; this was a case of secret assassination. the aid must meet the occasion. here no _acting_ was necessary, but watching, concealment of escape, management. what are the _facts_ in relation to this presence? frank knapp is proved to have been a conspirator, proved to have known that the deed was now to be done. is it not probable that he was in brown street to concur in the murder? there were four conspirators. it was natural that some one of them should go with the perpetrator. richard crowninshield was to be the perpetrator; he was to give the blow. there is no evidence of any casting of the parts for the others. the defendant would probably be the man to take the second part. he was fond of exploits, he was accustomed to the use of sword-canes and dirks. if any aid was required, he was the man to give it. at least, there is no evidence to the contrary of this. aid could not have been received from joseph knapp, or from george crowninshield. joseph knapp was at wenham, and took good care to prove that he was there. george crowninshield has proved satisfactorily where he was; that he was in other company, such as it was, until eleven o'clock. this narrows the inquiry. this demands of the prisoner to show, if he was not in this place, where he was. it calls on him loudly to show this, and to show it truly. if he could show it, he would do it. if he does not tell, and that truly, it is against him. the defence of an _alibi_ is a double-edged sword. he knew that he was in a situation where he might be called upon to account for himself. if he had had no particular appointment or business to attend to, he would have taken care to be able so to account. he would have been out of town, or in some good company. has he accounted for himself on that night to your satisfaction? the prisoner has attempted to prove an _alibi_ in two ways. in the first place, by four young men with whom he says he was in company, on the evening of the murder, from seven o'clock till near ten o'clock. this depends upon the certainty of the night. in the second place, by his family, from ten o'clock afterwards. this depends upon the certainty of the time of the night. these two classes of proof have no connection with each other. one may be true, and the other false; or they may both be true, or both be false. i shall examine this testimony with some attention, because, on a former trial, it made more impression on the minds of the court than on my own mind. i think, when carefully sifted and compared, it will be found to have in it more of plausibility than reality. mr. page testifies, that on the evening of the th of april he was in company with burchmore, balch, and forrester, and that he met the defendant about seven o'clock, near the salem hotel; that he afterwards met him at remond's, about nine o'clock, and that he was in company with him a considerable part of the evening. this young gentleman is a member of college, and says that he came to town the saturday evening previous; that he is now able to say that it was the night of the murder when he walked with frank knapp, from the recollection of the fact, that he called himself to an account, on the morning after the murder, as it is natural for men to do when an extraordinary occurrence happens. gentlemen, this kind of evidence is not satisfactory; general impressions as to time are not to be relied on. if i were called on to state the particular day on which any witness testified in this cause, i could not do it. every man will notice the same thing in his own mind. there is no one of these young men that could give an account of himself for any _other_ day in the month of april. they are made to remember the fact, and then they think they remember the time. the witness has no means of knowing it was tuesday rather than any other time. he did not know it at first; he could not know it afterwards. he says he called himself to an account. this has no more to do with the murder than with the man in the moon. such testimony is not worthy to be relied on in any forty-shilling cause. what occasion had he to call himself to an account? did he suppose that he should be suspected? had he any intimation of this conspiracy? suppose, gentlemen, you were either of you asked where you were, or what you were doing, on the fifteenth day of june; you could not answer this question without calling to mind some events to make it certain. just as well may you remember on what you dined each day of the year past. time is identical. its subdivisions are all alike. no man knows one day from another, or one hour from another, but by some fact connected with it. days and hours are not visible to the senses, nor to be apprehended and distinguished by the understanding. the flow of time is known only by something which marks it; and he who speaks of the date of occurrences with nothing to guide his recollection speaks at random, and is not to be relied on. this young gentleman remembers the facts and occurrences; he knows nothing why they should not have happened on the evening of the th; but he knows no more. all the rest is evidently conjecture or impression. mr. white informs you, that he told him he could not tell what night it was. the first thoughts are all that are valuable in such case. they miss the mark by taking second aim. mr. balch believes, but is not sure, that he was with frank knapp on the evening of the murder. he has given different accounts of the time. he has no means of making it certain. all he knows is, that it was some evening before fast-day. but whether monday, tuesday, or saturday, he cannot tell. mr. burchmore says, to the best of his belief, it was the evening of the murder. afterwards he attempts to speak positively, from recollecting that he mentioned the circumstance to william peirce, as he went to the mineral spring on fast-day. last monday morning he told colonel putnam he could not fix the time. this witness stands in a much worse plight than either of the others. it is difficult to reconcile all he has said with any belief in the accuracy of his recollections. mr. forrester does not speak with any certainty as to the night; and it is very certain that he told mr. loring and others, that he did not know what night it was. now, what does the testimony of these four young men amount to? the only circumstance by which they approximate to an identifying of the night is, that three of them say it was cloudy; they think their walk was either on monday or tuesday evening, and it is admitted that monday evening was clear, whence they draw the inference that it must have been tuesday. but, fortunately, there is one _fact_ disclosed in their testimony that settles the question. balch says, that on the evening, whenever it was, he saw the prisoner; the prisoner told him he was going out of town on horseback, for a distance of about twenty minutes' drive, and that he was going to get a horse at osborn's. this was about seven o'clock. at about nine, balch says he saw the prisoner again, and was then told by him that he had had his ride, and had returned. now it appears by osborn's books, that the prisoner had a saddle-horse from his stable, not on tuesday evening, the night of the murder, but on the saturday evening previous. this fixes the time about which these young men testify, and is a complete answer and refutation of the attempted _alibi_ on tuesday evening. i come now to speak of the testimony adduced by the defendant to explain where he was after ten o'clock on the night of the murder. this comes chiefly from members of the family; from his father and brothers. it is agreed that the affidavit of the prisoner should be received as evidence of what his brother, samuel h. knapp, would testify if present. samuel h. knapp says, that, about ten minutes past ten o'clock, his brother, frank knapp, on his way to bed, opened his chamber door, made some remarks, closed the door, and went to his chamber; and that he did not hear him leave it afterwards. how is this witness able to fix the time at ten minutes past ten? there is no circumstance mentioned by which he fixes it. he had been in bed, probably asleep, and was aroused from his sleep by the opening of the door. was he in a situation to speak of time with precision? could he know, under such circumstances, whether it was ten minutes past ten, or ten minutes before eleven, when his brother spoke to him? what would be the natural result in such a case? but we are not left to conjecture this result. we have positive testimony on this point. mr. webb tells you that samuel told him, on the th of june, "that he did not know what time his brother frank came home, and that he was not at home when _he_ went to bed." you will consider this testimony of mr. webb as indorsed upon this affidavit; and with this indorsement upon it, you will give it its due weight. this statement was made to him after frank was arrested. i come to the testimony of the father. i find myself incapable of speaking of him or his testimony with severity. unfortunate old man! another lear, in the conduct of his children; another lear, i apprehend, in the effect of his distress upon his mind and understanding. he is brought here to testify, under circumstances that disarm severity, and call loudly for sympathy. though it is impossible not to see that his story cannot be credited, yet i am unable to speak of him otherwise than in sorrow and grief. unhappy father! he strives to remember, perhaps persuades himself that he does remember, that on the evening of the murder he was himself at home at ten o'clock. he thinks, or seems to think, that his son came in at about five minutes past ten. he fancies that he remembers his conversation; he thinks he spoke of bolting the door; he thinks he asked the time of night; he seems to remember his then going to his bed. alas! these are but the swimming fancies of an agitated and distressed mind. alas! they are but the dreams of hope, its uncertain lights, flickering on the thick darkness of parental distress. alas! the miserable father knows nothing, in reality, of all these things. mr. shepard says that the first conversation he had with mr. knapp was soon after the murder, and _before_ the arrest of his sons. mr. knapp says it was _after_ the arrest of his sons. his own fears led him to say to mr. shepard, that his "son frank was at home that night; and so phippen told him," or "as phippen told him." mr. shepard says that he was struck with the remark at the time; that it made an unfavorable impression on his mind; he does not tell you what that impression was, but when you connect it with the previous inquiry he had made, whether frank had continued to associate with the crowninshields, and recollect that the crowninshields were then known to be suspected of this crime, can you doubt what this impression was? can you doubt as to the fears he then had? this poor old man tells you, that he was greatly perplexed at the time; that he found himself in embarrassed circumstances; that on this very night he was engaged in making an assignment of his property to his friend, mr. shepard. if ever charity should furnish a mantle for error, it should be here. imagination cannot picture a more deplorable, distressed condition. the same general remarks may be applied to his conversation with mr. treadwell, as have been made upon that with mr. shepard. he told him, that he believed frank was at home about the usual time. in his conversations with either of these persons, he did not pretend to know, of his own knowledge, the time that he came home. he now tells you positively that he recollects the time, and that he so told mr. shepard. he is directly contradicted by both these witnesses, as respectable men as salem affords. this idea of an _alibi_ is of recent origin. would samuel knapp have gone to sea if it were then thought of? his testimony, if true, was too important to be lost. if there be any truth in this part of the _alibi_, it is so near in point or time that it cannot be relied on. the mere variation of half an hour would avoid it. the mere variations of different timepieces would explain it. has the defendant proved where he was on that night? if you doubt about it, there is an end of it. the burden is upon him to satisfy you beyond all reasonable doubt. osborn's books, in connection with what the young men state, are conclusive, i think, on this point. he has not, then, accounted for himself; he has attempted it, and has failed. i pray you to remember, gentlemen, that this is a case in which the prisoner would, more than any other, be rationally able to account for himself on the night of the murder, if he could do so. he was in the conspiracy, he knew the murder was then to be committed, and if he himself was to have no hand in its actual execution, he would of course, as a matter of safety and precaution, be somewhere else, and be able to prove afterwards that he had been somewhere else. having this motive to prove himself elsewhere, and the power to do it if he were elsewhere, his failing in such proof must necessarily leave a very strong inference against him. but, gentlemen, let us now consider what is the evidence produced on the part of the government to prove that john francis knapp, the prisoner at the bar, was in brown street on the night of the murder. this is a point of vital importance in this cause. unless this be made out, beyond reasonable doubt, the law of _presence_ does not apply to the case. the government undertake to prove that he was present aiding in the murder, by proving that he was in brown street for this purpose. now, what are the undoubted facts? they are, that two persons were seen in that street, several times during that evening, under suspicious circumstances; under such circumstances as induced those who saw them to watch their movements. of this there can be no doubt. mirick saw a man standing at the post opposite his store from fifteen minutes before nine until twenty minutes after, dressed in a full frock-coat, glazed cap, and so forth, in size and general appearance answering to the prisoner at the bar. this person was waiting there; and whenever any one approached him, he moved to and from the corner, as though he would avoid being suspected or recognized. afterwards, two persons were seen by webster, walking in howard street, with a slow, deliberate movement that attracted his attention. this was about half-past nine. one of these he took to be the prisoner at the bar, the other he did not know. about half-past ten a person is seen sitting on the rope-walk steps, wrapped in a cloak. he drops his head when passed, to avoid being known. shortly after, two persons are seen to meet in this street, without ceremony or salutation, and in a hurried manner to converse for a short time; then to separate, and run off with great speed. now, on this same night a gentleman is slain, murdered in his bed, his house being entered by stealth from without; and his house situated within three hundred feet of this street. the windows of his chamber were in plain sight from this street; a weapon of death is afterwards found in a place where these persons were seen to pass, in a retired place, around which they had been seen lingering. it is now known that this murder was committed by four persons, conspiring together for this purpose. no account is given who these suspected persons thus seen in brown street and its neighborhood were. now, i ask, gentlemen, whether you or any man can doubt that this murder was committed by the persons who were thus in and about brown street. can any person doubt that they were there for purposes connected with this murder? if not for this purpose, what were they there for? when there is a cause so near at hand, why wander into conjecture for an explanation? common-sense requires you to take the nearest adequate cause for a known effect. who were these suspicious persons in brown street? there was something extraordinary about them; something noticeable, and noticed at the time; something in their appearance that aroused suspicion. and a man is found the next morning murdered in the near vicinity. now, so long as no other account shall be given of those suspicious persons, so long the inference must remain irresistible that they were the murderers. let it be remembered, that it is already shown that this murder was the result of conspiracy and of concert; let it be remembered, that the house, having been opened from within, was entered by stealth from without. let it be remembered that brown street, where these persons were repeatedly seen under such suspicious circumstances, was a place from which every occupied room in mr. white's house is clearly seen; let it be remembered, that the place, though thus very near to mr. white's house, is a retired and lonely place; and let it be remembered that the instrument of death was afterwards found concealed very near the same spot. must not every man come to the conclusion, that these persons thus seen in brown street were the murderers? every man's own judgment, i think, must satisfy him that this must be so. it is a plain deduction of common sense. it is a point on which each one of you may reason like a hale or a mansfield. the two occurrences explain each other. the murder shows why these persons were thus lurking, at that hour, in brown street; and their lurking in brown street shows who committed the murder. if, then, the persons in and about brown street were the plotters and executers of the murder of captain white, we know who they were, and you know that _there_ is one of them. this fearful concatenation of circumstances puts him to an account. he was a conspirator. he had entered into this plan of murder. the murder is committed, and he is known to have been within three minutes' walk of the place. he must account for himself, he has attempted this, and failed. then, with all these general reasons to show he was actually in brown street, and his failures in his _alibi_, let us see what is the direct proof of his being there. but first, let me ask, is it not very remarkable that there is no attempt to show where richard crowninshield, jr. was on that night? we hear nothing of him. he was seen in none of his usual haunts about the town. yet, if he was the actual perpetrator of the murder, which nobody doubts, he was in the town somewhere. can you, therefore, entertain a doubt that he was one of the persons seen in brown street? and as to the prisoner, you will recollect, that, since the testimony of the young men has failed to show where he was on that evening, the last we hear or know of him, on the day preceding the murder, is, that at four o'clock, p.m., he was at his brother's in wenham. he had left home, after dinner, in a manner doubtless designed to avoid observation, and had gone to wenham, probably by way of danvers. as we hear nothing of him after four o'clock, p.m., for the remainder of the day and evening; as he was one of the conspirators; as richard crowninshield, jr. was another; as richard crowninshield, jr. was in town in the evening, and yet seen in no usual place of resort,--the inference is very fair, that richard crowninshield, jr. and the prisoner were together, acting in execution of their conspiracy. of the four conspirators, j.j. knapp, jr. was at wenham, and george crowninshield has been accounted for; so that if the persons seen in brown street were the murderers, one of them must have been richard crowninshield, jr., and the other must have been the prisoner at the bar. now, as to the proof of his identity with one of the persons seen in brown street, mr. mirick, a cautious witness, examined the person he saw, closely, in a light night, and says that he thinks the prisoner at the bar is the person; and that he should not hesitate at all, if he were seen in the same dress. his opinion is formed partly from his own observation, and partly from the description of others. but this description turns out to be only in regard to the dress. it is said, that he is now more confident than on the former trial. if he has varied in his testimony make such allowance as you may think proper. i do not perceive any material variance. he thought him the same person, when he was first brought to court, and as he saw him get out of the chaise. this is one of the cases in which a witness is permitted to give an opinion. this witness is as honest as yourselves, neither willing nor swift; but he says, he believes it was the man. his words are, "this is my opinion "; and this opinion it is proper for him to give. if partly founded on what he has _heard_, then this opinion is not to be taken; but if on what he _saw_, then you can have no better evidence. i lay no stress on similarity of dress. no man will ever lose his life by my voice on such evidence. but then it is proper to notice, that no inferences drawn from any _dissimilarity_ of dress can be given in the prisoner's favor; because, in fact, the person seen by mirick was dressed like the prisoner. the description of the person seen by mirick answers to that of the prisoner at the bar. in regard to the supposed discrepancy of statements, before and now, there would be no end to such minute inquiries. it would not be strange if witnesses should vary. i do not think much of slight shades of variation. if i believe the witness is honest, that is enough. if he has expressed himself more strongly now than then, this does not prove him false. peter e. webster saw the prisoner at the bar, as he then thought, and still thinks, walking in howard street at half-past nine o'clock. he then thought it was frank knapp, and has not altered his opinion since. he knew him well; he had long known him. if he then thought it was he, this goes far to prove it. he observed him the more, as it was unusual to see gentlemen walk there at that hour. it was a retired, lonely street. now, is there reasonable doubt that mr. webster did see him there that night? how can you have more proof than this? he judged by his walk, by his general appearance, by his deportment. we all judge in this manner. if you believe he is right, it goes a great way in this case. but then this person, it is said, had a cloak on, and that he could not, therefore, be the same person that mirick saw. if we were treating of men that had no occasion to disguise themselves or their conduct, there might be something in this argument. but as it is, there is little in it. it may be presumed that they would change their dress. this would help their disguise. what is easier than to throw off a cloak, and again put it on? perhaps he was less fearful of being known when alone, than when with the perpetrator. mr. southwick swears all that a man can swear. he has the best means of judging that could be had at the time. he tells you that he left his father's house at half-past ten o'clock, and as he passed to his own house in brown street he saw a man sitting on the steps of the rope-walk; that he passed him three times, and each time he held down his head, so that he did not see his face. that the man had on a cloak, which was not wrapped around him, and a glazed cap. that he took the man to be frank knapp at the time; that, when he went into his house, he told his wife that he thought it was frank knapp; that he knew him well, having known him from a boy. and his wife swears that he did so tell her when he came home. what could mislead this witness at the time? he was not then suspecting frank knapp of any thing. he could not then be influenced by any prejudice. if you believe that the witness saw frank knapp in this position at this time, it proves the case. whether you believe it or not depends upon the credit of the witness. he swears it. if true, it is solid evidence. mrs. southwick supports her husband. are they true? are they worthy of belief? if he deserves the epithets applied to him, then he ought not to be believed. in this fact they cannot be mistaken; they are right, or they are perjured. as to his not speaking to frank knapp, that depends upon their intimacy. but a very good reason is, frank chose to disguise himself. this makes nothing against his credit. but it is said that he should not be believed. and why? because, it is said, he himself now tells you, that, when he testified before the grand jury at ipswich, he did not then say that he thought the person he saw in brown street was frank knapp, but that "the person was about the size of selman." the means of attacking him, therefore, come from himself. if he is a false man, why should he tell truths against himself? they rely on his veracity to prove that he is a liar. before you can come to this conclusion, you will consider whether all the circumstances are now known, that should have a bearing on this point. suppose that, when he was before the grand jury, he was asked by the attorney this question, "was the person you saw in brown street about the size of selman?" and he answered yes. this was all true. suppose, also, that he expected to be inquired of further, and no further questions were put to him. would it not be extremely hard to impute to him perjury for this? it is not uncommon for witnesses to think that they have done all their duty, when they have answered the questions put to them. but suppose that we admit that he did not then tell all he knew, this does not affect the _fact_ at all; because he did tell, at the time, in the hearing of others, that the person he saw was frank knapp. there is not the slightest suggestion against the veracity or accuracy of mrs. southwick. now she swears positively, that her husband came into the house and told her that he had seen a person on the rope-walk steps, and believed it was frank knapp. it is said that mr. southwick is contradicted, also, by mr. shillaber. i do not so understand mr. shillaber's testimony. i think what they both testify is reconcilable, and consistent. my learned brother said, on a similar occasion, that there is more probability, in such cases, that the persons hearing should misunderstand, than that the person speaking should contradict himself. i think the same remark applicable here. you have all witnessed the uncertainty of testimony, when witnesses are called to testify what other witnesses said. several respectable counsellors have been summoned, on this occasion, to give testimony of that sort. they have, every one of them, given different versions. they all took minutes at the time, and without doubt intend to state the truth. but still they differ. mr. shillaber's version is different from every thing that southwick has stated elsewhere. but little reliance is to be placed on slight variations in testimony, unless they are manifestly intentional. i think that mr. shillaber must be satisfied that he did not rightly understand mr. southwick. i confess i misunderstood mr. shillaber on the former trial, if i now rightly understand him. i, therefore, did not then recall mr. southwick to the stand. mr. southwick, as i read it, understood mr. shillaber as asking him about a person coming out of newbury street, and whether, for aught he knew, it might not be richard crowninshield, jr. he answered, that he could not tell. he did not understand mr. shillaber as questioning him as to the person whom he saw sitting on the steps of the rope-walk. southwick, on this trial, having heard mr. shillaber, has been recalled to the stand, and states that mr. shillaber entirely misunderstood him. this is certainly most probable, because the controlling fact in the case is not controverted; that is, that southwick did tell his wife, at the very moment he entered his house, that he had seen a person on the rope-walk steps, whom he believed to be frank knapp. nothing can prove with more certainty than this, that southwick, at the time, _thought_ the person whom he thus saw to be the prisoner at the bar. mr. bray is an acknowledged accurate and intelligent witness. he was highly complimented by my brother on the former trial, although he now charges him with varying his testimony. what could be his motive? you will be slow in imputing to him any design of this kind. i deny altogether that there is any contradiction. there may be differences, but not contradiction. these arise from the difference in the questions put; the difference between believing and knowing. on the first trial, he said he did not know the person, and now says the same. then, we did not do all we had a right to do. we did not ask him who he thought it was. now, when so asked, he says he believes it was the prisoner at the bar. if he had then been asked this question, he would have given the same answer. that he has expressed himself more strongly, i admit; but he has not contradicted himself. he is more confident now; and that is all. a man may not assert a thing, and still may have no doubt upon it. cannot every man see this distinction to be consistent? i leave him in that attitude; that only is the difference. on questions of identity, opinion is evidence. we may ask the witness, either if he knew who the person seen was, or who he thinks he was. and he may well answer, as captain bray has answered, that he does not know who it was, but that he thinks it was the prisoner. we have offered to produce witnesses to prove, that, as soon as bray saw the prisoner, he pronounced him the same person. we are not at liberty to call them to corroborate our own witness. how, then, could this fact of the prisoner's being in brown street be better proved? if ten witnesses had testified to it, it would be no better. two men, who knew him well, took it to be frank knapp, and one of them so said, when there was nothing to mislead them. two others, who examined him closely, now swear to their opinion that he is the man. miss jaqueth saw three persons pass by the rope-walk, several evenings before the murder. she saw one of them pointing towards mr. white's house. she noticed that another had something which appeared to be like an instrument of music; that he put it behind him and attempted to conceal it. who were these persons? this was but a few steps from the place where this apparent instrument of music (of _music_ such as richard crowninshield, jr. spoke of to palmer) was afterwards found. these facts prove this a point of rendezvous for these parties. they show brown street to have been the place for consultation and observation; and to this purpose it was well suited. mr. burns's testimony is also important. what was the defendant's object in his private conversation with burns? he knew that burns was out that night; that he lived near brown street, and that he had probably seen him; and he wished him to say nothing. he said to burns, "if you saw any of your friends out that night, say nothing about it; my brother joe and i are your friends." this is plain proof that he wished to say to him, if you saw me in brown street that night, say nothing about it. but it is said that burns ought not to be believed, because he mistook the color of the dagger, and because he has varied in his description of it. these are slight circumstances, if his general character be good. to my mind they are of no importance. it is for you to make what deduction you may think proper, on this account, from the weight of his evidence. his conversation with burns, if burns is believed, shows two things; first, that he desired burns not to mention it, if he had seen him on the night of the murder; second, that he wished to fix the charge of murder on mr. stephen white. both of these prove his own guilt. i think you will be of opinion, that brown street was a probable place for the conspirators to assemble, and for an aid to be stationed. if we knew their whole plan, and if we were skilled to judge in such a case, then we could perhaps determine on this point better. but it is a retired place, and still commands a full view of the house; a lonely place, but still a place of observation. not so lonely that a person would excite suspicion to be seen walking there in an ordinary manner; not so public as to be noticed by many. it is near enough to the scene of action in point of law. it was their point of centrality. the club was found near the spot, in a place provided for it, in a place that had been previously hunted out, in a concerted place of concealment. _here was their point of rendezvous._ here might the lights be seen. here might an aid be secreted. here was he within call. here might he be aroused by the sound of the whistle. here might he carry the weapon. here might he receive the murderer after the murder. then, gentlemen, the general question occurs, is it satisfactorily proved, by all these facts and circumstances, that the defendant was in and about brown street on the night of the murder? considering that the murder was effected by a conspiracy; considering that he was one of the four conspirators; considering that two of the conspirators have accounted for themselves on the night of the murder, and were not in brown street; considering that the prisoner does not account for himself, nor show where he was; considering that richard crowninshield, the other conspirator and the perpetrator, is not accounted for, nor shown to be elsewhere; considering that it is now past all doubt that two persons were seen lurking in and about brown street at different times, avoiding observation, and exciting so much suspicion that the neighbors actually watched them; considering that, if these persons thus lurking in brown street at that hour were not the murderers, it remains to this day wholly unknown who they were or what their business was; considering the testimony of miss jaqueth, and that the club was afterwards found near this place; considering, finally, that webster and southwick saw these persons, and then took one of them for the defendant, and that southwick then told his wife so, and that bray and mirick examined them closely, and now swear to their belief that the prisoner was one of them;--it is for you to say, putting these considerations together, whether you believe the prisoner was actually in brown street at the time of the murder. by the counsel for the prisoner, much stress has been laid upon the question, whether brown street was a place in which aid could be given, a place in which actual assistance could be rendered in this transaction. this must be mainly decided by their own opinion who selected the place; by what they thought at the time, according to their plan of operation. if it was agreed that the prisoner should be there to assist, it is enough. if they thought the place proper for their purpose, according to their plan, it is sufficient. suppose we could prove expressly that they agreed that frank should be there, and he was there, and you should think it not a well-chosen place for aiding and abetting, must he be acquitted? no! it is not what _i_ think or _you_ think of the appropriateness of the place; it is what _they_ thought _at the time_. if the prisoner was in brown street by appointment and agreement with the perpetrator, for the purpose of giving assistance if assistance should be needed, it may safely be presumed that the place was suited to such assistance as it was supposed by the parties might chance to become requisite. if in brown street, was he there by appointment? was he there to aid, if aid were necessary? was he there for, or against, the murderer? to concur, or to oppose? to favor, or to thwart? did the perpetrator know he was there, there waiting? if so, then it follows that he was there by appointment. he was at the post half an hour; he was waiting for somebody. this proves appointment, arrangement, previous agreement; then it follows that he was there to aid, to encourage, to embolden the perpetrator; and that is enough. if he were in such a situation as to afford aid, or that he was relied upon for aid, then he was aiding and abetting. it is enough that the conspirator desired to have him there. besides, it may be well said, that he could afford just as much aid there as if he had been in essex street, as if he had been standing even at the gate, or at the window. it was not an act of power against power that was to be done; it was a secret act, to be done by stealth. the aid was to be placed in a position secure from observation. it was important to the security of both that he should be in a lonely place. now it is obvious that there are many purposes for which he might be in brown street. . richard crowninshield might have been secreted in the garden, and waiting for a signal; . or he might be in brown street to advise him as to the time of making his entry into the house; . or to favor his escape; . or to see if the street was clear when he came out; . or to conceal the weapon or the clothes; . to be ready for any unforeseen contingency. richard crowninshield lived in danvers. he would retire by the most secret way. brown street is that way. if you find him there, can you doubt why he was there? if, gentlemen, the prisoner went into brown street, by appointment with the perpetrator, to render aid or encouragement in any of these ways, he was _present_, in legal contemplation, aiding and abetting in this murder. it is not necessary that he should have done any thing; it is enough that he was ready to act, and in a place to act. if his being in brown street, by appointment, at the time of the murder, emboldened the purpose and encouraged the heart of the murderer, by the hope of instant aid, if aid should become necessary, then, without doubt, he was present, aiding and abetting, and was a principal in the murder. i now proceed, gentlemen, to the consideration of the testimony of mr. colman. although this evidence bears on every material part of the cause, i have purposely avoided every comment on it till the present moment, when i have done with the other evidence in the case. as to the admission of this evidence, there has been a great struggle, and its importance demanded it. the general rule of law is, that confessions are to be received as evidence. they are entitled to great or to little consideration, according to the circumstances under which they are made. voluntary, deliberate confessions are the most important and satisfactory evidence, but confessions hastily made, or improperly obtained, are entitled to little or no consideration. it is always to be inquired, whether they were purely voluntary, or were made under any undue influence of hope or fear; for, in general, if any influence were exerted on the mind of the person confessing, such confessions are not to be submitted to a jury. who is mr. colman? he is an intelligent, accurate, and cautious witness; a gentleman of high and well-known character, and of unquestionable veracity; as a clergyman, highly respectable; as a man, of fair name and fame. why was mr. colman with the prisoner? joseph j. knapp was his parishioner; he was the head of a family, and had been married by mr. colman. the interests of that family were dear to him. he felt for their afflictions, and was anxious to alleviate their sufferings. he went from the purest and best of motives to visit joseph knapp. he came to save, not to destroy; to rescue, not to take away life. in this family he thought there might be a chance to save one. it is a misconstruction of mr. colman's motives, at once the most strange and the most uncharitable, a perversion of all just views of his conduct and intentions the most unaccountable, to represent him as acting, on this occasion, in hostility to any one, or as desirous of injuring or endangering any one. he has stated his own motives, and his own conduct, in a manner to command universal belief and universal respect. for intelligence, for consistency, for accuracy, for caution, for candor, never did witness acquit himself better, or stand fairer. in all that he did as a man, and all he has said as a witness, he has shown himself worthy of entire regard. now, gentlemen, very important confessions made by the prisoner are sworn to by mr. colman. they were made in the prisoner's cell, where mr. colman had gone with the prisoner's brother, n. phippen knapp. whatever conversation took place was in the presence of n.p. knapp. now, on the part of the prisoner, two things are asserted; first, that such inducements were suggested to the prisoner, in this interview, that no confessions made by him ought to be received; second, that, in point of fact, he made no such confessions as mr. colman testifies to, nor, indeed, any confessions at all. these two propositions are attempted to be supported by the testimony of n.p. knapp. these two witnesses, mr. colman and n.p. knapp, differ entirely. there is no possibility of reconciling them. no charity can cover both. one or the other has sworn falsely. if n.p. knapp be believed, mr. colman's testimony must be wholly disregarded. it is, then, a question of credit, a question of belief between the two witnesses. as you decide between these, so you will decide on all this part of the case. mr. colman has given you a plain narrative, a consistent account, and has uniformly stated the same things. he is not contradicted, except by the testimony of phippen knapp. he is influenced, as far as we can see, by no bias, or prejudice, any more than other men, except so far as his character is now at stake. he has feelings on this point, doubtless, and ought to have. if what he has stated be not true, i cannot see any ground for his escape. if he be a true man, he must have heard what he testifies. no treachery of memory brings to memory things that never took place. there is no reconciling his evidence with good intention, if the facts in it are not as he states them. he is on trial as to his veracity. the relation in which the other witness stands deserves your careful consideration. he is a member of the family. he has the lives of two brothers depending, as he may think, on the effect of his evidence; depending on every word he speaks. i hope he has not another responsibility resting upon him. by the advice of a friend, and that friend mr. colman, j. knapp made a full and free confession, and obtained a promise of pardon. he has since, as you know, probably by the advice of other friends, retracted that confession, and rejected the offered pardon. events will show who of these friends and advisers advised him best, and befriended him most. in the mean time, if this brother, the witness, be one of these advisers, and advised the retraction, he has, most emphatically, the lives of his brothers resting upon his evidence and upon his conduct. compare the situation of these two witnesses. do you not see mighty motive enough on the one side, and want of all motive on the other? i would gladly find an apology for that witness, in his agonized feelings, in his distressed situation; in the agitation of that hour, or of this. i would gladly impute it to error, or to want of recollection, to confusion of mind, or disturbance of feeling. i would gladly impute to any pardonable source that which cannot be reconciled to facts and to truth; but, even in a case calling for so much sympathy, justice must yet prevail, and we must come to the conclusion, however reluctantly, which that demands from us. it is said, phippen knapp was probably correct, because he knew he should probably be called as a witness. witness to what? when he says there was no confession, what could he expect to bear witness of? but i do not put it on the ground that he did not hear; i am compelled to put it on the other ground, that he did hear, and does not now truly tell what he heard. if mr. colman were out of the case, there are other reasons why the story of phippen knapp should not be believed. it has in it inherent improbabilities. it is unnatural, and inconsistent with the accompanying circumstances. he tells you that they went "to the cell of frank, to see if he had any objection to taking a trial, and suffering his brother to accept the offer of pardon"; in other words, to obtain frank's consent to joseph's making a confession; and in case this consent was not obtained, that the pardon would be offered to frank. did they bandy about the chance of life, between these two, in this way? did mr. colman, after having given this pledge to joseph, and after having received a disclosure from joseph, go to the cell of frank for such a purpose as this? it is impossible; it cannot be so. again, we know that mr. colman found the club the next day; that he went directly to the place of deposit, and found it at the first attempt, exactly where he says he had been informed it was. now phippen knapp says, that frank had stated nothing respecting the club; that it was not mentioned in that conversation. he says, also, that he was present in the cell of joseph all the time that mr. colman was there; that he believes he heard all that was said in joseph's cell; and that he did not himself know where the club was, and never had known where it was, until he heard it stated in court. now it is certain that mr. colman says he did not learn the particular place of deposit of the club from joseph; that he only learned from him that it was deposited under the steps of the howard street meeting-house, without defining the particular steps. it is certain, also, that he had more knowledge of the position of the club than this; else how could he have placed his hand on it so readily? and where else could he have obtained this knowledge, except from frank? here mr. dexter said that mr. colman had had other interviews with joseph, and might have derived the information from him at previous visits. mr. webster replied, that mr. colman had testified that he learned nothing in relation to the club until this visit. mr. dexter denied there being any such testimony. mr. colman's evidence was read, from the notes of the judges, and several other persons, and mr. webster then proceeded. my point is to show that phippen knapp's story is not true, is not consistent with itself; that, taking it for granted, as he says, that he heard all that was said to mr. colman in both cells, by joseph and by frank; and that joseph did not state particularly where the club was deposited; and that he knew as much about the place of deposit of the club as mr. colman knew; why, then mr. colman must either have been miraculously informed respecting the club, or phippen knapp has not told you the whole truth. there is no reconciling this, without supposing that mr. colman has misrepresented what took place in joseph's cell, as well as what took place in frank's cell. again, phippen knapp is directly contradicted by mr. wheatland. mr. wheatland tells the same story, as coming from phippen knapp, that colman now tells. here there are two against one. phippen knapp says that frank made no confessions, and that he said he had none to make. in this he is contradicted by wheatland. he, phippen knapp, told wheatland, that mr. colman did ask frank some questions, and that frank answered them. he told him also what these answers were. wheatland does not recollect the questions or answers, but recollects his reply; which was, "is not this _premature_? i think this answer is sufficient to make frank a principal." here phippen knapp opposes himself to wheatland, as well as to mr. colman. do you believe phippen knapp against these two respectable witnesses, or them against him? is not mr. colman's testimony credible, natural, and proper? to judge of this, you must go back to that scene. the murder had been committed; the two knapps were now arrested; four persons were already in jail supposed to be concerned in it, the crowninshields, and selman, and chase. another person at the eastward was supposed to be in the plot; it was important to learn the facts. to do this, some one of those suspected must be admitted to turn state's witness. the contest was, who should have this privilege? it was understood that it was about to be offered to palmer, then in maine; there was no good reason why he should have the preference. mr. colman felt interested for the family of the knapps, and particularly for joseph. he was a young man who had hitherto maintained a fair standing in society; he was a husband. mr. colman was particularly intimate with his family. with these views he went to the prison. he believed that he might safely converse with the prisoner, because he thought confessions made to a clergyman were sacred, and that he could not be called upon to disclose them. he went, the first time, in the morning, and was requested to come again. he went again at three o'clock; and was requested to call again at five o'clock. in the mean time he saw the father and phippen, and they wished he would not go again, because it would be said the prisoners were making confession. he said he had engaged to go again at five o'clock; but would not, if phippen would excuse him to joseph. phippen engaged to do this, and to meet him at his office at five o'clock. mr. colman went to the office at the time, and waited; but, as phippen was not there, he walked down street, and saw him coming from the jail. he met him, and while in conversation near the church, he saw mrs. beckford and mrs. knapp going in a chaise towards the jail. he hastened to meet them, as he thought it not proper for them to go in at that time. while conversing with them near the jail, he received two distinct messages from joseph, that he wished to see him. he thought it proper to go; and accordingly went to joseph's cell, and it was while there that the disclosures were made. before joseph had finished his statement, phippen came to the door; he was soon after admitted. a short interval ensued, and they went together to the cell of frank. mr. colman went in by invitation of phippen; he had come directly from the cell of joseph, where he had for the first time learned the incidents of the tragedy. he was incredulous as to some of the facts which he had learned, they were so different from his previous impressions. he was desirous of knowing whether he could place confidence in what joseph had told him. he, therefore, put the questions to frank, as he has testified before you; in answer to which frank knapp informed him,-- . "that the murder took place between ten and eleven o'clock." . "that richard crowninshield was alone in the house." . "that he, frank knapp, went home afterwards." . "that the club was deposited under the steps of the howard street meeting-house, and under the part nearest the burying-ground, in a rat hole." . "that the dagger or daggers had been worked up at the factory." it is said that these five answers just fit the case; that they are just what was wanted, and neither more nor less. true, they are; but the reason is, because truth always fits. truth is always congruous and agrees with itself: every truth in the universe agrees with every other truth in the universe, whereas falsehoods not only disagree with truths, but usually quarrel among themselves. surely mr. colman is influenced by no bias, no prejudice; he has no feelings to warp him, except, now that he is contradicted, he may feel an interest to be believed. if you believe mr. colman, then the evidence is fairly in the case. i shall now proceed on the ground that you do believe mr. colman. when told that joseph had determined to confess, the defendant said, "it is hard, or unfair, that joseph should have the benefit of confessing, since the thing was done for his benefit." what thing was done for his benefit? does not this carry an implication of the guilt of the defendant? does it not show that he had a knowledge of the object and history of the murder? the defendant said, "i told joseph, when he proposed it, that it was a silly business, and would get us into trouble." he knew, then, what this business was; he knew that joseph proposed it, and that he agreed to it, else he could not get _us_ into trouble; he understood its bearing and its consequences. thus much was said, under circumstances that make it clearly evidence against him, before there is any pretence of an inducement held out. and does not this prove him to have had a knowledge of the conspiracy? he knew the daggers had been destroyed, and he knew who committed the murder. how could he have innocently known these facts? why, if by richard's story, this shows him guilty of a knowledge of the murder, and of the conspiracy. more than all, he knew when the deed was done, and that he went home afterwards. this shows his participation in that deed. "went home afterwards"! home, from what scene? home, from what fact? home, from what transaction? home, from what place? this confirms the supposition that the prisoner was in brown street for the purposes ascribed to him. these questions were directly put, and directly answered. he does not intimate that he received the information from another. now, if he knows the time, and went home afterwards, and does not excuse himself, is not this an admission that he had a hand in this murder? already proved to be a conspirator in the murder, he now confesses that he knew who did it, at what time it was done, that he was himself out of his own house at the time, and went home afterwards. is not this conclusive, if not explained? then comes the club. he told where it was. this is like possession of stolen goods. he is charged with the guilty knowledge of this concealment. he must show, not say, how he came by this knowledge. if a man be found with stolen goods, he must prove how he came by them. the place of deposit of the club was premeditated and selected, and he knew where it was. joseph knapp was an accessory, and an accessory only; he knew only what was told him. but the prisoner knew the particular spot in which the club might be found. this shows his knowledge something more than that of an accessory. this presumption must be rebutted by evidence, or it stands strong against him. he has too much knowledge of this transaction to have come innocently by it. it must stand against him until he explains it. this testimony of mr. colman is represented as new matter, and therefore an attempt has been made to excite a prejudice against it. it is not so. how little is there in it, after all, that did not appear from other sources? it is mainly confirmatory. compare what you learn from this confession with what you before knew. as to its being proposed by joseph, was not that known? as to richard's being alone in the house, was not that known? as to the daggers, was not that known? as to the time of the murder, was not that known? as to his being out that night, was not that known? as to his returning afterwards, was not that known? as to the club, was not that known? so this information confirms what was known before, and fully confirms it. one word as to the interview between mr. colman and phippen knapp on the turnpike. it is said that mr. colman's conduct in this matter is inconsistent with his testimony. there does not appear to me to be any inconsistency. he tells you that his object was to save joseph, and to hurt no one, and least of all the prisoner at the bar. he had probably told mr. white the substance of what he heard at the prison. he had probably told him that frank confirmed what joseph had confessed. he was unwilling to be the instrument of harm to frank. he therefore, at the request of phippen knapp, wrote a note to mr. white, requesting him to consider joseph as authority for the information he had received. he tells you that this is the only thing he has to regret, as it may seem to be an evasion, as he doubts whether it was entirely correct. if it was an evasion, if it was a deviation, if it was an error, it was an error of mercy, an error of kindness,--an error that proves he had no hostility to the prisoner at the bar. it does not in the least vary his testimony, or affect its correctness. gentlemen, i look on the evidence of mr. colman as highly important; not as bringing into the cause new facts, but as confirming, in a very satisfactory manner, other evidence. it is incredible that he can be false, and that he is seeking the prisoner's life through false swearing. if he is true, it is incredible that the prisoner can be innocent. gentlemen, i have gone through with the evidence in this case, and have endeavored to state it plainly and fairly before you. i think there are conclusions to be drawn from it, the accuracy of which you cannot doubt. i think you cannot doubt that there was a conspiracy formed for the purpose of committing this murder, and who the conspirators were: that you cannot doubt that the crowninshields and the knapps were the parties in this conspiracy: that you cannot doubt that the prisoner at the bar knew that the murder was to be done on the night of the th of april: that you cannot doubt that the murderers of captain white were the suspicious persons seen in and about brown street on that night: that you cannot doubt that richard crowninshield was the perpetrator of that crime: that you cannot doubt that the prisoner at the bar was in brown street on that night. if there, then it must be by agreement, to countenance, to aid the perpetrator. and if so, then he is guilty as principal. gentlemen, your whole concern should be to do your duty, and leave consequences to take care of themselves. you will receive the law from the court. your verdict, it is true, may endanger the prisoner's life, but then it is to save other lives. if the prisoner's guilt has been shown and proved beyond all reasonable doubt, you will convict him. if such reasonable doubts of guilt still remain, you will acquit him. you are the judges of the whole case. you owe a duty to the public, as well as to the prisoner at the bar. you cannot presume to be wiser than the law. your duty is a plain, straightforward one. doubtless we would all judge him in mercy. towards him, as an individual, the law inculcates no hostility; but towards him, if proved to be a murderer, the law, and the oaths you have taken, and public justice, demand that you do your duty. with consciences satisfied with the discharge of duty, no consequences can harm you. there is no evil that we cannot either face or fly from, but the consciousness of duty disregarded. a sense of duty pursues us ever. it is omnipresent, like the deity. if we take to ourselves the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, duty performed, or duty violated, is still with us, for our happiness or our misery. if we say the darkness shall cover us, in the darkness as in the light our obligations are yet with us. we cannot escape their power, nor fly from their presence. they are with us in this life, will be with us at its close; and in that scene of inconceivable solemnity, which lies yet farther onward, we shall still find ourselves surrounded by the consciousness of duty, to pain us wherever it has been violated, and to console us so far as god may have given us grace to perform it. [footnote : chief justice parker.] [footnote : this seems to have been actually the case as regards j.f. knapp.] [footnote : and yet this argument, so absurd in mr. webster's opinion, was based on the exact fact.] [footnote : he did not.] [footnote : hawk. , lib. , ch. , sec. .] the reply to hayne. second speech on "foot's resolution," delivered in the senate of the united states, on the th and th of january, . [mr. webster having completed on january th his first speech on foot's resolution, mr. benton spoke in reply, on the th and st of january, . mr. hayne of south carolina followed on the same side, but, after some time, gave way for a motion for adjournment. on monday, the th, mr. hayne resumed, and concluded his argument. mr. webster immediately rose in reply, but yielded the floor for a motion for adjournment. the next day ( th january, ) mr. webster took the floor and delivered the following speech, which has given such great celebrity to the debate. the circumstances connected with this remarkable effort of parliamentary eloquence are vividly set forth in mr. everett's memoir, prefixed to the first volume of mr. webster's works.] mr. president,--when the mariner has been tossed for many days in thick weather, and on an unknown sea, he naturally avails himself of the first pause in the storm, the earliest glance of the sun, to take his latitude, and ascertain how far the elements have driven him from his true course. let us imitate this prudence, and, before we float farther on the waves of this debate, refer to the point from which we departed, that we may at least be able to conjecture where we now are. i ask for the reading of the resolution before the senate. the secretary read the resolution, as follows:-- "_resolved_, that the committee on public lands be instructed to inquire and report the quantity of public lands remaining unsold within each state and territory, and whether it be expedient to limit for a certain period the sales of the public lands to such lands only as have heretofore been offered for sale, and are now subject to entry at the minimum price. and, also, whether the office of surveyor-general, and some of the land offices, may not be abolished without detriment to the public interest; or whether it be expedient to adopt measures to hasten the sales and extend more rapidly the surveys of the public lands." we have thus heard, sir, what the resolution is which is actually before us for consideration; and it will readily occur to every one, that it is almost the only subject about which something has not been said in the speech, running through two days, by which the senate has been entertained by the gentleman from south carolina. every topic in the wide range of our public affairs, whether past or present,--every thing, general or local, whether belonging to national politics or party politics,--seems to have attracted more or less of the honorable member's attention, save only the resolution before the senate. he has spoken of every thing but the public lands; they have escaped his notice. to that subject, in all his excursions, he has not paid even the cold respect of a passing glance. when this debate, sir, was to be resumed, on thursday morning, it so happened that it would have been convenient for me to be elsewhere. the honorable member, however, did not incline to put off the discussion to another day. he had a shot, he said, to return, and he wished to discharge it. that shot, sir, which he thus kindly informed us was coming, that we might stand out of the way, or prepare ourselves to fall by it and die with decency, has now been received. under all advantages, and with expectation awakened by the tone which preceded it, it has been discharged, and has spent its force. it may become me to say no more of its effect, than that, if nobody is found, after all, either killed or wounded, it is not the first time, in the history of human affairs, that the vigor and success of the war have not quite come up to the lofty and sounding phrase of the manifesto. the gentleman, sir, in declining to postpone the debate, told the senate, with the emphasis of his hand upon his heart, that there was something rankling _here_, which he wished to relieve. [mr. hayne rose, and disclaimed having used the word _rankling_.] it would not, mr. president, be safe for the honorable member to appeal to those around him, upon the question whether he did in fact make use of that word. but he may have been unconscious of it. at any rate, it is enough that he disclaims it. but still, with or without the use of that particular word, he had yet something _here_, he said, of which he wished to rid himself by an immediate reply. in this respect, sir, i have a great advantage over the honorable gentleman. there is nothing _here_, sir, which gives me the slightest uneasiness; neither fear, nor anger, nor that which is sometimes more troublesome than either, the consciousness of having been in the wrong. there is nothing, either originating _here_, or now received _here_ by the gentleman's shot. nothing originating here, for i had not the slightest feeling of unkindness towards the honorable member. some passages, it is true, had occurred since our acquaintance in this body, which i could have wished might have been otherwise; but i had used philosophy and forgotten them. i paid the honorable member the attention of listening with respect to his first speech; and when he sat down, though surprised, and i must even say astonished, at some of his opinions, nothing was farther from my intention than to commence any personal warfare. through the whole of the few remarks i made in answer, i avoided, studiously and carefully, every thing which i thought possible to be construed into disrespect. and, sir, while there is thus nothing originating _here_ which i have wished at any time, or now wish, to discharge, i must repeat, also, that nothing has been received _here_ which _rankles_, or in any way gives me annoyance. i will not accuse the honorable member of violating the rules of civilized war; i will not say, that he poisoned his arrows. but whether his shafts were, or were not, dipped in that which would have caused rankling if they had reached their destination, there was not, as it happened, quite strength enough in the bow to bring them to their mark. if he wishes now to gather up those shafts, he must look for them elsewhere; they will not be found fixed and quivering in the object at which they were aimed. the honorable member complained that i had slept on his speech. i must have slept on it, or not slept at all. the moment the honorable member sat down, his friend from missouri rose, and, with much honeyed commendation of the speech, suggested that the impressions which it had produced were too charming and delightful to be disturbed by other sentiments or other sounds, and proposed that the senate should adjourn. would it have been quite amiable in me, sir, to interrupt this excellent good feeling? must i not have been absolutely malicious, if i could have thrust myself forward, to destroy sensations thus pleasing? was it not much better and kinder, both to sleep upon them myself, and to allow others also the pleasure of sleeping upon them? but if it be meant, by sleeping upon his speech, that i took time to prepare a reply to it, it is quite a mistake. owing to other engagements, i could not employ even the interval between the adjournment of the senate and its meeting the next morning, in attention to the subject of this debate. nevertheless, sir, the mere matter of fact is undoubtedly true. i did sleep on the gentleman's speech, and slept soundly. and i slept equally well on his speech of yesterday, to which i am now replying. it is quite possible that in this respect, also, i possess some advantage over the honorable member, attributable, doubtless, to a cooler temperament on my part; for, in truth, i slept upon his speeches remarkably well. but the gentleman inquires why _he_ was made the object of such a reply. why was _he_ singled out? if an attack has been made on the east, he, he assures us, did not begin it; it was made by the gentleman from missouri. sir, i answered the gentleman's speech because i happened to hear it; and because, also, i chose to give an answer to that speech, which, if unanswered, i thought most likely to produce injurious impressions. i did not stop to inquire who was the original drawer of the bill. i found a responsible indorser before me, and it was my purpose to hold him liable, and to bring him to his just responsibility, without delay. but, sir, this interrogatory of the honorable member was only introductory to another. he proceeded to ask me whether i had turned upon him, in this debate, from the consciousness that i should find an overmatch, if i ventured on a contest with his friend from missouri. if, sir, the honorable member, _modestiae gratia_, had chosen thus to defer to his friend, and to pay him a compliment, without intentional disparagement to others, it would have been quite according to the friendly courtesies of debate, and not at all ungrateful to my own feelings. i am not one of those, sir, who esteem any tribute of regard, whether light and occasional, or more serious and deliberate, which may be bestowed on others, as so much unjustly withholden from themselves. but the tone and manner of the gentleman's question forbid me thus to interpret it. i am not at liberty to consider it as nothing more than a civility to his friend. it had an air of taunt and disparagement, something of the loftiness of asserted superiority, which does not allow me to pass it over without notice. it was put as a question for me to answer, and so put as if it were difficult for me to answer, whether i deemed the member from missouri an overmatch for myself in debate here. it seems to me, sir, that this is extraordinary language, and an extraordinary tone, for the discussions of this body. matches and overmatches! those terms are more applicable elsewhere than here, and fitter for other assemblies than this. sir, the gentleman seems to forget where and what we are. this is a senate, a senate of equals, of men of individual honor and personal character, and of absolute independence. we know no masters, we acknowledge no dictators. this is a hall for mutual consultation and discussion; not an arena for the exhibition of champions. i offer myself, sir, as a match for no man; i throw the challenge of debate at no man's feet. but then, sir, since the honorable member has put the question in a manner that calls for an answer, i will give him an answer; and i tell him, that, holding myself to be the humblest of the members here, i yet know nothing in the arm of his friend from missouri, either alone or when aided by the arm of _his_ friend from south carolina, that need deter even me from espousing whatever opinions i may choose to espouse, from debating whenever i may choose to debate, or from speaking whatever i may see fit to say, on the floor of the senate. sir, when uttered as matter of commendation or compliment, i should dissent from nothing which the honorable member might say of his friend. still less do i put forth any pretensions of my own. but when put to me as matter of taunt, i throw it back, and say to the gentleman, that he could possibly say nothing less likely than such a comparison to wound my pride of personal character. the anger of its tone rescued the remark from intentional irony, which otherwise, probably, would have been its general acceptation. but, sir, if it be imagined that by this mutual quotation and commendation; if it be supposed that, by casting the characters of the drama assigning to each his part, to one the attack, to another the cry of onset; or if it be thought that, by a loud and empty vaunt of anticipated victory, any laurels are to be won here; if it be imagined, especially, that any or all these things will shake any purpose of mine,--i can tell the honorable member, once for all, that he is greatly mistaken, and that he is dealing with one of whose temper and character he has yet much to learn. sir, i shall not allow myself, on this occasion, i hope on no occasion, to be betrayed into any loss of temper; but if provoked, as i trust i never shall be, into crimination and recrimination, the honorable member may perhaps find, that, in that contest, there will be blows to take as well as blows to give; that others can state comparisons as significant, at least, as his own, and that his impunity may possibly demand of him whatever powers of taunt and sarcasm he may possess. i commend him to a prudent husbandry of his resources. but, sir, the coalition! the coalition! ay, "the murdered coalition!" the gentleman asks, if i were led or frighted into this debate by the spectre of the coalition. "was it the ghost of the murdered coalition," he exclaims, "which haunted the member from massachusetts; and which, like the ghost of banquo, would never down?" "the murdered coalition!" sir, this charge of a coalition, in reference to the late administration, is not original with the honorable member. it did not spring up in the senate. whether as a fact, as an argument, or as an embellishment, it is all borrowed. he adopts it, indeed, from a very low origin, and a still lower present condition. it is one of the thousand calumnies with which the press teemed, during an excited political canvass. it was a charge, of which there was not only no proof or probability, but which was in itself wholly impossible to be true. no man of common information ever believed a syllable of it. yet it was of that class of falsehoods, which, by continued repetition, through all the organs of detraction and abuse, are capable of misleading those who are already far misled, and of further fanning passion already kindling into flame. doubtless it served in its day, and in greater or less degree, the end designed by it. having done that, it has sunk into the general mass of stale and loathed calumnies. it is the very cast-off slough of a polluted and shameless press. incapable of further mischief, it lies in the sewer, lifeless and despised. it is not now, sir, in the power of the honorable member to give it dignity or decency, by attempting to elevate it, and to introduce it into the senate. he cannot change it from what it is, an object of general disgust and scorn. on the contrary, the contact, if he choose to touch it, is more likely to drag him down, down, to the place where it lies itself. but, sir, the honorable member was not, for other reasons, entirely happy in his allusion to the story of banquo's murder and banquo's ghost. it was not, i think, the friends, but the enemies of the murdered banquo, at whose bidding his spirit would not _down_. the honorable gentleman is fresh in his reading of the english classics, and can put me right if i am wrong: but, according to my poor recollection, it was at those who had begun with caresses and ended with foul and treacherous murder that the gory locks were shaken. the ghost of banquo, like that of hamlet, was an honest ghost. it disturbed no innocent man. it knew where its appearance would strike terror, and who would cry out, a ghost! it made itself visible in the right quarter, and compelled the guilty and the conscience-smitten, and none others, to start, with, "pr'ythee, see there! behold!--look! lo, if i stand here, i saw him!" their eyeballs were seared (was it not so, sir?) who had thought to shield themselves by concealing their own hand, and laying the imputation of the crime on a low and hireling agency in wickedness; who had vainly attempted to stifle the workings of their own coward consciences by ejaculating through white lips and chattering teeth, "thou canst not say i did it!" i have misread the great poet if those who had no way partaken in the deed of the death, either found that they were, or _feared that they should be_, pushed from their stools by the ghost of the slain, or exclaimed to a spectre created by their own fears and their own remorse, "avaunt! and quit our sight!" there is another particular, sir, in which the honorable member's quick perception of resemblances might, i should think, have seen something in the story of banquo, making it not altogether a subject of the most pleasant contemplation. those who murdered banquo, what did they win by it? substantial good? permanent power? or disappointment, rather, and sore mortification,--dust and ashes, the common fate of vaulting ambition overleaping itself? did not even-handed justice erelong commend the poisoned chalice to their own lips? did they not soon find that for another they had "filed their mind"? that their ambition, though apparently for the moment successful, had but put a barren sceptre in their grasp? ay, sir, "a barren sceptre in their gripe, _thence to be wrenched with an unlineal hand, no son of theirs succeeding_." sir, i need pursue the allusion no farther. i leave the honorable gentleman to run it out at his leisure, and to derive from it all the gratification it is calculated to administer. if he finds himself pleased with the associations, and prepared to be quite satisfied, though the parallel should be entirely completed, i had almost said, i am satisfied also; but that i shall think of. yes, sir, i will think of that. in the course of my observations the other day, mr. president, i paid a passing tribute of respect to a very worthy man, mr. dane of massachusetts. it so happened that he drew the ordinance of , for the government of the northwestern territory. a man of so much ability, and so little pretence; of so great a capacity to do good, and so unmixed a disposition to do it for its own sake; a gentleman who had acted an important part, forty years ago, in a measure the influence of which is still deeply felt in the very matter which was the subject of debate,--might, i thought, receive from me a commendatory recognition. but the honorable member was inclined to be facetious on the subject. he was rather disposed to make it matter of ridicule, that i had introduced into the debate the name of one nathan dane, of whom he assures us he had never before heard. sir, if the honorable member had never before heard of mr. dane, i am sorry for it. it shows him less acquainted with the public men of the country than i had supposed. let me tell him, however, that a sneer from him at the mention of the name of mr. dane is in bad taste. it may well be a high mark of ambition, sir, either with the honorable gentleman or myself, to accomplish as much to make our names known to advantage, and remembered with gratitude, as mr. dane has accomplished. but the truth is, sir, i suspect, that mr. dane lives a little too far north. he is of massachusetts, and too near the north star to be reached by the honorable gentleman's telescope. if his sphere had happened to range south of mason and dixon's line, he might, probably, have come within the scope of his vision. i spoke, sir, of the ordinance of , which prohibits slavery, in all future times, northwest of the ohio, as a measure of great wisdom and foresight, and one which had been attended with highly beneficial and permanent consequences. i supposed that, on this point, no two gentlemen in the senate could entertain different opinions. but the simple expression of this sentiment has led the gentleman, not only into a labored defence of slavery, in the abstract, and on principle, but also into a warm accusation against me, as having attacked the system of domestic slavery now existing in the southern states. for all this, there was not the slightest foundation, in any thing said or intimated by me. i did not utter a single word which any ingenuity could torture into an attack on the slavery of the south. i said, only, that it was highly wise and useful, in legislating for the northwestern country while it was yet a wilderness, to prohibit the introduction of slaves; and i added, that i presumed there was no reflecting and intelligent person, in the neighboring state of kentucky, who would doubt that, if the same prohibition had been extended, at the same early period, over that commonwealth, her strength and population would, at this day, have been far greater than they are. if these opinions be thought doubtful, they are nevertheless, i trust, neither extraordinary nor disrespectful. they attack nobody and menace nobody. and yet, sir, the gentleman's optics have discovered, even in the mere expression of this sentiment, what he calls the very spirit of the missouri question! he represents me as making an onset on the whole south, and manifesting a spirit which would interfere with, and disturb, their domestic condition! sir, this injustice no otherwise surprises me, than as it is committed here, and committed without the slightest pretence of ground for it. i say it only surprises me as being done here; for i know full well, that it is, and has been, the settled policy of some persons in the south, for years, to represent the people of the north as disposed to interfere with them in their own exclusive and peculiar concerns. this is a delicate and sensitive point in southern feeling; and of late years it has always been touched, and generally with effect, whenever the object has been to unite the whole south against northern men or northern measures. this feeling, always carefully kept alive, and maintained at too intense a heat to admit discrimination or reflection, is a lever of great power in our political machine. it moves vast bodies, and gives to them one and the same direction. but it is without adequate cause, and the suspicion which exists is wholly groundless. there is not, and never has been, a disposition in the north to interfere with these interests of the south. such interference has never been supposed to be within the power of government; nor has it been in any way attempted. the slavery of the south has always been regarded as a matter of domestic policy, left with the states themselves, and with which the federal government had nothing to do. certainly, sir, i am, and ever have been, of that opinion. the gentleman, indeed, argues that slavery, in the abstract, is no evil. most assuredly i need not say i differ with him, altogether and most widely, on that point. i regard domestic slavery as one of the greatest evils, both moral and political. but whether it be a malady, and whether it be curable, and if so, by what means; or, on the other hand, whether it be the _vulnus immedicabile_ of the social system, i leave it to those whose right and duty it is to inquire and to decide. and this i believe, sir, is, and uniformly has been, the sentiment of the north. let us look a little at the history of this matter. when the present constitution was submitted for the ratification of the people, there were those who imagined that the powers of the government which it proposed to establish might, in some possible mode, be exerted in measures tending to the abolition of slavery. this suggestion would of course attract much attention in the southern conventions. in that of virginia, governor randolph said:-- "i hope there is none here, who, considering the subject in the calm light of philosophy, will make an objection dishonorable to virginia; that, at the moment they are securing the rights of their citizens, an objection is started, that there is a spark of hope that those unfortunate men now held in bondage may, by the operation of the general government, be made free." at the very first congress, petitions on the subject were presented, if i mistake not, from different states. the pennsylvania society for promoting the abolition of slavery took a lead, and laid before congress a memorial, praying congress to promote the abolition by such powers as it possessed. this memorial was referred, in the house of representatives, to a select committee, consisting of mr. foster of new hampshire, mr. gerry of massachusetts, mr. huntington of connecticut, mr. lawrence of new york, mr. sinnickson of new jersey, mr. hartley of pennsylvania, and mr. parker of virginia,--all of them, sir, as you will observe, northern men but the last. this committee made a report, which was referred to a committee of the whole house, and there considered and discussed for several days; and being amended, although without material alteration, it was made to express three distinct propositions, on the subject of slavery and the slave-trade. first, in the words of the constitution, that congress could not, prior to the year , prohibit the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states then existing should think proper to admit; and, secondly, that congress had authority to restrain the citizens of the united states from carrying on the african slave-trade, for the purpose of supplying foreign countries. on this proposition, our early laws against those who engage in that traffic are founded. the third proposition, and that which bears on the present question, was expressed in the following terms:-- "_resolved_, that congress have no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them in any of the states; it remaining with the several states alone to provide rules and regulations therein which humanity and true policy may require." this resolution received the sanction of the house of representatives so early as march, . and now, sir, the honorable member will allow me to remind him, that not only were the select committee who reported the resolution, with a single exception, all northern men, but also that, of the members then composing the house of representatives, a large majority, i believe nearly two thirds, were northern men also. the house agreed to insert these resolutions in its journal; and from that day to this it has never been maintained or contended at the north, that congress had any authority to regulate or interfere with the condition of slaves in the several states. no northern gentleman, to my knowledge, has moved any such question in either house of congress. the fears of the south, whatever fears they might have entertained, were allayed and quieted by this early decision; and so remained till they were excited afresh, without cause, but for collateral and indirect purposes. when it became necessary, or was thought so, by some political persons, to find an unvarying ground for the exclusion of northern men from confidence and from lead in the affairs of the republic, then, and not till then, the cry was raised, and the feeling industriously excited, that the influence of northern men in the public counsels would endanger the relation of master and slave. for myself, i claim no other merit than that this gross and enormous injustice towards the whole north has not wrought upon me to change my opinions or my political conduct. i hope i am above violating my principles, even under the smart of injury and false imputations. unjust suspicions and undeserved reproach, whatever pain i may experience from them, will not induce me, i trust, to overstep the limits of constitutional duty, or to encroach on the rights of others. the domestic slavery of the southern states i leave where i find it,--in the hands of their own governments. it is their affair, not mine. nor do i complain of the peculiar effect which the magnitude of that population has had in the distribution of power under this federal government. we know, sir, that the representation of the states in the other house is not equal. we know that great advantage in that respect is enjoyed by the slave-holding states; and we know, too, that the intended equivalent for that advantage, that is to say, the imposition of direct taxes in the same ratio, has become merely nominal, the habit of the government being almost invariably to collect its revenue from other sources and in other modes. nevertheless, i do not complain; nor would i countenance any movement to alter this arrangement of representation. it is the original bargain, the compact; let it stand; let the advantage of it be fully enjoyed. the union itself is too full of benefit to be hazarded in propositions for changing its original basis. i go for the constitution as it is, and for the union as it is. but i am resolved not to submit in silence to accusations, either against myself individually or against the north, wholly unfounded and unjust,--accusations which impute to us a disposition to evade the constitutional compact, and to extend the power of the government over the internal laws and domestic condition of the states. all such accusations, wherever and whenever made, all insinuations of the existence of any such purposes, i know and feel to be groundless and injurious. and we must confide in southern gentlemen themselves; we must trust to those whose integrity of heart and magnanimity of feeling will lead them to a desire to maintain and disseminate truth, and who possess the means of its diffusion with the southern public; we must leave it to them to disabuse that public of its prejudices. but in the mean time, for my own part, i shall continue to act justly, whether those towards whom justice is exercised receive it with candor or with contumely. having had occasion to recur to the ordinance of , in order to defend myself against the inferences which the honorable member has chosen to draw from my former observations on that subject, i am not willing now entirely to take leave of it without another remark. it need hardly be said, that that paper expresses just sentiments on the great subject of civil and religious liberty. such sentiments were common, and abound in all our state papers of that day. but this ordinance did that which was not so common, and which is not even now universal; that is, it set forth and declared it to be a high and binding duty of government itself to support schools and advance the means of education, on the plain reason that religion, morality, and knowledge are necessary to good government, and to the happiness of mankind. one observation further. the important provision incorporated into the constitution of the united states, and into several of those of the states, and recently, as we have seen, adopted into the reformed constitution of virginia, restraining legislative power in questions of private right, and from impairing the obligation of contracts, is first introduced and established, as far as i am informed, as matter of express written constitutional law, in this ordinance of . and i must add, also, in regard to the author of the ordinance, who has not had the happiness to attract the gentleman's notice heretofore, nor to avoid his sarcasm now, that he was chairman of that select committee of the old congress, whose report first expressed the strong sense of that body, that the old confederation was not adequate to the exigencies of the country, and recommended to the states to send delegates to the convention which formed the present constitution. an attempt has been made to transfer from the north to the south the honor of this exclusion of slavery from the northwestern territory. the journal, without argument or comment, refutes such attempts. the cession by virginia was made in march, . on the th of april following, a committee, consisting of messrs. jefferson, chase, and howell, reported a plan for a temporary government of the territory, in which was this article: "that, after the year , there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said states, otherwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been convicted." mr. spaight of north carolina moved to strike out this paragraph. the question was put, according to the form then practised, "shall these words stand as a part of the plan?" new hampshire, massachusetts, rhode island, connecticut, new york, new jersey, and pennsylvania, seven states, voted in the affirmative; maryland, virginia, and south carolina, in the negative. north carolina was divided. as the consent of nine states was necessary, the words could not stand, and were struck out accordingly. mr. jefferson voted for the clause, but was overruled by his colleagues. in march of the next year ( ), mr. king of massachusetts, seconded by mr. ellery of rhode island, proposed the formerly rejected article, with this addition: "and that this regulation shall be an article of compact, and remain a fundamental principle of the constitutions between the thirteen original states, and each of the states described in the resolve." on this clause, which provided the adequate and thorough security, the eight northern states at that time voted affirmatively, and the four southern states negatively. the votes of nine states were not yet obtained, and thus the provision was again rejected by the southern states. the perseverance of the north held out, and two years afterwards the object was attained. it is no derogation from the credit, whatever that may be, of drawing the ordinance, that its principles had before been prepared and discussed, in the form of resolutions. if one should reason in that way, what would become of the distinguished honor of the author of the declaration of independence? there is not a sentiment in that paper which had not been voted and resolved in the assemblies, and other popular bodies in the country, over and over again. but the honorable member has now found out that this gentleman, mr. dane, was a member of the hartford convention. however uninformed the honorable member may be of characters and occurrences at the north, it would seem that he has at his elbow, on this occasion, some high-minded and lofty spirit, some magnanimous and true-hearted monitor, possessing the means of local knowledge, and ready to supply the honorable member with every thing, down even to forgotten and moth-eaten two-penny pamphlets, which may be used to the disadvantage of his own country. but as to the hartford convention, sir, allow me to say, that the proceedings of that body seem now to be less read and studied in new england than farther south. they appear to be looked to, not in new england, but elsewhere, for the purpose of seeing how far they may serve as a precedent. but they will not answer the purpose, they are quite too tame. the latitude in which they originated was too cold. other conventions, of more recent existence, have gone a whole bar's length beyond it. the learned doctors of colleton and abbeville have pushed their commentaries on the hartford collect so far, that the original text-writers are thrown entirely into the shade. i have nothing to do, sir, with the hartford convention. its journal, which the gentleman has quoted, i never read. so far as the honorable member may discover in its proceedings a spirit in any degree resembling that which was avowed and justified in those other conventions to which i have alluded, or so far as those proceedings can be shown to be disloyal to the constitution, or tending to disunion, so far i shall be as ready as any one to bestow on them reprehension and censure. having dwelt long on this convention, and other occurrences of that day, in the hope, probably, (which will not be gratified,) that i should leave the course of this debate to follow him at length in those excursions, the honorable member returned, and attempted another object. he referred to a speech of mine in the other house, the same which i had occasion to allude to myself, the other day; and has quoted a passage or two from it, with a bold, though uneasy and laboring, air of confidence, as if he had detected in me an inconsistency. judging from the gentleman's manner, a stranger to the course of the debate and to the point in discussion would have imagined, from so triumphant a tone, that the honorable member was about to overwhelm me with a manifest contradiction. any one who heard him, and who had not heard what i had, in fact, previously said, must have thought me routed and discomfited, as the gentleman had promised. sir, a breath blows all this triumph away. there is not the slightest difference in the purport of my remarks on the two occasions. what i said here on wednesday is in exact accordance with the opinion expressed by me in the other house in . though the gentleman had the metaphysics of hudibras, though he were able "to sever and divide a hair 'twixt north and northwest side," he yet could not insert his metaphysical scissors between the fair reading of my remarks in , and what i said here last week. there is not only no contradiction, no difference, but, in truth, too exact a similarity, both in thought and language, to be entirely in just taste. i had myself quoted the same speech; had recurred to it, and spoke with it open before me; and much of what i said was little more than a repetition from it. in order to make finishing work with this alleged contradiction, permit me to recur to the origin of this debate, and review its course. this seems expedient, and may be done as well now as at any time. well, then, its history is this. the honorable member from connecticut moved a resolution, which constitutes the first branch of that which is now before us; that is to say, a resolution, instructing the committee on public lands to inquire into the expediency of limiting, for a certain period, the sales of the public lands, to such as have heretofore been offered for sale; and whether sundry offices connected with the sales of the lands might not be abolished without detriment to the public service. in the progress of the discussion which arose on this resolution, an honorable member from new hampshire moved to amend the resolution, so as entirely to reverse its object; that is, to strike it all out, and insert a direction to the committee to inquire into the expediency of adopting measures to hasten the sales, and expend more rapidly the surveys, of the lands. the honorable member from maine[ ] suggested that both those propositions might well enough go for consideration to the committee; and in this state of the question, the member from south carolina addressed the senate in his first speech. he rose, he said, to give us his own free thoughts on the public lands. i saw him rise with pleasure, and listened with expectation, though before he concluded i was filled with surprise. certainly, i was never more surprised, than to find him following up, to the extent he did, the sentiments and opinions which the gentleman from missouri had put forth, and which it is known he has long entertained. i need not repeat at large the general topics of the honorable gentleman's speech. when he said yesterday that he did not attack the eastern states, he certainly must have forgotten, not only particular remarks, but the whole drift and tenor of his speech; unless he means by not attacking, that he did not commence hostilities, but that another had preceded him in the attack. he, in the first place, disapproved of the whole course of the government, for forty years, in regard to its disposition of the public lands; and then, turning northward and eastward, and fancying he had found a cause for alleged narrowness and niggardliness in the "accursed policy of the tariff", to which he represented the people of new england as wedded, he went on for a full hour with remarks, the whole scope of which was to exhibit the results of this policy, in feelings and in measures unfavorable to the west. i thought his opinions unfounded and erroneous, as to the general course of the government, and ventured to reply to them. the gentleman had remarked on the analogy of other cases, and quoted the conduct of european governments towards their own subjects settling on this continent, as in point, to show that we had been harsh and rigid in selling, when we should have given the public lands to settlers without price. i thought the honorable member had suffered his judgment to be betrayed by a false analogy; that he was struck with an appearance of resemblance where there was no real similitude. i think so still. the first settlers of north america were enterprising spirits, engaged in private adventure, or fleeing from tyranny at home. when arrived here, they were forgotten by the mother country, or remembered only to be oppressed. carried away again by the appearance of analogy, or struck with the eloquence of the passage, the honorable member yesterday observed, that the conduct of government towards the western emigrants, or my representation of it, brought to his mind a celebrated speech in the british parliament. it was, sir, the speech of colonel barre. on the question of the stamp act, or tea tax, i forget which, colonel barre had heard a member on the treasury bench argue, that the people of the united states, being british colonists, planted by the maternal care, nourished by the indulgence, and protected by the arms of england, would not grudge their mite to relieve the mother country from the heavy burden under which she groaned. the language of colonel barre, in reply to this, was: "they planted by your care? your oppression planted them in america. they fled from your tyranny, and grew by your neglect of them. so soon as you began to care for them, you showed your care by sending persons to spy out their liberties, misrepresent their character, prey upon them, and eat out their substance." and how does the honorable gentleman mean to maintain, that language like this is applicable to the conduct of the government of the united states towards the western emigrants, or to any representation given by me of that conduct? were the settlers in the west driven thither by our oppression? have they flourished only by our neglect of them? has the government done nothing but prey upon them, and eat out their substance? sir, this fervid eloquence of the british speaker, just when and where it was uttered, and fit to remain an exercise for the schools, is not a little out of place, when it is brought thence to be applied here to the conduct of our own country towards her own citizens. from america to england, it may be true; from americans to their own government, it would be strange language. let us leave it, to be recited and declaimed by our boys against a foreign nation; not introduce it here, to recite and declaim ourselves against our own. but i come to the point of the alleged contradiction. in my remarks on wednesday, i contended that we could not give away gratuitously all the public lands; that we held them in trust; that the government had solemnly pledged itself to dispose of them as a common fund for the common benefit, and to sell and settle them as its discretion should dictate. now, sir, what contradiction does the gentleman find to this sentiment in the speech of ? he quotes me as having then said, that we ought not to hug these lands as a very great treasure. very well, sir, supposing me to be accurately reported in that expression, what is the contradiction? i have not now said, that we should hug these lands as a favorite source of pecuniary income. no such thing. it is not my view. what i have said, and what i do say, is, that they are a common fund, to be disposed of for the common benefit, to be sold at low prices for the accommodation of settlers, keeping the object of settling the lands as much in view as that of raising money from them. this i say now, and this i have always said. is this hugging them as a favorite treasure? is there no difference between hugging and hoarding this fund, on the one hand, as a great treasure, and, on the other, of disposing of it at low prices, placing the proceeds in the general treasury of the union? my opinion is, that as much is to be made of the land as fairly and reasonably may be, selling it all the while at such rates as to give the fullest effect to settlement. this is not giving it all away to the states, as the gentleman would propose; nor is it hugging the fund closely and tenaciously, as a favorite treasure; but it is, in my judgment, a just and wise policy, perfectly according with all the various duties which rest on government. so much for my contradiction. and what is it? where is the ground of the gentleman's triumph? what inconsistency in word or doctrine has he been able to detect? sir, if this be a sample of that discomfiture with which the honorable gentleman threatened me, commend me to the word _discomfiture_ for the rest of my life. but, after all, this is not the point of the debate; and i must now bring the gentleman back to what is the point. the real question between me and him is, has the doctrine been advanced at the south or the east, that the population of the west should be retarded, or at least need not be hastened, on account of its effect to drain off the people from the atlantic states? is this doctrine, as has been alleged, of eastern origin? that is the question. has the gentleman found any thing by which he can make good his accusation? i submit to the senate, that he has entirely failed; and, as far as this debate has shown, the only person who has advanced such sentiments is a gentleman from south carolina, and a friend of the honorable member himself. the honorable gentleman has given no answer to this; there is none which can be given. the simple fact, while it requires no comment to enforce it, defies all argument to refute it. i could refer to the speeches of another southern gentleman, in years before, of the same general character, and to the same effect, as that which has been quoted; but i will not consume the time of the senate by the reading of them. so then, sir, new england is guiltless of the policy of retarding western population, and of all envy and jealousy of the growth of the new states. whatever there be of that policy in the country, no part of it is hers. if it has a local habitation, the honorable member has probably seen by this time where to look for it; and if it now has received a name, he has himself christened it. we approach, at length, sir, to a more important part of the honorable gentleman's observations. since it does not accord with my views of justice and policy to give away the public lands altogether, as a mere matter of gratuity, i am asked by the honorable gentleman on what ground it is that i consent to vote them away in particular instances. how, he inquires, do i reconcile with these professed sentiments, my support of measures appropriating portions of the lands to particular roads, particular canals, particular rivers, and particular institutions of education in the west? this leads, sir, to the real and wide difference in political opinion between the honorable gentleman and myself. on my part, i look upon all these objects as connected with the common good, fairly embraced in its object and its terms; he, on the contrary, deems them all, if good at all, only local good. this is our difference. the interrogatory which he proceeded to put at once explains this difference. "what interest," asks he, "has south carolina in a canal in ohio?" sir, this very question is full of significance. it develops the gentleman's whole political system; and its answer expounds mine. here we differ. i look upon a road over the alleghanies, a canal round the falls of the ohio, or a canal or railway from the atlantic to the western waters, as being an object large and extensive enough to be fairly said to be for the common benefit. the gentleman thinks otherwise, and this is the key to his construction of the powers of the government. he may well ask what interest has south carolina in a canal in ohio. on his system, it is true, she has no interest. on that system, ohio and carolina are different governments, and different countries; connected here, it is true, by some slight and ill-defined bond of union, but in all main respects separate and diverse. on that system, carolina has no more interest in a canal in ohio than in mexico. the gentleman, therefore, only follows out his own principles; he does no more than arrive at the natural conclusions of his own doctrines; he only announces the true results of that creed which he has adopted himself, and would persuade others to adopt, when he thus declares that south carolina has no interest in a public work in ohio. sir, we narrow-minded people of new england do not reason thus. our _notion_ of things is entirely different. we look upon the states, not as separated, but as united. we love to dwell on that union, and on the mutual happiness which it has so much promoted, and the common renown which it has so greatly contributed to acquire. in our contemplation, carolina and ohio are parts of the same country; states, united under the same general government, having interests, common, associated, intermingled. in whatever is within the proper sphere of the constitutional power of this government, we look upon the states as one. we do not impose geographical limits to our patriotic feeling or regard; we do not follow rivers and mountains, and lines of latitude, to find boundaries, beyond which public improvements do not benefit us. we who come here, as agents and representatives of these narrow-minded and selfish men of new england, consider ourselves as bound to regard with an equal eye the good of the whole, in whatever is within our powers of legislation. sir, if a railroad or canal, beginning in south carolina and ending in south carolina, appeared to me to be of national importance and national magnitude, believing, as i do, that the power of government extends to the encouragement of works of that description, if i were to stand up here and ask, what interest has massachusetts in a railroad in south carolina? i should not be willing to face my constituents. these same narrow-minded men would tell me, that they had sent me to act for the whole country, and that one who possessed too little comprehension, either of intellect or feeling, one who was not large enough, both in mind and in heart, to embrace the whole, was not fit to be intrusted with the interest of any part. sir, i do not desire to enlarge the powers of the government by unjustifiable construction, nor to exercise any not within a fair interpretation. but when it is believed that a power does exist, then it is, in my judgment, to be exercised for the general benefit of the whole. so far as respects the exercise of such a power, the states are one. it was the very object of the constitution to create unity of interests to the extent of the powers of the general government. in war and peace we are one; in commerce, one; because the authority of the general government reaches to war and peace, and to the regulation of commerce. i have never seen any more difficulty in erecting light-houses on the lakes, than on the ocean; in improving the harbors of inland seas, than if they were within the ebb and flow of the tide; or in removing obstructions in the vast streams of the west, more than in any work to facilitate commerce on the atlantic coast. if there be any power for one, there is power also for the other; and they are all and equally for the common good of the country. there are other objects, apparently more local, or the benefit of which is less general, towards which, nevertheless, i have concurred with others, to give aid by donations of land. it is proposed to construct a road, in or through one of the new states, in which this government possesses large quantities of land. have the united states no right, or, as a great and untaxed proprietor, are they under no obligation to contribute to an object thus calculated to promote the common good of all the proprietors, themselves included? and even with respect to education, which is the extreme case, let the question be considered. in the first place, as we have seen, it was made matter of compact with these states, that they should do their part to promote education. in the next place, our whole system of land laws proceeds on the idea that education is for the common good; because, in every division, a certain portion is uniformly reserved and appropriated for the use of schools. and, finally, have not these new states singularly strong claims, founded on the ground already stated, that the government is a great untaxed proprietor, in the ownership of the soil? it is a consideration of great importance, that probably there is in no part of the country, or of the world, so great call for the means of education, as in these new states, owing to the vast numbers of persons within those ages in which education and instruction are usually received, if received at all. this is the natural consequence of recency of settlement and rapid increase. the census of these states shows how great a proportion of the whole population occupies the classes between infancy and manhood. these are the wide fields, and here is the deep and quick soil for the seeds of knowledge and virtue; and this is the favored season, the very spring-time for sowing them. let them be disseminated without stint. let them be scattered with a bountiful hand, broadcast. whatever the government can fairly do towards these objects, in my opinion, ought to be done. these, sir, are the grounds, succinctly stated, on which my votes for grants of lands for particular objects rest; while i maintain, at the same time, that it is all a common fund, for the common benefit. and reasons like these, i presume, have influenced the votes of other gentlemen from new england. those who have a different view of the powers of the government, of course, come to different conclusions, on these, as on other questions. i observed, when speaking on this subject before, that if we looked to any measure, whether for a road, a canal, or any thing else, intended for the improvement of the west, it would be found that, if the new england _ayes_ were struck out of the lists of votes, the southern _noes_ would always have rejected the measure. the truth of this has not been denied, and cannot be denied. in stating this, i thought it just to ascribe it to the constitutional scruples of the south, rather than to any other less favorable or less charitable cause. but no sooner had i done this, than the honorable gentleman asks if i reproach him and his friends with their constitutional scruples. sir, i reproach nobody. i stated a fact, and gave the most respectful reason for it that occurred to me. the gentleman cannot deny the fact; he may, if he choose, disclaim the reason. it is not long since i had occasion, in presenting a petition from his own state, to account for its being intrusted to my hands, by saying, that the constitutional opinions of the gentleman and his worthy colleague prevented them from supporting it. sir, did i state this as matter of reproach? far from it. did i attempt to find any other cause than an honest one for these scruples? sir, i did not. it did not become me to doubt or to insinuate that the gentleman had either changed his sentiments, or that he had made up a set of constitutional opinions accommodated to any particular combination of political occurrences. had i done so, i should have felt, that, while i was entitled to little credit in thus questioning other people's motives, i justified the whole world in suspecting my own. but how has the gentleman returned this respect for others' opinions? his own candor and justice, how have they been exhibited towards the motives of others, while he has been at so much pains to maintain, what nobody has disputed, the purity of his own? why, sir, he has asked _when_, and _how_, and _why_ new england votes were found going for measures favorable to the west. he has demanded to be informed whether all this did not begin in , and while the election of president was still pending. sir, to these questions retort would be justified; and it is both cogent and at hand. nevertheless, i will answer the inquiry, not by retort, but by facts. i will tell the gentleman _when_, and _how_, and _why_ new england has supported measures favorable to the west. i have already referred to the early history of the government, to the first acquisition of the lands, to the original laws for disposing of them, and for governing the territories where they lie; and have shown the influence of new england men and new england principles in all these leading measures. i should not be pardoned were i to go over that ground again. coming to more recent times, and to measures of a less general character, i have endeavored to prove that every thing of this kind, designed for western improvement, has depended on the votes of new england; all this is true beyond the power of contradiction. and now, sir, there are two measures to which i will refer, not so ancient as to belong to the early history of the public lands, and not so recent as to be on this side of the period when the gentleman charitably imagines a new direction may have been given to new england feeling and new england votes. these measures, and the new england votes in support of them, may be taken as samples and specimens of all the rest. in (observe, mr. president, in ) the people of the west besought congress for a reduction in the price of lands. in favor of that reduction, new england, with a delegation of forty members in the other house, gave thirty-three votes, and one only against it. the four southern states, with more than fifty members, gave thirty-two votes for it, and seven against it. again, in , (observe again, sir, the time,) the law passed for the relief of the purchasers of the public lands. this was a measure of vital importance to the west, and more especially to the southwest. it authorized the relinquishment of contracts for lands which had been entered into at high prices, and a reduction in other cases of not less than thirty-seven and a half per cent on the purchase-money. many millions of dollars, six or seven, i believe, probably much more, were relinquished by this law. on this bill, new england, with her forty members, gave more affirmative votes than the four southern states, with their fifty-two or fifty-three members. these two are far the most important general measures respecting the public lands which have been adopted within the last twenty years. they took place in and . that is the time _when_. as to the manner _how_, the gentleman already sees that it was by voting in solid column for the required relief; and, lastly, as to the cause _why_, i tell the gentleman it was because the members from new england thought the measures just and salutary; because they entertained towards the west neither envy, hatred, nor malice; because they deemed it becoming them, as just and enlightened public men, to meet the exigency which had arisen in the west with the appropriate measure of relief; because they felt it due to their own characters, and the characters of their new england predecessors in this government, to act towards the new states in the spirit of a liberal, patronizing, magnanimous policy. so much, sir, for the cause _why_; and i hope that by this time, sir, the honorable gentleman is satisfied; if not, i do not know _when_, or _how_, or _why_ he ever will be. having recurred to these two important measures, in answer to the gentleman's inquiries, i must now beg permission to go back to a period somewhat earlier, for the purpose of still further showing how much, or rather how little, reason there is for the gentleman's insinuation that political hopes or fears, or party associations, were the grounds of these new england votes. and after what has been said, i hope it may be forgiven me if i allude to some political opinions and votes of my own, of very little public importance certainly, but which, from the time at which they were given and expressed, may pass for good witnesses on this occasion. this government, mr. president, from its origin to the peace of , had been too much engrossed with various other important concerns to be able to turn its thoughts inward, and look to the development of its vast internal resources. in the early part of president washington's administration, it was fully occupied with completing its own organization, providing for the public debt, defending the frontiers, and maintaining domestic peace. before the termination of that administration, the fires of the french revolution blazed forth, as from a new-opened volcano, and the whole breadth of the ocean did not secure us from its effects. the smoke and the cinders reached us, though not the burning lava. difficult and agitating questions, embarrassing to government and dividing public opinion, sprung out of the new state of our foreign relations, and were succeeded by others, and yet again by others, equally embarrassing and equally exciting division and discord, through the long series of twenty years, till they finally issued in the war with england. down to the close of that war, no distinct, marked, and deliberate attention had been given, or could have been given, to the internal condition of the country, its capacities of improvement, or the constitutional power of the government in regard to objects connected with such improvement. the peace, mr. president, brought about an entirely new and a most interesting state of things; it opened to us other prospects and suggested other duties. we ourselves were changed, and the whole world was changed. the pacification of europe, after june, , assumed a firm and permanent aspect. the nations evidently manifested that they were disposed for peace. some agitation of the waves might be expected, even after the storm had subsided; but the tendency was, strongly and rapidly, towards settled repose. it so happened, sir, that i was at that time a member of congress, and, like others, naturally turned my thoughts to the contemplation of the recently altered condition of the country and of the world. it appeared plainly enough to me, as well as to wiser and more experienced men, that the policy of the government would naturally take a start in a new direction; because new directions would necessarily be given to the pursuits and occupations of the people. we had pushed our commerce far and fast, under the advantage of a neutral flag. but there were now no longer flags, either neutral or belligerent. the harvest of neutrality had been great, but we had gathered it all. with the peace of europe, it was obvious there would spring up in her circle of nations a revived and invigorated spirit of trade, and a new activity in all the business and objects of civilized life. hereafter, our commercial gains were to be earned only by success in a close and intense competition. other nations would produce for themselves, and carry for themselves, and manufacture for themselves, to the full extent of their abilities. the crops of our plains would no longer sustain european armies, nor our ships longer supply those whom war had rendered unable to supply themselves. it was obvious, that, under these circumstances, the country would begin to survey itself, and to estimate its own capacity of improvement. and this improvement,--how was it to be accomplished, and who was to accomplish it? we were ten or twelve millions of people, spread over almost half a world. we were more than twenty states, some stretching along the same seaboard, some along the same line of inland frontier, and others on opposite banks of the same vast rivers. two considerations at once presented themselves with great force, in looking at this state of things. one was, that that great branch of improvement which consisted in furnishing new facilities of intercourse necessarily ran into different states in every leading instance, and would benefit the citizens of all such states. no one state, therefore, in such cases, would assume the whole expense, nor was the co-operation of several states to be expected. take the instance of the delaware breakwater. it will cost several millions of money. would pennsylvania alone ever have constructed it? certainly never, while this union lasts, because it is not for her sole benefit. would pennsylvania, new jersey, and delaware have united to accomplish it at their joint expense? certainly not, for the same reason. it could not be done, therefore, but by the general government. the same may be said of the large inland undertakings, except that, in them, government, instead of bearing the whole expense, co-operates with others who bear a part. the other consideration is, that the united states have the means. they enjoy the revenues derived from commerce, and the states have no abundant and easy sources of public income. the custom-houses fill the general treasury, while the states have scanty resources, except by resort to heavy direct taxes. under this view of things, i thought it necessary to settle, at least for myself, some definite notions with respect to the powers of the government in regard to internal affairs. it may not savor too much of self-commendation to remark, that, with this object, i considered the constitution, its judicial construction, its contemporaneous exposition, and the whole history of the legislation of congress under it; and i arrived at the conclusion, that government had power to accomplish sundry objects, or aid in their accomplishment, which are now commonly spoken of as internal improvements. that conclusion, sir, may have been right, or it may have been wrong. i am not about to argue the grounds of it at large. i say only, that it was adopted and acted on even so early as in . yes, mr. president, i made up my opinion, and determined on my intended course of political conduct, on these subjects, in the fourteenth congress, in . and now, mr. president, i have further to say, that i made up these opinions, and entered on this course of political conduct, _teucro duce_.[ ] yes, sir, i pursued in all this a south carolina track on the doctrines of internal improvement. south carolina, as she was then represented in the other house, set forth in under a fresh and leading breeze, and i was among the followers. but if my leader sees new lights and turns a sharp corner, unless i see new lights also, i keep straight on in the same path. i repeat, that leading gentlemen from south carolina were first and foremost in behalf of the doctrines of internal improvements, when those doctrines came first to be considered and acted upon in congress. the debate on the bank question, on the tariff of , and on the direct tax, will show who was who, and what was what, at that time. the tariff of , (one of the plain cases of oppression and usurpation, from which, if the government does not recede, individual states may justly secede from the government,) is, sir, in truth, a south carolina tariff, supported by south carolina votes. but for those votes, it could not have passed in the form in which it did pass; whereas, if it had depended on massachusetts votes, it would have been lost. does not the honorable gentleman well know all this? there are certainly those who do, full well, know it all. i do not say this to reproach south carolina. i only state the fact; and i think it will appear to be true, that among the earliest and boldest advocates of the tariff, as a measure of protection, and on the express ground of protection, were leading gentlemen of south carolina in congress. i did not then, and cannot now, understand their language in any other sense. while this tariff of was under discussion in the house of representatives, an honorable gentleman from georgia, now of this house,[ ] moved to reduce the proposed duty on cotton. he failed, by four votes, south carolina giving three votes (enough to have turned the scale) against his motion. the act, sir, then passed, and received on its passage the support of a majority of the representatives of south carolina present and voting. this act is the first in the order of those now denounced as plain usurpations. we see it daily in the list, by the side of those of and , as a case of manifest oppression, justifying disunion. i put it home to the honorable member from south carolina, that his own state was not only "art and part" in this measure, but the _causa causans_. without her aid, this seminal principle of mischief, this root of upas, could not have been planted. i have already said, and it is true, that this act proceeded on the ground of protection. it interfered directly with existing interests of great value and amount. it cut up the calcutta cotton trade by the roots; but it passed, nevertheless, and it passed on the principle of protecting manufactures, on the principle against free trade, on the principle opposed to that _which lets us alone_. such, mr. president, were the opinions of important and leading gentlemen from south carolina, on the subject of internal improvement, in . i went out of congress the next year, and, returning again in , thought i found south carolina where i had left her. i really supposed that all things remained as they were, and that the south carolina doctrine of internal improvements would be defended by the same eloquent voices, and the same strong arms, as formerly. in the lapse of these six years, it is true, political associations had assumed a new aspect and new divisions. a strong party had arisen in the south hostile to the doctrine of internal improvements. anti-consolidation was the flag under which this party fought; and its supporters inveighed against internal improvements, much after the manner in which the honorable gentleman has now inveighed against them, as part and parcel of the system of consolidation. whether this party arose in south carolina itself, or in the neighborhood, is more than i know. i think the latter. however that may have been, there were those found in south carolina ready to make war upon it, and who did make intrepid war upon it. names being regarded as things in such controversies, they bestowed on the anti-improvement gentlemen the appellation of radicals. yes, sir, the appellation of radicals, as a term of distinction applicable and applied to those who denied the liberal doctrines of internal improvement, originated, according to the best of my recollection, somewhere between north carolina and georgia. well, sir, these mischievous radicals were to be put down, and the strong arm of south carolina was stretched out to put them down. about this time i returned to congress. the battle with the radicals had been fought, and our south carolina champions of the doctrines of internal improvement had nobly maintained their ground, and were understood to have achieved a victory. we looked upon them as conquerors. they had driven back the enemy with discomfiture, a thing, by the way, sir, which is not always performed when it is promised. a gentleman to whom i have already referred in this debate had come into congress, during my absence from it, from south carolina, and had brought with him a high reputation for ability. he came from a school with which we had been acquainted, _et noscitur a sociis_. i hold in my hand, sir, a printed speech of this distinguished gentleman,[ ] "on internal improvements," delivered about the period to which i now refer, and printed with a few introductory remarks upon _consolidation_; in which, sir, i think he quite consolidated the arguments of his opponents, the radicals, if to _crush_ be to consolidate. i give you a short but significant quotation from these remarks. he is speaking of a pamphlet, then recently published, entitled "consolidation"; and, having alluded to the question of renewing the charter of the former bank of the united states, he says:-- "moreover, in the early history of parties, and when mr. crawford advocated a renewal of the old charter, it was considered a federal measure; which internal improvement _never was_, as this author erroneously states. this latter measure originated in the administration of mr. jefferson, with the appropriation for the cumberland road; and was first proposed, _as a system_, by mr. calhoun, and carried through the house of representatives by a large majority of the republicans, including almost every one of the leading men who carried us through the late war." so, then, internal improvement is not one of the federal heresies. one paragraph more, sir:-- "the author in question, not content with denouncing as federalists, general jackson, mr. adams, mr. calhoun, and the majority of the south carolina delegation in congress, modestly extends the denunciation to mr. monroe and the whole republican party. here are his words: 'during the administration of mr. monroe much has passed which the republican party would be glad to approve if they could!! but the principal feature, and that which has chiefly elicited these observations, is the renewal of the system of internal improvements.' now this measure was adopted by a vote of to of a republican congress, and sanctioned by a republican president. who, then, is this author, who assumes the high prerogative of denouncing, in the name of the republican party, the republican administration of the country? a denunciation including within its sweep _calhoun, lowndes, and cheves_, men who will be regarded as the brightest ornaments of south carolina, and the strongest pillars of the republican party, as long as the late war shall be remembered, and talents and patriotism shall be regarded as the proper objects of the admiration and gratitude of a free people!!" such are the opinions, sir, which were maintained by south carolina gentlemen, in the house of representatives, on the subject of internal improvements, when i took my seat there as a member from massachusetts in . but this is not all. we had a bill before us, and passed it in that house, entitled, "an act to procure the necessary surveys, plans, and estimates upon the subject of roads and canals." it authorized the president to cause surveys and estimates to be made of the routes of such roads and canals as he might deem of national importance in a commercial or military point of view, or for the transportation of the mail, and appropriated thirty thousand dollars out of the treasury to defray the expense. this act, though preliminary in its nature, covered the whole ground. it took for granted the complete power of internal improvement, as far as any of its advocates had ever contended for it. having passed the other house, the bill came up to the senate, and was here considered and debated in april, . the honorable member from south carolina was a member of the senate at that time. while the bill was under consideration here, a motion was made to add the following proviso: "_provided_, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to affirm _or admit_ a power in congress, on their own authority, to make roads or canals within any of the states of the union." the yeas and nays were taken on this proviso, and the honorable member voted _in the negative_! the proviso failed. a motion was then made to add this proviso, viz.: "_provided_, that the faith of the united states is hereby pledged, that no money shall ever be expended for roads or canals, except it shall be among the several states, and in the same proportion as direct taxes are laid and assessed by the provisions of the constitution." the honorable member voted _against this proviso_ also, and it failed. the bill was then put on its passage, and the honorable member voted _for it_, and it passed, and became a law. now, it strikes me, sir, that there is no maintaining these votes, but upon the power of internal improvement, in its broadest sense. in truth, these bills for surveys and estimates have always been considered as test questions; they show who is for and who against internal improvement. this law itself went the whole length, and assumed the full and complete power. the gentleman's votes sustained that power, in every form in which the various propositions to amend presented it. he went for the entire and unrestrained authority, without consulting the states, and without agreeing to any proportionate distribution. and now suffer me to remind you, mr. president, that it is this very same power, thus sanctioned, in every form, by the gentleman's own opinion, which is so plain and manifest a usurpation, that the state of south carolina is supposed to be justified in refusing submission to any laws carrying the power into effect. truly, sir, is not this a little too hard? may we not crave some mercy, under favor and protection of the gentleman's own authority? admitting that a road, or a canal, must be written down flat usurpation as was ever committed, may we find no mitigation in our respect for his place, and his vote, as one that knows the law? the tariff, which south carolina had an efficient hand in establishing, in , and this asserted power of internal improvement, advanced by her in the same year, and, as we have seen, approved and sanctioned by her representatives in ,--these two measures are the great grounds on which she is now thought to be justified in breaking up the union, if she sees fit to break it up! i may now safely say, i think, that we have had the authority of leading and distinguished gentlemen from south carolina in support of the doctrine of internal improvement. i repeat, that, up to , i for one followed south carolina; but when that star, in its ascension, veered off in an unexpected direction, i relied on its light no longer. here the vice-president said, "does the chair understand the gentleman from massachusetts to say that the person now occupying the chair of the senate has changed his opinions on the subject of internal improvements?" from nothing ever said to me, sir, have i had reason to know of any change in the opinions of the person filling the chair of the senate. if such change has taken place, i regret it. i speak generally of the state of south carolina. individuals we know there are who hold opinions favorable to the power. an application for its exercise, in behalf of a public work in south carolina itself, is now pending, i believe, in the other house, presented by members from that state. i have thus, sir, perhaps not without some tediousness of detail, shown, if i am in error on the subject of internal improvement, how, and in what company, i fell into that error. if i am wrong, it is apparent who misled me. i go to other remarks of the honorable member; and i have to complain of an entire misapprehension of what i said on the subject of the national debt, though i can hardly perceive how any one could misunderstand me. what i said was, not that i wished to put off the payment of the debt, but, on the contrary, that i had always voted for every measure for its reduction, as uniformly as the gentleman himself. he seems to claim the exclusive merit of a disposition to reduce the public charge. i do not allow it to him. as a debt, i was, i am for paying it, because it is a charge on our finances, and on the industry of the country. but i observed, that i thought i perceived a morbid fervor on that subject, an excessive anxiety to pay off the debt, not so much because it is a debt simply, as because, while it lasts, it furnishes one objection to disunion. it is, while it continues, a tie of common interest. i did not impute such motives to the honorable member himself, but that there is such a feeling in existence i have not a particle of doubt. the most i said was, that, if one effect of the debt was to strengthen our union, that effect itself was not regretted by me, however much others might regret it. the gentleman has not seen how to reply to this, otherwise than by supposing me to have advanced the doctrine that a national debt is a national blessing. others, i must hope, will find much less difficulty in understanding me. i distinctly and pointedly cautioned the honorable member not to understand me as expressing an opinion favorable to the continuance of the debt. i repeated this caution, and repeated it more than once; but it was thrown away. on yet another point, i was still more unaccountably misunderstood. the gentleman had harangued against "consolidation." i told him, in reply, that there was one kind of consolidation to which i was attached, and that was the consolidation of our union; that this was precisely that consolidation to which i feared others were not attached, and that such consolidation was the very end of the constitution, the leading object, as they had informed us themselves, which its framers had kept in view. i turned to their communication,[ ] and read their very words, "the consolidation of the union," and expressed my devotion to this sort of consolidation. i said, in terms, that i wished not in the slightest degree to augment the powers of this government; that my object was to preserve, not to enlarge; and that by consolidating the union i understood no more than the strengthening of the union, and perpetuating it. having been thus explicit, having thus read from the printed book the precise words which i adopted, as expressing my own sentiments, it passes comprehension how any man could understand me as contending for an extension of the powers of the government, or for consolidation in that odious sense in which it means an accumulation, in the federal government, of the powers properly belonging to the states. i repeat, sir, that, in adopting the sentiment of the framers of the constitution, i read their language audibly, and word for word; and i pointed out the distinction, just as fully as i have now done, between the consolidation of the union and that other obnoxious consolidation which i disclaimed. and yet the honorable member misunderstood me. the gentleman had said that he wished for no fixed revenue,--not a shilling. if by a word he could convert the capitol into gold, he would not do it. why all this fear of revenue? why, sir, because, as the gentleman told us, it tends to consolidation. now this can mean neither more nor less than that a common revenue is a common interest, and that all common interests tend to preserve the union of the states. i confess i like that tendency; if the gentleman dislikes it, he is right in deprecating a shilling of fixed revenue. so much, sir, for consolidation. as well as i recollect the course of his remarks, the honorable gentleman next recurred to the subject of the tariff. he did not doubt the word must be of unpleasant sound to me, and proceeded, with an effort neither new nor attended with new success, to involve me and my votes in inconsistency and contradiction. i am happy the honorable gentleman has furnished me an opportunity of a timely remark or two on that subject. i was glad he approached it, for it is a question i enter upon without fear from anybody. the strenuous toil of the gentleman has been to raise an inconsistency between my dissent to the tariff in , and my vote in . it is labor lost. he pays undeserved compliment to my speech in ; but this is to raise me high, that my fall, as he would have it, in , may be more signal. sir, there was no fall. between the ground i stood on in and that i took in , there was not only no precipice, but no declivity. it was a change of position to meet new circumstances, but on the same level. a plain tale explains the whole matter. in i had not acquiesced in the tariff, then supported by south carolina. to some parts of it, especially, i felt and expressed great repugnance. i held the same opinions in , at the meeting in faneuil hall, to which the gentleman has alluded. i said then, and say now, that, as an original question, the authority of congress to exercise the revenue power, with direct reference to the protection of manufactures, is a questionable authority, far more questionable, in my judgment, than the power of internal improvements. i must confess, sir, that in one respect some impression has been made on my opinions lately. mr. madison's publication has put the power in a very strong light. he has placed it, i must acknowledge, upon grounds of construction and argument which seem impregnable. but even if the power were doubtful, on the face of the constitution itself, it had been assumed and asserted in the first revenue law ever passed under that same constitution and on this ground, as a matter settled by contemporaneous practice, i had refrained from expressing the opinion that the tariff laws transcended constitutional limits, as the gentleman supposes. what i did say at faneuil hall, as far as i now remember, was, that this was originally matter of doubtful construction. the gentleman himself, i suppose, thinks there is no doubt about it, and that the laws are plainly against the constitution. mr. madison's letters, already referred to, contain, in my judgment, by far the most able exposition extant of this part of the constitution. he has satisfied me, so far as the practice of the government had left it an open question. with a great majority of the representatives of massachusetts, i voted against the tariff of . my reasons were then given, and i will not now repeat them. but, notwithstanding our dissent, the great states of new york, pennsylvania, ohio, and kentucky went for the bill, in almost unbroken column, and it passed. congress and the president sanctioned it, and it became the law of the land. what, then, were we to do? our only option was, either to fall in with this settled course of public policy, and accommodate ourselves to it as well as we could, or to embrace the south carolina doctrine, and talk of nullifying the statute by state interference. this last alternative did not suit our principles, and of course we adopted the former. in , the subject came again before congress, on a proposition to afford some relief to the branch of wool and woollens. we looked upon the system of protection as being fixed and settled. the law of remained. it had gone into full operation, and, in regard to some objects intended by it, perhaps most of them, had produced all its expected effects. no man proposed to repeal it; no man attempted to renew the general contest on its principle. but, owing to subsequent and unforeseen occurrences, the benefit intended by it to wool and woollen fabrics had not been realized. events not known here when the law passed had taken place, which defeated its object in that particular respect. a measure was accordingly brought forward to meet this precise deficiency, to remedy this particular defect. it was limited to wool and woollens. was ever any thing more reasonable? if the policy of the tariff laws had become established in principle, as the permanent policy of the government, should they not be revised and amended, and made equal, like other laws, as exigencies should arise, or justice require? because we had doubted about adopting the system, were we to refuse to cure its manifest defects, after it had been adopted, and when no one attempted its repeal? and this, sir, is the inconsistency so much bruited. i had voted against the tariff of , but it passed; and in and i voted to amend it, in a point essential to the interest of my constituents. where is the inconsistency? could i do otherwise? sir, does political consistency consist in always giving negative votes? does it require of a public man to refuse to concur in amending laws, because they passed against his consent? having voted against the tariff originally, does consistency demand that i should do all in my power to maintain an unequal tariff, burdensome to my own constituents in many respects, favorable in none? to consistency of that sort, i lay no claim. and there is another sort to which i lay as little, and that is, a kind of consistency by which persons feel themselves as much bound to oppose a proposition after it has become a law of the land as before. the bill of , limited, as i have said, to the single object in which the tariff of had manifestly failed in its effect, passed the house of representatives, but was lost here. we had then the act of . i need not recur to the history of a measure so recent. its enemies spiced it with whatsoever they thought would render it distasteful; its friends took it, drugged as it was. vast amounts of property, many millions, had been invested in manufactures, under the inducements of the act of . events called loudly, as i thought, for further regulation to secure the degree of protection intended by that act. i was disposed to vote for such regulation, and desired nothing more; but certainly was not to be bantered out of my purpose by a threatened augmentation of duty on molasses, put into the bill for the avowed purpose of making it obnoxious. the vote may have been right or wrong, wise or unwise; but it is little less than absurd to allege against it an inconsistency with opposition to the former law. sir, as to the general subject of the tariff, i have little now to say. another opportunity may be presented. i remarked the other day, that this policy did not begin with us in new england; and yet, sir, new england is charged with vehemence as being favorable, or charged with equal vehemence as being unfavorable, to the tariff policy, just as best suits the time, place, and occasion for making some charge against her. the credulity of the public has been put to its extreme capacity of false impression relative to her conduct in this particular. through all the south, during the late contest, it was new england policy and a new england administration that were afflicting the country with a tariff beyond all endurance; while on the other side of the alleghanies even the act of itself, the very sublimated essence of oppression, according to southern opinions, was pronounced to be one of those blessings for which the west was indebted to the "generous south." with large investments in manufacturing establishments, and many and various interests connected with and dependent on them, it is not to be expected that new england, any more than other portions of the country, will now consent to any measure destructive or highly dangerous. the duty of the government, at the present moment, would seem to be to preserve, not to destroy; to maintain the position which it has assumed; and, for one, i shall feel it an indispensable obligation to hold it steady, as far as in my power, to that degree of protection which it has undertaken to bestow. no more of the tariff. professing to be provoked by what he chose to consider a charge made by me against south carolina, the honorable member, mr. president, has taken up a new crusade against new england. leaving altogether the subject of the public lands, in which his success, perhaps, had been neither distinguished nor satisfactory, and letting go, also, of the topic of the tariff, he sallied forth in a general assault on the opinions, politics, and parties of new england, as they have been exhibited in the last thirty years. this is natural. the "narrow policy" of the public lands had proved a legal settlement in south carolina, and was not to be removed. the "accursed policy" of the tariff, also, had established the fact of its birth and parentage in the same state. no wonder, therefore, the gentleman wished to carry the war, as he expressed it, into the enemy's country. prudently willing to quit these subjects, he was, doubtless, desirous of fastening on others, which could not be transferred south of mason and dixon's line. the politics of new england became his theme; and it was in this part of his speech, i think, that he menaced me with such sore discomfiture. discomfiture! why, sir, when he attacks any thing which i maintain, and overthrows it, when he turns the right or left of any position which i take up, when he drives me from any ground i choose to occupy, he may then talk of discomfiture, but not till that distant day. what has he done? has he maintained his own charges? has he proved what he alleged? has he sustained himself in his attack on the government, and on the history of the north, in the matter of the public lands? has he disproved a fact, refuted a proposition, weakened an argument, maintained by me? has he come within beat of drum of any position of mine? o, no; but he has "carried the war into the enemy's country"! carried the war into the enemy's country! yes, sir, and what sort of a war has he made of it? why, sir, he has stretched a drag-net over the whole surface of perished pamphlets, indiscreet sermons, frothy paragraphs, and fuming popular addresses,--over whatever the pulpit in its moments of alarm, the press in its heats, and parties in their extravagance, have severally thrown off in times of general excitement and violence. he has thus swept together a mass of such things as, but that they are now old and cold, the public health would have required him rather to leave in their state of dispersion. for a good long hour or two, we had the unbroken pleasure of listening to the honorable member, while he recited with his usual grace and spirit, and with evident high gusto, speeches, pamphlets, addresses, and all the _et caeteras_ of the political press, such as warm heads produce in warm times; and such as it would be "discomfiture" indeed for any one, whose taste did not delight in that sort of reading, to be obliged to peruse. this is his war. this it is to carry war into the enemy's country. it is in an invasion of this sort, that he flatters himself with the expectation of gaining laurels fit to adorn a senator's brow! mr. president, i shall not, it will not, i trust, be expected that i should, either now or at any time, separate this farrago into parts, and answer and examine its components. i shall barely bestow upon it all a general remark or two. in the run of forty years, sir, under this constitution, we have experienced sundry successive violent party contests. party arose, indeed, with the constitution itself, and, in some form or other, has attended it through the greater part of its history. whether any other constitution than the old articles of confederation was desirable, was itself a question on which parties divided; if a new constitution were framed, what powers should be given to it was another question; and when it had been formed, what was, in fact, the just extent of the powers actually conferred was a third. parties, as we know, existed under the first administration, as distinctly marked as those which have manifested themselves at any subsequent period. the contest immediately preceding the political change in , and that, again, which existed at the commencement of the late war, are other instances of party excitement, of something more than usual strength and intensity. in all these conflicts there was, no doubt, much of violence on both and all sides. it would be impossible, if one had a fancy for such employment, to adjust the relative _quantum_ of violence between these contending parties. there was enough in each, as must always be expected in popular governments. with a great deal of popular and decorous discussion, there was mingled a great deal, also, of declamation, virulence, crimination, and abuse. in regard to any party, probably, at one of the leading epochs in the history of parties, enough may be found to make out another inflamed exhibition, not unlike that with which the honorable member has edified us. for myself, sir, i shall not rake among the rubbish of bygone times, to see what i can find, or whether i cannot find something by which i can fix a blot on the escutcheon of any state, any party, or any part of the country. general washington's administration was steadily and zealously maintained, as we all know, by new england. it was violently opposed elsewhere. we know in what quarter he had the most earnest, constant, and persevering support, in all his great and leading measures. we know where his private and personal character was held in the highest degree of attachment and veneration; and we know, too, where his measures were opposed, his services slighted, and his character vilified. we know, or we might know, if we turned to the journals, who expressed respect, gratitude, and regret, when he retired from the chief magistracy, and who refused to express either respect, gratitude, or regret. i shall not open those journals. publications more abusive or scurrilous never saw the light, than were sent forth against washington, and all his leading measures, from presses south of new england. but i shall not look them up. i employ no scavengers, no one is in attendance on me, furnishing such means of retaliation; and if there were, with an ass's load of them, with a bulk as huge as that which the gentleman himself has produced, i would not touch one of them. i see enough of the violence of our own times, to be no way anxious to rescue from forgetfulness the extravagances of times past. besides, what is all this to the present purpose? it has nothing to do with the public lands, in regard to which the attack was begun; and it has nothing to do with those sentiments and opinions which, i have thought, tend to disunion and all of which the honorable member seems to have adopted himself, and undertaken to defend. new england has, at times, so argues the gentleman, held opinions as dangerous as those which he now holds. suppose this were so; why should _he_ therefore abuse new england? if he finds himself countenanced by acts of hers, how is it that, while he relies on these acts, he covers, or seeks to cover, their authors with reproach? but, sir, if, in the course of forty years, there have been undue effervescences of party in new england, has the same thing happened nowhere else? party animosity and party outrage, not in new england, but elsewhere, denounced president washington, not only as a federalist, but as a tory, a british agent, a man who, in his high office, sanctioned corruption. but does the honorable member suppose, if i had a tender here who should put such an effusion of wickedness and folly into my hand, that i would stand up and read it against the south? parties ran into great heats again in and . what was said, sir, or rather what was not said, in those years, against john adams, one of the committee that drafted the declaration of independence, and its admitted ablest defender on the floor of congress? if the gentleman wishes to increase his stores of party abuse and frothy violence, if he has a determined proclivity to such pursuits, there are treasures of that sort south of the potomac, much to his taste, yet untouched. i shall not touch them. the parties which divided the country at the commencement of the late war were violent. but then there was violence on both sides, and violence in every state. minorities and majorities were equally violent. there was no more violence against the war in new england, than in other states; nor any more appearance of violence, except that, owing to a dense population, greater facility of assembling, and more presses, there may have been more in quantity spoken and printed there than in some other places. in the article of sermons, too, new england is somewhat more abundant than south carolina; and for that reason the chance of finding here and there an exceptionable one may be greater. i hope, too, there are more good ones. opposition may have been more formidable in new england, as it embraced a larger portion of the whole population; but it was no more unrestrained in principle, or violent in manner. the minorities dealt quite as harshly with their own state governments as the majorities dealt with the administration here. there were presses on both sides, popular meetings on both sides, ay, and pulpits on both sides also. the gentleman's purveyors have only catered for him among the productions of one side. i certainly shall not supply the deficiency by furnishing samples of the other. i leave to him, and to them, the whole concern. it is enough for me to say, that if, in any part of this their grateful occupation, if, in all their researches, they find any thing in the history of massachusetts, or new england, or in the proceedings of any legislative or other public body, disloyal to the union, speaking slightingly of its value, proposing to break it up, or recommending non-intercourse with neighboring states, on account of difference of political opinion, then, sir, i give them all up to the honorable gentleman's unrestrained rebuke; expecting, however, that he will extend his buffetings in like manner _to all similar proceedings, wherever else found_. the gentleman, sir, has spoken at large of former parties, now no longer in being, by their received appellations, and has undertaken to instruct us, not only in the knowledge of their principles, but of their respective pedigrees also. he has ascended to their origin, and run out their genealogies. with most exemplary modesty, he speaks of the party to which he professes to have himself belonged, as the true pure, the only honest, patriotic party, derived by regular descent, from father to son, from the time of the virtuous romans! spreading before us the _family tree_ of political parties, he takes especial care to show himself snugly perched on a popular bough! he is wakeful to the expediency of adopting such rules of descent as shall bring him in, to the exclusion of others, as an heir to the inheritance of all public virtue, and all true political principle. his party and his opinions are sure to be orthodox; heterodoxy is confined to his opponents. he spoke, sir, of the federalists, and i thought i saw some eyes begin to open and stare a little, when he ventured on that ground. i expected he would draw his sketches rather lightly, when he looked on the circle round him, and especially if he should cast his thoughts to the high places out of the senate. nevertheless, he went back to rome, _ad annum urbis conditae_, and found the fathers of the federalists in the primeval aristocrats of that renowned city! he traced the flow of federal blood down through successive ages and centuries, till he brought it into the veins of the american tories, of whom, by the way, there were twenty in the carolinas for one in massachusetts. from the tories he followed it to the federalists; and, as the federal party was broken up, and there was no possibility of transmitting it further on this side the atlantic, he seems to have discovered that it has gone off collaterally, though against all the canons of descent, into the ultras of france, and finally become extinguished, like exploded gas, among the adherents of don miguel! this, sir, is an abstract of the gentleman's history of federalism. i am not about to controvert it. it is not, at present, worth the pains of refutation; because, sir, if at this day any one feels the sin of federalism lying heavily on his conscience, he can easily procure remission. he may even obtain an indulgence, if he be desirous of repeating the same transgression. it is an affair of no difficulty to get into this same right line of patriotic descent. a man now-a-days is at liberty to choose his political parentage. he may elect his own father. federalist or not, he may, if he choose, claim to belong to the favored stock, and his claim will be allowed. he may carry back his pretensions just as far as the honorable gentleman himself; nay, he may make himself out the honorable gentleman's cousin, and prove, satisfactorily, that he is descended from the same political great-grandfather. all this is allowable. we all know a process, sir, by which the whole essex junto could, in one hour, be all washed white from their ancient federalism, and come out, every one of them, original democrats, dyed in the wool! some of them have actually undergone the operation, and they say it is quite easy. the only inconvenience it occasions, as they tell us, is a slight tendency of the blood to the face, a soft suffusion, which, however, is very transient, since nothing is said by those whom they join calculated to deepen the red on the cheek, but a prudent silence is observed in regard to all the past. indeed, sir, some smiles of approbation have been bestowed, and some crumbs of comfort have fallen, not a thousand miles from the door of the hartford convention itself. and if the author of the ordinance of possessed the other requisite qualifications, there is no knowing, notwithstanding his federalism, to what heights of favor he might not yet attain. mr. president, in carrying his warfare, such as it is, into new england, the honorable gentleman all along professes to be acting on the defensive. he chooses to consider me as having assailed south carolina, and insists that he comes forth only as her champion, and in her defence. sir, i do not admit that i made any attack whatever on south carolina. nothing like it. the honorable member, in his first speech, expressed opinions, in regard to revenue and some other topics, which i heard both with pain and with surprise. i told the gentleman i was aware that such sentiments were entertained _out_ of the government, but had not expected to find them advanced in it; that i knew there were persons in the south who speak of our union with indifference or doubt, taking pains to magnify its evils, and to say nothing of its benefits; that the honorable member himself, i was sure, could never be one of these; and i regretted the expression of such opinions as he had avowed, because i thought their obvious tendency was to encourage feelings of disrespect to the union, and to impair its strength. this, sir, is the sum and substance of all i said on the subject. and this constitutes the attack which called on the chivalry of the gentleman, in his own opinion, to harry us with such a foray among the party pamphlets and party proceedings of massachusetts! if he means that i spoke with dissatisfaction or disrespect of the ebullitions of individuals in south carolina, it is true. but if he means that i assailed the character of the state, her honor, or patriotism, that i reflected on her history or her conduct, he has not the slightest ground for any such assumption. i did not even refer, i think, in my observations, to any collection of individuals. i said nothing of the recent conventions. i spoke in the most guarded and careful manner, and only expressed my regret for the publication of opinions, which i presumed the honorable member disapproved as much as myself. in this, it seems, i was mistaken. i do not remember that the gentleman has disclaimed any sentiment, or any opinion, of a supposed anti-union tendency, which on all or any of the recent occasions has been expressed. the whole drift of his speech has been rather to prove, that, in divers times and manners, sentiments equally liable to my objection have been avowed in new england. and one would suppose that his object, in this reference to massachusetts, was to find a precedent to justify proceedings in the south, were it not for the reproach and contumely with which he labors, all along, to load these his own chosen precedents. by way of defending south carolina from what he chooses to think an attack on her, he first quotes the example of massachusetts, and then denounces that example in good set terms. this twofold purpose, not very consistent, one would think, with itself, was exhibited more than once in the course of his speech. he referred, for instance, to the hartford convention. did he do this for authority, or for a topic of reproach? apparently for both, for he told us that he should find no fault with the mere fact of holding such a convention, and considering and discussing such questions as he supposes were then and there discussed; but what rendered it obnoxious was its being held at the time, and under the circumstances of the country then existing. we were in a war, he said, and the country needed all our aid: the hand of government required to be strengthened, not weakened; and patriotism should have postponed such proceedings to another day. the thing itself, then, is a precedent; the time and manner of it only, a subject of censure. now, sir, i go much further, on this point, than the honorable member. supposing, as the gentleman seems to do, that the hartford convention assembled for any such purpose as breaking up the union, because they thought unconstitutional laws had been passed, or to consult on that subject, or _to calculate the value of the union_; supposing this to be their purpose, or any part of it, then i say the meeting itself was disloyal, and was obnoxious to censure, whether held in time of peace or time of war, or under whatever circumstances. the material question is the _object_. is dissolution the _object_? if it be, external circumstances may make it a more or less aggravated case, but cannot affect the principle. i do not hold, therefore, sir, that the hartford convention was pardonable, even to the extent of the gentleman's admission, if its objects were really such as have been imputed to it. sir, there never was a time, under any degree of excitement, in which the hartford convention, or any other convention, could have maintained itself one moment in new england, if assembled for any such purpose as the gentleman says would have been an allowable purpose. to hold conventions to decide constitutional law! to try the binding validity of statutes by votes in a convention! sir, the hartford convention, i presume, would not desire that the honorable gentleman should be their defender or advocate, if he puts their case upon such untenable and extravagant grounds. then, sir, the gentleman has no fault to find with these recently promulgated south carolina opinions. and certainly he need have none; for his own sentiments, as now advanced, and advanced on reflection, as far as i have been able to comprehend them, go the full length of all these opinions. i propose, sir, to say something on these, and to consider how far they are just and constitutional. before doing that, however, let me observe that the eulogium pronounced by the honorable gentleman on the character of the state of south carolina, for her revolutionary and other merits, meets my hearty concurrence. i shall not acknowledge that the honorable member goes before me in regard for whatever of distinguished talent, or distinguished character, south carolina has produced. i claim part of the honor, i partake in the pride, of her great names. i claim them for countrymen, one and all, the laurenses, the rutledges, the pinckneys, the sumpters, the marions, americans all, whose fame is no more to be hemmed in by state lines, than their talents and patriotism were capable of being circumscribed within the same narrow limits. in their day and generation, they served and honored the country, and the whole country; and their renown is of the treasures of the whole country. him whose honored name the gentleman himself bears,--does he esteem me less capable of gratitude for his patriotism, or sympathy for his sufferings, than if his eyes had first opened upon the light of massachusetts, instead of south carolina? sir, does he suppose it in his power to exhibit a carolina name so bright as to produce envy in my bosom? no, sir, increased gratification and delight, rather. i thank god, that, if i am gifted with little of the spirit which is able to raise mortals to the skies, i have yet none, as i trust, of that other spirit, which would drag angels down. when i shall be found, sir, in my place here in the senate, or elsewhere, to sneer at public merit, because it happens to spring up beyond the little limits of my own state or neighborhood; when i refuse, for any such cause or for any cause, the homage due to american talent, to elevated patriotism, to sincere devotion to liberty and the country; or, if i see an uncommon endowment of heaven, if i see extraordinary capacity and virtue, in any son of the south, and if, moved by local prejudice or gangrened by state jealousy, i get up here to abate the tithe of a hair from his just character and just fame, may my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth! sir, let me recur to pleasing recollections; let me indulge in refreshing remembrance of the past; let me remind you that, in early times, no states cherished greater harmony, both of principle and feeling, than massachusetts and south carolina. would to god that harmony might again return. shoulder to shoulder they went through the revolution, hand in hand they stood round the administration of washington, and felt his own great arm lean on them for support. unkind feeling, if it exist, alienation, and distrust are the growth, unnatural to such soils, of false principles since sown. they are weeds, the seeds of which that same great arm never scattered. mr. president, i shall enter on no encomium upon massachusetts; she needs none. there she is. behold her, and judge for yourselves. there is her history; the world knows it by heart. the past, at least, is secure. there is boston, and concord, and lexington, and bunker hill; and there they will remain for ever. the bones of her sons, falling in the great struggle for independence, now lie mingled with the soil of every state from new england to georgia; and there they will lie for ever. and, sir, where american liberty raised its first voice, and where its youth was nurtured and sustained, there it still lives, in the strength of its manhood and full of its original spirit. if discord and disunion shall wound it, if party strife and blind ambition shall hawk at and tear it, if folly and madness, if uneasiness under salutary and necessary restraint, shall succeed in separating it from that union, by which alone its existence is made sure, it will stand, in the end, by the side of that cradle in which its infancy was rocked; it will stretch forth its arm with whatever of vigor it may still retain over the friends who gather round it; and it will fall at last, if fall it must, amidst the proudest monuments of its own glory, and on the very spot of its origin. there yet remains to be performed, mr. president, by far the most grave and important duty, which i feel to be devolved on me by this occasion. it is to state, and to defend, what i conceive to be the true principles of the constitution under which we are here assembled. i might well have desired that so weighty a task should have fallen into other and abler hands. i could have wished that it should have been executed by those whose character and experience give weight and influence to their opinions, such as cannot possibly belong to mine. but, sir, i have met the occasion, not sought it; and i shall proceed to state my own sentiments, without challenging for them any particular regard, with studied plainness, and as much precision as possible. i understand the honorable gentleman from south carolina to maintain, that it is a right of the state legislatures to interfere, whenever, in their judgment, this government transcends its constitutional limits, and to arrest the operation of its laws. i understand him to maintain this right, as a right existing _under_ the constitution, not as a right to overthrow it on the ground of extreme necessity, such as would justify violent revolution. i understand him to maintain an authority, on the part of the states, thus to interfere, for the purpose of correcting the exercise of power by the general government, of checking it, and of compelling it to conform to their opinion of the extent of its powers. i understand him to maintain, that the ultimate power of judging of the constitutional extent of its own authority is not lodged exclusively in the general government, or any branch of it; but that, on the contrary, the states may lawfully decide for themselves, and each state for itself, whether, in a given case, the act of the general government transcends its power. i understand him to insist, that, if the exigency of the case, in the opinion of any state government, require it, such state government may, by its own sovereign authority, annul an act of the general government which it deems plainly and palpably unconstitutional. this is the sum of what i understand from him to be the south carolina doctrine, and the doctrine which he maintains. i propose to consider it, and compare it with the constitution. allow me to say, as a preliminary remark, that i call this the south carolina doctrine only because the gentleman himself has so denominated it. i do not feel at liberty to say that south carolina, as a state, has ever advanced these sentiments. i hope she has not, and never may. that a great majority of her people are opposed to the tariff laws, is doubtless true. that a majority, somewhat less than that just mentioned, conscientiously believe these laws unconstitutional, may probably also be true. but that any majority holds to the right of direct state interference at state discretion, the right of nullifying acts of congress by acts of state legislation, is more than i know, and what i shall be slow to believe. that there are individuals besides the honorable gentleman who do maintain these opinions, is quite certain. i recollect the recent expression of a sentiment, which circumstances attending its utterance and publication justify us in supposing was not unpremeditated. "the sovereignty of the state,--never to be controlled, construed, or decided on, but by her own feelings of honorable justice." mr. hayne here rose and said, that, for the purpose of being clearly understood he would state that his proposition was in the words of the virginia resolution, as follows:-- "that this assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government as resulting from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no farther valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them." mr. webster resumed:--#/ i am quite aware, mr. president, of the existence of the resolution which the gentleman read, and has now repeated, and that he relies on it as his authority. i know the source, too, from which it is understood to have proceeded. i need not say that i have much respect for the constitutional opinions of mr. madison; they would weigh greatly with me always. but before the authority of his opinion be vouched for the gentleman's proposition, it will be proper to consider what is the fair interpretation of that resolution, to which mr. madison is understood to have given his sanction. as the gentleman construes it, it is an authority for him. possibly he may not have adopted the right construction. that resolution declares, that, _in the case of the dangerous exercise of powers not granted by the general government, the states may interpose to arrest the progress of the evil_. but how interpose, and what does this declaration purport? does it mean no more than that there may be extreme cases, in which the people, in any mode of assembling, may resist usurpation, and relieve themselves from a tyrannical government? no one will deny this. such resistance is not only acknowledged to be just in america, but in england also blackstone admits as much, in the theory, and practice, too, of the english constitution. we, sir, who oppose the carolina doctrine, do not deny that the people may, if they choose, throw off any government when it becomes oppressive and intolerable, and erect a better in its stead. we all know that civil institutions are established for the public benefit, and that when they cease to answer the ends of their existence they may be changed. but i do not understand the doctrine now contended for to be that, which, for the sake of distinction, we may call the right of revolution. i understand the gentleman to maintain, that, without revolution, without civil commotion, without rebellion, a remedy for supposed abuse and transgression of the powers of the general government lies in a direct appeal to the interference of the state governments. mr. hayne here rose and said: he did not contend for the mere right of revolution, but for the right of constitutional resistance. what he maintained was, that in case of a plain, palpable violation of the constitution by the general government, a state may interpose; and that this interposition is constitutional. mr. webster resumed:--#/ so, sir, i understood the gentleman, and am happy to find that i did not misunderstand him. what he contends for is, that it is constitutional to interrupt the administration of the constitution itself, in the hands of those who are chosen and sworn to administer it, by the direct interference, in form of law, of the states, in virtue of their sovereign capacity. the inherent right in the people to reform their government i do not deny; and they have another right, and that is, to resist unconstitutional laws, without overturning the government. it is no doctrine of mine that unconstitutional laws bind the people. the great question is, whose prerogative is it to decide on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the laws? on that, the main debate hinges. the proposition, that, in case of a supposed violation of the constitution by congress, the states have a constitutional right to interfere and annul the law of congress, is the proposition of the gentleman. i do not admit it. if the gentleman had intended no more than to assert the right of revolution for justifiable cause, he would have said only what all agree to. but i cannot conceive that there can be a middle course, between submission to the laws, when regularly pronounced constitutional, on the one hand, and open resistance, which is revolution or rebellion, on the other. i say, the right of a state to annul a law of congress cannot be maintained, but on the ground of the inalienable right of man to resist oppression; that is to say, upon the ground of revolution. i admit that there is an ultimate violent remedy, above the constitution and in defiance of the constitution, which may be resorted to when a revolution is to be justified. but i do not admit, that, under the constitution and in conformity with it, there is any mode in which a state government, as a member of the union, can interfere and stop the progress of the general government, by force of her own laws, under any circumstances whatever. this leads us to inquire into the origin of this government and the source of its power. whose agent is it? is it the creature of the state legislatures, or the creature of the people? if the government of the united states be the agent of the state governments, then they may control it, provided they can agree in the manner of controlling it; if it be the agent of the people, then the people alone can control it, restrain it, modify, or reform it. it is observable enough, that the doctrine for which the honorable gentleman contends leads him to the necessity of maintaining, not only that this general government is the creature of the states, but that it is the creature of each of the states severally, so that each may assert the power for itself of determining whether it acts within the limits of its authority. it is the servant of four-and-twenty masters, of different wills and different purposes, and yet bound to obey all. this absurdity (for it seems no less) arises from a misconception as to the origin of this government and its true character. it is, sir, the people's constitution, the people's government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people. the people of the united states have declared that this constitution shall be the supreme law. we must either admit the proposition, or dispute their authority. the states are, unquestionably, sovereign, so far as their sovereignty is not affected by this supreme law. but the state legislatures, as political bodies, however sovereign, are yet not sovereign over the people. so far as the people have given power to the general government, so far the grant is unquestionably good, and the government holds of the people, and not of the state governments. we are all agents of the same supreme power, the people. the general government and the state governments derive their authority from the same source. neither can, in relation to the other, be called primary, though one is definite and restricted, and the other general and residuary. the national government possesses those powers which it can be shown the people have conferred on it, and no more. all the rest belongs to the state governments, or to the people themselves. so far as the people have restrained state sovereignty, by the expression of their will, in the constitution of the united states, so far, it must be admitted, state sovereignty is effectually controlled. i do not contend that it is, or ought to be, controlled farther. the sentiment to which i have referred propounds that state sovereignty is only to be controlled by its own "feeling of justice"; that is to say, it is not to be controlled at all, for one who is to follow his own feelings is under no legal control. now, however men may think this ought to be, the fact is, that the people of the united states have chosen to impose control on state sovereignties. there are those, doubtless, who wish they had been left without restraint; but the constitution has ordered the matter differently. to make war, for instance, is an exercise of sovereignty; but the constitution declares that no state shall make war. to coin money is another exercise of sovereign power; but no state is at liberty to coin money. again, the constitution says that no sovereign state shall be so sovereign as to make a treaty. these prohibitions, it must be confessed, are a control on the state sovereignty of south carolina, as well as of the other states, which does not arise "from her own feelings of honorable justice." the opinion referred to, therefore, is in defiance of the plainest provisions of the constitution. there are other proceedings of public bodies which have already been alluded to, and to which i refer again for the purpose of ascertaining more fully what is the length and breadth of that doctrine, denominated the carolina doctrine, which the honorable member has now stood up on this floor to maintain. in one of them i find it resolved, that "the tariff of , and every other tariff designed to promote one branch of industry at the expense of others, is contrary to the meaning and intention of the federal compact; and such a dangerous, palpable, and deliberate usurpation of power, by a determined majority, wielding the general government beyond the limits of its delegated powers, as calls upon the states which compose the suffering minority, in their sovereign capacity, to exercise the powers which, as sovereigns, necessarily devolve upon them, when their compact is violated." observe, sir, that this resolution holds the tariff of , and every other tariff designed to promote one branch of industry at the expense of another, to be such a dangerous, palpable, and deliberate usurpation of power, as calls upon the states, in their sovereign capacity, to interfere by their own authority. this denunciation, mr. president, you will please to observe, includes our old tariff of , as well as all others; because that was established to promote the interest of the manufacturers of cotton, to the manifest and admitted injury of the calcutta cotton trade. observe, again, that all the qualifications are here rehearsed and charged upon the tariff, which are necessary to bring the case within the gentleman's proposition. the tariff is a usurpation; it is a dangerous usurpation; it is a palpable usurpation; it is a deliberate usurpation. it is such a usurpation, therefore, as calls upon the states to exercise their right of interference. here is a case, then, within the gentleman's principles, and all his qualifications of his principles. it is a case for action. the constitution is plainly, dangerously, palpably, and deliberately violated; and the states must interpose their own authority to arrest the law. let us suppose the state of south carolina to express this same opinion, by the voice of her legislature. that would be very imposing; but what then? is the voice of one state conclusive? it so happens that, at the very moment when south carolina resolves that the tariff laws are unconstitutional, pennsylvania and kentucky resolve exactly the reverse. _they_ hold those laws to be both highly proper and strictly constitutional. and now, sir, how does the honorable member propose to deal with this case? how does he relieve us from this difficulty, upon any principle of his? his construction gets us into it; how does he propose to get us out? in carolina, the tariff is a palpable, deliberate usurpation; carolina, therefore, may nullify it, and refuse to pay the duties. in pennsylvania, it is both clearly constitutional and highly expedient; and there the duties are to be paid. and yet we live under a government of uniform laws, and under a constitution too, which contains an express provision, as it happens, that all duties shall be equal in all the states. does not this approach absurdity? if there be no power to settle such questions, independent of either of the states, is not the whole union a rope of sand? are we not thrown back again, precisely, upon the old confederation? it is too plain to be argued. four-and-twenty interpreters of constitutional law, each with a power to decide for itself, and none with authority to bind anybody else, and this constitutional law the only bond of their union! what is such a state of things but a mere connection during pleasure, or, to use the phraseology of the times, _during feeling_? and that feeling, too, not the feeling of the people, who established the constitution, but the feeling of the state governments. in another of the south carolina addresses, having premised that the crisis requires "all the concentrated energy of passion," an attitude of open resistance to the laws of the union is advised. open resistance to the laws, then, is the constitutional remedy, the conservative power of the state, which the south carolina doctrines teach for the redress of political evils, real or imaginary. and its authors further say, that, appealing with confidence to the constitution itself, to justify their opinions, they cannot consent to try their accuracy by the courts of justice. in one sense, indeed, sir, this is assuming an attitude of open resistance in favor of liberty. but what sort of liberty? the liberty of establishing their own opinions, in defiance of the opinions of all others; the liberty of judging and of deciding exclusively themselves, in a matter in which others have as much right to judge and decide as they; the liberty of placing their own opinions above the judgment of all others, above the laws, and above the constitution. this is their liberty, and this is the fair result of the proposition contended for by the honorable gentleman. or, it may be more properly said, it is identical with it, rather than a result from it. in the same publication we find the following: "previously to our revolution, when the arm of oppression was stretched over new england, where did our northern brethren meet with a braver sympathy than that which sprung from the bosoms of carolinians? we had no extortion, no oppression, no collision with the king's ministers, no navigation interests springing up, in envious rivalry of england." this seems extraordinary language. south carolina no collision with the king's ministers in ! no extortion! no oppression! but, sir, it is also most significant language. does any man doubt the purpose for which it was penned? can anyone fail to see that it was designed to raise in the reader's mind the question, whether, _at this time_,--that is to say, in ,--south carolina has any collision with the king's ministers, any oppression, or extortion, to fear from england? whether, in short, england is not as naturally the friend of south carolina as new england, with her navigation interests springing up in envious rivalry of england? is it not strange, sir, that an intelligent man in south carolina, in , should thus labor to prove that, in , there was no hostility, no cause of war, between south carolina and england? that she had no occasion, in reference to her own interest, or from a regard to her own welfare, to take up arms in the revolutionary contest? can any one account for the expression of such strange sentiments, and their circulation through the state, otherwise than by supposing the object to be what i have already intimated, to raise the question, if they had no "_collision_" (mark the expression) with the ministers of king george the third, in , what _collision_ have they, in , with the ministers of king george the fourth? what is there now, in the existing state of things, to separate carolina from _old_, more, or rather, than from _new_ england? resolutions, sir, have been recently passed by the legislature of south carolina. i need not refer to them; they go no farther than the honorable gentleman himself has gone, and i hope not so far. i content myself, therefore, with debating the matter with him. and now, sir, what i have first to say on this subject is, that at no time, and under no circumstances, has new england, or any state in new england, or any respectable body of persons in new england, or any public man of standing in new england, put forth such a doctrine as this carolina doctrine. the gentleman has found no case, he can find none, to support his own opinions by new england authority. new england has studied the constitution in other schools, and under other teachers. she looks upon it with other regards, and deems more highly and reverently both of its just authority and its utility and excellence. the history of her legislative proceedings may be traced. the ephemeral effusions of temporary bodies, called together by the excitement of the occasion, may be hunted up; they have been hunted up. the opinions and votes of her public men, in and out of congress, may be explored. it will all be in vain. the carolina doctrine can derive from her neither countenance nor support. she rejects it now; she always did reject it; and till she loses her senses, she always will reject it. the honorable member has referred to expressions on the subject of the embargo law, made in this place, by an honorable and venerable gentleman,[ ] now favoring us with his presence. he quotes that distinguished senator as saying, that, in his judgment, the embargo law was unconstitutional, and that therefore, in his opinion, the people were not bound to obey it. that, sir, is perfectly constitutional language. an unconstitutional law is not binding; _but then it does not rest with a resolution or a law of a state legislature to decide whether an act of congress be or be not constitutional_. an unconstitutional act of congress would not bind the people of this district, although they have no legislature to interfere in their behalf; and, on the other hand, a constitutional law of congress does bind the citizens of every state, although all their legislatures should undertake to annul it by act or resolution. the venerable connecticut senator is a constitutional lawyer, of sound principles and enlarged knowledge; a statesman practised and experienced, bred in the company of washington, and holding just views upon the nature of our governments. he believed the embargo unconstitutional, and so did others; but what then? who did he suppose was to decide that question? the state legislatures? certainly not. no such sentiment ever escaped his lips. let us follow up, sir, this new england opposition to the embargo laws; let us trace it, till we discern the principle which controlled and governed new england throughout the whole course of that opposition. we shall then see what similarity there is between the new england school of constitutional opinions, and this modern carolina school. the gentleman, i think, read a petition from some single individual addressed to the legislature of massachusetts, asserting the carolina doctrine; that is, the right of state interference to arrest the laws of the union. the fate of that petition shows the sentiment of the legislature. it met no favor. the opinions of massachusetts were very different. they had been expressed in , in answer to the resolutions of virginia, and she did not depart from them, nor bend them to the times. misgoverned, wronged, oppressed, as she felt herself to be, she still held fast her integrity to the union. the gentleman may find in her proceedings much evidence of dissatisfaction with the measures of government, and great and deep dislike to the embargo; all this makes the case so much the stronger for her; for, notwithstanding all this dissatisfaction and dislike, she still claimed no right to sever the bonds of the union. there was heat, and there was anger in her political feeling. be it so; but neither her heat nor her anger betrayed her into infidelity to the government. the gentleman labors to prove that she disliked the embargo as much as south carolina dislikes the tariff, and expressed her dislike as strongly. be it so; but did she propose the carolina remedy? did she threaten to interfere, by state authority, to annul the laws of the union? that is the question for the gentleman's consideration. no doubt, sir, a great majority of the people of new england conscientiously believed the embargo law of unconstitutional; as conscientiously, certainly, as the people of south carolina hold that opinion of the tariff. they reasoned thus: congress has power to regulate commerce; but here is a law, they said, stopping all commerce, and stopping it indefinitely. the law is perpetual; that is, it is not limited in point of time, and must of course continue until it shall be repealed by some other law. it is as perpetual, therefore, as the law against treason or murder. now, is this regulating commerce, or destroying it? is it guiding, controlling, giving the rule to commerce, as a subsisting thing or is it putting an end to it altogether? nothing is more certain, than that a majority in new england deemed this law a violation of the constitution. the very case required by the gentleman to justify state interference had then arisen. massachusetts believed this law to be "a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of a power not granted by the constitution." deliberate it was, for it was long continued; palpable she thought it, as no words in the constitution gave the power, and only a construction, in her opinion most violent, raised it; dangerous it was, since it threatened utter ruin to her most important interests. here, then, was a carolina case. how did massachusetts deal with it? it was, as she thought, a plain, manifest, palpable violation of the constitution, and it brought ruin to her doors. thousands of families, and hundreds of thousands of individuals, were beggared by it. while she saw and felt all this, she saw and felt also, that, as a measure of national policy, it was perfectly futile; that the country was no way benefited by that which caused so much individual distress; that it was efficient only for the production of evil, and all that evil inflicted on ourselves. in such a case, under such circumstances, how did massachusetts demean herself? sir, she remonstrated, she memorialized, she addressed herself to the general government, not exactly "with the concentrated energy of passion," but with her own strong sense, and the energy of sober conviction. but she did not interpose the arm of her own power to arrest the law, and break the embargo. far from it. her principles bound her to two things; and she followed her principles, lead where they might. first, to submit to every constitutional law of congress, and secondly, if the constitutional validity of the law be doubted, to refer that question to the decision of the proper tribunals. the first principle is vain and ineffectual without the second. a majority of us in new england believed the embargo law unconstitutional; but the great question was, and always will be in such cases, who is to decide this? who is to judge between the people and the government? and, sir, it is quite plain, that the constitution of the united states confers on the government itself, to be exercised by its appropriate department, and under its own responsibility to the people, this power of deciding ultimately and conclusively upon the just extent of its own authority. if this had not been done, we should not have advanced a single step beyond the old confederation. being fully of opinion that the embargo law was unconstitutional, the people of new england were yet equally clear in the opinion, (it was a matter they did doubt upon,) that the question, after all, must be decided by the judicial tribunals of the united states. before those tribunals, therefore, they brought the question. under the provisions of the law, they had given bonds to millions in amount, and which were alleged to be forfeited. they suffered the bonds to be sued, and thus raised the question. in the old-fashioned way of settling disputes, they went to law. the case came to hearing and solemn argument; and he who espoused their cause, and stood up for them against the validity of the embargo act, was none other than that great man, of whom the gentleman has made honorable mention, samuel dexter. he was then, sir, in the fulness of his knowledge, and the maturity of his strength. he had retired from long and distinguished public service here, to the renewed pursuit of professional duties, carrying with him all that enlargement and expansion, all the new strength and force, which an acquaintance with the more general subjects discussed in the national councils is capable of adding to professional attainment, in a mind of true greatness and comprehension. he was a lawyer, and he was also a statesman. he had studied the constitution, when he filled public station, that he might defend it; he had examined its principles that he might maintain them. more than all men, or at least as much as any man, he was attached to the general government and to the union of the states. his feelings and opinions all ran in that direction. a question of constitutional law, too, was, of all subjects, that one which was best suited to his talents and learning. aloof from technicality, and unfettered by artificial rule, such a question gave opportunity for that deep and clear analysis, that mighty grasp of principle, which so much distinguished his higher efforts. his very statement was argument; his inference seemed demonstration. the earnestness of his own conviction wrought conviction in others. one was convinced, and believed, and assented, because it was gratifying, delightful, to think, and feel, and believe, in unison with an intellect of such evident superiority. mr. dexter, sir, such as i have described him, argued the new england cause. he put into his effort his whole heart, as well as all the powers of his understanding; for he had avowed, in the most public manner, his entire concurrence with his neighbors on the point in dispute. he argued the cause; it was lost, and new england submitted. the established tribunals pronounced the law constitutional, and new england acquiesced. now, sir, is not this the exact opposite of the doctrine of the gentleman from south carolina? according to him, instead of referring to the judicial tribunals, we should have broken up the embargo by laws of our own; we should have repealed it, _quoad_ new england; for we had a strong, palpable, and oppressive case. sir, we believed the embargo unconstitutional; but still that was matter of opinion, and who was to decide it? we thought it a clear case; but, nevertheless, we did not take the law into our own hands, because we did not wish to bring about a revolution, nor to break up the union; for i maintain, that between submission to the decision of the constituted tribunals, and revolution, or disunion, there is no middle ground; there is no ambiguous condition, half allegiance and half rebellion. and, sir, how futile, how very futile it is, to admit the right of state interference, and then attempt to save it from the character of unlawful resistance, by adding terms of qualification to the causes and occasions, leaving all these qualifications, like the case itself, in the discretion of the state governments. it must be a clear case, it is said, a deliberate case, a palpable case, a dangerous case. but then the state is still left at liberty to decide for herself what is clear, what is deliberate, what is palpable, what is dangerous. do adjectives and epithets avail any thing? sir, the human mind is so constituted, that the merits of both sides of a controversy appear very clear, and very palpable, to those who respectively espouse them; and both sides usually grow clearer as the controversy advances. south carolina sees unconstitutionality in the tariff; she sees oppression there also, and she sees danger. pennsylvania, with a vision not less sharp, looks at the same tariff, and sees no such thing in it; she sees it all constitutional, all useful, all safe. the faith of south carolina is strengthened by opposition, and she now not only sees, but _resolves_, that the tariff is palpably unconstitutional, oppressive, and dangerous; but pennsylvania, not to be behind her neighbors, and equally willing to strengthen her own faith by a confident asseveration, _resolves_ also, and gives to every warm affirmative of south carolina, a plain, downright, pennsylvania negative. south carolina, to show the strength and unity of her opinion, brings her assembly to a unanimity, within seven voices; pennsylvania, not to be outdone in this respect any more than in others, reduces her dissentient fraction to a single vote. now, sir, again, i ask the gentleman, what is to be done? are these states both right? is he bound to consider them both right? if not, which is in the wrong? or rather, which has the best right to decide? and if he, and if i, are not to know what the constitution means, and what it is, till those two state legislatures, and the twenty-two others, shall agree in its construction, what have we sworn to, when we have sworn to maintain it? i was forcibly struck, sir, with one reflection, as the gentleman went on in his speech. he quoted mr. madison's resolutions, to prove that a state may interfere, in a case of deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of a power not granted. the honorable member supposes the tariff law to be such an exercise of power; and that consequently a case has arisen in which the state may, if it see fit, interfere by its own law. now it so happens, nevertheless, that mr. madison deems this same tariff law quite constitutional. instead of a clear and palpable violation, it is, in his judgment, no violation at all. so that, while they use his authority for a hypothetical case, they reject it in the very case before them. all this, sir, shows the inherent futility, i had almost used a stronger word, of conceding this power of interference to the state, and then attempting to secure it from abuse by imposing qualifications of which the states themselves are to judge. one of two things is true; either the laws of the union are beyond the discretion and beyond the control of the states; or else we have no constitution of general government, and are thrust back again to the days of the confederation. let me here say, sir, that if the gentleman's doctrine had been received and acted upon in new england, in the times of the embargo and non-intercourse, we should probably not now have been here. the government would very likely have gone to pieces, and crumbled into dust. no stronger case can ever arise than existed under those laws; no states can ever entertain a clearer conviction than the new england states then entertained; and if they had been under the influence of that heresy of opinion, as i must call it, which the honorable member espouses, this union would, in all probability, have been scattered to the four winds. i ask the gentleman, therefore, to apply his principles to that case; i ask him to come forth and declare, whether, in his opinion, the new england states would have been justified in interfering to break up the embargo system under the conscientious opinions which they held upon it? had they a right to annul that law? does he admit or deny? if what is thought palpably unconstitutional in south carolina justifies that state in arresting the progress of the law, tell me whether that which was thought palpably unconstitutional also in massachusetts would have justified her in doing the same thing. sir, i deny the whole doctrine. it has not a foot of ground in the constitution to stand on. no public man of reputation ever advanced it in massachusetts in the warmest times, or could maintain himself upon it there at any time. i wish now, sir, to make a remark upon the virginia resolutions of . i cannot undertake to say how these resolutions were understood by those who passed them. their language is not a little indefinite. in the case of the exercise by congress of a dangerous power not granted to them, the resolutions assert the right, on the part of the state, to interfere and arrest the progress of the evil. this is susceptible of more than one interpretation. it may mean no more than that the states may interfere by complaint and remonstrance, or by proposing to the people an alteration of the federal constitution. this would all be quite unobjectionable. or it may be that no more is meant than to assert the general right of revolution, as against all governments, in cases of intolerable oppression. this no one doubts, and this, in my opinion, is all that he who framed the resolutions could have meant by it; for i shall not readily believe that he was ever of opinion that a state, under the constitution and in conformity with it, could, upon the ground of her own opinion of its unconstitutionality, however clear and palpable she might think the case, annul a law of congress, so far as it should operate on herself by her own legislative power. i must now beg to ask, sir, whence is this supposed right of the states derived? where do they find the power to interfere with the laws of the union? sir, the opinion which the honorable gentleman maintains is a notion founded in a total misapprehension, in my judgment, of the origin of this government, and of the foundation on which it stands. i hold it to be a popular government, erected by the people; those who administer it, responsible to the people; and itself capable of being amended and modified, just as the people may choose it should be. it is as popular, just as truly emanating from the people, as the state governments. it is created for one purpose; the state governments for another. it has its own powers; they have theirs. there is no more authority with them to arrest the operation of a law of congress, than with congress to arrest the operation of their laws. we are here to administer a constitution emanating immediately from the people, and trusted by them to our administration. it is not the creature of the state governments. it is of no moment to the argument, that certain acts of the state legislatures are necessary to fill our seats in this body. that is not one of their original state powers, a part of the sovereignty of the state. it is a duty which the people, by the constitution itself, have imposed on the state legislatures; and which they might have left to be performed elsewhere, if they had seen fit. so they have left the choice of president with electors; but all this does not affect the proposition that this whole government, president, senate, and house of representatives, is a popular government. it leaves it still all its popular character. the governor of a state (in some of the states) is chosen, not directly by the people, but by those who are chosen by the people, for the purpose of performing, among other duties, that of electing a governor. is the government of the state, on that account, not a popular government? this government, sir, is the independent offspring of the popular will. it is not the creature of state legislatures; nay, more, if the whole truth must be told, the people brought it into existence, established it, and have hitherto supported it, for the very purpose, amongst others, of imposing certain salutary restraints on state sovereignties. the states cannot now make war; they cannot contract alliances; they cannot make, each for itself, separate regulations of commerce; they cannot lay imposts; they cannot coin money. if this constitution, sir, be the creature of state legislatures, it must be admitted that it has obtained a strange control over the volitions of its creators. the people, then, sir, erected this government. they gave it a constitution, and in that constitution they have enumerated the powers which they bestow on it. they have made it a limited government. they have defined its authority. they have restrained it to the exercise of such powers as are granted; and all others, they declare, are reserved to the states or the people. but, sir, they have not stopped here. if they had, they would have accomplished but half their work. no definition can be so clear, as to avoid possibility of doubt; no limitation so precise as to exclude all uncertainty. who, then, shall construe this grant of the people? who shall interpret their will, where it may be supposed they have left it doubtful? with whom do they repose this ultimate right of deciding on the powers of the government? sir, they have settled all this in the fullest manner. they have left it with the government itself, in its appropriate branches. sir, the very chief end, the main design, for which the whole constitution was framed and adopted, was to establish a government that should not be obliged to act through state agency, or depend on state opinion and state discretion. the people had had quite enough of that kind of government under the confederation. under that system, the legal action, the application of law to individuals, belonged exclusively to the states. congress could only recommend; their acts were not of binding force, till the states had adopted and sanctioned them. are we in that condition still? are we yet at the mercy of state discretion and state construction? sir, if we are, then vain will be our attempt to maintain the constitution under which we sit. but, sir, the people have wisely provided, in the constitution itself, a proper, suitable mode and tribunal for settling questions of constitutional law. there are in the constitution grants of powers to congress, and restrictions on these powers. there are, also, prohibitions on the states. some authority must, therefore, necessarily exist, having the ultimate jurisdiction to fix and ascertain the interpretation of these grants, restrictions, and prohibitions. the constitution has itself pointed out, ordained, and established that authority. how has it accomplished this great and essential end? by declaring, sir, that "_the constitution, and the laws of the united states made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding_." this, sir, was the first great step. by this the supremacy of the constitution and laws of the united states is declared. the people so will it. no state law is to be valid which comes in conflict with the constitution, or any law of the united states passed in pursuance of it. but who shall decide this question of interference? to whom lies the last appeal? this, sir, the constitution itself decides also, by declaring, "_that the judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the united states_." these two provisions cover the whole ground. they are, in truth, the keystone of the arch! with these it is a government; without them it is a confederation. in pursuance of these clear and express provisions, congress established, at its very first session, in the judicial act, a mode for carrying them into full effect, and for bringing all questions of constitutional power to the final decision of the supreme court. it then, sir, became a government. it then had the means of self-protection; and but for this, it would, in all probability, have been now among things which are past. having constituted the government, and declared its powers, the people have further said, that, since somebody must decide on the extent of these powers, the government shall itself decide; subject, always, like other popular governments, to its responsibility to the people. and now, sir, i repeat, how is it that a state legislature acquires any power to interfere? who, or what, gives them the right to say to the people, "we, who are your agents and servants for one purpose, will undertake to decide, that your other agents and servants, appointed by you for another purpose, have transcended the authority you gave them!" the reply would be, i think, not impertinent, "who made you a judge over another's servants? to their own masters they stand or fall." sir, i deny this power of state legislatures altogether. it cannot stand the test of examination. gentlemen may say, that, in an extreme case, a state government might protect the people from intolerable oppression. sir, in such a case, the people might protect themselves, without the aid of the state governments. such a case warrants revolution. it must make, when it comes, a law for itself. a nullifying act of a state legislature cannot alter the case, nor make resistance any more lawful. in maintaining these sentiments, sir, i am but asserting the rights of the people. i state what they have declared, and insist on their right to declare it. they have chosen to repose this power in the general government, and i think it my duty to support it, like other constitutional powers. for myself, sir, i do not admit the competency of south carolina, or any other state, to prescribe my constitutional duty; or to settle, between me and the people, the validity of laws of congress for which i have voted. i decline her umpirage. i have not sworn to support the constitution according to her construction of its clauses. i have not stipulated, by my oath of office or otherwise, to come under any responsibility, except to the people, and those whom they have appointed to pass upon the question, whether laws, supported by my votes, conform to the constitution of the country. and, sir, if we look to the general nature of the case, could any thing have been more preposterous, than to make a government for the whole union, and yet leave its powers subject, not to one interpretation, but to thirteen or twenty-four interpretations? instead of one tribunal, established by all, responsible to all, with power to decide for all, shall constitutional questions be left to four-and-twenty popular bodies, each at liberty to decide for itself, and none bound to respect the decisions of others,--and each at liberty, too, to give a new construction on every new election of its own members? would any thing, with such a principle in it, or rather with such a destitution of all principle, be fit to be called a government? no, sir. it should not be denominated a constitution. it should be called, rather, a collection of topics for everlasting controversy; heads of debate for a disputatious people. it would not be a government. it would not be adequate to any practical good, or fit for any country to live under. to avoid all possibility of being misunderstood, allow me to repeat again, in the fullest manner, that i claim no powers for the government by forced or unfair construction. i admit that it is a government of strictly limited powers; of enumerated, specified, and particularized powers; and that whatsoever is not granted, is withheld. but notwithstanding all this, and however the grant of powers may be expressed, its limit and extent may yet, in some cases, admit of doubt; and the general government would be good for nothing, it would be incapable of long existing, if some mode had not been provided in which those doubts, as they should arise, might be peaceably, but authoritatively, solved. and now, mr. president, let me run the honorable gentleman's doctrine a little into its practical application. let us look at his probable _modus operandi_. if a thing can be done, an ingenious man can tell _how_ it is to be done, and i wish to be informed _how_ this state interference is to be put in practice, without violence, bloodshed, and rebellion. we will take the existing case of the tariff law. south carolina is said to have made up her opinion upon it. if we do not repeal it, (as we probably shall not,) she will then apply to the case the remedy of her doctrine. she will, we must suppose, pass a law of her legislature, declaring the several acts of congress usually called the tariff laws null and void, so far as they respect south carolina, or the citizens thereof. so far, all is a paper transaction, and easy enough. but the collector at charleston is collecting the duties imposed by these tariff laws. he, therefore, must be stopped. the collector will seize the goods if the tariff duties are not paid. the state authorities will undertake their rescue, the marshal, with his posse, will come to the collector's aid, and here the contest begins. the militia of the state will be called out to sustain the nullifying act. they will march, sir, under a very gallant leader; for i believe the honorable member himself commands the militia of that part of the state. he will raise the nullifying act on his standard, and spread it out as his banner! it will have a preamble, setting forth that the tariff laws are palpable, deliberate, and dangerous violations of the constitution! he will proceed, with this banner flying, to the custom-house in charleston, "all the while sonorous metal blowing martial sounds." arrived at the custom-house, he will tell the collector that he must collect no more duties under any of the tariff laws. this he will be somewhat puzzled to say, by the way, with a grave countenance, considering what hand south carolina herself had in that of . but, sir, the collector would not, probably, desist, at his bidding. he would show him the law of congress, the treasury instruction, and his own oath of office. he would say, he should perform his duty, come what come might. here would ensue a pause; for they say that a certain stillness precedes the tempest. the trumpeter would hold his breath awhile, and before all this military array should fall on the custom-house, collector, clerks, and all, it is very probable some of those composing it would request of their gallant commander-in-chief to be informed a little upon the point of law; for they have, doubtless, a just respect for his opinions as a lawyer, as well as for his bravery as a soldier. they know he has read blackstone and the constitution, as well as turenne and vauban. they would ask him, therefore, something concerning their rights in this matter. they would inquire, whether it was not somewhat dangerous to resist a law of the united states. what would be the nature of their offence, they would wish to learn, if they, by military force and array, resisted the execution in carolina of a law of the united states, and it should turn out, after all, that the law _was constitutional_? he would answer, of course, treason. no lawyer could give any other answer. john fries, he would tell them, had learned that, some years ago. how, then, they would ask, do you propose to defend us? we are not afraid of bullets, but treason has a way of taking people off that we do not much relish. how do you propose to defend us? "look at my floating banner," he would reply; "see there the _nullifying law_!" is it your opinion, gallant commander, they would then say, that, if we should be indicted for treason, that same floating banner of yours would make a good plea in bar? "south carolina is a sovereign state," he would reply. that is true; but would the judge admit our plea? "these tariff laws," he would repeat, "are unconstitutional, palpably, deliberately, dangerously." that may all be so; but if the tribunal should not happen to be of that opinion, shall we swing for it? we are ready to die for our country, but it is rather an awkward business, this dying without touching the ground! after all, that is a sort of hemp tax worse than any part of the tariff. mr. president, the honorable gentleman would be in a dilemma, like that of another great general. he would have a knot before him which he could not untie. he must cut it with his sword. he must say to his followers, "defend yourselves with your bayonets"; and this is war,--civil war. direct collision, therefore, between force and force, is the unavoidable result of that remedy for the revision of unconstitutional laws which the gentleman contends for. it must happen in the very first case to which it is applied. is not this the plain result? to resist by force the execution of a law, generally, is treason. can the courts of the united states take notice of the indulgence of a state to commit treason? the common saying, that a state cannot commit treason herself, is nothing to the purpose. can she authorize others to do it? if john fries had produced an act of pennsylvania, annulling the law of congress, would it have helped his case? talk about it as we will, these doctrines go the length of revolution. they are incompatible with any peaceable administration of the government. they lead directly to disunion and civil commotion; and therefore it is, that at their commencement, when they are first found to be maintained by respectable men, and in a tangible form, i enter my public protest against them all. the honorable gentleman argues, that, if this government be the sole judge of the extent of its own powers, whether that right of judging be in congress or the supreme court, it equally subverts state sovereignty. this the gentleman sees, or thinks he sees, although he cannot perceive how the right of judging, in this matter, if left to the exercise of state legislatures, has any tendency to subvert the government of the union. the gentleman's opinion may be, that the right _ought not_ to have been lodged with the general government; he may like better such a constitution as we should have under the right of state interference; but i ask him to meet me on the plain matter of fact. i ask him to meet me on the constitution itself. i ask him if the power is not found there, clearly and visibly found there? but, sir, what is this danger, and what are the grounds of it? let it be remembered, that the constitution of the united states is not unalterable. it is to continue in its present form no longer than the people who established it shall choose to continue it. if they shall become convinced that they have made an injudicious or inexpedient partition and distribution of power between the state governments and the general government, they can alter that distribution at will. if any thing be found in the national constitution, either by original provision or subsequent interpretation, which ought not to be in it, the people know how to get rid of it. if any construction, unacceptable to them, be established, so as to become practically a part of the constitution, they will amend it, at their own sovereign pleasure. but while the people choose to maintain it as it is, while they are satisfied with it, and refuse to change it, who has given, or who can give, to the state legislatures a right to alter it, either by interference, construction, or otherwise? gentlemen do not seem to recollect that the people have any power to do any thing for themselves. they imagine there is no safety for them, any longer than they are under the close guardianship of the state legislatures. sir, the people have not trusted their safety, in regard to the general constitution, to these hands. they have required other security, and taken other bonds. they have chosen to trust themselves, first, to the plain words of the instrument, and to such construction as the government themselves, in doubtful cases, should put on their own powers, under their oaths of office, and subject to their responsibility to them; just as the people of a state trust their own state governments with a similar power. secondly, they have reposed their trust in the efficacy of frequent elections, and in their own power to remove their own servants and agents whenever they see cause. thirdly, they have reposed trust in the judicial power, which, in order that it might be trustworthy, they have made as respectable, as disinterested, and as independent as was practicable. fourthly, they have seen fit to rely, in case of necessity, or high expediency, on their known and admitted power to alter or amend the constitution, peaceably and quietly, whenever experience shall point out defects or imperfections. and, finally, the people of the united states have at no time, in no way, directly or indirectly, authorized any state legislature to construe or interpret _their_ high instrument of government; much less, to interfere, by their own power, to arrest its course and operation. if, sir, the people in these respects had done otherwise than they have done, their constitution could neither have been preserved, nor would it have been worth preserving. and if its plain provisions shall now be disregarded, and these new doctrines interpolated in it, it will become as feeble and helpless a being as its enemies, whether early or more recent, could possibly desire. it will exist in every state but as a poor dependent on state permission. it must borrow leave to be; and will be, no longer than state pleasure, or state discretion, sees fit to grant the indulgence, and to prolong its poor existence. but, sir, although there are fears, there are hopes also. the people have preserved this, their own chosen constitution, for forty years, and have seen their happiness, prosperity, and renown grow with its growth, and strengthen with its strength. they are now, generally, strongly attached to it. overthrown by direct assault, it cannot be; evaded, undermined, nullified, it will not be, if we and those who shall succeed us here, as agents and representatives of the people, shall conscientiously and vigilantly discharge the two great branches of our public trust, faithfully to preserve, and wisely to administer it. mr. president, i have thus stated the reasons of my dissent to the doctrines which have been advanced and maintained. i am conscious of having detained you and the senate much too long. i was drawn into the debate with no previous deliberation, such as is suited to the discussion of so grave and important a subject. but it is a subject of which my heart is full, and i have not been willing to suppress the utterance of its spontaneous sentiments. i cannot, even now, persuade myself to relinquish it, without expressing once more my deep conviction, that, since it respects nothing less than the union of the states, it is of most vital and essential importance to the public happiness. i profess, sir, in my career hitherto, to have kept steadily in view the prosperity and honor of the whole country, and the preservation of our federal union. it is to that union we owe our safety at home, and our consideration and dignity abroad. it is to that union that we are chiefly indebted for whatever makes us most proud of our country. that union we reached only by the discipline of our virtues in the severe school of adversity. it had its origin in the necessities of disordered finance, prostrate commerce, and ruined credit. under its benign influences, these great interests immediately awoke, as from the dead, and sprang forth with newness of life. every year of its duration has teemed with fresh proofs of its utility and its blessings; and although our territory has stretched out wider and wider, and our population spread farther and farther, they have not outrun its protection or its benefits. it has been to us all a copious fountain of national, social, and personal happiness. i have not allowed myself, sir, to look beyond the union, to see what might lie hidden in the dark recess behind. i have not coolly weighed the chances of preserving liberty when the bonds that unite us together shall be broken asunder. i have not accustomed myself to hang over the precipice of disunion, to see whether, with my short sight, i can fathom the depth of the abyss below; nor could i regard him as a safe counsellor in the affairs of this government, whose thoughts should be mainly bent on considering, not how the union may be best preserved, but how tolerable might be the condition of the people when it should be broken up and destroyed. while the union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us, for us and our children. beyond that i seek not to penetrate the veil. god grant that, in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise! god grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind! when my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may i not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious union; on states dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! let their last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the republic, now known and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in their original lustre, not a stripe erased or polluted, nor a single star obscured, bearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogatory as "what is all this worth?" nor those other words of delusion and folly, "liberty first and union afterwards"; but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true american heart,--liberty _and_ union, now and for ever, one and inseparable! mr. hayne having rejoined to mr. webster, especially on the constitutional question, mr. webster rose, and, in conclusion, said:--#/ a few words, mr. president, on this constitutional argument, which the honorable gentleman has labored to reconstruct. his argument consists of two propositions and an inference. his propositions are,-- . that the constitution is a compact between the states. . that a compact between two, with authority reserved to one to interpret its terms, would be a surrender to that one of all power whatever. . therefore, (such is his inference,) the general government does not possess the authority to construe its own powers. now, sir, who does not see, without the aid of exposition or detection, the utter confusion of ideas involved in this so elaborate and systematic argument. the constitution, it is said, is a compact _between states_; the states, then, and the states only, _are parties_ to the compact. how comes the general government itself _a party_? upon the honorable gentleman's hypothesis, the general government is the result of the compact, the creature of the compact, not one of the parties to it. yet the argument, as the gentleman has now stated it, makes the government itself one of its own creators. it makes it a party to that compact to which it owes its own existence. for the purpose of erecting the constitution on the basis of a compact, the gentleman considers the states as parties to that compact; but as soon as his compact is made, then he chooses to consider the general government, which is the offspring of that compact, not its offspring, but one of its parties; and so, being a party, without the power of judging on the terms of compact. pray, sir, in what school is such reasoning as this taught? if the whole of the gentleman's main proposition were conceded to him,--that is to say, if i admit, for the sake of the argument, that the constitution is a compact between states,--the inferences which he draws from that proposition are warranted by no just reasoning. if the constitution be a compact between states, still that constitution, or that compact, has established a government, with certain powers; and whether it be one of those powers, that it shall construe and interpret for itself the terms of the compact, in doubtful cases, is a question which can only be decided by looking to the compact, and inquiring what provisions it contains on this point. without any inconsistency with natural reason, the government even thus created might be trusted with this power of construction. the extent of its powers, therefore, must still be sought for in the instrument itself. if the old confederation had contained a clause, declaring that resolutions of the congress should be the supreme law of the land, any state law or constitution to the contrary notwithstanding, and that a committee of congress, or any other body created by it, should possess judicial powers, extending to all cases arising under resolutions of congress, then the power of ultimate decision would have been vested in congress under the confederation, although that confederation was a compact between states; and for this plain reason,--that it would have been competent to the states, who alone were parties to the compact, to agree who should decide in cases of dispute arising on the construction of the compact. for the same reason, sir, if i were now to concede to the gentleman his principal proposition, namely, that the constitution is a compact between states, the question would still be, what provision is made, in this compact, to settle points of disputed construction, or contested power, that shall come into controversy? and this question would still be answered, and conclusively answered, by the constitution itself. while the gentleman is contending against construction, he himself is setting up the most loose and dangerous construction. the constitution declares, that _the laws of congress passed in pursuance of the constitution shall be the supreme law of the land_. no construction is necessary here. it declares, also, with equal plainness and precision, _that the judicial power of the united states shall extend to every case arising under the laws of congress_. this needs no construction. here is a law, then, which is declared to be supreme; and here is a power established, which is to interpret that law. now, sir, how has the gentleman met this? suppose the constitution to be a compact, yet here are its terms; and how does the gentleman get rid of them? he cannot argue the _seal off the bond_, nor the words out of the instrument. here they are; what answer does he give to them? none in the world, sir, except, that the effect of this would be to place the states in a condition of inferiority; and that it results from the very nature of things, there being no superior, that the parties must be their own judges! thus closely and cogently does the honorable gentleman reason on the words of the constitution. the gentleman says, if there be such a power of final decision in the general government, he asks for the grant of that power. well, sir, i show him the grant. i turn him to the very words. i show him that the laws of congress are made supreme; and that the judicial power extends, by express words, to the interpretation of these laws. instead of answering this, he retreats into the general reflection, that it must result _from the nature of things_, that the states, being parties, must judge for themselves. i have admitted, that, if the constitution were to be considered as the creature of the state governments, it might be modified, interpreted, or construed according to their pleasure. but, even in that case, it would be necessary that they should _agree_. one alone could not interpret it conclusively; one alone could not construe it; one alone could not modify it. yet the gentleman's doctrine is, that carolina alone may construe and interpret that compact which equally binds all, and gives equal rights to all. so, then, sir, even supposing the constitution to be a compact between the states, the gentleman's doctrine, nevertheless, is not maintainable; because, first, the general government is not a party to that compact, but a _government_ established by it, and vested by it with the powers of trying and deciding doubtful questions; and secondly, because, if the constitution be regarded as a compact, not one state only, but all the states, are parties to that compact, and one can have no right to fix upon it her own peculiar construction. so much, sir, for the argument, even if the premises of the gentleman were granted, or could be proved. but, sir, the gentleman has failed to maintain his leading proposition. he has not shown, it cannot be shown, that the constitution is a compact between state governments. the constitution itself, in its very front, refutes that idea; it declares that it is ordained and established _by the people of the united states_. so far from saying that it is established by the governments of the several states, it does not even say that it is established by the people _of the several states_; but it pronounces that it is established by the people of the united states, in the aggregate. the gentleman says, it must mean no more than the people of the several states. doubtless, the people of the several states, taken collectively, constitute the people of the united states; but it is in this, their collective capacity, it is as all the people of the united states, that they establish the constitution. so they declare; and words cannot be plainer than the words used. when the gentleman says the constitution is a compact between the states, he uses language exactly applicable to the old confederation. he speaks as if he were in congress before . he describes fully that old state of things then existing. the confederation was, in strictness, a compact; the states, as states, were parties to it. we had no other general government. but that was found insufficient, and inadequate to the public exigencies. the people were not satisfied with it, and undertook to establish a better. they undertook to form a general government, which should stand on a new basis; not a confederacy, not a league, not a compact between states, but a _constitution_; a popular government, founded in popular election, directly responsible to the people themselves, and divided into branches with prescribed limits of power, and prescribed duties. they ordained such a government, they gave it the name of a _constitution_, and therein they established a distribution of powers between this, their general government, and their several state governments. when they shall become dissatisfied with this distribution, they can alter it. their own power over their own instrument remains. but until they shall alter it, it must stand as their will, and is equally binding on the general government and on the states. the gentleman, sir, finds analogy where i see none. he likens it to the case of a treaty, in which, there being no common superior, each party must interpret for itself, under its own obligation of good faith. but this is not a treaty, but a constitution of government, with powers to execute itself, and fulfil its duties. i admit, sir, that this government is a government of checks and balances; that is, the house of representatives is a check on the senate, and the senate is a check on the house, and the president a check on both. but i cannot comprehend him, or, if i do, i totally differ from him, when he applies the notion of checks and balances to the interference of different governments. he argues, that, if we transgress our constitutional limits, each state, as a state, has a right to check us. does he admit the converse of the proposition, that we have a right to check the states? the gentleman's doctrines would give us a strange jumble of authorities and powers, instead of governments of separate and defined powers. it is the part of wisdom, i think, to avoid this; and to keep the general government and the state government each in its proper sphere, avoiding as carefully as possible every kind of interference. finally, sir, the honorable gentleman says, that the states will only interfere, by their power, to preserve the constitution. they will not destroy it, they will not impair it; they will only save, they will only preserve, they will only strengthen it! ah! sir, this is but the old story. all regulated governments, all free governments, have been broken by similar disinterested and well-disposed interference. it is the common pretence. but i take leave of the subject. [footnote : mr. sprague.] [footnote : mr. calhoun, when this speech was made, was president of the senate, and vice-president of the united states.] [footnote : mr. forsyth.] [footnote : mr. mcduffie.] [footnote : the letter of the federal convention to the congress of the confederation transmitting the plan of the constitution.] [footnote : mr. hillhouse, of connecticut.] the constitution not a compact between sovereign states. a speech delivered in the senate of the united states, on the th of february, , in reply to mr. calhoun's speech on the bill "further to provide for the collection of duties on imports." [on the st of january, , mr. wilkins, chairman of the judiciary committee of the senate, introduced the bill further to provide for the collection of duties. on the d day of the same month, mr. calhoun submitted the following resolutions:-- "_resolved_, that the people of the several states composing these united states are united as parties to a constitutional compact, to which the people of each state acceded as a separate govereign community, each binding itself by its own particular ratification; and that the union, of which the said compact is the bond, is a union _between the states_ ratifying the same. "_resolved_, that the people of the several states thus united by the constitutional compact, in forming that instrument, and in creating a general government to carry into effect the objects for which they were formed, delegated to that government, for that purpose, certain definite powers, to be exercised jointly, reserving, at the same time, each state to itself, the residuary mass of powers, to be exercised by its own separate government; and that whenever the general government assumes the exercise of powers not delegated by the compact, its acts are unauthorized, and are of no effect; and that the same government is not made the final judge of the powers delegated to it, since that would make its discretion, and not the constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among sovereign parties, without any common judge, each has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of the infraction as of the mode and measure of redress. "_resolved_, that the assertions, that the people of these united states, taken collectively as individuals, are now, or ever have been, united on the principle of the social compact, and, as such, are now formed into one nation or people, or that they have ever been so united in any one stage of their political existence; that the people of the several states composing the union have not, as members thereof, retained their sovereignty; that the allegiance of their citizens has been transferred to the general government; that they have parted with the right of punishing treason through their respective state governments; and that they have not the right of judging in the last resort as to the extent of the powers reserved, and of consequence of those delegated,--are not only without foundation in truth, but are contrary to the most certain and plain historical facts, and the clearest deductions of reason; and that all exercise of power on the part of the general government, or any of its departments, claiming authority from such erroneous assumptions, must of necessity be unconstitutional,--must tend, directly and inevitably, to subvert the sovereignty of the states, to destroy the federal character of the union, and to rear on its ruins a consolidated government, without constitutional check or limitation, and which must necessarily terminate in the loss of liberty itself." on saturday, the th of february, mr. calhoun spoke in opposition to the bill, and in support of these resolutions. he was followed by mr. webster in this speech.] mr. president,--the gentleman from south carolina has admonished us to be mindful of the opinions of those who shall come after us. we must take our chance, sir, as to the light in which posterity will regard us. i do not decline its judgment, nor withhold myself from its scrutiny. feeling that i am performing my public duty with singleness of heart and to the best of my ability, i fearlessly trust myself to the country, now and hereafter, and leave both my motives and my character to its decision. the gentleman has terminated his speech in a tone of threat and defiance towards this bill, even should it become a law of the land, altogether unusual in the halls of congress. but i shall not suffer myself to be excited into warmth by his denunciation of the measure which i support. among the feelings which at this moment fill my breast, not the least is that of regret at the position in which the gentleman has placed himself. sir, he does himself no justice. the cause which he has espoused finds no basis in the constitution, no succor from public sympathy, no cheering from a patriotic community. he has no foothold on which to stand while he might display the powers of his acknowledged talents. every thing beneath his feet is hollow and treacherous. he is like a strong man struggling in a morass: every effort to extricate himself only sinks him deeper and deeper. and i fear the resemblance may be carried still farther; i fear that no friend can safely come to his relief, that no one can approach near enough to hold out a helping hand, without danger of going down himself, also, into the bottomless depths of this serbonian bog. the honorable gentleman has declared, that on the decision of the question now in debate may depend the cause of liberty itself. i am of the same opinion; but then, sir, the liberty which i think is staked on the contest is not political liberty, in any general and undefined character, but our own well-understood and long-enjoyed _american_ liberty. sir, i love liberty no less ardently than the gentleman himself, in whatever form she may have appeared in the progress of human history. as exhibited in the master states of antiquity, as breaking out again from amidst the darkness of the middle ages, and beaming on the formation of new communities in modern europe, she has, always and everywhere, charms for me. yet, sir, it is our own liberty, guarded by constitutions and secured by union, it is that liberty which is our paternal inheritance, it is our established, dear-bought, peculiar american liberty, to which i am chiefly devoted, and the cause of which i now mean, to the utmost of my power, to maintain and defend. mr. president, if i considered the constitutional question now before us as doubtful as it is important, and if i supposed that its decision, either in the senate or by the country, was likely to be in any degree influenced by the manner in which i might now discuss it, this would be to me a moment of deep solicitude. such a moment has once existed. there has been a time, when, rising in this place, on the same question, i felt, i must confess, that something for good or evil to the constitution of the country might depend on an effort of mine. but circumstances are changed. since that day, sir, the public opinion has become awakened to this great question; it has grasped it; it has reasoned upon it, as becomes an intelligent and patriotic community, and has settled it, or now seems in the progress of settling it, by an authority which none can disobey, the authority of the people themselves. i shall not, mr. president, follow the gentleman, step by step, through the course of his speech. much of what he has said he has deemed necessary to the just explanation and defence of his own political character and conduct. on this i shall offer no comment. much, too, has consisted of philosophical remark upon the general nature of political liberty, and the history of free institutions; and upon other topics, so general in their nature as to possess, in my opinion, only a remote bearing on the immediate subject of this debate. but the gentleman's speech made some days ago, upon introducing his resolutions, those resolutions themselves, and parts of the speech now just concluded, may, i presume, be justly regarded as containing the whole south carolina doctrine. that doctrine it is my purpose now to examine, and to compare it with the constitution of the united states. i shall not consent, sir, to make any new constitution, or to establish another form of government. i will not undertake to say what a constitution for these united states ought to be. that question the people have decided for themselves; and i shall take the instrument as they have established it, and shall endeavor to maintain it, in its plain sense and meaning, against opinions and notions which, in my judgment, threaten its subversion. the resolutions introduced by the gentleman were apparently drawn up with care, and brought forward upon deliberation. i shall not be in danger, therefore, of misunderstanding him, or those who agree with him, if i proceed at once to these resolutions, and consider them as an authentic statement of those opinions upon the great constitutional question by which the recent proceedings in south carolina are attempted to be justified. these resolutions are three in number. the third seems intended to enumerate, and to deny, the several opinions expressed in the president's proclamation, respecting the nature and powers of this government. of this third resolution, i purpose, at present, to take no particular notice. the first two resolutions of the honorable member affirm these propositions, viz.:-- . that the political system under which we live, and under which congress is now assembled, is a _compact_, to which the people of the several states, as separate and sovereign communities, are _the parties_. . that these sovereign parties have a right to judge, each for itself, of any alleged violation of the constitution by congress; and, in case of such violation, to choose, each for itself, its own mode and measure of redress. it is true, sir, that the honorable member calls this a "constitutional" compact; but still he affirms it to be a compact between sovereign states. what precise meaning, then, does he attach to the term _constitutional_? when applied to compacts between sovereign states, the term _constitutional_ affixes to the word _compact_ no definite idea. were we to hear of a constitutional league or treaty between england and france, or a constitutional convention between austria and russia, we should not understand what could be intended by such a league, such a treaty, or such a convention. in these connections, the word is void of all meaning; and yet, sir, it is easy, quite easy, to see why the honorable gentleman has used it in these resolutions. he cannot open the book, and look upon our written frame of government, without seeing that it is called a _constitution_. this may well be appalling to him. it threatens his whole doctrine of compact, and its darling derivatives, nullification and secession, with instant confutation. because, if he admits our instrument of government to be a _constitution_, then, for that very reason, it is not a compact between sovereigns; a constitution of government and a compact between sovereign powers being things essentially unlike in their very natures, and incapable of ever being the same. yet the word _constitution_ is on the very front of the instrument. he cannot overlook it. he seeks, therefore, to compromise the matter, and to sink all the substantial sense of the word, while he retains a resemblance of its sound. he introduces a new word of his own, viz. _compact_, as importing the principal idea, and designed to play the principal part, and degrades _constitution_ into an insignificant, idle epithet, attached to _compact_. the whole then stands as a "_constitutional compact_"! and in this way he hopes to pass off a plausible gloss, as satisfying the words of the instrument. but he will find himself disappointed. sir, i must say to the honorable gentleman, that, in our american political grammar, constitution is a noun substantive; it imports a distinct and clear idea of itself; and it is not to lose its importance and dignity, it is not to be turned into a poor, ambiguous, senseless, unmeaning adjective, for the purpose of accommodating any new set of political notions. sir, we reject his new rules of syntax altogether. we will not give up our forms of political speech to the grammarians of the school of nullification. by the constitution, we mean, not a "constitutional compact," but, simply and directly, the constitution, the fundamental law; and if there be one word in the language which the people of the united states understand, this is that word. we know no more of a constitutional compact between sovereign powers, than we know of a _constitutional_ indenture of copartnership, a _constitutional_ deed of conveyance, or a _constitutional_ bill of exchange. but we know what the _constitution_ is; we know what the plainly written fundamental law is; we know what the bond of our union and the security of our liberties is; and we mean to maintain and to defend it, in its plain sense and unsophisticated meaning. the sense of the gentleman's proposition, therefore, is not at all affected, one way or the other, by the use of this word. that proposition still is, that our system of government is but a _compact_ between the people of separate and sovereign states. was it mirabeau, mr. president, or some other master of the human passions, who has told us that words are things? they are indeed things, and things of mighty influence, not only in addresses to the passions and high-wrought feelings of mankind, but in the discussion of legal and political questions also; because a just conclusion is often avoided, or a false one reached, by the adroit substitution of one phrase, or one word, for another. of this we have, i think, another example in the resolutions before us. the first resolution declares that the people of the several states "_acceded_" to the constitution, or to the constitutional compact, as it is called. this word "accede," not found either in the constitution itself, or in the ratification of it by any one of the states, has been chosen for use here, doubtless, not without a well-considered purpose. the natural converse of _accession_ is _secession_; and, therefore, when it is stated that the people of the states acceded to the union, it may be more plausibly argued that they may secede from it. if, in adopting the constitution, nothing was done but acceding to a compact, nothing would seem necessary, in order to break it up, but to secede from the same compact. but the term is wholly out of place. _accession_, as a word applied to political associations, implies coming into a league, treaty, or confederacy, by one hitherto a stranger to it; and _secession_ implies departing from such league or confederacy. the people of the united states have used no such form of expression in establishing the present government. they do not say that they _accede_ to a league, but they declare that they _ordain_ and _establish_ a constitution, such are the very words of the instrument itself; and in all the states, without an exception, the language used by their conventions was, that they "_ratified the constitution_"; some of them employing the additional words "assented to" and "adopted," but all of them "ratifying." there is more importance than may, at first sight, appear, in the introduction of this new word, by the honorable mover of these resolutions. its adoption and use are indispensable to maintain those premises from which his main conclusion is to be afterwards drawn. but before showing that, allow me to remark, that this phraseology tends to keep out of sight the just view of a previous political history, as well as to suggest wrong ideas as to what was actually done when the present constitution was agreed to. in , and before this constitution was adopted, the united states had already been in a union, more or less close, for fifteen years. at least as far back as the meeting of the first congress, in , they had been in some measure, and for some national purposes, united together. before the confederation of , they had declared independence jointly, and had carried on the war jointly, both by sea and land; and this not as separate states, but as one people. when, therefore, they formed that confederation, and adopted its articles as articles of perpetual union, they did not come together for the first time; and therefore they did not speak of the states as _acceding_ to the confederation, although it was a league, and nothing but a league, and rested on nothing but plighted faith for its performance. yet, even then, the states were not strangers to each other; there was a bond of union already subsisting between them; they were associated, united states; and the object of the confederation was to make a stronger and better bond of union. their representatives deliberated together on these proposed articles of confederation, and, being authorized by their respective states, finally "_ratified and confirmed_" them. inasmuch as they were already in union, they did not speak of _acceding_ to the new articles of confederation, but of _ratifying and confirming_ them; and this language was not used inadvertently, because, in the same instrument, _accession_ is used in its proper sense, when applied to canada, which was altogether a stranger to the existing union. "canada," says the eleventh article, "_acceding_ to this confederation, and joining in the measures of the united states, shall be admitted into the union." having thus used the terms _ratify_ and _confirm_, even in regard to the old confederation, it would have been strange indeed, if the people of the united states, after its formation, and when they came to establish the present constitution, had spoken of the states, or the people of the states, as _acceding_ to this constitution. such language would have been ill-suited to the occasion. it would have implied an existing separation or disunion among the states, such as never has existed since . no such language, therefore, was used. the language actually employed is, _adopt, ratify, ordain, establish_. therefore, sir, since any state, before she can prove her right to dissolve the union, must show her authority to undo what has been done, no state is at liberty to _secede_, on the ground that she and other states have done nothing but _accede_. she must show that she has a right to _reverse_ what has been _ordained_, to _unsettle_ and _overthrow_ what has been _established_, to _reject_ what the people have _adopted_, and to _break up_ what they have _ratified_; because these are the terms which express the transactions which have actually taken place. in other words, she must show her right to make a revolution. if, mr. president, in drawing these resolutions, the honorable member had confined himself to the use of constitutional language, there would have been a wide and awful _hiatus_ between his premises and his conclusion. leaving out the two words _compact_ and _accession_, which are not constitutional modes of expression, and stating the matter precisely as the truth is, his first resolution would have affirmed that _the people of the several states ratified this constitution, or form of government_. these are the very words of south carolina herself, in her act of ratification. let, then, his first resolution tell the exact truth; let it state the fact precisely as it exists; let it say that the people of the several states ratified a constitution, or form of government, and then, sir, what will become of his inference in his second resolution, which is in these words, viz. "that, as in all other cases of compact among sovereign parties, each has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of the infraction as of the mode and measure of redress"? it is obvious, is it not, sir? that this conclusion requires for its support quite other premises; it requires premises which speak of _accession_ and of _compact_ between sovereign powers; and, without such premises, it is altogether unmeaning. mr. president, if the honorable member will truly state what the people did in forming this constitution, and then state what they must do if they would now undo what they then did, he will unavoidably state a case of revolution. let us see if it be not so. he must state, in the first place, that the people of the several states adopted and ratified this constitution, or form of government; and, in the next place, he must state that they have a right to undo this; that is to say, that they have a right to discard the form of government which they have adopted, and to break up the constitution which they have ratified. now, sir, this is neither more nor less than saying that they have a right to make a revolution. to reject an established government, to break up a political constitution, is revolution. i deny that any man can state accurately what was done by the people, in establishing the present constitution, and then state accurately what the people, or any part of them, must now do to get rid of its obligations, without stating an undeniable case of the overthrow of government. i admit, of course, that the people may, if they choose, overthrow the government. but, then, that is revolution. the doctrine now contended for is, that, by _nullification_, or _secession_, the obligations and authority of the government may be set aside or rejected, without revolution. but that is what i deny; and what i say is, that no man can state the case with historical accuracy, and in constitutional language, without showing that the honorable gentleman's right, as asserted in his conclusion, is a revolutionary right merely; that it does not and cannot exist under the constitution, or agreeably to the constitution, but can come into existence only when the constitution is overthrown. this is the reason, sir, which makes it necessary to abandon the use of constitutional language for a new vocabulary, and to substitute, in the place of plain historical facts, a series of assumptions. this is the reason why it is necessary to give new names to things, to speak of the constitution, not as a constitution, but as a compact, and of the ratifications by the people, not as ratifications, but as acts of accession. sir, i intend to hold the gentleman to the written record. in the discussion of a constitutional question, i intend to impose upon him the restraints of constitutional language. the people have ordained a constitution; can they reject it without revolution? they have established a form of government; can they overthrow it without revolution? these are the true questions. allow me now, mr. president, to inquire further into the extent of the propositions contained in the resolutions, and their necessary consequences. where sovereign communities are parties, there is no essential difference between a compact, a confederation, and a league. they all equally rest on the plighted faith of the sovereign party. a league, or confederacy, is but a subsisting or continuing treaty. the gentleman's resolutions, then, affirm, in effect, that these twenty-four united states are held together only by a subsisting treaty, resting for its fulfilment and continuance on no inherent power of its own, but on the plighted faith of each state; or, in other words, that our union is but a league; and, as a consequence from this proposition, they further affirm that, as sovereigns are subject to no superior power, the states must judge, each for itself, of any alleged violation of the league; and if such violation be supposed to have occurred, each may adopt any mode or measure of redress which it shall think proper. other consequences naturally follow, too, from the main proposition. if a league between sovereign powers have no limitation as to the time of its duration, and contain nothing making it perpetual, it subsists only during the good pleasure of the parties, although no violation be complained of. if, in the opinion of either party, it be violated, such party may say that he will no longer fulfil its obligations on his part, but will consider the whole league or compact at an end, although it might be one of its stipulations that it should be perpetual. upon this principle, the congress of the united states, in , declared null and void the treaty of alliance between the united states and france, though it professed to be a perpetual alliance. if the violation of the league be accompanied with serious injuries, the suffering party, being sole judge of his own mode and measure of redress, has a right to indemnify himself by reprisals on the offending members of the league; and reprisals, if the circumstances of the case require it, may be followed by direct, avowed, and public war. the necessary import of the resolution, therefore, is, that the united states are connected only by a league; that it is in the good pleasure of every state to decide how long she will choose to remain a member of this league; that any state may determine the extent of her own obligations under it, and accept or reject what shall be decided by the whole; that she may also determine whether her rights have been violated, what is the extent of the injury done her, and what mode and measure of redress her wrongs may make it fit and expedient for her to adopt. the result of the whole is, that any state may secede at pleasure; that any state may resist a law which she herself may choose to say exceeds the power of congress; and that, as a sovereign power, she may redress her own grievances, by her own arm, at her own discretion. she may make reprisals; she may cruise against the property of other members of the league; she may authorize captures, and make open war. if, sir, this be our political condition, it is time the people of the united states understood it. let us look for a moment to the practical consequences of these opinions. one state, holding an embargo law unconstitutional, may declare her opinion, and withdraw from the union. _she_ secedes. another, forming and expressing the same judgment on a law laying duties on imports, may withdraw also. _she_ secedes. and as, in her opinion, money has been taken out of the pockets of her citizens illegally, under pretence of this law, and as she has power to redress their wrongs, she may demand satisfaction: and, if refused, she may take it with a strong hand. the gentleman has himself pronounced the collection of duties, under existing laws, to be nothing but robbery. robbers, of course, may be rightfully dispossessed of the fruits of their flagitious crimes; and therefore, reprisals, impositions on the commerce of other states, foreign alliances against them, or open war, are all modes of redress justly open to the discretion and choice of south carolina; for she is to judge of her own rights, and to seek satisfaction for her own wrongs, in her own way. but, sir, a _third_ state is of opinion, not only that these laws of imposts are constitutional, but that it is the absolute duty of congress to pass and to maintain such laws; and that, by omitting to pass and maintain them, its constitutional obligations would be grossly disregarded. she herself relinquished the power of protection, she might allege, and allege truly, and gave it up to congress, on the faith that congress would exercise it. if congress now refuse to exercise it, congress does, as she may insist, break the condition of the grant, and thus manifestly violate the constitution; and for this violation of the constitution, _she_ may threaten to secede also. virginia may secede, and hold the fortresses in the chesapeake. the western states may secede, and take to their own use the public lands. louisiana may secede, if she choose, form a foreign alliance, and hold the mouth of the mississippi. if one state may secede, ten may do so, twenty may do so, twenty-three may do so. sir, as these secessions go on, one after another, what is to constitute the united states? whose will be the army? whose the navy? who will pay the debts? who fulfil the public treaties? who perform the constitutional guaranties? who govern this district and the territories? who retain the public property? mr. president, every man must see that these are all questions which can arise only _after a revolution_. they presuppose the breaking up of the government. while the constitution lasts, they are repressed; they spring up to annoy and startle us only from its grave. the constitution does not provide for events which must be preceded by its own destruction. secession, therefore, since it must bring these consequences with it, is revolutionary, and nullification is equally revolutionary. what is revolution? why, sir, that is revolution which overturns, or controls, or successfully resists, the existing public authority; that which arrests the exercise of the supreme power; that which introduces a new paramount authority into the rule of the state. now, sir, this is the precise object of nullification. it attempts to supersede the supreme legislative authority. it arrests the arm of the executive magistrate. it interrupts the exercise of the accustomed judicial power. under the name of an ordinance, it declares null and void, within the state, all the revenue laws of the united states. is not this revolutionary? sir, so soon as this ordinance shall be carried into effect, _a revolution_ will have commenced in south carolina. she will have thrown off the authority to which her citizens have heretofore been subject. she will have declared her own opinions and her own will to be above the laws and above the power of those who are intrusted with their administration. if she makes good these declarations, she is revolutionized. as to her, it is as distinctly a change of the supreme power as the american revolution of . that revolution did not subvert government in all its forms. it did not subvert local laws and municipal administrations. it only threw off the dominion of a power claiming to be superior, and to have a right, in many important respects, to exercise legislative authority. thinking this authority to have been usurped or abused, the american colonies, now the united states, bade it defiance, and freed themselves from it by means of a revolution. but that revolution left them with their own municipal laws still, and the forms of local government. if carolina now shall effectually resist the laws of congress; if she shall be her own judge, take her remedy into her own hands, obey the laws of the union when she pleases and disobey them when she pleases, she will relieve herself from a paramount power as distinctly as the american colonies did the same thing in . in other words, she will achieve, as to herself, a revolution. but, sir, while practical nullification in south carolina would be, as to herself, actual and distinct revolution, its necessary tendency must also be to spread revolution, and to break up the constitution, as to all the other states. it strikes a deadly blow at the vital principle of the whole union. to allow state resistance to the laws of congress to be rightful and proper, to admit nullification in some states, and yet not expect to see a dismemberment of the entire government, appears to me the wildest illusion, and the most extravagant folly. the gentleman seems not conscious of the direction or the rapidity of his own course. the current of his opinions sweeps him along, he knows not whither. to begin with nullification, with the avowed intent, nevertheless, not to proceed to secession, dismemberment, and general revolution, is as if one were to take the plunge of niagara, and cry out that he would stop half-way down. in the one case, as in the other, the rash adventurer must go to the bottom of the dark abyss below, were it not that that abyss has no discovered bottom. nullification, if successful, arrests the power of the law, absolves citizens from their duty, subverts the foundation both of protection and obedience, dispenses with oaths and obligations of allegiance, and elevates another authority to supreme command. is not this revolution? and it raises to supreme command four-and-twenty distinct powers, each professing to be under a general government, and yet each setting its laws at defiance at pleasure. is not this anarchy, as well as revolution? sir, the constitution of the united states was received as a whole, and for the whole country. if it cannot stand altogether, it cannot stand in parts; and if the laws cannot be executed everywhere, they cannot long be executed anywhere. the gentleman very well knows that all duties and imposts must be uniform throughout the country. he knows that we cannot have one rule or one law for south carolina, and another for other states. he must see, therefore, and does see, and every man sees, that the only alternative is a repeal of the laws throughout the whole union, or their execution in carolina as well as elsewhere. and this repeal is demanded because a single state interposes her veto, and threatens resistance! the result of the gentleman's opinion, or rather the very text of his doctrine, is, that no act of congress can bind all the states, the constitutionality of which is not admitted by all; or, in other words, that no single state is bound, against its own dissent, by a law of imposts. this is precisely the evil experienced under the old confederation, and for remedy of which this constitution was adopted. the leading object in establishing this government, an object forced on the country by the condition of the times and the absolute necessity of the law, was to give to congress power to lay and collect imposts _without the consent of particular states_. the revolutionary debt remained unpaid; the national treasury was bankrupt; the country was destitute of credit; congress issued its requisitions on the states, and the states neglected them; there was no power of coercion but war, congress could not lay imposts, or other taxes, by its own authority; the whole general government, therefore, was little more than a name. the articles of confederation, as to purposes of revenue and finance, were nearly a dead letter. the country sought to escape from this condition, at once feeble and disgraceful, by constituting a government which should have power, of itself, to lay duties and taxes, and to pay the public debt, and provide for the general welfare; and to lay these duties and taxes in all the states, without asking the consent of the state governments. this was the very power on which the new constitution was to depend for all its ability to do good; and without it, it can be no government, now or at any time. yet, sir, it is precisely against this power, so absolutely indispensable to the very being of the government, that south carolina directs her ordinance. she attacks the government in its authority to raise revenue, the very main-spring of the whole system; and if she succeed, every movement of that system must inevitably cease. it is of no avail that she declares that she does not resist the law as a revenue law, but as a law for protecting manufactures. it is a revenue law; it is the very law by force of which the revenue is collected; if it be arrested in any state, the revenue ceases in that state; it is, in a word, the sole reliance of the government for the means of maintaining itself and performing its duties. mr. president, the alleged right of a state to decide constitutional questions for herself necessarily leads to force, because other states must have the same right, and because different states will decide differently; and when these questions arise between states, if there be no superior power, they can be decided only by the law of force. on entering into the union, the people of each state gave up a part of their own power to make laws for themselves, in consideration, that, as to common objects, they should have a part in making laws for other states. in other words, the people of all the states agreed to create a common government, to be conducted by common counsels. pennsylvania, for example, yielded the right of laying imposts in her own ports, in consideration that the new government, in which she was to have a share, should possess the power of laying imposts on all the states. if south carolina now refuses to submit to this power, she breaks the condition on which other states entered into the union. she partakes of the common counsels, and therein assists to bind others, while she refuses to be bound herself. it makes no difference in the case, whether she does all this without reason or pretext, or whether she sets up as a reason, that, in her judgment, the acts complained of are unconstitutional. in the judgment of other states, they are not so. it is nothing to them that she offers some reason or some apology for her conduct, if it be one which they do not admit. it is not to be expected that any state will violate her duty without some plausible pretext. that would be too rash a defiance of the opinion of mankind. but if it be a pretext which lies in her own breast, if it be no more than an opinion which she says she has formed, how can other states be satisfied with this? how can they allow her to be judge of her own obligations? or, if she may judge of her obligations, may they not judge of their rights also? may not the twenty-three entertain an opinion as well as the twenty-fourth? and if it be their right, in their own opinion, as expressed in the common council, to enforce the law against her, how is she to say that her right and her opinion are to be every thing, and their right and their opinion nothing? mr. president, if we are to receive the constitution as the text, and then to lay down in its margin the contradictory commentaries which have been, and which maybe, made by different states, the whole page would be a polyglot indeed. it would speak with as many tongues as the builders of babel, and in dialects as much confused, and mutually as unintelligible. the very instance now before us presents a practical illustration. the law of the last session is declared unconstitutional in south carolina, and obedience to it is refused. in other states, it is admitted to be strictly constitutional. you walk over the limit of its authority, therefore, when you pass a state line. on one side it is law, on the other side a nullity; and yet it is passed by a common government, having the same authority in all the states. such, sir, are the inevitable results of this doctrine. beginning with the original error, that the constitution of the united states is nothing but a compact between sovereign states; asserting, in the next step, that each state has a right to be its own sole judge of the extent of its own obligations, and consequently of the constitutionality of laws of congress; and, in the next, that it may oppose whatever it sees fit to declare unconstitutional, and that it decides for itself on the mode and measure of redress,--the argument arrives at once at the conclusion, that what a state dissents from, it may nullify; what it opposes, it may oppose by force; what it decides for itself, it may execute by its own power; and that, in short, it is itself supreme over the legislation of congress, and supreme over the decisions of the national judicature; supreme over the constitution of the country, supreme over the supreme law of the land. however it seeks to protect itself against these plain inferences, by saying that an unconstitutional law is no law, and that it only opposes such laws as are unconstitutional, yet this does not in the slightest degree vary the result; since it insists on deciding this question for itself; and, in opposition to reason and argument, in opposition to practice and experience, in opposition to the judgment of others, having an equal right to judge, it says, only, "such is my opinion, and my opinion shall be my law, and i will support it by my own strong hand. i denounce the law; i declare it unconstitutional; that is enough; it shall not be executed. men in arms are ready to resist its execution. an attempt to enforce it shall cover the land with blood. elsewhere it may be binding; but here it is trampled underfoot." this, sir, is practical nullification. and now, sir, against all these theories and opinions, i maintain,-- . that the constitution of the united states is not a league, confederacy, or compact between the people of the several states in their sovereign capacities; but a government proper, founded on the adoption of the people, and creating direct relations between itself and individuals. . that no state authority has power to dissolve these relations; that nothing can dissolve them but revolution; and that, consequently, there can be no such thing as secession without revolution. . that there is a supreme law, consisting of the constitution of the united states, and acts of congress passed in pursuance of it, and treaties; and that, in cases not capable of assuming the character of a suit in law or equity, congress must judge of, and finally interpret, this supreme law so often as it has occasion to pass acts of legislation; and in cases capable of assuming, and actually assuming, the character of a suit, the supreme court of the united states is the final interpreter. . that an attempt by a state to abrogate, annul, or nullify an act of congress, or to arrest its operation within her limits, on the ground that, in her opinion, such law is unconstitutional, is a direct usurpation on the just powers of the general government, and on the equal rights of other states; a plain violation of the constitution, and a proceeding essentially revolutionary in its character and tendency. whether the constitution be a compact between states in their sovereign capacities, is a question which must be mainly argued from what is contained in the instrument itself. we all agree that it is an instrument which has been in some way clothed with power. we all admit that it speaks with authority. the first question then is, what does it say of itself? what does it purport to be? does it style itself a league, confederacy, or compact between sovereign states? it is to be remembered, sir, that the constitution began to speak only after its adoption. until it was ratified by nine states, it was but a proposal, the mere draught of an instrument. it was like a deed drawn, but not executed. the convention had framed it; sent it to congress, then sitting under the confederation; congress had transmitted it to the state legislatures; and by these last it was laid before conventions of the people in the several states. all this while it was inoperative paper. it had received no stamp of authority, no sanction; it spoke no language. but when ratified by the people in their respective conventions, then it had a voice, and spoke authentically. every word in it had then received the sanction of the popular will, and was to be received as the expression of that will. what the constitution says of itself, therefore, is as conclusive as what it says on any other point. does it call itself a "compact"? certainly not. it uses the word _compact_ but once, and that is when it declares that the states shall enter into no compact. does it call itself a "league," a "confederacy," a "subsisting treaty between the states"? certainly not. there is not a particle of such language in all its pages. but it declares itself a constitution. what is a _constitution_? certainly not a league, compact, or confederacy, but _a fundamental law_. that fundamental regulation which determines the manner in which the public authority is to be executed, is what forms the _constitution_ of a state. those primary rules which concern the body itself, and the very being of the political society, the form of government, and the manner in which power is to be exercised,--all, in a word, which form together the _constitution of a state_,--these are the fundamental laws. this, sir, is the language of the public writers. but do we need to be informed, in this country, what a _constitution_ is? is it not an idea perfectly familiar, definite, and well settled? we are at no loss to understand what is meant by the constitution of one of the states; and the constitution of the united states speaks of itself as being an instrument of the same nature. it says this _constitution_ shall be the law of the land, any thing in any state _constitution_ to the contrary notwithstanding. and it speaks of itself, too, in plain contradistinction from a confederation; for it says that all debts contracted, and all engagements entered into, by the united states, shall be as valid under this _constitution_ as under the _confederation_. it does not say, as valid under this _compact_, or this league, or this confederation, as under the former confederation, but as valid under this _constitution_. this, then, sir, is declared to be a _constitution_. a constitution is the fundamental law of the state; and this is expressly declared to be the supreme law. it is as if the people had said, "we prescribe this fundamental law," or "this supreme law," for they do say that they establish this constitution, and that it shall be the supreme law. they say that they _ordain and establish_ it. now, sir, what is the common application of these words? we do not speak of _ordaining_ leagues and compacts. if this was intended to be a compact or league, and the states to be parties to it, why was it not so said? why is there found no one expression in the whole instrument indicating such intent? the old confederation was expressly called a _league_, and into this league it was declared that the states, as states, severally entered. why was not similar language used in the constitution, if a similar intention had existed? why was it not said, "the states enter into this new league," "the states form this new confederation," or "the states agree to this new compact"? or why was it not said, in the language of the gentleman's resolution, that the people of the several states acceded to this compact in their sovereign capacities? what reason is there for supposing that the framers of the constitution rejected expressions appropriate to their own meaning, and adopted others wholly at war with that meaning? again, sir, the constitution speaks of that political system which is established as "the government of the united states." is it not doing strange violence to language to call a league or a compact between sovereign powers a _government_? the government of a state is that organization in which the political power resides. it is the political being created by the constitution or fundamental law. the broad and clear difference between a government and a league or compact is, that a government is a body politic; it has a will of its own; and it possesses powers and faculties to execute its own purposes. every compact looks to some power to enforce its stipulations. even in a compact between sovereign communities, there always exists this ultimate reference to a power to insure its execution; although, in such case, this power is but the force of one party against the force of another; that is to say, the power of war. but a _government_ executes its decisions by its own supreme authority. its use of force in compelling obedience to its own enactments is not war. it contemplates no opposing party having a right of resistance. it rests on its own power to enforce its own will; and when it ceases to possess this power, it is no longer a government. mr. president, i concur so generally in the very able speech of the gentleman from virginia near me,[ ] that it is not without diffidence and regret that i venture to differ with him on any point. his opinions, sir, are redolent of the doctrines of a very distinguished school, for which i have the highest regard, of whose doctrines i can say, what i can also say of the gentleman's speech, that, while i concur in the results, i must be permitted to hesitate about some of the premises. i do not agree that the constitution is a compact between states in their sovereign capacities. i do not agree, that, in strictness of language, it is a compact at all. but i do agree that it is founded on consent or agreement, or on compact, if the gentleman prefers that word, and means no more by it than voluntary consent or agreement. the constitution, sir, is not a contract, but the result of a contract; meaning by contract no more than assent. founded on consent, it is a government proper. adopted by the agreement of the people of the united states, when adopted, it has become a constitution. the people have agreed to make a constitution; but when made, that constitution becomes what its name imports. it is no longer a mere agreement. our laws, sir, have their foundation in the agreement or consent of the two houses of congress. we say, habitually, that one house proposes a bill, and the other agrees to it; but the result of this agreement is not a compact, but a law. the law, the statute, is not the agreement, but something created by the agreement; and something which, when created, has a new character, and acts by its own authority. so the constitution of the united states, founded in or on the consent of the people, may be said to rest on compact or consent; but it is not itself the compact, but its result. when the people agree to erect a government, and actually erect it, the thing is done, and the agreement is at an end. the compact is executed, and the end designed by it attained. henceforth, the fruit of the agreement exists, but the agreement itself is merged in its own accomplishment; since there can be no longer a subsisting agreement or compact _to form_ a constitution or government, after that constitution or government has been actually formed and established. it appears to me, mr. president, that the plainest account of the establishment of this government presents the most just and philosophical view of its foundation. the people of the several states had their separate state governments; and between the states there also existed a confederation. with this condition of things the people were not satisfied, as the confederation had been found not to fulfil its intended objects. it was _proposed_, therefore, to erect a new, common government, which should possess certain definite powers, such as regarded the prosperity of the people of all the states, and to be formed upon the general model of american constitutions. this proposal was assented to, and an instrument was presented to the people of the several states for their consideration. they approved it, and agreed to adopt it, as a constitution. they executed that agreement; they adopted the constitution as a constitution, and henceforth it must stand as a constitution until it shall be altogether destroyed. now, sir, is not this the truth of the whole matter? and is not all that we have heard of compact between sovereign states the mere effect of a theoretical and artificial mode of reasoning upon the subject? a mode of reasoning which disregards plain facts for the sake of hypothesis? mr. president, the nature of sovereignty or sovereign power has been extensively discussed by gentlemen on this occasion, as it generally is when the origin of our government is debated. but i confess myself not entirely satisfied with arguments and illustrations drawn from that topic. the sovereignty of government is an idea belonging to the other side of the atlantic. no such thing is known in north america. our governments are all limited. in europe, sovereignty is of feudal origin, and imports no more than the state of the sovereign. it comprises his rights, duties, exemptions, prerogatives, and powers. but with us, all power is with the people. they alone are sovereign; and they erect what governments they please, and confer on them such powers as they please. none of these governments is sovereign, in the european sense of the word, all being restrained by written constitutions. it seems to me, therefore, that we only perplex ourselves when we attempt to explain the relations existing between the general government and the several state governments, according to those ideas of sovereignty which prevail under systems essentially different from our own. but, sir, to return to the constitution itself; let me inquire what it relies upon for its own continuance and support. i hear it often suggested, that the states, by refusing to appoint senators and electors, might bring this government to an end. perhaps that is true; but the same may be said of the state governments themselves. suppose the legislature of a state, having the power to appoint the governor and the judges, should omit that duty, would not the state government remain unorganized? no doubt, all elective governments may be broken up by a general abandonment, on the part of those intrusted with political powers, of their appropriate duties. but one popular government has, in this respect, as much security as another. the maintenance of this constitution does not depend on the plighted faith of the states, as states, to support it; and this again shows that it is not a league. it relies on individual duty and obligation. the constitution of the united states creates direct relations between this government and individuals. this government may punish individuals for treason, and all other crimes in the code, when committed against the united states. it has power, also, to tax individuals, in any mode, and to any extent; and it possesses the further power of demanding from individuals military service. nothing, certainly, can more clearly distinguish a government from a confederation of states than the possession of these powers. no closer relations can exist between individuals and any government. on the other hand, the government owes high and solemn duties to every citizen of the country. it is bound to protect him in his most important rights and interests. it makes war for his protection, and no other government in the country can make war. it makes peace for his protection, and no other government can make peace. it maintains armies and navies for his defence and security, and no other government is allowed to maintain them. he goes abroad beneath its flag, and carries over all the earth a rational character imparted to him by this government, and which no other government can impart. in whatever relates to war, to peace, to commerce, he knows no other government. all these, sir, are connections as dear and as sacred as can bind individuals to any government on earth. it is not, therefore, a compact between states, but a government proper, operating directly upon individuals, yielding to them protection on the one hand, and demanding from them obedience on the other. there is no language in the whole constitution applicable to a confederation of states. if the states be parties, as states, what are their rights, and what their respective covenants and stipulations? and where are their rights, covenants, and stipulations expressed? the states engage for nothing, they promise nothing. in the articles of confederation, they did make promises, and did enter into engagements, and did plight the faith of each state for their fulfilment; but in the constitution there is nothing of that kind. the reason is, that, in the constitution, it is the _people_ who speak, and not the states. the people ordain the constitution, and therein address themselves to the states, and to the legislatures of the states, in the language of injunction and prohibition. the constitution utters its behests in the name and by authority of the people, and it does not exact from states any plighted public faith to maintain it. on the contrary, it makes its own preservation depend on individual duty and individual obligation. sir, the states cannot omit to appoint senators and electors. it is not a matter resting in state discretion or state pleasure. the constitution has taken better care of its own preservation. it lays its hand on individual conscience and individual duty. it incapacitates any man to sit in the legislature of a state, who shall not first have taken his solemn oath to support the constitution of the united states. from the obligation of this oath, no state power can discharge him. all the members of all the state legislatures are as religiously bound to support the constitution of the united states as they are to support their own state constitution. nay, sir, they are as solemnly sworn to support it as we ourselves are, who are members of congress. no member of a state legislature can refuse to proceed, at the proper time, to elect senators to congress, or to provide for the choice of electors of president and vice-president, any more than the members of this senate can refuse, when the appointed day arrives, to meet the members of the other house, to count the votes for those officers, and ascertain who are chosen. in both cases, the duty binds, and with equal strength, the conscience of the individual member, and it is imposed on all by an oath in the same words. let it then never be said, sir, that it is a matter of discretion with the states whether they will continue the government, or break it up by refusing to appoint senators and to elect electors. they have no discretion in the matter. the members of their legislatures cannot avoid doing either, so often as the time arrives, without a direct violation of their duty and their oaths; such a violation as would break up any other government. looking still further to the provisions of the constitution itself, in order to learn its true character, we find its great apparent purpose to be, to unite the people of all the states under one general government, for certain definite objects, and, to the extent of this union, to restrain the separate authority of the states. congress only can declare war; therefore, when one state is at war with a foreign nation, all must be at war. the president and the senate only can make peace; when peace is made for one state, therefore, it must be made for all. can any thing be conceived more preposterous, than that any state should have power to nullify the proceedings of the general government respecting peace and war? when war is declared by a law of congress, can a single state nullify that law, and remain at peace? and yet she may nullify that law as well as any other. if the president and senate make peace, may one state, nevertheless, continue the war? and yet, if she can nullify a law, she may quite as well nullify a treaty. the truth is, mr. president, and no ingenuity of argument, no subtilty of distinction can evade it, that, as to certain purposes, the people of the united states are one people. they are one in making war, and one in making peace; they are one in regulating commerce, and one in laying duties of imposts. the very end and purpose of the constitution was, to make them one people in these particulars; and it has effectually accomplished its object. all this is apparent on the face of the constitution itself. i have already said, sir, that to obtain a power of direct legislation over the people, especially in regard to imposts, was always prominent as a reason for getting rid of the confederation, and forming a new constitution. among innumerable proofs of this, before the assembling of the convention, allow me to refer only to the report of the committee of the old congress, july, . but, sir, let us go to the actual formation of the constitution; let us open the journal of the convention itself, and we shall see that the very first resolution which the convention adopted was, "that a national government ought to be established, consisting of a supreme legislature, judiciary, and executive." this itself completely negatives all idea of league, and compact, and confederation. terms could not be chosen more fit to express an intention to establish a national government, and to banish for ever all notion of a compact between sovereign states. this resolution was adopted on the th of may, . afterwards, the style was altered, and, instead of being called a national government, it was called the government of the united states; but the substance of this resolution was retained, and was at tha head of that list of resolutions which was afterwards sent to the committee who were to frame the instrument. it is true, there were gentlemen in the convention, who were for retaining the confederation, and amending its articles; but the majority was against this, and was for a national government. mr. patterson's propositions, which were for continuing the articles of confederation with additional powers, were submitted to the convention on the th of june, and referred to the committee of the whole. the resolutions forming the basis of a national government, which had once been agreed to in the committee of the whole, and reported, were recommitted to the same committee, on the same day. the convention, then, in committee of the whole, on the th of june, had both these plans before them; that is to say, the plan of a confederacy, or compact, between states, and the plan of a national government. both these plans were considered and debated, and the committee reported, "that they do not agree to the propositions offered by the honorable mr. patterson, but that they again submit the resolutions formerly reported." if, sir, any historical fact in the world be plain and undeniable, it is that the convention deliberated on the expediency of continuing the confederation, with some amendments, and rejected that scheme, and adopted the plan of a national government, with a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary of its own. they were asked to preserve the league; they rejected the proposition. they were asked to continue the existing compact between states; they rejected it. they rejected compact, league, and confederation, and set themselves about framing the constitution of a national government; and they accomplished what they undertook. if men will open their eyes fairly to the lights of history, it is impossible to be deceived on this point. the great object was to supersede the confederation by a regular government; because, under the confederation, congress had power only to make requisitions on states; and if states declined compliance, as they did, there was no remedy but war against such delinquent states. it would seem, from mr. jefferson's correspondence, in and , that he was of opinion that even this remedy ought to be tried. "there will be no money in the treasury," said he, "till the confederacy shows its teeth"; and he suggests that a single frigate would soon levy, on the commerce of a delinquent state, the deficiency of its contribution. but this would be war; and it was evident that a confederacy could not long hold together, which should be at war with its members. the constitution was adopted to avoid this necessity. it was adopted that there might be a government which should act directly on individuals, without borrowing aid from the state governments. this is clear as light itself on the very face of the provisions of the constitution, and its whole history tends to the same conclusion. its framers gave this very reason for their work in the most distinct terms. allow me to quote but one or two proofs, out of hundreds. that state, so small in territory, but so distinguished for learning and talent, connecticut, had sent to the general convention, among other members, samuel johnston and oliver ellsworth. the constitution having been framed, it was submitted to a convention of the people of connecticut for ratification on the part of that state; and mr. johnston and mr. ellsworth were also members of this convention. on the first day of the debates, being called on to explain the reasons which led the convention at philadelphia to recommend such a constitution, after showing the insufficiency of the existing confederacy, inasmuch as it applied to states, as states, mr. johnston proceeded to say:-- "the convention saw this imperfection in attempting to legislate for states in their political capacity, that the coercion of law can he exercised by nothing but a military force. they have, therefore, gone upon entirely new ground. they have formed one new nation out of the individual states. the constitution vests in the general legislature a power to make laws in matters of national concern; to appoint judges to decide upon these laws; and to appoint officers to carry them into execution. this excludes the idea of an armed force. the power which is to enforce these laws is to be a legal power, vested in proper magistrates. the force which is to be employed is the energy of law; and this force is to operate only upon individuals who fail in their duty to their country. this is the peculiar glory of the constitution, that it depends upon the mild and equal energy of the magistracy for the execution of the laws." in the further course of the debate, mr. ellsworth said:-- "in republics it is a fundamental principle, that the majority govern, and that the minority comply with the general voice. how contrary, then, to republican principles, how humiliating, is our present situation! a single state can rise up, and put a _veto_ upon the most important public measures. we have seen this actually take place; a single state has controlled the general voice of the union; a minority, a very small minority, has governed us. so far is this from being consistent with republican principles, that it is, in effect, the worst species of monarchy. "hence we see how necessary for the union is a coercive principle. no man pretends the contrary. we all see and feel this necessity. the only question is, shall it be a coercion of law, or a coercion of arms? there is no other possible alternative. where will those who oppose a coercion of law come out? where will they end? a necessary consequence of their principles is a war of the states one against another. i am for coercion by law; that coercion which acts only upon delinquent individuals. this constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies, states, in their political capacity. no coercion is applicable to such bodies, but that of an armed force. if we should attempt to execute the laws of the union by sending an armed force against a delinquent state, it would involve the good and bad, the innocent and guilty, in the same calamity. but this legal coercion singles out the guilty individual, and punishes him for breaking the laws of the union." indeed, sir, if we look to all contemporary history, to the numbers of the federalist, to the debates in the conventions, to the publications of friends and foes, they all agree, that a change had been made from a confederacy of states to a different system; they all agree, that the convention had formed a constitution for a national government. with this result some were satisfied, and some were dissatisfied; but all admitted that the thing had been done. in none of these various productions and publications did any one intimate that the new constitution was but another compact between states in their sovereign capacities. i do not find such an opinion advanced in a single instance. everywhere, the people were told that the old confederation was to be abandoned, and a new system to be tried; that a proper government was proposed, to be founded in the name of the people, and to have a regular organization of its own. everywhere, the people were told that it was to be a government with direct powers to make laws over individuals, and to lay taxes and imposts without the consent of the states. everywhere, it was understood to be a popular constitution. it came to the people for their adoption, and was to rest on the same deep foundation as the state constitutions themselves. its most distinguished advocates, who had been themselves members of the convention, declared that the very object of submitting the constitution to the people was, to preclude the possibility of its being regarded as a mere compact. "however gross a heresy," say the writers of the federalist, "it may be to maintain that a party to a _compact_ has a right to revoke that _compact_, the doctrine itself has had respectable advocates. the possibility of a question of this nature proves the necessity of laying the foundations of our national government deeper than in the mere sanction of delegated authority. the fabric of american empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent of the people." such is the language, sir, addressed to the people, while they yet had the constitution under consideration. the powers conferred on the new government were perfectly well understood to be conferred, not by any state, or the people of any state, but by the people of the united states. virginia is more explicit, perhaps, in this particular, than any other state. her convention, assembled to ratify the constitution, "in the name and behalf of the people of virginia, declare and make known, that the powers granted under the constitution, _being derived from the people of the united states_, may be resumed by them whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." is this language which describes the formation of a compact between states? or language describing the grant of powers to a new government, by the whole people of the united states? among all the other ratifications, there is not one which speaks of the constitution as a compact between states. those of massachusetts and new hampshire express the transaction, in my opinion, with sufficient accuracy. they recognize the divine goodness "in affording the people of the united states an opportunity of entering into an explicit and solemn compact with each other, _by assenting to and ratifying a new constitution_." you will observe, sir, that it is the people, and not the states, who have entered into this compact; and it is the people of all the united states. these conventions, by this form of expression, meant merely to say, that the people of the united states had, by the blessing of providence, enjoyed the opportunity of establishing a new constitution, _founded in the consent of the people_. this consent of the people has been called, by european writers, the _social compact_; and, in conformity to this common mode of expression, these conventions speak of that assent, on which the new constitution was to rest, as an explicit and solemn compact, not which the states had entered into with each other, but which the _people_ of the united states had entered into. finally, sir, how can any man get over the words of the constitution itself?--"we, the people of the united states, do ordain and establish this constitution." these words must cease to be a part of the constitution, they must be obliterated from the parchment on which they are written, before any human ingenuity or human argument can remove the popular basis on which that constitution rests, and turn the instrument into a mere compact between sovereign states. the second proposition, sir, which i propose to maintain, is, that no state authority can dissolve the relations subsisting between the government of the united states and individuals; that nothing can dissolve these relations but revolution; and that, therefore, there can be no such thing as _secession_ without revolution. all this follows, as it seems to me, as a just consequence, if it be first proved that the constitution of the united states is a government proper, owing protection to individuals, and entitled to their obedience. the people, sir, in every state, live under two governments. they owe obedience to both. these governments, though distinct, are not adverse. each has its separate sphere, and its peculiar powers and duties. it is not a contest between two sovereigns for the same power, like the wars of the rival houses in england; nor is it a dispute between a government _de facto_ and a government _de jure_. it is the case of a division of powers between two governments, made by the people, to whom both are responsible. neither can dispense with the duty which individuals owe to the other; neither can call itself master of the other: the people are masters of both. this division of power, it is true, is in a great measure unknown in europe. it is the peculiar system of america; and, though new and singular, it is not incomprehensible. the state constitutions are established by the people of the states. this constitution is established by the people of all the states. how, then, can a state secede? how can a state undo what the whole people have done? how can she absolve her citizens from their obedience to the laws of the united states? how can she annul their obligations and oaths? how can the members of her legislature renounce their own oaths? sir, secession, as a revolutionary right, is intelligible; as a right to be proclaimed in the midst of civil commotions, and asserted at the head of armies, i can understand it. but as a practical right, existing under the constitution, and in conformity with its provisions, it seems to me to be nothing but a plain absurdity; for it supposes resistance to government, under the authority of government itself; it supposes dismemberment, without violating the principles of union; it supposes opposition to law, without crime; it supposes the violation of oaths, without responsibility; it supposes the total overthrow of government, without revolution. the constitution, sir, regards itself as perpetual and immortal. it seeks to establish a union among the people of the states, which shall last through all time. or, if the common fate of things human must be expected at some period to happen to it, yet that catastrophe is not anticipated. the instrument contains ample provisions for its amendment, at all times; none for its abandonment, at any time. it declares that new states may come into the union, but it does not declare that old states may go out. the union is not a temporaly partnership of states. it is the association of the people, under a constitution of government, uniting their power, joining together their highest interests, cementing their present enjoyments, and blending, in one indivisible mass, all their hopes for the future. whatsoever is steadfast in just political principles; whatsoever is permanent in the structure of human society; whatsoever there is which can derive an enduring character from being founded on deep-laid principles of constitutional liberty and on the broad foundations of the public will,--all these unite to entitle this instrument to be regarded as a permanent constitution of government. in the next place, mr. president, i contend that there is a supreme law of the land, consisting of the constitution, acts of congress passed in pursuance of it, and the public treaties. this will not be denied, because such are the very words of the constitution. but i contend, further, that it rightfully belongs to congress, and to the courts of the united states, to settle the construction of this supreme law, in doubtful cases. this is denied; and here arises the great practical question, _who is to construe finally the constitution of the united states_? we all agree that the constitution is the supreme law; but who shall interpret that law? in our system of the division of powers between different governments, controversies will necessarily sometimes arise, respecting the extent of the powers of each. who shall decide these controversies? does it rest with the general government, in all or any of its departments, to exercise the office of final interpreter? or may each of the states, as well as the general government, claim this right of ultimate decision? the practical result of this whole debate turns on this point. the gentleman contends that each state may judge for itself of any alleged violation of the constitution, and may finally decide for itself, and may execute its own decisions by its own power. all the recent proceedings in south carolina are founded on this claim of right. her convention has pronounced the revenue laws of the united states unconstitutional; and this decision she does not allow any authority of the united states to overrule or reverse. of course she rejects the authority of congress, because the very object of the ordinance is to reverse the decision of congress; and she rejects, too, the authority of the courts of the united states, because she expressly prohibits all appeal to those courts. it is in order to sustain this asserted right of being her own judge, that she pronounces the constitution of the united states to be but a compact, to which she is a party, and a sovereign party. if this be established, then the inference is supposed to follow, that, being sovereign, there is no power to control her decision; and her own judgment on her own compact is, and must be, conclusive. i have already endeavored, sir, to point out the practical consequences of this doctrine, and to show how utterly inconsistent it is with all ideas of regular government, and how soon its adoption would involve the whole country in revolution and absolute anarchy. i hope it is easy now to show, sir, that a doctrine bringing such consequences with it is not well founded; that it has nothing to stand on but theory and assumption; and that it is refuted by plain and express constitutional provisions. i think the government of the united states does possess, in its appropriate departments, the authority of final decision on questions of disputed power. i think it possesses this authority, both by necessary implication and by express grant. it will not be denied, sir, that this authority naturally belongs to all governments. they all exercise it from necessity, and as a consequence of the exercise of other powers. the state governments themselves possess it, except in that class of questions which may arise between them and the general government, and in regard to which they have surrendered it, as well by the nature of the case as by clear constitutional provisions. in other and ordinary cases, whether a particular law be in conformity to the constitution of the state is a question which the state legislature or the state judiciary must determine. we all know that these questions arise daily in the state governments, and are decided by those governments; and i know no government which does not exercise a similar power. upon general principles, then, the government of the united states possesses this authority; and this would hardly be denied were it not that there are other governments. but since there are state governments, and since these, like other governments, ordinarily construe their own powers, if the government of the united states construes its own powers also, which construction is to prevail in the case of opposite constructions? and again, as in the case now actually before us, the state governments may undertake, not only to construe their own powers, but to decide directly on the extent of the powers of congress. congress has passed a law as being within its just powers; south carolina denies that this law is within its just powers, and insists that she has the right so to decide this point, and that her decision is final. how are these questions to be settled? in my opinion, sir, even if the constitution of the united states had made no express provision for such cases, it would yet be difficult to maintain, that, in a constitution existing over four-and-twenty states, with equal authority over all, _one_ could claim a right of construing it for the whole. this would seem a manifest impropriety; indeed, an absurdity. if the constitution is a government existing over all the states, though with limited powers, it necessarily follows, that, to the extent of those powers, it must be supreme. if it be not superior to the authority of a particular state, it is not a national government. but as it is a government, as it has a legislative power of its own, and a judicial power coextensive with the legislative, the inference is irresistible that this government, thus created _by_ the whole and _for_ the whole, must have an authority superior to that of the particular government of any one part. congress is the legislature of all the people of the united states; the judiciary of the general government is the judiciary of all the people of the united states. to hold, therefore, that this legislature and this judiciary are subordinate in authority to the legislature and judiciary of a single state, is doing violence to all common sense, and overturning all established principles. congress must judge of the extent of its own powers so often as it is called on to exercise them, or it cannot act at all; and it must also act independent of state control, or it cannot act at all. the right of state interposition strikes at the very foundation of the legislative power of congress. it possesses no effective legislative power, if such right of state interposition exists; because it can pass no law not subject to abrogation. it cannot make laws for the union, if any part of the union may pronounce its enactments void and of no effect. its forms of legislation would be an idle ceremony, if, after all, any one of four-and-twenty states might bid defiance to its authority. without express provision in the constitution, therefore, sir, this whole question is necessarily decided by those provisions which create a legislative power and a judicial power. if these exist in a government intended for the whole, the inevitable consequence is, that the laws of this legislative power and the decisions of this judicial power must be binding on and over the whole. no man can form the conception of a government existing over four-and-twenty states, with a regular legislative and judicial power, and of the existence at the same time of an authority, residing elsewhere, to resist, at pleasure or discretion, the enactments and the decisions of such a government. i maintain, therefore, sir, that, from the nature of the case, and as an inference wholly unavoidable, the acts of congress and the decisions of the national courts must be of higher authority than state laws and state decisions. if this be not so, there is, there can be, no general government. but, mr. president, the constitution has not left this cardinal point without full and explicit provisions. first, as to the authority of congress. having enumerated the specific powers conferred on congress, the constitution adds, as a distinct and substantive clause, the following, viz.: "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the united states, or in any department or officer thereof." if this means any thing, it means that congress may judge of the true extent and just interpretation of the specific powers granted to it, and may judge also of what is necessary and proper for executing those powers. if congress is to judge of what is necessary for the execution of its powers, it must, of necessity, judge of the extent and interpretation of those powers. and in regard, sir, to the judiciary, the constitution is still more express and emphatic. it declares that the judicial power shall extend to all _cases_ in law or equity arising under the constitution, laws of the united states, and treaties; that there shall be _one_ supreme court, and that this supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction of all these cases, subject to such exceptions as congress may make. it is impossible to escape from the generality of these words. if a case arises under the constitution, that is, if a case arises depending on the construction of the constitution, the judicial power of the united states extends to it. it reaches _the case, the question_; it attaches the power of the national judicature to the _case_ itself, in whatever court it may arise or exist; and in this _case_ the supreme court has appellate jurisdiction over all courts whatever. no language could provide with more effect and precision than is here done, for subjecting constitutional questions to the ultimate decision of the supreme court. and, sir, this is exactly what the convention found it necessary to provide for, and intended to provide for. it is, too, exactly what the people were universally told was done when they adopted the constitution. one of the first resolutions adopted by the convention was in these words, viz.: "that the jurisdiction of the national judiciary shall extend to cases which respect _the collection of the national revenue_, and questions which involve the national peace and harmony." now, sir, this either had no sensible meaning at all, or else it meant that the jurisdiction of the national judiciary should extend to these questions, _with a paramount authority_. it is not to be supposed that the convention intended that the power of the national judiciary should extend to these questions, and that the power of the judicatures of the states should also extend to them, _with equal power of final decision_. this would be to defeat the whole object of the provision. there were thirteen judicatures already in existence. the evil complained of, or the danger to be guarded against, was contradiction and repugnance in the decisions of these judicatures. if the framers of the constitution meant to create a fourteenth, and yet not to give it power to revise and control the decisions of the existing thirteen, then they only intended to augment the existing evil and the apprehended danger by increasing still further the chances of discordant judgments. why, sir, has it become a settled axiom in politics that every government must have a judicial power coextensive with its legislative power? certainly, there is only this reason, namely, that the laws may receive a uniform interpretation and a uniform execution. this object cannot be otherwise attained. a statute is what it is judicially interpreted to be; and if it be construed one way in new hampshire, and another way in georgia, there is no uniform law. one supreme court, with appellate and final jurisdiction, is the natural and only adequate means, in any government, to secure this uniformity. the convention saw all this clearly; and the resolution which i have quoted, never afterwards rescinded, passed through various modifications, till it finally received the form which the article now bears in the constitution. it is undeniably true, then, that the framers of the constitution intended to create a national judicial power, which should be paramount on national subjects. and after the constitution was framed, and while the whole country was engaged in discussing its merits, one of its most distinguished advocates, mr. madison, told the people that it _was true, that, in controversies relating to the boundary between the two jurisdictions, the tribunal which is ultimately to decide is to be established under the general government_. mr. martin, who had been a member of the convention, asserted the same thing to the legislature of maryland, and urged it as a reason for rejecting the constitution. mr. pinckney, himself also a leading member of the convention, declared it to the people of south carolina. everywhere it was admitted, by friends and foes, that this power was in the constitution. by some it was thought dangerous, by most it was thought necessary; but by all it was agreed to be a power actually contained in the instrument. the convention saw the absolute necessity of some control in the national government over state laws. different modes of establishing this control were suggested and considered. at one time, it was proposed that the laws of the states should, from time to time, be laid before congress, and that congress should possess a negative over them. but this was thought inexpedient and inadmissible; and in its place, and expressly as a substitute for it, the existing provision was introduced; that is to say, a provision by which the federal courts should have authority to overrule such state laws as might be in manifest contravention of the constitution. the writers of the federalist, in explaining the constitution, while it was yet pending before the people, and still unadopted, give this account of the matter in terms, and assign this reason for the article as it now stands. by this provision congress escaped the necessity of any revision of state laws, left the whole sphere of state legislation quite untouched, and yet obtained a security against any infringement of the constitutional power of the general government. indeed, sir, allow me to ask again, if the national judiciary was not to exercise a power of revision on constitutional questions over the judicatures of the states, why was any national judicature erected at all? can any man give a sensible reason for having a judicial power in this government, unless it be for the sake of maintaining a uniformity of decision on questions arising under the constitution and laws of congress, and insuring its execution? and does not this very idea of uniformity necessarily imply that the construction given by the national courts is to be the prevailing construction? how else, sir, is it possible that uniformity can be preserved? gentlemen appear to me, sir, to look at but one side of the question. they regard only the supposed danger of trusting a government with the interpretation of its own powers. but will they view the question in its other aspect? will they show us how it is possible for a government to get along with four-and-twenty interpreters of its laws and powers? gentlemen argue, too, as if, in these cases, the state would be always right, and the general government always wrong. but suppose the reverse,--suppose the state wrong (and, since they differ, some of them must be wrong),--are the most important and essential operations of the government to be embarrassed and arrested, because one state holds the contrary opinion? mr. president, every argument which refers the constitutionality of acts of congress to state decision appeals from the majority to the minority; it appeals from the common interest to a particular interest; from the counsels of all to the counsel of one; and endeavors to supersede the judgment of the whole by the judgment of a part. i think it is clear. sir, that the constitution, by express provision, by definite and unequivocal words, as well as by necessary implication, has constituted the supreme court of the united states the appellate tribunal in all cases of a constitutional nature which assume the shape of a suit, in law or equity. and i think i cannot do better than to leave this part of the subject by reading the remarks made upon it in the convention of connecticut, by mr. ellsworth; a gentleman, sir, who has left behind him, on the records of the government of his country, proofs of the clearest intelligence and of the deepest sagacity, as well as of the utmost purity and integrity of character. "this constitution," says he, "defines the extent of the powers of the general government. if the general legislature should, at any time, overleap their limits, the judicial department is a constitutional check. if the united states go beyond their powers, if they make a law which the constitution does not authorize, it is void; and the judiciary power, the national judges, who, to secure their impartiality, are to be made independent, will declare it to be void. on the other hand, if the states go beyond their limits, if they make a law which is a usurpation upon the general government, the law is void; and upright, independent judges will declare it to be so." nor did this remain merely matter of private opinion. in the very first session of the first congress, with all these well-known objects, both of the convention and the people, full and fresh in his mind, mr. ellsworth, as is generally understood, reported the bill for the organization of the judicial department, and in that bill made provision for the exercise of this appellate power of the supreme court, in all the proper cases, in whatsoever court arising; and this appellate power has now been exercised for more than forty years, without interruption, and without doubt. as to the cases, sir, which do not come before the courts, those political questions which terminate with the enactments of congress, it is of necessity that these should be ultimately decided by congress itself. like other legislatures, it must be trusted with this power. the members of congress are chosen by the people, and they are answerable to the people; like other public agents, they are bound by oath to support the constitution. these are the securities that they will not violate their duty, nor transcend their powers. they are the same securities that prevail in other popular governments; nor is it easy to see how grants of power can be more safely guarded, without rendering them nugatory. if the case cannot come before the courts, and if congress be not trusted with its decision, who shall decide it? the gentleman says, each state is to decide it for herself. if so, then, as i have already urged, what is law in one state is not law in another. or, if the resistance of one state compels an entire repeal of the law, then a minority, and that a small one, governs the whole country. sir, those who espouse the doctrines of nullification reject, as it seems to me, the first great principle of all republican liberty; that is, that the majority _must_ govern. in matters of common concern, the judgment of a majority _must_ stand as the judgment of the whole. this is a law imposed on us by the absolute necessity of the case; and if we do not act upon it, there is no possibility of maintaining any government but despotism. we hear loud and repeated denunciations against what is called _majority government_. it is declared, with much warmth, that a majority government cannot be maintained in the united states. what, then, do gentlemen wish? do they wish to establish a _minority_ government? do they wish to subject the will of the many to the will of the few? the honorable gentleman from south carolina has spoken of absolute majorities and majorities concurrent; language wholly unknown to our constitution, and to which it is not easy to affix definite ideas. as far as i understand it, it would teach us that the absolute majority may be found in congress, but the majority concurrent must be looked for in the states; that is to say, sir, stripping the matter of this novelty of phrase, that the dissent of one or more states, as states, renders void the decision of a majority of congress, so far as that state is concerned. and so this doctrine, running but a short career, like other dogmas of the day, terminates in nullification. if this vehement invective against _majorities_ meant no more than that, in the construction of government, it is wise to provide checks and balances, so that there should be various limitations on the power of the mere majority, it would only mean what the constitution of the united states has already abundantly provided. it is full of such checks and balances. in its very organization, it adopts a broad and most effective principle in restraint of the power of mere majorities. a majority of the people elects the house of representatives, but it does not elect the senate. the senate is elected by the states, each state having, in this respect, an equal power. no law, therefore, can pass, without the assent of the representatives of the people, and a majority of the representatives of the states also. a majority of the representatives of the people must concur, and a majority of the states must concur, in every act of congress; and the president is elected on a plan compounded of both these principles. but having composed one house of representatives chosen by the people in each state, according to their numbers, and the other of an equal number of members from every state, whether larger or smaller, the constitution gives to majorities in these houses thus constituted the full and entire power of passing laws, subject always to the constitutional restrictions and to the approval of the president. to subject them to any other power is clear usurpation. the majority of one house may be controlled by the majority of the other; and both may be restrained by the president's negative. these are checks and balances provided by the constitution, existing in the government itself, and wisely intended to secure deliberation and caution in legislative proceedings. but to resist the will of the majority in both houses, thus constitutionally exercised, to insist on the lawfulness of interposition by an extraneous power; to claim the right of defeating the will of congress, by setting up against it the will of a single state,--is neither more nor less, as it strikes me, than a plain attempt to overthrow the government. the constituted authorities of the united states are no longer a government, if they be not masters of their own will; they are no longer a government, if an external power may arrest their proceedings; they are no longer a government, if acts passed by both houses, and approved by the president, may be nullified by state vetoes or state ordinances. does any one suppose it could make any difference, as to the binding authority of an act of congress, and of the duty of a state to respect it, whether it passed by a mere majority of both houses, or by three fourths of each, or the unanimous vote of each? within the limits and restrictions of the constitution, the government of the united states, like all other populpr governments, acts by majorities. it can act no otherwise. whoever, therefore, denounces the government of majorities, denounces the government of his own country, and denounces all free governments. and whoever would restrain these majorities, while acting within their constitutional limits, by an external power, whatever he may intend, asserts principles which, if adopted, can lead to nothing else than the destruction of the government itself. does not the gentleman perceive, sir, how his argument against majorities might here be retorted upon him? does he not see how cogently he might be asked, whether it be the character of nullification to practise what it preaches? look to south carolina, at the present moment. how far are the rights of minorities there respected? i confess, sir, i have not known, in peaceable times, the power of the majority carried with a higher hand, or upheld with more relentless disregard of the rights, feelings and principles of the minority;--a minority embracing, as the gentleman himself will admit, a large portion of the worth and respectability of the state;--a minority comprehending in its numbers men who have been associated with him, and with us, in these halls of legislation; men who have served their country at home and honored it abroad; men who would cheerfully lay down their lives for their native state, in any cause which they could regard as the cause of honor and duty; men above fear, and above reproach, whose deepest grief and distress spring from the conviction, that the present proceedings of the state must ultimately reflect discredit upon her. how is this minority, how are these men, regarded? they are enthralled and disfranchised by ordinances and acts of legislation; subjected to tests and oaths, incompatible, as they conscientiously think, with oaths already taken, and obligations already assumed; they are proscribed and denounced as recreants to duty and patriotism, and slaves to a foreign power. both the spirit which pursues them, and the positive measures which emanate from that spirit, are harsh and proscriptive beyond all precedent within my knowledge, except in periods of professed revolution. it is not, sir, one would think, for those who approve these proceedings to complain of the power of majorities. mr. president, all popular governments rest on two principles, or two assumptions:-- first, that there is so far a common interest among those over whom the government extends, as that it may provide for the defence, protection, and good government of the whole, without injustice or oppression to parts; and secondly, that the representatives of the people, and especially the people themselves, are secure against general corruption, and may be trusted, therefore, with the exercise of power. whoever argues against these principles argues against the practicability of all free governments. and whoever admits these, must admit, or cannot deny, that power is as safe in the hands of congress as in those of other representative bodies. congress is not irresponsible. its members are agents of the people, elected by them, answerable to them, and liable to be displaced or superseded, at their pleasure; and they possess as fair a claim to the confidence of the people, while they continue to deserve it, as any other public political agents. if, then, sir, the manifest intention of the convention, and the contemporary admission of both friends and foes, prove any thing; if the plain text of the instrument itself, as well as the necessary implication from other provisions, prove any thing; if the early legislation of congress, the course of judicial decisions, acquiesced in by all the states for forty years, prove any thing,--then it is proved that there is a supreme law, and a final interpreter. my fourth and last proposition, mr. president, was, that any attempt by a state to abrogate or nullify acts of congress is a usurpation on the powers of the general government and on the equal rights of other states, a violation of the constitution, and a proceeding essentially revolutionary. this is undoubtedly true, if the preceding propositions be regarded as proved. if the government of the united states be trusted with the duty, in any department, of declaring the extent of its own powers, then a state ordinance, or act of legislation, authorizing resistance to an act of congress, on the alleged ground of its unconstitutionally, is manifestly a usurpation upon its powers. if the states have equal rights in matters concerning the whole, then for one state to set up her judgment against the judgment of the rest, and to insist on executing that judgment by force, is also a manifest usurpation on the rights of other states. if the constitution of the united states be a government proper, with authority to pass laws, and to give them a uniform interpretation and execution, then the interposition of a state, to enforce her own construction, and to resist, as to herself, that law which binds the other states, is a violation of the constitution. if that be revolutionary which arrests the legislative, executive, and judicial power of government, dispenses with existing oaths and obligations of obedience, and elevates another power to supreme dominion, then nullification is revolutionary. or if that be revolutionary the natural tendency and practical effect of which are to break the union into fragments, to sever all connection among the people of the respective states, and to prostrate this general government in the dust, then nullification is revolutionary. nullification, sir, is as distinctly revolutionary as secession; but i cannot say that the revolution which it seeks is one of so respectable a character. secession would, it is true, abandon the constitution altogether; but then it would profess to abandon it. whatever other inconsistencies it might run into, one, at least, it would avoid. it would not belong to a government, while it rejected its authority. it would not repel the burden, and continue to enjoy the benefits. it would not aid in passing laws which others are to obey, and yet reject their authority as to itself. it would not undertake to reconcile obedience to public authority with an asserted right of command over that same authority. it would not be in the government, and above the government, at the same time. but though secession may be a more respectable mode of attaining the object than nullification, it is not more truly revolutionary. each, and both, resist the constitutional authorities; each, and both, would sever the union and subvert the government. mr. president, having detained the senate so long already, i will not now examine at length the ordinance and laws of south carolina. these papers are well drawn for their purpose. their authors understood their own objects. they are called a peaceable remedy, and we have been told that south carolina, after all, intends nothing but a lawsuit. a very few words, sir, will show the nature of this peaceable remedy, and of the lawsuit which south carolina contemplates. in the first place, the ordinance declares the law of last july, and all other laws of the united states laying duties, to be absolutely null and void, and makes it unlawful for the constituted authorities of the united states to enforce the payment of such duties. it is therefore, sir, an indictable offence, at this moment, in south carolina, for any person to be concerned in collecting revenue under the laws of the united states. it being declared, by what is considered a fundamental law of the state, unlawful to collect these duties, an indictment lies, of course, against any one concerned in such collection; and he is, on general principles, liable to be punished by fine and imprisonment. the terms, it is true, are, that it is unlawful "to enforce the payment of duties"; but every custom-house officer enforces payment while he detains the goods in order to obtain such payment. the ordinance, therefore, reaches everybody concerned in the collection of the duties. this is the first step in the prosecution of the peaceable remedy. the second is more decisive. by the act commonly called the _replevin_ law, any person whose goods are seized or detained by the collector for the payment of duties may sue out a writ of replevin, and, by virtue of that writ, the goods are to be restored to him. a writ of replevin is a writ which the sheriff is bound to execute, and for the execution of which he is bound to employ force, if necessary. he may call out the _posse_, and must do so, if resistance be made. this _posse_ may be armed or unarmed. it may come forth with military array, and under the lead of military men. whatever number of troops may be assembled in charleston, they may be summoned, with the governor, or commander-in-chief, at their head, to come in aid of the sheriff. it is evident, then, sir, that the whole military power of the state is to be employed, if necessary, in dispossessing the custom-house officers, and in seizing and holding the goods, without paying the duties. this is the second step in the peaceable remedy. sir, whatever pretences may be set up to the contrary, this is the direct application of force, and of military force. it is unlawful, in itself, to replevy goods in the custody of the collectors. but this unlawful act is to be done, and it is to be done by power. here is a plain interposition, by physical force, to resist the laws of the union. the legal mode of collecting duties is to detain the goods till such duties are paid or secured. but force comes, and overpowers the collector and his assistants, and takes away the goods, leaving the duties unpaid. there cannot be a clearer case of forcible resistance to law. and it is provided that the goods thus seized shall be held against any attempt to retake them, by the same force which seized them. having thus dispossessed the officers of the government of the goods, without payment of duties, and seized and secured them by the strong arm of the state, only one thing more remains to be done, and that is, to cut off all possibility of legal redress; and that, too, is accomplished, or thought to be accomplished. the ordinance declares, _that all judicial proceedings, founded on the revenue laws_ (including, of course, proceedings in the courts of the united states), _shall be null and void_. this nullifies the judicial power of the united states. then comes the test-oath act. this requires all state judges and jurors in the state courts to swear that they will execute the ordinance, and all acts of the legislature passed in pursuance thereof. the ordinance declares, that no appeal shall be allowed from the decision of the state courts to the supreme court of the united states; and the replevin act makes it an indictable offence for any clerk to furnish a copy of the record, for the purpose of such appeal. the two principal provisions on which south carolina relies, to resist the laws of the united states, and nullify the authority of this government, are, therefore, these:-- . a forcible seizure of goods, before duties are paid or secured, by the power of the state, civil and military. . the taking away, by the most effectual means in her power, of all legal redress in the courts of the united states; the confining of judicial proceedings to her own state tribunals; and the compelling of her judges and jurors of these her own courts to take an oath, beforehand, that they will decide all cases according to the ordinance, and the acts passed under it; that is, that they will decide the cause one way. they do not swear to _try_ it, on its own merits; they only swear to _decide_ it as nullification requires. the character, sir, of these provisions defies comment. their object is as plain as their means are extraordinary. they propose direct resistance, by the whole power of the state, to laws of congress, and cut off, by methods deemed adequate, any redress by legal and judicial authority. they arrest legislation, defy the executive, and banish the judicial power of this government. they authorize and command acts to be done, and done by force, both of numbers and of arms, which, if done, and done by force, are clearly acts of rebellion and treason. such, sir, are the laws of south carolina; such, sir, is the peaceable remedy of nullification. has not nullification reached, sir, even thus early, that point of direct and forcible resistance to law to which i intimated, three years ago, it plainly tended? and now, mr. president, what is the reason for passing laws like these? what are the oppressions experienced under the union, calling for measures which thus threaten to sever and destroy it? what invasions of public liberty, what ruin to private happiness, what long list of rights violated, or wrongs unredressed, is to justify to the country, to posterity, and to the world, this assault upon the free constitution of the united states, this great and glorious work of our fathers? at this very moment, sir, the whole land smiles in peace, and rejoices in plenty. a general and a high prosperity pervades the country; and, judging by the common standard, by increase of population and wealth, or judging by the opinions of that portion of her people not embarked in these dangerous and desperate measures, this prosperity overspreads south carolina herself. thus happy at home, our country, at the same time, holds high the character of her institutions, her power, her rapid growth, and her future destiny, in the eyes of all foreign states. one danger only creates hesitation; one doubt only exists, to darken the otherwise unclouded brightness of that aspect which she exhibits to the view and to the admiration of the world. need i say, that that doubt respects the permanency of our union? and need i say, that that doubt is now caused, more than any thing else, by these very proceedings of south carolina? sir, all europe is, at this moment, beholding us, and looking for the issue of this controversy; those who hate free institutions, with malignant hope; those who love them, with deep anxiety and shivering fear. the cause, then, sir, the cause! let the world know the cause which has thus induced one state of the union to bid defiance to the power of the whole, and openly to talk of secession. sir, the world will scarcely believe that this whole controversy, and all the desperate measures which its support requires, have no other foundation than a difference of opinion upon a provision of the constitution, between a majority of the people of south carolina, on one side, and a vast majority of the whole people of the united states, on the other. it will not credit the fact, it will not admit the possibility, that, in an enlightened age, in a free, popular republic, under a constitution where the people govern, as they must always govern under such systems, by majorities, at a time of unprecedented prosperity, without practical oppression, without evils such as may not only be pretended, but felt and experienced,--evils not slight or temporary, but deep, permanent, and intolerable,--a single state should rush into conflict with all the rest, attempt to put down the power of the union by her own laws, and to support those laws by her military power, and thus break up and destroy the world's last hope. and well the world may be incredulous. we, who see and hear it, can ourselves hardly yet believe it. even after all that had preceded it, this ordinance struck the country with amazement. it was incredible and inconceivable that south carolina should plunge headlong into resistance to the laws on a matter of opinion, and on a question in which the preponderance of opinion, both of the present day and of all past time, was so overwhelmingly against her. the ordinance declares that congress has exceeded its just power by laying duties on imports, intended for the protection of manufactures. this is the opinion of south carolina; and on the strength of that opinion she nullifies the laws. yet has the rest of the country no right to its opinion also? is one state to sit sole arbitress? she maintains that those laws are plain, deliberate, and palpable violations of the constitution; that she has a sovereign right to decide this matter; and that, having so decided, she is authorized to resist their execution by her own sovereign power; and she declares that she will resist it, though such resistance should shatter the union into atoms. mr. president, i do not intend to discuss the propriety of these laws at large; but i will ask, how are they shown to be thus plainly and palpably unconstitutional? have they no countenance at all in the constitution itself? are they quite new in the history of the government? are they a sudden and violent usurpation on the rights of the states? sir, what will the civilized world say, what will posterity say, when they learn that similar laws have existed from the very foundation of the government, that for thirty years the power was never questioned, and that no state in the union has more freely and unequivocally admitted it than south carolina herself? to lay and collect duties and imposts is an _express power_ granted by the constitution to congress. it is, also, an _exclusive power_; for the constitution as expressly prohibits all the states from exercising it themselves. this express and exclusive power is unlimited in the terms of the grant, but is attended with two specific restrictions: first, that all duties and imposts shall be equal in all the states; second, that no duties shall be laid on exports. the power, then, being granted, and being attended with these two restrictions, and no more, who is to impose a third restriction on the general words of the grant? if the power to lay duties, as known among all other nations, and as known in all our history, and as it was perfectly understood when the constitution was adopted, includes a right of discriminating while exercising the power, and of laying some duties heavier and some lighter, for the sake of encouraging our own domestic products, what authority is there for giving to the words used in the constitution a new, narrow, and unusual meaning? all the limitations which the constitution intended, it has expressed; and what it has left unrestricted is as much a part of its will as the restraints which it has imposed. but these laws, it is said, are unconstitutional on account of the _motive_. how, sir, can a law be examined on any such ground? how is the motive to be ascertained? one house, or one member, may have one motive; the other house, or another member, another. one motive may operate to-day, and another to-morrow. upon any such mode of reasoning as this, one law might be unconstitutional now, and another law, in exactly the same words, perfectly constitutional next year. besides, articles may not only be taxed for the purpose of protecting home products, but other articles may be left free, for the same purpose and with the same motive. a law, therefore, would become unconstitutional from what it omitted, as well as from what it contained. mr. president, it is a settled principle, acknowledged in all legislative halls, recognized before all tribunals, sanctioned by the general sense and understanding of mankind, that there can be no inquiry into the motives of those who pass laws, for the purpose of determining on their validity. if the law be within the fair meaning of the words in the grant of the power, its authority must be admitted until it is repealed. this rule, everywhere acknowledged, everywhere admitted, is so universal and so completely without exception, that even an allegation of fraud, in the majority of a legislature, is not allowed as a ground to set aside a law. but, sir, is it true that the motive for these laws is such as is stated? i think not. the great object of all these laws is, unquestionably, revenue. if there were no occasion for revenue, the laws would not have been passed; and it is notorious that almost the entire revenue of the country is derived from them. and as yet we have collected none too much revenue. the treasury has not been more reduced for many years than it is at the present moment. all that south carolina can say is, that, in passing the laws which she now undertakes to nullify, _particular imported articles were taxed, from a regard to the protection of certain articles of domestic manufacture, higher than they would have been had no such regard been entertained_. and she insists, that, according to the constitution, no such discrimination can be allowed; that duties should be laid for revenue, and revenue only; and that it is unlawful to have reference, in any case, to protection. in other words, she denies the power of discrimination. she does not, and cannot, complain of excessive taxation; on the contrary, she professes to be willing to pay any amount for revenue, merely as revenue; and up to the present moment there is no surplus of revenue. her grievance, then, that plain and palpable violation of the constitution which she insists has taken place, is simply the exercise of the power of discrimination. now, sir, is the exercise of this power of discrimination plainly and palpably unconstitutional? i have already said, the power to lay duties is given by the constitution in broad and general terms. there is also conferred on congress the whole power of regulating commerce, in another distinct provision. is it clear and palpable, sir, can any man say it is a case beyond doubt, that, under these two powers, congress may not justly _discriminate_, in laying duties, _for the purpose of countervailing the policy of foreign nations, or of favoring our own home productions_? sir, what ought to conclude this question for ever, as it would seem to me, is, that the regulation of commerce and the imposition of duties are, in all commercial nations, powers avowedly and constantly exercised for this very end. that undeniable truth ought to settle the question; because the constitution ought to be considered, when it uses well-known language, as using it in its well-known sense. but it is equally undeniable, that it has been, from the very first, fully believed that this power of discrimination was conferred on congress; and the constitution was itself recommended, urged upon the people, and enthusiastically insisted on in some of the states, for that very reason. not that, at that time, the country was extensively engaged in manufactures, especially of the kinds now existing. but the trades and crafts of the seaport towns, the business of the artisans and manual laborers,--those employments, the work in which supplies so great a portion of the daily wants of all classes,--all these looked to the new constitution as a source of relief from the severe distress which followed the war. it would, sir, be unpardonable, at so late an hour, to go into details on this point; but the truth is as i have stated. the papers of the day, the resolutions of public meetings, the debates in the contentions, all that we open our eyes upon in the history of the times, prove it. sir, the honorable gentleman from south carolina has referred to two incidents connected with the proceedings of the convention at philadelphia, which he thinks are evidence to show that the power of protecting manufactures by laying duties, and by commercial regulations, was not intended to be given to congress. the first is, as he says, that a power to protect manufactures was expressly proposed, but not granted. i think, sir, the gentleman is quite mistaken in relation to this part of the proceedings of the convention. the whole history of the occurrence to which he alludes is simply this. towards the conclusion of the convention, after the provisions of the constitution had been mainly agreed upon, after the power to lay duties and the power to regulate commerce had both been granted, a long list of propositions was made and referred to the committee, containing various miscellaneous powers, some or all of which it was thought might be properly vested in congress. among these was a power to establish a university; to grant charters of incorporation; to regulate stage-coaches on the post-roads, and also the power to which the gentleman refers, and which is expressed in these words: "to establish public institutions, rewards, and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, commerce, trades, and manufactures." the committee made no report on this or various other propositions in the same list. but the only inference from this omission is, that neither the committee nor the convention thought it proper to authorize congress "to establish public institutions, rewards, and immunities," for the promotion of manufactures, and other interests. the convention supposed it had done enough,--at any rate, it had done all it intended,--when it had given to congress, in general terms, the power to lay imposts and the power to regulate trade. it is not to be argued, from its omission to give more, that it meant to take back what it had already given. it had given the impost power; it had given the regulation of trade; and it did not deem it necessary to give the further and distinct power of establishing public institutions. the other fact, sir, on which the gentleman relies, is the declaration of mr. martin to the legislature of maryland. the gentleman supposes mr. martin to have urged against the constitution, that it did not contain the power of protection. but if the gentleman will look again at what mr. martin said, he will find, i think, that what mr. martin complained of was, that the constitution, by its prohibitions on the states, had taken away from the states themselves the power of protecting their own manufactures by duties on imports. this is undoubtedly true; but i find no expression of mr. martin intimating that the constitution had not conferred on congress the same power which it had thus taken from the states. but, sir, let us go to the first congress; let us look in upon this and the other house, at the first session of their organization. we see, in both houses, men distinguished among the framers, friends, and advocates of the constitution. we see in both, those who had drawn, discussed, and matured the instrument in the convention, explained and defended it before the people, and were now elected members of congress, to put the new government into motion, and to carry the powers of the constitution into beneficial execution. at the head of the government was washington himself, who had been president of the convention; and in his cabinet were others most thoroughly acquainted with the history of the constitution, and distinguished for the part taken in its discussion. if these persons were not acquainted with the meaning of the constitution, if they did not understand the work of their own hands, who can understand it, or who shall now interpret it to us? sir, the volume which records the proceedings and debates of the first session of the house of representatives lies before me. i open it, and i find that, having provided for the administration of the necessary oaths, the very first measure proposed for consideration is, the laying of imposts; and in the very first committee of the whole into which the house of representatives ever resolved itself, on this its earliest subject, and in this its very first debate, the duty of so laying the imposts as to encourage manufactures was advanced and enlarged upon by almost every speaker, and doubted or denied by none. the first gentleman who suggests this as the clear duty of congress, and as an object necessary to be attended to, is mr. fitzsimons, of pennsylvania; the second, mr. white, of virginia; the third, mr. tucker, of south carolina. but the great leader, sir, on this occasion, was mr. madison. was _he_ likely to know the intentions of the convention and the people? was _he_ likely to understand the constitution? at the second sitting of the committee, mr. madison explained his own opinions of the duty of congress, fully and explicitly. i must not detain you, sir, with more than a few short extracts from these opinions, but they are such as are clear, intelligible, and decisive. "the states," says he, "that are most advanced in population, and ripe for manufactures, ought to have their particular interest attended to, in some degree. while these states retained the power of making regulations of trade, they had the power to cherish such institutions. by adopting the present constitution, they have thrown the exercise of this power into other hands; they must have done this with an expectation that those interests would not be neglected here." in another report of the same speech, mr. madison is represented as using still stronger language; as saying that, the constitution having taken this power away from the states and conferred it on congress, it would be a _fraud_ on the states and on the people were congress to refuse to exercise it. mr. madison argues, sir, on this early and interesting occasion, very justly and liberally, in favor of the general principles of unrestricted commerce. but he argues, also, with equal force and clearness, for certain important exceptions to these general principles. the first, sir, respects those manufactures which had been brought forward under encouragement by the state governments. "it would be cruel," says mr. madison, "to neglect them, and to divert their industry into other channels; for it is not possible for the hand of man to shift from one employment to another without being injured by the change." again: "there may be some manufactures which, being once formed, can advance towards perfection without any adventitious aid; while others, for want of the fostering hand of government, will be unable to go on at all. legislative provision, therefore, will be necessary to collect the proper objects for this purpose; and this will form another exception to my general principle." and again: "the next exception that occurs is one on which great stress is laid by some well-informed men, and this with great plausibility; that each nation should have, within itself, the means of defence, independent of foreign supplies; that, in whatever relates to the operations of war, no state ought to depend upon a precarious supply from any part of the world. there may be some truth in this remark; and therefore it is proper for legislative attention." in the same debate, sir, mr. burk, from south carolina, supported a duty on hemp, for the express purpose of encouraging its growth on the strong lands of south carolina. "cotton," he said, "was also in contemplation among them, and, if good seed could be procured, he hoped might succeed." afterwards, sir, the cotton was obtained, its culture was protected, and it did succeed. mr. smith, a very distinguished member from the same state, observed: "it has been said, and justly, that the states which adopted this constitution expected its administration would be conducted with a favorable hand. the manufacturing states wished the encouragement of manufactures, the maritime states the encouragement of ship-building, and the agricultural states the encouragement of agriculture." sir, i will detain the senate by reading no more extracts from these debates. i have already shown a majority of the members of south carolina, in this very first session, acknowledging this power of protection, voting for its exercise, and proposing its extension to their own products. similar propositions came from virginia; and, indeed, sir, in the whole debate, at whatever page you open the volume, you find the power admitted, and you find it applied to the protection of particular articles, or not applied, according to the discretion of congress. no man denied the power, no man doubted it; the only questions were, in regard to the several articles proposed to be taxed, whether they were fit subjects for protection, and what the amount of that protection ought to be. will gentlemen, sir, now answer the argument drawn from these proceedings of the first congress? will they undertake to deny that that congress did act on the avowed principle of protection? or, if they admit it, will they tell us how those who framed the constitution fell, thus early, into this great mistake about its meaning? will they tell us how it should happen that they had so soon forgotten their own sentiments and their own purposes? i confess i have seen no answer to this argument, nor any respectable attempt to answer it. and, sir, how did this debate terminate? what law was passed? there it stands, sir, among the statutes, the second law in the book. it has a _preamble_, and that preamble expressly recites, that the duties which it imposes are laid "for the support of government, for the discharge of the debts of the united states, and _the encouragement and protection of manufactures_." until, sir, this early legislation, thus coeval with the constitution itself, thus full and explicit, can be explained away, no man can doubt of the meaning of that instrument in this respect. mr. president, this power of _discrimination_, thus admitted, avowed, and practised upon in the first revenue act, has never been denied or doubted until within a few years past. it was not at all doubted in , when it became necessary to adjust the revenue to a state of peace. on the contrary, the power was then exercised, not without opposition as to its expediency, but, as far as i remember or have understood, without the slightest opposition founded on any supposed want of constitutional authority. certainly, south carolina did not doubt it. the tariff of was introduced, carried through, and established, under the lead of south carolina. even the minimum policy is of south carolina origin. the honorable gentleman himself supported, and ably supported, the tariff of . he has informed us, sir, that his speech on that occasion was sudden and off-hand, he being called up by the request of a friend. i am sure the gentleman so remembers it, and that it was so; but there is, nevertheless, much method, arrangement, and clear exposition in that extempore speech. it is very able, very, very much to the point, and very decisive. and in another speech, delivered two months earlier, on the proposition to repeal the internal taxes, the honorable gentleman had touched the same subject, and had declared "_that a certain encouragement ought to be extended at least to our woollen and cotton manufactures_." i do not quote these speeches, sir, for the purpose of showing that the honorable gentleman has changed his opinion: my object is other and higher. i do it for the sake of saying that that cannot be so plainly and palpably unconstitutional as to warrant resistance to law, nullification, and revolution, which the honorable gentleman and his friends have heretofore agreed to and acted upon without doubt and without hesitation. sir, it is no answer to say that the tariff of was a revenue bill. so are they all revenue bills. the point is, and the truth is, that the tariff of , like the rest, _did discriminate_; it did distinguish one article from another; it did lay duties for protection. look to the case of coarse cottons under the minimum calculation: the duty on these was from sixty to eighty per cent. something beside revenue, certainly, was intended in this; and, in fact, the law cut up our whole commerce with india in that article. it is, sir, only within a few years that carolina has denied the constitutionality of these protective laws. the gentleman himself has narrated to us the true history of her proceedings on this point. he says, that, after the passing of the law of , despairing then of being able to abolish the system of protection, political men went forth among the people, and set up the doctrine that the system was unconstitutional. "_and the people_," says the honorable gentleman, "_received the doctrine_." this, i believe, is true, sir. the people did then receive the doctrine; they had never entertained it before. down to that period, the constitutionality of these laws had been no more doubted in south carolina than elsewhere. and i suspect it is true, sir, and i deem it a great misfortune, that, to the present moment, a great portion of the people of the state have never yet seen more than one side of the argument. i believe that thousands of honest men are involved in scenes now passing, led away by one-sided views of the question, and following their leaders by the impulses of an unlimited confidence. depend upon it, sir, if we can avoid the shock of arms, a day for reconsideration and reflection will come; truth and reason will act with their accustomed force, and the public opinion of south carolina will be restored to its usual constitutional and patriotic tone. but, sir, i hold south carolina to her ancient, her cool, her uninfluenced, her deliberate opinions. i hold her to her own admissions, nay, to her own claims and pretensions, in , in the first congress, and to her acknowledgments and avowed sentiments through a long series of succeeding years. i hold her to the principles on which she led congress to act in ; or, if she have changed her own opinions, i claim some respect for those who still retain the same opinions. i say she is precluded from asserting that doctrines, which she has herself so long and so ably sustained, are plain, palpable, and dangerous violations of the constitution. mr. president, if the friends of nullification should be able to propagate their opinions, and give them practical effect, they would, in my judgment, prove themselves the most skilful "architects of ruin," the most effectual extinguishers of high-raised expectation, the greatest blasters of human hopes, that any age has produced. they would stand up to proclaim, in tones which would pierce the ears of half the human race, that the last great experiment of representative government had failed. they would send forth sounds, at the hearing of which the doctrine of the divine right of kings would feel, even in its grave, a returning sensation of vitality and resuscitation. millions of eyes, of those who now feed their inherent love of liberty on the success of the american example, would turn away from beholding our dismemberment, and find no place on earth whereon to rest their gratified sight. amidst the incantations and orgies of nullification, secession, disunion, and revolution, would be celebrated the funeral rites of constitutional and republican liberty. but, sir, if the government do its duty, if it act with firmness and with moderation, these opinions cannot prevail. be assured, sir, be assured, that, among the political sentiments of this people, the love of union is still uppermost. they will stand fast by the constitution, and by those who defend it. i rely on no temporary expedients, on no political combination; but i rely on the true american feeling, the genuine patriotism of the people, and the imperative decision of the public voice. disorder and confusion, indeed, may arise; scenes of commotion and contest are threatened, and perhaps may come. with my whole heart, i pray for the continuance of the domestic peace and quiet of the country. i desire, most ardently, the restoration of affection and harmony to all its parts. i desire that every citizen of the whole country may look to this government with no other sentiments than those of grateful respect and attachment. but i cannot yield even to kind feelings the cause of the constitution, the true glory of the country, and the great trust which we hold in our hands for succeeding ages. if the constitution cannot be maintained without meeting these scenes of commotion and contest, however unwelcome, they must come. we cannot, we must not, we dare not, omit to do that which, in our judgment, the safety of the union requires. not regardless of consequences, we must yet meet consequences; seeing the hazards which surround the discharge of public duty, it must yet be discharged. for myself, sir, i shun no responsibility justly devolving on me, here or elsewhere, in attempting to maintain the cause. i am bound to it by indissoluble ties of affection and duty, and i shall cheerfully partake in its fortunes and its fate. i am ready to perform my own appropriate part, whenever and wherever the occasion may call on me, and to take my chance among those upon whom blows may fall first and fall thickest. i shall exert every faculty i possess in aiding to prevent the constitution from being nullified, destroyed, or impaired; and even should i see it fall, i will still, with a voice feeble, perhaps, but earnest as ever issued from human lips, and with fidelity and zeal which nothing shall extinguish, call on the people to come to its rescue. [footnote : mr. rives.] public dinner at new york. a speech delivered at a public dinner given by a large number of citizens of new york, in honor of mr. webster, on march th, . [in february, , several distinguished gentlemen of the city of new york, in behalf of themselves and a large number of other citizens, invited mr. webster to a public dinner, as a mark of their respect for the value and success of his efforts, in the preceding session of congress, in defence of the constitution of the united states. his speech in reply to mr. hayne (contained in an earlier part of this volume), which, by that time, had been circulated and read through the country to a greater extent than any speech ever before delivered in congress, was the particular effort which led to this invitation. the dinner took place at the city hotel, on the th of march, and was attended by a very large assembly. chancellor kent presided, and, in proposing to the company the health of their guest, made the following remarks:-- "new england has been long fruitful in great men, the necessary consequence of the admirable discipline of her institutions; and we are this day honored with the presence of one of those cherished objects of her attachment and pride, who has an undoubted and peculiar title to our regard. it is a plain truth, that he who defends the constitution of his country by his wisdom in council is entitled to share her gratitude with those who protect it by valor in the field. peace has its victories as well as war. we all recollect a late memorable occasion, when the exalted talents and enlightened patriotism of the gentleman to whom i have alluded were exerted in the support of our national union and the sound interpretation of its charter. "if there be any one political precept pre-eminent above all others and acknowledged by all, it is that which dictates the absolute necessity of a union of the states under one government, and that government clothed with those attributes and powers with which the existing constitution has invested it. we are indebted, under providence, to the operation and influence of the powers of that constitution for our national honor abroad and for unexampled prosperity at home. its future stability depends upon the firm support and due exercise of its legitimate powers in all their branches. a tendency to disunion, to anarchy among the members rather than to tyranny in the head, has been heretofore the melancholy fate of all the federal governments of ancient and modern europe. our union and national constitution were formed, as we have hitherto been led to believe, under better auspices and with improved wisdom. but there was a deadly principle of disease inherent in the system. the assumption by any member of the union of the right to question and resist, or annul, as its own judgment should dictate, either the laws of congress, or the treaties, or the decisions of the federal courts, or the mandates of the executive power, duly made and promulgated as the constitution prescribes, was a most dangerous assumption of power, leading to collision and the destruction of the system. and if, contrary to all our expectations, we should hereafter fail in the grand experiment of a confederate government extending over some of the fairest portions of this continent, and destined to act, at the same time, with efficiency and harmony, we should most grievously disappoint the hopes of mankind, and blast for ever the fruits of the revolution. "but, happily for us, the refutation of such dangerous pretensions, on the occasion referred to, was signal and complete. the false images and delusive theories which had perplexed the thoughts and disturbed the judgments of men, were then dissipated in like manner as spectres disappear at the rising of the sun. the inestimable value of the union, and the true principles of the constitution, were explained by clear and accurate reasonings, and enforced by pathetic and eloquent illustrations. the result was the more auspicious, as the heretical doctrines which were then fairly reasoned down had been advanced by a very respectable portion of the union, and urged on the floor of the senate by the polished mind, manly zeal, and honored name of a distinguished member from the south. "the consequences of that discussion have been extremely beneficial. it turned the attention of the public to the great doctrines of national rights and national union. constitutional law ceased to remain wrapped up in the breasts, and taught only by the responses, of the living oracles of the law. socrates was said to have drawn down philosophy from the skies, and scattered it among the schools. it may with equal truth be said, that constitutional law, by means of those senatorial discussions and the master genius that guided them, was rescued from the archives of our tribunals and the libraries of lawyers, and placed under the eye, and submitted to the judgment, of the american people. _their verdict is with us, and from it, there lies no appeal._" as soon as the immense cheering and acclamations with which this address and toast were received had subsided, mr. webster rose and addressed the company as follows.] i owe the honor of this occasion, gentlemen, to your patriotic and affectionate attachment to the constitution of our country. for an effort, well intended, however otherwise of unpretending character, made in the discharge of public duty, and designed to maintain the constitution and vindicate its just powers, you have been pleased to tender me this token of your respect. it would be idle affectation to deny that it gives me singular gratification. every public man must naturally desire the approbation of his fellow-citizens; and though it may be supposed that i should be anxious, in the first place, not to disappoint the expectations of those whose immediate representative i am, it is not possible but that i should feel, nevertheless, the high value of such a mark of esteem as is here offered. but, gentlemen, i am conscious that the main purpose of this occasion is higher than mere manifestation of personal regard. it is to evince your devotion to the constitution, your sense of its transcendent value, and your just alarm at whatever threatens to weaken its proper authority, or endanger its existence. gentlemen, this could hardly be otherwise. it would be strange, indeed, if the members of this vast commercial community should not be first and foremost to rally for the constitution, whenever opinions and doctrines are advanced hostile to its principles. where sooner than here, where louder than here, may we expect a patriotic voice to be raised, when the union of the states is threatened? in this great emporium, at this central point of the united commerce of the united states, of all places, we may expect the warmest, the most determined and universal feeling of attachment to the national government. gentlemen, no one can estimate more highly than i do the natural advantages of your city. no one entertains a higher opinion than myself, also, of that spirit of wise and liberal policy, which has actuated the government of your own great state in the accomplishment of high objects, important to the growth and prosperity both of the state and the city. but all these local advantages, and all this enlightened state policy, could never have made your city what it now is, without the aid and protection of a general government, extending over all the states, and establishing for all a common and uniform system of commercial regulation. without national character, without public credit, without systematic finance, without uniformity of commercial laws, all other advantages possessed by this city would have decayed and perished, like unripe fruit. a general government was, for years before it was instituted, the great object of desire to the inhabitants of this city. new york, at a very early day, was conscious of her local advantages for commerce; she saw her destiny, and was eager to embrace it; but nothing else than a general government could make free her path before her, and set her forward on her brilliant career. she early saw all this, and to the accomplishment of this great and indispensable object she bent every faculty, and exerted every effort. she was not mistaken. she formed no false judgment. at the moment of the adoption of the constitution, new york was the capital of one state, and contained thirty-two or three thousand people. it now contains more than two hundred thousand people, and is justly regarded as the commercial capital, not only of all the united states, but of the whole continent also, from the pole to the south sea. every page of her history, for the last forty years, bears high and irresistible testimony to the benefits and blessings of the general government. her astonishing growth is referred to, and quoted, all the world over, as one of the most striking proofs of the effects of our federal union. to suppose her now to be easy and indifferent, when notions are advanced tending to its dissolution, would be to suppose her equally forgetful of the past and blind to the present, alike ignorant of her own history and her own interest, metamorphosed, from all that she has been, into a being tired of its prosperity, sick of its own growth and greatness, and infatuated for its own destruction. every blow aimed at the union of the states strikes on the tenderest nerve of her interest and her happiness. to bring the union into debate is to bring her own future prosperity into debate also. to speak of arresting the laws of the union, of interposing state power in matters of commerce and revenue, of weakening the full and just authority of the general government, would be, in regard to this city, but another mode of speaking of commercial ruin, of abandoned wharfs, of vacated houses, of diminished and dispersing population, of bankrupt merchants, of mechanics without employment, and laborers without bread. the growth of this city and the constitution of the united states are coevals and contemporaries. they began together, they have flourished together, and if rashness and folly destroy one, the other will follow it to the tomb. gentlemen, it is true, indeed, that the growth of this city is extraordinary, and almost unexampled. it is now, i believe, sixteen or seventeen years since i first saw it. within that comparatively short period, it has added to its number three times the whole amount of its population when the constitution was adopted. of all things having power to check this prosperity, of all things potent to blight and blast it, of all things capable of compelling this city to recede as fast as she has advanced, a disturbed government, an enfeebled public authority, a broken or a weakened union of the states, would be most efficacious. this would be cause efficient enough. every thing else, in the common fortune of communities, she may hope to resist or to prevent; but this would be fatal as the arrow of death. gentlemen, you have personal recollections and associations, connected with the establishment and adoption of the constitution, which are necessarily called up on an occasion like this. it is impossible to forget the prominent agency exercised by eminent citizens of your own, in regard to that great measure. those great men are now recorded among the illustrious dead; but they have left names never to be forgotten, and never to be remembered without respect and veneration. least of all can they be forgotten by you, when assembled here for the purpose of signifying your attachment to the constitution, and your sense of its inestimable importance to the happiness of the people. i should do violence to my own feelings, gentlemen, i think i should offend yours, if i omitted respectful mention of distinguished names yet fresh in your recollections. how can i stand here, to speak of the constitution of the united states, of the wisdom of its provisions, of the difficulties attending its adoption, of the evils from which it rescued the country, and of the prosperity and power to which it has raised it, and yet pay no tribute to those who were highly instrumental in accomplishing the work? while we are here to rejoice that it yet stands firm and strong, while we congratulate one another that we live under its benign influence, and cherish hopes of its long duration, we cannot forget who they were that, in the day of our national infancy, in the times of despondency and despair, mainly assisted to work out our deliverance. i should feel that i was unfaithful to the strong recollections which the occasion presses upon us, that i was not true to gratitude, not true to patriotism, not true to the living or the dead, not true to your feelings or my own, if i should forbear to make mention of alexander hamilton. coming from the military service of the country yet a youth, but with knowledge and maturity, even in civil affairs far beyond his years, he made this city the place of his adoption; and he gave the whole powers of his mind to the contemplation of the weak and distracted condition of the country. daily increasing in acquaintance and confidence with the people of new york, he saw, what they also saw, the absolute necessity of some closer bond of union for the states. this was the great object of desire. he never appears to have lost sight of it, but was found in the lead whenever any thing was to be attempted for its accomplishment. one experiment after another, as is well known, was tried, and all failed. the states were urgently called on to confer such further powers on the old congress as would enable it to redeem the public faith, or to adopt, themselves, some general and common principle of commercial regulation. but the states had not agreed, and were not likely to agree. in this posture of affairs, so full of public difficulty and public distress, commissioners from five or six of the states met, on the request of virginia, at annapolis, in september, . the precise object of their appointment was to take into consideration the trade of the united states; to examine the relative situations and trade of the several states; and to consider how far a uniform system of commercial regulations was necessary to their common interest and permanent harmony. mr. hamilton was one of these commissioners; and i have understood, though i cannot assert the fact, that their report was drawn by him. his associate from this state was the venerable judge benson, who has lived long, and still lives, to see the happy results of the counsels which originated in this meeting. of its members, he and mr. madison are, i believe, now the only survivors. these commissioners recommended, what took place the next year, a general convention of all the states, to take into serious deliberation the condition of the country, and devise such provisions as should render the constitution of the federal government adequate to the exigencies of the union. i need not remind you, that of this convention mr. hamilton was an active and efficient member. the constitution was framed, and submitted to the country. and then another great work was to be undertaken. the constitution would naturally find, and did find, enemies and opposers. objections to it were numerous, and powerful, and spirited. they were to be answered; and they were effectually answered. the writers of the numbers of the federalist, mr. hamilton, mr. madison, and mr. jay, so greatly distinguished themselves in their discussions of the constitution, that those numbers are generally received as important commentaries on the text, and accurate expositions, in general, of its objects and purposes. those papers were all written and published in this city. mr. hamilton was elected one of the distinguished delegation from the city to the state convention at poughkeepsie, called to ratify the new constitution. its debates are published. mr. hamilton appears to have exerted, on this occasion, to the utmost, every power and faculty of his mind. the whole question was likely to depend on the decision of new york. he felt the full importance of the crisis; and the reports of his speeches, imperfect as they probably are, are yet lasting monuments to his genius and patriotism. he saw at last his hopes fulfilled; he saw the constitution adopted, and the government under it established and organized. the discerning eye of washington immediately called him to that post, which was far the most important in the administration of the new system. he was made secretary of the treasury; and how he fulfilled the duties of such a place, at such a time, the whole country perceived with delight and the whole world saw with admiration. he smote the rock of the national resources, and abundant streams of revenue gushed forth. he touched the dead corpse of the public credit, and it sprung upon its feet. the fabled birth of minerva, from the brain of jove, was hardly more sudden or more perfect than the financial system of the united states, as it burst forth from the conceptions of alexander hamilton. your recollections, gentlemen, your respect, and your affections, all conspire to bring before you, at such a time as this, another great man, now too numbered with the dead. i mean the pure, the disinterested, the patriotic john jay. his character is a brilliant jewel in the sacred treasures of national reputation. leaving his profession at an early period, yet not before he had singularly distinguished himself in it, his whole life, from the commencement of the revolution until his final retirement, was a life of public service. a member of the first congress, he was the author of that political paper which is generally acknowledged to stand first among the incomparable productions of that body;[ ] productions which called forth that decisive strain of commendation from the great lord chatham, in which he pronounced them not inferior to the finest productions of the master states of the world. mr. jay had been abroad, and he had also been long intrusted with the difficult duties of our foreign correspondence at home. he had seen and felt, in the fullest measure and to the greatest possible extent, the difficulty of conducting our foreign affairs honorably and usefully, without a stronger and more perfect domestic union. though not a member of the convention which framed the constitution, he was yet present while it was in session, and looked anxiously for its result. by the choice of this city, he had a seat in the state convention, and took an active and zealous part for the adoption of the constitution. on the organization of the new government, he was selected by washington to be the first chief justice of the supreme court of the united states; and surely the high and most responsible duties of that station could not have been trusted to abler or safer hands. it is the duty of that tribunal, one of equal importance and delicacy, to decide constitutional questions, occasionally arising on state laws. the general learning and ability, and especially the prudence, the mildness, and the firmness of his character, eminently fitted mr. jay to be the head of such a court. when the spotless ermine of the judicial robe fell on john jay, it touched nothing less spotless than itself. these eminent men, gentlemen, the contemporaries of some of you, known to most, and revered by all, were so conspicuous in the framing and adopting of the constitution, and called so early to important stations under it, that a tribute, better, indeed, than i have given, or am able to give, seemed due to them from us, on this occasion. there was yet another, of whom mention is to be made. in the revolutionary history of the country, the name of chancellor livingston became early prominent. he was a member of that congress which declared independence; and a member, too, of the committee which drew and reported the immortal declaration. at the period of the adoption of the constitution, he was its firm friend and able advocate. he was a member of the state convention, being one of that list of distinguished and gifted men who represented this city in that body; and he threw the whole weight of his talents and influence into the doubtful scale of the constitution. gentlemen, as connected with the constitution, you have also local recollections which must bind it still closer to your attachment and affection. it commenced its being and its blessings here. it was in this city, in the midst of friends, anxious, hopeful, and devoted, that the new government started in its course. to us, gentlemen, who are younger, it has come down by tradition; but some around me are old enough to have witnessed, and did witness, the interesting scene of the first inauguration. they remember what voices of gratified patriotism, what shouts of enthusiastic hope, what acclamations rent the air, how many eyes were suffused with tears of joy, how cordially each man pressed the hand of him who was next to him, when, standing in the open air, in the centre of the city, in the view of assembled thousands, the first president of the united states was heard solemnly to pronounce the words of his official oath, repeating them from the lips of chancellor livingston. you then thought, gentlemen, that the great work of the revolution was accomplished. you then felt that you had a government; that the united states were then, indeed, united. every benignant star seemed to shed its selectest influence on that auspicious hour. here were heroes of the revolution; here were sages of the convention; here were minds, disciplined and schooled in all the various fortunes of the country, acting now in several relations, but all co-operating to the same great end, the successful administration of the new and untried constitution. and he,--how shall i speak of him?--he was at the head, who was already first in war, who was already first in the hearts of his countrymen, and who was now shown also, by the unanimous suffrage of the country, to be first in peace. gentlemen, how gloriously have the hopes then indulged been fulfilled! whose expectation was then so sanguine, i may almost ask, whose imagination then so extravagant, as to run forward, and contemplate as probable, the one half of what has been accomplished in forty years? who among you can go back to , and see what this city, and this country, too, then were; and, beholding what they now are, can be ready to consent that the constitution of the united states shall be weakened,--dishonored,--_nullified_? gentlemen, before i leave these pleasant recollections, i feel it an irresistible impulse of duty to pay a tribute of respect to another distinguished person, not, indeed, a fellow-citizen of your own, but associated with those i have already mentioned in important labors, and an early and indefatigable friend and advocate in the great cause of the constitution. i refer to mr. madison. i am aware, gentlemen, that a tribute of regard from me to him is of little importance; but if it shall receive your approbation and sanction, it will become of value. mr. madison, thanks to a kind providence, is yet among the living, and there is certainly no other individual living, to whom the country is so much indebted for the blessings of the constitution. he was one of the commissioners who met at annapolis, in , to which meeting i have already referred, and which, to the great credit of virginia, had its origin in a proceeding of that state. he was a member of the convention of , and of that of virginia in the following year. he was thus intimately acquainted with the whole progress of the formation of the constitution, from its very first step to its final adoption. if ever man had the means of understanding a written instrument, mr. madison has the means of understanding the constitution. if it be possible to know what was designed by it, he can tell us. it was in this city, that, in conjunction with mr. hamilton and mr. jay, he wrote the numbers of the federalist; and it was in this city that he commenced his brilliant career under the new constitution, having been elected into the house of representatives of the first congress. the recorded votes and debates of those times show his active and efficient agency in every important measure of that congress. the necessary organization of the government, the arrangement of the departments, and especially the paramount subject of revenue, engaged his attention, and divided his labors. the legislative history of the first two or three years of the government is full of instruction. it presents, in striking light, the evils intended to be remedied by the constitution, and the provisions which were deemed essential to the remedy of those evils. it exhibits the country, in the moment of its change from a weak and ill-defined confederacy of states, into a general, efficient, but still restrained and limited government. it shows the first working of our peculiar system, moved, as it then was, by master hands. gentlemen, for one, i confess i like to dwell on this part of our history. it is good for us to be here. it is good for us to study the situation of the country at this period, to survey its difficulties, to look at the conduct of its public men, to see how they struggled with obstacles, real and formidable, and how gloriously they brought the union out of its state of depression and distress. truly, gentlemen, these founders and fathers of the constitution were great men, and thoroughly furnished for every good work. all that reading and learning could do; all that talent and intelligence could do; and, what perhaps is still more, all that long experience in difficult and troubled times and a deep and intimate practical knowledge of the condition of the country could do,--conspired to fit them for the great business of forming a general, but limited government, embracing common objects, extending over all the states, and yet touching the power of the states no further than those common objects require. i confess i love to linger around these original fountains, and to drink deep of their waters. i love to imbibe, in as full measure as i may, the spirit of those who laid the foundations of the government, and so wisely and skilfully balanced and adjusted its bearings and proportions. having been afterwards, for eight years, secretary of state, and as long president, mr. madison has had an experience in the affairs of the constitution, certainly second to no man. more than any other man living, and perhaps more than any other who has lived, his whole public life has been incorporated, as it were, into the constitution; in the original conception and project of attempting to form it, in its actual framing, in explaining and recommending it, by speaking and writing, in assisting at the first organization of the government under it, and in a long administration of its executive powers,--in these various ways he has lived near the constitution, and with the power of imbibing its true spirit, and inhaling its very breath, from its first pulsation of life. again, therefore, i ask, if he cannot tell us what the constitution is, and what it means, who can? he had retired with the respect and regard of the community, and might naturally be supposed not willing to interfere again in matters of political concern. he has, nevertheless, not withholden his opinions on the vital question discussed on that occasion, which has caused this meeting. he has stated, with an accuracy almost peculiar to himself, and so stated as, in my opinion, to place almost beyond further controversy, the true doctrines of the constitution. he has stated, not notions too loose and irregular to be called even a theory, not ideas struck out by the feeling of present inconvenience or supposed maladministration, not suggestions of expediency, or evasions of fair and straightforward construction, but elementary principles, clear and sound distinctions, and indisputable truths. i am sure, gentlemen, that i speak your sentiments, as well as my own, when i say, that, for making public so clearly and distinctly as he has done his own opinions on these vital questions of constitutional law, mr. madison has founded a new and strong claim on the gratitude of a grateful country. you will think, with me, that, at his advanced age, and in the enjoyment of general respect and approbation for a long career of public services, it was an act of distinguished patriotism, when he saw notions promulgated and maintained which he deemed unsound and dangerous, not to hesitate to come forward and to place the weight of his own opinion in what he deemed the right scale, come what come might. i am sure, gentlemen, it cannot be doubted,--the manifestation is clear,--that the country feels deeply the force of this new obligation.[ ] gentlemen, what i have said of the benefits of the constitution to your city might be said, with little change, in respect to every other part of the country. its benefits are not exclusive. what has it left undone, which any government could do, for the whole country? in what condition has it placed us? where do we now stand? are we elevated, or degraded, by its operation? what is our condition under its influence, at the very moment when some talk of arresting its power and breaking its unity? do we not feel ourselves on an eminence? do we not challenge the respect of the whole world? what has placed us thus high? what has given us this just pride? what else is it, but the unrestrained and free operation of that same federal constitution, which it has been proposed now to hamper, and manacle, and nullify? who is there among us, that, should he find himself on any spot of the earth where human beings exist, and where the existence of other nations is known, would not be proud to say, i am an american? i am a countryman of washington? i am a citizen of that republic, which, although it has suddenly sprung up, yet there are none on the globe who have ears to hear, and have not heard of it; who have eyes to see, and have not read of it; who know any thing, and yet do not know of its existence and its glory? and, gentlemen, let me now reverse the picture. let me ask, who there is among us, if he were to be found to-morrow in one of the civilized countries of europe, and were there to learn that this goodly form of government had been overthrown, that the united states were no longer united, that a death-blow had been struck upon their bond of union, that they themselves had destroyed their chief good and their chief honor,--who is there whose heart would not sink within him? who is there who would not cover his face for very shame? at this very moment, gentlemen, our country is a general refuge for the distressed and the persecuted of other nations. whoever is in affliction from political occurrences in his own country looks here for shelter. whether he be republican, flying from the oppression of thrones, or whether he be monarch or monarchist, flying from thrones that crumble and fall under or around him, he feels equal assurance, that, if he get foothold on our soil, his person will be safe, and his rights will be respected. and who will venture to say, that, in any government now existing in the world, there is greater security for persons or property than in that of the united states? we have tried these popular institutions in times of great excitement and commotion, and they have stood, substantially, firm and steady, while the fountains of the great political deep have been elsewhere broken up; while thrones, resting on ages of prescription, have tottered and fallen; and while, in other countries, the earthquake of unrestrained popular commotion has swallowed up all law, and all liberty, and all right together. our government has been tried in peace, and it has been tried in war, and has proved itself fit for both. it has been assailed from without, and it has successfully resisted the shock; it has been disturbed within, and it has effectually quieted the disturbance. it can stand trial, it can stand assault, it can stand adversity, it can stand every thing, but the marring of its own beauty, and the weakening of its own strength. it can stand every thing but the effects of our own rashness and our own folly. it can stand every thing but disorganization, disunion, and nullification. it is a striking fact, and as true as it is striking, that at this very moment, among all the principal civilized states of the world, _that_ government is most secure against the danger of popular commotion which is itself entirely popular. it seems, indeed, that the submission of every thing to the public will, under constitutional restraints, imposed by the people themselves, furnishes itself security that they will desire nothing wrong. certain it is, that popular, constitutional liberty, as we enjoy it, appears, in the present state of the world, as sure and stable a basis for government to rest upon, as any government of enlightened states can find, or does find. certain it is, that, in these times of so much popular knowledge, and so much popular activity, those governments which do not admit the people to partake in their administration, but keep them under and beneath, sit on materials for an explosion, which may take place at any moment, and blow them into a thousand atoms. gentlemen, let any man who would degrade and enfeeble the national constitution, let any man who would nullify its laws, stand forth and tell us what he would wish. what does he propose? whatever he may be, and whatever substitute he may hold forth, i am sure the people of this country will decline his kind interference, and hold on by the constitution which they possess. any one who would willingly destroy it, i rejoice to know, would be looked upon with abhorrence. it is deeply intrenched in the regards of the people. doubtless it may be undermined by artful and long-continued hostility; it may be imperceptibly weakened by secret attack; it may be insidiously shorn of its powers by slow degrees; the public vigilance may be lulled, and when it awakes, it may find the constitution frittered away. in these modes, or some of them, it is possible that the union of the states may be dissolved. but if the general attention of the people be kept alive, if they see the intended mischief before it is effected, they will prevent it by their own sovereign power. they will interpose themselves between the meditated blow and the object of their regard and attachment. next to the controlling authority of the people themselves, the preservation of the government is mainly committed to those who administer it. if conducted in wisdom, it cannot but stand strong. its genuine, original spirit is a patriotic, liberal, and generous spirit; a spirit of conciliation, of moderation, of candor, and charity; a spirit of friendship, and not a spirit of hostility toward the states; a spirit careful not to exceed, and equally careful not to relinquish, its just powers. while no interest can or ought to feel itself shut out from the benefits of the constitution, none should consider those benefits as exclusively its own. the interests of all must be consulted, and reconciled, and provided for, as far as possible, that all may perceive the benefits of a united government. among other things, we are to remember that new states have arisen, possessing already an immense population, spreading and thickening over vast regions which were a wilderness when the constitution was adopted. those states are not, like new york, directly connected with maritime commerce. they are entirely agricultural, and need markets for consumption; and they need, too, access to those markets. it is the duty of the government to bring the interests of these new states into the union, and incorporate them closely in the family compact. gentlemen, it is not impracticable to reconcile these various interests, and so to administer the government as to make it useful to all. it was never easier to administer the government than it is now. we are beset with none, or with few, of its original difficulties; and it is a time of great general prosperity and happiness. shall we admit ourselves incompetent to carry on the government, so as to be satisfactory to the whole country? shall we admit that there has so little descended to us of the wisdom and prudence of our fathers? if the government could be administered in washington's time, when it was yet new, when the country was heavily in debt, when foreign relations were in a threatening condition, and when indian wars pressed on the frontiers, can it not be administered now? let us not acknowledge ourselves so unequal to our duties. gentlemen, on the occasion referred to by the chair, it became necessary to consider the judicial power, and its proper functions under the constitution. in every free and balanced government, this is a most essential and important power. indeed, i think it is a remark of mr. hume, that the administration of justice seems to be the leading object of institutions of government; that legislatures assemble, that armies are embodied, that both war and peace are made, with a sort of ultimate reference to the proper administration of laws, and the judicial protection of private rights. the judicial power comes home to every man. if the legislature passes incorrect or unjust general laws, its members bear the evil as well as others. but judicature acts on individuals. it touches every private right, every private interest, and almost every private feeling. what we possess is hardly fit to be called our own, unless we feel secure in its possession; and this security, this feeling of perfect safety, cannot exist under a wicked, or even under a weak and ignorant, administration of the laws. there is no happiness, there is no liberty, there is no enjoyment of life, unless a man can say when he rises in the morning, i shall be subject to the decision of no unjust judge to-day. but, gentlemen, the judicial department, under the constitution of the united states, possesses still higher duties. it is true, that it may be called on, and is occasionally called on, to decide questions which are, in one sense, of a political nature. the general and state governments, both established by the people, are established for different purposes, and with different powers. between those powers questions may arise; and who shall decide them? some provision for this end is absolutely necessary. what shall it be? this was the question before the convention; and various schemes were suggested. it was foreseen that the states might inadvertently pass laws inconsistent with the constitution of the united states, or with acts of congress. at least, laws might be passed which would be charged with such inconsistency. how should these questions be disposed of? where shall the power of judging, in cases of alleged interference, be lodged? one suggestion in the convention was, to make it an executive power, and to lodge it in the hands of the president, by requiring all state laws to be submitted to him, that he might negative such as he thought appeared repugnant to the general constitution. this idea, perhaps, may have been borrowed from the power exercised by the crown over the laws of the colonies. it would evidently have been, not only an inconvenient and troublesome proceeding, but dangerous also to the powers of the states. it was not pressed. it was thought wiser and safer, on the whole, to require state legislatures and state judges to take an oath to support the constitution of the united states, and then leave the states at liberty to pass whatever laws they pleased, and if interference, in point of fact, should arise, to refer the question to judicial decision. to this end, the judicial power, under the constitution of the united states, was made coextensive with the legislative power. it was extended to all cases arising under the constitution and the laws of congress. the judiciary became thus possessed of the authority of deciding, in the last resort, in all cases of alleged interference, between state laws and the constitution and laws of congress. gentlemen, this is the actual constitution, this is the law of the land. there may be those who think it unnecessary, or who would prefer a different mode of deciding such questions. but this is the established mode, and, till it be altered, the courts can no more decline their duty on these occasions than on other occasions. but can any reasonable man doubt the expediency of this provision, or suggest a better? is it not absolutely essential to the peace of the country that this power should exist somewhere? where can it exist, better than where it now does exist? the national judiciary is the common tribunal of the whole country. it is organized by the common authority, and its places filled by the common agent. this is a plain and practical provision. it was framed by no bunglers, nor by any wild theorists. and who can say that it has failed? who can find substantial fault with its operation or its results? the great question is, whether we shall provide for the peaceable decision of cases of collision. shall they be decided by law, or by force? shall the decisions be decisions of peace, or decisions of war? on the occasion which has given rise to this meeting, the proposition contended for in opposition to the doctrine just stated was that every state, under certain supposed exigencies, and in certain supposed cases, might decide for itself, and act for itself, and oppose its own force to the execution of the laws. by what argument, do you imagine, gentlemen, was such a proposition maintained? i should call it metaphysical and subtle; but these terms would imply at least ingenuity, and some degree of plausibility; whereas the argument appears to me plain assumption, mere perverse construction of plain language in the body of the constitution itself. as i understand it, when put forth in its revised and most authentic shape, it is this: that the constitution provides that any amendments may be made to it which shall be agreed to by three fourths of the states; there is, therefore, to be nothing in the constitution to which three fourths of the states have not agreed. all this is true; but then comes this inference, namely, that, when one state denies the constitutionality of any law of congress, she may arrest its execution as to herself, and keep it arrested, till the states can all be consulted by their conventions, and three fourths of them shall have decided that the law is constitutional. indeed, the inference is still stranger than this; for state conventions have no authority to construe the constitution, though they have authority to amend it; therefore the argument must prove, if it prove any thing, that, when any one state denies that any particular power is included in the constitution, it is to be considered as not included, and cannot be found there till three fourths of the states agree to insert it. in short, the result of the whole is, that, though it requires three fourths of the states to insert any thing in the constitution, yet any one state can strike any thing out of it. for the power to strike out, and the power of deciding, without appeal, upon the construction of what is already in, are substantially and practically the same. and, gentlemen, what a spectacle should we have exhibited under the actual operation of notions like these! at the very moment when our government was quoted, praised, and commended all over the world, when the friends of republican liberty everywhere were gazing at it with delight, and were in perfect admiration at the harmony of its movements, one state steps forth, and, by the power of nullification, breaks up the whole system, and scatters the bright chain of the union into as many sundered links as there are separate states! seeing the true grounds of the constitution thus attacked, i raised my voice in its favor, i must confess with no preparation or previous intention. i can hardly say that i embarked in the contest from a sense of duty. it was an instantaneous impulse of inclination, not acting against duty, i trust, but hardly waiting for its suggestions. i felt it to be a contest for the integrity of the constitution, and i was ready to enter into it, not thinking, or caring, personally, how i might come out. gentlemen, i have true pleasure in saying that i trust the crisis has in some measure passed by. the doctrines of nullification have received a severe and stern rebuke from public opinion. the general reprobation of the country has been cast upon them. recent expressions of the most numerous branch of the national legislature are decisive and imposing. everywhere, the general tone of public feeling is for the constitution. while much will be yielded--every thing, almost, but the integrity of the constitution, and the essential interests of the country--to the cause of mutual harmony and mutual conciliation, no ground can be granted, not an inch, to menace and bluster. indeed, menace and bluster, and the putting forth of daring, unconstitutional doctrines, are, at this very moment, the chief obstacles to mutual harmony and satisfactory accommodation. men cannot well reason, and confer, and take counsel together, about the discreet exercise of a power, with those who deny that any such power rightfully exists, and who threaten to blow up the whole constitution if they cannot otherwise get rid of its operation. it is matter of sincere gratification, gentlemen, that the voice of this great state has been so clear and strong, and her vote all but unanimous, on the most interesting of these occasions, in the house of representatives. certainly, such respect to the union becomes new york. it is consistent with her interests and her character. that singularly prosperous state, which now is, and is likely to continue to be, the greatest link in the chain of the union, will ever be, i am sure, the strongest link also. the great states which lie in her neighborhood agreed with her fully in this matter. pennsylvania, i believe, was loyal to the union, to a man; and ohio raises her voice, like that of a lion, against whatsoever threatens disunion and dismemberment. this harmony of sentiment is truly gratifying. it is not to be gainsaid, that the union of opinion in this great central mass of our population, on this momentous point of the constitution, augurs well for our future prosperity and security. i have said, gentlemen, what i verily believe to be true, that there is no danger to the union from open and avowed attacks on its essential principles. nothing is to be feared from those who will march up boldly to their own propositions, and tell us that they mean to annihilate powers exercised by congress. but, certainly, there are dangers to the constitution, and we ought not to shut our eyes to them. we know the importance of a firm and intelligent judiciary; but how shall we secure the continuance of a firm and intelligent judiciary? gentlemen, the judiciary is in the appointment of the executive power. it cannot continue or renew itself. its vacancies are to be filled in the ordinary modes of executive appointment. if the time shall ever come (which heaven avert), when men shall be placed in the supreme tribunal of the country, who entertain opinions hostile to the just powers of the constitution, we shall then be visited by an evil defying all remedy. our case will be past surgery. from that moment the constitution is at an end. if they who are appointed to defend the castle shall betray it, woe betide those within! if i live to see that day come, i shall despair of the country. i shall be prepared to give it back to all its former afflictions in the days of the confederation. i know no security against the possibility of this evil, but an awakened public vigilance. i know no safety, but in that state of public opinion which shall lead it to rebuke and put down every attempt, either to gratify party by judicial appointments, or to dilute the constitution by creating a court which shall construe away its provisions. if members of congress betray their trust, the people will find it out before they are ruined. if the president should at any time violate his duty, his term of office is short, and popular elections may supply a seasonable remedy. but the judges of the supreme court possess, for very good reasons, an independent tenure of office. no election reaches them. if, with this tenure, they betray their trusts, heaven save us! let us hope for better results. the past, certainly, may encourage us. let us hope that we shall never see the time when there shall exist such an awkward posture of affairs, as that the government shall be found in opposition to the constitution, and when the guardians of the union shall become its betrayers. gentlemen, our country stands, at the present time, on commanding ground. older nations, with different systems of government, may be somewhat slow to acknowledge all that justly belongs to us. but we may feel without vanity, that america is doing her part in the great work of improving human affairs. there are two principles, gentlemen, strictly and purely american, which are now likely to prevail throughout the civilized world. indeed, they seem the necessary result of the progress of civilization and knowledge. these are, first, popular governments, restrained by written constitutions; and, secondly, universal education. popular governments and general education, acting and reacting, mutually producing and reproducing each other, are the mighty agencies which in our days appear to be exciting, stimulating, and changing civilized societies. man, everywhere, is now found demanding a participation in government,--and he will not be refused; and he demands knowledge as necessary to self-government. on the basis of these two principles, liberty and knowledge, our own american systems rest. thus far we have not been disappointed in their results. our existing institutions, raised on these foundations, have conferred on us almost unmixed happiness. do we hope to better our condition by change? when we shall have nullified the present constitution, what are we to receive in its place? as fathers, do we wish for our children better government, or better laws? as members of society, as lovers of our country, is there any thing we can desire for it better than that, as ages and centuries roll over it, it may possess the same invaluable institutions which it now enjoys? for my part, gentlemen, i can only say, that i desire to thank the beneficent author of all good for being born _where_ i was born, and _when_ i was born; that the portion of human existence allotted to me has been meted out to me in this goodly land, and at this interesting period. i rejoice that i have lived to see so much development of truth, so much progress of liberty, so much diffusion of virtue and happiness. and, through good report and evil report, it will be my consolation to be a citizen of a republic unequalled in the annals of the world for the freedom of its institutions, its high prosperity, and the prospects of good which yet lie before it. our course, gentlemen, is onward, straight onward, and forward. let us not turn to the right hand, nor to the left. our path is marked out for us, clear, plain, bright, distinctly defined, like the milky way across the heavens. if we are true to our country, in our day and generation, and those who come after us shall be true to it also, assuredly, assuredly, we shall elevate her to a pitch of prosperity and happiness, of honor and power, never yet reached by any nation beneath the sun. gentlemen, before i resume my seat, a highly gratifying duty remains to be performed. in signifying your sentiments of regard, you have kindly chosen to select as your organ for expressing them the eminent person[ ] near whom i stand. i feel, i cannot well say how sensibly, the manner in which he has seen fit to speak on this occasion. gentlemen, if i may be supposed to have made any attainment in the knowledge of constitutional law, he is among the masters in whose schools i have been taught. you see near him a distinguished magistrate,[ ] long associated with him in judicial labors, which have conferred lasting benefits and lasting character, not only on the state, but on the whole country. gentlemen, i acknowledge myself much their debtor. while yet a youth, unknown, and with little expectation of becoming known beyond a very limited circle, i have passed days and nights, not of tedious, but of happy and gratified labor, in the study of the judicature of the state of new york. i am most happy to have this public opportunity of acknowledging the obligation, and of repaying it, as far as it can be repaid, by the poor tribute of my profound regard, and the earnest expression of my sincere respect. gentlemen, i will no longer detain you than to propose a toast:-- the city of new york; herself the noblest eulogy on the union of the states. [footnote : address to the people of great britain.] [footnote : the reference is to mr. madison's letter on the subject of _nullification_, in the north american review, vol. xxxi. p. .] [footnote : chancellor kent, the presiding officer.] [footnote : judge spencer.] the presidential veto of the united states bank bill. a speech delivered in the senate of the united states, on the th of july, , on the president's veto of the bank bill. mr. president,--no one will deny the high importance of the subject now before us. congress, after full deliberation and discussion, has passed a bill, by decisive majorities, in both houses, for extending the duration of the bank of the united states. it has not adopted this measure until its attention had been called to the subject, in three successive annual messages of the president. the bill having been thus passed by both houses, and having been duly presented to the president, instead of signing and approving it, he has returned it with objections. these objections go against the whole substance of the law originally creating the bank. they deny, in effect, that the bank is constitutional; they deny that it is expedient; they deny that it is necessary for the public service. it is not to be doubted, that the constitution gives the president the power which he has now exercised; but while the power is admitted, the grounds upon which it has been exerted become fit subjects of examination. the constitution makes it the duty of congress, in cases like this, to reconsider the measure which they have passed, to weigh the force of the president's objections to that measure, and to take a new vote upon the question. before the senate proceeds to this second vote, i propose to make some remarks upon those objections. and, in the first place, it is to be observed, that they are such as to extinguish all hope that the present bank, or any bank at all resembling it, or resembling any known similar institution, can ever receive his approbation. he states no terms, no qualifications, no conditions, no modifications, which can reconcile him to the essential provisions of the existing charter. he is against the bank, and against any bank constituted in a manner known either to this or any other country. one advantage, therefore, is certainly obtained by presenting him the bill. it has caused the president's sentiments to be made known. there is no longer any mystery, no longer a contest between hope and fear, or between those prophets who predicted a _veto_ and those who foretold an approval. the bill is negatived; the president has assumed the responsibility of putting an end to the bank; and the country must prepare itself to meet that change in its concerns which the expiration of the charter will produce. mr. president, i will not conceal my opinion that the affairs of the country are approaching an important and dangerous crisis. at the very moment of almost unparalleled general prosperity, there appears an unaccountable disposition to destroy the most useful and most approved institutions of the government. indeed, it seems to be in the midst of all this national happiness that some are found openly to question the advantages of the constitution itself and many more ready to embarrass the exercise of its just power, weaken its authority, and undermine its foundations. how far these notions may be carried, it is impossible yet to say. we have before us the practical result of one of them. the bank has fallen, or is to fall. it is now certain, that, without a change in our public counsels, this bank will not be continued, nor will any other be established, which, according to the general sense and language of mankind, can be entitled to the name. within three years and nine months from the present moment, the charter of the bank expires; within that period, therefore, it must wind up its concerns. it must call in its debts, withdraw its bills from circulation, and cease from all its ordinary operations. all this is to be done in three years and nine months; because, although there is a provision in the charter rendering it lawful to use the corporate name for two years after the expiration of the charter, yet this is allowed only for the purpose of suits and for the sale of the estate belonging to the bank, and for no other purpose whatever. the whole active business of the bank, its custody of public deposits, its transfer of public moneys, its dealing in exchange, all its loans and discounts, and all its issues of bills for circulation, must cease and determine on or before the third day of march, ; and within the same period its debts must be collected, as no new contract can be made with it, as a corporation, for the renewal of loans, or discount of notes or bills, after that time. the president is of opinion, that this time is long enough to close the concerns of the institution without inconvenience. his language is, "the time allowed the bank to close its concerns is ample, and if it has been well managed, its pressure will be light, and heavy only in case its management has been bad. if, therefore, it shall produce distress, the fault will be its own." sir, this is all no more than general statement, without fact or argument to support it. we know what the management of the bank has been, and we know the present state of its affairs. we can judge, therefore, whether it be probable that its capital can be all called in, and the circulation of its bills withdrawn, in three years and nine months, by any discretion or prudence in management, without producing distress. the bank has discounted liberally, in compliance with the wants of the community. the amount due to it on loans and discounts, in certain large divisions of the country, is great; so great, that i do not perceive how any man can believe that it can be paid, within the time now limited, without distress. let us look at known facts. thirty millions of the capital of the bank are now out, on loans and discounts, in the states on the mississippi and its waters; ten millions of which are loaned on the discount of bills of exchange, foreign and domestic, and twenty millions on promissory notes. now, sir, how is it possible that this vast amount can be collected in so short a period without suffering, by any management whatever? we are to remember, that, when the collection of this debt begins, at that same time the existing medium of payment, that is, the circulation of the bills of the bank, will begin also to be restrained and withdrawn; and thus the means of payment must be limited just when the necessity of making payment becomes pressing. the whole debt is to be paid, and within the same time the whole circulation withdrawn. the local banks, where there are such, will be able to afford little assistance; because they themselves will feel a full share of the pressure. they will not be in a condition to extend their discounts, but, in all probability, obliged to curtail them. whence, then, are the means to come for paying this debt? and in what medium is payment to be made? if all this may be done with but slight pressure on the community, what course of conduct is to accomplish it? how is it to be done? what other thirty millions are to supply the place of these thirty millions now to be called in? what other circulation or medium of payment is to be adopted in the place of the bills of the bank? the message, following a singular train of argument, which had been used in this house, has a loud lamentation upon the suffering of the western states on account of their being obliged to pay even interest on this debt. this payment of interest is itself represented as exhausting their means and ruinous to their prosperity. but if the interest cannot be paid without pressure, can both interest and principal be paid in four years without pressure? the truth is, the interest has been paid, is paid, and may continue to be paid, without any pressure at all; because the money borrowed is profitably employed by those who borrow it, and the rate of interest which they pay is at least two per cent lower than the actual value of money in that part of the country. but to pay the whole principal in less than four years, losing, at the same time, the existing and accustomed means and facilities of payment created by the bank itself, and to do this without extreme embarrassment, without absolute distress, is, in my judgment, impossible. i hesitate not to say, that, as this _veto_ travels to the west, it will depreciate the value of every man's property from the atlantic states to the capital of missouri. its effects will be felt in the price of lands, the great and leading article of western property, in the price of crops, in the products of labor, in the repression of enterprise, and in embarrassment to every kind of business and occupation. i state this opinion strongly, because i have no doubt of its truth, and am willing its correctness should be judged by the event. without personal acquaintance with the western states, i know enough of their condition to be satisfied that what i have predicted must happen. the people of the west are rich, but their riches consist in their immense quantities of excellent land, in the products of these lands, and in their spirit of enterprise. the actual value of money, or rate of interest, with them is high, because their pecuniary capital bears little proportion to their landed interest. at an average rate, money is not worth less than eight per cent per annum throughout the whole western country, notwithstanding that it has now a loan or an advance from the bank of thirty millions, at six per cent. to call in this loan, at the rate of eight millions a year, in addition to the interest on the whole, and to take away, at the same time, that circulation which constitutes so great a portion of the medium of payment throughout that whole region, is an operation, which, however wisely conducted, cannot but inflict a blow on the community of tremendous force and frightful consequences. the thing cannot be done without distress, bankruptcy, and ruin, to many. if the president had seen any practical manner in which this change might be effected without producing these consequences, he would have rendered infinite service to the community by pointing it out. but he has pointed out nothing, he has suggested nothing; he contents himself with saying, without giving any reason, that, if the pressure be heavy, the fault will be the bank's. i hope this is not merely an attempt to forestall opinion, and to throw on the bank the responsibility of those evils which threaten the country, for the sake of removing it from himself. the responsibility justly lies with him, and there it ought to remain. a great majority of the people are satisfied with the bank as it is, and desirous that it should be continued. they wished no change. the strength of this public sentiment has carried the bill through congress, against all the influence of the administration, and all the power of organized party. but the president has undertaken, on his own responsibility, to arrest the measure, by refusing his assent to the bill. he is answerable for the consequences, therefore, which necessarily follow the change which the expiration of the bank charter may produce; and if these consequences shall prove disastrous, they can fairly be ascribed to his policy only, and the policy of his administration. although, sir, i have spoken of the effects of this _veto_ in the western country, it has not been because i considered that part of the united states exclusively affected by it. some of the atlantic states may feel its consequences, perhaps, as sensibly as those of the west, though not for the same reasons. the concern manifested by pennsylvania for the renewal of the charter shows her sense of the importance of the bank to her own interest, and that of the nation. that great and enterprising state has entered into an extensive system of internal improvements, which necessarily makes heavy demands on her credit and her resources; and by the sound and acceptable currency which the bank affords, by the stability which it gives to private credit, and by occasional advances, made in anticipation of her revenues, and in aid of her great objects, she has found herself benefited, doubtless, in no inconsiderable degree. her legislature has instructed her senators here to advocate the renewal of the charter, at this session. they have obeyed her voice, and yet they have the misfortune to find that, in the judgment of the president, _the measure is unconstitutional, unnecessary, dangerous to liberty, and is, moreover, ill-timed_. but, mr. president, it is not the local interest of the west, nor the particular interest of pennsylvania, or any other state, which has influenced congress in passing this bill. it has been governed by a wise foresight, and by a desire to avoid embarrassment in the pecuniary concerns of the country, to secure the safe collection and convenient transmission of public moneys, to maintain the circulation of the country, sound and safe as it now happily is, against the possible effects of a wild spirit of speculation. finding the bank highly useful, congress has thought fit to provide for its continuance. as to the _time_ of passing this bill, it would seem to be the last thing to be thought of, as a ground of objection, by the president; since, from the date of his first message to the present time, he has never failed to call our attention to the subject with all possible apparent earnestness. so early as december, , in his message to the two houses, he declares, that he "cannot, in justice to the parties interested, too soon present the subject to the deliberate consideration of the legislature, in order to avoid the evils resulting from precipitancy, in a measure involving such important principles and such deep pecuniary interests." aware of this early invitation given to congress to take up the subject, by the president himself, the writer of the message seems to vary the ground of objection, and, instead of complaining that the time of bringing forward this measure was premature, to insist, rather, that, after the report of the committee of the other house, the bank should have withdrawn its application for the present! but that report offers no just ground, surely, for such withdrawal. the subject was before congress; it was for congress to decide upon it, with all the light shed by the report; and the question of postponement, having been made in both houses, was lost, by clear majorities, in each. under such circumstances, it would have been somewhat singular, to say the least, if the bank itself had withdrawn its application. it is indeed known to everybody, that neither the report of the committee, nor any thing contained in that report, was relied on by the opposers of the renewal. if it has been discovered elsewhere, that that report contained matter important in itself, or which should have led to further inquiry, this may be proof of superior sagacity; for certainly no such thing was discerned by either house of congress. but, sir, do we not now see that it was time, and high time, to press this bill, and to send it to the president? does not the event teach us, that the measure was not brought forward one moment too early? the time had come when the people wished to know the decision of the administration on the question of the bank? why conceal it, or postpone its declaration? why, as in regard to the tariff, give out one set of opinions for the north, and another for the south? an important election is at hand, and the renewal of the bank charter is a pending object of great interest, and some excitement. should not the opinions of men high in office, and candidates for re-election, be known on this, as on other important public questions? certainly, it is to be hoped that the people of the united states are not yet mere man-worshippers, that they do not choose their rulers without some regard to their political principles, or political opinions. were they to do this, it would be to subject themselves voluntarily to the evils which the hereditary transmission of power, independent of all personal qualifications, inflicts on other nations. they will judge their public servants by their acts, and continue or withhold their confidence, as they shall think it merited, or as they shall think it forfeited. in every point of view, therefore, the moment had arrived, when it became the duty of congress to come to a result, in regard to this highly important measure. the interests of the government, the interests of the people, the clear and indisputable voice of public opinion, all called upon congress to act without further loss of time. it has acted, and its act has been negatived by the president; and this result of the proceedings here places the question, with all its connections and all its incidents, fully before the people. before proceeding to the constitutional question, there are some other topics, treated in the message, which ought to be noticed. it commences by an inflamed statement of what it calls the "favor" bestowed upon the original bank by the government, or, indeed, as it is phrased, the "monopoly of its favor and support"; and through the whole message all possible changes are rung on the "gratuity," the "exclusive privileges," and "monopoly," of the bank charter. now, sir, the truth is, that the powers conferred on the bank are such, and no others, as are usually conferred on similar institutions. they constitute no monopoly, although some of them are of necessity, and with propriety, exclusive privileges. "the original act," says the message, "operated as a gratuity of many millions to the stockholders." what fair foundation is there for this remark? the stockholders received their charter, not gratuitously, but for a valuable consideration in money, prescribed by congress, and actually paid. at some times the stock has been above _par_, at other times below _par_, according to prudence in management, or according to commercial occurrences. but if, by a judicious administration of its affairs, it had kept its stock always above _par_, what pretence would there be, nevertheless, for saying that such augmentation of its value was a "gratuity" from government? the message proceeds to declare, that the present act proposes another donation, another gratuity, to the same men, of at least seven millions more. it seems to me that this is an extraordinary statement, and an extraordinary style of argument, for such a subject and on such an occasion. in the first place, the facts are all assumed; they are taken for true without evidence. there are no proofs that any benefit to that amount will accrue to the stockholders, nor any experience to justify the expectation of it. it rests on random estimates, or mere conjecture. but suppose the continuance of the charter should prove beneficial to the stockholders; do they not pay for it? they give twice as much for a charter of fifteen years, as was given before for one of twenty. and if the proposed _bonus_, or premium, be not, in the president's judgment, large enough, would he, nevertheless, on such a mere matter of opinion as that, negative the whole bill? may not congress be trusted to decide even on such a subject as the amount of the money premium to be received by government for a charter of this kind? but, sir, there is a larger and a much more just view of this subject. the bill was not passed for the purpose of benefiting the present stockholders. their benefit, if any, is incidental and collateral. nor was it passed on any idea that they had a _right_ to a renewed charter, although the message argues against such right, as if it had been somewhere set up and asserted. no such right has been asserted by anybody. congress passed the bill, not as a bounty or a favor to the present stockholders, nor to comply with any demand of right on their part; but to promote great public interests, for great public objects. every bank must have some stockholders, unless it be such a bank as the president has recommended, and in regard to which he seems not likely to find much concurrence of other men's opinions; and if the stockholders, whoever they may be, conduct the affairs of the bank prudently, the expectation is always, of course, that they will make it profitable to themselves, as well as useful to the public. if a bank charter is not to be granted, because, to some extent, it may be profitable to the stockholders, no charter can be granted. the objection lies against all banks. sir, the object aimed at by such institutions is to connect the public safety and convenience with private interests. it has been found by experience, that banks are safest under private management, and that government banks are among the most dangerous of all inventions. now, sir, the whole drift of the message is to reverse the settled judgment of all the civilized world, and to set up government banks, independent of private interest or private control. for this purpose the message labors, even beyond the measure of all its other labors, to create jealousies and prejudices, on the ground of the alleged benefit which individuals will derive from the renewal of this charter. much less effort is made to show that government, or the public, will be injured by the bill, than that individuals will profit by it. following up the impulses of the same spirit, the message goes on gravely to allege, that the act, as passed by congress, proposes to make a _present_ of some millions of dollars to foreigners, because a portion of the stock is held by foreigners. sir, how would this sort of argument apply to other cases? the president has shown himself not only willing, but anxious, to pay off the three per cent stock of the united states at _par_, notwithstanding that it is notorious that foreigners are owners of the greater part of it. why should he not call that a donation to foreigners of many millions? i will not dwell particularly on this part of the message. its tone and its arguments are all in the same strain. it speaks of the certain gain of the present stockholders, of the value of the monopoly; it says that all monopolies are granted at the expense of the public; that the many millions which this bill bestows on the stockholders come out of the earnings of the people; that, if government sells monopolies, it ought to sell them in open market; that it is an erroneous idea, that the present stockholders have a prescriptive right either to the favor or the bounty of government; that the stock is in the hands of a few, and that the whole american people are excluded from competition in the purchase of the monopoly. to all this i say, again, that much of it is assumption without proof; much of it is an argument against that which nobody has maintained or asserted; and the rest of it would be equally strong against any charter, at any time. these objections existed in their full strength, whatever that was, against the first bank. they existed, in like manner, against the present bank at its creation, and will always exist against all banks. indeed, all the fault found with the bill now before us is, that it proposes to continue the bank substantially as it now exists. "all the objectionable principles of the existing corporation," says the message, "and most of its odious features, are retained without alleviation"; so that the message is aimed against the bank, as it has existed from the first, and against any and all others resembling it in its general features. allow me, now, sir, to take notice of an argument founded on the practical operation of the bank. that argument is this. little of the stock of the bank is held in the west, the capital being chiefly owned by citizens of the southern and eastern states, and by foreigners. but the western and southwestern states owe the bank a heavy debt, so heavy that the interest amounts to a million six hundred thousand a year. this interest is carried to the eastern states, or to europe, annually, and its payment is a burden on the people of the west, and a drain of their currency, which no country can bear without inconvenience and distress. the true character and the whole value of this argument are manifest by the mere statement of it. the people of the west are, from their situation, necessarily large borrowers. they need money, capital, and they borrow it, because they can derive a benefit from its use, much beyond the interest which they pay. they borrow at six per cent of the bank, although the value of money with them is at least as high as eight. nevertheless, although they borrow at this low rate of interest, and although they use all they borrow thus profitably, yet they cannot pay the interest without "inconvenience and distress"; and then, sir, follows the logical conclusion, that, although they cannot pay even the interest without inconvenience and distress, yet less than four years is ample time for the bank to call in the whole, both principal and interest, without causing more than a light pressure. this is the argument. then follows another, which may be thus stated. it is competent to the states to tax the property of their citizens vested in the stock of this bank; but the power is denied of taxing the stock of foreigners; therefore the stock will be worth ten or fifteen per cent more to foreigners than to residents, and will of course inevitably leave the country, and make the american people debtors to aliens in nearly the whole amount due the bank, and send across the atlantic from two to five millions of specie every year, to pay the bank dividends. mr. president, arguments like these might be more readily disposed of, were it not that the high and official source from which they proceed imposes the necessity of treating them with respect. in the first place, it may safely be denied that the stock of the bank is any more valuable to foreigners than to our own citizens, or an object of greater desire to them, except in so far as capital may be more abundant in the foreign country, and therefore its owners more in want of opportunity of investment. the foreign stockholder enjoys no exemption from taxation. he is, of course, taxed by his own government for his incomes, derived from this as well as other property; and this is a full answer to the whole statement. but it may be added, in the second place, that it is not the practice of civilized states to tax the property of foreigners under such circumstances. do we tax, or did we ever tax, the foreign holders of our public debt? does pennsylvania, new york, or ohio tax the foreign holders of stock in the loans contracted by either of these states? certainly not. sir, i must confess i had little expected to see, on such an occasion as the present, a labored and repeated attempt to produce an impression on the public opinion unfavorable to the bank, from the circumstance that foreigners are among its stockholders. i have no hesitation in saying, that i deem such a train of remark as the message contains on this point, coming from the president of the united states, to be injurious to the credit and character of the country abroad; because it manifests a jealousy, a lurking disposition not to respect the property, of foreigners invited hither by our own laws. and, sir, what is its tendency but to excite this jealousy, and create groundless prejudices? from the commencement of the government, it has been thought desirable to invite, rather than to repel, the introduction of foreign capital. our stocks have all been open to foreign subscriptions; and the state banks, in like manner, are free to foreign ownership. whatever state has created a debt has been willing that foreigners should become purchasers, and desirous of it. how long is it, sir, since congress itself passed a law vesting new powers in the president of the united states over the cities in this district, for the very purpose of increasing their credit abroad, the better to enable them to borrow money to pay their subscriptions to the chesapeake and ohio canal? it is easy to say that there is danger to liberty, danger to independence, in a bank open to foreign stockholders, because it is easy to say any thing. but neither reason nor experience proves any such danger. the foreign stockholder cannot be a director. he has no voice even in the choice of directors. his money is placed entirely in the management of the directors appointed by the president and senate and by the american stockholders. so far as there is dependence or influence either way, it is to the disadvantage of the foreign stockholder. he has parted with the control over his own property, instead of exercising control over the property or over the actions of others. and, sir, let it now be added, in further answer to this class of objections, that experience has abundantly confuted them all. this government has existed forty-three years, and has maintained, in full being and operation, a bank, such as is now proposed to be renewed, for thirty-six years out of the forty-three. we have never for a moment had a bank not subject to every one of these objections. always, foreigners might be stockholders; always, foreign stock has been exempt from state taxation, as much as at present; always, the same power and privileges; always, all that which is now called a "monopoly," a "gratuity," a "present," have been possessed by the bank. and yet there has been found no danger to liberty, no introduction of foreign influence, and no accumulation of irresponsible power in a few hands. i cannot but hope, therefore, that the people of the united states will not now yield up their judgment to those notions which would reverse all our best experience, and persuade us to discontinue a useful institution from the influence of vague and unfounded declamation against its danger to the public liberties. our liberties, indeed, must stand upon very frail foundations, if the government cannot, without endangering them, avail itself of those common facilities, in the collection of its revenues and the management of its finances, which all other governments, in commercial countries, find useful and necessary. in order to justify its alarm for the security of our independence, the message supposes a case. it supposes that the bank should pass principally into the hands of the subjects of a foreign country, and that we should be involved in war with that country, and then it exclaims, "what would be our condition?" why, sir, it is plain that all the advantages would be on our side. the bank would still be our institution, subject to our own laws, and all its directors elected by ourselves; and our means would be enhanced, not by the confiscation and plunder, but by the proper use, of the foreign capital in our hands. and, sir, it is singular enough that this very state of war, from which this argument against a bank is drawn, is the very thing which, more than all others, convinced the country and the government of the necessity of a national bank. so much was the want of such an institution felt in the late war, that the subject engaged the attention of congress, constantly, from the declaration of that war down to the time when the existing bank was actually established; so that in this respect, as well as in others, the argument of the message is directly opposed to the whole experience of the government, and to the general and long-settled convictions of the country. i now proceed, sir, to a few remarks upon the president's constitutional objections to the bank; and i cannot forbear to say, in regard to them, that he appears to me to have assumed very extraordinary grounds of reasoning. he denies that the constitutionality of the bank is a settled question. if it be not, will it ever become so, or what disputed question ever can be settled? i have already observed, that for thirty-six years out of the forty-three during which the government has been in being, a bank has existed, such as is now proposed to be continued. as early as , after great deliberation, the first bank charter was passed by congress, and approved by president washington. it established an institution, resembling, in all things now objected to, the present bank. that bank, like this, could take lands in payment of its debts; that charter, like the present, gave the states no power of taxation; it allowed foreigners to hold stock; it restrained congress from creating other banks. it gave also exclusive privileges, and in all particulars it was, according to the doctrine of the message, as objectionable as that now existing. that bank continued twenty years. in , the present institution was established, and has been ever since in full operation. now, sir, the question of the power of congress to create such institutions has been contested in every manner known to our constitution and laws. the forms of the government furnish no new mode in which to try this question. it has been discussed over and over again, in congress; it has been argued and solemnly adjudged in the supreme court; every president, except the present, has considered it a settled question; many of the state legislatures have instructed their senators to vote for the bank; the tribunals of the states, in every instance, have supported its constitutionality; and, beyond all doubt and dispute, the general public opinion of the country has at all times given, and does now give, its full sanction and approbation to the exercise of this power, as being a constitutional power. there has been no opinion questioning the power expressed or intimated, at any time, by either house of congress, by any president, or by any respectable judicial tribunal. now, sir, if this practice of near forty years, if these repeated exercises of the power, if this solemn adjudication of the supreme court, with the concurrence and approbation of public opinion, do not settle the question, how is any question ever to be settled, about which any one may choose to raise a doubt? the argument of the message upon the congressional precedents is either a bold and gross fallacy, or else it is an assertion without proofs, and against known facts. the message admits, that, in , congress decided in favor of a bank; but it adds, that another congress, in , decided against it. now, if it be meant that, in , congress decided against the bank on constitutional ground, then the assertion is wholly incorrect, and against notorious fact. it is perfectly well known, that many members, in both houses, voted against the bank in , who had no doubt at all of the constitutional power of congress. they were entirely governed by other reasons given at the time. i appeal, sir, to the honorable member from maryland, who was then a member of the senate, and voted against the bank, whether he, and others who were on the same side, did not give those votes on other well-known grounds, and not at all on constitutional ground? general smith here rose, and said, that he voted against the bank in , but not at all on constitutional grounds, and had no doubt such was the case with other members. we all know, sir, the fact to be as the gentleman from maryland has stated it. every man who recollects, or who has read, the political occurrences of that day, knows it. therefore, if the message intends to say, that in congress denied the existence of any such constitutional power, the declaration is unwarranted, and altogether at variance with the facts. if, on the other hand, it only intends to say, that congress decided against the proposition then before it on some other grounds, then it alleges that which is nothing at all to the purpose. the argument, then, either assumes for truth that which is not true, or else the whole statement is immaterial and futile. but whatever value others may attach to this argument, the message thinks so highly of it, that it proceeds to repeat it. "one congress," it says, "in , decided against a bank, another, in , decided in its favor. there is nothing in precedent, therefore, which, if its authority were admitted, ought to weigh in favor of the act before me." now, sir, since it is known to the whole country, one cannot but wonder how it should remain unknown to the president, that congress _did not_ decide against a bank in . on the contrary, that very congress passed a bill for erecting a bank, by very large majorities. in one form, it is true, the bill failed in the house of representatives; but the vote was reconsidered, the bill recommitted, and finally passed by a vote of one hundred and twenty to thirty-nine. there is, therefore, not only no solid ground, but not even any plausible pretence, for the assertion, that congress in decided against the bank. that very congress passed a bill to create a bank, and its decision, therefore, is precisely the other way, and is a direct practical precedent in favor of the constitutional power. what are we to think of a constitutional argument which deals in this way with historical facts? when the message declares, as it does declare, that there is nothing in precedent which ought to weigh in favor of the power, it sets at naught repeated acts of congress affirming the power, and it also states other acts, which were in fact, and which are well known to have been, directly the reverse of what the message represents them. there is not, sir, the slightest reason to think that any senate or any house of representatives, ever assembled under the constitution, contained a majority that doubted the constitutional existence of the power of congress to establish a bank. whenever the question has arisen, and has been decided, it has always been decided one way. the legislative precedents all assert and maintain the power; and these legislative precedents have been the law of the land for almost forty years. they settle the construction of the constitution, and sanction the exercise of the power in question, so far as these effects can ever be produced by any legislative precedents whatever. but the president does not admit the authority of precedent. sir, i have always found, that those who habitually deny most vehemently the general force of precedent, and assert most strongly the supremacy of private opinion, are yet, of all men, most tenacious of that very authority of precedent, whenever it happens to be in their favor. i beg leave to ask, sir, upon what ground, except that of precedent, and precedent alone, the president's friends have placed his power of removal from office. no such power is given by the constitution, in terms, nor anywhere intimated, throughout the whole of it; no paragraph or clause of that instrument recognizes such a power. to say the least, it is as questionable, and has been as often questioned, as the power of congress to create a bank; and, enlightened by what has passed under our own observation, we now see that it is of all powers the most capable of flagrant abuse. now, sir, i ask again, what becomes of this power, if the authority of precedent be taken away? it has all along been denied to exist; it is nowhere found in the constitution; and its recent exercise, or, to call things by their right names, its recent abuse, has, more than any other single cause, rendered good men either cool in their affections toward the government of their country, or doubtful of its long continuance. yet there is _precedent_ in favor of this power, and the president exercises it. we know, sir, that, without the aid of that _precedent_, his acts could never have received the sanction of this body, even at a time when his voice was somewhat more potential here than it now is, or, as i trust, ever again will be. does the president, then, reject the authority of all precedent except what it is suitable to his own purpose to use? and does he use, without stint or measure, all precedents which may augment his own power, or gratify his own wishes? but if the president thinks lightly of the authority of congress in construing the constitution, he thinks still more lightly of the authority of the supreme court. he asserts a right of individual judgment on constitutional questions, which is totally inconsistent with any proper administration of the government, or any regular execution of the laws. social disorder, entire uncertainty in regard to individual rights and individual duties, the cessation of legal anthority, confusion, the dissolution of free government,--all these are the inevitable consequences of the principles adopted by the message, whenever they shall be carried to their full extent. hitherto it has been thought that the final decision of constitutional questions belonged to the supreme judicial tribunal. the very nature of free government, it has been supposed, enjoins this; and our constitution, moreover, has been understood so to provide, clearly and expressly. it is true, that each branch of the legislature has an undoubted right, in the exercise of its functions, to consider the constitutionality of a law proposed to be passed. this is naturally a part of its duty; and neither branch can be compelled to pass any law, or do any other act, which it deems to be beyond the reach of its constitutional power. the president has the same right, when a bill is presented for his approval; for he is, doubtless, bound to consider, in all cases, whether such bill be compatible with the constitution, and whether he can approve it consistently with his oath of office. but when a law has been passed by congress, and approved by the president, it is now no longer in the power, either of the same president, or his successors, to say whether the law is constitutional or not. he is not at liberty to disregard it; he is not at liberty to feel or to affect "constitutional scruples," and to sit in judgment himself on the validity of a statute of the government, and to nullify it, if he so chooses. after a law has passed through all the requisite forms; after it has received the requisite legislative sanction and the executive approval, the question of its constitutionality then becomes a judicial question, and a judicial question alone. in the courts that question may be raised, argued, and adjudged; it can be adjudged nowhere else. the president is as much bound by the law as any private citizen, and can no more contest its validity than any private citizen. he may refuse to obey the law, and so may a private citizen; but both do it at their own peril, and neither of them can settle the question of its validity. the president may _say_ a law is unconstitutional, but he is not the judge. who is to decide that question? the judiciary alone possesses this unquestionable and hitherto unquestioned right. the judiciary is the constitutional tribunal of appeal for the citizens, against both congress and the executive, in regard to the constitutionality of laws. it has this jurisdiction expressly conferred upon it, and when it has decided the question, its judgment must, from the very nature of all judgments that are final, and from which there is no appeal, be conclusive. hitherto, this opinion, and a correspondent practice, have prevailed, in america, with all wise and considerate men. if it were otherwise, there would be no government of laws; but we should all live under the government, the rule, the caprices, of individuals. if we depart from the observance of these salutary principles, the executive power becomes at once purely despotic; for the president, if the principle and the reasoning of the message be sound, may either execute or not execute the laws of the land, according to his sovereign pleasure. he may refuse to put into execution one law, pronounced valid by all branches of the government, and yet execute another, which may have been by constitutional authority pronounced void. on the argument of the message, the president of the united states holds, under a new pretence and a new name, a _dispensing power_ over the laws as absolute as was claimed by james the second of england, a month before he was compelled to fly the kingdom. that which is now claimed by the president is in truth nothing less, and nothing else, than the old dispensing power asserted by the kings of england in the worst of times; the very climax, indeed, of all the preposterous pretensions of the tudor and the stuart races. according to the doctrines put forth by the president, although congress may have passed a law, and although the supreme court may have pronounced it constitutional, yet it is, nevertheless, no law at all, if he, in his good pleasure, sees fit to deny it effect; in other words, to repeal and annul it. sir, no president and no public man ever before advanced such doctrines in the face of the nation. there never before was a moment in which any president would have been tolerated in asserting such a claim to despotic power. after congress has passed the law, and after the supreme court has pronounced its judgment on the very point in controversy, the president has set up his own private judgment against its constitutional interpretation. it is to be remembered, sir, that it is the present law, it is the act of , it is the present charter of the bank, which the president pronounces to be unconstitutional. it is no bank _to be created_, it is no law proposed to be passed, which he denounces; it is the _law now existing_, passed by congress, approved by president madison, and sanctioned by a solemn judgment of the supreme court, which he now declares unconstitutional, and which, of course, so far as it may depend on him, cannot be executed. if these opinions of the president be maintained, there is an end of all law and all judicial authority. statutes are but recommendations, judgments no more than opinions. both are equally destitute of binding force. such a universal power as is now claimed for him, a power of judging over the laws and over the decisions of the judiciary, is nothing else but pure despotism. if conceded to him, it makes him at once what louis the fourteenth proclaimed himself to be when he said, "i am the state." the supreme court has unanimously declared and adjudged that the existing bank _is_ created by a constitutional law of congress. as has been before observed, this bank, so far as the present question is concerned, is like that which was established in by washington, and sanctioned by the great men of that day. in every form, therefore, in which the question can be raised, it has been raised and has been settled. every process and every mode of trial known to the constitution and laws have been exhausted, and always and without exception the decision has been in favor of the validity of the law. but all this practice, all this precedent, all this public approbation, all this solemn adjudication directly on the point, is to be disregarded and rejected, and the constitutional power flatly denied. and, sir, if we are startled at this conclusion, our surprise will not be lessened when we examine the argument by which it is maintained. by the constitution, congress is authorized to pass all laws "necessary and proper" for carrying its own legislative powers into effect. congress has deemed a bank to be "necessary and proper" for these purposes, and it has therefore established a bank. but although the law has been passed, and the bank established, and the constitutional validity of its charter solemnly adjudged, yet the president pronounces it unconstitutional, because some of the powers bestowed on the bank are, in his opinion, not necessary or proper. it would appear that powers which in and in , in the time of washington and in the time of madison, were deemed "necessary and proper," are no longer to be so regarded, and therefore the bank is unconstitutional. it has really come to this, that the constitutionality of a bank is to depend upon the opinion which one particular man may form of the utility or necessity of some of the clauses in its charter! if that individual chooses to think that a particular power contained in the charter is not necessary to the proper constitution of the bank, then the act is unconstitutional! hitherto it has always been supposed that the question was of a very different nature. it has been thought that the policy of granting a particular charter may be materially dependent on the structure and organization and powers of the proposed institution. but its general constitutionality has never before been understood to turn on such points. this would be making its constitutionality depend on subordinate questions; on questions of expediency and questions of detail; upon that which one man may think necessary, and another may not. if the constitutional question were made to hinge on matters of this kind, how could it ever be decided? all would depend on conjecture; on the complexional feeling, on the prejudices, on the passions, of individuals; on more or less practical skill or correct judgment in regard to banking operations among those who should be the judges; on the impulse of momentary interests, party objects, or personal purposes. put the question in this manner to a court of seven judges, to decide whether a particular bank was constitutional, and it might be doubtful whether they could come to any result, as they might well hold very various opinions on the practical utility of many clauses of the charter. the question in that case would be, not whether the bank, in its general frame, character, and objects, was a proper instrument to carry into effect the powers of the government, but whether the particular powers, direct or incidental, conferred on a particular bank, were better calculated than all others to give success to its operations. for if not, then the charter, according to this sort of reasoning, would be unwarranted by the constitution. this mode of construing the constitution is certainly a novel discovery. its merits belong entirely to the president and his advisers. according to this rule of interpretation, if the president should be of opinion, that the capital of the bank was larger, by a thousand dollars, than it ought to be; or that the time for the continuance of the charter was a year too long; or that it was unnecessary to require it, under penalty, to pay specie; or needless to provide for punishing, as forgery, the counterfeiting of its bills,--either of these reasons would be sufficient to render the charter, in his opinion, unconstitutional, invalid, and nugatory. this is a legitimate conclusion from the argument. such a view of the subject has certainly never before been taken. this train of reasoning has hitherto not been heard within the halls of congress, nor has any one ventured upon it before the tribunals of justice. the first exhibition, its first appearance, as an argument, is in a message of the president of the united states. according to that mode of construing the constitution which was adopted by congress in , and approved by washington, and which has been sanctioned by the judgment of the supreme court, and affirmed by the practice of nearly forty years, the question upon the constitutionality of the bank involves two inquiries. first, whether a bank, in its general character, and with regard to the general objects with which banks are usually connected, be, in itself, a fit means, a suitable instrument, to carry into effect the powers granted to the government. if it be so, then the second, and the only other question is, whether the powers given in a particular charter are appropriate for a bank. if they are powers which are appropriate for a bank, powers which congress may fairly consider to be useful to the bank or the country, then congress may confer these powers; because the discretion to be exercised in framing the constitution of the bank belongs to congress. one man may think the granted powers not indispensable to the particular bank; another may suppose them injudicious, or injurious; a third may imagine that other powers, if granted in their stead, would be more beneficial; but all these are matters of expediency, about which men may differ; and the power of deciding upon them belongs to congress. i again repeat, sir, that if, for reasons of this kind, the president sees fit to negative a bill, on the ground of its being inexpedient or impolitic, he has a right to do so. but remember, sir, that we are now on the constitutional question; remember that the argument of the president is, that, because powers were given to the bank by the charter of which he thinks unnecessary, that charter is unconstitutional. now, sir, it will hardly be denied, or rather it was not denied or doubted before this message came to us, that, if there was to be a bank, the powers and duties of that bank must be prescribed in the law creating it. nobody but congress, it has been thought, could grant these powers and privileges, or prescribe their limitations. it is true, indeed, that the message pretty plainly intimates, that the president should have been _first_ consulted, and that he should have had the framing of the bill; but we are not yet accustomed to that order of things in enacting laws, nor do i know a parallel to this claim, thus now brought forward, except that, in some peculiar cases in england, highly affecting the royal prerogative, the assent of the monarch is necessary before either the house of peers, or his majesty's faithful commons, are permitted to act upon the subject, or to entertain its consideration. but supposing, sir, that our accustomed forms and our republican principles are still to be followed, and that a law creating a bank is, like all other laws, to originate with congress, and that the president has nothing to do with it till it is presented for his approval, then it is clear that the powers and duties of a proposed bank, and all the terms and conditions annexed to it, must, in the first place, be settled by congress. this power, if constitutional at all, is only constitutional in the hands of congress. anywhere else, its exercise would be plain usurpation. if, then, the authority to decide what powers ought to be granted to a bank belong to congress, and congress shall have exercised that power, it would seem little better than absurd to say, that its act, nevertheless would be unconstitutional and invalid, if, in the opinion of a third party, it had misjudged, on a question of expediency, in the arrangement of details. according to such a mode of reasoning, a mistake in the exercise of jurisdiction takes away the jurisdiction. if congress decide right, its decision may stand; if it decide wrong, its decision is nugatory; and whether its decision be right or wrong, another is to judge, although the original power of making the decision must be allowed to be exclusively in congress. this is the end to which the argument of the message will conduct its followers. sir, in considering the authority of congress to invest the bank with the particular powers granted to it, the inquiry is not, and cannot be, how appropriate these powers are, but whether they be at all appropriate; whether they come within the range of a just and honest discretion; whether congress may fairly esteem them to be necessary. the question is not, are they the fittest means, the best means? or whether the bank might not be established without them; but the question is, are they such as congress, _bona fide_, may have regarded as appropriate to the end? if any other rule were to be adopted, nothing could ever be settled. a law would be constitutional to-day and unconstitutional to-morrow. its constitutionality would altogether depend upon individual opinion on a matter of mere expediency. indeed, such a case as that is now actually before us. mr. madison deemed the powers given to the bank, in its present charter, proper and necessary. he held the bank, therefore, to be constitutional. but the present president, not acknowledging that the power of deciding on these points rests with congress, nor with congress and the then president, but setting up his own opinion as the standard, declares the law now in being unconstitutional, because the powers granted by it are, in his estimation, not necessary and proper. i pray to be informed, sir, whether, upon similar grounds of reasoning, the president's own scheme for a bank, if congress should do so unlikely a thing as to adopt it, would not become unconstitutional also, if it should so happen that his successor should hold his bank in as light esteem as he holds those established under the auspices of washington and madison? if the reasoning of the message be well founded, it is clear that the charter of the existing bank is not a law. the bank has no legal existence; it is not responsible to government; it has no authority to act; it is incapable of being an agent; the president may treat it as a nullity to-morrow, withdraw from it all the public deposits, and set afloat all the existing national arrangements of revenue and finance. it is enough to state these monstrous consequences, to show that the doctrine, principles, and pretensions of the message are entirely inconsistent with a government of laws. if that which congress has enacted, and the supreme court has sanctioned, be not the law of the land, then the reign of law has ceased, and the reign of individual opinion has already begun. the president, in his commentary on the details of the existing bank charter, undertakes to prove that one provision, and another provision, is not necessary and proper; because, as he thinks, the same objects proposed to be accomplished by them might have been better attained in another mode; and therefore such provisions are not necessary, and so not warranted by the constitution. does not this show, that, according to his own mode of reasoning, his _own_ scheme would not be constitutional, since another scheme, which probably most people would think a better one, might be substituted for it? perhaps, in any bank charter, there may be no provisions which may be justly regarded as absolutely indispensable; since it is probable that for any of them some others might be substituted. no bank, therefore, ever could be established; because there never has been, and never could be, any charter, of which every provision should appear to be indispensable, or necessary and proper, in the judgment of every individual. to admit, therefore, that there may be a constitutional bank, and yet to contend for such a mode of judging of its provisions and details as the message adopts, involves an absurdity. any charter which may be framed may be taken up, and each power conferred by it successively denied, on the ground, that, in regard to each, either no such power is "necessary or proper" in a bank, or, which is the same thing in effect, some other power might be substituted for it, and supply its place. that can never be necessary, in the sense in which the message understands that term, which may be dispensed with; and it cannot be said that any power may not be dispensed with, if there be some other which might be substituted for it, and which would accomplish the same end. therefore, no bank could ever be constitutional, because none could be established which should not contain some provisions which might have been omitted, and their place supplied by others. mr. president, i have understood the true and well-established doctrine to be, that, after it has been decided that it is competent for congress to establish a bank, then it follows that it may create such a bank as it judges, in its discretion, to be best, and invest it with all such power as it may deem fit and suitable; with this limitation, always, that all is to be done in the _bona fide_ execution of the power to create a bank. if the granted powers are appropriate to the professed end, so that the granting of them cannot be regarded as usurpation of authority by congress, or an evasion of constitutional restrictions, under color of establishing a bank, then the charter is constitutional, whether these powers be thought indispensable by others or not, or whether even congress itself deemed them absolutely indispensable, or only thought them fit and suitable, or whether they are more or less appropriate to their end. it is enough that they are appropriate; it is enough that they are suited to produce the effects designed; and no comparison is to be instituted, in order to try their constitutionality, between them and others which may be suggested. a case analogous to the present is found in the constitutional power of congress over the mail. the constitution says no more than that "congress shall have power to establish post-offices and post-roads"; and, in the general clause, "all powers necessary and proper" to give effect to this. in the execution of this power, congress has protected the mail, by providing that robbery of it shall be punished with death. is this infliction of capital punishment constitutional? certainly it is not, unless it be both "proper and necessary." the president may not think it necessary or proper; the law, then, according to the system of reasoning enforced by the message, is of no binding force, and the president may disobey it, and refuse to see it executed. the truth is, mr. president, that if the general object, the subject-matter, properly belong to congress, all its incidents belong to congress also. if congress is to establish post-offices and post-roads, it may, for that end, adopt one set of regulations or another; and either would be constitutional. so the details of one bank are as constitutional as those of another, if they are confined fairly and honestly to the purpose of organizing the institution, and rendering it useful. one _bank_ is as constitutional as another _bank_. if congress possesses the power to make a bank, it possesses the power to make it efficient, and competent to produce the good expected from it. it may clothe it with all such power and privileges, not otherwise inconsistent with the constitution, as may be necessary, in its own judgment, to make it what government deems it should be. it may confer on it such immunities as may induce individuals to become stockholders, and to furnish the capital; and since the extent of these immunities and privileges is matter of discretion, and matter of opinion, congress only can decide it, because congress alone can frame or grant the charter. a charter, thus granted to individuals, becomes a contract with them, upon their compliance with its terms. the bank becomes an agent, bound to perform certain duties, and entitled to certain stipulated rights and privileges, in compensation for the proper discharge of these duties; and all these stipulations, so long as they are appropriate to the object professed, and not repugnant to any other constitutional injunction, are entirely within the competency of congress. and yet, sir, the message of the president toils through all the commonplace topics of monopoly, the right of taxation, the suffering of the poor, and the arrogance of the rich, with as much painful effort, as if one, or another, or all of them, had something to do with the constitutional question. what is called the "monopoly" is made the subject of repeated rehearsal, in terms of special complaint. by this "monopoly," i suppose, is understood the restriction contained in the charter, that congress shall not, during the twenty years, create another bank. now, sir, let me ask, who would think of creating a bank, inviting stockholders into it, with large investments, imposing upon it heavy duties, as connected with the government, receiving some millions of dollars as a _bonus_ or premium, and yet retaining the power of granting, the next day, another charter, which would destroy the whole value of the first? if this be an unconstitutional restraint on congress, the constitution must be strangely at variance with the dictates both of good sense and sound morals. did not the first bank of the united states contain a similar restriction? and have not the states granted bank charters with a condition, that, if the charter should be accepted, they would not grant others? states have certainly done so; and, in some instances, where no _bonus_ or premium was paid at all; but from the mere desire to give effect to the charter, by inducing individuals to accept it and organize the institution. the president declares that this restriction is not necessary to the efficiency of the bank; but that is the very thing which congress and his predecessor in office were called on to decide, and which they did decide, when the one passed and the other approved the act. and he has now no more authority to pronounce his judgment on that act than any other individual in society. it is not his province to decide on the constitutionality of statutes which congress has passed, and his predecessors approved. there is another sentiment in this part of the message, which we should hardly have expected to find in a paper which is supposed, whoever may have drawn it up, to have passed under the review of professional characters. the message declares, that this limitation to create no other bank is unconstitutional, because, although congress may use the discretion vested in them, "they may not limit the discretion of their successors." this reason is almost too superficial to require an answer. every one at all accustomed to the consideration of such subjects knows that every congress can bind its successors to the same extent that it can bind itself. the power of congress is always the same; the authority of law always the same. it is true, we speak of the twentieth congress and the twenty-first congress, but this is only to denote the period of time, or to mark the successive organizations of the house of representatives under the successive periodical election of its members. as a politic body, as the legislative power of the government, congress is always continuous, always identical. a particular congress, as we speak of it, for instance, the present congress, can no farther restrain itself from doing what it may choose to do at the next session, than it can restrain any succeeding congress from doing what it may choose. any congress may repeal the act or law of its predecessor, if in its nature it be repealable, just as it may repeal its own act; and if a law or an act be irrepealable in its nature, it can no more be repealed by a subsequent congress than by that which passed it. all this is familiar to everybody. and congress, like every other legislature, often passes acts which, being in the nature of grants or contracts, are irrepealable ever afterwards. the message, in a strain of argument which it is difficult to treat with ordinary respect, declares that this restriction on the power of congress, as to the establishment of other banks, is a palpable attempt to amend the constitution by an act of legislation. the reason on which this observation purports to be founded is, that congress, by the constitution, is to have exclusive legislation over the district of columbia; and when the bank charter declares that congress will create no new bank within the district, it annuls this power of exclusive legislation! i must say, that this reasoning hardly rises high enough to entitle it to a passing notice. it would be doing it too much credit to call it plausible. no one needs to be informed that exclusive power of legislation is not unlimited power of legislation; and if it were, how can that legislative power be unlimited that cannot restrain itself, that cannot bind itself by contract? whether as a government or as an individual, that being is fettered and restrained which is not capable of binding itself by ordinary obligation. every legislature binds itself, whenever it makes a grant, enters into a contract, bestows an office, or does any other act or thing which is in its nature irrepealable. and this, instead of detracting from its legislative power, is one of the modes of exercising that power. the legislative power of congress over the district of columbia would not be full and complete, if it might not make just such a stipulation as the bank charter contains. as to the taxing power of the states, about which the message says so much, the proper answer to all it says is, that the states possess no power to tax any instrument of the government of the united states. it was no part of their power before the constitution, and they derive no such power from any of its provisions. it is nowhere given to them. could a state tax the _coin_ of the united states at the mint? could a state lay a stamp tax on the process of the courts of the united states, and on custom-house papers? could it tax the transportation of the mail, or the ships of war, or the ordnance, or the muniments of war, of the united states? the reason that these cannot be taxed by a state is, that they are means and instruments of the government of the united states. the establishment of a bank exempt from state taxation takes away no existing right in a state. it leaves it all it ever possessed. but the complaint is, that the bank charter does not _confer_ the power of taxation. this, certainly, though not a new, (for the same argument was urged here,) appears to me to be a strange, mode of asserting and maintaining state rights. the power of taxation is a sovereign power; and the president and those who think with him are of opinion, in a given case, that this sovereign power should be conferred on the states by an act of congress. there is, if i mistake not, sir, as little compliment to state sovereignty in this idea, as there is of sound constitutional doctrine. sovereign rights held under the grant of an act of congress present a proposition quite new in constitutional law. the president himself even admits that an instrument of the government of the united states ought not, as such, to be taxed by the states; yet he contends for such a power of taxing property connected with this instrument, and essential to its very being, as places its whole existence in the pleasure of the states. it is not enough that the states may tax all the property of all their own citizens, wherever invested or however employed. the complaint is, that the power of state taxation does not reach so far as to take cognizance over persons out of the state, and to tax them for a franchise lawfully exercised under the authority of the united states. sir, when did the power of the states, or indeed of any government, go to such an extent as that? clearly never. the taxing power of all communities is necessarily and justly limited to the property of its own citizens, and to the property of others, having a distinct local existence as property, within its jurisdiction; it does not extend to rights and franchises, rightly exercised, under the authority of other governments, nor to persons beyond its jurisdiction. as the constitution has left the taxing power of the states, so the bank charter leaves it. congress has not undertaken either to take away, or to confer, a taxing power; nor to enlarge, or to restrain it; if it were to do either, i hardly know which of the two would be the least excusable. i beg leave to repeat, mr. president, that what i have now been considering are the president's objections, not to the policy or expediency, but to the constitutionality, of the bank; and not to the constitutionality of any new or proposed bank, but of the bank as it now is, and as it has long existed. if the president had declined to approve this bill because he thought the original charter unwisely granted, and the bank, in point of policy and expediency, objectionable or mischievous, and in that view only had suggested the reasons now urged by him, his argument, however inconclusive, would have been intelligible, and not, in its whole frame and scope, inconsistent with all well-established first principles. his rejection of the bill, in that case, would have been, no doubt, an extraordinary exercise of power; but it would have been, nevertheless, the exercise of a power belonging to his office, and trusted by the constitution to his discretion. but when he puts forth an array of arguments such as the message employs, not against the expediency of the bank, but against its constitutional existence, he confounds all distinctions, mixes questions of policy and questions of right together, and turns all constitutional restraints into mere matters of opinion. as far as its power extends, either in its direct effects or as a precedent, the message not only unsettles every thing which has been settled under the constitution, but would show, also, that the constitution itself is utterly incapable of any fixed construction or definite interpretation, and that there is no possibility of establishing, by its authority, any practical limitations on the powers of the respective branches of the government. when the message denies, as it does, the authority of the supreme court to decide on constitutional questions, it effects, so far as the opinion of the president and his authority can effect it, a complete change in our government. it does two things: first, it converts constitutional limitations of power into mere matters of opinion, and then it strikes the judicial department, as an efficient department, out of our system. but the message by no means stops even at this point. having denied to congress the authority of judging what powers may be constitutionally conferred on a bank, and having erected the judgment of the president himself into a standard by which to try the constitutional character of such powers, and having denounced the authority of the supreme court to decide finally on constitutional questions, the message proceeds to claim for the president, not the power of approval, but the primary power, the power of originating laws. the president informs congress, that _he_ would have sent them such a charter, if it had been properly asked for, as they ought to confer. he very plainly intimates, that, in his opinion, the establishment of all laws, of this nature at least, belongs to the functions of the executive government; and that congress ought to have waited for the manifestation of the executive will, before it presumed to touch the subject. such, mr. president, stripped of their disguises, are the real pretences set up in behalf of the executive power in this most extraordinary paper. mr. president, we have arrived at a new epoch. we are entering on experiments, with the government and the constitution of the country, hitherto untried, and of fearful and appalling aspect. this message calls us to the contemplation of a future which little resembles the past. its principles are at war with all that public opinion has sustained, and all which the experience of the government has sanctioned. it denies first principles; it contradicts truths, heretofore received as indisputable. it denies to the judiciary the interpretation of law, and claims to divide with congress the power of originating statutes. it extends the grasp of executive pretension over every power of the government. but this is not all. it presents the chief magistrate of the union in the attitude of arguing away the powers of that government over which he has been chosen to preside; and adopting for this purpose modes of reasoning which, even under the influence of all proper feeling towards high official station, it is difficult to regard as respectable. it appeals to every prejudice which may betray men into a mistaken view of their own interests, and to every passion which may lead them to disobey the impulses of their understanding. it urges all the specious topics of state rights and national encroachment against that which a great majority of the states have affirmed to be rightful, and in which all of them have acquiesced. it sows, in an unsparing manner, the seeds of jealousy and ill-will against that government of which its author is the official head. it raises a cry, that liberty is in danger, at the very moment when it puts forth claims to powers heretofore unknown and unheard of. it affects alarm for the public freedom, when nothing endangers that freedom so much as its own unparalleled pretences. this, even, is not all. it manifestly seeks to inflame the poor against the rich; it wantonly attacks whole classes of the people, for the purpose of turning against them the prejudices and the resentments of other classes. it is a state paper which finds no topic too exciting for its use, no passion too inflammable for its address and its solicitation. such is this message. it remains now for the people of the united states to choose between the principles here avowed and their government. these cannot subsist together. the one or the other must be rejected. if the sentiments of the message shall receive general approbation, the constitution will have perished even earlier than the moment which its enemies originally allowed for the termination of its existence. it will not have survived to its fiftieth year. the character of washington a speech delivered at a public dinner in the city of washington on the d of february, , the centennial anniversary of washington's birthday. [on the d of february, , being the centennial birthday of george washington, a number of gentlemen, members of congress and others, from different parts of the union, united in commemorating the occasion by a public dinner in the city of washington. at the request of the committee of arrangements, mr. webster, then a senator from massachusetts, occupied the chair. after the cloth was removed, he addressed the company in the following manner.] i rise, gentlemen, to propose to you the name of that great man, in commemoration of whose birth, and in honor of whose character and services, we are here assembled. i am sure that i express a sentiment common to every one present, when i say that there is something more than ordinarily solemn and affecting in this occasion. we are met to testify our regard for him whose name is intimately blended with whatever belongs most essentially to the prosperity, the liberty, the free institutions, and the renown of our country. that name was of power to rally a nation, in the hour of thick-thronging public disasters and calamities; that name shone, amid the storm of war, a beacon light, to cheer and guide the country's friends; it flamed, too, like a meteor, to repel her foes. that name, in the days of peace, was a loadstone, attracting to itself a whole people's confidence, a whole people's love, and the whole world's respect. that name, descending with all time, spreading over the whole earth, and uttered in all the languages belonging to the tribes and races of men, will for ever be pronounced with affectionate gratitude by every one in whose breast there shall arise an aspiration for human rights and human liberty. we perform this grateful duty, gentlemen, at the expiration of a hundred years from his birth, near the place, so cherished and beloved by him, where his dust now reposes, and in the capital which bears his own immortal name. all experience evinces that human sentiments are strongly influenced by associations. the recurrence of anniversaries, or of longer periods of time, naturally freshens the recollection, and deepens the impression, of events with which they are historically connected. renowned places, also, have a power to awaken feeling, which all acknowledge. no american can pass by the fields of bunker hill, monmouth, and camden, as if they were ordinary spots on the earth's surface. whoever visits them feels the sentiment of love of country kindling anew, as if the spirit that belonged to the transactions which have rendered these places distinguished still hovered round, with power to move and excite all who in future time may approach them. but neither of these sources of emotion equals the power with which great moral examples affect the mind. when sublime virtues cease to be abstractions, when they become embodied in human character, and exemplified in human conduct, we should be false to our own nature, if we did not indulge in the spontaneous effusions of our gratitude and our admiration. a true lover of the virtue of patriotism delights to contemplate its purest models; and that love of country may be well suspected which affects to soar so high into the regions of sentiment as to be lost and absorbed in the abstract feeling, and becomes too elevated or too refined to glow with fervor in the commendation or the love of individual benefactors. all this is unnatural. it is as if one should be so enthusiastic a lover of poetry, as to care nothing for homer or milton; so passionately attached to eloquence as to be indifferent to tully and chatham; or such a devotee to the arts, in such an ecstasy with the elements of beauty, proportion, and expression, as to regard the masterpieces of raphael and michael angelo with coldness or contempt. we may be assured, gentlemen, that he who really loves the thing itself, loves its finest exhibitions. a true friend of his country loves her friends and benefactors, and thinks it no degradation to commend and commemorate them. the voluntary outpouring of the public feeling, made to-day, from the north to the south, and from the east to the west, proves this sentiment to be both just and natural. in the cities and in the villages, in the public temples and in the family circles, among all ages and sexes, gladdened voices to-day bespeak grateful hearts and a freshened recollection of the virtues of the father of his country. and it will be so, in all time to come, so long as public virtue is itself an object of regard. the ingenuous youth of america will hold up to themselves the bright model of washington's example, and study to be what they behold; they will contemplate his character till all its virtues spread out and display themselves to their delighted vision; as the earliest astronomers, the shepherds on the plains of babylon, gazed at the stars till they saw them form into clusters and constellations, overpowering at length the eyes of the beholders with the united blaze of a thousand lights. gentlemen, we are at a point of a century from the birth of washington; and what a century it has been! during its course, the human mind has seemed to proceed with a sort of geometric velocity, accomplishing for human intelligence and human freedom more than had been done in fives or tens of centuries preceding. washington stands at the commencement of a new era, as well as at the head of the new world. a century from the birth of washington has changed the world. the country of washington has been the theatre on which a great part of that change has been wrought, and washington himself a principal agent by which it has been accomplished. his age and his country are equally full of wonders; and of both he is the chief. if the poetical prediction, uttered a few years before his birth, be true; if indeed it be designed by providence that the grandest exhibition of human character and human affairs shall be made on this theatre of the western world; if it be true that, "the four first acts already past, a fifth shall close the drama with the day, time's noblest offspring is the last";-- how could this imposing, swelling, final scene be appropriately opened, how could its intense interest be adequately sustained, but by the introduction of just such a character as our washington? washington had attained his manhood when that spark of liberty was struck out in his own country, which has since kindled into a flame, and shot its beams over the earth. in the flow of a century from his birth, the world has changed in science, in arts, in the extent of commerce, in the improvement of navigation, and in all that relates to the civilization of man. but it is the spirit of human freedom, the new elevation of individual man, in his moral, social, and political character, leading the whole long train of other improvements, which has most remarkably distinguished the era. society, in this century, has not made its progress, like chinese skill, by a greater acuteness of ingenuity in trifles; it has not merely lashed itself to an increased speed round the old circles of thought and action; but it has assumed a new character; it has raised itself from _beneath_ governments to a participation _in_ governments; it has mixed moral and political objects with the daily pursuits of individual men; and, with a freedom and strength before altogether unknown, it has applied to these objects the whole power of the human understanding. it has been the era, in short, when the social principle has triumphed over the feudal principle; when society has maintained its rights against military power, and established, on foundations never hereafter to be shaken, its competency to govern itself. it was the extraordinary fortune of washington, that, having been intrusted, in revolutionary times, with the supreme military command, and having fulfilled that trust with equal renown for wisdom and for valor, he should be placed at the head of the first government in which an attempt was to be made on a large scale to rear the fabric of social order on the basis of a written constitution and of a pure representative principle. a government was to be established, without a throne, without an aristocracy, without castes, orders, or privileges; and this government, instead of being a democracy, existing and acting within the walls of a single city, was to be extended over a vast country, of different climates, interests, and habits, and of various communions of our common christian faith. the experiment certainly was entirely new. a popular government of this extent, it was evident, could be framed only by carrying into full effect the principle of representation or of delegated power; and the world was to see whether society could, by the strength of this principle, maintain its own peace and good government, carry forward its own great interests, and conduct itself to political renown and glory. by the benignity of providence, this experiment, so full of interest to us and to our posterity for ever, so full of interest, indeed, to the world in its present generation and in all its generations to come, was suffered to commence under the guidance of washington. destined for this high career, he was fitted for it by wisdom, by virtue, by patriotism, by discretion, by whatever can inspire confidence in man toward man. in entering on the untried scenes, early disappointment and the premature extinction of all hope of success would have been certain, had it not been that there did exist throughout the country, in a most extraordinary degree, an unwavering trust in him who stood at the helm. i remarked, gentlemen, that the whole world was and is interested in the result of this experiment. and is it not so? do we deceive ourselves, or is it true that at this moment the career which this government is running is among the most attractive objects to the civilized world? do we deceive ourselves, or is it true that at this moment that love of liberty and that understanding of its true principles which are flying over the whole earth, as on the wings of all the winds, are really and truly of american origin? at the period of the birth of washington, there existed in europe no political liberty in large communities, except in the provinces of holland, and except that england herself had set a great example, so far as it went, by her glorious revolution of . everywhere else, despotic power was predominant, and the feudal or military principle held the mass of mankind in hopeless bondage. one half of europe was crushed beneath the bourbon sceptre, and no conception of political liberty, no hope even of religious toleration, existed among that nation which was america's first ally. the king was the state, the king was the country, the king was all. there was one king, with power not derived from his people, and too high to be questioned; and the rest were all subjects, with no political right but obedience. all above was intangible power, all below quiet subjection. a recent occurrence in the french chambers shows us how public opinion on these subjects is changed. a minister had spoken of the "king's subjects." "there are no subjects," exclaimed hundreds of voices at once, "in a country where the people make the king!" gentlemen, the spirit of human liberty and of free government, nurtured and grown into strength and beauty in america, has stretched its course into the midst of the nations. like an emanation from heaven, it has gone forth, and it will not return void. it must change, it is fast changing, the face of the earth. our great, our high duty is to show, in our own example, that this spirit is a spirit of health as well as a spirit of power; that its benignity is as great as its strength; that its efficiency to secure individual rights, social relations, and moral order, is equal to the irresistible force with which it prostrates principalities and powers. the world, at this moment, is regarding us with a willing, but something of a fearful admiration. its deep and awful anxiety is to learn whether free states may be stable, as well as free; whether popular power may be trusted, as well as feared; in short, whether wise, regular, and virtuous self-government is a vision for the contemplation of theorists, or a truth established, illustrated, and brought into practice in the country of washington. gentlemen, for the earth which we inhabit, and the whole circle of the sun, for all the unborn races of mankind, we seem to hold in our hands, for their weal or woe, the fate of this experiment. if we fail, who shall venture the repetition? if our example shall prove to be one, not of encouragement, but of terror, not fit to be imitated, but fit only to be shunned, where else shall the world look for free models? if this great _western sun_ be struck out of the firmament, at what other fountain shall the lamp of liberty hereafter be lighted? what other orb shall emit a ray to glimmer, even, on the darkness of the world? there is no danger of our overrating or overstating the important part which we are now acting in human affairs. it should not flatter our personal self-respect, but it should reanimate our patriotic virtues, and inspire us with a deeper and more solemn sense, both of our privileges and of our duties. we cannot wish better for our country, nor for the world, than that the same spirit which influenced washington may influence all who succeed him; and that the same blessing from above, which attended his efforts, may also attend theirs. the principles of washington's administration are not left doubtful. they are to be found in the constitution itself, in the great measures recommended and approved by him, in his speeches to congress, and in that most interesting paper, his farewell address to the people of the united states. the success of the government under his administration is the highest proof of the soundness of these principles. and, after an experience of thirty-five years, what is there which an enemy could condemn? what is there which either his friends, or the friends of the country, could wish to have been otherwise? i speak, of course, of great measures and leading principles. in the first place, all his measures were right in their intent. he stated the whole basis of his own great character, when he told the country, in the homely phrase of the proverb, that honesty is the best policy. one of the most striking things ever said of him is, that "_he changed mankind's ideas of political greatness_."[ ] to commanding talents, and to success, the common elements of such greatness, he added a disregard of self, a spotlessness of motive, a steady submission to every public and private duty, which threw far into the shade the whole crowd of vulgar great. the object of his regard was the whole country. no part of it was enough to fill his enlarged patriotism. his love of glory, so far as that may be supposed to have influenced him at all, spurned every thing short of general approbation. it would have been nothing to him, that his partisans or his favorites outnumbered, or outvoted, or outmanaged, or outclamored, those of other leaders. he had no favorites; he rejected all partisanship; and, acting honestly for the universal good, he deserved, what he has so richly enjoyed, the universal love. his principle it was to act right, and to trust the people for support; his principle it was not to follow the lead of sinister and selfish ends, nor to rely on the little arts of party delusion to obtain public sanction for such a course. born for his country and for the world, he did not give up to party what was meant for mankind. the consequence is, that his fame is as durable as his principles, as lasting as truth and virtue themselves. while the hundreds whom party excitement, and temporary circumstances, and casual combinations, have raised into transient notoriety, sink again, like thin bubbles, bursting and dissolving into the great ocean, washington's fame is like the rock which bounds that ocean, and at whose feet its billows are destined to break harmlessly for ever. the maxims upon which washington conducted our foreign relations were few and simple. the first was an entire and indisputable impartiality towards foreign states. he adhered to this rule of public conduct, against very strong inducements to depart from it, and when the popularity of the moment seemed to favor such a departure. in the next place, he maintained true dignity and unsullied honor in all communications with foreign states. it was among the high duties devolved upon him, to introduce our new government into the circle of civilized states and powerful nations. not arrogant or assuming, with no unbecoming or supercilious bearing, he yet exacted for it from all others entire and punctilious respect. he demanded, and he obtained at once, a standing of perfect equality for his country in the society of nations; nor was there a prince or potentate of his day, whose personal character carried with it, into the intercourse of other states, a greater degree of respect and veneration. he regarded other nations only as they stood in political relations to us. with their internal affairs, their political parties and dissensions, he scrupulously abstained from all interference; and, on the other hand, he repelled with spirit all such interference by others with us or our concerns. his sternest rebuke, the most indignant measure of his whole administration, was aimed against such an attempted interference. he felt it as an attempt to wound the national honor, and resented it accordingly. the reiterated admonitions in his farewell address show his deep fears that foreign influence would insinuate itself into our counsels through the channels of domestic dissension, and obtain a sympathy with our own temporary parties. against all such dangers, he most earnestly entreats the country to guard itself. he appeals to its patriotism, to its self-respect, to its own honor, to every consideration connected with its welfare and happiness, to resist, at the very beginning, all tendencies towards such connection of foreign interests with our own affairs. with a tone of earnestness nowhere else found, even in his last affectionate farewell advice to his countrymen, he says, "against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (i conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be _constantly_ awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government." lastly, on the subject of foreign relations, washington never forgot that we had interests peculiar to ourselves. the primary political concerns of europe, he saw, did not affect us. we had nothing to do with her balance of power, her family compacts, or her successions to thrones. we were placed in a condition favorable to neutrality during european wars, and to the enjoyment of all the great advantages of that relation. "why, then," he asks us, "why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of european ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?" indeed, gentlemen, washington's farewell address is full of truths important at all times, and particularly deserving consideration at the present. with a sagacity which brought the future before him, and made it like the present, he saw and pointed out the dangers that even at this moment most imminently threaten us. i hardly know how a greater service of that kind could now be done to the community, than by a renewed and wide diffusion of that admirable paper, and an earnest invitation to every man in the country to reperuse and consider it. its political maxims are invaluable; its exhortations to love of country and to brotherly affection among citizens, touching; and the solemnity with which it urges the observance of moral duties, and impresses the power of religious obligation, gives to it the highest character of truly disinterested, sincere, parental advice. the domestic policy of washington found its pole-star in the avowed objects of the constitution itself. he sought so to administer that constitution, as to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. these were objects interesting, in the highest degree, to the whole country, and his policy embraced the whole country. among his earliest and most important duties was the organization of the government itself, the choice of his confidential advisers, and the various appointments to office. this duty, so important and delicate, when a whole government was to be organized, and all its offices for the first time filled, was yet not difficult to him; for he had no sinister ends to accomplish, no clamorous partisans to gratify, no pledges to redeem, no object to be regarded but simply the public good. it was a plain, straightforward matter, a mere honest choice of men for the public service. his own singleness of purpose, his disinterested patriotism, were evinced by the selection of his first cabinet, and by the manner in which he filled the seats of justice, and other places of high trust. he sought for men fit for offices; not for offices which might suit men. above personal considerations, above local considerations, above party considerations, he felt that he could only discharge the sacred trust which the country had placed in his hands, by a diligent inquiry after real merit, and a conscientious preference of virtue and talent. the whole country was the field of his selection. he explored that whole field, looking only for whatever it contained most worthy and distinguished. he was, indeed, most successful, and he deserved success for the purity of his motives, the liberality of his sentiments, and his enlarged and manly policy. washington's administration established the national credit, made provision for the public debt, and for that patriotic army whose interests and welfare were always so dear to him; and, by laws wisely framed, and of admirable effect, raised the commerce and navigation of the country, almost at once, from depression and ruin to a state of prosperity. nor were his eyes open to these interests alone. he viewed with equal concern its agriculture and manufactures, and, so far as they came within the regular exercise of the powers of this government, they experienced regard and favor. it should not be omitted, even in this slight reference to the general measures and general principles of the first president, that he saw and felt the full value and importance of the judicial department of the government. an upright and able administration of the laws he held to be alike indispensable to private happiness and public liberty. the temple of justice, in his opinion, was a sacred place, and he would profane and pollute it who should call any to minister in it, not spotless in character, not incorruptible in integrity, not competent by talent and learning, not a fit object of unhesitating trust. among other admonitions, washington has left us, in his last communication to his country, an exhortation against the excesses of party spirit. a fire not to be quenched, he yet conjures us not to fan and feed the flame. undoubtedly, gentlemen, it is the greatest danger of our system and of our time. undoubtedly, if that system should be overthrown, it will be the work of excessive party spirit, acting on the government, which is dangerous enough, or acting _in_ the government, which is a thousand times more dangerous; for government then becomes nothing but organized party, and, in the strange vicissitudes of human affairs, it may come at last, perhaps, to exhibit the singular paradox of government itself being in opposition to its own powers, at war with the very elements of its own existence. such cases are hopeless. as men may be protected against murder, but cannot be guarded against suicide, so government may be shielded from the assaults of external foes, but nothing can save it when it chooses to lay violent hands on itself. finally, gentlemen, there was in the breast of washington one sentiment so deeply felt, so constantly uppermost, that no proper occasion escaped without its utterance. from the letter which he signed in behalf of the convention when the constitution was sent out to the people, to the moment when he put his hand to that last paper in which he addressed his countrymen, the union,--the union was the great object of his thoughts. in that first letter he tells them that, to him and his brethren of the convention, union appears to be the greatest interest of every true american; and in that last paper he conjures them to regard that unity of government which constitutes them one people as the very palladium of their prosperity and safety, and the security of liberty itself. he regarded the union of these states less as one of our blessings, than as the great treasure-house which contained them all. here, in his judgment, was the great magazine of all our means of prosperity; here, as he thought, and as every true american still thinks, are deposited all our animating prospects, all our solid hopes for future greatness. he has taught us to maintain this union, not by seeking to enlarge the powers of the government, on the one hand, nor by surrendering them, on the other; but by an administration of them at once firm and moderate, pursuing objects truly national, and carried on in a spirit of justice and equity. the extreme solicitude for the preservation of the union, at all times manifested by him, shows not only the opinion he entertained of its importance, but his clear perception of those causes which were likely to spring up to endanger it, and which, if once they should overthrow the present system, would leave little hope of any future beneficial reunion. of all the presumptions indulged by presumptuous man, that is one of the rashest which looks for repeated and favorable opportunities for the deliberate establishment of a united government over distinct and widely extended communities. such a thing has happened once in human affairs, and but once; the event stands out as a prominent exception to all ordinary history; and unless we suppose ourselves running into an age of miracles, we may not expect its repetition. washington, therefore, could regard, and did regard, nothing as of paramount political interest, but the integrity of the union itself. with a united government, well administered, he saw that we had nothing to fear; and without it, nothing to hope. the sentiment is just, and its momentous truth should solemnly impress the whole country. if we might regard our country as personated in the spirit of washington, if we might consider him as representing her, in her past renown, her present prosperity, and her future career, and as in that character demanding of us all to account for our conduct, as political men or as private citizens, how should he answer him who has ventured to talk of disunion and dismemberment? or how should he answer him who dwells perpetually on local interests, and fans every kindling flame of local prejudice? how should he answer him who would array state against state, interest against interest, and party against party, careless of the continuance of that _unity of government which constitutes us one people_? the political prosperity which this country has attained, and which it now enjoys, has been acquired mainly through the instrumentality of the present government. while this agent continues, the capacity of attaining to still higher degrees of prosperity exists also. we have, while this lasts, a political life capable of beneficial exertion, with power to resist or overcome misfortunes, to sustain us against the ordinary accidents of human affairs, and to promote, by active efforts, every public interest. but dismemberment strikes at the very being which preserves these faculties. it would lay its rude and ruthless hand on this great agent itself. it would sweep away, not only what we possess, but all power of regaining lost, or acquiring new possessions. it would leave the country, not only bereft of its prosperity and happiness, but without limbs, or organs, or faculties, by which to exert itself hereafter in the pursuit of that prosperity and happiness. other misfortunes may be borne, or their effects overcome. if disastrous war should sweep our commerce from the ocean, another generation may renew it; if it exhaust our treasury, future industry may replenish it; if it desolate and lay waste our fields, still, under a new cultivation, they will grow green again, and ripen to future harvests. it were but a trifle even if the walls of yonder capitol were to crumble, if its lofty pillars should fall, and its gorgeous decorations be all covered by the dust of the valley. all these might be rebuilt. but who shall reconstruct the fabric of demolished government? who shall rear again the well-proportioned columns of constitutional liberty? who shall frame together the skilful architecture which unites national sovereignty with state rights, individual security, and public prosperity? no, if these columns fall, they will be raised not again. like the coliseum and the parthenon, they will be destined to a mournful, a melancholy immortality. bitterer tears, however, will flow over them, than were ever shed over the monuments of roman or grecian art; for they will be the remnants of a more glorious edifice than greece or rome ever saw, the edifice of constitutional american liberty. but let us hope for better things. let us trust in that gracious being who has hitherto held our country as in the hollow of his hand. let us trust to the virtue and the intelligence of the people, and to the efficacy of religious obligation. let us trust to the influence of washington's example. let us hope that that fear of heaven which expels all other fear, and that regard to duty which transcends all other regard, may influence public men and private citizens, and lead our country still onward in her happy career. full of these gratifying anticipations and hopes, let us look forward to the end of that century which is now commenced. a hundred years hence, other disciples of washington will celebrate his birth, with no less of sincere admiration than we now commemorate it. when they shall meet, as we now meet, to do themselves and him that honor, so surely as they shall see the blue summits of his native mountains rise in the horizon, so surely as they shall behold the river on whose banks he lived, and on whose banks he rests, still flowing on toward the sea, so surely may they see, as we now see, the flag of the union floating on the top of the capitol; and then, as now, may the sun in his course visit no land more free, more happy, more lovely, than this our own country! gentlemen, i propose--"the memory of george washington." [footnote : see works of fisher ames, pp. , .] executive patronage and removals from office. from a speech delivered at the national republican convention held at worcester (mass.), on the th of october, . i begin, sir, with the subject of removals from office for opinion's sake, one of the most signal instances, as i think, of the attempt to extend executive power. this has been a leading measure, a cardinal point, in the course of the administration. it has proceeded, from the first, on a settled proscription for political opinions; and this system it has carried into operation to the full extent of its ability. the president has not only filled all vacancies with his own friends, generally those most distinguished as personal partisans, but he has turned out political opponents, and thus created vacancies, in order that he might fill them with his own friends. i think the number of removals and appointments is said to be _two thousand_. while the administration and its friends have been attempting to circumscribe and to decry the powers belonging to other branches, it has thus seized into its own hands a patronage most pernicious and corrupting, an authority over men's means of living most tyrannical and odious, and a power to punish free men for political opinions altogether intolerable. you will remember, sir, that the constitution says not one word about the president's power of removal from office. it is a power raised entirely by construction. it is a constructive power, introduced at first to meet cases of extreme public necessity. it has now become coextensive with the executive will, calling for no necessity, requiring no exigency for its exercise; to be employed at all times, without control, without question, without responsibility. when the question of the president's power of removal was debated in the first congress, those who argued for it limited it to _extreme cases_. cases, they said, might arise, in which it would be _absolutely necessary_ to remove an officer before the senate could be assembled. an officer might become insane; he might abscond; and from these and other supposable cases, it was said, the public service might materially suffer if the president could not remove the incumbent. and it was further said, that there was little or no danger of the abuse of the power for party or personal objects. no president, it was thought, would ever commit such an outrage on public opinion. mr. madison, who thought the power ought to exist, and to be exercised in cases of high necessity, declared, nevertheless, that if a president should resort to the power when not required by any public exigency, and merely for personal objects, _he would deserve to be impeached_. by a very small majority,--i think, in the senate, by the casting vote of the vice-president,--congress decided in favor of the existence of the power of removal, upon the grounds which i have mentioned; granting the power in a case of clear and absolute necessity, and denying its existence everywhere else. mr. president, we should recollect that this question was discussed, and thus decided, when washington was in the executive chair. men knew that in his hands the power would not be abused; nor did they conceive it possible that any of his successors could so far depart from his great and bright example, as, by abuse of the power, and by carrying that abuse to its utmost extent, to change the essential character of the executive from that of an impartial guardian and executor of the laws into that of the chief dispenser of party rewards. three or four instances of removal occurred in the first twelve years of the government. at the commencement of mr. jefferson's administration, he made several others, not without producing much dissatisfaction; so much so, that he thought it expedient to give reasons to the people, in a public paper, for even the limited extent to which he had exercised the power. he rested his justification on particular circumstances and peculiar grounds; which, whether substantial or not, showed, at least, that he did not regard the power of removal as an ordinary power, still less as a mere arbitrary one, to be used as he pleased, for whatever ends he pleased, and without responsibility. as far as i remember, sir, after the early part of mr. jefferson's administration, hardly an instance occurred for near thirty years. if there were any instances, they were few. but at the commencement of the present administration, the precedent of these previous cases was seized on, and a _system_, a regular _plan of government_, a well-considered scheme for the maintenance of party power by the patronage of office, and this patronage to be created by general removal, was adopted, and has been carried into full operation. indeed, before general jackson's inauguration, the party put the system into practice. in the last session of mr. adams's administration, the friends of general jackson constituted a majority in the senate; and nominations, made by mr. adams to fill vacancies which had occurred in the ordinary way, were postponed, by this majority, beyond the d of march, _for the purpose, openly avowed, of giving the nominations to general jackson_. a nomination for a judge of the supreme court, and many others of less magnitude, were thus disposed of. and what did we witness, sir, when the administration actually commenced, in the full exercise of its authority? one universal sweep, one undistinguishing blow, levelled against all who were not of the successful party. no worth, public or private, no service, civil or military, was of power to resist the relentless greediness of proscription. soldiers of the late war, soldiers of the revolutionary war, the very contemporaries of the independence of the country, all lost their situations. no office was too high, and none too low; for _office_ was the spoil, and "_all the spoils_," it is said, "belong to the _victors_"! if a man holding an office necessary for his daily support had presented himself covered with the scars of wounds received in every battle, from bunker hill to yorktown, these would not have protected him against this reckless rapacity. nay, sir, if warren himself had been among the living, and had possessed any office under government, high or low, he would not have been suffered to hold it a single hour, unless he could show that he had strictly complied with the party statutes, and had put a well-marked party collar round his own neck. look, sir, to the case of the late venerable major melville. he was a personification of the spirit of , one of the earliest to venture in the cause of liberty. he was of the tea party; one of the very first to expose himself to british power. and his whole life was consonant with this, its beginning. always ardent in the cause of liberty, always a zealous friend to his country, always acting with the party which he supposed cherished the genuine republican spirit most fervently, always estimable and respectable in private life, he seemed armed against this miserable petty tyranny of party as far as man could be. but he felt its blow, and he fell. he held an office in the custom-house, and had held it for a long course of years; and he was deprived of it, as if unworthy to serve the country which he loved, and for whose liberties, in the vigor of his early manhood, he had thrust himself into the very jaws of its enemies. there was no mistake in the matter. his character, his standing, his revolutionary services, were all well known; but they were known to no purpose; they weighed not one feather against party pretensions. it cost no pains to remove him; it cost no compunction to wring his aged heart with this retribution from his country for his services, his zeal, and his fidelity. sir, you will bear witness,[ ] that, when his successor was nominated to the senate, and the senate were informed who had been removed to make way for that nomination, its members were struck with horror. they had not conceived the administration to be capable of such a thing; and yet they said, what can _we_ do? the man is removed; _we_ cannot recall him; we can only act upon the nomination before us. sir, you and i thought otherwise; and i rejoice that we did think otherwise. we thought it our duty to resist the nomination to fill a vacancy thus created. we thought it our duty to oppose this proscription, when, and where, and as, we constitutionally could. we besought the senate to go with us, and to take a stand before the country on this great question. we invoked them to try the deliberate sense of the people; to trust themselves before the tribunal of public opinion; to resist at first, to resist at last, to resist always, the introduction of this unsocial, this mischievous, this dangerous, this belligerent principle into the practice of the government. mr. president, as far as i know, there is no civilized country on earth, in which, on a change of rulers, there is such an _inquisition for spoil_ as we have witnessed in this free republic. the inaugural address of spoke of a _searching operation_ of government. the most searching operation, sir, of the present administration, has been its search for office and place. when, sir, did any english minister, whig or tory, ever make such an inquest? when did he ever go down to low-water mark, to make an ousting of tide-waiters? when did he ever take away the daily bread of weighers, and gaugers, and measurers? when did he ever go into the villages, to disturb the little post-offices, the mail contracts, and every thing else in the remotest degree connected with government? sir, a british minister who should do this, and should afterwards show his head in a british house of commons, would be received by a universal hiss. i have little to say of the selections made to fill vacancies thus created. it is true, however, and it is a natural consequence of the system which has been acted on, that, within the last three years, more nominations have been rejected on the ground of _unfitness_, than in all the preceding forty years of the government. and these nominations, you know, sir, could not have been rejected but by votes of the president's own friends. the cases were too strong to be resisted. even party attachment could not stand them in some not a third of the senate, in others not ten votes, and in others not a single vote, could be obtained; and this for no particular reason known only to the senate, but on general grounds of the want of character and qualifications; on grounds known to everybody else, as well as to the senate. all this, sir, is perfectly natural and consistent. the same party selfishness which drives good men out of office will push bad men in. political proscription leads necessarily to the filling of offices with incompetent persons, and to a consequent malexecution of official duties. and in my opinion, sir, this principle of claiming a monopoly of office by the right of conquest, unless the public shall effectually rebuke and restrain it, will entirely change the character of our government. it elevates party above country; it forgets the common weal in the pursuit of personal emolument; it tends to form, it does form, we see that it has formed, a political combination, united by no common principles or opinions among its members, either upon the powers of the government, or the true policy of the country; but held together simply as an association, under the charm of a popular head, seeking to maintain possession of the government by a _vigorous exercise of its patronage_; and for this purpose agitating, and alarming, and distressing social life by the exercise of a tyrannical party proscription. sir, if this course of things cannot be checked, good men will grow tired of the exercise of political privileges. they will have nothing to do with popular elections. they will see that such elections are but a mere selfish contest for office; and they will abandon the government to the scramble of the bold, the daring, and the desperate. it seems, mr. president, to be a peculiar and singular characteristic of the present administration, that it came into power on a cry against abuses, _which did not exist_, and then, as soon as it was in, as if in mockery of the perception and intelligence of the people, _it created those very abuses_, and carried them to a great length. thus the chief magistrate himself, before he came into the chair, in a formal public paper, denounced the practice of appointing members of congress to office. he said, that, if that practice continued, _corruption would become the order of the day_; and, as if to fasten and nail down his own consistency to that point, he declared that it was _due to himself to practise what he recommended to others_. yet, sir, as soon as he was in power, these fastenings gave way, the nails all flew, and the promised _consistency_ remains a striking proof of the manner in which political assurances are sometimes fulfilled. he has already appointed more members of congress to office than any of his predecessors, in the longest period of administration. before his time, there was no reason to complain of these appointments. they had not been numerous under any administration. under this, they have been numerous, and some of them such as may well justify complaint. another striking instance of the exhibition of the same characteristics may be found in the sentiments of the inaugural address, and in the subsequent practice, on the subject of _interfering with the freedom of elections_. the inaugural address declares, that it is necessary to reform abuses which have _brought the patronage of the government into conflict with the freedom of elections_. and what has been the subsequent practice? look to the newspapers; look to the published letters of officers of the government, advising, exhorting, soliciting, friends and partisans to greater exertions in the cause of the party; see all done, everywhere, which patronage and power can do, to affect, not only elections in the general government, but also in every state government, and then say how well _this_ promise of reforming abuses has been kept. at what former period, under what former administration, did public officers of the united states thus interfere in elections? certainly, sir, never. in this respect, then, as well as in others, that which was not true as a charge against previous administrations would have been true, if it had assumed the form of a prophecy respecting the acts of the present. but there is another attempt to grasp and to wield a power over public opinion, of a still more daring character, and far more dangerous effects. in all popular governments, a free press is the most important of all agents and instruments. it not only expresses public opinion, but, to a very great degree, it contributes to form that opinion. it is an engine for good or for evil, as it may be directed; but an engine of which nothing can resist the force. the conductors of the press, in popular governments, occupy a place, in the social and political system, of the very highest consequence. they wear the character of public instructors. their daily labors bear directly on the intelligence, the morals, the taste, and the public spirit of the country. not only are they journalists, recording political occurrences, but they discuss principles, they comment on measures, they canvass characters; they hold a power over the reputation, the feelings, the happiness of individuals. the public ear is always open to their addresses, the public sympathy easily made responsive to their sentiments. it is indeed, sir, a distinction of high honor, that theirs is the only profession expressly protected and guarded by constitutional enactments. their employment soars so high, in its general consequences it is so intimately connected with the public happiness, that its security is provided for by the fundamental law. while it acts in a manner worthy of this distinction, the press is a fountain of light, and a source of gladdening warmth. it instructs the public mind, and animates the spirit of patriotism. its loud voice suppresses every thing which would raise itself against the public liberty; and its blasting rebuke causes incipient despotism to perish in the bud. but remember, sir, that these are the attributes of a free press only. and is a press that is purchased or pensioned more free than a press that is fettered? can the people look for truths to partial sources, whether rendered partial through fear or through favor? why shall not a manacled press be trusted with the maintenance and defence of popular rights? because it is supposed to be under the influence of a power which may prove greater than the love of truth. such a press may screen abuses in government, or be silent. it may fear to speak. and may it not fear to speak, too, when its conductors, if they speak in any but one way, may lose their means of livelihood? is dependence on government for bread no temptation to screen its abuses? will the press always speak the truth, when the truth, if spoken, may be the means of silencing it for the future? is the truth in no danger, is the watchman under no temptation, when he can neither proclaim the approach of national evils, nor seem to descry them, without the loss of his place? mr. president, an open attempt to secure the aid and friendship of the public press, by bestowing the emoluments of office on its active conductors, seems to me, of every thing we have witnessed, to be the most reprehensible. it degrades both the government and the press. as far as its natural effect extends, it turns the palladium of liberty into an engine of party. it brings the agency, activity, energy, and patronage of government all to bear, with united force, on the means of general intelligence, and on the adoption or rejection of political opinions. it so completely perverts the true object of government, it so entirely revolutionizes our whole system, that the chief business of those in power is directed rather to the propagation of opinions favorable to themselves, than to the execution of the laws. this propagation of opinions, through the press, becomes the main administrative duty. some fifty or sixty editors of leading journals have been appointed to office by the present executive. a stand has been made against this proceeding, in the senate, with partial success; but, by means of appointments which do not come before the senate, or other means, the number has been carried to the extent i have mentioned. certainly, sir, the editors of the public journals are not to be disfranchised. certainly they are fair candidates, either for popular elections, or a just participation in office. certainly they reckon in their number some of the first geniuses, the best scholars, and the most honest and well-principled men in the country. but the complaint is against the _system_, against the _practice_, against the undisguised attempt to secure the favor of the press by means addressed to its pecuniary interest, and these means, too, drawn from the public treasury, being no other than the appointed compensations for the performance of official duties. sir, the press itself should resent this. its own character for purity and independence is at stake. it should resist a connection rendering it obnoxious to so many imputations. it should point to its honorable denomination in our constitutions of government, and it should maintain the character, there ascribed to it, of a free press. there can, sir, be no objection to the appointment of an editor to office, if he is the fittest man. there can be no objection to considering the services which, in that or in any other capacity, he may have rendered his country. he may have done much to maintain her rights against foreign aggression, and her character against insult. he may have honored, as well as defended her; and may, therefore, be justly regarded and selected, in the choice of faithful public agents. but the ground of complaint is, that the aiding, by the press, of the election of an individual, is rewarded, by that same individual, with the gift of moneyed offices. men are turned out of office, and others put in, and receive salaries from the public treasury, on the ground, either openly avowed or falsely denied, that they have rendered service in the election of the very individual who makes this removal and makes this appointment. every man, sir, must see that this is a vital stab at the purity of the press. it not only assails its independence, by addressing sinister motives to it, but it furnishes from the public treasury the means of exciting these motives. it extends the executive power over the press in a most daring manner. it operates to give a direction to opinion, not favorable to the government, in the aggregate; not favorable to the constitution and laws; not favorable to the legislature; but favorable to the executive alone. the consequence often is, just what might be looked for, that the portion of the press thus made fast to the executive interest denounces congress, denounces the judiciary, complains of the laws, and quarrels with the constitution. this exercise of the right of appointment to this end is an augmentation, and a vast one, of the executive power, singly and alone. it uses that power strongly against all other branches of the government, and it uses it strongly, too, for any struggle which it may be called on to make with the public opinion of the country. mr. president, i will quit this topic. there is much in it, in my judgment, affecting, not only the purity and independence of the press, but also the character and honor, the peace and security, of the government. i leave it, in all its bearings, to the consideration of the people. [footnote : hon. nathaniel silsbee, president of the convention, was mr. webster's colleague in the senate at the time referred to.] executive usurpation. from the same speech at worcester. mr. president, the executive has not only used these unaccustomed means to prevent the passage of laws, but it has also refused to enforce the execution of laws actually passed. an eminent instance of this is found in the course adopted relative to the indian intercourse law of . upon being applied to, in behalf of the missionaries, to execute that law, for their relief and protection, the president replied, that _the state of georgia having extended her laws over the indian territory, the laws of congress had thereby been superseded_. this is the substance of his answer, as communicated through the secretary of war. he holds, then, that the law of the state is paramount to the law of congress. the supreme court has adjudged this act of georgia to be void, as being repugnant to a constitutional law of the united states. but the president pays no more regard to this decision than to the act of congress itself. the missionaries remain in prison, held there by a condemnation under a law of a state which the supreme judicial tribunal has pronounced to be null and void. the supreme court have decided that the act of congress is constitutional; that it is a binding statute; that it has the same force as other laws, and is as much entitled to be obeyed and executed as other laws. the president, on the contrary, declares that the law of congress has been superseded by the law of the state, and therefore he will not carry its provisions into effect. now we know, sir, that the constitution of the united states declares, that that constitution, and all acts of congress passed in pursuance of it, shall be the supreme law of the land, any thing in any state law to the contrary notwithstanding. this would seem to be a plain case, then, in which the law should be executed. it has been solemnly decided to be in actual force, by the highest judicial authority; its execution is demanded for the relief of free citizens, now suffering the pains of unjust and unlawful imprisonment; yet the president refuses to execute it. in the case of the chicago road, some sessions ago, the president approved the bill, but accompanied his approval by a message, saying how far he deemed it a proper law, and how far, therefore, it ought to be carried into execution. in the case of the harbor bill of the late session, being applied to by a member of congress for directions for carrying parts of the law into effect, he declined giving them, and made a distinction between such parts of the law as he should cause to be executed, and such as he should not; and his right to make this distinction has been openly maintained, by those who habitually defend his measures. indeed, sir, these, and other instances of liberties taken with plain statute laws, flow naturally from the principles expressly avowed by the president, under his own hand. in that important document, sir, upon which it seems to be his fate to stand or to fall before the american people, the veto message, he holds the following language: "each public officer who takes an oath to support the constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others." mr. president, the general adoption of the sentiments expressed in this sentence would dissolve our government. it would raise every man's private opinions into a standard for his own conduct; and there certainly is, there can be, no government, where every man is to judge for himself of his own rights and his own obligations. where every one is his own arbiter, force, and not law, is the governing power. he who may judge for himself, and decide for himself, must execute his own decisions; and this is the law of force. i confess, sir, it strikes me with astonishment, that so wild, so disorganizing, a sentiment should be uttered by a president of the united states. i should think it must have escaped from its author through want of reflection, or from the habit of little reflection on such subjects, if i could suppose it possible, that, on a question exciting so much public attention, and of so much national importance, any such extraordinary doctrine could find its way, through inadvertence, into a formal and solemn public act. standing as it does, it affirms a proposition which would effectually repeal all constitutional and all legal obligations. the constitution declares, that every public officer, in the state governments as well as in the general government, shall take an oath to support the constitution of the united states. this is all. would it not have cast an air of ridicule on the whole provision, if the constitution had gone on to add the words, "as he understands it"? what could come nearer to a solemn farce, than to bind a man by oath, and still leave him to be his own interpreter of his own obligation? sir, those who are to execute the laws have no more a license to construe them for themselves, than those whose only duty is to obey them. public officers are bound to support the constitution; private citizens are bound to obey it; and there is no more indulgence granted to the public officer to support the constitution only _as he understands it_, than to a private citizen to obey it only _as he understands it_, and what is true of the constitution, in this respect, is equally true of any law. laws are to be executed, and to be obeyed, not as individuals may interpret them, but according to public, authoritative interpretation and adjudication. the sentiment of the message would abrogate the obligation of the whole criminal code. if every man is to judge of the constitution and the laws for himself, if he is to obey and support them only as he may say he understands them, a revolution, i think, would take place in the administration of justice; and discussions about the law of treason, murder, and arson should be addressed, not to the judicial bench, but to those who might stand charged with such offences. the object of discussion should be, if we run out this notion to its natural extent, to enlighten the culprit himself how he ought to understand the law. mr. president, how is it possible that a sentiment so wild, and so dangerous, so encouraging to all who feel a desire to oppose the laws, and to impair the constitution, should have been uttered by the president of the united states at this eventful and critical moment? are we not threatened with dissolution of the union? are we not told that the laws of the government shall be openly and directly resisted? is not the whole country looking, with the utmost anxiety, to what may be the result of these threatened courses? and at this very moment, so full of peril to the state, the chief magistrate puts forth opinions and sentiments as truly subversive of all government, as absolutely in conflict with the authority of the constitution, as the wildest theories of nullification. mr. president, i have very little regard for the law, or the logic, of nullification. but there is not an individual in its ranks, capable of putting two ideas together, who, if you will grant him the principles of the veto message, cannot defend all that nullification has ever threatened. to make this assertion good, sir, let us see how the case stands. the legislature of south carolina, it is said, will nullify the late revenue or tariff law, because, _they say_, it is not warranted by the constitution of the united states, _as they understand the constitution_. they, as well as the president of the united states, have sworn to support the constitution. both he and they have taken the same oath, in the same words. now, sir, since he claims the right to interpret the constitution as he pleases, how can he deny the same right to them? is his oath less stringent than theirs? has he a prerogative of dispensation which they do not possess? how can he answer them, when they tell him, that the revenue laws are unconstitutional, _as they understand the constitution_, and that therefore they will nullify them? will he reply to them, according to the doctrines of his annual message in , that _precedent_ has settled the question, if it was ever doubtful? they will answer him in his own words in the veto message, that, in such a case, _precedent_ is not binding. will he say to them, that the revenue law is a law of congress, which must be executed until it shall be declared void? they will answer him, that, in other cases, he has himself refused to execute laws of congress which had not been declared void, but which had been, on the contrary, declared valid. will he urge the force of judicial decisions? they will answer, that he himself does not admit the binding obligation of such decisions. sir, the president of the united states is of opinion, that an individual, called on to execute a law, may himself judge of its constitutional validity. does nullification teach any thing more revolutionary than that? the president is of opinion, that judicial interpretations of the constitution and the laws do not bind the consciences, and ought not to bind the conduct, of men. is nullification at all more disorganizing than that? the president is of opinion, that every officer is bound to support the constitution only according to what ought to be, in his private opinion, its construction. has nullification, in its wildest flight, ever reached to an extravagance like that? no, sir, never. the doctrine of nullification, in my judgment a most false, dangerous, and revolutionary doctrine, is this: that _the state_, or _a state_, may declare the extent of the obligations which its citizens are under to the united states; in other words, that a state, by state laws and state judicatures, may conclusively construe the constitution for its own citizens. but that every individual may construe it for himself is a refinement on the theory of resistance to constitutional power, a sublimation of the right of being disloyal to the union, a free charter for the elevation of private opinion above the authority of the fundamental law of the state, such as was never presented to the public view, and the public astonishment, even by nullification itself. its first appearance is in the veto message. melancholy, lamentable, indeed, sir, is our condition, when, at a moment of serious danger and wide-spread alarm, such sentiments are found to proceed from the chief magistrate of the government. sir, i cannot feel that the constitution is safe in such hands. i cannot feel that the present administration is its fit and proper guardian. but let me ask, sir, what evidence there is, that the president is himself opposed to the doctrines of nullification: i do not say to the political party which now pushes these doctrines, but to the doctrines themselves. has he anywhere rebuked them? has he anywhere discouraged them? has his influence been exerted to inspire respect for the constitution, and to produce obedience to the laws? has he followed the bright example of his predecessors? has he held fast by the institutions of the country? has he summoned the good and the wise around him? has he admonished the country that the union is in danger, and called on all the patriotic to come out in its support? alas! sir, we have seen nothing, nothing, of all this. mr. president, i shall not discuss the doctrine of nullification. i am sure it can have no friends here. gloss it and disguise it as we may, it is a pretence incompatible with the authority of the constitution. if direct separation be not its only mode of operation, separation is, nevertheless, its direct consequence. that a state may nullify a law of the union, and still remain _in_ the union; that she may have senators and representatives in the government, and yet be at liberty to disobey and resist that government; that she may partake in the common councils, and yet not be bound by their results; that she may control a law of congress, so that it shall be one thing with her, while it is another thing with the rest of the states;--all these propositions seem to me so absolutely at war with common sense and reason, that i do not understand how any intelligent person can yield the slightest assent to them. nullification, it is in vain to attempt to conceal it, is dissolution; it is dismemberment; it is the breaking up of the union. if it shall practically succeed in any one state, from that moment there are twenty-four states in the union no longer. now, sir, i think it exceedingly probable that the president may come to an open rupture with that portion of his original party which now constitutes what is called the nullification party. i think it likely he will oppose the proceedings of that party, if they shall adopt measures coming directly in conflict with the laws of the united states. but how will he oppose? what will be his course of remedy? sir, i wish to call the attention of the convention, and of the people, earnestly to this question,--how will the president attempt to put down nullification, if he shall attempt it at all? sir, for one, i protest in advance against such remedies as i have heard hinted. the administration itself keeps a profound silence, but its friends have spoken for it. we are told, sir, that the president will immediately employ the military force, and at once blockade charleston! a military remedy, a remedy by direct belligerent operation, has been thus suggested, and nothing else has been suggested, as the intended means of preserving the union. sir, there is no little reason to think, that this suggestion is true. we cannot be altogether unmindful of the past, and therefore we cannot be altogether unapprehensive for the future. for one, sir, i raise my voice beforehand against the unauthorized employment of military power, and against superseding the authority of the laws, by an armed force, under pretence of putting down nullification. the president has no authority to blockade charleston; the president has no authority to employ military force, till he shall be duly required so to do, by law, and by the civil authorities. his duty is to cause the laws to be executed. his duty is to support the civil authority. his duty is, if the laws be resisted, to employ the military force of the country, if necessary, for their support and execution; but to do all this in compliance only with law, and with decisions of the tribunals. if, by any ingenious devices, those who resist the laws escape from the reach of judicial authority, as it is now provided to be exercised, it is entirely competent to congress to make such new provisions as the exigency of the case may demand. these provisions undoubtedly would be made. with a constitutional and efficient head of the government, with an administration really and truly in favor of the constitution, the country can grapple with nullification. by the force of reason, by the progress of enlightened opinion, by the natural, genuine patriotism of the country, and by the steady and well-sustained operations of law, the progress of disorganization may be successfully checked, and the union maintained. let it be remembered, that, where nullification is most powerful, it is not unopposed. let it be remembered, that they who would break up the union by force have to march toward that object through thick ranks of as brave and good men as the country can show,--men strong in character, strong in intelligence, strong in the purity of their own motives, and ready, always ready, to sacrifice their fortunes and their lives to the preservation of the constitutional union of the states. if we can relieve the country from an administration which denies to the constitution those powers which are the breath of its life; if we can place the government in the hands of its friends; if we can secure it against the dangers of irregular and unlawful military force; if it can be under the lead of an administration whose moderation, firmness, and wisdom shall inspire confidence and command respect,--we may yet surmount the dangers, numerous and formidable as they are, which surround us. sir, i see little prospect of overcoming these dangers without a change of men. after all that has passed, the re-election of the present executive will give the national sanction to sentiments and to measures which will effectually change the government; which, in short, must destroy the government. if the president be re-elected, with concurrent and co-operating majorities in both houses of congress, i do not see, that, in four years more, all the power which is suffered to remain in the government will not be held by the executive hand. nullification will proceed, or will be put down by a power as unconstitutional as itself. the revenues will be managed by a treasury bank. the use of the veto will be considered as sanctioned by the public voice. the senate, if not "cut down," will be bound down, and, the president commanding the army and the navy, and holding all places of trust to be party property, what will then be left, sir, for constitutional reliance? sir, we have been accustomed to venerate the judiciary, and to repose hopes of safety on that branch of the government. but let us not deceive ourselves. the judicial power cannot stand for a long time against the executive power. the judges, it is true, hold their places by an independent tenure; but they are mortal. that which is the common lot of humanity must make it necessary to renew the benches of justice. and how will they be filled? doubtless, sir, they will be filled by judges agreeing with the president in his constitutional opinions. if the court is felt as an obstacle, the first opportunity and every opportunity will certainly be embraced to give it less and less the character of an obstacle. sir, without pursuing these suggestions, i only say that the country must prepare itself for any change in the judicial department such as it shall deliberately sanction in other departments. but, sir, what is the prospect of change? is there any hope that the national sentiment will recover its accustomed tone, and restore to the government a just and efficient administration? sir, if there be something of doubt on this point, there is also something, perhaps much, of hope. the popularity of the present chief magistrate, springing from causes not connected with his administration of the government, has been great. public gratitude for military service has remained fast to him, in defiance of many things in his civil administration calculated to weaken its hold. at length there are indications, not to be mistaken, of new sentiments and new impressions. at length, a conviction of danger to important interests, and to the security of the government, has made its lodgement in the public mind. at length, public sentiment begins to have its free course and to produce its just effects. i fully believe, sir, that a great majority of the nation desire a change in the administration; and that it will be difficult for party organization or party denunciation to suppress the effective utterance of that general wish. there are unhappy differences, it is true, about the fit person to be successor to the present incumbent in the chief magistracy; and it is possible that this disunion may, in the end, defeat the will of the majority. but so far as we agree together, let us act together. wherever our sentiments concur, let our hands co-operate. if we cannot at present agree who should be president, we are at least agreed who ought not to be. i fully believe, sir, that gratifying intelligence is already on the wing. while we are yet deliberating in massachusetts, pennsylvania is voting. this week, she elects her members to the next congress. i doubt not the result of that election will show an important change in public sentiment in that state; nor can i doubt that the great states adjoining her, holding similar constitutional principles and having similar interests, will feel the impulse of the same causes which affect her. the people of the united states, by a countless majority, are attached to the constitution. if they shall be convinced that it is in danger, they will come to its rescue, and will save it. it cannot be destroyed, even now, if they will undertake its guardianship and protection. but suppose, sir, there was less hope than there is, would that consideration weaken the force of our obligations? are we at a post which we are at liberty to desert when it becomes difficult to hold it? may we fly at the approach of danger? does our fidelity to the constitution require no more of us than to enjoy its blessings, to bask in the prosperity which it has shed around us and our fathers? and are we at liberty to abandon it in the hour of its peril, or to make for it but a faint and heartless struggle, for the want of encouragement and the want of hope? sir, if no state come to our succor, if everywhere else the contest should be given up, here let it be protracted to the last moment. here, where the first blood of the revolution was shed, let the last effort be made for that which is the greatest blessing obtained by the revolution, a free and united government. sir, in our endeavors to maintain our existing forms of government, we are acting not for ourselves alone, but for the great cause of constitutional liberty all over the globe. we are trustees holding a sacred treasure, in which all the lovers of freedom have a stake. not only in revolutionized france, where there are no longer subjects, where the monarch can no longer say, i am the state; not only in reformed england, where our principles, our institutions, our practice of free government, are now daily quoted and commended; but in the depths of germany, also, and among the desolated fields and the still smoking ashes of poland, prayers are uttered for the preservation of our union and happiness. we are surrounded, sir, by a cloud of witnesses. the gaze of the sons of liberty, everywhere, is upon us, anxiously, intently, upon us. they may see us fall in the struggle for our constitution and government, but heaven forbid that they should see us recreant. at least, sir, let the star of massachusetts be the last which shall be seen to fall from heaven, and to plunge into the utter darkness of disunion. let her shrink back, let her hold others back if she can, at any rate, let her keep herself back, from this gulf, full at once of fire and of blackness; yes, sir, as far as human foresight can scan, or human imagination fathom, full of the fire and the blood of civil war, and of the thick darkness of general political disgrace, ignominy, and ruin. though the worst may happen that can happen, and though she may not be able to prevent the catastrophe, yet let her maintain her own integrity, her own high honor, her own unwavering fidelity, so that with respect and decency, though with a broken and a bleeding heart, she may pay the last tribute to a glorious, departed, free constitution. the natural hatred of the poor to the rich. from a speech in the senate of the united states, january st , on "the removal of the deposits." sir, there is one other subject on which i wish to raise my voice. there is a topic which i perceive is to become the general war-cry of party, on which i take the liberty to warn the country against delusion. sir, the cry is to be raised that this is a question between the poor and the rich. i know, sir, it has been proclaimed, that one thing was certain, that there was always a hatred on the part of the poor toward the rich; and that this hatred would support the late measures, and the putting down of the bank. sir, i will not be silent at the threat of such a detestable fraud on public opinion. if but ten men, or one man, in the nation will hear my voice, i will still warn them against this attempted imposition. mr. president, this is an eventful moment. on the great questions which occupy us, we all look for some decisive movement of public opinion. as i wish that movement to be free, intelligent, and unbiassed, the true manifestation of the public will, i desire to prepare the country for another appeal, which i perceive is about to be made to popular prejudice, another attempt to obscure all distinct views of the public good, to overwhelm all patriotism and all enlightened self-interest, by loud cries against false danger, and by exciting the passions of one class against another. i am not mistaken in the omen; i see the magazine whence the weapons of this warfare are to be drawn. i hear already the din of the hammering of arms preparatory to the combat. they may be such arms, perhaps, as reason, and justice, and honest patriotism cannot resist. every effort at resistance, it is possible, may be feeble and powerless; but, for one, i shall make an effort,--an effort to be begun now, and to be carried on and continued, with untiring zeal, till the end of the contest. sir, i see, in those vehicles which carry to the people sentiments from high places, plain declarations that the present controversy is but a strife between one part of the community and another. i hear it boasted as the unfailing security, the solid ground, never to be shaken, on which recent measures rest, _that the poor naturally hate the rich_. i know that, under the cover of the roofs of the capitol, within the last twenty-four hours, among men sent here to devise means for the public safety and the public good, it has been vaunted forth, as matter of boast and triumph, that one cause existed powerful enough to support every thing and to defend every thing; and that was, _the natural hatred of the poor to the rich_. sir, i pronounce the author of such sentiments to be guilty of attempting a detestable fraud on the community; a double fraud; a fraud which is to cheat men out of their property, and out of the earnings of their labor, by first cheating them out of their understandings. "the natural hatred of the poor to the rich!" sir, it shall not be till the last moment of my existence,--it shall be only when i am drawn to the verge of oblivion, when i shall cease to have respect or affection for any thing on earth,--that i will believe the people of the united states capable of being effectually deluded, cajoled, and _driven about in herds_, by such abominable frauds as this. if they shall sink to that point, if they so far cease to be men, thinking men, intelligent men, as to yield to such pretences and such clamor, they will be slaves already; slaves to their own passions, slaves to the fraud and knavery of pretended friends. they will deserve to be blotted out of all the records of freedom; they ought not to dishonor the cause of self-government, by attempting any longer to exercise it; they ought to keep their unworthy hands entirely off from the cause of republican liberty, if they are capable of being the victims of artifices so shallow, of tricks so stale, so threadbare, so often practised, so much worn out, on serfs and slaves. "the natural hatred of the poor against the rich!" "the danger of a moneyed aristocracy!" "a power as great and dangerous as that resisted by the revolution!" "a call to a new declaration of independence!" sir, i admonish the people against the object of outcries like these. i admonish every industrious laborer in the country to be on his guard against such delusion. i tell him the attempt is to play off his passions against his interests, and to prevail on him, in the name of liberty, to destroy all the fruits of liberty; in the name of patriotism, to injure and afflict his country; and in the name of his own independence, to destroy that very independence, and make him a beggar and a slave. has he a dollar? he is advised to do that which will destroy half its value. has he hands to labor? let him rather fold them, and sit still, than be pushed on, by fraud and artifice, to support measures which will render his labor useless and hopeless. sir, the very man, of all others, who has the deepest interest in a sound currency, and who suffers most by mischievous legislation in money matters, is the man who earns his daily bread by his daily toil. a depreciated currency, sudden changes of prices, paper money, falling between morning and noon, and falling still lower between noon and night,--these things constitute the very harvest-time of speculators, and of the whole race of those who are at once idle and crafty; and of that other race, too, the catilines of all times, marked, so as to be known for ever by one stroke of the historian's pen, _those greedy of other men's property and prodigal of their own_. capitalists, too, may outlive such times. they may either prey on the earnings of labor, by their _cent. per cent._, or they may hoard. but the laboring man, what can he hoard? preying on nobody, he becomes the prey of all. his property is in his hands. his reliance, his fund, his productive freehold, his all, is his labor. whether he work on his own small capital, or another's, his living is still earned by his industry; and when the money of the country becomes depreciated and debased, whether it be adulterated coin or paper without credit, that industry is robbed of its reward. he then labors for a country whose laws cheat him out of his bread. i would say to every owner of every quarter-section of land in the west, i would say to every man in the east who follows his own plough, and to every mechanic, artisan, and laborer in every city in the country,--i would say to every man, everywhere, who wishes by honest means to gain an honest living, "beware of wolves in sheep's clothing. whoever attempts, under whatever popular cry, to shake the stability of the public currency, bring on distress in money matters, and drive the country into the use of paper money, stabs your interest and your happiness to the heart." the herd of hungry wolves who live on other men's earnings will rejoice in such a state of things. a system which absorbs into their pockets the fruits of other men's industry is the very system for them. a government that produces or countenances uncertainty, fluctuations, violent risings and fallings in prices, and, finally, paper money, is a government exactly after their own heart. hence these men are always for change. they will never let well enough alone. a condition of public affairs in which property is safe, industry certain of its reward, and every man secure in his own hard-earned gains, is no paradise for them. give them just the reverse of this state of things; bring on change, and change after change; let it not be known to-day what will be the value of property to-morrow; let no man be able to say whether the money in his pockets at night will be money or worthless rags in the morning; and depress labor till double work shall earn but half a living,--give them this state of things, and you give them the consummation of their earthly bliss. sir, the great interest of this great country, the producing cause of all its prosperity, is labor! labor! labor! we are a laboring community. a vast majority of us all live by industry and actual employment in some of their forms. the constitution was made to protect this industry, to give it both encouragement and security; but, above all, security. to that very end, with that precise object in view, power was given to congress over the currency, and over the money system of the country. in forty years' experience, we have found nothing at all adequate to the beneficial execution of this trust but a well-conducted national bank. that has been tried, returned to, tried again, and always found successful. if it be not the proper thing for us, let it be soberly argued against; let something better be proposed; let the country examine the matter coolly, and decide for itself. but whoever shall attempt to carry a question of this kind by clamor, and violence, and prejudice; whoever would rouse the people by appeals, false and fraudulent appeals, to their love of independence, to resist the establishment of a useful institution, because it is a bank, and deals in money, and who artfully urges these appeals wherever he thinks there is more of honest feeling than of enlightened judgment,--means nothing but deception. and whoever has the wickedness to conceive, and the hardihood to avow, a purpose to break down what has been found, in forty years' experience, essential to the protection of all interests, by arraying one class against another, and by acting on such a principle as _that the poor always hate the rich_, shows himself the reckless enemy of all. an enemy to his whole country, to all classes, and to every man in it, he deserves to be marked especially _as the poor man's curse_! a redeemable paper currency. from a speech delivered in the senate of the united states, on the d of february, . mr. president,--the honorable member from georgia stated yesterday, more distinctly than i have before learned it, what that experiment is which the government is now trying on the revenues and the currency, and, i may add, on the commerce, manufactures, and agriculture of this country. if i rightly apprehend him, this experiment is an attempt to return to an exclusive specie currency, first, by employing the state banks as a substitute for the bank of the united states; and then by dispensing with the use of the state banks themselves. this, sir, is the experiment. i thank the gentleman for thus stating its character. he has done his duty, and dealt fairly with the people, by this exhibition of what the views of the executive government are, at this interesting moment. it is certainly most proper that the people should see distinctly to what end or for what object it is that so much suffering is already upon them, and so much more already in visible and near prospect. and now, sir, is it possible,--is it possible that twelve millions of intelligent people can be expected voluntarily to subject themselves to severe distress, of unknown duration, for the purpose of making trial of an experiment like this? will a nation that is intelligent, well informed of its own interest, enlightened, and capable of self-government, submit to suffer embarrassment in all its pursuits, loss of capital, loss of employment, and a sudden and dead stop in its onward movement in the path of prosperity and wealth, until it shall be ascertained whether this new-hatched theory shall answer the hopes of those who have devised it? is the country to be persuaded to bear every thing, and bear patiently, until the operation of such an experiment, adopted for such an avowed object, and adopted, too, without the co-operation or consent of congress, and by the executive power alone, shall exhibit its results? in the name of the hundreds of thousands of our suffering fellow-citizens, i ask, for what reasonable end is this experiment to be tried? what great and good object, worth so much cost, is it to accomplish? what enormous evil is to be remedied by all this inconvenience and all this suffering? what great calamity is to be averted? have the people thronged our doors, and loaded our tables with petitions for relief against the pressure of some political mischief, some notorious misrule, which this experiment is to redress? has it been resorted to in an hour of misfortune, calamity, or peril, to save the state? is it a measure of remedy, yielded to the importunate cries of an agitated and distressed nation? far, sir, very far from all this. there was no calamity, there was no suffering, there was no peril, when these measures began. at the moment when this experiment was entered upon, these twelve millions of people were prosperous and happy, not only beyond the example of all others, but even beyond their own example in times past. there was no pressure of public or private distress throughout the whole land. all business was prosperous, all industry was rewarded, and cheerfulness and content universally prevailed. yet, in the midst of all this enjoyment, with so much to heighten and so little to mar it, this experiment comes upon us, to harass and oppress us at present, and to affright us for the future. sir, it is incredible; the world abroad will not believe it; it is difficult even for us to credit, who see it with our own eyes, that the country, at such a moment, should put itself upon an experiment fraught with such immediate and overwhelming evils, and threatening the property and the employments of the people, and all their social and political blessings, with severe and long-enduring future inflictions. and this experiment, with all its cost, is to be tried, for what? why, simply, sir, to enable us to try another "experiment"; and that other experiment is, to see whether an exclusive specie currency may not be better than a currency partly specie and partly bank paper! the object which it is hoped we may effect, by patiently treading this path of endurance, is to banish all bank paper, of all kinds, and to have coined money, and coined money only, as the actual currency of the country! now, sir, i altogether deny that such an object is at all desirable, even if it could be attained. i know, indeed, that all paper ought to circulate on a specie basis; that all bank-notes, to be safe, must be convertible into gold and silver at the will of the holder; and i admit, too, that the issuing of very small notes by many of the state banks has too much reduced the amount of specie actually circulating. it may be remembered that i called the attention of congress to this subject in , and that the bill which then passed both houses for renewing the bank charter contained a provision designed to produce some restraint on the circulation of very small notes. i admit there are conveniences in making small payments in specie; and i have always, not only admitted, but contended, that, if all issues of bank-notes under five dollars were discontinued, much more specie would be retained in the country, and in the circulation; and that great security would result from this. but we are now debating about an _exclusive_ specie currency; and i deny that an exclusive specie currency is the best currency for any highly commercial country; and i deny, especially, that such a currency would be best suited to the condition and circumstances of the united states. with the enlightened writers and practical statesmen of all commercial communities in modern times, i have supposed it to be admitted that a well regulated, properly restrained, safely limited paper currency, circulating on an adequate specie basis, was a thing to be desired, a political public advantage to be obtained, if it might be obtained; and, more especially, i have supposed that in a new country, with resources not yet half developed, with a rapidly increasing population and a constant demand for more and more capital,--that is to say, in just such a country as the united states are, i have supposed that it was admitted that there are particular and extraordinary advantages in a safe and well regulated paper currency; because in such a country well regulated bank paper not only supplies a convenient medium of payments and of exchange, but also, by the expansion of that medium in a reasonable and safe degree, the amount of circulation is kept more nearly commensurate with the constantly increasing amount of property; and an extended capital, in the shape of credit, comes to the aid of the enterprising and the industrious. it is precisely on this credit, created by reasonable expansion of the currency in a new country, that men of small capital carry on their business. it is exactly by means of this, that industry and enterprise are stimulated. if we were driven back to an exclusively metallic currency, the necessary and inevitable consequence would be, that all trade would fall into the hands of large capitalists. this is so plain, that no man of reflection can doubt it. i know not, therefore, in what words to express my astonishment, when i hear it said that the present measures of government are intended for the good of the many instead of the few, for the benefit of the poor, and against the rich; and when i hear it proposed, at the same moment, to do away with the whole system of credit, and place all trade and commerce, therefore, in the hands of those who have adequate capital to carry them on without the use of any credit at all. this, sir, would be dividing society, by a precise, distinct, and well-defined line, into two classes; first, the small class, who have competent capital for trade, when credit is out of the question; and, secondly, the vastly numerous class of those whose living must become, in such a state of things, a mere manual occupation, without the use of capital or of any substitute for it. now, sir, it is the effect of a well-regulated system of paper credit to break in upon this line thus dividing the many from the few, and to enable more or less of the more numerous class to pass over it, and to participate in the profits of capital by means of a safe and convenient substitute for capital; and thus to diffuse far more widely the general earnings, and therefore the general prosperity and happiness, of society. every man of observation must have witnessed, in this country, that men of heavy capital have constantly complained of bank circulation, and a consequent credit system, as injurious to the rights of capital. they undoubtedly feel its effects. all that is gained by the use of credit is just so much subtracted from the amount of their own accumulations, and so much the more has gone to the benefit of those who bestow their own labor and industry on capital in small amounts. to the great majority, this has been of incalculable benefit in the united states; and therefore, sir, whoever attempts the entire overthrow of the system of bank credit aims a deadly blow at the interest of that great and industrious class, who, having some capital, cannot, nevertheless, transact business without some credit. he can mean nothing else, if he have any intelligible meaning at all, than to turn all such persons over to the long list of mere manual laborers. what else can they do, with not enough of absolute capital, and with no credit? this, sir, this is the true tendency and the unavoidable result of these measures, which have been undertaken with the patriotic object of assisting the poor against the rich! i am well aware that bank credit may be abused. i know that there is another extreme, exactly the opposite of that of which i have now been speaking, and no less sedulously to be avoided. i know that the issue of bank paper may become excessive; that depreciation will then follow; and that the evils, the losses, and the frauds consequent on a disordered currency fall on the rich and the poor together, but with especial weight of ruin on the poor. i know that the system of bank credit must always rest on a specie basis, and that it constantly needs to be strictly guarded and properly restrained; and it may be so guarded and restrained. we need not give up the good which belongs to it, through fear of the evils which may follow from its abuse. we have the power to take security against these evils. it is our business, as statesmen, to adopt that security; it is our business not to prostrate, or attempt to prostrate, the system, but to use those means of precaution, restraint, and correction which experience has sanctioned, and which are ready at our hands. it would be to our everlasting reproach, it would be placing us below the general level of the intelligence of civilized states, to admit that we cannot contrive means to enjoy the benefits of bank circulation, and of avoiding, at the same time, its dangers. indeed, sir, no contrivance is necessary. it is _contrivance_, and the love of contrivance, that spoil all. we are destroying ourselves by a remedy which no evil called for. we are ruining perfect health by nostrums and quackery. we have lived hitherto under a well constructed, practical, and beneficial system; a system not surpassed by any in the world; and it seems to me to be presuming largely, largely indeed, on the credulity and self-denial of the people, to rush with such sudden and impetuous haste into new schemes and new theories, to overturn and annihilate all that we have so long found useful. our system has hitherto been one in which paper has been circulating on the strength of a specie basis; that is to say, when every bank-note was convertible into specie at the will of the holder. this has been our guard against excess. while banks are bound to redeem their bills by paying gold and silver on demand, and are at all times able to do this, the currency is safe and convenient. such a currency is not paper money, in its odious sense. it is not like the continental paper of revolutionary times; it is not like the worthless bills of banks which have suspended specie payments. on the contrary, it is the representative of gold and silver, and convertible into gold and silver on demand, and therefore answers the purposes of gold and silver; and so long as its credit is in this way sustained, it is the cheapest, the best, and the most convenient circulating medium. i have already endeavored to warn the country against irredeemable paper; against the paper of banks which do not pay specie for their own notes; against that miserable, abominable, and fraudulent policy, which attempts to give value to any paper, of any bank, one single moment longer than such paper is redeemable on demand in gold and silver. i wish most solemnly and earnestly to repeat that warning. i see danger of that state of things ahead. i see imminent danger that a portion of the state banks will stop specie payments. the late measure of the secretary, and the infatuation with which it seems to be supported, tend directly and strongly to that result. under pretence, then, of a design to return to a currency which shall be all specie, we are likely to have a currency in which there shall be no specie at all. we are in danger of being overwhelmed with irredeemable paper, mere paper, representing not gold nor silver; no, sir, representing nothing but broken promises, bad faith, bankrupt corporations, cheated creditors, and a ruined people. this, i fear, sir, may be the consequence, already alarmingly near, of this attempt, unwise if it be real, and grossly fraudulent if it be only pretended, of establishing an exclusively hard-money currency. but, sir, if this shock could be avoided, and if we could reach the object of an exclusive metallic circulation, we should find in that very success serious and insurmountable inconveniences. we require neither irredeemable paper, nor yet exclusively hard money. we require a mixed system. we require specie, and we require, too, good bank paper, founded on specie, representing specie, and convertible into specie on demand. we require, in short, just such a currency as we have long enjoyed, and the advantages of which we seem now, with unaccountable rashness, about to throw away. i avow myself, therefore, decidedly against the object of a return to an exclusive specie currency. i find great difficulty, i confess, in believing any man serious in avowing such an object. it seems to me rather a subject for ridicule, at this age of the world, than for sober argument. but if it be true that any are serious for the return of the gold and silver age, i am seriously against it. let us, sir, anticipate, in imagination, the accomplishment of this grand experiment. let us suppose that, at this moment, all bank paper were out of existence, and the country full of specie. where, sir, should we put it, and what should we do with it? should we ship it, by cargoes, every day, from new york to new orleans, and from new orleans back to new york? should we encumber the turnpikes, the railroads, and the steamboats with it, whenever purchases and sales were to be made in one place of articles to be transported to another? the carriage of the money would, in some cases, cost half as much as the carriage of the goods. sir, the very first day, under such a state of things, we should set ourselves about the creation of banks. this would immediately become necessary and unavoidable. we may assure ourselves, therefore, without danger of mistake, that the idea of an exclusively metallic currency is totally incompatible, in the existing state of the world, with an active and extensive commerce. it is inconsistent, too, with the greatest good of the greatest number; and therefore i oppose it. but, sir, how are we to get through the first experiment, so as to be able to try that which is to be final and ultimate, that is to say, how are we to get rid of the state banks? how is this to be accomplished? of the bank of the united states, indeed, we may free ourselves readily; but how are we to annihilate the state banks? we did not speak them into being; we cannot speak them out of being. they did not originate in any exercise of our power; nor do they owe their continuance to our indulgence. they are responsible to the states; to us they are irresponsible. we cannot act upon them; we can only act with them; and the expectation, as it would appear, is, that, by zealously co-operating with the government in carrying into operation its new theory, they may disprove the necessity of their own existence, and fairly work themselves out of the world! sir, i ask once more, is a great and intelligent community to endure patiently all sorts of suffering for fantasies like these? how charmingly practicable, how delightfully probable, all this looks! i find it impossible, mr. president, to believe that the removal of the deposits arose in any such purpose as is now avowed. i believe all this to be an after-thought. the removal was resolved on as a strong measure against the bank; and now that it has been attended with consequences not at all apprehended from it, instead of being promptly retracted, as it should have been, it is to be justified on the ground of a grand experiment, above the reach of common sagacity, and dropped down, as it were, from the clouds, "to witch the world with noble policy." it is not credible, not possible, sir, that, six months ago, the administration suddenly started off to astonish mankind with its new inventions in politics, and that it then began its magnificent project by removing the deposits as its first operation. no, sir, no such thing. the removal of the deposits was a blow at the bank, and nothing more; and if it had succeeded, we should have heard nothing of any project for the final putting down of all state banks. no, sir, not one word. we should have heard, on the contrary, only of their usefulness, their excellence, and their exact adaptation to the uses and necessities of this government. but the experiment of making successful use of state banks having failed, completely failed, in this the very first endeavor; the state banks having already proved themselves not able to fill the place and perform the duties of a national bank, although highly useful in their appropriate sphere; and the disastrous consequences of the measures of government coming thick and fast upon us, the professed object of the whole movement is at once changed, and the cry now is, down with all the state banks! down with all the state banks! and let us return to our embraces of solid gold and solid silver! the presidential protest. a speech delivered in the senate of the united states, on the th of may, , on the subject of the president's protest against the resolution of the senate of the th of march. mr. president,--i feel the magnitude of this question. we are coming to a vote which cannot fail to produce important effects on the character of the senate, and the character of the government. unhappily, sir, the senate finds itself involved in a controversy with the president of the united states; a man who has rendered most distinguished services to his country, who has hitherto possessed a degree of popular favor perhaps never exceeded, and whose honesty of motive and integrity of purpose are still admitted by those who maintain that his administration has fallen into lamentable errors. on some of the interesting questions in regard to which the president and senate hold opposite opinions, the more popular branch of the legislature concurs with the executive. it is not to be concealed that the senate is engaged against imposing odds. it can sustain itself only by its own prudence and the justice of its cause. it has no patronage by which to secure friends; it can raise up no advocates through the dispensation of favors, for it has no favors to dispense. its very constitution, as a body whose members are elected for a long term, is capable of being rendered obnoxious, and is daily made the subject of opprobrious remark. it is already denounced as independent of the people, and aristocratic. nor is it, like the other house, powerful in its numbers; not being, like that, so large as that its members come constantly in direct and extensive contact with the whole people. under these disadvantages, sir, which, we may be assured, will be pressed and urged to the utmost length, there is but one course for us. the senate must stand on its rendered reasons. it must put forth the grounds of its proceedings, and it must then rely on the intelligence and patriotism of the people to carry it through the contest. as an individual member of the senate, it gives me great pain to be engaged in such a conflict with the executive government. the occurrences of the last session are fresh in the recollection of all of us; and having felt it to be my duty, at that time, to give my cordial support to highly important measures of the administration, i ardently hoped that nothing might occur to place me afterwards in an attitude of opposition. in all respects, and in every way, it would have been far more agreeable to me to find nothing in the measures of the executive government which i could not cheerfully support. the present occasion of difference has not been sought or made by me. it is thrust upon me, in opposition to strong opinions and wishes, on my part not concealed. the interference with the public deposits dispelled all hope of continued concurrence with the administration, and was a measure so uncalled for, so unnecessary, and, in my judgment, so illegal and indefensible, that, with whatever reluctance it might be opposed by me, opposition was unavoidable. the paper before us has grown out of this interference. it is a paper which cannot be treated with indifference. the doctrines which it advances, the circumstances which have attended its transmission to the senate, and the manner in which the senate may now dispose of it, will form a memorable era in the history of the government. we are either to enter it on our journals, concur in its sentiments, and submit to its rebuke, or we must answer it, with the respect due to the chief magistrate, but with such animadversion on its doctrines as they deserve, and with the firmness imposed upon us by our public duties. i shall proceed, then, sir, to consider the circumstances which gave rise to this protest; to examine the principles which it attempts to establish; and to compare those principles with the constitution and the laws. on the th day of march, the senate adopted a resolution declaring that, "in the late executive proceedings in relation to the public revenue, the president had assumed a power not conferred by the constitution and laws, but in derogation of both." in that resolution i concurred. it is not a direct question, now again before us, whether the president really had assumed such illegal power; that point is decided, so far as the senate ever can decide it. but the protest denies that, supposing the president to have assumed such illegal power, the senate could properly pass the resolution; or, what is the same thing, it denies that the senate could, in this way, express any opinion about it. it denies that the senate has any right, by resolution, in this or any other case, to express disapprobation of the president's conduct, let that conduct be what it may; and this, one of the leading doctrines of the protest, i propose to consider. but as i concurred in the resolution of the th of march, and did not trouble the senate, at that time, with any statement of my own reasons, i will avail myself of this opportunity to explain, shortly, what those reasons were. in the first place, then, i have to say, that i did not vote for the resolution on the mere ground of the removal of mr. duane from the office of secretary of the treasury. although i disapprove of the removal altogether, yet the power of removal does exist in the president, according to the established construction of the constitution; and therefore, although in a particular case it may be abused, and, in my opinion, was abused in this case, yet its exercise cannot be justly said to be an assumption or usurpation. we must all agree that mr. duane is out of office. he has, therefore, been removed by a power constitutionally competent to remove him, whatever may be thought of the exercise of that power under the circumstances of the case. if, then, the act of removing the secretary be not the assumption of power which the resolution declares, in what is that assumption found? before giving a precise answer to this inquiry, allow me to recur to some of the principal previous events. at the end of the last session of congress, the public moneys of the united states were still in their proper place. that place was fixed by the law of the land, and no power of change was conferred on any other human being than the secretary of the treasury. on him the power of change was conferred, to be exercised by himself, if emergency should arise, and to be exercised for reasons which he was bound to lay before congress. no other officer of the government had the slightest pretence of authority to lay his hand on these moneys for the purpose of changing the place of their custody. all the other heads of departments together could not touch them. the president could not touch them. the power of change was a trust confided to the discretion of the secretary, and to his discretion alone. the president had no more authority to take upon himself this duty, thus assigned expressly by law to the secretary, than he had to make the annual report to congress, or the annual commercial statements, or to perform any other service which the law specially requires of the secretary. he might just as well sign the warrants for moneys, in the ordinary daily disbursements of government, instead of the secretary. the statute had assigned the especial duty of removing the deposits, if removed at all, to the secretary of the treasury, and to him alone. the consideration of the propriety or necessity of removal must be the consideration of the secretary; the decision to remove, his decision; and the act of removal, his act. now, sir, on the th day of september last, a resolution was taken to remove these deposits from their legislative, that is to say, their legal custody. _whose resolution was this?_ on the st of october, they were removed. _by whose power was this done?_ the papers necessary to accomplish the removal (that is, the orders and drafts) are, it is true, signed by the secretary. the president's name is not subscribed to them; nor does the secretary, in any of them, recite or declare that he does the act by direction of the president, or on the president's responsibility. in form, the whole proceeding is the proceeding of the secretary, and, as such, had the legal effect. the deposits were removed. but whose act was it, in truth and reality? whose will accomplished it? on whose responsibility was it adopted? these questions are all explicitly answered by the president himself, in the paper, under his own hand, read to the cabinet on the th of september, and published by his authority. in this paper the president declares, in so many words, that he begs his cabinet to consider the proposed measure as his own; that its responsibility has been assumed by him; and that he names the first day of october as a period proper for its execution. now, sir, it is precisely this which i deem an assumption of power not conferred by the constitution and laws. i think the law did not give this authority to the president, nor impose on him the responsibility of its exercise. it is evident that, in this removal, the secretary was in reality nothing but the scribe; he was the pen in the president's hand, and no more. nothing depended on his discretion, his judgment, or his responsibility. the removal, indeed, has been admitted and defended in the senate, as the direct act of the president himself. this, sir, is what i call assumption of power. if the president had issued an order for the removal of the deposits in his own name, and under his own hand, it would have been an illegal order, and the bank would not have been at liberty to obey it. for the same reason, if the secretary's order had recited that it was issued by the president's direction, and on the president's authority, it would have shown on its face that it was illegal and invalid. no one can doubt that. the act of removal, to be lawful, must be the _bonâ fide_ act of the secretary; _his_ judgment, the result of _his_ deliberations, the volition of _his_ mind. all are able to see the difference between the power to remove the secretary from office, and the power to control him, in all or any of his duties, while in office. the law charges the officer, whoever he may be, with the performance of certain duties. the president, with the consent of the senate, appoints an individual to be such officer; and this individual he may remove, if he so please; but, until removed, he is the officer, and remains charged with the duties of his station, duties which nobody else can perform, and for the neglect or violation of which he is liable to be impeached. the distinction is visible and broad between the power of removal and the power to control an officer not removed. the president, it is true, may terminate his political life; but he cannot control his powers and functions, and act upon him as a mere machine, while he is allowed to live. the power of control and direction, nowhere given, certainly, by any express provision of the constitution or laws, is derived, by those who maintain it, from the right of removal; that is to say, it is a constructive power; it has no express warrant in the constitution. a very important power, then, is raised by construction in the first place; and being thus raised, it becomes a fountain out of which other important powers, raised also by construction, are to be supplied. there is no little danger that such a mode of reasoning may be carried too far. it cannot be maintained that the power of direct control necessarily flows from the power of removal. suppose it had been decided in , when the question was debated, that the president does not possess the power of removal; will it be contended, that, in that case, his right of interference with the acts and duties of executive officers would be less than it now is? the reason of the thing would seem to be the other way. if the president may remove an incumbent when he becomes satisfied of his unfaithfulness and incapacity, there would appear to be less necessity to give him also a right of control, than there would be if he could not remove him. we may try this question by supposing it to arise in a judicial proceeding. if the secretary of the treasury were impeached for removing the deposits, could he justify himself by saying that he did it by the president's direction? if he could, then no executive officer could ever be impeached who obeys the president; and the whole notion of making such officers impeachable at all would be farcical. if he could not so justify himself, (and all will allow he could not,) the reason can only be that the act of removal is his own act; the power, a power confided to him, for the just exercise of which the law looks to his discretion, his honesty, and his direct responsibility. now, sir, the president wishes the world to understand that he himself decided on the question of the removal of the deposits; that he took the whole responsibility of the measure upon himself; that he wished it to be considered _his own act_; that he not only himself decided that the thing should be done, but regulated its details also, and named the day for carrying it into effect. i have always entertained a very erroneous view of the partition of powers, and of the true nature of official responsibility under our constitution, if this be not a plain case of the assumption of power. the legislature had fixed a place, by law, for the keeping of the public money. they had, at the same time and by the same law, created and conferred a power of removal, to be exercised contingently. this power they had vested in the secretary, by express words. the law did not say that the deposits should be made in the bank, unless the president should order otherwise; but it did say that they should be made there, unless the secretary of the treasury should order otherwise. i put it to the plain sense and common candor of all men, whether the discretion thus to be exercised over the subject was not the secretary's own personal discretion; and whether, therefore, the interposition of the authority of another, acting directly and conclusively on the subject, deciding the whole question, even in its particulars and details, be not an assumption of power? the senate regarded this interposition as an encroachment by the executive on other branches of the government; as an interference with the legislative disposition of the public treasure. it was strongly and forcibly urged, yesterday, by the honorable member from south carolina, that the true and only mode of preserving any balance of power, in mixed governments, is to keep an exact balance. this is very true, and to this end encroachment must be resisted at the first step. the question is, therefore, whether, upon the true principles of the constitution, this exercise of power by the president can be justified. whether the consequences be prejudicial or not, if there be an illegal exercise of power, it is to be resisted in the proper manner. even if no harm or inconvenience result from transgressing the boundary, the intrusion is not to be suffered to pass unnoticed. every encroachment, great or small, is important enough to awaken the attention of those who are intrusted with the preservation of a constitutional government. we are not to wait till great public mischiefs come, till the government is overthrown, or liberty itself put into extreme jeopardy. we should not be worthy sons of our fathers were we so to regard great questions affecting the general freedom. those fathers accomplished the revolution on a strict question of principle. the parliament of great britain asserted a right to tax the colonies in all cases whatsoever; and it was precisely on this question that they made the revolution turn. the amount of taxation was trifling, but the claim itself was inconsistent with liberty; and that was, in their eyes, enough. it was against the recital of an act of parliament, rather than against any suffering under its enactments, that they took up arms. they went to war against a preamble. they fought seven years against a declaration. they poured out their treasures and their blood like water, in a contest against an assertion which those less sagacious and not so well schooled in the principles of civil liberty would have regarded as barren phraseology, or mere parade of words. they saw in the claim of the british parliament a seminal principle of mischief, the germ of unjust power; they detected it, dragged it forth from underneath its plausible disguises, struck at it; nor did it elude either their steady eye or their well-directed blow till they had extirpated and destroyed it, to the smallest fibre. on this question of principle, while actual suffering was yet afar off, they raised their flag against a power, to which, for purposes of foreign conquest and subjugation, rome, in the height of her glory, is not to be compared; a power which has dotted over the surface of the whole globe with her possessions and military posts, whose morning drum-beat, following the sun, and keeping company with the hours, circles the earth with one continuous and unbroken strain of the martial airs of england. the necessity of holding strictly to the principle upon which free governments are constructed, and to those precise lines which fix the partitions of power between different branches, is as plain, if not as cogent, as that of resisting, as our fathers did, the strides of the parent country against the rights of the colonies; because, whether the power which exceeds its just limits be foreign or domestic, whether it be the encroachment of all branches on the rights of the people, or that of one branch on the rights of others, in either case the balanced and well-adjusted machinery of free government is disturbed, and, if the derangement go on, the whole system must fall. but the case before us is not a case of merely theoretic infringement; nor is it one of trifling importance. far otherwise. it respects one of the highest and most important of all the powers of government; that is to say, the custody and control of the public money. the act of removing the deposits, which i now consider as the president's act, and which his friends on this floor defend as his act, took the national purse from beneath the security and guardianship of the law, and disposed of its contents, in parcels, in such places of deposit as he chose to select. at this very moment, every dollar of the public treasure is subject, so far as respects its custody and safe-keeping, to his unlimited control. we know not where it is to-day; still less do we know where it may be to-morrow. but, mr. president, this is not all. there is another part of the case, which has not been so much discussed, but which appears to me to be still more indefensible in its character. it is something which may well teach us the tendency of power to move forward with accelerated pace, if it be allowed to take the first step. the bank of the united states, in addition to the services rendered to the treasury, gave for its charter, and for the use of the public deposits, a _bonus_ or outright sum of one million and a half of dollars. this sum was paid by the bank into the treasury soon after the commencement of its charter. in the act which passed both houses for renewing the charter, in , it was provided that the bank, for the same consideration, should pay two hundred thousand dollars a year during the period for which it was proposed to renew it. a similar provision is in the bill which i asked leave to introduce some weeks ago. now, sir, this shows that the custody of the deposits is a benefit for which a bank may well afford to pay a large annual sum. the banks which now hold the deposits pay nothing to the public; they give no _bonus_, they pay no annuity. but this loss of so much money is not the worst part of the case, nor that which ought most to alarm us. although they pay nothing to the public, they do pay, nevertheless, such sums, and for such uses, as may be agreed upon between themselves and the executive government. we are officially informed that an officer is appointed by the secretary of the treasury to inspect or superintend these selected banks; and this officer is compensated by a salary fixed by the executive, agreed to by the banks, and paid by them. i ask, sir, if there can be a more irregular or a more illegal transaction than this? whose money is it out of which this salary is paid? is it not money justly due to the united states, and paid, because it is so due, for the advantage of holding the deposits? if a dollar is received on that account, is not its only true destination into the general treasury of the government? and who has authority, without law, to create an office, to fix a salary, and to pay that salary out of this money? here is an inspector or supervisor of the deposit banks. but what law has provided for such an officer? what commission has he received? who concurred in his appointment? what oath does he take? how is he to be punished or impeached if he colludes with any of these banks to embezzle the public money or defraud the government? the value of the use of this public money to the deposit banks is probably two hundred thousand dollars a year; or, if less than that, it is yet, certainly, a very great sum. may the president appoint whatever officers he pleases, with whatever duties he pleases, and pay them as much as he pleases, out of the moneys thus paid by the banks, for the sake of having the deposits? mr. president, the executive claim of power is exactly this, that the president may keep the money of the public in whatever banks he chooses, on whatever terms he chooses, and apply the sums which these banks are willing to pay for its use to whatever purposes he chooses. these sums are not to come into the general treasury. they are to be appropriated before they get there; they are never to be brought under the control of congress; they are to be paid to officers and agents not known to the law, not nominated to the senate, and responsible to nobody but the executive itself. i ask gentlemen if all this be lawful. are they prepared to defend it? will they stand up and justify it? in my opinion, sir, it is a clear and most dangerous assumption of power. it is the creation of office without law; the appointment to office without consulting the senate; the establishment of a salary without law; and the payment of that salary out of a fund which itself is derived from the use of the public treasures. this, sir, is my other reason for concurring in the vote of the th of march; and on these grounds i leave the propriety of that vote, so far as i am concerned with it, to be judged of by the country. but, sir, the president denies the power of the senate to pass any such resolution, on any ground whatever. suppose the declaration contained in the resolution to be true; suppose the president had, in fact, assumed powers not granted to him; does the senate possess the right to declare its opinion, affirming this fact, or does it not? i maintain that the senate does possess such a power; the president denies it. mr. president, we need not look far, nor search deep, for the foundation of this right in the senate. it is close at hand, and clearly visible. in the first place, it is the right of self-defence. in the second place, it is a right founded on the duty of representative bodies, in a free government, to defend the public liberty against encroachment. we must presume that the senate honestly entertained the opinion expressed in the resolution of the th of march; and, entertaining that opinion, its right to express it is but the necessary consequence of its right to defend its own constitutional authority, as one branch of the government. this is its clear right, and this, too, is its imperative duty. if one or both the other branches of the government happen to do that which appears to us inconsistent with the constitutional rights of the senate, will any one say that the senate is yet bound to be passive, and to be silent? to do nothing, and to say nothing? or, if one branch appears to encroach on the rights of the other two, have these two no power of remonstrance, complaint, or resistance? sir, the question may be put in a still more striking form. has the senate a right _to have an opinion_ in a case of this kind? if it may have an opinion, how is that opinion to be ascertained but by resolution and vote? the objection must go the whole length; it must maintain that the senate has not only no right to express opinions, but no right to form opinions, on the conduct of the executive government, though in matters intimately affecting the powers and duties of the senate itself. it is not possible, sir, that such a doctrine can be maintained for a single moment. all political bodies resist what they deem encroachments by resolutions expressive of their sentiments, and their purpose to resist such encroachments. when such a resolution is presented for its consideration, the question is, whether it be true; not whether the body has authority to pass it, admitting it to be true. the senate, like other public bodies, is perfectly justifiable in defending, in this mode, either its legislative or executive authority. the usages of parliament, the practice in our state legislatures and assemblies, both before and since the revolution, and precedents in the senate itself, fully maintain this right. the case of the panama mission is in point. in that case, mr. branch, from north carolina, introduced a resolution, which, after reciting that the president, in his annual message and in his communication to the senate, had asserted that he possessed an authority to make certain appointments, _although the appointments had not been made_, went on to declare that "_a silent acquiescence on the part of this body may, at some future time, be drawn into dangerous precedent_"; and to resolve, therefore, that the president does not possess the right or power said to be claimed by him. this resolution was discussed, and finally laid on the table. but the question discussed was, whether the resolution was correct, in fact and principle; not whether the senate had any right to pass such resolution. so far as i remember, no one pretended that, if the president had exceeded his authority, the senate might not so declare by resolution. no one ventured to contend that, whether the rights of the senate were invaded or not, the senate must hold its peace. the protest labors strenuously to show that the senate adopted the resolution of the th of march, under its _judicial_ authority. the reason of this attempt is obvious enough. if the senate, in its judicial character, has been trying the president, then he has not had a regular and formal trial; and, on that ground, it is hoped the public sympathy may be moved. but the senate has acted not in its judicial, but in its legislative capacity. as a legislative body, it has defended its own just authority, and the authority of the other branch of the legislature. whatever attacks our own rights and privileges, or whatever encroaches on the power of both houses, we may oppose and resist, by declaration, resolution, or other similar proceedings. if we look to the books of precedents, if we examine the journals of legislative bodies, we find everywhere instances of such proceedings. it is to be observed, sir, that the protest imposes silence on the house of representatives as well as on the senate. it declares that no power is conferred on either branch of the legislature, to consider or decide upon official acts of the executive, for the purpose of censure, and without a view to legislation or impeachment. this, i think, sir, is pretty high-toned pretension. according to this doctrine, neither house could assert its own rights, however the executive might assail them; neither house could point out the danger to the people, however fast executive encroachment might be extending itself, or whatever danger it might threaten to the public liberties. if the two houses of congress may not express an opinion of executive conduct by resolution, there is the same reason why they should not express it in any other form, or by any other mode of proceeding. indeed, the protest limits both houses, expressly, to the case of impeachment. if the house of representatives are not about to impeach the president, they have nothing to say of his measures or of his conduct; and unless the senate are engaged in trying an impeachment, their mouths, too, are stopped. it is the practice of the president to send us an annual message, in which he rehearses the general proceedings of the executive for the past year. this message we refer to our committees for consideration. but, according to the doctrine of the protest, they can express no opinion upon any executive proceeding upon which it gives information. suppose the president had told us, in his last annual message, what he had previously told us in his cabinet paper, that the removal of the deposits was _his_ act, done on _his_ responsibility; and that the secretary of the treasury had exercised no discretion, formed no judgment, presumed to have no opinion whatever, on the subject. this part of the message would have been referred to the committee on finance; but what could they say? they think it shows a plain violation of the constitution and the laws; but the president is not impeached; therefore they can express no censure. they think it a direct invasion of legislative power, but they must not say so. they may, indeed, commend, if they can. the grateful business of praise is lawful to them; but if, instead of commendation and applause, they find cause for disapprobation, censure, or alarm, the protest enjoins upon them absolute silence. formerly, sir, it was a practice for the president to meet both houses, at the opening of the session, and deliver a speech, as is still the usage of some of the state legislatures. to this speech there was an answer from each house$ and those answers expressed, freely, the sentiments of the house upon all the merits and faults of the administration. the discussion of the topics contained in the speech, and the debate on the answers, usually drew out the whole force of parties, and lasted sometimes a week. president washington's conduct, in every year of his administration, was thus freely and publicly canvassed. he did not complain of it; he did not doubt that both houses had a perfect right to comment, with the utmost latitude, consistent with decorum, upon all his measures. answers, or amendments to answers, were not unfrequently proposed, very hostile to his own course of public policy, if not sometimes bordering on disrespect. and when they did express respect and regard, there were votes ready to be recorded against the expression of those sentiments. to all this president washington took no exception; for he well knew that these, and similar proceedings, belonged to the power of popular bodies. but if the president were now to meet us with a speech, and should inform us of measures, adopted by himself in the recess, which should appear to us the most plain, palpable, and dangerous violations of the constitution, we must, nevertheless, either keep respectful silence, or fill our answer merely with courtly phrases of approbation. mr. president, i know not who wrote this protest, but i confess i am astonished, truly astonished, as well at the want of knowledge which it displays of constitutional law, as at the high and dangerous pretensions which it puts forth. neither branch of the legislature can express censure upon the president's conduct! suppose, sir, that we should see him enlisting troops and raising an army, can we say nothing, and do nothing? suppose he were to declare war against a foreign power, and put the army and the fleet in action; are we still to be silent? suppose we should see him borrowing money on the credit of the united states; are we yet to wait for impeachment? indeed, sir, in regard to this borrowing money on the credit of the united states, i wish to call the attention of the senate, not only to what might happen, but to what has actually happened. we are informed that the post-office department, a department over which the president claims the same control as over the rest, _has actually borrowed near half a million of money on the credit of the united states_. mr. president, the first power granted to congress by the constitution is the power to lay taxes; the second, the power to borrow money on the credit of the united states. now, sir, where does the executive find its authority, in or through any department, to borrow money without authority of congress? this proceeding appears to me wholly illegal, and reprehensible in a very high degree. it may be said that it is not true that this money is borrowed on the credit of the united states, but that it is borrowed on the credit of the post-office department. but that would be mere evasion. the department is but a name. it is an office, and nothing more. the banks have not lent this money to any officer. if congress should abolish the whole department to-morrow, would the banks not expect the united states to replace this borrowed money? the money, then, is borrowed on the credit of the united states, an act which congress alone is competent to authorize. if the post-office department may borrow money, so may the war department and the navy department. if half a million may be borrowed, ten millions may be borrowed. what, then, if this transaction shall be justified, is to hinder the executive from borrowing money to maintain fleets and armies, or for any other purpose, at his pleasure, without any authority of law? yet even this, according to the doctrine of the protest, we have no right to complain of. we have no right to declare that an executive department has violated the constitution and broken the law, by borrowing money on the credit of the united states. nor could we make a similar declaration, if we were to see the executive, by means of this borrowed money, enlisting armies and equipping fleets. and yet, sir, the president has found no difficulty, heretofore, in expressing his opinions, _in a paper not called for by the exercise of any official duty_, upon the conduct and proceedings of the two houses of congress. at the commencement of this session, he sent us a message, commenting on the land bill which the two houses passed at the end of the last session. that bill he had not approved, nor had he returned it with objections. congress was dissolved; and the bill, therefore, was completely dead, and could not be revived. no communication from him could have the least possible effect as an official act. yet he saw fit to send a message on the subject, and in that message he very freely declares his opinion that the bill which had passed both houses _began with an entire subversion of every one of the compacts by which the united states became possessed of their western domain_; that one of its provisions _was in direct and undisguised violation of the pledge given by congress to the states_; that the constitution provides that these compacts shall be untouched by the legislative power, which can only make needful rules and regulations; and that all beyond that is _an assumption of undelegated power_. these are the terms in which the president speaks of an act of the two houses; not in an official paper, not in a communication which it was necessary for him to make to them; but in a message, adopted only as a mode through which to make public these opinions. after this, it would seem too late to enjoin on the houses of congress a total forbearance from all comment on the measures of the executive. not only is it the right of both houses, or of either, to resist, by vote, declaration, or resolution, whatever it may deem an encroachment of executive power, but it is also undoubtedly the right of either house to oppose, in like manner, any encroachment by the other. the two houses have each its own appropriate powers and authorities, which it is bound to preserve. they have, too, different constituents. the members of the senate are representatives of states; and it is in the senate alone that the four-and-twenty states, as political bodies, have a direct influence in the legislative and executive powers of this government. he is a strange advocate of state rights, who maintains that this body, thus representing the states, and thus being the strictly federal branch of the legislature, may not assert and maintain all and singular its own powers and privileges, against either or both of the other branches. if any thing be done or threatened derogatory to the rights of the states, as secured by the organization of the senate, may we not lift up our voices against it? suppose the house of representatives should vote that the senate ought not to propose amendments to revenue bills; would it be the duty of the senate to take no notice of such proceeding? or, if we were to see the president issuing commissions to office to persons who had never been nominated to the senate, are we not to remonstrate? sir, there is no end of cases, no end of illustrations. the doctrines of the protest, in this respect, cannot stand the slightest scrutiny; they are blown away by the first breath of discussion. and yet, sir, it is easy to perceive why this right of declaring its sentiments respecting the conduct of the executive is denied to either house, in its legislative capacity. it is merely that the senate might be presented in the odious light of _trying_ the president, judicially, without regular accusation or hearing. the protest declares that the president is _charged with a crime, and, without hearing or trial, found guilty and condemned_. this is evidently an attempt to appeal to popular feeling, and to represent the president as unjustly treated and unfairly tried. sir, it is a false appeal. the president has not been tried at all; he has not been accused; he has not been charged with crime; he has not been condemned. accusation, trial, and sentence are terms belonging to judicial proceedings. but the senate has been engaged in no such proceeding. the resolution of the th of march was not an exercise of judicial power, either in form, in substance, or in intent. everybody knows that the senate can exercise no judicial power until articles of impeachment are brought before it. it is then to proceed, by accusation and answer, hearing, trial, and judgment. but there has been no impeachment, no answer, no hearing, no judgment. all that the senate did was to pass a resolution, in legislative form, declaring its opinion of certain acts of the executive. this resolution imputed no crime; it charged no corrupt motive; it proposed no punishment. it was directed, not against the president personally, but against the act; and that act it declared to be, in its judgment, an assumption of authority not warranted by the constitution. it is in vain that the protest attempts to shift the resolution to the judicial character of the senate. the case is too plain for such an argument to be plausible. but, in order to lay some foundation for it, the protest, as i have already said, contends that neither the senate nor the house of representatives can express its opinions on the conduct of the president, except in some form connected with impeachment; so that if the power of impeachment did not exist, these two houses, though they be representative bodies, though one of them be filled by the immediate representatives of the people, though they be constituted like other popular and representative bodies, could not utter a syllable, although they saw the executive either trampling on their own rights and privileges, or grasping at absolute authority and dominion over the liberties of the country! sir, i hardly know how to speak of such claims of impunity for executive encroachment. i am amazed that any american citizen should draw up a paper containing such lofty pretensions; pretensions which would have been met with scorn in england, at any time since the revolution of . a man who should stand up, in either house of the british parliament, to maintain that the house could not, by vote or resolution, maintain its own rights and privileges, would make even the tory benches hang their heads for very shame. there was, indeed, a time when such proceedings were not allowed. some of the kings of the stuart race would not tolerate them. a signal instance of royal displeasure with the proceedings of parliament occurred in the latter part of the reign of james the first. the house of commons had spoken, on some occasion, "of its own undoubted rights and privileges." the king thereupon sent them a letter, declaring that _he would not allow that they had any undoubted rights; but that what they enjoyed they might still hold by his own royal grace and permission_. sir edward coke and mr. granville were not satisfied with this title to their privileges; and, under their lead, the house entered on its journals a resolution asserting its privileges, _as its own undoubted right_, and manifesting a determination to maintain them as such. this, says the historian, so enraged his majesty, that he sent for the journal, had it brought into the council, and there, in the presence of his lords and great officers of state, tore out the offensive resolution with his own royal hand. he then dissolved parliament, and sent its most refractory members to the tower. i have no fear, certainly, sir, that this english example will be followed, on this occasion, to its full extent; nor would i insinuate that any thing outrageous has been thought of, or intended, except outrageous pretensions; but such pretensions i must impute to the author of this protest, whoever that author may be. when this and the other house shall lose the freedom of speech and debate; when they shall surrender the rights of publicly and freely canvassing all important measures of the executive; when they shall not be allowed to maintain their own authority and their own privileges by vote, declaration, or resolution,--they will then be no longer free representatives of a free people, but slaves themselves, and fit instruments to make slaves of others. the protest, mr. president, concedes what it doubtless regards as a liberal right of discussion to the people themselves. but its language, even in acknowledging this right of the _people_ to discuss the conduct of their servants, is qualified and peculiar. the free people of the united states, it declares, have an undoubted right to discuss the official conduct of the president in such language and form as they may think proper, "subject only to the restraints of truth and justice." but, then, who is to be judge of this truth and justice? are the people to judge for themselves, or are others to judge for them? the protest is here speaking of _political_ rights, and not moral rights; and if restraints are imposed on _political_ rights, it must follow, of course, that others are to decide whenever the case arises whether these restraints have been violated. it is strange that the writer of the protest did not perceive that, by using this language, he was pushing the president into a direct avowal of the doctrines of . the text of the protest and the text of the obnoxious act[ ] of that year are nearly identical. but, sir, if the people have a right to discuss the official conduct of the executive, so have their representatives. we have been taught to regard a representative of the people as a sentinel on the watch-tower of liberty. is he to be blind, though visible danger approaches? is he to be deaf, though sounds of peril fill the air? is he to be dumb, while a thousand duties impel him to raise the cry of alarm? is he not, rather, to catch the lowest whisper which breathes intention or purpose of encroachment on the public liberties, and to give his voice breath and utterance at the first appearance of danger? is not his eye to traverse the whole horizon with the keen and eager vision of an unhooded hawk, detecting, through all disguises, every enemy advancing, in any form, towards the citadel which he guards? sir, this watchfulness for public liberty; this duty of foreseeing danger and proclaiming it; this promptitude and boldness in resisting attacks on the constitution from any quarter; this defence of established landmarks; this fearless resistance of whatever would transcend or remove them,--all belong to the representative character, are interwoven with its very nature. if deprived of them, an active, intelligent, faithful agent of the people will be converted into an unresisting and passive instrument of power. a representative body, which gives up these rights and duties, gives itself up. it is a representative body no longer. it has broken the tie between itself and its constituents, and henceforth is fit only to be regarded as an inert, self-sacrificed mass, from which all appropriate principle of vitality has departed for ever. i have thus endeavored to vindicate the right of the senate to pass the resolution of the th of march, notwithstanding the denial of that right in the protest. but there are other sentiments and opinions expressed in the protest, of the very highest importance, and which demand nothing less than our utmost attention. the first object of a free people is the preservation of their liberty; and liberty is only to be preserved by maintaining constitutional restraints and just divisions of political power. nothing is more deceptive or more dangerous than the pretence of a desire to simplify government. the simplest governments are despotisms; the next simplest, limited monarchies; but all republics, all governments of law, must impose numerous limitations and qualifications of authority, and give many positive and many qualified rights. in other words, they must be subject to rule and regulation. this is the very essence of free political institutions. the spirit of liberty is, indeed, a bold and fearless spirit; but it is also a sharp-sighted spirit, it is a cautious, sagacious, discriminating, far-seeing intelligence; it is jealous of encroachment, jealous of power, jealous of man. it demands checks; it seeks for guards; it insists on securities; it intrenches itself behind strong defences, and fortifies itself with all possible care against the assaults of ambition and passion. it does not trust the amiable weaknesses of human nature, and therefore it will not permit power to overstep its prescribed limits, though benevolence, good intent, and patriotic purpose come along with it. neither does it satisfy itself with flashy and temporary resistance to illegal authority. far otherwise. it seeks for duration and permanence. it looks before and after; and, building on the experience of ages which are past, it labors diligently for the benefit of ages to come. this is the nature of constitutional liberty; and this is _our_ liberty, if we will rightly understand and preserve it. every free government is necessarily complicated, because all such governments establish restraints, as well on the power of government itself as on that of individuals. if we will abolish the distinction of branches, and have but one branch; if we will abolish jury trials, and leave all to the judge; if we will then ordain that the legislator shall himself be that judge; and if we will place the executive power in the same hands, we may readily simplify government. we may easily bring it to the simplest of all possible forms, a pure despotism. but a separation of departments, so far as practicable, and the preservation of clear lines of division between them, is the fundamental idea in the creation of all our constitutions; and, doubtless, the continuance of regulated liberty depends on maintaining these boundaries. in the progress, sir, of the governments of the united states, we seem exposed to two classes of dangers or disturbances; one external, the other internal. it may happen that collisions arise between this government and the governments of the states. that case belongs to the first class. a memorable instance of this kind occurred last year. it was my conscientious opinion, on that occasion, that the authority claimed by an individual state[ ] was subversive of the just powers of this government, and, indeed, incompatible with its existence. i gave a hearty co-operation, therefore, to measures which the crisis seemed to require. we have now before us what appears, to my judgment, to be an instance of the latter kind. a contest has arisen between different branches of the same government, interrupting their harmony, and threatening to disturb their balance. it is of the highest importance, therefore, to examine the question carefully, and to decide it justly. the separation of the powers of government into three departments, though all our constitutions profess to be founded on it, has, nevertheless, never been perfectly established in any government of the world, and perhaps never can be. the general principle is of inestimable value, and the leading lines of distinction sufficiently plain; yet there are powers of so undecided a character, that they do not seem necessarily to range themselves under either head. and most of our constitutions, too, having laid down the general principle, immediately create exceptions. there do not exist, in the general science of government, or the received maxims of political law, such precise definitions as enable us always to say of a given power whether it be legislative, executive, or judicial. and this is one reason, doubtless, why the constitution, in conferring power on all the departments, proceeds not by general definition, but by specific enumeration. and, again, it grants a power in general terms, but yet, in the same or some other article or section, imposes a limitation or qualification on the grant; and the grant and the limitation must, of course, be construed together. thus the constitution says that all legislative power, therein granted, shall be vested in congress, which congress shall consist of a senate and a house of representatives; and yet, in another article, it gives to the president a qualified negative over all acts of congress. so the constitution declares that the judicial power shall be vested in one supreme court, and such inferior courts as congress may establish. it gives, nevertheless, in another provision, judicial power to the senate; and, in like manner, though it declares that the executive power shall be vested in the president, using, in the immediate context, no words of limitation, yet it elsewhere subjects the treaty-making power, and the appointing power, to the concurrence of the senate. the irresistible inference from these considerations is, that the mere nomination of a department, as one of the three great and commonly acknowledged departments of government, does not confer on that department any power at all. notwithstanding the departments are called the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, we must yet look into the provisions of the constitution itself, in order to learn, first, what powers the constitution regards as legislative, executive, and judicial; and, in the next place, what portions or quantities of these powers are conferred on the respective departments; because no one will contend that _all_ legislative power belongs to congress, _all_ executive power to the president, or _all_ judicial power to the courts of the united states. the first three articles of the constitution, as all know, are taken up in prescribing the organization, and enumerating the powers, of the three departments. the first article treats of the legislature, and its first section is, "all legislative power, _herein granted_, shall be vested in a congress of the united states, which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives." the second article treats of the executive power, and its first section declares that "the executive power shall be vested in a president of the united states of america." the third article treats of the judicial power, and its first section declares that "the judicial power of the united states shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish." it is too plain to be doubted, i think, sir, that these descriptions of the persons or officers in whom the executive and the judicial powers are to be vested no more define the extent of the grant of those powers, than the words quoted from the first article describe the extent of the legislative grant to congress. all these several titles, heads of articles, or introductory clauses, with the general declarations which they contain, serve to designate the departments, and to mark the general distribution of powers; but in all the departments, in the executive and judicial as well as in the legislative, it would be unsafe to contend for any specific power under such clauses. if we look into the state constitutions, we shall find the line of distinction between the departments still less perfectly drawn, although the general principle of the distinction is laid down in most of them, and in some of them in very positive and emphatic terms. in some of these states, notwithstanding the principle of distribution is adopted and sanctioned, the legislature appoints the judges; and in others it appoints both the governor and the judges; and in others, again, it appoints not only the judges, but all other officers. the inferences which, i think, follow from these views of the subject, are two: first, that the denomination of a department does not fix the limits of the powers conferred on it, nor even their exact nature; and, second (which, indeed, follows from the first), that in our american governments, the chief executive magistrate does not necessarily, and by force of his general character of supreme executive, possess the appointing power. he may have it, or he may not, according to the particular provisions applicable to each case in the respective constitutions. the president appears to have taken a different view of this subject. he seems to regard the appointing power as originally and inherently in the executive, and as remaining absolute in his hands, except so far as the constitution restrains it. this i do not agree to, and i shall have occasion hereafter to examine the question further. i have intended thus far only to insist on the high and indispensable duty of maintaining the division of power _as the constitution has marked out that division_, and to oppose claims of authority not founded on express grants or necessary implication, but sustained merely by argument or inference from names or denominations given to departments. mr. president, the resolutions now before us declare, that the protest asserts powers as belonging to the president inconsistent with the authority of the two houses of congress, and inconsistent with the constitution; and that the protest itself is a breach of privilege. i believe all this to be true. the doctrines of the protest are inconsistent with the authority of the two houses, because, in my judgment, they deny the just extent of the law-making power. i take the protest as it was sent to us, without inquiring how far the subsequent message has modified or explained it. it is singular, indeed, that a paper, so long in preparation, so elaborate in composition, and which is put forth for so high a purpose as the protest avows, should not be able to stand an hour's discussion before it became evident that it was indispensably necessary to alter or explain its contents. explained or unexplained, however, the paper contains sentiments which justify us, as i think, in adopting these resolutions. in the first place, i think the protest a clear breach of privilege. it is a reproof or rebuke of the senate, in language hardly respectful, for the exercise of a power clearly belonging to it as a legislative body. it entirely misrepresents the proceedings of the senate. i find this paragraph in it, among others of a similar tone and character: "a majority of the senate, whose interference with the preliminary question has, for the best of all reasons, been studiously excluded, anticipate the action of the house of representatives, assume not only the function which belongs exclusively to that body, but convert themselves into accusers, witnesses, counsel, and judges, and prejudge the whole case; thus presenting the appalling spectacle, in a free state, of judges going through a labored preparation for an impartial hearing and decision, by a previous _ex parte_ investigation and sentence against the supposed offender." now, sir, this paragraph, i am bound to say, is a total misrepresentation of the proceedings of the senate. a majority of the senate have not anticipated the house of representatives; they have not assumed the functions of that body; they have not converted themselves into accusers, witnesses, counsel, or judges; they have made no _ex parte_ investigation; they have given no sentence. this paragraph is an elaborate perversion of the whole design and the whole proceedings of the senate. a protest, sent to us by the president, against votes which the senate has an unquestionable right to pass, and containing, too, such a misrepresentation of these votes as this paragraph manifests, is a breach of privilege. but there is another breach of privilege. the president interferes between the members of the senate and their constituents, and charges them with acting contrary to the will of those constituents. he says it is his right and duty to look to the journals of the senate to ascertain who voted for the resolution of the th of march, and then to show that individual senators have, by their votes on that resolution, disobeyed the instructions or violated the known will of the legislatures who appointed them. all this he claims as his right and his duty. and where does he find any such right or any such duty? what right has he to send a message to either house of congress telling its members that they disobey the will of their constituents? has any english sovereign since cromwell's time dared to send such a message to parliament? sir, if he can tell us that some of us disobey our constituents, he can tell us that all do so; and if we consent to receive this language from him, there is but one remaining step, and that is, that since we thus disobey the will of our constituents, he should disperse us and send us home. in my opinion, the first step in this process is as distinct a breach of privilege as the last. if cromwell's example shall be followed out, it will not be more clear then than it is now that the privileges of the senate have been violated. there is yet something, sir, which surpasses all this; and that is, that, after this direct interference, after pointing out those senators whom he would represent as having disobeyed the known will of their constituents, _he disclaims all design of interfering at all_! sir, who could be the writer of a message, which, in the first place, makes the president assert such monstrous pretensions, and, in the next line, affront the understanding of the senate by disavowing all right to do that very thing which he is doing? if there be any thing, sir, in this message, more likely than the rest of it to move one from his equanimity, it is this disclaimer of all design to interfere with the responsibility of members of the senate to their constituents, after such interference had already been made, in the same paper, in the most objectionable and offensive form. if it were not for the purpose of telling these senators that they disobeyed the will of the legislatures of the states they represent, _for what purpose was it_ that the protest has pointed out the four senators, and paraded against them the sentiments of their legislatures? there can be no other purpose. the protest says, indeed, that "these facts belong to the history of these proceedings"! to the history of what proceedings? to any proceeding to which the president was party? to any proceeding to which the senate was party? have they any thing to do with the resolution of the th of march? but it adds, that these facts _are important to the just development of the principles and interests involved in the proceedings_. all this might be said of any other facts. it is mere words. to what principles, to what interests, are these facts important? they can be important but in one point of view; and that is as proof, or evidence, that the senators have disobeyed instructions, or acted against the known will of their constituents in disapproving the president's conduct. they have not the slightest bearing in any other way. they do not make the resolution of the senate more or less true, nor its right to pass it more or less clear. sir, these proceedings of the legislatures were introduced into this protest for the very purpose, and no other, of showing that members of the senate have acted contrary to the will of their constituents. every man sees and knows this to have been the sole design; and any other pretence is a mockery to our understandings. and this purpose is, in my opinion, an unlawful purpose; it is an unjustifiable intervention between us and our constituents; and is, therefore, a manifest and flagrant breach of privilege. in the next place, the assertions of the protest are inconsistent with the just authority of congress, because they claim for the president a power, independent of congress, to possess the custody and control of the public treasures. let this point be accurately examined; and, in order to avoid mistake, i will read the precise words of the protest. "the custody of the public property, under such regulations as may be prescribed by legislative authority, has always been considered an appropriate function of the executive department in this and all other governments. in accordance with this principle, every species of property belonging to the united states, (excepting that which is in the use of the several co-ordinate departments of the government, as means to aid them in performing their appropriate functions,) is in charge of officers appointed by the president, whether it be lands, or buildings, or merchandise, or provisions, or clothing, or arms and munitions of war. the superintendents and keepers of the whole are appointed by the president, and removable at his will. "public money is but a species of public property. it cannot be raised by taxation or customs, nor brought into the treasury in any other way except by law; but whenever or howsoever obtained, its custody always has been, and always must be, unless the constitution be changed, intrusted to the executive department. no officer can be created by congress, for the purpose of taking charge of it, whose appointment would not, by the constitution, at once devolve on the president, and who would not be responsible to him for the faithful performance of his duties." and, in another place, it declares that "congress cannot, therefore, take out of the hands of the executive department the custody of the public property or money, without an assumption of executive power, and a subversion of the first principles of the constitution." these, sir, are propositions which cannot receive too much attention. they affirm, that the custody of the public money constitutionally and necessarily belongs to the executive; and that, until the constitution is changed, congress cannot take it out of his hands, nor make any provision for its custody, except by such superintendents and keepers as are appointed by the president and removable at his will. if these assertions be correct, we have, indeed, a singular constitution for a republican government; for we give the executive the control, the custody, and the possession of the public treasury, by original constitutional provision; and when congress appropriates, it appropriates only what is already in the president's hands. sir, i hold these propositions to be sound in neither branch. i maintain that the custody of the public money does not necessarily belong to the executive, under this government; and i hold that congress may so dispose of it, that it shall be under the superintendence of keepers not appointed by the president, nor removable at his will. i think it competent for congress to declare, as congress did declare in the bank charter, that the public deposits should be made in the bank. when in the bank, they were not kept by persons appointed by the president, or removable at his will. he could not change that custody; nor could it be changed at all, but according to provisions made in the law itself. there was, indeed, a provision in the law authorizing the _secretary_ to change the custody. but suppose there had been no such provision; suppose the contingent power had not been given to the secretary; would it not have been a lawful enactment? might not the law have provided that the public moneys should remain in the bank, until congress itself should otherwise order, leaving no power of removal anywhere else? and if such provision had been made, what power, or custody, or control, would the president have possessed over them? clearly, none at all. the act of may, , directed custom-house bonds, in places where the bank which was then in existence was situated, or in which it had branches, to be deposited in the bank or its branches for collection, without the reservation to the secretary, or anybody else, of any power of removal. now, sir, this was an unconstitutional law, if the protest, in the part now under consideration, be correct; because it placed the public money in a custody beyond the control of the president, and in the hands of keepers not appointed by him, nor removable at his pleasure. one may readily discern, sir, the process of reasoning by which the author of the protest brought himself to the conclusion that congress could not place the public moneys beyond the president's control. it is all founded on the power of appointment and the power of removal. these powers, it is supposed, must give the president complete control and authority over those who actually hold the money, and therefore must necessarily subject its custody, at all times, to his own individual will. this is the argument. it is true, that the appointment of all public officers, with some exceptions, is, by the constitution, given to the president, with the consent of the senate; and as, in most cases, public property must be held by some officer, its keepers will generally be persons so appointed. but this is only the common, not a necessary consequence, of giving the appointing power to the president and senate. congress may still, if it shall so see fit, place the public treasure in the hand of no officer appointed by the president, or removable by him, but in hands quite beyond his control. subject to one contingency only, it did this very thing by the charter of the present bank; and it did the same thing absolutely, and subject to no contingency, by the law of . the protest, in the first place, seizes on the fact that all officers must be appointed by the president, or on his nomination; it then assumes the next step, that all officers are, and _must be_, removable at his pleasure; and then, insisting that public money, like other public property, must be kept by _some public officer_, it thus arrives at the conclusion that it _must_ always be in the hands of those who are appointed by the president, and who are removable at his pleasure. and it is very clear that the protest means to maintain that the _tenure of office cannot be so regulated by law, as that public officers shall not be removable at the pleasure of the president_. the president considers the right of removal as a fixed, vested, constitutional right, which congress cannot limit, control, or qualify, until the constitution shall be altered. this, sir, is doctrine which i am not prepared to admit. i shall not now discuss the question, whether the law may not place the tenure of office beyond the reach of executive pleasure; but i wish merely to draw the attention of the senate to the fact, that any such power in congress is denied by the principles and by the words of the protest. according to that paper, we live under a constitution by the provisions of which the public treasures are, necessarily and unavoidably, always under executive control; and as the executive may remove all officers, and appoint others, at least temporarily, without the concurrence of the senate, he may hold those treasures, in the hands of persons appointed by himself alone, in defiance of any law which congress has passed or can pass. it is to be seen, sir, how far such claims of power will receive the approbation of the country. it is to be seen whether a construction will be readily adopted which thus places the public purse out of the guardianship of the immediate representatives of the people. but, sir, there is, in this paper, something even yet more strange than these extraordinary claims of power. there is a strong disposition, running through the whole protest, to represent the executive department of this government as the peculiar protector of the public liberty, the chief security on which the people are to rely against the encroachment of other branches of the government. nothing can be more manifest than this purpose. to this end, the protest spreads out the president's official oath, reciting all its words in a formal quotation; and yet the oath of members of congress is exactly equivalent. the president is to swear that he will "preserve, protect, and defend the constitution"; and members of congress are to swear that they will "support the constitution." there are more words in one oath than the other, but the sense is precisely the same. why, then, this reference to his official oath, and this ostentatious quotation of it? would the writer of the protest argue that the oath itself is any grant of power; or that, because the president is to "preserve, protect, and defend the constitution," he is therefore to use what means he pleases for such preservation, protection, and defence, or any means except those which the constitution and laws have specifically given him? such an argument would be absurd; but if the oath be not cited for this preposterous purpose, with what design is it thus displayed on the face of the protest, unless it be to support the general idea that the maintenance of the constitution and the preservation of the public liberties are especially confided to the safe discretion, the sure moderation, the paternal guardianship, of executive power? the oath of the president contains three words, all of equal import; that is, that he will _preserve_, _protect_, and _defend_ the constitution. the oath of members of congress is expressed in shorter phrase; it is, that they will _support_ the constitution. if there be any difference in the meaning of the two oaths, i cannot discern it; and yet the protest solemnly and formally argues thus: "the duty of defending, so far as in him lies, the integrity of the constitution, would, indeed, have resulted from the very nature of his office; but by thus expressing it in the official oath or affirmation, which, in this respect, differs from that of every other functionary, the founders of our republic have attested their sense of its importance, and have given to it a peculiar solemnity and force." sir, i deny the proposition, and i dispute the proof. i deny that the duty of defending the integrity of the constitution is, in any peculiar sense, confided to the president; and i deny that the words of his oath furnish any argument to make good that proposition. be pleased, sir, to remember _against whom it is_ that the president holds it _his_ peculiar duty to defend the integrity of the constitution. it is not against external force; it is not against a foreign foe; no such thing; _but it is against the representatives of the people and the representatives of the states_! it is against these that the founders of our republic have imposed on him the duty of defending the integrity of the constitution; a duty, he says, of the importance of which they have attested their sense, and to which they have given peculiar solemnity and force, by expressing it in his official oath! let us pause, sir, and consider this most strange proposition. the president is the chief executive magistrate. he is commander-in-chief of the army and navy; nominates all persons to office; claims a right to remove all at will, and to control all, while yet in office; dispenses all favors; and wields the whole patronage of the government. and the proposition is, that the duty of defending the integrity of the constitution against the representatives of the states and against the representatives of the people, _results to him from the very nature of his office_; and that the founders of our republic have given to this duty, thus confided to him, peculiar solemnity and force! mr. president, the contest, for ages, has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. whoever has engaged in her sacred cause, from the days of the downfall of those great aristocracies which had stood between the king and the people to the time of our own independence, has struggled for the accomplishment of that single object. on the long list of the champions of human freedom, there is not one name dimmed by the reproach of advocating the extension of executive authority; on the contrary, the uniform and steady purpose of all such champions has been to limit and restrain it. to this end the spirit of liberty, growing more and more enlightened and more and more vigorous from age to age, has been battering, for centuries, against the solid butments of the feudal system. to this end, all that could be gained from the imprudence, snatched from the weakness, or wrung from the necessities of crowned heads, has been carefully gathered up, secured, and hoarded, as the rich treasures, the very jewels of liberty. to this end, popular and representative right has kept up its warfare against prerogative, with various success; sometimes writing the history of a whole age in blood, sometimes witnessing the martyrdom of sidneys and russells, often baffled and repulsed, but still gaining, on the whole, and holding what it gained with a grasp which nothing but the complete extinction of its own being could compel it to relinquish. at length, the great conquest over executive power, in the leading western states of europe, has been accomplished. the feudal system, like other stupendous fabrics of past ages, is known only by the rubbish which it has left behind it. crowned heads have been compelled to submit to the restraints of law, and the people, with that intelligence and that spirit which make their voice resistless, have been able to say to prerogative, "thus far shalt thou come, and no farther." i need hardly say, sir, that into the full enjoyment of all which europe has reached only through such slow and painful steps we sprang at once, by the declaration of independence, and by the establishment of free representative governments; governments borrowing more or less from the models of other free states, but strengthened, secured, improved in their symmetry, and deepened in their foundation, by those great men of our own country whose names will be as familiar to future times as if they were written on the arch of the sky. through all this history of the contest for liberty, executive power has been regarded as a lion which must be caged. so far from being the object of enlightened popular trust, so far from being considered the natural protector of popular right, it has been dreaded, uniformly, always dreaded, as the great source of its danger. and now, sir, who is he, so ignorant of the history of liberty, at home and abroad; who is he, yet dwelling in his contemplations among the principles and dogmas of the middle ages; who is he, from whose bosom all original infusion of american spirit has become so entirely evaporated and exhaled, that he shall put into the mouth of the president of the united states the doctrine that the defence of liberty _naturally results to_ executive power, and is its peculiar duty? who is he, that, generous and confiding towards power where it is most dangerous, and jealous only of those who can restrain it,--who is he, that, reversing the order of the state, and upheaving the base, would poise the pyramid of the political system upon its apex? who is he, that, overlooking with contempt the guardianship of the representatives of the people, and with equal contempt the higher guardianship of the people themselves,--who is he that declares to us, through the president's lips, that the security for freedom rests in executive authority? who is he that belies the blood and libels the fame of his own ancestors, by declaring that _they_, with solemnity of form, and force of manner, have invoked the executive power to come to the protection of liberty? who is he that thus charges them with the insanity, or the recklessness, of putting the lamb beneath the lion's paw? no, sir. no, sir. our security is in our watchfulness of executive power. it was the constitution of this department which was infinitely the most difficult part in the great work of creating our present government. to give to the executive department such power as should make it useful, and yet not such as should render it dangerous; to make it efficient, independent, and strong, and yet to prevent it from sweeping away every thing by its union of military and civil authority, by the influence of patronage, and office, and favor,--this, indeed, was difficult. they who had the work to do saw the difficulty, and we see it; and if we would maintain our system, we shall act wisely to that end, by preserving every restraint and every guard which the constitution has provided. and when we, and those who come after us, have done all that we can do, and all that they can do, it will be well for us and for them, if some popular executive, by the power of patronage and party, and the power, too, of that very popularity, shall not hereafter prove an overmatch for all other branches of the government. i do not wish, sir, to impair the power of the president, as it stands written down in the constitution, and as great and good men have hitherto exercised it. in this, as in other respects, i am for the constitution as it is. but i will not acquiesce in the reversal of all just ideas of government; i will not degrade the character of popular representation; i will not blindly confide, where all experience admonishes me to be jealous; i will not trust executive power, vested in the hands of a single magistrate, to be the guardian of liberty. having claimed for the executive the especial guardianship of the constitution, the protest proceeds to present a summary view of the powers which are supposed to be conferred on the executive by that instrument. and it is to this part of the message, sir, that i would, more than to all others, call the particular attention of the senate. i confess that it was only upon careful reperusal of the paper that i perceived the extent to which its assertions of power reach. i do not speak now of the president's claims of power as opposed to legislative authority, but of his opinions as to his own authority, duty, and responsibility, as connected with all other officers under the government. he is of opinion that the whole executive power is vested in him, and that he is responsible for its entire exercise; that among the duties imposed on him is that of "taking care that the laws be faithfully executed"; and that, "being thus made responsible for the entire action of the executive department, it is but reasonable that the power of appointing, overseeing, and controlling those who execute the laws, a power in its nature executive, should remain in his hands. it is, therefore, not only his right, but the constitution makes it his duty, to 'nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, appoint,' all 'officers of the united states whose appointments are not in the constitution otherwise provided for,' with a proviso that the appointment of inferior officers may be vested in the president alone, in the courts of justice, or in the heads of departments." the first proposition, then, which the protest asserts, in regard to the president's powers as executive magistrate, is, that, the general duty being imposed on him by the constitution of taking care that the laws be faithfully executed, _he thereby becomes himself responsible for the conduct of every person employed in the government_; "for the entire action," as the paper expresses it, "of the executive department." this, sir, is very dangerous logic. i reject the inference altogether. no such responsibility, nor any thing like it, follows from the general provision of the constitution making it his duty to see the laws executed. if it did, we should have, in fact, but one officer in the whole government. the president would be everybody. and the protest assumes to the president this whole responsibility for every other officer, for the very purpose of making the president everybody, of annihilating every thing like independence, responsibility, or _character_, in all other public agents. the whole responsibility is assumed, in order that it may be more plausibly argued that all officers of government are not agents of the law, but the president's agents, and therefore responsible to him alone. if he be responsible for the conduct of all officers, and they be responsible to him only, then it may be maintained that such officers are but his own agents, his substitutes, his deputies. the first thing to be done, therefore, is to assume the responsibility for all; and this you will perceive, sir, is done, in the fullest manner, in the passages which i have read. having thus assumed for the president the entire responsibility of the whole government, the protest advances boldly to its conclusion, and claims, at once, absolute power over all individuals in office, as being merely the president's agents. this is the language: "the whole executive power being vested in the president, who is responsible for its exercise, it is a necessary consequence that he should have a right to employ agents of his own choice to aid him in the performance of his duties, and to discharge them when he is no longer willing to be responsible for their acts." this, sir, completes the work. this handsomely rounds off the whole executive system of executive authority. first, the president has the whole responsibility; and then, being thus responsible for all, he has, and ought to have, the whole power. we have heard of political _units_, and our american executive, as here represented, is indeed a _unit_. we have a charmingly simple government! instead of many officers, in different departments, each having appropriate duties, and each responsible for his own duties, we are so fortunate as to have to deal with but one officer. the president carries on the government; all the rest are but sub-contractors. sir, whatever _name_ we give him, we have but one executive officer. a briareus sits in the centre of our system, and with his hundred hands touches every thing, moves every thing, controls every thing. i ask, sir, is this republicanism? is this a government of laws? is this legal responsibility? according to the protest, the very duties which every officer under the government performs are the duties of the president himself. it says that the president has a right to employ _agents_ of his _own choice_, to aid him in the performance of his duties. mr. president, if these doctrines be true, it is idle for us any longer to talk about any such thing as a government of laws. we have no government of laws, not even the semblance or shadow of it; we have no legal responsibility. we have an executive, consisting of one person, wielding all official power, and which is, to every effectual purpose, completely _irresponsible_. the president declares that he is "responsible for the entire action of the executive department." responsible? what does he mean by being "responsible"? does he mean legal responsibility? certainly not. no such thing. legal responsibility signifies liability to punishment for misconduct or maladministration. but the protest does not mean that the president is liable to be impeached and punished if a secretary of state should commit treason, if a collector of the customs should be guilty of bribery, or if a treasurer should embezzle the public money. it does not mean, and cannot mean, that he should be answerable for any such crime or such delinquency. what then, is its notion of that _responsibility_ which it says the president is under for all officers, and which authorizes him to consider all officers as his own personal agents? sir, it is merely responsibility to public opinion. it is a liability to be blamed; it is the chance of becoming unpopular, the danger of losing a re-election. nothing else is meant in the world. it is the hazard of failing in any attempt or enterprise of ambition. this is all the responsibility to which the doctrines of the protest hold the president subject. it is precisely the _responsibility_ under which cromwell acted when he dispersed parliament, telling its members, not in so many words, indeed, that they disobeyed the will of their constituents, but telling them that the people were sick of them, and that he drove them out "for the glory of god and the good of the nation." it is precisely the responsibility upon which bonaparte broke up the popular assembly of france. i do not mean, sir, certainly, by these illustrations, to insinuate designs of violent usurpation against the president; far from it; but i do mean to maintain, that such responsibility as that with which the protest clothes him is no legal responsibility, no constitutional responsibility, no republican responsibility, but a mere liability to loss of office, loss of character, and loss of fame, if he shall choose to violate the laws and overturn the liberties of the country. it is such a responsibility as leaves every thing in his discretion and his pleasure. sir, it exceeds human belief that any man should put sentiments such as this paper contains into a public communication from the president to the senate. they are sentiments which give us all one master. the protest asserts an absolute right to remove all persons from office at pleasure; and for what reason? because they are incompetent? because they are incapable? because they are remiss, negligent, or inattentive? no, sir; these are not the reasons. but he may discharge them, one and all, simply because "he is no longer willing to be responsible for their acts"! it insists on an absolute right in the president to _direct and control_ every act of every officer of the government, except the judges. it asserts this right of direct _control_ over and over again. the president may go into the treasury, among the auditors and comptrollers, and _direct_ them how to settle every man's account; what abatements to make from one, what additions to another. he may go into the custom-house, among collectors and appraisers, and may _control_ estimates, reductions, and appraisements. it is true that these officers are sworn to discharge the duties of their respective offices honestly and fairly, according to their _own_ best abilities; it is true, that many of them are liable to indictment for official misconduct, and others responsible, in suits of individuals, for damages and penalties, if such official misconduct be proved; but notwithstanding all this, the protest avers that all these officers are but the _president's agents_; that they are but aiding _him_ in the discharge of _his_ duties; that _he_ is responsible for their conduct, and that they are removable at his will and pleasure. and it is under this view of his own authority that the president calls the secretaries _his_ secretaries, not once only, but repeatedly. after half a century's administration of this government, sir;--after we have endeavored, by statute upon statute, and by provision following provision, to define and limit official authority; to assign particular duties to particular public servants; to define those duties; to create penalties for their violation; to adjust accurately the responsibility of each agent with his own powers and his own duties; to establish the prevalence of equal rule; to make the law, as far as possible, every thing, and individual will, as far as possible, nothing;--after all this, the astounding assertion rings in our ears, that, throughout the whole range of official agency, in its smallest ramifications as well as in its larger masses, there is but one responsibility, one discretion, one will! true indeed is it, sir, if these sentiments be maintained,--true indeed is it that a president of the united states may well repeat from napoleon what he repeated from louis the fourteenth, "i am the state"! the argument by which the writer of the protest endeavors to establish the president's claim to this vast mass of accumulated authority, is founded on the provision of the constitution that the executive power shall be vested in the president. no doubt the executive power is vested in the president; but what and how much executive power, and how limited? to this question i should answer, "look to the constitution, and see; examine the particulars of the grant, and learn what that executive power is which is given to the president, either by express words or by necessary implication." but so the writer of this protest does not reason. he takes these words of the constitution as being, of themselves, a general original grant of all executive power to the president, subject only to such express limitations as the constitution prescribes. this is clearly the writer's view of the subject, unless, indeed, he goes behind the constitution altogether, as some expressions would intimate, to search elsewhere for sources of executive power. thus, the protest says that it is not only the _right_ of the president, but that the constitution makes it his _duty_, to appoint persons to office; as if the _right_ existed before the constitution had created the _duty_. it speaks, too, of the power of removal, not as a power _granted_ by the constitution, but expressly as "an original executive power, _left_ unchecked by the constitution." how original? coming from what source higher than the constitution? i should be glad to know how the president gets possession of any power by a title earlier, or more _original_, than the grant of the constitution; or what is meant by an _original_ power, which the president possesses, and which the constitution has _left_ unchecked in his hands. the truth is, sir, most assuredly, that the writer of the protest, in these passages, was reasoning upon the british constitution, and not upon the constitution of the united states. indeed, he professes to found himself on authority drawn from the constitution of england. i will read, sir, the whole passage. it is this:-- "in strict accordance with this principle, the power of removal, which, like that of appointment, is an original executive power, is left unchecked by the constitution in relation to all executive officers, for whose conduct the president is responsible; while it is taken from him in relation to judicial officers, for whose acts he is not responsible. _in the government from which many of the fundamental principles of our system are derived, the head of the executive department originally had power to appoint and remove at will all officers, executive and judicial._ it was to take the judges out of this general power of removal, and thus make them independent of the executive, that the tenure of their offices was changed to good behavior. nor is it conceivable why they are placed, in our constitution, upon a tenure different from that of all other officers appointed by the executive, unless it be for the same purpose." mr. president, i do most solemnly protest (if i, too, may be permitted to make a protest) against this mode of reasoning. the analogy between the british constitution and ours, in this respect, is not close enough to guide us safely; it can only mislead us. it has entirely misled the writer of the protest. the president is made to argue, upon this subject, as if he had some right _anterior_ to the constitution, which right is by that instrument checked, in some respects, and in other respects is left unchecked, but which, nevertheless, still derives its being from another source; just as the british king had, in the early ages of the monarchy, an uncontrolled right of appointing and removing all officers at pleasure, but which right, so far as it respects the judges, has since been checked and controlled by act of parliament; the right being original and inherent, the _check_ only imposed by law. sir, i distrust altogether british precedents, authorities, and analogies, on such questions as this. we are not inquiring how far our constitution has imposed checks on a pre-existing authority. we are inquiring what extent of power that constitution has _granted_. the grant of power, the whole source of power, as well as the restrictions and limitations which are imposed on it, is made in and by the constitution. it has no other origin. and it is this, sir, which distinguishes our system so very widely and materially from the systems of europe. _our_ governments are limited governments; limited in their origin, in their very creation; limited, because none but specific powers were ever granted, either to any department of government, or to the whole: _theirs_ are limited, whenever limited at all, by reason of restraints imposed at different times on governments originally unlimited and despotic. our american questions, therefore, must be discussed, reasoned on, decided, and settled, on the appropriate principles of our own constitutions, and not by inapplicable precedents and loose analogies drawn from foreign states. mr. president, in one of the french comedies, as you know, in which the dulness and prolixity of legal argument is intended to be severely satirized, while the advocate is tediously groping among ancient lore having nothing to do with his case, the judge grows impatient, and at last cries out to him to _come down to the flood_! i really wish, sir, that the writer of this protest, since he was discussing matters of the highest importance to us as americans, and which arise out of our own peculiar constitution, had kept himself, not only on this side the general deluge, but also on this side the atlantic. i desire that the broad waves of that wide sea should continue to roll between us and the influence of those foreign principles and foreign precedents which he so eagerly adopts. in asserting power for an american president, i prefer that he should attempt to maintain his assertions on american reasons. i know not, sir, who the writer was (i wish i did); but whoever he was, it is manifest that he argues this part of his case, throughout, on the principles of the constitution of england. it is true, that, in england, the king is regarded as the original fountain of all honor and all office; and that anciently, indeed, he possessed all political power of every kind. it is true that this mass of authority, in the progress of that government, has been diminished, restrained, and controlled, by charters, by immunities, by grants, and by various modifications, which the friends of liberty have, at different periods, been able to obtain or to impose. all liberty, as we know, all popular privileges, as indeed the word itself imports, were formerly considered as favors and concessions from the monarch. but whenever and wherever civil freedom could get a foothold, and could maintain itself, these favors were turned into rights. before and during the reigns of the princes of the stuart family, they were acknowledged only as favors or privileges graciously allowed, although, even then, whenever opportunity offered, as in the instance to which i alluded just now, they were contended for as rights; and by the revolution of they were acknowledged as the rights of englishmen, by the prince who then ascended the throne, and as the condition on which he was allowed to sit upon it. but with us there never was a time when we acknowledged original, unrestrained, sovereign power over us. our constitutions are not made to limit and restrain pre-existing authority. they are the instruments by which the people confer power on their own servants. if i may use a legal phrase, the people are grantors, not grantees. they give to the government, and to each branch of it, all the power it possesses, or can possess; and what is not given they retain. in england, before her revolution, and in the rest of europe since, if we would know the extent of liberty or popular right, we must go to grants, to charters, to allowances and indulgences. but with us, we go to grants and to constitutions to learn the extent of the powers of government. no political power is more original than the constitution; none is possessed which is not there granted; and the grant, and the limitations in the grant, are in the same instrument. the powers, therefore, belonging to any branch of our government, are to be construed and settled, not by remote analogies drawn from other governments, but from the words of the grant itself, in their plain sense and necessary import, and according to an interpretation consistent with our own history and the spirit of our own institutions. i will never agree that a president of the united states holds the whole undivided power of office in his own hands, upon the theory that he is responsible for the entire action of the whole body of those engaged in carrying on the government and executing the laws. such a responsibility is purely ideal, delusive, and vain. there is, there can be, no substantial responsibility, any further than every individual is answerable, not merely in his reputation, not merely in the opinion of mankind, but _to the law_, for the faithful discharge of his own appropriate duties. again and again we hear it said that the president is responsible to the american people! that he is responsible to the bar of public opinion! for whatever he does, he assumes accountability to the american people! for whatever he omits, he expects to be brought to the high bar of public opinion! and this is thought enough for a limited, restrained, republican government! an undefined, undefinable, ideal responsibility to the public judgment! sir, if all this mean any thing, if it be not empty sound, it means no less than that the president may do any thing and every thing which he may expect to be tolerated in doing. he may go just so far as he thinks it safe to go; and cromwell and bonaparte went no farther. i ask again, sir, is this legal responsibility? is this the true nature of a government with written laws and limited powers? and allow me, sir, to ask, too, if an executive magistrate, while professing to act under the constitution, is restrained only by this responsibility to public opinion, what prevents him, on the same responsibility, from proposing a change in that constitution? why may he not say, "i am about to introduce new forms, new principles, and a new spirit; i am about to try a political experiment on a great scale; and when i get through with it, i shall be responsible to the american people, i shall be answerable to the bar of public opinion"? connected, sir, with the idea of this airy and unreal responsibility to the public is another sentiment, which of late we hear frequently expressed; and that is, _that the president is the direct representative of the american people_. this is declared in the protest in so many words. "the president," it says, "_is the direct representative of the american people_." now, sir, this is not the language of the constitution. the constitution nowhere calls him the representative of the american people; still less, their direct representative. it could not do so with the least propriety. he is not chosen directly by the people, but by a body of electors, some of whom are chosen by the people, and some of whom are appointed by the state legislatures. where, then, is the authority for saying that the president is the _direct representative of the people_? the constitution calls the members of the other house representatives, and declares that they shall be chosen by the people; and there are no other direct or immediate representatives of the people in this government. the constitution denominates the president simply the president of the united states; it points out the complex mode of electing him, defines his powers and duties, and imposes limits and restraints on his authority. with these powers and duties, and under these restraints, he becomes, when chosen, president of the united states. that is his character, and the denomination of his office. how is it, then, that, on this official character, thus cautiously created, limited, and defined, he is to engraft another and a very imposing character, namely, the character _of the direct representative of the american people_? i hold this, sir, to be mere assumption, and dangerous assumption. if he is the representative of _all_ the american people, he is the only representative which they all have. nobody else presumes to represent all the people. and if he may be allowed to consider himself as the sole representative of all the american people, and is to act under no other responsibility than such as i have already described, then i say, sir, that the government (i will not say the people) has already a master. i deny the sentiment, therefore, and i protest against the language; neither the sentiment nor the language is to be found in the constitution of the country; and whoever is not satisfied to describe the powers of the president in the language of the constitution may be justly suspected of being as little satisfied with the powers themselves. the president is president. his office and his name of office are known, and both are fixed and described by law. being commander of the army and navy, holding the power of nominating to office and removing from office, and being by these powers the fountain of all patronage and all favor, what does he not become if he be allowed to superadd to all this the character of single representative of the american people? sir, he becomes what america has not been accustomed to see, what this constitution has never created, and what i cannot contemplate but with profound alarm. he who may call himself the single representative of a nation may speak in the name of the nation, may undertake to wield the power of the nation; and who shall gainsay him in whatsoever he chooses to pronounce to be the nation's will? i will now, sir, ask leave to recapitulate the general doctrines of this protest, and to present them together. they are,-- that neither branch of the legislature can take up, or consider, for the purpose of censure, any official act of the president, without some view to legislation or impeachment; that not only the passage, but the discussion, of the resolution of the senate of the th of march, was unauthorized by the constitution, and repugnant to its provisions; that the custody of the public treasury always must be intrusted to the executive; that congress cannot take it out of his hands, nor place it anywhere under such superintendents and keepers as are appointed by him, responsible to him, and removable at his will; that the whole executive power is in the president, and that therefore the duty of defending the integrity of the constitution _results to him from the very nature of his office_; and that the founders of our republic have attested their sense of the importance of this duty, and, by expressing it in his official oath, have given to it peculiar solemnity and force; that, as he is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, he is thereby made responsible for the entire action of the executive department, with the power of appointing, overseeing, and _controlling_ those who execute the laws; that the power of removal from office, like that of appointment, is an _original_ executive power, and is _left_ in his hands _unchecked_ by the constitution, except in the case of judges; that, being responsible for the exercise of the whole executive power, he has a right to employ agents of his own choice to assist _him_ in the performance of _his_ duties, and to discharge them when he is no longer willing to be responsible for their acts; that the secretaries are _his_ secretaries, and all persons appointed to offices created by law, except the judges, _his_ agents, responsible to him, and removable at his pleasure; and, finally, that he is the _direct representative of the american people_. these, sir, are some of the leading propositions contained in the protest; and if they be true, then the government under which we live is an elective monarchy. it is not yet absolute; there are yet some checks and limitations in the constitution and laws; but, in its essential and prevailing character, it is an elective monarchy. mr. president, i have spoken freely of this protest, and of the doctrines which it advances; but i have spoken deliberately. on these high questions of constitutional law, respect for my own character, as well as a solemn and profound sense of duty, restrains me from giving utterance to a single sentiment which does not flow from entire conviction. i feel that i am not wrong. i feel that an inborn and inbred love of constitutional liberty, and some study of our political institutions, have not on this occasion misled me. but i have desired to say nothing that should give pain to the chief magistrate personally. i have not sought to fix arrows in his breast; but i believe him mistaken, altogether mistaken, in the sentiments which he has expressed; and i must concur with others in placing on the records of the senate my disapprobation of those sentiments. on a vote which is to remain so long as any proceeding of the senate shall last, and on a question which can never cease to be important while the constitution of the country endures, i have desired to make public my reasons. they will now be known, and i submit them to the judgment of the present and of after times. sir, the occasion is full of interest. it cannot pass off without leaving strong impressions on the character of public men. a collision has taken place which i could have most anxiously wished to avoid; but it was not to be shunned. we have not sought this controversy; it has met us, and been forced upon us. in my judgment, the law has been disregarded, and the constitution transgressed; the fortress of liberty has been assaulted, and circumstances have placed the senate in the breach; and, although we may perish in it, i know we shall not fly from it. but i am fearless of consequences. we shall hold on, sir, and hold out, till the people themselves come to its defence. we shall raise the alarm, and maintain the post, till they whose right it is shall decide whether the senate be a faction, wantonly resisting lawful power, or whether it be opposing, with firmness and patriotism, violations of liberty and inroads upon the constitution. [footnote : commonly called the sedition act, approved th july, .] [footnote : south carolina.] the appointing and removing power. delivered in the senate of the united states, on the th of february, , on the passage of the bill, entitled "an act to repeal the first and second sections of the act to limit the term of service of certain officers therein named." mr. president,--the professed object of this bill is the reduction of executive influence and patronage. i concur in the propriety of that object. having no wish to diminish or to control, in the slightest degree, the constitutional and legal authority of the presidential office, i yet think that the indirect and rapidly increasing influence which it possesses, and which arises from the power of bestowing office and of taking it away again at pleasure, and from the manner in which that power seems now to be systematically exercised, is productive of serious evils. the extent of the patronage springing from this power of appointment and removal is so great, that it brings a dangerous mass of private and personal interest into operation in all great public elections and public questions. this is a mischief which has reached, already, an alarming height. the principle of republican governments, we are taught, is public virtue; and whatever tends either to corrupt this principle, to debase it, or to weaken its force, tends, in the same degree, to the final overthrow of such governments. our representative systems suppose, that, in exercising the high right of suffrage, the greatest of all political rights, and in forming opinions on great public measures, men will act conscientiously, under the influence of public principle and patriotic duty; and that, in supporting or opposing men or measures, there will be a general prevalence of honest, intelligent judgment and manly independence. these presumptions lie at the foundation of all hope of maintaining governments entirely popular. whenever personal, individual, or selfish motives influence the conduct of individuals on public questions, they affect the safety of the whole system. when these motives run deep and wide, and come in serious conflict with higher, purer, and more patriotic purposes, they greatly endanger that system; and all will admit that, if they become general and overwhelming, so that all public principle is lost sight of, and every election becomes a mere scramble for office, the system inevitably must fall. every wise man, in and out of government, will endeavor, therefore, to promote the ascendency of public virtue and public principle, and to restrain as far as practicable, in the actual operation of our institutions, the influence of selfish and private interests. i concur with those who think, that, looking to the present, and looking also to the future, and regarding all the probabilities that await us in reference to the character and qualities of those who may fill the executive chair, it is important to the stability of government and the welfare of the people that there should be a check to the progress of official influence and patronage. the unlimited power to grant office, and to take it away, gives a command over the hopes and fears of a vast multitude of men. it is generally true, that he who controls another man's means of living controls his will. where there are favors to be granted, there are usually enough to solicit for them; and when favors once granted may be withdrawn at pleasure, there is ordinarily little security for personal independence of character. the power of giving office thus affects the fears of all who are in, and the hopes of all who are out. those who are _out_ endeavor to distinguish themselves by active political friendship, by warm personal devotion, by clamorous support of men in whose hands is the power of reward; while those who are _in_ ordinarily take care that others shall not surpass them in such qualities or such conduct as are most likely to secure favor. they resolve not to be outdone in any of the works of partisanship. the consequence of all this is obvious. a competition ensues, not of patriotic labors; not of rough and severe toils for the public good; not of manliness, independence, and public spirit; but of complaisance, of indiscriminate support of executive measures, of pliant subserviency and gross adulation. all throng and rush together to the altar of man-worship; and there they offer sacrifices, and pour out libations, till the thick fumes of their incense turn their own heads, and turn, also, the head of him who is the object of their idolatry. the existence of parties in popular governments is not to be avoided; and if they are formed on constitutional questions, or in regard to great measures of public policy, and do not run to excessive length, it may be admitted that, on the whole, they do no great harm. but the patronage of office, the power of bestowing place and emoluments, creates parties, not upon any principle or any measure, but upon the single ground of personal interest. under the direct influence of this motive, they form round a leader, and they go for "the spoils of victory." and if the party chieftain becomes the national chieftain, he is still but too apt to consider all who have opposed him as enemies to be punished, and all who have supported him as friends to be rewarded. blind devotion to party, and to the head of a party, thus takes place of the sentiment of generous patriotism and a high and exalted sense of public duty. let it not be said, sir, that the danger from executive patronage cannot be great, since the persons who hold office, or can hold office, constitute so small a portion of the whole people. in the first place, it is to be remembered that patronage acts, not only on those who actually possess office, but on those also who expect it, or hope for it; and in the next place, office-holders, by their very situation, their public station, their connection with the business of individuals, their activity, their ability to help or to hurt according to their pleasure, their acquaintance with public affairs, and their zeal and devotion, exercise a degree of influence out of all proportion to their numbers. sir, we cannot disregard our own experience. we cannot shut our eyes to what is around us and upon us. no candid man can deny that a great, a very great change has taken place, within a few years, in the practice of the executive government, which has produced a corresponding change in our political condition. no one can deny that office, of every kind, is now sought with extraordinary avidity, and that the condition, well understood to be attached to every officer, high or low, is indiscriminate support of executive measures and implicit obedience to executive will. for these reasons, sir, i am for arresting the further progress of this executive patronage, if we can arrest it; i am for staying the further contagion of this plague. the bill proposes two measures. one is to alter the duration of certain offices, now limited absolutely to four years; so that the limitation shall be qualified or conditional. if the officer is in default, if his accounts are not settled, if he retains or misapplies the public money, information is to be given thereof, and thereupon his commission is to cease. but if his accounts are all regularly settled, if he collects and disburses the public money faithfully, then he is to remain in office, unless, for some other cause, the president sees fit to remove him. this is the provision of the bill. it applies only to certain enumerated officers, who may be called accounting officers; that is to say, officers who receive and disburse the public money. formerly, all these officers held their places at the pleasure of the president. if he saw no just cause for removing them, they continued in their situations, no fixed period being assigned for the expiration of their commissions. but the act of limited the commissions of these officers to four years. at the end of four years, they were to go out, without any removal, however well they might have conducted themselves, or however useful to the public their further continuance in office might be. they might be nominated again, or might not; but their commissions expired. now, sir, i freely admit that considerable benefit has arisen from this law. i agree that it has, in some instances, secured promptitude, diligence, and a sense of responsibility. these were the benefits which those who passed the law expected from it; and these benefits have, in some measure, been realized. but i think that this change in the tenure of office, together with some good, has brought along a far more than equivalent amount of evil. by the operation of this law, the president can deprive a man of office without taking the responsibility of removing him. the law itself vacates the office, and gives the means of rewarding a friend without the exercise of the power of removal at all. here is increased power, with diminished responsibility. here is a still greater dependence, for the means of living, on executive favor, and, of course, a new dominion acquired over opinion and over conduct. the power of removal is, or at least formerly was, a suspected and odious power. public opinion would not always tolerate it; and still less frequently did it approve it. something of character, something of the respect of the intelligent and patriotic part of the community, was lost by every instance of its unnecessary exercise. this was some restraint. but the law of took it all away. it vacated offices periodically, by its own operation, and thus added to the power of removal, which it left still existing in full force, a new and extraordinary facility for the extension of patronage, influence, and favoritism. i would ask every member of the senate if he does not perceive, daily, effects which may be fairly traced to this cause. does he not see a union of purpose, a devotion to power, a co-operation in action, among all who hold office, quite unknown in the earlier periods of the government? does he not behold, every hour, a stronger development of the principle of personal attachment, and a corresponding diminution of genuine and generous public feeling? was indiscriminate support of party measures, was unwavering fealty, was regular suit and service, ever before esteemed such important and essential parts of official duty? sir, the theory of our institutions is plain; it is, that government is an agency created for the good of the people, and that every person in office is the agent and servant of the people. offices are created, not for the benefit of those who are to fill them, but for the public convenience; and they ought to be no more in number, nor should higher salaries be attached to them, than the public service requires. this is the theory. but the difficulty in practice is, to prevent a direct reversal of all this; to prevent public offices from being considered as intended for the use and emolument of those who can obtain them. there is a headlong tendency to this, and it is necessary to restrain it by wise and effective legislation. there is still another, and perhaps a greatly more mischievous result, of extensive patronage in the hands of a single magistrate, to which i have already incidentally alluded; and that is, that men in office have begun to think themselves mere agents and servants of the appointing power, and not agents of the government or the country. it is, in an especial manner, important, if it be practicable, to apply some corrective to this kind of feeling and opinion. it is necessary to bring back public officers to the conviction, that they belong to the country, and not to any administration, nor to any one man. the army is the army of the country; the navy is the navy of the country; neither of them is either the mere instrument of the administration for the time being, nor of him who is at the head of it. the post-office, the land-office, the custom-house, are, in like manner, institutions of the country, established for the good of the people: and it may well alarm the lovers of free institutions, when all the offices in these several departments are spoken of, in high places, as being but "spoils of victory," to be enjoyed by those who are successful in a contest, in which they profess this grasping of the spoils to have been the object of their efforts. this part of the bill, therefore, sir, is a subject for fair comparison. we have gained something, doubtless, by limiting the commissions of these officers to four years. but have we gained as much as we have lost? and may not the good be preserved, and the evil still avoided? is it not enough to say, that if, at the end of four years, moneys are retained, accounts unsettled, or other duties unperformed, the office shall be held to be vacated, without any positive act of removal? for one, i think the balance of advantage is decidedly in favor of the present bill. i think it will make men more dependent on their own good conduct, and less dependent on the will of others. i believe it will cause them to regard their country more, their own duty more, and the favor of individuals less. i think it will contribute to official respectability, to freedom of opinion, to independence of character; and i think it will tend, in no small degree, to prevent the mixture of selfish and personal motives with the exercise of high political duties. it will promote true and genuine republicanism, by causing the opinion of the people respecting the measures of government, and the men in government, to be formed and expressed without fear or favor, and with a more entire regard to their true and real merits or demerits. it will be, so far as its effects reach, an auxiliary to patriotism and public virtue, in their warfare against selfishness and cupidity. the second check on executive patronage contained in this bill is of still greater importance than the first. this provision is, that, whenever the president removes any of these officers from office, he shall state to the senate the reasons for such removal. this part of the bill has been opposed, both on constitutional grounds and on grounds of expediency. the bill, it is to be observed, expressly recognizes and admits the actual existence of the power of removal. i do not mean to deny, and the bill does not deny, that, at the present moment, the president may remove these officers at will, because the early decision adopted that construction, and the laws have since uniformly sanctioned it. the law of , intended to be repealed by this bill, expressly affirms the power. i consider it, therefore, a settled point; settled by construction, settled by precedent, settled by the practice of the government, and settled by statute. at the same time, after considering the question again and again within the last six years, i am very willing to say, that, in my deliberate judgment, the original decision was wrong. i cannot but think that those who denied the power in had the best of the argument; and yet i will not say that i know myself so thoroughly as to affirm, that this opinion may not have been produced, in some measure, by that abuse of the power which has been passing before our eyes for several years. it is possible that this experience of the evil may have affected my view of the constitutional argument. it appears to me, however, after thorough and repeated and conscientious examination, that an erroneous interpretation was given to the constitution, in this respect, by the decision of the first congress; and i will ask leave to state, shortly, the reasons for that opinion, although there is nothing in this bill which proposes to disturb that decision. the constitution nowhere says one word of the power of removal from office, except in the case of conviction on impeachment. wherever the power exists, therefore, except in cases of impeachment, it must exist as a constructive or incidental power. if it exists in the president alone, it must exist in him because it is attached to something else, or included in something else, or results from something else, which is granted to the president. there is certainly no specific grant; it is a power, therefore, the existence of which, if proved at all, is to be proved by inference and argument. in the only instance in which the constitution speaks of removal from office, as i have already said, it speaks of it as the exercise of _judicial_ power; that is to say, it speaks of it as one part of the judgment of the senate, in cases of conviction on impeachment. no other mention is made, in the whole instrument, of any power of removal. whence, then, is the power derived to the president? it is usually said, by those who maintain its existence in the single hands of the president, that the power is derived from that clause of the constitution which says, "the executive power shall be vested in a president." the power of removal, they argue, is, in its nature, an executive power; and, as the executive power is thus vested in the president, the power of removal is necessarily included. it is true, that the constitution declares that the executive power shall be vested in the president; but the first question which then arises is, _what is executive power? what is the degree, and what are the limitations?_ executive power is not a thing so well known, and so accurately defined, as that the written constitution of a limited government can be supposed to have conferred it in the lump. what _is_ executive power? what are its boundaries? what model or example had the framers of the constitution in their minds, when they spoke of "executive power"? did they mean executive power as known in england, or as known in france, or as known in russia? did they take it as defined by montesquieu, by burlamaqui, or by de lolme? all these differ from one another as to the extent of the executive power of government. what, then, was intended by "the executive power"? now, sir, i think it perfectly plain and manifest, that, although the framers of the constitution meant to confer executive power on the president, yet they meant to define and limit that power, and to confer no more than they did thus define and limit. when they say it shall be vested in a president, they mean that one magistrate, to be called a president, shall hold the executive authority; but they mean, further, that he shall hold this authority according to the grants and limitations of the constitution itself. they did not intend, certainly, a sweeping gift of prerogative. they did not intend to grant to the president whatever might be construed, or supposed, or imagined to be executive power; and the proof that they meant no such thing is, that, immediately after using these general words, they proceed specifically to enumerate his several distinct and particular authorities; to fix and define them; to give the senate an essential control over the exercise of some of them, and to leave others uncontrolled. by the executive power conferred on the president, the constitution means no more than that portion which itself creates, and which it qualifies, limits, and circumscribes. a general survey of the frame of the constitution will satisfy us of this. that instrument goes all along upon the idea of dividing the powers of government, so far as practicable, into three great departments. it describes the powers and duties of these departments in an article allotted to each. as first in importance and dignity, it begins with the legislative department. the first article of the constitution, therefore, commences with the declaration, that "all legislative power herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states, which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives," the article goes on to prescribe the manner in which congress is to be constituted and organized, _and then proceeds to enumerate, specifically, the powers intended to be granted_; and adds the general clause, conferring such authority as may be necessary to carry granted powers into effect. now, sir, no man doubts that this is a limited legislature; that it possesses no powers but such as are granted by express words or necessary implication; and that it would be quite preposterous to insist that congress possesses any particular legislative power, merely because it is, in its nature, a legislative body, if no grant can be found for it in the constitution itself. then comes, sir, the second article, creating an executive power; and it declares, that "the executive power shall be vested in a president of the united states." after providing for the mode of choosing him, it immediately proceeds to enumerate, specifically, the powers which he shall possess and exercise, and the duties which he shall perform. i consider the language of this article, therefore, precisely analogous to that in which the legislature is created; that is to say, i understand the constitution as saying that "the executive power _herein granted_ shall be vested in a president of the united states." in like manner, the third article, or that which is intended to arrange the judicial system, begins by declaring that "the judicial power of the united states shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish." but these general words do not show _what extent_ of judicial power is vested in the courts of the united states. all that is left to be done, and is done, in the following sections, by express and well-guarded provisions. i think, therefore, sir, that very great caution is to be used, and the ground well considered, before we admit that the president derives any distinct and specific power from those general words which vest the executive authority in him. the constitution itself does not rest satisfied with these general words. it immediately goes into particulars, and carefully enumerates the several authorities which the president shall possess. the very first of the enumerated powers is the command of the army and navy. this, most certainly, is an executive power. and why is it particularly set down and expressed, if any power was intended to be granted under the general words? this would pass, if any thing would pass, under those words. but enumeration, specification, particularization, was evidently the design of the framers of the constitution, in this as in other parts of it. i do not, therefore, regard the declaration that the executive power shall be vested in a president as being any grant at all; any more than the declaration that the legislative power shall be vested in congress constitutes, by itself, a grant of such power. in the one case, as in the other, i think the object was to describe and denominate the department, which should hold, respectively, the legislative and the executive authority; very much as we see, in some of the state constitutions, that the several articles are headed with the titles "legislative power," "executive power," "judicial power"; and this entitling of the articles with the name of the power has never been supposed, of itself, to confer any authority whatever. it amounts to no more than naming the departments. if, then, the power of removal be admitted to be an executive power, still it must be sought for and found among the enumerated executive powers, or fairly implied from some one or more of them. it cannot be implied from the general words. the power of appointment was not left to be so implied; why, then, should the power of removal have been so left? they are both closely connected; one is indispensable to the other; why, then, was one carefully expressed, defined, and limited, and not one word said about the other? sir, i think the whole matter is sufficiently plain. nothing is said in the constitution about the power of removal, because it is not a separate and distinct power. it is part of the power of appointment, naturally going with it or necessarily resulting from it. the constitution or the laws may separate these powers, it is true, in a particular case, as is done in respect to the judges, who, though appointed by the president and senate, cannot be removed at the pleasure of either or of both. so a statute, in prescribing the tenure of any other office, may place the officer beyond the reach of the appointing power. but where no other tenure is prescribed, and officers hold their places at will, that will is necessarily the will of the appointing power; because the exercise of the power of appointment at once displaces such officers. the power of placing one man in office necessarily implies the power of turning another out. if one man be secretary of state, and another be appointed, the first goes out by the mere force of the appointment of the other, without any previous act of removal whatever. and this is the practice of the government, and has been, from the first. in all the removals which have been made, they have generally been effected simply by making other appointments. i cannot find a case to the contrary. there is no such thing as any distinct official act of removal. i have looked into the practice, and caused inquiries to be made in the departments, and i do not learn that any such proceeding is known as an entry or record of the removal of an officer from office; and the president could only act, in such cases, by causing some proper record or entry to be made, as proof of the fact of removal. i am aware that there have been some cases in which notice has been sent to persons in office that their services are, or will be, after a given day, dispensed with. these are usually cases in which the object is, not to inform the incumbent that he is _removed_, but to tell him that a successor either is, or by a day named will be, appointed. if there be any instances in which such notice is given without express reference to the appointment of a successor, they are few; and even in these, such reference must be implied; because in no case is there any distinct official act of removal, that i can find, unconnected with the act of appointment. at any rate, it is the usual practice, and has been from the first, to consider the appointment as producing the removal of the previous incumbent. when the president desires to remove a person from office, he sends a message to the senate nominating some other person. the message usually runs in this form: "i nominate a.b. to be collector of the customs, &c., in the place of c.d., removed." if the senate advise and consent to this nomination, c.d. is effectually out of office, and a.b. is in, in his place. the same effect would be produced, if the message should say nothing of any removal. suppose a.b. to be secretary of state, and the president to send us a message, saying merely, "i nominate c.d. to be secretary of state." if we confirm this nomination, c.d. becomes secretary of state, and a.b. is necessarily removed. i have gone into these details and particulars, sir, for the purpose of showing, that, not only in the nature of things, but also according to the practice of the government, the power of removal is incident to the power of appointment. it belongs to it, is attached to it, forms a part of it, or results from it. if this be true, the inference is manifest. if the power of removal, when not otherwise regulated by constitution or law, be part and parcel of the power of appointment, or a necessary incident to it, then whoever holds the power of appointment holds also the power of removal. but it is the president and the senate, and not the president alone, who hold the power of appointment; and therefore, according to the true construction of the constitution, it should be the president and senate, and not the president alone, who hold the power of removal. the decision of has been followed by a very strange and indefensible anomaly, showing that it does not rest on any just principle. the natural connection between the appointing power and the removing power has, as i have already stated, always led the president to bring about a removal by the process of a new appointment. this is quite efficient for his purpose, when the senate confirms the new nomination. one man is then turned out, and another put in. but the senate sometimes _rejects_ the new nomination; and what then becomes of the old incumbent? is he out of office, or is he still in? he has not been turned out by any exercise of the power of appointment, for no appointment has been made. that power has not been exercised. he has not been removed by any distinct and separate act of removal, for no such act has been performed, or attempted. is he still in, then, or is he out? where is he? in this dilemma, sir, those who maintain the power of removal as existing in the president alone are driven to what seems to me very near absurdity. the incumbent has not been removed by the appointing power, since the appointing power has not been exercised. he has not been removed by any distinct and independent act of removal, since no such act has been performed. they are forced to the necessity, therefore, of contending that the removal has been accomplished by the mere _nomination_ of a successor; so that the removing power is made incident, not to the appointing power, but to one part of it; that is, to the _nominating_ power. the nomination, not having been assented to by the senate, it is clear, has failed, as the first step in the process of appointment. but though thus rendered null and void in its main object, as the first process in making an appointment, it is held to be good and valid, nevertheless, to bring about that which _results from an appointment_; that is, the removal of the person actually in office. in other words, the nomination produces the consequences of an appointment, or some of them, though it be itself no appointment, and effect no appointment. this, sir, appears to me to be any thing but sound reasoning and just construction. but this is not all. the president has sometimes sent us a nomination to an office already filled, and, before we have acted upon it, has seen fit to withdraw it. what is the effect of such a nomination? if a _nomination_, merely as such, turns out the present incumbent, then he is out, let what will become afterwards of the nomination. but i believe the president has acted upon the idea that a nomination made, and at any time afterwards withdrawn, does _not_ remove the actual incumbent. sir, even this is not the end of the inconsistencies into which the prevailing doctrine has led. there have been cases in which nominations to offices already filled have come to the senate, remained here for weeks, or months, the incumbents all the while continuing to discharge their official duties, and relinquishing their offices only when the nominations of their successors have been confirmed, and commissions issued to them; so that, if a nomination be confirmed, the _nomination itself_ makes no removal; the removal then waits to be brought about by the _appointment_. but if the nomination be _rejected_, then the _nomination itself_, it is contended, has effected the removal. who can defend opinions which lead to such results? these reasons, sir, incline me strongly to the opinion, that, upon a just construction of the constitution, the power of removal is part of, or a necessary result from, the power of appointment, and, therefore, that it _ought to have been_ exercised by the senate concurrently with the president. the argument may be strengthened by various illustrations. the constitution declares that congress may vest the appointment of inferior officers in the president alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments; and congress has passed various acts providing for appointments, according to this regulation of the constitution. thus the supreme court, and other courts of the united states, have authority to appoint their clerks; heads of departments also appoint their own clerks, according to statute provisions; and it has never been doubted that these courts, and these heads of departments, may remove their clerks at pleasure, although nothing is said in the laws respecting such power of removal. now, it is evident that neither the courts nor the heads of departments acquire the right of removal under a general grant of executive power, for none such is made to them; nor upon the ground of any general injunction to see the laws executed, for no such general injunction is addressed to them. they nevertheless hold the power of removal, as all admit, and they must hold it, therefore, simply as incident to, or belonging to, the power of appointment. there is no other clause under which they can possibly claim it. again, let us suppose that the constitution had given to the president the power of appointment, without consulting the senate. suppose it had said, "the president shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers, judges of the supreme court, and all other officers of the united states." if the constitution had stood thus, the president would unquestionably have possessed the power of removal, where the tenure of office was not fixed; and no man, i imagine, would in that case have looked for the removing power either in that clause which says the executive authority shall be vested in the president, or in that other clause which makes it his duty to see the laws faithfully executed. everybody would have said, "the president possesses an uncontrolled power of appointment, and that necessarily carries with it an uncontrolled power of removal, unless some permanent tenure be given to the office by the constitution, or by law." and now, sir, let me state, and examine, the main argument, on which the decision of appears to rest it. the most plausible reasoning brought forward on that occasion may be fairly stated thus: "the executive power is vested in the president; this is the general rule of the constitution. the association of the senate with the president in exercising a particular function belonging to the executive power, is an exception to this general rule, and exceptions to general rules are to be taken strictly; therefore, though the senate partakes of the appointing power, by express provision, yet, as nothing is said of its participation in the removing power, such participation is to be excluded." the error of this argument, if i may venture to call it so, considering who used it,[ ] lies in this. it supposes the power of removal to be held by the president under the general grant of executive power. now, it is certain that the power of appointment is not held under that general grant, because it is particularly provided for, and is conferred, in express terms, on the president and senate. if, therefore, the power of removal be a natural appendage to the power of appointment, then it is not conferred by the general words granting executive power to the president, but is conferred by the special clause which gives the appointing power to the president and senate. so that the spirit of the very rule on which the argument of , as i have stated it, relies, appears to me to produce a directly opposite result; for, if exceptions to a general rule are to be taken strictly, when expressed, it is still more clear, when they are not expressed at all, that they are not to be implied except on evident and clear grounds; and as the general power of appointment is confessedly given to the president and senate, no exception is to be implied in favor of one part of that general power, namely, the removing part, unless for some obvious and irresistible reason. in other words, this argument which i am answering is not sound in its premises, and therefore not sound in its conclusion, if the grant of the power of appointment does naturally include also the power of removal, when this last power is not otherwise expressly provided for; because, if the power of removal belongs to the power of appointment, or necessarily follows it, then it has gone with it into the hands of the president and senate; and the president does not hold it alone, as an implication or inference from the grant to him of general executive powers. the true application of that rule of construction, thus relied on, would present the argument, i think, in this form: "the appointing power is vested in the president and senate; this is the general rule of the constitution. the removing power is part of the appointing power; it cannot be separated from the rest, but by supposing that an exception was intended; but all exceptions to general rules are to be taken strictly, even when expressed; and, for a much stronger reason, they are not to be implied, when not expressed, unless inevitable necessity of construction requires it." on the whole, sir, with the diffidence which becomes one who is reviewing the opinions of some of the ablest and wisest men of the age, i must still express my own conviction, that the decision of congress in , which separated the power of removal from the power of appointment, was founded on an erroneous construction of the constitution, and that it has led to great inconsistencies, as well as to great abuses, in the subsequent, and especially in the more recent, history of the government. much has been said now, and much was said formerly, about the inconvenience of denying this power to the president alone. i agree that an argument drawn from this source may have weight, in a doubtful case; but it is not to be permitted that we shall presume the existence of a power merely because we think it would be convenient. nor is there, i think, any such glaring, striking, or certain inconvenience as has been suggested. sudden removals from office are seldom necessary; we see how seldom, by reference to the practice of the government under all administrations which preceded the present. and if we look back over the removals which have been made in the last six years, there is no man who can maintain that there is one case in a hundred in which the country would have suffered the least inconvenience if no removal had been made without the consent of the senate. party might have felt the inconvenience, but the country never. many removals have been made (by new appointments) during the session of the senate; and if there has occurred one single case, in the whole six years, in which the public convenience required the removal of an officer in the recess, such case has escaped my recollection. besides, it is worthy of being remembered, when we are seeking for the true intent of the constitution on this subject, that there is reason to suppose that its framers expected the senate would be in session a much larger part of the year than the house of representatives, so that its concurrence could generally be had, at once, on any question of appointment or removal. but this argument, drawn from the supposed inconvenience of denying an absolute power of removal to the president, suggests still another view of the question. the argument asserts, that it must have been the intention of the framers of the constitution to confer the power on the president, for the sake of convenience, and as an absolutely necessary power in his hands. why, then, did they leave their intent doubtful? _why did they not confer the power in express terms?_ why were they thus totally silent on a point of so much importance? seeing that the removing power naturally belongs to the appointing power; seeing that, in other cases, in the same constitution, its framers have left the one with the consequence of drawing the other after it,--if, in this instance, they meant to do what was uncommon and extraordinary, that, is to say, if they meant to separate and divorce the two powers, why did they not say so? why did they not express their meaning in plain words? why should they take up the appointing power, and carefully define it, limit it, and restrain it, and yet leave to vague inference and loose construction an equally important power, which all must admit to be closely connected with it, if not a part of it? if others can account for all this silence respecting the removing power, upon any other ground than that the framers of the constitution regarded both powers as one, and supposed they had provided for them together, i confess i cannot. i have the clearest conviction, that they looked to no other mode of displacing an officer than by impeachment, or by the regular appointment of another person to the same place. but, sir, whether the decision of were right or wrong, the bill before us applies to the actually existing state of things. it recognizes the president's power of removal, in express terms, as it has been practically exercised, independently of the senate. the present bill does not disturb the power; but i wish it not to be understood that the power is, even now, beyond the reach of legislation. i believe it to be within the just power of congress to reverse the decision of , and i mean to hold myself at liberty to act, hereafter, upon that question, as i shall think the safety of the government and of the constitution may require. the present bill, however, proceeds upon the admission that the power does at present exist. its words are:-- "sec. . _and be it further enacted_, that, in all nominations made by the president to the senate, to fill vacancies occasioned by the exercise of the president's power to remove the said officers mentioned in the second section of this act, the fact of the removal shall be stated to the senate, at the same time that the nomination is made, with a statement of the reasons for which such officer may have been removed." in my opinion, this provision is entirely constitutional, and highly expedient. the regulation of the tenure of office is a common exercise of legislative authority, and the power of congress in this particular is not at all restrained or limited by any thing contained in the constitution, except in regard to judicial officers. all the rest is left to the ordinary discretion of the legislature. congress may give to offices which it creates (except those of judges) what duration it pleases. when the office is created, and is to be filled, the president is to nominate the candidate to fill it; but when he comes into the office, he comes into it upon the conditions and restrictions which the law may have attached to it. if congress were to declare by law that the attorney-general, or the secretary of state, should hold his office during good behavior, i am not aware of any ground on which such a law could be held unconstitutional. a provision of that kind in regard to such officers might be unwise, but i do not perceive that it would transcend the power of congress. if the constitution had not prescribed the tenure of judicial office, congress might have thought it expedient to give the judges just such a tenure as the constitution has itself provided; that is to say, a right to hold during good behavior; and i am of opinion that such a law would have been perfectly constitutional. it is by law, in england, that the judges are made independent of the removing power of the crown. i do not think that the constitution, by giving the power of appointment, or the power both of appointment and removal, to the president and senate, intended to impose any restraint on the legislature, in regard to its authority of regulating the duties, powers, duration, or responsibility of office. i agree, that congress ought not to do any thing which shall essentially impair that right of nomination and appointment of certain officers, such as ministers, judges, &c., which the constitution has vested in the president and senate. but while the power of nomination and appointment is left fairly where the constitution has placed it, i think the whole field of regulation is open to legislative discretion. if a law were to pass, declaring that district attorneys, or collectors of customs, should hold their offices four years, unless removed on conviction for misbehavior, no one could doubt its constitutional validity; because the legislature is naturally competent to prescribe the tenure of office. and is a reasonable check on the power of removal any thing more than a qualification of the tenure of office? let it be always remembered, that the president's removing power, as now exercised, is claimed and held under the general clause vesting in him the executive authority. it is implied, or inferred, from that clause alone. now, if it is properly derived from that source, since the constitution does not say how it shall be limited, how defined, or how carried into effect, it seems especially proper for congress, under the general provision of the constitution which gives it authority to pass all laws necessary to carry into effect the powers conferred on any department, to regulate the subject of removal. and the regulation here required is of the gentlest kind. it only provides that the president shall make known to the senate his reasons for removal of officers of this description, when he does see fit to remove them. it might, i think, very justly go farther. it might, and perhaps it ought, to prescribe the form of removal, and the proof of the fact. it might, i also think, declare that the president should only suspend officers, at pleasure, till the next meeting of the senate, according to the amendment suggested by the honorable member from kentucky; and, if the present practice cannot be otherwise checked, this provision, in my opinion, ought hereafter to be adopted. but i am content with the slightest degree of restraint which may be sufficient to arrest the totally unnecessary, unreasonable, and dangerous exercise of the power of removal. i desire only, for the present at least, that, when the president turns a man out of office, he should give his reasons for it to the senate, when he nominates another person to fill the place. let him give these reasons, and stand on them. if they are fair and honest, he need have no fear in stating them. it is not to invite any trial; it is not to give the removed officer an opportunity of defence; it is not to excite controversy and debate; it is simply that the senate, and ultimately the public, may know the grounds of removal. i deem this degree of regulation, at least, necessary; unless we are willing to submit all these officers to an absolute and a perfectly irresponsible removing power; a power which, as recently exercised, tends to turn the whole body of public officers into partisans, dependants, favorites, sycophants, and man-worshippers. mr. president, without pursuing the discussion further, i will detain the senate only while i recapitulate the opinions which i have expressed; because i am far less desirous of influencing the judgment of others, than of making clear the grounds of my own judgment. i think, then, sir, that the power of appointment naturally and necessarily includes the power of removal where no limitation is expressed, nor any tenure but that at will declared. the power of appointment being conferred on the president _and senate_, i think the power of removal went along with it, and should have been regarded as a part of it, and exercised by the same hands. i think, consequently, that the decision of , which _implied_ a power of removal separate from the appointing power, was erroneous. but i think the decision of has been established by practice, and recognized by subsequent laws, as the settled construction of the constitution, and that it is our duty to act upon the case accordingly, for the present; without admitting that congress may not, hereafter, if necessity shall require it, reverse the decision of . i think the legislature possesses the power of regulating the condition, duration, qualification, and tenure of office, in all cases where the constitution has made no express provision on the subject. i am, therefore, of opinion, that it is competent for congress to declare by law, as one qualification of the tenure of office, that the incumbent shall remain in place till the president shall remove him, for reasons to be stated to the senate. and i am of opinion that this qualification, mild and gentle as it is, will have _some_ effect in arresting the evils which beset the progress of the government, and seriously threaten its future prosperity. these are the reasons for which i give my support to this bill. * * * * * note. this speech is singular among the speeches of mr. webster, as it exhibits him as a "strict-constructionist," and as a master of that peculiar kind of deductive reasoning which is commonly considered the special distinction of his great antagonist, mr. calhoun. in subtilty and refinement of argument it is fully the match of most of mr. calhoun's elaborate disquisitions. at the time of its delivery it excited the almost savage ire of john quincy adams, as will be seen by reference to the latter's "diary." it was in connection with this speech that mr. adams speaks of "the rotten heart of daniel webster." how such a purely intellectual feat as this, one so entirely passionless and impersonal, should be referred to rottenness of heart, is one of the unexplained mysteries of the operations of mr. adams's understanding, when that understanding was misled by personal antipathy. [footnote : mr. madison. see the discussion in gales and seaton's debates in congress, vol. i. p. _et seq._] on the loss of the fortification bill in . a speech delivered in the senate of the united states, on the th of january, , on mr. benton's resolutions for appropriating the surplus revenue to national defence. it is not my purpose, mr. president, to make any remark on the state of our affairs with france. the time for that discussion has not come, and i wait. we are in daily expectation of a communication from the president, which will give us light; and we are authorized to expect a recommendation by him of such measures as he thinks it may be necessary and proper for congress to adopt. i do not anticipate him. in this most important and delicate business, it is the proper duty of the executive to go forward, and i, for one, do not intend either to be drawn or driven into the lead. when official information shall be before us, and when measures shall be recommended upon the proper responsibility, i shall endeavor to form the best judgment i can, and shall act according to its dictates. i rise, now, for another purpose. this resolution has drawn on a debate upon the general conduct of the senate during the last session of congress, and especially in regard to the proposed grant of the three millions to the president on the last night of the session. my main object is to tell the story of this transaction, and to exhibit the conduct of the senate fairly to the public view. i owe this duty to the senate. i owe it to the committee with which i am connected; and although whatever is personal to an individual is generally of too little importance to be made the subject of much remark, i hope i may be permitted to say a few words in defence of my own reputation, in reference to a matter which has been greatly misrepresented. this vote for the three millions was proposed by the house of representatives as an amendment to the fortification bill; and the loss of that bill, three millions and all, is the charge which has been made upon the senate, sounded over all the land, and now again renewed. i propose to give the true history of this bill, its origin, its progress, and its loss. before attempting that, however, let me remark, for it is worthy to be remarked and remembered, that the business brought before the senate last session, important and various as it was, and both public and private, was all gone through with most uncommon despatch and promptitude. no session has witnessed a more complete clearing off and finishing of the subjects before us. the communications from the other house, whether bills or whatever else, were especially attended to in a proper season, and with that ready respect which is due from one house to the other. i recollect nothing of any importance which came to us from the house of representatives, which was neglected, overlooked, or disregarded by the senate. on the other hand, it was the misfortune of the senate, and, as i think, the misfortune of the country, that, owing to the state of business in the house of representatives towards the close of the session, several measures which had been matured in the senate, and passed into bills, did not receive attention, so as to be either agreed to or rejected, in the other branch of the legislature. they fell, of course, by the termination of the session. among these measures may be mentioned the following, viz.:-- the post-office reform bill, which passed the senate _unanimously_, and of the necessity for which the whole country is certainly now most abundantly satisfied; the custom-house regulations bill, which also passed nearly unanimously, after a very laborious preparation by the committee on commerce, and a full discussion in the senate; the judiciary bill, passed here by a majority of thirty-one to five, and which has again already passed the senate at this session with only a single dissenting vote; the bill indemnifying claimants for french spoliations before ; the bill regulating the deposit of the public money in the deposit banks; the bill respecting the tenure of certain offices, and the power of removal from office; which has now again been passed to be engrossed, in the senate, by a decided majority. all these important measures, matured and passed in the senate in the course of the session, and many others of less importance, were sent to the house of representatives, and we never heard any thing more from them. they there found their graves. it is worthy of being remarked, also, that the attendance of members of the senate was remarkably full, particularly toward the end of the session. on the last day, every senator was in his place till very near the hour of adjournment, as the journal will show. we had no breaking up for want of a quorum; no delay, no calls of the senate; nothing which was made necessary by the negligence or inattention of the members of this body. on the vote of the three millions of dollars, which was taken at about eight o'clock in the evening, forty-eight votes were given, every member of the senate being in his place and answering to his name. this is an instance of punctuality, diligence, and labor, continued to the very end of an arduous session, wholly without example or parallel. the senate, then, sir, must stand, in the judgment of every man, fully acquitted of all remissness, all negligence, all inattention, amidst the fatigue and exhaustion of the closing hours of congress. nothing passed unheeded, nothing was overlooked, nothing forgotten, and nothing slighted. and now, sir, i would proceed immediately to give the history of the fortification bill, if it were not necessary, as introductory to that history, and as showing the circumstances under which the senate was called on to transact the public business, first to refer to another bill which was before us, and to the proceedings which were had upon it. it is well known, sir, that the annual appropriation bills always originate in the house of representatives. this is so much a matter of course, that no one ever looks to see such a bill first brought forward in the senate. it is also well known, sir, that it has been usual, heretofore, to make the annual appropriations for the military academy at west point in the general bill which provides for the pay and support of the army. but last year the army bill did not contain any appropriation whatever for the support of west point. i took notice of this singular omission when the bill was before the senate, but presumed, and indeed understood, that the house would send us a separate bill for the military academy. the army bill, therefore, passed; but no bill for the academy at west point appeared. we waited for it from day to day, and from week to week, but waited in vain. at length, the time for sending bills from one house to the other, according to the joint rules of the two houses, expired, and no bill had made its appearance for the support of the military academy. these joint rules, as is well known, are sometimes suspended on the application of one house to the other, in favor of particular bills, whose progress has been unexpectedly delayed, but which the public interest requires to be passed. but the house of representatives sent us no request to suspend the rules in favor of a bill for the support of the military academy, nor made any other proposition to save the institution from immediate dissolution. notwithstanding all the talk about a war, and the necessity of a vote for the three millions, the military academy, an institution cherished so long, and at so much expense, was on the very point of being entirely broken up. now it so happened, sir, that at this time there was another appropriation bill which had come from the house of representatives, and was before the committee on finance here. this bill was entitled "an act making appropriations for the civil and diplomatic expenses of the government for the year ." in this state of things, several members of the house of representatives applied to the committee, and besought us to save the military academy by annexing the necessary appropriations for its support to the bill for civil and diplomatic service. we spoke to them, in reply, of the unfitness, the irregularity, the incongruity, of this forced union of such dissimilar subjects; but they told us it was a case of absolute necessity, and that, without resorting to this mode, the appropriation could not get through. we acquiesced, sir, in these suggestions. we went out of our way. we agreed to do an extraordinary and an irregular thing, in order to save the public business from miscarriage. by direction of the committee, i moved the senate to add an appropriation for the military academy to the bill for defraying civil and diplomatic expenses. the bill was so amended; and in this form the appropriation was finally made. but this was not all. this bill for the civil and diplomatic service, being thus amended by tacking the military academy to it, was sent back by us to the house of representatives, where its length of tail was to be still much further increased. that house had before it several subjects for provision, and for appropriation, upon which it had not passed any bill before the time for passing bills to be sent to the senate had elapsed. i was anxious that these things should, in some way, be provided for; and when the diplomatic bill came back, drawing the military academy after it, it was thought prudent to attach to it several of these other provisions. there were propositions to pave the streets in the city of washington, to repair the capitol, and various other things, which it was necessary to provide for; and they, therefore, were put into the same bill, by way of amendment to an amendment; that is to say, mr. president, we had been prevailed on to amend their bill for defraying the salary of our ministers abroad, by adding an appropriation for the military academy, and they proposed to amend this our amendment by adding matter as germane to it as it was itself to the original bill. there was also the president's gardener. his salary was unprovided for; and there was no way of remedying this important omission, but by giving him place in the diplomatic service bill, among _chargés d'affaires_, envoys extraordinary, and ministers plenipotentiary. in and among these ranks, therefore, he was formally introduced by the amendment of the house, and there he now stands, as you will readily see by turning to the law. sir, i have not the pleasure to know this useful person; but should i see him, some morning, overlooking the workmen in the lawns, walks, copses, and parterres which adorn the grounds around the president's residence, considering the company into which we have introduced him, i should expect to see, at least, a small diplomatic button on his working jacket. when these amendments came from the house, and were read at our table, though they caused a smile, they were yet adopted, and the law passed, almost with the rapidity of a comet, and with something like the same length of tail. now, sir, not one of these irregularities or incongruities, no part of this jumbling together of distinct and different subjects, was in the slightest degree occasioned by any thing done, or omitted to be done, on the part of the senate. their proceedings were all regular; their decision was prompt, their despatch of the public business correct and reasonable. there was nothing of disorganization, nothing of procrastination, nothing evincive of a temper to embarrass or obstruct the public business. if the history which i have now truly given shows that one thing was amended by another, which had no sort of connection with it; that unusual expedients were resorted to; and that the laws, instead of arrangement and symmetry, exhibit anomaly, confusion, and the most grotesque associations, it is nevertheless true, that no part of all this was made necessary by us. we deviated from the accustomed modes of legislation only when we were supplicated to do so, in order to supply bald and glaring deficiencies in measures which were before us. but now, mr. president, let me come to the fortification bill, the lost bill, which not only now, but on a graver occasion, has been lamented like the lost pleiad. this bill, sir, came from the house of representatives to the senate in the usual way, and was referred to the committee on finance. its appropriations were not large. indeed, they appeared to the committee to be quite too small. it struck a majority of the committee at once, that there were several fortifications on the coast, either not provided for at all, or not adequately provided for, by this bill. the whole amount of its appropriations was four hundred or four hundred and thirty thousand dollars. it contained no grant of three millions, and if the senate had passed it the very day it came from the house, not only would there have been no appropriation of the three millions, but, sir, none of these other sums which the senate did insert in the bill. others besides ourselves saw the deficiencies of this bill. we had communications with and from the departments, and we inserted in the bill every thing which any department recommended to us. we took care to be sure that nothing else was coming. and we then reported the bill to the senate with our proposed amendments. among these amendments, there was a sum of $ , for castle island in boston harbor, $ , for defences in maryland, and so forth. these amendments were agreed to by the senate, and one or two others added, on the motion of members; and the bill, as thus amended, was returned to the house. and now, sir, it becomes important to ask, when was this bill, thus amended, returned to the house of representatives? was it unduly detained here, so that the house was obliged afterwards to act upon it suddenly? this question is material to be asked, and material to be answered, too, and the journal does satisfactorily answer it; for it appears by the journal that the bill was returned to the house of representatives on tuesday, the th of february, _one whole week before the close of the session_. and from tuesday, the th of february, to tuesday, the d day of march, we heard not one word from this bill. tuesday, the d day of march, was, of course, the last day of the session. we assembled here at ten or eleven o'clock in the morning of that day, and sat until three in the afternoon, and still we were not informed whether the house had finally passed the bill. as it was an important matter, and belonged to that part of the public business which usually receives particular attention from the committee on finance, i bore the subject in my mind, and felt some solicitude about it, seeing that the session was drawing so near to a close. i took it for granted, however, as i had not heard any thing to the contrary, that the amendments of the senate would not be objected to, and that, when a convenient time should arrive for taking up the bill in the house, it would be passed at once into a law, and we should hear no more about it. not the slightest intimation was given, either that the executive wished for any larger appropriation, or that it was intended in the house to insert such larger appropriation. not a syllable escaped from anybody, and came to our knowledge, that any further alteration whatever was intended in the bill. at three o'clock in the afternoon of the d of march, the senate took its recess, as is usual in that period of the session, until five o'clock. at five o'clock we again assembled, and proceeded with the business of the senate until eight o'clock in the evening; and at eight o'clock in the evening, and not before, the clerk of the house appeared at our door, and announced that the house of representatives had _disagreed_ to one of the senate's amendments, _agreed_ to others; and to two of those amendments, namely, the fourth and fifth, it had agreed, _with an amendment of its own_. now, sir, these fourth and fifth amendments of ours were, one, a vote of $ , for castle island in boston harbor, and the other, a vote of $ , for certain defences in maryland. and what, sir, was the addition which the house of representatives proposed to make, by way of "_amendment_" to a vote of $ , for repairing the works in boston harbor? here, sir, it is:-- "_and be it further enacted_, that the sum of three millions of dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be expended, in whole or in part, under the direction of the president of the united states, for the military and naval service, including fortifications and ordnance, and the increase of the navy: _provided_, such expenditures shall be rendered necessary for the defence of the country prior to the next meeting of congress." this proposition, sir, was thus unexpectedly and suddenly put to us, at eight o'clock in the evening of the last day of the session. unusual, unprecedented, extraordinary, as it obviously is, on the face of it, the manner of presenting it was still more extraordinary. the president had asked for no such grant of money; no department had recommended it; no estimate had suggested it; no reason whatever was given for it. no emergency had happened, and nothing new had occurred; every thing known to the administration, at that hour, respecting our foreign relations, had certainly been known to it for days and weeks. with what propriety, then, could the senate be called on to sanction a proceeding so entirely irregular and anomalous? sir, i recollect the occurrences of the moment very well, and i remember the impression which this vote of the house seemed to make all round the senate. we had just come out of executive session; the doors were but just opened; and i hardly remember that there was a single spectator in the hall or the galleries. i had been at the clerk's table, and had not reached my seat, when the message was read. all the senators were in the chamber. i heard the message, certainly with great surprise and astonishment; and i immediately moved the senate to _disagree_ to this vote of the house. my relation to the subject, in consequence of my connection with the committee on finance, made it my duty to propose some course, and i had not a moment's doubt or hesitation what that course ought to be. i took upon myself, then, sir, the responsibility of moving that the senate should disagree to this vote, and i now acknowledge that responsibility. it might be presumptuous to say that i took a leading part, but i certainly took an early part, a decided part, and an earnest part, in rejecting this broad grant of three millions of dollars, without limitation of purpose or specification of object, called for by no recommendation, founded on no estimate, made necessary by no state of things which was known to us. certainly, sir, i took a part in its rejection; and i stand here, in my place in the senate, to-day, ready to defend the part so taken by me; or, rather, sir, i disclaim all defence, and all occasion of defence, and i assert it as meritorious to have been among those who arrested, at the earliest moment, this extraordinary departure from all settled usage, and, as i think, from plain constitutional injunction,--this indefinite voting of a vast sum of money to mere executive discretion, without limit assigned, without object specified, without reason given, and without the least control. sir, i am told, that, in opposing this grant, i spoke with warmth, and i suppose i may have done so. if i did, it was a warmth springing from as honest a conviction of duty as ever influenced a public man. it was spontaneous, unaffected, sincere. there had been among us, sir, no consultation, no concert. there could have been none. between the reading of the message and my motion to disagree, there was not time enough for any two members of the senate to exchange five words on the subject. the proposition was sudden and perfectly unexpected. i resisted it, as irregular, as dangerous in itself, and dangerous in its precedent; as wholly unnecessary, and as violating the plain intention, if not the express words, of the constitution. before the senate, then, i avowed, and before the country i now avow, my part in this opposition. whatsoever is to fall on those who sanctioned it, of that let me have my full share. the senate, sir, rejected this grant by a vote of twenty-nine against nineteen. those twenty-nine names are on the journal; and whensoever the expunging process may commence, or how far soever it may be carried, i pray it, in mercy, not to erase mine from that record. i beseech it, in its sparing goodness, to leave me that proof of attachment to duty and to principle. it may draw around it, over it, or through it, black lines, or red lines, or any lines; it may mark it in any way which either the most prostrate and fantastical spirit of _man-worship_, or the most ingenious and elaborate study of self-degradation, may devise, if only it will leave it so that those who inherit my blood, or who may hereafter care for my reputation, shall be able to behold it where it now stands. the house, sir, insisted on this amendment. the senate adhered to its disagreement; the house asked a conference, to which request the senate immediately acceded. the committee of conference met, and in a very short time came to an agreement. they agreed to recommend to their respective houses, as a substitute for the vote proposed by the house, the following:-- "as an additional appropriation for arming the fortifications of the united states, three hundred thousand dollars." "as an additional appropriation for the repairs and equipment of ships of war of the united states, five hundred thousand dollars." i immediately reported this agreement of the committee of conference to the senate; but, inasmuch as the bill was in the house of representatives, the senate could not act further on the matter until the house should first have considered the report of the committee, decided thereon, and sent us the bill. i did not myself take any note of the particular hour of this part of the transaction. the honorable member from virginia[ ] says he looked at his watch at the time, and he knows that i had come from the conference, and was in my seat, at a quarter past eleven. i have no reason to think that he is under any mistake on this particular. he says it so happened that he had occasion to take notice of the hour, and well remembers it. it could not well have been later than this, as any one will be satisfied who will look at our journals, public and executive, and see what a mass of business was despatched after i came from the committee, and before the adjournment of the senate. having made the report, sir, i had no doubt that both houses would concur in the result of the conference, and looked every moment for the officer of the house bringing the bill. he did not come, however, and i pretty soon learned that there was doubt whether the committee on the part of the house would report to the house the agreement of the conferees. at first, i did not at all credit this; but was confirmed by one communication after another, until i was obliged to think it true. seeing that the bill was thus in danger of being lost, and intending at any rate that no blame should justly attach to the senate, i immediately moved the following resolution:-- "_resolved_, that a message be sent to the honorable the house of representatives, respectfully to remind the house of the report of the committee of conference appointed on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the amendment of the house to the amendment of the senate to the bill respecting the fortifications of the united states." you recollect this resolution, sir, having, as i well remember, taken some part on the occasion.[ ] this resolution was promptly passed; the secretary carried it to the house, and delivered it. what was done in the house on the receipt of this message now appears from the printed journal. i have no wish to comment on the proceedings there recorded; all may read them, and each be able to form his own opinion. suffice it to say, that the house of representatives, having then possession of the bill, chose to retain that possession, and never acted on the report of the committee of conference. the bill, therefore, was lost. it was lost in the house of representatives. it died there, and there its remains are to be found. no opportunity was given to the members of the house to decide whether they would agree to the report of the committee or not. from a quarter past eleven, when the report was agreed to, until two or three o'clock in the morning, the house remained in session. if at any time there was not a quorum of members present, the attendance of a quorum, we are to presume, might have been commanded, as there was undoubtedly a great majority of members still in the city. but, sir, there is one other transaction of the evening which i now feel bound to state, because i think it quite important on several accounts, that it should be known. a nomination was pending before the senate for a judge of the supreme court. in the course of the sitting, that nomination was called up, and, on motion, was indefinitely postponed. in other words, it was rejected; for an indefinite postponement is a rejection. the office, of course, remained vacant, and the nomination of another person to fill it became necessary. the president of the united states was then in the capitol, as is usual on the evening of the last day of the session, in the chamber assigned to him, and with the heads of departments around him. when nominations are rejected under these circumstances, it has been usual for the president immediately to transmit a new nomination to the senate; otherwise the office must remain vacant till the next session, as the vacancy in such case has not happened in the recess of congress. the vote of the senate, indefinitely postponing this nomination, was carried to the president's room by the secretary of the senate. the president told the secretary that it was more than an hour past twelve o'clock, and that he could receive no further communications from the senate, and immediately after, as i have understood, left the capitol. the secretary brought back the paper containing the certified copy of the vote of the senate, and indorsed thereon the substance of the president's answer, and also added, that, according to his own watch, it was quarter past one o'clock. there are two views, sir, in which this occurrence may well deserve to be noticed. one is as to the connection which it may perhaps have had with the loss of the fortification bill; the other is as to its general importance, as introducing a new rule, or a new practice, respecting the intercourse between the president and the two houses of congress on the last day of the session. on the first point, i shall only observe that the fact of the president's having declined to receive this communication from the senate, and of his having left the capitol, was immediately known in the house of representatives. it was quite obvious, that, if he could not receive a communication from the senate, neither could he receive a bill from the house of representatives for his signature. it was equally obvious, that, if, under these circumstances, the house of representatives should agree to the report of the committee of conference, so that the bill should pass, it must, nevertheless, fail to become a law for want of the president's signature; and that, in that case, the blame of losing the bill, on whomsoever else it might fall, could not be laid upon the senate. on the more general point, i must say, sir, that this decision of the president, not to hold communication with the houses of congress after twelve o'clock at night, on the d of march, is quite new. no such objection has ever been made before by any president. no one of them has ever declined communicating with either house at any time during the continuance of its session on that day. all presidents heretofore have left with the houses themselves to fix their hour of adjournment, and to bring their session for the day to a close, whenever they saw fit. it is notorious, in point of fact, that nothing is more common than for both houses to sit later than twelve o'clock, for the purpose of completing measures which are in the last stages of their progress. amendments are proposed and agreed to, bills passed, enrolled bills signed by the presiding officers, and other important legislative acts performed, often at two or three o'clock in the morning. all this is very well known to gentlemen who have been for any considerable time members of congress. and all presidents have signed bills, and have also made nominations to the senate, without objection as to time, whenever bills have been presented for signature, or whenever it became necessary to make nominations to the senate, at any time during the session of the respective houses on that day. and all this, sir, i suppose to be perfectly right, correct, and legal. there is no clause of the constitution, nor is there any law, which declares that the term of office of members of the house of representatives shall expire at twelve o'clock at night on the d of march. they are to hold for two years, but the precise hour for the commencement of that term of two years is nowhere fixed by constitutional or legal provision. it has been established by usage and by inference, and very properly established, that, since the first congress commenced its existence on the first wednesday in march, , which happened to be the fourth day of the month, therefore the th of march is the day of the commencement of each successive term; but no hour is fixed by law or practice. the true rule is, as i think, most undoubtedly, that the session held on the last day constitutes the last day for all legislative and legal purposes. while the session begun on that day continues, the day itself continues, according to the established practice both of legislative and judicial bodies. this could not well be otherwise. if the precise moment of actual time were to settle such a matter, it would be material to ask, who shall settle the time? shall it be done by public authority, or shall every man observe the tick of his own watch? if absolute time is to furnish a precise rule, the excess of a minute, it is obvious, would be as fatal as the excess of an hour. sir, no bodies, judicial or legislative, have ever been so hypercritical, so astute to no purpose, so much more nice than wise, as to govern themselves by any such ideas. the session for the day, at whatever hour it commences, or at whatever hour it breaks up, is the legislative day. every thing has reference to the commencement of that diurnal session. for instance, this is the th day of january; we assembled here to-day at twelve o'clock; our journal is dated january th, and if we should remain here until five o'clock to-morrow morning (and the senate has sometimes sat so late), our proceedings would still bear date of the th of january; they would be so stated upon the journal, and the journal is a record, and is a conclusive record, so far as respects the proceedings of the body. it is so in judicial proceedings. if a man were on trial for his life, at a late hour on the last day allowed by law for the holding of the court, and the jury should acquit him, but happened to remain so long in deliberation that they did not bring in their verdict till after twelve o'clock, is it all to be held for naught, and the man to be tried over again? are all verdicts, judgments, and orders of courts null and void, if made after midnight on the day which the law prescribes as the last day? it would be easy to show by authority, if authority could be wanted for a thing the reason of which is so clear, that the day lasts while the daily session lasts. when the court or the legislative body adjourns for that day, the day is over, and not before. i am told, indeed, sir, that it is true that, on this same d day of march last, not only were other things transacted, but that the bill for the repair of the cumberland road, an important and much litigated measure, actually received the signature of our presiding officer after twelve o'clock, was then sent to the president, and signed by him. i do not affirm this, because i took no notice of the time, or do not remember it if i did; but i have heard the matter so stated. i see no reason, sir, for the introduction of this new practice; no principle on which it can be justified, no necessity for it, no propriety in it. as yet, it has been applied only to the president's intercourse with the senate. certainly it is equally applicable to his intercourse with both houses in legislative matters; and if it is to prevail hereafter, it is of much importance that it should be known. the president of the united states, sir, has alluded to this loss of the fortification bill in his message at the opening of the session, and he has alluded, also, in the same message, to the rejection of the vote of the three millions. on the first point, that is, the loss of the whole bill, and the causes of that loss, this is his language: "much loss and inconvenience have been experienced in consequence of the failure of the bill containing the ordinary appropriations for fortifications, which passed one branch of the national legislature at the last session, but was lost in the other." if the president intended to say that the bill, having originated in the house of representatives, passed the senate, and was yet afterwards lost in the house of representatives, he was entirely correct. but he has been wholly misinformed, if he intended to state that the bill, having passed the house, was lost in the senate. as i have already stated, the bill was lost in the house of representatives. it drew its last breath there. that house never let go its hold on it after the report of the committee of conference. but it held it, it retained it, and of course it died in its possession when the house adjourned. it is to be regretted that the president should have been misinformed in a matter of this kind, when the slightest reference to the journals of the two houses would have exhibited the correct history of the transaction. i recur again, mr. president, to the proposed grant of the three millions, for the purpose of stating somewhat more distinctly the true grounds of objection to that grant. these grounds of objection were two; the first was, that no such appropriation had been recommended by the president, or any of the departments. and what made this ground the stronger was, that the proposed grant was defended, so far as it was defended at all, upon an alleged necessity, growing out of our foreign relations. the foreign relations of the country are intrusted by the constitution to the lead and management of the executive government. the president not only is supposed to be, but usually is, much better informed on these interesting subjects than the houses of congress. if there be danger of a rupture with a foreign state, he sees it soonest. all our ministers and agents abroad are but so many eyes, and ears, and organs to communicate to him whatsoever occurs in foreign places, and to keep him well advised of all which may concern the interests of the united states. there is an especial propriety, therefore, that, in this branch of the public service, congress should always be able to avail itself of the distinct opinions and recommendations of the president. the two houses, and especially the house of representatives, are the natural guardians of the people's money. they are to keep it sacred, and to use it discreetly. they are not at liberty to spend it where it is not needed, nor to offer it for any purpose till a reasonable occasion for the expenditure be shown. now, in this case, i repeat again, the president had sent us no recommendation for any such appropriation; no department had recommended it; no estimate had contained it; in the whole history of the session, from the morning of the first day, down to eight o'clock in the evening of the last day, not one syllable had been said to us, not one hint suggested, showing that the president deemed any such measure either necessary or proper. i state this strongly, sir, but i state it truly. i state the matter as it is; and i wish to draw the attention of the senate and of the country strongly to this part of the case. i say again, therefore, that, when this vote for the three millions was proposed to the senate, there was nothing before us showing that the president recommended any such appropriation. you very well know, sir, that this objection was stated as soon as the message from the house was read. we all well remember that this was the very point put forth by the honorable member from tennessee,[ ] as being, if i may say so, the but-end of his argument in opposition to the vote. he said, very significantly, and very forcibly, "it is not asked for by those who best know what the public service requires; how, then, are we to presume that it is needed?" this question, sir, was not answered then; it never has been answered since, it never can be answered satisfactorily. but let me here again, sir, recur to the message of the president. speaking of the loss of the bill, he uses these words: "this failure was the more regretted, not only because it necessarily interrupted and delayed the progress of a system of national defence projected immediately after the last war, and since steadily pursued, but also because it contained a contingent appropriation, inserted in accordance with the views of the executive, in aid of this important object, and other branches of the national defence, some portions of which might have been most usefully applied during the past season." taking these words of the message, sir, and connecting them with the fact that the president had made no recommendation to congress of any such appropriation, it strikes me that they furnish matter for very grave reflection. the president says that this proposed appropriation was "in accordance with the views of the executive"; that it was "in aid of an important object"; and that "some portions of it might have been most usefully applied during the past season." and now, sir, i ask, if this be so, why was not this appropriation recommended to congress by the president? i ask this question in the name of the constitution of the united states; i stand on its own clear authority in asking it; and i invite all those who remember its injunctions, and who mean to respect them, to consider well how the question is to be answered. sir, the constitution is not yet an entire dead letter. there is yet some form of observance of its requirements; and even while any degree of formal respect is paid to it, i must be permitted to continue the question, why was not this appropriation recommended? it was in accordance with the president's views; it was for an important object; it might have been usefully expended. the president being of opinion, therefore, that the appropriation was necessary and proper, how is it that it was not recommended to congress? for, sir, we all know the plain and direct words in which the very first duty of the president is imposed by the constitution. here they are:-- "he shall, from time to time, give to the congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." after enumerating the _powers_ of the president, this is the first, the very first _duty_ which the constitution gravely enjoins upon him. and now, sir, in no language of taunt or reproach, in no language of party attack, in terms of no asperity or exaggeration, but called upon by the necessity of defending my own vote upon the subject, as a public man, as a member of congress here in my place, and as a citizen who feels as warm an attachment to the constitution of the country as any other can, i demand of any who may choose to give it an answer to this question: why was not this measure, which the president declares that he thought necessary and expedient, recommended to congress? and why am i, and why are other members of congress, whose path of duty the constitution says shall be enlightened by the president's opinions and communications, to be charged with want of patriotism and want of fidelity to the country, because we refused an appropriation which the president, though it was in accordance with his views, and though he believed it important, would not, and did not, recommend to us? when these questions are answered to the satisfaction of intelligent and impartial men, then, and not till then, let reproach, let censure, let suspicion of any kind, rest on the twenty-nine names which stand opposed to this appropriation. how, sir, were we to know that this appropriation "was in accordance with the views of the executive"? he had not so told us, formally or informally. he had not only not recommended it to congress, or either house of congress, but nobody on this floor had undertaken to speak in his behalf. no man got up to say, "the president desires it; he thinks it necessary, expedient, and proper." but, sir, if any gentleman had risen to say this, it would not have answered the requisition of the constitution. not at all. it is not by a hint, an intimation, the suggestion of a friend, that the executive duty in this respect is to be fulfilled. by no means. the president is to make a recommendation,--a public recommendation, an official recommendation, a responsible recommendation, not to one house, but to both houses; it is to be a recommendation to congress. if, on receiving such recommendation, congress fail to pay it proper respect, the fault is theirs. if, deeming the measure necessary and expedient, the president fails to recommend it, the fault is his, clearly, distinctly, and exclusively his. this, sir, is the constitution of the united states, or else i do not understand the constitution of the united states. does not every man see how entirely unconstitutional it is that the president should communicate his opinions or wishes to congress, on such grave and important subjects, otherwise than by a direct and responsible recommendation, a public and open recommendation, equally addressed and equally known to all whose duty calls upon them to act on the subject? what would be the state of things, if he might communicate his wishes or opinions privately to members of one house, and make no such communication to the other? would not the two houses be necessarily put in immediate collision? would they stand on equal footing? would they have equal information? what could ensue from such a manner of conducting the public business, but quarrel, confusion, and conflict? a member rises in the house of representatives, and moves a very large appropriation of money for military purposes. if he says he does it upon executive recommendation, where is his voucher? the president is not like the british king, whose ministers and secretaries are in the house of commons, and who are authorized, in certain cases, to express the opinions and wishes of their sovereign. we have no king's servants; at least, we have none known to the constitution. congress can know the opinions of the president only as he officially communicates them. it would be a curious inquiry in either house, when a large appropriation is moved, if it were necessary to ask whether the mover represented the president, spoke his sentiments, or, in other words, whether what he proposed were "in accordance with the views of the executive." how could that be judged of? by the party he belongs to? party is not quite strongly enough marked for that. by the airs he gives himself? many might assume airs, if thereby they could give themselves such importance as to be esteemed authentic expositors of the executive will. or is this will to be circulated in whispers; made known to the meetings of party men; intimated through the press; or communicated in any other form, which still leaves the executive completely irresponsible; so that, while executive purposes or wishes pervade the ranks of party friends, influence their conduct, and unite their efforts, the open, direct, and constitutional responsibility is wholly avoided? sir, this is not the constitution of the united states, nor can it be consistent with any constitution which professes to maintain separate departments in the government. here, then, sir, is abundant ground, in my judgment, for the vote of the senate, and here i might rest it. but there is also another ground. the constitution declares that no money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law. what is meant by "_appropriations_"? does not this language mean that particular sums shall be assigned by law to particular objects? how far this pointing out and fixing the particular objects shall be carried, is a question that cannot be settled by any precise rule. but "specific appropriation," that is to say, the designation of every object for which money is voted, as far as such designation is practicable, has been thought to be a most important republican principle. in times past, popular parties have claimed great merit from professing to carry this doctrine much farther, and to adhere to it much more strictly, than their adversaries. mr. jefferson, especially, was a great advocate for it, and held it to be indispensable to a safe and economical administration and disbursement of the public revenues. but what have the friends and admirers of mr. jefferson to say to this _appropriation_? where do they find, in this proposed grant of three millions, a constitutional designation of object, and a particular and specific application of money? have they forgotten, all forgotten, and wholly abandoned even all pretence for specific appropriation? if not, how could they sanction such a vote as this? let me recall its terms. they are, that "the sum of three millions of dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be expended, in whole or in part, under the direction of the president of the united states, for the military and naval service, including fortifications and ordnance, and the increase of the navy; provided such expenditures shall be rendered necessary for the defence of the country prior to the next meeting of congress." in the first place it is to be observed, that whether the money shall be used at all, or not, is made to depend on the discretion of the president. this is sufficiently liberal. it carries confidence far enough. but if there had been no other objections, if the objects of the appropriation had been sufficiently described, so that the president, if he expended the money at all, must expend it for purposes authorized by the legislature, and nothing had been left to his discretion but the question whether an emergency had arisen in which the authority ought to be exercised, i might not have felt bound to reject the vote. there are some precedents which might favor such a contingent provision, though the practice is dangerous, and ought not to be followed except in cases of clear necessity. but the insurmountable objection to the proposed grant was, that it specified no objects. it was as general as language could make it. it embraced every expenditure that could be called either military or naval. it was to include "fortifications, ordnance, and the increase of the navy," but it was not confined to these. it embraced the whole general subject of military service. under the authority of such a law, the president might repair ships, build ships, buy ships, enlist seamen, and do any thing and every thing else touching the naval service, without restraint or control. he might repair such fortifications as he saw fit, and neglect the rest; arm such as he saw fit, and neglect the arming of others; or build new fortifications wherever he chose. but these unlimited powers over the fortifications and the navy constitute by no means the most dangerous part of the proposed authority; because, under that authority, his power to raise and employ land forces would be equally absolute and uncontrolled. he might levy troops, embody a new army, call out the militia in numbers to suit his own discretion, and employ them as he saw fit. now, sir, does our legislation, under the constitution, furnish any precedent for all this? we make appropriations for the army, and we understand what we are doing, because it is "the army," that is to say, the army established by law. we make appropriations for the navy; they, too, are for "the navy," as provided for and established by law. we make appropriations for fortifications, but we say what fortifications, and we assign to each its intended amount of the whole sum. this is the usual course of congress on such subjects; and why should it be departed from? are we ready to say that the power of fixing the places for new fortifications, and the sum allotted to each; the power of ordering new ships to be built, and fixing the number of such new ships; the power of laying out money to raise men for the army; in short, every power, great or small, respecting the military and naval service, shall be vested in the president, without specification of object or purpose, to the entire exclusion of the exercise of all judgment on the part of congress? for one, i am not prepared. the honorable member from ohio, near me, has said, that if the enemy had been on our shores he would not have agreed to this vote. and i say, if the proposition were now before us, and the guns of the enemy were pointed against the walls of the capitol, i would not agree to it. the people of this country have an interest, a property, an inheritance, in this instrument, against the value of which forty capitols do not weigh the twentieth part of one poor scruple. there can never be any necessity for such proceedings, but a feigned and false necessity; a mere idle and hollow pretence of necessity; least of all can it be said that any such necessity actually existed on the d of march. there was no enemy on our shores; there were no guns pointed against the capitol; we were in no war, nor was there a reasonable probability that we should have war, unless we made it ourselves. but whatever was the state of our foreign relations, is it not preposterous to say, that it was necessary for congress to adopt this measure, and yet not necessary for the president to recommend it? why should we thus run in advance of all our own duties, and leave the president completely shielded from his just responsibility? why should there be nothing but trust and confidence on our side, and nothing but discretion and power on his? sir, if there be any philosophy in history, if human blood still runs in human veins, if man still conforms to the identity of his nature, the institutions which secure constitutional liberty can never stand long against this excessive personal confidence, against this devotion to men, in utter disregard both of principle and experience, which seem to me to be strongly characteristic of our times. this vote came to us, sir, from the popular branch of the legislature; and that such a vote should come from such a branch of the legislature was amongst the circumstances which excited in me the greatest surprise and the deepest concern. certainly, sir, certainly i was not, on that account, the more inclined to concur. it was no argument with me, that others seemed to be rushing, with such heedless, headlong trust, such impetuosity of confidence, into the arms of executive power. i held back the more strongly, and would hold back the longer. i see, or i think i see,--it is either a true vision of the future, revealed by the history of the past, or, if it be an illusion, it is an illusion which appears to me in all the brightness and sunlight of broad noon,--that it is in this career of personal confidence, along this beaten track of _man-worship_, marked at every stage by the fragments of other free governments, that our own system is making progress to its close. a personal popularity, honorably earned at first by military achievements, and sustained now by party, by patronage, and by enthusiasm which looks for no ill, because it means no ill itself, seems to render men willing to gratify power, even before its demands are made, and to surfeit executive discretion, even in anticipation of its own appetite. if, sir, on the d of march last, it had been the purpose of both houses of congress to create a military dictator, what formula had been better suited to their purpose than this vote of the house? it is true, we might have given more money, if we had had it to give. we might have emptied the treasury; but as to the _form_ of the gift, we could not have bettered it. rome had no better models. when we give our money _for any military purpose whatever_, what remains to be done? if we leave it with one man to decide, not only whether the military means of the country shall be used at all, but how they shall be used, and to what extent they shall be employed, what remains either for congress or the people but to sit still and see how this dictatorial power will be exercised? on the d of march, sir, i had not forgotten, it was impossible that i should have forgotten, the recommendation in the message at the opening of that session, that power should be vested in the president to issue letters of marque and reprisal against france, at his discretion, in the recess of congress. happily, this power was not granted; but suppose it had been, what would then have been the true condition of this government? why, sir, this condition is very shortly described. the whole war power would have been in the hands of the president; for no man can doubt a moment that reprisals would bring on immediate war; and the treasury, to the amount of this vote, in addition to all ordinary appropriations, would have been at his absolute disposal also. and all this in a time of peace. i beseech all true lovers of constitutional liberty to contemplate this state of things, and tell me whether such be a truly republican administration of this government. whether particular consequences had ensued or not, is such an accumulation of power in the hands of the executive according to the spirit of our system? is it either wise or safe? has it any warrant in the practice of former times? or are gentlemen ready to establish the practice, as an example for the benefit of those who are to come after us? but, sir, if the power to make reprisals, and this money from the treasury, had both been granted, is there not great reason to believe that we should have been now actually at war? i think there is great reason to believe this. it will be said, i know, that if we had armed the president with this power of war, and supplied him with this grant of money, france would have taken it for such a proof of spirit on our part, that she would have paid the indemnity without further delay. this is the old story, and the old plea. it is the excuse of every one who desires more power than the constitution or the laws give him, that if he had more power he could do more good. power is always claimed for the good of the people; and dictators are always made, when made at all, for the good of the people. for my part, sir, i was content, and am content, to show france that we are prepared to maintain our just rights against her by the exertion of our power, when need be, according to the forms of our own constitution; that, if we make war, we will make it constitutionally; and that we will trust all our interests, both in peace and war, to what the intelligence and the strength of the country may do for them, without breaking down or endangering the fabric of our free institutions. mr. president, it is the misfortune of the senate to have differed with the executive on many great questions during the last four or five years. i have regretted this state of things deeply, both on personal and on public accounts; but it has been unavoidable. it is no pleasant employment, it is no holiday business, to maintain opposition against power and against majorities, and to contend for stern and sturdy principle, against personal popularity, against a rushing and overwhelming confidence, that, by wave upon wave and cataract after cataract, seems to be bearing away and destroying whatsoever would withstand it. how much longer we may be able to support this opposition in any degree, or whether we can possibly hold out till the public intelligence and the public patriotism shall be awakened to a due sense of the public danger, it is not for me to foretell. i shall not despair to the last, if, in the mean time, we are true to our own principles. if there be a steadfast adherence to these principles, both here and elsewhere, if, one and all, they continue the rule of our conduct in the senate, and the rallying-point of those who think with us and support us out of the senate, i am content to hope on and to struggle on. while it remains a contest for the preservation of the constitution, for the security of public liberty, for the ascendency of principles over men, i am willing to bear my part of it. if we can maintain the constitution, if we can preserve this security for liberty, if we can thus give to true principle its just superiority over party, over persons, over names, our labors will be richly rewarded. if we fail in all this, they are already among the living who will write the history of this government, from its commencement to its close. [footnote : mr. leigh.] [footnote : mr. king, of alabama, was in the chair.] [footnote : mr. white.] reception at new york. a speech delivered at niblo's saloon, in new york, on the th of march, . mr. chairman and fellow-citizens:--it would be idle in me to affect to be indifferent to the circumstances under which i have now the honor of addressing you. i find myself in the commercial metropolis of the continent, in the midst of a vast assembly of intelligent men, drawn from all the classes, professions, and pursuits of life. and you have been pleased, gentlemen, to meet me, in this imposing manner, and to offer me a warm and cordial welcome to your city. i thank you. i feel the full force and importance of this manifestation of your regard. in the highly-flattering resolutions which invited me here, in the respectability of this vast multitude of my fellow-citizens, and in the approbation and hearty good-will which you have here manifested, i feel cause for profound and grateful acknowledgment. to every individual of this meeting, therefore, i would now most respectfully make that acknowledgment; and with every one, as with hands joined in mutual greeting, i reciprocate friendly salutation, respect, and good wishes. but, gentlemen, although i am well assured of your personal regard, i cannot fail to know, that the times, the political and commercial condition of things which exists among us, and an intelligent spirit, awakened to new activity and a new degree of anxiety, have mainly contributed to fill these avenues and crowd these halls. at a moment of difficulty, and of much alarm, you come here as whigs of new york, to meet one whom you believe to be bound to you by common principles and common sentiments, and pursuing, with you, a common object. gentlemen, i am proud to admit this community of our principles, and this identity of our objects. you are for the constitution of the country; so am i. you are for the union of the states; so am i. you are for equal laws, for the equal rights of all men, for constitutional and just restraints on power, for the substance and not the shadowy image only of popular institutions, for a government which has liberty for its spirit and soul, as well as in its forms; and so am i. you feel that if, in warm party times, the executive power is in hands distinguished for boldness, for great success, for perseverance, and other qualities which strike men's minds strongly, there is danger of derangement of the powers of government, danger of a new division of those powers, in which the executive is likely to obtain the lion's part; and danger of a state of things in which the more popular branches of the government, instead of being guards and sentinels against any encroachments from the executive, seek, rather, support from its patronage, safety against the complaints of the people in its ample and all-protecting favor, and refuge in its power; and so i feel, and so i have felt for eight long and anxious years. you believe that a very efficient and powerful cause in the production of the evils which now fall on the industrious and commercial classes of the community, is the derangement of the currency, the destruction of the exchanges, and the unnatural and unnecessary _misplacement_ of the specie of the country, by unauthorized and illegal treasury orders. so do i believe. i predicted all this from the beginning, and from before the beginning. i predicted it all, last spring, when that was attempted to be done by law which was afterwards done by executive authority; and from the moment of the exercise of that executive authority to the present time, i have both foreseen and seen the regular progress of things under it, from inconvenience and embarrassment, to pressure, loss of confidence, disorder, and bankruptcies. gentlemen, i mean, on this occasion, to speak my sentiments freely on the great topics of the day. i have nothing to conceal, and shall therefore conceal nothing. in regard to political sentiments, purposes, or objects, there is nothing in my heart which i am ashamed of; i shall throw it all open, therefore, to you, and to all men. [that is right, said some one in the crowd; let us have it, with no non-committal.] yes, my friend, without non-committal or evasion, without barren generalities or empty phrase, without _if_ or _but_, without a single touch, in all i say, bearing the oracular character of an inaugural, i shall, on this occasion, speak my mind plainly, freely, and independently, to men who are just as free to concur or not to concur in my sentiments, as i am to utter them. i think you are entitled to hear my opinions freely and frankly spoken; but i freely acknowledge that you are still more clearly entitled to retain, and maintain, your own opinions, however they may differ or agree with mine. it is true, gentlemen, that i have contemplated the relinquishment of my seat in the senate for the residue of the term, now two years, for which i was chosen. this resolution was not taken from disgust or discouragement, although some things have certainly happened which might excite both those feelings. but in popular governments, men must not suffer themselves to be permanently disgusted by occasional exhibitions of political harlequinism, or deeply discouraged, although their efforts to awaken the people to what they deem the dangerous tendency of public measures be not crowned with immediate success. it was altogether from other causes, and other considerations, that, after an uninterrupted service of fourteen or fifteen years, i naturally desired a respite. but those whose opinions i am bound to respect saw objections to a present withdrawal from congress; and i have yielded my own strong desire to their convictions of what the public good requires. gentlemen, in speaking here on the subjects which now so much interest the community, i wish in the outset to disclaim all personal disrespect towards individuals. he[ ] whose character and fortune have exercised such a decisive influence on our politics for eight years, has now retired from public station. i pursue him with no personal reflections, no reproaches. between him and myself there has always existed a respectful personal intercourse. moments have existed, indeed, critical and decisive upon the general success of his administration, in which he has been pleased to regard my aid as not altogether unimportant. i now speak of him respectfully, as a distinguished soldier, as one who, in that character, has done the state much service; as a man, too, of strong and decided character, of unsubdued resolution and perseverance in whatever he undertakes. in speaking of his civil administration, i speak without censoriousness, or harsh imputation of motives; i wish him health and happiness in his retirement; but i must still speak as i think of his public measures, and of their general bearing and tendency, not only on the present interests of the country, but also on the well-being and security of the government itself. there are, however, some topics of a less urgent present application and importance, upon which i wish to say a few words, before i advert to those which are more immediately connected with the present distressed state of things. my learned and highly-valued friend (mr. ogden) who has addressed me in your behalf, has been kindly pleased to speak of my political career as being marked by a freedom from local interests and prejudices, and a devotion to liberal and comprehensive views of public policy. i will not say that this compliment is deserved. i will only say, that i have earnestly endeavored to deserve it. gentlemen, the general government, to the extent of its power, is national. it is not consolidated, it does not embrace all powers of government. on the contrary, it is delegated, restrained, strictly limited. but what powers it does possess, it possesses for the general, not for any partial or local good. it extends over a vast territory, embracing now six-and-twenty states, with interests various, but not irreconcilable, infinitely diversified, but capable of being all blended into political harmony. he, however, who would produce this harmony must survey the whole field, as if all parts were as interesting to himself as they are to others, and with that generous, patriotic feeling, prompter and better than the mere dictates of cool reason, which leads him to embrace the whole with affectionate regard, as constituting, altogether, that object which he is so much bound to respect, to defend, and to love,--his country. we have around us, and more or less within the influence and protection of the general government, all the great interests of agriculture, navigation, commerce, manufactures, the fisheries, and the mechanic arts. the duties of the government, then, certainly extend over all this territory, and embrace all these vast interests. we have a maritime frontier, a sea-coast of many thousand miles; and while no one doubts that it is the duty of government to defend this coast by suitable military preparations, there are those who yet suppose that the powers of government stop at this point; and that as to works of peace and works of improvement, they are beyond our constitutional limits. i have ever thought otherwise. congress has a right, no doubt, to declare war, and to provide armies and navies; and it has necessarily the right to build fortifications and batteries, to protect the coast from the effects of war. but congress has authority also, and it is its duty, to regulate commerce, and it has the whole power of collecting duties on imports and tonnage. it must have ports and harbors, and dock-yards also, for its navies. very early in the history of the government, it was decided by congress, on the report of a highly respectable committee, that the transfer by the states to congress of the power of collecting tonnage and other duties, and the grant of the authority to regulate commerce, charged congress, necessarily, with the duty of maintaining such piers and wharves and lighthouses, and of making such improvements, as might have been expected to be done by the states, if they had retained the usual means, by retaining the power of collecting duties on imports. the states, it was admitted, had parted with this power; and the duty of protecting and facilitating commerce by these means had passed, along with this power, into other hands. i have never hesitated, therefore, when the state of the treasury would admit, to vote for reasonable appropriations, for breakwaters, lighthouses, piers, harbors, and similar public works, on any part of the whole atlantic coast or the gulf of mexico, from maine to louisiana. but how stands the inland frontier? how is it along the vast lakes and the mighty rivers of the north and west? do our constitutional rights and duties terminate where the water ceases to be salt? or do they exist, in full vigor, on the shores of these inland seas? i never could doubt about this; and yet, gentlemen, i remember even to have participated in a warm debate, in the senate, some years ago, upon the constitutional right of congress to make an appropriation for a pier in the harbor of buffalo. what! make a harbor at buffalo, where nature never made any, and where therefore it was never intended any ever should be made! take money from the people to run out piers from the sandy shores of lake erie, or deepen the channels of her shallow rivers! where was the constitutional authority for this? where would such strides of power stop? how long would the states have any power at all left, if their territory might be ruthlessly invaded for such unhallowed purposes, or how long would the people have any money in their pockets, if the government of the united states might tax them, at pleasure, for such extravagant projects as these? piers, wharves, harbors, and breakwaters in the lakes! these arguments, gentlemen, however earnestly put forth heretofore, do not strike us with great power, at the present day, if we stand on the shores of lake erie, and see hundreds of vessels, with valuable cargoes and thousands of valuable lives, moving on its waters, with few shelters from the storm, except what is furnished by the havens created, or made useful, by the aid of government. these great lakes, stretching away many thousands of miles, not in a straight line, but with turns and deflections, as if designed to reach, by water communication, the greatest possible number of important points through a region of vast extent, cannot but arrest the attention of any one who looks upon the map. they lie connected, but variously placed; and interspersed, as if with studied variety of form and direction, over that part of the country. they were made for man, and admirably adapted for his use and convenience. looking, gentlemen, over our whole country, comprehending in our survey the atlantic coast, with its thick population, its advanced agriculture, its extended commerce, its manufactures and mechanic arts, its varieties of communication, its wealth, and its general improvements; and looking, then, to the interior, to the immense tracts of fresh, fertile, and cheap lands, bounded by so many lakes, and watered by so many magnificent rivers, let me ask if such a map was ever before presented to the eye of any statesman, as the theatre for the exercise of his wisdom and patriotism? and let me ask, too, if any man is fit to act a part, on such a theatre, who does not comprehend the whole of it within the scope of his policy, and embrace it all as his country? again, gentlemen, we are one in respect to the glorious constitution under which we live. we are all united in the great brotherhood of american liberty. descending from the same ancestors, bred in the same school, taught in infancy to imbibe the same general political sentiments, americans all, by birth, education, and principle, what but a narrow mind, or woful ignorance, or besotted selfishness, or prejudice ten times blinded, can lead any of us to regard the citizens of any part of the country as strangers and aliens? the solemn truth, moreover, is before us, that a common political fate attends us all. under the present constitution, wisely and conscientiously administered, all are safe, happy, and renowned. the measure of our country's fame may fill all our breasts. it is fame enough for us all to partake in _her_ glory, if we will carry her character onward to its true destiny. but if the system is broken, its fragments must fall alike on all. not only the cause of american liberty, but the grand cause of liberty throughout the whole earth, depends, in a great measure, on upholding the constitution and union of these states. if shattered and destroyed, no matter by what cause, the peculiar and cherished idea of united american liberty will be no more for ever. there may be free states, it is possible, when there shall be separate states. there may be many loose, and feeble, and hostile confederacies, where there is now one great and united confederacy. but the noble idea of united american liberty, of _our_ liberty, such as our fathers established it, will be extinguished for ever. fragments and shattered columns of the edifice may be found remaining; and melancholy and mournful ruins will they be. the august temple itself will be prostrate in the dust. gentlemen, the citizens of this republic cannot sever their fortunes. a common fate awaits us. in the honor of upholding, or in the disgrace of undermining the constitution, we shall all necessarily partake. let us then stand by the constitution as it is, and by our country as it is, one, united, and entire; let it be a truth engraven on our hearts, let it be borne on the flag under which we rally, in every exigency, that we have one country, one constitution, one destiny. gentlemen, of our interior administration, the public lands constitute a highly important part. this is a subject of great interest, and it ought to attract much more attention than it has hitherto received, especially from the people of the atlantic states. the public lands are public property. they belong to the people of all the states. a vast portion of them is composed of territories which were ceded by individual states to the united states, after the close of the revolutionary war, and before the adoption of the present constitution. the history of these cessions, and the reasons for making them, are familiar to you. some of the old thirteen possessed large tracts of unsettled lands within their chartered limits. the revolution had established their title to these lands, and as the revolution had been brought about by the common treasure and the common blood of all the colonies, it was thought not unreasonable that these unsettled lands should be transferred to the united states, to pay the debt created by the war, and afterwards to remain as a fund for the use of all the states. this is the well-known origin of the title possessed by the united states to lands northwest of the river ohio. by treaties with france and spain, louisiana and florida, containing many millions of acres of public land, have been since acquired. the cost of these acquisitions was paid, of course, by the general government, and was thus a charge upon the whole people. the public lands, therefore, all and singular, are national property; granted to the united states, purchased by the united states, paid for by all the people of the united states. the idea, that, when a new state is created, the public lands lying within her territory become the property of such new state in consequence of her sovereignty, is too preposterous for serious refutation. such notions have heretofore been advanced in congress, but nobody has sustained them. they were rejected and abandoned, although one cannot say whether they may not be revived, in consequence of recent propositions which have been made in the senate. the new states are admitted on express conditions, recognizing, to the fullest extent, the right of the united states to the public lands within their borders; and it is no more reasonable to contend that some indefinite idea of state sovereignty overrides all these stipulations, and makes the lands the property of the states, against the provisions and conditions of their own constitution, and the constitution of the united states, than it would be, that a similar doctrine entitled the state of new york to the money collected at the custom-house in this city; since it is no more inconsistent with sovereignty that one government should hold lands, for the purpose of sale, within the territory of another, than it is that it should lay and collect taxes and duties within such territory. whatever extravagant pretensions may have been set up heretofore, there was not, i suppose, an enlightened man in the whole west, who insisted on any such right in the states, when the proposition to cede the lands to the states was made, in the late session of congress. the public lands being, therefore, the common property of all the people of all the states, i shall never consent to give them away to particular states, or to dispose of them otherwise than for the general good, and the general use of the whole country. i felt bound, therefore, on the occasion just alluded to, to resist at the threshold a proposition to cede the public lands to the states in which they lie, on certain conditions. i very much regretted the introduction of such a measure, as its effect must be, i fear, only to agitate what was well settled, and to disturb that course of proceeding, in regard to the public lands, which forty years of experience have shown to be so wise, and so satisfactory in its operation, both to the people of the old states and to those of the new. but, gentlemen, although the public lands are not to be given away, nor ceded to particular states, a very liberal policy in regard to them ought certainly to prevail. such a policy has prevailed, and i have steadily supported it, and shall continue to support it so long as i may remain in public life. the main object, in regard to these lands, is undoubtedly to settle them, so fast as the growth of our population, and its augmentation by emigration, may enable us to settle them. the lands, therefore, should be sold, at a low price; and, for one, i have never doubted the right or expediency of granting portions of the lands themselves, or of making grants of money for objects of internal improvement connected with them. i have always supported liberal appropriations for the purpose of opening communications to and through these lands, by common roads, canals, and railroads; and where lands of little value have been long in market, and, on account of their indifferent quality, are not likely to command a common price, i know no objection to a reduction of price, as to such lands, so that they may pass into private ownership. nor do i feel any objections to removing those restraints which prevent the states from taxing the lands for five years after they are sold. but while, in these and all other respects, i am not only reconciled to a liberal policy, but espouse it and support it, and have constantly done so, i still hold the national domain to be the general property of the country, confined to the care of congress, and which congress is solemnly bound to protect and preserve for the common good. the benefit derived from the public lands, after all, is, and must be, in the greatest degree, enjoyed by those who buy them and settle upon them. the original price paid to government constitutes but a small part of their actual value. their immediate rise in value, in the hands of the settler, gives him competence. he exercises a power of selection over a vast region of fertile territory, all on sale at the same price, and that price an exceedingly low one. selection is no sooner made, cultivation is no sooner begun, and the first furrow turned, than he already finds himself a man of property. these are the advantages of western emigrants and western settlers; and they are such, certainly, as no country on earth ever before afforded to her citizens. this opportunity of purchase and settlement, this certainty of enhanced value, these sure means of immediate competence and ultimate wealth,--all these are the rights and the blessings of the people of the west, and they have my hearty wishes for their full and perfect enjoyment. i desire to see the public lands cultivated and occupied. i desire the growth and prosperity of the west, and the fullest development of its vast and extraordinary resources. i wish to bring it near to us, by every species of useful communication. i see, not without admiration and amazement, but yet without envy or jealousy, states of recent origin already containing more people than massachusetts. these people i know to be part of ourselves; they have proceeded from the midst of us, and we may trust that they are not likely to separate themselves, in interest or in feeling, from their kindred, whom they have left on the farms and around the hearths of their common fathers. a liberal policy, a sympathy with its interests, an enlightened and generous feeling of participation in its prosperity, are due to the west, and will be met, i doubt not, by a return of sentiments equally cordial and equally patriotic. gentlemen, the general question of revenue is very much connected with this subject of the public lands, and i will therefore, in a very few words, express my views on that point. the revenue involves, not only the supply of the treasury with money, but the question of protection to manufactures. on these connected subjects, therefore, gentlemen, as i have promised to keep nothing back, i will state my opinions plainly, but very shortly. i am in favor of such a revenue as shall be equal to all the just and reasonable wants of the government; and i am decidedly opposed to all collection or accumulation of revenue beyond this point. an extravagant government expenditure, and unnecessary accumulation in the treasury, are both, of all things, to be most studiously avoided. i am in favor of protecting american industry and labor, not only as employed in large manufactories, but also, and more especially, as employed in the various mechanic arts, carried on by persons of small capitals, and living by the earnings of their own personal industry. every city in the union, and none more than this, would feel severely the consequences of departing from the ancient and continued policy of the government respecting this last branch of protection. if duties were to be abolished on hats, boots, shoes, and other articles of leather, and on the articles fabricated of brass, tin, and iron, and on ready-made clothes, carriages, furniture, and many similar articles, thousands of persons would be immediately thrown out of employment in this city, and in other parts of the union. protection, in this respect, of our own labor against the cheaper, ill-paid, half-fed, and pauper labor of europe, is, in my opinion, a duty which the country owes to its own citizens. i am, therefore, decidedly for protecting our own industry and our own labor. in the next place, gentlemen, i am of opinion, that, with no more than usual skill in the application of the well-tried principles of discriminating and specific duties, all the branches of national industry may be protected, without imposing such duties on imports as shall overcharge the treasury. and as to the revenues arising from the sales of the public lands, i am of opinion that they ought to be set apart for the use of the states. the states need the money. the government of the united states does not need it. many of the states have contracted large debts for objects of internal improvement, and others of them have important objects which they would wish to accomplish. the lands were originally granted for the use of the several states; and now that their proceeds are not necessary for the purposes of the general government, i am of opinion that they should go to the states, and to the people of the states, upon an equal principle. set apart, then, the proceeds of the public lands for the use of the states; supply the treasury from duties on imports; apply to these duties a just and careful discrimination, in favor of articles produced at home by our own labor, and thus support, to a fair extent, our own manufactures. these, gentlemen, appear to me to be the general outlines of that policy which the present condition of the country requires us to adopt. gentlemen, proposing to express opinions on the principal subjects of interest at the present moment, it is impossible to overlook the delicate question which has arisen from events which have happened in the late mexican province of texas. the independence of that province has now been recognized by the government of the united states. congress gave the president the means, to be used when he saw fit, of opening a diplomatic intercourse with its government, and the late president immediately made use of those means. i saw no objection, under the circumstances, to voting an appropriation to be used when the president should think the proper time had come; and he deemed, very promptly, it is true, that the time had already arrived. certainly, gentlemen, the history of texas is not a little wonderful. a very few people, in a very short time, have established a government for themselves, against the authority of the parent state; and this government, it is generally supposed, there is little probability, at the present moment, of the parent state being able to overturn. this government is, in form, a copy of our own. it is an american constitution, substantially after the great american model. we all, therefore, must wish it success; and there is no one who will more heartily rejoice than i shall, to see an independent community, intelligent, industrious, and friendly towards us, springing up, and rising into happiness, distinction, and power, upon our own principles of liberty and government. but it cannot be disguised, gentlemen, that a desire, or an intention, is already manifested to annex texas to the united states. on a subject of such mighty magnitude as this, and at a moment when the public attention is drawn to it, i should feel myself wanting in candor, if i did not express my opinion; since all must suppose that, on such a question, it is impossible that i should be without some opinion. i say then, gentlemen, in all frankness, that i see objections, i think insurmountable objections, to the annexation of texas to the united states. when the constitution was formed, it is not probable that either its framers or the people ever looked to the admission of any states into the union, except such as then already existed, and such as should be formed out of territories then already belonging to the united states. fifteen years after the adoption of the constitution, however, the case of louisiana arose. louisiana was obtained by treaty with france, who had recently obtained it from spain; but the object of this acquisition, certainly, was not mere extension of territory. other great political interests were connected with it. spain, while she possessed louisiana, had held the mouths of the great rivers which rise in the western states, and flow into the gulf of mexico. she had disputed our use of these rivers already, and with a powerful nation in possession of these outlets to the sea, it is obvious that the commerce of all the west was in danger of perpetual vexation. the command of these rivers to the sea was, therefore, the great object aimed at in the acquisition of louisiana. but that acquisition necessarily brought territory along with it, and three states now exist, formed out of that ancient province. a similar policy, and a similar necessity, though perhaps not entirely so urgent, led to the acquisition of florida. now, no such necessity, no such policy, requires the annexation of texas. the accession of texas to our territory is not necessary to the full and complete enjoyment of all which we already possess. her case, therefore, stands upon a footing entirely different from that of louisiana and florida. there being no necessity for extending the limits of the union in that direction, we ought, i think, for numerous and powerful reasons, to be content with our present boundaries. gentlemen, we all see that, by whomsoever possessed, texas is likely to be a slave-holding country; and i frankly avow my entire unwillingness to do anything that shall extend the slavery of the african race on this continent, or add other slave-holding states to the union. when i say that i regard slavery in itself as a great moral, social, and political evil, i only use language which has been adopted by distinguished men, themselves citizens of slave-holding states. i shall do nothing, therefore, to favor or encourage its further extension. we have slavery already amongst us. the constitution found it in the union; it recognized it, and gave it solemn guaranties. to the full extent of these guaranties we are all bound, in honor, in justice, and by the constitution. all the stipulations contained in the constitution in favor of the slave-holding states which are already in the union ought to be fulfilled, and, so far as depends on me, shall be fulfilled, in the fulness of their spirit and to the exactness of their letter. slavery, as it exists in the states, is beyond the reach of congress. it is a concern of the states themselves; they have never submitted it to congress, and congress has no rightful power over it. i shall concur, therefore, in no act, no measure, no menace, no indication of purpose, which shall interfere or threaten to interfere with the exclusive authority of the several states over the subject of slavery as it exists within their respective limits. all this appears to me to be matter of plain and imperative duty. but when we come to speak of admitting new states, the subject assumes an entirely different aspect. our rights and our duties are then both different. the free states, and all the states, are then at liberty to accept or to reject. when it is proposed to bring new members into this political partnership, the old members have a right to say on what terms such new partners are to come in, and what they are to bring along with them. in my opinion, the people of the united states will not consent to bring into the union a new, vastly extensive, and slave-holding country, large enough for half a dozen or a dozen states. in my opinion, they ought not to consent to it. indeed, i am altogether at a loss to conceive what possible benefit any part of this country can expect to derive from such annexation. any benefit to any part is at least doubtful and uncertain; the objections are obvious, plain, and strong. on the general question of slavery, a great portion of the community is already strongly excited. the subject has not only attracted attention as a question of politics, but it has struck a far deeper-toned chord. it has arrested the religious feeling of the country; it has taken strong hold on the consciences of men. he is a rash man indeed, and little conversant with human nature, and especially has he a very erroneous estimate of the character of the people of this country, who supposes that a feeling of this kind is to be trifled with or despised. it will assuredly cause itself to be respected. it may be reasoned with, it may be made willing, i believe it is entirely willing, to fulfil all existing engagements and all existing duties, to uphold and defend the constitution as it is established, with whatever regrets about some provisions which it does actually contain. but to coerce it into silence, to endeavor to restrain its free expression, to seek to compress and confine it, warm as it is, and more heated as such endeavors would inevitably render it,--should this be attempted, i know nothing, even in the constitution or in the union itself, which would not be endangered by the explosion which might follow. i see, therefore, no political necessity for the annexation of texas to the union; no advantages to be derived from it; and objections to it of a strong, and, in my judgment, decisive character. i believe it to be for the interest and happiness of the whole union to remain as it is, without diminution and without addition. gentlemen, i pass to other subjects. the rapid advancement of the executive authority is a topic which has already been alluded to. i believe there is serious cause of alarm from this source. i believe the power of the executive has increased, is increasing, and ought now to be brought back within its ancient constitutional limits. i have nothing to do with the motives which have led to those acts, which i believe to have transcended the boundaries of the constitution. good motives may always be assumed, as bad motives may always be imputed. good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of power; but they cannot justify it, even if we were sure that they existed. it is hardly too strong to say, that the constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intention, real or pretended. when bad intentions are boldly avowed, the people will promptly take care of themselves. on the other hand, they will always be asked why they should resist or question that exercise of power which is so fair in its object, so plausible and patriotic in appearance, and which has the public good alone confessedly in view? human beings, we may be assured, will generally exercise power when they can get it; and they will exercise it most undoubtedly, in popular governments, under pretences of public safety or high public interest. it may be very possible that good intentions do really sometimes exist when constitutional restraints are disregarded. there are men, in all ages, who mean to exercise power usefully; but who mean to exercise it. they mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. they promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters. they think there need be but little restraint upon themselves. their notion of the public interest is apt to be quite closely connected with their own exercise of authority. they may not, indeed, always understand their own motives. the love of power may sink too deep in their own hearts even for their own scrutiny, and may pass with themselves for mere patriotism and benevolence. a character has been drawn of a very eminent citizen of massachusetts, of the last age, which, though i think it does not entirely belong to him, yet very well describes a certain class of public men. it was said of this distinguished son of massachusetts, that in matters of politics and government he cherished the most kind and benevolent feelings towards the whole earth. he earnestly desired to see all nations well governed; and to bring about this happy result, he wished that the united states might govern the rest of the world; that massachusetts might govern the united states; that boston might govern massachusetts; and as for himself, his own humble ambition would be satisfied by governing the little town of boston. i do not intend, gentlemen, to commit so unreasonable a trespass on your patience as to discuss all those cases in which i think executive power has been unreasonably extended. i shall only allude to some of them, and, as being earliest in the order of time, and hardly second to any other in importance, i mention the practice of removal from all offices, high and low, for opinion's sake, and on the avowed ground of giving patronage to the president; that is to say, of giving him the power of influencing men's political opinions and political conduct, by hopes and by fears addressed directly to their pecuniary interests. the great battle on this point was fought, and was lost, in the senate of the united states, in the last session of congress under mr. adams's administration. after general jackson was known to be elected, and before his term of office began, many important offices became vacant by the usual causes of death and resignation. mr. adams, of course, nominated persons to fill these vacant offices. but a majority of the senate was composed of the friends of general jackson; and, instead of acting on these nominations, and filling the vacant offices with ordinary promptitude, the nominations were postponed to a day beyond the th of march, for the purpose, openly avowed, of giving the patronage of the appointments to the president who was then coming into office. when the new president entered on his office, he withdrew these nominations, and sent in nominations of his own friends in their places. i was of opinion then, and am of opinion now, that that decision of the senate went far to unfix the proper balance of the government. it conferred on the president the power of rewards for party purposes, or personal purposes, without limit or control. it sanctioned, manifestly and plainly, that exercise of power which mr. madison had said would deserve impeachment; and it completely defeated one great object, which we are told the framers of the constitution contemplated, in the manner of forming the senate; that is, that the senate might be a body not changing with the election of a president, and therefore likely to be able to hold over him some check or restraint in regard to bringing his own friends and partisans into power with him, and thus rewarding their services to him at the public expense. the debates in the senate, on these questions, were long continued and earnest. they were of course in secret session, but the opinions of those members who opposed this course have all been proved true by the result. the contest was severe and ardent, as much so as any that i have ever partaken in; and i have seen some service in that sort of warfare. gentlemen, when i look back to that eventful moment, when i remember who those were who upheld this claim for executive power, with so much zeal and devotion, as well as with such great and splendid abilities, and when i look round now, and inquire what has become of these gentlemen, where they have found themselves at last, under the power which they thus helped to establish, what has become now of all their respect, trust, confidence, and attachment,--how many of them, indeed, have not escaped from being broken and crushed under the weight of the wheels of that engine which they themselves set in motion,--i feel that an edifying lesson may be read by those who, in the freshness and fulness of party zeal, are ready to confer the most dangerous power, in the hope that they and their friends may bask in its sunshine, while enemies only shall be withered by its frown. i will not go into the mention of names. i will give no enumeration of persons; but i ask you to turn your minds back, and recollect who the distinguished men were who supported, in the senate, general jackson's administration for the first two years; and i will ask you what you suppose they think now of that power and that discretion which they so freely confided to executive hands. what do they think of the whole career of that administration, the commencement of which, and indeed the existence of which, owed so much to their own great exertions? in addition to the establishment of this power of unlimited and causeless removal, another doctrine has been put forth, more vague, it is true, but altogether unconstitutional, and tending to like dangerous results. in some loose, indefinite, and unknown sense, the president has been called the _representative of the whole american people_. he has called himself so repeatedly, and been so denominated by his friends a thousand times. acts, for which no specific authority has been found either in the constitution or the laws, have been justified on the ground that the president is the representative of the whole american people. certainly, this is not constitutional language. certainly, the constitution nowhere calls the president the universal representative of the people. the constitutional representatives of the people are in the house of representatives, exercising powers of legislation. the president is an executive officer, appointed in a particular manner, and clothed with prescribed and limited powers. it may be thought to be of no great consequence, that the president should call himself, or that others should call him, the sole representative of all the people, although he has no such appellation or character in the constitution. but, in these matters, words are things. if he is the people's representative, and as such may exercise power, without any other grant, what is the limit to that power? and what may not an unlimited representative of the people do? when the constitution expressly creates representatives, as members of congress, it regulates, defines, and limits their authority. but if the executive chief magistrate, merely because he is the executive chief magistrate, may assume to himself another character, and call himself the representative of the whole people, what is to limit or restrain this representative power in his hands? i fear, gentlemen, that if these pretensions should be continued and justified, we might have many instances of summary political logic, such as i once heard in the house of representatives. a gentleman, not now living, wished very much to vote for the establishment of a bank of the united states, but he had always stoutly denied the constitutional power of congress to create such a bank. the country, however, was in a state of great financial distress, from which such an institution, it was hoped, might help to extricate it; and this consideration led the worthy member to review his opinions with care and deliberation. happily, on such careful and deliberate review, he altered his former judgment. he came, satisfactorily, to the conclusion that congress might incorporate a bank. the argument which brought his mind to this result was short, and so plain and obvious, that he wondered how he should so long have overlooked it. the power, he said, to create a bank, was either given to congress, or it was not given. very well. if it was given, congress of course could exercise it; if it was not given, the people still retained it, and in that case, congress, as the representatives of the people, might, upon an emergency, make free to use it. arguments and conclusions in substance like these, gentlemen, will not be wanting, if men of great popularity, commanding characters, sustained by powerful parties, _and full of good intentions towards the public_, may be permitted to call themselves the universal representatives of the people. but, gentlemen, it is the _currency_, the currency of the country,--it is this great subject, so interesting, so vital, to all classes of the community, which has been destined to feel the most violent assaults of executive power. the consequences are around us and upon us. not unforeseen, not unforetold, here they come, bringing distress for the present, and fear and alarm for the future. if it be denied that the present condition of things has arisen from the president's interference with the revenue, the first answer is, that, when he did interfere, just such consequences were predicted. it was then said, and repeated, and pressed upon the public attention, that that interference must necessarily produce derangement, embarrassment, loss of confidence, and commercial distress. i pray you, gentlemen, to recur to the debates of , , and , and then to decide whose opinions have proved to be correct. when the treasury experiment was first announced, who supported, and who opposed it? who warned the country against it? who were they who endeavored to stay the violence of party, to arrest the hand of executive authority, and to convince the people that this experiment was delusive; that its object was merely to increase executive power, and that its effect, sooner or later, must be injurious and ruinous? gentlemen, it is fair to bring the opinions of political men to the test of experience. it is just to judge of them by their measures, and their opposition to measures; and for myself, and those political friends with whom i have acted, on this subject of the currency, i am ready to abide the test. but before the subject of the currency, and its present most embarrassing state, is discussed, i invite your attention, gentlemen, to the history of executive proceedings connected with it. i propose to state to you a series of facts; not to argue upon them, not to _mystify_ them, nor to draw any unjust inference from them; but merely to state the case, in the plainest manner, as i understand it. and i wish, gentlemen, that, in order to be able to do this in the best and most convincing manner, i had the ability of my learned friend, (mr. ogden,) whom you have all so often heard, and who usually states his case in such a manner that, when stated, it is already very well argued. let us see, gentlemen, what the train of occurrences has been in regard to our revenue and finances; and when these occurrences are stated, i leave to every man the right to decide for himself whether our present difficulties have or have not arisen from attempts to extend the executive authority. in giving this detail, i shall be compelled to speak of the late bank of the united states; but i shall speak of it historically only. my opinion of its utility, and of the extraordinary ability and success with which its affairs were conducted for many years before the termination of its charter, is well known. i have often expressed it, and i have not altered it. but at present i speak of the bank only as it makes a necessary part in the history of events which i wish now to recapitulate. mr. adams commenced his administration in march, . he had been elected by the house of representatives, and began his career as president under a powerful opposition. from the very first day, he was warmly, even violently, opposed in all his measures; and this opposition, as we all know, continued without abatement, either in force or asperity, through his whole term of four years. gentlemen, i am not about to say whether this opposition was well or ill founded, just or unjust. i only state the fact as connected with other facts. the bank of the united states, during these four years of mr. adams's administration, was in full operation. it was performing the fiscal duties enjoined on it by its charter; it had established numerous offices, was maintaining a large circulation, and transacting a vast business in exchange. its character, conduct, and manner of administration were all well known to the whole country. now there are two or three things worthy of especial notice. one is, that during the whole of this heated political controversy, from to , the party which was endeavoring to produce a change of administration in the general government brought no charge of political interference against the bank of the united states. if any thing, it was rather a favorite with that party generally. certainly, the party, as a party, did not ascribe to it undue attachment to other parties, or to the then existing administration. another important fact is, that, during the whole of the same period, those who had espoused the cause of general jackson, and who sought to bring about a revolution under his name, did not propose the destruction of the bank, or its discontinuance, as one of the objects which were to be accomplished by the intended revolution. they did not tell the country that the bank was unconstitutional; they did not declare it unnecessary; they did not propose to get along without it, when they should come into power themselves. if individuals entertained any such purposes, they kept them much to themselves. the party, as a party, avowed none such. a third fact, worthy of all notice, is, that during this period there was no complaint about the state of the currency, either by the country generally or by the party then in opposition. in march, , general jackson was inaugurated as president. he came into power on professions of reform. he announced reform of all abuses to be the great and leading object of his future administration; and in his inaugural address he pointed out the main subjects of this reform. but the bank was not one of them. it was not said by him that the bank was unconstitutional. it was not said that it was unnecessary or useless. it was not said that it had failed to do all that had been hoped or expected from it in regard to the currency. in march, , then, the bank stood well, very well, with the new administration. it was regarded, so far as appears, as entirely constitutional, free from political or party taint, and highly useful. it had as yet found no place in the catalogue of abuses to be reformed. but, gentlemen, nine months wrought a wonderful change. new lights broke forth before these months had rolled away; and the president, in his message to congress in december, , held a very unaccustomed language and manifested very unexpected purposes. although the bank had then five or six years of its charter unexpired, he yet called the attention of congress very pointedly to the subject, and declared,-- . that the constitutionality of the bank was well doubted by many; . that its utility or expediency was also well doubted; . that all must admit that it had failed to establish or maintain a sound and uniform currency; and . that the true bank for the use of the government of the united states would be a bank which should be founded on the revenues and credit of the government itself. these propositions appeared to me, at the time, as very extraordinary, and the last one as very startling. a bank founded on the revenue and credit of the government, and managed and administered by the executive, was a conception which i had supposed no man holding the chief executive power in his own hands would venture to put forth. but the question now is, what had wrought this great change of feeling and of purpose in regard to the bank. what events had occurred between march and december that should have caused the bank, so constitutional, so useful, so peaceful, and so safe an institution, in the first of these months, to start up into the character of a monster, and become so horrid and dangerous, in the last? gentlemen, let us see what the events were which had intervened. general jackson was elected in december, . his term was to begin in march, . a session of congress took place, therefore, between his election and the commencement of his administration. now, gentlemen, the truth is, that during this session, and a little before the commencement of the new administration, a disposition was manifested by political men to interfere with the management of the bank. members of congress undertook to nominate or recommend individuals as directors in the branches or offices of the bank. they were kind enough, sometimes, to make out whole lists, or tickets, and to send them to philadelphia, containing the names of those whose appointments would be satisfactory to general jackson's friends. portions of the correspondence on these subjects have been published in some of the voluminous reports and other documents connected with the bank, but perhaps have not been generally heeded or noticed. at first, the bank merely declined, as gently as possible, complying with these and similar requests. but like applications began to show themselves from many quarters, and a very marked case arose as early as june, . certain members of the legislature of new hampshire applied for a change in the presidency of the branch which was established in that state. a member of the senate of the united states wrote both to the president of the bank and to the secretary of the treasury, strongly recommending a change, and in his letter to the secretary hinting very distinctly at political considerations as the ground of the movement. other officers in the service of the government took an interest in the matter, and urged a change; and the secretary himself wrote to the bank, suggesting and recommending it. the time had come, then, for the bank to take its position. it did take it; and, in my judgment, if it had not acted as it did act, not only would those who had the care of it have been most highly censurable, but a claim would have been yielded to, entirely inconsistent with a government of laws, and subversive of the very foundations of republicanism. a long correspondence between the secretary of the treasury and the president of the bank ensued. the directors determined that they would not surrender either their rights or their duties to the control or supervision of the executive government. they said they had never appointed directors of their branches on political grounds, and they would not remove them on such grounds. they had avoided politics. they had sought for men of business, capacity, fidelity, and experience in the management of pecuniary concerns. they owed duties, they said, to the government, which they meant to perform, faithfully and impartially, under all administrations; and they owed duties to the stockholders of the bank, which required them to disregard political considerations in their appointments. this correspondence ran along into the fall of the year, and finally terminated in a stern and unanimous declaration, made by the directors, and transmitted to the secretary of the treasury, that the bank would continue to be independently administered, and that the directors once for all refused to submit to the supervision of the executive authority, in any of its branches, in the appointment of local directors and agents. this resolution decided the character of the future. hostility towards the bank, thenceforward, became the settled policy of the government; and the message of december, , was the clear announcement of that policy. if the bank had appointed those directors, thus recommended by members of congress; if it had submitted all its appointments to the supervision of the treasury; if it had removed the president of the new hampshire branch; if it had, in all things, showed itself a complying, political, party machine, instead of an independent institution;--if it had done this, i leave all men to judge whether such an entire change of opinion, as to its constitutionality, its utility, and its good effects on the currency, would have happened between march and december. from the moment in which the bank asserted its independence of treasury control, and its elevation above mere party purposes, down to the end of its charter, and down even to the present day, it has been the subject to which the selectest phrases of party denunciation have been plentifully applied. but congress manifested no disposition to establish a treasury bank. on the contrary, it was satisfied, and so was the country, most unquestionably, with the bank then existing. in the summer of , congress passed an act for continuing the charter of the bank, by strong majorities in both houses. in the house of representatives, i think, two thirds of the members voted for the bill. the president gave it his negative; and as there were not two thirds of the senate, though a large majority were for it, the bill failed to become a law. but it was not enough that a continuance of the charter of the bank was thus refused. it had the deposit of the public money, and this it was entitled to, by law, for the few years which yet remained of its chartered term. but this it was determined it should not continue to enjoy. at the commencement of the session of - , a grave and sober doubt was expressed by the secretary of the treasury, in his official communication, whether the public moneys were safe in the custody of the bank! i confess, gentlemen, when i look back to this suggestion, thus officially made, so serious in its import, so unjust, if not well founded, and so greatly injurious to the credit of the bank, and injurious, indeed, to the credit of the whole country, i cannot but wonder that any man of intelligence and character should have been willing to make it. i read in it, however, the first lines of another chapter. i saw an attempt was now to be made to remove the deposits of the public money from the bank, and such an attempt was made that very session. but congress was not to be prevailed upon to accomplish the end by its own authority. it was well ascertained that neither house would consent to it. the house of representatives, indeed, at the heel of the session, decided against the proposition by a very large majority. the legislative authority having been thus invoked, and invoked in vain, it was resolved to stretch farther the long arm of executive power, and by that arm to reach and strike the victim. it so happened that i was in this city in may, , and here learned, from a very authentic source, that the deposits would be removed by the president's order; and in june, as afterwards appeared, that order was given. now it is obvious, gentlemen, that thus far the changes in our financial and fiscal system were effected, not by congress, but by the executive; not by law, but by the will and the power of the president. congress would have continued the charter of the bank; but the president negatived the bill. congress was of opinion that the deposits ought not to be removed; but the president removed them. nor was this all. the public moneys being withdrawn from the custody which the law had provided, by executive power alone, that same power selected the places for their future keeping. particular banks, existing under state charters, were chosen. with these especial and particular arrangements were made, and the public moneys were deposited in their vaults. henceforward these selected banks were to operate on the revenue and credit of the government; and thus the original scheme, promulgated in the annual message of december, , was substantially carried into effect. here were banks chosen by the treasury; all the arrangements with them made by the treasury; a set of duties to be performed by them to the treasury prescribed; and these banks were to hold the whole proceeds of the public revenue. in all this, congress had neither part nor lot. no law had caused the removal of the deposits; no law had authorized the selection of deposit state banks; no law had prescribed the terms on which the revenues should be placed in such banks. from the beginning of the chapter to the end, it was all executive edict. and now, gentlemen, i ask if it be not most remarkable, that, in a country professing to be under a government of laws, such great and important changes in one of its most essential and vital interests should be brought about without any change of law, without any enactment of the legislature whatever? is such a power trusted to the executive of any government in which the executive is separated, by clear and well-defined lines, from the legislative department? the currency of the country stands on the same general ground as the commerce of the country. both are intimately connected, and both are subjects of legal, not of executive, regulation. it is worthy of notice, that the writers of the federalist, in discussing the powers which the constitution conferred on the president, made it matter of commendation, that it withdraws this subject altogether from his grasp. "he can prescribe no rules," say they, "concerning the commerce or _currency_ of the country." and so we have been all taught to think, under all former administrations. but we have now seen that the president, and the president alone, does prescribe the rule concerning the currency. he makes it, and he alters it. he makes one rule for one branch of the revenue, and another rule for another. he makes one rule for the citizen of one state, and another for the citizen of another state. this, it is certain, is one part of the treasury order of july last. but at last congress interfered, and undertook to regulate the deposits of the public moneys. it passed the law of july, , placing the subject under legal control, restraining the power of the executive, subjecting the banks to liabilities and duties, on the one hand, and securing them against executive favoritism, on the other. but this law contained another important provision; which was, that all the money in the treasury, beyond what was necessary for the current expenditures of the government, should be deposited with the states. this measure passed both houses by very unusual majorities, yet it hardly escaped a veto. it obtained only a cold assent, a slow, reluctant, and hesitating approval; and an early moment was seized to array against it a long list of objections. but the law passed. the money in the treasury beyond the sum of five millions was to go to the states. it has so gone, and the treasury for the present is relieved from the burden of a surplus. but now observe other coincidences. in the annual message of december, , the president quoted the fact of the rapidly increasing sale of the public lands as proof of high national prosperity. he alluded to that subject, certainly with much satisfaction, and apparently in something of the tone of exultation. there was nothing said about monopoly, not a word about speculation, not a word about over-issues of paper, to pay for the lands. all was prosperous, all was full of evidence of a wise administration of government, all was joy and triumph. but the idea of a deposit or distribution of the surplus money with the people suddenly damped this effervescing happiness. the color of the rose was gone, and every thing now looked gloomy and black. now no more felicitation or congratulation, on account of the rapid sales of the public lands; no more of this most decisive proof of national prosperity and happiness. the executive muse takes up a melancholy strain. she sings of monopolies, of speculation, of worthless paper, of loss both of land and money, of the multiplication of banks, and the danger of paper issues; and the end of the canto, the catastrophe, is, that lands shall no longer be sold but for gold and silver alone. the object of all this is clear enough. it was to diminish the income from the public lands. no desire for such a diminution had been manifested, so long as the money was supposed to be likely to remain in the treasury. but a growing conviction that some other disposition must be made of the surplus, awakened attention to the means of preventing that surplus. toward the close of the last session, gentlemen, a proposition was brought forward in congress for such an alteration of the law as should admit payment for public lands to be made in nothing but gold and silver. the mover voted for his own proposition; but i do not recollect that any other member concurred in the vote. the proposition was rejected at once; but, as in other cases, that which congress refused to do, the executive power did. ten days after congress adjourned, having had this matter before it, and having refused to act upon it by making any alteration in the existing laws, a treasury order was issued, commanding that very thing to be done which congress had been requested and had refused to do. just as in the case of the removal of the deposits, the executive power acted in this case also against the known, well understood, and recently expressed will of the representatives of the people. there never has been a moment when the legislative will would have sanctioned the object of that order; probably never a moment in which any twenty individual members of congress would have concurred in it. the act was done without the assent of congress, and against the well-known opinion of congress. that act altered the law of the land, or purported to alter it, against the well-known will of the law-making power. for one, i confess i see no authority whatever in the constitution, or in any law, for this treasury order. those who have undertaken to maintain it have placed it on grounds, not only different, but inconsistent and contradictory. the reason which one gives, another rejects; one confutes what another argues. with one it is the joint resolution of which gave the authority; with another, it is the law of ; with a third, it is the general superintending power of the president; and this last argument, since it resolves itself into mere power, without stopping to point out the sources of that power, is not only the shortest, but in truth the most just. he is the most sensible, as well as the most candid reasoner, in my opinion, who places this treasury order on the ground of the pleasure of the executive, and stops there. i regard the joint resolution of as mandatory; as prescribing a legal rule; as putting this subject, in which all have so deep an interest, beyond the caprice, or the arbitrary pleasure, or the discretion, of the secretary of the treasury. i believe there is not the slightest legal authority, either in that officer or in the president, to make a distinction, and to say that paper may be received for debts at the custom-house, but that gold and silver only shall be received at the land offices. and now for the sequel. at the commencement of the last session, as you know, gentlemen, a resolution was brought forward in the senate for annulling and abrogating this order, by mr. ewing, of ohio, a gentleman of much intelligence, of sound principles, of vigorous and energetic character, whose loss from the service of the country i regard as a public misfortune. the whig members all supported this resolution, and all the members, i believe, with the exception of some five or six, were very anxious in some way to get rid of the treasury order. but mr. ewing's resolution was too direct. it was deemed a pointed and ungracious attack on executive policy. it must therefore be softened, modified, qualified, made to sound less harsh to the ears of men in power, and to assume a plausible, polished, inoffensive character. it was accordingly put into the plastic hands of friends of the executive to be moulded and fashioned, so that it might have the effect of ridding the country of the obnoxious order, and yet not appear to question executive infallibility. all this did not answer. the late president is not a man to be satisfied with soft words; and he saw in the measure, even as it passed the two houses, a substantial repeal of the order. he is a man of boldness and decision; and he respects boldness and decision in others. if you are his friend, he expects no flinching; and if you are his adversary, he respects you none the less for carrying your opposition to the full limits of honorable warfare. gentlemen, i most sincerely regret the course of the president in regard to this bill, and certainly most highly disapprove it. but i do not suffer the mortification of having attempted to disguise and garnish it, in order to make it acceptable, and of still finding it thrown back in my face. all that was obtained by this ingenious, diplomatic, and over-courteous mode of enacting a law, was a response from the president and the attorney-general, that the bill in question was obscure, ill penned, and not easy to be understood. the bill, therefore, was neither approved nor negatived. if it had been approved, the treasury order would have been annulled, though in a clumsy and objectionable manner. if it had been negatived, and returned to congress, no doubt it would have been passed by two thirds of both houses, and in that way have become a law, and abrogated the order. but it was not approved, it was not returned; it was retained. it had passed the senate in season; it had been sent to the house in season; but there it was suffered to lie so long without being called up, that it was completely in the power of the president when it finally passed that body; since he is not obliged to return bills which he does not approve, if not presented to him ten days before the end of the session. the bill was lost, therefore, and the treasury order remains in force. here again the representatives of the people, in both houses of congress, by majorities almost unprecedented, endeavored to abolish this obnoxious order. on hardly any subject, indeed, has opinion been so unanimous, either in or out of congress. yet the order remains. and now, gentlemen, i ask you, and i ask all men who have not voluntarily surrendered all power and all right of thinking for themselves, whether, from to the present moment, the executive authority has not effectually superseded the power of congress, thwarted the will of the representatives of the people, and even of the people themselves, and taken the whole subject of the currency into its own grasp? in , congress desired to continue the bank of the united states, and a majority of the people desired it also; but the president opposed it, and his will prevailed. in , congress refused to remove the deposits; the president resolved upon it, however, and his will prevailed. congress has never been willing to make a bank founded on the money and credit of the government, and administered, of course, by executive hands; but this was the president's object, and he attained it, in a great measure, by the treasury selection of deposit banks. in this particular, therefore, to a great extent, his will prevailed. in , congress refused to confine the receipts for public lands to gold and silver; but the president willed it, and his will prevailed. in , both houses of congress, by more than two thirds, passed a bill for restoring the former state of things by annulling the treasury order; but the president willed, notwithstanding, that the order should remain in force, and his will again prevailed. i repeat the question, therefore, and i would put it earnestly to every intelligent man, to every lover of our constitutional liberty, are we under the dominion of the law? or has the effectual government of the country, at least in all that regards the great interest of the currency, been in a single hand? gentlemen, i have done with the narrative of events and measures. i have done with the history of these successive steps, in the progress of executive power, towards a complete control over the revenue and the currency. the result is now all before us. these pretended reforms, these extraordinary exercises of power from an extraordinary zeal for the good of the people, what have they brought us to? in , the currency was declared to be _neither sound nor uniform_; a proposition, in my judgment, altogether at variance with the fact, because i do not believe there ever was a country of equal extent, in which paper formed any part of the circulation, that possessed a currency so sound, so uniform, so convenient, and so perfect in all respects, as the currency of this country, at the moment of the delivery of that message, in . but how is it now? where has the improvement brought it? what has reform done? what has the great cry for hard money accomplished? is the currency _uniform_ now? is money in new orleans now as good, or nearly so, as money in new york? are exchanges at par, or only at the same low rates as in and other years? every one here knows that all the benefits of this experiment are but injury and oppression; all this reform, but aggravated distress. and as to the _soundness_ of the currency, how does that stand? are the causes of alarm less now than in ? is there less bank paper in circulation? is there less fear of a general catastrophe? is property more secure, or industry more certain of its reward? we all know, gentlemen, that, during all this pretended warfare against all banks, banks have vastly increased. millions upon millions of bank paper have been added to the circulation. everywhere, and nowhere so much as where the present administration and its measures have been most zealously supported, banks have multiplied under state authority, since the decree was made that the bank of the united states should be suffered to expire. look at mississippi, missouri, louisiana, virginia, and other states. do we not see that banking capital and bank paper are enormously increasing? the opposition to banks, therefore, so much professed, whether it be real or whether it be but pretended, has not restrained either their number or their issues of paper. both have vastly increased. and now a word or two, gentlemen, upon this hard-money scheme, and the fancies and the delusions to which it has given birth. gentlemen, this is a subject of delicacy, and one which it is difficult to treat with sufficient caution, in a popular and occasional address like this. i profess to be a _bullionist_, in the usual and accepted sense of that word. i am for a solid specie basis for our circulation, and for specie as a part of the circulation, so far as it may be practicable and convenient. i am for giving no value to paper, merely as paper. i abhor paper; that is to say, irredeemable paper, paper that may not be converted into gold or silver at the will of the holder. but while i hold to all this, i believe, also, that an exclusive gold and silver circulation is an utter impossibility in the present state of this country and of the world. we shall none of us ever see it; and it is credulity and folly, in my opinion, to act under any such hope or expectation. the states will make banks, and these will issue paper; and the longer the government of the united states neglects its duty in regard to measures for regulating the currency, the greater will be the amount of bank paper overspreading the country. of this i entertain not a particle of doubt. while i thus hold to the absolute and indispensable necessity of gold and silver, as the foundation of our circulation, i yet think nothing more absurd and preposterous, than unnatural and strained efforts to import specie. there is but so much specie in the world, and its amount cannot be greatly or suddenly increased. indeed, there are reasons for supposing that its amount has recently diminished, by the quantity used in manufactures, and by the diminished products of the mines. the existing amount of specie, however, must support the paper circulations, and the systems of currency, not of the united states only, but of other nations also. one of its great uses is to pass from country to country, for the purpose of settling occasional balances in commercial transactions. it always finds its way, naturally and easily, to places where it is needed for these uses. but to take extraordinary pains to bring it where the course of trade does not bring it, where the state of debt and credit does not require it to be, and then to endeavor, by unnecessary and injurious regulations, treasury orders, accumulations at the mint, and other contrivances, there to retain it, is a course of policy bordering, as it appears to me, on political insanity. it is boasted that we have seventy-five or eighty millions of specie now in the country. but what more senseless, what more absurd, than this boast, if there is a balance against us abroad, of which payment is desired sooner than remittances of our own products are likely to make that payment? what more miserable than to boast of having that which is not ours, which belongs to others, and which the convenience of others, and our own convenience also, require that they should possess? if boston were in debt to new york, would it be wise in boston, instead of paying its debt, to contrive all possible means of obtaining specie from the new york banks, and hoarding it at home? and yet this, as i think, would be precisely as sensible as the course which the government of the united states at present pursues. we have, beyond all doubt, a great amount of specie in the country, but it does not answer its accustomed end, it does not perform its proper duty. it neither goes abroad to settle balances against us, and thereby quiet those who have demands upon us; nor is it so disposed of at home us to sustain the circulation to the extent which the circumstances of the times require. a great part of it is in the western banks, in the land offices, on the roads through the wilderness, on the passages over the lakes, from the land offices to the deposit banks, and from the deposit banks back to the land offices. another portion is in the hands of buyers and sellers of specie; of men in the west, who sell land-office money to the new settlers for a high premium another portion, again, is kept in private hands, to be used when circumstances shall tempt to the purchase of lands. and, gentlemen, i am inclined to think, so loud has been the cry about hard money, and so sweeping the denunciation of all paper, that private holding, or hoarding, prevails to some extent in different parts of the country. these eighty millions of specie, therefore, really do us little good. we are weaker in our circulation, i have no doubt, our credit is feebler, money is scarcer with us, at this moment, than if twenty millions of this specie were shipped to europe, and general confidence thereby restored. gentlemen, i will not say that some degree of pressure might not have come upon us, if the treasury order had not issued. i will not say that there has not been over-trading, and over-production, and a too great expansion of bank circulation. this may all be so, and the last-mentioned evil, it was easy to foresee, was likely to happen when the united states discontinued their own bank. but what i do say is, that, acting upon the state of things as it actually existed, and is now actually existing the treasury order has been, and now is productive of great distress. it acts upon a state of things which gives extraordinary force to its stroke, and extraordinary point to its sting. it arrests specie, when the free use and circulation of specie are most important; it cripples the banks, at a moment when the banks more than ever need all their means. it makes the merchant unable to remit, when remittance is necessary for his own credit, and for the general adjustment of commercial balances. i am not now discussing the general question, whether prices must not come down, and adjust themselves anew to the amount of bullion existing in europe and america. i am dealing only with the measures of our own government on the subject of the currency, and i insist that these measures have been most unfortunate, and most ruinous in their effects on the ordinary means of our circulation at home, and on our ability of remittance abroad. their effects, too, on domestic exchanges, by deranging and misplacing the specie which is in the country, are most disastrous. let him who has lent an ear to all these promises of a more uniform currency see how he can now sell his draft on new orleans or mobile. let the northern manufacturers and mechanics, those who have sold the products of their labor to the south, and heretofore realized the prices with little loss of exchange,--let them try present facilities. let them see what reform of the currency has done for them. let them inquire whether, in this respect, their condition is better or worse than it was five or six years ago. gentlemen, i hold this disturbance of the measure of value, and the means of payment and exchange, this derangement, and, if i may so say, this violation of the currency, to be one of the most unpardonable of political faults. he who tampers with the currency robs labor of its bread. he panders, indeed, to greedy capital, which is keen-sighted, and may shift for itself; but he beggars labor, which is honest, unsuspecting, and too busy with the present to calculate for the future. the prosperity of the working classes lives, moves, and has its being in established credit, and a steady medium of payment. all sudden changes destroy it. honest industry never comes in for any part of the spoils in that scramble which takes place when the currency of a country is disordered. did wild schemes and projects ever benefit the industrious? did irredeemable bank paper ever enrich the laborious? did violent fluctuations ever do good to him who depends on his daily labor for his daily bread? certainly never. all these things may gratify greediness for sudden gain, or the rashness of daring speculation; but they can bring nothing but injury and distress to the homes of patient industry and honest labor. who are they that profit by the present state of things? they are not the many, but the few. they are speculators, brokers, dealers in money, and lenders of money at exorbitant interest. small capitalists are crushed, and, their means being dispersed, as usual, in various parts of the country, and this miserable policy having destroyed exchanges, they have no longer either money or credit. and all classes of labor partake, and must partake, in the same calamity. and what consolation for all this is it, that the public lands are paid for in specie? that, whatever embarrassment and distress pervade the country, the western wilderness is thickly sprinkled over with eagles and dollars? that gold goes weekly from milwaukie and chicago to detroit, and back again from detroit to milwaukie and chicago, and performs similar feats of egress and regress, in many other instances, in the western states? it is remarkable enough, that, with all this sacrifice of general convenience, with all this sky-rending clamor for government payments in specie, government, after all, never gets a dollar. so far as i know, the united states have not now a single specie dollar in the world. if they have, where is it? the gold and silver collected at the land offices is sent to the deposit banks; it is there placed to the credit of the government, and thereby becomes the property of the bank. the whole revenue of the government, therefore, after all, consists in mere bank credits; that very sort of security which the friends of the administration have so much denounced. remember, gentlemen, in the midst of this deafening din against all banks, that, if it shall create such a panic as shall shut up the banks, it will shut up the treasury of the united states also. gentlemen, i would not willingly be a prophet of ill. i most devoutly wish to see a better state of things; and i believe the repeal of the treasury order would tend very much to bring about that better state of things. and i am of opinion, that, sooner or later, the order will be repealed. i think it must be repealed. i think the east, west, north, and south will demand its repeal. but, gentlemen, i feel it my duty to say, that, if i should be disappointed in this expectation, i see no immediate relief to the distresses of the community. i greatly fear, even, that the worst is not yet.[ ] i look for severer distresses; for extreme difficulties in exchange, for far greater inconveniences in remittance, and for a sudden fall in prices. our condition is one which is not to be tampered with, and the repeal of the treasury order, being something which government can do, and which will do good, the public voice is right in demanding that repeal. it is true, if repealed now, the relief will come late. nevertheless its repeal or abrogation is a thing to be insisted on, and pursued, till it shall be accomplished. this executive control over the currency, this power of discriminating, by treasury order, between one man's debt and another man's debt, is a thing not to be endured in a free country; and it should be the constant, persisting demand of all true whigs, "rescind the illegal treasury order, restore the rule of the law, place all branches of the revenue on the same grounds, make men's rights equal, and leave the government of the country where the constitution leaves it, in the hands of the representatives of the people in congress." this point should never be surrendered or compromised. whatever is established, let it be equal, and let it be legal. let men know, to-day, what money may be required of them to-morrow. let the rule be open and public, on the pages of the statute-book, not a secret, in the executive breast. gentlemen, in the session which has now just closed, i have done my utmost to effect a direct and immediate repeal of the treasury order. i have voted for a bill anticipating the payment of the french and neapolitan indemnities by an advance from the treasury. i have voted with great satisfaction for the restoration of duties on goods destroyed in the great conflagration in this city. i have voted for a deposit with the states of the surplus which may be in the treasury at the end of the year. all these measures have failed; and it is for you, and for our fellow-citizens throughout the country, to decide whether the public interest would, or would not, have been promoted by their success. but i find, gentlemen, that i am committing an unpardonable trespass on your indulgent patience. i will pursue these remarks no further. and yet i cannot persuade myself to take leave of you without reminding you, with the utmost deference and respect, of the important part assigned to you in the political concerns of your country, and of the great influence of your opinions, your example, and your efforts upon the general prosperity and happiness. whigs of new york! patriotic citizens of this great metropolis! lovers of constitutional liberty, bound by interest and by affection to the institutions of your country, americans in heart and in principle!--you are ready, i am sure, to fulfil all the duties imposed upon you by your situation, and demanded of you by your country. you have a central position; your city is the point from which intelligence emanates, and spreads in all directions over the whole land. every hour carries reports of your sentiments and opinions to the verge of the union. you cannot escape the responsibility which circumstances have thrown upon you. you must live and act, on a broad and conspicuous theatre, either for good or for evil to your country. you cannot shrink from your public duties; you cannot obscure yourselves, nor bury your talent. in the common welfare, in the common prosperity, in the common glory of americans, you have a stake of value not to be calculated. you have an interest in the preservation of the union, of the constitution, and of the true principles of the government, which no man can estimate. you act for yourselves, and for the generations that are to come after you; and those who ages hence shall bear your names, and partake your blood, will feel, in their political and social condition, the consequences of the manner in which you discharge your political duties. having fulfilled, then, on your part and on mine, though feebly and imperfectly on mine, the offices of kindness and mutual regard required by this occasion, shall we not use it to a higher and nobler purpose? shall we not, by this friendly meeting, refresh our patriotism, rekindle our love of constitutional liberty, and strengthen our resolutions of public duty? shall we not, in all honesty and sincerity, with pure and disinterested love of country, as americans, looking back to the renown of our ancestors, and looking forward to the interests of our posterity, here, to-night, pledge our mutual faith to hold on to the last to our professed principles, to the doctrines of true liberty, and to the constitution of the country, let who will prove true, or who will prove recreant? whigs of new york! i meet you in advance, and give you my pledge for my own performance of these duties, without qualification and without reserve. whether in public life or in private life, in the capitol or at home, i mean never to desert them. i mean never to forget that i have a country, to which i am bound by a thousand ties; and the stone which is to lie on the ground that shall cover me, shall not bear the name of a son ungrateful to his native land. [footnote : president jackson.] [footnote : on the th of june following the delivery of this speech, all the banks in the city of new york, by common consent, suspended the payment of their notes in specie. on the next day, the same step was taken by the banks of boston and the vicinity, and the example was followed by all the banks south of new york, as they received intelligence of the suspension of specie payments in that city. on the th of june, (just three months from the day this speech was delivered,) president van buren issued his proclamation calling an extra session of congress for the first monday of september.] slavery in the district of columbia. remarks made in the senate of the united states, on the th of january, , upon a resolution moved by mr. clay as a substitute for the resolution offered by mr. calhoun on the subject of slavery in the district of columbia. [on the th of december, , a series of resolutions was moved in the senate by mr. calhoun, on the subject of slavery. the fifth of the series was expressed in the following terms:-- "_resolved_, that the intermeddling of any state, or states, or their citizens, to abolish slavery in this district, or any of the territories, on the ground, or under the pretext, that it is immoral or sinful, or the passage of any act or measure of congress with that view, would be a direct and dangerous attack on the institutions of all the slave-holding states." these resolutions were taken up for discussion on several successive days. on the th of january, , mr. clay moved the following resolution, as a substitute for the fifth of mr. calhoun's series:-- "_resolved_, that the interference, by the citizens of any of the states, with the view to the abolition of slavery in this district, is endangering the rights and security of the people of the district; and that any act or measure of congress, designed to abolish slavery in this district, would be a violation of the faith implied in the cessions by the states of virginia and maryland, a just cause of alarm to the people of the slave-holding states, and have a direct and inevitable tendency to disturb and endanger the union." on the subject of this amendment, mr. webster addressed the senate as follows.] mr. president,--i cannot concur in this resolution. i do not know any matter of fact, or any ground of argument, on which this affirmation of plighted faith can be sustained. i see nothing by which congress has tied up its hands, either directly or indirectly, so as to put its clear constitutional power beyond the exercise of its own discretion. i have carefully examined the acts of cession by the states, the act of congress, the proceedings and history of the times, and i find nothing to lead me to doubt that it was the intention of all parties to leave this, like other subjects belonging to legislation for the ceded territory, entirely to the discretion and wisdom of congress. the words of the constitution are clear and plain. none could be clearer or plainer. congress, by that instrument, has power to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the ceded territory, in all cases whatsoever. the acts of cession contain no limitation, condition, or qualification whatever, except that, out of abundant caution, there is inserted a _proviso_ that nothing in the acts contained shall be construed to vest in the united states any right of property in the soil, so as to affect the rights of individuals therein, otherwise than as such individuals might themselves transfer their right of soil to the united states. the acts of cession declare, that the tract of country "is for ever ceded and relinquished to congress and to the government of the united states, in full and absolute right and exclusive jurisdiction, as well of soil as of persons residing or to reside therein, pursuant to the tenor and effect of the eighth section of the first article of the constitution of the united states." now, that section, to which reference is thus expressly made in these deeds of cession, declares, that congress shall have power "to exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district, not exceeding ten miles square, as may, by cession of particular states and the acceptance of congress, become the seat of government of the united states." nothing, therefore, as it seems to me, can be clearer, than that the states making the cession expected congress to exercise over the district precisely that power, and neither more nor less, which the constitution had conferred upon it. i do not know how the provision, or the intention, either of the constitution in granting the power, or of the states in making the cession, could be expressed in a manner more absolutely free from all doubt or ambiguity. i see, therefore, nothing in the act of cession, and nothing in the constitution, and nothing in the history of this transaction, and nothing in any other transaction, implying any limitation upon the authority of congress. if the assertion contained in this resolution be true, a very strange result, as it seems to me, must follow. the resolution affirms that the faith of congress is pledged, indefinitely. it makes no limitation of time or circumstance. if this be so, then it is an obligation that binds us for ever, as much as if it were one of the prohibitions of the constitution itself. and at all times hereafter, even if, in the course of their history, availing themselves of events, or changing their views of policy, the states themselves should make provision for the emancipation of their slaves, the existing state of things could not be changed, nevertheless, in this district. it does really seem to me, that, if this resolution, in its terms, be true, though slavery in every other part of the world may be abolished, yet in the metropolis of this great republic it is established in perpetuity. this appears to me to be the result of the doctrine of plighted faith, as stated in the resolution. in reply to mr. buchanan, mr. webster said:--#/ the words of the resolution speak for themselves. they require no comment. they express an unlimited plighted faith. the honorable member will so see if he will look at those words. the gentleman asks whether those who made the cession could have expected that congress would ever exercise such a power. to this i answer, that i see no reason to doubt that the parties to the cession were as willing to leave this as to leave other powers to the discretion of congress. i see not the slightest evidence of any especial fear, or any especial care or concern, on the part of the ceding states, in regard to this particular part of the jurisdiction ceded to congress. and i think i can ask, on the other side, a very important question for the consideration of the gentleman himself, and for that of the senate and the country; and that is, would congress have accepted the cession with any such restraint upon its constitutional power, either express or understood to be implied? i think not. looking back to the state of things then existing, and especially to what congress had so recently done, when it accepted the cession of the northwestern territory, i entertain no doubt whatever that congress would have refused the cession altogether, if offered with any condition or understanding that its constitutional authority to exercise exclusive legislation over the district in all cases whatsoever should be abridged. the senate will observe that i am speaking solely to the point of plighted faith. upon other parts of the resolution, and upon many other things connected with it, i have said nothing. i only resist the imposition of new obligations, or a new prohibition, not to be found, as i think, either in the constitution or any act of congress. i have said nothing on the expediency of abolition, immediate or gradual, or the reasons which ought to weigh with congress should that question be proposed. i can, however, well conceive what would, as i think, be a natural and fair mode of reasoning on such an occasion. when it is said, for instance, by way of argument, that congress, although it have the power, ought not to take a lead in the business of abolition, considering that the interest which the united states have in the whole subject is vastly less than that which states have in it, i can understand the propriety and pertinency of the observation. it is, as far as it goes, a pertinent and appropriate argument, and i shall always be ready to give it the full weight belonging to it. when it is argued that, in a case so vital to the states, the states themselves should be allowed to maintain their own policy, and that the government of the united states ought not to do any thing which shall, directly or indirectly, shake or disturb that policy, this is a line of argument which i can understand, whatever weight i may be disposed to give to it; for i have always not only admitted, but insisted, that slavery within the states is a subject belonging absolutely and exclusively to the states themselves. but the present is not an attempt to establish any such course of reasoning as this. the attempt is to set up a pledge of the public faith, to do the same office that a constitutional prohibition in terms would do; that is, to set up a direct bar, precluding all exercise of the discretion of congress over the subject. it has been often said, in this debate, and i believe it is true, that a decided majority of the senate do believe that congress has a clear constitutional power over slavery in this district. but while this constitutional right is admitted, it is at the same moment attempted effectually to counteract, overthrow, and do away with it, by the affirmation of plighted faith, as asserted in the resolution before us. now, i have already said i know of nothing to support this affirmation. neither in the acts of cession, nor in the act of congress accepting it, nor in any other document, history, publication, or transaction, do i know of a single fact or suggestion supporting this proposition, or tending to support it. nor has any gentleman, so far as i know, pointed out, or attempted to point out, any such fact, document, transaction, or other evidence. all is left to the general and repeated statement, that such a condition must have been intended by the states. of all this i see no proof whatever. i see no evidence of any desire on the part of the states thus to limit the power of congress, or thus to require a pledge against its exercise. and, indeed, if this were made out, the intention of congress, as well as that of the states, must be inquired into. nothing short of a clear and manifest intention of both parties, proved by proper evidence, can amount to plighted faith. the expectation or intent of one party, founded on something not provided for nor hinted at in the transaction itself, cannot plight the faith of the other party. in short, i am altogether unable to see any ground for supposing that either party to the cession had any mental reservation, any unexpressed expectation, or relied on any implied, but unmentioned and unsuggested pledge, whatever. by the constitution, if a district should be ceded to it for the seat of government, congress was to have a right, in express terms, to exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever. the cession was made and accepted in pursuance of this power. both parties knew well what they were doing. both parties knew that by the cession the states surrendered all jurisdiction, and congress acquired all jurisdiction; and this is the whole transaction. as to any provision in the acts of cession stipulating for the security of property, there is none, excepting only what i have already stated; the condition, namely, that no right of individuals to the soil should be construed to be transferred, but only the jurisdiction. but, no doubt, all rights of property ought to be duly respected by congress, and all other legislatures. and since the subject of compensation to the owners of emancipated slaves has been referred to, i take occasion to say, that if congress should think that a wise, just, and politic legislation for this district required it to make compensation for slaves emancipated here, it has the same constitutional authority to make such compensation as to make grants for roads and bridges, almshouses, penitentiaries, and other similar objects, in the district. a general and absolute power of legislation carries with it all the necessary and just incidents belonging to such legislation. mr. clay having made some remarks in reply, mr. webster rejoined:--#/ the honorable member from kentucky asks the senate to suppose the opposite case; to suppose that the seat of government had been fixed in a free state, pennsylvania, for example; and that congress had attempted to establish slavery in a district over which, as here, it had thus exclusive legislation. he asks whether, in that case, congress could establish slavery in such a place. this mode of changing the question does not, i think, vary the argument; and i answer, at once, that, however improbable or improper such an act might be, yet, if the power were universal, absolute, and without restriction, it might unquestionably be so exercised. no limitation being expressed or intimated in the grant itself, or any other proceeding of the parties, none could be implied. and in the other cases, of forts, arsenals, and dock-yards, if congress has exclusive and absolute legislative power, it must, of course, have the power, if it could be supposed to be guilty of such folly, whether proposed to be exercised in a district within a free state, to establish slavery, or in a district in a slave state, to abolish or regulate it. if it be a district over which congress has, as it has in this district, unlimited power of legislation, it seems to me that whatever would stay the exercise of this power, in either case, must be drawn from discretion, from reasons of justice and true policy, from those high considerations which ought to influence congress in questions of such extreme delicacy and importance; and to all these considerations i am willing, and always shall be willing, i trust, to give full weight. but i cannot, in conscience, say that the power so clearly conferred on congress by the constitution, as a power to be exercised, like others, at its own discretion, is immediately taken away again by an implied faith that it shall not be exercised at all. the credit system and the labor of the united states. from the second speech on the sub-treasury, delivered in the senate of the united states, on the th of march, . now, mr. president, what i understand by the credit system is, that which thus connects labor and capital, by giving to labor the use of capital. in other words, intelligence, good character, and good morals bestow on those who have not capital a power, a trust, a confidence, which enables them to obtain it, and to employ it usefully for themselves and others. these active men of business build their hopes of success on their attentiveness, their economy, and their integrity. a wider theatre for useful activity is under their feet, and around them, than was ever open to the young and enterprising generations of men, on any other spot enlightened by the sun. before them is the ocean. every thing in that direction invites them to efforts of enterprise and industry in the pursuits of commerce and the fisheries. around them, on all hands, are thriving and prosperous manufactures, an improving agriculture, and the daily presentation of new objects of internal improvement; while behind them is almost half a continent of the richest land, at the cheapest prices, under healthful climates, and washed by the most magnificent rivers that on any part of the globe pay their homage to the sea. in the midst of all these glowing and glorious prospects, they are neither restrained by ignorance, nor smitten down by the penury of personal circumstances. they are not compelled to contemplate, in hopelessness and despair, all the advantages thus bestowed on their condition by providence. capital they may have little or none, but credit supplies its place; not as the refuge of the prodigal and the reckless; not as gratifying present wants with the certainty of future absolute ruin; but as the genius of honorable trust and confidence; as the blessing voluntarily offered to good character and to good conduct as the beneficent agent, which assists honesty and enterprise in obtaining comfort and independence. mr. president, take away this credit, and what remains? i do not ask what remains to the few, but to the many? take away this system of credit, and then tell me what is left for labor and industry, but mere manual toil and daily drudgery? if we adopt a system that withdraws capital from active employment, do we not diminish the rate of wages? if we curtail the general business of society, does not every laboring man find his condition grow daily worse? in the politics of the day, sir, we hear much said about divorcing the government from the banks; but when we abolish credit, we shall divorce labor from capital; and depend upon it, sir, when we divorce labor from capital, capital is hoarded, and labor starves. the declaration so often quoted, that "all who trade on borrowed capital ought to break," is the most aristocratic sentiment ever uttered in this country. it is a sentiment which, if carried out by political arrangement, would condemn the great majority of mankind to the perpetual condition of mere day-laborers. it tends to take away from them all that solace and hope which arise from possessing something which they can call their own. a man loves his own; it is fit and natural that he should do so; and he will love his country and its institutions, if he have some stake in that country, although it be but a very small part of the general mass of property. if it be but a cottage, an acre, a garden, its possession raises him, gives him self-respect, and strengthens his attachment to his native land. it is our happy condition, by the blessing of providence, that almost every man of sound health, industrious habits, and good morals, can ordinarily attain, at least, to this degree of comfort and respectability; and it is a result devoutly to be wished, both for its individual and its general consequences. but even to this degree of acquisition that credit of which i have already said so much is highly important, since its general effect is to raise the price of wages, and render industry productive. there is no condition so low, if it be attended with industry and economy, that it is not benefited by credit, as any one will find, if he will examine and follow out its operations. sir, if there be any aristocrats in massachusetts, the people are all aristocrats; because i do not believe there is on earth, in a highly civilized society, a greater equality in the condition of men than exists there. if there be a man in the state who maintains what is called an equipage, has servants in livery, or drives four horses in his coach, i am not acquainted with him. on the other hand, there are few who are not able to carry their wives and daughters to church in some decent conveyance. it is no matter of regret or sorrow to us that few are very rich; but it is our pride and glory that few are very poor. it is our still higher pride, and our just boast, as i think, that all her citizens possess means of intelligence and education, and that, of all her productions, she reckons among the very chiefest those which spring from the culture of the mind and the heart. mr. president, one of the most striking characteristics of this age in the extraordinary progress which it has witnessed in popular knowledge. a new and powerful impulse has been acting in the social system of late, producing this effect in a most remarkable degree. in morals, in politics, in art, in literature, there is a vast accession to the number of readers and to the number of proficients. the present state of popular knowledge is not the result of a slow and uniform progress, proceeding through a lapse of years, with the same regular degree of motion. it is evidently the result of some new causes, brought into powerful action, and producing their consequences rapidly and strikingly. what, sir, are these causes? this is not an occasion, sir, for discussing such a question at length; allow me to say, however, that the improved state of popular knowledge is but the necessary result of the improved condition of the great mass of the people. knowledge is not one of our merely physical wants. life may be sustained without it. but, in order to live, men must be fed and clothed and sheltered; and in a state of things in which one's whole labor can do no more than procure clothes, food, and shelter, he can have no time nor means for mental improvement. knowledge, therefore, is not attained, and cannot be attained, till there is some degree of respite from daily manual toil and never-ending drudgery. whenever a less degree of labor will produce the absolute necessaries of life, then there come leisure and means both to teach and to learn. if this great and wonderful extension of popular knowledge be the result of an improved condition, it may, in the next place, well be asked, what are the causes which have thus suddenly produced that great improvement? how is it that the means of food, clothing, and shelter are now so much more cheaply and abundantly procured than formerly? sir, the main cause i take to be the progress of scientific art, or a new extension of the application of science to art. this it is which has so much distinguished the last half-century in europe and in america, and its effects are everywhere visible, and especially among us. man has found new allies and auxiliaries in the powers of nature and in the inventions of mechanism. the general doctrine of political economy is, that wealth consists in whatever is useful or convenient to man, and that labor is the producing cause of all this wealth. this is very true. but, then, what is labor? in the sense of political writers, and in common language, it means human industry; in a philosophical view, it may receive a much more comprehensive meaning. it is not, in that view, human toil only, the mere action of thews and muscles; but it is any active agency which, working upon the materials with which the world is supplied, brings forth products useful or convenient to man. the materials of wealth are in the earth, in the seas, and in their natural and unaided productions. labor obtains these materials, works upon them, and fashions them to human use. now it has been the object of scientific art, or of the application of science to art, to increase this active agency, to augment its power, by creating millions of laborers in the form of machines all but automatic, all to be diligently employed and kept at work by the force of natural powers. to this end these natural powers, principally those of steam and falling water, are subsidized and taken into human employment. spinning-machines, power-looms, and all the mechanical devices, acting, among other operatives, in the factories and workshops, are but so many laborers. they are usually denominated labor-_saving_ machines, but it would be more just to call them labor-_doing_ machines. they are made to be active agents; to have motion, and to produce effect; and though without intelligence, they are guided by laws of science, which are exact and perfect, and they produce results, therefore, in general, more accurate than the human hand is capable of producing. when we look upon one of these, we behold a mute fellow-laborer, of immense power, of mathematical exactness, and of ever-during and unwearied effort. and while he is thus a most skilful and productive laborer, he is a non-consumer, at least beyond the wants of his mechanical being. he is not clamorous for food, raiment, or shelter, and makes no demands for the expenses of education. the eating and drinking, the reading and writing, and the clothes-wearing world, are benefited by the labors of these co-operatives, in the same way as if providence had provided for their service millions of beings, like ourselves in external appearance, able to labor and to toil, and yet requiring little or nothing for their own consumption or subsistence; or rather, as if providence had created a race of giants, each of whom, demanding no more for his support and consumption than a common laborer, should yet be able to perform the work of a hundred. now, sir, turn back to the massachusetts tables of production, and you will see that it is these automatic allies and co-operators, and these powers of nature, thus employed and placed under human direction, which have come, with such prodigious effect, to man's aid, in the great business of procuring the means of living, of comfort, and of wealth, and which have so swollen the products of her skilful industry. look at these tables once more, sir, and you will see the effects of labor, united with and acting upon capital. look yet again, and you will see that credit, mutual trust, prompt and punctual dealings, and commercial confidence, are all mixed up as indispensable elements in the general system. i will ask you to look yet once more, sir, and you will perceive that general competence, great equality in human condition, a degree of popular knowledge and intelligence nowhere surpassed, if anywhere equalled, the prevalence of good moral sentiment, and extraordinary general prosperity, are the result of the whole. sir, i have done with massachusetts. i do not praise the old "bay state" of the revolution; i only present her as she is. mr. president, such is the state of things actually existing in the country, and of which i have now given you a sample. and yet there are persons who constantly clamor against this state of things. they call it aristocracy. they excite the poor to make war upon the rich, while in truth they know not who are either rich or poor. they complain of oppression, speculation, and the pernicious influence of accumulated wealth. they cry out loudly against all banks and corporations, and all the means by which small capitals become united, in order to produce important and beneficial results. they carry on a mad hostility against all established institutions. they would choke up the fountains of industry, and dry all its streams. in a country of unbounded liberty, they clamor against oppression. in a country of perfect equality, they would move heaven and earth against privilege and monopoly. in a country where property is more equally divided than anywhere else, they rend the air with the shouting of agrarian doctrines. in a country where the wages of labor are high beyond all parallel, and where lands are cheap, and the means of living low, they would teach the laborer that he is but an oppressed slave. sir, what can such men want? what do they mean? they can want nothing, sir, but to enjoy the fruits of other men's labor. they can mean nothing but disturbance and disorder, the diffusion of corrupt principles, and the destruction of the moral sentiments and moral habits of society. a licentiousness of feeling and of action is sometimes produced by prosperity itself. men cannot always resist the temptation to which they are exposed by the very abundance of the bounties of providence, and the very happiness of their own condition; as the steed, full of the pasture, will sometimes throw himself against its enclosures, break away from its confinement, and, feeling now free from needless restraint, betake himself to the moors and barrens, where want, erelong, brings him to his senses, and starvation and death close his career. remarks on the political course of mr. calhoun, in . from the same speech. having had occasion, mr. president, to speak of nullification and the nullifiers, i beg leave to say that i have not done so for any purpose of reproach. certainly, sir, i see no possible connection, myself, between their principles or opinions, and the support of this measure.[ ] they, however, must speak for themselves. they may have intrusted the bearing of their standard, for aught i know, to the hands of the honorable member from south carolina; and i perceived last session what i perceive now, that in his opinion there is a connection between these projects of government and the doctrines of nullification. i can only say, sir, that it will be marvellous to me, if that banner, though it be said to be tattered and torn, shall yet be lowered in obeisance, and laid at the footstool of executive power. to the sustaining of that power, the passage of this bill is of the utmost importance. the administration will regard its success as being to them, what cromwell said the battle of worcester was to him, "a crowning mercy." whether gentlemen, who have distinguished themselves so much by their extreme jealousy of this government, shall now find it consistent with their principles to give their aid in effecting this consummation, remains to be seen. the next exposition of the honorable gentleman's sentiments and opinions is in his letter of the d of november. this letter, sir, is a curiosity. as a paper describing political operations, and exhibiting political opinions, it is without a parallel. its phrase is altogether military. it reads like a despatch, or a bulletin from head-quarters. it is full of attacks, assaults, and repulses. it recounts movements and counter-movements; speaks of occupying one position, falling back upon another, and advancing to a third; it has positions to cover enemies, and positions to hold allies in check. meantime, the celerity of all these operations reminds one of the rapidity of the military actions of the king of prussia, in the seven years' war. yesterday, he was in the south, giving battle to the austrian; to-day he is in saxony, or silesia. instantly he is found to have traversed the electorate, and is facing the russian and the swede on his northern frontier. if you look for his place on the map, before you find it he has quitted it. he is always marching, flying, falling back, wheeling, attacking, defending, surprising; fighting everywhere, and fighting all the time. in one particular, however, the campaigns described in this letter are conducted in a different manner from those of the great frederick. i think we nowhere read, in the narrative of frederick's achievements, of his taking a position to cover an enemy, or a position to hold an ally in check. these refinements in the science of tactics and of war are of more recent discovery. mr. president, public men must certainly be allowed to change their opinions, and their associations, whenever they see fit. no one doubts this. men may have grown wiser; they may have attained to better and more correct views of great public subjects. it would be unfortunate, if there were any code which should oblige men, in public or private life, to adhere to opinions once entertained, in spite of experience and better knowledge, and against their own convictions of their erroneous character. nevertheless, sir, it must be acknowledged, that what appears to be a sudden, as well as a great change, naturally produces a shock. i confess that, for one, i was shocked when the honorable gentleman, at the last session, espoused this bill of the administration. and when i first read this letter of november, and, in the short space of a column and a half, ran through such a succession of political movements, all terminating in placing the honorable member in the ranks of our opponents, and entitling him to take his seat, as he has done, among them, if not at their head, i confess i felt still greater surprise. all this seemed a good deal too abrupt. sudden movements of the affections, whether personal or political, are a little out of nature. several years ago, sir, some of the wits of england wrote a mock play, intended to ridicule the unnatural and false feeling, the _sentimentality_ of a certain german school of literature. in this play, two strangers are brought together at an inn. while they are warming themselves at the fire, and before their acquaintance is yet five minutes old, one springs up and exclaims to the other, "a sudden thought strikes me! let us swear an eternal friendship!" this affectionate offer was instantly accepted, and the friendship duly sworn, unchangeable and eternal! now, sir, how long this eternal friendship lasted, or in what manner it ended, those who wish to know may learn by referring to the play. but it seerns to me, sir, that the honorable member has carried his political sentimentality a good deal higher than the flight of the german school: for he appears to have fallen suddenly in love, not with strangers, but with opponents. here we all had been, sir, contending against the progress of executive power, and more particularly, and most strenuously, against the projects and experiments of the administration upon the currency. the honorable member stood among us, not only as an associate, but as a leader. we thought we were making some headway. the people appeared to be coming to our support and our assistance. the country had been roused, every successive election weakening the strength of the adversary, and increasing our own. we were in this career of success carried strongly forward by the current of public opinion, and only needed to hear the cheering voice of the honorable member, "once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more!" and we should have prostrated for ever this anti-constitutional, anti-commercial, anti-republican, and anti-american policy of the administration. but instead of these encouraging and animating accents, behold! in the very crisis of our affairs, on the very eve of victory, the honorable member cries out to the enemy,--not to us, his allies, but to the enemy: "hollo! a sudden thought strikes me! i abandon my allies! now i think of it, they have always been my oppressors! i abandon them, and now let _you and me_ swear an eternal friendship!" such a proposition, from such a quarter, sir, was not likely to be long withstood. the other party was a little coy, but, upon the whole, nothing loath. after proper hesitation, and a little decorous blushing, it owned the soft impeachment, admitted an equally sudden sympathetic impulse on its own side; and, since few words are wanted where hearts are already known, the honorable gentleman takes his place among his new friends amidst greetings and caresses, and is already enjoying the sweets of an eternal friendship. in this letter, mr. president, the writer says, in substance, that he saw, at the commencement of the last session, that affairs had reached the point when he and his friends, according to the course they should take, would reap the full harvest of their long and arduous struggle against the encroachments and abuses of the general government, or lose the fruits of all their labors. at that time, he says, state interposition (viz. nullification) had overthrown the protective tariff and the american system, and put a stop to congressional usurpation; that he had previously been united with the national republicans; but that, in joining such allies, he was not insensible to the embarrassment of his position; that with them victory itself was dangerous, and that therefore he had been waiting for events; that now (that is to say, in september last) the joint attacks of the allies had brought down executive power; that the administration had become divested of power and influence, and that it was now clear that the combined attacks of the allied forces would utterly overthrow and demolish it. all this he saw. but he saw, too, as he says, that in that case the victory would inure, not to him or his cause, but to his allies and their cause. i do not mean to say that he spoke of personal victories, or alluded to personal objects, at all. he spoke of his cause. he proceeds to say, then, that never was there before, and never, probably, will there be again, so fair an opportunity for himself and his friends to carry out _their own principles and policy_, and to reap the fruits of their long and arduous struggle. these principles and this policy, sir, be it remembered, he represents, all along, as identified with the principles and policy of nullification. and he makes use of this glorious opportunity by refusing to join his late allies in any further attack on those in power, and rallying anew the old state-rights party to hold in check their old opponents, the national republican party. this, he says, would enable him to prevent the complete ascendency of his allies, and to compel the southern division of the administration party to occupy the ground of which he proposes to take possession, to wit, the ground of the old state-rights party. they will have, he says, no other alternative. mr. president, stripped of its military language, what is the amount of all this, but that, finding the administration weak, and likely to be overthrown, if the opposition continued with undiminished force, he went over to it, he joined it; intending to act, himself, upon nullification principles, and to compel the southern members of the administration to meet him on those principles?--in other words, to make a nullification administration, and to take such part in it as should belong to him and his friends. he confesses, sir, that in thus abandoning his allies, and taking a position to cover those in power, he perceived a shock would be created which would require some degree of resolution and firmness. in this he was right. a shock, sir, has been created; yet there he is. this administration, sir, is represented as succeeding to the last, by an inheritance of principle. it professes to tread in the footsteps of its illustrious predecessor. it adopts, generally, the sentiments, principles, and opinions of general jackson, _proclamation and all_; and yet, though he be the very prince of nullifiers, and but lately regarded as the chiefest of sinners, it receives the honorable gentleman with the utmost complacency. to all appearance, the delight is mutual; they find him an able leader, he finds them complying followers. but, sir, in all this movement he understands himself. he means to go ahead, and to take them along. he is in the engine-car; he controls the locomotive. his hand regulates the steam, to increase or retard the speed at his discretion. and as to the occupants of the passenger-cars, sir, they are as happy a set of gentlemen as one might desire to see of a summer's day. they feel that they are in progress; they hope they shall not be run off the track; and when they reach the end of their journey, they desire to be thankful! the arduous struggle is now all over. its richest fruits are all reaped; nullification embraces the sub-treasuries, and oppression and usurpation will be heard of no more. on the broad surface of the country, sir, there is a spot called "the hermitage." in that residence is an occupant very well known, and not a little remarkable both in person and character. suppose, sir, the occupant of the hermitage were now to open that door, enter the senate, walk forward, and look over the chamber to the seats on the other side. be not frightened, gentlemen; it is but fancy's sketch. suppose he should thus come in among us, sir, and see into whose hands has fallen the chief support of that administration, which was, in so great a degree, appointed by himself, and which he fondly relied on to maintain the principles of his own. if gentlemen were now to see his steady military step, his erect posture, his compressed lips, his firmly-knitted brow, and his eye full of fire, i cannot help thinking, sir, they would all feel somewhat queer. there would be, i imagine, not a little awkward moving and shifting in their seats. they would expect soon to hear the roar of the lion, even if they did not feel his paw. sir, the spirit of union is particularly liable to temptation and seduction in moments of peace and prosperity. in war, this spirit is strengthened by a sense of common danger, and by a thousand recollections of ancient efforts and ancient glory in a common cause. but in the calms of a long peace, and in the absence of all apparent causes of alarm, things near gain an ascendency over things remote. local interests and feelings overshadow national sentiments. our attention, our regard, and our attachment are every moment solicited to what touches us closest, and we feel less and less the attraction of a distant orb. such tendencies we are bound by true patriotism and by our love of union to resist. this is our duty; and the moment, in my judgment, has arrived when that duty should be performed. we hear, every day, sentiments and arguments which would become a meeting of envoys, employed by separate governments, more than they become the common legislature of a united country. constant appeals are made to local interests, to geographical distinctions, and to the policy and the pride of particular states. it would sometimes appear as if it were a settled purpose to convince the people that our union is nothing but a jumble of different and discordant interests, which must, erelong, be all resolved into their original state of separate existence; as if, therefore, it was of no great value while it should last, and was not likely to last long. the process of disintegration begins by urging as a fact the existence of different interests. sir, is not the end to which all this leads us obvious? who does not see that, if convictions of this kind take possession of the public mind, our union can hereafter be nothing, while it remains, but a connection without harmony; a bond without affection; a theatre for the angry contests of local feelings, local objects, and local jealousies? even while it continues to exist in name, it may by these means become nothing but the mere form of a united government. my children, and the children of those who sit around me, may meet, perhaps, in this chamber, in the next generation; but if tendencies now but too obvious be not checked, they will meet as strangers and aliens. they will feel no sense of common interest or common country; they will cherish no common object of patriotic love. if the same saxon language shall fall from their lips, it may be the chief proof that they belong to the same nation. its vital principle exhausted and gone, its power of doing good terminated, the union itself, become productive only of strife and contention, must ultimately fall, dishonored and unlamented. the honorable member from carolina himself habitually indulges in charges of usurpation and oppression against the government of his country. he daily denounces its important measures, in the language in which our revolutionary fathers spoke of the oppressions of the mother country. not merely against executive usurpation, either real or supposed, does he utter these sentiments, but against laws of congress, laws passed by large majorities, laws sanctioned for a course of years by the people. these laws he proclaims, every hour, to be but a series of acts of oppression. he speaks of them as if it were an admitted fact, that such is their true character. this is the language he utters, these are the sentiments he expresses, to the rising generation around him. are they sentiments and language which are likely to inspire our children with the love of union, to enlarge their patriotism, or to teach them, and to make them feel, that their destiny has made them common citizens of one great and glorious republic? a principal object in his late political movements, the gentleman himself tells us, was to _unite the entire south_; and against whom, or against what, does he wish to unite the entire south? is not this the very essence of local feeling and local regard? is it not the acknowledgment of a wish and object to create political strength by uniting political opinions geographically? while the gentleman thus wishes to unite the entire south, i pray to know, sir, if he expects me to turn toward the polar star, and, acting on the same principle, to utter a cry of rally! to the whole north? heaven forbid! to the day of my death, neither he nor others shall hear such a cry from me. finally, the honorable member declares that he shall now march off, under the banner of state rights! march off from whom? march off from what? we have been contending for great principles. we have been struggling to maintain the liberty and to restore the prosperity of the country; we have made these struggles here, in the national councils, with the old flag, the true american flag, the eagle, and the stars and stripes, waving over the chamber in which we sit. he now tells us, however, that he marches off under the state-rights banner! let him go. i remain. i am where i ever have been, and ever mean to be. here, standing on the platform of the general constitution, a platform broad enough and firm enough to uphold every interest of the whole country, i shall still be found. intrusted with some part in the administration of that constitution, i intend to act in its spirit, and in the spirit of those who framed it. yes, sir, i would act as if our fathers, who formed it for us and who bequeathed it to us, were looking on me; as if i could see their venerable forms bending down to behold us from the abodes above. i would act, too, as if the eye of posterity was gazing on me. standing thus, as in the full gaze of our ancestors and our posterity, having received this inheritance from the former, to be transmitted to the latter, and feeling that, if i am born for any good, in my day and generation, it is for the good of the whole country, no local policy or local feeling, no temporary impulse, shall induce me to yield my foothold on the constitution of the union. i move off under no banner not known to the whole american people, and to their constitution and laws. no, sir; these walls, these columns, "shall fly from their firm base as soon as i." i came into public life, sir, in the service of the united states. on that broad altar, my earliest, and all my public vows, have been made. i propose to serve no other master. so far as depends on any agency of mine, they shall continue united states; united in interest and in affection; united in every thing in regard to which the constitution has decreed their union; united in war, for the common defence, the common renown, and the common glory; and united, compacted, knit firmly together in peace, for the common prosperity and happiness of ourselves and our children. [footnote : the sub-treasury.] reply to mr. calhoun. speech delivered in the senate of the united states, on the d of march, , in answer to mr. calhoun. [on thursday, the d of march, mr. calhoun spoke at length in answer to mr. webster's speech of the th of march. when he had concluded, mr. webster immediately rose, and addressed the senate as follows.] mr. president,--i came rather late to the senate this morning, and, happening to meet a friend on the avenue, i was admonished to hasten my steps, as "the war was to be carried into africa," and i was expected to be annihilated. i lost no time in following the advice, sir, since it would be awkward for one to be annihilated without knowing any thing about it. well, sir, the war has been carried into africa. the honorable member has made an expedition into regions as remote from the subject of this debate as the orb of jupiter from that of our earth. he has spoken of the tariff, of slavery, and of the late war. of all this i do not complain. on the contrary, if it be his pleasure to allude to all or any of these topics, for any purpose whatever, i am ready at all times to hear him. sir, this carrying the war into africa, which has become so common a phrase among us, is, indeed, imitating a great example; but it is an example which is not always followed with success. in the first place, every man, though he be a man of talent and genius, is not a scipio; and in the next place, as i recollect this part of roman and carthaginian history,--the gentleman may be more accurate, but, as i recollect it, when scipio resolved upon carrying the war into africa, hannibal was not at home. now, sir, i am very little like hannibal, but i am at home; and when scipio africanus south-caroliniensis brings the war into my territories, i shall not leave their defence to asdrubal, nor syphax, nor anybody else. i meet him on the shore, at his landing, and propose but one contest. "concurritur; horae momento cita mors venit, aut victoria laeta." mr. president, i had made up my mind that, if the honorable gentleman should confine himself to a reply in the ordinary way, i would not say another syllable. but he has not done so. he has gone off into topics quite remote from all connection with revenue, commerce, finance, or sub-treasuries, and invites to a discussion which, however uninteresting to the public at the present moment, is too personal to be declined by me. he says, sir, that i undertook to compare my political character and conduct with his. far from it. i attempted no such thing. i compared the gentleman's political opinions at different times with one another, and expressed decided opposition to those which he now holds. and i did, certainly, advert to the general tone and drift of the gentleman's sentiments and expressions for some years past, in their bearing on the union, with such remarks as i thought they deserved; but i instituted no comparison between him and myself. he may institute one if he pleases, and when he pleases. seeking nothing of this kind, i avoid nothing. let it be remembered, that the gentleman began the debate, by attempting to exhibit a contrast between the present opinions and conduct of my friends and myself, and our recent opinions and conduct. here is the first charge of inconsistency; let the public judge whether he has made it good. he says, sir, that on several questions i have taken different sides, at different times; let him show it. if he shows any change of opinion, i shall be called on to give a reason, and to account for it. i leave it to the country to say whether, as yet, he has shown any such thing. but, sir, before attempting that, he has something else to say. he had prepared, it seems, to draw comparisons himself. he had intended to say something, if time had allowed, upon our respective opinions and conduct in regard to the war. if time had allowed! sir, time does allow, time must allow. a general remark of that kind ought not to be, cannot be, left to produce its effect, when that effect is obviously intended to be unfavorable. why did the gentleman allude to my votes or my opinions respecting the war at all, unless he had something to say? does he wish to leave an undefined impression that something was done, or something said, by me, not now capable of defence or justification? something not reconcilable with true patriotism? he means that, or nothing. and now, sir, let him bring the matter forth; let him take the responsibility of the accusation; let him state his facts. i am here to answer; i am here, this day, to answer. now is the time, and now the hour. i think we read, sir, that one of the good spirits would not bring against the arch-enemy of mankind a railing accusation; and what is railing but general reproach, an imputation without fact, time, or circumstance? sir, i call for particulars. the gentleman knows my whole conduct well; indeed, the journals show it all, from the moment i came into congress till the peace. if i have done, then, sir, any thing unpatriotic, any thing which, as far as love to country goes, will not bear comparison with his or any man's conduct, let it now be stated. give me the fact, the time, the manner. he speaks of the war; that which we call the late war, though it is now twenty-five years since it terminated. he would leave an impression that i opposed it. how? i was not in congress when war was declared, nor in public life anywhere. i was pursuing my profession, keeping company with judges and jurors, and plaintiffs and defendants. if i had been in congress, and had enjoyed the benefit of hearing the honorable gentleman's speeches, for aught i can say, i might have concurred with him. but i was not in public life. i never had been, for a single hour; and was in no situation, therefore, to oppose or to support the declaration of war. i am speaking to the fact, sir; and if the gentleman has any fact, let us know it. well, sir, i came into congress during the war. i found it waged, and raging. and what did i do here to oppose it? look to the journals. let the honorable gentleman tax his memory. bring up any thing, if there be any thing to bring up, not showing error of opinion, but showing want of loyalty or fidelity to the country. i did not agree to all that was proposed, nor did the honorable member. i did not approve of every measure, nor did he. the war had been preceded by the restrictive system and the embargo. as a private individual, i certainly did not think well of these measures. it appeared to me that the embargo annoyed ourselves as much as our enemies, while it destroyed the business and cramped the spirits of the people. in this opinion i may have been right or wrong, but the gentleman was himself of the same opinion. he told us the other day, as a proof of his independence of party on great questions, that he differed with his friends on the subject of the embargo. he was decidedly and unalterably opposed to it. it furnishes in his judgment, therefore, no imputation either on my patriotism, or on the soundness of my political opinions, that i was opposed to it also. i mean opposed in opinion; for i was not in congress, and had nothing to do with the act creating the embargo. and as to opposition to measures for carrying on the war, after i came into congress, i again say, let the gentleman specify; let him lay his finger on any thing calling for an answer, and he shall have an answer. mr. president, you were yourself in the house during a considerable part of this time. the honorable gentleman may make a witness of you. he may make a witness of anybody else. he may be his own witness. give us but some fact, some charge, something capable in itself either of being proved or disproved. prove any thing, state any thing, not consistent with honorable and patriotic conduct, and i am ready to answer it. sir, i am glad this subject has been alluded to in a manner which justifies me in taking public notice of it; because i am well aware that, for ten years past, infinite pains has been taken to find something, in the range of these topics, which might create prejudice against me in the country. the journals have all been pored over, and the reports ransacked, and scraps of paragraphs and half-sentences have been collected, fraudulently put together, and then made to flare out as if there had been some discovery. but all this failed. the next resort was to supposed correspondence. my letters were sought for, to learn if, in the confidence of private friendship, i had ever said any thing which an enemy could make use of. with this view, the vicinity of my former residence has been searched, as with a lighted candle. new hampshire has been explored, from the mouth of the merrimack to the white hills. in one instance a gentleman had left the state, gone five hundred miles off, and died. his papers were examined; a letter was found, and i have understood it was brought to washington; a conclave was held to consider it, and the result was, that, if there was nothing else against mr. webster, the matter had better be let alone. sir, i hope to make everybody of that opinion who brings against me a charge of want of patriotism. errors of opinion can be found, doubtless, on many subjects; but as conduct flows from the feelings which animate the heart, i know that no act of my life has had its origin in the want of ardent love of country. sir, when i came to congress, i found the honorable gentleman a leading member of the house of representatives. well, sir, in what did we differ? one of the first measures of magnitude, after i came here, was mr. dallas's[ ] proposition for a bank. it was a war measure. it was urged as being absolutely necessary to enable government to carry on the war. government wanted revenue; such a bank, it was hoped, would furnish it; and on that account it was most warmly pressed and urged on congress. you remember all this, mr. president. you remember how much some persons supposed the success of the war and the salvation of the country depended on carrying that measure. yet the honorable member from south carolina opposed this bill. he now takes to himself a good deal of merit, none too much, but still a good deal of merit, for having defeated it. well, sir, i agreed with him. it was a mere paper bank; a machine for fabricating irredeemable paper. it was a new form for paper money; and instead of benefiting the country, i thought it would plunge it deeper and deeper in difficulty. i made a speech on the subject; it has often been quoted. there it is; let whoever pleases read and examine it. i am not proud of it for any ability it exhibits; on the other hand, i am not ashamed of it for the spirit which it manifests. but, sir, i say again that the gentleman himself took the lead against this measure, this darling measure of the administration. i followed him; if i was seduced into error, or into unjustifiable opposition, there sits my seducer. what, sir, were other leading sentiments or leading measures of that day? on what other subjects did men differ? the gentleman has adverted to one, and that a most important one; i mean the navy. he says, and says truly, that at the commencement of the war the navy was unpopular. it was unpopular with his friends, who then controlled the politics of the country. but he says he differed with his friends; in this respect he resisted party influence and party connection, and was the friend and advocate of the navy. sir, i commend him for it. he showed his wisdom. that gallant little navy soon fought itself into favor, and showed that no man who had placed reliance on it had been disappointed. well, sir, in all this i was exactly of the opinion of the honorable gentleman. sir, i do not know when my opinion of the importance of a naval force to the united states had its origin. i can give no date to my present sentiments on this subject, because i never entertained different sentiments. i remember, sir, that immediately after coming into my profession, at a period when the navy was most unpopular, when it was called by all sorts of hard names and designated by many coarse epithets, on one of those occasions on which young men address their neighbors, i ventured to put forth a boy's hand in defence of the navy. i insisted on its importance, its adaptation to our circumstances and to our national character, and its indispensable necessity, if we intended to maintain and extend our commerce. these opinions and sentiments i brought into congress; and the first time in which i presumed to speak on the topics of the day, i attempted to urge on the house a greater attention to the naval service. there were divers modes of prosecuting the war. on these modes, or on the degree of attention and expense which should be bestowed on each, different men held different opinions. i confess i looked with most hope to the results of naval warfare, and therefore i invoked government to invigorate and strengthen that arm of the national defence. i invoked it to seek its enemy upon the seas, to go where every auspicious indication pointed, and where the whole heart and soul of the country would go with it. sir, we were at war with the greatest maritime power on earth. england had gained an ascendency on the seas over all the combined powers of europe. she had been at war twenty years. she had tried her fortunes on the continent, but generally with no success. at one time the whole continent had been closed against her. a long line of armed exterior, an unbroken hostile array, frowned upon her from the gulf of archangel, round the promontory of spain and portugal, to the extreme point of italy. there was not a port which an english ship could enter. everywhere on the land the genius of her great enemy had triumphed. he had defeated armies, crushed coalitions, and overturned thrones; but, like the fabled giant, he was unconquerable only while he touched the land. on the ocean he was powerless. that field of fame was his adversary's, and her meteor flag was streaming in triumph over its whole extent. to her maritime ascendency england owed every thing, and we were now at war with her. one of the most charming of her poets had said of her,-- "her march is o'er the mountain waves, her home is on the deep." now, sir, since we were at war with her, i was for intercepting this march; i was for calling upon her, and paying our respects to her, at home; i was for giving her to know that we, too, had a right of way over the seas, and that our marine officers and our sailors were not entire strangers on the bosom of the deep. i was for doing something more with our navy than keeping it on our own shores, for the protection of our coasts and harbors; i was for giving play to its gallant and burning spirit; for allowing it to go forth upon the seas, and to encounter, on an open and an equal field, whatever the proudest or the bravest of the enemy could bring against it. i knew the character of its officers and the spirit of its seamen; and i knew that, in their hands, though the flag of the country might go down to the bottom, yet, while defended by them, that it could never be dishonored or disgraced. since she was our enemy, and a most powerful enemy, i was for touching her, if we could, in the very apple of her eye; for reaching the highest feather in her cap; for clutching at the very brightest jewel in her crown. there seemed to me to be a peculiar propriety in all this, as the war was undertaken for the redress of maritime injuries alone. it was a war declared for free trade and sailors' rights. the ocean, therefore, was the proper theatre for deciding this controversy with our enemy, and on that theatre it was my ardent wish that our own power should be concentrated to the utmost. so much, sir, for the war, and for my conduct and opinions as connected with it. and, as i do not mean to recur to this subject often, nor ever, unless indispensably necessary, i repeat the demand for any charge, any accusation, any allegation whatever, that throws me behind the honorable gentleman, or behind any other man, in honor, in fidelity, in devoted love to that country in which i was born, which has honored me, and which i serve. i, who seldom deal in defiance, now, here, in my place, boldly defy the honorable member to put his insinuation in the form of a charge, and to support that charge by any proof whatever. the gentleman has adverted to the subject of slavery. on this subject, he says, i have not proved myself a friend to the south. why, sir, the only proof is, that i did not vote for his resolutions. sir, this is a very grave matter; it is a subject very exciting and inflammable. i take, of course, all the responsibility belonging to my opinions; but i desire these opinions to be understood, and fairly stated. if i am to be regarded as an enemy to the south, because i could not support the gentleman's resolutions, be it so. i cannot purchase favor from any quarter, by the sacrifice of clear and conscientious convictions. the principal resolution declared that congress had plighted its faith not to interfere either with slavery or the slave trade in the district of columbia. now, sir, this is quite a new idea. i never heard it advanced until this session. i have heard gentlemen contend that no such power was in the constitution; but the notion, that, though the constitution contained the power, yet congress had plighted its faith not to exercise such a power, is an entire novelty, so far as i know. i must say, sir, it appeared to me little else than an attempt to put a prohibition into the constitution, because there was none there already. for this supposed plighting of the public faith, or the faith of congress, i saw no ground, either in the history of the government, or in any one fact, or in any argument. i therefore could not vote for the proposition. sir, it is now several years since i took care to make my opinion known, that this government has, constitutionally, nothing to do with slavery, as it exists in the states. that opinion is entirely unchanged. i stand steadily by the resolution of the house of representatives, adopted, after much consideration, at the commencement of the government, which was, that congress has no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them, within any of the states; it remaining with the several states alone to provide any regulations therein, which humanity and true policy may require. this, in my opinion, is the constitution and the law. i feel bound by it. i have quoted the resolution often. it expresses the judgment of men of all parts of the country, deliberately and coolly formed; and it expresses my judgment, and i shall adhere to it. but this has nothing to do with the other constitutional question; that is to say, the mere constitutional question whether congress has the power to regulate slavery and the slave trade in the district of columbia. on such a question, sir, when i am asked what the constitution is, or whether any power granted by it has been compromised away, or, indeed, could be compromised away, i must express my honest opinion, and always shall express it, if i say any thing, notwithstanding it may not meet concurrence either in the south, or the north, or the east, or the west. i cannot express by my vote what i do not believe. the gentleman has chosen to bring that subject into this debate, with which it has no concern; but he may make the most of it, if he thinks he can produce unfavorable impressions against me at the south from my negative to his fifth resolution. as to the rest of them, they were commonplaces, generally, or abstractions; in regard to which, one may well feel himself not called on to vote at all. and now, sir, in regard to the tariff. that is a long chapter, but i am quite ready to go over it with the honorable member. he charges me with inconsistency. that may depend on deciding what inconsistency is, in respect to such subjects, and how it is to be proved. i will state the facts, for i have them in my mind somewhat more fully than the honorable member has himself presented them. let us begin at the beginning. in i voted against the tariff law which then passed. in i again voted against the tariff law which was then proposed, and which passed. a majority of new england votes, in , were against the tariff system. the bill received but one vote from massachusetts; but it passed. the policy was established. new england acquiesced in it; conformed her business and pursuits to it; embarked her capital, and employed her labor, in manufactures; and i certainly admit that, from that time, i have felt bound to support interests thus called into being, and into importance, by the settled policy of the government. i have stated this often here, and often elsewhere. the ground is defensible, and i maintain it. as to the resolutions adopted in boston in , and which resolutions he has caused to be read, and which he says he presumes i prepared, i have no recollection of having drawn the resolutions, and do not believe i did. but i was at the meeting, and addressed the meeting, and what i said on that occasion was produced here, and read in the senate, years ago. the resolutions, sir, were opposed to the commencing of a high tariff policy. i was opposed to it, and spoke against it; the city of boston was opposed to it; the commonwealth of massachusetts was opposed to it. remember, sir, that this was in . this opposition continued till . the votes all show this. but in the question was decided; the government entered upon the policy; it invited men to embark their property and their means of living in it. individuals thus encouraged have done this to a great extent; and therefore i say, so long as the manufactures shall need reasonable and just protection from government, i shall be disposed to give it to them. what is there, sir, in all this, for the gentleman to complain of? would he have us always oppose the policy adopted by the country on a great question? would he have minorities never submit to the will of majorities? i remember to have said, sir, at the meeting in faneuil hall, that protection appeared to be regarded as incidental to revenue, and that the incident could not be carried fairly above the principal; in other words, that duties ought not to be laid for the mere object of protection. i believe that proposition to be substantially correct. i believe that, if the power of protection be inferred only from the revenue power, the protection could only be incidental. but i have said in this place before, and i repeat it now, that mr. madison's publication after that period, and his declaration that the convention did intend to grant the power of protection under the commercial clause, placed the subject in a new and a clear light. i will add, sir, that a paper drawn up apparently with the sanction of dr. franklin, and read to a circle of friends at his house, on the eve of the assembling of the convention, respecting the powers which the proposed new government ought to possess, shows plainly that, in regulating commerce, it was expected that congress would adopt a course which should protect the manufactures of the north. he certainly went into the convention himself under that conviction. well, sir, and now what does the gentleman make out against me in relation to the tariff? what laurels does he gather in this part of africa? i opposed the _policy_ of the tariff, until it had become the settled and established policy of the country. i have never questioned the constitutional power of congress to grant protection, except so far as the remark made in faneuil hall goes, which remark respects only the length to which protection might properly be carried, so far as the power is derived from the authority to lay duties on imports. but the policy being established, and a great part of the country having placed vast interests at stake in it, i have not disturbed it; on the contrary, i have insisted that it ought not to be disturbed. if there be inconsistency in all this, the gentleman is at liberty to blazon it forth; let him see what he can make of it. here, sir, i cease to speak of myself; and respectfully ask pardon of the senate for having so long detained it upon any thing so unimportant as what relates merely to my own public conduct and opinions. sir, the honorable member is pleased to suppose that our spleen is excited, because he has interfered to snatch from us a victory over the administration. if he means by this any personal disappointment, i shall not think it worth while to make a remark upon it. if he means a disappointment at his quitting us while we were endeavoring to arrest the present policy of the administration, why then i admit, sir, that i, for one, felt that disappointment deeply. it is the policy of the administration, its principles, and its measures, which i oppose. it is not persons, but things; not men, but measures. i do wish most fervently to put an end to this anti-commercial policy; and if the overthrow of the policy shall be followed by the political defeat of its authors, why, sir, it is a result which i shall endeavor to meet with equanimity. sir, as to the honorable member's wresting the victory from us, or as to his ability to sustain the administration in this policy, there may be some doubt about that. i trust the citadel will yet be stormed, and carried, by the force of public opinion, and that no hector will be able to defend its walls. but now, sir, i must advert to a declaration of the honorable member, which, i confess, did surprise me. the honorable member says, that, personally, he and myself have been on friendly terms, but that we always differed on great constitutional questions. sir, this is astounding. and yet i was partly prepared for it; for i sat here the other day, and held my breath, while the honorable gentleman declared, and repeated, that he had always belonged to the state-rights party. and he means, by what he has declared to-day, that he has always given to the constitution a construction more limited, better guarded, less favorable to the extension of the powers of this government, than that which i have given to it. he has always interpreted it according to the strict doctrines of the school of state rights! sir, if the honorable member ever belonged, until very lately, to the state-rights party, the connection was very much like a secret marriage. and never was secret better kept. not only were the espousals not acknowledged, but all suspicion was avoided. there was no known familiarity, or even kindness, between them. on the contrary, they acted like parties who were not at all fond of each other's company. sir, is there a man in my hearing, among all the gentlemen now surrounding us, many of whom, of both houses, have been here many years, and know the gentleman and myself perfectly,--is there one who ever heard, supposed, or dreamed that the honorable member belonged to the state-rights party before the year ? can any such connection be proved upon him, can he prove it upon himself, before that time? sir, i will show you, before i resume my seat, that it was not until after the gentleman took his seat in the chair which you now occupy, that any public manifestation, or intimation, was ever given by him of his having embraced the peculiar doctrines of the state-rights party. the truth is, sir, the honorable gentleman had acted a very important and useful part during the war. but the war terminated. toward the end of the session of - , we received the news of peace. this closed the thirteenth congress. in the fall of , the fourteenth congress assembled. it was full of ability, and the honorable gentleman stood high among its distinguished members. he remained in the house, sir, through the whole of that congress; and now, sir, it is easy to show that, during those two years, the honorable gentleman took a decided lead in all those great measures which he has since so often denounced as unconstitutional and oppressive, the bank, the tariff, and internal improvements. the war being terminated, the gentleman's mind turned itself toward internal administration and improvement. he surveyed the whole country, contemplated its resources, saw what it was capable of becoming, and held a political faith not so narrow and contracted as to restrain him from useful and efficient action. he was, therefore, at once a full length ahead of all others in measures which were national, and which required a broad and liberal construction of the constitution. this is historic truth. of his agency in the bank, and other measures connected with the currency, i have already spoken, and i do not understand him to deny any thing i have said, in that particular. indeed, i have said nothing capable of denial. now allow me a few words upon the tariff. the tariff of was distinctly a south carolina measure. look at the votes, and you will see it. it was a tariff for the benefit of south carolina interests, and carried through congress by south carolina votes and south carolina influence. even the _minimum_, sir, the so-much-reproached, the abominable _minimum_, that subject of angry indignation and wrathful rhetoric, is of southern origin, and has a south carolina parentage. sir, the contest on that occasion was chiefly between the cotton-growers at home, and the importers of cotton fabrics from india. these india fabrics were made from the cotton of that country. the people of this country were using cotton fabrics not made of american cotton, and, so far, they were diminishing the demand for such cotton. the importation of india cottons was then very large, and this bill was designed to put an end to it, and, with the help of the _minimum_, it did put an end to it. the cotton manufactures of the north were then in their infancy. they had some friends in congress, but, if i recollect, the majority of massachusetts members and of new england members were against this cotton tariff of . i remember well, that the main debate was between the importers of india cottons, in the north, and the cotton-growers of the south. the gentleman cannot deny the truth of this, or any part of it. boston opposed this tariff, and salem opposed it, warmly and vigorously. but the honorable member supported it, and the law passed. and now be it always remembered, sir, that that act passed on the professed ground of protection; that it had in it the _minimum_ principle, and that the honorable member, and other leading gentlemen from his own state, supported it, voted for it, and carried it through congress. and now, sir, we come to the doctrine of internal improvement, that other usurpation, that other oppression, which has come so near to justifying violent disruption of the government, and scattering the fragments of the union to the four winds. have the gentleman's state-rights opinions always kept him aloof from such unhallowed infringements of the constitution? he says he always differed with me on constitutional questions. how was it in this most important particular? has he here stood on the ramparts, brandishing his glittering sword against assailants, and holding out a banner of defiance? sir, it is an indisputable truth, that he is himself the man, the _ipse_ that first brought forward in congress a scheme of general internal improvement, at the expense and under the authority of this government. he, sir, is the very man, the _ipsissimus ipse_, who considerately, and on a settled system, began these unconstitutional measures, if they be unconstitutional. and now for the proof. the act incorporating the bank of the united states was passed in april, . for the privileges of the charter, the proprietors of the bank were to pay to government a _bonus_, as it was called, of one million five hundred thousand dollars, in certain instalments. government also took seven millions in the stock of the bank. early in the next session of congress, that is, in december, , the honorable member moved, in the house of representatives, that a committee be appointed to consider the propriety of setting apart this _bonus_, and also the dividends on the stock belonging to the united states, as a permanent fund for internal improvement. the committee was appointed, and the honorable member was made its chairman. he thus originated the plan, and took the lead in its execution. shortly afterwards, he reported a bill carrying out the objects for which the committee had been appointed. this bill provided that the dividends on the seven millions of bank stock belonging to government, and also the whole of the _bonus_, should be permanently pledged as a fund for constructing roads and canals; and that this fund should be subject to such specific appropriations as congress might subsequently make. this was the bill; and this was the first project ever brought forward in congress for a system of internal improvements. the bill goes the whole doctrine at a single jump. the cumberland road, it is true, was already in progress; and for that the gentleman had also voted. but there were, and are now, peculiarities about that particular expenditure which sometimes satisfy scrupulous consciences; but this bill of the gentleman's, without equivocation or saving clause, without if, or and, or but, occupied the whole ground at once, and announced internal improvement as one of the objects of this government, on a grand and systematic plan. the bill, sir, seemed indeed too strong. it was thought by persons not esteemed extremely jealous of state rights to evince too little regard to the will of the states. several gentlemen opposed the measure in that shape, on that account; and among them colonel pickering, then one of the representatives from massachusetts. even timothy pickering could not quite sanction, or concur in, the honorable gentleman's doctrines to their full extent, although he favored the measure in its general character. he therefore prepared an amendment, as a substitute; and his substitute provided for two very important things not embraced in the original bill:-- first, that the proportion of the fund to be expended in each state, respectively, should be in proportion to the number of its inhabitants. second, that the money should be applied in constructing such roads, canals, and so forth, in the several states, as congress might direct, _with the assent of the state_. this, sir, was timothy pickering's amendment to the gentleman's bill. and now, sir, how did the honorable gentleman, who has always belonged to the state-rights party,--how did he treat this amendment, or this substitute? which way do you think his state-rights doctrine led him? why, sir, i will tell you. he immediately rose, and moved to strike out the words "_with the assent of the state_"! here is the journal under my hand, sir; and here is the gentleman's motion. and certainly, sir, it will be admitted that this motion was not of a nature to intimate that he was wedded to state rights. but the words were not struck out. the motion did not prevail. mr. pickering's substitute was adopted, and the bill passed the house in that form. in committee of the whole on this bill, sir, the honorable member made a very able speech both on the policy of internal improvements and the power of congress over the subject. these points were fully argued by him. he spoke of the importance of the system, the vast good it would produce, and its favorable effect on the union of the states. "let us, then," said he, "bind the republic together with a perfect system of roads and canals. let us conquer space. it is thus the most distant parts of the republic will be brought within a few days' travel of the centre; it is thus that a citizen of the west will read the news of boston still moist from the press." but on the power of congress to make internal improvements, ay, sir, on the power of congress, hear him! what were then his rules of construction and interpretation? how did he at that time read and understand the constitution? why, sir, he said that "he was no advocate for refined arguments on the constitution. the instrument was not intended as a thesis for the logician to exercise his ingenuity on. it ought to be construed with plain good-sense." this is all very just, i think, sir; and he said much more in the same strain. he quoted many instances of laws passed, as he contended, on similar principles, and then added, that "he introduced these instances to prove the uniform sense of congress and of the country (for they had not been objected to) as to our powers; and surely," said he, "they furnish better evidence of the true interpretation of the constitution than the most refined and subtile arguments." here you see, mr. president, how little original i am. you have heard me again and again contending in my place here for the stability of that which has been long settled; you have heard me, till i dare say you have been tired, insisting that the sense of congress, so often expressed, and the sense of the country, so fully shown and so firmly established, ought to be regarded as having decided finally certain constitutional questions. you see now, sir, what authority i have for this mode of argument. but while the scholar is learning, the teacher renounces. will he apply his old doctrine now--i sincerely wish he would--to the question of the bank, to the question of the receiving of bank-notes by government, to the power of congress over the paper currency? will he admit that these questions ought to be regarded as decided by the settled sense of congress and of the country? o, no! far otherwise. from these rules of judgment, and from the influence of all considerations of this practical nature, the honorable member now takes these questions with him into the upper heights of metaphysics, into the regions of those refinements and subtile arguments which he rejected with so much decision in , as appears by this speech. he quits his old ground of common-sense, experience, and the general understanding of the country, for a flight among theories and ethereal abstractions. and now, sir, let me ask, when did the honorable member relinquish these early opinions and principles of his? when did he make known his adhesion to the doctrines of the state-rights party? we have been speaking of transactions in and . what the gentleman's opinions then were, we have seen. when did he announce himself a state-rights man? i have already said, sir, that nobody knew of his claiming that character until after the commencement of ; and i have said so, because i have before me an address of his to his neighbors at abbeville, in may of that year, in which he recounts, very properly, the principal incidents in his career as a member of congress, and as head of a department; and in which he says that, as a member of congress, he had given his zealous efforts in favor of a restoration of specie currency, of a due protection of those manufactures which had taken root during the war, and, finally, of a system for connecting the various parts of the country by a judicious system of internal improvement. he adds, that it afterwards became his duty, as a member of the administration, to aid in sustaining against the boldest assaults those very measures which, as a member of congress, he had contributed to establish. and now, sir, since the honorable gentleman says he has differed with me on constitutional questions, will he be pleased to say what constitutional opinion i have ever avowed for which i have not his express authority? is it on the bank power? the tariff power? the power of internal improvement? i have shown his votes, his speeches, and his conduct, on all these subjects, up to the time when general jackson became a candidate for the presidency. from that time, sir, i know we have differed; but if there was any difference before that time, i call upon him to point it out, to declare what was the occasion, what the question, and what the difference. and if before that period, sir, by any speech, any vote, any public proceeding, or by any mode of announcement whatever, he gave the world to know that he belonged to the state-rights party, i hope he will now be kind enough to produce it, or to refer to it, or to tell us where we may look for it. sir, i will pursue this topic no farther. i would not have pursued it so far, i would not have entered upon it at all, had it not been for the astonishment i felt, mingled, i confess, with something of warmer feeling, when the honorable gentleman declared that he had always differed with me on constitutional questions. sir, the honorable member read a quotation or two from a speech of mine in , on the currency or bank question. with what intent, or to what end? what inconsistency does he show? speaking of the _legal_ currency of the country, that is, the coin, i then said it was in a good state. was not that true? i was speaking of the legal currency; of that which the law made a tender. and how is that inconsistent with any thing said by me now, or ever said by me? i declared then, he says, that the framers of this government were hard-money men. certainly they were. but are not the friends of a convertible paper _hard-money men_, in every practical and sensible meaning of the term? did i, in that speech, or any other, insist on excluding all convertible paper from the uses of society? most assuredly i did not. i never quite so far lost my wits, i think. there is but a single sentence in that speech which i should qualify if i were to deliver it again, and that the honorable member has not noticed. it is a paragraph respecting the power of congress over the circulation of state banks, which might perhaps need explanation or correction. understanding it as applicable to the case then before congress, all the rest is perfectly accordant with my present opinions. it is well known that i never doubted the power of congress to create a bank; that i was always in favor of a bank, constituted on proper principles; that i voted for the bank bill of ; and that i opposed that of only on account of one or two of its provisions, which i and others hoped to be able to strike out. i am a hard-money man, and always have been, and always shall be. but i know the great use of such bank paper as is convertible into hard money on demand; which may be called specie paper, and which is equivalent to specie in value, and much more convenient and useful for common purposes. on the other hand, i abhor all irredeemable paper; all old-fashioned paper money; all deceptive promises; every thing, indeed, in the shape of paper issued for circulation, whether by government or individuals, which cannot be turned into gold and silver at the will of the holder. but, sir, i have insisted that government is bound to protect and regulate the means of commerce, to see that there is a sound currency for the use of the people. the honorable gentleman asks, what then is the limit? must congress also furnish all means of commerce? must it furnish weights and scales and steelyards? most undoubtedly, sir, it must regulate weights and measures, and it does so. but the answer to the general question is very obvious. government must furnish all that which none but government can furnish. government must do that for individuals which individuals cannot do for themselves. that is the very end of government. why else have we a government? can individuals make a currency? can individuals regulate money? the distinction is as broad and plain as the pennsylvania avenue. no man can mistake it, or well blunder out of it. the gentleman asks if government must furnish for the people ships, and boats, and wagons. certainly not. the gentleman here only recites the president's message of september. these things, and all such things, the people can furnish for themselves; but they cannot make a currency; they cannot, individually, decide what shall be the money of the country. that, everybody knows, is one of the prerogatives, and one of the duties, of government; and a duty which i think we are most unwisely and improperly neglecting. we may as well leave the people to make war and to make peace, each man for himself, as to leave to individuals the regulation of commerce and currency. mr. president, there are other remarks of the gentleman of which i might take notice. but should i do so, i could only repeat what i have already said, either now or heretofore. i shall, therefore, not now allude to them. my principal purpose in what i have said has been to defend myself; that was my first object; and next, as the honorable member has attempted to take to himself the character of a strict constructionist, and a state-rights man, and on that basis to show a difference, not favorable to me, between his constitutional opinions and my own, heretofore, it has been my intention to show that the power to create a bank, the power to regulate the currency by other and direct means, the power to enact a protective tariff, and the power of internal improvement, in its broadest sense, are all powers which the honorable gentleman himself has supported, has acted on, and in the exercise of which, indeed, he has taken a distinguished lead in the counsels of congress. if this has been done, my purpose is answered. i do not wish to prolong the discussion, nor to spin it out into a colloquy. if the honorable member has any thing new to bring forward; if he has any charge to make, any proof, or any specification; if he has any thing to advance against my opinions or my conduct, my honor or patriotism, i am still at home. i am here. if not, then, so far as i am concerned, this discussion will here terminate. i will say a few words, before i resume my seat, on the motion now pending. that motion is to strike out the specie-paying part of the bill. i have a suspicion, sir, that the motion will prevail. if it should, it will leave a great vacuum; and how shall that vacuum be filled? the part proposed to be struck out is that which requires all debts to government to be paid in specie. it makes a good provision for government, and for public men, through all classes. the secretary of the treasury, in his letter at the last session, was still more watchful of the interests of the holders of office. he assured us, that, bad as the times were, and notwithstanding the floods of bad paper which deluged the country, members of congress should get gold and silver. in my opinion, sir, this is beginning the use of good money in payments at the wrong end of the list. if there be bad money in the country, i think that secretaries and other executive officers, and especially members of congress, should be the last to receive any good money; because they have the power, if they will do their duty, and exercise it, of making the money of the country good for all. i think, sir, it was a leading feature in mr. burke's famous bill for economical reform, that he provided, first of all, for those who are least able to secure themselves. everybody else was to be well paid all they were entitled to, before the ministers of the crown, and other political characters, should have any thing. this seems to me very right. but we have a precedent, sir, in our own country, more directly to the purpose; and as that which we now hope to strike out is the part of the bill furnished or proposed originally by the honorable member from south carolina, it will naturally devolve on him to supply its place. i wish, therefore, to draw his particular attention to this precedent, which i am now about to produce. most members of the senate will remember, that before the establishment of this government, and before or about the time that the territory which now constitutes the state of tennessee was ceded to congress, the inhabitants of the eastern part of that territory established a government for themselves, and called it the state of franklin. they adopted a very good constitution, providing for the usual branches of legislative, executive, and judicial power. they laid and collected taxes, and performed other usual acts of legislation. they had, for the present, it is true, no maritime possessions, yet they followed the common forms in constituting high officers; and their governor was not only captain-general and commander-in-chief, but admiral also, so that the navy might have a commander when there should be a navy. well, sir, the currency in this state of franklin became very much deranged. specie was scarce, and equally scarce were the notes of specie-paying banks. but the legislature did not propose any divorce of government and people; they did not seek to establish two currencies, one for men in office, and one for the rest of the community. they were content with neighbor's fare. it became necessary to pass what we should call now-a-days the civil-list appropriation bill. they passed such a bill; and when we shall have made a void in the bill now before us by striking out specie payments for government, i recommend to its friends to fill the gap, by inserting, if not the same provisions as were in the law of the state of franklin, at least something in the same spirit. the preamble of that law, sir, begins by reciting, that the collection of taxes in specie had become very oppressive to the good people of the commonwealth, for the want of a circulating medium. a parallel case to ours, sir, exactly. it recites further, that it is the duty of the legislature to hear, at all times, the prayer of their constituents, and apply as speedy a remedy as lies in their power. these sentiments are very just, and i sincerely wish there was a thorough disposition here to adopt the like. acting under the influence of these sound opinions, sir, the legislature of franklin passed a law for the support of the civil list, which, as it is short, i will beg permission to read. it is as follows:-- "_be it enacted by the general assembly of the state of franklin, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same_, that, from the first day of january, a.d. , the salaries of the civil officers of this commonwealth be as follows, to wit: "his excellency, the governor, _per annum_, one thousand deer-skins; his honor, the chief justice, five hundred do. do.; the attorney-general, five hundred do. do.; secretary to his excellency the governor, five hundred raccoon do.; the treasurer of the state, four hundred and fifty otter do.; each county clerk, three hundred beaver do.; clerk of the house of commons, two hundred raccoon do.; members of assembly, _per diem_, three do. do.; justice's fee for signing a warrant, one muskrat do.; to the constable, for serving a warrant, one mink do. "enacted into a law this th day of october, , under the great seal of the state. "witness his excellency, &c. "_governor, captain-general, commander-in-chief, and admiral in and over said state_." this, sir, is the law, the spirit of which i commend to gentlemen. i will not speak of the appropriateness of these several allowances for the civil list. but the example is good, and i am of opinion that, until congress shall perform its duty, by seeing that the country enjoys a good currency, the same medium which the people are obliged to use, whether it be skins or rags, is good enough for its own members. [footnote : the secretary of the treasury.] a uniform system of bankruptcy. from a speech delivered in the senate of the united states, on the th of may, , on the proposed amendment to the bill establishing a uniform system of bankruptcy. let me remind you, then, in the first place, sir, that, commercial as the country is, and having experienced as it has done, and experiencing as it now does, great vicissitudes of trade and business, it is almost forty years since any law has been in force by which any honest man, failing in business, could be effectually discharged from debt by surrendering his property. the former bankrupt law was repealed on the th of december, . from that day to this, the condition of an insolvent, however honest and worthy, has been utterly hopeless, so far as he depended on any legal mode of relief. this state of things has arisen from the peculiar provisions of the constitution of the united states, and from the omission by congress to exercise this branch of its constitutional power. by the constitution, the states are prohibited from passing laws impairing the obligation of contracts. bankrupt laws impair the obligation of contracts, if they discharge the bankrupt from his debts without payment. the states, therefore, cannot pass such laws. the power, then, is taken from the states, and placed in our hands. it is true that it has been decided, that, in regard to contracts entered into after the passage of any state bankrupt law, between the citizens of the state having such law, and sued in the state courts, a state discharge may prevail. so far, effect has been given to state laws. i have great respect, habitually, for judicial decisions; but it has nevertheless, i must say, always appeared to me that the distinctions on which these decisions are founded are slender, and that they evade, without answering, the objections founded on the great political and commercial objects intended to be secured by this part of the constitution. but these decisions, whether right or wrong, afford no effectual relief. the qualifications and limitations which i have stated render them useless, as to the purpose of a general discharge. so much of the concerns of every man of business is with citizens of other states than his own, and with foreigners, that the partial extent to which the validity of state discharges reaches is of little benefit. the states, then, cannot pass effectual bankrupt laws; that is, effectual for the discharge of the debtor. there is no doubt that most, if not all, the states would now pass such laws, if they had the power; although their legislation would be various, interfering, and full of all the evils which the constitution of the united states intended to provide against. but they have not the power; congress, which has the power, does not exercise it. this is the peculiarity of our condition. the states would pass bankrupt laws, but they cannot; we can, but we will not. and between this want of power in the states and want of will in congress, unfortunate insolvents are left to hopeless bondage. there are probably one or two hundred thousand debtors, honest, sober, and industrious, who drag out lives useless to themselves, useless to their families, and useless to their country, for no reason but that they cannot be legally discharged from debts in which misfortunes have involved them, and which there is no possibility of their ever paying. i repeat, again, that these cases have now been accumulating for a whole generation. it is true they are not imprisoned; but there may be, and there are, restraint and bondage outside the walls of the jail, as well as in. their power of earning is, in truth, taken away, their faculty of useful employment is paralyzed, and hope itself become extinguished. creditors, generally, are not inhuman or unkind; but there will be found some who hold on, and the more a debtor struggles to free himself, the more they feel encouraged to hold on. the mode of reasoning is, that, the more honest the debtor may be, the more industrious, the more disposed to struggle and bear up against his misfortunes, the greater the chance is, that, in the end, especially if the humanity of others shall have led them to release him, their own debts may be finally recovered. now, in this state of our constitutional powers and duties, in this state of our laws, and with this actually existing condition of so many insolvents before us, it is not too serious to ask every member of the senate to put it to his own conscience to say, whether we are not bound to exercise our constitutional duty. can we abstain from exercising it? the states give to their own laws all the effect they can. this shows that they desire the power to be exercised. several states have, in the most solemn manner, made known their earnest wishes to congress. if we still refuse, what is to be done? many of these insolvent persons are young men with young families. like other men, they have capacities both for action and enjoyment. are we to stifle all these for ever? are we to suffer all these persons, many of them meritorious and respectable, to be pressed to the earth for ever, by a load of hopeless debt? the existing diversities and contradictions of state laws on the subject admirably illustrate the objects of this part of the constitution, as stated by mr. madison; and they form that precise case for which the clause was inserted. the very evil intended to be provided against is before us, and around us, and pressing us on all sides. how can we, how dare we, make a perfect dead letter of this part of the constitution, which we have sworn to support? the insolvent persons have not the power of locomotion. they cannot travel from state to state. they are prisoners. to my certain knowledge, there are many who cannot even come here to the seat of government, to present their petitions to congress, so great is their fear that some creditor will dog their heels, and arrest them in some intervening state, or in this district, in the hope that friends will appear to save them, by payment of the debt, from imprisonment. these are truths; not creditable to the country, but they are truths. i am sorry for their existence. sir, there is one crime, quite too common, which the laws of man do not punish, but which cannot escape the justice of god; and that is, the arrest and confinement of a debtor by his creditor, with no motive on earth but the hope that some friend, or some relative, perhaps almost as poor as himself, his mother it may be, or his sisters, or his daughters, will give up all their own little pittance, and make beggars of themselves, to save him from the horrors of a loathsome jail. human retribution cannot reach this guilt; human feeling may not penetrate the flinty heart that perpetrates it; but an hour is surely coming, with more than human retribution on its wings, when that flint shall be melted, either by the power of penitence and grace, or in the fires of remorse. sir, i verily believe that the power of perpetuating debts against debtors, for no substantial good to the creditor himself, and the power of imprisonment for debt, at least as it existed in this country ten years ago, have imposed more restraint on personal liberty than the law of debtor and creditor imposes in any other christian and commercial country. if any public good were attained, any high political object answered, by such laws, there might be some reason for counselling submission and sufferance to individuals. but the result is bad, every way. it is bad to the public and to the country, which loses the efforts and the industry of so many useful and capable citizens. it is bad to creditors, because there is no security against preferences, no principle of equality, and no encouragement for honest, fair, and seasonable assignments of effects. as to the debtor, however good his intentions or earnest his endeavors, it subdues his spirit and degrades him in his own esteem; and if he attempts any thing for the purpose of obtaining food and clothing for his family, he is driven to unworthy shifts and disguises, to the use of other persons' names, to the adoption of the character of agent, and various other contrivances, to keep the little earnings of the day from the reach of his creditors. fathers act in the name of their sons, sons act in the name of their fathers; all constantly exposed to the greatest temptation to misrepresent facts and to evade the law, if creditors should strike. all this is evil, unmixed evil. and what is it all for? of what benefit to anybody? who likes it? who wishes it? what class of creditors desire it? what consideration of public good demands it? sir, we talk much, and talk warmly, of political liberty; and well we may, for it is among the chief of public blessings. but who can enjoy political liberty if he is deprived, permanently, of personal liberty, and the exercise of his own industry and his own faculties? to those unfortunate individuals, doomed to the everlasting bondage of debt, what is it that we have free institutions of government? what is it that we have public and popular assemblies? what is even this constitution itself to them, in its actual operation, and as we now administer it? what is its aspect to them, but an aspect of stern, implacable severity? an aspect of refusal, denial, and frowning rebuke? nay, more than that, an aspect not only of austerity and rebuke, but, as they must think it, of plain injustice also, since it will not relieve them, nor suffer others to give them relief? what love can they feel towards the constitution of their country, which has taken the power of striking off their bonds from their own paternal state governments, and yet, inexorable to all the cries of justice and of mercy, holds it unexercised in its own fast and unrelenting grasp? they find themselves bondsmen, because we will not execute the commands of the constitution; bondsmen to debts they cannot pay, and which all know they cannot pay, and which take away the power of supporting themselves. other slaves have masters, charged with the duty of support and protection; but their masters neither clothe, nor feed, nor shelter; they only bind. but, sir, the fault is not in the constitution. the constitution is beneficent as well as wise in all its provisions on this subject. the fault, i must be allowed to say, is in us, who have suffered ourselves quite too long to neglect the duty incumbent upon us. the time will come, sir, when we shall look back and wonder at the long delay of this just and salutary measure. we shall then feel as we now feel when we reflect on that progress of opinion which has already done so much on another connected subject; i mean the abolition of imprisonment for debt. what should we say at this day, if it were proposed to re-establish arrest and imprisonment for debt, as it existed in most of the states even so late as twenty years ago? i mean for debt alone, for mere, pure debt, without charge or suspicion of fraud or falsehood. sir, it is about that length of time, i think, since you,[ ] who now preside over our deliberations, began here your efforts for the abolition of imprisonment for debt; and a better work was never begun in the capitol. ever remembered and ever honored be that noble effort! you drew the attention of the public to the question, whether, in a civilized and christian country, debt incurred without fraud, and remaining unpaid without fault, is a crime, and a crime fit to be punished by denying to the offender the enjoyment of the light of heaven, and shutting him up within four walls. your own good sense, and that instinct of right feeling which often outruns sagacity, carried you at once to a result to which others were more slowly brought, but to which nearly all have at length been brought, by reason, reflection, and argument. your movement led the way; it became an example, and has had a powerful effect on both sides of the atlantic. imprisonment for debt, or even arrest and holding to bail for mere debt, no longer exists in england; and former laws on the subject have been greatly modified and mitigated, as we all know, in our states. "abolition of imprisonment for debt," your own words in the title of your own bill, has become the title of an act of parliament. sir, i am glad of an occasion to pay you the tribute of my sincere respect for these your labors in the cause of humanity and enlightened policy. for these labors thousands of grateful hearts have thanked you; and other thousands of hearts, not yet full of joy for the accomplishment of their hopes, full, rather, at the present moment, of deep and distressing anxiety, have yet the pleasure to know that your advice, your counsel, and your influence will all be given in favor of what is intended for their relief in the bill before us. mr. president, let us atone for the omissions of the past by a prompt and efficient discharge of present duty. the demand for this measure is not partial or local. it comes to us, earnest and loud, from all classes and all quarters. the time is come when we must answer it to our own consciences, if we suffer longer delay or postponement. high hopes, high duties, and high responsibilities concentrate themselves on this measure and this moment. with a power to pass a bankrupt law, which no other legislature in the country possesses, with a power of giving relief to many, doing injustice to none, i again ask every man who hears me, if he can content himself without an honest attempt to exercise that power. we may think it would be better to leave the power with the states; but it was not left with the states; they have it not, and we cannot give it to them. it is in our hands, to be exercised by us, or to be for ever useless and lifeless. under these circumstances, does not every man's heart tell him that he has a duty to discharge? if the final vote shall be given this day, and if that vote shall leave thousands of our fellow-citizens and their families, in hopeless and helpless distress, to everlasting subjection to irredeemable debt, can we go to our beds with satisfied consciences? can we lay our heads upon our pillows, and, without self-reproach, supplicate the almighty mercy to forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors? sir, let us meet the unanimous wishes of the country, and proclaim relief to the unfortunate throughout the land. what should hinder? what should stay our hands from this good work? creditors do not oppose it,--they apply for it; debtors solicit it, with an importunity, earnestness, and anxiety not to be described; the constitution enjoins it; and all the considerations of justice, policy, and propriety, which are wrapped up in the phrase public duty, demand it, as i think, and demand it loudly and imperatively, at our hands. sir, let us gratify the whole country, for once, with the joyous clang of chains, joyous because heard falling from the limbs of men. the wisest among those whom i address can desire nothing more beneficial than this measure, or more universally desired; and he who is youngest may not expect to live long enough to see a better opportunity of causing new pleasures and a happiness long untasted to spring up in the hearts of the poor and the humble. how many husbands and fathers are looking with hopes which they cannot suppress, and yet hardly dare to cherish, for the result of this debate! how many wives and mothers will pass sleepless and feverish nights, until they know whether they and their families shall be raised from poverty, despondency, and despair, and restored again to the circles of industrious, independent, and happy life! sir, let it be to the honor of congress that, in these days of political strife and controversy, we have laid aside for once the sin that most easily besets us, and, with unanimity of counsel, and with singleness of heart and of purpose, have accomplished for our country one measure of unquestionable good. [footnote : hon. richard m. johnson, vice-president of the united states.] "the log cabin candidate." from a speech delivered at the great mass meeting at saratoga, new york, on the th of august, . but it is the cry and effort of the times to stimulate those who are called poor against those who are called rich; and yet, among those who urge this cry, and seek to profit by it, there is betrayed sometimes an occasional sneer at whatever savors of humble life. witness the reproach against a candidate now before the people for their highest honors, that a log cabin, with plenty of hard cider, is good enough for him! it appears to some persons, that a great deal too much use is made of the symbol of the log cabin. no man of sense supposes, certainly, that the having lived in a log cabin is any further proof of qualification for the presidency, than as it creates a presumption that any one who, rising from humble condition, or under unfavorable circumstances, has been able to attract a considerable degree of public attention, is possessed of reputable qualities, moral and intellectual. but it is to be remembered, that this matter of the log cabin originated, not with the friends of the whig candidate, but with his enemies. soon after his nomination at harrisburg, a writer for one of the leading administration papers spoke of his "log cabin," and his use of "hard cider," by way of sneer and reproach. as might have been expected, (for pretenders are apt to be thrown off their guard,) this taunt at humble life proceeded from the party which claims a monopoly of the purest democracy. the whole party appeared to enjoy it, or, at least, they countenanced it by silent acquiescence; for i do not know that, to this day, any eminent individual or any leading newspaper attached to the administration has rebuked this scornful jeering at the supposed humble condition or circumstances in life, past or present, of a worthy man and a war-worn soldier. but it touched a tender point in the public feeling. it naturally roused indignation. what was intended as reproach was immediately seized on as merit. "be it so! be it so!" was the instant burst of the public voice. "let him be the log cabin candidate. what you say in scorn, we will shout with all our lungs. from this day forward, we have our cry of rally; and we shall see whether he who has dwelt in one of the rude abodes of the west may not become the best house in the country!" all this is natural, and springs from sources of just feeling. other things, gentlemen, have had a similar origin. we all know that the term "whig" was bestowed in derision, two hundred years ago, on those who were thought too fond of liberty; and our national air of "yankee doodle" was composed by british officers, in ridicule of the american troops. yet, erelong, the last of the british armies laid down its arms at yorktown, while this same air was playing in the ears of officers and men. gentlemen, it is only shallow-minded pretenders who either make distinguished origin matter of personal merit, or obscure origin matter of personal reproach. taunt and scoffing at the humble condition of early life affect nobody, in this country, but those who are foolish enough to indulge in them, and they are generally sufficiently punished by public rebuke. a man who is not ashamed of himself need not be ashamed of his early condition. gentlemen, it did not happen to me to be born in a log cabin; but my elder brothers and sisters were born in a log cabin, raised amid the snow-drifts of new hampshire, at a period so early that, when the smoke first rose from its rude chimney, and curled over the frozen hills, there was no similar evidence of a white man's habitation between it and the settlements on the rivers of canada. its remains still exist. i make to it an annual visit. i carry my children to it, to teach them the hardships endured by the generations which have gone before them. i love to dwell on the tender recollections, the kindred ties, the early affections, and the touching narratives and incidents, which mingle with all i know of this primitive family abode. i weep to think that none of those who inhabited it are now among the living; and if ever i am ashamed of it, or if i ever fail in affectionate veneration for him who reared it, and defended it against savage violence and destruction, cherished all the domestic virtues beneath its roof, and, through the fire and blood of a seven years' revolutionary war, shrunk from no danger, no toil, no sacrifice, to serve his country, and to raise his children to a condition better than his own, may my name and the name of my posterity be blotted for ever from the memory of mankind! address to the ladies of richmond. remarks at a public reception by the ladies of richmond, virginia, on the th of october, . [the visit of mr. webster to richmond was short, and his public engagements so numerous, as to put it out of his power to return the calls of his friends, or to pay his respects to their families. it was accordingly proposed that the ladies who might desire to do so should assemble in the "log cabin," and that he should there pay his respects to them collectively. the meeting was large, and the building quite full. on being introduced to them in a few appropriate remarks, by mr. lyons, mr. webster addressed them in the following speech.] ladies,--i am very sure i owe the pleasure i now enjoy to your kind disposition, which has given me the opportunity to present my thanks and my respects to you thus collectively, since the shortness of my stay in the city does not allow me the happiness of calling upon those, severally and individually, from members of whose families i have received kindness and notice. and, in the first place, i wish to express to you my deep and hearty thanks, as i have endeavored to do to your fathers, your husbands, and your brothers, for the unbounded hospitality i have received ever since i came among you. this is registered, i assure you, in a grateful heart, in characters of an enduring nature. the rough contests of the political world are not suited to the dignity and the delicacy of your sex; but you possess the intelligence to know how much of that happiness which you are entitled to hope for, both for yourselves and for your children, depends on the right administration of government, and a proper tone of public morals. that is a subject on which the moral perceptions of woman are both quicker and juster than those of the other sex. i do not speak of that administration of government whose object is merely the protection of industry, the preservation of civil liberty, and the securing to enterprise of its due reward. i speak of government in a somewhat higher point of view; i speak of it in regard to its influence on the morals and sentiments of the community. we live in an age distinguished for great benevolent exertion, in which the affluent are consecrating the means they possess to the endowment of colleges and academies, to the building of churches, to the support of religion and religious worship, to the encouragement of schools, lyceums, and athenaeums, and other means of general popular instruction. this is all well; it is admirable; it augurs well for the prospects of ensuing generations. but i have sometimes thought, that, amidst all this activity and zeal of the good and the benevolent, the influence of government on the morals and on the religious feelings of the community is apt to be overlooked or underrated. i speak, of course, of its indirect influence, of the power of its example, and the general tone which it inspires. a popular government, in all these respects, is a most powerful institution; more powerful, as it has sometimes appeared to me, than the influence of most other human institutions put together, either for good or for evil, according to its character. its example, its tone, whether of regard or disregard for moral obligation, is most important to human happiness; it is among those things which most affect the political morals of mankind, and their general morals also. i advert to this, because there has been put forth, in modern times, the false maxim, that there is one morality for politics, and another morality for other things; that, in their political conduct to their opponents, men may say and do that which they would never think of saying or doing in the personal relations of private life. there has been openly announced a sentiment, which i consider as the very essence of false morality, which declares that "all is fair in politics." if a man speaks falsely or calumniously of his neighbor, and is reproached for the offence, the ready excuse is this: "it was in relation to public and political matters; i cherished no personal ill-will whatever against that individual, but quite the contrary; i spoke of my adversary merely as a political man." in my opinion, the day is coming when falsehood will stand for falsehood, and calumny will be treated as a breach of the commandment, whether it be committed politically or in the concerns of private life. it is by the promulgation of sound morals in the community, and more especially by the training and instruction of the young, that woman performs her part towards the preservation of a free government. it is generally admitted that public liberty, and the perpetuity of a free constitution, rest on the virtue and intelligence of the community which enjoys it. how is that virtue to be inspired, and how is that intelligence to be communicated? bonaparte once asked madame de staël in what manner he could best promote the happiness of france. her reply is full of political wisdom. she said, "instruct the mothers of the french people." mothers are, indeed, the affectionate and effective teachers of the human race. the mother begins her process of training with the infant in her arms. it is she who directs, so to speak, its first mental and spiritual pulsations. she conducts it along the impressible years of childhood and youth, and hopes to deliver it to the stern conflicts and tumultuous scenes of life, armed by those good principles which her child has received from maternal care and love. if we draw within the circle of our contemplation the mothers of a civilized nation, what do we see? we behold so many artificers working, not on frail and perishable matter, but on the immortal mind, moulding and fashioning beings who are to exist for ever. we applaud the artist whose skill and genius present the mimic man upon the canvas; we admire and celebrate the sculptor who works out that same image in enduring marble; but how insignificant are these achievements, though the highest and the fairest in all the departments of art, in comparison with the great vocation of human mothers! they work, not upon the canvas that shall perish, or the marble that shall crumble into dust, but upon mind, upon spirit, which is to last for ever, and which is to bear, for good or evil, throughout its duration, the impress of a mother's plastic hand. i have already expressed the opinion, which all allow to be correct, that our security for the duration of the free institutions which bless our country depends upon habits of virtue and the prevalence of knowledge and of education. the attainment of knowledge does not comprise all which is contained in the larger term of education. the feelings are to be disciplined; the passions are to be restrained; true and worthy motives are to be inspired; a profound religious feeling is to be instilled, and pure morality inculcated, under all circumstances. all this is comprised in education. mothers who are faithful to this great duty will tell their children, that neither in political nor in any other concerns of life can man ever withdraw himself from the perpetual obligations of conscience and of duty; that in every act, whether public or private, he incurs a just responsibility; and that in no condition is he warranted in trifling with important rights and obligations. they will impress upon their children the truth, that the exercise of the elective franchise is a social duty, of as solemn a nature as man can be called to perform; that a man may not innocently trifle with his vote; that every free elector is a trustee, as well for others as himself; and that every man and every measure he supports has an important bearing on the interests of others, as well as on his own. it is in the inculcation of high and pure morals such as these, that, in a free republic, woman performs her sacred duty, and fulfils her destiny. the french, as you know, are remarkable for their fondness for sententious phrases, in which much meaning is condensed into a small space. i noticed lately, on the title-page of one of the books of popular instruction in france, this motto: "pour instruction on the heads of the people! you owe them that baptism." and, certainly, if there be any duty which may be described by a reference to that great institute of religion,--a duty approaching it in importance, perhaps next to it in obligation,--it is this. i know you hardly expect me to address you on the popular political topics of the day. you read enough, you hear quite enough, on those subjects. you expect me only to meet you, and to tender my profound thanks for this marked proof of your regard, and will kindly receive the assurances with which i tender to you, on parting, my affectionate respects and best wishes. reception at boston. a speech made in faneuil hall, on the th of september, , at a public reception given to mr. webster, on his return to boston, after the negotiation of the treaty of washington. [on the accession of general harrison to the presidency of the united states, on the th of march, , mr. webster was called to the office of secretary of state, in which, after the president's untimely death, he continued under mr. tyler for about two years. the relations of the country with great britain were at that time in a very critical position. the most important and difficult subject which engaged the attention of the government, while he filled the department of state, was the negotiation of the treaty with great britain, which was signed at washington on the th of august, . the other members of general harrison's cabinet having resigned their places in the autumn of , discontent was felt by some of their friends, that mr. webster should have consented to retain his. but as mr. tyler continued to place entire confidence in mr. webster's administration of the department of state, the great importance of pursuing a steady line of policy in reference to foreign affairs, and especially the hope of averting a rupture with england by an honorable settlement of our difficulties with that country, induced mr. webster to remain at his post. on occasion of a visit made by him to boston, after the adjournment of congress, in august, , a number of his friends were desirous of manifesting their sense of the services which he had rendered to the country by pursuing this course. a public meeting of citizens was accordingly held in faneuil hall, on the th of september, . at this meeting the following speech was made.] i know not how it is, mr. mayor, but there is something in the echoes of these walls, or in this sea of upturned faces which i behold before me, or in the genius that always hovers over this place, fanning ardent and patriotic feeling by every motion of its wings,--i know not how it is, but there is something that excites me strangely, deeply, before i even begin to speak. it cannot be doubted that this salutation and greeting from my fellow-citizens of boston is a tribute dear to my heart. boston is indeed my home, my cherished home. it is now more than twenty-five years since i came to it with my family, to pursue, here in this enlightened metropolis, those objects of professional life for which my studies and education were designed to fit me. it is twenty years since i was invited by the citizens of boston to take upon myself an office of public trust in their service.[ ] it gives me infinite pleasure to see here to-day, among those who hold the seats yielded to such as are more advanced in life, not a few of the gentlemen who were earnestly instrumental in inducing me to enter upon a course of life wholly unexpected, and to devote myself to the service of the public. whenever the duties of public life have withdrawn me from this home, i have felt it, nevertheless, to be the attractive spot to which all local affection tended. and now that the progress of time must shortly bring about the period, if it should not be hastened by the progress of events, when the duties of public life shall yield to the influences of advancing years, i cherish no hope more precious, than to pass here in these associations and among these friends what may remain to me of life; and to leave in the midst of you, fellow-citizens, partaking of your fortunes, whether for good or for evil, those who bear my name, and inherit my blood. the mayor has alluded, very kindly, to the exertions which i have made since i have held a position in the cabinet, and especially to the results of the negotiation in which i have been recently engaged. i hope, fellow-citizens, that something has been done which may prove permanently useful to the public. i have endeavored to do something, and i hope my endeavors have not been in vain. i have had a hard summer's work, it is true, but i am not wholly unused to hard work. i have had some anxious days, i have spent some sleepless nights; but if the results of my efforts shall be approved by the community, i am richly compensated. my other days will be the happier, and my other nights will be given to a sweeter repose. it was an object of the highest national importance, no doubt, to disperse the clouds which threatened a storm between england and america. for several years past there has been a class of questions open between the two countries, which have not always threatened war, but which have prevented the people from being assured of permanent peace. his honor the mayor has paid a just tribute to that lamented personage, by whom, in , i was called to the place i now occupy; and although, gentlemen, i know it is in very bad taste to speak much of one's self, yet here, among my friends and neighbors, i wish to say a word or two on subjects in which i am concerned. with the late president harrison i had contracted an acquaintance while we were both members of congress, and i had an opportunity of renewing it afterwards in his own house, and elsewhere. i have made no exhibition or boast of the confidence which it was his pleasure to repose in me; but circumstances, hardly worthy of serious notice, have rendered it not improper for me to say on this occasion, that as soon as president harrison was elected, without, of course, one word from me, he wrote to me inviting me to take a place in his cabinet, leaving to me the choice of that place, and asking my advice as to the persons that should fill every other place in it. he expressed rather a wish that i should take the administration of the treasury, because, as he was pleased to say, i had devoted myself with success to the examination of the questions of currency and finance, and he felt that the wants of the country,--the necessities of the country, on the great subjects of currency and finance,--were moving causes that produced the revolution which had placed him in the presidential chair. it so happened, gentlemen, that my preference was for another place,--for that which i have now the honor to fill. i felt all its responsibilities; but i must say, that, with whatever attention i had considered the general questions of finance, i felt more competent and willing to undertake the duties of an office which did not involve the daily drudgery of the treasury. i was not disappointed, gentlemen, in the exigency which then existed in our foreign relations. i was not unaware of all the difficulties which hung over us; for although the whole of the danger was not at that moment developed, the cause of it was known, and it seemed as if an outbreak was inevitable. i allude now to that occurrence on the frontier of which the chairman has already spoken, which took place in the winter of the case of alexander mcleod. a year or two before, the canadian government had seen fit to authorize a military incursion, for a particular purpose, within the territory of the united states. that purpose was to destroy a steamboat, charged with being employed for hostile purposes against its forces and the peaceable subjects of the crown. the act was avowed by the british government at home as a public act. alexander mcleod, a person who individually could claim no regard or sympathy, happened to be one of the agents who, in a military character, performed the act of their sovereign. coming into the united states some years after, he was arrested under a charge of homicide committed in this act, and was held to trial as for a private felony. according to my apprehensions, a proceeding of this kind was directly adverse to the well-settled doctrines of the public law. it could not but be received with lively indignation, not only by the british government, but among the people of england. it would be so received among us. if a citizen of the united states should as a military man receive an order of his government and obey it, (and he must either obey it or be hanged,) and should afterwards, in the territory of another power, which by that act he had offended, be tried for a violation of its law, as for a crime, and threatened with individual punishment, there is not a man in the united states who would not cry out for redress and for vengeance. any elevated government, in a case like this, where one of its citizens, in the performance of his duty, incurs such menaces and danger, assumes the responsibility; any elevated government says, "the act was mine,--i am the man";--"adsum qui feci, in me convertite ferrum." now, gentlemen, information of the action of the british government on this subject was transmitted to us at washington within a few days after the installation of general harrison. i did not think that it was proper to make public then, nor is it important to say now, all that we knew on the subject; but i will tell you, in general terms, that if all that was known at washington then had been divulged throughout the country, the value of the shipping interest of this city, and of every other interest connected with the commerce of the country, would have been depressed one half in six hours. i thought that the concussion might be averted, by holding up to view the principles of public law by which this question ought to be settled, and by demanding an apology for whatever had been done against those principles of public law by the british government or its officers. i thought we ought to put ourselves right in the first place, and then we could insist that they should do right in the next place. when in england, in the year , i had occasion to address a large and respectable assemblage; and allusion having been made to the relations of things between the two countries, i stated then, what i thought and now think, that in any controversy which should terminate in war between the united states and england, the only eminent advantage that _either_ would possess would be found in the rectitude of its cause. with the right on our side, we are a match for england; and with the right on her side, she is a match for us, or for anybody. we live in an age, fellow-citizens, when there has been established among the nations a more elevated tribunal than ever before existed on earth; i mean the tribunal of the enlightened public opinion of the world. governments cannot go to war now, either with or against the consent of their own subjects or people, without the reprobation of other states, unless for grounds and reasons justifying them in the general judgment of mankind. the judgment of civilization, of commerce, and of that heavenly light that beams over christendom, restrains men, congresses, parliaments, princes, and people from gratifying the inordinate love of ambition through the bloody scenes of war. it has been wisely said, and it is true, that every settlement of national differences between christian states by fair negotiation, without resort to arms, is a new illustration and a new proof of the benign influence of the christian faith. with regard to the terms of this treaty, and in relation to the other subjects connected with it, it is somewhat awkward for me to speak, because the documents connected with them have not been made public by authority. but i persuade myself, that, when the whole shall be calmly considered, it will be seen that there was throughout a fervent disposition to maintain the interest and honor of the country, united with a proper regard for the preservation of peace between us and the greatest commercial nation of the world. gentlemen, while i receive these commendations which you have bestowed, i have an agreeable duty to perform to others. in the first place, i have great pleasure in bearing testimony to the intelligent interest manifested by the president of the united states, under whose authority, of course, i constantly acted throughout the negotiation, and his sincere and anxious desire that it might result successfully. i take great pleasure in acknowledging here, as i will acknowledge everywhere, my obligations to him for the unbroken and steady confidence reposed in me through the whole progress of an affair not unimportant to the country, and infinitely important to my own reputation. a negotiator disparaged, distrusted, treated with jealousy by his own government, would be indeed a very unequal match for a cool and sagacious representative of one of the proudest and most powerful monarchies of europe, possessing in the fullest extent the confidence of his government, and authorized to bind it in concerns of the greatest importance. i shall never forget the frankness and generosity with which, after a full and free interchange of suggestions upon the subject, i was told by the president that on my shoulders rested the responsibility of the negotiation, and on my discretion and judgment should rest the lead of every measure. i desire also to speak here of the hearty co-operation rendered every day by the other gentlemen connected with the administration, from every one of whom i received important assistance. i speak with satisfaction, also, of the useful labors of all the commissioners, although i need hardly say here, what has been already said officially, that the highest respect is due to the commissioners from maine and massachusetts for their faithful adherence to the rights of their own states, mingled with a cordial co-operation in what was required by the general interests of the united states. and i hope i shall not be considered as trespassing on this occasion, if i speak of the happy selection made by england of a person to represent her government on this occasion,[ ]--a thorough englishman, understanding and appreciating the great objects and interests of his own government, of large and liberal views, and of such standing and weight of character at home, as to impress a feeling of approbation of his course upon both government and people. he was fully acquainted with the subject, and always, on all occasions, as far as his allegiance and duty permitted, felt and manifested good-will towards this country. aside from the question of the boundary, there were other important subjects to be considered, to which i know not whether this is a proper occasion to allude. when the results of the negotiation shall be fully before the public, it will be seen that these other questions have not been neglected, questions of great moment and importance to the country; and then i shall look with concern, but with faith and trust, for the judgment of that country upon them. it is but just to take notice of a very important act, intended to provide for such cases as mcleod's, for which the country is indebted to the whig majorities in the two houses of congress, acting upon the president's recommendation. events showed the absolute necessity of removing into the national tribunals questions involving the peace and honor of the united states. there yet remain, gentlemen, several other subjects still unsettled with england. first, there is that concerning the trade between the united states and the possessions of england, on this continent and in the west indies. it has been my duty to look into that subject, and to keep the run of it, as we say, from the arrangement of and , until the present time. that arrangement was one unfavorable to the shipping interests of the united states, and especially so to the new england states. to adjust these relations is an important subject, either for diplomatic negotiation, or the consideration of congress. one or both houses of congress, indeed, have already called upon the proper department for a report upon the operations of that arrangement, and a committee of the house of representatives has made a report, showing that some adjustment of these relations is of vital importance to the future prosperity of our navigating interests. there is another question, somewhat more remote; that of the northwest boundary, where the possessions of the two countries touch each other upon the pacific. there are evident public reasons why that question should be settled before the country becomes peopled. there are also, gentlemen, many open questions respecting our relations with other governments. upon most of the other states of this continent, citizens of the united states have claims, with regard to which the delays already incurred have caused great injustice; and it becomes the government of the united states, by a calm and dignified course, and a deliberate and vigorous tone of administration of public affairs, to secure prompt justice to our citizens in these quarters. i am here to-day as a guest. i was invited by a number of highly valued personal and political friends to partake with them of a public dinner, for the purpose of giving them an opportunity to pass the usual greeting of friends upon my return; of testifying their respect for my public services heretofore; and of exchanging congratulations upon the results of the late negotiation. it was at my instance that the proposed dinner took the form of this meeting, and, instead of meeting them at the festive board, i agreed to meet them, and those who chose to meet me with them, here. still, the general character of the meeting seems not to be changed. i am here as a guest; here to receive greetings and salutations for particular services, and not under any intimation or expectation that i should address the gentlemen who invited me or others here, upon subjects not suggested by themselves. it would not become me to use the occasion for any more general purpose. because, although i have a design, at some time not far distant, to make known my sentiments upon political matters generally, and upon the political state of the country and that of its several parties, yet i know very well that i should be trespassing beyond the bounds of politeness and propriety, should i enter upon this whole wide field now. i will not enter upon it, because the gentlemen who invited me entertain on many of these topics views different from my own, and they would very properly say, that they came here to meet mr. webster, to congratulate him upon the late negotiation, and to exchange sentiments upon matters about which they agreed with him; and that it was not in very correct taste for him to use the occasion to express opinions upon other subjects on which they differ. it is on that account that i shall forbear discussing political subjects at large, and shall endeavor to confine my remarks to what may be considered as affecting myself, directly or indirectly. the mayor was kind enough to say, that having, in his judgment, performed the duties of my own department to the satisfaction of my country, it might be left to me to take care of my own honor and reputation. i suppose that he meant to say, that in the present distracted state of the whig party, and among the contrariety of opinions that prevail (if there be a contrariety of opinion) as to the course proper for _me_ to pursue, the decision of that question might be left to myself. i am exactly of his opinion. i am quite of opinion that on a question touching my own honor and character, as i am to bear the consequences of the decision, i had a great deal better be trusted to make it. no man feels more highly the advantage of the advice of friends than i do; but on a question so delicate and important as that, i like to choose myself the friends who are to give me advice; and upon this subject, gentlemen, i shall leave you as enlightened as i found you. i give no pledges, i make no intimations, one way or the other; and i will be as free, when this day closes, to act as duty calls, as i was when the dawn of this day--(here mr. webster was interrupted by tremendous applause. when silence was restored he continued:) there is a delicacy in the case, because there is always delicacy and regret when one feels obliged to differ from his friends; but there is no embarrassment. there is no embarrassment, because, if i see the path of duty before me, i have that within me which will enable me to pursue it, and throw all embarrassment to the winds. a public man has no occasion to be embarrassed, if he is honest. himself and his feelings should be to him as nobody and as nothing; the interest of his country must be to him as every thing; he must sink what is personal to himself, making exertions for his country; and it is his ability and readiness to do this which are to mark him as a great or as a little man in time to come. there were many persons in september, , who found great fault with my remaining in the president's cabinet. you know, gentlemen, that twenty years of honest, and not altogether undistinguished service in the whig cause, did not save me from an outpouring of wrath, which seldom proceeds from whig pens and whig tongues against anybody. i am, gentlemen, a little hard to coax, but as to being driven, that is out of the question. i chose to trust my own judgment, and thinking i was at a post where i was in the service of the country, and could do it good, i stayed there. and i leave it to you to-day to say, i leave it to my country to say, whether the country would have been better off if i had left also. i have no attachment to office. i have tasted of its sweets, but i have tasted of its bitterness. i am content with what i have achieved; i am more ready to rest satisfied with what is gained, than to run the risk of doubtful efforts for new acquisition. i suppose i ought to pause here. (cries of "go on!") i ought, perhaps, to allude to nothing more, and i will not allude to any thing further than it may be supposed to concern myself, directly or by implication. gentlemen, and mr. mayor, a most respectable convention of whig delegates met in this place a few days since, and passed very important resolutions. there is no set of gentlemen in the commonwealth, so far as i know them, who have more of my respect and regard. they are whigs, but they are no better whigs than i am. they have served the country in the whig ranks; so have i, quite as long as most of them, though perhaps with less ability and success. their resolutions on political subjects, as representing the whigs of the state, are entitled to respect, so far as they were authorized to express opinion on those subjects, and no further. they were sent hither, as i supposed, to agree upon candidates for the offices of governor and lieutenant-governor for the support of the whigs of massachusetts; and if they had any authority to speak in the name of the whigs of massachusetts to any other purport or intent, i have not been informed of it. i feel very little disturbed by any of those proceedings, of whatever nature; but some of them appear to me to have been inconsiderate and hasty, and their point and bearing can hardly be mistaken. i notice, among others, a declaration made, in behalf of all the whigs of this commonwealth, of "a full and final separation from the president of the united states." if those gentlemen saw fit to express their own sentiments to that extent, there was no objection. whigs speak their sentiments everywhere; but whether they may assume a privilege to speak for others on a point on which those others have not given them authority, is another question. i am a whig, i always have been a whig, and i always will be one; and if there are any who would turn me out of the pale of that communion, let them see who will get out first. i am a massachusetts whig, a faneuil hall whig, having breathed this air for five-and-twenty years, and meaning to breathe it as long as my life is spared. i am ready to submit to all decisions of whig conventions on subjects on which they are authorized to make decisions; i know that great party good and great public good can only be so obtained. but it is quite another question whether a set of gentlemen, however respectable they may be as individuals, shall have the power to bind me on matters which i have not agreed to submit to their decision at all. "a full and final separation" is declared between the whig party of massachusetts and the president. that is the text: it requires a commentary. what does it mean? the president of the united states has three years of his term of office yet unexpired. does this declaration mean, then, that during those three years all the measures of his administration are to be opposed by the great body of the whig party of massachusetts, whether they are right or wrong? there are great public interests which require his attention. if the president of the united states should attempt, by negotiation, or by earnest and serious application to congress, to make some change in the present arrangements, such as should be of service to those interests of navigation which are concerned in the colonial trade, are the whigs of massachusetts to give him neither aid nor succor? if the president of the united states shall direct the proper department to review the whole commercial policy of the united states, in respect of reciprocity in the indirect trade, to which so much of our tonnage is now sacrificed, if the amendment of this policy shall be undertaken by him, is there such a separation between him and the whigs of massachusetts as shall lead them and their representatives to oppose it. do you know (there are gentlemen now here who do know) that a large proportion, i rather think more than one half, of the carrying trade between the empire of brazil and the united states is enjoyed by tonnage from the north of europe, in consequence of this ill-considered principle with regard to reciprocity. you might just as well admit them into the coasting trade. by this arrangement, we take the bread out of our children's mouths and give it to strangers. i appeal to you, sir, (turning to captain benjamin rich, who sat by him,) is not this true? (mr. rich at once replied, true!) is every measure of this sort, for the relief of such abuses, to be rejected? are we to suffer ourselves to remain inactive under every grievance of this kind until these three years shall expire, and through as many more as shall pass until providence shall bless us with more power of doing good than we have now? again, there are now in this state persons employed under government, allowed to be pretty good whigs, still holding their offices; collectors, district attorneys, postmasters, marshals. what is to become of them in this separation? which side are they to fall? are they to resign? or is this resolution to be held up to government as an invitation or a provocation to turn them out? our distinguished fellow-citizen, who, with so much credit to himself and to his country, represents our government in england,[ ]--is _he_ expected to come home, on this separation, and yield his place to his predecessor,[ ] or to somebody else? and in regard to the individual who addresses you,--what do his brother whigs mean to do with him? where do they mean to place me? generally, when a divorce takes place, the parties divide their children. i am anxious to know where, in the case of this divorce, i shall fall. this declaration announces a full and final separation between the whigs of massachusetts and the president. if i choose to remain in the president's councils, do these gentlemen mean to say that i cease to be a massachusetts whig? i am quite ready to put that question to the people of massachusetts. i would not treat this matter too lightly, nor yet too seriously. i know very well that, when public bodies get together, resolutions can never be considered with any degree of deliberation. they are passed as they are presented. who the honorable gentlemen were who drew this resolution i do not know. i suspect that they had not much meaning in it, and that they have not very clearly defined what little meaning they had. they were angry; they were resentful; they had drawn up a string of charges against the president,--a bill of indictment, as it were,--and, to close the whole, they introduced this declaration about "a full and final separation." i could not read this, of course, without perceiving that it had an intentional or unintentional bearing on my position; and therefore it was proper for me to allude to it here. gentlemen, there are some topics on which it has been my fortune to differ from my old friends. they may be right on these topics; very probably they are; but i am sure _i_ am right in maintaining my opinions, such as they are, when i have formed them honestly and on deliberation. there seems to me to be a disposition to postpone all attempts to do good to the country to some future and uncertain day. yet there is a whig majority in each house of congress, and i am of opinion that now is the time to accomplish what yet remains to be accomplished. some gentlemen are for suffering the present congress to expire; another congress to be chosen, and to expire also; a third congress to be chosen, and then, if there shall be a whig majority in both branches, and a whig president, they propose to take up highly important and pressing subjects. these are persons, gentlemen, of more sanguine temperament than myself. "confidence," says lord chatham, "is a plant of slow growth in an old bosom." he referred to confidence in men, but the remark is as true of confidence in predictions of future occurrences. many whigs see before us a prospect of more power, and a better chance to serve the country, than we now possess. far along in the horizon, they discern mild skies and halcyon seas, while fogs and darkness and mists blind other sons of humanity from beholding all this bright vision. it was not so that we accomplished our last great victory, by simply brooding over a glorious whig future. we succeeded in , but not without an effort; and i know that nothing but union, cordial, sympathetic, fraternal union, can prevent the party that achieved that success from renewed prostration. it is not,--i would say it in the presence of the world,--it is not by premature and partial, by proscriptive and denunciatory proceedings, that this great whig family can ever be kept together, or that whig counsels can maintain their ascendency. this is perfectly plain and obvious. it was a party, from the first, made up of different opinions and principles, of gentlemen of every political complexion, uniting to make a change in the administration. they were men of strong state-rights principles, men of strong federal principles, men of extreme tariff, and men of extreme anti-tariff notions. what could be expected of such a party, unless animated by a spirit of conciliation and harmony, of union and sympathy? its true policy was, from the first, and must be, unless it meditates its own destruction, to heal, and not to widen, the breaches that existed in its ranks. it consented to become united in order to save the country from a continuation of a ruinous course of measures. and the lesson taught by the whole history of the revolution of is the momentous value of conciliation, friendship, sympathy, and union. gentlemen, if i understand the matter, there were four or five great objects in that revolution. and, in the first place, one great object was that of attempting to secure permanent peace between this country and england. for although, as i have said, we were not actually at war, we were subjected to perpetual agitations, which disturb the interests of the country almost as much as war. they break in upon men's pursuits, and render them incapable of calculating or judging of their chances of success in any proposed line or course of business. a settled peace was one of the objects of that revolution. i am glad if you think this is accomplished. the next object of that revolution was an increase of revenue. it was notorious that, for the several last years, the expenditures for the administration of government had exceeded the receipts; in other words, government had been running in debt, and in the mean time the operation of the compromise act was still further and faster diminishing the revenue itself. a sound revenue was one of those objects; and that it has been accomplished, our thanks and praise are due to the congress that has just adjourned. a third object was protection, protection incidental to revenue, or consequent upon revenue. now as to that, gentlemen, much has been done, and i hope it will be found that enough has been done. and for this, too, all the whigs who supported that measure in congress are entitled to high praise: they receive mine, and i hope they do yours; it is right that they should. but let us be just. the french rhetoricians have a maxim, that there is nothing beautiful that is not true; i am afraid that some of our jubilant oratory would hardly stand the test of this canon of criticism. it is not true that a majority, composed of whigs, could be found, in either house, in favor of the tariff bill. more than thirty whigs, many of them gentlemen of lead and influence, voted against the law, from beginning to end, on all questions, direct and indirect; and it is not pleasant to consider what would have been the state of the country, the treasury, and the government itself, at this moment, if the law actually passed, for revenue and for protection, had depended on whig votes alone. after all, it passed the house of representatives by a single vote; and there is a good deal of _éclat_ about that single vote. but did not every gentleman who voted for it take the responsibility and deserve the honor of that single vote? several gentlemen in the opposition thus befriended the bill; thus did our neighbor from the middlesex district of this state,[ ] voting for the tariff out and out, as steadily as did my honored friend, the member from this city.[ ] we hear nothing of his "coming to the rescue," and yet he had that _one vote_, and held the tariff in his hand as absolutely as if he had had a presidential veto! and how was it in the senate? it passed by one vote again there, and could not have passed at all without the assistance of the two senators from pennsylvania, of mr. williams of maine, and of mr. wright of new york. let us then admit the truth (and a lawyer may do that when it helps his case), that it was necessary that a large portion of the other party should come to the assistance of the whigs to enable them to carry the tariff, and that, if this assistance had not been rendered, the tariff must have failed. and this is a very important truth for new england. her children, looking to their manufactures and industry for their livelihood, must rejoice to find the tariff, so necessary to these, no party question. can they desire, can they wish, that such a great object as the protection of industry should become a party object, rising with party, and with the failure of the party that supported it going to the grave? this is a public, a national question. the tariff ought to be inwrought in the sentiments of all parties; and although i hope that the pre-eminence of whig principles may be eternal, i wish to take bond and security, that we may make the protection of domestic industry more durable even than whig supremacy. let us be true in another respect. this tariff has accomplished much, and is an honor to the men who passed it. but in regard to protection it has only restored the country to the state in which it was before the compromise act, and from which it fell under the operation of that act. it has repaired the consequences of that measure, and it has done _no more_. i may speak of the compromise act. my turn has come now. no measure ever passed congress during my connection with that body that caused me so much grief and mortification. it was passed by a few friends joining the whole host of the enemy. i have heard much of the motives of that act. the personal motives of those that passed the act were, i doubt not, pure; and all public men are supposed to act from pure motives. but if by motives are meant the objects proposed by the act itself, and expressed in it, then i say, if those be the motives alluded to, they are worse than the act itself. the principle was bad, the measure was bad, the consequences were bad. every circumstance, as well as every line of the act itself, shows that the design was to impose upon legislation a restraint that the constitution had not imposed; to insert in the constitution a new prohibitory clause, providing that, after the year , no revenue should be collected except according to an absurd horizontal system, and none exceeding twenty per cent. it was then pressed through under the great emergency of the public necessities. but i may now recur to what i then said, namely, that its principle was false and dangerous, and that, when its time came, it would rack and convulse our system. i said we should not get rid of it without throes and spasms. has not this been as predicted? we have felt the spasms and throes of this convulsion; but we have at last gone through them, and begin to breathe again. it is something that that act is at last got rid of; and the present tariff is deserving in this, that it is specific and discriminating, that it holds to common sense, and rejects and discards the principles of the compromise act, i hope for ever. another great and principal object of the revolution of was a restoration of the currency. our troubles did not begin with want of money in the treasury, or under the sapping and mining operation of the compromise act. they are of earlier date. the trouble and distress of the country began with the _currency_ in , and broke out with new severity in . other causes of difficulty have since arisen, but the first great shock was a shock on the currency; and from the effect of this the country is not yet relieved. i hope the late act may yield competent revenue, and am sure it will do much for protection. but until you provide a better currency, so that you may have a universal one, of equal and general value throughout the land, i am hard to be persuaded that we shall see the day of our former prosperity. currency, accredited currency, and easy and cheap internal exchanges,--until these things be obtained, depend upon it, the country will find no adequate relief. and now, fellow-citizens, i will say a word or two on the history of the transactions on this subject. at the special session of congress, the secretary of the treasury, mr. ewing, arranged a plan for a national bank. that plan was founded upon the idea of a large capital, furnished mainly by private subscriptions, and it included branches for local discounts. i need not advert, gentlemen, to the circumstances under which this scheme was drawn up, and received, as it did, the approbation of the president and cabinet, as the best thing that could be done. i need not remind you, that he whom we had all agreed should hold the second place in the government had been called to the head of it. i need not say that he held opinions wholly different from mine on the subjects which now came before us. but those opinions were fixed, and therefore it was thought the part of wisdom and prudence not to see how strong a case might be made against the president, but to get along as well as we might. with such views, mr. ewing presented his plan to congress. as most persons will remember, the clause allowing the bank to establish branches provided that those branches might be placed in any state which should give its consent. i have no idea that there is any necessity for such a restriction. i believe congress has the power to establish the branches without, as well as with, the consent of the states. but that clause, at most, was theoretical. i never could find anybody who could show any practical mischief resulting from it. its opponents went upon the theory, which i do not exactly accord with, that an omission to exercise a power, in any case, amounts to a surrender of that power. at any rate, it was the best thing that could be done; and its rejection was the commencement of the disastrous dissensions between the president and congress. gentlemen, it was exceedingly doubtful at the time when that plan was prepared whether the capital would be subscribed. but we did what we could about it. we asked the opinion of the leading merchants of the principal commercial cities. they were invited to washington to confer with us. they expressed doubts whether the bank could be put into operation, but they expressed hopes also, and they pledged themselves to do the best they could to advance it. and as the commercial interests were in its favor, as the administration was new and fresh and popular, and the people were desirous to have something done, a great earnestness was felt that that bill should be tried. it was sent to the senate at the senate's request, and by the senate it was rejected. another bill was reported in the senate, without the provision requiring the consent of the states to branches, was discussed for six weeks or two months, and then could not pass even a whig senate. here was the origin of distrust, disunion, and resentment. i will not pursue the unhappy narrative of the latter part of the session of . men had begun to grow excited and angry and resentful. i expressed the opinion, at an early period, to all those to whom i was entitled to speak, that it would be a great deal better to forbear further action at present. that opinion, as expressed to the two whig senators from massachusetts, is before the public. i wished congress to give time for consultation to take place, for harmony to be restored; because i looked for no good, except from the united and harmonious action of all the branches of the whig government. i suppose that counsel was not good, certainly it was not followed. i need not add the comment. this brings us, as far as concerns the questions of currency, to the last session of congress. early in that session the secretary of the treasury sent in a plan of an exchequer. it met with little favor in either house, and therefore it is necessary for me, gentlemen, lest the whole burden fall on others, to say that it had my hearty, sincere, and entire approbation. gentlemen, i hope that i have not manifested through my public life a very overweening confidence in my own judgment, or a very unreasonable unwillingness to accept the views of others. but there are some subjects on which i feel entitled to pay some respect to my own opinion. the subject of currency, gentlemen, has been the study of my life. thirty years ago, a little before my entrance into the house of representatives, the questions connected with a mixed currency, involving the proper relation of paper to specie, and the proper means of restricting an excessive issue of paper, came to be discussed by the most acute and well-disciplined understandings in england in parliament. at that time, during the suspension of specie payments by the bank, when paper was fifteen per cent below par, mr. vansittart had presented his celebrated resolution, declaring that a bank-note was still worth the value expressed on its face; that the bank note had not depreciated, but that the price of bullion had risen. lord liverpool and lord castlereagh espoused this view, as we know, and it was opposed by the close reasoning of huskisson, the powerful logic of horner, and the practical sagacity and common sense of alexander baring, now lord ashburton. the study of those debates made me a bullionist. they convinced me that paper could not circulate safely in any country, any longer than it was immediately redeemable at the place of its issue. coming into congress the very next year, or the next but one after, and finding the finances of the country in a most deplorable condition, i then and ever after devoted myself, in preference to all other public topics, to the consideration of the questions relating to them. i believe i have read every thing of value that has been published since on those questions, on either side of the atlantic. i have studied by close observation the laws of paper currency, as they have exhibited themselves in this and in other countries, from down to the present time. i have expressed my opinions at various times in congress, and some of the predictions which i have made have not been altogether falsified by subsequent events. i must therefore be permitted, gentlemen, without yielding to any flippant newspaper paragraph, or to the hasty ebullitions of debate in a public assembly, to say, that i believe the plan for an exchequer, as presented to congress at its last session, is the _best_ measure, the _only_ measure for the adoption of congress and the trial of the people. i am ready to stake my reputation upon it, and that is all that i have to stake. i am ready to stake my reputation, that, if this whig congress will take that measure and give it a fair trial, within three years it will be admitted by the whole american people to be the most beneficial measure of any sort ever adopted in this country, the constitution only excepted. i mean that they should take it as it was when it came from the cabinet, not as it looked when the committees of congress had laid their hands upon it. for when the committees of congress had struck out the proviso respecting exchange, it was not worth a rush; it was not worth the parchment it would be engrossed upon. the great desire of this country is a general currency, a facility of exchange; a currency which shall be the same for you and for the people of alabama and louisiana, and a system of exchange which shall equalize credit between them and you, with the rapidity and facility with which steam conveys men and merchandise. that is what the country wants, what you want; and you have not got it. you have not got it, you cannot get it, but by some adequate provision of government. exchange, ready exchange, that will enable a man to turn his orleans means into money to-day, (as we have had in better times millions a year exchanged, at only three quarters of one per cent,) is what is wanted how are we to obtain this? a bank of the united states founded on a private subscription is out of the question. that is an obsolete idea. the country and the condition of things have changed. suppose that a bank were chartered with a capital of fifty millions, to be raised by private subscription. would it not be out of all possibility to find the money? who would subscribe? what would you get for shares? and as for the local discount, do you wish it? do you, in state street, wish that the nation should send millions of untaxed banking capital hither to increase your discounts? what, then, shall we do? people who are waiting for power to make a bank of the united states may as well postpone all attempts to benefit the country to the incoming of the jews. what, then, shall we do? let us turn to this plan of the exchequer, brought forward last year. it was assailed from all quarters. one gentleman did say, i believe, that by some possibility some good might come out of it, but in general it met with a different opposition from every different class. some said it would be a perfectly lifeless machine,--that it was no system at all,--that it would do nothing, for good or evil; others thought that it had a great deal too much vitality, admitting that it would answer the purpose perfectly well for which it was designed, but fearing that it would increase the executive power: thus making it at once king log and king serpent. one party called it a ridiculous imbecility; the other, a dangerous giant, that might subvert the constitution. these varied arguments, contradicting, if not refuting, one another, convinced me of one thing at least,--that the bill would not be adopted, nor even temperately and candidly considered. and it was not. in a manner quite unusual, it was discussed, assailed, denounced, before it was allowed to take the course of reference and examination. the difficulties we meet in carrying out our system of constitutional government are indeed extraordinary. the constitution was intended as an instrument of great political good; but we sometimes so dispute its meaning, that we cannot use it at all. one man will not have a bank, without the power of local discount, against the consent of the states; for that, he insists, would break the constitution. another will not have a bank with such a power, because he thinks that would break the constitution. a third will not have an exchequer, with authority to deal in exchanges, because that would increase executive influence, and so might break the constitution. and between them all, we are like the boatman who, in the midst of rocks and currents and whirlpools, will not pull one stroke for safety, lest he break his oar. are we now looking for the time when we can charter a united states bank with a large private subscription? when will that be? when confidence is restored. are we, then, to do nothing to save the vessel from sinking, till the chances of the winds and waves have landed us on the shore? he is more sanguine than i am, who thinks that the time will soon come when the whigs have more power to work effectually for the good of the country than they now have. the voice of patriotism calls upon them not to postpone, but to act at this moment, at the very next session; to make the best of their means, and to try. you say that the administration is responsible; why not, then, try the plan it has recommended. if it fails, let the president bear the responsibility. if you will not try this plan, why not propose something else? gentlemen, in speaking of events that have happened, i ought to say, and will, since i am making a full and free communication, that there is no one of my age, and i am no longer very young, who has written or spoken more against the abuse and indiscreet use of the veto power than i have. and there is no one whose opinions upon this subject are less changed. i presume it is universally known, that i have advised against the use of the veto power on every occasion when it has been used since i have been in the cabinet. but i am, nevertheless, not willing to join those who seem more desirous to make out a case against the president, than of serving their country to the extent of their ability, vetoes notwithstanding. indeed, at the close of the extra session, the received doctrine of many seemed to be, that they would undertake nothing until they could amend the constitution so as to do away with this power. this was mere mockery. if we were now reforming the constitution, we might wish for some, i do not say what, guards and restraints upon this power more than the constitution at present contains; but no convention would recommend striking it out altogether. have not the people of new york lately amended their constitution, so as to require, in certain legislative action, votes of two thirds? and is not this same restriction in daily use in the national house of representatives itself, in the case of suspension of the rules? this constitutional power, therefore, is no greater a restraint than this body imposes on itself. but it is utterly hopeless to look for such an amendment; who expects to live to see its day? and to give up all practical efforts, and to go on with a general idea that the constitution must be amended before anything can be done, was, i will not say trifling, but treating the great necessities of the people as of quite too little importance. this congress accomplished, in this regard, nothing for the people. the exchequer plan which was submitted to it will accomplish some of the objects of the people, and especially the whig people. i am confident of it; i know it. when a mechanic makes a tool, an axe, a saw, or a plane, and knows that the temper is good and the parts are well proportioned, he knows that it will answer its purpose. and i know that this plan will answer its purpose. there are other objects which ought not to be neglected, among which is one of such importance that i will not now pass it by; i mean, the mortifying state of the public credit of this country at this time. i cannot help thinking, that if the statesmen of a former age were among us, if washington were here, if john adams, and hamilton, and madison were here, they would be deeply concerned and soberly thoughtful about the present state of the public credit of the country. in the position i fill, it becomes my duty to read, generally with pleasure, but sometimes with pain, communications from our public agents abroad. it is distressing to hear them speak of _their_ distress at what they see and hear of the scorn and contumely with which the american character and american credit are treated abroad. why, at this very time, we have a loan in the market, which, at the present rate of money and credit, ought to command in europe one hundred and twenty-five per cent. can we sell a dollar of it? and how is it with the credit of our own commonwealth? does it not find itself affected in its credit by the general state of the credit of the country? is there nobody ready to make a movement in this matter? is there not a man in our councils large enough, comprehensive enough in his views, to undertake at least to _present_ this case before the american people, and thus do something to restore the public character for morals and honesty? there are in the country some men who are indiscreet enough to talk of _repudiation_,--to advise their fellow-citizens to _repudiate_ public debt. does repudiation pay a debt? does it discharge the debtor? can it so modify a debt that it shall not be always binding, in law as well as in morals? no, gentlemen; repudiation does nothing but add a sort of disrepute to acknowledged inability. it is our duty, so far as is in our power, to rouse the public feeling on the subject; to maintain and assert the universal principles of law and justice, and the importance of preserving public faith and credit. people say that the intelligent capitalists of europe ought to distinguish between the united states government and the state governments. so they ought; but, gentlemen, what does all this amount to? does not the general government comprise the same people who make up the state governments? may not these europeans ask us how long it may be before the national councils will repudiate public obligations? the doctrine of repudiation has inflicted upon us a stain which we ought to feel worse than a wound; and the time has come when every man ought to address himself soberly and seriously to the correction of this great existing evil. i do not undertake to say what the constitution allows congress to do in the premises. i will only say, that if that great fund of the public domain properly and in equity belongs, as is maintained, to the states themselves, there are some means, by regular and constitutional laws, to enable and induce the states to save their own credit and the credit of the country. gentlemen, i have detained you much too long. i have wished to say, that, in my judgment, there remain certain important objects to engage our public and private attention, in the national affairs of the country. these are, the settlement of the remaining questions between ourselves and england; the great questions relating to the reciprocity principle; those relating to colonial trade; the most absorbing questions of the currency, and those relating to the great subject of the restoration of the national character and the public faith; these are all objects to which i am willing to devote myself, both in public and in private life. i do not expect that much of public service remains to be done by me; but i am ready, for the promotion of these objects, to act with sober men of any party, and of all parties. i am ready to act with men who are free from that great danger that surrounds all men of all parties,--the danger that patriotism itself, warmed and heated in party contests, will run into partisanship. i believe that, among the sober men of this country, there is a growing desire for more moderation of party feeling, more predominance of purely public considerations, more honest and general union of well-meaning men of all sides to uphold the institutions of the country and carry them forward. in the pursuit of these objects, in public life or in a private station, i am willing to perform the part assigned to me, and to give them, with hearty good-will and zealous effort, all that may remain to me of strength and life. [footnote : the office of representative in congress.] [footnote : lord ashburton.] [footnote : mr. edward everett.] [footnote : mr. andrew stevenson.] [footnote : mr. parmenter.] [footnote : mr. r.c. winthrop.] the landing at plymouth. a speech delivered on the d of december, , at the public dinner of the new england society of new york, in commemoration of the landing of the pilgrims. [the great pilgrim festival was celebrated on the d of december, , by the new england society of new york, with uncommon spirit and success. a commemorative oration was delivered in the morning by hon. rufus choate, in a style of eloquence rarely equalled. the public dinner of the society, at the astor house, at which m.h. grinnell, esq. presided, was attended by a very large company, composed of the members of the society and their invited guests. several appropriate toasts having been given and responded to by the distinguished individuals present, george griswold, esq. rose to offer one in honor of mr. webster. after a few remarks complimentary to that gentleman, in reference to his services in refuting the doctrine of nullification and in averting the danger of war by the treaty of washington, mr. griswold gave the following toast:-- "daniel webster,--the gift of new england to his country, his whole country, and nothing but his country." this was received with great applause, and on rising to respond to it mr. webster was greeted with nine enthusiastic cheers, and the most hearty and prolonged approbation. when silence was restored, he spoke as follows.] mr. president:--i have a grateful duty to perform in acknowledging the kindness of the sentiment thus expressed towards me. and yet i must say, gentlemen, that i rise upon this occasion under a consciousness that i may probably disappoint highly raised, too highly raised expectations. in the scenes of this evening, and in the scene of this day, my part is an humble one. i can enter into no competition with the fresher geniuses of those more eloquent gentlemen, learned and reverend, who have addressed this society. i may perform, however, the humbler, but sometimes useful, duty of contrast, by adding the dark ground of the picture, which shall serve to bring out the more brilliant colors. i must receive, gentlemen, the sentiment proposed by the worthy and distinguished citizen of new york before me, as intended to convey the idea that, as a citizen of new england, as a son, a child, a _creation_ of new england, i may be yet supposed to entertain, in some degree, that enlarged view of my duty as a citizen of the united states and as a public man, which may, in some small measure, commend me to the regard of the whole country. while i am free to confess, gentlemen, that there is no compliment of which i am more desirous to be thought worthy, i will add, that a compliment of that kind could have proceeded from no source more agreeable to my own feelings than from the gentleman who has proposed it,--an eminent merchant, the member of a body of eminent merchants, known throughout the world for their intelligence and enterprise. i the more especially feel this, gentlemen, because, whether i view the present state of things or recur to the history of the past, i can in neither case be ignorant how much that profession, and its distinguished members, from an early day of our history, have contributed to make the country what it is, and the government what it is. gentlemen, the free nature of our institutions, and the popular form of those governments which have come down to us from the rock of plymouth, give scope to intelligence, to talent, enterprise, and public spirit, from all classes making up the great body of the community. and the country has received benefit in all its history and in all its exigencies, of the most eminent and striking character, from persons of the class to which my friend before me belongs. who will ever forget that the first name signed to our ever-memorable and ever-glorious declaration of independence is the name of john hancock, a merchant of boston? who will ever forget that, in the most disastrous days of the revolution, when the treasury of the country was bankrupt, with unpaid navies and starving armies, it was a merchant,--robert morris of philadelphia,--who, by a noble sacrifice of his own fortune, as well as by the exercise of his great financial abilities, sustained and supported the wise men of the country in council, and the brave men of the country in the field of battle? nor are there wanting more recent instances. i have the pleasure to see near me, and near my friend who proposed this sentiment, the son of an eminent merchant of new england (mr. goodhue), an early member of the senate of the united states, always consulted, always respected, in whatever belonged to the duty and the means of putting in operation the financial and commercial system of the country; and this mention of the father of my friend brings to my mind the memory of his great colleague, the early associate of hamilton and of ames, trusted and beloved by washington, consulted on all occasions connected with the administration of the finances, the establishment of the treasury department, the imposition of the first rates of duty, and with every thing that belonged to the commercial system of the united states,--george cabot, of massachusetts. i will take this occasion to say, gentlemen, that there is no truth better developed and established in the history of the united states, from the formation of the constitution to the present time, than this,--that the mercantile classes, the great commercial masses of the country, whose affairs connect them strongly with every state in the union and with all the nations of the earth, whose business and profession give a sort of nationality to their character,--that no class of men among us, from the beginning, have shown a stronger and firmer devotion to whatsoever has been designed, or to whatever has tended, to preserve the union of these states and the stability of the free government under which we live. the constitution of the united states, in regard to the various municipal regulations and local interests, has left the states individual, disconnected, isolated. it has left them their own codes of criminal law; it has left them their own system of municipal regulations. but there was one great interest, one great concern, which, from the very nature of the case, was no longer to be left under the regulations of the then thirteen, afterwards twenty, and now twenty-six states, but was committed, necessarily committed, to the care, the protection, and the regulation of one government; and this was that great unit, as it has been called, the commerce of the united states. there is no commerce of new york, no commerce of massachusetts, none of georgia, none of alabama or louisiana. all and singular, in the aggregate and in all its parts, is the commerce of the united states, regulated at home by a uniform system of laws under the authority of the general government, and protected abroad under the flag of our government, the glorious _e pluribus unum_, and guarded, if need be, by the power of the general government all over the world. there is, therefore, gentlemen, nothing more cementing, nothing that makes us more cohesive, nothing that more repels all tendencies to separation and dismemberment, than this great, this common, i may say this overwhelming interest of one commerce, one general system of trade and navigation, one everywhere and with every nation of the globe. there is no flag of any particular american state seen in the pacific seas, or in the baltic, or in the indian ocean. who knows, or who hears, there of your proud state, or of my proud state? who knows, or who hears, of any thing, at the extremest north or south, or at the antipodes,--in the remotest regions of the eastern or western sea,--who ever hears, or knows, of any thing but an american ship, or of any american enterprise of a commercial character that does not bear the impression of the american union with it? it would be a presumption of which i cannot be guilty, gentlemen, for me to imagine for a moment, that, among the gifts which new england has made to our common country, i am any thing more than one of the most inconsiderable. i readily bring to mind the great men, not only with whom i have met, but those of the generation before me, who now sleep with their fathers, distinguished in the revolution, distinguished in the formation of the constitution and in the early administration of the government, always and everywhere distinguished; and i shrink in just and conscious humiliation before their established character and established renown; and all that i venture to say, and all that i venture to hope may be thought true, in the sentiment proposed, is, that, so far as mind and purpose, so far as intention and will, are concerned, i may be found among those who are capable of embracing the whole country of which they are members in a proper, comprehensive, and patriotic regard. we all know that the objects which are nearest are the objects which are dearest; family affections, neighborhood affections, social relations, these in truth are nearest and dearest to us all; but whosoever shall be able rightly to adjust the graduation of his affections, and to love his friends and his neighbors, and his country, as he ought to love them, merits the commendation pronounced by the philosophic poet upon him "qui didicit patriae quid debeat, et quid amicis." gentlemen, it has been my fortune, in the little part which i have acted in public life, for good or for evil to the community, to be connected entirely with that government which, within the limits of constitutional power, exercises jurisdiction over all the states and all the people. my friend at the end of the table on my left has spoken pleasantly to us to-night of the reputed miracles of tutelar saints. in a sober sense, in a sense of deep conviction, i say that the emergence of this country from british domination, and its union under its present form of government beneath the general constitution of the country, if not a miracle, is, i do not say the most, but one of the most fortunate, the most admirable, the most auspicious occurrences, which have ever fallen to the lot of man. circumstances have wrought out for us a state of things which, in other times and other regions, philosophy has dreamed of, and theory has proposed, and speculation has suggested, but which man has never been able to accomplish. i mean the government of a great nation over a vastly extended portion of the surface of the earth, _by means of local institutions for local purposes, and general institutions for general purposes_. i know of nothing in the history of the world, notwithstanding the great league of grecian states, notwithstanding the success of the roman system, (and certainly there is no exception to the remark in modern history,)--i know of nothing so suitable on the whole for the great interests of a great people spread over a large portion of the globe, as the provision of local legislation for local and municipal purposes, with, not a confederacy, nor a loose binding together of separate parts, but a limited, positive general government for positive general purposes, over the whole. we may derive eminent proofs of this truth from the past and the present. what see we to-day in the agitations on the other side of the atlantic? i speak of them, of course, without expressing any opinion on questions of politics in a foreign country; but i speak of them as an occurrence which shows the great expediency, the utility, i may say the necessity, of local legislation. if, in a country on the other side of the water (ireland), there be some who desire a severance of one part of the empire from another, under a proposition of repeal, there are others who propose a continuance of the existing relation under a federative system: and what is this? no more, and no less, than an approximation to that system under which we live, which for local, municipal purposes shall have a local legislature, and for general purposes a general legislature. this becomes the more important when we consider that the united states stretch over so many degrees of latitude,--that they embrace such a variety of climate,--that various conditions and relations of society naturally call for different laws and regulations. let me ask whether the legislature of new york could wisely pass laws for the government of louisiana, or whether the legislature of louisiana could wisely pass laws for pennsylvania or new york? everybody will say, "no." and yet the interests of new york and pennsylvania and louisiana, in whatever concerns their relations between themselves and their general relations with all the states of the world, are found to be perfectly well provided for, and adjusted with perfect congruity, by committing these general interests to one common government, the result of popular general elections among them all. i confess, gentlemen, that having been, as i have said, in my humble career in public life, employed in that portion of the public service which is connected with the general government, i have contemplated, as the great object of every proceeding, not only the particular benefit of the moment, or the exigency of the occasion, but the preservation of this system; for i do consider it so much the result of circumstances, and that so much of it is due to fortunate concurrence, as well as to the sagacity of the great men acting upon those occasions,--that it is an experiment of such remarkable and renowned success,--that he is a fool or a madman who would wish to try that experiment a second time. i see to-day, and we all see, that the descendants of the puritans who landed upon the rock of plymouth; the followers of raleigh, who settled virginia and north carolina; he who lives where the truncheon of empire, so to speak, was borne by smith; the inhabitants of georgia; he who settled under the auspices of france at the mouth of the mississippi; the swede on the delaware, the quaker of pennsylvania,--all find, at this day, their common interest, their common protection, their common _glory_, under the united government, which leaves them all, nevertheless, in the administration of their own municipal and local affairs, to be frenchmen, or swedes, or quakers, or whatever they choose. and when one considers that this system of government, i will not say has produced, because god and nature and circumstances have had an agency in it,--but when it is considered that this system has not prevented, but has rather encouraged, the growth of the people of this country from three millions, on the glorious th of july, , to seventeen millions now, who is there that will say, upon this hemisphere,--nay, who is there that will stand up in any hemisphere, who is there in any part of the world, that will say that the great experiment of a united republic has _failed_ in america? and yet i know, gentlemen, i feel, that this united system is held together by strong tendencies to union, at the same time that it is kept from too much leaning toward consolidation by a strong tendency in the several states to support each its own power and consideration. in the physical world it is said, that "all nature's difference keeps all nature's peace," and there is in the political world this same harmonious difference, this regular play of the positive and negative powers, (if i may so say,) which, at least for one glorious half-century, has kept us as we have been kept, and made us what we are. but, gentlemen, i must not allow myself to pursue this topic. it is a sentiment so commonly repeated by me upon all public occasions, and upon all private occasions, and everywhere, that i forbear to dwell upon it now. it is the union of these states, it is the system of government under which we live, beneath the constitution of the united states, happily framed, wisely adopted, successfully administered for fifty years,--it is mainly this, i say, that gives us power at home and credit abroad. and, for one, i never stop to consider the power or wealth or greatness of a state. i tell you, mr. chairman, i care nothing for your empire state as such. delaware and rhode island are as high in my regard as new york. in population, in power, in the government over us, you have a greater share. you would have the same share if you were divided into forty states. it is not, therefore, as a state sovereignty, it is only because new york is a vast portion of the whole american people, that i regard this state, as i always shall regard her, as respectable and honorable. but among state sovereignties there is no preference; there is nothing high and nothing low; every state is independent and every state is equal. if we depart from this great principle, then are we no longer one people; but we are thrown back again upon the confederation, and upon that state of things in which the inequality of the states produced all the evils which befell us in times past, and a thousand ill-adjusted and jarring interests. mr. president, i wish, then, without pursuing these thoughts, without especially attempting to produce any fervid impression by dwelling upon them, to take this occasion to answer my friend who has proposed the sentiment, and to respond to it by saying, that whoever would serve his country in this our day, with whatever degree of talent, great or small, it may have pleased the almighty power to give him, he cannot serve it, he will not serve it, unless he be able, at least, to extend his political designs, purposes, and objects, till they shall comprehend the whole country of which he is a servant. sir, i must say a word in connection with that event which we have assembled to commemorate. it has seemed fit to the dwellers in new york, new-englanders by birth or descent, to form this society. they have formed it for the relief of the poor and distressed, and for the purpose of commemorating annually the great event of the settlement of the country from which they spring. it would be great presumption in me to go back to the scene of that settlement, or to attempt to exhibit it in any colors, after the exhibition made to-day; yet it is an event that in all time since, and in all time to come, and more in times to come than in times past, must stand out in great and striking characteristics to the admiration of the world. the sun's return to his winter solstice, in , is the epoch from which he dates his first acquaintance with the small people, now one of the happiest, and destined to be one of the greatest, that his rays fall upon; and his annual visitation, from that day to this, to our frozen region, has enabled him to see that progress, _progress_, was the characteristic of that small people. he has seen them from a handful, that one of his beams coming through a key-hole might illuminate, spread over a hemisphere which he cannot enlighten under the slightest eclipse. nor, though this globe should revolve round him for tens of hundreds of thousands of years, will he see such another incipient colonization upon any part of this attendant upon his mighty orb. what else he may see in those other planets which revolve around him we cannot tell, at least until we have tried the fifty-foot telescope which lord rosse is preparing for that purpose. there is not, gentlemen, and we may as well admit it, in any history of the past, another epoch from which so many great events have taken a turn; events which, while important to us, are equally important to the country from whence we came. the settlement of plymouth--concurring, i always wish to be understood, with that of virginia--was the settlement of new england by colonies of old england. now, gentlemen, take these two ideas and run out the thoughts suggested by both. what has been, and what is to be, old england? what has been, what is, and what may be, in the providence of god, _new_ england, with her neighbors and associates? i would not dwell, gentlemen, with any particular emphasis upon the sentiment, which i nevertheless entertain, with respect to the great diversity in the races of men. i do not know how far in that respect i might not encroach on those mysteries of providence which, while i adore, i may not comprehend; but it does seem to me to be very remarkable, that we may go back to the time when new england, or those who founded it, were _subtracted_ from old england; and both old england and new england went on, nevertheless, in their mighty career of progress and power. let me begin with new england for a moment. what has resulted, embracing, as i say, the nearly contemporaneous settlement of virginia,--what has resulted from the planting upon this continent of two or three slender colonies from the mother country? gentlemen, the great epitaph commemorative of the character and the worth, the discoveries and glory, of columbus, was, that he had _given a new world to the crowns of castile and aragon_. gentlemen, this is a great mistake. it does not come up at all to the great merits of columbus. he gave the territory of the southern hemisphere to the crowns of castile and aragon; but as a place for the plantation of colonies, as a place for the habitation of men, as a place to which laws and religion, and manners and science, were to be transferred, as a place in which the creatures of god should multiply and fill the earth, under friendly skies and with religious hearts, he gave it to the whole world, he gave it to universal man! from this seminal principle, and from a handful, a hundred saints, blessed of god and ever honored of men, landed on the shores of plymouth and elsewhere along the coast, united, as i have said already more than once, in the process of time, with the settlement at jamestown, has sprung this great people of which we are a portion. i do not reckon myself among quite the oldest of the land, and yet it so happens that very recently i recurred to an exulting speech or oration of my own, in which i spoke of my country as consisting of nine millions of people. i could hardly persuade myself that within the short time which had elapsed since that epoch our population had doubled; and that at the present moment there does exist most unquestionably as great a probability of its continued progress, in the same ratio, as has ever existed in any previous time. i do not know whose imagination is fertile enough, i do not know whose conjectures, i may almost say, are _wild_ enough to tell what may be the progress of wealth and population in the united states in half a century to come. all we know is, here is a people of from seventeen to twenty millions, intelligent, educated, freeholders, freemen, republicans, possessed of all the means of modern improvement, modern science, arts, literature, with the world before them! there is nothing to check them till they touch the shores of the pacific, and then, they are so much accustomed to water, that _that's_ a facility, and no obstruction! so much, gentlemen, for this branch of the english race; but what has happened, meanwhile, to england herself since the period of the departure of the puritans from the coast of lincolnshire, from the english boston? gentlemen, in speaking of the progress of english power, of english dominion and authority, from that period to the present, i shall be understood, of course, as neither entering into any defence or any accusation of the policy which has conducted her to her present state. as to the justice of her wars, the necessity of her conquests, the propriety of those acts by which she has taken possession of so great a portion of the globe, it is not the business of the present occasion to inquire. _neque teneo, neque refello._ but i speak of them, or intend to speak of them, as facts of the most extraordinary character, unequalled in the history of any nation on the globe, and the consequences of which may and must reach through a thousand generations. the puritans left england in the reign of james the first. england herself had then become somewhat settled and established in the protestant faith, and in the quiet enjoyment of property, by the previous energetic, long, and prosperous reign of elizabeth. her successor was james the sixth of scotland, now become james the first of england; and here was a union of the crowns, but not of the kingdoms,--a very important distinction. ireland was held by a military power, and one cannot but see that at that day, whatever may be true or untrue in more recent periods of her history, ireland was held by england by the two great potencies, the power of the sword and the power of confiscation. in other respects, england was nothing like the england which we now behold. her foreign possessions were quite inconsiderable. she had some hold on the west india islands; she had acadia, or nova scotia, which king james granted, by wholesale, for the endowment of the knights whom he created by hundreds. and what has been her progress? did she then possess gibraltar, the key to the mediterranean? did she possess a port in the mediterranean? was malta hers? were the ionian islands hers? was the southern extremity of africa, was the cape of good hope, hers? were the whole of her vast possessions in india hers? was her great australian empire hers? while that branch of her population which followed the western star, and under its guidance committed itself to the duty of settling, fertilizing, and peopling an unknown wilderness in the west, were pursuing their destinies, other causes, providential doubtless, were leading english power eastward and southward, in consequence and by means of her naval prowess, and the extent of her commerce, until in our day we have seen that within the mediterranean, on the western coast and at the southern extremity of africa, in arabia, in hither india and farther india, she has a population _ten times_ as great as that of the british isles two centuries ago. and recently, as we have witnessed,--i will not say with how much truth and justice, policy or impolicy, i do not speak at all to the morality of the action, i only speak to the _fact_,--she has found admission into china, and has carried the christian religion and the protestant faith to the doors of three hundred millions of people. it has been said that whosoever would see the eastern world before it turns into a western world must make his visit soon, because steamboats and omnibuses, commerce, and all the arts of europe, are extending themselves from egypt to suez, from suez to the indian seas, and from the indian seas all over the explored regions of the still farther east. now, gentlemen. i do not know what practical views or what practical results may take place from this great expansion of the power of the two branches of old england. it is not for me to say. i only can see, that on this continent _all_ is to be _anglo-american_ from plymouth rock to the pacific seas, from the north pole to california. that is certain; and in the eastern world, i only see that you can hardly place a finger on a map of the world and be an _inch_ from an english settlement. gentlemen, if there be any thing in the supremacy of races, the experiment now in progress will develop it. if there be any truth in the idea, that those who issued from the great caucasian fountain, and spread over europe, are to react on india and on asia, and to act on the whole western world, it may not be for us, nor our children, nor our grandchildren, to see it, but it will be for our descendants of some generation to see the extent of that progress and dominion of the favored races. for myself, i believe there is no limit fit to be assigned to it by the human mind, because i find at work everywhere, on both sides of the atlantic, under various forms and degrees of restriction on the one hand, and under various degrees of motive and stimulus on the other hand, in these branches of a common race, the great principle _of the freedom of human thought, and the respectability of individual character_. i find everywhere an elevation of the character of man as man, an elevation of the individual as a component part of society. i find everywhere a rebuke of the idea, that the many are made for the few, or that government is any thing but an _agency_ for mankind. and i care not beneath what zone, frozen, temperate, or torrid; i care not of what complexion, white or brown; i care not under what circumstances of climate or cultivation,--if i can find a race of men on an inhabitable spot of earth whose general sentiment it is, and whose general feeling it is, that government is made for man,--man, as a religious, moral, and social being,--and not man for government, there i know that i shall find prosperity and happiness. gentlemen, i forbear from these remarks. i recur with pleasure to the sentiment which i expressed at the commencement of my observations. i repeat the gratification which i feel at having been referred to on this occasion by a distinguished member of the mercantile profession; and without detaining you further, i beg to offer as a sentiment,-- "_the mercantile interest of the united states_, always and everywhere friendly to a united and free government." mr. webster sat down amid loud and repeated applause; and immediately after, at the request of the president, rose and said:--#/ gentlemen, i have the permission of the president to call your attention to the circumstance that a distinguished foreigner is at the table to-night, mr. aldham; a gentleman, i am happy to say, of my own hard-working profession, and a member of the english parliament from the great city of leeds. a traveller in the united states, in the most unostentatious manner, he has done us the honor, at the request of the society, to be present to-night. i rise, gentlemen, to propose his health. he is of that old england of which i have been speaking; of that old england with whom we had some fifty years ago rather a serious family quarrel,--terminated in a manner, i believe, not particularly disadvantageous to either of us. he will find in this, his first visit to our country, many things to remind him of his own home, and the pursuits in which he is engaged in that home. if he will go into our courts of law, he will find those who practise there referring to the same books of authority, acknowledging the same principles, discussing the same subjects which he left under discussion in westminster hall. if he go into our public assemblies, he will find the same rules of procedure--possibly not always quite as regularly observed--as he left behind him in that house of parliament of which he is a member. at any rate, he will find us a branch of that great family to which he himself belongs, and i doubt not that, in his sojourn among us, in the acquaintances he may form, the notions he may naturally imbibe, he will go home to his own country somewhat better satisfied with what he has seen and learned on this side of the atlantic, and somewhat more convinced of the great importance to both countries of preserving the peace that at present subsists between them. i propose to you, gentlemen, the health of mr. aldham. mr. aldham rose and said:--"mr. president and gentlemen of the new england society, i little expected to be called on to take a part in the proceedings of this evening; but i am very happy in being afforded an opportunity of expressing my grateful acknowledgments for the very cordial hospitality which you have extended to me, and the very agreeable intellectual treat with which i have been favored this evening. it was with no little astonishment that i listened to the terms in which i was introduced to you by a gentleman whom i so much honor (mr. webster). the kind and friendly terms in which he referred to me were, indeed, quite unmerited by their humble object, and nothing, indeed, could have been more inappropriate. it is impossible for any stranger to witness such a scene as this without the greatest interest. it is the celebration of an event which already stands recorded as one of the most interesting and momentous occurrences which ever took place in the annals of our race. and an englishman especially cannot but experience the deepest emotion as he regards such a scene. every thing which he sees, every emblem employed in this celebration, many of the topics introduced, remind him most impressively of that community of ancestry which exists between his own countrymen and that great race which peoples this continent, and which, in enterprise, ingenuity, and commercial activity,--in all the elements indeed of a great and prosperous nation,--is certainly not exceeded, perhaps not equalled, by any other nation on the face of the globe. gentlemen, i again thank you for the honor you have done me, and conclude by expressing the hope that the event may continue to be celebrated in the manner which its importance and interest merit." mr. aldham sat down amid great applause. the christian ministry and the religious instruction of the young. a speech delivered in the supreme court at washington, on the th of february, , in the girard will case. [the heirs at law of the late stephen girard, of philadelphia, instituted a suit in october, , in the circuit court of the eastern district of pennsylvania, sitting as a court of equity, to try the question of the validity of his will. in april, , the cause came on for hearing in the circuit court, and was decided in favor of the will. the case was carried by appeal to the supreme court of the united states, at washington, where it was argued by general jones and mr. webster for the complainants and appellants, and by messrs. binney and sergeant for the validity of the will. the following speech was made by mr. webster in the course of the trial at washington. a deep impression was produced upon the public mind by those portions of it which enforced the intimate connection of the christian ministry with the business of instruction, and the necessity of founding education on a religious basis. this impression resulted in the following correspondence:-- "_washington, february , ._ "sir,--enclosed is a copy of certain proceedings of a meeting held in reference to your argument in the supreme court of the case arising out of the late mr. girard's will. in communicating to you the request contained in the second resolution, we take leave to express our earnest hope that you may find it convenient to comply with that request. "we are, sir, with high consideration, yours, very respectfully, "p.r. fendall, } horace stringfellow,} joshua n. danforth, } r.r. gurley, } william ruggles, } _committee._ joel s. bacon, } thomas sewall, } william b. edwards, } "hon. daniel webster." "at a meeting of a number of citizens, belonging to different religious denominations, of washington and its vicinity, convened to consider the expediency of procuring the publication of so much of mr. webster's argument before the supreme court of the united states, in the case of françois f. vidal et al., appellants, v. the mayor, aldermen, and citizens of philadelphia, and stephen girard's executors, as relates to that part of mr. girard's will which excludes ministers of religion from any station or duty in the college directed by the testator to be founded, and denies to them the right of visiting said college; the object of the meeting having been stated by professor sewall in a few appropriate remarks, the hon. henry l. ellsworth was elected chairman, and the rev. isaac s. tinsley secretary. "whereupon it was, on motion, unanimously resolved, " st. that, in the opinion of this meeting, the powerful and eloquent argument of mr. webster, on the before-mentioned clause of mr. girard's will, demonstrates the vital importance of christianity to the success of our free institutions, and its necessity as the basis of all useful moral education; and that the general diffusion of that argument among the people of the united states is a matter of deep public interest. " d. that a committee of eight persons, of the several christian denominations represented in this meeting, be appointed to wait on mr. webster, and, in the name and on behalf of this meeting, to request him to prepare for the press the portion referred to of his argument in the girard case; and, should he consent to do so, to cause it to be speedily published and extensively disseminated. "the following gentlemen were appointed the committee under the second resolution: philip r. fendall, esq., rev. horace stringfellow, rev. joshua n. danforth, rev. r. randolph gurley, professor william ruggles, rev. president j.s. bacon, doctor thomas sewall, rev. william b. edwards. "the meeting then adjourned. "h.l. ellsworth, _chairman_ "isaac s. tinsley, _secretary_." "_washington, february , ._ "gentlemen,--i have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication. gentlemen connected with the public press have, i believe, reported my speech in the case arising under mr. girard's will. i will look over the report of that part of it to which you refer, so far as to see that it is free from material errors, but i have not leisure so to revise it as to give it the form of a careful or regular composition. "i am, gentlemen, with very true regard, your obedient servant, "daniel webster. "to messrs. p.r. fendall, horace stringfellow, joshua n. danforth, r.r. gurley, william ruggles, joel s. bacon, thomas sewall, william b. edwards."] the following mottoes were prefixed to this speech, in the original pamphlet edition. "_socrates._ if, then, you wish public measures to be right and noble, _virtue_ must be given by you to the citizens. "_alcibiades._ how could any one deny that? "_socrates._ _virtue_, therefore, is that which is to be first possessed, both by you and by every other person who would have direction and care, not only for himself and things dear to himself, but for the state and things dear to the state. "_alcibiades._ you speak truly. "_socrates._ to act justly and wisely (both you and the state), you must act according to the will of god. "_alcibiades._ it is so."--_plato._ "sic igitur hoc a principio persuasum civibus, dominos esse omnium rerum ac moderatores, deos."--_cicero de legibus._ "we shall never be such fools as to call in an enemy to the substance of any system, to supply its defects, or to perfect its construction." "if our religious tenets should ever want a further elucidation, we shall not call on atheism to explain them. we shall not light up our temple from that unhallowed fire." "we know, and it is our pride to know, that man is, by his constitution, a religious animal."--_burke._ may it please your honors:-- it is not necessary for me to narrate, in detail, the numerous provisions of mr. girard's will. this has already been repeatedly done by other counsel, and i shall content myself with stating and considering those parts only which are immediately involved in the decision of this cause. the will is drawn with apparent care and method, and is regularly divided into clauses. the first nineteen clauses contain various devises and legacies to relatives, to other private individuals and to public bodies. by the twentieth clause the whole residue of his estate, real and personal, is devised and bequeathed to the "mayor, aldermen, and citizens of philadelphia," in trust for the several uses to be after mentioned and declared. the twenty-first clause contains the devise or bequest to the college, in these words:-- "and so far as regards the residue of my personal estate in trust, as to two millions of dollars, part thereof, to apply and expend so much of that sum as may be necessary in erecting, as soon as practicably may be, in the centre of my square of ground, between high and chestnut streets, and eleventh and twelfth streets, in the city of philadelphia, (which square of ground i hereby devote for the purpose hereinafter stated, and for no other, for ever,) a permanent college, with suitable out-buildings sufficiently spacious for the residence and accommodation of at least three hundred scholars, and the requisite teachers and other persons necessary in such an institution as i direct to be established, and in supplying the said college and out-buildings with decent and suitable furniture, as well as books, and all things needful to carry into effect my general design." the testator then proceeds to direct that the college shall be constructed of the most durable materials, avoiding needless ornament, and attending chiefly to the strength, convenience, and neatness of the whole; and gives directions, very much in detail, respecting the form of the building, and the size and fashion of the rooms. the whole square, he directs, shall be enclosed with a solid wall, at least fourteen inches thick and ten feet high, capped with marble, and guarded with irons on the top, so as to prevent persons from getting over; and there are to be two places of entrance into the square, with two gates at each, one opening inward and the other outward, those opening inward to be of iron, and those opening outward to be of wood-work, lined with sheet-iron. the testator then proceeds to give his directions respecting the institution, laying down his plan and objects in several articles. the third article is in these words:-- " . as many poor white male orphans, between the ages of six and ten years, as the said income shall be adequate to maintain, shall be introduced into the college as soon as possible; and from time to time, as there may be vacancies, or as increased ability from income may warrant, others shall be introduced." the fifth direction is as follows:-- " . no orphan should be admitted until the guardians, or directors of the poor, or a proper guardian or other competent authority, shall have given, by indenture, relinquishment, or otherwise, adequate power to the mayor, aldermen, and citizens of philadelphia, or to directors or others by them appointed, to enforce, in relation to each orphan, every proper restraint, and to prevent relations or others from interfering with or withdrawing such orphan from the institution." by the sixth article, or direction, preference is to be given, first, to orphans born in philadelphia; second, to those born in other parts of pennsylvania; third, to those born in the city of new york; and, lastly, to those born in the city of new orleans. by the seventh article, it is declared, that the orphans shall be lodged, fed, and clothed in the college; that they shall be instructed in the various branches of a sound education, comprehending reading, writing, grammar, arithmetic, geography, navigation, surveying, practical mathematics, astronomy, natural, chemical, and experimental philosophy, and the french and spanish languages, and such other learning and science as the capacities of the scholars may merit or want. the greek and latin languages are not forbidden, but are not recommended. by the ninth article it is declared, that the boys shall remain in the college till they arrive at between fourteen and eighteen years of age, when they shall be bound out by the city government to suitable occupations, such as agriculture, navigation, and the mechanical trades. the testator proceeds to say, that he necessarily leaves many details to the city government; and then adds, "there are, however, some restrictions which i consider it my duty to prescribe, and to be, amongst others, conditions on which my bequest for said college is made, and to be enjoyed." the second of these restrictions is in the following words:-- "secondly. i enjoin and require _that no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister, of any sect whatever, shall ever hold or exercise any station or duty whatever in the said college; nor shall any such person ever be admitted for any purpose, or as a visitor, within the premises appropriated to the purposes of the said college_. "in making this restriction, i do not mean to cast any reflection upon any sect or person whatsoever; but, as there is such a diversity of opinion amongst them, i desire to keep the tender minds of the orphans who are to derive advantage from this bequest free from the excitement which clashing doctrines and sectarian controversy are so apt to produce; my desire is, that all the instructors and teachers in the college shall take pains to instil into the minds of the scholars _the purest principles of morality_, so that on their entrance into active life they may, _from inclination_ and habit, evince _benevolence towards their fellow-creatures, and a love of truth, sobriety, and industry_, adopting at the same time such religious tenets as their _matured reason_ may enable them to prefer." the testator having, after the date of his will, bought a house in penn township, with forty-five acres of land, he made a codicil, by which he directed the college to be built on this estate, instead of the square mentioned in the will, and the whole establishment to be made thereon, just as if he had in his will devoted the estate to that purpose. the city government has accordingly been advised that the whole forty-five acres must be enclosed with the same high wall as was provided in the will for the square in the city. i have now stated, i believe, all the provisions of the will which are material to the discussion of that part of the case which respects the character of the institution. the first question is, whether this devise can be sustained, otherwise than as a charity, and by that special aid and assistance by which courts of equity support gifts to charitable uses. if the devise be a good limitation at law, if it require no exercise of the favor which is bestowed on privileged testaments, then there is already an end to the question. but i take it that this point is conceded. the devise is void, according to the general rules of law, on account of the uncertainty in the description of those who are intended to receive its benefits. "poor white male orphan children" is so loose a description, that no one can bring himself within the terms of the bequest, so as to say that it was made in his favor. no individual can acquire any right or interest; nobody, therefore, can come forward as a party, in a court of law, to claim participation in the gift. the bequest must stand, if it stand at all, on the peculiar rules which equitable jurisprudence applies to charities. this is clear. i proceed, therefore, to submit, and most conscientiously to argue, a question, certainly one of the highest which this court has ever been called upon to consider, and one of the highest, and most important, in my opinion, ever likely to come before it. that question is, _whether, in the eye of equitable jurisprudence, this devise be a charity at all_. i deny that it is so. i maintain, that neither by judicial decisions nor by correct reasoning on general principles can this devise or bequest be regarded as a charity. this part of the argument is not affected by the particular judicial system of pennsylvania, or the question of the power of her courts to uphold and administer charitable gifts. the question which i now propose respects the inherent, essential, and manifest character of the devise itself. in this respect, i wish to express myself clearly, and to be correctly and distinctly understood. what i have said i shall stand by, and endeavor to maintain; namely, that in the view of a court of equity this devise _is no charity at all_. it is no charity, because the plan of education proposed by mr. girard is derogatory to the christian religion; tends to weaken men's reverence for that religion, and their conviction of its authority and importance; and therefore, in its general character, tends to mischievous, and not to useful ends. the proposed school is to be founded on plain and clear principles, and for plain and clear objects, of infidelity. this cannot well be doubted; and a gift, or devise, for such objects, is not a charity, and as such entitled to the well-known favor with which charities are received and upheld by the courts of christian countries. in the next place, the object of this bequest is against the public policy of the state of pennsylvania, in which state christianity is declared to be the law of the land. for that reason, therefore, as well as the other, the devise ought not to be allowed to take effect. these are the two propositions which it is my purpose to maintain, on this part of the case. this scheme of instruction begins by attempting to attach reproach and odium to the whole clergy of the country. it places a brand, a stigma, on every individual member of the profession, without an exception. no minister of the gospel, of any denomination, is to be allowed to come within the grounds belonging to this school, on any occasion, or for any purpose whatever. they are all rigorously excluded, as if their mere presence might cause pestilence. we have heard it said that mr. girard, by this will, distributed his charity without distinction of sect or party. however that may be, sir, he certainly has dealt out opprobrium to the whole profession of the clergy, without regard to sect or party. by this will, no minister of the gospel of any sect or denomination whatever can be authorized or allowed to hold any office within the college; and not only that, but no minister or clergyman of any sect can, for any purpose whatever, enter within the walls that are to surround this college. if a clergyman has a sick nephew, or a sick grandson, he cannot, upon any pretext, be allowed to visit him within the walls of the college. the provision of the will is express and decisive. still less may a clergyman enter to offer consolation to the sick, or to unite in prayer with the dying. now, i will not arraign mr. girard or his motives for this. i will not inquire into mr. girard's opinions upon religion. but i feel bound to say, the occasion demands that i should say, that this is the most opprobrious, the most insulting and unmerited stigma, that ever was cast, or attempted to be cast, upon the preachers of christianity, from north to south, from east to west, through the length and breadth of the land, in the history of the country. when have they deserved it? where have they deserved it? how have they deserved it? they are not to be allowed even the ordinary rights of hospitality; not even to be permitted to put their foot over the threshold of this college! sir, i take it upon myself to say, that in no country in the world, upon either continent, can there be found a body of ministers of the gospel who perform so much service to man, in such a full spirit of self-denial, under so little encouragement from government of any kind, and under circumstances almost always much straitened and often distressed, as the ministers of the gospel in the united states, of all denominations. they form no part of any established order of religion; they constitute no hierarchy; they enjoy no peculiar privileges. in some of the states they are even shut out from all participation in the political rights and privileges enjoyed by their fellow-citizens. they enjoy no tithes, no public provision of any kind. except here and there, in large cities, where a wealthy individual occasionally makes a donation for the support of public worship, what have they to depend upon? they have to depend entirely on the voluntary contributions of those who hear them. and this body of clergymen has shown, to the honor of their own country and to the astonishment of the hierarchies of the old world, that it is practicable in free governments to raise and sustain by voluntary contributions alone a body of clergymen, which, for devotedness to their sacred calling, for purity of life and character, for learning, intelligence, piety, and that wisdom which cometh from above, is inferior to none, and superior to most others. i hope that our learned men have done something for the honor of our literature abroad. i hope that the courts of justice and members of the bar of this country have done something to elevate the character of the profession of the law. i hope that the discussions above (in congress) have done something to meliorate the condition of the human race, to secure and extend the great charter of human rights, and to strengthen and advance the great principles of human liberty. but i contend that no literary efforts, no adjudications, no constitutional discussions, nothing that has been done or said in favor of the great interests of universal man, has done this country more credit, at home and abroad, than the establishment of our body of clergymen, their support by voluntary contributions, and the general excellence of their character for piety and learning. the great truth has thus been proclaimed and proved, a truth which i believe will in time to come shake all the hierarchies of europe, that the voluntary support of such a ministry, under free institutions, is a practicable idea. and yet every one of these, the christian ministers of the united states, is by this devise denied the privileges which are at the same time open to the vilest of our race; every one is shut out from this, i had almost said _sanctum_, but i will not profane that word by such a use of it. did a man ever live that had a respect for the christian religion, and yet had no regard for _any one_ of its ministers? did that system of instruction ever exist, which denounced the whole body of christian teachers, and yet called itself a system of christianity? the learned counsel on the other side see the weak points of this case. they are not blind. they have, with the aid of their great learning, industry, and research, gone back to the time of constantine, they have searched the history of the roman emperors, the dark ages, and the intervening period, down to the settlement of these colonies; they have explored every nook and corner of religious and christian history, to find out the various meanings and uses of christian charity; and yet, with all their skill and all their research, they have not been able to discover any thing which has ever been regarded as a christian charity, that sets such an opprobrium upon the forehead of all its ministers. if, with all their endeavors, they can find any one thing which has been so regarded, _they may have their college_, and make the most of it. but the thing does not exist; it _never had a being_; history does not record it, common sense revolts at it. it certainly is not necessary for me to make an ecclesiastical argument in favor of this proposition. the thing is so plain, that it must instantly commend itself to your honors. it has been said that mr. girard was charitable. i am not now going to controvert this. i hope he was. i hope he has found his reward. it has also been asked, "cannot mr. girard be allowed to have his own will, to devise his property according to his own desire?" certainly he can, in any legal devise, and the law will sustain him therein. but it is not for him to overturn the law of the land. the law cannot be altered to please mr. girard. he found that out, i believe, in two or three instances in his lifetime. nor can the law be altered on account of the magnitude and munificence of the bounty. what is the value of that bounty, however great or munificent, which touches the very foundations of human society, which touches the very foundations of christian charity, which touches the very foundations of public law, and the constitution, and the whole welfare of the state? and now, let me ask, what is, in contemplation of law, "a charity"? the word has various significations. in the larger and broader sense, it means the kindly exercise of the social affections, all the good feelings which man entertains towards man. charity is love. this is that charity of which st. paul speaks, that charity which covereth the sins of men, "that suffereth all things, hopeth all things." in a more popular sense, charity is alms-giving or active benevolence. but the question for your honors to decide here is, what is a charity, or a charitable use, in contemplation of law? to answer this inquiry, we are generally referred to the objects enumerated in the d of elizabeth. the objects enumerated in that statute, and others analogous to them, are charities in the sense of equitable jurisprudence. there is no doubt that a school of learning is a charity. it is one of those mentioned in the statutes. such a school of learning as was contemplated by the statutes of elizabeth is a charity; and all such have borne that name and character to this day. i mean to confine myself to that description of charity, the statute charity, and to apply it to this case alone. the devise before us proposes to establish, as its main object, a school of learning, a college. there are provisions, of course, for lodging, clothing, and feeding the pupils, but all this is subsidiary. the great object is the instruction of the young; although it proposes to give the children better food and clothes and lodging, and proposes that the system of education shall be somewhat better than that which is usually provided for the poor and destitute in our public institutions generally. the main object, then, is to establish a school of learning for children, beginning with them at a very tender age, and retaining them (namely, from six years to eighteen) till they are on the verge of manhood, when they will have expended more than one third part of the average duration of human life. for if the college takes them at six, and keeps them till they are eighteen, a period of twelve years will be passed within its walls; more than a third part of the average of human life. these children, then, are to be taken almost before they learn their alphabet, and be discharged about the time that men enter on the active business of life. at six, many do not know their alphabet. john wesley did not know a letter till after he was six years old, and his mother then took him on her lap, and taught him his alphabet at a single lesson. there are many parents who think that any attempt to instil the rudiments of education into the mind of a child at an earlier age, is little better than labor thrown away. the great object, then, which mr. girard seemed to have in view, was to take these orphans at this very tender age, and to keep them within his walls until they were entering manhood. and this object i pray your honors steadily to bear in mind. i never, in the whole course of my life, listened to any thing with more sincere delight, than to the remarks of my learned friend who opened this cause, on the nature and character of true charity. i agree with every word he said on that subject. i almost envy him his power of expressing so happily what his mind conceives so clearly and correctly. he is right when he speaks of it as an emanation from the christian religion. he is right when he says that it has its origin in the word of god. he is right when he says that it was unknown throughout all the world till the first dawn of christianity. he is right, pre-eminently right, in all this, as he was pre-eminently happy in his power of clothing his thoughts and feelings in appropriate forms of speech. and i maintain, that, in any institution for the instruction of youth, where the authority of god is disowned, and the duties of christianity derided and despised, and its ministers shut out from all participation in its proceedings, there can no more be charity, true charity, found to exist, than evil can spring out of the bible, error out of truth, or hatred and animosity come forth from the bosom of perfect love. no, sir! no, sir! if charity denies its birth and parentage, if it turns infidel to the great doctrines of the christian religion, if it turns unbeliever, it is no longer charity! there is no longer charity, either in a christian sense or in the sense of jurisprudence; for it separates itself from the fountain of its own creation. there is nothing in the history of the christian religion; there is nothing in the history of english law, either before or after the conquest; there can be found no such thing as a school of instruction in a christian land, from which the christian religion has been, of intent and purpose, rigorously and opprobriously excluded, and yet such school regarded as a charitable trust or foundation. this is the first instance on record. i do not say that there may not be charity schools in which religious instruction is not provided. i need not go that length, although i take that to be the rule of the english law. but what i do say, and repeat, is, that a school for the instruction of the young, which sedulously and reproachfully excludes christian knowledge, is no charity, either on principle or authority, and is not, therefore, entitled to the character of a charity in a court of equity. i have considered this proposition, and am ready to stand by it. i will not say that there may not be a charity for instruction, in which there is no positive provision for the christian religion. but i do say, and do insist, that there is no such thing in the history of religion, no such thing in the history of human law, as a charity, a school of instruction for children, from which the christian religion and christian teachers are excluded, as unsafe and unworthy intruders. such a scheme is deprived of that which enters into the very essence of human benevolence, when that benevolence contemplates instruction, that is to say, religious knowledge, connected with human knowledge. it is this which causes it to be regarded as a charity; and by reason of this it is entitled to the special favor of the courts of law. this is the vital question which must be decided by this court. it is vital to the understanding of what the law is, it is vital to the validity of this devise. if this be true, if there can be no charity in that plan of education which opposes christianity, then that goes far to decide this case. i take it that this court, in looking at this subject, will see the important bearing of this point upon it. the learned counsel said that the state of pennsylvania was not an infidel state. it is true that she is not an infidel state. she has a christian origin, a christian code of laws, a system of legislation founded on nothing else, in many of its important bearings upon human society, than the belief of the people of pennsylvania, their firm and sincere belief, in the divine authority and great importance of the truths of the christian religion. and she should the more carefully seek to preserve them pure. now, let us look at the condition and prospects of these tender children, who are to be submitted to this experiment of instruction without christianity. in the first place, they are orphans, have no parents to guide or instruct them in the way in which they should go, no father, no religious mother, to lead them to the pure fount of christianity; _they are orphans_. if they were only poor, there might be somebody bound by ties of human affection to look after their spiritual welfare; to see that they imbibed no erroneous opinions on the subject of religion; that they run into no excessive improprieties of belief as well as conduct. the child would have its father or mother to teach it to lisp the name of its creator in prayer, or hymn his praise. but in this experimental school of instruction, if the orphans have any friends or connections able to look after their welfare, it shuts them out. it is made the duty of the governors of the institution, on taking the child, so to make out the indentures of apprenticeship as to keep him from any after interference in his welfare on the part of guardians or relatives; to keep them from withdrawing him from the school, or interfering with his instruction whilst he is in the school, in any manner whatever. the school or college is to be surrounded by high walls; there are to be two gates in these walls, and no more; they are to be of iron within, and iron bound or covered without; thus answering more to the description of a castle than a school-house. the children are to be thus guarded for twelve years in this, i do not mean to say a prison, nor do i mean to say that this is exactly close confinement; but it is much closer confinement than ordinarily is met with, under the rules of any institution at present, and has a resemblance to the monastic institutions of past ages, rather than to any school for instruction at this period, at least in this country. all this is to be within one great enclosure; all that is done for the bodily or mental welfare of the child is to be done within this great wall. it has been said that the children could attend public worship elsewhere. where is the proof of this? there is no such provision in the devise; there is nothing said about it in any part of mr. girard's will; and i shall show presently that any such thing would be just as adverse to mr. girard's whole scheme, as it would be that the doctrines of christianity should be preached within the walls of the college. these children, then, are taken before they know the alphabet. they are kept till the period of early manhood, and then sent out into the world to enter upon its business and affairs. by this time the character will have been stamped. for if there is any truth in the bible, if there is any truth in those oracles which soar above all human authority, or if any thing be established as a general fact, by the experience of mankind, in this first third of human life the character is formed. and what sort of a character is likely to be made by this process, this experimental system of instruction? i have read the two provisions of mr. girard's will in relation to this feature of his school. the first excludes the christian religion and all its ministers from its walls. the second explains the whole principles upon which he purposes to conduct his school. it was to try an experiment in education, never before known to the christian world. it had been recommended often enough among those who did not belong to the christian world. but it was never known to exist, never adopted by anybody even professing a connection with christianity. and i cannot do better, in order to show the tendency and object of this institution, than to read from a paper by bishop white, which has been referred to by the other side. in order to a right understanding of what was mr. girard's real intention and original design, we have only to read carefully the words of the clause i have referred to. he enjoins that no ministers of religion, of any sects, shall be allowed to enter his college, on any pretence whatever. now, it is obvious, that by sects he means christian sects. any of the followers of voltaire or d'alembert may have admission into this school whenever they please, because they are not usually spoken of as "sects." the doors are to be opened to the opposers and revilers of christianity, in every form and shape, and shut to its supporters. while the voice of the upholders of christianity is never to be heard within the walls, the voices of those who impugn christianity may be raised high and loud, till they shake the marble roof of the building. it is no less derogatory thus to exclude the one, and admit the other, than it would be to make a positive provision and all the necessary arrangements for lectures and lessons and teachers, for all the details of the doctrines of infidelity. it is equally derogatory, it is the same in principle, thus to shut the door to one party, and open the door to the other. we must reason as to the probable results of such a system according to natural consequences. they say, on the other side, that infidel teachers will not be admitted in this school. how do they know that? what is the inevitable tendency of such an education as is here prescribed? what is likely to occur? the court cannot suppose that the trustees will act in opposition to the directions of the will. if they accept the trust, they must fulfil it, and carry out the details of mr. girard's plan. now, what is likely to be the effect of this system on the minds of these children, thus left solely to its pernicious influence, with no one to care for their spiritual welfare in this world or the next? they are to be left entirely to the tender mercies of those who will try upon them this experiment of moral philosophy or philosophical morality. morality without sentiment; benevolence towards man, without a sense of responsibility towards god; the duties of this life performed, without any reference to the life which is to come; this is mr. girard's theory of useful education. half of these poor children may die before the term of their education expires. still, those who survive must be brought up imbued fully with the inevitable tendencies of the system. it has been said that there may be lay preachers among them. lay preachers! this is ridiculous enough in a country of christianity and religion. [here some one handed mr. webster a note.] a friend informs me that four of the principal religious sects in this country, the episcopalians, presbyterians, methodists, and baptists, allow no lay preachers; and these four constitute a large majority of the religious and christian portion of the people of the united states. and, besides, lay preaching would be just as adverse to mr. girard's original object and whole plan as professional preaching, _provided it should be christianity which should be preached_. it is plain, as plain as language can be made, that he did not intend to allow the minds of these children to be troubled about religion of any kind, whilst they were within the college. and why? he himself assigns the reason. because of the difficulty and trouble, he says, that might arise from the multitude of sects, and creeds, and teachers, and the various clashing doctrines and tenets advanced by the different preachers of christianity. therefore his desire as to these orphans is, that their minds should be kept free from all bias of any kind in favor of any description of christian creed, till they arrived at manhood, and should have left the walls of his school. now, are not laymen equally sectarian in their views with clergymen? and would it not be just as easy to prevent sectarian doctrines from being preached by a clergyman, as from being taught by a layman? it is idle, therefore, to speak of lay preaching. mr. sergeant here rose, and said that they on their side had not uttered one word about lay preaching. it was lay teaching they spoke of. well, i would just as soon take it that way as the other, _teaching_ as preaching. is not the teaching of laymen as sectarian as the preaching of clergymen? what is the difference between unlettered laymen and lettered clergymen in this respect? every one knows that laymen are as violent controversialists as clergymen, and the less informed the more violent. so this, while it is a little more ridiculous, is equally obnoxious. according to my experience, a layman is just as likely to launch out into sectarian views, and to advance clashing doctrines and violent, bigoted prejudices, as a professional preacher, and even more so. every objection to professional religious instruction applies with still greater force to lay teaching. as in other cases, so in this, the greatest degree of candor is usually found accompanying the greatest degree of knowledge. nothing is more apt to be positive and dogmatical than ignorance. but there is no provision in any part of mr. girard's will for the introduction of any lay teaching on religious matters whatever. the children are to get their religion when they leave his school, and they are to have nothing to do with religion before they do leave it. they are then to choose their religious opinions, and not before. mr. binney. "choose their tenets" is the expression. tenets are opinions, i believe. the mass of one's religious tenets makes up one's religion. now, it is evident that mr. girard meant to found a school of morals, without any reference to, or connection with, religion. but, after all, there is nothing original in this plan of his. it has its origin in a deistical source, but not from the highest school of infidelity. not from bolingbroke, or shaftesbury, or gibbon; not even from voltaire or d'alembert. it is from two persons who were probably known to mr. girard in the early part of his life; it is from mr. thomas paine and mr. volney. mr. thomas paine, in his "age of reason," says: "let us devise means to establish schools of instruction, that we may banish the ignorance that the ancient _régime_ of kings and priests has spread among the people. let us propagate morality, unfettered by superstition." mr. binney. what do you get that from? the same place that mr. girard got this provision of his will from, paine's "age of reason." the same phraseology in effect is here. paine disguised his real meaning, it is true. he said: "let us devise means to establish schools to propagate morality, unfettered by _superstition_." mr. girard, who had no disguise about him, uses plain language to express the same meaning. in mr. girard's view, _religion_ is just that thing which mr. paine calls _superstition_. "let us establish schools of morality," said he, "unfettered by religious tenets. let us give these children a system of pure morals before they adopt any religion." the ancient _régime_ of which paine spoke as obnoxious was that of kings and priests. that was the popular way he had of making any thing obnoxious that he wished to destroy. now, if he had _merely_ wished to get rid of the dogmas which he says were established by kings and priests, if he had no desire to abolish the christian religion itself, he could have thus expressed himself: "let us rid ourselves of the errors of kings and priests, and plant morality on the plain text of the christian religion, with the simplest forms of religious worship." i do not intend to leave this part of the cause, however, without a still more distinct statement of the objections to this scheme of instruction. this is due, i think, to the subject and to the occasion; and i trust i shall not be considered presumptuous, or as trenching upon the duties which properly belong to another profession. but i deem it due to the cause of christianity to take up the notions of this scheme of mr. girard, and show how mistaken is the idea of calling it a charity. in the first place, then, i say, this scheme is derogatory to christianity, because it rejects christianity from the education of youth, by rejecting its teachers, by rejecting the ordinary agencies of instilling the christian religion into the minds of the young. i do not say that, in order to make this a charity, there should be a positive provision for the teaching of christianity, although, as i have already observed, i take that to be the rule in an english court of equity. but i need not, in this case, claim the whole benefit of that rule. i say it is derogatory, because there is a positive rejection of christianity; because it rejects the ordinary means and agencies of christianity. he who rejects the ordinary means of accomplishing an end, means to defeat that end itself, or else he has no meaning. and this is true, although the means originally be means of human appointment, and not attaching to or resting on any higher authority. for example, if the new testament had contained a set of principles of morality and religion, without reference to the means by which those principles were to be established, and if in the course of time a system of means had sprung up, become identified with the history of the world, become general, sanctioned by continued use and custom, then he who should reject those means would design to reject, and would reject, that morality and religion themselves. this would be true in a case where the end rested on divine authority, and human agency devised and used the means. but if the means themselves be of divine authority also, then the rejection of them is a direct rejection of that authority. now, i suppose there is nothing in the new testament more clearly established by the author of christianity, than the appointment of a christian ministry. the world was to be evangelized, was to be brought out of darkness into light, by the influences of the christian religion, spread and propagated by the instrumentality of man. a christian ministry was therefore appointed by the author of the christian religion himself, and it stands on the same authority as any other part of his religion. when the lost sheep of the house of israel were to be brought to the knowledge of christianity, the disciples were commanded to go forth into all the cities, and to preach "that the kingdom of heaven is at hand." it was added, that whosoever would not receive them, nor hear their words, it should be more tolerable for sodom and gomorrha than for them. and after his resurrection, in the appointment of the great mission to the whole human race, the author of christianity commanded his disciples that they should "go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." this was one of his last commands; and one of his last promises was the assurance, "lo, i am with you alway, even to the end of the world!" i say, therefore, there is nothing set forth more authentically in the new testament than the appointment of a christian ministry; and he who does not believe this does not and cannot believe the rest. it is true that christian ministers, in this age of the world, are selected in different ways and different modes by different sects and denominations. but there are, still, ministers of all sects and denominations. why should we shut our eyes to the whole history of christianity? is it not the preaching of ministers of the gospel that has evangelized the more civilized part of the world? why do we at this day enjoy the lights and benefits of christianity ourselves? do we not owe it to the instrumentality of the christian ministry? the ministers of christianity, departing from asia minor, traversing asia, africa, and europe, to iceland, greenland, and the poles of the earth, suffering all things, enduring all things, hoping all things, raising men everywhere from the ignorance of idol worship to the knowledge of the true god, and everywhere bringing life and immortality to light through the gospel, have only been acting in obedience to the divine instruction; they were commanded to go forth, and they have gone forth, and they still go forth. they have sought, and they still seek, to be able to preach the gospel to every creature under the whole heaven. and where was christianity ever received, where were its truths ever poured into the human heart, where did its waters, springing up into everlasting life, ever burst forth, except in the track of a christian ministry? did we ever hear of an instance, does history record an instance, of any part of the globe christianized by lay preachers, or "lay teachers"? and, descending from kingdoms and empires to cities and countries, to parishes and villages, do we not all know, that wherever christianity has been carried, and wherever it has been taught, by human agency, that agency was the agency of ministers of the gospel? it is all idle, and a mockery, to pretend that any man has respect for the christian religion who yet derides, reproaches, and stigmatizes all its ministers and teachers. it is all idle, it is a mockery, and an insult to common sense, to maintain that a school for the instruction of youth, from which christian instruction by christian teachers is sedulously and rigorously shut out, is not deistical and infidel both in its purpose and in its tendency. i insist, therefore, that this plan of education is, in this respect, derogatory to christianity, in opposition to it, and calculated either to subvert or to supersede it. in the next place, this scheme of education is derogatory to christianity, because it proceeds upon the presumption that the christian religion is not the only true foundation, or any necessary foundation, of morals. the ground taken is, that religion is not necessary to morality, that benevolence may be insured by habit, and that all the virtues may nourish, and be safely left to the chance of flourishing, without touching the waters of the living spring of religious responsibility. with him who thinks thus, what can be the value of the christian revelation? so the christian world has not thought; for by that christian world, throughout its broadest extent, it has been, and is, held as a fundamental truth, that religion is the only solid basis of morals, and that moral instruction not resting on this basis is only a building upon sand. and at what age of the christian era have those who professed to teach the christian religion, or to believe in its authority and importance, not insisted on the absolute necessity of inculcating its principles and its precepts upon the minds of the young? in what age, by what sect, where, when, by whom, has religious truth been excluded from the education of youth? nowhere; never. everywhere, and at all times, it has been, and is, regarded as essential. it is of the essence, the vitality, of useful instruction. from all this mr. girard dissents. his plan denies the necessity and the propriety of religious instruction as a part of the education of youth. he dissents, not only from all the sentiments of christian mankind, from all common conviction, and from the results of all experience, but he dissents also from still higher authority, the word of god itself. my learned friend has referred, with propriety, to one of the commands of the decalogue; but there is another, a first commandment, and that is a precept of religion, and it is in subordination to this that the moral precepts of the decalogue are proclaimed. this first great commandment teaches man that there is one, and only one, great first cause, one, and only one, proper object of human worship. this is the great, the ever fresh, the overflowing fountain of all revealed truth. without it, human life is a desert, of no known termination on any side, but shut in on all sides by a dark and impenetrable horizon. without the light of this truth, man knows nothing of his origin, and nothing of his end. and when the decalogue was delivered to the jews, with this great announcement and command at its head, what said the inspired lawgiver? that it should be kept from children? that it should be reserved as a communication fit only for mature age? far, far otherwise. "and these words, which i command thee this day, shall be in thy heart. and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shall talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, when thou liest down, and when thou risest up." there is an authority still more imposing and awful. when little children were brought into the presence of the son of god, his disciples proposed to send them away; but he said, "suffer little children to come unto me." unto _me_; he did not send them first for lessons in morals to the schools of the pharisees, or to the unbelieving sadducees, nor to read the precepts and lessons _phylacteried_ on the garments of the jewish priesthood; he said nothing of different creeds or clashing doctrines; but he opened at once to the youthful mind the everlasting fountain of living waters, the only source of eternal truths: "suffer little children to come _unto me_." and that injunction is of perpetual obligation. it addresses itself to-day with the same earnestness and the same authority which attended its first utterance to the christian world. it is of force everywhere, and at all times. it extends to the ends of the earth, it will reach to the end of time, always and everywhere sounding in the ears of men, with an emphasis which no repetition can weaken, and with an authority which nothing can supersede: "suffer little children to come unto me." and not only my heart and my judgment, my belief and my conscience, instruct me that this great precept should be obeyed, but the idea is so sacred, the solemn thoughts connected with it so crowd upon me, it is so utterly at variance with this system of philosophical _morality_ which we have heard advocated, that i stand and speak here in fear of being influenced by my feelings to exceed the proper line of my professional duty. go thy way at this time, is the language of philosophical morality, and i will send for thee at a more convenient season. this is the language of mr. girard in his will. in this there is neither religion nor reason. the earliest and the most urgent intellectual want of human nature is the knowledge of its origin, its duty, and its destiny. "whence am i, what am i, and what is before me?" this is the cry of the human soul, so soon as it raises its contemplation above visible, material things. when an intellectual being finds himself on this earth, as soon as the faculties of reason operate, one of the first inquiries of his mind is, "shall i be here always?" "shall i live here for ever?" and reasoning from what he sees daily occurring to others, he learns to a certainty that his state of being must one day be changed. i do not mean to deny, that it may be true that he is created with this consciousness; but whether it be consciousness, or the result of his reasoning faculties, man soon learns that he must die. and of all sentient beings, he alone, so far as we can judge, attains to this knowledge. his maker has made him capable of learning this. before he knows his origin and destiny, he knows that he is to die. then comes that most urgent and solemn demand for light that ever proceeded, or can proceed, from the profound and anxious broodings of the human soul. it is stated, with wonderful force and beauty, in that incomparable composition, the book of job: "for there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease; that, through the scent of water, it will bud, and bring forth boughs like a plant. _but if a man die, shall he live again?_" and that question nothing but god, and the religion of god, can solve. religion does solve it, and teaches every man that he is to live again, and that the duties of this life have reference to the life which is to come. and hence, since the introduction of christianity, it has been the duty, as it has been the effort, of the great and the good, to sanctify human knowledge, to bring it to the fount, and to baptize learning into christianity; to gather up all its productions, its earliest and its latest, its blossoms and its fruits, and lay them all upon the altar of religion and virtue. another important point involved in this question is, what becomes of the christian sabbath, in a school thus established? i do not mean to say that this stands exactly on the same authority as the christian religion, but i mean to say that the observance of the sabbath is a part of christianity in all its forms. all christians admit the observance of the sabbath. all admit that there is a lord's day, although there may be a difference in the belief as to which is the right day to be observed. now, i say that in this institution, under mr. girard's scheme, the ordinary observance of the sabbath could not take place, because the ordinary means of observing it are excluded. i know that i shall be told here, also, that lay teachers would come in again; and i say again, in reply, that, where the ordinary means of attaining an end are excluded, the intention is to exclude the end itself. there can be no sabbath in this college, there can be no religious observance of the lord's day; for there are no means for attaining that end. it will be said, that the children would be permitted to go out. there is nothing seen of this permission in mr. girard's will. and i say again, that it would be just as much opposed to mr. girard's whole scheme to allow these children to go out and attend places of public worship on the sabbath day, as it would be to have ministers of religion to preach to them within the walls; because, if they go out to hear preaching, they will hear just as much about religious controversies, and clashing doctrines, and more, than if appointed preachers officiated in the college. his object, as he states, was to keep their minds free from all religious doctrines and sects, and he would just as much defeat his ends by sending them out as by having religious instruction within. where, then, are these little children to go? where can they go to learn the truth, to reverence the sabbath? they are far from their friends, they have no one to accompany them to any place of worship, no one to show them the right from the wrong course; their minds must be kept clear from all bias on the subject, and they are just as far from the ordinary observance of the sabbath as if there were no sabbath day at all. and where there is no observance of the christian sabbath there will of course be no public worship of god. in connection with this subject i will observe, that there has been recently held a large convention of clergymen and laymen in columbus, ohio, to lead the minds of the christian public to the importance of a more particular observance of the christian sabbath; and i will read, as part of my argument, an extract from their address, which bears with peculiar force upon this case. "it is alike obvious that the sabbath exerts its salutary power by making the population acquainted with the being, perfections, and laws of god; with our relations to him as his creatures, and our obligations to him as rational, accountable subjects, and with our character as sinners, for whom his mercy has provided a saviour; under whose government we live to be restrained from sin and reconciled to god, and fitted by his word and spirit for the inheritance above." "it is by the reiterated instruction and impression which the sabbath imparts to the population of a nation, by the moral principle which it forms, by the conscience which it maintains, by the habits of method, cleanliness, and industry it creates, by the rest and renovated vigor it bestows on exhausted human nature, by the lengthened life and higher health it affords, by the holiness it inspires, and cheering hopes of heaven, and the protection and favor of god, which its observance insures, that the sabbath is rendered the moral conservator of nations. "the omnipresent influence the sabbath exerts, however, by no secret charm or compendious action, upon masses of unthinking minds; but by arresting the stream of worldly thoughts, interests, and affections, stopping the din of business, unlading the mind of its cares and responsibilities, and the body of its burdens, while god speaks to men, and they attend, and hear, and fear, and learn to do his will. "you might as well put out the sun, and think to enlighten the world with tapers, destroy the attraction of gravity, and think to wield the universe by human powers, as to extinguish the moral illumination of the sabbath, and break this glorious main-spring of the moral government of god." and i would ask, would any christian man consider it desirable for his orphan children, after his death, to find refuge within this asylum, under all the circumstances and influences which will necessarily surround its inmates? are there, or will there be, any christian parents who would desire that their children should be placed in this school, to be for twelve years exposed to the pernicious influences which must be brought to bear on their minds? i very much doubt if there is any christian father who hears me this day, and i am quite sure that there is no christian mother, who, if called upon to lie down on the bed of death, although sure to leave her children as poor as children can be left, who would not rather trust them, nevertheless, to the christian charity of the world, however uncertain it has been said to be, than place them where their physical wants and comforts would be abundantly attended to, but away from the solaces and consolations, the hopes and the grace, of the christian religion. she would rather trust them to the mercy and kindness of that spirit, which, when it has nothing else left, gives a cup of cold water in the name of a disciple; to that spirit which has its origin in the fountain of all good, and of which we have on record an example the most beautiful, the most touching, the most intensely affecting, that the world's history contains, i mean the offering of the poor widow, who threw her two mites into the treasury. "and he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury; and he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites. and he said, of a truth i say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all; for all these have, of their abundance, cast in unto the offerings of god: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had." what more tender, more solemnly affecting, more profoundly pathetic, than this charity, this offering to god, of a farthing! we know nothing of her name, her family, or her tribe. we only know that she was a poor woman, and a widow, of whom there is nothing left upon record but this sublimely simple story, that, when the rich came to cast their proud offerings into the treasury, this poor woman came also, and cast in her two mites, which made a farthing! and that example, thus made the subject of divine commendation, has been read, and told, and gone abroad everywhere, and sunk deep into a hundred millions of hearts, since the commencement of the christian era, and has done more good than could be accomplished by a thousand marble palaces, because it was charity mingled with true benevolence, given in the fear, the love, the service, and honor of god; because it was charity, that had its origin in religious feeling; because it was a gift to the honor of god! cases have come before the courts, of bequests, in last wills, made or given to god, without any more specific direction; and these bequests have been regarded as creating charitable uses. but can that be truly called a charity which flies in the face of all the laws of god and all the usages of christian man? i arraign no man for mixing up a love of distinction and notoriety with his charities. i blame not mr. girard because he desired to raise a splendid marble palace in the neighborhood of a beautiful city, that should endure for ages, and transmit his name and fame to posterity. but his school of learning is not to be valued, because it has not the chastening influences of true religion; because it has no fragrance of the spirit of christianity. it is not a charity, for it has not that which gives to a charity for education its chief value. it will, therefore, soothe the heart of no christian parent, dying in poverty and distress, that those who owe to him their being may be led, and fed, and clothed by mr. girard's bounty, at the expense of being excluded from all the means of religious instruction afforded to other children, and shut up through the most interesting period of their lives in a seminary without religion, and with moral sentiments as cold as its own marble walls. i now come to the consideration of the second part of this clause in the will, that is to say, the reasons assigned by mr. girard for making these restrictions with regard to the ministers of religion; and i say that these are much more derogatory to christianity than the main provision itself, excluding them. he says that there are such a multitude of sects and such diversity of opinion, that he will exclude all religion and all its ministers, in order to keep the minds of the children free from clashing controversies. now, does not this tend to subvert all belief in the utility of teaching the christian religion to youth at all? certainly, it is a broad and bold denial of such utility. to say that the evil resulting to youth from the differences of sects and creeds overbalances all the benefits which the best education can give them, what is this but to say that the branches of the tree of religious knowledge are so twisted, and twined, and commingled, and all run so much into and over each other, that there is therefore no remedy but to lay the axe at the root of the tree itself? it means that, and nothing less! now, if there be any thing more derogatory to the christian religion than this, i should like to know what it is. in all this we see the attack upon religion itself, made on its ministers, its institutions, and its diversities. and that is the objection urged by all the lower and more vulgar schools of infidelity throughout the world. in all these schools, called schools of rationalism in germany, socialism in england, and by various other names in various countries which they infest, this is the universal cant. the first step of all these philosophical moralists and regenerators of the human race is to attack the agency through which religion and christianity are administered to man. but in this there is nothing new or original. we find the same mode of attack and remark in paine's "age of reason." at page he says: "the bramin, the follower of zoroaster, the jew, the mahometan, the church of rome, the greek church, the protestant church, split into several hundred contradictory sectaries, preaching, in some instances, damnation against each other, all cry out, 'our holy religion!'" we find the same view in volney's "ruins of empires." mr. volney arrays in a sort of semicircle the different and conflicting religions of the world. "and first," says he, "surrounded by a group in various fantastic dresses, that confused mixture of violet, red, white, black, and speckled garments, with heads shaved, with tonsures, or with short hairs, with red hats, square bonnets, pointed mitres, or long beards, is the standard of the roman pontiff. on his right you see the greek pontiff, and on the left are the standards of two recent chiefs (luther and calvin), who, shaking off a yoke that had become tyrannical, had raised altar against altar in their reform, and wrested half of europe from the pope. behind these are the subaltern sects, subdivided from the principal divisions. the nestorians, eutychians, jacobites, iconoclasts, anabaptists, presbyterians, wickliffites, osiandrians, manicheans, pietists, adamites, the contemplatives, the quakers, the weepers, and a hundred others, all of distinct parties, persecuting when strong, tolerant when weak, hating each other in the name of the god of peace, forming such an exclusive heaven in a religion of universal charity, damning each other to pains without end in a future state, and realizing in this world the imaginary hell of the other." can it be doubted for an instant that sentiments like these are derogatory to the christian religion? and yet on grounds and reasons _exactly these_, not _like_ these, but exactly these, mr. girard founds his excuse for excluding christianity and its ministers from his school. he is a tame copyist, and has only raised marble walls to perpetuate and disseminate the principles of paine and of volney. it has been said that mr. girard was in a difficulty; that he was the judge and disposer of his own property. we have nothing to do with his difficulties. it has been said that he must have done as he did do, because there could be no agreement otherwise. agreement? among whom? about what? he was at liberty to do what he pleased with his own. he had to consult no one as to what he should do in the matter. and if he had wished to establish such a charity as might obtain the especial favor of the courts of law, he had only to frame it on principles not hostile to the religion of the country. but the learned gentleman went even further than this, and to an extent that i regretted; he said that there was as much dispute about the bible as about any thing else in the world. no, thank god, that is not the case! mr. binney. the disputes about the meaning of words and passages; you will admit that? well, there is a dispute about the translation of certain words; but if this be true, there is just as much dispute about it out of mr. girard's institution as there would be in it. and if this plan is to be advocated and sustained, why does not every man keep his children from attending all places of public worship until they are over eighteen years of age? he says that a prudent parent keeps his child from the influence of sectarian doctrines, by which i suppose him to mean those tenets that are opposed to his own. well, i do not know but what that plan is as likely to make bigots as it is to make any thing else. i grant that the mind of youth should be kept pliant, and free from all undue and erroneous influences; that it should have as much play as is consistent with prudence; but put it where it can obtain the elementary principles of religious truth; at any rate, those broad and general precepts and principles which are admitted by all christians. but here in this scheme of mr. girard, all sects and all creeds are denounced. and would not a prudent father rather send his child where he could get instruction under any form of the christian religion, than where he could get none at all? there are many instances of institutions, professing one leading creed, educating youths of different sects. the baptist college in rhode island receives and educates youths of all religious sects and all beliefs. the colleges all over new england differ in certain minor points of belief, and yet that is held to be no ground for excluding youth with other forms of belief, and other religious views and sentiments. but this objection to the multitude and differences of sects is but the old story, the old infidel argument. it is notorious that there are certain great religious truths which are admitted and believed by all christians. all believe in the existence of a god. all believe in the immortality of the soul. all believe in the responsibility, in another world, for our conduct in this. all believe in the divine authority of the new testament. dr. paley says that a single word from the new testament shuts up the mouth of human questioning, and excludes all human reasoning. and cannot all these great truths be taught to children without their minds being perplexed with clashing doctrines and sectarian controversies? most certainly they can. and, to compare secular with religious matters, what would become of the organization of society, what would become of man as a social being, in connection with the social system, if we applied this mode of reasoning to him in his social relations? we have a constitutional government, about the powers, and limitations, and uses of which there is a vast amount of differences of belief. your honors have a body of laws, now before you, in relation to which differences of opinion, almost innumerable, are daily spread before the courts; in all these we see clashing doctrines and opinions advanced daily, to as great an extent as in the religious world. apply the reasoning advanced by mr. girard to human institutions, and you will tear them all up by the root; as you would inevitably tear all divine institutions up by the root, if such reasoning is to prevail. at the meeting of the first congress there was a doubt in the minds of many of the propriety of opening the session with prayer; and the reason assigned was, as here, the great diversity of opinion and religious belief. at length mr. samuel adams, with his gray hairs hanging about his shoulders, and with an impressive venerableness now seldom to be met with, (i suppose owing to the difference of habits,) rose in that assembly, and, with the air of a perfect puritan, said that it did not become men, professing to be christian men, who had come together for solemn deliberation in the hour of their extremity, to say that there was so wide a difference in their religious belief, that they could not, as one man, bow the knee in prayer to the almighty, whose advice and assistance they hoped to obtain. independent as he was, and an enemy to all prelacy as he was known to be, he moved that the rev. mr. duché, of the episcopal church, should address the throne of grace in prayer. and john adams, in a letter to his wife, says that he never saw a more moving spectacle. mr. duché read the episcopal service of the church of england, and then, as if moved by the occasion, he broke out into extemporaneous prayer. and those men, who were then about to resort to force to obtain their rights, were moved to tears; and floods of tears, mr. adams says, ran down the cheeks of the pacific quakers who formed part of that most interesting assembly. depend upon it, where there is a spirit of christianity, there is a spirit which rises above forms, above ceremonies, independent of sect or creed, and the controversies of clashing doctrines. the consolations of religion can never be administered to any of these sick and dying children in this college. it is said, indeed, that a poor, dying child can be carried out beyond the walls of the school. he can be carried out to a hostelry, or hovel, and there receive those rites of the christian religion which cannot be performed within those walls, even in his dying hour! is not all this shocking? what a stricture is it upon this whole scheme! what an utter condemnation! a dying youth cannot receive religious solace within this seminary of learning! but, it is asked, what could mr. girard have done? he could have done, as has been done in lombardy by the emperor of austria, as my learned friend has informed us, where, on a large scale, the principle is established of teaching the elementary principles of the christian religion, of enforcing human duties by divine obligations, and carefully abstaining in all cases from interfering with sects or the inculcation of sectarian doctrines. how have they done in the schools of new england? there, as far as i am acquainted with them, the great elements of christian truth are taught in every school. the scriptures are read, their authority taught and enforced, their evidences explained, and prayers usually offered. the truth is, that those who really value christianity, and believe in its importance, not only to the spiritual welfare of man, but to the safety and prosperity of human society, rejoice that in its revelations and its teachings there is so much which mounts above controversy, and stands on universal acknowledgment. while many things about it are disputed or are dark, they still plainly see its foundation, and its main pillars; and they behold in it a sacred structure, rising up to the heavens. they wish its general principles, and all its great truths, to be spread over the whole earth. but those who do not value christianity, nor believe in its importance to society or individuals, cavil about sects and schisms, and ring monotonous changes upon the shallow and so often refuted objections founded on alleged variety of discordant creeds and clashing doctrines. i shall close this part of my argument by reading extracts from an english writer, one of the most profound thinkers of the age, a friend of reformation in the government and laws, john foster, the friend and associate of robert hall. looking forward to the abolition of the present dynasties of the old world, and desirous to see how the order and welfare of society is to be preserved in the absence of present conservative principles, he says:-- "undoubtedly the zealous friends of popular education account knowledge valuable absolutely, as being the apprehension of things as they are; a prevention of delusions; and so far a fitness for right volitions. but they consider religion (besides being itself the primary and infinitely the most important part of knowledge) as a principle indispensable for securing the full benefit of all the rest. it is desired, and endeavored, that the understandings of these opening minds may be taken possession of by just and solemn ideas of their relation to the eternal almighty being; that they may be taught to apprehend it as an awful reality, that they are perpetually under his inspection; and, as a certainty, that they must at length appear before him in judgment, and find in another life the consequences of what they are in spirit and conduct here. it is to be impressed on them, that his will is the supreme law, that his declarations are the most momentous truth known on earth, and his favor and condemnation the greatest good and evil. under an ascendency of this divine wisdom it is, that their discipline in any other knowledge is designed to be conducted; so that nothing in the mode of their instruction may have a tendency contrary to it, and every thing be taught in a manner recognizing the relation with it, as far as shall consist with a natural, unforced way of keeping the relation in view. thus it is sought to be secured, that, as the pupil's mind grows stronger, and multiplies its resources, and he therefore has necessarily more power and means for what is wrong, there may be luminously presented to him, as if celestial eyes visibly beamed upon him, the most solemn ideas that can enforce what is right." "such is the discipline meditated for preparing the subordinate classes to pursue their individual welfare, and act their part as members of the community...." "all this is to be taught, in many instances directly, in others by reference for confirmation, from the holy scriptures, from which authority will also be impressed, all the while, the principles of religion. and religion, while its grand concern is with the state of the soul towards god and eternal interests, yet takes every principle and rule of morals under its peremptory sanction; making the primary obligation and responsibility be towards god, of every thing that is a duty with respect to men. so that, with the subjects of this education, the sense of _propriety_ shall be _conscience_; the consideration of how they ought to be regulated in their conduct as a part of the community shall be the recollection that their master in heaven dictates the laws of that conduct, and will judicially hold them amenable for every part of it." "and is not a discipline thus addressed to the purpose of fixing religious principles in ascendency, as far as that difficult object is within the power of discipline, and of infusing a salutary tincture of them into whatever else is taught, the right way to bring up citizens faithful to all that deserves fidelity in the social compact?... "lay hold on the myriads of juvenile spirits before they have time to grow up through ignorance, into a reckless hostility to social order; train them to sense and good morals; inculcate the principles of religion, simply and solemnly, as religion, as a thing directly of divine dictation, and not as if its authority were chiefly in virtue of human institutions; let the higher orders, generally, make it evident to the multitude that they are desirous to raise them in value, and promote their happiness; and then, _whatever_ the demands of the people as a body, thus improving in understanding and sense of justice, shall come to be, and _whatever_ modification their preponderance may ultimately enforce on the great social arrangements, it will be infallibly certain that there never _can_ be a love of disorder, an insolent anarchy, a prevailing spirit of revenge and devastation. such a conduct of the ascendent ranks would, in this nation at least, secure that, as long as the world lasts, there never would be any formidable commotion, or violent sudden changes. all those modifications of the national economy to which an improving people would aspire, and would deserve to obtain, would be gradually accomplished, in a manner by which no party would be wronged, and all would be the happier."[ ] i not only read this for the excellence of its sentiments and their application to the subject, but because they are the results of the profound meditations of a man who is dealing with popular ignorance. desirous of, and expecting, a great change in the social system of the old world, he is anxious to discover that conservative principle by which society can be kept together when crowns and mitres shall have no more influence. and he says that the only conservative principle must be, and is, religion! the authority of god! his revealed will! and the influence of the teaching of the ministers of christianity! mr. webster here stated that he would, on monday, bring forward certain references and legal points bearing on this view of the case. the court then adjourned. second day. the seven judges all took their seats at eleven o'clock, and the court was opened. mr. binney observed to the court, that he had omitted to notice, in his argument, that, in regard to the statutes of uniformity and toleration in england, whilst the jewish talmuds for the propagation of judaism alone were not sustained by those statutes, yet the jewish talmuds for the maintenance of the poor were sustained thereby. and the decisions show that, where a gift had for its object the maintenance and education of poor jewish children, the statutes sustained the devise. in proof of this he quoted ambler, by blunt, p. , case of de costa, &c. also, the case of jacobs v. gomperte, in the notes. also, in the notes, swanston, p. , same case of de costa, &c. also, vesey, p. , case of mo catto v. lucardo. also, sheppard, p. , and boyle, p. . another case was that of a bequest given to an object abroad, and in the decision the master of the rolls considered that religious instruction was not a necessary part of education. see, also, the case of the attorney-general v. the dean and canons of christ church, jacobs, p. . mr. binney then quoted from noah webster the definition of the word "tenets," to show that mr. webster did not give the right definition when he said that "tenets" meant "religion." mr. webster then rose and said:--#/ the arguments of my learned friend, may it please your honors, in relation to the jewish laws as tolerated by the statutes, go to maintain my very proposition; that is, that no school for the instruction of youth in any system which is in any way derogatory to the christian religion, or for the teaching of doctrines that are in any way contrary to the christian religion, is, or ever was, regarded as a charity by the courts. it is true that the statutes of toleration regarded a devise for the maintenance of poor jewish children, to give them food and raiment and lodging, as a charity. but a devise for the teaching of the jewish religion to poor children, that should come into the court of chancery, would not be regarded as a charity, or entitled to any peculiar privileges from the court. when i stated to your honors, in the course of my argument on saturday, that all denominations of christians had some mode or provision for the appointment of teachers of christianity amongst them, i meant to have said something about the quakers. although we know that the teachers among them come into their office in a somewhat peculiar manner, yet there are preachers and teachers of christianity provided in that peculiar body, notwithstanding its objection to the mode of appointing teachers and preachers by other christian sects. the place or character of a quaker preacher is an office and appointment as well known as that of a preacher among any other denomination of christians. i have heretofore argued to show that the christian religion, its general principles, must ever be regarded among us as the foundation of civil society; and i have thus far confined my remarks to the tendency and effect of the scheme of mr. girard (if carried out) upon the christian religion. but i will go farther, and say that this school, this scheme or system, in its tendencies and effects, is opposed to all religions, of every kind. i will not now enter into a controversy with my learned friend about the word "tenets," whether it signify opinions or dogmas, or whatever you please. religious tenets, i take it, and i suppose it will be generally conceded, mean religious opinions; and if a youth has arrived at the age of eighteen, and has no religious tenets, it is very plain that he has no religion. i do not care whether you call them dogmas, tenets, or opinions. if the youth does not entertain dogmas, tenets, or opinions, or opinions, tenets, or dogmas, on religious subjects, then he has no religion at all. and this strikes at a broader principle than when you merely look at this school in its effect upon christianity alone. we will suppose the case of a youth of eighteen, who has just left this school, and has gone through an education of philosophical morality, precisely in accordance with the views and expressed wishes of the donor. he comes then into the world to choose his religious tenets. the very next day, perhaps, after leaving school, he comes into a court of law to give testimony as a witness. sir, i protest that by such a system he would be disfranchised. he is asked, "what is your religion?" his reply is, "o, i have not yet chosen any; i am going to look round, and see which suits me best." he is asked, "are you a christian?" he replies, "that involves religious tenets, and as yet i have not been allowed to entertain any." again, "do you believe in a future state of rewards and punishments?" and he answers, "that involves sectarian controversies, which have carefully been kept from me." "do you believe in the existence of a god?" he answers, that there are clashing doctrines involved in these things, which he has been taught to have nothing to do with; that the belief in the existence of a god, being one of the first questions in religion, he is shortly about to think of that proposition. why, sir, it is vain to talk about the destructive tendency of such a system; to argue upon it is to insult the understanding of every man; _it is mere, sheer, low, ribald, vulgar deism and infidelity_![ ] it opposes all that is in heaven, and all on earth that is worth being on earth. it destroys the connecting link between the creature and the creator; it opposes that great system of universal benevolence and goodness that binds man to his maker. _no religion till he is eighteen!_ what would be the condition of all our families, of all our children, if religious fathers and religious mothers were to teach their sons and daughters no religious tenets till they were eighteen? what would become of their morals, their character, their purity of heart and life, their hope for time and eternity? what would become of all those thousand ties of sweetness, benevolence, love, and christian feeling, that now render our young men and young maidens like comely plants growing up by a streamlet's side,--the graces and the grace of opening manhood, of blossoming womanhood? what would become of all that now renders the social circle lovely and beloved? what would become of society itself? how could it exist? and is that to be considered a charity which strikes at the root of all this; which subverts all the excellence and the charms of social life; which tends to destroy the very foundation and frame-work of society, both in its practices and in its opinions; which subverts the whole decency, the whole morality, as well as the whole christianity and government, of society? no, sir! no, sir! and here let me turn to the consideration of the question, what is an oath? i do not mean in the variety of definitions that may be given to it as it existed and was practised in the time of the romans, but an oath as it exists at present in our courts of law; as it is founded on a degree of consciousness that there is a power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices. we all know that the doctrine of the english law is, that in the case of every person who enters court as a witness, be he christian or hindoo, there must be a firm conviction on his mind that falsehood or perjury will be punished, either in this world or the next, or he cannot be admitted as a witness. if he has not this belief, he is disfranchised. in proof of this, i refer your honors to the great case of ormichund against barker, in lord chief justice willes's report. there this doctrine is clearly laid down. but in no case is a man allowed to be a witness that has no belief in future rewards and punishments for virtues or vices, nor ought he to be. we hold life, liberty, and property in this country upon a system of oaths; oaths founded on a religious belief of some sort. and that system which would strike away the great substratum, destroy the safe possession of life, liberty, and property, destroy all the institutions of civil society, cannot and will not be considered as entitled to the protection of a court of equity. it has been said, on the other side, that there was no teaching _against_ religion or christianity in this system. i deny it. the whole testament is one bold proclamation against christianity and religion of every creed. the children are to be brought up in the principles declared in that testament. they are to learn to be suspicious of christianity and religion; to keep clear of it, that their youthful heart may not become susceptible of the influences of christianity or religion in the slightest degree. they are to be told and taught that religion is not a matter for the heart or conscience, but for the decision of the cool judgment of mature years; that at that period when the whole christian world deem it most desirable to instil the chastening influences of christianity into the tender and comparatively pure mind and heart of the child, ere the cares and corruptions of the world have reached and seared it,--at that period the child in this college is to be carefully excluded therefrom, and to be told that its influence is pernicious and dangerous in the extreme. why, the whole system is a constant preaching against christianity and against religion, and i insist that there is no charity, and can be no charity, in that system of instruction from which christianity is excluded. i perfectly agree with what my learned friend says in regard to the monasteries of the old world, as seats of learning to which we are all indebted at the present day. much of our learning, almost all of our early histories, and a vast amount of literary treasure, were preserved therein and emanated therefrom. but we all know, that although these were emphatically receptacles for literature of the highest order, yet they were always connected with christianity, and were always regarded and conducted as religious establishments. going back as far as the statutes of henry the fourth, as early as ,[ ] in the act respecting charities, we find that one hundred years before the reformation, in catholic times, in the establishment of every charitable institution, there was to be proper provision for religious instruction. again, after the time of the reformation, when those monastic institutions were abolished, in the st edw. vi. ch. , we find certain _chantries_ abolished, and their funds appropriated to the instruction of youth in the grammar schools founded in that reign, which lord eldon says extended all over the kingdom. in all these we find provision for religious instruction, the dispensation of the same being by a teacher or preacher. in swanston, p. , the case of the bedford charity, lord eldon gives a long opinion, in the course of which he says, that in these schools care is taken to educate youth in the christian religion, and in all of them the new testament is taught, both in latin and greek. here, then, we find that the great and leading provision, both before and after the reformation, was to connect the knowledge of christianity with human letters. and it will be always found that a school for instruction of youth, to possess the privileges of a charity, must be provided with religious instruction. for the decision, that the essentials of christianity are part of the common law of the land, i refer your honors to vernon, p. , where lord hale, who cannot be suspected of any bigotry on this subject, says, that to decry religion, and call it a cheat, tends to destroy all religion; and he also declares christianity to be part of the common law of the land. mr. n. dane, in his abridgment, ch. , recognizes the same principle. in strange, p. , case of the king v. wilson, the judges would not suffer it to be debated that writing against religion generally is an offence at common law. they laid stress upon the word "generally," because there might arise differences of opinion between religious writers on points of doctrine, and so forth. so in taylor's case, merivale, p. , by the high court of chancery, these doctrines were recognized and maintained. the same doctrine is laid down in burn's ecclesiastical law, p. , evans v. the chamberlain of london; and in russell, p. , the attorney-general v. the earl of mansfield. there is a case of recent date, which, if the english law is to prevail, would seem conclusive as to the character of this devise. it is the case of the attorney-general v. cullum, younge and collyer's reports, p. . the case was heard and decided in , by sir knight bruce, vice-chancellor. the reporter's abstract, or summary, of the decision is this: "courts of equity, in this country, will not sanction any system of education in which religion is not included." the charity in question in that case was established in the reign of edward the fourth, for the benefit of the community and poor inhabitants of the town of bury st. edmunds. the objects of the charity were various: for relief of prisoners, educating and instructing poor people, for food and raiment for the aged and impotent, and others of the same kind. there were uses, also, now deemed superstitious, such as praying for the souls of the dead. in this, and in other respects, the charity required revision, to suit it to the habits and requirements of modern times; and a scheme was accordingly set forth for such revision by the master, under the direction of the court. by this scheme there were to be schools, and these schools were to be closed on sundays, although the scriptures were to be read daily on other days. this was objected to, and it was insisted, on the other hand, that the masters and mistresses of the schools should be members of the church of england; that they should, on every lord's day, give instruction in the doctrines of the church to those children whose parents might so desire; but that all the scholars should be required to attend public worship every lord's day in the parish church, _or other place of worship, according to their respective creeds_. the vice-chancellor said, that the term "education" was properly understood, by all the parties, to comprehend religious instruction; that the objection to the scheme proposed by the master was not that it did not provide for religious instruction according to the doctrines of the church of england, but that it did not provide for religious instruction at all. in the course of the hearing, the vice-chancellor said, that any scheme of education, without religion, would be worse than a mockery. the parties afterwards agreed, that the masters and mistresses should be members of the church of england; that every school day the master should give religious instruction, during one hour, to all the scholars, _such religious instruction to be confined to the reading and explanation of the scriptures_; that on every lord's day he should give instruction in the liturgy, catechism, and articles of the church of england, and that the scholars should attend church every lord's day, _unless they were children of persons not in communion with the church of england_. in giving the sanction of the court to this arrangement, the vice-chancellor said, that he wished to have it distinctly understood that the ground on which he had proceeded was not a preference of one form of religion to another, but the necessity, if the matter was left to him judicially, to adopt the course of requiring the teachers to be members of the church of england. this case clearly shows, that, at the present day, a school, founded by a charity, for the instruction of children, cannot be sanctioned by the courts as a charity, unless the scheme of education includes religious instruction. it shows, too, that this general requisition of the law is independent of a church establishment, and that it is not religion in any particular form, but religion, religious and christian instruction in some form, which is held to be indispensable. it cannot be doubted how a charity for the instruction of children would fare in an english court, the scheme of which should carefully and sedulously exclude all religious or christian instruction, and profess to establish morals on principles no higher than those of enlightened paganism. enough, then, your honors, has been said on this point; and i am willing that inquiry should be prosecuted to any extent of research to controvert this position, that a school of education for the young, which rejects the christian religion, cannot be sustained as a charity, so as to entitle it to come before the courts of equity for the privileges which they have power to confer on charitable bequests. mr. webster then replied to the remarks of mr. binney, in relation to the liverpool blue coat school, and read from the report of mr. bache on education in europe, mr. bache having been sent abroad by the city of philadelphia to investigate this whole matter of education. if mr. girard had established such a school as that, it would have been free from all those objections that have been raised against it. this liverpool blue coat school, though too much of a religious party character, is strictly a church establishment. it is a school established on a peculiar foundation, that of the madras system of dr. bell. it is a monitorial school; those who are advanced in learning are to teach the others in religion, as well as secular knowledge. it is strictly a religious school, and the only objection is, that in its instruction it is too much confined to a particular sect. mr. binney observed that there was no provision made for clergymen. that is true, because the scheme of the school is monitorial, in which the more advanced scholars instruct the others. but religious instruction is amply and particularly provided for. mr. webster then referred to shelford, p. , and onward, under the head "jews," in the fourth paragraph, where, he stated, the whole matter, and all the cases, as regarded the condition and position of the jews respecting various charities, were given in full. he then referred to the smithsonian legacy, which had been mentioned, and which he said was no charity at all, nor any thing like a charity. it was a gift to congress, to be disposed of as congress saw fit, for scientific purposes. he then replied, in a few words, to the arguments of mr. binney in relation to the university of virginia; and said that, although there was no provision for religious instruction in that university, yet he supposed it would not be contended for a moment that the university of virginia was a charity, or that it came before the courts claiming of the law of that state protection as such. it stood on its charter. i repeat again, before closing this part of my argument, the proposition, important as i believe it to be, for your honors' consideration, that the proposed school, in its true character, objects, and tendencies, is derogatory to christianity and religion. if it be so, then i maintain that it cannot be considered a charity, and as such entitled to the just protection and support of a court of equity. i consider this the great question for the consideration of this court. i may be excused for pressing it on the attention of your honors. it is one which, in its decision, is to influence the happiness, the temporal and the eternal welfare, of one hundred millions of human beings, alive and to be born, in this land. its decision will give a hue to the apparent character of our institutions; it will be a comment on their spirit to the whole christian world. i again press the question to your honors: _is a clear, plain, positive system for the instruction of children, founded on clear and plain objects of infidelity, a charity in the eye of the law, and as such entitled to the privileges awarded to charities in a court of equity?_ and with this, i leave this part of the case. third day. i shall now, may it please your honors, proceed to inquire whether there is, in the state of pennsylvania, any settled public policy to which this school, as planned by mr. girard in his will, is in opposition; for it follows, that, if there be any settled public policy in the laws of pennsylvania on this subject, then any school, or scheme, or system, which tends to subvert this public policy, cannot be entitled to the protection of a court of equity. it will not be denied that there is a general public policy in that, as in all states, drawn from its history and its laws. and it will not be denied that any scheme or school of education which directly opposes this is not to be favored by the courts. pennsylvania is a free and independent state. she has a popular government, a system of trial by jury, of free suffrage, of vote by ballot, of alienability of property. all these form part of the general public policy of pennsylvania. any man who shall go into that state can speak and write as much as he pleases against a popular form of government, freedom of suffrage, trial by jury, and against any or all of the institutions just named; he may decry civil liberty, and assert the divine right of kings, and still he does nothing criminal; but if, to give success to such efforts, special power from a court of justice is required, it will not be granted to him. there is not one of these features of the general public policy of pennsylvania against which a school might not be established and preachers and teachers employed to teach. that might in a certain sense be considered a school of education, but it would not be a charity. and if mr. girard, in his lifetime, had founded schools and employed teachers to preach and teach in favor of infidelity, or against popular government, free suffrage, trial by jury, or the alienability of property, there was nothing to stop him or prevent him from so doing. but where any one or all of these come to be provided for a school or system as a charity, and come before the courts for favor, then in neither one, nor all, nor any, can they be favored, because they are opposed to the general public policy and public law of the state. these great principles have always been recognized; and they are no more part and parcel of the public law of pennsylvania than is the christian religion. we have in the charter of pennsylvania, as prepared by its great founder, william penn,--we have in his "great law," as it was called, the declaration, that the preservation of christianity is one of the great and leading ends of government. this is declared in the charter of the state. then the laws of pennsylvania, the statutes against blasphemy, the violation of the lord's day, and others to the same effect, proceed on this great, broad principle, that the preservation of christianity is one of the main ends of government. this is the general public policy of pennsylvania. on this head we have the case of updegraph v. the commonwealth,[ ] in which a decision in accordance with this whole doctrine was given by the supreme court of pennsylvania. the solemn opinion pronounced by that tribunal begins by a general declaration that christianity is, and has always been, part of the common law of pennsylvania. i have said, your honors, that our system of oaths in all our courts, by which we hold liberty and property, and all our rights, is founded on or rests on christianity and a religious belief. in like manner the affirmation of quakers rests on religious scruples drawn from the same source, the same feeling of religious responsibility. the courts of pennsylvania have themselves decided that a charitable bequest, which counteracts the public policy of the state, cannot be sustained. this was so ruled in the often cited case of the methodist church v. remington. there, the devise was to the methodist church generally, extending through the states and into canada, and the trust was declared void on this account alone; namely, that it was inconsistent with the public policy of the state, inconsistent with the general spirit of the laws of pennsylvania. but is there any comparison to be made between that ground on which a devise to a church is declared void, namely, as inconsistent with the public policy of the state, and the case of a devise which undermines and opposes the whole christian religion, and derides all its ministers; the one tending to destroy all religion, and the other being merely against the spirit of the legislation and laws of the state, and the general public policy of government, in a very subordinate matter? can it be shown that this devise of a piece of ground to the methodist church can be properly set aside, and declared void on general grounds, and not be shown that such a devise as that of mr. girard, which tends to overturn as well as oppose the public policy and laws of pennsylvania, can also be set aside? sir, there are many other american cases which i could cite to the court in support of this point of the case. i will now only refer to johnson, page . it is the same in pennsylvania as elsewhere, the general principles and public policy are sometimes established by constitutional provisions, sometimes by legislative enactments, sometimes by judicial decisions, and sometimes by general consent. but however they may be established, there is nothing that we look for with more certainty than this general principle, that christianity is part of the law of the land. this was the case among the puritans of new england, the episcopalians of the southern states, the pennsylvania quakers, the baptists, the mass of the followers of whitefield and wesley, and the presbyterians; all brought and all adopted this great truth, and all have sustained it. and where there is any religious sentiment amongst men at all, this sentiment incorporates itself with the law. _every thing declares it._ the massive cathedral of the catholic; the episcopalian church, with its lofty spire pointing heavenward; the plain temple of the quaker; the log church of the hardy pioneer of the wilderness; the mementos and memorials around and about us; the consecrated graveyards, their tombstones and epitaphs, their silent vaults, their mouldering contents; all attest it. _the dead prove it as well as the living._ the generations that are gone before speak to it, and pronounce it from the tomb. we feel it. all, all, proclaim that christianity, general, tolerant christianity, christianity independent of sects and parties, that christianity to which the sword and the fagot are unknown, general, tolerant christianity, is the law of the land. mr. webster, having gone over the other points in the case, which were of a more technical character, in conclusion, said:--#/ i now take leave of this cause. i look for no good whatever from the establishment of this school, this college, this scheme, this experiment of an education in "practical morality," unblessed by the influences of religion. it sometimes happens to man to attain by accident that which he could not achieve by long-continued exercise of industry and ability. and it is said even of the man of genius, that by chance he will sometimes "snatch a grace beyond the reach of art." and i believe that men sometimes do mischief, not only beyond their intent, but beyond the ordinary scope of their talents and ability. in my opinion, if mr. girard had given years to the study of a mode by which he could dispose of his vast fortune so that no good could arise to the general cause of charity, no good to the general cause of learning, no good to human society, and which should be most productive of protracted struggles, troubles, and difficulties in the popular counsels of a great city, he could not so effectually have attained that result as he has by this devise now before the court. it is not the result of good fortunes, but of bad fortunes, which have overriden and cast down whatever of good might have been accomplished by a different disposition. i believe that this plan, this scheme, was unblessed in all its purposes, and in all its original plans. unwise in all its frame and theory, while it lives it will lead an annoyed and troubled life, and leave an unblessed memory when it dies. if i could persuade myself that this court would come to such a decision as, in my opinion, the public good and the law require, and if i could believe that any humble efforts of my own had contributed in the least to lead to such a result, i should deem it the crowning mercy of my professional life. [footnote : foster's essay on the evils of popular ignorance, section iv.] [footnote : the effect of this remark was almost electric, and some one in the court-room broke out in applause.] [footnote : pickering, p. .] [footnote : sergeant & rawle, p. .] mr. justice story.[ ] [at a meeting of the suffolk bar, held in the circuit court room, boston, on the morning of the th of september, the day of the funeral of mr. justice story, chief justice shaw having taken the chair and announced the object of the meeting, mr. webster rose and spoke substantially as follows.] your solemn announcement, mr. chief justice, has confirmed the sad intelligence which had already reached us, through the public channels of information, and deeply afflicted us all. joseph story, one of the associate justices of the supreme court of the united states, and for many years the presiding judge of this circuit, died on wednesday evening last, at his house in cambridge, wanting only a few days for the completion of the sixty-sixth year of his age. this most mournful and lamentable event has called together the whole bar of suffolk, and all connected with the courts of law or the profession. it has brought you, mr. chief justice, and your associates of the bench of the supreme court of massachusetts, into the midst of us; and you have done us the honor, out of respect to the occasion, to consent to preside over us, while we deliberate on what is due, as well to our own afflicted and smitten feelings, as to the exalted character and eminent distinction of the deceased judge. the occasion has drawn from his retirement, also, that venerable man, whom we all so much respect and honor, (judge davis,) who was, for thirty years, the associate of the deceased upon the same bench. it has called hither another judicial personage, now in retirement, (judge putnam,) but long an ornament of that bench of which you are now the head, and whose marked good fortune it is to have been the professional teacher of mr. justice story, and the director of his early studies. he also is present to whom this blow comes near; i mean, the learned judge (judge sprague) from whose side it has struck away a friend and a highly venerated official associate. the members of the law school at cambridge, to which the deceased was so much attached, and who returned that attachment with all the ingenuousness and enthusiasm of educated and ardent youthful minds, are here also, to manifest their sense of their own severe deprivation, as well as their admiration of the bright and shining professional example which they have so loved to contemplate,--an example, let me say to them, and let me say to all, as a solace in the midst of their sorrows, which death hath not touched and which time cannot obscure. mr. chief justice, one sentiment pervades us all. it is that of the most profound and penetrating grief, mixed, nevertheless, with an assured conviction, that the great man whom we deplore is yet with us and in the midst of us. he hath not wholly died. he lives in the affections of friends and kindred, and in the high regard of the community. he lives in our remembrance of his social virtues, his warm and steady friendships, and the vivacity and richness of his conversation. he lives, and will live still more permanently, by his words of written wisdom, by the results of his vast researches and attainments, by his imperishable legal judgments, and by those juridical disquisitions which have stamped his name, all over the civilized world, with the character of a commanding authority. "vivit, enim, vivetque semper; atque etiam latius in memoria hominum et sermone versabitur, postquam ab oculis recessit." mr. chief justice, there are consolations which arise to mitigate our loss, and shed the influence of resignation over unfeigned and heart-felt sorrow. we are all penetrated with gratitude to god that the deceased lived so long; that he did so much for himself, his friends, the country, and the world; that his lamp went out, at last, without unsteadiness or flickering. he continued to exercise every power of his mind without dimness or obscuration, and every affection of his heart with no abatement of energy or warmth, till death drew an impenetrable veil between us and him. indeed, he seems to us now, as in truth he is, not extinguished or ceasing to be, but only withdrawn; as the clear sun goes down at its setting, not darkened, but only no longer seen. this calamity, mr. chief justice, is not confined to the bar or the courts of this commonwealth. it will be felt by every bar throughout the land, by every court, and indeed by every intelligent and well-informed man in or out of the profession. it will be felt still more widely, for his reputation had a still wider range. in the high court of parliament, in every tribunal in westminster hall, in the judicatories of paris and berlin, of stockholm and st. petersburg, in the learned universities of germany, italy, and spain, by every eminent jurist in the civilized world, it will be acknowledged that a great luminary has fallen from the firmament of public jurisprudence. sir, there is no purer pride of country than that in which we may indulge when we see america paying back the great debt of civilization, learning, and science to europe. in this high return of light for light and mind for mind, in this august reckoning and accounting between the intellects of nations, joseph story was destined by providence to act, and did act, an important part. acknowledging, as we all acknowledge, our obligations to the original sources of english law, as well as of civil liberty, we have seen in our generation copious and salutary streams turning and running backward, replenishing their original fountains, and giving a fresher and a brighter green to the fields of english jurisprudence. by a sort of reversed hereditary transmission, the mother, without envy or humiliation, acknowledges that she has received a valuable and cherished inheritance from the daughter. the profession in england admits with frankness and candor, and with no feeling but that of respect and admiration, that he whose voice we have so recently heard within these walls, but shall now hear no more, was, of all men who have yet appeared, most fitted by the comprehensiveness of his mind, and the vast extent and accuracy of his attainments, to compare the codes of nations, to trace their differences to difference of origin, climate, or religious or political institutions, and to exhibit, nevertheless, their concurrence in those great principles upon which the system of human civilization rests. justice, sir, is the great interest of man on earth. it is the ligament which holds civilized beings and civilized nations together. wherever her temple stands, and so long as it is duly honored, there is a foundation for social security, general happiness, and the improvement and progress of our race. and whoever labors on this edifice with usefulness and distinction, whoever clears its foundations, strengthens its pillars, adorns its entablatures, or contributes to raise its august dome still higher in the skies, connects himself, in name, and fame, and character, with that which is and must be as durable as the frame of human society. all know, mr. chief justice, the pure love of country which animated the deceased, and the zeal, as well as the talent, with which he explained and defended her institutions. his work on the constitution of the united states is one of his most eminently successful labors. but all his writings, and all his judgments, all his opinions, and the whole influence of his character, public and private, leaned strongly and always to the support of sound principles, to the restraint of illegal power, and to the discouragement and rebuke of licentious and disorganizing sentiments. "ad rempublicam firmandam, et ad stabiliendas vires, et sanandum populum, omnis ejus pergebat institutio." but this is not the occasion, sir, nor is it for me to consider and discuss at length the character and merits of mr. justice story, as a writer or a judge. the performance of that duty, with which this bar will no doubt charge itself, must be deferred to another opportunity, and will be committed to abler hands. but in the homage paid to his memory, one part may come with peculiar propriety and emphasis from ourselves. we have known him in private life. we have seen him descend from the bench, and mingle in our friendly circles. we have known his manner of life, from his youth up. we can bear witness to the strict uprightness and purity of his character, his simplicity and unostentatious habits, the ease and affability of his intercourse, his remarkable vivacity amidst severe labors, the cheerful and animating tones of his conversation, and his fast fidelity to friends. some of us, also, can testify to his large and liberal charities, not ostentatious or casual, but systematic and silent,--dispensed almost without showing the hand, and falling and distilling comfort and happiness, like the dews of heaven. but we can testify, also, that in all his pursuits and employments, in all his recreations, in all his commerce with the world, and in his intercourse with the circle of his friends, the predominance of his judicial character was manifest. he never forgot the ermine which he wore. the judge, the judge, the useful and distinguished judge, was the great picture which he kept constantly before his eyes, and to a resemblance of which all his efforts, all his thoughts, all his life, were devoted. we may go the world over, without finding a man who shall present a more striking realization of the beautiful conception of d'aguesseau: "c'est en vain que l'on cherche à distinguer en lui la personne privée et la personne publique; un même esprit les anime, un même objet les réunit; l'homme, le père de famille, le citoyen, tout est en lui consacré à la gloire du magistrat." mr. chief justice, one may live as a conqueror, a king, or a magistrate; but he must die as a man. the bed of death brings every human being to his pure individuality; to the intense contemplation of that deepest and most solemn of all relations, the relation between the creature and his creator. here it is that fame and renown cannot assist us; that all external things must fail to aid us; that even friends, affection, and human love and devotedness, cannot succor us. this relation, the true foundation of all duty, a relation perceived and felt by conscience and confirmed by revelation, our illustrious friend, now deceased, always acknowledged. he reverenced the scriptures of truth, honored the pure morality which they teach, and clung to the hopes of future life which they impart. he beheld enough in nature, in himself, and in all that can be known of things seen, to feel assured that there is a supreme power, without whose providence not a sparrow falleth to the ground. to this gracious being he trusted himself for time and for eternity; and the last words of his lips ever heard by mortal ears were a fervent supplication to his maker to take him to himself. [footnote : the following letter of dedication to the mother of judge story accompanied these remarks in the original edition:-- "_boston, september , ._ "venerable madam,--i pray you to allow me to present to you the brief remarks which i made before the suffolk bar, on the th instant, at a meeting occasioned by the sudden and afflicting death of your distinguished son. i trust, dear madam, that as you enjoyed through his whole life constant proofs of his profound respect and ardent filial affection, so you may yet live long to enjoy the remembrance of his virtues and his exalted reputation. "i am, with very great regard, "your obedient servant, "daniel webster. "to madam story."] the rhode island government. an argument made in the supreme court of the united states, on the th of january, , in the dorr rebellion cases. [the facts necessary to the understanding of these cases are sufficiently set forth in the commencement of mr. webster's argument. the event out of which the cases arose is known in popular language as the _dorr rebellion_. the first case (that of martin luther against luther m. borden and others) came up by writ of error from the circuit court of rhode island, in which the jury, under the rulings of the court (mr. justice story), found a verdict for the defendants; the second case (that of rachel luther against the same defendants) came up by a certificate of a division of opinion. the allegations, evidence, and arguments were the same in both cases. the first case was argued by mr. hallet and mr. clifford (attorney-general) for the plaintiffs in error, and by mr. whipple and mr. webster for the defendants in error. mr. justice catron, mr. justice daniel, and mr. justice mckinley were absent from the court, in consequence of ill health. chief justice taney delivered the opinion of the court, affirming the judgment of the court below in the first case, and dismissing the second for want of jurisdiction. mr. justice woodbury dissented, and delivered a very elaborate opinion in support of his view of the subject.] there is something novel and extraordinary in the case now before the court. all will admit that it is not such a one as is usually presented for judicial consideration. it is well known, that in the years and political agitation existed in rhode island. some of the citizens of that state undertook to form a new constitution of government, beginning their proceedings towards that end by meetings of the people, held without authority of law, and conducting those proceedings through such forms as led them, in , to say that they had established a new constitution and form of government, and placed mr. thomas w. dorr at its head. the previously existing, and then existing, government of rhode island treated these proceedings as nugatory, so far as they went to establish a new constitution; and criminal, so far as they proposed to confer authority upon any persons to interfere with the acts of the existing government, or to exercise powers of legislation, or administration of the laws. all will remember that the state of things approached, if not actual conflict between men in arms, at least the "perilous edge of battle." arms were resorted to, force was used, and greater force threatened. in june, , this agitation subsided. the new government, as it called itself, disappeared from the scene of action. the former government, the charter government, as it was sometimes styled, resumed undisputed control, went on in its ordinary course, and the peace of the state was restored. but the past had been too serious to be forgotten. the legislature of the state had, at an early stage of the troubles, found it necessary to pass special laws for the punishment of the persons concerned in these proceedings. it defined the crime of treason, as well as smaller offences, and authorized the declaration of martial law. governor king, under this authority, proclaimed the existence of treason and rebellion in the state, and declared the state under martial law. this having been done, and the ephemeral government of mr. dorr having disappeared, the grand juries of the state found indictments against several persons for having disturbed the peace of the state, and one against dorr himself for treason. this indictment came on in the supreme court of rhode island in , before a tribunal admitted on all hands to be the legal judicature of the state. he was tried by a jury of rhode island, above all objection, and after all challenge. by that jury, under the instructions of the court, he was convicted of treason, and sentenced to imprisonment for life. now an action is brought in the courts of the united states, and before your honors, by appeal, in which it is attempted to prove that the characters of this drama have been oddly and wrongly cast; that there has been a great mistake in the courts of rhode island. it is alleged, that mr. dorr, instead of being a traitor or an insurrectionist, was the real governor of the state at the time; that the force used by him was exercised in defence of the constitution and laws, and not against them; that he who opposed the constituted authorities was not mr. dorr, but governor king; and that it was _he_ who should have been indicted, and tried, and sentenced. this is rather an important mistake, to be sure, if it be a mistake. "change places," cries poor lear, "_change places_, and _handy-dandy_, which is the justice and which the thief?" so our learned opponents say, "change places, and, _handy-dandy_, which is the governor and which the rebel?" the aspect of the case is, as i have said, novel. it may perhaps give vivacity and variety to judicial investigations. it may relieve the drudgery of perusing briefs, demurrers, and pleas in bar, bills in equity and answers, and introduce topics which give sprightliness, freshness, and something of an uncommon public interest to proceedings in courts of law. however difficult it may be, and i suppose it to be _wholly_ impossible, that this court should take judicial cognizance of the questions which the plaintiff has presented to the court below, yet i do not think it a matter of regret that the cause has come hither. it is said, and truly said, that the case involves the consideration and discussion of what are the true principles of government in our american system of public liberty. this is very right. the case does involve these questions, and harm can never come from their discussion, especially when such discussion is addressed to reason and not to passion; when it is had before magistrates and lawyers, and not before excited masses out of doors. i agree entirely that the case does raise considerations, somewhat extensive, of the true character of our american system of popular liberty; and although i am constrained to differ from the learned counsel who opened the cause for the plaintiff in error, on the principles and character of that american liberty, and upon the true characteristics of that american system on which changes of the government and constitution, if they become necessary, are to be made, yet i agree with him that this case does present them for consideration. now, there are certain principles of public liberty, which, though they do not exist in all forms of government, exist, nevertheless, to some extent, in different forms of government. the protection of life and property, the _habeas corpus_, trial by jury, the right of open trial, these are principles of public liberty existing in their best form in the republican institutions of this country, but, to the extent mentioned, existing also in the constitution of england. our american liberty, allow me to say, therefore, has an ancestry, a pedigree, a history. our ancestors brought to this continent all that was valuable, in their judgment, in the political institutions of england, and left behind them all that was without value, or that was objectionable. during the colonial period they were closely connected of course with the colonial system; but they were englishmen, as well as colonists, and took an interest in whatever concerned the mother country, especially in all great questions of public liberty in that country. they accordingly took a deep concern in the revolution of . the american colonists had suffered from the tyranny of james the second. their charters had been wrested from them by mockeries of law, and by the corruption of judges in the city of london; and in no part of england was there more gratification, or a more resolute feeling, when james abdicated and william came over, than in the american colonies. all know that massachusetts immediately overthrew what had been done under the reign of james, and took possession of the colonial fort in the harbor of boston in the name of the new king. when the united states separated from england, by the declaration of , they departed from the political maxims and examples of the mother country, and entered upon a course more exclusively american. from that day down, our institutions and our history relate to ourselves. through the period of the declaration of independence, of the confederation, of the convention, and the adoption of the constitution, all our public acts are records out of which a knowledge of our system of american liberty is to be drawn. from the declaration of independence, the governments of what had been colonies before were adapted to their new condition. they no longer owed allegiance to crowned heads. no tie bound them to england. the whole system became entirely popular, and all legislative and constitutional provisions had regard to this new, peculiar, american character, which they had assumed. where the form of government was already well enough, they let it alone. where reform was necessary, they reformed it. what was valuable, they retained; what was essential, they added, and no more. through the whole proceeding, from to the latest period, the whole course of american public acts, the whole progress of this american system, was marked by a peculiar conservatism. the object was to do what was necessary, and no more; and to do that with the utmost temperance and prudence. now, without going into historical details at length, let me state what i understand the american principles to be, on which this system rests. first and chief, no man makes a question, that the people are the source of all political power. government is instituted for their good, and its members are their agents and servants. he who would argue against this must argue without an adversary. and who thinks there is any peculiar merit in asserting a doctrine like this, in the midst of twenty millions of people, when nineteen millions nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine of them hold it, as well as himself? there is no other doctrine of government here; and no man imputes to another, and no man should claim for himself, any peculiar merit for asserting what everybody knows to be true, and nobody denies. why, where else can we look but to the people for political power, in a popular government? we have no hereditary executive, no hereditary branch of the legislature, no inherited masses of property, no system of entails, no long trusts, no long family settlements, no primogeniture. every estate in the country, from the richest to the poorest, is divided among sons and daughters alike. alienation is made as easy as possible; everywhere the transmissibility of property is perfectly free. the whole system is arranged so as to produce, as far as unequal industry and enterprise render it possible, a universal equality among men; an equality of rights absolutely, and an equality of condition, so far as the different characters of individuals will allow such equality to be produced. he who considers that there may be, is, or ever has been, since the declaration of independence, any person who looks to any other source of power in this country than the people, so as to give peculiar merit to those who clamor loudest in its assertion, must be out of his mind, even more than don quixote. his imagination was only perverted. he saw things not as they were, though what he saw were things. he saw windmills, and took them to be giants, knights on horseback. this was bad enough; but whoever says, or speaks as if he thought, that anybody looks to any other source of political power in this country than the people, must have a stronger and wilder imagination, for he sees nothing but the creations of his own fancy. he stares at phantoms. well, then, let all admit, what none deny, that the only source of political power in this country is the people. let us admit that they are _sovereign_, for they are so; that is to say, the aggregate community, the collected will of the people, is sovereign. i confess that i think chief justice jay spoke rather paradoxically than philosophically, when he said that this country exhibited the extraordinary spectacle of many sovereigns and no subjects. the people, he said, are all sovereigns; and the peculiarity of the case is that they have no subjects, except a few colored persons. this must be rather fanciful. the aggregate community is sovereign, but that is not _the_ sovereignty which acts in the daily exercise of sovereign power. the people cannot act daily as the people. they must establish a government, and invest it with so much of the sovereign power as the case requires; and this sovereign power being delegated and placed in the hands of the government, that government becomes what is popularly called the state. i like the old-fashioned way of stating things as they are; and this is the true idea of a state. it is an organized government, representing the collected will of the people, as far as they see fit to invest that government with power. and in that respect it is true, that, though _this_ government possesses sovereign power, it does not possess _all_ sovereign power; and so the state governments, though sovereign in some respects, are not so in all. nor could it be shown that the powers of both, as delegated, embrace the whole range of what might be called sovereign power. we usually speak of the states as sovereign states. i do not object to this. but the constitution never so styles them, nor does the constitution speak of the government here as the _general_ or the _federal_ government. it calls this government the united states; and it calls the state governments state governments. still the fact is undeniably so; legislation is a sovereign power, and is exercised by the united states government to a certain extent, and also by the states, according to the forms which they themselves have established, and subject to the provisions of the constitution of the united states. well, then, having agreed that all power is originally from the people, and that they can confer as much of it as they please, the next principle is, that, as the exercise of legislative power and the other powers of government immediately by the people themselves is impracticable, they must be exercised by representatives of the people; and what distinguishes american governments as much as any thing else from any governments of ancient or of modern times, is the marvellous felicity of their representative system. it has with us, allow me to say, a somewhat different origin from the representation of the commons in england, though that has been worked up to some resemblance of our own. the representative system in england had its origin, not in any supposed rights of the people themselves, but in the necessities and commands of the crown. at first, knights and burgesses were summoned, often against their will, to a parliament called by the king. many remonstrances were presented against sending up these representatives; the charge of paying them was, not unfrequently, felt to be burdensome by the people. but the king wished their counsel and advice, and perhaps the presence of a popular body, to enable him to make greater headway against the feudal barons in the aristocratic and hereditary branch of the legislature. in process of time these knights and burgesses assumed more and more a popular character, and became, by degrees, the guardians of popular rights. the people through them obtained protection against the encroachments of the crown and the aristocracy, till in our day they are understood to be the representatives of the people, charged with the protection of their rights. with us it was always just so. representation has always been of this character. the power is with the people; but they cannot exercise it in masses or _per capita_; they can only exercise it by their representatives. the whole system with us has been popular from the beginning. now, the basis of this representation is suffrage. the right to choose representatives is every man's part in the exercise of sovereign power; to have a voice in it, if he has the proper qualifications, is the portion of political power belonging to every elector. that is the beginning. that is the mode in which power emanates from its source, and gets into the hands of conventions, legislatures, courts of law, and the chair of the executive. it begins in suffrage. suffrage is the delegation of the power of an individual to some agent. this being so, then follow two other great principles of the american system. . the first is, that the right of suffrage shall be guarded, protected, and secured against force and against fraud; and, . the second is, that its exercise shall be prescribed by previous law; its qualifications shall be prescribed by previous law; the time and place of its exercise shall be prescribed by previous law; the manner of its exercise, under whose supervision (always sworn officers of the law), is to be prescribed. and then, again, the results are to be certified to the central power by some certain rule, by some known public officers, in some clear and definite form, to the end that two things may be done: first, that every man entitled to vote may vote; second, that his vote may be sent forward and counted, and so he may exercise his part of sovereignty, in common with his fellow-citizens. in the exercise of political power through representatives we know nothing, we never have known any thing, but such an exercise as should take place through the prescribed forms of law. when we depart from that, we shall wander as widely from the american track as the pole is from the track of the sun. i have said that it is one principle of the american system, that the people limit their governments, national and state. they do so; but it is another principle, equally true and certain, and, according to my judgment of things, equally important, that the people often _limit themselves_. they set bounds to their own power. they have chosen to secure the institutions which they establish against the sudden impulses of mere majorities. all our institutions teem with instances of this. it was their great conservative principle, in constituting forms of government, that they should secure what they had established against hasty changes by simple majorities. by the fifth article of the constitution of the united states, congress, two thirds of both houses concurring, may propose amendments of the constitution; or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the states, may call a convention; and amendments proposed in either of these forms must be ratified by the legislatures or conventions of three fourths of the states. the fifth article of the constitution, if it was made a topic for those who framed the "people's constitution" of rhode island, could only have been a matter of reproach. it gives no countenance to any of their proceedings, or to any thing like them. on the contrary, it is one remarkable instance of the enactment and application of that great american principle, that the constitution of government should be cautiously and prudently interfered with, and that changes should not ordinarily be begun and carried through by bare majorities. but the people limit themselves also in other ways. they limit themselves in the first exercise of their political rights. they limit themselves, by all their constitutions, in two important respects; that is to say, in regard to the qualifications of _electors_, and in regard to the qualifications of the _elected_. in every state, and in all the states, the people have precluded themselves from voting for everybody they might wish to vote for; they have limited their own right of choosing. they have said, we will elect no man who has not such and such qualifications. we will not vote ourselves, unless we have such and such qualifications. they have also limited themselves to certain prescribed forms for the conduct of elections. they must vote at a particular place, at a particular time, and under particular conditions, or not at all. it is in these modes that we are to ascertain the will of the american people; and our constitution and laws know no other mode. we are not to take the will of the people from public meetings, nor from tumultuous assemblies, by which the timid are terrified, the prudent are alarmed, and by which society is disturbed. these are not american modes of signifying the will of the people, and they never were. if any thing in the country, not ascertained by a regular vote, by regular returns, and by regular representation, has been established, it is an exception, and not the rule; it is an anomaly which, i believe, can scarcely be found. it is true that at the revolution, when all government was immediately dissolved, the people got together, and what did they do? did they exercise sovereign power? they began an inceptive organization, the object of which was to bring together representatives of the people, who should form a government. this was the mode of proceeding in those states where their legislatures were dissolved. it was much like that had in england upon the abdication of james the second. he ran away, he abdicated. he threw the great seal into the thames. i am not aware that, on the th of may, , any great seal was thrown into providence river! but james abdicated, and king william took the government; and how did he proceed? why, he at once requested all who had been members of the old parliament, of any regular parliament in the time of charles the second, to assemble. the peers, being a standing body, could of course assemble; and all they did was to recommend the calling of a convention, to be chosen by the same electors, and composed of the same numbers, as composed a parliament. the convention assembled, and, as all know, was turned into a parliament. this was a case of necessity, a revolution. don't we call it so? and why? not merely because a new sovereign then ascended the throne of the stuarts, but because there was a change in the organization of the government. the legal and established succession was broken. the convention did not assemble under any preceding law. there was a _hiatus_, a syncope, in the action of the body politic. this was revolution, and the parliaments that assembled afterwards referred their legal origin to that revolution. is it not obvious enough, that men cannot get together and count themselves, and say they are so many hundreds and so many thousands, and judge of their own qualifications, and call themselves the people, and set up a government? why, another set of men, forty miles off, on the same day, with the same propriety, with as good qualifications, and in as large numbers, may meet and set up another government; one may meet at newport and another at chepachet, and both may call themselves the people. what is this but anarchy? what liberty is there here, but a tumultuary, tempestuous, violent, stormy liberty, a sort of south american liberty, without power except in its spasms, a liberty supported by arms to-day, crushed by arms to-morrow? is that _our_ liberty? the regular action of popular power, on the other hand, places upon public liberty the most beautiful face that ever adorned that angel form. all is regular and harmonious in its features, and gentle in its operation. the stream of public authority, under american liberty, running in this channel, has the strength of the missouri, while its waters are as transparent as those of a crystal lake. it is powerful for good. it produces no tumult, no violence, and no wrong;-- "though deep, yet clear; though gentle, yet not dull; strong, without rage; without o'erflowing, full." another american principle growing out of this, and just as important and well settled as is the truth that the people are the source of power, is, that, when in the course of events it becomes necessary to ascertain the will of the people on a new exigency, or a new state of things or of opinion, the legislative power provides for that ascertainment by an ordinary act of legislation. has not that been our whole history? it would take me from now till the sun shall go down to advert to all the instances of it, and i shall only refer to the most prominent, and especially to the establishment of the constitution under which you sit. the old congress, upon the suggestion of the delegates who assembled at annapolis in may, , recommended to the states that they should send delegates to a convention to be holden at philadelphia to form a constitution. no article of the old confederation gave them power to do this; but they did it, and the states did appoint delegates, who assembled at philadelphia, and formed the constitution. it was communicated to the old congress, and that body recommended to the states to make provision for calling the people together to act upon its adoption. was not that exactly the case of passing a law to ascertain the will of the people in a new exigency? and this method was adopted without opposition, nobody suggesting that there could be any other mode of ascertaining the will of the people. my learned friend went through the constitutions of several of the states. it is enough to say, that, of the old thirteen states, the constitutions, with but one exception, contained no provision for their own amendment. in new hampshire there was a provision for taking the sense of the people once in seven years. yet there is hardly one that has not altered its constitution, and it has been done by conventions called by the legislature, as an ordinary exercise of legislative power. now what state ever altered its constitution in any other mode? what alteration has ever been brought in, put in, forced in, or got in anyhow, by resolutions of mass meetings, and then by applying force? in what state has an assembly, calling itself the people, convened without law, without authority, without qualifications, without certain officers, with no oaths, securities, or sanctions of any kind, met and made a constitution, and called it the constitution of the state? there must be some authentic mode of ascertaining the will of the people, else all is anarchy. it resolves itself into the law of the strongest, or, what is the same thing, of the most numerous for the moment, and all constitutions and all legislative rights are prostrated and disregarded. but my learned adversary says, that, if we maintain that the people (for he speaks in the name and on behalf of the people, to which i do not object) cannot commence changes in their government but by some previous act of legislation, and if the legislature will not grant such an act, we do in fact follow the example of the holy alliance, "the doctors of laybach," where the assembled sovereigns said that all changes of government must proceed from sovereigns; and it is said that we mark out the same rule for the people of rhode island. now will any man, will my adversary here, on a moment's reflection, undertake to show the least resemblance on earth between what i have called the american doctrine, and the doctrine of the sovereigns at laybach? what do i contend for? i say that the will of the people must prevail, when it is ascertained; but there must be some legal and authentic mode of ascertaining that will; and then the people may make what government they please. was that the doctrine of laybach? was not the doctrine there held this,--that the _sovereigns_ should say what changes shall be made? changes must proceed from them; new constitutions and new laws emanate from them; and all the people had to do was to submit. that is what they maintained. all changes began with the sovereigns, and ended with the sovereigns. pray, at about the time that the congress of laybach was in session, did the allied powers put it to the people of italy to say what sort of change they would have? and at a more recent date, did they ask the citizens of cracow what change they would have in their constitution? or did they take away their constitution, laws, and liberties, by their own sovereign act? all that is necessary here is, that the will of the people should be ascertained, by some regular rule of proceeding, prescribed by previous law. but when ascertained, that will is as sovereign as the will of a despotic prince, of the czar of muscovy, or the emperor of austria himself, though not quite so easily made known. a ukase or an edict signifies at once the will of a despotic prince; but that will of the people, which is here as sovereign as the will of such a prince, is not so quickly ascertained or known; and thence arises the necessity for suffrage, which is the mode whereby each man's power is made to tell upon the constitution of the government, and in the enactment of laws. one of the most recent laws for taking the will of the people in any state is the law of , of the state of new york. it begins by recommending to the people to assemble in their several election districts, and proceed to vote for delegates to a convention. if you will take the pains to read that act, it will be seen that new york regarded it as an ordinary exercise of legislative power. it applies all the penalties for fraudulent voting, as in other elections. it punishes false oaths, as in other cases. certificates of the proper officers were to be held conclusive, and the will of the people was, in this respect, collected essentially in the same manner, supervised by the same officers, under the same guards against force and fraud, collusion and misrepresentation, as are usual in voting for state or united states officers. we see, therefore, from the commencement of the government under which we live, down to this late act of the state of new york, one uniform current of law, of precedent, and of practice, all going to establish the point that changes in government are to be brought about by the will of the people, assembled under such legislative provisions as may be necessary to ascertain that will, truly and authentically. in the next place, may it please your honors, it becomes very important to consider what bearing the constitution and laws of the united states have upon this rhode island question. of course the constitution of the united states recognizes the existence of states. one branch of the legislature of the united states is composed of senators, appointed by the states, in their state capacities. the constitution of the united states[ ] says that "the united states shall guarantee to each state a republican form of government, and shall protect the several states against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive when the legislature cannot be convened, against domestic violence." now, i cannot but think this a very stringent article, drawing after it the most important consequences, and all of them _good_ consequences. the constitution, in the section cited, speaks of states as having existing legislatures and existing executives; and it speaks of cases in which violence is practised or threatened against the state, in other words, "domestic violence"; and it says the state shall be protected. it says, then, does it not? that the existing government of a state shall be protected. my adversary says, if so, and if the legislature would not call a convention, and if, when the people rise to make a constitution, the united states step in and prohibit them, why, the rights and privileges of the people are checked, controlled. undoubtedly. the constitution does not proceed on the _ground_ of revolution; it does not proceed on any _right_ of revolution; but it does go on the idea, that, within and under the constitution, no new form of government can be established in any state, without the authority of the existing government. admitting the legitimacy of the argument of my learned adversary, it would not authorize the inference he draws from it, because his own case falls within the same range. he has proved, he thinks, that there was an existing government, a paper government, at least; a rightful government, as he alleges. suppose it to be rightful, in his sense of right. suppose three fourths of the people of rhode island to have been engaged in it, and ready to sustain it. what then? how is it to be done without the consent of the previous government? how is the fact, that three fourths of the people are in favor of the new government, to be legally ascertained? and if the existing government deny that fact, and if that government hold on, and will not surrender till displaced by force, and if it is threatened by force, then the case of the constitution arises, and the united states must aid the government that is in, because an attempt to displace a government by force is "domestic violence." it is the exigency provided for by the constitution. if the existing government maintain its post, though three fourths of the state have adopted the new constitution, is it not evident enough that the exigency arises in which the constitutional power here must go to the aid of the existing government? look at the law of th february, .[ ] its words are, "and in case of an insurrection in any state, _against the government thereof_, it shall be lawful for the president of the united states, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection." insurrection against the _existing_ government is, then, the thing to be suppressed. but the law and the constitution, the whole system of american institutions, do not contemplate a case in which a resort will be necessary to proceedings _aliunde_, or outside of the law and the constitution, for the purpose of amending the frame of government. they go on the idea that the states are all republican, that they are all representative in their forms, and that these popular governments in each state, the annually created creatures of the people, will give all proper facilities and necessary aids to bring about changes which the people may judge necessary in their constitutions. they take that ground and act on no other supposition. they assume that the popular will in all particulars will be accomplished. and history has proved that the presumption is well founded. this, may it please your honors, is the view i take of what i have called the american system. these are the methods of bringing about changes in government. now, it is proper to look into this record, and see what the questions are that are presented by it, and consider,-- . whether the case is one for judicial investigation at all; that is, whether this court can try the matters which the plaintiff has offered to prove in the court below; and, . in the second place, whether many things which he did offer to prove, if they could have been and had been proved, were not acts of criminality, and therefore no justification; and, . whether all that was offered to be proved would show that, in point of fact, there had been established and put in operation any new constitution, displacing the old charter government of rhode island. the declaration is in trespass. the writ was issued on the th of october, , in which martin luther complains that luther m. borden and others broke into his house in warren, rhode island, on the th of june, , and disturbed his family and committed other illegal acts. the defendant answers, that large numbers of men were in arms, in rhode island, for the purpose of overthrowing the government of the state, and making war upon it; and that, for the preservation of the government and people, martial law had been proclaimed by the governor, under an act of the legislature, on the th of june, . the plea goes on to aver, that the plaintiff was aiding and abetting this attempt to overthrow the government, and that the defendant was under the military authority of john t. child, and was ordered by him to arrest the plaintiff; for which purpose he applied at the door of his house, and being refused entrance he forced the door. the action is thus for an alleged trespass, and the plea is justification under the law of rhode island. the plea and replications are as usual in such cases in point of form. the plea was filed at the november term of , and the case was tried at the november term of , in the circuit court in rhode island. in order to make out a defence, the defendant offered the charter of rhode island, the participation of the state in the declaration of independence, its uniting with the confederation in , its admission into the union in , its continuance in the union and its recognition as a state down to may, , when the constitution now in force was adopted. here let it be particularly remarked, that congress admitted rhode island into the constitution under this identical old charter government, thereby giving sanction to it as a republican form of government. the defendant then refers to all the laws and proceedings of the assembly, till the adoption of the present constitution of rhode island. to repel the case of the defendant, the plaintiff read the proceedings of the old legislature, and documents to show that the idea of changing the government had been entertained as long ago as . he read also certain resolutions of the assembly in , memorials praying changes in the constitution, and other documents to the same effect. he next offered to prove that suffrage associations were formed throughout the state in and , and that steps were taken by them for holding public meetings; and to show the proceedings had at those meetings. in the next place, he offered to prove that a mass convention was held at newport, attended by over four thousand persons, and another at providence, at which over six thousand attended, at which resolutions were passed in favor of the change. then he offered to prove the election of delegates; the meeting of the convention in october, , and the draughting of the dorr constitution; the reassembling in , the completion of the draught, its submission to the people, their voting upon it, its adoption, and the proclamation on the th of january, , that the constitution so adopted was the law of the land. that is the substance of what was averred as to the formation of the dorr constitution. the plaintiff next offered to prove that the constitution was adopted by a large majority of the qualified voters of the state; that officers were elected under it in april, ; that this new government assembled on the d of may; and he offered a copy of its proceedings. he sets forth that the court refused to admit testimony upon these subjects, and to these points; and ruled that the old government and laws of the state were in full force and power, and then existing, when the alleged trespass was made, and that they justified the acts of the defendants, according to their plea. i will give a few references to other proceedings of this new government. the new constitution was proclaimed on the th of january, , by some of the officers of the convention. on the th of april, officers were appointed under it, and mr. dorr was chosen governor. on tuesday, the d of may, the new legislature met, was organized, and then, it is insisted, the new constitution became the law of the land. the legislature sat through that whole day, morning and evening; adjourned; met the next day, and sat through all that day, morning and evening, and did a great deal of paper business. it went through the forms of choosing a supreme court, and transacting other business of a similar kind, and on the evening of the th of may it adjourned, to meet again on the first monday of july, in providence, "and word spake never more." it never reassembled. this government, then, whatever it was, came into existence on the _third_ day of may, and went out of existence on the _fourth_ day of may. i will now give some references concerning the new constitution authorized by the government, the old government, and which is now the constitution of rhode island. it was framed in november, . it was voted upon by the people on the st, d, and d days of november, was then by them accepted, and became by its own provisions the constitution of rhode island on the first tuesday of may, . now, what, in the mean time, had become of mr. dorr's government? according to the principle of its friends, they are forced to admit that it was superseded by the new, that is to say, the present government, because the people accepted the new government. but there was no new government till may, . according to them, then, there was an _interregnum_ of a whole year. if mr. dorr had had a government, what became of it? if it ever came in, what put it out of existence? why did it not meet on the day to which it had adjourned? it was not displaced by the new constitution, because that had not been agreed upon in convention till november. it was not adopted by the people till the last of november, and it did not go into operation till may. what then had become of mr. dorr's government? i think it is important to note that the new constitution, established according to the prescribed forms, came thus into operation in may, , and was admitted by all to be the constitution of the state. what then happened in the state of rhode island? i do not mean to go through all the trials that were had after this ideal government of mr. dorr ceased to exist; but i will ask attention to the report of the trial of dorr for treason, which took place in , before all the judges of the supreme court of the state. he was indicted in august, , and the trial came on in march, . the indictment was found while the charter government was in force, and the trial was had under the new constitution. he was found guilty of treason. and i turn to the report of the trial now, to call attention to the language of the court in its charge, as delivered by chief justice durfee. i present the following extract from that charge:-- "it may be, gentlemen, that he really believed himself to be the governor of the state, and that he acted throughout under this delusion. however this may go to extenuate the offence, it does not take from it its legal guilt. it is no defence to an indictment for the violation of any law for the defendant to come into court and say, 'i thought that i was but exercising a constitutional right, and i claim an acquittal on the ground of mistake,' were it so, there would be an end to all law and all government. courts and juries would have nothing to do but to sit in judgment upon indictments, in order to acquit or excuse. the accused has only to prove that he has been systematic in committing crime, and that he thought that he had a right to commit it; and, according to this doctrine, you must acquit. the main ground upon which the prisoner sought for a justification was, that a constitution had been adopted by a majority of the male adult population of this state, voting in their primary or natural capacity or condition, and that he was subsequently elected, and did the acts charged, as governor under it. he offered the votes themselves to prove its adoption, which were also to be followed by proof of his election. this evidence we have ruled out. courts and juries, gentlemen, do not count votes to determine whether a constitution has been adopted or a governor elected, or not. courts take notice, without proof offered from the bar, what the constitution is or was, and who is or was the governor of their own state. it belongs to the legislature to exercise this high duty. it is the legislature which, in the exercise of its delegated sovereignty, counts the votes and declares whether a constitution be adopted or a governor elected, or not; and we cannot revise and reverse their acts in this particular, without usurping their power. were the votes on the adoption of our present constitution now offered here to prove that it was or was not adopted; or those given for the governor under it, to prove that he was or was not elected; we could not receive the evidence ourselves, we could not permit it to pass to the jury. and why not? because, if we did so, we should cease to be a mere judicial, and become a political tribunal, with the whole sovereignty in our hands. neither the people nor the legislature would be sovereign. we should be sovereign, or you would be sovereign; and we should deal out to parties litigant, here at our bar, sovereignty to this or that, according to rules or laws of our own making, and heretofore unknown in courts. "in what condition would this country be, if appeals could be thus taken to courts and juries? _this_ jury might decide one way, and _that_ another, and the sovereignty might be found here to-day, and there to-morrow. sovereignty is above courts or juries, and the creature cannot sit in judgment upon its creator. were this instrument offered as the constitution of a foreign state, we might, perhaps, under some circumstances, require proof of its existence; but, even in that case, the fact would not be ascertained by counting the votes given at its adoption, but by the certificate of the secretary of state, under the broad seal of the state. this instrument is not offered as a foreign constitution, and this court is bound to know what the constitution of the government is under which it acts, without any proof even of that high character. we know nothing of the existence of the so-called 'people's constitution' as law, and there is no proof before you of its adoption, and of the election of the prisoner as governor under it; and you can return a verdict only on the evidence that has passed to you." having thus, may it please your honors, attempted to state the questions as they arise, and having referred to what has taken place in rhode island, i shall present what further i have to say in three propositions:-- st. i say, first, that the matters offered to be proved by the plaintiff in the court below are not of judicial cognizance; and proof of them, therefore, was properly rejected by the court. d. if all these matters could be, and had been, legally proved, they would have constituted no defence, because they show nothing but an _illegal_ attempt to overthrow the government of rhode island. d. no proof was offered by the plaintiff to show that, in fact, another government had gone into operation, by which the charter government had become displaced. and first, these matters are not of judicial cognizance. does this need arguing? are the various matters of fact alleged, the meetings, the appointment of committees, the qualifications of voters,--is there any one of all these matters of which a court of law can take cognizance in a case in which it is to decide on sovereignty? are fundamental changes in the frame of a government to be thus proved? the thing to be proved is a change of the sovereign power. two legislatures existed at the same time, both claiming power to pass laws. both could not have a legal existence. what, then, is the attempt of our adversaries? to put down one sovereign government, and to put another up, by facts and proceedings in regard to elections out of doors, unauthorized by any law whatever. regular proceedings for a change of government may in some cases, perhaps, be taken notice of by a court; but this court must look elsewhere than out of doors, and to public meetings, irregular and unauthorized, for the decision of such a question as this. it naturally looks to that authority under which it sits here, to the provisions of the constitution which have created this tribunal, and to the laws by which its proceedings are regulated. it must look to the acts of the government of the united states, in its various branches. this rhode island disturbance, as everybody knows, was brought to the knowledge of the president of the united states[ ] by the public authorities of rhode island; and how did he treat it? the united states have guaranteed to each state a republican form of government. and a law of congress has directed the president, in a constitutional case requiring the adoption of such a proceeding, to call out the militia to put down domestic violence, and suppress insurrection. well, then, application was made to the president of the united states, to the executive power of the united states. for, according to our system, it devolves upon the executive to determine, in the first instance, what are and what are not governments. the president recognizes governments, foreign governments, as they appear from time to time in the occurrences of this changeful world. and the constitution and the laws, if an insurrection exists against the government of any state, rendering it necessary to appear with an armed force, make it his duty to call out the militia and suppress it. two things may here be properly considered. the first is, that the constitution declares that the united states shall protect every state against domestic violence; and the law of , making provision for carrying this constitutional duty into effect in all proper cases, declares, that, "in case of an insurrection in any state against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the president of the united states to call out the militia of other states to suppress such insurrection." these constitutional and legal provisions make it the indispensable duty of the president to decide, in cases of commotion, what is the rightful government of the state. he cannot avoid such decision. and in this case he decided, of course, that the existing government, the charter government, was the rightful government. he could not possibly have decided otherwise. in the next place, if events had made it necessary to call out the militia, and the officers and soldiers of such militia, in protecting the existing government, had done precisely what the defendants in this case did, could an action have been maintained against them? no one would assert so absurd a proposition. in reply to the requisition of the governor, the president stated that he did not think it was yet time for the application of force; but he wrote a letter to the secretary of war, in which he directed him to confer with the governor of rhode island; and, whenever it should appear to them to be necessary, to call out from massachusetts and connecticut a militia force sufficient to _terminate at once_ this insurrection, by the authority of the government of the united states. we are at no loss, therefore, to know how the executive government of the united states treated this insurrection. it was regarded as fit _to be suppressed_. that is manifest from the president's letters to the secretary of war and to governor king. now, the eye of this court must be directed to the proceedings of the general government, which had its attention called to the subject, and which did institute proceedings respecting it. and the court will learn from the proceedings of the executive branch of the government, and of the two chambers above us, how the disturbances in rhode island were regarded; whether they were looked upon as the establishment of any government, or as a mere pure, unauthorized, unqualified _insurrection_ against the authority of the existing government of the state. i say, therefore, that, upon that ground, these facts are not facts which this court can inquire into, or which the court below could try; because they are facts going to prove (if they prove any thing) the establishment of a new sovereignty; and that is a question to be settled elsewhere and otherwise. from the very nature of the case, it is not a question to be decided by judicial inquiry. take, for example, one of the points which it involves. my adversary offered to prove that the constitution was adopted by a majority of the people of rhode island; by a large majority, as he alleges. what does this offer call on your honors to do? why, to ascertain, by proof, what is the number of citizens of rhode island, and how many attended the meetings at which the delegates to the convention were elected; and then you have to add them all up, and prove by testimony the qualifications of every one of them to be an elector. it is enough to state such a proposition to show its absurdity. as none such ever was sustained in a court of law, so none can be or ought to be sustained. observe that minutes of proceedings can be no proof, for they were made by no authentic persons; registers were kept by no warranted officers; chairmen and moderators were chosen without authority. in short, there are no official records; there is no testimony in the case but parol. chief justice durfee has stated this so plainly, that i need not dwell upon it. but, again, i say you cannot look into the facts attempted to be proved, because of the certainty of the continuance of the old government till the new and legal constitution went into effect on the d of may, . to prove that there was another constitution of two days' duration would be ridiculous. and i say that the decision of rhode island herself, by her legislature, by her executive, by the adjudication of her highest court of law, on the trial of dorr, has shut up the whole case. do you propose,--i will not put it in that form,--but would it be proper for this court to reverse that adjudication? that declares that the judges of rhode island know nothing of the "people's constitution." is it possible, then, for this court, or for the court below, to know any thing of it? it appears to me that, if there were nothing else in the case, the proceedings of rhode island herself must close everybody's mouth, in the court and out of it. rhode island is competent to decide the question herself, and everybody else ought to be bound by her decision. and she has decided it. and it is but a branch of this to say, according to my second proposition,-- . that if every thing offered had been proved, if in the nature of the case these facts and proceedings could have been received as proof, the court could not have listened to them, because every one of them is regarded by the state in which they took place as a _criminal_ act. who can derive any authority from acts declared to be criminal? the very proceedings which are now set up here show that this pretended constitution was founded upon acts which the legislature of the state had provided punishment for, and which the courts of the state have punished. all, therefore, which the plaintiff has attempted to prove, are acts which he was not allowed to prove, because they were criminal in themselves, and have been so treated and punished, so far as the state government, in its discretion, has thought proper to punish them. . thirdly, and lastly, i say that there is no evidence offered, nor has any distinct allegation been made, that there was an actual government established and put in operation to displace the charter government, even for a single day. that is evident enough. you find the whole embraced in those two days, the d and th of may. the french revolution was thought to be somewhat rapid. that took _three_ days. but this work was accomplished in two. it is all there, and what is it? its birth, its whole life, and its death were accomplished in forty-eight hours. what does it appear that the members of this government did? why, they voted that a should be treasurer, and c, secretary, and mr. dorr, governor; and chose officers of the supreme court. but did ever any man under that authority attempt to exercise a particle of official power? did any man ever bring a suit? did ever an officer make an arrest? did any act proceed from any member of this government, or from any agent of it, to touch a citizen of rhode island in his person, his safety, or his property, so as to make the party answerable upon an indictment or in a civil suit? never. it never performed one single act of government. it never did a thing in the world! all was patriotism, and all was paper; and with patriotism and with paper it went out on the th of may, admitting itself to be, as all must regard it, a contemptible _sham_! i have now done with the principles involved in this case, and the questions presented on this record. in regard to the other case, i have but few words to say. and, first, i think it is to be regretted that the court below sent up such a list of points on which it was divided. i shall not go through them, and shall leave it to the court to say whether, after they shall have disposed of the first cause, there is any thing left. i shall only draw attention to the subject of martial law; and in respect to that, instead of going back to martial law as it existed in england at the time the charter of rhode island was granted, i shall merely observe that martial law confers power of arrest, of summary trial, and prompt execution; and that when it has been proclaimed, the land becomes a camp, and the law of the camp is the law of the land. mr. justice story defines martial law to be the law of war, a resort to military authority in cases where the civil law is not sufficient; and it confers summary power, not to be used arbitrarily or for the gratification of personal feelings of hatred or revenge, but for the preservation of order and of the public peace. the officer clothed with it is to judge of the degree of force that the necessity of the case may demand; and there is no limit to this, except such as is to be found in the nature and character of the exigency. i now take leave of this whole case. that it is an interesting incident in the history of our institutions, i freely admit. that it has come hither is a subject of no regret to me. i might have said, that i see nothing to complain of in the proceedings of what is called the charter government of rhode island, except that it might perhaps have discreetly taken measures at an earlier period for revising the constitution. if in that delay it erred, it was the error into which prudent and cautious men would fall. as to the enormity of freehold suffrage, how long is it since virginia, the parent of states, gave up her freehold suffrage? how long is it since nobody voted for governor in new york without a freehold qualification? there are now states in which no man can vote for members of the upper branch of the legislature who does not own fifty acres of land. every state requires more or less of a property qualification in its officers and electors; and it is for discreet legislation, or constitutional provisions, to determine what its amount shall be. even the dorr constitution had a property qualification. according to its provisions, for officers of the state, to be sure, anybody could vote; but its authors remembered that taxation and representation go together, and therefore they declared that no man, in any town, should vote to lay a tax for town purposes who had not the means to pay his portion. it said to him, you cannot vote in the town of providence to levy a tax for repairing the streets of providence; but you may vote for governor, and for thirteen representatives from the town of providence, and send them to the legislature, and there they may tax the people of rhode island at their sovereign will and pleasure. i believe that no harm can come of the rhode island agitation in , but rather good. it will purify the political atmosphere from some of its noxious mists, and i hope it will clear men's minds from unfounded notions and dangerous delusions. i hope it will bring them to look at the regularity, the order, with which we carry on what, if the word were not so much abused, i would call our _glorious_ representative system of popular government. its principles will stand the test of this crisis, as they have stood the test and torture of others. they are exposed always, and they always will be exposed, to dangers. there are dangers from the extremes of too much and of too little popular liberty; from monarchy, or military despotism, on one side, and from licentiousness and anarchy on the other. this always will be the case. the classical navigator had been told that he must pass a narrow and dangerous strait: "dextrum scylla latus, laevum implacata charybdis, obsidet." forewarned he was alive to his danger, and knew, by signs not doubtful, where he was, when he approached its scene: "et gemitum ingentem pelagi, pulsataque saxa, audimus longe, fractasque ad litora voces; exsultantque vada, atque aestu miscentur arenae. ... nimirum haec ilia charybdis!" the long-seeing sagacity of our fathers enables us to know equally well where we are, when we hear the voices of tumultuary assemblies, and see the turbulence created by numbers meeting and acting without the restraints of law; and has most wisely provided constitutional means of escape and security. when the established authority of government is openly contemned; when no deference is paid to the regular and authentic declarations of the public will; when assembled masses put themselves above the law, and, calling themselves the people, attempt by force to seize on the government; when the social and political order of the state is thus threatened with overthrow, and the spray of the waves of violent popular commotion lashes the stars,--our political pilots may well cry out: "nimirum haec illa charybdis!" the prudence of the country, the sober wisdom of the people, has thus far enabled us to carry this constitution, and all our constitutions, through the perils which have surrounded them, without running upon the rocks on one side, or being swallowed up in the eddying whirlpools of the other. and i fervently hope that this signal happiness and good fortune will continue, and that our children after us will exercise a similar prudence, and wisdom, and justice; and that, under the divine blessing, our system of free government may continue to go on, with equal prosperity, to the end of time. [footnote : art. iv. § .] [footnote : statutes at large, vol. i. p. .] [footnote : mr. tyler.] objects of the mexican war. a speech delivered in the senate of the united states, on the d of march, , on the bill from the house of representatives for raising a loan of sixteen millions of dollars. [on the d of february, , the treaty called a "treaty of peace, friendship, limits, and settlement, between the united states of america and the mexican republic," was signed at guadalupe hidalgo. this treaty, with the advice and consent of the senate, was ratified by the president of the united states on the th of march. in the mean time, a bill, introduced into the house of representatives on the th of february, to authorize a loan of sixteen millions of dollars for the purpose of carrying on the war, passed through that house, and was considered in the senate. other war measures were considered and adopted by the two houses, after the signature and ratification of the treaty. on the d of march, the sixteen million loan bill being under consideration, mr. webster spoke as follows.] mr. president,--on friday a bill passed the senate for raising ten regiments of new troops for the further prosecution of the war against mexico; and we have been informed that that measure is shortly to be followed, in this branch of the legislature, by a bill to raise twenty regiments of volunteers for the same service. i was desirous of expressing my opinions against the object of these bills, against the supposed necessity which leads to their enactment, and against the general policy which they are apparently designed to promote. circumstances personal to myself, but beyond my control, compelled me to forego, on that day, the execution of that design. the bill now before the senate is a measure for raising money to meet the exigencies of the government, and to provide the means, as well as for other things, for the pay and support of these thirty regiments. sir, the scenes through which we have passed, and are passing, here, are various. for a fortnight the world supposes we have been occupied with the ratification of a treaty of peace, and that within these walls, "the world shut out," notes of peace, and hopes of peace, nay, strong assurances of peace, and indications of peace, have been uttered to console and to cheer us. sir, it has been over and over stated, and is public, that we have ratified a treaty, of course a treaty of peace, and, as the country has been led to suppose, not of an uncertain, empty, and delusive peace, but of real and substantial, a gratifying and an enduring peace, a peace which would stanch the wounds of war, prevent the further flow of human blood, cut off these enormous expenses, and return our friends, and our brothers, and our children, if they be yet living, from the land of slaughter, and the land of still more dismal destruction by climate, to our firesides and our arms. hardly have these halcyon notes ceased upon our ears, when, in resumed public session, we are summoned to fresh warlike operations; to create a new army of thirty thousand men for the further prosecution of the war; to carry the war, in the language of the president, still more dreadfully into the vital parts of the enemy, and to press home, by fire and sword, the claims we make, and the grounds which we insist upon, against our fallen, prostrate, i had almost said, our ignoble enemy. if we may judge from the opening speech of the honorable senator from michigan, and from other speeches that have been made upon this floor, there has been no time, from the commencement of the war, when it has been more urgently pressed upon us, not only to maintain, but to increase, our military means; not only to continue the war, but to press it still more vigorously than at present. pray, what does all this mean? is it, i ask, confessed, then,--is it confessed that we are no nearer a peace than we were when we snatched up this bit of paper called, or miscalled, a treaty, and ratified it? have we yet to fight it out to the utmost, as if nothing pacific had intervened? i wish, sir, to treat the proceedings of this and of every department of the government with the utmost respect. the constitution of this government, and the exercise of its just powers in the administration of the laws under it, have been the cherished object of all my unimportant life. but, if the subject were not one too deeply interesting, i should say our proceedings here may well enough cause a smile. in the ordinary transaction of the foreign relations of this and of all other governments, the course has been to negotiate first, and to ratify afterwards. this seems to be the natural order of conducting intercourse between foreign states. we have chosen to reverse this order. we ratify first, and negotiate afterwards. we set up a treaty, such as we find it and choose to make it, and then send two ministers plenipotentiary to negotiate thereupon in the capital of the enemy. one would think, sir, the ordinary course of proceeding much the juster; that to negotiate, to hold intercourse, and come to some arrangement, by authorized agents, and then to submit that arrangement to the sovereign authority to which these agents are responsible, would be always the most desirable method of proceeding. it strikes me that the course we have adopted is strange, is even _grotesque_. so far as i know, it is unprecedented in the history of diplomatic intercourse. learned gentlemen on the floor of the senate, interested to defend and protect this course, may, in their extensive reading, have found examples of it. i know of none. sir, we are in possession, by military power, of new mexico and california, countries belonging hitherto to the united states of mexico. we are informed by the president that it is his purpose to retain them, to consider them as territory fit to be attached to these united states of america; and our military operations and designs now before the senate are to enforce this claim of the executive of the united states. we are to compel mexico to agree that the part of her dominions called new mexico, and that called california, shall be ceded to us. we are in possession, as is said, and she shall yield her title to us. this is the precise object of this new army of thirty thousand men. sir, it is the identical object, in my judgment, for which the war was originally commenced, for which it has hitherto been prosecuted, and in furtherance of which this treaty is to be used but as one means to bring about this general result; that general result depending, after all, on our own superior power, and on the necessity of submitting to any terms which we may prescribe to fallen, fallen, fallen mexico! sir, the members composing the other house, the more popular branch of the legislature, have all been elected since, i had almost said the fatal, i will say the remarkable, events of the th and th days of may, . the other house has passed a resolution affirming that "the war with mexico was begun unconstitutionally and unnecessarily by the executive government of the united states." i concur in that sentiment; i hold that to be the most recent and authentic expression of the will and opinion of the majority of the people of the united states. there is, sir, another proposition, not so authentically announced hitherto, but, in my judgment, equally true and equally capable of demonstration; and that is, that this war was begun, has been continued, and is now prosecuted, for the great and leading purpose of the acquisition of new territory, out of which to bring new states, with their mexican population, into this our union of the united states. if unavowed at first, this purpose did not remain unavowed long. however often it may be said that we did not go to war for conquest, "credat judaeus apella, non ego," yet the moment we get possession of territory we must retain it and make it our own. now i think that this original object has not been changed, has not been varied. sir, i think it exists in the eyes of those who originally contemplated it, and who began the war for it, as plain, as attractive to them, and from which they no more avert their eyes now than they did then or have done at any time since. we have compelled a treaty of cession; we know in our consciences that it is compelled. we use it as an instrument and an agency, in conjunction with other instruments and other agencies of a more formidable and destructive character, to enforce the cession of mexican territory, to acquire territory for new states to be added to this union. we know, every intelligent man knows, that there is no stronger desire in the breast of a mexican citizen than to retain the territory which belongs to the republic. we know that the mexican people will part with it, if part they must, with regret, with pangs of sorrow. that we know; we know it is all forced; and therefore, because we know it must be forced, because we know that (whether the government, which we consider our creature, do or do not agree to it) the mexican people will never accede to the terms of this treaty but through the impulse of absolute necessity, and the impression made upon them by absolute and irresistible force, therefore we purpose to overwhelm them with another army. we purpose to raise another army of ten thousand regulars and twenty thousand volunteers, and to pour them in and upon the mexican people. now, sir, i should be happy to agree, notwithstanding all this tocsin, and all this cry of all the semproniuses in the land, that _their_ "voices are still for war,"--i should be happy to agree, and substantially i do agree, to the opinion of the senator from south carolina. i think i have myself uttered the sentiment, within a fortnight, to the same effect, that, after all, _the war with mexico is substantially over_, that there can be no more fighting. in the present state of things, my opinion is that the people of this country will not sustain the war. they will not go for its heavy expenses; they will not find any gratification in putting the bayonet to the throats of the mexican people. for my part, i hope the ten regiment bill will never become a law. three weeks ago i should have entertained that hope with the utmost confidence; events instruct me to abate my confidence. i still _hope_ it will not pass. and here, i dare say, i shall be called by some a "mexican whig." the man who can stand up here and say that he hopes that what the administration projects, and the further prosecution of the war with mexico requires, may not be carried into effect, must be an enemy to his country, or what gentlemen have considered the same thing, an enemy to the president of the united states, and to his administration and his party. he is a mexican. sir, i think very badly of the mexican character, high and low, out and out; but names do not terrify me. besides, if i have suffered in this respect, if i have rendered myself subject to the reproaches of these stipendiary presses, these hired abusers of the motives of public men, i have the honor, on this occasion, to be in very respectable company. in the reproachful sense of that term, i don't know a greater mexican in this body than the honorable senator from michigan, the chairman of the committee on military affairs. mr. cass. will the gentleman be good enough to explain what sort of a mexican i am? on the resumption of the bill in the senate the other day, the gentleman told us that its principal object was to frighten mexico; it would touch his humanity too much to hurt her! he would frighten her-- mr. cass. does the gentleman affirm that i said that? yes; twice. mr. cass. no, sir, i beg your pardon, i did not say it. i did not say it would touch my humanity to hurt her. be it so. mr. cass. will the honorable senator allow me to repeat my statement of the object of the bill? i said it was twofold: first, that it would enable us to prosecute the war, if necessary; and, second, that it would show mexico we were prepared to do so; and thus, by its moral effect, would induce her to ratify the treaty. the gentleman said, that the principal object of the bill was to frighten mexico, and that this would be more humane than to harm her. mr. cass. that's true. well, sir, the remarkable characteristic of that speech, that which makes it so much a mexican speech, is, that the gentleman spoke it in the hearing of mexico, as well as in the hearing of this senate. we are accused here, because what we say is heard by mexico, and mexico derives encouragement from what is said here. and yet the honorable member comes forth and tells mexico that the principal object of the bill is to frighten her! the words have passed along the wires; they are on the gulf, and are floating away to vera cruz; and when they get there, they will signify to mexico, "after all, ye good mexicans, my principal object is to frighten you; and to the end that you may not be frightened too much, i have given you this indication of my purpose." but, sir, in any view of this case, in any view of the proper policy of this government, to be pursued according to any man's apprehension and judgment, where is the necessity for this augmentation, by regiments, of the military force of the country? i hold in my hand here a note, which i suppose to be substantially correct, of the present military force of the united states. i cannot answer for its entire accuracy, but i believe it to be substantially according to fact. we have twenty-five regiments of regular troops, of various arms; if full, they would amount to , rank and file, and including officers to , men. these, with the exception of six or seven hundred men, are now all out of the united states and in field service in mexico, or _en route_ to mexico. these regiments are not full; casualties and the climate have sadly reduced their numbers. if the recruiting service were now to yield ten thousand men, it would not more than fill up these regiments, so that every brigadier and colonel and captain should have his appropriate and his full command. here is a call, then, on the country now for the enlistment of ten thousand men, to fill up the regiments in the foreign service of the united states. i understand, sir, that there is a report from general scott; from general scott, a man who has performed the most brilliant campaign on recent military record, a man who has warred against the enemy, warred against the climate, warred against a thousand unpropitious circumstances, and has carried the flag of his country to the capital of the enemy, honorably, proudly, _humanely_, to his own permanent honor, and the great military credit of his country,--general scott; and where is he? at puebla! at puebla, undergoing an inquiry before his inferiors in rank, and other persons without military rank while the high powers he has exercised, and exercised with so much distinction, are transferred to another, i do not say to one unworthy of them, but to one inferior in rank, station, and experience to himself. but general scott reports, as i understand, that, in february, there were twenty thousand regular troops under his command and _en route_, and we have thirty regiments of volunteers for the war. if full, this would make thirty-four thousand men, or, including officers, thirty-five thousand. so that, if the regiments were full, there is at this moment a number of troops, regular and volunteer, of not less than fifty-five or sixty thousand men, including recruits on the way. and with these twenty thousand men in the field, of regular troops, there were also ten thousand volunteers; making, of regulars and volunteers under general scott, thirty thousand men. the senator from michigan knows these things better than i do, but i believe this is very nearly the fact. now all these troops are regularly officered; there is no deficiency, in the line or in the staff, of officers. they are all full. where there is any deficiency it consists of men. now, sir, there may be a plausible reason for saying that there is difficulty in recruiting at home for the supply of deficiency in the volunteer regiments. it may be said that volunteers choose to enlist under officers of their own knowledge and selection; they do not incline to enlist as individual volunteers, to join regiments abroad, under officers of whom they know nothing. there may be something in that; but pray what conclusion does it lead to, if not to this, that all these regiments must moulder away, by casualties or disease, until the privates are less in number than the officers themselves. but however that may be with respect to volunteers, in regard to recruiting for the regular service, in filling up the regiments by pay and bounties according to existing laws, or new laws, if new ones are necessary, there is no reason on earth why we should now create five hundred new officers, for the purpose of getting ten thousand more men. the officers are already there; in that respect there is no deficiency. all that is wanted is men, and there is place for the men; and i suppose no gentleman, here or elsewhere, thinks that recruiting will go on faster than would be necessary to obtain men to fill up the deficiencies in the regiments abroad. but now, sir, what do we want of a greater force than we have in mexico? i am not saying, what do we want of a force greater than we can supply? but, what is the object of bringing these new regiments into the field? what do we propose? there is no army to fight. i suppose there are not five hundred men under arms in any part of mexico; probably not half that number, except in one place. mexico is prostrate. it is not the government that resists us. why, it is notorious that the government of mexico is on our side, that it is an instrument by which we hope to establish such a peace, and accomplish such a treaty, as we like. as far as i understand the matter, the government of mexico owes its life and breath and being to the support of our arms, and to the hope, i do not say how inspired, that somehow or other, and at no distant period, she will have the pecuniary means of carrying it on, from our three millions, or our twelve millions, or from some of our other millions. what do we propose to do, then, with these thirty regiments which it is designed to throw into mexico? are we going to cut the throats of her people? are we to thrust the sword deeper and deeper into the "vital parts" of mexico? what is it proposed to do? sir, i can see no object in it; and yet, while we are pressed and urged to adopt this proposition to raise ten and twenty regiments, we are told, and the public is told, and the public believes, that we are on the verge of a safe and an honorable peace. every one looks every morning for tidings of a confirmed peace, or of confirmed hopes of peace. we gather it from the administration, and from every organ of the administration from dan to beersheba. and yet warlike preparations, the incurring of expenses, the imposition of new charges upon the treasury, are pressed here, as if peace were not in all our thoughts, at least not in any of our expectations. now, sir, i propose to hold a plain talk to-day; and i say that, according to my best judgment, the object of the bill is patronage, office, the gratification of friends. this very measure for raising ten regiments creates four or five hundred officers; colonels, subalterns, and not them only, for for all these i feel some respect, but there are also paymasters, contractors, persons engaged in the transportation service, commissaries, even down to sutlers, _et id genus omne_, people who handle the public money without facing the foe, one and all of whom are true descendants, or if not, true representatives, of ancient pistol, who said, "i shall sutler be unto the camp, and profits will accrue." sir, i hope, with no disrespect for the applicants, and the aspirants, and the patriots (and among them are some sincere patriots) who would fight for their country, and those others who are not ready to fight, but who are willing to be paid,--with due respect for all of them according to their several degrees and their merits, i hope they will all be disappointed. i hope that, as the pleasant season advances, the whole may find it for their interest to place themselves, of mild mornings, in the cars, and take their destination to their respective places of honorable private occupation and of civil employment. they have my good wishes that they may find the way to their homes from the avenue and the capitol, and from the purlieus of the president's house, in good health themselves, and that they may find their families all very happy to receive them. but, sir, to speak more seriously, this war was waged for the object of creating new states, on the southern frontier of the united states, out of mexican territory, and with such population as could be found resident thereupon. i have opposed this object. i am against all accessions of territory to form new states. and this is no matter of sentimentality, which i am to parade before mass meetings or before my constituents at home. it is not a matter with me of declamation, or of regret, or of expressed repugnance. it is a matter of firm, unchangeable purpose. i yield nothing to the force of circumstances that have occurred, or that i can consider as likely to occur. and therefore i say, sir, that, if i were asked to-day whether, for the sake of peace, i would take a treaty for adding two new states to the union on our southern border, i would say, _no!_ distinctly, no! and i wish every man in the united states to understand that to be my judgment and my purpose. i said upon our _southern_ border, because the present proposition takes that locality. i would say the same of the western, the northeastern, or of any other border. i resist to-day, and for ever, and to the end, any proposition to add any foreign territory, south or west, north or east, to the states of this union, as they are constituted and held together under the constitution. i do not want the colonists of england on the north; and as little do i want the population of mexico on the south. i resist and reject all, and all with equal resolution. therefore i say, that, if the question were put to me to-day, whether i would take peace under the present state of the country, distressed as it is, during the existence of a war odious as this is, under circumstances so afflictive as now exist to humanity, and so disturbing to the business of those whom i represent,--i say still, if it were put to me whether i would have peace, with new states, i would say, no! no! and that because, sir, in my judgment, there is no necessity of being driven into that dilemma. other gentlemen think differently. i hold no man's conscience; but i mean to make a clean breast of it myself; and i protest that i see no reason, i believe there is none, why we cannot obtain as safe a peace, as honorable and as prompt a peace, without territory as with it. the two things are separable. there is no necessary connection between them. mexico does not wish us to take her territory, while she receives our money. far from it. she yields her assent, if she yields it at all, reluctantly, and we all know it. it is the result of force, and there is no man here who does not know that. and let me say, sir, that, if this trist paper shall finally be rejected in mexico, it is most likely to be because those who under our protection hold the power there cannot persuade the mexican congress or people to agree to this cession of territory. the thing most likely to break up what we now expect to take place is the repugnance of the mexican people to part with their territory. they would prefer to keep their territory, and that we should keep our money; as i prefer we should keep our money, and they their territory. we shall see. i pretend to no powers of prediction. i do not know what may happen. the times are full of strange events. but i think it certain that, if the treaty which has gone to mexico shall fail to be ratified, it will be because of the aversion of the mexican congress, or the mexican people, to cede the territory, or any part of it, belonging to their republic. i have said that i would rather have no peace for the present, than have a peace which brings territory for new states; and the reason is, that we shall get peace as soon without territory as with it, more safe, more durable, and vastly more honorable to us, the great republic of the world. but we hear gentlemen say, we must have some territory, the people demand it. i deny it; at least, i see no proof of it whatever. i do not doubt that there are individuals of an enterprising character, disposed to emigrate, who know nothing about new mexico but that it is far off, and nothing about california but that it is still farther off, who are tired of the dull pursuits of agriculture and of civil life; that there are hundreds and thousands of such persons to whom whatsoever is new and distant is attractive. they feel the spirit of borderers; and the spirit of a borderer, i take it, is to be tolerably contented with his condition where he is, until somebody goes to regions beyond him; and then he is all eagerness to take up his traps and go still farther than he who has thus got in advance of him. with such men the desire to emigrate is an irresistible passion. at least so thought that sagacious observer of human nature, m. de talleyrand, when he travelled in this country in . but i say i do not find anywhere any considerable and respectable body of persons who want more territory, and such territory. twenty-four of us last year in this house voted against the prosecution of the war for territory, because we did not want it, both southern and northern men. i believe the southern gentlemen who concurred in that vote found themselves, even when they had gone against what might be supposed to be local feelings and partialities, sustained on the general policy of not seeking territory, and by the acquisition of territory bringing into our politics certain embarrassing and embroiling questions and considerations. i do not learn that they suffered from the advocacy of such a sentiment. i believe they were supported in it; and i believe that through the greater part of the south, and even of the southwest, there is no prevalent opinion in favor of acquiring territory, and such territory, and of the augmentation of our population by such an accession. and such, i need not say, is, if not the undivided, the preponderating sentiment of all the north. but it is said we must take territory for the sake of peace. we must take territory. it is the will of the president. if we do not now take what he offers, we may fare worse. mr. polk will take no less, that he is fixed upon, he is immovable. he--has--put--down--his--foot! well, sir, he put it down upon "fifty-four forty," but it didn't stay. i speak of the president, as of all presidents, without disrespect. i know of no reason why his opinion and his will, his purpose, declared to be final, should control us, any more than our purpose, from equally conscientious motives, and under as high responsibilities, should control him. we think he is firm, and will not be moved. i should be sorry, sir, very sorry indeed, that we should entertain more respect for the firmness of the individual at the head of the government than we entertain for our own firmness. he stands out against us. do we fear to stand out against him? for one, i do not. it appears to me to be a slavish doctrine. for one, i am willing to meet the issue, and go to the people all over this broad land. shall we take peace without new states, or refuse peace without new states? i will stand upon that, and trust the people. and i do that because i think it right, and because i have no distrust of the people. i am not unwilling to put it to their sovereign decision and arbitration. i hold this to be a question vital, permanent, elementary, in the future prosperity of the country and the maintenance of the constitution; and i am willing to trust that question to the people. i prefer that it should go to them, because, if what i take to be a great constitutional principle, or what is essential to its maintenance, is to be broken down, let it be the act of the people themselves; it shall never be my act. i, therefore, do not distrust the people. i am willing to take their sentiment, from the gulf to the british provinces, and from the ocean to the missouri: will you continue the war for territory, to be purchased, after all, at an enormous price, a price a thousand times the value of all its purchases, or take peace, contenting yourselves with the honor we have reaped by the military achievements of the army? will you take peace without territory, and preserve the integrity of the constitution of the country? i am entirely willing to stand upon that question. i will therefore take the issue: _peace, with no new states, keeping our own money ourselves, or war till new states shall be acquired, and vast sums paid._ that is the true issue. i am willing to leave that before the people and to the people, because it is a question for themselves. if they support me and think with me, very well. if otherwise, if they will have territory and add new states to the union, let them do so; and let them be the artificers of their own fortune, for good or for evil. but, sir, we tremble before executive power. the truth cannot be concealed. we tremble before executive power! mr. polk will take no less than this. if we do not take this, the king's anger may kindle, and he will give us what is worse. but now, sir, who and what is mr. polk? i speak of him with no manner of disrespect. i mean, thereby, only to ask who and what is the president of the united states for the current moment. he is in the last year of his administration. formally, officially, it can only be drawn out till the fourth of march, while really and substantially we know that two short months will, or may, produce events that will render the duration of that official term of very little importance. we are on the eve of a presidential election. that machinery which is employed to collect public opinion or party opinion will be put in operation two months hence. we shall see its result. it may be that the present incumbent of the presidential office will be again presented to his party friends and admirers for their suffrages for the next presidential term. i do not say how probable or improbable this is. perhaps it is not entirely probable. suppose this not to be the result, what then? why, then mr. polk becomes as absolutely insignificant as any respectable man among the public men of the united states. honored in private life, valued for his private character, respectable, never eminent, in public life, he will, from the moment a new star arises, have just as little influence as you or i; and, so far as i am concerned, that certainly is little enough. sir, political partisans, and aspirants, and office-seekers, are not sunflowers. they do not "turn to their god when he sets the same look which they turned when he rose." no, sir, if the respectable gentleman now at the head of the government be nominated, there will be those who will commend his consistency, who will be bound to maintain it, for the interest of his party friends will require it. it will be done. if otherwise, who is there in the whole length and breadth of the land that will care for the consistency of the present incumbent of the office? there will then be new objects. "manifest destiny" will have pointed out some other man. sir, the eulogies are now written, the commendations are already elaborated. i do not say every thing fulsome, but every thing panegyrical, has already been written out, with _blanks_ for names, to be filled when the convention shall adjourn. when "manifest destiny" shall be unrolled, all these strong panegyrics, wherever they may light, made beforehand, laid up in pigeon-holes, studied, framed, emblazoned, and embossed, will all come out; and then there will be found to be somebody in the united states whose merits have been strangely overlooked, marked out by providence, a kind of miracle, while all will wonder that nobody ever thought of him before, as a fit, and the only fit, man to be at the head of this great republic! i shrink not, therefore, from any thing that i feel to be my duty, from any apprehension of the importance and imposing dignity, and the power of will, ascribed to the present incumbent of office. but i wish we possessed that power of will. i wish we had that firmness. yes, sir, i wish we had adherence. i wish we could gather something from the spirit of our brave forces, who have met the enemy under circumstances most adverse and have stood the shock. i wish we could imitate zachary taylor in his bivouac on the field of buena vista. he said he "would remain for the night; he would feel the enemy in the morning, and try his position." i wish, before we surrender, we could make up _our_ minds to "_feel_ the enemy, and try his position," and i think we should find him, as taylor did, under the early sun, on his way to san luis potosi. that is my judgment. but, sir, i come to the all-absorbing question, more particularly, of the creation of new states. some years before i entered public life, louisiana had been obtained under the treaty with france. shortly after, florida was obtained under the treaty with spain. these two countries were situated on our frontier, and commanded the outlets of the great rivers which flow into the gulf. as i have had occasion to say, in the first of these instances, the president of the united states[ ] supposed that an amendment of the constitution was required. he acted upon that supposition. mr. madison was secretary of state, and, upon the suggestion of the president, proposed that the proper amendment to the constitution should be submitted, to bring louisiana into the union. mr. madison drew it, and submitted it to mr. adams, as i have understood. mr. madison did not go upon any general idea that new states might be admitted; he did not proceed to a general amendment of the constitution in that respect. the amendment which he proposed and submitted to mr. adams was a simple declaration, by a new article, that "the province of louisiana is hereby declared to be part and parcel of the united states." but public opinion, seeing the great importance of the acquisition, took a turn favorable to the affirmation of the power. the act was acquiesced in, and louisiana became a part of the union, without any amendment of the constitution. on the example of louisiana, florida was admitted. now, sir, i consider those transactions as passed, settled, legalized. there they stand as matters of political history. they are facts against which it would be idle at this day to contend. my first agency in matters of this kind was upon the proposition for admitting texas into this union. that i thought it my duty to oppose, upon the general ground of opposing all formation of new states out of foreign territory, and, i may add, and i ought to add in justice, of states in which slaves were to be represented in the congress of the united states. i was opposed to this on the ground of its inequality. it happened to me, sir, to be called upon to address a political meeting in new york, in , soon after the recognition of texan independence. i state now, sir, what i have often stated before, that no man, from the first, has been a more sincere well-wisher to the government and the people of texas than myself. i looked upon the achievement of their independence in the battle of san jacinto as an extraordinary, almost a marvellous, incident in the affairs of mankind. i was among the first disposed to acknowledge her independence. but from the first, down to this moment, i have opposed, as far as i was able, the annexation of new states to this union. i stated my reasons on the occasion now referred to, in language which i have now before me, and which i beg to present to the senate. mr. webster here read the passage from his speech at niblo's saloon, new york, which will be found in a previous part of this work, pages , , beginning, "but it cannot be disguised, gentlemen, that a desire, or an intention, is already manifested to annex texas to the united states." well, sir, for a few years i held a position in the executive administration of the government. i left the department of state in , in the month of may. within a month after, another (an intelligent gentleman, for whom i cherished a high respect, and who came to a sad and untimely end) had taken my place, i had occasion to know, not officially, but from circumstances, that the annexation of texas was taken up by mr. tyler's administration as an administration measure. it was pushed, pressed, insisted on; and i believe the honorable gentleman to whom i have referred[ ] had something like a passion for the accomplishment of this purpose. and i am afraid that the president of the united states[ ] at that time suffered his ardent feelings not a little to control his more prudent judgment. at any rate, i saw, in , that annexation had become a purpose of the administration. i was not in congress nor in public life. but, seeing this state of things, i thought it my duty to admonish the country, so far as i could, of the existence of that purpose. there are gentlemen at the north, many of them, there are gentlemen now in the capitol, who know that, in the summer of , being fully persuaded that this purpose was embraced with zeal and determination by the executive department of the government of the united states, i thought it my duty, and asked them to concur with me in the attempt, to make that purpose known to the country. i conferred with gentlemen of distinction and influence. i proposed means for exciting public attention to the question of annexation, before it should have become a party question; for i had learned that, when any topic becomes a party question, it is in vain to argue upon it. but the optimists and the quietists, and those who said, all things are well, and let all things alone, discouraged, discountenanced, and repressed any such effort. the north, they said, could take care of itself; the country could take care of itself, and would not sustain mr. tyler in his project of annexation. when the time should come, they said, the power of the north would be felt, and would be found sufficient to resist and prevent the consummation of the measure. and i could now refer to paragraphs and articles in the most respectable and leading journals of the north, in which it was attempted to produce the impression that there was no danger; there could be no addition of new states, and men need not alarm themselves about that. i was not in congress, sir, when the preliminary resolutions, providing for the annexation of texas, passed. i only know that, up to a very short period before the passage of those resolutions, the impression in that part of the country of which i have spoken was, that no such measure could be adopted. but i have found, in the course of thirty years' experience, that whatever measures the executive government may embrace and push are quite likely to succeed in the end. there is always a giving way somewhere. the executive government acts with uniformity, with steadiness, with entire unity of purpose. and sooner or later, often enough, and, according to my construction of our history, quite too often, it effects its purposes. in this way it becomes the predominating power of the government. well, sir, just before the commencement of the present administration, the resolutions for the annexation of texas were passed in congress. texas complied with the provisions of those resolutions, and was here, or the case was here, on the d day of december, , for her final admission into the union, as one of the states. i took occasion then to say, that i hoped i had shown all proper regard for texas; that i had been certainly opposed to annexation; that, if i should go over the whole matter again, i should have nothing new to add; that i had acted, all along, under the unanimous declaration of all parties, and of the legislature of massachusetts; that i thought there must be some limit to the extent of our territories, and that i wished this country should exhibit to the world the example of a powerful republic, without greediness and hunger of empire. and i added, that while i held, with as much faithfulness as any citizen of the country, to all the original arrangements and compromises of the constitution under which we live, i never could, and i never should, bring myself to be in favor of the admission of any states into the union as slave-holding states; and i might have added, any states at all, to be formed out of territories not now belonging to us. now, as i have said, in all this i acted under the resolutions of the state of massachusetts, certainly concurrent with my own judgment, so often repeated, and reaffirmed by the unanimous consent of all men of all parties, that i could not well go through the series, pointing out, not only the impolicy, but the unconstitutionality, of such annexation. if a state proposes to come into the union, and to come in as a slave state, then there is an augmentation of the inequality in the representation of the people; an inequality already existing, with which i do not quarrel, and which i never will attempt to alter, but shall preserve as long as i have a vote to give, or any voice in this government, because it is a part of the original compact. let it stand. but then there is another consideration of vastly more general importance even than that; more general, because it affects all the states, free and slave-holding; and it is, that, if states formed out of territories thus thinly populated come into the union, they necessarily and inevitably break up the relation existing between the two branches of the government, and destroy its balance. they break up the intended relation between the senate and the house of representatives. if you bring in new states, any state that comes in must have two senators. she may come in with fifty or sixty thousand people, or more. you may have, from a particular state, more senators than you have representatives. can any thing occur to disfigure and derange the form of government under which we live more signally than that? here would be a senate bearing no proportion to the people, out of all relation to them, by the addition of new states; from some of them only one representative, perhaps, and two senators, whereas the larger states may have ten, fifteen, or even thirty representatives, and but two senators. the senate, augmented by these new senators coming from states where there are few people, becomes an odious oligarchy. it holds power without any adequate constituency. sir, it is but "borough-mongering" upon a large scale. now, i do not depend upon theory; i ask the senate and the country to look at facts, to see where we were when we made our departure three years ago, and where we now are; and i leave it to the imagination to conjecture where we shall be. we admitted texas,--one state for the present; but, sir, if you refer to the resolutions providing for the annexation of texas, you find a provision that it shall be in the power of congress hereafter to make four new states out of texan territory. present and prospectively, five new states, with ten senators, may come into the union out of texas. three years ago we did this; we now propose to make two states. undoubtedly, if we take, as the president recommends, new mexico and california, there must then be four new senators. we shall then have provided, in these territories out of the united states along our southern borders, for the creation of states enough to send fourteen senators into this chamber. now, what will be the relation between these senators and the people they represent, or the states from which they come? i do not understand that there is any very accurate census of texas. it is generally supposed to contain one hundred and fifty thousand persons. i doubt whether it contains above one hundred thousand. mr. mangum. it contains one hundred and forty-nine thousand. my honorable friend on my left says, a hundred and forty-nine thousand. i put it down, then, one hundred and fifty thousand. well, sir, texas is not destined, probably, to be a country of dense population. we will suppose it to have at the present time a population of near one hundred and fifty thousand. new mexico may have sixty or seventy thousand inhabitants; say seventy thousand. in california, there are not supposed to be above twenty-five thousand men; but undoubtedly, if this territory should become ours, persons from oregon, and from our western states, will find their way to san francisco, where there is some good land, and we may suppose they will shortly amount to sixty or seventy thousand. we will put them down at seventy thousand. then the whole territory in this estimate, which is as high as any man puts it, will contain two hundred and ninety thousand persons, and they will send us, whenever we ask for them, fourteen senators; a population less than that of the state of vermont, and not the eighth part of that of new york. fourteen senators, and not as many people as vermont, and no more people than new hampshire! and not so many people as the good state of new jersey! but then, sir, texas claims to the line of the rio grande, and if it be her true line, why then of course she absorbs a considerable part, nay, the greater part, of the population of what is now called new mexico. i do not argue the question of the true southern or western line of texas; i only say, that it is apparent to everybody who will look at the map, and learn any thing of the matter, that new mexico cannot be divided by this river, the rio grande, which is a shallow, fordable, insignificant stream, creeping along through a narrow valley, at the base of enormous mountains. new mexico must remain together; it must be a state, with its seventy thousand people, and so it will be; and so will california. but then, sir, suppose texas to remain a unit, and but one state for the present; still we shall have three states, texas, new mexico, and california. we shall have six senators, then, for less than three hundred thousand people. we shall have as many senators for three hundred thousand people in that region as we have for new york, pennsylvania, and ohio, with four or five millions of people; and that is what we call an equal representation! is not this enormous? have gentlemen considered this? have they looked at it? are they willing to look it in the face, and then say they embrace it? i trust, sir, the people will look at it and consider it. and now let me add, that this disproportion can never be diminished; it must remain for ever. how are you going to diminish it? why, here is texas, with a hundred and forty-nine thousand people, with one state. suppose that population should flow into texas, where will it go? not to any dense point, but to be spread over all that region, in places remote from the gulf, in places remote from what is now the capital of texas; and therefore, as soon as there are in other portions of texas people enough within our common construction of the constitution and our practice in respect to the admission of states, my honorable friend from texas[ ] will have a new state, and i have no doubt he has chalked it out already. as to new mexico, its population is not likely to increase. it is a settled country; the people living along in the bottom of the valley on the sides of a little stream, a garter of land only on one side and the other, filled by coarse landholders and miserable _peons_. it can sustain, not only under this cultivation, but under any cultivation that our american race would ever submit to, no more people than are there now. there will, then, be two senators for sixty thousand inhabitants in new mexico to the end of our lives and to the end of the lives of our children. and how is it with california? we propose to take california, from the forty-second degree of north latitude down to the thirty-second. we propose to take ten degrees along the coast of the pacific. scattered along the coast for that great distance are settlements and villages and ports; and in the rear all is wilderness and barrenness, and indian country. but if, just about san francisco, and perhaps monterey, emigrants enough should settle to make up one state, then the people five hundred miles off would have another state. and so this disproportion of the senate to the people will go on, and must go on, and we cannot prevent it. i say, sir, that, according to my conscientious conviction, we are now fixing on the constitution of the united states, and its frame of government, a monstrosity, a disfiguration, an enormity! sir, i hardly dare trust myself. i don't know but i may be under some delusion. it may be the weakness of my eyes that forms this monstrous apparition. but, if i may trust myself, if i can persuade myself that i am in my right mind, then it does appear to me that we in this senate have been and are acting, and are likely to be acting hereafter, and immediately, a part which will form the most remarkable epoch in the history of our country. i hold it to be enormous, flagrant, an outrage upon all the principles of popular republican government, and on the elementary provisions of the constitution under which we live, and which we have sworn to support. but then, sir, what relieves the case from this enormity? what is our reliance? why, it is that we stipulate that these new states shall only be brought in at a suitable time. and pray, what is to constitute the suitableness of time? who is to judge of it? i tell you, sir, that suitable time will come when the preponderance of party power here makes it necessary to bring in new states. be assured it will be a suitable time when votes are wanted in this senate. we have had some little experience of that. texas came in at a "suitable time," a _very_ suitable time! texas was finally admitted in december, . my friend near me here, for whom i have a great regard, and whose acquaintance i have cultivated with pleasure,[ ] took his seat in march, , with his colleague. in july, , these two texan votes turned the balance in the senate, and overthrew the tariff of , in my judgment the best system of revenue ever established in this country. gentlemen on the opposite side think otherwise. they think it fortunate. they think that was a suitable time, and they mean to take care that other times shall be equally suitable. i understand it perfectly well. that is the difference of opinion between me and these honorable gentlemen. to their policy, their objects, and their purposes the time was _suitable_, and the aid was efficient and decisive. sir, in perhaps a similar question may be agitated here. it is not likely to be before that time, but agitated it will be then, unless a change in the administration of the government shall take place. according to my apprehension, looking at general results as flowing from our established system of commerce and revenue, in two years from this time we shall probably be engaged in a new revision of our system: in the work of establishing, if we can, a tariff of specific duties; of protecting, if we can, our domestic industry and the manufactures of the country; in the work of preventing, if we can, the overwhelming flood of foreign importations. suppose that to be part of the future: that would be exactly the "suitable time," if necessary, for two senators from new mexico to make their appearance here! but, again, we hear another halcyon, soothing tone, which quiets none of my alarms, assuages none of my apprehensions, commends me to my nightly rest with no more resignation. and that is, the plea that we may trust the popular branch of the legislature, we may look to the house of representatives, to the northern and middle states and even the sound men of the south, and trust them to take care that states be not admitted sooner than they should be, or for party purposes. i am compelled, by experience, to distrust all such reliances. if we cannot rely on ourselves, when we have the clear constitutional authority competent to carry us through, and the motives intensely powerful, i beg to know how we can rely on others. have we more reliance on the patriotism, the firmness, of others, than on our own? besides, experience shows us that things of this sort may be _sprung_ upon congress and the people. it was so in the case of texas. it was so in the twenty-eighth congress. the members of that congress were not chosen to decide the question of annexation or no annexation. they came in on other grounds, political and party, and were supported for reasons not connected with that question. what then? the administration sprung upon them the question of annexation. it obtained a _snap_ judgment upon it, and carried the measure of annexation. that is indubitable, as i could show by many instances, of which i shall state only one. four gentlemen from the state of connecticut were elected before the question arose, belonging to the dominant party. they had not been here long before they were committed to annexation; and when it was known in connecticut that annexation was in contemplation, remonstrances, private, public, and legislative, were uttered, in tones that any one could hear who could hear thunder. did they move them? not at all. every one of them voted for annexation! the election came on, and they were turned out, to a man. but what did those care who had had the benefit of their votes? such agencies, if it be not more proper to call them such instrumentalities, retain respect no longer than they continue to be useful. sir, we take new mexico and california; who is weak enough to suppose that there is an end? don't we hear it avowed every day, that it would be proper also to take sonora, tamaulipas, and other provinces of northern mexico? who thinks that the hunger for dominion will stop here of itself? it is said, to be sure, that our present acquisitions will prove so lean and unsatisfactory, that we shall seek no further. in my judgment, we may as well say of a rapacious animal, that, if he has made one unproductive hunt, he will not try for a better foray. but further. there are some things one can argue against with temper, and submit to, if overruled, without mortification. there are other things that seem to affect one's consciousness of being a sensible man, and to imply a disposition to impose upon his common sense. and of this class of topics, or pretences, i have never heard of any thing, and i cannot conceive of any thing, more ridiculous in itself, more absurd, and more affrontive to all sober judgment, than the cry that we are getting indemnity by the acquisition of new mexico and california. i hold they are not worth a dollar; and we pay for them vast sums of money! we have expended, as everybody knows, large treasures in the prosecution of the war; and now what is to constitute this indemnity? what do gentlemen mean by it? let us see a little how this stands. we get a country; we get, in the first instance, a cession, or an acknowledgment of boundary, (i care not which way you state it,) of the country between the nueces and the rio grande. what this country is appears from a publication made by a gentleman in the other house.[ ] he speaks of the country in the following manner:-- "the country from the nueces to the valley of the rio grande is poor, sterile, sandy, and barren, with not a single tree of any size or value on our whole route. the only tree which we saw was the musquit-tree, and very few of these. the musquit is a small tree, resembling an old and decayed peach-tree. the whole country may be truly called a perfect waste, uninhabited and uninhabitable. there is not a drop of running water between the two rivers, except in the two small streams of san salvador and santa gertrudis, and these only contain water in the rainy season. neither of them had running water when we passed them. the _chaparral_ commences within forty or fifty miles of the rio grande. this is poor, rocky, and sandy; covered with prickly-pear, thistles, and almost every sticking thing, constituting a thick and perfectly impenetrable undergrowth. for any useful or agricultural purpose, the country is not worth a _sous_. "so far as we were able to form any opinion of this desert upon the other routes which had been travelled, its character, everywhere between the two rivers, is pretty much the same. we learned that the route pursued by general taylor, south of ours, was through a country similar to that through which we passed; as also was that travelled by general wool from san antonio to presidio on the rio grande. from what we both saw and heard, the whole command came to the conclusion which i have already expressed, that it was worth _nothing_. i have no hesitation in saying, that i would not hazard the life of one valuable and useful man for every foot of land between san patricio and the valley of the rio grande. the country is not now, and can never be, of the _slightest value_." major gaines has been there lately. he is a competent observer. he is contradicted by nobody. and so far as that country is concerned, i take it for granted that it is not worth a dollar. now of new mexico, what of that! forty-nine fiftieths, at least, of the whole of new mexico, are a barren waste, a desert plain of mountain, with no wood, no timber. little fagots for lighting a fire are carried thirty or forty miles on mules. there is no fall of rain there, as in temperate climates. it is asiatic in scenery altogether: enormously high mountains, running up some of them ten thousand feet, with narrow valleys at their bases, through which streams sometimes trickle along. a strip, a garter, winds along, through which runs the rio grande, from far away up in the rocky mountains to latitude °, a distance of three or four hundred miles. there these sixty thousand persons reside. in the mountains on the right and left are streams which, obeying the natural tendency as tributaries, should flow into the rio grande, and which, in certain seasons, when rains are abundant, do, some of them, actually reach the rio grande; while the greater part always, and all for the greater part of the year, never reach an outlet to the sea, but are absorbed in the sands and desert plains of the country. there is no cultivation there. there is cultivation where there is artificial watering or irrigation, and nowhere else. men can live only in the narrow valley, and in the gorges of the mountains which rise round it, and not along the course of the streams which lose themselves in the sands. now there is no public domain in new mexico, not a foot of land, to the soil of which we shall obtain title. not an acre becomes ours when the country becomes ours. more than that, the country is as full of people, such as they are, as it is likely to be. there is not the least thing in it to invite settlement from the fertile valley of the mississippi. and i undertake to say, there would not be two hundred families of persons who would emigrate from the united states to new mexico, for agricultural purposes, in fifty years. they could not live there. suppose they were to cultivate the lands; they could only make them productive in a slight degree by irrigation or artificial watering. the people there produce little, and live on little. that is not the characteristic, i take it, of the people of the eastern or of the middle states, or of the valley of the mississippi. they produce a good deal, and they consume a good deal. again, sir, new mexico is not like texas. i have hoped, and i still hope, that texas will be filled up from among ourselves, not with spaniards, not with _peons_; that its inhabitants will not be mexican landlords, with troops of slaves, predial or otherwise. mr. rusk here rose, and said that he disliked to interrupt the senator, and therefore he had said nothing while he was describing the country between the nueces and the rio grande; but he wished now to say, that, when that country comes to be known, it will be found to be as valuable as any part of texas. the valley of the rio grande is valuable from its source to its mouth. but he did not look upon _that_ as indemnity; he claimed that as the _right_ of texas. so far as the mexican population is concerned, there is a good deal of it in texas; and it comprises many respectable persons, wealthy, intelligent, and distinguished. a good many are now moving in from new mexico, and settling in texas. i take what i say from major gaines. but i am glad to hear that any part of new mexico is fit for the foot of civilized man. and i am glad, moreover, that there are some persons in new mexico who are not so blindly attached to their miserable condition as not to make an effort to come out of their country, and get into a better. sir, i would, if i had time, call the attention of the senate to an instructive speech made in the other house by mr. smith of connecticut. he seems to have examined all the authorities, to have conversed with all the travellers, to have corresponded with all our agents. his speech contains communications from all of them; and i commend it to every man in the united states who wishes to know what we are about to acquire by the annexation of new mexico. new mexico is secluded, isolated, a place by itself, in the midst and at the foot of vast mountains, five hundred miles from the settled part of texas, and as far from anywhere else! it does not belong anywhere! it has no _belongings_ about it! at this moment it is absolutely more retired and shut out from communication with the civilized world than hawaii or any of the other islands of the pacific sea. in seclusion and remoteness, new mexico may press hard on the character and condition of typee. and its people are infinitely less elevated, in morals and condition, than the people of the sandwich islands. we had much better have senators from oahu. they are far less intelligent than the better class of our indian neighbors. commend me to the cherokees, to the choctaws; if you please, speak of the pawnees, of the snakes, the flatfeet, of any thing but the _digging_ indians, and i will be satisfied not to take the people of new mexico. have they any notion of our institutions, or of _any_ free institutions? have they any notion of popular government? not the slightest! not the slightest on earth! when the question is asked, what will be their constitution? it is farcical to talk of such people making a constitution for themselves. they do not know the meaning of the term, they do not know its import. they know nothing at all about it; and i can tell you, sir, that when they are made a territory, and are to be made a state, such a constitution as the executive power of this government may think fit to send them will be sent, and will be adopted. the constitution of our _fellow citizens_ of new mexico will be framed in the city of washington. now what says in regard to all mexico colonel hardin, that most lamented and distinguished officer, honorably known as a member of the other house, and who has fallen gallantly fighting in the service of his country? here is his description:-- "the whole country is miserably watered. large districts have no water at all. the streams are small, and at great distances apart. one day we marched on the road from monclova to parras thirty-five miles without water, a pretty severe day's marching for infantry. "grass is very scarce, and indeed there is none at all in many regions for miles square. its place is supplied with prickly-pear and thorny bushes. there is not one acre in two hundred, more probably not one in five hundred, of all the land we have seen in mexico, which can ever be cultivated; the greater portion of it is the most desolate region i could ever have imagined. the pure granite hills of new england are a paradise to it, for they are without the thorny briers and venomous reptiles which infest the barbed barrenness of mexico. the good land and cultivated spots in mexico are but dots on the map. were it not that it takes so very little to support a mexican, and that the land which is cultivated yields its produce with little labor, it would be surprising how its sparse population is sustained. all the towns we have visited, with perhaps the exception of parras, are depopulating, as is also the whole country. "the people are on a par with their land. one in two hundred or five hundred is rich, and lives like a nabob; the rest are _peons_, or servants sold for debt, who work for their masters, and are as subservient as the slaves of the south, and look like indians, and, indeed, are not more capable of self-government. one man, jacobus sanchez, owns three fourths of all the land our column has passed over in mexico. we are told we have seen the best part of northern mexico; if so, the whole of it is not worth much. "i came to mexico in favor of getting or taking enough of it to pay the expenses of the war. i now doubt whether all northern mexico is worth the expenses of our column of three thousand men. the expenses of the war must be enormous; we have paid enormous prices for every thing, much beyond the usual prices of the country." there it is. that's all north mexico; and new mexico is not the better part of it. sir, there is a recent traveller, not unfriendly to the united states, if we may judge from his work, for he speaks well of us everywhere; an englishman, named ruxton. he gives an account of the morals and the manners of the population of new mexico. and, mr. president and senators, i shall take leave to introduce you to these soon to be your respected _fellow-citizens_ of new mexico:-- "it is remarkable that, although existing from the earliest times of the colonization of new mexico, a period of two centuries, in a state of continual hostility with the numerous savage tribes of indians who surround their territory, and in constant insecurity of life and property from their attacks, being also far removed from the enervating influences of large cities, and, in their isolated situation, entirely dependent upon their own resources, the inhabitants are totally destitute of those qualities which, for the above reasons, we might naturally have expected to distinguish them, and are as deficient in energy of character and physical courage as they are in all the moral and intellectual qualities. in their social state but one degree removed from the veriest savages, they might take a lesson even from these in morality and the conventional decencies of life. imposing no restraint on their passions, a shameless and universal concubinage exists, and a total disregard of morality, to which it would be impossible to find a parallel in any country calling itself civilized. a want of honorable principle, and consummate duplicity and treachery, characterize all their dealings. liars by nature, they are treacherous and faithless to their friends, cowardly and cringing to their enemies; cruel, as all cowards are, they unite savage ferocity with their want of animal courage; as an example of which, their recent massacre of governor bent, and other americans, may be given, one of a hundred instances." these, sir, are soon to be our beloved countrymen! mr. president, for a good many years i have struggled in opposition to every thing which i thought tended to strengthen the arm of executive power. i think it is growing more and more formidable every day. and i think that by yielding to it in this, as in other instances, we give it a strength which it will be difficult hereafter to resist. i think that it is nothing less than the fear of executive power which induces us to acquiesce in the acquisition of territory; fear, _fear_, and nothing else. in the little part which i have acted in public life, it has been my purpose to maintain the people of the united states, what the constitution designed to make them, _one people_, one in interest, one in character, and one in political feeling. if we depart from that, we break it all up. what sympathy can there be between the people of mexico and california and the inhabitants of the valley of the mississippi and the eastern states in the choice of a president? do they know the same man? do they concur in any general constitutional principles? not at all. arbitrary governments may have territories and distant possessions, because arbitrary governments may rule them by different laws and different systems. russia may rule in the ukraine and the provinces of the caucasus and kamtschatka by different codes, ordinances, or ukases. we can do no such thing. they must be of us, _part_ of us, or else strangers. i think i see that in progress which will disfigure and deform the constitution. while these territories remain territories, they will be a trouble and an annoyance; they will draw after them vast expenses; they will probably require as many troops as we have maintained during the last twenty years to defend them against the indian tribes. we must maintain an army at that immense distance. when they shall become states, they will be still more likely to give us trouble. i think i see a course adopted which is likely to turn the constitution of the land into a deformed monster, into a curse rather than a blessing; in fact, a frame of an unequal government, not founded on popular representation, not founded on equality, but on the grossest inequality; and i think that this process will go on, or that there is _danger_ that it will go on, until this union shall fall to pieces. i resist it, to-day and always! whoever falters or whoever flies, i continue the contest! i know, sir, that all the portents are discouraging. would to god i could auspicate good influences! would to god that those who think with me, and myself, could hope for stronger support! would that we could stand where we desire to stand! i see the signs are sinister. but with few, or alone, my position is fixed. if there were time, i would gladly awaken the country. i believe the country might be awakened, although it may be too late. for myself, supported or unsupported, by the blessing of god, i shall do my duty. i see well enough all the adverse indications. but i am sustained by a deep and a conscientious sense of duty; and while supported by that feeling, and while such great interests are at stake, i defy auguries, and ask no omen but my country's cause! [footnote : mr. jefferson.] [footnote : mr. upshur.] [footnote : mr. tyler.] [footnote : mr. rusk.] [footnote : mr. rusk.] [footnote : major gaines.] exclusion of slavery from the territories. remarks made in the senate of the united states, on the th of august, . [in the course of the first session of the thirtieth congress, a bill passed the house of representatives to organize a government for the territory of oregon. this bill received several amendments on its passage through the senate, and among them one moved by mr. douglass of illinois, on the th of august, by which the eighth section of the law of the th of march, , for the admission of missouri, was revived and adopted, as a part of the bill, and declared to be "in full force, and binding, for the future organization of the territories of the united states, in the same sense and with the same understanding with which it was originally adopted." this, with some of the other amendments of the senate, was disagreed to by the house. on the return of the bill to the senate, a discussion arose, and continued for several days, on the question of agreement or disagreement with the amendments of the house to the senate's amendments. the principal subject of this discussion was whether the senate would recede from the above-mentioned amendment moved by mr. douglass, which was finally decided in the affirmative. in these discussions, a considerable portion of which was of a conversational character, mr. webster took a leading part; but of most of what was said by him, as by other senators, no report has been preserved. the session of the senate at which the last and most animated discussion of this subject took place, nominally on saturday of the th of august, was prolonged till ten o'clock, a.m., of sunday, the th. in the course of the debate on this day mr. webster spoke as follows.] i am very little inclined to prolong this debate, and i hope i am utterly disinclined to bring into it any new warmth or excitement. i wish to say a few words, however, first, upon the question as it is presented to us, as a parliamentary question; and secondly, upon the general political questions involved in the debate. as a question of parliamentary proceeding, i understand the case to be this. the house of representatives sent us a bill for the establishment of a territorial government in oregon; and no motion has been made in the senate to strike out any part of that bill. the bill purporting to respect oregon, simply and alone, has not been the subject of any objection in this branch of the legislature. the senate has proposed no important amendment to this bill, affecting oregon itself; and the honorable member from missouri[ ] was right, entirely right, when he said that the amendment now under consideration had no relation to oregon. that is perfectly true; and therefore the amendment which the senate has adopted, and the house has disagreed to, has no connection with the immediate subject before it. the truth is, that it is an amendment by which the senate wished to have now a public, legal declaration, not respecting oregon, but respecting the newly acquired territories of california and new mexico. it wishes now to make a line of slavery, which shall include those new territories. the amendment says that the line of the "missouri compromise" shall be the line to the pacific, and then goes on to say, in the language of the bill as it now stands, that the ordinance of shall be applicable to oregon; and therefore i say that the amendment proposed is foreign to the immediate object of the bill. it does nothing to modify, restrain, or affect, in any way, the government which we propose to establish over oregon, or the condition or character of that government, or of the people under it. in a parliamentary view, this is the state of the case. now, sir, this amendment has been attached to this bill by a strong majority of the senate. that majority had the right, as it had the power, to pass it. the house disagreed to that amendment. if the majority of the senate, who attached it to the bill, are of opinion that a conference with the house will lead to some adjustment of the question, by which this amendment, or something equivalent to it, may be adopted by the house, it is very proper for them to urge a conference. it is very fair, quite parliamentary, and there is not a word to be said against it. but my position is that of one who voted against the amendment, who thinks that it ought not to be attached to this bill; and therefore i naturally vote for the motion to get rid of it, that is, "to recede." so much for the parliamentary question. now there are two or three political questions arising in this case, which i wish to state dispassionately; not to argue, but to state. the honorable member from georgia,[ ] for whom i have great respect, and with whom it is my delight to cultivate personal friendship, has stated, with great propriety, the importance of this question. he has said, that it is a question interesting to the south and to the north, and one which may very well also attract the attention of mankind. he has not stated any part of this too strongly. it is such a question. without doubt, it is a question which may well attract the attention of mankind. on the subjects involved in this debate, the whole world is not now asleep. it is wide awake; and i agree with the honorable member, that, if what is now proposed to be done by us who resist this amendment is, as he supposes, unjust and injurious to any portion of this community, or against its constitutional rights, that injustice should be presented to the civilized world, and we, who concur in the proceeding, ought to submit ourselves to its rebuke. i am glad that the honorable gentleman proposes to refer this question to the great tribunal of modern civilization, as well as the great tribunal of the american people. it is proper. it is a question of magnitude enough, of interest enough, to all the civilized nations of the earth, to call from those who support the one side or the other a statement of the grounds upon which they act. now i propose to state as briefly as i can the grounds upon which i proceed, historical and constitutional; and will endeavor to use as few words as possible, so that i may relieve the senate from hearing me at the earliest possible moment. in the first place, to view the matter historically. this constitution, founded in , and the government under it, organized in , do recognize the existence of slavery in certain states then belonging to the union, and a particular description of slavery. i hope that what i am about to say may be received without any supposition that i intend the slightest disrespect. but this particular description of slavery does not, i believe, now exist in europe, nor in any other civilized portion of the habitable globe. it is not a predial slavery. it is not analogous to the case of the _predial_ slaves, or slaves _glebae adscripti_ of russia, or hungary, or other states. it is a peculiar system of personal slavery, by which the person who is called a slave is transferable as a chattel, from hand to hand. i speak of this as a fact; and that is the fact. and i will say further, perhaps other gentlemen may remember the instances, that although slavery, as a system of servitude attached to the earth, exists in various countries of europe, i am not at the present moment aware of any place on the globe in which this property of man in a human being as a slave, transferable as a chattel, exists, except america. now, that it existed, in the form in which it still exists, in certain states, at the formation of this constitution, and that the framers of that instrument, and those who adopted it, agreed that, as far as it existed, it should not be disturbed or interfered with by the new general government, there is no doubt. the constitution of the united states recognizes it as an existing fact, an existing relation between the inhabitants of the southern states. i do not call it an "institution," because that term is not applicable to it; for that seems to imply a voluntary establishment. when i first came here, it was a matter of frequent reproach to england, the mother country, that slavery had been entailed upon the colonies by her, against their consent, and that which is now considered a cherished "institution" was then regarded as, i will not say an _evil_, but an entailment on the colonies by the policy of the mother country against their wishes. at any rate, it stands upon the constitution. the constitution was adopted in , and went into operation in . when it was adopted, the state of the country was this: slavery existed in the southern states; there was a very large extent of unoccupied territory, the whole northwestern territory, which, it was understood, was destined to be formed into states; and it was then determined that no slavery should exist in this territory. i gather now, as a matter of inference from the history of the time and the history of the debates, that the prevailing motives with the north for agreeing to this recognition of the existence of slavery in the southern states, and giving a representation to those states founded in part upon their slaves, rested on the supposition that no acquisition of territory would be made to form new states on the southern frontier of this country, either by cession or conquest. no one looked to any acquisition of new territory on the southern or southwestern frontier. the exclusion of slavery from the northwestern territory and the prospective abolition of the foreign slave trade were generally, the former unanimously, agreed to; and on the basis of these considerations, the south insisted that where slavery existed it should not be interfered with, and that it should have a certain ratio of representation in congress. and now, sir, i am one, who, believing such to be the understanding on which the constitution was framed, mean to abide by it. there is another principle, equally clear, by which i mean to abide; and that is, that in the convention, and in the first congress, when appealed to on the subject by petitions, and all along in the history of this government, it was and has been a conceded point, that slavery in the states in which it exists is a matter of state regulation exclusively, and that congress has not the least power over it, or right to interfere with it. therefore i say, that all agitations and attempts to disturb the relations between master and slave, by persons not living in the slave states, are unconstitutional in their spirit, and are, in my opinion, productive of nothing but evil and mischief. i countenance none of them. the manner in which the governments of those states where slavery exists are to regulate it, is for their own consideration, under their responsibility to their constituents, to the general laws of propriety, humanity, and justice, and to god. associations formed elsewhere, springing from a feeling of humanity, or any other cause, have nothing whatever to do with it, nor right to interfere with it. they have never received any encouragement from me, and they never will. in my opinion, they have done nothing but delay and defeat their own professed objects. i have now stated, as i understand it, the condition of things upon the adoption of the constitution of the united states. what has happened since? sir, it has happened that, above and beyond all contemplation or expectation of the original framers of the constitution, or the people who adopted it, foreign territory has been acquired by cession, first from france, and then from spain, on our southern frontier. and what has been the result? five slave-holding states have been created and added to the union, bringing ten senators into this body, (i include texas, which i consider in the light of a foreign acquisition also,) and up to this hour in which i address you, not one free state has been admitted to the union from all this acquired territory! mr. berrien (in his seat). yes, iowa. iowa is not yet in the union. her senators are not here. when she comes in, there will be one to five, one free state to five slave states, formed out of new territories. now, it seems strange to me that there should be any complaint of injustice exercised by the north toward the south. northern votes have been necessary, they have been ready, and they have been given, to aid in the admission of these five new slave-holding states. these are facts; and as the gentleman from georgia has very properly put it as a case in which we are to present ourselves before the world for its judgment, let us now see how we stand. i do not represent the north. i state my own case; and i present the matter in that light in which i am willing, as an individual member of congress, to be judged by civilized humanity. i say then, that, according to true history, the slave-holding interest in this country has not been a disfavored interest; it has not been disfavored by the north. the north has concurred to bring in these five slave-holding states out of newly acquired territory, which acquisitions were not at all in the contemplation of the convention which formed the constitution, or of the people when they agreed that there should be a representation of three fifths of the slaves in the then existing states. mr. president, what is the result of this? we stand here now, at least i do, for one, to say, that, considering there have been already five new slave-holding states formed out of newly acquired territory, and only one non-slave-holding state, at most, i do not feel that i am called on to go further; i do not feel the obligation to yield more. but our friends of the south say, you deprive us of all our rights. we have fought for this territory, and you deny us participation in it. let us consider this question as it really is; and since the honorable gentleman from georgia proposes to leave the case to the enlightened and impartial judgment of mankind, and as i agree with him that it is a case proper to be considered by the enlightened part of mankind, let us see how the matter in truth stands. gentlemen who advocate the case which my honorable friend from georgia, with so much ability, sustains, declare that we invade their rights, that we deprive them of a participation in the enjoyment of territories acquired by the common services and common exertions of all. is this true? how deprive? of what do we deprive them? why, they say that we deprive them of the privilege of carrying their slaves, as slaves, into the new territories. well, sir, what is the amount of that? they say that in this way we deprive them of the opportunity of going into this acquired territory with their property. their "property"? what do they mean by "property"? we certainly do not deprive them of the privilege of going into these newly acquired territories with all that, in the general estimate of human society, in the general, and common, and universal understanding of mankind, is esteemed property. not at all. the truth is just this. they have, in their own states, peculiar laws, which create property in persons. they have a system of local legislation on which slavery rests; while everybody agrees that it is against natural law, or at least against the common understanding which prevails among men as to what is natural law. i am not going into metaphysics, for therein i should encounter the honorable member from south carolina,[ ] and we should find "no end, in wandering mazes lost," until after the time for the adjournment of congress. the southern states have peculiar laws, and by those laws there is property in slaves. this is purely local. the real meaning, then, of southern gentlemen, in making this complaint, is, that they cannot go into the territories of the united states carrying with them their own peculiar local law, a law which creates property in persons. this, according to their own statement, is all the ground of complaint they have. now here, i think, gentlemen are unjust towards us. how unjust they are, others will judge; generations that will come after us will judge. it will not be contended that this sort of personal slavery exists by general law. it exists only by local law. i do not mean to deny the validity of that local law where it is established; but i say it is, after all, local law. it is nothing more. and wherever that local law does not extend, property in persons does not exist. well, sir, what is now the demand on the part of our southern friends? they say, "we will carry our local laws with us wherever we go. we insist that congress does us injustice unless it establishes in the territory in which we wish to go our own local law." this demand i for one resist, and shall resist. it goes upon the idea that there is an inequality, unless persons under this local law, and holding property by authority of that law, can go into new territory and there establish that local law, to the exclusion of the general law. mr. president, it was a maxim of the civil law, that, between slavery and freedom, freedom should always be presumed, and slavery must always be proved. if any question arose as to the _status_ of an individual in rome, he was presumed to be free until he was proved to be a slave, because slavery is an exception to the general rule. such, i suppose, is the general law of mankind. an individual is to be presumed to be free, until a law can be produced which creates ownership in his person. i do not dispute the force and validity of the local law, as i have already said; but i say, it is a matter to be proved; and therefore, if individuals go into any part of the earth, it is to be proved that they are not freemen, or else the presumption is that they are. now our friends seem to think that an inequality arises from restraining them from going into the territories, unless there be a law provided which shall protect their ownership in persons. the assertion is, that we create an inequality. is there nothing to be said on the other side in relation to inequality? sir, from the date of this constitution, and in the counsels that formed and established this constitution, and i suppose in all men's judgment since, it is received as a settled truth, that slave labor and free labor do not exist well together. i have before me a declaration of mr. mason, in the convention that formed the constitution, to that effect. mr. mason, as is well known, was a distinguished member from virginia. he says that the objection to slave labor is, that it puts free white labor in disrepute; that it causes labor to be regarded as derogatory to the character of the free white man, and that the free white man despises to work, to use his expression, where slaves are employed. this is a matter of great interest to the free states, if it be true, as to a great extent it certainly is, that wherever slave labor prevails free white labor is excluded or discouraged. i agree that slave labor does not necessarily exclude free labor totally. there is free white labor in virginia, tennessee, and other states, where most of the labor is done by slaves. but it necessarily loses something of its respectability, by the side of, and when associated with, slave labor. wherever labor is mainly performed by slaves, it is regarded as degrading to freemen. the freemen of the north, therefore, have a deep interest in keeping labor free, exclusively free, in the new territories. but, sir, let us look further into this alleged inequality. there is no pretence that southern people may not go into territory which shall be subject to the ordinance of . the only restraint is, that they shall not carry slaves thither, and continue that relation. they say this shuts them altogether out. why, sir, there can be nothing more inaccurate in point of fact than this statement. i understand that one half the people who settled illinois are people, or descendants of people, who came from the southern states. and i suppose that one third of the people of ohio are those, or descendants of those, who emigrated from the south; and i venture to say, that, in respect to those two states, they are at this day settled by people of southern origin in as great a proportion as they are by people of northern origin, according to the general numbers and proportion of people, south and north. there are as many people from the south, in proportion to the whole people of the south, in those states, as there are from the north, in proportion to the whole people of the north. there is, then, no exclusion of southern people; there is only the exclusion of a peculiar local law. neither in principle nor in fact is there any inequality. the question now is, whether it is not competent to congress, in the exercise of a fair and just discretion, considering that there have been five slave-holding states added to this union out of foreign acquisitions, and as yet only one free state, to prevent their further increase. that is the question. i see no injustice in it. as to the power of congress, i have nothing to add to what i said the other day. congress has full power over the subject. it may establish any such government, and any such laws, in the territories, as in its discretion it may see fit. it is subject, of course, to the rules of justice and propriety; but it is under no constitutional restraints. i have said that i shall consent to no extension of the area of slavery upon this continent, nor to any increase of slave representation in the other house of congress. i have now stated my reasons for my conduct and my vote. we of the north have already gone, in this respect, far beyond all that any southern man could have expected, or did expect, at the time of the adoption of the constitution. i repeat the statement of the fact of the creation of five new slave-holding states out of newly acquired territory. we have done that which, if those who framed the constitution had foreseen, they never would have agreed to slave representation. we have yielded thus far; and we have now in the house of representatives twenty persons voting upon this very question, and upon all other questions, who are there only in virtue of the representation of slaves. let me conclude, therefore, by remarking, that, while i am willing to present this as showing my own judgment and position, in regard to this case, and i beg it to be understood that i am speaking for no other than myself, and while i am willing to offer it to the whole world as my own justification, i rest on these propositions: first, that when this constitution was adopted, nobody looked for any new acquisition of territory to be formed into slave-holding states. secondly, that the principles of the constitution prohibited, and were intended to prohibit, and should be construed to prohibit, all interference of the general government with slavery as it existed and as it still exists in the states. and then, looking to the operation of these new acquisitions, which have in this great degree had the effect of strengthening that interest in the south by the addition of these five states, i feel that there is nothing unjust, nothing of which any honest man can complain, if he is intelligent, and i feel that there is nothing with which the civilized world, if they take notice of so humble a person as myself, will reproach me, when i say, as i said the other day, that i have made up my mind, for one, that under no circumstances will i consent to the further extension of the area of slavery in the united states, or to the further increase of slave representation in the house of representatives. [footnote : mr. benton.] [footnote : mr. berrien.] [footnote : mr. calhoun.] speech at marshfield. delivered at a meeting of the citizens of marshfield, mass., on the st of september, . [the following correspondence explains the occasion of the meeting at marshfield, at which the following speech was delivered. "_marshfield, mass., aug. , ._ "hon. daniel webster:-- "dear sir,--the undersigned, whigs and fellow-citizens of yours, are desirous of seeing and conferring with you on the subject of our national policy, and of hearing your opinions freely expressed thereon. we look anxiously on the present aspect of public affairs, and on the position in which the whig party, and especially northern whigs, are now placed. we should be grieved indeed to see general cass--so decided an opponent of all those measures which we think essential to the honor and interests of the country and the prosperity of all classes--elected to the chief magistracy. on the other hand, it is not to be concealed, that there is much discontent with the nomination made by the late philadelphia convention, of a southern man, a military man, fresh from bloody fields, and known only by his sword, as a whig candidate for the presidency. "so far as is in our humble ability, we desire to preserve the union and the whig party, and to perpetuate whig principles; but we wish to see also that these principles may be preserved, and this union perpetuated, in a manner consistent with the rights of the free states, and the prevention of the farther extension of the slave power; and we dread the effects of the precedent, which we think eminently dangerous, and as not exhibiting us in a favorable light to the nations of the earth, of elevating a mere military man to the presidency. "we think a crisis is upon us; and we would gladly know how we may best discharge our duties as true americans, honest men, and good whigs. to you, who have been so long in public life, and are able from your great experience and unrivalled ability to give us information and advice, and upon whom, as neighbors and friends, we think we have some claims, we naturally look, and we should be exceedingly gratified if, in any way, public or private, you would express your opinion upon interesting public questions now pending, with that boldness and distinctness with which you are accustomed to declare your sentiments. if you can concur with our wishes, please signify to us in what manner it would be most agreeable to you that they should be carried into effect. "with very great regard, your obedient servants, "daniel phillips, george leonard, geo. h. wetherbee, and many others." to this invitation mr. webster returned the following reply:-- "_marshfield, aug. , ._ "gentlemen,--i have received your letter. the critical state of things at washington obliges me to think it my duty to repair thither immediately and take my seat in the senate, notwithstanding the state of my health and the heat of the weather render it disagreeable for me to leave home. "i cannot, therefore, comply with your wishes at present; but on my return, if such should continue to be your desire, i will meet you and the other whigs of marshfield, in an unceremonious manner, that we may confer upon the topics to which your letter relates. "i am, gentlemen, with esteem and friendship, "your obliged fellow-citizen, "daniel webster. "to messrs. daniel phillips, george leonard, geo. h. wetherbee, and others." soon after mr. webster's return from washington, it was arranged that the meeting should take place at the "winslow house," the ancient seat of the winslow family, now forming a part of mr. webster's farm at marshfield, on friday, the first day of september.] although it is not my purpose, during the present recess of congress, frequently to address public assemblies on political subjects, i have felt it my duty to comply with your request, as neighbors and townsmen, and to meet you to-day; and i am not unwilling to avail myself of this occasion to signify to the people of the united states my opinions upon the present state of our public affairs. i shall perform that duty, certainly with great frankness, i hope with candor. it is not my intention to-day to endeavor to carry any point, to act as any man's advocate, to put up or put down anybody. i wish, and i propose, to address you in the language and in the spirit of conference and consultation. in the present extraordinary crisis of our public concerns, i desire to hold no man's conscience but my own. my own opinions i shall communicate, freely and fearlessly, with equal disregard to consequences, whether they respect myself or respect others. we are on the eve of a highly important presidential election. in two or three months the people of this country will be called upon to elect an executive chief magistrate of the united states; and all see, and all feel, that great interests of the country are to be affected, for good or evil, by the results of that election. of the interesting subjects over which the person who shall be elected must necessarily exercise more or less control, there are especially three, vitally connected, in my judgment, with the honor and happiness of the country. in the first place, the honor and happiness of the country imperatively require that there shall be a chief magistrate elected who shall not plunge us into further wars of ambition and conquest. in the second place, in my judgment, the interests of the country and the feeling of a vast majority of the people require that a president of these united states should be elected, who will neither use official influence to promote, nor feel any desire in his heart to promote, the further extension of slavery in this community, or its further influence in the public councils. in the third place, if i have any just estimate, if an experience not now a short one in public affairs has enabled me to know any thing of what the public interest demands, the state of the country requires an essential reform in the system of revenue and finance such as shall restore the prosperity, by prompting the industry and fostering the labor of the country, in its various branches. there are other things important, but i will not allude to them. these three i hold to be essential. there are three candidates presented to the choice of the american people. general taylor is the whig candidate, standing upon the nomination of the whig convention; general cass is the candidate of the opposing and now dominant party in the country; and a third candidate is presented in the person of mr. van buren, by a convention of citizens assembled at buffalo, whose object, or whose main object, as it appears to me, is contained in one of those considerations which i have mentioned, and that is, the prevention of the further increase of slavery;--an object in which you and i, gentlemen, so far as that goes, entirely concur with them, i am sure. most of us who are here to-day are whigs, national whigs, massachusetts whigs, old colony whigs, and marshfield whigs, and if the whig nomination made at philadelphia were entirely satisfactory to the people of massachusetts and to us, our path of duty would be plain. but the nomination of a candidate for the presidency made by the whig convention at philadelphia is not satisfactory to the whigs of massachusetts. that is certain, and it would be idle to attempt to conceal the fact. it is more just and more patriotic, it is more manly and practical, to take facts as they are, and things as they are, and to deduce our own conviction of duty from what exists before us. however respectable and distinguished in the line of his own profession, or however estimable as a private citizen, general taylor is a military man, and a military man merely. he has had no training in civil affairs. he has performed no functions of a civil nature under the constitution of his country. he has been known and is known, only by his brilliant achievements at the head of an army. now the whigs of massachusetts, and i among them, are of opinion that it was not wise, nor discreet, to go to the army for the selection of a candidate for the presidency of the united states. it is the first instance in their history in which any man of mere military character has been proposed for that high office. general washington was a great military character; but by far a greater civil character. he had been employed in the councils of his country, from the earliest dawn of the revolution. he had been in the continental congress, and he had established a great character for civil wisdom and judgment. after the war, as you know, he was elected a member of that convention which formed the constitution of the united states; and it is one of the most honorable tributes ever paid to him, that by that assembly of good and wise men he was selected to preside over their deliberations. and he put his name first and foremost to the constitution under which we live. president harrison was bred a soldier, and at different periods of his life rendered important military services. but president harrison, nevertheless, was for a much greater period of his life employed in civil than in military service. for twenty years he was either governor of a territory, member of one or the other house of congress, or minister abroad; and discharged all these duties to the satisfaction of his country. this case, therefore, stands by itself; without a precedent or justification from any thing in our previous history. it is for this reason, as i imagine, that the whigs of massachusetts feel dissatisfied with this nomination. there may be other reasons, there are others; they are, perhaps, of less importance, and more easily to be answered. but this is a well-founded objection; and in my opinion it ought to have prevailed, and to have prevented this nomination. i know enough of history to see the dangerous tendency of such resorts to military popularity. but, if i may borrow a mercantile expression, i may now venture to say, that there is another side to this account. the impartiality with which i propose to discharge my duty to-day requires that it should be stated. and, in the first place, it is to be considered, that general taylor has been nominated by a whig convention, held in conformity with the usages of the whig party, and, so far as i know, fairly nominated. it is to be considered, also, that he is the only whig before the people, as a candidate for the presidency; and no citizen of the country, with any effect, can vote for any other whig, let his preferences be what they might or may. in the next place, it is proper to consider the personal character of general taylor, and his political opinions, relations, and connections, so far as they are known. in advancing to a few observations on this part of the case, i wish everybody to understand that i have no personal acquaintance whatever with general taylor. i never saw him but once, and that but for a few moments in the senate. the sources of information are open to you, as well as to me, from which i derive what i know of his character and opinions. but i have endeavored to obtain access to those sources. i have endeavored to inform and instruct myself by communication with those who have known him in his profession as a soldier, in his associations as a man, in his conversations and opinions on political subjects; and i will tell you frankly what i think of him, according to the best lights which i have been able to obtain. i need not say, that he is a skilful, brave, and gallant soldier. that is admitted by all. with me, all that goes but very little way to make out the proper qualifications for president of the united states. but what is more important, i believe that he is an entirely honest and upright man. i believe that he is modest, clear-headed, of independent and manly character, possessing a mind trained by proper discipline and self-control. i believe that he is estimable and amiable in all the relations of private life. i believe that he possesses a reputation for equity and fair judgment, which gives him an influence over those under his command beyond what is conferred by the authority of station. i believe that he is a man possessing the confidence and attachment of all who have been near him and know him. and i believe, that, if elected president, he will do his best to relieve the country from present evils, and guard it against future dangers. so much for what i think of the personal character of general taylor. i will say, too, that, so far as i have observed, his conduct since he has been a candidate for the office of president has been irreproachable. i hear no intrigue imputed to him, no contumelious treatment of rivals. i do not find him making promises or holding out hopes to any men or any party. i do not find him putting forth any pretensions of his own, and therefore i think of him very much as he seems to think of himself, that he is an honest man, of an independent mind and of upright intentions. and as for the subject of his qualifications for the presidency, he has himself nothing to say about it. and now, friends and fellow-townsmen, with respect to his political opinions and relations, i can say at once, that i believe him to be a whig; i believe him to hold to the main doctrines of the whig party. to think otherwise would be to impute to him a degree of tergiversation and fraudulent deception of which i suppose him to be entirely incapable. gentlemen, it is worth our while to consider in what manner general taylor has become a candidate for the presidency of the united states. it would be a great mistake to suppose that he was made such merely by the nomination of the philadelphia convention. he had been nominated for the presidency in a great many states, by various conventions and meetings of the people, a year before the convention at philadelphia assembled. the whole history of the world shows, whether in the most civilized or the most barbarous ages, that the affections and admiration of mankind are at all times easily carried away towards successful military achievements. the story of all republics and of all free governments shows this. we know in the case now before us, that so soon as brilliant success had attended general taylor's operations on the rio grande, at palo alto, and monterey, spontaneous nominations of him sprang up. and here let me say, that, generally, these were whig nominations. not universally, but generally, these nominations, made at various times before the meeting of the philadelphia convention, were whig nominations. general taylor was esteemed, from the moment that his military achievements brought him into public notice, as a whig general. you all remember, that when we were discussing his merits in congress, upon the question of giving thanks to the army under his command, and to himself, among other objections, the friends and supporters of mr. polk's administration denounced him as being, and because he was, a whig general. my friends near me, whom i am happy to see here, belonging to the house of representatives, will remember that a leading man of the party of the administration declared in his place in congress, that the policy of the administration, connected with the mexican war, would never prosper, till the president recalled those whig generals, scott and taylor. the policy was a democratic policy. the argument was, that the men to carry out this policy should be democratic men; the officers to fight the battles should be democratic officers; and on that ground, the ordinary vote of thanks was refused to general taylor, on the part of the friends of the administration. let me remark, in the next place, that there was no particular purpose connected with the advancement of slavery entertained, generally, by those who nominated him. as i have said, they were whig nominations, more in the middle and northern than in the southern states, and by persons who never entertained the slightest desire, by his nomination, or by any other means, to extend the area of slavery of the human race, or the influence of the slave-holding states in the councils of the nation. the quaker city of philadelphia nominated general taylor, the whigs all over the union nominated him, with no such view. a great convention was assembled in new york, of highly influential and respectable gentlemen, very many of them well known to me, and they nominated general taylor with no such view. general taylor's nomination was hailed, not very extensively, but by some enthusiastic and not very far-seeing people in the commonwealth of massachusetts. there were, even among us, in our own state, whigs quite early enough, certainly, in manifesting their confidence in this nomination; a little too early, it may be, in uttering notes of exultation for the anticipated triumph. it would have been better if they had waited. now the truth is, gentlemen,--and no man can avoid seeing it, unless, as sometimes happens, the object is too near our eyes to be distinctly discerned,--the truth is, that in these nominations, and also in the nomination at philadelphia, in these conventions, and also in the convention at philadelphia, general taylor was nominated exactly for this reason;--that, believing him to be a whig, they thought he could be chosen more easily than any other whig. this is the whole of it. that sagacious, wise, far-seeing doctrine of availability lies at the bottom of the whole matter. so far, then, from imputing any motive to these conventions over the country, or to the convention in philadelphia, as operating on a majority of the members, to promote slavery by the nomination of general taylor, i do not believe a word of it,--not one word. i see that one part of what is called the platform of the buffalo convention says that the candidates before the public were nominated under the dictation of the slave power. i do not believe a word of it. in the first place, a very great majority of the convention at philadelphia was composed of members from the free states. by a very great majority they might have nominated anybody they chose. but the free states did not choose to nominate a free state man, or a northern man. even our neighbors, the states of new england, with the exception of new hampshire and a part of maine, neither proposed nor concurred in the nomination of any northern man. vermont would hear of nothing but the nomination of a southern and slave-holding candidate. connecticut was of the same mind, and so was rhode island. the north made no demand, nor presented any request for a northern candidate, nor attempted any union among themselves for the purpose of promoting the nomination of such a candidate. they were content to take their choice among the candidates of the south. it is preposterous, therefore, to pretend that a candidate from the slave states has been forced upon the north by southern dictation. in the next place, it is true that there were persons from new england who were extremely zealous and active in procuring the nomination of general taylor, but they were men who would cut off their right hands before they would do any thing to promote slavery in the united states. i do not admire their policy; indeed i have very little respect for it, understand that; but i acquit them of bad motives. i know the leading men in that convention. i think i understand the motives that governed them. their reasoning was this: "general taylor is a whig: not eminent in civil life, not known in civil life, but still a man of sound whig principles. circumstances have given him a reputation and _éclat_ in the country. if he shall be the whig candidate, he will be chosen; and with him there will come into the two houses of congress an augmentation of whig strength. the whig majority in the house of representatives will be increased. the democratic majority in the senate will be diminished." that was the view, and such was the motive, however wise or however unwise, that governed a very large majority of those who composed the convention at philadelphia. in my opinion, this was a wholly unwise policy; it was short-sighted and temporizing on questions of great principles. but i acquit those who adopted it of any such motives as have been ascribed to them, and especially of what has been ascribed to them in a part of this buffalo platform. such, gentlemen, are the circumstances connected with the nomination of general taylor. i only repeat, that those who had the greatest agency originally in bringing him before the people were whig conventions and whig meetings in the several states, free states, and that a great majority of that convention which nominated him in philadelphia was from the free states, and might have rejected him if they had chosen, and selected anybody else on whom they could have united. this is the case, gentlemen, as far as i can discern it, and exercising upon it as impartial a judgment as i can form,--this is the case presented to the whigs, so far as respects the personal fitness and personal character of general taylor, and the circumstances which have caused his nomination. if we were weighing the propriety of nominating such a person to the presidency, it would be one thing; if we are considering the expediency, or i may say the necessity (which to some minds may seem to be the case), of well-meaning and patriotic whigs supporting him after he is nominated, that is quite another thing. this leads us to the consideration of what the whigs of massachusetts are to do, or such of them as do not see fit to support general taylor. of course they must vote for general cass, or they must vote for mr. van buren, or they must omit to vote at all. i agree that there are cases in which, if we do not know in what direction to move, we ought to stand still till we do. i admit that there are cases in which, if one does not know what to do, he had better not do he knows not what. but on a question so important to ourselves and the country, on a question of a popular election under constitutional forms, in which it is impossible that every man's private judgment can prevail, or every man's private choice succeed, it becomes a question of conscientious duty and patriotism, what it is best to do upon the whole. under the practical administration of the constitution of the united states, there cannot be a great range of personal choice in regard to the candidate for the presidency. in order that their votes may be effective, men must give them for some one of those who are prominently before the public. this is the necessary result of our forms of government and of the provisions of the constitution. the people are therefore brought sometimes to the necessity of choosing between candidates neither of whom would be their original, personal choice. now, what is the contingency? what is the alternative presented to the whigs of massachusetts? in my judgment, fellow-citizens, it is simply this; the question is between general taylor and general cass. and that is the only question. i am no more skilled to foresee political occurrences than others. i judge only for myself. but, in my opinion, there is not the least probability of any other result than the choice of general taylor or general cass. i know that the enthusiasm of a new-formed party, that the popularity of a new-formed name, without communicating any new-formed idea, may lead men to think that the sky is to fall, and that larks are suddenly to be taken. i entertain no such expectations. i speak without disrespect of the free soil party. i have read their platform, and though i think there are some unsound places in it, i can stand on it pretty well. but i see nothing in it both new and valuable. "what is valuable is not new, and what is new is not valuable." if the term free soil party, or free soil men, designate those who are fixed, and unalterably fixed, in favor of the restriction of slavery, are so to-day and were so yesterday, and have been so for some time, then i hold myself to be as good a free soil man as any of the buffalo convention. i pray to know who is to put beneath my feet a freer soil than that upon which i have stood ever since i have been in public life? i pray to know who is to make my lips freer than they always have been, or to inspire into my breast a more resolute and fixed determination to resist the advances and encroachments of the slave power, than has inhabited it since i for the first time opened my mouth in the councils of the country? the gentlemen at buffalo have placed at the head of their party mr. van buren, a gentleman for whom i have all the respect that i ought to entertain for one with whom i have been associated, in some degree, in public life for many years, and who has held the highest offices in the country. but really, speaking for myself, if i were to express confidence in mr. van buren and his politics on any question, and most especially this very question of slavery, i think the scene would border upon the ludicrous, if not upon the contemptible. i never proposed any thing in my life of a general and public nature, that mr. van buren did not oppose. nor has it happened to me to support any important measure proposed by him. if he and i now were to find ourselves together under the free soil flag, i am sure that, with his accustomed good nature, he would laugh. if nobody were present, we should both laugh at the strange occurrences and stranger jumbles of political life that should have brought us to sit down cosily and snugly, side by side, on the same platform. that the leader of the free spoil party should so suddenly have become the leader of the free soil party would be a joke to shake his sides and mine. gentlemen, my first acquaintance in public life with mr. van buren was when he was pressing with great power the election of mr. crawford to the presidency, against mr. adams. mr. crawford was not elected, and mr. adams was. mr. van buren was in the senate nearly the whole of that administration; and during the remainder of it he was governor of the state of new york. it is notorious that he was the soul and centre, throughout the whole of mr. adams's term, of the opposition made to him. he did more to prevent mr. adams's re-election in , and to obtain general jackson's election, than any other man,--yes, than any _ten_ other men in the country. general jackson was chosen, and mr. van buren was appointed his secretary of state. it so happened that in july, , mr. mclane went to england to arrange the controverted, difficult, and disputed point on the subject of the colonial trade. mr. adams had held a high tone on that subject. he had demanded, on the ground of reciprocity and right, the introduction of our products into all parts of the british territory, freely, in our own vessels, since great britain was allowed to bring her produce into the united states upon the same terms. mr. adams placed this demand upon the ground of reciprocity and justice. great britain would not yield. mr. van buren, in his instructions to mr. mclane, told him to yield that question of right, and to solicit the free admission of american produce into the british colonies, on the ground of privilege and favor; intimating that there had been a change of parties, and that this favor ought not to be refused to general jackson's administration because it had been demanded on the ground of right by mr. adams's. this is the sum and substance of the instruction. well, gentlemen, it was one of the most painful duties of my life, on account of this, to refuse my assent to mr. van buren's nomination. it was novel in our history, when an administration changes, for the new administration to seek to obtain privileges from a foreign power on the assertion that they have abandoned the ground of their predecessors. i suppose that such a course is held to be altogether undignified by all public men. when i went into the department of state under general harrison, i found in the conduct of my predecessor many things that i could have wished had been otherwise. did i retract a jot or tittle of what mr. forsyth had said? i took the case as he had left it, and conducted it upon the principles which he left. i should have considered that i disgraced myself if i had said, "pray, my lord ashburton, we are more rational persons than our predecessors, we are more considerate than they, and intend to adopt an entirely opposite policy. consider, my dear lord, how much more friendly, reasonable, and amiable we are than our predecessors." but now, on this very subject of the extension of the slave power, i would by no means do the least injustice to mr. van buren. if he has come up to some of the opinions expressed in the platform of the buffalo convention, i am very glad of it. i do not mean to say that there may not be very good reasons for those of his own party who cannot conscientiously vote for general cass to vote for him, because i think him much the least dangerous of the two. but, in truth, looking at mr. van buren's conduct as president of the united states, i am amazed to find that he should be placed at the head of a party professing to be, beyond all other parties, friends of liberty and enemies of african slavery in the southern states. why, the very first thing that mr. van buren did after he was president was to declare, that, if congress interfered with slavery in the district of columbia, he would apply the veto to their bills. mr. van buren, in his inaugural address, quotes the following expression from his letter accepting his nomination: "i must go into the presidential chair the inflexible and uncompromising opponent of every attempt on the part of congress to abolish slavery in the district of columbia against the wishes of the slave-holding states; and also with a determination equally decided to resist the slightest interference with it in the states where it exists." he then proceeds: "i submitted also to my fellow-citizens, with fulness and frankness, the reasons which led me to this determination. the result authorizes me to believe that they have been approved and are confided in by a majority of the people of the united states, including those whom they most immediately affect. it now only remains to add, that no bill conflicting with these views can even receive my constitutional sanction." in the next place, we know that mr. van buren's casting vote was given for a law of very doubtful propriety,--a law to allow postmasters to open the mails and see if there was any incendiary matter in them, and, if so, to destroy it. i do not say that there was no constitutional power to pass such a law. perhaps the people of the south thought it was necessary to protect themselves from incitements to insurrection. so far as any thing endangers the lives and property of the south, so far i agree that there may be such legislation in congress as shall prevent such results. but, gentlemen, no man has exercised a more controlling influence on the conduct of his friends in this country than mr. van buren. i take it that the most important event in our time tending to the extension of slavery and its everlasting establishment on this continent, was the annexation of texas, in . where was mr. van buren then? let me ask, three or four years ago, where was he then? every friend of mr. van buren, so far as i know, supported the measure. the two senators from new york supported it, and the members of the house of representatives from new york supported it, and nobody resisted it but whigs. and i say in the face of the world, i say in the face of those connected with, or likely to be benefited by, the buffalo convention,--i say to all of them, that there has been no party of men in this country which has firmly and sternly resisted the progress of the slave power but the whigs. why, look to this very question of the annexation of texas. we talk of the dictation of the slave power! at least they do, i do not. i do not allow that anybody dictates to me. they talk of the triumph of the south over the north! there is not a word of truth or reason in the whole of it. i am bound to say on my conscience, that, of all the evils inflicted upon us by these acquisitions of slave territory, the north has borne its full part in the infliction. northern votes, in full proportion, have been given in both houses for the acquisition of new territory, in which slavery existed. we talk of the north. there has for a long time been no north. i think the north star is at last discovered; i think there will be a north; but up to the recent session of congress there has been no north, no geographical section of the country, in which there has been found a strong, conscientious, and _united_ opposition to slavery. no such north has existed. pope says, you know, "ask where's the north? at york, 'tis on the tweed; in scotland, at the orcades; and there, at greenland, zembla, or the lord knows where." now, if there has heretofore been such a _north_ as i have described, a north strong in opinion and united in action against slavery,--if such a _north_ has existed anywhere, it has existed "the lord knows where," i do not. why, on this very question of the admission of texas, it may be said with truth, that the north let in texas. the whigs, north and south, resisted texas. ten senators from slave-holding states, of the whig party, resisted texas. two, only, as i remember, voted for it. but the southern whig votes against texas were overpowered by the democratic votes from the free states, and from new england among the rest. yes, if there had not been votes from new england in favor of texas, texas would have been out of the union to this day. yes, if men from new england had been true, texas would have been nothing but texas still. there were four votes in the senate from new england in favor of the admission of texas, mr. van buren's friends, democratic members: one from maine; two from new hampshire; one from connecticut. two of these gentlemen were confidential friends of mr. van buren, and had both been members of his cabinet. they voted for texas; and they let in texas, against southern whigs and northern whigs. that is the truth of it, my friends. mr. van buren, by the wave of his hand, could have kept out texas. a word, a letter, though it had been even shorter than general cass's letter to the chicago convention, would have been enough, and would have done the work. but he was silent. when northern members of congress voted, in , for the missouri compromise, against the known will of their constituents, they were called "dough faces." i am afraid, fellow-citizens, that the generation of "dough faces" will be as perpetual as the generation of men. in , as we all know, mr. van buren was a candidate for the presidency, on the part of the democratic party, but lost the nomination at baltimore. we now learn, from a letter from general jackson to mr. butler, that mr. van buren's claims were superseded, because, after all, the south thought that the accomplishment of the annexation of texas might be more safely intrusted to southern hands. we all know that the northern portion of the democratic party were friendly to mr. van buren. our neighbors from new hampshire, and maine, and elsewhere, were van buren men. but the moment it was ascertained that mr. polk was the favorite of the south, and the favorite of the south upon the ground i have mentioned, as a man more certain to bring about the annexation of texas than mr. van buren, these friends of mr. van buren in the north all "caved in,"--not a man of them stood. mr. van buren himself wrote a letter very complimentary to mr. polk and mr. dallas, and found no fault with the nomination. now, gentlemen, if they were "dough faces" who voted for the missouri compromise, what epithet should describe these men, here in our new england, who were so ready, not only to change or abandon him whom they most cordially wished to support, but did so in order to make more sure the annexation of texas. they nominated mr. polk at the request of gentlemen from the south, and voted for him, through thick and thin, till the work was accomplished, and mr. polk elected. for my part, i think that "dough faces" is an epithet not sufficiently reproachful. such persons are dough faces, with dough heads, and dough hearts, and dough souls; they are _all_ dough; the coarsest potter may mould them to vessels of honor or dishonor,--most readily to vessels of _dis_honor. but what do we now see? repentance has gone far. there are among these very people, these very gentlemen, persons who espouse, with great zeal, the interests of the free soil party. i hope their repentance is as sincere as it appears to be. i hope it is honest conviction, and not merely a new chance for power, under a new name and a new party. but, with all their pretensions, and with all their patriotism, i see dough still sticking on the cheeks of some of them. and therefore i have no confidence in them, not a particle. i do not mean to say, that the great mass of the people, especially those who went to the buffalo convention from this state, have not the highest and purest motives. i think they act unwisely, but i acquit them of dishonest intentions. but with respect to others, and those who have been part and parcel in the measures which have brought new slave territory into this union, i distrust them all. if they repent, let them, before we trust them, do works worthy of repentance. i have said, gentlemen, that in my opinion, if it were desirable to place mr. van buren at the head of government, there is no chance for him. others are as good judges as i am. but i am not able to say that i see any state in the union in which there is a reasonable probability that he will get the vote. there may be. others are more versed in such statistics than i am. but i see none, and therefore i think that we are reduced to a choice between general cass and general taylor. you may remember, that in the discussions of , when mr. birney was drawing off votes from the whig candidate, i said that every vote for mr. birney was half a vote for mr. polk. is it not true that the vote of the liberty party taken from mr. clay's vote in the state of new york made mr. polk president? that is as clear as any historical fact. and in my judgment, it will be so now. i consider every whig vote given to mr. van buren, as directly aiding the election of mr. cass. mark, i say, _whig_ vote. there may be states in which mr. van buren may draw from the other side largely. but i speak of whig votes, in this state and in any state. and i am of opinion, that any such vote given to mr. van buren inures to the benefit of general cass. now as to general cass, gentlemen. we need not go to the baltimore platform to instruct ourselves as to what his politics are, or how he will conduct the government. general cass will go into the government, if at all, chosen by the same party that elected mr. polk; and he will "follow in the footsteps of his illustrious predecessor." i hold him, i confess, in the present state of the country, to be the most dangerous man on whom the powers of the executive chief magistracy could well be conferred. he would consider himself, not as conservative, not as protective to present institutions, but as belonging to the party of progress. he believes in the doctrine of american destiny; and that that destiny is, to go through wars and invasions, and maintain vast armies, to establish a great, powerful, domineering government over all this continent. we know that, if mr. cass could have prevented it, the treaty with england in would not have been made. we know that, if mr. cass could have prevented it, the settlement of the oregon question would not have been accomplished in . we know that general cass could have prevented the mexican war; and we know that he was first and foremost in pressing that war. we know that he is a man of talent, of ability, of some celebrity as a statesman, in every way superior to his predecessor, if he should be the successor of mr. polk. but i think him a man of rash politics, pushed on by a rash party, and committed to a course of policy, as i believe, not in consistency with the happiness and security of the country. therefore it is for you, and for me, and for all of us, whigs, to consider whether, in this state of the case, we can or cannot, we will or will not, give our votes for the whig nomination. i leave that to every man's conscience. i have endeavored to state the case as it presents itself to me. gentlemen, before general taylor's nomination, i stated always, when the subject was mentioned by my friends, that i did not and could not recommend the nomination of a military man to the people of the united states for the office of president. it was against my conviction of what was due to the best interests of the country, and to the character of the republic. i stated always, at the same time, that if general taylor should be nominated by the whig convention, fairly, i should not oppose his election. i stand now upon the same declaration. general taylor has been nominated fairly, as far as i know, and i cannot, therefore, and shall not, oppose his election. at the same time, there is no man who is more firmly of opinion that such a nomination was not fit to be made. but the declaration that i would not oppose general taylor, if nominated by the whig party, was of course subject, in the nature of things, to some exceptions. if i believed him to be a man who would plunge the country into further wars for any purpose of ambition or conquest, i would oppose him, let him be nominated by whom he might. if i believed that he was a man who would exert his official influence for the further extension of the slave power, i would oppose him, let him be nominated by whom he might. but i do not believe either. i believe that he has been, from the first, opposed to the policy of the mexican war, as improper, impolitic, and inexpedient. i believe, from the best information i can obtain,--and you will take this as my own opinion, gentlemen,--i believe, from the best information i can obtain, that he has no disposition to go to war, or to form new states in order to increase the limits of slavery. gentlemen, so much for what may be considered as belonging to the presidency as a national question. but the case by no means stops here. we are citizens of massachusetts. we are whigs of massachusetts. we have supported the present government of the state for years, with success; and i have thought that most whigs were satisfied with the administration of the state government in the hands of those who have had it. but now it is proposed, i presume, on the basis of the buffalo platform, to carry this into the state elections, as well as into the national elections. there is to be a nomination of a candidate for governor, against mr. briggs, or whoever may be nominated by the whigs; and there is to be a nomination of a candidate for lieutenant-governor, against mr. reed, or whoever may be nominated by the whigs; and there are to be nominations against the present members of congress. now, what is the utility or the necessity of this? we have ten members in the congress of the united states. i know not ten men of any party who are more zealous, and firm, and inflexible in their opposition against slavery in any form. and what will be the result of opposing their re-election? suppose that a considerable number of whigs secede from the whig party, and support a candidate of this new party, what will be the result? do we not know what has been the case in this state? do we not know that this district has been unrepresented from month to month, and from year to year, because there has been an opposition to as good an antislavery man as breathes the air of this district? on this occasion, and even in his own presence, i may allude to our representative, mr. hale. do we want a man to give a better vote in congress than mr. hale gives? why, i undertake to say that there is not one of the liberty party, nor will there be one of this new party, who will have the least objection to mr. hale, except that he was not nominated by themselves. ten to one, if the whigs had not nominated him, they would have nominated him themselves; doubtless they would, if he had come into their organization, and called himself a third party man. now, gentlemen, i remember it to have occurred, that, on very important questions in congress, the vote was lost for want of two or three members which massachusetts might have sent, but which, in consequence of the division of parties, she did not send. and now i foresee that, if in this district any considerable number of whigs think it their duty to join in the support of mr. van buren, and in the support of gentlemen whom that party may nominate for congress, the same thing will take place, and we shall be without a representative, in all probability, in the first session of the next congress, when the battle is to be fought on this very slavery question. the same is likely to happen in other districts. i am sure that honest, intelligent, and patriotic whigs will lay this consideration to their consciences, and judge of it as they think they ought to do. gentlemen, i will detain you but a moment longer. you know that i gave my vote in congress against the treaty of peace with mexico, because it contained these cessions of territory, and brought under the authority of the united states, with a pledge of future admission into the union, the great, vast, and almost unknown countries of new mexico and california. in the session before the last, one of the southern whig senators, mr. berrien of georgia, had moved a resolution, to the effect that the war ought not to be continued for the purposes of conquest and acquisition. the resolution declared that the war with mexico ought not to be prosecuted by this government with any view to the dismemberment of that republic, or to the acquisition, by conquest, of any portion of her territory. that proposition he introduced into the senate, in the form of a resolution; and i believe that every whig senator but one voted for it. but the senators belonging to the locofoco or democratic party voted against it. the senators from new york voted against it. general cass, from the free state of michigan, mr. fairfield, from maine, mr. niles, from connecticut, and others, voted against it, and the vote was lost. that is, these gentlemen,--some of them very prominent friends of mr. van buren, and ready to take the field for him,--these very gentlemen voted not to exclude territory that might be obtained by conquest. they were willing to bring in the territory, and then have a squabble and controversy whether it should be slave or free territory. i was of opinion that the true and safe policy was, to shut out the whole question by getting no territory, and thereby keep off all controversy. the territory will do us no good, if free; it will be an encumbrance, if free. to a great extent, it will produce a preponderance in favor of the south in the senate, even if it be free. let us keep it out, therefore. but no. we will make the acquisition, bring in the territory, and manage it afterwards. that was the policy. gentlemen, in an important crisis in english history, in the reign of charles the second, when the country was threatened by the accession to the throne of a prince, then called the duke of york, who was a bigot to the roman catholic religion, a proposition was made to exclude him from the crown. some said that was a very rash measure, brought forward by very rash men; that they had better admit him, and then put limitations upon him, chain him down, restrict him. when the debate was going on, a member is reported to have risen and expressed his sentiments by rather a grotesque comparison, but one of considerable force:-- "i hear a lion, in the lobby roar! say, mr. speaker, shall we shut the door, and keep him out; or shall we let him in, and see if we can get him out again?" i was for shutting the door and keeping the lion out. other more confident spirits, who are of the character of van amburgh, were for letting him in, and disturbing all the interests of the country. when this mexican treaty came before the senate, it had certain clauses ceding new mexico and california to the united states. a southern gentleman, mr. badger, of north carolina, moved to strike out those clauses. now you understand, that if a motion to strike out a clause of a treaty be supported by one third, it will be struck out; that is, two thirds of the senate must vote for each clause, in order to have it retained. the vote on this question of striking out stood to , not quite one third being against the cession, and so the clause was retained. and why were there not one third? just because there were four new england senators voting for these new territories. that is the reason. i hope i am as ardent an advocate for peace as any man living; but i would not be carried away by the desire for peace to commit an act which i believed highly injurious, likely to have consequences of a permanent character, and indeed to endanger the existence of the government. besides, i believed that we could have struck out the cessions of territory, and had peace just as soon. and i would be willing to go before the people and leave it to them to say, whether they would carry on the war any longer for acquisition of territory. if they would, then they were the artificers of their own fortunes. i was not afraid of the people on that subject. but if this course had continued the war somewhat longer, i would have preferred that result, rather than that those territories lying on our southern border should come in hereafter as new states. i should speak, perhaps, with more confidence, if some whigs of the north had not voted for the treaty. my own opinion was then clear and decisive. for myself i thought the case a perfectly plain one, and no man has yet stated a reason to convince me to the contrary. i voted to strike out the articles of cession. they would have been struck out if four of the new england senators had not voted against the motion. i then voted against the ratification of the treaty, and that treaty would have failed if three new england senators had not voted for it, and whig senators too. i should do the same thing again, and with much more resolution. i would have run a still greater risk, i would have endured a still greater shock, i would have risked anything, rather than have been a participator in any measure which should have a tendency to annex southern territory to the states of the union. i hope it will be remembered, in all future time, that on this question of the accession of these new territories of almost boundless extent, i voted against them, and against the treaty which contained them, notwithstanding all inducements to the contrary, and all the cries, which i thought hasty and injudicious, of "peace! peace on any terms!" i will add, that those who voted against the treaty were gentlemen from so many parts of the country, that its rejection would have been an act rather of national than of local resistance. there were votes against it from both parties, and from all parties, the south and the west, the north and the east. what we wanted was a few more new england votes. gentlemen, after i had the honor of receiving the invitation to meet my fellow-citizens, i found it necessary, in the discharge of my duty, though with great inconvenience to my health, to be present at the closing scenes of the session. you know what there transpired. you know the important decision that was made in both houses of congress, in regard to oregon. the immediate question respected oregon, or rather the bill respected oregon, but the question more particularly concerned these new territories. the effect of the bill as passed in the senate was to establish these new territories as slave-holding states. the house disagreed. the senate receded from their ground, and the bill passed, establishing oregon as a free territory, and making no provision for the newly acquired territories on the south. my vote, and the reasons i gave for it, are known to the good people of massachusetts, and i have not heard that they have expressed any particular disapprobation of them. but this question is to be resumed at the first session of the next congress. there is no probability that it will be settled at the next session of this congress. but at least at the first session of the next congress this question will be resumed. it will enter at this very period into all the elections of the south. and now i venture to say, gentlemen, two things; the first well known to you, that general cass is in favor of what is called the compromise line, and is of opinion that the wilmot proviso, or the ordinance of , which excludes slavery from territories, ought not to be applied to territories lying south of ° '. he announced this before he was nominated, and if he had not announced it, he would have been ° ' farther off from being nominated. in the next place, he will do all he can to establish that compromise line; and lastly, which is a matter of opinion, in my conscientious belief he will establish it. give him the power and the patronage of the government, let him exercise it over certain portions of the country whose representatives voted on this occasion to put off that question for future consideration; let him have the power of this government with his attachments, with his inducements, and we shall see the result. i verily believe, that unless there is a renewed strength, an augmented strength, of whig votes in congress, he will accomplish his purpose. he will surely have the senate, and with the patronage of the government, with every interest which he can bring to bear, co-operating with every interest which the south can bring to bear, he will establish the compromise line. we cry safety before we are out of the woods, if we feel that the danger respecting the territories is over. gentlemen, i came here to confer with you as friends and countrymen, to speak my own mind and hear yours; but if we all should speak, and occupy as much time as i have, we should make a late meeting. i shall detain you no longer. i have been long in public life, longer, far longer than i shall remain there. i have had some participation for more than thirty years in the councils of the nation. i profess to feel a strong attachment to the liberty of the united states, to the constitution and free institutions of this country, to the honor, and i may say the glory, of my native land. i feel every injury inflicted upon it, almost as a personal injury. i blush for every fault which i think i see committed in its public councils, as if they were faults or mistakes of my own. i know that, at this moment, there is no object upon earth so much attracting the gaze of the intelligent and civilized nations of the earth as this great republic. all men look at us, all men examine our course, all good men are anxious for a favorable result to this great experiment of republican liberty. we are on a hill and cannot be hid. we cannot withdraw ourselves either from the commendation or the reproaches of the civilized world. they see us as that star of empire which half a century ago was represented as making its way westward. i wish they may see it as a mild, placid, though brilliant orb, moving athwart the whole heavens to the enlightening and cheering of mankind; and not as a meteor of fire and blood terrifying the nations. jeremiah mason. [the death of the hon. jeremiah mason, one of the most eminent members of the legal profession in the united states, took place at boston, on the th of october, . at a meeting of the bar of the county of suffolk, mass., held on the th instant, appropriate resolutions in honor of the deceased, accompanied with a few eloquent observations, were introduced by mr. choate, and unanimously adopted. it was voted by the meeting, that mr. webster should be requested to present these resolutions to the supreme judicial court at its next term in boston. in compliance with this request, at the opening of the next term of the court, on the th of november, , prayer having been offered, mr. webster rose and spoke as follows.] may it please your honors,--jeremiah mason, one of the counsellors of this court, departed this life on the th of october, at his residence in this city. the death of one of its members, so highly respected, so much admired and venerated, could not fail to produce a striking impression upon the members of this bar; and a meeting was immediately called, at which a member of this court, just on the eve of leaving the practice of his profession for a seat on the bench,[ ] presided; and resolutions expressive of the sense entertained by the bar of the high character of the deceased, and of sincere condolence with those whom his loss touched more nearly, were moved by one of his distinguished brethren, and adopted with entire unanimity. my brethren have appointed me to the honorable duty of presenting these resolutions to this court; and it is in discharge of that duty that i rise to address you, and pray that the resolutions which i hold in my hand may be read by the clerk. the clerk of the court then read the resolutions, as follows:-- "_resolved_, that the members of this bar have heard with profound emotion of the decease of the honorable jeremiah mason, one of the most eminent and distinguished of the great men who have ever adorned this profession; and, as well in discharge of a public duty, as in obedience to the dictates of our private feelings, we think it proper to mark this occasion by some attempt to record our estimate of his pre-eminent abilities and high character. "_resolved_, that the public character and services of mr. mason demand prominent commemoration; that, throughout his long life, whether as a private person or in public place, he maintained a wide and various intercourse with public men, and cherished a constant and deep interest in public affairs, and by his vast practical wisdom and sagacity, the fruit of extraordinary intellectual endowments, matured thought, and profound observation, and by the soundness of his opinions and the comprehensiveness and elevated tone of his politics, he exerted at all times a great and most salutary influence upon the sentiments and policy of the community and the country; and that, as a senator in the congress of the united states during a period of many years, and in a crisis of affairs which demanded the wisdom of the wisest and the civil virtues of the best, he was distinguished among the most eminent men of his country for ability in debate, for attention to all the duties of his great trust, for moderation, for prudence, for fidelity to the obligations of that party connection to which he was attached, for fidelity still more conspicuous and still more admirable to the higher obligations of a thoughtful and enlarged patriotism. "_resolved_, that it was the privilege of mr. mason to come to the bar when the jurisprudence of new england was yet in its infancy; that he brought to its cultivation great general ability, and a practical sagacity, logical power, and patient research,--constituting altogether a legal genius, rarely if ever surpassed; that it was greatly through his influence that the growing wants of a prosperous state were met and satisfied by a system of common law at once flexible and certain, deduced by the highest human wisdom from the actual wants of the community, logically correct, and practically useful; that in the fact that the state of new hampshire now possesses such a system of law, whose gladsome light has shone on other states, are seen both the product and the monument of his labors, less conspicuous, but not less real, than if embodied in codes and institutes bearing his name; yet that, bred as he was to the common law, his great powers, opened and liberalized by its study and practice, enabled him to grasp readily, and wield with entire ease, those systems of equity, applicable to the transactions of the land or the sea, which, in recent times, have so much meliorated and improved the administration of justice in our country. "_resolved_, that as respects his practice as a counsellor and advocate at this bar, we would record our sense of his integrity, prudence, fidelity, depth of learning, knowledge of men and affairs, and great powers of persuading kindred minds; and we know well, that, when _he_ died, there was extinguished one of the few great lights of the old common law. "_resolved_, that mr. webster be requested to present these resolutions to the supreme judicial court, at its next term, in boston; and the district attorney of the united states be requested to present them to the circuit court of the united states now in session. "_resolved_, that the secretary communicate to the family of mr. mason a copy of these resolutions, together with the respectful sympathy of the bar." the proprieties of this occasion (continued mr. webster) compel me, with whatever reluctance, to refrain from the indulgence of the personal feelings which arise in my heart, upon the death of one with whom i have cultivated a sincere, affectionate, and unbroken friendship, from the day when i commenced my own professional career, to the closing hour of his life. i will not say, of the advantages which i have derived from his intercourse and conversation, all that mr. fox said of edmund burke; but i am bound to say, that of my own professional discipline and attainments, whatever they may be, i owe much to that close attention to the discharge of my duties which i was compelled to pay, for nine successive years, from day to day, by mr. mason's efforts and arguments at the same bar. _fas est ab hoste doceri_; and i must have been unintelligent, indeed, not to have learned something from the constant displays of that power which i had so much occasion to see and to feel. it is the more appropriate duty of the present moment to give some short notice of his life, character, and the qualities of his mind and heart, so that he may be presented as an example to those who are entering upon or pursuing the same career. four or five years ago, mr. mason drew up a biography of himself, from the earliest period of his recollection to the time of his removal to portsmouth, in ; which is interesting, not only for the information it gives of the mode in which the habits of his life were formed, but also for the manner of its composition. he was born on the th day of april, , at lebanon in connecticut. his remotest ancestor in this country was captain john mason (an officer who had served with distinction in the netherlands, under sir thomas fairfax), who came from england in , and settled at dorchester in the colony of massachusetts. his great-grandfather lived at haddam. his grandfather, born in , lived at norwich, and died in the year . mr. mason remembered him, and recollected his character, as that of a respectable and deeply religious man. his ancestor on the maternal side was james fitch, a learned divine, who came from england and settled in saybrook, but removed to lebanon, where he died. a latin epitaph, in the ancient burying-ground of that town, records his merits. one of his descendants held a large tract of land in the parish of goshen, in the town of lebanon, by grant from the indians; one half of which, near a century afterwards, was bequeathed to his daughter, elizabeth fitch, the mother of mr. mason. to this property mr. mason's father removed soon after his marriage, and there he died, in . the title of this land was obtained from uncas, an indian sachem in that neighborhood, by the great-grandfather of mr. mason's mother, and has never been alienated from the family. it is now owned by mr. mason's nephew, jeremiah mason, the son of his eldest brother james. the family has been distinguished for longevity; the average ages of mr. mason's six immediate ancestors having exceeded eighty-three years each. mr. mason was the sixth of nine children, all of whom are now dead. mr. mason's father was a man of intelligence and activity, of considerable opulence, and highly esteemed by the community. at the commencement of the revolutionary war, being a zealous whig, he raised and commanded a company of minute-men, as they were called, and marched to the siege of boston. here he rendered important service, being stationed at dorchester heights, and engaged in fortifying that position. in the autumn of that year, he was promoted to a colonelcy, and joined the army with his regiment, in the neighborhood of new york. at the end of the campaign, he returned home out of health, but retained the command of his regiment, which he rallied and brought out with celerity and spirit when general arnold assaulted and burned new london. he became attached to military life, and regretted that he had not at an early day entered the continental service. colonel mason was a good man, affectionate to his family, kind and obliging to his neighbors, and faithful in the observance of all moral and religious duties. mr. mason's mother was distinguished for a good understanding, much discretion, the purity of her heart and affections, and the exemplary kindness and benevolence of her life. it was her great anxiety to give all her children the best education, within the means of the family, which the state of the country would allow; and she was particularly desirous that jeremiah should be sent to college. "in my recollection of my mother," says mr. mason, "she was the personification of love, kindness, and benevolence." destined for an education and for professional life, mr. mason was sent to yale college, at sixteen years of age; his preparatory studies having been pursued under "master tisdale," who had then been forty years at the head of a school in lebanon, which had become distinguished, and among the scholars of which were the wheelocks, afterwards presidents of dartmouth college. he was graduated in , and performed a part in the commencement exercises, which greatly raised the expectation of his friends, and gratified and animated his love for distinction. "in the course of a long and active life," says he, "i recollect no occasion when i have experienced such elevation of feeling." this was the effect of that spirit of emulation which incited the whole course of his life of usefulness. there is now prevalent among us a morbid and sickly notion, that emulation, even as honorable rivalry, is a debasing passion, and not to be encouraged. it supposes that the mind should be left without such excitement, in a dreamy and undisturbed state, flowing or not flowing, according to its own impulse, without such aids as are furnished by the rivalry of one with another. for one, i do not believe in this. i hold to the doctrine of the old school, as to this part of education. quinctilian says: "sunt quidam, nisi institeris, remissi; quidam imperio indignantur: quosdam continet metus, quosdam debilitat: alios continuatio extundit, in aliis plus impetus facit. mihi ille detur puer, quem laus excitet, quem gloria juvet, qui victus fleat; hic erit alendus ambitu, hunc mordebit objurgatio, hunc honor excitabit; in hoc desidiam nunquam verebor." i think this is sound sense and just feeling. mr. mason was destined for the law, and commenced the study of that profession with mr. baldwin, a gentleman who has lived to perform important public and private duties, has served his country in congress, and on the bench of the supreme court of connecticut, and still lives to hear the account of the peaceful death of his distinguished pupil. after a year, he went to vermont, in whose recently established tribunals he expected to find a new sphere for the gratification of ambition, and the employment of talents. he studied in the office of stephen rowe bradley, afterwards a senator in congress; and was admitted to the bar, in vermont and new hampshire, in the year . he began his career in westmoreland, a few miles below walpole, at the age of twenty-three; but in , three years afterwards, removed to walpole, as being a larger village, where there was more society and more business. there was at that time on the connecticut river a rather unusual number of gentlemen, distinguished for polite accomplishments and correct tastes in literature, and among them some well known to the public as respectable writers and authors. among these were mr. benjamin west, mr. dennie, mr. royall tyler, mr. jacobs, mr. samuel hunt, mr. j.w. blake, mr. colman (who established, and for a long time edited, the "new york evening post"), and mr. olcott. in the association with these gentlemen, and those like them, mr. mason found an agreeable position, and cultivated tastes and habits of the highest character. about this period, he made a journey to virginia, on some business connected with land titles, where he had much intercourse with major-general henry lee; and, on his return, he saw president washington, at philadelphia, and was greatly struck by the urbanity and dignity of his manner. he heard fisher ames make his celebrated speech upon the british treaty. all that the world has said with regard to the extraordinary effect produced by that speech, and its wonderful excellence, is fully confirmed by the opinion of mr. mason. he speaks of it as one of the highest exhibitions of popular oratory that he had ever witnessed; popular, not in any low sense, but popular as being addressed to a popular body, and high in all the qualities of sound reasoning and enlightened eloquence. mr. mason was inclined to exercise his abilities in a larger sphere. he had at this time made the acquaintance of aaron burr and alexander hamilton. the former advised mr. mason to remove himself to new york. his own preference was for boston; but he thought, that, filled as it then was by distinguished professional ability, it was too crowded to allow him a place. that was a mistake. on the contrary, the bar of this city, with the utmost liberality and generosity of feeling and sentiment, have always been ready to receive, with open arms, every honorable acquisition to the dignity and usefulness of the profession, from other states. mr. mason, however, removed to portsmouth in the autumn of ; and, as was to be expected, his practice soon became extensive. he was appointed attorney-general in . about that time, the late learned and lamented chief justice smith retired from his professional duties, to take his place as a judge; and mr. mason became the acknowledged head of his profession. he resigned the office of attorney-general, three or four years afterwards, to the great regret of the court, the bar, and the country. as a prosecuting officer, he was courteous, inflexible, and just; careful that the guilty should not escape, and that the honest should be protected. he was impartial, almost judicial, in the administration of his great office. he had no morbid eagerness for conviction; and never permitted, as sometimes occurs, an unworthy wrangling between the official power prosecuting, and the zeal of the other party defending. his official course produced exactly the ends it was designed to do. the honest felt safe; but there was a trembling and fear in the evil disposed, that the transgressed law would be vindicated. very much confined to his profession, he never sought office or political elevation. yet he held decided opinions upon all political questions, and cultivated acquaintance with all the leading subjects of the day; and no man was more keenly alive than he to whatever occurred, at home or abroad, involving the great interests of the civilized world. his political principles, opinions, judgments, were framed upon those of the men of the times of washington. from these, to the last, he never swerved. the copy was well executed. his conversation on subjects of state was as instructive and interesting as upon professional topics. he had the same reach of thought, and exhibited the same comprehensive mind, and sagacity quick and far seeing, with regard to political things and men, as he did in professional affairs. his influence was, therefore, hardly the less from the fact that he was not actively engaged in political life. there was an additional weight given to his judgment, arising from his being a disinterested beholder only. the looker-on can sometimes form a more independent and impartial opinion of the course and results of the contest, than those who are actually engaged in it. but at length, in june, , he was persuaded to accept the post of a senator of the united states, and took his seat that month. he was in congress during the sessions of and . those were very exciting times; party spirit ran very high, and each party put forward its most prominent and gifted men. both houses were filled by the greatest intellects of the country. mr. mason found himself by the side of rufus king, giles, goldsborough, gore, barbour, daggett, hunter, and other distinguished public men. among men of whatever party, and however much some of them differed from him in opinion or political principle, there was not one of them all but felt pleasure if he spoke, and respected his uncommon ability and probity, and his fair and upright demeanor in his place and station. he took at once his appropriate position. of his associates and admirers in the other house, there are some eminent persons now living who were occasional listeners to his speeches and much struck with his ability; together with pickering, benson, pitkin, stockton, lowndes, gaston, and hopkinson, now all deceased, who used to flock to hear him, and always derived deep gratification and instruction from his talents, character, and power. he resigned his seat in the senate in . his published speeches are not numerous. the reports of that day were far less complete than now, and comparatively few debates were preserved and revised. it was a remarkable truth, that he always thought far too lightly of himself and all his productions. i know that he was with difficulty persuaded to prepare his speeches in congress for publication; and in this memorial of himself which i have before me he says, with every appearance and feeling of sincerity, that he "has never acted any important part in life, but has felt a deep interest in the conduct of others." his two main speeches were, first, one of great vigor, in the senate, in february, , on the embargo, just before that policy was abandoned. the other was later, in december, , shortly before the peace, on mr. giles's conscription bill, in which he discussed the subject of the enlistment of minors; and the clause authorizing such enlistment was struck out upon his motion. he was afterwards for several years a member of the new hampshire legislature, and assisted in revising the code of that state. he paid much attention to the subject of the judicature, and performed his services fully to the satisfaction of the state; and the result of his labors was warmly commended. in he was again a candidate for the senate of the united states. the election was to be made by the concurrent vote of the two branches of the legislature. in the popular branch he was chosen by a strong vote. the senate, however, non-concurred; by which means the election was lost,--a loss to the country, not to him,--by force of circumstances and agencies not now or ever fit to be recalled or remembered. he continued to reside for many years in portsmouth. his residence in that ancient town was a happy one. he was happy in his family and in the society of the town, surrounded by agreeable neighbors, respected by the bar and the court, and standing at the head of his profession. he had a great love of conversation. he took pleasure in hearing others talk, and gave an additional charm by the freshness, agreeableness, and originality of his own observations. his warm hospitality left him never alone, and his usefulness was felt as much within the walls of the homes, as of the tribunals, of portsmouth. there are yet many in that town who love him and his; many who witnessed, as children, and recollect, the enthusiasm with which he was greeted by their fathers and mothers; and all in new hampshire old enough to remember him will feel what we feel here on this occasion. led at last partly by the desire of exerting his abilities in a larger sphere of usefulness, and partly by the fact of the residence here of beloved domestic connections, he came to this city, and entered upon the performance of his professional duties in . of the manner in which he discharged those duties, this court is the most competent judge. you, mr. chief justice, and the venerable associate who usually occupies a place at your right,[ ] have been witnesses of the whole. you know the fidelity with which he observed his duty to the court, as well as his duty to his clients. in learning, assiduity, respect for the bench, uprightness, and integrity, he stood as an example to the bar. you know the general probity and talent with which he performed, for so many years, the duty of a counsellor of this court. i should hardly trust myself to make any analysis of mr. mason's mind. i may be a partial judge. but i may speak of what i myself admire and venerate. the characteristics of mr. mason's mind, as i think, were real greatness, strength, and sagacity. he was great through strong sense and sound judgment, great by comprehensive views of things, great by high and elevated purposes. perhaps sometimes he was too cautious and refined, and his distinctions became too minute; but his discrimination arose from a force of intellect, and quick-seeing, far-reaching sagacity, everywhere discerning his object and pursuing it steadily. whether it was popular or professional, he grasped a point and held it with a strong hand. he was sarcastic sometimes, but not frequently; not frothy or petulant, but cool and vitriolic. unfortunate for him on whom his sarcasm fell! his conversation was as remarkable as his efforts at the bar. it was original, fresh, and suggestive; never dull or indifferent. he never talked when he had nothing to say. he was particularly agreeable, edifying, and instructive to all about him; and this was the charm of the social intercourse in which he was connected. as a professional man, mr. mason's great ability lay in the department of the common law. in this part of jurisprudence he was profoundly learned. he had drunk copiously from its deepest springs; and he had studied with diligence and success the departures from the english common law which had taken place in this country, either necessarily, from difference of condition, or positively, by force of our own statutes. in his addresses, both to courts and juries, he affected to despise all eloquence, and certainly disdained all ornament; but his efforts, whether addressed to one tribunal or the other, were marked by a degree of clearness, directness, and force not easy to be equalled. there were no courts of equity, as a separate and distinct jurisdiction, in new hampshire, during his residence in that state. yet the equity treatises and equity reports were all in his library, not "wisely ranged for show," but for constant and daily consultation; because he saw that the common law itself was growing every day more and more liberal, that equity principles were constantly forcing themselves into its administration and within its rules; that the subjects of litigation in the courts were constantly becoming, more and more, such as escaped from the technicalities and the trammels of the common law, and offered themselves for discussion and decision on the broader principles of general jurisprudence. mr. mason, like other accomplished lawyers, and more than most, admired the searching scrutiny and the high morality of a court of equity; and felt the instruction and edification resulting from the perusal of the judgments of lord hardwicke, lord eldon, and sir william grant, as well as of those of great names in our own country, not now among the living. among his early associates in new hampshire, there were many distinguished men. of those now dead were mr. west, mr. gordon, edward st. loe livermore, peleg sprague, william k. atkinson, george sullivan, thomas w. thompson, and amos kent; the last of these having been always a particular personal friend. all of these gentlemen in their day held high and respectable stations, and were eminent as lawyers of probity and character. another contemporary and friend of mr. mason was mr. timothy bigelow, a lawyer of reputation, a man of probity and honor, attractive by his conversation, and highly agreeable in his social intercourse. mr. bigelow, we all know, was of this state, in which he filled high offices with great credit; but, as a counsellor and advocate, he was constant in his attendance on the new hampshire courts. having known mr. bigelow from my early youth, i have pleasure in recalling the mutual regard and friendship which i know to have subsisted between him and the subject of these remarks. i ought not to omit mr. wilson and mr. betton, in mentioning mr. mason's contemporaries at the bar. they were near his own age, and both well known as lawyers and public men. mr. mason, while yet in new hampshire, found himself engaged in causes in which that illustrious man, samuel dexter, also appeared. the late mr. justice story was still more frequently at the bar of that state; and, at a period somewhat earlier, your great and distinguished predecessor, chief justice parsons, occasionally presented himself before the courts at portsmouth or exeter, and he is known to have entertained a very high regard, personal and professional, as well for mr. mason as for the late chief justice smith. among those still living, with whom mr. mason was on terms of intimacy, and with whom he associated at the bar, were messrs. plumer, arthur livermore, samuel bell, and charles h. atherton. if these respected men could be here to-day, every one of them would unite with us in our tribute of love and veneration to his memory. but, sir, political eminence and professional fame fade away and die with all things earthly. nothing of character is really permanent but virtue and personal worth. these remain. whatever of excellence is wrought into the soul itself belongs to both worlds. real goodness does not attach itself merely to this life; it points to another world. political or professional reputation cannot last for ever; but a conscience void of offence before god and man is an inheritance for eternity. _religion_, therefore, is a necessary and indispensable element in any great human character. there is no living without it. religion is the tie that connects man with his creator, and holds him to his throne. if that tie be all sundered, all broken, he floats away, a worthless atom in the universe; its proper attractions all gone, its destiny thwarted, and its whole future nothing but darkness, desolation, and death. a man with no sense of religious duty is he whom the scriptures describe, in such terse but terrific language, as living "without god in the world." such a man is out of his proper being, out of the circle of all his duties, out of the circle of all his happiness, and away, far, far away, from the purposes of his creation. a mind like mr. mason's, active, thoughtful, penetrating, sedate, could not but meditate deeply on the condition of man below, and feel its responsibilities. he could not look on this mighty system, "this universal frame, thus wondrous fair," without feeling that it was created and upheld by an intelligence, to which all other intelligences must be responsible. i am bound to say, that in the course of my life i never met with an individual, in any profession or condition of life, who always spoke, and always thought, with such awful reverence of the power and presence of god. no irreverence, no lightness, even no too familiar allusion to god and his attributes, ever escaped his lips. the very notion of a supreme being was, with him, made up of awe and solemnity. it filled the whole of his great mind with the strongest emotions. a man like him, with all his proper sentiments and sensibilities alive in him, must, in this state of existence, have something to believe and something to hope for; or else, as life is advancing to its close and parting, all is heart-sinking and oppression. depend upon it, whatever may be the mind of an old man, old age is only really happy, when, on feeling the enjoyments of this world pass away, it begins to lay a stronger hold on those of another. mr. mason's religious sentiments and feelings were the crowning glories of his character. one, with the strongest motives to love and venerate him, and the best means of knowledge, says:-- "so far as my memory extends, he always showed a deep conviction of the divine authority of the holy scriptures, of the institutions of christianity, and of the importance of personal religion. soon after his residence in boston, he entered the communion of the church, and has continued since regularly to receive the lord's supper. from that time, he also habitually maintained domestic worship, morning and evening. the death of two of his sons produced a deep impression upon his mind, and directed it in an increased degree to religious subjects. "though he was always reserved in the expression of religious feeling, still it has been very apparent, for several years, that his thoughts dwelt much upon his practical religious duties, and especially upon preparation for another world. within three or four years, he frequently led the conversation to such subjects; and during the year past, immediate preparation for his departure has been obviously the constant subject of his attention. his expressions in regard to it were deeply humble; and, indeed, the very humble manner in which he always spoke of himself was most marked. "i have observed, of late years, an increasing tenderness in his feelings and manner, and a desire to impress his family with the conviction that he would not remain long with them. his allusions of this kind have been repeated, even when apparently in his usual health; and they indicated the current of his thoughts. "he retained his consciousness till within a few hours of his death, and made distinct replies to every question put to him. he was fully aware that his end was near; and in answer to the question, 'can you now rest with firm faith upon the merits of your divine redeemer?' he said, 'i trust i do, upon what else can i rest?' "at another time, in reply to a similar question, he said, '_of course_, i have no other ground of hope.' we did not often speak to him during those last three days, but had no doubt that he was entirely conscious of his state, knew that his family were all near, and that his mind was free from anxiety. he could not speak with ease, and we were unwilling to cause him the pain of exertion. his whole life, marked by uniform greatness, wisdom, and integrity, his deep humility, his profound reverence for the divine majesty, his habitual preparation for death, his humble trust in his saviour, left nothing to be desired for the consolation of his family under this great loss. he was gradually prepared for his departure. his last years were passed in calm retirement; and he died as he wished to die, with his faculties unimpaired, without great pain, with his family around his bed, the precious promises of the gospel before his mind, without lingering disease, and yet not suddenly called away." such, mr. chief justice, was the life, and such the death, of jeremiah mason. for one, i could pour out my heart like water, at the recollection of his virtues and his friendship, and in the feeling of his loss. i would embalm his memory in my best affections. his personal regard, so long continued to me, i esteem one of the greatest blessings of my life; and i hope that it may be known hereafter, that, without intermission or coolness through many years, and until he descended to his grave, mr. mason and myself were friends. mr. mason died in old age; not by a violent stroke from the hand of death, not by a sudden rupture of the ties of nature, but by a gradual wearing out of his constitution. he enjoyed through life, indeed, remarkable health. he took competent exercise, loved the open air, and, avoiding all extreme theories or practice, controlled his conduct and habits of life by the rules of prudence and moderation. his death was therefore not unlike that described by the angel, admonishing adam:-- "i yield it just, said adam, and submit. but is there yet no other way, besides these painful passages, how we may come to death, and mix with our connatural dust? "there is, said michael, if thou well observe the rule of 'not too much,' by temperance taught, in what thou eat'st and drink'st; seeking from thence due nourishment, not gluttonous delight; till many years over thy head return, so mayst thou live; till, like ripe fruit, thou drop into thy mother's lap; or be with ease gathered, not harshly plucked; for death mature. this is old age." [footnote : mr. justice richard fletcher.] [footnote : mr. justice wilde.] kossuth. from a speech delivered in boston, on the th of november, , at a festival of the natives of new hampshire established in massachusetts. we have all had our sympathies much enlisted in the hungarian effort for liberty. we have all wept at its failure. we thought we saw a more rational hope of establishing free government in hungary than in any other part of europe, where the question has been in agitation within the last twelve months. but despotic power from abroad intervened to suppress that hope. and, gentlemen, what will come of it i do not know. for my part, at this moment, i feel more indignant at recent events connected with hungary than at all those which passed in her struggle for liberty. i see that the emperor of russia demands of turkey that the noble kossuth and his companions shall be given up, to be dealt with at his pleasure. and i see that this demand is made in derision of the established law of nations. gentlemen, there is something on earth greater than arbitrary or despotic power. the lightning has its power, and the whirlwind has its power, and the earthquake has its power; but there is something among men more capable of shaking despotic thrones than lightning, whirlwind, or earthquake, and that is, the excited and aroused indignation of the whole civilized world. gentlemen, the emperor of russia holds himself to be bound by the law of nations, from the fact that he negotiates with civilized nations, and that he forms alliances and treaties with them. he professes, in fact, to live in a civilized age, and to govern an enlightened nation. i say, that if, under these circumstances, he shall perpetrate so great a violation of national law as to seize these hungarians and to execute them, he will stand as a criminal and malefactor in the view of the public law of the world. the whole world will be the tribunal to try him, and he must appear before it, and hold up his hand, and plead, and abide its judgment. the emperor of russia is the supreme lawgiver in his own country, and, for aught i know, the executor of that law also. but, thanks be to god, he is not the supreme lawgiver or executor of national law, and every offence against that is an offence against the rights of the civilized world. if he breaks that law in the case of turkey, or any other case, the whole world has a right to call him out, and to demand his punishment. our rights as a nation, like those of other nations, are held under the sanction of national law; a law which becomes more important from day to day; a law which none, who profess to agree to it, are at liberty to violate. nor let him imagine, nor let any one imagine, that mere force can subdue the general sentiment of mankind. it is much more likely to diffuse that sentiment, and to destroy the power which he most desires to establish and secure. gentlemen, the bones of poor john wickliffe were dug out of his grave, seventy years after his death, and burnt for his heresy; and his ashes were thrown upon a river in warwickshire. some prophet of that day said: "the avon to the severn runs, the severn to the sea, and wickliffe's dust shall spread abroad, wide as the waters be." gentlemen, if the blood of kossuth is taken by an absolute, unqualified, unjustifiable violation of national law, what will it appease, what will it pacify? it will mingle with the earth, it will mix with the waters of the ocean, the whole civilized world will snuff it in the air, and it will return with awful retribution on the heads of those violators of national law and universal justice. i can not say when, or in what form; but depend upon it, that, if such an act take place, then thrones, and principalities, and powers, must look out for the consequences. and now, gentlemen, let us do our part; let us understand the position in which we stand, as the great republic of the world, at the most interesting era of its history. let us consider the mission and the destiny which providence seems to have designed for us, and let us so take care of our own conduct, that, with irreproachable hearts, and with hands void of offence, we may stand up whenever and wherever called upon, and, with a voice not to be disregarded, say, this shall not be done, at least not without our protest. the constitution and the union. a speech delivered in the senate of the united states, on the th of march, . [on the th of january, , mr. clay submitted a series of resolutions to the senate, on the subject of slavery, in connection with the various questions which had arisen in consequence of the acquisition of mexican territory. these resolutions furnished the occasion of a protracted debate. on wednesday, the th of march, mr. walker of wisconsin engaged in the discussion, but, owing to the length of time taken up by repeated interruptions, he was unable to finish his argument. in the mean time it had been generally understood that mr. webster would, at an early day, take an opportunity of addressing the senate on the present aspect of the slavery question, on the dangers to the union of the existing agitation, and on the terms of honorable adjustment. in the expectation of hearing a speech from him on these all-important topics, an immense audience assembled in the senate-chamber at an early hour of thursday, the th of march. the floor, the galleries, and the antechambers of the senate were crowded, and it was with difficulty that the members themselves were able to force their way to their seats. at twelve o'clock the special order of the day was announced, and the vice-president stated that mr. walker of wisconsin was entitled to the floor. that gentleman, however, rose and said:-- "mr. president, this vast audience has not come together to hear me, and there is but one man, in my opinion, who can assemble such an audience. they expect to hear him, and i feel it to be my duty, therefore, as it is my pleasure, to give the floor to the senator from massachusetts. i understand it is immaterial to him upon which of these questions he speaks, and therefore i will not move to postpone the special order." mr. webster then rose, and, after making his acknowledgments to the senators from wisconsin (mr. walker) and new york (mr. seward) for their courtesy in yielding the floor to him, delivered the following speech, which, in consideration of its character and of the manner in which it was received throughout the country, has been entitled a speech for "the constitution and the union." in the pamphlet edition it was dedicated in the following terms to the people of massachusetts:-- with the highest respect, and the deepest sense of obligation, i dedicate this speech to the people of massachusetts. "his ego gratiora dictu alia esse scio; sed me vera pro gratis loqui, etsi meum ingenium non moneret, necessitas cogit. vellem, equidem, vobis placere; sed multo malo vos salvos esse, qualicumque erga me animo futuri estis." daniel webster.] mr. president,--i wish to speak to-day, not as a massachusetts man, nor as a northern man, but as an american, and a member of the senate of the united states. it is fortunate that there is a senate of the united states; a body not yet moved from its propriety, not lost to a just sense of its own dignity and its own high responsibilities, and a body to which the country looks, with confidence, for wise, moderate, patriotic, and healing counsels. it is not to be denied that we live in the midst of strong agitations, and are surrounded by very considerable dangers to our institutions and government. the imprisoned winds are let loose. the east, the north, and the stormy south combine to throw the whole sea into commotion, to toss its billows to the skies, and disclose its profoundest depths. i do not affect to regard myself, mr. president, as holding, or as fit to hold, the helm in this combat with the political elements; but i have a duty to perform, and i mean to perform it with fidelity, not without a sense of existing dangers, but not without hope. i have a part to act, not for my own security or safety, for i am looking out for no fragment upon which to float away from the wreck, if wreck there must be, but for the good of the whole, and the preservation of all; and there is that which will keep me to my duty during this struggle, whether the sun and the stars shall appear, or shall not appear, for many days. i speak to-day for the preservation of the union. "hear me for my cause." i speak to-day, out of a solicitous and anxious heart, for the restoration to the country of that quiet and that harmony which make the blessings of this union so rich, and so dear to us all. these are the topics that i propose to myself to discuss; these are the motives, and the sole motives, that influence me in the wish to communicate my opinions to the senate and the country; and if i can do any thing, however little, for the promotion of these ends, i shall have accomplished all that i expect. mr. president, it may not be amiss to recur very briefly to the events which, equally sudden and extraordinary, have brought the country into its present political condition. in may, , the united states declared war against mexico. our armies, then on the frontiers, entered the provinces of that republic, met and defeated all her troops, penetrated her mountain passes, and occupied her capital. the marine force of the united states took possession of her forts and her towns, on the atlantic and on the pacific. in less than two years a treaty was negotiated, by which mexico ceded to the united states a vast territory, extending seven or eight hundred miles along the shores of the pacific, and reaching back over the mountains, and across the desert, until it joins the frontier of the state of texas. it so happened, in the distracted and feeble condition of the mexican government, that, before the declaration of war by the united states against mexico had become known in california, the people of california, under the lead of american officers, overthrew the existing mexican provincial government, and raised an independent flag. when the news arrived at san francisco that war had been declared by the united states against mexico, this independent flag was pulled down, and the stars and stripes of this union hoisted in its stead. so, sir, before the war was over, the forces of the united states, military and naval, had possession of san francisco and upper california, and a great rush of emigrants from various parts of the world took place into california in and . but now behold another wonder. in january of , a party of mormons made a discovery of an extraordinarily rich mine of gold, or rather of a great quantity of gold, hardly proper to be called a mine, for it was spread near the surface, on the lower part of the south, or american, branch of the sacramento. they attempted to conceal their discovery for some time; but soon another discovery of gold, perhaps of greater importance, was made, on another part of the american branch of the sacramento, and near sutter's fort, as it is called. the fame of these discoveries spread far and wide. they inflamed more and more the spirit of emigration towards california, which had already been excited; and adventurers crowded into the country by hundreds, and flocked towards the bay of san francisco. this, as i have said, took place in the winter and spring of . the digging commenced in the spring of that year, and from that time to this the work of searching for gold has been prosecuted with a success not heretofore known in the history of this globe. you recollect, sir, how incredulous at first the american public was at the accounts which reached us of these discoveries but we all know, now, that these accounts received, and continue to receive, daily confirmation, and down to the present moment i suppose the assurance is as strong, after the experience of these several months, of the existence of deposits of gold apparently inexhaustible in the regions near san francisco, in california, as it was at any period of the earlier dates of the accounts. it so happened, sir, that although, after the return of peace, it became a very important subject for legislative consideration and legislative decision to provide a proper territorial government for california, yet differences of opinion between the two houses of congress prevented the establishment of any such territorial government at the last session. under this state of things, the inhabitants of california, already amounting to a considerable number, thought it to be their duty, in the summer of last year, to establish a local government. under the proclamation of general riley, the people chose delegates to a convention, and that convention met at monterey. it formed a constitution for the state of california, which, being referred to the people, was adopted by them in their primary assemblages. desirous of immediate connection with the united states, its senators were appointed and representatives chosen, who have come hither, bringing with them the authentic constitution of the state of california; and they now present themselves, asking, in behalf of their constituents, that it may be admitted into this union as one of the united states. this constitution, sir, contains an express prohibition of slavery, or involuntary servitude, in the state of california. it is said, and i suppose truly, that, of the members who composed that convention, some sixteen were natives of, and had been residents in, the slave-holding states, about twenty-two were from the non-slaveholding states, and the remaining ten members were either native californians or old settlers in that country. this prohibition of slavery, it is said, was inserted with entire unanimity. it is this circumstance, sir, the prohibition of slavery, which has contributed to raise, i do not say it has wholly raised, the dispute as to the propriety of the admission of california into the union under this constitution. it is not to be denied, mr. president, nobody thinks of denying, that, whatever reasons were assigned at the commencement of the late war with mexico, it was prosecuted for the purpose of the acquisition of territory, and under the alleged argument that the cession of territory was the only form in which proper compensation could be obtained by the united states, from mexico, for the various claims and demands which the people of this country had against that government. at any rate, it will be found that president polk's message, at the commencement of the session of december, , avowed that the war was to be prosecuted until some acquisition of territory should be made. as the acquisition was to be south of the line of the united states, in warm climates and countries, it was naturally, i suppose, expected by the south, that whatever acquisitions were made in that region would be added to the slave-holding portion of the united states. very little of accurate information was possessed of the real physical character, either of california or new mexico, and events have not turned out as was expected. both california and new mexico are likely to come in as free states; and therefore some degree of disappointment and surprise has resulted. in other words, it is obvious that the question which has so long harassed the country, and at some times very seriously alarmed the minds of wise and good men, has come upon us for a fresh discussion,--the question of slavery in these united states. now, sir, i propose, perhaps at the expense of some detail and consequent detention of the senate, to review historically this question, which, partly in consequence of its own importance, and partly, perhaps mostly, in consequence of the manner in which it has been discussed in different portions of the country, has been a source of so much alienation and unkind feeling between them. we all know, sir, that slavery has existed in the world from time immemorial. there was slavery, in the earliest periods of history, among the oriental nations. there was slavery among the jews; the theocratic government of that people issued no injunction against it. there was slavery among the greeks; and the ingenious philosophy of the greeks found, or sought to find, a justification for it exactly upon the grounds which have been assumed for such a justification in this country; that is, a natural and original difference among the races of mankind, and the inferiority of the black or colored race to the white. the greeks justified their system of slavery upon that idea, precisely. they held the african and some of the asiatic tribes to be inferior to the white race; but they did not show, i think, by any close process of logic, that, if this were true, the more intelligent and the stronger had therefore a right to subjugate the weaker. the more manly philosophy and jurisprudence of the romans placed the justification of slavery on entirely different grounds. the roman jurists, from the first and down to the fall of the empire, admitted that slavery was against the natural law, by which, as they maintained, all men, of whatsoever clime, color, or capacity, were equal; but they justified slavery, first, upon the ground and authority of the law of nations, arguing, and arguing truly, that at that day the conventional law of nations admitted that captives in war, whose lives, according to the notions of the times, were at the absolute disposal of the captors, might, in exchange for exemption from death, be made slaves for life, and that such servitude might descend to their posterity. the jurists of rome also maintained, that, by the civil law, there might be servitude or slavery, personal and hereditary; first, by the voluntary act of an individual, who might sell himself into slavery; secondly, by his being reduced into a state of slavery by his creditors, in satisfaction of his debts; and, thirdly, by being placed in a state of servitude or slavery for crime. at the introduction of christianity, the roman world was full of slaves, and i suppose there is to be found no injunction against that relation between man and man in the teachings of the gospel of jesus christ or of any of his apostles. the object of the instruction imparted to mankind by the founder of christianity was to touch the heart, purify the soul, and improve the lives of individual men. that object went directly to the first fountain of all the political and social relations of the human race, as well as of all true religious feeling, the individual heart and mind of man. now, sir, upon the general nature and influence of slavery there exists a wide difference of opinion between the northern portion of this country and the southern. it is said on the one side, that, although not the subject of any injunction or direct prohibition in the new testament, slavery is a wrong; that it is founded merely in the right of the strongest; and that it is an oppression, like unjust wars, like all those conflicts by which a powerful nation subjects a weaker to its will; and that, in its nature, whatever may be said of it in the modifications which have taken place, it is not according to the meek spirit of the gospel. it is not "kindly affectioned"; it does not "seek another's, and not its own"; it does not "let the oppressed go free." these are sentiments that are cherished, and of late with greatly augmented force, among the people of the northern states. they have taken hold of the religious sentiment of that part of the country, as they have, more or less, taken hold of the religious feelings of a considerable portion of mankind. the south, upon the other side, having been accustomed to this relation between the two races all their lives, from their birth, having been taught, in general, to treat the subjects of this bondage with care and kindness, and i believe, in general, feeling great kindness for them, have not taken the view of the subject which i have mentioned. there are thousands of religious men, with consciences as tender as any of their brethren at the north, who do not see the unlawfulness of slavery; and there are more thousands, perhaps, that, whatsoever they may think of it in its origin, and as a matter depending upon natural right, yet take things as they are, and, finding slavery to be an established relation of the society in which they live, can see no way in which, let their opinions on the abstract question be what they may, it is in the power of the present generation to relieve themselves from this relation. and candor obliges me to say, that i believe they are just as conscientious, many of them, and the religious people, all of them, as they are at the north who hold different opinions. the honorable senator from south carolina[ ] the other day alluded to the separation of that great religious community, the methodist episcopal church. that separation was brought about by differences of opinion upon this particular subject of slavery. i felt great concern, as that dispute went on, about the result. i was in hopes that the difference of opinion might be adjusted, because i looked upon that religious denomination as one of the great props of religion and morals throughout the whole country, from maine to georgia, and westward to our utmost western boundary. the result was against my wishes and against my hopes. i have read all their proceedings and all their arguments; but i have never yet been able to come to the conclusion that there was any real ground for that separation; in other words, that any good could be produced by that separation. i must say i think there was some want of candor and charity. sir, when a question of this kind seizes on the religious sentiments of mankind, and comes to be discussed in religious assemblies of the clergy and laity, there is always to be expected, or always to be feared, a great degree of excitement. it is in the nature of man, manifested by his whole history, that religious disputes are apt to become warm in proportion to the strength of the convictions which men entertain of the magnitude of the questions at issue. in all such disputes, there will sometimes be found men with whom every thing is absolute; absolutely wrong, or absolutely right. they see the right clearly; they think others ought so to see it, and they are disposed to establish a broad line, of distinction between what is right and what is wrong. they are not seldom willing to establish that line upon their own convictions of truth and justice; and are ready to mark and guard it by placing along it a series of dogmas, as lines of boundary on the earth's surface are marked by posts and stones. there are men who, with clear perceptions, as they think, of their own duty, do not see how too eager a pursuit of one duty may involve them in the violation of others, or how too warm an embracement of one truth may lead to a disregard of other truths equally important. as i heard it stated strongly, not many days ago, these persons are disposed to mount upon some particular duty, as upon a war-horse, and to drive furiously on and upon and over all other duties that may stand in the way. there are men who, in reference to disputes of that sort, are of opinion that human duties may be ascertained with the exactness of mathematics. they deal with morals as with mathematics; and they think what is right may be distinguished from what is wrong with the precision of an algebraic equation. they have, therefore, none too much charity towards others who differ from them. they are apt, too, to think that nothing is good but what is perfect, and that there are no compromises or modifications to be made in consideration of difference of opinion or in deference to other men's judgment. if their perspicacious vision enables them to detect a spot on the face of the sun, they think that a good reason why the sun should be struck down from heaven. they prefer the chance of running into utter darkness to living in heavenly light, if that heavenly light be not absolutely without any imperfection. there are impatient men; too impatient always to give heed to the admonition of st. paul, that we are not to "do evil that good may come"; too impatient to wait for the slow progress of moral causes in the improvement of mankind. they do not remember that the doctrines and the miracles of jesus christ have, in eighteen hundred years, converted only a small portion of the human race; and among the nations that are converted to christianity, they forget how many vices and crimes, public and private, still prevail, and that many of them, public crimes especially, which are so clearly offences against the christian religion, pass without exciting particular indignation. thus wars are waged, and unjust wars. i do not deny that there may be just wars. there certainly are; but it was the remark of an eminent person, not many years ago, on the other side of the atlantic, that it is one of the greatest reproaches to human nature that wars are sometimes just. the defence of nations sometimes causes a just war against the injustice of other nations. in this state of sentiment upon the general nature of slavery lies the cause of a great part of those unhappy divisions, exasperations, and reproaches which find vent and support in different parts of the union. but we must view things as they are. slavery does exist in the united states. it did exist in the states before the adoption of this constitution, and at that time. let us, therefore, consider for a moment what was the state of sentiment, north and south, in regard to slavery, at the time this constitution was adopted. a remarkable change has taken place since; but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country think of slavery then? in what estimation did they hold it at the time when this constitution was adopted? it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was then no diversity of opinion between the north and the south upon the subject of slavery. it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil,--a moral and political evil. it will not be found that, either at the north or at the south, there was much, though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. the great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society became less strong and labor less productive; and therefore we find from all the eminent men of the time the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery is an evil. they ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. i need hardly refer, sir, particularly to the publications of the day. they are matters of history on the record. the eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the south, held the same sentiments,--that slavery was an evil, a blight, a scourge, and a curse. there are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the north at that day as in the south. the north was not so much excited against it as the south; and the reason is, i suppose, that there was much less of it at the north, and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the south. then, sir, when this constitution was framed, this was the light in which the federal convention viewed it. that body reflected the judgment and sentiments of the great men of the south. a member of the other house, whom i have not the honor to know, has, in a recent speech, collected extracts from these public documents. they prove the truth of what i am saying, and the question then was, how to deal with it, and how to deal with it as an evil. they came to this general result. they thought that slavery could not be continued in the country if the importation of slaves were made to cease, and therefore they provided that, after a certain period, the importation might be prevented by the act of the new government. the period of twenty years was proposed by some gentleman from the north, i think, and many members of the convention from the south opposed it as being too long. mr. madison especially was somewhat warm against it. he said it would bring too much of this mischief into the country to allow the importation of slaves for such a period. because we must take along with us, in the whole of this discussion, when we are considering the sentiments and opinions in which the constitutional provision originated, that the conviction of all men was, that, if the importation of slaves ceased, the white race would multiply faster than the black race, and that slavery would therefore gradually wear out and expire. it may not be improper here to allude to that, i had almost said, celebrated opinion of mr. madison. you observe, sir, that the term _slave_, or _slavery_, is not used in the constitution. the constitution does not require that "fugitive slaves" shall be delivered up. it requires that persons held to service in one state, and escaping into another, shall be delivered up. mr. madison opposed the introduction of the term _slave_, or _slavery_, into the constitution; for he said that he did not wish to see it recognized by the constitution of the united states of america that there could be property in men. now, sir, all this took place in the convention in ; but connected with this, concurrent and contemporaneous, is another important transaction, not sufficiently attended to. the convention for framing this constitution assembled in philadelphia in may, and sat until september, . during all that time the congress of the united states was in session at new york. it was a matter of design, as we know, that the convention should not assemble in the same city where congress was holding its sessions. almost all the public men of the country, therefore, of distinction and eminence, were in one or the other of these two assemblies; and i think it happened, in some instances, that the same gentlemen were members of both bodies. if i mistake not, such was the case with mr. rufus king, then a member of congress from massachusetts. now, at the very time when the convention in philadelphia was framing this constitution, the congress in new york was framing the ordinance of , for the organization and government of the territory northwest of the ohio. they passed that ordinance on the th of july, , at new york, the very month, perhaps the very day, on which these questions about the importation of slaves and the character of slavery were debated in the convention at philadelphia. so far as we can now learn, there was a perfect concurrence of opinion between these two bodies; and it resulted in this ordinance of , excluding slavery from all the territory over which the congress of the united states had jurisdiction, and that was all the territory northwest of the ohio. three years before, virginia and other states had made a cession of that great territory to the united states; and a most munificent act it was. i never reflect upon it without a disposition to do honor and justice, and justice would be the highest honor, to virginia, for the cession of her northwestern territory. i will say, sir, it is one of her fairest claims to the respect and gratitude of the country, and that, perhaps, it is only second to that other claim which belongs to her,--that from her counsels, and from the intelligence and patriotism of her leading statesmen, proceeded the first idea put into practice of the formation of a general constitution of the united states. the ordinance of applied to the whole territory over which the congress of the united states had jurisdiction. it was adopted two years before the constitution of the united states went into operation; because the ordinance took effect immediately on its passage, while the constitution of the united states, having been framed, was to be sent to the states to be adopted by their conventions; and then a government was to be organized under it. this ordinance, then, was in operation and force when the constitution was adopted, and the government put in motion, in april, . mr. president, three things are quite clear as historical truths. one is, that there was an expectation that, on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from africa, slavery would begin to run out here. that was hoped and expected. another is, that, as far as there was any power in congress to prevent the spread of slavery in the united states, that power was executed in the most absolute manner, and to the fullest extent. an honorable member,[ ] whose health does not allow him to be here to-day-- a senator. he is here. i am very happy to hear that he is; may he long be here, and in the enjoyment of health to serve his country! the honorable member said, the other day, that he considered this ordinance as the first in the series of measures calculated to enfeeble the south, and deprive them of their just participation in the benefits and privileges of this government. he says, very properly, that it was enacted under the old confederation, and before this constitution went into effect; but my present purpose is only to say, mr. president, that it was established with the entire and unanimous concurrence of the whole south. why, there it stands! the vote of every state in the union was unanimous in favor of the ordinance, with the exception of a single individual vote, and that individual vote was given by a northern man. this ordinance prohibiting slavery for ever northwest of the ohio has the hand and seal of every southern member in congress. it was therefore no aggression of the north on the south. the other and third clear historical truth is, that the convention meant to leave slavery in the states as they found it, entirely under the authority and control of the states themselves. this was the state of things, sir, and this the state of opinion, under which those very important matters were arranged, and those three important things done; that is, the establishment of the constitution of the united states with a recognition of slavery as it existed in the states; the establishment of the ordinance for the government of the northwestern territory, prohibiting, to the full extent of all territory owned by the united states, the introduction of slavery into that territory, while leaving to the states all power over slavery in their own limits; and creating a power, in the new government, to put an end to the importation of slaves, after a limited period. there was entire coincidence and concurrence of sentiment between the north and the south, upon all these questions, at the period of the adoption of the constitution. but opinions, sir, have changed, greatly changed; changed north and changed south. slavery is not regarded in the south now as it was then. i see an honorable member of this body paying me the honor of listening to my remarks;[ ] he brings to my mind, sir, freshly and vividly, what i have learned of his great ancestor, so much distinguished in his day and generation, so worthy to be succeeded by so worthy a grandson, and of the sentiments he expressed in the convention in philadelphia.[ ] here we may pause. there was, if not an entire unanimity, a general concurrence of sentiment running through the whole community, and especially entertained by the eminent men of all parts of the country. but soon a change began, at the north and the south, and a difference of opinion showed itself; the north growing much more warm and strong against slavery, and the south growing much more warm and strong in its support. sir, there is no generation of mankind whose opinions are not subject to be influenced by what appear to them to be their present emergent and exigent interests. i impute to the south no particularly selfish view in the change which has come over her. i impute to her certainly no dishonest view. all that has happened has been natural. it has followed those causes which always influence the human mind and operate upon it. what, then, have been the causes which have created so new a feeling in favor of slavery in the south, which have changed the whole nomenclature of the south on that subject, so that, from being thought and described in the terms i have mentioned and will not repeat, it has now become an institution, a cherished institution, in that quarter; no evil, no scourge, but a great religious, social, and moral blessing, as i think i have heard it latterly spoken of? i suppose this, sir, is owing to the rapid growth and sudden extension of the cotton plantations of the south. so far as any motive consistent with honor, justice, and general judgment could act, it was the cotton interest that gave a new desire to promote slavery, to spread it, and to use its labor. i again say that this change was produced by causes which must always produce like effects. the whole interest of the south became connected, more or less, with the extension of slavery. if we look back to the history of the commerce of this country in the early years of this government, what were our exports? cotton was hardly, or but to a very limited extent, known. in the first parcel of cotton of the growth of the united states was exported, and amounted only to , pounds.[ ] it has gone on increasing rapidly, until the whole crop may now, perhaps, in a season of great product and high prices, amount to a hundred millions of dollars. in the years i have mentioned, there was more of wax, more of indigo, more of rice, more of almost every article of export from the south, than of cotton. when mr. jay negotiated the treaty of with england, it is evident from the twelfth article of the treaty, which was suspended by the senate, that he did not know that cotton was exported at all from the united states. well, sir, we know what followed. the age of cotton became the golden age of our southern brethren. it gratified their desire for improvement and accumulation, at the same time that it excited it. the desire grew by what it fed upon, and there soon came to be an eagerness for other territory, a new area or new areas for the cultivation of the cotton crop; and measures leading to this result were brought about rapidly, one after another, under the lead of southern men at the head of the government, they having a majority in both branches of congress to accomplish their ends. the honorable member from south carolina[ ] observed that there has been a majority all along in favor of the north. if that be true, sir, the north has acted either very liberally and kindly, or very weakly; for they never exercised that majority efficiently five times in the history of the government, when a division or trial of strength arose. never. whether they were outgeneralled, or whether it was owing to other causes, i shall not stop to consider; but no man acquainted with the history of the union can deny that the general lead in the politics of the country, for three fourths of the period that has elapsed since the adoption of the constitution, has been a southern lead. in , in pursuit of the idea of opening a new cotton region, the united states obtained a cession from georgia of the whole of her western territory, now embracing the rich and growing states of alabama and mississippi. in louisiana was purchased from france, out of which the states of louisiana, arkansas, and missouri have been framed, as slave-holding states. in the cession of florida was made, bringing in another region adapted to cultivation by slaves. sir, the honorable member from south carolina thought he saw in certain operations of the government, such as the manner of collecting the revenue, and the tendency of measures calculated to promote emigration into the country, what accounts for the more rapid growth of the north than the south. he ascribes that more rapid growth, not to the operation of time, but to the system of government and administration established under this constitution. that is matter of opinion. to a certain extent it may be true; but it does seem to me that, if any operation of the government can be shown in any degree to have promoted the population, and growth, and wealth of the north, it is much more sure that there are sundry important and distinct operations of the government, about which no man can doubt, tending to promote, and which absolutely have promoted, the increase of the slave interest and the slave territory of the south. it was not time that brought in louisiana; it was the act of men. it was not time that brought in florida; it was the act of men. and lastly, sir, to complete those acts of legislation which have contributed so much to enlarge the area of the institution of slavery, texas, great and vast and illimitable texas, was added to the union as a slave state in ; and that, sir, pretty much closed the whole chapter, and settled the whole account. that closed the whole chapter and settled the whole account, because the annexation of texas, upon the conditions and under the guaranties upon which she was admitted, did not leave within the control of this government an acre of land, capable of being cultivated by slave labor, between this capitol and the rio grande or the nueces, or whatever is the proper boundary of texas; not an acre. from that moment, the whole country, from this place to the western boundary of texas, was fixed, pledged, fastened, decided, to be slave territory for ever, by the solemn guaranties of law. and i now say, sir, as the proposition upon which i stand this day, and upon the truth and firmness of which i intend to act until it is overthrown, that there is not at this moment within the united states, or any territory of the united states, a single foot of land, the character of which, in regard to its being free territory or slave territory, is not fixed by some law, and some irrepealable law, beyond the power of the action of the government. is it not so with respect to texas? it is most manifestly so. the honorable member from south carolina, at the time of the admission of texas, held an important post in the executive department of the government; he was secretary of state. another eminent person of great activity and adroitness in affairs, i mean the late secretary of the treasury,[ ] was a conspicuous member of this body, and took the lead in the business of annexation, in co-operation with the secretary of state; and i must say that they did their business faithfully and thoroughly; there was no botch left in it. they rounded it off, and made as close joiner-work as ever was exhibited. resolutions of annexation were brought into congress, fitly joined together, compact, efficient, conclusive upon the great object which they had in view, and those resolutions passed. allow me to read a part of these resolutions. it is the third clause of the second section of the resolution of the st of march, , for the admission of texas, which applies to this part of the case. that clause is as follows:-- "new states, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said state of texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said state, he formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution. and such states as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the missouri compromise line, shall be admitted into the union with or without slavery, as the people of each state asking admission may desire; and in such state or states as shall be formed out of said territory north of said missouri compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited." now what is here stipulated, enacted, and secured? it is, that all texas south of ° ', which is nearly the whole of it, shall be admitted into the union as a slave state. it was a slave state, and therefore came in as a slave state; and the guaranty is, that new states shall be made out of it, to the number of four, in addition to the state then in existence and admitted at that time by these resolutions, and that such states as are formed out of that portion of texas lying south of ° ' may come in as slave states. i know no form of legislation which can strengthen this. i know no mode of recognition that can add a tittle of weight to it. i listened respectfully to the resolutions of my honorable friend from tennessee.[ ] he proposed to recognize that stipulation with texas. but any additional recognition would weaken the force of it; because it stands here on the ground of a contract, a thing done for a consideration. it is a law founded on a contract with texas, and designed to carry that contract into effect. a recognition now, founded not on any consideration, or any contract, would not be so strong as it now stands on the face of the resolution. i know no way, i candidly confess, in which this government, acting in good faith, as i trust it always will, can relieve itself from that stipulation and pledge, by any honest course of legislation whatever. and therefore i say again, that, so far as texas is concerned, in the whole of that state south of ° ', which, i suppose, embraces all the territory capable of slave cultivation, there is no land, not an acre, the character of which is not established by law; a law which cannot be repealed without the violation of a contract, and plain disregard of the public faith. i hope, sir, it is now apparent that my proposition, so far as it respects texas, has been maintained, and that the provision in this article is clear and absolute; and it has been well suggested by my friend from rhode island,[ ] that that part of texas which lies north of ° ' of north latitude, and which may be formed into free states, is dependent, in like manner, upon the consent of texas, herself a slave state. now, sir, how came this? how came it to pass that within these walls, where it is said by the honorable member from south carolina that the free states have always had a majority, this resolution of annexation, such as i have described it, obtained a majority in both houses of congress? sir, it obtained that majority by the great number of northern votes added to the entire southern vote, or at least nearly the whole of the southern vote. the aggregate was made up of northern and southern votes. in the house of representatives there were about eighty southern votes and about fifty northern votes for the admission of texas. in the senate the vote for the admission of texas was twenty-seven, and twenty-five against it; and of those twenty-seven votes, constituting the majority, no less than thirteen came from the free states, and four of them were from new england. the whole of these thirteen senators, constituting within a fraction, you see, one half of all the votes in this body for the admission of this immeasurable extent of slave territory, were sent here by free states. sir, there is not so remarkable a chapter in our history of political events, political parties, and political men as is afforded by this admission of a new slave-holding territory, so vast that a bird cannot fly over it in a week. new england, as i have said, with some of her own votes, supported this measure. three fourths of the votes of liberty-loving connecticut were given for it in the other house, and one half here. there was one vote for it from maine, but, i am happy to say, not the vote of the honorable member who addressed the senate the day before yesterday,[ ] and who was then a representative from maine in the house of representatives; but there was one vote from maine, ay, and there was one vote for it from massachusetts, given by a gentleman then representing, and now living in, the district in which the prevalence of free soil sentiment for a couple of years or so has defeated the choice of any member to represent it in congress. sir, that body of northern and eastern men who gave those votes at that time are now seen taking upon themselves, in the nomenclature of politics, the appellation of the northern democracy. they undertook to wield the destinies of this empire, if i may give that name to a republic, and their policy was, and they persisted in it, to bring into this country and under this government all the territory they could. they did it, in the case of texas, under pledges, absolute pledges, to the slave interest, and they afterwards lent their aid in bringing in these new conquests, to take their chance for slavery or freedom. my honorable friend from georgia,[ ] in march, , moved the senate to declare that the war ought not to be prosecuted for the conquest of territory, or for the dismemberment of mexico. the whole of the northern democracy voted against it. he did not get a vote from them. it suited the patriotic and elevated sentiments of the northern democracy to bring in a world from among the mountains and valleys of california and new mexico, or any other part of mexico, and then quarrel about it; to bring it in, and then endeavor to put upon it the saving grace of the wilmot proviso. there were two eminent and highly respectable gentlemen from the north and east, then leading gentlemen in the senate, (i refer, and i do so with entire respect, for i entertain for both of those gentlemen, in general, high regard, to mr. dix of new york and mr. niles of connecticut,) who both voted for the admission of texas. they would not have that vote any other way than as it stood; and they would have it as it did stand. i speak of the vote upon the annexation of texas. those two gentlemen would have the resolution of annexation just as it is, without amendment; and they voted for it just as it is, and their eyes were all open to its true character. the honorable member from south carolina who addressed us the other day was then secretary of state. his correspondence with mr. murphy, the chargé d'affaires of the united states in texas, had been published. that correspondence was all before those gentlemen, and the secretary had the boldness and candor to avow in that correspondence, that the great object sought by the annexation of texas was to strengthen the slave interest of the south. why, sir, he said so in so many words-- mr. calhoun. will the honorable senator permit me to interrupt him for a moment? certainly. mr. calhoun. i am very reluctant to interrupt the honorable gentleman; but, upon a point of so much importance, i deem it right to put myself _rectus in curia_. i did not put it upon the ground assumed by the senator. i put it upon this ground: that great britain had announced to this country, in so many words, that her object was to abolish slavery in texas, and, through texas, to accomplish the abolition of slavery in the united states and the world. the ground i put it on was, that it would make an exposed frontier, and, if great britain succeeded in her object, it would be impossible that that frontier could be secured against the aggressions of the abolitionists; and that this government was bound, under the guaranties of the constitution, to protect us against such a state of things. that comes, i suppose, sir, to exactly the same thing. it was, that texas must be obtained for the security of the slave interest of the south. mr. calhoun. another view is very distinctly given. that was the object set forth in the correspondence of a worthy gentleman not now living,[ ] who preceded the honorable member from south carolina in the department of state. there repose on the files of the department, as i have occasion to know, strong letters from mr. upshur to the united states minister in england, and i believe there are some to the same minister from the honorable senator himself, asserting to this effect the sentiments of this government; namely, that great britain was expected not to interfere to take texas out of the hands of its then existing government and make it a free country. but my argument, my suggestion, is this: that those gentlemen who composed the northern democracy when texas was brought into the union saw clearly that it was brought in as a slave country, and brought in for the purpose of being maintained as slave territory, to the greek kalends. i rather think the honorable gentleman who was then secretary of state might, in some of his correspondence with mr. murphy, have suggested that it was not expedient to say too much about this object, lest it should create some alarm. at any rate, mr. murphy wrote to him that england was anxious to get rid of the constitution of texas, because it was a constitution establishing slavery; and that what the united states had to do was to aid the people of texas in upholding their constitution; but that nothing should be said which should offend the fanatical men of the north. but, sir, the honorable member did avow this object himself, openly, boldly, and manfully; he did not disguise his conduct or his motives. mr. calhoun. never, never. what he means he is very apt to say. mr. calhoun. always, always. and i honor him for it. this admission of texas was in . then in , _flagrante bello_ between the united states and mexico, the proposition i have mentioned was brought forward by my friend from georgia, and the northern democracy voted steadily against it. their remedy was to apply to the acquisitions, after they should come in, the wilmot proviso. what follows? these two gentlemen,[ ] worthy and honorable and influential men, (and if they had not been they could not have carried the measure,) these two gentlemen, members of this body, brought in texas, and by their votes they also prevented the passage of the resolution of the honorable member from georgia, and then they went home and took the lead in the free soil party. and there they stand, sir! they leave us here, bound in honor and conscience by the resolutions of annexation; they leave us here, to take the odium of fulfilling the obligations in favor of slavery which they voted us into, or else the greater odium of violating those obligations, while they are at home making capital and rousing speeches for free soil and no slavery. and therefore i say, sir, that there is not a chapter in our history, respecting public measures and public men, more full of what would create surprise, more full of what does create in my mind, extreme mortification, than that of the conduct of the northern democracy on this subject. mr. president, sometimes, when a man is found in a new relation to things around him and to other men, he says the world has changed, and that he has not changed. i believe, sir, that our self-respect leads us often to make this declaration in regard to ourselves when it is not exactly true. an individual is more apt to change, perhaps, than all the world around him. but under the present circumstances, and under the responsibility which i know i incur by what i am now stating here, i feel at liberty to recur to the various expressions and statements, made at various times, of my own opinions and resolutions respecting the admission of texas, and all that has followed. sir, as early as , or in the early part of , there was conversation and correspondence between myself and some private friends on this project of annexing texas to the united states; and an honorable gentleman with whom i have had a long acquaintance, a friend of mine, now perhaps in this chamber, i mean general hamilton, of south carolina, was privy to that correspondence. i had voted for the recognition of texan independence, because i believed it to be an existing fact, surprising and astonishing as it was, and i wished well to the new republic; but i manifested from the first utter opposition to bringing her, with her slave territory, into the union. i happened, in , to make a public address to political friends in new york, and i then stated my sentiments upon the subject. it was the first time that i had occasion to advert to it; and i will ask a friend near me to have the kindness to read an extract from the speech made by me on that occasion. it was delivered in niblo's saloon, in . mr. greene then read the following extract from the speech of mr. webster to which he referred:-- "gentlemen, we all see that, by whomsoever possessed, texas is likely to be a slave-holding country; and i frankly avow my entire unwillingness to do any thing that shall extend the slavery of the african race on this continent, or add other slave-holding states to the union. when i say that i regard slavery in itself as a great moral, social, and political evil, i only use language which has been adopted by distinguished men, themselves citizens of slave-holding states. i shall do nothing, therefore, to favor or encourage its further extension. we have slavery already amongst us. the constitution found it in the union; it recognized it, and gave it solemn guaranties. to the full extent of these guaranties we are all bound, in honor, in justice, and by the constitution. all the stipulations contained in the constitution in favor of the slave-holding states which are already in the union ought to be fulfilled, and, so far as depends on me, shall be fulfilled, in the fulness of their spirit, and to the exactness of their letter. slavery, as it exists in the states, is beyond the reach of congress. it is a concern of the states themselves; they have never submitted it to congress, and congress has no rightful power over it. i shall concur, therefore, in no act, no measure, no menace, no indication of purpose, which shall interfere or threaten to interfere with the exclusive authority of the several states over the subject of slavery as it exists within their respective limits. all this appears to me to be matter of plain and imperative duty. "but when we come to speak of admitting new states, the subject assumes an entirely different aspect. our rights and our duties are then both different.... "i see, therefore, no political necessity for the annexation of texas to the union; no advantages to be derived from it; and objections to it of a strong, and, in my judgment, decisive character." i have nothing, sir, to add to, or to take from, those sentiments. that speech, the senate will perceive, was made in . the purpose of immediately annexing texas at that time was abandoned or postponed; and it was not revived with any vigor for some years. in the mean time it happened that i had become a member of the executive administration, and was for a short period in the department of state. the annexation of texas was a subject of conversation, not confidential, with the president and heads of departments, as well as with other public men. no serious attempt was then made, however, to bring it about. i left the department of state in may, , and shortly after i learned, though by means which were no way connected with official information, that a design had been taken up of bringing texas, with her slave territory and population, into this union. i was in washington at the time, and persons are now here who will remember that we had an arranged meeting for conversation upon it. i went home to massachusetts and proclaimed the existence of that purpose, but i could get no audience and but little attention. some did not believe it, and some were too much engaged in their own pursuits to give it any heed. they had gone to their farms or to their merchandise, and it was impossible to arouse any feeling in new england, or in massachusetts, that should combine the two great political parties against this annexation; and, indeed, there was no hope of bringing the northern democracy into that view, for their leaning was all the other way. but, sir, even with whigs, and leading whigs, i am ashamed to say, there was a great indifference towards the admission of texas, with slave territory, into this union. the project went on. i was then out of congress. the annexation resolutions passed on the st of march, ; the legislature of texas complied with the conditions and accepted the guaranties; for the language of the resolution is, that texas is to come in "upon the conditions and under the guaranties herein prescribed." i was returned to the senate in march, , and was here in december following, when the acceptance by texas of the conditions proposed by congress was communicated to us by the president, and an act for the consummation of the union was laid before the two houses. the connection was then not completed. a final law, doing the deed of annexation ultimately, had not been passed; and when it was put upon its final passage here, i expressed my opposition to it, and recorded my vote in the negative; and there that vote stands, with the observations that i made upon that occasion.[ ] nor is this the only occasion on which i have expressed myself to the same effect. it has happened that, between and this time, on various occasions, i have expressed my entire opposition to the admission of slave states, or the acquisition of new slave territories, to be added to the united states. i know, sir, no change in my own sentiments, or my own purposes, in that respect. i will now ask my friend from rhode island to read another extract from a speech of mine made at a whig convention in springfield, massachusetts, in the month of september, . mr. greene here read the following extract:-- "we hear much just now of a _panacea_ for the dangers and evils of slavery and slave annexation, which they call the 'wilmot proviso.' that certainly is a just sentiment, but it is not a sentiment to found any new party upon. it is not a sentiment on which massachusetts whigs differ. there is not a man in this hall who holds to it more firmly than i do, nor one who adheres to it more than another. "i feel some little interest in this matter, sir. did not i commit myself in to the whole doctrine, fully, entirely? and i must be permitted to say that i cannot quite consent that more recent discoverers should claim the merit and take out a patent. "i deny the priority of their invention. allow me to say, sir, it is not their thunder.... "we are to use the first and the last and every occasion which offers to oppose the extension of slave power. "but i speak of it here, as in congress, as a political question, a question for statesmen to act upon. we must so regard it. i certainly do not mean to say that it is less important in a moral point of view, that it is not more important in many other points of view; but as a legislator, or in any official capacity, i must look at it, consider it, and decide it as a matter of political action." on other occasions, in debates here, i have expressed my determination to vote for no acquisition, cession, or annexation, north or south, east or west. my opinion has been, that we have territory enough, and that we should follow the spartan maxim, "improve, adorn what you have," seek no further. i think that it was in some observations that i made on the three-million loan bill that i avowed this sentiment. in short, sir, it has been avowed quite as often, in as many places, and before as many assemblies, as any humble opinions of mine ought to be avowed. but now that, under certain conditions, texas is in the union, with all her territory, as a slave state, with a solemn pledge, also, that, if she shall be divided into many states, those states may come in as slave states south of ° ', how are we to deal with this subject? i know no way of honest legislation, when the proper time comes for the enactment, but to carry into effect all that we have stipulated to do. i do not entirely agree with my honorable friend from tennessee,[ ] that, as soon as the time comes when she is entitled to another representative, we should create a new state. on former occasions, in creating new states out of territories, we have generally gone upon the idea that, when the population of the territory amounts to about sixty thousand, we would consent to its admission as a state. but it is quite a different thing when a state is divided, and two or more states made out of it. it does not follow in such a case that the same rule of apportionment should be applied. that, however, is a matter for the consideration of congress, when the proper time arrives. i may not then be here; i may have no vote to give on the occasion; but i wish it to be distinctly understood, that, according to my view of the matter, this government is solemnly pledged, by law and contract, to create new states out of texas, with her consent, when her population shall justify and call for such a proceeding, and, so far as such states are formed out of texan territory lying south of ° ', to let them come in as slave states. that is the meaning of the contract which our friends, the northern democracy, have left us to fulfil; and i, for one, mean to fulfil it, because i will not violate the faith of the government. what i mean to say is, that the time for the admission of new states formed out of texas, the number of such states, their boundaries, the requisite amount of population, and all other things connected with the admission, are in the free discretion of congress, except this; to wit, that, when new states formed out of texas are to be admitted, they have a right, by legal stipulation and contract, to come in as slave states. now, as to california and new mexico, i hold slavery to be excluded from those territories by a law even superior to that which admits and sanctions it in texas. i mean the law of nature, of physical geography, the law of the formation of the earth. that law settles for ever, with a strength beyond all terms of human enactment, that slavery cannot exist in california or new mexico. understand me, sir; i mean slavery as we regard it; the slavery of the colored race as it exists in the southern states. i shall not discuss the point, but leave it to the learned gentlemen who have undertaken to discuss it; but i suppose there is no slavery of that description in california now. i understand that _peonism_, a sort of penal servitude, exists there, or rather a sort of voluntary sale of a man and his offspring for debt; an arrangement of a peculiar nature known to the law of mexico. but what i mean to say is, that it is as impossible that african slavery, as we see it among us, should find its way, or be introduced, into california and new mexico, as any other natural impossibility. california and new mexico are asiatic in their formation and scenery. they are composed of vast ridges of mountains, of great height, with broken ridges and deep valleys. the sides of these mountains are entirely barren; their tops capped by perennial snow. there may be in california, now made free by its constitution, and no doubt there are, some tracts of valuable land. but it is not so in new mexico. pray, what is the evidence which every gentleman must have obtained on this subject, from information sought by himself or communicated by others? i have inquired and read all i could find, in order to acquire information on this important subject. what is there in new mexico that could, by any possibility, induce anybody to go there with slaves? there are some narrow strips of tillable land on the borders of the rivers; but the rivers themselves dry up before midsummer is gone. all that the people can do in that region is to raise some little articles, some little wheat for their _tortillas_, and that by irrigation. and who expects to see a hundred black men cultivating tobacco, corn, cotton, rice, or any thing else, on lands in new mexico, made fertile only by irrigation? i look upon it, therefore, as a fixed fact, to use the current expression of the day, that both california and new mexico are destined to be free, so far as they are settled at all, which i believe, in regard to new mexico, will be but partially for a great length of time; free by the arrangement of things ordained by the power above us. i have therefore to say, in this respect also, that this country is fixed for freedom, to as many persons as shall ever live in it, by a less repealable law than that which attaches to the right of holding slaves in texas; and i will say further, that, if a resolution or a bill were now before us, to provide a territorial government for new mexico, i would not vote to put any prohibition into it whatever. such a prohibition would be idle, as it respects any effect it would have upon the territory; and i would not take pains uselessly to reaffirm an ordinance of nature, nor to re-enact the will of god. i would put in no wilmot proviso for the mere purpose of a taunt or a reproach. i would put into it no evidence of the votes of superior power, exercised for no purpose but to wound the pride, whether a just and a rational pride, or an irrational pride, of the citizens of the southern states. i have no such object, no such purpose. they would think it a taunt, an indignity; they would think it to be an act taking away from them what they regard as a proper equality of privilege. whether they expect to realize any benefit from it or not, they would think it at least a plain theoretic wrong; that something more or less derogatory to their character and their rights had taken place. i propose to inflict no such wound upon anybody, unless something essentially important to the country, and efficient to the preservation of liberty and freedom, is to be effected. i repeat, therefore, sir, and, as i do not propose to address the senate often on this subject, i repeat it because i wish it to be distinctly understood, that, for the reasons stated, if a proposition were now here to establish a government for new mexico, and it was moved to insert a provision for a prohibition of slavery, i would not vote for it. sir, if we were now making a government for new mexico, and anybody should propose a wilmot proviso, i should treat it exactly as mr. polk treated that provision for excluding slavery from oregon. mr. polk was known to be in opinion decidedly averse to the wilmot proviso; but he felt the necessity of establishing a government for the territory of oregon. the proviso was in the bill, but he knew it would be entirely nugatory; and, since it must be entirely nugatory, since it took away no right, no describable, no tangible, no appreciable right of the south, he said he would sign the bill for the sake of enacting a law to form a government in that territory, and let that entirely useless, and, in that connection, entirely senseless, proviso remain. sir, we hear occasionally of the annexation of canada; and if there be any man, any of the northern democracy, or any one of the free soil party, who supposes it necessary to insert a wilmot proviso in a territorial government for new mexico, that man would of course be of opinion that it is necessary to protect the everlasting snows of canada from the foot of slavery by the same overspreading wing of an act of congress. sir, wherever there is a substantive good to be done, wherever there is a foot of land to be prevented from becoming slave territory, i am ready to assert the principle of the exclusion of slavery. i am pledged to it from the year ; i have been pledged to it again and again; and i will perform those pledges; but i will not do a thing unnecessarily that wounds the feelings of others, or that does discredit to my own understanding. now, mr. president, i have established, so far as i proposed to do so, the proposition with which i set out, and upon which i intend to stand or fall; and that is, that the whole territory within the former united states, or in the newly acquired mexican provinces, has a fixed and settled character, now fixed and settled by law which cannot be repealed,--in the case of texas without a violation of public faith, and by no human power in regard to california or new mexico; that, therefore, under one or other of these laws, every foot of land in the states or in the territories has already received a fixed and decided character. mr. president, in the excited times in which we live, there is found to exist a state of crimination and recrimination between the north and south. there are lists of grievances produced by each, and those grievances, real or supposed, alienate the minds of one portion of the country from the other, exasperate the feelings, and subdue the sense of fraternal affection, patriotic love, and mutual regard. i shall bestow a little attention, sir, upon these various grievances existing on the one side and on the other. i begin with complaints of the south. i will not answer, further than i have, the general statements of the honorable senator from south carolina, that the north has prospered at the expense of the south in consequence of the manner of administering this government, in the collecting of its revenues, and so forth. these are disputed topics, and i have no inclination to enter into them. but i will allude to other complaints of the south, and especially to one which has in my opinion just foundation; and that is, that there has been found at the north, among individuals and among legislators, a disinclination to perform fully their constitutional duties in regard to the return of persons bound to service who have escaped into the free states. in that respect, the south, in my judgment, is right, and the north is wrong. every member of every northern legislature is bound by oath, like every other officer in the country, to support the constitution of the united states; and the article of the constitution[ ] which says to these states that they shall deliver up fugitives from service is as binding in honor and conscience as any other article. no man fulfils his duty in any legislature who sets himself to find excuses, evasions, escapes from this constitutional obligation. i have always thought that the constitution addressed itself to the legislatures of the states or to the states themselves. it says that those persons escaping to other states "shall be delivered up," and i confess i have always been of the opinion that it was an injunction upon the states themselves. when it is said that a person escaping into another state, and coming therefore within the jurisdiction of that state, shall be delivered up, it seems to me the import of the clause is, that the state itself, in obedience to the constitution, shall cause him to be delivered up. that is my judgment. i have always entertained that opinion, and i entertain it now. but when the subject, some years ago, was before the supreme court of the united states, the majority of the judges held that the power to cause fugitives from service to be delivered up was a power to be exercised under the authority of this government. i do not know, on the whole, that it may not have been a fortunate decision. my habit is to respect the result of judicial deliberations and the solemnity of judicial decisions. as it now stands, the business of seeing that these fugitives are delivered up resides in the power of congress and the national judicature, and my friend at the head of the judiciary committee[ ] has a bill on the subject now before the senate, which, with some amendments to it, i propose to support, with all its provisions, to the fullest extent. and i desire to call the attention of all sober-minded men at the north, of all conscientious men, of all men who are not carried away by some fanatical idea or some false impression, to their constitutional obligations. i put it to all the sober and sound minds at the north as a question of morals and a question of conscience. what right have they, in their legislative capacity or any other capacity, to endeavor to get round this constitution, or to embarrass the free exercise of the rights secured by the constitution to the persons whose slaves escape from them? none at all; none at all. neither in the forum of conscience, nor before the face of the constitution, are they, in my opinion, justified in such an attempt. of course it is a matter for their consideration. they probably, in the excitement of the times, have not stopped to consider of this. they have followed what seemed to be the current of thought and of motives, as the occasion arose, and they have neglected to investigate fully the real question, and to consider their constitutional obligations; which, i am sure, if they did consider, they would fulfil with alacrity. i repeat, therefore, sir, that here is a well-founded ground of complaint against the north, which ought to be removed, which it is now in the power of the different departments of this government to remove; which calls for the enactment of proper laws authorizing the judicature of this government, in the several states, to do all that is necessary for the recapture of fugitive slaves and for their restoration to those who claim them. wherever i go, and whenever i speak on the subject, and when i speak here i desire to speak to the whole north, i say that the south has been injured in this respect, and has a right to complain; and the north has been too careless of what i think the constitution peremptorily and emphatically enjoins upon her as a duty. complaint has been made against certain resolutions that emanate from legislatures at the north, and are sent here to us, not only on the subject of slavery in this district, but sometimes recommending congress to consider the means of abolishing slavery in the states. i should be sorry to be called upon to present any resolutions here which could not be referable to any committee or any power in congress; and therefore i should be unwilling to receive from the legislature of massachusetts any instructions to present resolutions expressive of any opinion whatever on the subject of slavery, as it exists at the present moment in the states, for two reasons: first, because i do not consider that the legislature of massachusetts has any thing to do with it; and next, because i do not consider that i, as her representative here, have any thing to do with it. it has become, in my opinion, quite too common; and if the legislatures of the states do not like that opinion, they have a great deal more power to put it down than i have to uphold it; it has become, in my opinion, quite too common a practice for the state legislatures to present resolutions here on all subjects and to instruct us on all subjects. there is no public man that requires instruction more than i do, or who requires information more than i do, or desires it more heartily; but i do not like to have it in too imperative a shape. i took notice, with pleasure, of some remarks made upon this subject, the other day, in the senate of massachusetts, by a young man of talent and character, of whom the best hopes may be entertained. i mean mr. hillard. he told the senate of massachusetts that he would vote for no instructions whatever to be forwarded to members of congress, nor for any resolutions to be offered expressive of the sense of massachusetts as to what her members of congress ought to do. he said that he saw no propriety in one set of public servants giving instructions and reading lectures to another set of public servants. to his own master each of them must stand or fall, and that master is his constituents. i wish these sentiments could become more common. i have never entered into the question, and never shall, as to the binding force of instructions. i will, however, simply say this: if there be any matter pending in this body, while i am a member of it, in which massachusetts has an interest of her own not adverse to the general interests of the country, i shall pursue her instructions with gladness of heart and with all the efficiency which i can bring to the occasion. but if the question be one which affects her interest, and at the same time equally affects the interests of all the other states, i shall no more regard her particular wishes or instructions than i should regard the wishes of a man who might appoint me an arbitrator or referee to decide some question of important private right between him and his neighbor, and then _instruct_ me to decide in his favor. if ever there was a government upon earth it is this government, if ever there was a body upon earth it is this body, which should consider itself as composed by agreement of all, each member appointed by some, but organized by the general consent of all, sitting here, under the solemn obligations of oath and conscience, to do that which they think to be best for the good of the whole. then, sir, there are the abolition societies, of which i am unwilling to speak, but in regard to which i have very clear notions and opinions. i do not think them useful. i think their operations for the last twenty years have produced nothing good or valuable. at the same time, i believe thousands of their members to be honest and good men, perfectly well-meaning men. they have excited feelings; they think they must do something for the cause of liberty; and, in their sphere of action, they do not see what else they can do than to contribute to an abolition press, or an abolition society, or to pay an abolition lecturer. i do not mean to impute gross motives even to the leaders of these societies; but i am not blind to the consequences of their proceedings. i cannot but see what mischiefs their interference with the south has produced. and is it not plain to every man? let any gentleman who entertains doubts on this point recur to the debates in the virginia house of delegates in , and he will see with what freedom a proposition made by mr. jefferson randolph for the gradual abolition of slavery was discussed in that body. every one spoke of slavery as he thought; very ignominious and disparaging names and epithets were applied to it. the debates in the house of delegates on that occasion, i believe, were all published. they were read by every colored man who could read; and to those who could not read, those debates were read by others. at that time virginia was not unwilling or afraid to discuss this question, and to let that part of her population know as much of the discussion as they could learn. that was in . as has been said by the honorable member from south carolina, these abolition societies commenced their course of action in . it is said, i do not know how true it may be, that they sent incendiary publications into the slave states; at any rate, they attempted to arouse, and did arouse, a very strong feeling; in other words, they created great agitation in the north against southern slavery. well, what was the result? the bonds of the slaves were bound more firmly than before, their rivets were more strongly fastened. public opinion, which in virginia had begun to be exhibited against slavery, and was opening out for the discussion of the question, drew back and shut itself up in its castle. i wish to know whether anybody in virginia can now talk openly as mr. randolph, governor mcdowell, and others talked in , and sent their remarks to the press? we all know the fact, and we all know the cause; and every thing that these agitating people have done has been, not to enlarge, but to restrain, not to set free, but to bind faster, the slave population of the south.[ ] again, sir, the violence of the northern press is complained of. the press violent! why, sir, the press is violent everywhere. there are outrageous reproaches in the north against the south, and there are reproaches as vehement in the south against the north. sir, the extremists of both parts of this country are violent; they mistake loud and violent talk for eloquence and for reason. they think that he who talks loudest reasons best. and this we must expect, when the press is free, as it is here, and i trust always will be; for, with all its licentiousness and all its evil, the entire and absolute freedom of the press is essential to the preservation of government on the basis of a free constitution. wherever it exists there will be foolish and violent paragraphs in the newspapers, as there are, i am sorry to say, foolish and violent speeches in both houses of congress. in truth, sir, i must say that, in my opinion, the vernacular tongue of the country has become greatly vitiated, depraved, and corrupted by the style of our congressional debates. and if it were possible for those debates to vitiate the principles of the people as much as they have depraved their tastes, i should cry out, "god save the republic!" well, in all this i see no solid grievance, no grievance presented by the south, within the redress of the government, but the single one to which i have referred; and that is, the want of a proper regard to the injunction of the constitution for the delivery of fugitive slaves. there are also complaints of the north against the south. i need not go over them particularly. the first and gravest is, that the north adopted the constitution, recognizing the existence of slavery in the states, and recognizing the right, to a certain extent, of the representation of slaves in congress, under a state of sentiment and expectation which does not now exist; and that, by events, by circumstances, by the eagerness of the south to acquire territory and extend her slave population, the north finds itself, in regard to the relative influence of the south and the north, of the free states and the slave states, where it never did expect to find itself when they agreed to the compact of the constitution. they complain, therefore, that, instead of slavery being regarded as an evil, as it was then, an evil which all hoped would be extinguished gradually, it is now regarded by the south as an institution to be cherished, and preserved, and extended; an institution which the south has already extended to the utmost of her power by the acquisition of new territory. well, then, passing from that, everybody in the north reads; and everybody reads whatsoever the newspapers contain; and the newspapers, some of them, especially those presses to which i have alluded, are careful to spread about among the people every reproachful sentiment uttered by any southern man bearing at all against the north; every thing that is calculated to exasperate and to alienate; and there are many such things, as everybody will admit, from the south, or some portion of it, which are disseminated among the reading people; and they do exasperate, and alienate, and produce a most mischievous effect upon the public mind at the north. sir, i would not notice things of this sort appearing in obscure quarters; but one thing has occurred in this debate which struck me very forcibly. an honorable member from louisiana addressed us the other day on this subject. i suppose there is not a more amiable and worthy gentleman in this chamber, nor a gentleman who would be more slow to give offence to anybody, and he did not mean in his remarks to give offence. but what did he say? why, sir, he took pains to run a contrast between the slaves of the south and the laboring people of the north, giving the preference, in all points of condition, and comfort, and happiness, to the slaves of the south. the honorable member, doubtless, did not suppose that he gave any offence, or did any injustice. he was merely expressing his opinion. but does he know how remarks of that sort will be received by the laboring people of the north? why, who are the laboring people of the north? they are the whole north. they are the people who till their own farms with their own hands; freeholders, educated men, independent men. let me say, sir, that five sixths of the whole property of the north is in the hands of the laborers of the north; they cultivate their farms, they educate their children, they provide the means of independence. if they are not freeholders, they earn wages; these wages accumulate, are turned into capital, into new freeholds, and small capitalists are created. such is the case, and such the course of things, among the industrious and frugal. and what can these people think when so respectable and worthy a gentleman as the member from louisiana undertakes to prove that the absolute ignorance and the abject slavery of the south are more in conformity with the high purposes and destiny of immortal, rational human beings, than the educated, the independent free labor of the north? there is a more tangible and irritating cause of grievance at the north. free blacks are constantly employed in the vessels of the north, generally as cooks or stewards. when the vessel arrives at a southern port, these free colored men are taken on shore, by the police or municipal authority, imprisoned, and kept in prison till the vessel is again ready to sail. this is not only irritating, but exceedingly unjustifiable and oppressive. mr. hoar's mission, some time ago, to south carolina, was a well-intended effort to remove this cause of complaint. the north thinks such imprisonments illegal and unconstitutional; and as the cases occur constantly and frequently, they regard it as a great grievance. now, sir, so far as any of these grievances have their foundation in matters of law, they can be redressed, and ought to be redressed; and so far as they have their foundation in matters of opinion, in sentiment, in mutual crimination and recrimination, all that we can do is to endeavor to allay the agitation, and cultivate a better feeling and more fraternal sentiments between the south and the north. mr. president, i should much prefer to have heard from every member on this floor declarations of opinion that this union could never be dissolved, than the declaration of opinion by anybody, that, in any case, under the pressure of any circumstances, such a dissolution was possible. i hear with distress and anguish the word "secession," especially when it falls from the lips of those who are patriotic, and known to the country, and known all over the world, for their political services. secession! peaceable secession! sir, your eyes and mine are never destined to see that miracle. the dismemberment of this vast country without convulsion! the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep without ruffling the surface! who is so foolish, i beg everybody's pardon, as to expect to see any such thing? sir, he who sees these states, now revolving in harmony around a common centre, and expects to see them quit their places and fly off without convulsion, may look the next hour to see the heavenly bodies rush from their spheres, and jostle against each other in the realms of space, without causing the wreck of the universe. there can be no such thing as a peaceable secession. peaceable secession is an utter impossibility. is the great constitution under which we live, covering this whole country,--is it to be thawed and melted away by secession, as the snows on the mountain melt under the influence of a vernal sun, disappear almost unobserved, and run off? no, sir! no, sir! i will not state what might produce the disruption of the union; but, sir, i see as plainly as i see the sun in heaven what that disruption itself must produce; i see that it must produce war, and such a war as i will not describe, _in its twofold character_. peaceable secession! peaceable secession! the concurrent agreement of all the members of this great republic to separate! a voluntary separation, with alimony on one side and on the other. why, what would be the result? where is the line to be drawn? what states are to secede? what is to remain american? what am i to be? an american no longer? am i to become a sectional man, a local man, a separatist, with no country in common with the gentlemen who sit around me here, or who fill the other house of congress? heaven forbid! where is the flag of the republic to remain? where is the eagle still to tower? or is he to cower, and shrink, and fall to the ground? why, sir, our ancestors, our fathers and our grandfathers, those of them that are yet living amongst us with prolonged lives, would rebuke and reproach us; and our children and our grandchildren would cry out shame upon us, if we of this generation should dishonor these ensigns of the power of the government and the harmony of that union which is every day felt among us with so much joy and gratitude. what is to become of the army? what is to become of the navy? what is to become of the public lands? how is each of the thirty states to defend itself? i know, although the idea has not been stated distinctly, there is to be, or it is supposed possible that there will be, a southern confederacy. i do not mean, when i allude to this statement, that any one seriously contemplates such a state of things. i do not mean to say that it is true, but i have heard it suggested elsewhere, that the idea has been entertained, that, after the dissolution of this union, a southern confederacy might be formed. i am sorry, sir, that it has ever been thought of, talked of, or dreamed of, in the wildest flights of human imagination. but the idea, so far as it exists, must be of a separation, assigning the slave states to one side and the free states to the other. sir, i may express myself too strongly, perhaps, but there are impossibilities in the natural as well as in the physical world, and i hold the idea of a separation of these states, those that are free to form one government, and those that are slave-holding to form another, as such an impossibility. we could not separate the states by any such line, if we were to draw it. we could not sit down here to-day and draw a line of separation that would satisfy any five men in the country. there are natural causes that would keep and tie us together, and there are social and domestic relations which we could not break if we would, and which we should not if we could. sir, nobody can look over the face of this country at the present moment, nobody can see where its population is the most dense and growing, without being ready to admit, and compelled to admit, that erelong the strength of america will be in the valley of the mississippi. well, now, sir, i beg to inquire what the wildest enthusiast has to say on the possibility of cutting that river in two, and leaving free states at its source and on its branches, and slave states down near its mouth, each forming a separate government? pray, sir, let me say to the people of this country, that these things are worthy of their pondering and of their consideration. here, sir, are five millions of freemen in the free states north of the river ohio. can anybody suppose that this population can be severed, by a line that divides them from the territory of a foreign and an alien government, down somewhere, the lord knows where, upon the lower banks of the mississippi? what would become of missouri? will she join the _arrondissement_ of the slave states? shall the man from the yellowstone and the platte be connected, in the new republic, with the man who lives on the southern extremity of the cape of florida? sir, i am ashamed to pursue this line of remark. i dislike it, i have an utter disgust for it. i would rather hear of natural blasts and mildews, war, pestilence, and famine, than to hear gentlemen talk of secession. to break up this great government! to dismember this glorious country! to astonish europe with an act of folly such as europe for two centuries has never beheld in any government or any people! no, sir! no, sir! there will be no secession! gentlemen are not serious when they talk of secession. sir, i hear there is to be a convention held at nashville. i am bound to believe that, if worthy gentlemen meet at nashville in convention, their object will be to adopt conciliatory counsels; to advise the south to forbearance and moderation, and to advise the north to forbearance and moderation; and to inculcate principles of brotherly love and affection, and attachment to the constitution of the country as it now is. i believe, if the convention meet at all, it will be for this purpose; for certainly, if they meet for any purpose hostile to the union, they have been singularly inappropriate in their selection of a place. i remember, sir, that, when the treaty of amiens was concluded between france and england, a sturdy englishman and a distinguished orator, who regarded the conditions of the peace as ignominious to england, said in the house of commons, that, if king william could know the terms of that treaty, he would turn in his coffin! let me commend this saying of mr. windham, in all its emphasis and in all its force, to any persons who shall meet at nashville for the purpose of concerting measures for the overthrow of this union over the bones of andrew jackson! sir, i wish now to make two remarks, and hasten to a conclusion. i wish to say, in regard to texas, that if it should be hereafter, at any time, the pleasure of the government of texas to cede to the united states a portion, larger or smaller, of her territory which lies adjacent to new mexico, and north of ° ' of north latitude, to be formed into free states, for a fair equivalent in money or in the payment of her debt, i think it an object well worthy the consideration of congress, and i shall be happy to concur in it myself, if i should have a connection with the government at that time. i have one other remark to make. in my observations upon slavery as it has existed in this country, and as it now exists, i have expressed no opinion of the mode of its extinguishment or melioration. i will say, however, though i have nothing to propose, because i do not deem myself so competent as other gentlemen to take any lead on this subject, that if any gentleman from the south shall propose a scheme, to be carried on by this government upon a large scale, for the transportation of free colored people to any colony or any place in the world, i should be quite disposed to incur almost any degree of expense to accomplish that object. nay, sir, following an example set more than twenty years ago by a great man,[ ] then a senator from new york, i would return to virginia, and through her to the whole south, the money received from the lands and territories ceded by her to this government, for any such purpose as to remove, in whole or in part, or in any way to diminish or deal beneficially with, the free colored population of the southern states. i have said that i honor virginia for her cession of this territory. there have been received into the treasury of the united states eighty millions of dollars, the proceeds of the sales of the public lands ceded by her. if the residue should be sold at the same rate, the whole aggregate will exceed two hundred millions of dollars. if virginia and the south see fit to adopt any proposition to relieve themselves from the free people of color among them, or such as may be made free, they have my full consent that the government shall pay them any sum of money out of the proceeds of that cession which may be adequate to the purpose. and now, mr. president, i draw these observations to a close. i have spoken freely, and i meant to do so. i have sought to make no display. i have sought to enliven the occasion by no animated discussion, nor have i attempted any train of elaborate argument. i have wished only to speak my sentiments, fully and at length, being desirous, once and for all, to let the senate know, and to let the country know, the opinions and sentiments which i entertain on all these subjects. these opinions are not likely to be suddenly changed. if there be any future service that i can render to the country, consistently with these sentiments and opinions, i shall cheerfully render it. if there be not, i shall still be glad to have had an opportunity to disburden myself from the bottom of my heart, and to make known every political sentiment that therein exists. and now, mr. president, instead of speaking of the possibility or utility of secession, instead of dwelling in those caverns of darkness, instead of groping with those ideas so full of all that is horrid and horrible, let us come out into the light of day; let us enjoy the fresh air of liberty and union; let us cherish those hopes which belong to us; let us devote ourselves to those great objects that are fit for our consideration and our action; let us raise our conceptions to the magnitude and the importance of the duties that devolve upon us; let our comprehension be as broad as the country for which we act, our aspirations as high as its certain destiny; let us not be pygmies in a case that calls for men. never did there devolve on any generation of men higher trusts than now devolve upon us, for the preservation of this constitution and the harmony and peace of all who are destined to live under it. let us make our generation one of the strongest and brightest links in that golden chain which is destined, i fondly believe, to grapple the people of all the states to this constitution for ages to come. we have a great, popular, constitutional government, guarded by law and by judicature, and defended by the affections of the whole people. no monarchical throne presses these states together, no iron chain of military power encircles them; they live and stand under a government popular in its form, representative in its character, founded upon principles of equality, and so constructed, we hope, as to last for ever. in all its history it has been beneficent; it has trodden down no man's liberty; it has crushed no state. its daily respiration is liberty and patriotism; its yet youthful veins are full of enterprise, courage, and honorable love of glory and renown. large before, the country has now, by recent events, become vastly larger. this republic now extends, with a vast breadth, across the whole continent. the two great seas of the world wash the one and the other shore. we realize, on a mighty scale, the beautiful description of the ornamental border of the buckler of achilles:-- "now, the broad shield complete, the artist crowned with his last hand, and poured the ocean round; in living silver seemed the waves to roll, and beat the buckler's verge, and bound the whole." * * * * * note. page . _letter from mr. webster to the editors of the national intelligencer, enclosing extracts from a letter of the late dr. channing._ _washington, february , ._ messrs. gales and seaton:-- having occasion recently to look over some files of letters written several years ago, i happened to fall on one from the late rev. dr. w.e. channing. it contains passages which i think, coming from such a source, and written at such a time, would be interesting to the country. i have therefore extracted them, and send them to you for publication in your columns. yours respectfully, daniel webster. * * * * * _boston, may , ._ my dear sir.-- i wish to call your attention to a subject of general interest. a little while ago, mr. lundy of baltimore, the editor of a paper called "the genius of universal emancipation," visited this part of the country, to stir us up to the work of abolishing slavery at the south, and the intention is to organize societies for this purpose. i know few objects into which i should enter with more zeal, but i am aware how cautiously exertions are to be made for it in this part of the country. i know that our southern brethren interpret every word from this region on the subject of slavery as an expression of hostility. i would ask if they cannot be brought to understand us better, and if we can do any good till we remove their misapprehensions. it seems to me that, before moving in this matter, we ought to say to them distinctly, "we consider slavery as your calamity, not your crime, and we will share with you the burden of putting an end to it. we will consent that the public lands shall be appropriated to this object; or that the general government shall be clothed with power to apply a portion of revenue to it." i throw out these suggestions merely to illustrate my views. we must first let the southern states see that we are their _friends_ in this affair; that we sympathize with them, and, from principles of patriotism and philanthropy, are willing to share the toil and expense of abolishing slavery, or i fear our interference will avail nothing. i am the more sensitive on this subject from my increased solicitude for the preservation of the union. i know no public interest so important as this. i ask from the general government hardly any other boon than that it will hold us together, and preserve pacific relations and intercourse among the states. i deprecate every thing which sows discord and exasperates sectional animosities. if it will simply keep us at peace, and will maintain in full power the national courts, for the purpose of settling quietly among citizens of different states questions which might otherwise be settled by arms, i shall be satisfied. my fear in regard to our efforts against slavery is, that we shall make the case worse by rousing sectional pride and passion for its support, and that we shall only break the country into two great parties, which may shake the foundations of government. i have written to you because your situation gives you advantages which perhaps no other man enjoys for ascertaining the method, if any can be devised, by which we may operate beneficially and safely in regard to slavery. appeals will probably be made soon to the people here, and i wish that wise men would save us from the rashness of enthusiasts, and from the perils to which our very virtues expose us. with great respect, your friend, wm. e. channing hon. daniel webster. [footnote : mr. calhoun.] [footnote : mr. calhoun.] [footnote : mr. mason of virginia.] [footnote : see madison papers, vol. iii. pp. , , _et seq._] [footnote : seybert's statistics, p. . a small parcel of cotton found its way to liverpool from the united states in , and was refused admission, on the ground that it could not be the growth of the united states.] [footnote : mr. calhoun.] [footnote : mr. walker.] [footnote : mr. bell.] [footnote : mr. greene.] [footnote : mr. hamlin.] [footnote : mr. berrien.] [footnote : mr. upshur.] [footnote : messrs. niles of connecticut and dix of new york.] [footnote : see the remarks on the admission of texas, in webster's works, vol. v. p. .] [footnote : mr. bell.] [footnote : art. iv. sect. , § .] [footnote : mr. mason.] [footnote : see note at the end of the speech.] [footnote : mr. rufus king.] reception at buffalo. a speech delivered before a large assembly of the citizens of buffalo and the county of erie, at a public reception on the d of may, . fellow-citizens of the city of buffalo,--i am very glad to see you; i meet you with pleasure. it is not the first time that i have been in buffalo, and i have always come to it with gratification. it is at a great distance from my own home. i am thankful that circumstances have enabled me to be here again, and i regret that untoward events deprived me of the pleasure of being with you when your distinguished fellow-citizen, the president of the united states, visited you, and received from you, as he deserved, not only a respectful, but a cordial and enthusiastic welcome. the president of the united states has been a resident among you for more than half his life. he has represented you in the state and national councils. you know him and all his relations, both public and private, and it would be bad taste in me to say any thing of him, except that i wish to say, with emphasis, that, since my connection with him in the administration of the government of the united states, i have fully concurred with him in all his great and leading measures. this might be inferred from the fact that i have been one of his ordinary advisers. but i do not wish to let it rest on that presumption; i wish to declare that the principles of the president, as set forth in his annual message, his letters, and all documents and opinions which have proceeded from him, or been issued by his authority, in regard to the great question of the times,--all these principles are my principles; and if he is wrong in them, i am, and always shall be. gentlemen, it has been suggested to me that it would be agreeable to the citizens of buffalo, and their neighbors in the county of erie, that i should state to you my opinions, whatever may be their value, on the present condition of the country, its prospects, its hopes, and its dangers; and, fellow-citizens, i intend to do that, this day, and this hour, as far as my strength will permit. gentlemen, believe me, i know where i am. i know to whom i am speaking. i know for whom i am speaking. i know that i am here in this singularly prosperous and powerful section of the united states, western new york, and i know the character of the men who inhabit western new york. i know they are sons of liberty, one and all; that they sucked in liberty with their mothers' milk; inherited it with their blood; that it is the subject of their daily contemplation and watchful thought. they are men of unusual equality of condition, for a million and a half of people. there are thousands of men around us, and here before us, who till their own soil with their own hands; and others who earn their own livelihood by their own labor in the workshops and other places of industry; and they are independent, in principle and in condition, having neither slaves nor masters, and not intending to have either. these are the men who constitute, to a great extent, the people of western new york. but the school-house, i know, is among them. education is among them. they read, and write, and think. here, too, are women, educated, refined, and intelligent; and here are men who know the history of their country, and the laws of their country, and the institutions of their country; and men, lovers of liberty always, and yet lovers of liberty under the constitution of the country, and who mean to maintain that constitution with all their strength. i hope these observations will satisfy you that i know where i am, under what responsibility i speak, and before whom i appear; and i have no desire that any word i shall say this day shall be withholden from you, or your children, or your neighbors, or the whole world; for i speak before you and before my country, and, if it be not too solemn to say so, before the great author of all things. gentlemen, there is but one question in this country now; or, if there be others, they are but secondary, or so subordinate that they are all absorbed in that great and leading question; and that is neither more nor less than this: can we preserve the union of the states, not by coercion, not by military power, not by angry controversies,--but can we of this generation, you and i, your friends and my friends,--can we so preserve the union of these states, by such administration of the powers of the constitution as shall give content and satisfaction to all who live under it, and draw us together, not by military power, but by the silken cords of mutual, fraternal, patriotic affection? that is the question, and no other. gentlemen, i believe in party distinctions. i am a party man. there are questions belonging to party in which i take an interest, and there are opinions entertained by other parties which i repudiate; but what of all that? if a house be divided against itself, it will fall, and crush everybody in it. we must see that we maintain the government which is over us. we must see that we uphold the constitution, and we must do so without regard to party. now how did this question arise? the question is for ever misstated. i dare say, if you know much of me, or of my course of public conduct, for the last fourteen months, you have heard of my attending union meetings, and of my fervent admonitions at union meetings. well, what was the object of those meetings? what was their purpose? the object and purpose have been designedly or thoughtlessly misrepresented. i had an invitation, some time since, to attend a union meeting in the county of westchester; i could not go, but wrote a letter. well, some wise man of the east said he did not think it was very necessary to hold union meetings in westchester. he did not think there were many disunionists about tarrytown! and so in many parts of the country, there is a total misapprehension of the purpose and object of these union meetings. every one knows, that there is not a county, or a city, or a hamlet in the state of new york, that is ready to go out of the union, but only some small bodies of fanatics. there is no man so insane in the state, not fit for a lunatic asylum, as to wish it. but that is not the point. we all know that every man and every neighborhood, and all corporations, in the state of new york, except those i have mentioned, are attached to the union, and have no idea of withdrawing from it. but that is not, i repeat, the point. the question, fellow-citizens, (and i put it to you now as the real question,) the question is, whether you and the rest of the people of the great state of new york, and of all the states, will so adhere to the constitution, will so enact and maintain laws to preserve that instrument, that you will not only remain in the union yourselves, but permit your brethren to remain in it, and help to perpetuate it? that is the question. will you concur in measures necessary to maintain the union, or will you oppose such measures? that is the whole point of the case. there are thirty or forty members of congress from new york; you have your proportion in the united states senate. we have many members of congress from new england. will they maintain the laws that are passed for the administration of the constitution, and respect the rights of the south, so that the union may be held together; and not only so that we may not go out of it ourselves, which we are not inclined to do, but so that, by maintaining the rights of others, they may also remain in the union? now, gentlemen, permit me to say, that i speak of no concessions. if the south wish any concession from me, they will not get it; not a hair's breadth of it. if they come to my house for it, they will not find it, and the door will be shut; i concede nothing. but i say that i will maintain for them, as i will maintain for you, to the utmost of my power, and in the face of all danger, their rights under the constitution, and your rights under the constitution. and i shall never be found to falter in one or the other. it is obvious to every one, and we all know it, that the origin of the great disturbance which agitates the country is the existence of slavery in some of the states; but we must meet the subject; we must consider it; we must deal with it earnestly, honestly, and justly. from the mouth of the st. john's to the confines of florida, there existed, in , thirteen colonies of english origin, planted at different times, and coming from different parts of england, bringing with them various habits, and establishing, each for itself, institutions entirely different from the institutions which they left, and in many cases from each other. but they were all of english origin. the english language was theirs, shakepeare and milton were theirs, the common law of england was theirs, and the christian religion was theirs; and these things held them together by the force of a common character. the aggressions of the parent state compelled them to assert their independence. they declared independence, and that immortal act, pronounced on the th of july, , made them independent. that was an act of union by the united states in congress assembled. but this act of itself did nothing to establish over them a general government. they had a congress. they had articles of confederation to prosecute the war. but thus far they were still, essentially, separate and independent each of the other. they had entered into a simple confederacy, and nothing more. no state was bound by what it did not itself agree to, or what was done according to the provisions of the confederation. that was the state of things, gentlemen, at that time. the war went on; victory crowned the american arms; our independence was acknowledged. the states were then united together under a confederacy of very limited powers. it could levy no taxes. it could not enforce its own decrees. it was a confederacy, instead of a united government. experience showed that this was insufficient and inefficient. accordingly, beginning as far back almost as the close of the war, measures were taken for the formation of a united government, a government in the strict sense of the term, a government that could pass laws binding on the individual citizens of all the states, and which could enforce those laws by its executive powers, having them interpreted by a judicial power belonging to the government itself, and yet a government strictly limited in its nature. well, gentlemen, this led to the formation of the constitution of the united states, and that instrument was framed on the idea of a limited government. it proposed to leave, and did leave, the different domestic institutions of the several states to themselves. it did not propose consolidation. it did not propose that the laws of virginia should be the laws of new york, or that the laws of new york should be the laws of massachusetts. it proposed only that, for certain purposes and to a certain extent, there should be a united government, and that that government should have the power of executing its own laws. all the rest was left to the several states. we now come, gentlemen, to the very point of the case. at that time slavery existed in the southern states, entailed upon them in the time of the supremacy of british laws over us. there it was. it was obnoxious to the middle and eastern states, and honestly and seriously disliked, as the records of the country will show, by the southern states themselves. now, how was it to be dealt with? were the northern and middle states to exclude from the government those states of the south which had produced a washington, a laurens, and other distinguished patriots, who had so truly served, and so greatly honored, the whole country? were they to be excluded from the new government because they tolerated the institution of slavery? your fathers and my fathers did not think so. they did not see that it would be of the least advantage to the slaves of the southern states, to cut off the south from all connection with the north. their views of humanity led to no such result; and of course, when the constitution was framed and established, and adopted by you, here in new york, and by new england, it contained an express provision of security to the persons who lived in the southern states, in regard to fugitives who owed them service; that is to say, it was stipulated that the fugitive from service or labor should be restored to his master or owner if he escaped into a free state. well, that had been the history of the country from its first settlement. it was a matter of common practice to return fugitives before the constitution was formed. fugitive slaves from virginia to massachusetts were restored by the people of massachusetts. at that day there was a great system of apprenticeship at the north, and many apprentices at the north, taking advantage of circumstances, and of vessels sailing to the south, thereby escaped; and they were restored on proper claim and proof. that led to a clear, express, and well-defined provision in the constitution of the country on the subject. now i am aware that all these things are well known; that they have been stated a thousand times; but in these days of perpetual discontent and misrepresentation, to state things a thousand times is not enough; for there are persons whose consciences, it would seem, lead them to consider it their duty to deny, misrepresent, falsify, and cover up truths. now these are words of the constitution, fellow-citizens, which i have taken the pains to transcribe therefrom, so that he who runs may read:-- "no person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." is there any mistake about that? is there any forty-shilling attorney here to make a question of it? no. i will not disgrace my profession by supposing such a thing. there is not, in or out of an attorney's office in the county of erie, or elsewhere, one who could raise a doubt, or a particle of a doubt, about the meaning of this provision of the constitution. he may act as witnesses do, sometimes, on the stand. he may wriggle, and twist, and say he cannot tell, or cannot remember. i have seen many such efforts in my time, on the part of witnesses, to falsify and deny the truth. but there is no man who can read these words of the constitution of the united states, and say they are not clear and imperative. "no person," the constitution says, "held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." why, you may be told by forty conventions in massachusetts, in ohio, in new york, or elsewhere, that, if a colored man comes here, he comes as a freeman; that is a _non sequitur_. it is not so. if he comes as a fugitive from labor, the constitution says he is not a freeman, and that he shall be delivered up to those who are entitled to his service. gentlemen, that is the constitution of the united states. do we, or do we not, mean to conform to it, and to execute that part of the constitution as well as the rest of it? i believe there are before me here members of congress. i suppose there may be here members of the state legislature, or executive officers under the state government. i suppose there may be judicial magistrates of new york, executive officers, assessors, supervisors, justices of the peace, and constables before me. allow me to say, gentlemen, that there is not, that there cannot be, any one of these officers in this assemblage, or elsewhere, who has not, according to the form of the usual obligation, bound himself by a solemn oath to support the constitution. they have taken their oaths on the holy evangelists of almighty god, or by uplifted hand, as the case may be, or by a solemn affirmation, as is the practice in some cases; but among all of them there is not a man who holds, nor is there any man who can hold, any office in the gift of the united states, or of this state, or of any other state, who does not bind himself, by the solemn obligation of an oath, to support the constitution of the united states. well, is he to tamper with that? is he to palter? gentlemen, our political duties are as much matters of conscience as any other duties; our sacred domestic ties, our most endearing social relations, are no more the subjects for conscientious consideration and conscientious discharge, than the duties we enter upon under the constitution of the united states. the bonds of political brotherhood, which hold us together from maine to georgia, rest upon the same principles of obligation as those of domestic and social life. now, gentlemen, that is the plain story of the constitution of the united states, on the question of slavery. i contend, and have always contended, that, after the adoption of the constitution, any measure of the government calculated to bring more slave territory into the united states was beyond the power of the constitution, and against its provisions. that is my opinion, and it always has been my opinion. it was inconsistent with the constitution of the united states, or thought to be so, in mr. jefferson's time, to attach louisiana to the united states. a treaty with france was made for that purpose. mr. jefferson's opinion at that moment was, that an alteration of the constitution was necessary to enable it to be done. in consequence of considerations to which i need not now refer, that opinion was abandoned, and louisiana was admitted by law, without any provision in, or alteration of, the constitution. at that time i was too young to hold any office, or take any share in the political affairs of the country. louisiana was admitted as a slave state, and became entitled to her representation in congress on the principle of a mixed basis. florida was afterwards admitted. then, too, i was out of congress. i had formerly been a member, but had ceased to be so. i had nothing to do with the florida treaty, or the admission of florida. my opinion remains unchanged, that it was not within the original scope or design of the constitution to admit new states out of foreign territory; and, for one, whatever may be said at the syracuse convention, or at any other assemblage of insane persons, i never would consent, and never have consented, that there should be one foot of slave territory beyond what the old thirteen states had at the time of the formation of the union. never, never! the man cannot show his face to me, and say he can prove that i ever departed from that doctrine. he would sneak away, and slink away, or hire a mercenary press to cry out, what an apostate from liberty daniel webster has become! but he knows himself to be a hypocrite and a falsifier. but, gentlemen, i was in public life when the proposition to annex texas to the united states was brought forward. you know that the revolution in texas, which separated that country from mexico, occurred in the year or . i saw then, and i do not know that it required any particular foresight, that it would be the very next thing to bring texas, which was designed to be a slave-holding state, into this union. i did not wait. i sought an occasion to proclaim my utter aversion to any such measure, and i determined to resist it with all my strength to the last. on this subject, gentlemen, you will bear with me, if i now repeat, in the presence of this assembly, what i have before spoken elsewhere. i was in this city in the year , and, some time before i left new york on that excursion from which i returned to this place, my friends in new york were kind enough to offer me a public dinner as a testimony of their regard. i went out of my way, in a speech delivered in niblo's saloon, on that occasion, for the purpose of showing that i anticipated the attempt to annex texas as a slave territory, and said it should be opposed by me to the last extremity. well, there was the press all around me,--the whig press and the democratic press. some spoke in terms commendatory enough of my speech, but all agreed that i took pains to step out of my way to denounce in advance the annexation of texas as slave territory to the united states. i said on that occasion:-- "gentlemen, we all see that, by whomsoever possessed, texas is likely to be a slave-holding country; and i frankly avow my entire unwillingness to do any thing that shall extend the slavery of the african race on this continent, or add other slave-holding states to the union. when i say that i regard slavery in itself as a great moral, social, and political evil, i only use language which has been adopted by distinguished men, themselves citizens of slave-holding states. i shall do nothing, therefore, to favor or encourage its further extension. we have slavery already amongst us. the constitution found it in the union; it recognized it, and gave it solemn guaranties. to the full extent of these guaranties we are all bound, in honor, in justice, and by the constitution. all the stipulations contained in the constitution in favor of the slave-holding states which are already in the union ought to be fulfilled, and, so far as depends on me, shall be fulfilled, in the fulness of their spirit and to the exactness of their letter. slavery, as it exists in the states, is beyond the reach of congress. it is a concern of the states themselves; they have never submitted it to congress, and congress has no rightful power over it. i shall concur, therefore, in no act, no measure, no menace, no indication of purpose, which shall interfere or threaten to interfere with the exclusive authority of the several states over the subject of slavery as it exists within their respective limits. all this appears to me to be matter of plain and imperative duty. but when we come to speak of admitting new states, the subject assumes an entirely different aspect. our rights and our duties are then both different. the free states, and all the states, are then at liberty to accept or to reject. when it is proposed to bring new members into this political partnership, the old members have a right to say on what terms such new partners are to come in, and what they are to bring along with them. in my opinion, the people of the united states will not consent to bring into the union a new, vastly extensive, and slave-holding country, large enough for half a dozen or a dozen states. in my opinion they ought not to consent to it." gentlemen, i was mistaken; congress did consent to the bringing in of texas. they did consent, and i was a false prophet. your own state consented, and the majority of the representatives of new york consented. i went into congress before the final consummation of the deed, and there i fought, holding up both my hands, and urging, with a voice stronger than it now is, my remonstrances against the whole of it. but you would have it so, and you did have it so. nay, gentlemen, i will tell the truth, whether it shames the devil or not. persons who have aspired high as lovers of liberty, as eminent lovers of the wilmot proviso, as eminent free soil men, and who have mounted over our heads, and trodden us down as if we were mere slaves, insisting that they are the only true lovers of liberty, they are the men, the very men, that brought texas into this union. this is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and i declare it before you, this day. look to the journals. without the consent of new york, texas would not have come into the union, either under the original resolutions or afterwards. but new york voted for the measure. the two senators from new york voted for it, and decided the question; and you may thank them for the glory, the renown, and the happiness of having five or six slave states added to the union. do not blame me for it. let them answer who did the deed, and who are now proclaiming themselves the champions of liberty, crying up their free soil creed, and using it for selfish and deceptive purposes. they were the persons who aided in bringing in texas. it was all fairly told to you, both beforehand and afterwards. you heard moses and the prophets, but if one had risen from the dead, such was your devotion to that policy, at that time, you would not have listened to him for a moment. i do not, of course, speak of the persons now here before me, but of the general political tone in new york, and especially of those who are now free soil apostles. well, all that i do not complain of; but i will not now, or hereafter, before the country, or the world, consent to be numbered among those who introduced new slave power into the union. i did all in my power to prevent it. then, again, gentlemen, the mexican war broke out. vast territory was acquired, and the peace was made; and, much as i disliked the war, i disliked the peace more, because it brought in these territories. i wished for peace indeed, but i desired to strike out the grant of territory on the one side, and the payment of the $ , , on the other. that territory was unknown to me; i could not tell what its character might be. the plan came from the south. i knew that certain southern gentlemen wished the acquisition of california, new mexico, and utah, as a means of extending slave power and slave population. foreseeing a sectional controversy, and, as i conceived, seeing how much it would distract the union, i voted against the treaty with mexico. i voted against the acquisition. i wanted none of her territory, neither california, new mexico, nor utah. they were rather ultra-american, as i thought. they were far from us, and i saw that they might lead to a political conflict, and i voted against them all, against the treaty and against the peace, rather than have the territories. seeing that it would be an occasion of dispute, that by the controversy the whole union would be agitated, messrs. berrien, badger, and other respectable and distinguished men of the south, voted against the acquisition, and the treaty which secured it; and if the men of the north had voted the same way, we should have been spared all the difficulties that have grown out of it. we should have had peace without the territories. now there is no sort of doubt, gentlemen, that there were some persons in the south who supposed that california, if it came into the union at all, would come in as a slave state. you know the extraordinary events which immediately occurred, and the impulse given to emigration by the discovery of gold. you know that crowds of northern people immediately rushed to california, and that an african slave could no more live there among them, than he could live on the top of mount hecla. of necessity it became a free state, and that, no doubt, was a source of much disappointment to the south. and then there were new mexico and utah; what was to be done with them? why, gentlemen, from the best investigation i had given to the subject, and the reflection i had devoted to it, i was of the opinion that the mountains of new mexico and utah could no more sustain american slavery than the snows of canada. i saw it was impossible. i thought so then; it is quite evident now. therefore, when it was proposed in congress to apply the wilmot proviso to new mexico and utah, it appeared to me just as absurd as to apply it here in western new york. i saw that the snow-capped hills, the eternal mountains, and the climate of those countries would never support slavery. no man could carry a slave there with any expectation of profit. it could not be done; and as the south regarded the proviso as merely a source of irritation, and as designed by some to irritate, i thought it unwise to apply it to new mexico or utah. i voted accordingly, and who doubts now the correctness of that vote? the law admitting those territories passed without any proviso. is there a slave, or will there ever be one, in either of those territories? why, there is not a man in the united states so stupid as not to see, at this moment, that such a thing was wholly unnecessary, and that it was only calculated to irritate and to offend. i am not one who is disposed to create irritation, or give offence among brethren, or to break up fraternal friendship, without cause. the question was accordingly left legally open, whether slavery should or should not go to new mexico or utah. there is no slavery there, it is utterly impracticable that it should be introduced into such a region, and utterly ridiculous to suppose that it could exist there. no one, who does not mean to deceive, will now pretend it can exist there. well, gentlemen, we have a race of agitators all over the country; some connected with the press, some, i am sorry to say, belonging to the learned professions. they agitate; their livelihood consists in agitating; their freehold, their copyhold, their capital, their all in all, depend on the excitement of the public mind. the events now briefly alluded to were going on at the commencement of the year . there were two great questions before the public. there was the question of the texan boundary, and of a government for utah and new mexico, which i consider as one question; and there was the question of making a provision for the restoration of fugitive slaves. on these subjects, i have something to say. texas, as you know, established her independence of mexico by her revolution and the battle of san jacinto, which made her a sovereign power. i have already stated to you what i then anticipated from the movement, namely, that she would ask to come into the union as a slave state. we admitted her in , and we admitted her as a slave state. we admitted her also with an undefined boundary; remember that. she claimed by conquest the whole of that territory commonly called new mexico, east of the rio grande. she claimed also those limits which her constitution had declared and marked out as the proper limits of texas. this was her claim, and when she was admitted into the united states, the united states did not define her territory. they admitted her as she was. we took her as she defined her own limits, and with the power of making four additional slave states. i say "we," but i do not mean that i was one; i mean the united states admitted her. what, then, was the state of things in ? there was texas claiming all, or a great part, of that which the united states had acquired from mexico as new mexico. she claimed that it belonged to her by conquest and by her admission into the united states, and she was ready to maintain her claim by force of arms. nor was this all. a man must be ignorant of the history of the country who does not know, that, at the commencement of , there was great agitation throughout the whole south. who does not know that six or seven of the largest states of the south had already taken measures looking toward secession; were preparing for disunion in some way? they concurred apparently, at least some of them, with texas, while texas was prepared or preparing to enforce her rights by force of arms. troops were enlisted by her, and many thousand persons in the south disaffected towards the union, or desirous of breaking it up, were ready to make common cause with texas; to join her ranks, and see what they could make in a war to establish the right of texas to new mexico. the public mind was disturbed. a considerable part of the south was disaffected towards the union, and in a condition to adopt any course that should be violent and destructive. what then was to be done, as far as texas was concerned? allow me to say, gentlemen, there are two sorts of foresight. there is a military foresight, which sees what will be the result of an appeal to arms; and there is also a statesmanlike foresight, which looks not to the result of battles and carnage, but to the results of political disturbances, the violence of faction carried into military operations, and the horrors attendant on civil war. i never had a doubt, that, if the administration of general taylor had gone to war, and had sent troops into new mexico, the texan forces would have been subdued in a week. the power on one side was far superior to all the power on the other. but what then? what if texan troops, assisted by thousands of volunteers from the disaffected states, had gone to new mexico, and had been defeated and turned back? would that have settled the boundary question? now, gentlemen, i wish i had ten thousand voices. i wish i could draw around me the whole people of the united states, and i wish i could make them all hear what i now declare on my conscience as my solemn belief, before the power who sits on high, and who will judge you and me hereafter, that, if this texan controversy had not been settled by congress in the manner it was, by the so-called adjustment measures, civil war would have ensued; blood, american blood, would have been shed; and who can tell what would have been the consequences? gentlemen, in an honorable war, if a foreign foe invade us, if our rights are threatened, if it be necessary to defend them by arms, i am not afraid of blood. and if i am too old myself, i hope there are those connected with me by ties of relationship who are young, and willing to defend their country to the last drop of their blood. but i cannot express the horror i feel at the shedding of blood in a controversy between one of these states and the government of the united states, because i see in it a total and entire disruption of all those ties that make us a great and happy people. gentlemen, this was the great question, the leading question, at the commencement of the year . then there was the other matter, and that was the fugitive slave law. let me say a word about that. under the provisions of the constitution, during washington's administration, in the year , there was passed, by general consent, a law for the restoration of fugitive slaves. hardly any one opposed it at that period; it was thought to be necessary, in order to carry the constitution into effect; the great men of new england and new york all concurred in it. it passed, and answered all the purposes expected from it, till about the year or , when the states interfered to make enactments in opposition to it. the act of congress said that state magistrates might execute the duties of the law. some of the states passed enactments imposing a penalty on any state officers who exercised authority under the law, or assisted in its execution; others denied the use of their jails to carry the law into effect; and, in general, at the commencement of the year , it had become absolutely indispensable that congress should pass some law for the execution of this provision of the constitution, or else give up that provision entirely. that was the question. i was in congress when it was brought forward. i was for a proper law. i had, indeed, proposed a different law; i was of opinion that a summary trial by a jury might be had, which would satisfy the people of the north, and produce no harm to those who claimed the service of fugitives; but i left the senate, and went to another station, before any law was passed. the law of passed. now i undertake, as a lawyer, and on my professional character, to say to you, and to all, that the law of is decidedly more favorable to the fugitive than general washington's law of ; and i will tell you why. in the first place, the present law places the power in much higher hands; in the hands of independent judges of the supreme and circuit courts, and district courts, and of commissioners who are appointed to office for their legal learning. every fugitive is brought before a tribunal of high character, of eminent ability, of respectable station. in the second place, when a claimant comes from virginia to new york, to say that one a or one b has run away, or is a fugitive from service or labor, he brings with him a record of the court of the county from which he comes, and that record must be sworn to before a magistrate, and certified by the county clerk, and bear an official seal. the affidavit must state that a or b had departed under such and such circumstances, and had gone to another state; and that record under seal is, by the constitution of the united states, entitled to full credit in every state. well, the claimant or his agent comes here, and he presents to you the seal of the court in virginia, affixed to a record of his declaration, that a or b had escaped from service. he must then prove that the fugitive is here. he brings a witness; he is asked if this is the man, and he proves it; or, in nine cases out of ten, the fact would be admitted by the fugitive himself. such is the present law; and, much opposed and maligned as it is, it is more favorable to the fugitive slave than the law enacted during washington's administration, in , which was sanctioned by the north as well as by the south. the present violent opposition has sprung up in modern times. from whom does this clamor come? why, look at the proceedings of the antislavery conventions; look at their resolutions. do you find among those persons who oppose this fugitive slave law any admission whatever, that any law ought to be passed to carry into effect the solemn stipulations of the constitution? tell me any such case; tell me if any resolution was adopted by the convention at syracuse favorable to the carrying out of the constitution. not one! the fact is, gentlemen, they oppose the constitutional provision; they oppose the whole! not a man of them admits that there ought to be any law on the subject. they deny, altogether, that the provisions of the constitution ought to be carried into effect. look at the proceedings of the antislavery conventions in ohio, massachusetts, and at syracuse, in the state of new york. what do they say? "that, so help them god, no colored man shall be sent from the state of new york back to his master in virginia!" do not they say that? and, to the fulfilment of that they "pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor." their sacred honor! they pledge their sacred honor to violate the constitution; they pledge their sacred honor to commit treason against the laws of their country! i have already stated, gentlemen, what your observation of these things must have taught you. i will only recur to the subject for a moment, for the purpose of persuading you, as public men and private men, as good men and patriotic men, that you ought, to the extent of your ability and influence, to see to it that such laws are established and maintained as shall keep you, and the south, and the west, and all the country, together, on the terms of the constitution. i say, that what is demanded of us is to fulfil our constitutional duties, and to do for the south what the south has a right to demand. gentlemen, i have been some time before the public. my character is known, my life is before the country. i profess to love liberty as much as any man living; but i profess to love american liberty, that liberty which is secured to the country by the government under which we live; and i have no great opinion of that other and higher liberty which disregards the restraints of law and of the constitution. i hold the constitution of the united states to be the bulwark, the only bulwark, of our liberties and of our national character, i do not mean that you should become slaves under the constitution. that is not american liberty. that is not the liberty of the union for which our fathers fought, that liberty which has given us a right to be known and respected all over the world. i mean only to say, that i am for constitutional liberty. it is enough for me to be as free as the constitution of the country makes me. now, gentlemen, let me say, that, as much as i respect the character of the people of western new york, as much as i wish to retain their good opinion, if i should ever hereafter be placed in any situation in public life, let me tell you now that you must not expect from me the slightest variation, even of a hair's breadth, from the constitution of the united states. i am a northern man. i was born at the north, educated at the north, have lived all my days at the north. i know five hundred northern men to one southern man. my sympathies, all my sympathies, my love of liberty for all mankind, of every color, are the same as yours. my affections and hopes in that respect are exactly like yours. i wish to see all men free, all men happy. i have few personal associations out of the northern states. my people are your people. and yet i am told sometimes that i am not a friend of liberty, because i am not a free soil man. what am i? what was i ever? what shall i be hereafter, if i could sacrifice, for any consideration, that love of american liberty which has glowed in my breast since my infancy, and which, i hope, will never leave me till i expire? gentlemen, i regret that slavery exists in the southern states; but it is clear and certain that congress has no power over it. it may be, however, that, in the dispensations of providence, some remedy for this evil may occur, or may be hoped for hereafter. but, in the mean time, i hold to the constitution of the united states, and you need never expect from me, under any circumstances, that i shall falter from it; that i shall be otherwise than frank and decisive. i would not part with my character as a man of firmness and decision, and honor and principle, for all that the world possesses. you will find me true to the north, because all my sympathies are with the north. my affections, my children, my hopes, my everything, are with the north. but when i stand up before my country, as one appointed to administer the constitution of the country, by the blessing of god i will be just. gentlemen, i expect to be libelled and abused. yes, libelled and abused. but it does not disturb me. i have not lost a night's rest for a great many years from any such cause. i have some talent for sleeping. and why should i not expect to be libelled? is not the constitution of the united states libelled and abused? do not some people call it a covenant with hell? is not washington libelled and abused? is he not called a bloodhound on the track of the african negro? are not our fathers libelled and abused by their own children? and ungrateful children they are. how, then, shall i escape? i do not expect to escape; but, knowing these things, i impute no bad motive to any men of character and fair standing. the great settlement measures of the last congress are laws. many respectable men, representatives from your own state and from other states, did not concur in them. i do not impute any bad motive to them. i am ready to believe they are americans all. they may not have thought these laws necessary; or they may have thought that they would be enacted without their concurrence. let all that pass away. if they are now men who will stand by what is done, and stand up for their country, and say that, as these laws were passed by a majority of the whole country, we must stand by them and live by them, i will respect them all as friends. now, gentlemen, allow me to ask of you, what do you think would have been the condition of the country, at this time, if these laws had not been passed by the last congress? if the question of the texas boundary had not been settled? if new mexico and utah had been left as desert-places, and no government had been provided for them? and if the other great object to which state laws had opposed so many obstacles, the restoration of fugitives, had not been provided for, i ask, what would have been the state of this country now? you men of erie county, you men of new york, i conjure you to go home to-night and meditate on this subject. what would have been the state of this country, now, at this moment, if these laws had not been passed? i have given my opinion that we should have had a civil war. i refer it to you, therefore, for your consideration; meditate on it; do not be carried away by any abstract notions or metaphysical ideas; think practically on the great question, what would have been the condition of the united states at this moment, if we had not settled these agitating questions? i repeat, in my opinion, there would have been a civil war. gentlemen, will you allow me, for a moment, to advert to myself? i have been a long time in public life; of course, not many years remain to me. at the commencement of , i looked anxiously at the condition of the country, and i thought the inevitable consequence of leaving the existing controversies unadjusted would be civil war. i saw danger in leaving utah and new mexico without any government, a prey to the power of texas. i saw the condition of things arising from the interference of some of the states in defeating the operation of the constitution in respect to the restoration of fugitive slaves. i saw these things, and i made up my mind to encounter whatever might betide me in the attempt to avert the impending catastrophe. and allow me to add something which is not entirely unworthy of notice. a member of the house of representatives told me that he had prepared a list of one hundred and forty speeches which had been made in congress on the slavery question. "that is a very large number, my friend," i said; "but how is that?" "why," said he, "a northern man gets up and speaks with considerable power and fluency until the speaker's hammer knocks him down. then gets up a southern man, and he speaks with more warmth. he is nearer the sun, and he comes out with the greater fervor against the north. he speaks his hour, and is in turn knocked down. and so it has gone on, until i have got one hundred and forty speeches on my list." "well," said i, "where are they, and what are they?" "if the speaker," said he, "was a northern man, he held forth against slavery; and if he was from the south, he abused the north; and all these speeches were sent by the members to their own localities, where they served only to aggravate the local irritation already existing. no man reads both sides. the other side of the argument is not heard; and the speeches sent from washington in such prodigious numbers, instead of tending to conciliation, do but increase, in both sections of the union, an excitement already of the most dangerous character." gentlemen, in this state of things, i saw that something must be done. it was impossible to look with indifference on a danger of so formidable a character. i am a massachusetts man, and i bore in mind what massachusetts has ever been to the constitution and the union. i felt the importance of the duty which devolved upon one to whom she had so long confided the trust of representing her in either house of congress. as i honored her, and respected her, i felt that i was serving her in my endeavors to promote the welfare of the whole country. and now suppose, gentlemen, that, on the occasion in question, i had taken a different course. if i may allude so particularly to an individual so insignificant as myself, suppose that, on the th of march, , instead of making a speech that would, so far as my power went, reconcile the country, i had joined in the general clamor of the antislavery party. suppose i had said, "i will have nothing to do with any accommodation; we will admit no compromise; we will let texas invade new mexico; we will leave new mexico and utah to take care of themselves; we will plant ourselves on the wilmot proviso, let the consequences be what they may." now, gentlemen, i do not mean to say that great consequences would have followed from such a course on my part; but suppose i had taken such a course. how could i be blamed for it? was i not a northern man? did i not know massachusetts feelings and prejudices? but what of that? i am an american. i was made a whole man, and i did not mean to make myself half a one. i felt that i had a duty to perform to my country, to my own reputation; for i flattered myself that a service of forty years had given me some character, on which i had a right to repose for my justification in the performance of a duty attended with some degree of local unpopularity. i thought it my duty to pursue this course, and i did not care what was to be the consequence. i felt it was my duty, in a very alarming crisis, to come out; to go for my country, and my whole country; and to exert any power i had to keep that country together. i cared for nothing, i was afraid of nothing, but i meant to do my duty. duty performed makes a man happy; duty neglected makes a man unhappy. i therefore, in the face of all discouragements and all dangers, was ready to go forth and do what i thought my country, your country, demanded of me. and, gentlemen, allow me to say here to-day, that if the fate of john rogers had stared me in the face, if i had seen the stake, if i had heard the fagots already crackling, by the blessing of almighty god i would have gone on and discharged the duty which i thought my country called upon me to perform. i would have become a martyr to save that country. and now, gentlemen, farewell. live and be happy. live like patriots, live like americans. live in the enjoyment of the inestimable blessings which your fathers prepared for you; and if any thing that i may do hereafter should be inconsistent, in the slightest degree, with the opinions and principles which i have this day submitted to you, then discard me for ever from your recollection. the addition to the capitol. an address delivered at the laying of the corner-stone of the addition to the capitol, on the th of july, .[ ] fellow-citizens,--i greet you well; i give you joy, on the return of this anniversary; and i felicitate you, also, on the more particular purpose of which this ever-memorable day has been chosen to witness the fulfilment. hail! all hail! i see before and around me a mass of faces, glowing with cheerfulness and patriotic pride. i see thousands of eyes turned towards other eyes, all sparkling with gratification and delight. this is the new world! this is america! this is washington! and this the capitol of the united states! and where else, among the nations, can the seat of government be surrounded, on any day of any year, by those who have more reason to rejoice in the blessings which they possess? nowhere, fellow-citizens! assuredly, nowhere! let us, then, meet this rising sun with joy and thanksgiving! this is that day of the year which announced to mankind the great fact of american independence. this fresh and brilliant morning blesses our vision with another beholding of the birthday of our nation; and we see that nation, of recent origin, now among the most considerable and powerful, and spreading over the continent from sea to sea. among the first colonists from europe to this part of america, there were some, doubtless, who contemplated the distant consequences of their undertaking, and who saw a great futurity. but, in general, their hopes were limited to the enjoyment of a safe asylum from tyranny, religious and civil, and to respectable subsistence, by industry and toil. a thick veil hid our times from their view. but the progress of america, however slow, could not but at length awaken genius, and attract the attention of mankind. in the early part of the second century of our history, bishop berkeley, who, it will be remembered, had resided for some time in newport, in rhode island, wrote his well-known "verses on the prospect of planting arts and learning in america." the last stanza of this little poem seems to have been produced by a high poetical inspiration:-- "westward the course of empire takes its way; the four first acts already past, a fifth shall close the drama with the day: time's noblest offspring is the last." this extraordinary prophecy may be considered only as the result of long foresight and uncommon sagacity; of a foresight and sagacity stimulated, nevertheless, by excited feeling and high enthusiasm. so clear a vision of what america would become was not founded on square miles, or on existing numbers, or on any common laws of statistics. it was an intuitive glance into futurity; it was a grand conception, strong, ardent, glowing, embracing all time since the creation of the world, and all regions of which that world is composed, and judging of the future by just analogy with the past. and the inimitable imagery and beauty with which the thought is expressed, joined to the conception itself, render it one of the most striking passages in our language. on the day of the declaration of independence our illustrious fathers performed the first scene in the last great act of this drama; one in real importance infinitely exceeding that for which the great english poet invokes "a muse of fire, ... a kingdom for a stage, princes to act, and monarchs to behold the swelling scene!" the muse inspiring our fathers was the genius of liberty, all on fire with a sense of oppression, and a resolution to throw it off; the whole world was the stage, and higher characters than princes trod it; and, instead of monarchs, countries and nations and the age beheld the swelling scene. how well the characters were cast, and how well each acted his part, and what emotions the whole performance excited, let history, now and hereafter, tell. at a subsequent period, but before the declaration of independence, the bishop of st. asaph published a discourse, in which the following remarkable passages are found:-- "it is difficult for man to look into the destiny of future ages; the designs of providence are vast and complicated, and our own powers are too narrow to admit of much satisfaction to our curiosity. but when we see many great and powerful causes constantly at work, we cannot doubt of their producing proportionable effects. "the colonies in north america have not only taken root and acquired strength, _but seem hastening with an accelerated progress to such a powerful state as may introduce a new and important change in human affairs_. "descended from ancestors of the most improved and enlightened part of the old world, they receive, as it were by inheritance, all the improvements and discoveries of their mother country. and it happens fortunately for them to commence their flourishing state at a time when the human understanding has attained to the free use of its powers, and has learned to act with vigor and certainty. they may avail themselves, not only of the experience and industry, but even of the errors and mistakes, of former days. let it be considered for how many ages a great part of the world appears not to have thought at all; how many more they have been busied in forming systems and conjectures, while reason has been lost in a labyrinth of words, and they never seem to have suspected on what frivolous matters their minds were employed. "and let it be well understood what rapid improvements, what important discoveries, have been made, in a few years, by a few countries, with our own at their head, which have at last discovered the right method of using their faculties. "may we not reasonably expect that a number of provinces possessed of these advantages and quickened by mutual emulation, with only the common progress of the human mind, should very considerably enlarge the boundaries of science? "the vast continent itself, over which they are gradually spreading, may be considered as a treasure yet untouched of natural productions that shall hereafter afford ample matter for commerce and contemplation. and if we reflect what a stock of knowledge may be accumulated by the constant progress of industry and observation, fed with fresh supplies from the stores of nature, assisted sometimes by those happy strokes of chance which mock all the powers of invention, and sometimes by those superior characters which arise occasionally to instruct and enlighten the world, it is difficult even to imagine to what height of improvement their discoveries may extend. "_and perhaps they may make as considerable advances in the arts of civil government and the conduct of life._ we have reason to be proud, and even jealous, of our excellent constitution; but those equitable principles on which it was formed, an equal representation (the best discovery of political wisdom), and a just and commodious distribution of power, which with us were the price of civil wars, and the rewards of the virtues and sufferings of our ancestors, descend to them as a natural inheritance, without toil or pain. "_but must they rest here, as in the utmost effort of human genius? can chance and time, the wisdom and the experience of public men, suggest no new remedy aqainst the evils_ which vices and ambition are perpetually apt to cause? may they not hope, without presumption, to preserve a greater zeal for piety and public devotion than we have alone? for sure it can hardly happen to them, as it has to us, that, when religion is best understood and rendered most pure and reasonable, then should be the precise time when many cease to believe and practise it, and all in general become most indifferent to it. "may they not possibly be more successful than their mother country has been in preserving that reverence and authority which are due to the laws? to those who make, and to those who execute them? _may not a method be invented of procuring some tolerable share of the comforts of life to those inferior useful ranks of men to whose industry we are indebted for the whole? time and discipline may discover some means to correct the extreme inequalities of condition between the rich and the poor, so dangerous to the innocence and happiness of both._ they may fortunately be led by habit and choice to despise that luxury which is considered with us the true enjoyment of wealth. they may have little relish for that ceaseless hurry of amusements which is pursued in this country without pleasure, exercise, or employment. and perhaps, after trying some of our follies and caprices, and rejecting the rest, they may be led by reason and experiment to that old simplicity which was first pointed out by nature, and has produced those models which we still admire in arts, eloquence, and manners. _the diversity of new scenes and situations, which so many growing states must necessarily pass through, may introduce changes in the fluctuating opinions and manners of men which we can form no conception of_; and not only the gracious disposition of providence, but the visible preparation of causes, seems to indicate strong tendencies towards a general improvement." fellow-citizens, this "gracious disposition of providence," and this "visible preparation of causes," at length brought on the hour for decisive action. on the th of july, , the representatives of the united states of america, in congress assembled, declared that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states. this declaration, made by most patriotic and resolute men, trusting in the justice of their cause and the protection of heaven, and yet made not without deep solicitude and anxiety, has now stood for seventy-five years, and still stands. it was sealed in blood. it has met dangers, and overcome them; it has had enemies, and conquered them; it has had detractors, and abashed them all; it has had doubting friends, but it has cleared all doubts away; and now, to-day, raising its august form higher than the clouds, twenty millions of people contemplate it with hallowed love, and the world beholds it, and the consequences which have followed from it, with profound admiration. this anniversary animates and gladdens and unites all american hearts. on other days of the year we may be party men, indulging in controversies, more or less important to the public good; we may have likes and dislikes, and we may maintain our political differences, often with warm, and sometimes with angry feelings. but to-day we are americans all; and all nothing but americans. as the great luminary over our heads, dissipating mists and fogs, now cheers the whole hemisphere, so do the associations connected with this day disperse all cloudy and sullen weather in the minds and hearts of true americans. every man's heart swells within him; every man's port and bearing become somewhat more proud and lofty, as he remembers that seventy-five years have rolled away, and that the great inheritance of liberty is still his; his, undiminished and unimpaired; his in all its original glory; his to enjoy, his to protect, and his to transmit to future generations. fellow-citizens, this inheritance which we enjoy to-day is not only an inheritance of liberty, but of our own peculiar american liberty. liberty has existed in other times, in other countries, and in other forms. there has been a grecian liberty, bold and powerful, full of spirit, eloquence, and fire; a liberty which produced multitudes of great men, and has transmitted one immortal name, the name of demosthenes, to posterity. but still it was a liberty of disconnected states, sometimes united, indeed, by temporary leagues and confederacies, but often involved in wars between themselves. the sword of sparta turned its sharpest edge against athens, enslaved her, and devastated greece; and, in her turn, sparta was compelled to bend before the power of thebes. and let it ever be remembered, especially let the truth sink deep into all american minds, that it was the want of union among her several states which finally gave the mastery of all greece to philip of macedon. and there has also been a roman liberty, a proud, ambitious, domineering spirit, professing free and popular principles in rome itself, but, even in the best days of the republic, ready to carry slavery and chains into her provinces, and through every country over which her eagles could be borne. what was the liberty of spain, or gaul, or germany, or britain, in the days of rome? did true constitutional liberty then exist? as the roman empire declined, her provinces, not instructed in the principles of free popular government, one after another declined also, and when rome herself fell, in the end, all fell together. i have said, gentlemen, that our inheritance is an inheritance of american liberty. that liberty is characteristic, peculiar, and altogether our own. nothing like it existed in former times, nor was known in the most enlightened states of antiquity; while with us its principles have become interwoven into the minds of individual men, connected with our daily opinions, and our daily habits, until it is, if i may so say, an element of social as well as of political life; and the consequence is, that to whatever region an american citizen carries himself, he takes with him, fully developed in his own understanding and experience, our american principles and opinions, and becomes ready at once, in co-operation with others, to apply them to the formation of new governments. of this a most wonderful instance may be seen in the history of the state of california. on a former occasion i ventured to remark, that "it is very difficult to establish a free conservative government for the equal advancement of all the interests of society. what has germany done, learned germany, more full of ancient lore than all the world beside? what has italy done? what have they done who dwell on the spot where cicero lived? they have not the power of self-government which a common town-meeting, with us, possesses.... yes, i say that those persons who have gone from our town-meetings to dig gold in california are more fit to make a republican government than any body of men in germany or italy; because they have learned this one great lesson, that there is no security without law, and that, under the circumstances in which they are placed, where there is no military authority to cut their throats, there is no sovereign will but the will of the majority; that, therefore, if they remain, they must submit to that will." and this i believe to be strictly true. now, fellow-citizens, if your patience will hold out, i will venture, before proceeding to the more appropriate and particular duties of the day, to state, in a few words, what i take these american political principles in substance to be. they consist, as i think, in the first place, in the establishment of popular governments, on the basis of representation; for it is plain that a pure democracy, like that which existed in some of the states of greece, in which every individual had a direct vote in the enactment of all laws, cannot possibly exist in a country of wide extent. this representation is to be made as equal as circumstances will allow. now, this principle of popular representation, prevailing either in all the branches of government, or in some of them, has existed in these states almost from the days of the settlements at jamestown and plymouth; borrowed, no doubt, from the example of the popular branch of the british legislature. the representation of the people in the british house of commons was, however, originally very unequal, and is yet not equal. indeed, it may be doubted whether the appearance of knights and burgesses, assembling on the summons of the crown, was not intended at first as an assistance and support to the royal prerogative, in matters of revenue and taxation, rather than as a mode of ascertaining popular opinion. nevertheless, representation had a popular origin, and savored more and more of the character of that origin, as it acquired, by slow degrees, greater and greater strength, in the actual government of the country. the constitution of the house of commons was certainly a form of representation, however unequal; numbers were counted, and majorities prevailed; and when our ancestors, acting upon this example, introduced more equality of representation, the idea assumed a more rational and distinct shape. at any rate, this manner of exercising popular power was familiar to our fathers when they settled on this continent. they adopted it, and generation has risen up after generation, all acknowledging it, and all learning its practice and its forms. the next fundamental principle in our system is, that the will of the majority, fairly expressed through the means of representation, shall have the force of law; and it is quite evident that, in a country without thrones or aristocracies or privileged castes or classes, there can be no other foundation for law to stand upon. and, as the necessary result of this, the third element is, that the law is the supreme rule for the government of all. the great sentiment of alcaeus, so beautifully presented to us by sir william jones, is absolutely indispensable to the construction and maintenance of our political systems:-- "what constitutes a state? not high-raised battlement or labored mound, thick wall or moated gate; not cities proud, with spires and turrets crowned; not bays and broad-armed ports, where, laughing at the storm, rich navies ride; not starred and spangled courts, where low-browed baseness wafts perfume to pride. no: men, high-minded men, with powers as far above dull brutes endued, in forest, brake, or den, as beasts excel cold rocks and brambles rude: men who their duties know, but know their rights, and, knowing, dare maintain; prevent the long-aimed blow, and crush the tyrant while they rend the chain: these constitute a state; and sovereign law, that state's collected will, o'er thrones and globes elate sits empress, crowning good, repressing ill." and, finally, another most important part of the great fabric of american liberty is, that there shall be written constitutions, founded on the immediate authority of the people themselves, and regulating and restraining all the powers conferred upon government, whether legislative, executive, or judicial. this, fellow-citizens, i suppose to be a just summary of our american principles, and i have on this occasion sought to express them in the plainest and in the fewest words. the summary may not be entirely exact, but i hope it may be sufficiently so to make manifest to the rising generation among ourselves, and to those elsewhere who may choose to inquire into the nature of our political institutions, the general theory upon which they are founded. and i now proceed to add, that the strong and deep-settled conviction of all intelligent persons amongst us is, that, in order to support a useful and wise government upon these popular principles, the general education of the people, and the wide diffusion of pure morality and true religion, are indispensable. individual virtue is a part of public virtue. it is difficult to conceive how there can remain morality in the government when it shall cease to exist among the people; or how the aggregate of the political institutions, all the organs of which consist only of men, should be wise, and beneficent, and competent to inspire confidence, if the opposite qualities belong to the individuals who constitute those organs, and make up that aggregate. and now, fellow-citizens, i take leave of this part of the duty which i proposed to perform; and, once more felicitating you and myself that our eyes have seen the light of this blessed morning, and that our ears have heard the shouts with which joyous thousands welcome its return, and joining with you in the hope that every revolving year may renew these rejoicings to the end of time, i proceed to address you, shortly, upon the particular occasion of our assembling here to-day. fellow-citizens, by the act of congress of the th of september, , provision was made for the extension of the capitol, according to such plan as might be approved by the president of the united states, and for the necessary sums to be expended, under his direction, by such architect as he might appoint. this measure was imperatively demanded, for the use of the legislative and judiciary departments, the public libraries, the occasional accommodation of the chief executive magistrate, and for other objects. no act of congress incurring a large expenditure has received more general approbation from the people. the president has proceeded to execute this law. he has approved a plan; he has appointed an architect; and all things are now ready for the commencement of the work. the anniversary of national independence appeared to afford an auspicious occasion for laying the foundation-stone of the additional building. that ceremony has now been performed by the president himself, in the presence and view of this multitude. he has thought that the day and the occasion made a united and imperative call for some short address to the people here assembled; and it is at his request that i have appeared before you to perform that part of the duty which was deemed incumbent on us. beneath the stone is deposited, among other things, a list of which will be published, the following brief account of the proceedings of this day, in my handwriting:-- "on the morning of the first day of the seventy-sixth year of the independence of the united states of america, in the city of washington, being the th day of july, , this stone, designed as the corner-stone of the extension of the capitol, according to a plan approved by the president, in pursuance of an act of congress, was laid by "millard fillmore, "president of the united states, "assisted by the grand master of the masonic lodges, in the presence of many members of congress, of officers of the executive and judiciary departments, national, state, and district, of officers of the army and navy, the corporate authorities of this and neighboring cities, many associations, civil and military and masonic, members of the smithsonian institution and national institute, professors of colleges and teachers of schools of the district, with their students and pupils, and a vast concourse of people from places near and remote, including a few surviving gentlemen who witnessed the laying of the corner-stone of the capitol by president washington, on the th day of september, a.d. . "if, therefore, it shall be hereafter the will of god that this structure shall fall from its base, that its foundation be upturned, and this deposit brought to the eyes of men, be it then known, that on this day the union of the united states of america stands firm, that their constitution still exists unimpaired, and with all its original usefulness and glory; growing every day stronger and stronger in the affections of the great body of the american people, and attracting more and more the admiration of the world. and all here assembled, whether belonging to public life or to private life, with hearts devoutly thankful to almighty god for the preservation of the liberty and happiness of the country, unite in sincere and fervent prayers that this deposit, and the walls and arches, the domes and towers, the columns and entablatures, now to be erected over it, may endure for ever! "god save the united states of america! "daniel webster, "_secretary of state of the united states_." fellow-citizens, fifty-eight years ago washington stood on this spot to execute a duty like that which has now been performed. he then laid the corner-stone of the original capitol. he was at the head of the government, at that time weak in resources, burdened with debt, just struggling into political existence and respectability, and agitated by the heaving waves which were overturning european thrones. but even then, in many important respects, the government was strong. it was strong in washington's own great character; it was strong in the wisdom and patriotism of other eminent public men, his political associates and fellow-laborers; and it was strong in the affections of the people. since that time astonishing changes have been wrought in the condition and prospects of the american people; and a degree of progress witnessed with which the world can furnish no parallel. as we review the course of that progress, wonder and amazement arrest our attention at every step. the present occasion, although allowing of no lengthened remarks, may yet, perhaps, admit of a short comparative statement of important subjects of national interest as they existed at that day, and as they now exist. i have adopted for this purpose the tabular form of statement, as being the most brief and significant. comparative table. year . year . number of states representatives and senators in congress population of the united states , , , , population of boston , , population of baltimore , , population of philadelphia , , population of new york (city) , , population of washington . . . , population of richmond , , population of charleston , , amount of receipts into the treasury $ , , $ , , amount of expenditures $ , , $ , , amount of imports $ , , $ , , amount of exports $ , , $ , , amount of tonnage (tons) , , , area of the united states in square miles , , , rank and file of the army , , militia (enrolled) . . . , , navy of the united states (vessels) (none.) navy armament (ordnance) . . . , treaties and conventions with foreign powers light-houses and light-boats expenditures for ditto $ , $ , area of the capitol / acre. - / acres. number of miles of railroad in operation . . . , cost of ditto . . . $ , , number of miles in course of construction . . . , lines of electric telegraph, in miles . . . , number of post-offices , number of miles of post-route , , amount of revenue from post-offices $ , $ , , amount of expenditures of post-office department $ , $ , , number of miles of mail transportation . . . , , number of colleges public libraries volumes in ditto , , , school libraries . . . , volumes in ditto . . . , , emigrants from europe to the united states , , coinage at the mint $ , $ , , in respect to the growth of western trade and commerce, i extract a few sentences from a very valuable address before the historical society of ohio, by william d. gallagher, esq., :-- "a few facts will exhibit as well as a volume the wonderful growth of western trade and commerce. previous to the year , some eight or ten keel-boats, of twenty or twenty-five tons each, performed all the carrying trade between cincinnati and pittsburg. in the first government vessel appeared on lake erie. in the first steamboat (the orleans) was launched at pittsburg. in the waters of michigan were first ploughed by the keel of a steamboat, a pleasure trip to green bay being planned and executed in the summer of this year. in a steamboat first appeared at chicago. at the present time the entire number of steamboats running on the mississippi and ohio and their tributaries is more probably over than under six hundred, the aggregate tonnage of which is not short of one hundred and forty thousand; a larger number of steamboats than england can claim, and a greater steam commercial marine than that employed by great britain and her dependencies." and now, fellow-citizens, having stated to you this infallible proof of the growth and prosperity of the nation, i ask you, and i would ask every man, whether the government which has been over us has proved itself an infliction or a curse to the country, or any part of it? ye men of the south, of all the original southern states, what say you to all this? are you, or any of you, ashamed of this great work of your fathers? your fathers were not they who storied the prophets and killed them. they were among the prophets; they were of the prophets; they were themselves the prophets. ye men of virginia, what do you say to all this? ye men of the potomac, dwelling along the shores of that river on which washington lived and died, and where his remains now rest, ye, so many of whom may see the domes of the capitol from your own homes, what say ye? ye men of james river and the bay, places consecrated by the early settlement of your commonwealth, what do you say? do you desire, from the soil of your state, or as you travel to the north, to see these halls vacated, their beauty and ornaments destroyed, and their national usefulness gone for ever? ye men beyond the blue ridge, many thousands of whom are nearer to this capitol than to the seat of government of your own state, what do you think of breaking this great association into fragments of states and of people? i know that some of you, and i believe that you all, would be almost as much shocked at the announcement of such a catastrophe, as if you were to be informed that the blue ridge itself would soon totter from its base. and ye men of western virginia, who occupy the great slope from the top of the alleghanies to ohio and kentucky, what benefit do you propose to yourselves by disunion? if you "secede," what do you "secede" from, and what do you "accede" to? do you look for the current of the ohio to change, and to bring you and your commerce to the tidewaters of eastern rivers? what man in his senses can suppose that you would remain part and parcel of virginia a month after virginia should have ceased to be part and parcel of the united states? the secession of virginia! the secession of virginia, whether alone or in company, is most improbable, the greatest of all improbabilities. virginia, to her everlasting honor, acted a great part in framing and establishing the present constitution. she has had her reward and her distinction. seven of her noble sons have each filled the presidency, and enjoyed the highest honors of the country. dolorous complaints come up to us from the south, that virginia will not head the march of secession, and lead the other southern states out of the union. this, if it should happen, would be something of a marvel, certainly, considering how much pains virginia took to lead these same states into the union, and considering, too, that she has partaken as largely of its benefits and its government as any other state. and ye men of the other southern states, members of the old thirteen; yes, members of the old thirteen; that always touches my regard and my sympathies; north carolina, georgia, south carolina! what page in your history, or in the history of any one of you, is brighter than those which have been recorded since the union was formed? or through what period has your prosperity been greater, or your peace and happiness better secured? what names even has south carolina, now so much dissatisfied, what names has she of which her intelligent sons are more proud than those which have been connected with the government of the united states? in revolutionary times, and in the earliest days of this constitution, there was no state more honored, or more deserving of honor. where is she now? and what a fall is there, my countrymen! but i leave her to her own reflections, commending to her, with all my heart, the due consideration of her own example in times now gone by. fellow-citizens, there are some diseases of the mind as well as of the body, diseases of communities as well as diseases of individuals, that must be left to their own cure; at least it is wise to leave them so until the last critical moment shall arrive. i hope it is not irreverent, and certainly it is not intended as reproach, when i say, that i know no stronger expression in our language than that which describes the restoration of the wayward son,--"he came to himself." he had broken away from all the ties of love, family, and friendship. he had forsaken every thing which he had once regarded in his father's house. he had forsworn his natural sympathies, affections, and habits, and taken his journey into a far country. he had gone away from himself and out of himself. but misfortunes overtook him, and famine threatened him with starvation and death. no entreaties from home followed him to beckon him back; no admonition from others warned him of his fate. but the hour of reflection had come, and nature and conscience wrought within him, until at length "_he came to himself_." and now, ye men of the new states of the south! you are not of the original thirteen. the battle had been fought and won, the revolution achieved, and the constitution established, before your states had any existence as states. you came to a prepared banquet, and had seats assigned you at table just as honorable as those which were filled by older guests. you have been and are singularly prosperous; and if any one should deny this, you would at once contradict his assertion. you have bought vast quantities of choice and excellent land at the lowest price; and if the public domain has not been lavished upon you, you yourself will admit that it has been appropriated to your own uses by a very liberal hand. and yet in some of these states, not in all, persons are found in favor of a dissolution of the union, or of secession from it. such opinions are expressed even where the general prosperity of the community has been the most rapidly advanced. in the flourishing and interesting state of mississippi, for example, there is a large party which insists that her grievances are intolerable, that the whole body politic is in a state of suffering; and all along, and through her whole extent on the mississippi, a loud cry rings that her only remedy is "secession," "secession." now, gentlemen, what infliction does the state of mississippi suffer under? what oppression prostrates her strength or destroys her happiness? before we can judge of the proper remedy, we must know something of the disease; and, for my part, i confess that the real evil existing in the case appears to me to be a certain inquietude or uneasiness growing out of a high degree of prosperity and consciousness of wealth and power, which sometimes lead men to be ready for changes, and to push on unreasonably to still higher elevation. if this be the truth of the matter, her political doctors are about right. if the complaint spring from over-wrought prosperity, for that disease i have no doubt that secession would prove a sovereign remedy. but i return to the leading topic on which i was engaged. in the department of invention there have been wonderful applications of science to arts within the last sixty years. the spacious hall of the patent office is at once the repository and proof of american inventive art and genius. their results are seen in the numerous improvements by which human labor is abridged. without going into details, it may be sufficient to say, that many of the applications of steam to locomotion and manufactures, of electricity and magnetism to the production of mechanical motion, the electrical telegraph, the registration of astronomical phenomena, the art of multiplying engravings, the introduction and improvement among us of all the important inventions of the old world, are striking indications of the progress of this country in the useful arts. the net-work of railroads and telegraphic lines by which this vast country is reticulated have not only developed its resources, but united emphatically, in metallic bands, all parts of the union. the hydraulic works of new york, philadelphia, and boston surpass in extent and importance those of ancient rome. but we have not confined our attention to the immediate application of science to the useful arts. we have entered the field of original research, and have enlarged the bounds of scientific knowledge. sixty years ago, besides the brilliant discoveries of franklin in electricity, scarcely any thing had been done among us in the way of original discovery. our men of science were content with repeating the experiments and diffusing a knowledge of the discoveries of the learned of the old world, without attempting to add a single new fact or principle to the existing stock. within the last twenty-five or thirty years a remarkable improvement has taken place in this respect. our natural history has been explored in all its branches; our geology has been investigated with results of the highest interest to practical and theoretical science. discoveries have been made in pure chemistry and electricity, which have received the approbation of the world. the advance which has been made in meteorology in this country, within the last twenty years, is equal to that made during the same period in all the world besides. in there was not in the united states an instrument with which a good observation of the heavenly bodies could be made. there are now instruments at washington, cambridge, and cincinnati equal to those at the best european observatories, and the original discoveries in astronomy within the last five years, in this country, are among the most brilliant of the age. i can hardly refrain from saying, in this connection, that the "celestial mechanics" of la place has been translated and commented upon by bowditch. our knowledge of the geography and topography of the american continent has been rapidly extended by the labor and science of the officers of the united states army, and discoveries of much interest in distant seas have resulted from the enterprise of the navy. in , a survey of the coast of the united states was commenced, which at that time it was supposed no american was competent to direct. the work has, however, grown within the last few years, under a native superintendent, in importance and extent, beyond any enterprise of the kind ever before attempted. these facts conclusively prove that a great advance has been made among us, not only in the application of science to the wants of ordinary life, but in science itself, in its highest branches, in its adaptation to satisfy the cravings of the immortal mind. in respect to literature, with the exception of some books of elementary education, and some theological treatises, of which scarcely any but those of jonathan edwards have any permanent value, and some works on local history and politics, like hutchinson's massachusetts, jefferson's notes on virginia, the federalist, belknap's new hampshire, and morse's geography, and a few others, america had not produced a single work of any repute in literature. we were almost wholly dependent on imported books. even our bibles and testaments were, for the most part, printed abroad. the book trade is now one of the greatest branches of business, and many works of standard value, and of high reputation in europe as well as at home, have been produced by american authors in every department of literary composition. while the country has been expanding in dimensions, in numbers, and in wealth, the government has applied a wise forecast in the adoption of measures necessary, when the world shall no longer be at peace, to maintain the national honor, whether by appropriate displays of vigor abroad, or by well-adapted means of defence at home. a navy, which has so often illustrated our history by heroic achievements, though in peaceful times restrained in its operations to narrow limits, possesses, in its admirable elements, the means of great and sudden expansion, and is justly looked upon by the nation as the right arm of its power. an army, still smaller, but not less perfect in its detail, has on many a field exhibited the military aptitudes and prowess of the race, and demonstrated the wisdom which has presided over its organization and government. while the gradual and slow enlargement of these respective military arms has been regulated by a jealous watchfulness over the public treasure, there has, neverthless, been freely given all that was needed to perfect their quality; and each affords the nucleus of any enlargement that the public exigencies may demand, from the millions of brave hearts and strong arms upon the land and water. the navy is the active and aggressive element of national defence; and, let loose from our own sea-coast, must display its power in the seas and channels of the enemy. to do this, it need not be large; and it can never be large enough to defend by its presence at home all our ports and harbors. but, in the absence of the navy, what can the regular army or the volunteer militia do against the enemy's line-of-battle ships and steamers, falling without notice upon our coast? what will guard our cities from tribute, our merchant-vessels and our navy-yards from conflagration? here, again, we see a wise forecast in the system of defensive measures which, especially since the close of the war with great britain, has been steadily followed by our government. while the perils from which our great establishments had just escaped were yet fresh in remembrance, a system of fortifications was begun, which now, though not quite complete, fences in our important points with impassable strength. more than four thousand cannon may at any moment, within strong and permanent works, arranged with all the advantages and appliances that the art affords, be turned to the protection of the sea-coast, and be served by the men whose hearths they shelter. happy for us that it is so, since these are means of security that time alone can supply, and since the improvements of maritime warfare, by making distant expeditions easy and speedy, have made them more probable, and at the same time more difficult to anticipate and provide against. the cost of fortifying all the important points of our coast, as well upon the whole atlantic as the gulf of mexico, will not exceed the amount expended on the fortifications of paris. in this connection one most important facility in the defence of the country is not to be overlooked; it is the extreme rapidity with which the soldiers of the army, and any number of the militia corps, may be brought to any point where a hostile attack shall at any time be made or threatened. and this extension of territory embraced within the united states, increase of its population, commerce, and manufactures, development of its resources by canals and railroads, and rapidity of intercommunication by means of steam and electricity, have all been accomplished without overthrow of, or danger to, the public liberties, by any assumption of military power; and, indeed, without any permanent increase of the army, except for the purpose of frontier defence, and of affording a slight guard to the public property; or of the navy, any further than to assure the navigator that, in whatsoever sea he shall sail his ship, he is protected by the stars and stripes of his country. this, too, has been done without the shedding of a drop of blood for treason or rebellion; while systems of popular representation have regularly been supported in the state governments and in the general government; while laws, national and state, of such a character have been passed, and have been so wisely administered, that i may stand up here to-day, and declare, as i now do declare, in the face of all the intelligent of the age, that, for the period which has elapsed from the day that washington laid the foundation of this capitol to the present time, there has been no country upon earth in which life, liberty, and property have been more amply and steadily secured, or more freely enjoyed, than in these united states of america. who is there that will deny this? who is there prepared with a greater or a better example? who is there that can stand upon the foundation of facts, acknowledged or proved, and assert that these our republican institutions have not answered the true ends of government beyond all precedent in human history? there is yet another view. there are still higher considerations. man is an intellectual being, destined to immortality. there is a spirit in him, and the breath of the almighty hath given him understanding. then only is he tending toward his own destiny, while he seeks for knowledge and virtue, for the will of his maker, and for just conceptions of his own duty. of all important questions, therefore, let this, the most important of all, be first asked and first answered: in what country of the habitable globe, of great extent and large population, are the means of knowledge the most generally diffused and enjoyed among the people? this question admits of one, and only one, answer. it is here; it is here in these united states; it is among the descendants of those who settled at jamestown; of those who were pilgrims on the shore of plymouth; and of those other races of men, who, in subsequent times, have become joined in this great american family. let one fact, incapable of doubt or dispute, satisfy every mind on this point. the population of the united states is twenty-three millions. now, take the map of the continent of europe and spread it out before you. take your scale and your dividers, and lay off in one area, in any shape you please, a triangle, square, circle, parallelogram, or trapezoid, and of an extent that shall contain one hundred and fifty millions of people, and there will be found within the united states more persons who do habitually read and write than can be embraced within the lines of your demarcation. but there is something even more than this. man is not only an intellectual, but he is also a religious being, and his religious feelings and habits require cultivation. let the religious element in man's nature be neglected, let him be influenced by no higher motives than low self-interest, and subjected to no stronger restraint than the limits of civil authority, and he becomes the creature of selfish passion or blind fanaticism. the spectacle of a nation powerful and enlightened, but without christian faith, has been presented, almost within our own day, as a warning beacon for the nations. on the other hand, the cultivation of the religious sentiment represses licentiousness, incites to general benevolence and the practical acknowledgment of the brotherhood of man, inspires respect for law and order, and gives strength to the whole social fabric, at the same time that it conducts the human soul upward to the author of its being. now, i think it may be stated with truth, that in no country, in proportion to its population, are there so many benevolent establishments connected with religious instruction, bible, missionary, and tract societies, supported by public and private contributions, as in our own. there are also institutions for the education of the blind, of idiots, of the deaf and dumb; for the reception of orphan and destitute children, and the insane; for moral reform, designed for children and females respectively; and institutions for the reformation of criminals; not to speak of those numerous establishments, in almost every county and town in the united states, for the reception of the aged, infirm, and destitute poor, many of whom have fled to our shores to escape the poverty and wretchedness of their condition at home. in the united states there is no church establishment or ecclesiastical authority founded by government. public worship is maintained either by voluntary associations and contributions, or by trusts and donations of a charitable origin. now, i think it safe to say, that a greater portion of the people of the united states attend public worship, decently clad, well behaved, and well seated, than of any other country of the civilized world. edifices of religion are seen everywhere. their aggregate cost would amount to an immense sum of money. they are, in general, kept in good repair, and consecrated to the purposes of public worship. in these edifices the people regularly assemble on the sabbath day, which, by all classes, is sacredly set apart for rest from secular employment and for religious meditation and worship, to listen to the reading of the holy scriptures, and discourses from pious ministers of the several denominations. this attention to the wants of the intellect and of the soul, as manifested by the voluntary support of schools and colleges, of churches and benevolent institutions, is one of the most remarkable characteristics of the american people, not less strikingly exhibited in the new than in the older settlements of the country. on the spot where the first trees of the forest were felled, near the log cabins of the pioneers, are to be seen rising together the church and the school-house. so has it been from the beginning, and god grant that it may thus continue! "on other shores, above their mouldering towns, in sullen pomp, the tall cathedral frowns; simple and frail, our lowly temples throw their slender shadows on the paths below; scarce steal the winds, that sweep the woodland tracks, the larch's perfume from the settler's axe, ere, like a vision of the morning air, his slight-framed steeple marks the house of prayer. yet faith's pure hymn, beneath its shelter rude, breathes out as sweetly to the tangled wood, as where the rays through blazing oriels pour on marble shaft and tessellated floor." who does not admit that this unparalleled growth in prosperity and renown is the result, under providence, of the union of these states under a general constitution, which guarantees to each state a republican form of government, and to every man the enjoyment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, free from civil tyranny or ecclesiastical domination? and, to bring home this idea to the present occasion, who does not feel that, when president washington laid his hand on the foundation of the first capitol, he performed a great work of perpetuation of the union and the constitution? who does not feel that this seat of the general government, healthful in its situation, central in its position, near the mountains whence gush springs of wonderful virtue, teeming with nature's richest products, and yet not far from the bays and the great estuaries of the sea, easily accessible and generally agreeable in climate and association, does give strength to the union of these states? that this city, bearing an immortal name, with its broad streets and avenues, its public squares and magnificent edifices of the general government, erected for the purpose of carrying on within them the important business of the several departments, for the reception of wonderful and curious inventions, for the preservation of the records of american learning and genius, of extensive collections of the products of nature and art, brought hither for study and comparison from all parts of the world,--adorned with numerous churches, and sprinkled over, i am happy to say, with many public schools, where all the children of the city, without distinction, have the means of obtaining a good education, and with academies and colleges, professional schools and public libraries,--should continue to receive, as it has heretofore received, the fostering care of congress, and should be regarded as the permanent seat of the national government? here, too, a citizen of the great republic of letters,[ ] a republic which knows not the metes and bounds of political geography, has prophetically indicated his conviction that america is to exercise a wide and powerful influence in the intellectual world, by founding in this city, as a commanding position in the field of science and literature, and placing under the guardianship of the government, an institution "for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men." with each succeeding year new interest is added to the spot; it becomes connected with all the historical associations of our country, with her statesmen and her orators, and, alas! its cemetery is annually enriched by the ashes of her chosen sons. before us is the broad and beautiful river, separating two of the original thirteen states, which a late president, a man of determined purpose and inflexible will, but patriotic heart, desired to span with arches of ever-enduring granite, symbolical of the firmly cemented union of the north and the south. that president was general jackson. on its banks repose the ashes of the father of his country, and at our side, by a singular felicity of position, overlooking the city which he designed, and which bears his name, rises to his memory the marble column, sublime in its simple grandeur, and fitly intended to reach a loftier height than any similar structure on the surface of the whole earth. let the votive offerings of his grateful countrymen be freely contributed to carry this monument higher and still higher. may i say, as on another occasion, "let it rise; let it rise till it meet the sun in his coming; let the earliest light of the morning gild it, and parting day linger and play on its summit!" fellow-citizens, what contemplations are awakened in our minds as we assemble here to re-enact a scene like that performed by washington! methinks i see his venerable form now before me, as presented in the glorious statue by houdon, now in the capitol of virginia. he is dignified and grave; but concern and anxiety seem to soften the lineaments of his countenance. the government over which he presides is yet in the crisis of experiment. not free from troubles at home, he sees the world in commotion and in arms all around him. he sees that imposing foreign powers are half disposed to try the strength of the recently established american government. we perceive that mighty thoughts, mingled with fears as well as with hopes, are struggling within him. he heads a short procession over these then naked fields; he crosses yonder stream on a fallen tree; he ascends to the top of this eminence, whose original oaks of the forest stand as thick around him as if the spot had been devoted to druidical worship, and here he performs the appointed duty of the day. and now, fellow-citizens, if this vision were a reality; if washington actually were now amongst us, and if he could draw around him the shades of the great public men of his own day, patriots and warriors, orators and statesmen, and were to address us in their presence, would he not say to us: "ye men of this generation, i rejoice and thank god for being able to see that our labors and toils and sacrifices were not in vain. you are prosperous, you are happy, you are grateful; the fire of liberty burns brightly and steadily in your hearts, while duty and the law restrain it from bursting forth in wild and destructive conflagration. cherish liberty, as you love it; cherish its securities, as you wish to preserve it. maintain the constitution which we labored so painfully to establish, and which has been to you such a source of inestimable blessings. preserve the union of the states, cemented as it was by our prayers, our tears, and our blood. be true to god, to your country, and to your duty. so shall the whole eastern world follow the morning sun to contemplate you as a nation; so shall all generations honor you, as they honor us; and so shall that almighty power which so graciously protected us, and which now protects you, shower its everlasting blessings upon you and your posterity." great father of your country! we heed your words; we feel their force as if you now uttered them with lips of flesh and blood. your example teaches us, your affectionate addresses teach us, your public life teaches us, your sense of the value of the blessings of the union. those blessings our fathers have tasted, and we have tasted, and still taste. nor do we intend that those who come after us shall be denied the same high fruition. our honor as well as our happiness is concerned. we cannot, we dare not, we will not, betray our sacred trust. we will not filch from posterity the treasure placed in our hands to be transmitted to other generations. the bow that gilds the clouds in the heavens, the pillars that uphold the firmament, may disappear and fall away in the hour appointed by the will of god; but until that day comes, or so long as our lives may last, no ruthless hand shall undermine that bright arch of union and liberty which spans the continent from washington to california. fellow-citizens, we must sometimes be tolerant to folly, and patient at the sight of the extreme waywardness of men; but i confess that, when i reflect on the renown of our past history, on our present prosperity and greatness, and on what the future hath yet to unfold, and when i see that there are men who can find in all this nothing good, nothing valuable, nothing truly glorious, i feel that all their reason has fled away from them, and left the entire control over their judgment and their actions to insanity and fanaticism; and more than all, fellow-citizens, if the purposes of fanatics and disunionists should be accomplished, the patriotic and intelligent of our generation would seek to hide themselves from the scorn of the world, and go about to find dishonorable graves. fellow-citizens, take _courage_; be of _good cheer_. we shall come to no such ignoble end. we shall live, and not die. during the period allotted to our several lives, we shall continue to rejoice in the return of this anniversary. the ill-omened sounds of fanaticism will be hushed; the ghastly spectres of _secession_ and _disunion_ will disappear; and the enemies of united constitutional liberty, if their hatred cannot be appeased, may prepare to have their eyeballs seared as they behold the steady flight of the american eagle, on his burnished wings, for years and years to come. president fillmore, it is your singularly good fortune to perform an act such as that which the earliest of your predecessors performed fifty-eight years ago. you stand where he stood; you lay your hand on the corner-stone of a building designed greatly to extend that whose corner-stone he laid. changed, changed is every thing around. the same sun, indeed, shone upon his head which now shines upon yours. the same broad river rolled at his feet, and bathes his last resting-place, that now rolls at yours. but the site of this city was then mainly an open field. streets and avenues have since been laid out and completed, squares and public grounds enclosed and ornamented, until the city which bears his name, although comparatively inconsiderable in numbers and wealth, has become quite fit to be the seat of government of a great and united people. sir, may the consequences of the duty which you perform so auspiciously to-day, equal those which flowed from his act. nor this only; may the principles of your administration, and the wisdom of your political conduct, be such, as that the world of the present day, and all history hereafter, may be at no loss to perceive what example you have made your study. fellow-citizens, i now bring this address to a close, by expressing to you, in the words of the great roman orator, the deepest wish of my heart, and which i know dwells deeply in the hearts of all who hear me: "duo modo haec opto; unum, ut moriens populum romanum liberum relinquam; hoc mihi majus a diis immortalibus dari nihil potest: alterum, ut ita cuique eveniat, ut de republicâ quisque mereatur." and now, fellow-citizens, with hearts void of hatred, envy, and malice towards our own countrymen, or any of them, or towards the subjects or citizens of other governments, or towards any member of the great family of man; but exulting, nevertheless, in our own peace, security, and happiness, in the grateful remembrance of the past, and the glorious hopes of the future, let us return to our homes, and with all humility and devotion offer our thanks to the father of all our mercies, political, social, and religious. [footnote : the following motto stands upon the title-page of the original pamphlet edition:-- "stet capitolium fulgens; late nomen in ultimas extendat oras."] [footnote : hugh smithson, whose munificent bequest has been applied to the foundation of "the smithsonian institution."] appendix. impressment. _mr. webster to lord ashburton._ department of state, washington, august , . my lord,--we have had several conversations on the subject of impressment, but i do not understand that your lordship has instructions from your government to negotiate upon it, nor does the government of the united states see any utility in opening such negotiation, unless the british government is prepared to renounce the practice in all future wars. no cause has produced to so great an extent, and for so long a period, disturbing and irritating influences on the political relations of the united states and england, as the impressment of seamen by british cruisers from american merchant-vessels. from the commencement of the french revolution to the breaking out of the war between the two countries in , hardly a year elapsed without loud complaint and earnest remonstrance. a deep feeling of opposition to the right claimed, and to the practice exercised under it, and not unfrequently exercised without the least regard to what justice and humanity would have dictated, even if the right itself had been admitted, took possession of the public mind of america, and this feeling, it is well known, co-operated most powerfully with other causes to produce the state of hostilities which ensued. at different periods, both before and since the war, negotiations have taken place between the two governments, with the hope of finding some means of quieting these complaints. at some times, the effectual abolition of the practice has been requested and treated of; at other times, its temporary suspension; and at other times, again, the limitation of its exercise, and some security against its enormous abuses. a common destiny has attended these efforts; they have all failed. the question stands at this moment where it stood fifty years ago. the nearest approach to a settlement was a convention proposed in , and which had come to the point of signature, when it was broken off in consequence of the british government insisting that the _narrow seas_ should be expressly excepted out of the sphere over which the contemplated stipulation against impressment should extend. the american minister, mr. king, regarded this exception as quite inadmissible, and chose rather to abandon the negotiation than to acquiesce in the doctrine which it proposed to establish. england asserts the right of impressing british subjects, in time of war, out of neutral merchant-vessels, and of deciding by her visiting officers who, among the crews of such merchant-vessels, are british subjects. she asserts this as a legal exercise of the prerogative of the crown; which prerogative is alleged to be founded on the english law of the perpetual and indissoluble allegiance of the subject, and his obligation under all circumstances, and for his whole life, to render military service to the crown whenever required. this statement, made in the words of eminent british jurists, shows at once that the english claim is far broader than the basis or platform on which it is raised. the law relied on is english law; the obligations insisted on are obligations existing between the crown of england and its subjects. this law and these obligations, it is admitted, may be such as england may choose they shall be. but then they must be confined to the parties. impressment of seamen out of and beyond english territory, and from on board the ships of other nations, is an interference with the rights of other nations; is further, therefore, than english prerogative can legally extend; and is nothing but an attempt to enforce the peculiar law of england beyond the dominions and jurisdiction of the crown. the claim asserts an extra-territorial authority for the law of british prerogative, and assumes to exercise this extra-territorial authority, to the manifest injury and annoyance of the citizens and subjects of other states, on board their own vessels, on the high seas. every merchant-vessel on the seas is rightfully considered as part of the territory of the country to which it belongs. the entry, therefore, into such vessel, being neutral, by a belligerent, is an act of force, and is, _prima facie_, a wrong, a trespass, which can be justified only when done for some purpose allowed to form a sufficient justification by the law of nations. but a british cruiser enters an american merchant-vessel in order to take therefrom supposed british subjects; offering no justification, therefore, under the law of nations, but claiming the right under the law of england respecting the king's prerogative. this cannot be defended. english soil, english territory, english jurisdiction, is the appropriate sphere for the operation of english law. the ocean is the sphere of the law of nations; and any merchant-vessel on the seas is by that law under the protection of the laws of her own nation, and may claim immunity, unless in cases in which that law allows her to be entered or visited. if this notion of perpetual allegiance, and the consequent power of the prerogative, was the law of the world; if it formed part of the conventional code of nations, and was usually practised, like the right of visiting neutral ships, for the purpose of discovering and seizing enemy's property, then impressment might be defended as a common right, and there would be no remedy for the evil till the national code should be altered. but this is by no means the case. there is no such principle incorporated into the code of nations. the doctrine stands only as english law, not as a national law; and english law cannot be of force beyond english dominion. whatever duties or relations that law creates between the sovereign and his subjects can be enforced and maintained only within the realm, or proper possessions or territory of the sovereign. there may be quite as just a prerogative right to the property of subjects as to their personal services, in an exigency of the state; but no government thinks of controlling by its own laws property of its subjects situated abroad; much less does any government think of entering the territory of another power for the purpose of seizing such property and applying it to its own uses. as laws, the prerogatives of the crown of england have no obligation on persons or property domiciled or situated abroad. "when, therefore," says an authority not unknown or unregarded on either side of the atlantic, "we speak of the right of a state to bind its own native subjects everywhere, we speak only of its own claim and exercise of sovereignty over them when they return within its own territorial jurisdiction, and not of its right to compel or require obedience to such laws, on the part of other nations, within their own territorial sovereignty. on the contrary, every nation has an exclusive right to regulate persons and things within its own territory, according to its sovereign will and public polity." the good sense of these principles, their remarkable pertinency to the subject now under consideration, and the extraordinary consequences resulting from the british doctrine, are signally manifested by that which we see taking place every day. england acknowledges herself overburdened with population of the poorer classes. every instance of the emigration of persons of those classes is regarded by her as a benefit. england, therefore, encourages emigration; means are notoriously supplied to emigrants, to assist their conveyance, from public funds; and the new world, and most especially these united states, receive the many thousands of her subjects thus ejected from the bosom of their native land by the necessities of their condition. they come away from poverty and distress in over-crowded cities, to seek employment, comfort, and new homes in a country of free institutions, possessed by a kindred race, speaking their own language, and having laws and usages in many respects like those to which they have been accustomed; and a country which, upon the whole, is found to possess more attractions for persons of their character and condition than any other on the face of the globe. it is stated that, in the quarter of the year ending with june last, more than twenty-six thousand emigrants left the single port of liverpool for the united states, being four or five times as many as left the same port within the same period for the british colonies and all other parts of the world. of these crowds of emigrants, many arrive in our cities in circumstances of great destitution, and the charities of the country, both public and private, are severely taxed to relieve their immediate wants. in time they mingle with the new community in which they find themselves, and seek means of living. some find employment in the cities, others go to the frontiers, to cultivate lands reclaimed from the forest; and a greater or less number of the residue, becoming in time naturalized citizens, enter into the merchant service under the flag of their adopted country. now, my lord, if war should break out between england and a european power, can any thing be more unjust, any thing more irreconcilable to the general sentiments of mankind, than that england should seek out these persons, thus encouraged by her and compelled by their own condition to leave their native homes, tear them away from their new employments, their new political relations, and their domestic connections, and force them to undergo the dangers and hardships of military service for a country which has thus ceased to be their own country? certainly, certainly, my lord, there can be but one answer to this question. is it not far more reasonable that england should either prevent such emigration of her subjects, or that, if she encourage and promote it, she should leave them, not to the embroilment of a double and contradictory allegiance, but to their own voluntary choice, to form such relations, political or social, as they see fit, in the country where they are to find their bread, and to the laws and institutions of which they are to look for defence and protection? a question of such serious importance ought now to be put at rest. if the united states give shelter and protection to those whom the policy of england annually casts upon their shores,--if, by the benign influences of their government and institutions, and by the happy condition of the country, those emigrants become raised from poverty to comfort, finding it easy even to become landholders, and being allowed to partake in the enjoyment of all civil rights,--if all this may be done, (and all this is done, under the countenance and encouragement of england herself,) is it not high time that, yielding that which had its origin in feudal ideas as inconsistent with the present state of society, and especially with the intercourse and relations subsisting between the old world and the new, england should at length formally disclaim all right to the services of such persons, and renounce all control over their conduct? but impressment is subject to objections of a much wider range. if it could be justified in its application to those who are declared to be its only objects, it still remains true that, in its exercise, it touches the political rights of other governments, and endangers the security of their own native subjects and citizens. the sovereignty of the state is concerned in maintaining its exclusive jurisdiction and possession over its merchant-ships on the seas, except so far as the law of nations justifies intrusion upon that possession for special purposes; and all experience has shown, that no member of a crew, wherever born, is safe against impressment when a ship is visited. the evils and injuries resulting from the actual practice can hardly be overstated, and have ever proved themselves to be such as should lead to its relinquishment, even if it were founded in any defensible principle. the difficulty of discriminating between english subjects and american citizens has always been found to be great, even when an honest purpose of discrimination has existed. but the lieutenant of a man-of-war, having necessity for men, is apt to be a summary judge, and his decisions will be quite as significant of his own wants and his own power as of the truth and justice of the case. an extract from a letter of mr. king, of the th of april, , to the american secretary of state, shows something of the enormous extent of these wrongful seizures. "instead of a few, and these in many instances equivocal cases, i have," says he, "since the month of july past, made application for the discharge from british men-of-war of two hundred and seventy-one seamen, who, stating themselves to be americans, have claimed my interference. of this number, eighty-six have been ordered by the admiralty to be discharged, thirty-seven more have been detained as british subjects or as american volunteers, or for want of proof that they are americans, and to my applications for the discharge of the remaining one hundred and forty-eight i have received no answer; the ships on board of which these seamen were detained having, in many instances, sailed before an examination was made in consequence of my application. "it is certain that some of those who have applied to me are not american citizens, but the exceptions are, in my opinion, few, and the evidence, exclusive of certificates, has been such as, in most cases, to satisfy me that the applicants were real americans, who have been forced into the british service, and who, with singular constancy, have generally persevered in refusing pay or bounty, though in some instances they have been in service more than two years." but the injuries of impressment are by no means confined to its immediate subjects, or the individuals on whom it is practised. vessels suffer from the weakening of their crews, and voyages are often delayed, and not unfrequently broken up, by subtraction from the number of necessary hands by impressment. and what is of still greater and more general moment, the fear of impressment has been found to create great difficulty in obtaining sailors for the american merchant service in times of european war. seafaring men, otherwise inclined to enter into that service, are, as experience has shown, deterred by the fear of finding themselves erelong in compulsory military service in british ships of war. many instances have occurred, fully established by proof, in which raw seamen, natives of the united states, fresh from the fields of agriculture, entering for the first time on shipboard, have been impressed before they made the land, placed on the decks of british men-of-war, and compelled to serve for years before they could obtain their release, or revisit their country and their homes. such instances become known, and their effect in discouraging young men from engaging in the merchant service of their country can neither be doubted nor wondered at. more than all, my lord, the practice of impressment, whenever it has existed, has produced, not conciliation and good feeling, but resentment, exasperation, and animosity between the two great commercial countries of the world. in the calm and quiet which have succeeded the late war, a condition so favorable for dispassionate consideration, england herself has evidently seen the harshness of impressment, even when exercised on seamen in her own merchant service, and she has adopted measures calculated, if not to renounce the power or to abolish the practice, yet at least to supersede its necessity by other means of manning the royal navy more compatible with justice and the rights of individuals, and far more conformable to the spirit and sentiments of the age. under these circumstances, the government of the united states has used the occasion of your lordship's pacific mission to review this whole subject, and to bring it to your notice and that of your government. it has reflected on the past, pondered the condition of the present, and endeavored to anticipate, so far as might be in its power, the probable future; and i am now to communicate to your lordship the result of these deliberations. the american government, then, is prepared to say that the practice of impressing seamen from american vessels cannot hereafter be allowed to take place. that practice is founded on principles which it does not recognize, and is invariably attended by consequences so unjust, so injurious, and of such formidable magnitude, as cannot be submitted to. in the early disputes between the two governments on this so long contested topic, the distinguished person to whose hands were first intrusted the seals of this department[ ] declared, that "the simplest rule will be, that the vessel being american shall be evidence that the seamen on board are such." fifty years' experience, the utter failure of many negotiations, and a careful reconsideration, now had, of the whole subject, at a moment when the passions are laid, and no present interest or emergency exists to bias the judgment, have fully convinced this government that this is not only the simplest and best, but the only rule, which can be adopted and observed, consistently with the rights and honor of the united states and the security of their citizens. that rule announces, therefore, what will hereafter be the principle maintained by their government. in every regularly documented american merchant-vessel the crew who navigate it will find their protection in the flag which is over them. this announcement is not made, my lord, to revive useless recollections of the past, nor to stir the embers from fires which have been, in a great degree, smothered by many years of peace. far otherwise. its purpose is to extinguish those fires effectually, before new incidents arise to fan them into flame. the communication is in the spirit of peace, and for the sake of peace, and springs from a deep and conscientious conviction that high interests of both nations require this so long contested and controverted subject now to be finally put to rest. i persuade myself that you will do justice to this frank and sincere avowal of motives, and that you will communicate your sentiments in this respect to your government. this letter closes, my lord, on my part, our official correspondence; and i gladly use the occasion to offer you the assurance of my high and sincere regard. daniel webster. lord ashburton, &c., &c., &c. * * * * * _lord ashburton to mr. webster._ washington, august , . sir,--the note you did me the honor of addressing me the th instant, on the subject of impressment, shall be transmitted without delay to my government, and will, you may be assured, receive from them the deliberate attention which its importance deserves. the object of my mission was mainly the settlement of existing subjects of difference; and no differences have or could have arisen of late years with respect to impressment, because the practice has, since the peace, wholly ceased, and cannot, consistently with existing laws and regulations for manning her majesty's navy, be, under the present circumstances, renewed. desirous, however, of looking far forward into futurity to anticipate even possible causes of disagreement, and sensible of the anxiety of the american people on this grave subject of past irritation, i should be sorry in any way to discourage the attempt at some settlement of it; and, although without authority to enter upon it here during the limited continuance of my mission, i entertain a confident hope that this task may be accomplished, when undertaken with the spirit of candor and conciliation which has marked all our late negotiations. it not being our intention to endeavor now to come to any agreement on this subject, i may be permitted to abstain from noticing at length your very ingenious arguments relating to it, and from discussing the graver matters of constitutional and international law growing out of them. these sufficiently show that the question is one requiring calm consideration; though i must, at the same time, admit that they prove a strong necessity of some settlement for the preservation of that good understanding which, i trust, we may flatter ourselves that our joint labors have now succeeded in establishing. i am well aware that the laws of our two countries maintain opposite principles respecting allegiance to the sovereign. america, receiving every year by thousands the emigrants of europe, maintains the doctrine suitable to her condition, of the right of transferring allegiance at will. the laws of great britain have maintained from all time the opposite doctrine. the duties of allegiance are held to be indefeasible; and it is believed that this doctrine, under various modifications, prevails in most, if not in all, the civilized states of europe. emigration, the modern mode by which the population of the world peaceably finds its level, is for the benefit of all, and eminently for the benefit of humanity. the fertile deserts of america are gradually advancing to the highest state of cultivation and production, while the emigrant acquires comfort which his own confined home could not afford him. if there were any thing in our laws or our practice on either side tending to impede this march of providential humanity, we could not be too eager to provide a remedy; but as this does not appear to be the case, we may safely leave this part of the subject without indulging in abstract speculations having no material practical application to matters in discussion between us. but it must be admitted that a serious practical question does arise, or, rather, has existed, from practices formerly attending the mode of manning the british navy in times of war. the principle is, that all subjects of the crown are, in case of necessity, bound to serve their country, and the seafaring man is naturally taken for the naval service. this is not, as is sometimes supposed, any arbitrary principle of monarchical government, but one founded on the natural duty of every man to defend the life of his country; and all the analogy of your laws would lead to the conclusion, that the same principle would hold good in the united states if their geographical position did not make its application unnecessary. the very anomalous condition of the two countries with relation to each other here creates a serious difficulty. our people are not distinguishable; and, owing to the peculiar habits of sailors, our vessels are very generally manned from a common stock. it is difficult, under these circumstances, to execute laws which at times have been thought to be essential for the existence of the country, without risk of injury to others. the extent and importance of those injuries, however, are so formidable, that it is admitted that some remedy should, if possible, be applied; at all events, it must be fairly and honestly attempted. it is true, that during the continuance of peace no practical grievance can arise; but it is also true, that it is for that reason the proper season for the calm and deliberate consideration of an important subject. i have much reason to hope that a satisfactory arrangement respecting it may be made, so as to set at rest all apprehension and anxiety; and i will only further repeat the assurance of the sincere disposition of my government favorably to consider all matters having for their object the promoting and maintaining undisturbed kind and friendly feelings with the united states. i beg, sir, on this occasion of closing the correspondence with you connected with my mission, to express the satisfaction i feel at its successful termination, and to assure you of my high consideration and personal esteem and regard. ashburton. hon. daniel webster, &c., &c., &c. [footnote : mr. jefferson.] * * * * * the right of search. _mr. webster to mr. everett._ department of state, washington, march , . sir,--i transmit to you with this despatch a message from the president of the united states to congress, communicated on the th of february, and accompanied by a report made from this department to the president, of the substance of a despatch from lord aberdeen to mr. fox, which was by him read to me on the th ultimo. lord aberdeen's despatch, as you will perceive, was occasioned by a passage in the president's message to congress at the opening of its late session. the particular passage is not stated by his lordship; but no mistake will be committed, it is presumed, in considering it to be that which was quoted by sir robert peel and other gentlemen in the debate in the house of commons, on the answer to the queen's speech, on the d of february. the president regrets that it should have become necessary to hold a diplomatic correspondence upon the subject of a communication from the head of the executive government to the legislature, drawing after it, as in this case, the further necessity of referring to observations made by persons in high and responsible stations, in debates of public bodies. such a necessity, however, seems to be unavoidably incurred in consequence of lord aberdeen's despatch; for, although the president's recent message may be regarded as a clear exposition of his opinions on the subject, yet a just respect for her majesty's government, and a disposition to meet all questions with promptness, as well as with frankness and candor, require that a formal answer should be made to that despatch. the words in the message at the opening of the session which are complained of, it is supposed, are the following: "although lord aberdeen, in his correspondence with the american envoys at london, expressly disclaimed all right to detain an american ship on the high seas, even if found with a cargo of slaves on board, and restricted the british pretension to a mere claim to visit and inquire, yet it could not well be discerned by the executive of the united states how such visit and inquiry could be made without detention on the voyage, and consequent interruption to the trade. it was regarded as the right of search, presented only in a new form and expressed in different words; and i therefore felt it to be my duty distinctly to declare, in my annual message to congress, that no such concession could be made, and that the united states had both the will and the ability to enforce their own laws, and to protect their flag from being used for purposes wholly forbidden by those laws, and obnoxious to the moral censure of the world." this statement would tend, as lord aberdeen thinks, to convey the supposition, not only that the question of the right of search had been disavowed by the british plenipotentiary at washington, but that great britain had made concessions on that point. lord aberdeen is entirely correct in saying that the claim of a right of search was not discussed during the late negotiation, and that neither was any concession required by this government, nor made by that of her britannic majesty. the eighth and ninth articles of the treaty of washington constitute a mutual stipulation for concerted efforts to abolish the african slave-trade. the stipulation, it may be admitted, has no other effects on the pretensions of either party than this: great britain had claimed as a _right_ that which this government could not admit to be a _right_, and, in the exercise of a just and proper spirit of amity, a mode was resorted to which might render unnecessary both the assertion and the denial of such claim. there probably are those who think that what lord aberdeen calls a right of visit, and which he attempts to distinguish from the right of search, ought to have been expressly acknowledged by the government of the united states. at the same time, there are those on the other side who think that the formal surrender of such right of visit should have been demanded by the united states as a precedent condition to the negotiation for treaty stipulations on the subject of the african slave-trade. but the treaty neither asserts the claim in terms, nor denies the claim in terms; it neither formally insists upon it, nor formally renounces it. still, the whole proceeding shows that the object of the stipulation was to avoid such differences and disputes as had already arisen, and the serious practical evils and inconveniences which, it cannot be denied, are always liable to result from the practice which great britain had asserted to be lawful. these evils and inconveniences had been acknowledged by both governments. they had been such as to cause much irritation, and to threaten to disturb the amicable sentiments which prevailed between them. both governments were sincerely desirous of abolishing the slave-trade; both governments were equally desirous of avoiding occasion of complaint by their respective citizens and subjects; and both governments regarded the eighth and ninth articles as effectual for their avowed purpose, and likely, at the same time, to preserve all friendly relations, and to take away causes of future individual complaints. the treaty of washington was intended to fulfil the obligations entered into by the treaty of ghent. it stands by itself; is clear and intelligible. it speaks its own language, and manifests its own purpose. it needs no interpretation, and requires no comment. as a fact, as an important occurrence in national intercourse, it may have important bearings on existing questions respecting the public law; and individuals, or perhaps governments, may not agree as to what these bearings really are. great britain has discussions, if not controversies, with other great european states upon the subject of visit or search. these states will naturally make their own commentary on the treaty of washington, and draw their own inferences from the fact that such a treaty has been entered into. its stipulations, in the mean time, are plain, explicit, and satisfactory to both parties, and will be fulfilled on the part of the united states, and, it is not doubted, on the part of great britain also, with the utmost good faith. holding this to be the true character of the treaty, i might, perhaps, excuse myself from entering into the consideration of the grounds of that claim of a right to visit merchant-ships for certain purposes, in time of peace, which lord aberdeen asserts for the british government, and declares that it can never surrender. but i deem it right, nevertheless, and no more than justly respectful toward the british government, not to leave the point without remark. in his recent message to congress, the president, referring to the language of lord aberdeen in his note to mr. everett of the th of december, , and in his late despatch to mr. fox, says: "these declarations may well lead us to doubt whether the apparent difference between the two governments is not rather one of definition than of principle." lord aberdeen, in his note to you of the th of december, says: "the undersigned again renounces, as he has already done in the most explicit terms, any right on the part of the british government to search american vessels in time of peace. the right of search, except when specially conceded by treaty, is a pure belligerent right, and can have no existence on the high seas during peace. the undersigned apprehends, however, that the right of search is not confined to the verification of the nationality of the vessel, but also extends to the object of the voyage and the nature of the cargo. the sole purpose of the british cruisers is to ascertain whether the vessels they meet with are really american or not. the right asserted has, in truth, no resemblance to the right of search, either in principle or practice. it is simply a right to satisfy the party who has a legitimate interest in knowing the truth, that the vessel actually is what her colors announce. this right we concede as freely as we exercise. the british cruisers are not instructed to detain american vessels under any circumstances whatever; on the contrary, they are ordered to abstain from all interference with them, be they slavers or otherwise. but where reasonable suspicion exists that the american flag has been abused for the purpose of covering the vessel of another nation, it would appear scarcely credible, had it not been made manifest by the repeated protestations of their representative, that the government of the united states, which has stigmatized and abolished the trade itself, should object to the adoption of such means as are indispensably necessary for ascertaining the truth." and in his recent despatch to mr. fox his lordship further says: "that the president might be assured that great britain would always respect the just claims of the united states. that the british government made no pretension to interfere in any manner whatever, either by detention, visit, or search, with vessels of the united states, known or believed to be such, but that it still maintained, and would exercise when necessary, its own right to ascertain the genuineness of any flag which a suspected vessel might bear; that if, in the exercise of this right, either from involuntary error, or in spite of every precaution, loss or injury should be sustained, a prompt reparation would be afforded; but that it should entertain, for a single instant, the notion of abandoning the right itself, would be quite impossible." this, then, is the british claim, as asserted by her majesty's government. in his remarks in the speech already referred to, in the house of commons, the first minister of the crown said: "there is nothing more distinct than the right of visit is from the right of search. search is a belligerent right, and not to be exercised in time of peace, except when it has been conceded by treaty. the right of search extends not only to the vessel, but to the cargo also. the right of visit is quite distinct from this, though the two are often unfounded. the right of search, with respect to american vessels, we entirely and utterly disclaim; nay, more, if we knew that an american vessel were furnished with all the materials requisite for the slave-trade, if we knew that the decks were prepared to receive hundreds of human beings within a space in which life is almost impossible, still we should be bound to let that american vessel pass on. but the right we claim is to know whether a vessel pretending to be american, and hoisting the american flag, be _bona fide_ american." the president's message is regarded as holding opinions in opposition to these. the british government, then, supposes that the right of visit and the right of search are essentially distinct in their nature, and that this difference is well known and generally acknowledged; that the difference between them consists in their different objects and purposes: one, the visit, having for its object nothing but to ascertain the nationality of the vessel; the other, the search, by an inquisition, not only into the nationality of the vessel, but the nature and object of her voyage, and the true ownership of her cargo. the government of the united states, on the other hand, maintains that there is no such well-known and acknowledged, nor, indeed, any broad and generic difference between what has been usually called visit, and what has been usually called search; that the right of visit, to be effectual, must come, in the end, to include search; and thus to exercise, in peace, an authority which the law of nations only allows in times of war. if such well-known distinction exists, where are the proofs of it? what writers of authority on public law, what adjudications in courts of admiralty, what public treaties, recognize it? no such recognition has presented itself to the government of the united states; but, on the contrary, it understands that public writers, courts of law, and solemn treaties have, for two centuries, used the words "visit" and "search" in the same sense. what great britain and the united states mean by the "right of search," in its broadest sense, is called by continental writers and jurists by no other name than the "right of visit." visit, therefore, as it has been understood, implies not only a right to inquire into the national character, but to detain the vessel, to stop the progress of the voyage, to examine papers, to decide on their regularity and authenticity, and to make inquisition on board for enemy's property, and into the business which the vessel is engaged in. in other words, it describes the entire right of belligerent visitation and search. such a right is justly disclaimed by the british government in time of peace. they, nevertheless, insist on a right which they denominate a right of visit, and by that word describe the claim which they assert. it is proper, and due to the importance and delicacy of the questions involved, to take care that, in discussing them, both governments understand the terms which may be used in the same sense. if, indeed, it should be manifest that the difference between the parties is only verbal, it might be hoped that no harm would be done; but the government of the united states thinks itself not justly chargeable with excessive jealousy, or with too great scrupulosity in the use of words, in insisting on its opinion that there is no such distinction as the british government maintains between visit and search; and that there is no right to visit in time of peace, except in the execution of revenue laws or other municipal regulations, in which cases the right is usually exercised near the coast, or within the marine league, or where the vessel is justly suspected of violating the law of nations by piratical aggression; but, wherever exercised, it is a right of search. nor can the united states government agree that the term "right" is justly applied to such exercise of power as the british government thinks it indispensable to maintain in certain cases. the right asserted is a right to ascertain whether a merchant-vessel is justly entitled to the protection of the flag which she may happen to have hoisted, such vessel being in circumstances which render her liable to the suspicion, first, that she is not entitled to the protection of the flag; and secondly, that, if not entitled to it, she is, either by the law of england, as an english vessel, or under the provisions of treaties with certain european powers, subject to the supervision and search of british cruisers. and yet lord aberdeen says, "that if, in the exercise of this right, either from involuntary error, or in spite of every precaution, loss or injury should be sustained, a prompt reparation would be afforded." it is not easy to perceive how these consequences can be admitted justly to flow from the fair exercise of a clear right. if injury be produced by the exercise of a right, it would seem strange that it should be repaired, as if it had been the effect of a wrongful act. the general rule of law certainly is, that, in the proper and prudent exercise of his own right, no one is answerable for undesigned injuries. it may be said that the right is a qualified right; that it is a right to do certain acts of force at the risk of turning out to be wrong-doers, and of being made answerable for all damages. but such an argument would prove every trespass to be matter of right, subject only to just responsibility. if force were allowed to such reasoning in other cases, it would follow that an individual's right in his own property was hardly more than a well-founded claim for compensation if he should be deprived of it. but compensation is that which is rendered for injury, and is not commutation, or forced equivalent, for acknowledged rights. it implies, at least in its general interpretation the commission of some wrongful act. but, without pressing further these inquiries into the accuracy and propriety of definitions and the use of words, i proceed to draw your attention to the thing itself, and to consider what these acts are which the british government insists its cruisers have a right to perform, and to what consequences they naturally and necessarily tend. an eminent member of the house of commons[ ] thus states the british claim, and his statement is acquiesced in and adopted by the first minister of the crown:-- "the claim of this country is for the right of our cruisers to ascertain whether a merchant-vessel is justly entitled to the protection of the flag which she may happen to have hoisted, such vessel being in circumstances which rendered her liable to the suspicion, first, that she was not entitled to the protection of the flag; and, secondly, if not entitled to it, she was, either under the law of nations or the provisions of treaties, subject to the supervision and control of our cruisers." now the question is, _by what means_ is this ascertainment to be effected? as we understand the general and settled rules of public law, in respect to ships of war sailing under the authority of their government, "to arrest pirates and other public offenders," there is no reason why they may not approach any vessels descried at sea for the purpose of ascertaining their real characters. such a right of approach seems indispensable for the fair and discreet exercise of their authority; and the use of it cannot he justly deemed indicative of any design to insult or injure those they approach, or to impede them in their lawful commerce. on the other hand, it is as clear that no ship is, under such circumstances, bound to lie by or wait the approach of any other ship. she is at full liberty to pursue her voyage in her own way, and to use all necessary precautions to avoid any suspected sinister enterprise or hostile attack. her right to the free use of the ocean is as perfect as that of any other ship. an entire equality is presumed to exist. she has a right to consult her own safety, but at the same time she must take care not to violate the rights of others. she may use any precautions dictated by the prudence or fears of her officers, either as to delay, or the progress or course of her voyage; but she is not at liberty to inflict injuries upon other innocent parties simply because of conjectural dangers. but if the vessel thus approached attempts to avoid the vessel approaching, or does not comply with her commander's order to send him her papers for his inspection, nor consent to be visited or detained, what is next to be done? is force to be used? and if force be used, may that force be lawfully repelled? these questions lead at once to the elemental principle, the essence of the british claim. suppose the merchant-vessel be in truth an american vessel engaged in lawful commerce, and that she does not choose to be detained. suppose she resists the visit. what is the consequence? in all cases in which the belligerent right of visit exists, resistance to the exercise of that right is regarded as just cause of condemnation, both of vessel and cargo. is that penalty, or what other penalty, to be incurred by resistance to visit in time of peace? or suppose that force be met by force, gun returned for gun, and the commander of the cruiser, or some of his seamen be killed; what description of offence will have been committed? it would be said, in behalf of the commander of the cruiser, that he mistook the vessel for a vessel of england, brazil, or portugal; but does this mistake of his take away from the american vessel the right of self-defence? the writers of authority declare it to be a principle of natural law, that the privilege of self-defence exists against an assailant who mistakes the object of his attack for another whom he had a right to assail. lord aberdeen cannot fail to see, therefore, what serious consequences might ensue, if it were to be admitted that this claim to visit, in time of peace, however limited or defined, should be permitted to exist as a strict matter of right; for if it exist as a right, it must be followed by corresponding duties and obligations, and the failure to fulfil those duties would naturally draw penal consequences after it, till erelong it would become, in truth, little less, or little other, than the belligerent right of search. if visit or visitation be not accompanied by search, it will be in most cases merely idle. a sight of papers may be demanded, and papers may be produced. but it is known that slave-traders carry false papers, and different sets of papers. a search for other papers, then, must be made where suspicion justifies it, or else the whole proceeding would be nugatory. in suspicious cases, the language and general appearance of the crew are among the means of ascertaining the national character of the vessel. the cargo on board, also, often indicates the country from which she comes. her log-books, showing the previous course and events of her voyage, her internal fitting up and equipment, are all evidences for her, or against her, on her allegation of character. these matters, it is obvious, can only be ascertained by rigorous search. it may be asked, if a vessel may not be called on to show her papers, why does she carry papers? no doubt she may be called on to show her papers; but the question is, where, when, and by whom? not in time of peace, on the high seas, where her rights are equal to the rights of any other vessel, and where none has a right to molest her. the use of her papers is, in time of war, to prove her neutrality when visited by belligerent cruisers; and in both peace and war, to show her national character, and the lawfulness of her voyage, in those ports of other countries to which she may proceed for purposes of trade. it appears to the government of the united states, that the view of this whole subject which is the most naturally taken is also the most legal, and most in analogy with other cases. british cruisers have a right to detain british merchantmen for certain purposes; and they have a right, acquired by treaty, to detain merchant-vessels of several other nations for the same purposes. but they have no right at all to detain an american merchant-vessel. this lord aberdeen admits in the fullest manner. any detention of an american vessel by a british cruiser is therefore a wrong, a trespass; although it may be done under the belief that she was a british vessel, or that she belonged to a nation which had conceded the right of such detention to the british cruisers, and the trespass therefore an involuntary trespass. if a ship of war, in thick weather, or in the darkness of the night, fire upon and sink a neutral vessel, under the belief that she is an enemy's vessel, this is a trespass, a mere wrong; and cannot be said to be an act done under any right, accompanied by responsibility for damages. so if a civil officer on land have process against one individual, and through mistake arrest another, this arrest is wholly tortious; no one would think of saying that it was done under any lawful exercise of authority, subject only to responsibility, or that it was any thing but a mere trespass, though an unintentional trespass. the municipal law does not undertake to lay down beforehand any rule for the government of such cases; and as little, in the opinion of the government of the united states, does the public law of the world lay down beforehand any rule for the government of cases of involuntary trespasses, detentions, and injuries at sea; except that in both classes of cases law and reason make a distinction between injuries committed through mistake and injuries committed by design, the former being entitled to fair and just compensation, the latter demanding exemplary damages, and sometimes personal punishment. the government of the united states has frequently made known its opinion, which it now repeats, that the practice of detaining american vessels, though subject to just compensation if such detention afterward turn out to have been without good cause, however guarded by instructions, or however cautiously exercised, necessarily leads to serious inconvenience and injury. the amount of loss cannot be always well ascertained. compensation, if it be adequate in the amount, may still necessarily be long delayed; and the pendency of such claims always proves troublesome to the governments of both countries. these detentions, too, frequently irritate individuals, cause warm blood, and produce nothing but ill effects on the amicable relations existing between the countries. we wish, therefore, to put an end to them, and to avoid all occasions for their recurrence. on the whole, the government of the united states, while it has not conceded a mutual right of visit or search, as has been done by the parties to the quintuple treaty of december, , does not admit that, by the law and practice of nations, there is any such thing as a right of visit, distinguished by well-known rules and definitions from the right of search. it does not admit that visit of american merchant-vessels by british cruisers is founded on any right, notwithstanding the cruiser may suppose such vessel to be british, brazilian, or portuguese. we cannot but see that the detention and examination of american vessels by british cruisers has already led to consequences, and fear that, if continued, it would still lead to further consequences, highly injurious to the lawful commerce of the united states. at the same time, the government of the united states fully admits that its flag can give no immunity to pirates, nor to any other than to regularly documented american vessels. it was upon this view of the whole case, and with a firm conviction of the truth of these sentiments, that it cheerfully assumed the duties contained in the treaty of washington; in the hope that thereby causes of difficulty and difference might be altogether removed, and that the two powers might be enabled to act concurrently, cordially, and effectually for the suppression of a traffic which both regard as a reproach upon the civilization of the age, and at war with every principle of humanity and every christian sentiment. the government of the united states has no interest, nor is it under the influence of any opinions, which should lead it to desire any derogation of the just authority and rights of maritime power. but in the convictions which it entertains, and in the measures which it has adopted, it has been governed solely by a sincere desire to support those principles and those practices which it believes to be conformable to public law, and favorable to the peace and harmony of nations. both houses of congress, with a remarkable degree of unanimity, have made express provisions for carrying into effect the eighth article of the treaty. an american squadron will immediately proceed to the coast of africa. instructions for its commander are in the course of preparation, and copies will be furnished to the british government; and the president confidently believes, that the cordial concurrence of the two governments in the mode agreed on will be more effectual than any efforts yet made for the suppression of the slave-trade. you will read this despatch to lord aberdeen, and, if he desire it, give him a copy. i am, sir, &c., &c. daniel webster. edward everett, esq., &c., &c., &c. [footnote : mr. wood, now sir charles wood, chancellor of the exchequer.] * * * * * letters to general cass on the treaty of washington. _mr. webster to general cass._ department of state, washington, august , . sir,--you will see by the enclosed the result of the negotiations lately had in this city between this department and lord ashburton. the treaty has been ratified by the president and senate. in communicating to you this treaty, i am directed by the president to draw your particular attention to those articles which relate to the suppression of the african slave-trade. after full and anxious consideration of this very delicate subject, the government of the united states has come to the conclusion which you will see expressed in the president's message to the senate accompanying the treaty. without intending or desiring to influence the policy of other governments on this important subject, this government has reflected on what was due to its own character and position, as the leading maritime power on the american continent, left free to make choice of such means for the fulfilment of its duties as it should deem best suited to its dignity. the result of its reflections has been, that it does not concur in measures which, for whatever benevolent purpose they may be adopted, or with whatever care and moderation they may be exercised, have yet a tendency to place the police of the seas in the hands of a single power. it chooses rather to follow its own laws with its own sanction, and to carry them into execution by its own authority. disposed to act in the spirit of the most cordial concurrence with other nations for the suppression of the african slave-trade, that great reproach of our times, it deems it to be right, nevertheless, that this action, though concurrent, should be independent, and it believes that from this independence it will derive a greater degree of efficiency. you will perceive, however, that, in the opinion of this government, cruising against slave-dealers on the coast of africa is not all which is necessary to be done in order to put an end to the traffic. there are markets for slaves, or the unhappy natives of africa would not be seized, chained, and carried over the ocean into slavery. these markets ought to be shut. and, in the treaty now communicated to you, the high contracting parties have stipulated "that they will unite, in all becoming representations and remonstrances, with any and all powers within whose dominions such markets are allowed to exist; and that they will urge upon all such powers the propriety and duty of closing such markets effectually, at once and for ever." you are furnished, then, with the american policy in regard to this interesting subject. first, independent but cordially concurrent efforts of maritime states to suppress, as far as possible, the trade on the coast, by means of competent and well-appointed squadrons, to watch the shores and scour the neighboring seas. secondly, concurrent, becoming remonstrance with all governments who tolerate within their territories markets for the purchase of african negroes. there is much reason to believe that, if other states, professing equal hostility to this nefarious traffic, would give their own powerful concurrence and co-operation to these remonstrances, the general effect would be satisfactory, and that the cupidity and crimes of individuals would at length cease to find both their temptation and their reward in the bosom of christian states, and in the permission of christian governments. it will still remain for each government to revise, execute, and make more effectual its own municipal laws against its subjects or citizens who shall be concerned in, or in any way give aid or countenance to others concerned in this traffic. you are at liberty to make the contents of this despatch known to the french government. i have, &c. daniel webster. lewis cass, esq., &c., &c., &c. * * * * * _mr. f. webster to general cass._ department of state, washington, october , . sir,--i have to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of the th of september last, requesting permission to return home. i have submitted the despatch to the president, and am by him directed to say, that although he much regrets that your own wishes should, at this time, terminate your mission to the court of france, where for a long period you have rendered your country distinguished service, in all instances to its honor and to the satisfaction of the government, and where you occupy so favorable a position, from the more than ordinary good intelligence which is understood to subsist between you, personally, and the members of the french government, and from the esteem entertained for you by its illustrious head; yet he cannot refuse your request to return once more to your home and your country, so that you can pay that attention to your personal and private affairs which your long absence and constant employment in the service of your government may now render most necessary. i have, sir, to tender you, on behalf of the president, his most cordial good wishes, and am, &c. fletcher webster, _acting secretary of state_. lewis cass, esq., &c., &c., &c. * * * * * _mr. webster to general cass._ department of state, washington, november , . sir,--i have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of the d of october, brought by the "great western," which arrived at new york on the th instant. it is probable you will have embarked for the united states before my communication can now reach you; but as it is thought proper that your letter should be answered, and as circumstances may possibly have occurred to delay your departure, this will be transmitted to paris in the ordinary way. your letter has caused the president considerable concern. entertaining a lively sense of the respectable and useful manner in which you have discharged, for several years, the duties of an important foreign mission, it occasions him real regret and pain, that your last official communication should be of such a character as that he cannot give to it his entire and cordial approbation. it appears to be intended as a sort of protest, a remonstrance, in the form of an official despatch, against a transaction of the government to which you were not a party, in which you had no agency whatever, and for the results of which you were no way answerable. this would seem an unusual and extraordinary proceeding. in common with every other citizen of the republic, you have an unquestionable right to form opinions upon public transactions, and the conduct of public men; but it will hardly be thought to be among either the duties or the privileges of a minister abroad to make formal remonstrances and protests against proceedings of the various branches of the government at home, upon subjects in relation to which he himself has not been charged with any duty or partaken any responsibility. the negotiation and conclusion of the treaty of washington were in the hands of the president and senate. they had acted upon this important subject according to their convictions of duty and of the public interest, and had ratified the treaty. it was a thing done; and although your opinion might be at variance with that of the president and senate, it is not perceived that you had any cause of complaint, remonstrance, or protest, more than any other citizen who might entertain the same opinion. in your letter of the th of september, requesting your recall, you observe: "the mail by the steam-packet which left boston the st instant has just arrived, and has brought intelligence of the ratification of the treaties recently concluded with great britain. all apprehensions, therefore, of any immediate difficulties with that country are at an end, and i do not see that any public interest demands my further residence in europe. i can no longer be useful here, and the state of my private affairs requires my presence at home. under these circumstances, i beg you to submit to the president my wish for permission to retire from this mission, and to return to the united states without delay." as you appeared at that time not to be acquainted with the provisions of the treaty, it was inferred that your desire to return home proceeded from the conviction _that, inasmuch as all apprehensions of immediate differences with great britain were at an end_, you would no longer be useful at paris. placing this interpretation on your letter, and believing, as you yourself allege, that your long absence abroad rendered it desirable for you to give some attention to your private affairs in this country, the president lost no time in yielding to your request, and, in doing so, signified to you the sentiments of approbation which he entertained for your conduct abroad. you may, then, well imagine the great astonishment which the declaration contained in your despatch of the d of october, that you could no longer remain in france honorably to yourself or advantageously to the country, and that the proceedings of this government had placed you in a false position, from which you could escape only by returning home, created in his mind. the president perceives not the slightest foundation for these opinions. he cannot see how your usefulness as minister to france should be terminated by the settlement of difficulties and disputes between the united states and great britain. you have been charged with no duties connected with the settlement of these questions, or in any way relating to them, beyond the communication to the french government of the president's approbation of your letter of the th of february, written without previous instructions from this department. this government is not informed of any other act or proceeding of yours connected with any part of the subject, nor does it know that your official conduct and character have become in any other way connected with the question of the right of search; and that letter having been approved, and the french government having been so informed, the president is altogether at a loss to understand how you can regard yourself as placed in a false position. if the character or conduct of any one was to be affected, it could only be the character and conduct of the president himself. the government has done nothing, most assuredly, to place you in a false position. representing your country at a foreign court, you saw a transaction about to take place between the government to which you were accredited and another power, which you thought might have a prejudicial effect on the interest of your own country. thinking, as it is to be presumed, that the case was too pressing to wait for instructions, you presented a protest against that transaction, and our government approved your proceeding. this is your only official connection with the whole subject. if after this the president had sanctioned the negotiation of a treaty, and the senate had ratified it, containing provisions in the highest degree objectionable, however the government might be discredited, your exemption from all blame and censure would have been complete. having delivered your letter of the th of february to the french government, and having received the president's approbation of that proceeding, it is most manifest that you could be in no degree responsible for what should be done afterward, and done by others. the president, therefore, cannot conceive what particular or personal interest of yours was affected by the subsequent negotiation here, or how the treaty, the result of that negotiation, should put an end to your usefulness as a public minister at the court of france, or in any way affect your official character or conduct. it is impossible not to see that such a proceeding as you have seen fit to adopt might produce much inconvenience, and even serious prejudice, to the public interests. your opinion is against the treaty, a treaty concluded and formally ratified; and, to support that opinion, while yet in the service of the government, you put a construction on its provisions such as your own government does not put upon them, such as you must be aware the enlightened public of europe does not put upon them, and such as england herself has not put upon them as yet, so far as we know. it may become necessary hereafter to publish your letter, in connection with other correspondence of the mission; and although it is not to be presumed that you looked to such publication, because such a presumption would impute to you a claim to put forth your private opinions upon the conduct of the president and senate, in a transaction finished and concluded, through the imposing form of a public despatch, yet, if published, it cannot be foreseen how far england might hereafter rely on your authority for a construction favorable to her own pretensions, and inconsistent with the interest and honor of the united states. it is certain that you would most sedulously desire to avoid any such attitude. you would be slow to express opinions, in a solemn and official form, favorable to another government, and on the authority of which opinions that other government might hereafter found new claims or set up new pretensions. it is for this reason, as well as others, that the president feels so much regret at your desire of placing your construction of the provisions of the treaty, and your objections to those provisions, according to your construction, upon the records of the government. before examining the several objections suggested by you, it may be proper to take notice of what you say upon the course of the negotiation. in regard to this, having observed that the national dignity of the united states had not been compromised down to the time of the president's message to the last session of congress, you proceed to say: "but england then urged the united states to enter into a conventional arrangement, by which we might be pledged to concur with her in measures for the suppression of the slave-trade. till then we had executed our own laws in our own way. but, yielding to this application, and departing from our former principle of avoiding european combinations upon subjects not american, we stipulated in a solemn treaty, that we would carry into effect our own laws, and fixed the minimum force we would employ for that purpose." the president cannot conceive how you should have been led to adventure upon such a statement as this. it is but a tissue of mistakes. england did not urge the united states to enter into this conventional arrangement. the united states yielded to no application from england. the proposition for abolishing the slave-trade, as it stands in the treaty, was an american proposition; it originated with the executive government of the united states, which cheerfully assumes all its responsibility. it stands upon it as its own mode of fulfilling its duties, and accomplishing its objects. nor have the united states departed, in this treaty, in the slightest degree, from their former principles of avoiding european combinations upon subjects not american, because the abolition of the african slave-trade is an american subject as emphatically as it is a european subject; and indeed more so, inasmuch as the government of the united states took the first great steps in declaring that trade unlawful, and in attempting its extinction. the abolition of this traffic is an object of the highest interest to the american people and the american government; and you seem strangely to have overlooked altogether the important fact, that nearly thirty years ago, by the treaty of ghent, the united states bound themselves by solemn compact with england, to continue "their efforts to promote its entire abolition," both parties pledging themselves by that treaty to use their best endeavors to accomplish so desirable an object. again, you speak of an important concession made to the renewed application of england. but the treaty, let it be repeated, makes no concession to england whatever. it complies with no demand, grants no application, conforms to no request. all these statements, thus by you made, and which are so exceedingly erroneous, seem calculated to hold up the idea, that in this treaty your government has been acting a subordinate, or even a complying part. the president is not a little startled that you should make such totally groundless assumptions of fact, and then leave a discreditable inference to be drawn from them. he directs me not only to repel this inference as it ought to be repelled, but also to bring to your serious consideration and reflection the propriety of such an assumed narration of facts as your despatch, in this respect, puts forth. having informed the department that a copy of the letter of the th of august, addressed by me to you, had been delivered to m. guizot, you proceed to say: "in executing this duty, i felt too well what was due to my government and country to intimate my regret to a foreign power that some declaration had not preceded the treaty, or some stipulation accompanied it, by which the extraordinary pretension of great britain to search our ships at all times and in all places, first put forth to the world by lord palmerston on the th of august, , and on the th of october following again peremptorily claimed as a right by lord aberdeen, would have been abrogated, as equally incompatible with the laws of nations and with the independence of the united states. i confined myself, therefore, to a simple communication of your letter." it may be true that the british pretension leads necessarily to consequences as broad and general as your statement. but it is no more than fair to state that pretension in the words of the british government itself, and then it becomes matter of consideration and argument how broad and extensive it really is. the last statement of this pretension, or claim, by the british government, is contained in lord aberdeen's note to mr. stevenson of the th of october, . it is in these words:-- "the undersigned readily admits, that to visit and search american vessels in time of peace, when that right of search is not granted by treaty, would be an infraction of public law, and a violation of national dignity and independence. but no such right is asserted. we sincerely desire to respect the vessels of the united states, but we may reasonably expect to know what it really is that we respect. doubtless the flag is _prima facie_ evidence of the nationality of the vessel; and, if this evidence were in its nature conclusive and irrefragable, it ought to preclude all further inquiry. but it is sufficiently notorious that the flags of all nations are liable to be assumed by those who have no right or title to bear them. mr. stevenson himself fully admits the extent to which the american flag has been employed for the purpose of covering this infamous traffic. the undersigned joins with mr. stevenson in deeply lamenting the evil; and he agrees with him in thinking that the united states ought not to be considered responsible for this abuse of their flag. but if all inquiry be resisted, even when carried no further than to ascertain the nationality of the vessel, and impunity be claimed for the most lawless and desperate of mankind, in the commission of this fraud, the undersigned greatly fears that it may be regarded as something like an assumption of that responsibility which has been deprecated by mr. stevenson.... "the undersigned renounces all pretension on the part of the british government to visit and search american vessels in time of peace. nor is it as american that such vessels are ever visited; but, it has been the invariable practice of the british navy, and, as the undersigned believes, of all navies in the world, to ascertain by visit the real nationality of merchant-vessels met with on the high seas, if there be good reason to apprehend their illegal character.... "the undersigned admits, that, if the british cruiser should possess a knowledge of the american character of any vessel, his visitation of such vessel would be entirely unjustifiable. he further admits, that so much respect and honor are due to the american flag, that no vessel bearing it ought to be visited by a british cruiser, except under the most grave suspicions and well-founded doubts of the genuineness of its character. "the undersigned, although with pain, must add, that if such visit should lead to the proof of the american origin of the vessel, and that she was avowedly engaged in the slave-trade, exhibiting to view the manacles, fetters, and other usual implements of torture, or had even a number of these unfortunate beings on board, no british officer could interfere further. he might give information to the cruisers of the united states, but it could not be in his own power to arrest or impede the prosecution of the voyage and the success of the undertaking. "it is obvious, therefore, that the utmost caution is necessary in the exercise of this right claimed by great britain. while we have recourse to the necessary, and, indeed, the only means for detecting imposture, the practice will be carefully guarded and limited to cases of strong suspicion. the undersigned begs to assure mr. stevenson that the most precise and positive instructions have been issued to her majesty's officers on this subject." such are the words of the british claim or pretension; and it stood in this form at the delivery of the president's message to congress in december last; a message in which you are pleased to say that the british pretension was promptly met and firmly resisted. i may now proceed to a more particular examination of the objections which you make to the treaty. you observe that you think a just self-respect required of the government of the united states to demand of lord ashburton a distinct renunciation of the british claim to search our vessels previous to entering into any negotiation. the government has thought otherwise; and this appears to be your main objection to the treaty, if, indeed, it be not the only one which is clearly and distinctly stated. the government of the united states supposed that, in this respect, it stood in a position in which it had no occasion to demand any thing, or ask for any thing, of england. the british pretension, whatever it was, or however extensive, was well known to the president at the date of his message to congress at the opening of the last session. and i must be allowed to remind you how the president treated this subject in that communication. "however desirous the united states may be," said he, "for the suppression of the slave-trade, they cannot consent to interpolations into the maritime code at the mere will and pleasure of other governments. we deny the right of any such interpolation to any one, or all the nations of the earth, without our consent. we claim to have a voice in all amendments or alterations of that code; and when we are given to understand, as in this instance, by a foreign government, that its treaties with other nations cannot be executed without the establishment and enforcement of new principles of maritime police, to be applied without our consent, we must employ a language neither of equivocal import nor susceptible of misconstruction. american citizens prosecuting a lawful commerce in the african seas, under the flag of their country, are not responsible for the abuse or unlawful use of that flag by others; nor can they rightfully, on account of any such alleged abuses, be interrupted, molested, or detained while on the ocean; and if thus molested and detained while pursuing honest voyages in the usual way, and violating no law themselves, they are unquestionably entitled to indemnity." this declaration of the president stands: not a syllable of it has been, or will be, retracted. the principles which it announces rest on their inherent justice and propriety, on their conformity to public law, and, so far as we are concerned, on the determination and ability of the country to maintain them. to these principles the government is pledged, and that pledge it will be at all times ready to redeem. but what is your own language on this point? you say, "this claim (the british claim), thus asserted and supported, was promptly met and firmly repelled by the president in his message at the commencement of the last session of congress; and in your letter to me approving the course i had adopted in relation to the question of the ratification by france of the quintuple treaty, you consider the principles of that message as the established policy of the government." and you add, "so far, our national dignity was uncompromitted." if this be so, what is there which has since occurred to compromit this dignity? you shall yourself be judge of this; because you say, in a subsequent part of your letter, that "the mutual rights of the parties are in this respect wholly untouched." if, then, the british pretension had been promptly met and firmly repelled by the president's message; if, so far, our national dignity had not been compromitted; and if, as you further say, our rights remain wholly untouched by any subsequent act or proceeding, what ground is there on which to found complaint against the treaty? but your sentiments on this point do not concur with the opinions of your government. that government is of opinion that the sentiments of the message, which you so highly approve, are reaffirmed and corroborated by the treaty, and the correspondence accompanying it. the very object sought to be obtained, in proposing the mode adopted for abolishing the slave-trade, was to take away all pretence whatever for interrupting lawful commerce by the visitation of american vessels. allow me to refer you, on this point, to the following passage in the message of the president to the senate, accompanying the treaty:-- "in my message at the commencement of the present session of congress, i endeavored to state the principles which this government supports respecting the right of search and the immunity of flags. desirous of maintaining those principles fully, at the same time that existing obligations should be fulfilled, i have thought it most consistent with the dignity and honor of the country that it should execute its own laws and perform its own obligations by its own means and its own power. the examination or visitation of the merchant-vessels of one nation by the cruisers of another, for any purposes except those known and acknowledged by the law of nations, under whatever restraints or regulations it may take place, may lead to dangerous results. it is far better by other means to supersede any supposed necessity, or any motive, for such examination or visit. interference with a merchant-vessel by an armed cruiser is always a delicate proceeding, apt to touch the point of national honor, as well as to affect the interests of individuals. it has been thought, therefore, expedient, not only in accordance with the stipulations of the treaty of ghent, but at the same time as removing all pretext on the part of others for violating the immunities of the american flag upon the seas, as they exist and are defined by the law of nations, to enter into the articles now submitted to the senate. "the treaty which i now submit to you proposes no alteration, mitigation, or modification of the rules of the law of nations. it provides simply, that each of the two governments shall maintain on the coast of africa a sufficient squadron to enforce, separately and respectively, the laws, rights, and obligations of the two countries for the suppression of the slave-trade." in the actual posture of things, the president thought that the government of the united states, standing on its own rights and its own solemn declarations, would only weaken its position by making such a demand as appears to you to have been expedient. we maintain the public law of the world as we receive it and understand it to be established. we defend our own rights and our own honor, meeting all aggression at the boundary. here we may well stop. you are pleased to observe, that "under the circumstances of the assertion of the british claim, in the correspondence of the british secretaries, and of its denial by the president of the united states, the eyes of europe were upon these two great naval powers; one of which had advanced a pretension, and avowed her determination to enforce it, which might at any moment bring them into collision." it is certainly true that the attention of europe has been very much awakened, of late years, to the general subject, and quite alive, also, to whatever might take place in regard to it between the united states and great britain. and it is highly satisfactory to find, that, so far as we can learn, the opinion is universal that the government of the united states has fully sustained its rights and its dignity by the treaty which has been concluded. europe, we believe, is happy to see that a collision, which might have disturbed the peace of the whole civilized world, has been avoided in a manner which reconciles the performance of a high national duty, and the fulfilment of positive stipulations, with the perfect immunity of flags and the equality of nations upon the ocean. i must be permitted to add, that, from every agent of the government abroad who has been heard from on the subject, with the single exception of your own letter, (an exception most deeply regretted,) as well as from every part of europe where maritime rights have advocates and defenders, we have received nothing but congratulation. and at this moment, if the general sources of information may be trusted, our example has recommended itself already to the regard of states the most jealous of british ascendency at sea; and the treaty against which you remonstrate may soon come to be esteemed by them as a fit model for imitation. toward the close of your despatch, you are pleased to say: "by the recent treaty we are to keep a squadron upon the coast of africa. we have kept one there for years; during the whole term, indeed, of these efforts to put a stop to this most iniquitous commerce. the effect of the treaty is, therefore, to render it obligatory upon us by a convention, to do what we have long done voluntarily; to place our municipal laws, in some measure, beyond the reach of congress." should the effect of the treaty be to place our municipal laws, in some measure, beyond the reach of congress, it is sufficient to say that all treaties containing obligations necessarily do this. all treaties of commerce do it; and, indeed, there is hardly a treaty existing, to which the united states are party, which does not, to some extent, or in some way, restrain the legislative power. treaties could not be made without producing this effect. but your remark would seem to imply that, in your judgment, there is something derogatory to the character and dignity of the country in thus stipulating with a foreign power for a concurrent effort to execute the laws of each. it would be a sufficient refutation of this objection to say, that, if in this arrangement there be any thing derogatory to the character and dignity of one party, it must be equally derogatory, since the stipulation is perfectly mutual, to the character and dignity of both. but it is derogatory to the character and dignity of neither. the objection seems to proceed still upon the implied ground that the abolition of the slave-trade is more a duty of great britain, or a more leading object with her, than it is or should be with us; as if, in this great effort of civilized nations to do away the most cruel traffic that ever scourged or disgraced the world, we had not as high and honorable, as just and merciful, a part to act, as any other nation upon the face of the earth. let it be for ever remembered, that in this great work of humanity and justice the united states took the lead themselves. this government declared the slave-trade unlawful; and in this declaration it has been followed by the great powers of europe. this government declared the slave-trade to be piracy; and in this, too, its example has been followed by other states. this government, this young government, springing up in this new world within half a century, founded on the broadest principles of civil liberty, and sustained by the moral sense and intelligence of the people, has gone in advance of all other nations in summoning the civilized world to a common effort to put down and destroy a nefarious traffic reproachful to human nature. it has not deemed, and it does not deem, that it suffers any derogation from its character or its dignity, if, in seeking to fulfil this sacred duty, it act, as far as necessary, on fair and equal terms of concert with other powers having in view the same praiseworthy object. such were its sentiments when it entered into the solemn stipulations of the treaty of ghent; such were its sentiments when it requested england to concur with us in declaring the slave-trade to be piracy; and such are the sentiments which it has manifested on all other proper occasions. in conclusion, i have to repeat the expression of the president's deep regret at the general tone and character of your letter, and to assure you of the great happiness it would have afforded him if, concurring with the judgment of the president and senate, concurring with what appears to be the general sense of the country, concurring in all the manifestations of enlightened public opinion in europe, you had seen nothing in the treaty of the th of august to which you could not give your cordial approbation. i have, &c. daniel webster. lewis cass, esq., &c., &c., &c. * * * * * _mr. webster to general cass._ department of state, washington, december , . sir,--your letter of the th instant has been submitted to the president. he directs me to say, in reply, that he continues to regard your correspondence, of which this letter is part, as being quite irregular from the beginning. you had asked leave to retire from your mission; the leave was granted by the president, with kind and friendly remarks upon the manner in which you had discharged its duties. having asked for this honorable recall, which was promptly given, you afterward addressed to this department your letter of the d of october, which, however it may appear to you, the president cannot but consider as a remonstrance, a protest, against the treaty of the th of august; in other words, an attack upon his administration for the negotiation and conclusion of that treaty. he certainly was not prepared for this. it came upon him with no small surprise, and he still feels that you must have been, at the moment, under the influence of temporary impressions, which he cannot but hope have ere now worn away. a few remarks upon some of the points of your last letter must now close the correspondence. in the first place, you object to my having called your letter of october d a "protest or remonstrance" against a transaction of the government, and observe that you must have been unhappy in the mode of expressing yourself, if you were liable to this charge. what other construction your letter will bear, i cannot perceive. the transaction was _finished_. no letter or remarks of yourself, or any one else, could undo it, if desirable. your opinions were unsolicited. if given as a citizen, then it was altogether unusual to address them to this department in an official despatch; if as a public functionary, the whole subject-matter was quite aside from the duties of your particular station. in your letter you did not propose any thing _to be done_, but objected to what had been done. you did not suggest any method of remedying what you were pleased to consider a defect, but stated what you thought to be reasons for fearing its consequences. you declared that there had been, in your opinion, an omission to assert american rights; to which omission you gave the department to understand that you would never have consented. in all this there is nothing but protest and remonstrance; and, though your letter be not formally entitled such, i cannot see that it can be construed, in effect, as any thing else; and i must continue to think, therefore, that the terms used are entirely applicable and proper. in the next place, you say: "you give me to understand that the communications which have passed between us on this subject are to be published, and submitted to the great tribunal of public opinion." it would have been better if you had quoted my remark with entire correctness. what i said was, not that the communications which have passed between us _are to be_ published, or _must_ be published, but that "it may become necessary hereafter to publish your letter, in connection with other correspondence of the mission; and, although it is not to be presumed that you looked to such publication, because such a presumption would impute to you a claim to put forth your private opinions upon the conduct of the president and senate, in a transaction finished and concluded, through the imposing form of a public despatch, yet, if published, it cannot be foreseen how far england might hereafter rely on your authority for a construction favorable to her own pretensions, and inconsistent with the interest and honor of the united states." in another part of your letter you observe: "the publication of my letter, which is to produce this result, is to be the act of the government, and not my act. but if the president should think that the slightest injury to the public interest would ensue from the disclosure of my views, the letter may be buried in the archives of the department, and thus forgotten and rendered harmless." to this i have to remark, in the first place, that instances have occurred in other times, not unknown to you, in which highly important letters from ministers of the united states, in europe, to their own government, have found their way into the newspapers of europe, when that government itself held it to be inconsistent with the interest of the united states to make such letters public. but it is hardly worth while to pursue a topic like this. you are pleased to ask: "is it the duty of a diplomatic agent to receive all the communications of his government, and to carry into effect their instructions _sub silentio_, whatever may be his own sentiments in relation to them; or is he not bound, as a faithful representative, to communicate freely, but respectfully, his own views, that these may be considered, and receive their due weight, in that particular case, or in other circumstances involving similar considerations? it seems to me that the bare enunciation of the principle is all that is necessary for my justification. i am speaking now of the propriety of my action, not of the manner in which it was performed. i may have executed the task well or ill. i may have introduced topics unadvisedly, and urged them indiscreetly. all this i leave without remark. i am only endeavoring here to free myself from the serious charge which you bring against me. if i have misapprehended the duties of an american diplomatic agent upon this subject, i am well satisfied to have withdrawn, by a timely resignation, from a position in which my own self-respect would not permit me to remain. and i may express the conviction, that there is no government, certainly none this side of constantinople, which would not encourage rather than rebuke the free expression of the views of their representatives in foreign countries." i answer, certainly not. in the letter to which you were replying it was fully stated, that, "in common with every other citizen of the republic, you have an unquestionable right to form opinions upon public transactions and the conduct of public men. but it will hardly be thought to be among either the duties or the privileges of a minister abroad to make formal remonstrances and protests against proceedings of the various branches of the government at home, upon subjects in relation to which he himself has not been charged with any duty, or partaken any responsibility." you have not been requested to bestow your approbation upon the treaty, however gratifying it would have been to the president to see that, in that respect, you united with other distinguished public agents abroad. like all citizens of the republic, you are quite at liberty to exercise your own judgment upon that as upon other transactions. but neither your observations nor this concession cover the case. they do not show, that, as a public minister abroad, it is a part of your official functions, in a public despatch, to remonstrate against the conduct of the government at home in relation to a transaction in which you bore no part, and for which you were in no way answerable. the president and senate must be permitted to judge for themselves in a matter solely within their control. nor do i know that, in complaining of your protest against their proceedings in a case of this kind, any thing has been done to warrant, on your part, an invidious and unjust reference to constantinople. if you could show, by the general practice of diplomatic functionaries in the civilized part of the world, and more especially, if you could show by any precedent drawn from the conduct of the many distinguished men who have represented the government of the united states abroad, that your letter of the d of october was, in its general object, tone, and character, within the usual limits of diplomatic correspondence, you may be quite assured that the president would not have recourse to the code of turkey in order to find precedents the other way. you complain that, in the letter from this department of the th of november, a statement contained in yours of the d of october is called a tissue of mistakes, and you attempt to show the impropriety of this appellation. let the point be distinctly stated, and what you say in reply be then considered. in your letter of october d you remark, that "england then urged the united states to enter into a conventional arrangement, by which we might be pledged to concur with her in measures for the suppression of the slave-trade. until then, we had executed our own laws in our own way; but, yielding to this application, and departing from our former principle of avoiding european combinations upon subjects not american, we stipulated in a solemn treaty that we would carry into effect our own laws, and fixed the minimum force we would employ for that purpose." the letter of this department of the th of november, having quoted this passage, proceeds to observe, that "the president cannot conceive how you should have been led to adventure upon such a statement as this. it is but a tissue of mistakes. england did not urge the united states to enter into this conventional arrangement. the united states yielded to no application from england. the proposition for abolishing the slave-trade, as it stands in the treaty, was an american proposition; it originated with the executive government of the united states, which cheerfully assumes all its responsibility. it stands upon it as its own mode of fulfilling its duties and accomplishing its objects. nor have the united states departed in the slightest degree from their former principles of avoiding european combinations upon subjects not american; because the abolition of the african slave-trade is an american subject as emphatically as it is a european subject, and, indeed, more so, inasmuch as the government of the united states took the first great step in declaring that trade unlawful, and in attempting its extinction. the abolition of this traffic is an object of the highest interest to the american people and the american government; and you seem strangely to have overlooked altogether the important fact, that nearly thirty years ago, by the treaty of ghent, the united states bound themselves, by solemn compact with england, to continue their efforts to promote its entire abolition; both parties pledging themselves by that treaty to use their best endeavors to accomplish so desirable an object." now, in answer to this, you observe in your last letter: "that the particular mode in which the governments should act in concert, as finally arranged in the treaty, was suggested by yourself, i never doubted. and if this is the construction i am to give to your denial of my correctness, there is no difficulty upon the subject. the question between us is untouched. all i said was, that england continued to prosecute the matter; that she presented it for negotiation, and that we thereupon consented to its introduction. and if lord ashburton did not come out with instructions from his government to endeavor to effect some arrangement upon this subject, the world has strangely misunderstood one of the great objects of his mission, and i have misunderstood that paragraph in your first note, where you say that lord ashburton comes with full powers to negotiate and settle all matters in discussion between england and the united states. but the very fact of his coming here, and of his acceding to any stipulations respecting the slave-trade, is conclusive proof that his government were desirous to obtain the co-operation of the united states. i had supposed that our government would scarcely take the initiative in this matter, and urge it upon that of great britain, either in washington or in london. if it did so, i can only express my regret, and confess that i have been led inadvertently into an error." it would appear from all this, that that which, in your first letter, appeared as a direct statement of facts, of which you would naturally be presumed to have had knowledge, sinks at last into inferences and conjectures. but, in attempting to escape from some of the mistakes of this tissue, you have fallen into others. "all i said was," you observe, "that england continued to prosecute the matter; that she presented it for negotiation, and that we thereupon consented to its introduction." now the english minister no more presented this subject for negotiation than the government of the united states presented it. nor can it be said that the united states consented to its introduction in any other sense than it may be said that the british minister consented to it. will you be good enough to review the series of your own assertions on this subject, and see whether they can possibly be regarded merely as a statement of your own inferences? your only authentic fact is a general one, that the british minister came clothed with full power to negotiate and settle all matters in discussion. this, you say, is conclusive proof that his government was desirous to obtain the co-operation of the united states respecting the slave-trade; and then you infer that england continued to prosecute this matter, and presented it for negotiation, and that the united states consented to its introduction; and give to this inference the shape of a direct statement of a fact. you might have made the same remarks, and with the same propriety, in relation to the subject of the "creole," that of impressment, the extradition of fugitive criminals, or any thing else embraced in the treaty or in the correspondence, and then have converted these inferences of your own into so many facts. and it is upon conjectures like these, it is upon such inferences of your own, that you make the direct and formal statement in your letter of the d of october, that "england then urged the united states to enter into a conventional arrangement, by which we might be pledged to concur with her in measures for the suppression of the slave-trade. until then, we had executed our own laws in our own way; but, yielding to this application, and departing from our former principle of avoiding european combinations upon subjects not american, we stipulated in a solemn treaty that we would carry into effect our own laws, and fixed the minimum force we would employ for that purpose." the president was well warranted, therefore, in requesting your serious reconsideration and review of that statement. suppose your letter to go before the public unanswered and uncontradicted; suppose it to mingle itself with the general political history of the country, as an official letter among the archives of the department of state, would not the general mass of readers understand you as reciting facts, rather than as drawing your own conclusions? as stating history, rather than as presenting an argument? it is of an incorrect narrative that the president complains. it is that, in your hotel at paris, you should undertake to write a history of a very delicate part of a negotiation carried on at washington, with which you had nothing to do, and of the history of which you had no authentic information; and which history, as you narrate it, reflects not a little on the independence, wisdom, and public spirit of the administration. as of the history of this part of the negotiation you were not well informed, the president cannot but think it would have been more just in you to have refrained from any attempt to give an account of it. you observe, further: "i never mentioned in my despatch to you, nor in any manner whatever, that our government had conceded to that of england the right to search our ships. that idea, however, pervades your letter, and is very apparent in that part of it which brings to my observation the possible effect of my views upon the english government. but in this you do me, though i am sure unintentionally, great injustice. i repeatedly state that the recent treaty leaves the rights of the parties as it found them. my difficulty is not that we have made a positive concession, but that we have acted unadvisedly in not making the abandonment of this pretension a previous condition to any conventional arrangement upon the general subject." on this part of your letter i must be allowed to make two remarks. the first is, inasmuch as the treaty gives no color or pretext whatever to any right of searching our ships, a declaration against such a right would have been no more suitable to this treaty than a declaration against the right of sacking our towns in time of peace, or any other outrage. the rights of merchant-vessels of the united states on the high seas, as understood by this government, have been clearly and fully asserted. as asserted, they will be maintained; nor would a declaration such as you propose have increased either its resolution or its ability in this respect. the government of the united states relies on its own power, and on the effective support of the people, to assert successfully all the rights of all its citizens, on the sea as well as on the land; and it asks respect for these rights not as a boon or favor from any nation. the president's message, most certainly, is a clear declaration of what the country understands to be its rights, and his determination to maintain them; not a mere promise to negotiate for these rights, or to endeavor to bring other powers into an acknowledgment of them, either express or implied. whereas, if i understand the meaning of this part of your letter, you would have advised that something should have been offered to england which she might have regarded as a benefit, but coupled with such a declaration or condition as that, if she received the boon, it would have been a recognition by her of a claim which we make as matter of right. the president's view of the proper duty of the government has certainly been quite different. being convinced that the doctrine asserted by this government is the true doctrine of the law of nations, and feeling the competency of the government to uphold and enforce it for itself, he has not sought, but, on the contrary, has sedulously avoided, to change this ground, and to place the just rights of the country upon the assent, express or implied, of any power whatever. the government thought no skilfully extorted promises necessary in any such cases. it asks no such pledges of any nation. if its character for ability and readiness to protect and defend its own rights and dignity is not sufficient to preserve them from violation, no interpolation of promise to respect them, ingeniously woven into treaties, would be likely to afford such protection. and as our rights and liberties depend for existence upon our power to maintain them, general and vague protests are not likely to be more effectual than the chinese method of defending their towns, by painting grotesque and hideous figures on the walls to fright away assailing foes. my other remark on this portion of your letter is this:-- suppose a declaration to the effect that this treaty should not be considered as sacrificing any american rights had been appended, and the treaty, thus fortified, had been sent to great britain, as you propose; and suppose that that government, with equal ingenuity, had appended an equivalent written declaration that it should not be considered as sacrificing any british right, how much more defined would have been the rights of either party, or how much clearer the meaning and interpretation of the treaty, by these reservations on both sides? or, in other words, what is the value of a protest on one side, balanced by an exactly equivalent protest on the other? no nation is presumed to sacrifice its rights, or give up what justly belongs to it, unless it expressly stipulates that, for some good reason or adequate consideration, it does make such relinquishment; and an unnecessary asseveration that it does not intend to sacrifice just rights would seem only calculated to invite aggression. such proclamations would seem better devised for concealing weakness and apprehension, than for manifesting conscious strength and self-reliance, or for inspiring respect in others. toward the end of your letter you are pleased to observe: "the rejection of a treaty, duly negotiated, is a serious question, to be avoided whenever it can be without too great a sacrifice. though the national faith is not actually committed, still it is more or less engaged. and there were peculiar circumstances, growing out of long-standing difficulties, which rendered an amicable arrangement of the various matters in dispute with england a subject of great national interest. but the negotiation of a treaty is a far different subject. topics are omitted or introduced at the discretion of the negotiators, and they are responsible, to use the language of an eminent and able senator, for 'what it contains and what it omits.' this treaty, in my opinion, omits a most important and necessary stipulation; and therefore, as it seems to me, its negotiation, in this particular, was unfortunate for the country." the president directs me to say, in reply to this, that in the treaty of washington no topics were omitted, and no topics introduced, at the mere discretion of the negotiator; that the negotiation proceeded from step to step, and from day to day, under his own immediate supervision and direction; that he himself takes the responsibility for what the treaty contains and what it omits, and cheerfully leaves the merits of the whole to the judgment of the country. i now conclude this letter, and close this correspondence, by repeating once more the expression of the president's regret that you should have commenced it by your letter of the d of october. it is painful to him to have with you any cause of difference. he has a just appreciation of your character and your public services at home and abroad. he cannot but persuade himself that you must be aware yourself, by this time, that your letter of october was written under erroneous impressions, and that there is no foundation for the opinions respecting the treaty which it expresses; and that it would have been far better on all accounts if no such letter had been written. i have, &c. daniel webster. lewis cass, esq., _late minister of the united states at paris_. the hÜlsemann letter. [as the authorship of this remarkable paper has sometimes been imputed to another person, it may be proper to give the facts respecting its preparation, although they involve nothing more important than a question of literary interest. mr. webster, as has been stated, arrived at marshfield on the th of october, , where he remained for the space of two weeks. he brought with him the papers relating to this controversy with austria. before he left washington, he gave to mr. hunter, a gentleman then and still filling an important post in the department of state, verbal instructions concerning some of the points which would require to be touched in an answer to mr. hülsemann's letter of september th, and requested mr. hunter to prepare a draft of such an answer. this was done, and mr. hunter's draft of an answer was forwarded to mr. webster at marshfield. on the th of october, , mr. webster, being far from well, addressed a note to mr. everett,[ ] requesting him also to prepare a draft of a reply to mr. hülsemann, at the same time sending to mr. everett a copy of mr. hülsemann's letter and of president taylor's message to the senate relating to mr. mann's mission to hungary.[ ] on the st mr. webster went to his farm in franklin, new hampshire, where he remained until the th of november. while there he received from mr. everett a draft of an answer to mr. hülsemann, which was written by mr. everett between the st and the th of october. soon after mr. webster's death, it was rumored that the real author of "the hülsemann letter" was mr. hunter,--a rumor for which mr. hunter himself was in no way responsible. at a later period, in the summer of , the statement obtained currency in the newspapers that mr. everett wrote this celebrated despatch, and many comments were made upon the supposed fact that mr. everett had claimed its authorship. the facts are, that, while at franklin, mr. webster, with mr. hunter's and mr. everett's drafts both before him, went over the whole subject, making considerable changes in mr. everett's draft, striking out entire paragraphs with his pen, altering some phrases, and writing new paragraphs of his own, but adopting mr. everett's draft as the basis of the official paper; a purpose which he expressed to mr. everett on his return to boston toward washington. subsequently, when he had arrived in washington, mr. webster caused a third draft to be made, in the state department, from mr. everett's paper and his own additions and alterations. on this third draft he made still other changes and additions, and, when the whole was completed to his own satisfaction, the official letter was drawn out by a clerk, was submitted to the president, and, being signed by mr. webster, was sent to mr. hülsemann.[ ] there are, no doubt, passages and expressions in this letter which are in a tone not usual with mr. webster in his diplomatic papers. how he himself regarded the criticisms that might be made upon it may be seen from the following note:-- [to mr. ticknor.] "washington, january , . "my dear sir,--if you say that my hülsemann letter is boastful and rough, i shall own the soft impeachment. my excuse is twofold: . i thought it well enough to speak out, and tell the people of europe who and what we are, and awaken them to a just sense of the unparalleled growth of this country. . i wished to write a paper which should touch the national pride, and make a man feel _sheepish_ and look _silly_ who should speak of disunion. it is curious enough but it is certain, that mr. mann's private instructions were seen, somehow, by schwarzenberg. "yours always truly, "daniel webster."[ ] department of state, washington, december , . the undersigned, secretary of state of the united states, had the honor to receive, some time ago, the note of mr. hülsemann, chargé d'affaires of his majesty, the emperor of austria, of the th of september. causes, not arising from any want of personal regard for mr. hülsemann, or of proper respect for his government, have delayed an answer until the present moment. having submitted mr. hülsemann's letter to the president, the undersigned is now directed by him to return the following reply. the objects of mr. hülsemann's note are, first, to protest, by order of his government, against the steps taken by the late president of the united states to ascertain the progress and probable result of the revolutionary movements in hungary; and, secondly, to complain of some expressions in the instructions of the late secretary of state to mr. a. dudley mann, a confidential agent of the united states, as communicated by president taylor to the senate on the th of march last. the principal ground of protest is founded on the idea, or in the allegation, that the government of the united states, by the mission of mr. mann and his instructions, has interfered in the domestic affairs of austria in a manner unjust or disrespectful toward that power. the president's message was a communication made by him to the senate, transmitting a correspondence between the executive government and a confidential agent of its own. this would seem to be itself a domestic transaction, a mere instance of intercourse between the president and the senate, in the manner which is usual and indispensable in communications between the different branches of the government. it was not addressed either to austria or hungary; nor was it a public manifesto, to which any foreign state was called on to reply. it was an account of its transactions communicated by the executive government to the senate, at the request of that body; made public, indeed, but made public only because such is the common and usual course of proceeding. it may be regarded as somewhat strange, therefore, that the austrian cabinet did not perceive that, by the instructions given to mr. hülsemann, it was itself interfering with the domestic concerns of a foreign state, the very thing which is the ground of its complaint against the united states. this department has, on former occasions, informed the ministers of foreign powers, that a communication from the president to either house of congress is regarded as a domestic communication, of which, ordinarily, no foreign state has cognizance; and in more recent instances, the great inconvenience of making such communications the subject of diplomatic correspondence and discussion has been fully shown. if it had been the pleasure of his majesty, the emperor of austria, during the struggles in hungary, to have admonished the provisional government or the people of that country against involving themselves in disaster, by following the evil and dangerous example of the united states of america in making efforts for the establishment of independent governments, such an admonition from that sovereign to his hungarian subjects would not have originated here a diplomatic correspondence. the president might, perhaps, on this ground, have declined to direct any particular reply to mr. hülsemann's note; but out of proper respect for the austrian government, it has been thought better to answer that note at length; and the more especially, as the occasion is not unfavorable for the expression of the general sentiments of the government of the united states upon the topics which that note discusses. a leading subject in mr. hülsemann's note is that of the correspondence between mr. hülsemann and the predecessor of the undersigned, in which mr. clayton, by direction of the president, informed mr hülsemann "that mr. mann's mission had no other object in view than to obtain reliable information as to the true state of affairs in hungary, by personal observation." mr. hülsemann remarks, that "this explanation can hardly be admitted, for it says very little as to the cause of the anxiety which was felt to ascertain the chances of the revolutionists." as this, however, is the only purpose which can, with any appearance of truth, be attributed to the agency; as nothing whatever is alleged by mr. hülsemann to have been either done or said by the agent inconsistent with such an object, the undersigned conceives that mr. clayton's explanation ought to be deemed, not only admissible, but quite satisfactory. mr. hülsemann states, in the course of his note, that his instructions to address his present communication to mr. clayton reached washington about the time of the lamented death of the late president, and that he delayed from a sense of propriety the execution of his task until the new administration should be fully organized; "a delay which he now rejoices at, as it has given him the opportunity of ascertaining from the new president himself, on the occasion of the reception of the diplomatic corps, that the fundamental policy of the united states, so frequently proclaimed, would guide the relations of the american government with other powers." mr. hülsemann also observes, that it is in his power to assure the undersigned "that the imperial government is disposed to cultivate relations of friendship and good understanding with the united states." the president receives this assurance of the disposition of the imperial government with great satisfaction; and, in consideration of the friendly relations of the two governments thus mutually recognized, and of the peculiar nature of the incidents by which their good understanding is supposed by mr. hülsemann to have been for a moment disturbed or endangered, the president regrets that mr. hülsemann did not feel himself at liberty wholly to forbear from the execution of instructions, which were of course transmitted from vienna without any foresight of the state of things under which they would reach washington. if mr. hülsemann saw, in the address of the president to the diplomatic corps, satisfactory pledges of the sentiments and the policy of this government in regard to neutral rights and neutral duties, it might, perhaps, have been better not to bring on a discussion of past transactions. but the undersigned readily admits that this was a question fit only for the consideration and decision of mr. hülsemann himself; and although the president does not see that any good purpose can be answered by reopening the inquiry into the propriety of the steps taken by president taylor to ascertain the probable issue of the late civil war in hungary, justice to his memory requires the undersigned briefly to restate the history of those steps, and to show their consistency with the neutral policy which has invariably guided the government of the united states in its foreign relations, as well as with the established and well-settled principles of national intercourse, and the doctrines of public law. the undersigned will first observe, that the president is persuaded his majesty, the emperor of austria, does not think that the government of the united states ought to view with unconcern the extraordinary events which have occurred, not only in his dominions, but in many other parts of europe, since february, . the government and people of the united states, like other intelligent governments and communities, take a lively interest in the movements and the events of this remarkable age, in whatever part of the world they may be exhibited. but the interest taken by the united states in those events has not proceeded from any disposition to depart from that neutrality toward foreign powers, which is among the deepest principles and the most cherished traditions of the political history of the union. it has been the necessary effect of the unexampled character of the events themselves, which could not fail to arrest the attention of the contemporary world, as they will doubtless fill a memorable page in history. but the undersigned goes further, and freely admits that, in proportion as these extraordinary events appeared to have their origin in those great ideas of responsible and popular government, on which the american constitutions themselves are wholly founded, they could not but command the warm sympathy of the people of this country. well-known circumstances in their history, indeed their whole history, have made them the representatives of purely popular principles of government. in this light they now stand before the world. they could not, if they would, conceal their character, their condition, or their destiny. they could not, if they so desired, shut out from the view of mankind the causes which have placed them, in so short a national career, in the station which they now hold among the civilized states of the world. they could not, if they desired it, suppress either the thoughts or the hopes which arise in men's minds, in other countries, from contemplating their successful example of free government. that very intelligent and distinguished personage, the emperor joseph the second, was among the first to discern this necessary consequence of the american revolution on the sentiments and opinions of the people of europe. in a letter to his minister in the netherlands in , he observes, that "it is remarkable that france, by the assistance which she afforded to the americans, gave birth to reflections on freedom." this fact, which the sagacity of that monarch perceived at so early a day, is now known and admitted by intelligent powers all over the world. true, indeed, it is, that the prevalence on the other continent of sentiments favorable to republican liberty is the result of the reaction of america upon europe; and the source and centre of this reaction has doubtless been, and now is, in these united states. the position thus belonging to the united states is a fact as inseparable from their history, their constitutional organization, and their character, as the opposite position of the powers composing the european alliance is from the history and constitutional organization of the government of those powers. the sovereigns who form that alliance have not unfrequently felt it their right to interfere with the political movements of foreign states; and have, in their manifestoes and declarations, denounced the popular ideas of the age in terms so comprehensive as of necessity to include the united states, and their forms of government. it is well known that one of the leading principles announced by the allied sovereigns, after the restoration of the bourbons, is, that all popular or constitutional rights are holden no otherwise than as grants and indulgences from crowned heads. "useful and necessary changes in legislation and administration," says the laybach circular of may, , "ought only to emanate from the free will and intelligent conviction of those whom god has rendered responsible for power; all that deviates from this line necessarily leads to disorder, commotions, and evils far more insufferable than those which they pretend to remedy." and his late austrian majesty, francis the first, is reported to have declared, in an address to the hungarian diet, in , that "the whole world had become foolish, and, leaving their ancient laws, were in search of imaginary constitutions." these declarations amount to nothing less than a denial of the lawfulness of the origin of the government of the united states, since it is certain that that government was established in consequence of a change which did not proceed from thrones, or the permission of crowned heads. but the government of the united states heard these denunciations of its fundamental principles without remonstrance, or the disturbance of its equanimity. this was thirty years ago. the power of this republic, at the present moment, is spread over a region one of the richest and most fertile on the globe, and of an extent in comparison with which the possessions of the house of hapsburg are but as a patch on the earth's surface. its population, already twenty-five millions, will exceed that of the austrian empire within the period during which it may be hoped that mr. hülsemann may yet remain in the honorable discharge of his duties to his government. its navigation and commerce are hardly exceeded by the oldest and most commercial nations; its maritime means and its maritime power may be seen by austria herself, in all seas where she has ports, as well as they may be seen, also, in all other quarters of the globe. life, liberty, property, and all personal rights, are amply secured to all citizens, and protected by just and stable laws; and credit, public and private, is as well established as in any government of continental europe; and the country, in all its interests and concerns, partakes most largely in all the improvements and progress which distinguish the age. certainly, the united states may be pardoned, even by those who profess adherence to the principles of absolute government, if they entertain an ardent affection for those popular forms of political organization which have so rapidly advanced their own prosperity and happiness, and enabled them, in so short a period, to bring their country, and the hemisphere to which it belongs, to the notice and respectful regard, not to say the admiration, of the civilized world. nevertheless, the united states have abstained, at all times, from acts of interference with the political changes of europe. they cannot, however, fail to cherish always a lively interest in the fortunes of nations struggling for institutions like their own. but this sympathy, so far from being necessarily a hostile feeling toward any of the parties to these great national struggles, is quite consistent with amicable relations with them all. the hungarian people are three or four times as numerous as the inhabitants of these united states were when the american revolution broke out. they possess, in a distinct language, and in other respects, important elements of a separate nationality, which the anglo-saxon race in this country did not possess; and if the united states wish success to countries contending for popular constitutions and national independence, it is only because they regard such constitutions and such national independence, not as imaginary, but as real blessings. they claim no right, however, to take part in the struggles of foreign powers in order to promote these ends. it is only in defence of his own government, and its principles and character, that the undersigned has now expressed himself on this subject. but when the people of the united states behold the people of foreign countries, without any such interference, spontaneously moving toward the adoption of institutions like their own, it surely cannot be expected of them to remain wholly indifferent spectators. in regard to the recent very important occurrences in the austrian empire, the undersigned freely admits the difficulty which exists in this country, and is alluded to by mr. hülsemann, of obtaining accurate information. but this difficulty is by no means to be ascribed to what mr. hülsemann calls, with little justice, as it seems to the undersigned, "the mendacious rumors propagated by the american press." for information on this subject, and others of the same kind, the american press is, of necessity, almost wholly dependent upon that of europe; and if "mendacious rumors" respecting austrian and hungarian affairs have been anywhere propagated, that propagation of falsehoods has been most prolific on the european continent, and in countries immediately bordering on the austrian empire. but, wherever these errors may have originated, they certainly justified the late president in seeking true information through authentic channels. his attention was first particularly drawn to the state of things in hungary by the correspondence of mr. stiles, chargé d'affaires of the united states at vienna. in the autumn of , an application was made to this gentleman, on behalf of mr. kossuth, formerly minister of finance for the kingdom of hungary by imperial appointment, but, at the time the application was made, chief of the revolutionary government. the object of this application was to obtain the good offices of mr. stiles with the imperial government, with a view to the suspension of hostilities. this application became the subject of a conference between prince schwarzenberg, the imperial minister for foreign affairs, and mr. stiles. the prince commended the considerateness and propriety with which mr. stiles had acted; and, so far from disapproving his interference, advised him, in case he received a further communication from the revolutionary government in hungary, to have an interview with prince windischgrätz, who was charged by the emperor with the proceedings determined on in relation to that kingdom. a week after these occurrences, mr. stiles received, through a secret channel, a communication signed by l. kossuth, president of the committee of defence, and countersigned by francis pulszky, secretary of state. on the receipt of this communication, mr. stiles had an interview with prince windischgrätz, "who received him with the utmost kindness, and thanked him for his efforts toward reconciling the existing difficulties." such were the incidents which first drew the attention of the government of the united states particularly to the affairs of hungary, and the conduct of mr. stiles, though acting without instructions in a matter of much delicacy, having been viewed with satisfaction by the imperial government, was approved by that of the united states. in the course of the year , and in the early part of , a considerable number of hungarians came to the united states. among them were individuals representing themselves to be in the confidence of the revolutionary government, and by these persons the president was strongly urged to recognize the existence of that government. in these applications, and in the manner in which they were viewed by the president, there was nothing unusual; still less was there any thing unauthorized by the law of nations. it is the right of every independent state to enter into friendly relations with every other independent state. of course, questions of prudence naturally arise in reference to new states, brought by successful revolutions into the family of nations; but it is not to be required of neutral powers that they should await the recognition of the new government by the parent state. no principle of public law has been more frequently acted upon, within the last thirty years, by the great powers of the world, than this. within that period, eight or ten new states have established independent governments, within the limits of the colonial dominions of spain, on this continent; and in europe the same thing has been done by belgium and greece. the existence of all these governments was recognized by some of the leading powers of europe, as well as by the united states, before it was acknowledged by the states from which they had separated themselves. if, therefore, the united states had gone so far as formally to acknowledge the independence of hungary, although, as the result has proved, it would have been a precipitate step, and one from which no benefit would have resulted to either party; it would not, nevertheless, have been an act against the law of nations, provided they took no part in her contest with austria. but the united states did no such thing. not only did they not yield to hungary any actual countenance or succor, not only did they not show their ships of war in the adriatic with any menacing or hostile aspect, but they studiously abstained from every thing which had not been done in other cases in times past, and contented themselves with instituting an inquiry into the truth and reality of alleged political occurrences. mr. hülsemann incorrectly states, unintentionally certainly, the nature of the mission of this agent, when he says that "a united states agent had been despatched to vienna with orders to watch for a favorable moment to recognize the hungarian republic, and to conclude a treaty of commerce with the same." this, indeed, would have been a lawful object, but mr. mann's errand was, in the first instance, purely one of inquiry. he had no power to act, unless he had first come to the conviction that a firm and stable hungarian government existed. "the principal object the president has in view," according to his instructions, "is to obtain minute and reliable information in regard to hungary, in connection with the affairs of adjoining countries, the probable issue of the present revolutionary movements, and the chances we may have of forming commercial arrangements with that power favorable to the united states." again, in the same paper, it is said: "the object of the president is to obtain information in regard to hungary, and her resources and prospects, with a view to an early recognition of her independence and the formation of commercial relations with her." it was only in the event that the new government should appear, in the opinion of the agent, to be firm and stable, that the president proposed to recommend its recognition. mr. hülsemann, in qualifying these steps of president taylor with the epithet of "hostile," seems to take for granted that the inquiry could, in the expectation of the president, have but one result, and that favorable to hungary. if this were so, it would not change the case. but the american government sought for nothing but truth; it desired to learn the facts through a reliable channel. it so happened, in the chances and vicissitudes of human affairs, that the result was adverse to the hungarian revolution. the american agent, as was stated in his instructions to be not unlikely, found the condition of hungarian affairs less prosperous than it had been, or had been believed to be. he did not enter hungary, nor hold any direct communication with her revolutionary leaders. he reported against the recognition of her independence, because he found she had been unable to set up a firm and stable government. he carefully forbore, as his instructions required, to give publicity to his mission, and the undersigned supposes that the austrian government first learned its existence from the communications of the president to the senate. mr. hülsemann will observe from this statement, that mr. mann's mission was wholly unobjectionable, and strictly within the rule of the law of nations and the duty of the united states as a neutral power. he will accordingly feel how little foundation there is for his remark, that "those who did not hesitate to assume the responsibility of sending mr. dudley mann on such an errand should, independent of considerations of propriety, have borne in mind that they were exposing their emissary to be treated as a spy." a spy is a person sent by one belligerent to gain secret information of the forces and defences of the other, to be used for hostile purposes. according to practice, he may use deception, under the penalty of being lawfully hanged if detected. to give this odious name and character to a confidential agent of a neutral power, bearing the commission of his country, and sent for a purpose fully warranted by the law of nations, is not only to abuse language, but also to confound all just ideas, and to announce the wildest and most extravagant notions, such as certainly were not to have been expected in a grave diplomatic paper; and the president directs the undersigned to say to mr. hülsemann, that the american government would regard such an imputation upon it by the cabinet of austria as that it employs spies, and that in a quarrel none of its own, as distinctly offensive, if it did not presume, as it is willing to presume, that the word used in the original german was not of equivalent meaning with "spy" in the english language, or that in some other way the employment of such an opprobrious term may be explained. had the imperial government of austria subjected mr. mann for the treatment of a spy, it would have placed itself without the pale of civilized nations; and the cabinet of vienna may be assured, that if it had carried, or attempted to carry, any such lawless purpose into effect, in the case of an authorized agent of this government, the spirit of the people of this country would have demanded immediate hostilities to be waged by the utmost exertion of the power of the republic, military and naval. mr. hülsemann proceeds to remark, that "this extremely painful incident, therefore, might have been passed over, without any written evidence being left on our part in the archives of the united states, had not general taylor thought proper to revive the whole subject by communicating to the senate, in his message of the th [ th] of last march, the instructions with which mr. mann had been furnished on the occasion of his mission to vienna. the publicity which has been given to that document has placed the imperial government under the necessity of entering a formal protest, through its official representative, against the proceedings of the american government, lest that government should construe our silence into approbation, or toleration even, of the principles which appear to have guided its action and the means it has adopted." the undersigned reasserts to mr. hülsemann, and to the cabinet of vienna, and in the presence of the world, that the steps taken by president taylor, now protested against by the austrian government, were warranted by the law of nations and agreeable to the usages of civilized states. with respect to the communication of mr. mann's instructions to the senate, and the language in which they are couched, it has already been said, and mr. hülsemann must feel the justice of the remark, that these are domestic affairs, in reference to which the government of the united states cannot admit the slightest responsibility to the government of his imperial majesty. no state, deserving the appellation of independent, can permit the language in which it may instruct its own officers in the discharge of their duties to itself to be called in question under any pretext by a foreign power. but even if this were not so, mr. hülsemann is in an error in stating that the austrian government is called an "iron rule" in mr. mann's instructions. that phrase is not found in the paper; and in respect to the honorary epithet bestowed in mr. mann's instructions on the late chief of the revolutionary government of hungary, mr. hülsemann will bear in mind that the government of the united states cannot justly be expected, in a confidential communication to its own agent, to withhold from an individual an epithet of distinction of which a great part of the world thinks him worthy, merely on the ground that his own government regards him as a rebel. at an early stage of the american revolution, while washington was considered by the english government as a rebel chief, he was regarded on the continent of europe as an illustrious hero. but the undersigned will take the liberty of bringing the cabinet of vienna into the presence of its own predecessors, and of citing for its consideration the conduct of the imperial government itself. in the year the war of the american revolution was raging all over these united states. england was prosecuting that war with a most resolute determination, and by the exertion of all her military means to the fullest extent. germany was at that time at peace with england; and yet an agent of that congress, which was looked upon by england in no other light than that of a body in open rebellion, was not only received with great respect by the ambassador of the empress queen at paris, and by the minister of the grand duke of tuscany (who afterwards mounted the imperial throne), but resided in vienna for a considerable time; not, indeed, officially acknowledged, but treated with courtesy and respect; and the emperor suffered himself to be persuaded by that agent to exert himself to prevent the german powers from furnishing troops to england to enable her to suppress the rebellion in america. neither mr. hülsemann nor the cabinet of vienna, it is presumed, will undertake to say that any thing said or done by this government in regard to the recent war between austria and hungary is not borne out, and much more than borne out, by this example of the imperial court. it is believed that the emperor joseph the second habitually spoke in terms of respect and admiration of the character of washington, as he is known to have done of that of franklin; and he deemed it no infraction of neutrality to inform himself of the progress of the revolutionary struggle in america, or to express his deep sense of the merits and the talents of those illustrious men who were then leading their country to independence and renown. the undersigned may add, that in the courts of russia and austria proposed a diplomatic congress of the belligerent powers, to which the commissioners of the united states should be admitted. mr. hülsemann thinks that in mr. mann's instructions improper expressions are introduced in regard to russia; but the undersigned has no reason to suppose that russia herself is of that opinion. the only observation made in those instructions about russia is, that she "has chosen to assume an attitude of interference, and her immense preparations for invading and reducing the hungarians to the rule of austria, from which they desire to be released, gave so serious a character to the contest as to awaken the most painful solicitude in the minds of americans." the undersigned cannot but consider the austrian cabinet as unnecessarily susceptible in looking upon language like this as a "hostile demonstration." if we remember that it was addressed by the government to its own agent, and has received publicity only through a communication from one department of the american government to another, the language quoted must be deemed moderate and inoffensive. the comity of nations would hardly forbid its being addressed to the two imperial powers themselves. it is scarcely necessary for the undersigned to say, that the relations of the united states with russia have always been of the most friendly kind, and have never been deemed by either party to require any compromise of their peculiar views upon subjects of domestic or foreign polity, or the true origin of governments. at any rate, the fact that austria, in her contest with hungary, had an intimate and faithful ally in russia, cannot alter the real nature of the question between austria and hungary, nor in any way affect the neutral rights and duties of the government of the united states, or the justifiable sympathies of the american people. it is, indeed, easy to conceive, that favor toward struggling hungary would be not diminished, but increased, when it was seen that the arm of austria was strengthened and upheld by a power whose assistance threatened to be, and which in the end proved to be, overwhelmingly destructive of all her hopes. toward the conclusion of his note mr. hülsemarnn remarks, that "if the government of the united states were to think it proper to take an indirect part in the political movements of europe, american policy would be exposed to acts of retaliation, and to certain inconveniences which would not fail to affect the commerce and industry of the two hemispheres." as to this possible fortune, this hypothetical retaliation, the government and people of the united states are quite willing to take their chances and abide their destiny. taking neither a direct nor an indirect part in the domestic or intestine movements of europe, they have no fear of events of the nature alluded to by mr. hülsemann. it would be idle now to discuss with mr. hülsemann those acts of retaliation which he imagines may possibly take place at some indefinite time hereafter. those questions will be discussed when they arise; and mr. hülsemann and the cabinet at vienna may rest assured, that, in the mean time, while performing with strict and exact fidelity all their neutral duties, nothing will deter either the government or the people of the united states from exercising, at their own discretion, the rights belonging to them as an independent nation, and of forming and expressing their own opinions, freely and at all times, upon the great political events which may transpire among the civilized nations of the earth. their own institutions stand upon the broadest principles of civil liberty; and believing those principles and the fundamental laws in which they are embodied to be eminently favorable to the prosperity of states, to be, in fact, the only principles of government which meet the demands of the present enlightened age, the president has perceived, with great satisfaction, that, in the constitution recently introduced into the austrian empire, many of these great principles are recognized and applied, and he cherishes a sincere wish that they may produce the same happy effects throughout his austrian majesty's extensive dominions that they have done in the united states. the undersigned has the honor to repeat to mr. hülsemann the assurance of his high consideration. daniel webster. the chevalier j.g. hÜlsemann, _chargé d'affaires of austria, washington_. [footnote : mr. everett had then resigned the presidency of harvard college.] [footnote : whether mr. hunter's draft was also sent to mr. everett, i do not know. the internal evidence would seem to indicate that it was; but the fact is not material.] [footnote : i have seen, i believe, all the documents in relation to this matter; viz. mr. hunter's draft, mr. everett's (in his handwriting, with mr. webster's erasures), the third draft, made at the department under mr. webster's directions, and the original added paragraphs, written by mr. webster with his own hand. to those who are curious about the question of _authorship_, it is needful only to say that mr. webster adopted mr. everett's draft as the basis of the official letter, but that the official letter is a much more vigorous, expanded, and complete production than mr. everett's draft. it is described in a note written by mr. everett to one of the literary executors, in , as follows: "it can be stated truly that what mr. webster did himself to the letter was very considerable; and that he added one half in bulk to the original draft; and that his additions were of the most significant character. it was very carefully elaborated in the department by him, till he was authorized to speak of it as he did at the kossuth dinner...." this refers to what mr. webster said in his speech at the kossuth banquet, in washington, january , :-- "may i be so egotistical as to say that i have nothing new to say on the subject of hungary? gentlemen, in the autumn of the year before last, out of health, and retired to my paternal home among the mountains of new hampshire, i was, by reason of my physical condition, confined to my house; but i was among the mountains, whose native air i was bound to inspire. nothing saluted my senses, nothing saluted my mind, or my sentiments, but freedom, full and entire; and there, gentlemen, near the graves of my ancestors, i wrote a letter, which most of you have seen, addressed to the austrian _chargé d'affaires_. i can say nothing of the ability displayed in that letter, but, as to its principles, while the sun and moon endure, i stand by them."] [footnote : from hon. george t. curtis's life of daniel webster, vol. ii. pp. - .] index. a. aberdeen, lord, on right of search, , . abolition societies, mr. webster's opinion of, ; effect of, . "accede," word not found in the constitution, . accession and secession defined, . act of , regulating coasting trade, ; of , concerning custom-house bonds, . acts of , concerning surveys for canals, &c., . acts of legislature of n.h., on corporation of dartmouth college, , ; in regard to dartmouth college, , . adams and jefferson, eulogy delivered in faneuil hall on, ; coincidences in the death and lives of, ; made draft of declaration of independence, ; compared as scholars, . adams, john, eulogized, , , ; sensation caused by his death, ; birth and education of, ; admitted member of harvard college, ; admitted to the bar, ; defends british officers, and soldiers, ; offered chief justiceship of massachusetts, ; letter on the future of america, ; his articles on "feudal law," ; delegate to congress, ; important resolution reported in congress by, ; appointed to draft the declaration, ; power in debate, ; remark of jefferson on, ; knowledge of colonial history, ; supposed speech in favor of the declaration, ; minister to france, ; drafts constitution of massachusetts, ; concludes treaty with holland, ; his "defence of american constitutions," ; elected to frame and revise constitution of massachusetts, , ; vice-president and president, ; his scholarship, ; navy created in administration of, ; political abuse of, ; letter on opening first congress with prayer, . adams, j.q., at bunker hill, ; his nominations to office postponed by the senate, ; remark on webster, ; opposition to his administration, . adams, samuel, delegate to congress, ; signs the declaration, ; movement to open congress with prayer, . addition to the capitol, speech at laying of the corner-stone of the, . address, delivered at laying of corner-stone of bunker hill monument, ; on completion of bunker hill monument, . african slave-trade, remarks of mr. webster on, ; congress has power to restrain, . african squadron, maintained, . "aiding and abetting" defined, . airs, the martial, of england, . aldham, mr., at dinner of new england society in new york, . allegiance, doctrine of perpetual, . allied sovereigns, claims of, over national independence, ; effect of their meeting at laybach on the people, ; their conduct in regard to contest in greece, ; meeting at verona, , ; overthrow cortez government of spain, . america, first railroad in, ; her contributions to europe, ; success of united government in, ; extract from bishop of st. asaph on colonies in, ; political principles of, . "american" and "foreign policy," applied to system of tariff, . american government, elements of, ; principles of, in respect to suffrage, ; the people limit themselves, . american liberty, principles of, ; our inheritance of, . american people, what they owe to republican principles, ; establish popular government, ; prepared for popular government, . american political principles, summary of, . american revolution, commemorated by bunker hill monument, ; survivors of, at bunker hill, ; character of state papers of, ; peculiar principle of, . amiens, treaty of, remarks of mr. windham on, . ancestors, how we may commune with, . ancestry, our respect for, . annapolis, meeting at, concerning commerce, . antislavery conventions, proceedings at, . appointing and removing power, speech on, . appropriations by congress, shall be specific, . artisans, law prohibiting emigration of, from england, . arts and science, progress of, in the united states, . ashburton, lord, character of, ; cited ; letter to mr. webster on impressment, . astronomy, progress in, . attainder, bill of, provision on prohibition of, . attorney-general v. cullum, in regard to charity for town of bury st. edmunds, . austria, agent of united states respectfully received by, . austria and russia, friendly to united states in , . b. babylon, astronomers of, . bache, a.d., quoted, . bacon, lord, . badger, g.e., of n. carolina, ; voted against ceding new mexico and california, . balance of trade, doctrine of, . bank charter, benefit of, to stockholders, ; first passed by congress, . bank credit, benefit of, in united states, ; evils arising from abuse of, . bank, national, mr. ewing's plan for a, . bank notes, must be convertible into specie, . bank of england, resumes cash payments, . bank of united states, object of, ; charter vetoed, ; effect of the veto in western country, ; time for renewal of charter, ; benefit of a charter to stockholders, ; foreigners as stockholders in, - ; advantage of, in case of war, ; established, ; its conduct under mr. adams's administration, ; message of president jackson in regard to, ; how affected by events of , ; bill for re-charter passed by congress, ; branch of, in new hampshire, ; order for removal of deposits, ; act incorporating the, . bankruptcy, a uniform system of, remarks on, ; state laws concerning, ineffectual, . bankrupt law, of new york, considered, ; repeal of the, . bankrupt laws, to be established by national authority, ; absolute power of congress to establish, ; prohibition on state law in regard to, . banks, effect of paper issues by, ; safest under private management, ; power of congress to establish, , , ; increase of, ; suspension of specie payment, . barre, col., extract from speech on american colonists, . barrow, dr., his idea of "rest," xxxix. bell, senator from tennessee, . benevolent establishments of united states, . benson, judge, commissioner at annapolis, . benton, thomas h., speaks on foot's resolution, ; resolutions of, ; allusion to, . berkeley, bishop, extract from, . berrien, j.m., ; resolution concerning mexico, ; proposition in respect to texas, ; vote against ceding new mexico and california, . bill, to limit time of service of certain officers, , . bill of rights, meaning of, concerning chartered charities, . bill of rights of n.h., articles infringed in regard to dartmouth college, ; prohibit retrospective laws, . blacks from northern states, how treated at the south, . blake, george, . boston, imprisonment of sir e. andros in, ; its port closed, ; resolutions of, in , ; reception given to mr. webster in , . bowdoin, james, delegate to congress, . branch, mr., resolution of . brewster, elder, , , . british parliament, power claimed by, over charters, . brooks, gov. john, . brougham, mr., his approval of the monroe declaration, . buena vista, general taylor at, . buffalo, building of a pier at, ; reception of mr. webster at, and speech, may , , ; citizens of, exhorted to preserve the union, . buller, justice, extract on government of corporations, . bunker hill battle, address to survivors of, ; important effects of, ; changes of the fifty years following the, ; survivors of, present at completion of monument, ; described, ; established independence, . bunker hill monument, address at laying of corner-stone, ; william tudor's idea of erecting the, ; laying of corner-stone described, ; completion of, ; veterans present at completion of, ; "stands on union," ; description of, . burke, edmund, compliment to charles fox, xxxviii; speeches of, criticised, lii; bill for economical reform, . c. cabot, george, notice of, . calhoun, j.c., president of senate and vice-president of united states, ; resolutions on state sovereignty, ; speaks on wilkins tariff bill, ; course in regard to tariff of , ; resolutions of, relating to slavery, ; supports administration of van buren, ; remarks of mr. webster on the political course of, ; letter on sub-treasury bill, ; change in views upon sub-treasury bill, ; advocates the state-rights party, , , ; his object to unite the entire south, ; attack on mr. webster, ; mr. webster's reply to, ; opposes mr. dallas's bill for a bank, ; bill of, for internal improvements, ; extract from, on the power of congress, ; took lead in annexing texas, ; remarks upon admission of texas, ; dying testimony to mr. webster's conscientiousness, xliii. california, proposed annexation of, ; article of cession to united states, ; discovery of gold in, ; mexican provincial government overthrown by, ; establishment of local government in, ; slavery excluded from, by law of nature, . canada, cession to england, effect on the colonies, . canals, act of concerning, . canning, mr., opinion concerning spain and her colonies, ; approval of the monroe declaration, . capitol, speech at laying of corner-stone of the addition to the, ; copy of paper under corner-stone of, ; foundation laid by washington, ; plan for extension of the, . carroll, charles, signer of the declaration, . cass, lewis, mexican speech of, ; as a whig candidate, ; as a candidate for president, ; personal character of, ; in favor of the compromise line, ; requests his recall from france, ; his construction of the treaty of washington referred to, , ; answer of mr. webster to, concerning the african squadron, . catharine the second of russia, policy in respect to greece, . cession, articles of, concerning new mexico and california, . channing, w.e., letter of, on slavery, . charities, charters granted to founders of, ; colleges included under, , ; founder of incorporated, considered visitor, ; government may incorporate, ; legal signification of, ; opinion of lord holt respecting the power of visitors over, ; right of visitation in, incorporated, ; case of town of bury st. edmunds, ; schools founded by, must include religious instruction, . charity, legal definition of, . charles the second, . charters, of dartmouth college ( ), ; legislative power over, defined, ; power claimed by british parliament over, ; lord mansfield on rights of, ; legislative power over, limited, ; granted to founders of charities, ; opinion of lord commissioner eyre on charities established by, ; how they affect property of corporations, ; of the nature of contracts, , ; how may be altered or varied, ; may be accepted at will, ; no difference between grants of corporate franchise and tangible property, ; of dartmouth college ( ) is a contract, ; obtained by founders of english liberty, ; new england colonists required them, . chateaubriand, m. de, quoted respecting the holy alliance, . chatham, lord, his colonial policy, ; opinion of the first congress, . chaucer, his use of word "green," xxxix. chicago road, president's opinion in respect to, . china, trade of united states with, . choate, rufus, . christian charity, defined, ; spirit of, . christianity, blended influence of civilization and, ; observance of the sabbath a part of, ; essentials of, part of the common law, , . christian ministry, and the religious instruction of the young, speech in supreme court, . christian ministry, opprobrium cast on the, by the girard will, ; establishment of, by christ, ; work of the, in united states, , . christians, religious belief of, . christ's command, "suffer little children," &c., referred to, . church, grants to, cannot be rescinded, . civil law, maxim of, in regard to slavery, . clay, henry, speech on tariff of criticised by mr. webster, ; author of american system of tariff, ; resolution of, relating to slavery in district of columbia, ; resolutions in respect to slavery, . clayton, j.m., his explanation of mr. mann's mission, . clergy, eulogium on, . coast survey of united states, . college livings, rights and character of, ; attack of james the second on magdalen college, . colleges, are eleemosynary corporations, , , ; charters granted to, ; foundation of, considered by lord mansfield, ; charters should be kept inviolate, ; party or political influence dangerous to, . colonies, establishment of greek, ; of new england, , ; of roman, ; of west india, , ; spanish in south america, , ; new england and virginia, ; english and spanish compared, ; original ground of dispute between england and the, ; american, declared free and independent, . colonists, english, in america, secret of their success, ; brought their charters, ; in virginia, failed for want of charter, ; allegiance to the king, . columbus, christopher, portrayed, , . columbus, o., convention at, in regard to the observance of the sabbath, . commerce, condition of, in , ; its national character, , ; how affected by laws of confederation, ; power of congress to regulate, , ; resolutions of new jersey in regard to, ; mr. witherspoon's motion in congress concerning, ; of virginia in regard to, ; necessity of vesting congress with power to control, ; law of congress paramount, ; guarded by the general government, . compact and government as distinguished from each other, . compromise act, principle of, . compromise line, in respect to slavery, . concurrent legislation, defined and argued, ; effect on monopolies, . confederation, its effect on commerce, ; of a league, ; state of the country under the, . confessions, how to be regarded, . congress of delegates, at philadelphia, , ; resolutions on the declaration, ; sat with closed doors, . congress of greece, of , . congress of united states, power to regulate commerce, , ; should have power to regulate commerce, ; and the states, argument on concurrent power of, ; exclusive right over monopolies, ; possesses exclusive admiralty jurisdiction, ; law of, paramount, ; laws of, in opposition to state law, ; power concerning rights of authors and inventors, ; its coinage powers, ; to establish uniform bankrupt laws, ; power over slave trade, ; no power over slavery, , , ; power to make laws, , ; exclusive power to lay duties, ; duty of, in case of a presidential veto, ; passes first bank charter, , ; to establish banks, , , ; power of, continuous, ; duties of both houses, ; power to borrow money, ; in regard to public moneys, ; no precise time for expiration of session, ; power over ceded territory, ; no control over slavery, . congress of verona, in regard to greek revolution, , . connecticut, law of, concerning steam navigation, . constitution of united states, provision concerning _ex post facto_ laws, ; its origin to regulate commerce, , ; its authority to establish bankrupt laws, ; law of, in regard to contracts, ; object of the, ; provides a medium for payment of debts, and a uniform mode of discharging them, ; prohibitions of, concerning contracts and payment of debts, ; provisions for settling questions of constitutional law, ; to be interpreted by the judicial power, , ; as a compact, ; not a compact between sovereign states, argued, ; object of, ; not a league, ; what it says of itself, ; its relations to individuals, ; madison's opinion of, ; provision of, in case of a presidential veto, ; president jackson's view of, ; our duty to the, ; protects labor, ; division of powers conferred by, ; on power of removal from office, ; divides powers of government, ; recognized slavery, , ; does not speak of sovereign states, or federal government, ; protects existing government of a state, ; and the union, speech on, march , , ; formation of the, ; provision of, concerning fugitives, ; officers of the law bound to support the, ; how it affected the institution of slavery, lx. constructive presence defined, . contracts, cases cited concerning obligation of, ; defined, include grants, ; provision concerning obligation of, ; law of the constitution in regard to, ; obligation of, defined, , ; obligation of, rests on universal law, ; the law not a part of, argued, - ; the constitutional provision in regard to, ; prohibition on state law concerning, . convention of , remarks on, . copper, duties received from, . corporate franchises, power of legislature over, limited, . corporations, acts of legislature, on dartmouth college ( ), , ; royal prerogative to create, ; power of king over, limited by legislature, ; power of legislature to create, ; opinion of lord mansfield on rights of, ; divers sorts of, ; eleemosynary, nature of, defined, , ; power of, over property possessed by them, ; charter rights of visitors of, ; power of visitation over transferable, ; argument of stillingfleet, ; rights of trustees object of legal protection, ; franchises granted to, ; concerning pecuniary benefit from, ; concerning private property, ; concerning grants of land to, ; right of trustees to elect officers, ; legislature, cannot repeal statutes creating private, ; extract from justice buller on government of, ; how charters of, may be altered or varied, ; possible dangers of independent government, . cotton, attempt to naturalize growth of, in france, ; how affected by tariff of , ; proposed reduction of duty on, ; culture of, protected, ; how its cultivation affects slavery and the south, . cotton manufactures, importance of, ; of england and united states, . crawford, mr., opposing candidate to mr. adams, . credit system, and the labor of the united states, remarks on, . credit system, benefit of, in united states, ; evils arising from abuse of, . criminal law, its object, . cumberland road bill, approved, . currency, effect of paper issues to depreciate, ; paper, of england, effect on prices, ; the laboring man's interest in, ; experiment of exclusive specie, ; president's interference with, ; soundness of, ; derangement of, effect of, ; its restoration an object of revolution of , . cushing, thomas, delegate to congress, . custom-house bonds, act of in regard to, . d. dallas, geo. m., proposition of, for a bank, . dane, nathan, drafted ordinance of , . danemora, iron mines of, . dartmouth college, argument in case of, ; acts of legislature affecting, , , , , , ; corporation of, ( ,) ; charter of, ( ,) is a contract, ; observation of mr. webster on opinion of court of n.h. concerning, ; incident connected with mr. webster's argument in case of, xxi. davis, judge, . debt, abolition of imprisonment for, . debtor and creditor, law of, , . debts, the constitution provides for the payment and discharge of, . declaration of independence, ; committee appointed to draft the, ; its object and foundation, ; speeches of webster for, and dissenting, ascribed to adams and another, , ; anniversary of, . democracy, northern, policy of, . deposits, removal of, by the president, . _see_ public moneys. dexter, samuel, character of, . disbursing officers, tenure of office, . discourse delivered at plymouth, on "first settlement of new england," . dissolution of the union, evils of, . district of columbia, remarks of mr. webster on slavery in, ; resolutions on slavery in, ; power of congress in, . divine right, a doctrine of the holy alliance, . dix, j.a., his vote for admission of texas, . domestic industry, not confined to manufactures, . dorr, thomas w., at the head of revolutionary government of rhode island, ; tried for treason, . dough faces, voted for missouri compromise, . douglass, stephen h., amendment concerning missouri, . drum-beat of england, . duane, w.j., removal of, from office, . duché, rev. mr., opened first congress with prayer, . durfee, chief justice, charge of, in dorr case of rhode island, . duties on imports, extract from speech on, ( ,) . e. education, provision for general diffusion of, in new england, , ; sentiment of john adams on, . edwards, jonathan, his use of the word "sweetness," xxxix. election, of officers of colleges, . elections, rights of, ; american system of, . electricity, progress in, . eleemosynary corporations, nature of, defined, , ; colleges are included under, . ellenborough, lord, on commercial restrictions, . ellsworth, oliver, extract from, on the constitution, , . eloquence, defined by webster, . embargo, mr. hillhouse's opinion of, ; opposed by massachusetts, . emigration, different motives for, , ; grecian, ; roman, ; purposes and prospects of pilgrim fathers, ; toward the west, ; to california, began, ; how encouraged by england, . england, effect of taxation on landholders in, ; how land was holden, in time of henry the seventh, ; paper system of, effect on prices, ; protective system of, ; policy of, in respect to paper currency, ; manufacture of silk in, ; removed certain restrictions on trade, ; provisions concerning her shipping interest, ; course of, in regard to spanish colonies, ; the original ground of dispute between the colonies and, ; relation of south carolina to, in , ; maritime power of, in war of , ; imprisonment for debt abolished in, ; progress of its power, ; law of, in regard to charitable institutions, ; representative system of, , ; right claimed by, in respect to impressment, ; encourages emigration, . english colonists, in america, secret of their success, . english composition, school-boy's attempt at, xi; falseness of style, xii. english language, correct use in the united states, . english revolution of , ; participation of massachusetts in, . europe, effect in united states of pacification of, ; condition of, at the birth of washington, . everett, edward, minister to england, ; draft for the hülsemann letter, . ewing, thomas, resolution in regard to payments for public lands, ; plan for a national bank, . exchange, the rate of, ; english standard of, . exchequer, plan of, mr. webster's approbation of, , ; sent to congress in , . exclusion of slavery from the territories, speech on, aug. , , . executive of united states, power over the press, , ; refuses to execute law of congress, ; patronage, dangers of, , ; power of, defined, ; extension of its power, , ; change in the fiscal system effected by, . executive patronage, and removals from office, speech on, . executive usurpation, speech on, . exeter college, judgment of lord holt, in case of, ; argument of stillingfleet, . exports from the united states, , . ex post facto laws, prohibited by constitution of u.s., . eyre, lord commissioner, opinion of, on chartered charities, . f. faneuil hall, draped in mourning for the first time, ; reception of mr. webster at, sept. , , . federalism, history of, . federalist, extract from, on the constitution, . festival of sons of new hampshire, . fillmore, millard, laid corner-stone of extension to the capitol, ; addressed, . fitch, john, grant to, concerning steam navigation, . fitzsimmons, mr., suggests protective duties, . flagg, george, his painting of the landing of the pilgrims, . fletcher v. peck, case of contract, . florida, acquisition of, ; admitted into the union, ; cession of, . foot's resolution, in congress, concerning public lands, ; mr. webster's second speech on, ; mr. webster's last remarks on, . foreigners, as stockholders in u.s. bank, - . foreign interference, president monroe on, . foreign trade, to be encouraged, , . forsyth, john, moves to reduce duty on cotton, . fortification bill, speech on loss of the, ; history of, - ; extract from president's message on, . foster, john, extract from his "essay on evils of popular ignorance," . fox, charles, remark on lord chancellor thurlow, xxxvii; and burke, speeches of, compared, lvi. france, subdivision of landed property in, ; prophecy concerning government of, , ; allies enter into, effect on trade, ; invasion of spain, ; alliance of u.s. with, declared void, ; letters of marque, asked by president jackson, . franchise, and liberty, synonymous terms, ; individual, protected by law, . franchises, corporate, power of legislature over, limited, ; granted to trustees of corporations, . francis the first, quoted, . franklin, benjamin, ; appointed to draft the declaration, . franklin, state of, constitution of, and provision to supply a currency, . free blacks, from north, how treated at the south, . free press, attributes of, ; the bestowing of office on conductors of the, . free schools, of new england, . free soil men, character of, . free soil party, platform of, ; nominate martin van buren, . free trade, speech of mr. webster on, , note. freights, rates of, , ; of iron from sweden, . french indemnity loan, of , . frothingham, richard, extract from, on laying corner-stone of bunker hill monument, ; account of completion of bunker hill monument, . fugitive slave law, of , and , ; opposition to, . fugitive slaves, complaint of the south and duty of the north concerning, ; provision of the constitution in respect to, . fulton, robert, his exclusive right to navigation, . fulton and livingston, grant of steam navigation to, by new york, . g. gage, governor, convenes general court at salem, ; rejects john adams as councillor, . gaines, major, description of new mexico, . gallagher, wm. d., extract from, on growth of western trade, . general court, convened at salem, ; at salem dissolved, and power of england terminated, . georgia, cession of her western territory, . german literature, play ridiculing the, . gerry, samuel, . gibbons v. ogden, case of, ; argument of mr. webster in, . girard college, provisions of girard's will in regard to, ; restriction concerning religious instruction in, ; no observance of the sabbath there, . girard, stephen, will of, contested, ; his scheme derogatory to christianity, , . glass, duty on, advisable, . gold, and silver as legal tender, ; discovered in california, . goodhue, mr., . goodridge robbery case, mr. webster's management of, xv. government, nature and constitution of, ; republican form of, laws which regulate, ; of france, how effected by subdivision of land, , ; subdivision of lands necessary to free form of, ; the true principle of a free, ; to be founded on property, ; absolute or regulated, the question of the age, ; influence of knowledge over, - ; difficulty of establishing popular, ; influence of public opinion on, ; popular, practicable, ; popular, overthrown in spain, ; powers of, concerning local improvement, ; power of, over internal improvements, ; doctrine of south carolina on state rights, ; popular, rests on two principles, ; the success of a united, . government, american, character of, established by the pilgrims, ; origin and character of, ; system of representation in, ; founded on morality and religious sentiment, ; origin and source of power, ; its establishment, ; majority must govern, ; danger of political proscription to the, ; two principles upon which it stands, . grants, legislature no power to rescind, when given for educational or religious purposes, ; protection of, ; included under contracts, . great britain, negotiation of treaty with, . greece, saved by battle of marathon, ; emigration from, ; speech on revolution in, ; appeal to united states concerning revolution in, ; extract from president monroe, on revolution in, ; we are her debtors, ; improved condition of, ; conduct of allied sovereigns in regard to contest in, ; congress at verona, , concerning independence of, ; congress of , ; revolution of in, ; society of vienna to encourage literature in, ; propriety of appointing an agent to, ; liberty of, ; want of union among her states, . greeks, baron strogonoff on the massacre of the, ; excited to rebellion by russia, ; our sympathy for cause of, ; the oppression of, by turkey, ; what they have accomplished, . griswold, george, toast to daniel webster, . h. hale, representative to congress, . hamilton, alexander, his services, . hancock, john, presides in congress, ; signed the declaration, ; first signer of the declaration, . harbor bill, course of president jackson concerning, . hardin, col., description of new mexico, . harrison, wm. henry, president, ; the "log cabin" candidate, ; civil character of, . hartford convention, ; design of, . harvard college, , . harvey, peter, story told of mr. webster by, xv. hayne, robert y., speaks on foot's resolution, ; reply of webster to, on foot's resolution, ; votes on internal improvement, . hemp, growth of, to be encouraged, ; importation of, ; effect of increased duty on, . henry, patrick, . henry the seventh, division of land in england in time of, ; colonies planted in the reign of, . hermitage, supposed visit of occupant of, to the senate chamber, . hillard, mr., remarks in massachusetts senate, . hillhouse, mr., opinion on the embargo law, . hoar, mr., mission of, to south carolina, . holland, trade of, with the united states, ; our treaty with, of , . holt, lord, opinion of, respecting power of visitors over corporations, . holy alliance, origin of, ; effect on social rights, , ; extract from puffendorf, bearing on principles of, ; principles of the, , ; forcible interference a principle of, . home market, effect of manufactures on, . house of commons, representation in the, . hülsemann letter, written by mr. webster, . hume, mr., remark on administration of justice, . hungarians, arrival of, in the united states, . hungary, president taylor's interest in the revolution in, ; correspondence relating to revolution in, . hunter, mr., huskisson, mr., ; policy of, in respect to commerce, . hutchinson, gov., . i. immortality, inquiries concerning, . impeachment, closing appeal in defence of judge james prescott, . imports, excess of, over exports, explained, . impressment, convention of , in respect to, ; english law in respect to, ; letter of mr. webster to lord ashburton respecting, ; injuries of, ; letter of lord ashburton on, ; rule of the united states in respect to, . imprisonment for debt, abolition of, . inauguration of washington, . india and china, trade of united states with, . individual rights, concerning charities, . insolvent debtors, act of new york concerning, .+ insolvents, hopeless condition of, . intellectual being, inquiries of an, . interference, forcible, a principle of the holy alliance, ; a violation of public law, . internal improvements, in new england, ; progress of, ; general benefit from, ; course of south carolina towards, ; at the west, opposition of the south to, ; attention of united states directed to, ; course pursued by mr. webster in congress towards, ; votes of hayne on, ; mr. calhoun's bill for, . international law, duty of united states in regard to, , , . ireland, coasting trade of england with, ; legislation desired in, . iron, concerning home manufacture of, - ; how affected by tariff of , ; effect of increased duty on, . j. jackson, andrew, veto on united states bank bill, ; opinion of mr. webster on the veto of the bank bill, , ; message in regard to the bank of united states, ; uses his power to remove from office, ; sentiments of webster on re-election of, ; protest of, ; removal of deposits by, ; recommends letters of marque and reprisal against france, ; remarks of mr. webster on, ; his course concerning the currency, ; inauguration as president, ; act of making sales of public lands payable in gold and silver, ; character of, ; elected president _vice_ mr. adams in , ; idea of bridging the potomac, . james the first, his tyranny, . james the second, attack on college livings at magdalen college, . jay, john, his services, ; appointed chief justice, ; quoted, ; treaty of with england, . jefferson, thomas, news of the death of, ; birth and education of, ; elected to first congress, , ; his paper on "rights of america," ; appointed to draft the declaration, ; remark on adams in congress, ; governor of virginia, ; his "notes on virginia," ; minister abroad, ; secretary of state, ; vice-president and president, , ; his "manual of parliamentary practice," ; founded university of virginia, ; his scholarship, ; last days of, ; inscription for his monument, ; louisiana acquired in administration of, ; correspondence concerning the confederation, ; use of his power to remove from office, ; opposed to expending money without appropriation, ; admitted louisiana into the union, ; opinion of admitting louisiana into the union, ; rule in respect to impressment, . jewish talmuds, . johnson, hon. richard m., effort for abolition of imprisonment for debt, . johnston, samuel, extract on the constitution, . jones, sir william, extract from, . joseph the second, quoted, . judiciary of united states, to interpret questions of constitutional law, , ; extent of its power, , ; mr. madison's opinion on, ; mr. pinkney on the, ; its duties and extent, ; how vacancies are filled, ; decides the constitutional laws, . k. kemble, mr., anecdote of, xxiii. kennistons, defence of the, xv. kent, chancellor, remarks at webster dinner in new york, . king, gov., action of, in revolution of rhode island, . king, mr., of alabama, . king, rufus, resolution of, in , in regard to slavery, ; member of congress, and of the convention of , ; on impressment, . king solomon's lodge, erect a monument to general warren, . knapp, j.f. and j.j., jr., convicted of murder of captain joseph white, . knowledge, its influence over governments, - ; diffusion of, in united states, . knowlton, anecdote of, xxvi. kossuth, louis, demanded of turkey by emperor of russia, ; extract from speech of mr. webster on, ; his communication to american chargé d'affaires, . l. labor, how to be protected, ; different prices of, ; protected by the constitution, . laborers, their interest in the currency, ; character of northern, ; of the north, compared with southern slaves, . labor-saving machines, . lafayette, gen., addressed by webster at bunker hill, . land, a subdivision of, necessary to free form of government, ; effect of taxation on division of, in england, ; how holden in england in time of henry the seventh, ; prophecy concerning subdivision of, on government of france, , . landing of pilgrims at plymouth, picture representing, . lands, public, mr. foot's resolution in regard to, ; views of mr. webster concerning the disposition of, , ; powers of government to donate for local improvement, ; donations of, necessary for local improvement, ; liberal reduction in price of, favored by new england, ; whence obtained, ; states have no sovereignty over, ; question of revenue connected with, ; liberal policy in respect to sales of, ; revenue arising from sales of, ; act making sales of, payable in gold and silver, . lansdowne, lord, quoted on prohibitory duties, , . law, of the land, relating to individual franchise, ; interest and duty of united states in international, ; criminal, its object, ; mr. webster's respect for, ; representation the foundation of, ; the supreme rule, . laws, validity of, not to depend upon the motive, . laybach, circular of sovereigns at, . lay preaching and lay teaching, . league, defined, . lee, richard henry, resolution of june, , . legislation, society to be regarded in, ; concurrent power of states with congress, - ; will of the people ascertained by, . legislative power, over charters, defined, ; restriction imposed upon, . legislature, acts of. _see_ acts of legislature. legislature, power of king over corporations, limited by, ; power of, to create corporations, ; power of, over charters, limited, ; cannot resume grants of land given for educational or religious purposes, ; power of, to affect individual rights, ; cannot repeal statutes creating private corporations, ; power of, restrained by ordinance of , . legislatures, to support the constitution of united states, . leigh, mr., . letters of marque, against france, asked by president jackson, . liberties, defined, . liberty, love of religious, ; characteristics of, ; the contests for, ; principles of american, ; of greece, rome, and america, , . lincolnshire, pilgrims in, . literature, its advantages in public life, ; progress in, . liverpool blue coat school, . liverpool, lord, ; on freedom of trade, . livingston and fulton, right of steam navigation granted by new york, . livingston, chancellor, his services, . livingston, robert r., . local institutions for local purposes, and general institutions for general purposes, . local legislation, benefits of, , . log cabin candidate, remarks on, . log cabin, origin of the term, . louisiana, acquisition of, ; how obtained, ; slave-holding states framed from, ; admission of, into the union, ; mr. jefferson's opinion of admitting to the union, . luther, reformation of, . m. macaulay, extract from, on english lawyers and english statesmen, xli. mccleary, fell at charlestown, . mcdowell, governor of virginia, . macduffie, speech on internal improvements referred to, . machinery, law prohibiting exportation of, from england, . machines, not labor-saving, but labor-doing, . mclane, louis, instructions to, concerning colonial trade, . mcleod, alexander, case of, . madison, james, knowledge of the constitution, , , ; on the judiciary, ; extracts from, on duties on imports, ; his public services, , ; opinion on nullification, ; secretary of state and president, ; approved united states bank, ; opinion in regard to removal from office, ; on impeachment, ; secretary of state, ; article of, admitting louisiana into union, ; opinion of, on slavery, . majority government, . mann, a.d., instructions to, . mansfield, lord, opinion of, on chartered rights, ; foundation of colleges considered by, . manufactures, acts of and respecting, . marathon, battle of, how affected greece, . marshfield, speech at, sept. , , . martial law, defined, . martin, mr., opinions on the judiciary, ; objections to the constitution, . maryland, settlement of, . mason, j.w., on slave labor, ; bill concerning fugitive slaves, . mason, jeremiah, death of, ; obituary remarks of mr. webster, ; resolutions on death of, ; his ancestry, ; appointed attorney-general, ; senator of united states, ; his style as an orator, xix; his respect for daniel webster, xx. massachusetts, participation in english revolution, ; commercial progress of, ; voted against tariff of , ; constitution of, when framed and revised, , ; eulogium on (webster), ; opposes the embargo law, ; duty to the constitution, ; her general prosperity, ; her action on abdication of james ii., . mathers, father and son, . mayflower, compact signed in her cabin, ; object of her voyage, . melville, major, removed from custom-house, . members of congress, appointment of, to office, . merchant vessels, national territory, . message, of president monroe on foreign interference, approved by lord brougham, ; how received by the people, ; of gen. jackson, , views in respect to bank of the united states, . methodist church v. remington, case of, . methodist episcopal church, separation of, in regard to slavery, . mexican treaty, clauses ceding new mexico and california, ; mr. webster's vote in respect to, . mexican war, speech on, ; objects of the, , , . mexico, the sixteen million loan bill for prosecuting war with, ; treaty of between united states and, ; objects of the war with, the cession of territory, , , ; forced to cede territory to united states, , ; aversion of, to cede territory, ; war declared against, ; the treaty with, . military academy at west point, the appropriation for, . military achievements, important by their results, . milton, john, use of words, xiii. missionaries in georgia, . mississippi river, future centre of the country, . missouri compromise, line of, . missouri, law for the admission of, . monmouth, associations of, . monopolies, report on impracticability of, ; power of congress over, ; effect of state power over, . monroe, james, extract from message on the struggle in greece, ; extract from message concerning foreign interference, . morris, robert, notice of, . morton, perez, delivered eulogy on gen. warren, . murder, of capt. joseph white, at salem, ; portrayed, ; what constitutes a principal in, ; what constitutes an abettor to, ; two sorts of, . murphy, mr., in regard to texas, . n. napoleon, attempt in respect to cotton, . nashville convention, . national law, concerning offences against the, ; emperor of russia bound by, . natural hatred of poor for the rich, remarks of webster on, . navigation, english act of , restricting the trade of the n.e. colonies, ; condition of that of united states ( ), ; of hudson river and long island sound, exclusive claim of fulton to, . navy, creation of, ; mr. webster's early support to the, ; of the united states, its strength in , . neutrality of united states, defined, . new england, discourse on first settlement of, ; first settlement of, ; english act of navigation, , restricting trade of, ; progress of the first century of, ; opening of second century of, ; population of, in , ; her part in wars between england and france, ; war of the revolution begun in, ; internal improvement in, ; the subdivision of lands in, necessary, , ; right of primogeniture abolished in, ; free schools of, ; prosperity of, in , ; forced into manufactures, ; causes which led to settlement of, - ; its free schools, ; attack of hayne on, , ; policy of, concerning western population, ; interest of, in public improvements, ; when, how, and why her measures favor the west, ; favors reduction of price of public lands, ; supported administration of washington, ; her course concerning the embargo, ; new england society of new york, object of its formation, ; settlement of, . new hampshire, acts of legislature, relating to dartmouth college, , , , , ; legislative and judicial power, separate, ; extract from speech, at festival of natives of, . new jersey, law of, concerning steam navigation, ; resolutions concerning commerce, . new mexico, proposed annexation of, ; population of, ; country described by major gaines, ; nature of country inhabitants, ; prognostications of mr. webster in regard to admission of, ; article of cession to united states, ; existence of peonism in, ; slavery excluded from, by law of nature, . newton, isaac, . new york, grant of steam navigation to john fitch, ; grant of steam navigation to livingston and fulton, ; laws of, concerning steam navigation, , ; act of, concerning insolvent debtors, ; insolvent law of, ; public dinner given to webster in, ; growth of, contemporary with the constitution, ; her loyalty to the union, ; toast of webster to city of, ; reception of webster at, in , ; law of in respect to elections, ; her vote for annexing texas, . niles, j.m., his vote for admission of texas, . north, duty of, in respect to fugitive slaves, ; complaints of, against the south, . north and south, grievances of, , . northern democracy, policy of, . northwestern territory, concerning slavery in, ; slavery excluded from, . nullification, right of, denied, ; right of, never advanced in new england, ; practical operations of, in south carolina, ; practical operation of, , , ; threatened in south carolina, ; dangerous tendency of, . o. oath, legal definition of, . office. _see_ removal from office. ogden, a., his right to navigation, . ogden v. saunders, argument in case of, . ohio, settled mostly by southern emigration, . old colony club, formation of, . old thirteen, their public lands, . ordinance of , drafted by nathan dane, , ; prohibits slavery, ; restrained legislative power, . oregon, bill to organize a government for, ; established a free territory, ; government of, established, . ormichund v. barker, case of, . orphans, provision of stephen girard for education of, . otis, james, his speech on writs of assistance noticed, . p. paine, robert treat, ; delegate to congress, . paine, thomas, extract from his "age of reason," . panama mission, speech on, . paper currency, of england, effect on prices, ; the evils of, ; experiment of a redeemable, ; advantages of a, in the united states, ; prediction concerning irredeemable, . parable of the prodigal son, ; the widow's mite, referred to, . parker, chief justice, ; death of, . parliament, power of, over the colonies, . parmenter, mr., voted for tariff of , . parthenon, referred to, . parties, origin of, ; violence of, . party spirit, washington's exhortation against, . patent-office, established, . patterson, mr., propositions of, in regard to confederation, . peace, the policy of the united states, . peaceable secession, the impossibility of, . penn, william, . pennsylvania, memorial to abolish slavery, ; opinion on tariff bill, , ; how affected by veto of u.s. bank bill, ; of christian origin, ; the public policy of, ; laws of, in regard to charitable bequests, . peonism, existence of, in new mexico, . people, source of power, ; will of, to be ascertained by legislation, . perkins, thomas h., eulogized, . peter the great, policy of russia developed under, . philadelphia, convention of whigs at, . phillips v. bury, case of exeter college, . pickering, timothy, amendment to mr. calhoun's bill for internal improvements, . pilgrim fathers, first celebration of anniversary of landing of, ; our homage for, ; prophecy for the future of their work, ; motives which led them into exile, ; departure of, for holland, ; establish their government, ; their purposes and prospects in emigration, . pilgrim festival at new york, speech of mr. webster, . pilgrim society, formation of, . pinkney, thomas, opinion on the judiciary, . plymouth, landing of pilgrims at, speech in commemoration of, dec. , , ; speech of dec. , , . plymouth rock, landing on, described, . policy, of united states, peaceful, ; neutral, defined, . political parties, existence of, . political power, the people the source of, . political revolution, . polk, james k., will of, to take territory from mexico, ; remarks of mr. webster on, ; elected president in , ; avowal in respect to mexican war, . poor, the, and the rich, . pope, quotation from, . popular knowledge, progress of, and the causes, . posterity, our relation to, . potomac river, idea of president jackson to bridge the, . prescott, judge james, closing appeal in defence of, . prescott, william, at bunker hill, . president of the united states, power of removal from office, ; no power to decide constitutionality of laws, ; power to remove and to control an officer, ; former practice of, to address congress in person, ; power of appointing public officers, ; oath of, ; is responsible to the people, ; not the sole representative of the people, ; power of, over removal from office, , ; custom of, on last day of a session of congress, ; duty of, ; how communicate his wishes to congress, ; called the representative of the american people, . presidential protest, speech on, ; general doctrines of, . presidential veto of united states bank bill, speech on, . press, freedom of, essential to free government, ; violence of, in respect to slavery, . primogeniture, the right of, abolished in new england, . property, general division of, necessary to free government, . proscription, exercised by president jackson, ; political, danger of, to the government, . protection, incidental, policy of england ; should be limited, entire prohibition destructive, ; mr. webster's views on, ; an object of the revolution of , . public credit, in , . public lands. _see_ lands, public. public law, extract from puffendorf on, ; forcible interference a violation of, . public moneys, to whom belongs the custody of, ; place of deposit of, fixed by congress, ; power of congress over, ; extract from protest in regard to, ; law of to regulate deposits of, . public opinion, power of, , ; its influence over governments, . public worship, in united states, . puffendorf, extract from, bearing on principles of holy alliance, . putnam, judge, . q. quakers, their preachers, . quiney, josiah, jr., quoted, . quincy, hor. josiah, . r. radicals, of south carolina, . railroads, first in america, . raleigh, sir w., referred to, . randolph, jefferson, proposition of, to abolish slavery, . randolph, gov., on domestic slavery, . raymond, henry j., reporter of mr. webster's speeches, xxiv. reception of mr. webster at boston, sept. , , ; at buffalo, may , , ; at new york, . reformation, provisions for religious instruction in schools at time of, . religion, the only conservative principle, ; state of society without, ; supposed case of a graduate of girard college questioned in regard to, ; necessity of, to man, . removal from office, speech of webster on, ; power of president in regard to, , , ; decision of congress in regard to, ; mr. madison's opinion in regard to, ; mr. jefferson's use of the power of, ; concerning the press, ; extract from constitution of england on, ; dangers of unlimited power in, ; act of in regard to, , ; act of on, , , , , ; constitution of u.s. on, ; manner of, ; power of, incident to power of appointment, , , ; effect of a nomination on, ; concerning inferior officers, ; reasons must be stated for, . removal of deposits, object of, ; by executive power, . reply to hayne, by webster, . representation, american system of, ; in connection with government, ; inequality of, produced by annexing slave states, ; of slaves, complaints of the north against, ; popular governments established on the basis of, ; in house of commons, ; the foundation for law, . representative government, experiment of, . representative system in england, . republican government. _see_ government, american. repudiation denounced, . resolutions, for appointment of an agent to greece, ; by john adams, preparatory to the declaration, ; of congress on declaration of independence, ; of foot in congress, in regard to public lands, ; of congress concerning slavery, ; of calhoun concerning state sovereignty, ; of convention of , ; of senate concerning executive veto, ; on slavery in district of columbia, ; on mr. webster's speech on girard will, ; from state legislatures respecting slavery, . retrospective law, defined, ; extract from chief justice kent on, ; passage of, prohibited, . revenue, mr. webster's views on, . revolution, defined, . revolution, american, causes of, ; begun in new england, ; commemorated by bunker hill monument, , ; survivors of, at bunker hill, ; character of state papers of, ; originated on a question of principle, . revolution in greece, speech on, . revolution of , its objects, . revolution, political, . rhetoric, daniel webster as a master of english style, xi. rhode island, argument on government of, ; proceedings of revolutionary party of in, ; proceedings of the dorr party in, ; new constitution of, ; action of president tyler in respect to insurrection in, ; error of charter government of, ; good effects of the agitation in, . rich, capt. benjamin, . richmond, va., address to the ladies of, . right of approach, of ships of war at sea, . right of search, letter of mr. webster on the, ; british claim to, ; not distinct from right of visit, ; view of the united states, on, - ; lord aberdeen on the, . rights, legal, not affected by pecuniary profit, ; of electors, ; of individuals in regard to own property, ; individual, protected by law, . rio grande, texas claims to line of, ; worthlessness of the valley of the, . rives, w.c., opinions of the constitution, . robbins, rev. chandler, delivers address on anniversary of landing of pilgrims, . robinson, rev. john, , . rome, liberty of, . rusk, mr., senator from texas, . russia, extract from emperor on proper policy, ; under peter the great, ; excited the greeks to rebellion, ; under catharine the second, ; her trade with the united states, ; emperor of, bound by the law of nations, ; emperor of, demands kossuth of turkey, . ruxton, mr., description of new mexico, . s. sabbath, convention at columbus, o., in regard to observance of the, ; the observance of, a part of christianity, . st. asaph, bishop of, extract from discourse, . salem, sentiments of, at the closing of port of boston, ; general court at, . sargent, henry, picture representing landing of the pilgrims, by, . schools, founded by charity, must include religious instruction, . schools of new england, . science and literature, . scio, destruction of, . scott, gen. winfield, brilliant campaign of, ; referred to, . seamen, letter of daniel webster on impressment of, . search. _see_ right of search. secession, defined, ; right of states to, denied, , ; practical consequences of, ; no such thing as peaceable, ; of virginia, improbability of, ; men of the southern states addressed in respect to, . secretary of the treasury, his custody of the public moneys, . senate of the united states, a body of, equals, ; resolution concerning executive veto, ; its right of self-defence, . shakspeare, use of words, xiii. shaw, chief justice, . sheridan, remark of, xxv. sherman, roger, appointed to draft the declaration, . shipping interest, how affected by tariff of , . shipping of england, provisions in respect to, . ships of war, their right to approach vessels at sea, . silk, manufacture of, in england, . silsbee, hon. n., . "sink or swim, survive or perish," etc., . slave, and slavery, words not found in the constitution, . slave-holding states, advantages of, in respect to representation, ; rights of, in regard to new territories, . slave labor, its relation to free, ; compared with laboring men of the north, . slavery, prohibited by ordinance of , ; petitions to first congress to abolish, ; memorial from pennsylvania to abolish, ; gov. randolph, sentiments on, ; mr. webster's sentiments on, ; congress has no power over, in the states, ; plans for exclusion of, in northwestern territory, ; resolution of rufus king in regard to, ; views of mr. webster on, ; beyond the power of congress, ; recognized by the constitution, , ; inexpediency of annexing slave states, ; in district of columbia, remarks on, ; mr. webster's opinion in regard to power of congress over, ; speech on exclusion of from the territories, ; peculiarity of american, ; entailed upon the colonies by england, ; congress has no control over, , ; excluded from northwestern territory, ; exists by local laws, ; mr. webster's opinion of extension of slavery and slave representation, ; the compromise line in respect to extension of, ; resolutions of henry clay in respect to, ; prospect of california and new mexico being free states, ; its existence among the greeks and romans, ; sentiments of the north and south on, at framing of the constitution, ; ordinance of in respect to, ; mr. madison's opinion on, ; concurrence of sentiment between north and south on subject of, ; causes which led to an extension of, in the south, ; change of opinion of the south in respect to, ; character of all the territory of the united states fixed beyond power of the government, ; excluded from california and new mexico by law of nature, , ; effect of abolition societies at the north, ; proposition of mr. randolph in respect to, ; comparison of slaves of south and laboring people of the north, ; complaints of the north concerning representation in congress, ; concerning transportation of free colored people, ; mr. webster's course concerning, ; proceedings of antislavery conventions, . slaves, emancipation of, in district of columbia, ; provision of the constitution in respect to fugitive, . slave trade, remarks of mr. webster on, ; american policy concerning the, . smith, gen., vote on bank question, . smith, hon. truman, speech referred to, . smith, mr., of south carolina, on protection, . smithson, hugh, founded smithsonian institute, . smithsonian institute, establishment, . social system, elements of a, established by compact of the pilgrim fathers, . society, rights of, affected by principles of holy alliance, , . south, policy of, toward western improvement, ; complaints concerning their rights, ; the lead in the politics of the country, ; complaints of, against the north, . south america, combination of european sovereigns against, ; position of u.s. government towards, ; revolution in, ; spanish colonies of, . south american republics, our relations to, . south carolina, concerning internal improvements, , ; her action on tariff of , ; radical party in, ; attack on, disclaimed, ; eulogium on, (webster,) ; doctrine of, concerning state rights, ; in , and , ; relation to england in , ; resistance to laws of the union advised, ; practical operation of nullification in, ; nullification threatened in, . southern confederacy, impossibility of, . spain, french invasion of, , ; want of protection in, ; overthrow of popular government in, ; invites co-operation of holy alliance over colonies in america, . spanish settlements in america, . specie, unusual demand for, and the cause, ; drain of, owing to french indemnity loan, ; the exportation of, ; experiment of an exclusive specie currency, ; treasury order concerning payments for public lands, ; its uses, ; the effect of withholding circulation, . specie payment, suspension of, . speech on the "panama mission," . spencer, judge, . sprague, judge, . standish, miles, . state banks, issue of small notes by, not advisable, . state interposition, right of, . state laws, in opposition to law of congress, supreme, ; prohibition on, concerning bankruptcy, ; prohibition on, in regard to contracts, ; in conflict with the constitution, . state rights party, mr. calhoun's espousal of the, . states, concurrent power of, argued, , ; doctrine of south carolina concerning rights of, ; resolution of virginia, , concerning rights of, , ; sovereignty limits of, ; right of, whence derived, ; calhoun's resolutions on sovereignty of, ; taxing power of, limited, ; have no sovereignty over public lands, ; concerning insurrection in one of the, ; inequality of representation in annexing slave states, . stevenson, andrew, . stiles, mr., correspondence of, relating to hungary, . stillingfleet, bishop, argument on power of visitation over corporations, . story, mr. justice, death of, ; eulogy of mr. webster on, ; respect of english lawyers to, ; character of, . strogonoff, baron, concerning the massacre of the greeks, . sturges v. crowninshield, decision in bankruptcy case of, . suffrage, principles of american government in respect to, . sullivan, william, . supreme court of united states, its object, ; judges of, how appointed, ; concerning a nomination for judge of, . sweden, export of iron from, . t. tariff, bill to amend the ( ), ; speech of mr. webster on, ; "american" and "foreign policy" applied to system of, ; protective system of england, ; of and , respecting manufactures, ; of , carried by middle states, ; of , massachusetts voted against, ; earliest advocates of, ; of , ; of , ; of , , ; course pursued by mr. webster in regard to, , ; resolutions adopted in boston in regard to, ; of , a south carolina measure, history of, ; of , new england against, ; of , how passed, . taxation, effect of, on landholders in england, . taylor, gen. zachary, at buena vista, ; as a candidate for president, - ; personal character of, ; his interest in the revolutionary movement in hungary, . tea, increase of its consumption, . terrett v. taylor, protection of grant, . territory, cession of, by virginia, . texas, history of, ; independence of, recognized, ; annexation to united states objectionable, ; opposition of mr. webster to admit into the union, ; president tyler's project of annexing, ; how its annexation affects representation, ; population of, in , ; territory of, ; admitted into the union, , , ; suitable time for annexing, ; the vote for the admission of, ; extract from resolution for admission of, ; states to be formed from, , ; votes of new england for admission of, ; extracts from speech of mr. webster on, , ; separated from mexico, ; vote of new york for annexing, ; admitted as a slave state, ; fortunate adjustment by congress of controversy in ( ), . timber, english duties on, . toast, to city of new york, ; to memory of washington, ; at dinner of new england society in new york, . tonnage, how affected by tariff of , ; no state can lay duty on, . trade of united states, with foreign markets, . transportation of free colored people, . treason, defined, . treasury of united states, order concerning specie payment, ; effect of the order, . tudor, william, interest in bunker hill monument, , . turkey, its oppression of greece, . tyler, john, at bunker hill, ; confidence in mr. webster, ; action in respect to insurrection in rhode island, ; project of annexing texas, . u. union, mr. webster's sentiments on consolidation of, ; apostrophe to, ; speech of march , , on preservation of the, ; impossibility of drawing the line in case of dissolution of, ; exhortation to citizens of buffalo to preserve the, ; mr. jefferson's opinion of admitting louisiana into the, . union of the states, important, , , ; not a league, ; how regarded by washington, ; our duty to the, . united colonies, declared free and independent states, . united states, peaceful policy of, ; duty of, concerning international law, , , ; interest and duty of, in international law, ; position of government towards south america, ; exports of, compared, ; navigation of, ; trade with holland and russia, ; duties as citizens of the, ; how affected by pacification of europe, ; attention of, directed to internal improvements, ; alliance with france declared void, ; danger to, of dismemberment, ; table showing progress in, from to , ; progress of, in arts and sciences, ; coast survey of, ; military resources of, ; position of, in respect to the holy alliance, ; conduct of, toward revolution in hungary, . united states bank bill, speech of webster on, . upshur, mr., correspondence in regard to texas, ; his object for admission of texas, ; secretary of state, . v. van buren, martin, policy of his administration, ; appointed secretary of state, ; his instructions to mr. mclane, ; nominated by free soil party, ; views of, relative to slavery in the district of columbia, ; influence in annexing texas, ; candidate for presidency in , . vansittart, mr., resolution on the worth of a bank note, . verona, congress at, , ; concerning grecian independence, . veto message, consequences of the, ; denies authority of supreme court and congress, . veto power, abuse of, . vienna, society of, to encourage grecian literature, . virginia, resolutions concerning commerce, ; assembly of house of burgesses in, ; thomas jefferson, governor of, ; resolution concerning state rights, ; resolutions of in regard to state rights, ; ratification of the constitution by, ; cession of her northwestern territory, ; early feeling in regard to slavery, ; cession of her public lands, ; improbability of her secession, . visit and search, identical, . visitation, lord holt's judgment on, in case of exeter college, ; power of, over corporations, ; stillingfleet's argument on power of, . visitor, applied to founder of incorporated charity, . volney's "ruins of empires," quoted, . voltaire, followers of, admitted to girard college, . volunteers, difficulty in recruiting, . w. walker, mr., took lead in annexing texas, . war, only declared by congress, ; mr. webster's defence of his course in, ; of , effect on prices, . warehouse system, of england, and united states, . warren, gen. joseph, measures toward erecting a monument to, ; eulogized, . washington, gen. george, , , ; remark on battle of bunker hill, ; apostrophe to, , ; decease of, ; administration supported by new england, ; his inauguration at new york, ; centennial anniversary at washington, ; representative government established under, ; remark of fisher ames on, ; basis of his character, ; policy as to foreign relations, ; domestic policy of, ; exhortation against party spirit, ; his regard for the union, ; toast of webster to memory of, ; his practice of addressing congress in person, ; civil character of, ; foundation of capitol laid by, , ; monument to, . washington city, its favorable situation, ; public dinner at, . washington, treaty of, letter of mr. webster on the ratification of the, . webster, daniel, remarks on african slave trade, ; resolution to appoint an agent to greece, ; opinion of paper currency, ; explains his change of opinion on protection, ; president of bunker hill monument association, ; address on completion of bunker hill monument, ; author of supposed speech against the declaration, ; eloquence defined by, ; letter concerning the authorship of speech ascribed to john adams, ; his portrayal of murder, ; reply to hayne, ; views on disposition of public lands, , ; course pursued in congress on internal improvements, ; course concerning tariff, ; sentiments on consolidation of the union, ; apostrophe to the union, ; reply to calhoun in regard to state sovereignty, ; speech at public dinner in new york, ; defence of the constitution, ; circumstances of his birth, ; respect of, for judicature of new york, ; toast to city of new york, ; presides at centennial anniversary of washington, ; toast to washington, ; sentiments on re-election of jackson, ; prediction in regard to irredeemable paper currency, ; remark of j.q. adams on, ; reception in new york, , ; opinions on slavery, ; views on hard money, ; devoted to service of united states, ; reply to mr. calhoun, ; denies mr. calhoun's charges, - ; defence of his course in war, ; opposes mr. dallas's bill for a bank, ; course in war of , ; early support to the navy, ; answers mr. calhoun's charges in regard to slavery, ; answer to calhoun's charges on tariff, ; political differences with mr. calhoun, ; a hard-money man, ; the log cabin of his father, ; visit to richmond, ; speech at his reception in boston, ; representative in congress, ; reception at boston, sept. , , ; secretary of state under president harrison, ; visit and speech in england, ; opposition to his remaining in the president's cabinet ( ), ; delicacy of his position in , ; study of the currency question, ; speech at dinner of new england society of new york, ; toast at dinner of new england society, at new york, ; correspondence arising under girard will case, ; letter to madam story on death of her son, ; opposed admission of texas into the union, ; against extension of slavery and slave representation, ; invited by citizens of marshfield to address them, ; letter of, to citizens of marshfield, ; addresses the citizens of marshfield, ; opinion of gen. taylor for president, ; opinion of gen. cass for president, ; course concerning texas, - ; secretary of state, ; in senate, ; ideas of peaceable secession, ; letter to eds. of national intelligencer, enclosing letter of late dr. channing, ; letter of w.e. channing to, in respect to slavery, ; reception at buffalo, may , , ; course concerning slavery, ; extract from speech on annexing texas, ; course during the crises of , ; account of laying the corner-stone of the capitol, ; letter to lord ashburton on impressment of seamen, ; letter to gen. cass in respect to his construction of the treaty of washington, , , ; letter to mr. ticknor in respect to the hülsemann letter, ; letter to j.g. hülsemann in respect to mr. mann's mission, ; as a master of english style, xi; influence over and respect for the landed democracy, xiv; management of the goodridge robbery case, xv; story told of him by mr. peter harvey, xv; early style of rhetoric, xviii; letter to his friend bingham, xix; acquaintance with jeremiah mason, xix; incident connected with the dartmouth college argument, xxi; effect of his plymouth oration of , xxii; note to mr. geo. ticknor on his bunker hill oration, , xxiii; esteem for henry j. raymond, xxiv; the image of the british drum-beat, xxix; power of compact statement, xxxi; protest against mr. benton's expunging resolution, xxxi; arguments against nullification and secession unanswerable, xxxiii; moderation of expression, xxxv; abstinence from personalities, xxxvi; libelled by his political enemies, xxxvi; use of the word "respectable," xl; and calhoun in debate, xliii; as a writer of state papers, xliv; as a stump orator, xlv; a friend of the laboring man, xlvi; compared with certain poets, xlviii; death-bed declaration of, li; fame of his speeches, li; compared with other orators, lvi; idealization of the constitution, lix; anecdote of his differing from lord camden, lxii. webster, fletcher, letter to gen. cass, . weir, robert n., his painting of the embarkation of the pilgrims, . wesley, john, anecdote of, . west india colonies, . wheelock, rev. e., founder of dartmouth college, . whig, origin of the term, . whigs, of new york, ; convention of, in boston, ; of mass. declare separation from the president, ; the revolution of , success of the, ; gen. taylor nominated by, . white, capt. joseph, account of the murder of, ; argument of webster on, . white, mr., . wickliffe, john, burnt for heresy, . wilkins, mr., bill of, concerning tariff, . williams, mr., . wilmot proviso, to be applied to texas and other acquisitions, , ; mr. polk's opinion of the, ; not to be used as a reproach to southern states, ; espoused by the free-soil men, ; proposition to apply to new mexico and california, . windham, mr., remark of, . winslow, edward, jr., first address on anniversary of landing of pilgrims, delivered by, . winthrop, r.c., voted for tariff of , . witherspoon, mr., motion in congress concerning commerce, . woman, how she performs her part in free government, . wool, proposition of english parliament to abolish tax on, . woollen manufactures, how affected by tariff of , ; of england and united states, . wright, silas, voted for tariff of , . y. york, duke of, anecdote in respect to his accession to the crown, . ypsilanti, alexander, leads insurrection in moldavia, . none none charles sumner; his complete works, volume (of ) henry wilson [illustration: eng^d. by a h richie] statesman edition vol. iv charles sumner his complete works with introduction by hon. george frisbie hoar [illustration] boston lee and shepard mcm copyright, , by lee and shepard. statesman edition. limited to one thousand copies. of which this is no. norwood press: norwood, mass., u.s.a. contents of volume iv. page andrew j. downing, the landscape gardener. speech in the senate, in favor of an allowance to the widow of the late andrew j. downing, august , the party of freedom: its necessity and practicability. speech at the state convention of the free-soil party of massachusetts, held at lowell, september , civil superintendents of armories. speech in the senate, on the proposition to change the superintendents of armories, february , necessity of union to uphold freedom. letter to a rhode island committee, march , against secrecy in proceedings of the senate. speech in the senate, on the proposition to limit the secret sessions of the senate, april , the german emigrant must be against slavery. letter to lewis tappan, esq., may , powers of the state over the militia: exemptions for conscientious scruples. speech in convention to revise and amend the constitution of massachusetts, june , powers of the state over the militia: colored companies. speech in convention to revise and amend the constitution of massachusetts, june , the pacific railroad and the declaration of independence. letter to the mayor of boston, for the celebration of july , the representative system, and its proper basis. speech on the proposition to amend the basis of the house of representatives of massachusetts, in the convention to revise and amend the constitution of that state, july , bills of rights: their history and policy. speech on the report from the committee on the bill of rights, in the convention to revise and amend the constitution of massachusetts, july , finger-point from plymouth rock. speech at the plymouth festival in commemoration of the embarkation of the pilgrims, august , ireland and irishmen. letter to a committee of irish-born citizens, august , the landmark of freedom: no repeal of the missouri compromise. speech in the senate, against the repeal of the missouri prohibition of slavery north of ° ´ in the nebraska and kansas bill, february , when will the north be aroused? letter to a personal friend, march , a liberty-loving emigration to guard kansas. letter to a massachusetts committee, may , final protest, for himself and the clergy of new england, against slavery in nebraska and kansas. speech in the senate, on the night of the final passage of the nebraska and kansas bill, may , union of all parties necessary against the slave power. letter to a massachusetts committee, may , boston petition for the repeal of the fugitive slave act. speech in the senate, on the boston petition for the repeal of the fugitive slave act, june , reply to assailants: oath to support the constitution; weakness of the south from slavery. second speech in the senate on the boston petition for the repeal of the fugitive slave act, june , peaceful opposition to the fugitive slave act. letter to the mayor of boston, for the celebration of july , no pension for service in support of the fugitive slave act. minority report to the senate of the united states, on the bill granting to the widow of james batchelder a provision for her future support, july , james otis an example to massachusetts. letter to the cape cod association of massachusetts, july , struggle for repeal of the fugitive slave act. debate in the senate, july , duties of massachusetts at the present crisis. formation of the republican party. speech before the republican state convention at worcester, september , the good farmer and the good citizen. letter to the norfolk agricultural society, september , the fugitive slave act to be disobeyed. letter to a committee at syracuse, new york, september , position and duties of the merchant, illustrated by the life of granville sharp. address before the mercantile library association of boston, on the evening of november , wages of seamen in case of wreck. speech in the senate, on introducing a bill to secure wages to seamen in case of wreck, february , against capital punishment. letter to a committee of the massachusetts legislature, february , the demands of freedom: repeal of the fugitive slave act. speech in the senate against mr. toucey's bill, and for the repeal of the fugitive slave act, february , andrew j. downing, the landscape gardener. speech in the senate, in favor of an allowance to the widow of the late andrew j. downing, august , . the civil and diplomatic appropriation bill being under consideration, mr. pearce, of maryland, under instructions from the committee on finance, moved the following amendment:-- "for the payment of the arrears of salary due to the late rural architect, a. j. downing, deceased, from the st of may, , to the date of his death, and a further allowance to his widow, equal to the salary for one year, $ , : _provided_, that the said sum shall be in full of all claim for the services of the said deceased, and for all models, specifications, and drawings, designed for the benefit of the united states, which are not in its possession." in the course of the debate which ensued, mr. sumner spoke as follows. mr. president--the laborer is worthy of his hire; and i believe at this moment there is no question of charity to the widow of the late mr. downing. the simple proposition is, to make compensation for services rendered to the united states by this eminent artist as superintendent of the public grounds in washington. and since the plans he has left behind and the impulse he has given to improvements here by his remarkable genius will continue to benefit us, though he has been removed, it is thought reasonable to continue his salary to the close of the unexpired year from which it commenced. these plans alone have been valued at five thousand dollars, and we are to have the advantage of them. in pursuance of these, his successor will be able to proceed in arranging the public grounds, and in embellishing the national capital, without further expenditure for others. thus, as i said at the outset, it is not a question of charity, but of compensation; and on this ground i doubt not the estate of the departed artist deserves the small pittance it is proposed to pay. for myself, i should be much happier to vote a larger appropriation, believing, that, over and above the services actually rendered in the discharge of his duties, these plans are amply worth it, and that we shall all feel better by such recognition of our debt. few men in the public service have vindicated a title to regard above mr. downing. at the age of thirty-seven he has passed away, "dead ere his prime,"--like lycidas, also, "floating upon his watery bier,"[ ]--leaving behind a reputation above that of any other citizen in the beautiful department of art to which he was devoted. his labors and his example cannot be forgotten. i know of no man among us, in any sphere of life, so young as he was at his death, who has been able to perform services of such true, simple, and lasting beneficence. by wide and active superintendence of rural improvements, by labors of the pen, and by the various exercise of his genius, he has contributed essentially to the sum of human happiness. and now, sir, by practical services here in washington, rendered at the call of his country, he has earned, it seems to me, this small appropriation, not as a charity to his desolate widow, but as a remuneration for labor done. i hope the amendment will be agreed to. [ ] mr. downing was accidentally drowned in the hudson river. the party of freedom: its necessity and practicability. speech at the state convention of the free-soil party of massachusetts, held at lowell, september , . the annual state convention of the free-soil party of massachusetts met at lowell september , . it was organized with the following officers: hon. stephen c. phillips, of salem, president,--rodney french, of new bedford, george b. atwood, of taunton, william jackson, of newton, george f. williams, of boston, charles beck, of cambridge, john b. alley, of lynn, benjamin f. thompson, of winchester, john nesmith, of lowell, john edgell, of gardner, francis bates, of springfield, calvin marden, of pittsfield, vice-presidents,--george m. brooks, of concord, edmund anthony, of new bedford, william s. robinson, of lowell, andrew j. aiken, of adams, benjamin f. white, of weymouth, secretaries. eloquent speeches were made by the president, hon. s. c. phillips, hon. henry wilson, hon. john w. graves, hon. e. l. keyes, hon. rodney french, dr. caleb swan, richard h. dana, jr., esq., hon. horace mann, hon. amasa walker, hon. anson burlingame, and seth webb, jr., esq. the resolutions adopted by the convention were reported by hon. c. f. adams. hon. horace mann was nominated as candidate for governor, and hon. amasa walker as candidate for lieutenant-governor. early in the proceedings mr. sumner was introduced to the audience by the president. this incident is copied from the report in the papers, as is also the speech which he made, with the interruptions. "the president remarked, that there was one gentleman present whom the convention would all delight to hear: he alluded to our distinguished senator in congress, hon. charles sumner. "the name of mr. sumner was received with 'three times three' rousing cheers, and the waving of hats, canes, handkerchiefs, &c.; which demonstrations of regard were renewed as he made his appearance on the platform." among those on the platform was captain drayton, called "the hero of the pearl," recently liberated from prison through the exertions of mr. sumner (_ante_, p. ), who took his seat "amid the hearty cheers of the whole assembly." mr. president, and fellow-citizens of massachusetts:-- i should be dull indeed,--dull as a weed,--were i insensible to this generous, heart-speaking welcome. after an absence of many months, i have now come home to breathe anew this invigorating northern air [_applause_], to tread again the free soil of our native massachusetts [_cheers_], and to enjoy the sympathy of friends and fellow-citizens. [_renewed applause._] but, while glad in your greetings, thus bounteously lavished, i cannot accept them for myself. i do not deserve them. they belong to the cause [_applause_] which we all have at heart, and which binds us together. [_cheers._] fellow-citizens, i have not come here to make a speech. the occasion requires no such effort. weary with other labors, and desiring rest, i have little now to say,--and that little will be too much, if about myself. if, at washington, during a long session of congress,--my first experience of public life,--i have been able to do anything which meets your acceptance, i am happy. [_cheers._] i have done nothing but my duty. ["_hear! hear!_"] passing from this, and taking advantage of the kind attention with which you honor me, let me add one word in vindication of our position as a _national party_. we are on the eve of two important elections,--one of national officers, and the other of state officers. a president and vice-president of the united states and members of congress are to be chosen; also, governor and lieutenant-governor of the commonwealth, and members of the legislature. and at these elections we are to cast our votes so as most to advance the cause of freedom under the national constitution. [_cheers._] this is our peculiar object,--though associated with it are other aims, kindred in their humane and liberal character. against freedom both the old parties are banded. opposed to each other in the contest for power, they concur in opposing every effort for the establishment of freedom under the national constitution. [_applause._] divided as parties, _they are one_ as supporters of slavery. on this question we can have no sympathy with either, but must necessarily be against both. ["_hear! hear!_"] they sustain slavery in the district of columbia: we are against it. they sustain the coastwise slave-trade under the national flag: we abhor it. [_cheers._] they sustain the policy of silence on slavery in the territories: we urge the voice of positive prohibition. they sustain that paragon of legislative monsters,--unconstitutional, unchristian, and infamous,--the fugitive slave bill [_sensation_]: we insist on its repeal. [_great applause._] they concede to the slave power new life and protection: we cannot be content except with its total destruction. [_enthusiasm._] such, fellow-citizens, is the difference between us. and now, if here in massachusetts there be any who, on grounds of policy or conscience, feel impelled to support slavery, let them go and sink in the embrace of the old parties. [_applause._] there they belong. on the other hand, all sincerely opposed to slavery, who desire to act against slavery, who seek to bear their testimony for freedom, who long to carry into public affairs those principles of morality and christian duty which are the rule of private life,--let them come out from both the old parties, and join us. [_cheers._] in our organization, with the declared friends of freedom, they will find a place in harmony with their aspirations. [_enthusiasm._] there is one apology, common to the supporters of both the old parties, and often in their mouths, when pressed for inconsistent persistence in adhering to these parties. it is dogmatically asserted that there can be but two parties,--that a new party is impossible, particularly in our country,--and that, therefore, all persons, however opposed to slavery, must be content in one of the old parties. this assumption, which is without foundation in reason, is so often put forth, that it has acquired a certain currency; and many, who reason hastily, or implicitly follow others, have adopted it as the all-sufficient excuse for their conduct. confessing their own opposition to slavery, they yield to the domination of party, and become dumb. all this is wrong morally, and therefore must be wrong practically. party, in its true estate, is the natural expression and agency of different forms of opinion on important public questions, and itself assumes different forms precisely according to the prevalence of different opinions. thus, in the early italian republics there were for a while the factions of guelphs and ghibellines, rival supporters of pope and emperor,--also of whites and blacks, taking their names from the color of their respective badges,--and in england, the two factions of the white and red roses, in which was involved the succession to the crown. in all these cases the party came into being, died out, or changed with the objects originating it. if there be in a community only two chief antagonist opinions, then there will be but two parties embodying these opinions. but as other opinions practically prevail and seek vent, so must parties change or multiply. this is so strongly the conclusion of reason and philosophy, that it could not be doubted, even if there were no examples of such change and multiplicity. but we need only turn to the recent history of france and england, the two countries where opinion has the freest scope, to find such examples. thus, for instance, in france,--and i dwell on this point because i have myself observed, in conversation, that it is of practical importance,--under louis philippe, anterior to the late republic, there was the party of legitimists, supporters of the old branch of bourbons, and the party of orleanists, supporters of the existing throne: these two corresponding at the time, in relative rank and power, to our whigs and democrats. besides these was a third party, _the small band of republicans, represented in the legislature by a few persons only_, but strong in principles and purposes, which in february, , prevailed over both the others. [_applause._] on the establishment of the republic, the multiplication of parties continued, until, with the freedom of opinion and the freedom of the press, all were equally overthrown by louis napoleon, and their place supplied by the enforced unity of despotism. in england, the most important measure of recent reform, the abolition of the laws imposing a protective duty on corn, was carried only by a third party. neither of the two old parties could be brought to adopt this measure and press it to consummation. a powerful public opinion, thwarted in the regular parties, had recourse to a new one, neither whig nor tory, but formed from both the old ones, where sir robert peel, the great conservative leader, took his place, side by side, in honorable coalition, with mr. cobden, the great liberal leader. ["_hear! hear!_"] in this way the corn laws were finally overthrown. the multiplicity of parties engendered by this contest still continues in england. at the general election for the new parliament which has just taken place, the strict lines of ancient parties seemed to be effaced, and many were returned, not as whigs and tories, but as protectionists and anti-protectionists. thus by example in our own day we confirm the principle of political philosophy, that parties naturally adapt themselves in character and number to prevailing public opinion. at the present time, in our country, there exists a deep, controlling, conscientious feeling against slavery. [_cheers._] you and i, sir, and all of us, confess it. while recognizing the constitution, we desire to do everything in our power to relieve ourselves of responsibility for this terrible wrong. ["_yes! yes!_"] we would vindicate the constitution, and the national government it has established, from all participation in this outrage. [_cheers._] both the old political parties, forgetful of the fathers, and of the spirit of the constitution, not only refuse to be agents or representatives in any degree of our convictions, but expressly discourage and denounce them. thus baffled in effort for utterance, these convictions naturally seek expression in a new agency, _the party of freedom_. [_cheers._] such is the party, representing the great doctrines of human rights, as enunciated in our declaration of independence, and inspired by a truly democratic sentiment, now assembled here under the name of the free democracy. [_cheers._] the rising public opinion against slavery cannot flow in the old political channels. it is impeded, choked, and dammed back. but if not _through_ the old parties, then _over_ the old parties [_tremendous cheering_], this irresistible current _shall_ find its way. [_enthusiasm._] it cannot be permanently stopped. if the old parties will not become its organs, they must become its victims. [_cheers._] the party of freedom will certainly prevail. [_sensation._] it may be by entering into and possessing one of the old parties, filling it with our own strong life; or it may be by drawing to itself the good and true from both who are unwilling to continue in a political combination when it ceases to represent their convictions; but, in one way or the other, its ultimate triumph is sure. [_great applause._] of this let no man doubt. [_repeated cheers._] at this moment we are in a minority. at the last popular election in massachusetts, there were twenty-eight thousand free-soilers, forty-three thousand democrats, and sixty-four thousand whigs. but this is no reason for discouragement. according to recent estimates, the population of the whole world amounts to about eight hundred millions. of these only two hundred and sixty millions are christians, while the remaining five hundred and forty millions are mainly mahometans, brahmins, and idolaters. because the christians are in this minority, that is no reason for renouncing christianity, and for surrendering to the false religions [_cheers_]; nor do we doubt that christianity will yet prevail over the whole earth, as the waters cover the sea. ["_hear! hear!_"] the friends of freedom in massachusetts are likewise in a minority; but they will not therefore renounce freedom [_cheers_], nor surrender to the political mahometans, brahmins, and idolaters of baltimore ["_never! never!_"]; nor can they doubt that their cause, like christianity, will yet prevail. [_enthusiastic cheers._] our party commends itself. but it is also commended by our candidates. [_cheers._] in all that makes the eminent civilian or the accomplished statesman fit for the responsibilities of government, they will proudly compare with any of their competitors [_applause_], while they are dear to our hearts as able, well-tried, loyal supporters of those vital principles which we seek to establish under the constitution of the united states. [_applause._] in the senate, mr. hale [_cheers_] is admitted to be foremost in aptitude and readiness for debate, whether in the general legislation of the country, or in constant and valiant championship of our cause. [_applause._] his genial and sun-like nature irradiates the antagonism of political controversy [_cheers_], while his active and practical mind, richly stored with various experience, never fails to render good service. [_great cheering._] of mr. julian, our candidate for the vice-presidency, ["_hear! hear!_"] let me say simply, that, in ability and devotion to our principles, he is a worthy compeer of mr. hale. to vote for such men will itself be a pleasure. but it will be doubly so, when we reflect that in this way we do something to accomplish a noble work, with which the happiness, welfare, and fame of our country are indissolubly connected. [_repeated and enthusiastic cheers._] with such a cause and such candidates, no man can be disheartened. the tempest may blow,--but ours is a life-boat, not to be harmed by wind or wave. the genius of liberty sits at the helm. i hear her voice of cheer, saying, "whoso sails with me comes to shore!" mr. sumner resumed his seat amid heartiest and long-protracted applause. civil superintendents of armories. speech in the senate, on the proposition to change the superintendents of armories, february , . the army appropriation bill being under discussion, mr. davis, of massachusetts, moved the following amendment:-- "that from and after the first day of july next, the act of congress approved august , , be so modified, that the president may, if in his opinion the public interest demands it, place over any of the armories a superintendent who does not belong to the army." in the course of the debate, mr. sumner spoke as follows. mr. president,--i do not desire to speak upon the general subject of the manufacture of arms under the authority of the united states, which has been opened in debate by honorable senators. what i have to say will be on the precise question before the senate, and nothing else. that question, as i understand it, is on the amendment proposed by my colleague [mr. davis], according to which the act of is to be so far modified, that the president, in his discretion, may place over the armories persons not of the army,--leaving it, therefore, to his judgment whether the superintendent shall be a military man or a civilian. this is all. the senate is exhorted not to act precipitately. but the character of this proposition excludes all idea of precipitation. we do not determine absolutely that the system shall be changed, but simply that it may be changed in the discretion of the president. this discretion, which will be exercised only after ample inquiry, stands in the way of all precipitation; and this is my answer to the senator from illinois [mr. shields]. again, it is urged, that under a military head the armories are better administered than they would be under a civil head, and that the arms are better and cheaper; and here my friend from south carolina, who sits before me [mr. butler], dwelt with his accustomed glow upon the success with which this manufacture is conducted at the national armories, and the extent to which it is recognized in europe. but, sir, in the precise question before you the merits of the armories are not involved. we do not undertake to judge the military superintendents or their works. the determination of this question is referred to the president; and this is my answer to the senator from south carolina. the objections to this amendment of my colleague, then, seem to disappear. but there are two distinct arguments in its favor, which, at the present moment, do not seem to me susceptible of any answer. in the first place, there are complaints against the existing system, which ought to be heard. a memorial from five hundred legal voters of springfield, now on your table, bears testimony to them. letters to myself and others, from persons whose opinions i am bound to regard, set them forth sometimes in very strong language. the administration of the arsenal at springfield is commended by many; but there are others who judge it differently. as now conducted, it is sometimes represented to be the seat of oppressive conduct, and the occasion of heart-burning and strife, often running into local politics. in the eyes of some this arsenal is little better than a sore on that beautiful town. now on these complaints and allegations i express no opinion. i do not affirm their truth or untruth. what i know of the superintendent makes it difficult for me to believe that anything unjust, oppressive, or hard can proceed from him. but the whole case justifies inquiry at least, and such will be secured by the proposition before the senate. this is the smallest thing we can do. this proposition is enforced by another consideration which seems to me entitled to weight. i have nothing to say now on the general question of reducing the army or modifying the existing military system. but i do affirm, confidently, that the genius of our institutions favors civil life rather than military life,--and that, in harmony with this, it is our duty, whenever the public interests will permit, to limit and restrict the sphere of military influence. this is not a military monarchy, where the soldier is supreme, but a republic, where the soldier yields to the civilian. but the law, as it now stands, gives to the soldier an absolute preference in a service which is not military, and which, from its nature, belongs to civil life. the manufacture of arms is a mechanical pursuit, and, for myself, i can see no reason why it should not be placed in charge of one bred to the business. among the intelligent mechanics of massachusetts there are many fully fit to be at the head of the arsenal at springfield; but by the existing law all these are austerely excluded from any such trust. the idea which has fallen from so many senators, that the superintendent of an armory ought to be a military man, that a military man only is competent, or even that a military man is more competent than a civilian, seems to me as illogical as the jocular fallacy of dr. johnson, that he "who drives fat oxen should himself be fat." necessity of union to uphold freedom. letter to a rhode island committee, march , . washington, march , . dear sir,--i cannot promise myself the pleasure of being in rhode island at the time you propose, and am therefore constrained to decline the invitation with which you have honored me. but let me assure you, that, in all our political contests, i see no question comparable in practical importance, as surely there is none equal in moral grandeur, to that which is presented by the free democracy, and which now enlists your sympathies. both the old parties unite in upholding slavery. it becomes all good citizens to unite in upholding freedom; nor should any one believe that his single vote may not exert an influence on the struggle. believe me, dear sir, faithfully yours, charles sumner. george l. clarke, chairman of the state central committee of the free democracy of rhode island. against secrecy in proceedings of the senate. speech in the senate, on the proposition to limit the secret sessions of the senate, april , . the following resolution was submitted by mr. chase, of ohio. "_resolved_, that all sessions and all proceedings of the senate shall be public and open, except when matters communicated in confidence by the president shall be received and considered, and in such other cases as the senate by resolution from time to time shall specially order; and so much of the thirty-eighth, thirty-ninth, and fortieth rules as may be inconsistent with this rule is hereby rescinded." in the debate which ensued, mr. sumner spoke as follows. mr. president,--party allusions and party considerations have been brought to bear upon this question. i wish to regard it for a moment in the light of the constitution, and in the spirit of our institutions. in the constitution there is no injunction of secrecy on any of the proceedings of the senate; nor is there any requirement of publicity. to the senate is left the determination of its rules of proceeding. thus abstaining from all regulation of this matter, the framers of the constitution obviously regarded it as in all respects within the discretion of the senate, to be exercised from time to time as it thinks best. the senate possesses three important functions: _first_, the legislative or parliamentary power, where it acts concurrently with the house of representatives, as well as the president; _secondly_, the diplomatic power, or that of "advice and consent" to treaties with foreign countries in concurrence with the president; and, _thirdly_, the executive power, or that of "advice and consent" to nominations by the president for offices under the constitution. i say nothing of another, rarely called into activity, the sole power to try impeachments. at the first organization of the government, the proceedings of the senate, whether in legislation or on treaties or nominations, were with closed doors. in this respect legislative business and executive business were alike. this continued down to the second session of the third congress, in , when, in pursuance of a formal resolution, the galleries were opened so long as the senate were engaged in their legislative capacity, unless where, in the opinion of the senate, secrecy was required; and this rule has continued ever since. here was an exercise of discretion, in obvious harmony with public sentiment and the spirit of our institutions. the change now proposed goes still further. it opens the doors on all occasions, whether legislative or executive, except when specially ordered otherwise. the senator from south carolina [mr. butler] says that the senate is a confidential body, and should be ready to receive confidential communications from the president. but this will still be the case, if we adopt the resolution now submitted to us. the limitation proposed seems adequate to all exigencies, while the general rule will be publicity. executive sessions with closed doors, shrouded from the public gaze and public criticism, constitute an exceptional part of our system, too much in harmony with the proceedings of other governments less liberal in character. the genius of our institutions requires publicity. the ancient roman, who bade his architect so to construct his house that his guests and all that he did could be seen by the world, is a fit model for the american people. the german emigrant must be against slavery. letter to lewis tappan, esq., may , . boston, may , . dear sir,--i know mr. schmidt by the good name he has won, and i have also had the pleasure of making his personal acquaintance. i understand him to be a scholar, believing in the demand which liberty in our country now makes upon every citizen. thus endowed in mind and character, he will address his compatriots from germany, in their own language, with persuasive power. i trust he will find the opportunity he covets; and i know of none which promises better than his present plan of a weekly german antislavery newspaper at washington. the number of persons to be addressed by such a journal is very large; and they should be easy converts. the german emigrant who is not against slavery here leads us to doubt the sincerity of his opposition to the tyranny he has left behind in his native land. believe me, dear sir, faithfully yours, charles sumner. lewis tappan, esq. powers of the state over the militia: exemptions for conscientious scruples. speech in convention to revise and amend the constitution of massachusetts,[ ] june , . propositions of amendment on the general subject of the militia being under consideration in committee of the whole, mr. sumner spoke as follows. i should like to call the attention of the committee to the precise question on which we are to vote. this does not, as it seems to me, properly open the discussion to which we have been listening. i do not understand that it involves the topics introduced by my friend opposite [mr. wilson],--the present condition of europe, the prospects of the liberal cause in that quarter of the globe, or the extent to which that cause may be affected by a contemporaneous movement for peace. nor do i understand that the important considerations introduced by the gentleman on my right [mr. whitney, of boylston], regarding the extent to which government may be intrusted with the power of the sword, can materially influence our decision. i put these things aside at this time. [ ] the members of this convention were not required to have their domiciles in the places which they represented. mr. sumner sat as member for marshfield, by which place he was chosen while absent from the state. the question is on the final passage of the fifteen resolutions reported by the committee on the militia. and here let me adopt a suggestion dropped by my friend opposite [mr. wilson]. he regretted, if i understood him, that this whole subject was not compressed into one or two resolutions. am i right? mr. wilson. the gentleman is correct. mr. sumner. i agree with him. i regret that it was not compressed into one or two resolutions. i object to these resolutions for several reasons. in the first place, there are too many; in the second place, at least two of them seem to be an assumption of power belonging to congress, and therefore at least of doubtful constitutionality; and, in the third place, because twelve of them undertake to control matters which it were better to leave with the legislature. on the formation of the constitution of massachusetts, in , it was natural that our fathers should introduce details with regard to the militia and its organization. the constitution of the united states had not then been made. but since the establishment of this constitution the whole condition of the militia is changed. among the powers expressly given to congress is the power "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the united states, _reserving_ to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress." and congress has proceeded to exercise this power by the organization of a national militia. whatever might have been the original inducement to multiform provisions on this subject in the constitution of massachusetts, none such exists at this day, and it is impolitic at least to introduce them. i fear that they are more than impolitic. i will not argue here the question of constitutional law; but i appeal to the better judgment of my professional brethren--and i am happy to see some of them lingering at this late hour--that any attempt on the part of the state to interfere, in any way, by addition or subtraction, with the organization of the national militia, is an experiment which we should not introduce into the permanent text of our organic law. if the decisions of the supreme court of the united states on the powers of congress are to prevail, then, it seems to me, any such assumption, in a case where the original power of congress is clear, will be unconstitutional and void. in the famous case of _prigg_ v. _pennsylvania_, after an elaborate discussion at the bar, all state legislation on the subject of fugitive slaves was declared unconstitutional and void, while congress is recognized as the sole depository of power on this subject. according to my recollection, it was expressly held that legislation by congress excluded all state legislation on the same subject, whether to control, qualify, or _superadd_ to the remedy enacted by congress. i commend gentlemen, now so swift with these provisions, to the study of this precedent. it is comparatively recent; and the principle of interpretation which it establishes is applicable to state laws on the militia, even though entirely inapplicable to state laws on fugitive slaves,--for the simple reason, that in the former case the original power of congress is clear, while in the latter it is denied. but the states are not without power over the militia. in the very grant to congress is a reservation to them as follows: "reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress." and here is precisely what the states can do. they may appoint the officers and train the militia. now, sir, the first two resolutions before us transcend the powers of the state. they touch the enrolment and organization of the militia, and on this account are an assumption of power forbidden by the principle to which i have referred. the other thirteen resolutions, with the exception of the seventh, are in the nature of a military code, concerning the choice of officers, all of which should be left to the action of the legislature. in conformity with these views, mr. chairman, and in the hope of presenting a proposition on which the convention may unite, i propose to strike out all after the preamble and insert two resolutions, as follows. art. . the governor shall be the commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the state, and the militia thereof, excepting when these forces shall be actually in the service of the united states,--and shall have power to call out the same to aid in the execution of the laws, to suppress insurrection, and to repel invasion. art. . the appointment of officers and the training of the militia shall be regulated in such manner as may hereafter be deemed expedient by the legislature; and all persons, who from scruples of conscience shall be averse to bearing arms, shall be excused on such conditions as shall hereafter be prescribed by law. the first of these resolutions is identical with the seventh resolution of the committee. the second provides for the exercise by the legislature of powers expressly reserved to the states over the appointment of officers and the training of the militia; and taking advantage of the act of congress which allows the states to determine who shall be exempted from military duty, it plants in the text of the constitution a clause by which this immunity is secured to all persons who from scruples of conscience are averse to bearing arms. i believe we cannot go far beyond these without doing too much, while these seem to me enough. powers of the state over the militia: colored companies. speech in convention to revise and amend the constitution of massachusetts, june , . on d june the following resolution was brought forward by mr. wilson:-- "_resolved_, that no distinction shall ever be made, in the organization of the volunteer militia of this commonwealth, on account of color or race." on this proposition mr. sumner spoke as follows. i have a suggestion for my friend opposite [mr. wilson], in regard to the form of his proposition, which, if he accepts it, will, as it seems to me, absolutely remove his proposition from the criticism of my most eloquent friend before me [mr. choate], and from the criticism of other gentlemen who have addressed the convention. i suggest to strike out the word "militia," and substitute the words "military companies," so that his proposition will read, "that in the organization of the volunteer military companies of the commonwealth there shall be no distinction of color or race." mr. wilson. i accept the suggestion, and will amend my proposition accordingly. mr. sumner. now the proposition, as amended, i assert, is absolutely consistent with the constitution of the united states, and, i believe, in conformity with the public sentiment of massachusetts. a brief inquiry will show that it is consistent with the constitution of the united states, and in no respect interferes with the organization of the national militia. that constitution provides for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and gives congress full power over the subject,--in which particular, be it observed, it is clearly distinguishable from that of fugitive slaves, over whom no such power is given. to be more explicit, i will read the clause. it is found in the long list of enumerated powers of congress, and is as follows: "the congress shall have power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the united states, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress." and then, at the close of the section, it is further declared, that congress shall have power "to make _all laws which shall be necessary and proper_ for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." in pursuance of this power, congress has proceeded, by various laws, "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the united states." the earliest of these laws, still in force, is entitled "an act more effectually to provide for the national defence, by _establishing an uniform_ militia throughout the united states."[ ] this was followed by several acts in addition. congress, then, has undertaken to exercise the power of "organizing" the militia under the constitution. here the question arises, to what extent, if any, this power, when already exercised by congress, is exclusive in character. among the powers delegated to congress there may be some not for the time being exercised. for instance, there is the power "to fix the standard of weights and measures." practically, this has never been exercised by congress; but it is left to each state within its own jurisdiction. on the other hand, there is a power, belonging to the same group, "to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the united states," which, when exercised by congress, has been held so far exclusive as to avoid at once all the bankrupt and insolvent laws of the several states. [ ] act of may , , ch. . i might go over all the powers of congress, and find constant illustration of the subject. for instance, there is the power "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," on which chief justice marshall once remarked, "that the power of naturalization is _exclusively_ in congress does not seem to be, and certainly ought not to be, controverted."[ ] there is the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states," which was early declared by the supreme court to be exclusive, so as to prevent the exercise of any part of it by the states.[ ] there is the power over patents and copyrights, which is also regarded as exclusive. so also is the power "to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations." so also is that other power, "to establish post-offices and post-roads." all these powers, as in the case of the power over the national militia, have been exercised by congress, and even if not absolutely exclusive in original character, have become so by exercise. [ ] chirac _v._ chirac, wheaton, . [ ] gibbons _v._ ogden, wheaton, . now, sir, upon what ground do gentlemen make any discrimination in the case of the power over the national militia? i know of none which seems at all tenable. it is natural that the states should desire to exercise this power, since it was so important to them before the union; but i do not see how any discrimination can be maintained at the present time. whatever may have been the original importance of the militia to each state, yet, when the national constitution was formed, and congress exercised the power delegated to it over this subject, the militia of the several states was absorbed into one uniform body, organized, armed, and disciplined as the national militia. to the states respectively, according to the express language of the constitution, was left "the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress." to this may be added the implied power of "governing" them when in the service of the state. this is all. the distinct specification of certain powers, as reserved to the states, excludes the states from the exercise of all other powers not specified or clearly implied. in other words, they are excluded from all power over the "organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia," at least after congress has undertaken to enact laws for this purpose. the history of the adoption of the several parts of this clause in the national convention reflects light upon its true meaning. the first part, in regard to organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, was passed by a vote of nine states against two; the next, reserving the appointment of officers to the states, after an ineffectual attempt to amend it by confining the appointment to officers under the rank of general officers, was passed without a division; and the last, reserving to the states the authority to train the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress, was passed by a vote of seven states against four.[ ] it seems, then, that there was strong opposition in the convention, even to the secondary reservation of "the authority of training the militia." but this power is not reserved unqualifiedly. the states are to train the militia "according to the _discipline prescribed_ by congress": not according to any discipline determined by the states, or by the states concurrently with the national government, but absolutely _according to the discipline prescribed by congress_,--nor more, nor less: thus distinctly recognizing the essentially exclusive character of the legislation of congress on this subject. [ ] madison's debates, august , . this interpretation derives confirmation from the manner in which the militia of england was constituted or organized at the time of the adoption of the national constitution. to the crown was given "the _sole right_ to govern and command them," though they were "officered" by the lord lieutenant, the deputy lieutenants, and other principal landholders of the county.[ ] the commentaries of sir william blackstone, from which this description is drawn, were familiar to the members of the convention; and it is reasonable to suppose, that, in the distribution of powers between the national government and the states, on this subject, the peculiar arrangement prevailing in the mother country was not disregarded. [ ] blackstone, commentaries, i. , . if it should be said, that the adoption of this conclusion would affect the character of many laws enacted by states, and thus far recognized as ancillary to the national militia, it may be replied, that the possibility of these consequences cannot justly influence our conclusions on a question which must be determined by acknowledged principles of constitutional law. in obedience to these same principles, the supreme court, in the case of _prigg_ v. _pennsylvania_, after asserting a power over fugitive slaves which is controverted, has proceeded to annul a large number of statutes in different states. mr. justice wayne in this case said, "that the legislation by congress upon the provision, as the supreme law of the land, _excludes all state legislation upon the same subject_,--and that no state can pass any law or regulation, or interpose such as may have been a law or regulation when the constitution of the united states was ratified, _to superadd to_, control, qualify, or impede a remedy enacted by congress for the delivery of fugitive slaves to the parties to whom their service or labor is due."[ ] without the sanction of any express words in the constitution, and chiefly, if not solely, impressed by the importance of consulting "unity of purpose or uniformity of operation"[ ] in the legislation with regard to fugitive slaves, the court assumed a power over this subject, and then, as a natural incident to this assumption, excluded the states from all sovereignty in the premises. [ ] prigg _v._ pennsylvania, peters, . [ ] ibid., . if this rule be applicable to the pretended power over fugitive slaves, it is still more applicable to the power over the militia which nobody questions. besides, i know of no power which so absolutely requires what has been regarded as an important criterion, "unity of purpose or uniformity of operation." no uniform military organization can spring from opposite or inharmonious systems, and all systems proceeding from different sources are liable to be opposite or inharmonious. now, sir, let us apply this reasoning to the matter in hand. in massachusetts there exists, and has for a long time existed, an anomalous system, familiarly and loosely described as the volunteer militia, not composed absolutely of those enrolled under the laws of the united states, but a smaller, more select, and peculiar body. it cannot be doubted that the state, by virtue of its _police powers_ within its own borders, has power to constitute or organize a body of _volunteers_ to aid in enforcing its laws. but it does not follow that it has power to constitute or organize a body of volunteers who shall be regarded as part of the national militia. and, sir, i make bold to say that the volunteer militia--i prefer to call it the volunteer military companies--cannot be regarded as part of the national militia. it is no part of that _uniform militia_ which it was the object of the early act of congress to organize. it may appear to be part of this system, it may affect to be, but i pronounce it a mistake to suppose that it is so in any just constitutional sense. as a local system, disconnected from the national militia, and not in any way constrained by its organization, it is within our jurisdiction. we are free to declare the principles which shall govern it. we may declare, that, whatever may be the existing law of the united states with regard to its enrolled militia,--and with this i propose no interference, because it would be futile,--i say, massachusetts may proudly declare that in her own volunteer military companies, marshalled under her own local laws, there shall be no distinction of race or color. the pacific railroad and the declaration of independence. letter to the mayor of boston, for the celebration of july , . boston, july , . dear sir,--it will not be in my power to unite with the city council of boston in the approaching celebration of our national anniversary; but i beg to assure you that i am not insensible to the honor of their invitation. the day itself comes full of quickening suggestions, which can need no prompting from me. and yet, with your permission, i would gladly endeavor to associate at this time one special aspiration with the general gladness. allow me to propose the following toast. _the railroad from the atlantic to the pacific._--traversing a whole continent, and binding together two oceans, this mighty thoroughfare, when completed, will mark an epoch of human progress second only to that of our declaration of independence. may the day soon come! believe me, dear sir, faithfully yours, charles sumner. hon. benjamin seaver, mayor, &c. the representative system, and its proper basis. speech on the proposition to amend the basis of the house of representatives of massachusetts, in the convention to revise and amend the constitution of that state, july , . mr. president,--if the question under consideration were less important in its bearings, or less embarrassed by conflicting opinions, i should hesitate to break the silence which i have been inclined to preserve in this convention. in taking the seat to which i was unexpectedly chosen while absent from the commonwealth, in another sphere of duty, i felt that it would be becoming in me, and that my associates here would recognize the propriety of my course, considering the little opportunity i had enjoyed of late to make myself acquainted with the sentiments of the people on proposed changes, especially in comparison with friends to whom this movement is mainly due,--on these accounts, as also on other accounts, i felt that it would be becoming in me to interfere as little as possible with these debates. to others i willingly left the part which i might have taken. and now, while i think, that, since our labors began, weeks, even months, have passed, and that the term is already reached, when, according to the just expectations and earnest desires of many, they should be closed, i feel that acts rather than words, that votes rather than speeches,--at least such as i might hope to make,--are needed here, to the end that the convention, seasonably and effectively completing its beneficent work, may itself be hailed as a great act in the history of the commonwealth. but the magnitude of this question justifies debate; and allow me to add, that the state, our common mother, may feel proud of the ability, the eloquence, and the good temper with which it has thus far been conducted. gentlemen have addressed the convention in a manner which would grace any assembly that it has been my fortune to know, at home or abroad. sir, the character of these proceedings gives new assurance for the future. the alarmist, who starts at every suggestion of change, and the croaker, who augurs constant evil from the irresistible tendency of events, must confess that there are men here to whose intelligence and patriotism, under god, the interests of our beloved commonwealth may well be intrusted. yes, sir, massachusetts is safe. whatever the result even of the present important question, whichsoever scheme of representation may be adopted, massachusetts will continue to prosper as in times past. in the course of human history, two states, small in territory, have won enviable renown by genius and devotion to freedom, so that their very names awaken echoes: i refer to athens and scotland. but athens,--even at salamis, repelling the persian host, or afterwards, in the golden days of pericles,--and scotland, throughout her long struggle with england, down to the very act of union at the beginning of the last century,--were each inferior, in population and wealth, to massachusetts at this moment. it belongs to us, according to our capacities, to see that this comparison does not end here. others may believe that our duty is best accomplished by standing still. i like to believe that it can be completely done only by constant, incessant advance in all things,--in knowledge, in science, in art, and lastly in government itself, destined to be the bright consummation, on earth, of all knowledge, all science, and all art. * * * * * in framing our constitution anew, we encounter a difficulty which at its original formation, in , perplexed our fathers,--which perplexed the convention of ,--which with its perplexities has haunted successive legislatures and the whole people down to this day,--and which now perplexes us. this difficulty occurs in determining the representative system, and proceeds mainly from the corporate claims of towns. from an early period in the state, towns, both great and small, with slight exceptions, have sent one or more representatives to the legislature. in primitive days, when towns were few and the whole population was scanty, this arrangement was convenient at least, if not equitable. but now, with the increased number of towns, and the unequal distribution of a large population, it has become inconvenient, if not inequitable. the existing system does not work well, and we are summoned to reform it. and here, sir, let me congratulate the convention, that, on this most important question, transcending every other, all of us, without distinction of party, are in favor of reform. all are reformers. the existing system finds no advocate on this floor. nobody here will do it reverence. if the call of the convention were not already amply vindicated, if there were doubt anywhere of its expediency, the remarkable concurrence of all sides in condemning the existing representative system shows that we have not come together without cause. the orders of the day have been filled with various plans to meet the exigency. most of these aimed to preserve the corporate representation of towns; some of them, at least one from the venerable gentleman from taunton [mr. morton], and another from the venerable gentleman from boston [mr. hale], favored an opposite system, hitherto untried among us, and proposed to divide the state into districts. the question has been between these hostile propositions; and that is the question which i propose to consider, in the light of history and abstract principle, as also with reference to present exigencies. i shall speak, _first_, of the origin and nature of the representative system, and its proper character under american institutions; and, _secondly_, i shall endeavor to indicate the principles which may conduct us to a practical conclusion in the present debate. entering upon this service at so late a stage of the discussion, i feel like a tardy gleaner in a well-traversed field; but i shall proceed. i. i begin with the origin and nature of the representative system. this is an invention of modern times. in antiquity there were republics and democracies, but there was no representative system. rulers were chosen by the people, as in many commonwealths; senators were designated by the king or by the censors, as in rome; ambassadors or legates were sent to a federal council, as to the assembly of the amphictyons; but in no ancient state was any body of men ever constituted by the people to represent them in the administration of their internal affairs. in athens, the people met in public assembly, and directly acted for themselves on all questions, foreign or domestic. this was possible there, as the state was small, and the assembly seldom exceeded five thousand citizens,--a large town-meeting, or mass-meeting, we might call it,--not inaptly termed "that fierce democratie" of athens. but where the territory was extensive, and the population scattered and numerous, there could be no assembly of the whole body of citizens. to meet this precise difficulty the representative system was devised. by a machinery so obvious that we are astonished it was not employed in the ancient commonwealths, the people, though scattered and numerous, are gathered, by their chosen representatives, into a small and deliberative assembly, where, without tumult or rashness, they consider and determine all questions which concern them. in every representative body, properly constituted, the people are practically present. nothing is invented and perfected at the same time; and this system is no exception to the rule. in england, where it reached its earliest vigor, it has been, and still is, anomalous in character. the existing divisions of the country, composed of boroughs, cities, and counties, were summoned by the king's writ to send representatives, with little regard to equality of any kind, whether of population, taxation, or territory. their existence as corporate units was the prevailing title. the irregular operation of the system, increasing with lapse of time, provoked a cry for parliamentary reform, which, after a struggle of more than fifty years, ending in a debate that occupied the house of commons more than fifty days, was finally carried; but, though many abuses and inequalities were removed, yet the anomalous representation by counties, cities, and boroughs still continued. and this, sir, is the english system. pass now to the american system. i say american system,--for to our country belongs the honor of first giving to the world the idea of a system which, discarding corporate representation, founded itself absolutely on equality. let us acknowledge with gratitude that from england have come five great and ever memorable institutions, by which liberty is secured: i mean the trial by jury,--the writ of _habeas corpus_,--the representative system,--the rules and orders of debate,--and, lastly, that benign principle which pronounces _that its air is too pure for a slave to breathe_: perhaps the five most important political establishments of modern times. this glory cannot be taken from the mother country. but america has added to the representative system another principle, without which it is incomplete, and which, in the course of events, is destined, i cannot doubt, to find acceptance wherever the representative system is employed: i mean the _principle of equality_. here in massachusetts, home of the ideas out of which sprang the revolution, this principle had its earliest expression. and it is not a little curious that this very expression was suggested by the two evils of which we now complain,--namely, a practical inequality of representation, and a too numerous house. in the earliest days of the colony, while the number of freemen was small and gathered in one neighborhood, there was no occasion for any representative body. all could then meet in public assembly, as at ancient athens; in fact, they did so meet, and in this way discharged the duties of legislation. but as the freemen became scattered and numerous, it was found grievous to compel the personal attendance of the whole body, and, as a substitute, the towns were empowered, in , to assemble in general court by deputies.[ ] here was the establishment of the representative system in massachusetts, which has continued, without interruption, down to our day. the size of the house and the relative representation of towns have varied at different times; but the great principle of representation, by which a substitute is provided for the whole body of the people, has constantly been preserved. still a feeling has long prevailed that the system had not yet received its final form, while, with more or less precision, has been discerned that principle of equality which is essential to its completeness. [ ] hutchinson, history of massachusetts, vol. i. pp. , . charters and general laws of the colony and province of massachusetts bay, appendix, p. . records of the governor and company of the massachusetts bay, vol. i. pp. - . among the acts of the first general court of the revolution was one passed in the summer of , after the battle of bunker hill, "declaratory of the right of the towns and districts to elect and depute a representative or representatives to serve for and represent them in the general court." by this act all provisions of previous acts denying to certain towns and districts the right of sending a representative were declared null and void, and every town containing thirty qualified voters was authorized to send one.[ ] the immediate consequence was the two evils to which i have already referred,--namely, inequality of representation, and a too numerous house: but the whole number of representatives which aroused the complaints of that day was three hundred and five. [ ] charters and general laws of massachusetts bay, appendix, pp. , . these grievances were the occasion of a convention of delegates from the towns of essex county, at ipswich, april , , where was adopted a memorial, afterwards presented and enforced at the bar of the house by john lowell. in this remarkable document occurs the first development, if not the first proclamation, of the principle of equality in representation. here, sir, is the fountain and origin of an idea full of strength, beauty, and truth. listen to the words of these revolutionary fathers. "if this representation is equal, it is perfect; as far as it deviates from this equality, so far it is imperfect, and approaches to that state of slavery; and the want of a just weight in representation is an evil nearly akin to being totally destitute of it. an inequality of representation has been justly esteemed the cause which has in a great degree sapped the foundation of the once admired, but now tottering, fabric of the british empire; and we fear, that, if a different mode of representation from the present is not adopted in this colony, our constitution will not continue to that late period of time which the glowing heart of every true american now anticipates.... "we cannot realize that your honors, our wise political fathers, have adverted to the present inequality of representation in this colony, to the growth of the evil, or to the fatal consequences which will probably ensue from the continuance of it. "each town and district in the colony is by some late regulations permitted to send one representative to the general court, if such town or district consists of thirty freeholders and other inhabitants qualified to elect; if of one hundred and twenty, to send two. no town is permitted to send more than two, except the town of boston, which may send four. there are some towns and districts in the colony in which there are between thirty and forty freeholders, and other inhabitants qualified to elect, only; there are others besides boston in which there are more than five hundred. the first of these may send one representative; the latter can send only two. if these towns as to property are to each other in the same respective proportion, is it not clear to a mathematical demonstration that the same number of inhabitants of equal property in the one town have but an _eighth_ part of the weight in representation with the other?--and with what colorable pretext? we would decently inquire."[ ] [ ] from the original ms. in the massachusetts archives, vol. . under the pressure of this powerful state paper the obnoxious law was repealed, and one "providing for a _more equal_ representation" substituted; but the evil was only partially remedied. then followed an unsuccessful effort to make a constitution in - , which failed partly through dissatisfaction with its disposal of this very question. the county of essex was again heard in another document, now known as the "essex result," and among the most able and instructive in our history, from which i take the following important words. "the rights of representation should be so equally and impartially distributed, that the representatives should have the same views and interests with the people at large. they should think, feel, and act like them, and, in fine, should be an exact miniature of their constituents. they should be, if we may use the expression, the whole body politic, with all its property, rights, and privileges reduced to a smaller scale, _every part being diminished in just proportion_. to pursue the metaphor, if, in adjusting the representation of freemen, _any ten are reduced into one, all the other tens should be alike reduced; or, if any hundred should be reduced to one, all the other hundreds should have just the same reduction_."[ ] [ ] result of the convention of delegates holden at ipswich, in the county of essex, who were deputed to take into consideration the constitution and form of government proposed by the convention of the state of massachusetts bay, (newburyport, ,) pp. , . see also memoir of theophilus parsons, by his son, appendix, pp. - , where this remarkable paper will be found. mark well these words. here is the rule of three, for the first time in history, applied to representation. this, sir, is not the english system. i call it, with pride, the american system. in another place the document proceeds as follows. "the rights of representation should also be held sacred and inviolable, and for this purpose representation should be fixed upon known and easy principles; and the constitution should make provision that recourse should constantly be had to those principles within a very small period of years, to rectify the errors that will creep in through lapse of time or alteration of situations."[ ] [ ] result, p. . then, distinctly, it proposes a system of districts, in words which i quote. "in forming the first body of legislators, let regard be had only to the representation of persons, not of property. this body we call the house of representatives. ascertain the number of representatives. it ought not to be so large as will induce an enormous expense to government, nor too unwieldy to deliberate with coolness and attention, nor so small as to be unacquainted with the situation and circumstances of the state. one hundred will be large enough, and perhaps it may be too large. we are persuaded that any number of men exceeding that cannot do business with such expedition and propriety as a smaller number could. however, let that at present be considered as the number. let us have the number of freemen in the several counties in the state, and let these representatives be apportioned among the respective counties in proportion to their number of freemen.... as we have the number of freemen in the county, and the number of county representatives, by dividing the greater by the less we have the number of freemen entitled to send one representative. then add as many adjoining towns together as contain that number of freemen, or as near as may be, and _let those towns form one district_, and proceed in this manner through the county."[ ] [ ] result, pp. - . * * * * * mr. hallett, for wilbraham (interrupting). will the gentleman state who was the author of that essex paper? mr. sumner. theophilus parsons is the reputed author of the document known as the "essex result." mr. hallett. yes, sir, it was theophilus parsons who was the author of that, and john lowell of the other; and good old tory doctrines they are. mr. sumner. if these be tory doctrines, i must think well of toryism. sir, notwithstanding these appeals, sustained with unsurpassed ability, the american system failed to be adopted in the constitution of . the anomalous english system was still continued; but, as if to cover the departure from principle, it was twice declared that the representation of the people should be "founded upon the principle of equality." this declaration still continues as our guide, while the irregular operation of the existing system, with its inequalities and large numbers, is a beacon of warning. following closely upon these efforts in massachusetts, this principle found an illustrious advocate in thomas jefferson. in his "notes on virginia," written in , he sharply exposes the inequalities of representation;[ ] and a short time afterwards, when the victory at yorktown had rescued virginia from invasion and secured the independence of the united colonies, he prepared the draught of a constitution for his native state, which, disowning the english system, and recognizing the very principle that had failed in massachusetts, expressly provided that "the number of delegates which each county may send shall be _in proportion to the number of its qualified electors_; and the whole number of delegates for the state shall be so _proportioned to the whole number of qualified electors in it_, that they shall never exceed three hundred nor be fewer than one hundred.... if any county be reduced in its qualified electors below the number authorized to send one delegate, let it be annexed to some adjoining county."[ ] this proposition, which is substantially the rule of three, did not find favor in virginia, which state, like massachusetts, was not yet prepared for such a charter of electoral equality; but it still stands as a monument at once of its author and of the true system of representation. [ ] query xiii. [ ] notes on virginia, appendix, no. ii.: works, vol. viii., p. . the american system, though first showing itself in massachusetts and virginia, found its earliest practical exemplification a few years later in the constitution of the united states. by the articles of confederation each state was entitled to send to congress not less than two nor more than seven representatives, and in the determination of questions each state had one vote only. this plan was rejected by the framers of the new constitution, and another was adopted, till then untried in the history of the world. it was declared that "representatives and direct taxes shall be _apportioned_ among the several states which may be included within this union _according to their respective numbers_": not according to property, not according to territory, not according to any corporate rights, _but according to their respective numbers_. and this system has continued down to our day, and will continue immortal as the union itself. here is the rule of three actually incorporated into the representative system of the united states. an attempt has been made to render this system odious, or at least questionable, by charging upon it something of the excesses of the great french revolution. even if this rule had prevailed at that time in france, it would be bold to charge upon it any such consequences. but it is a mistake to suppose that it was then adopted in that country. the republican constitution of was not founded upon numbers only, but upon numbers, territory, and taxation combined,--a mixed system, which excluded the true idea of personal equality. at the peaceful, almost bloodless, revolution of , under the lead of lamartine, a national assembly was convened on the simple basis of population, and one representative was allowed for every forty thousand inhabitants. here, indeed, is the rule of three; but the idea originally came from our country. mr. hallett. will the gentleman for marshfield allow me to make one more inquiry? mr. sumner. certainly. mr. hallett. do i understand the gentleman to say that the rule of three was applied to representation in the united states? mr. sumner. i mean to say that the representation in the lower house of congress was apportioned according to numbers; and this is the rule of three. a practical question arises here, whether this rule should be applied to the whole body of population, including women, children, and unnaturalized foreigners, or to those only who exercise the electoral franchise,--in other words, to voters. it is probable that the rule would produce nearly similar results in both cases, as voters, except in few places, would bear a uniform proportion to the whole population. but it is easy to determine what the principle of the representative system requires. since its object is to provide a practical substitute for meetings of the people, it should be founded, in just proportion, on the numbers of those who, according to our constitution, can take part in those meetings,--that is, upon the qualified voters. the representative body should be a miniature or abridgment of the electoral body,--in other words, of those allowed to participate in public affairs. if this conclusion needs authority, it may be found in the words of mr. madison, in the debates on the national constitution. "it has been very properly observed," he says, "that representation is an expedient by which the meeting of the people themselves is rendered unnecessary, _and that_ _the representatives ought, therefore, to bear a proportion to the votes which their constituents, if convened, would respectively have_."[ ] [ ] madison's debates, july , , vol. ii. p. . the rule of three, then, applied to voters, seems to me sound; but whether applied to voters or population, it is the true rule of representation, and stands on irreversible principles. in my view, it commends itself to the natural reason so obviously, so instinctively, that i do not feel disposed to dwell upon it. but since it is called in question, i shall be excused for saying a few words in its behalf. its advantages present themselves in several aspects. _first._ i put in the front its constant and equal operation throughout the commonwealth. under it, every man will have a representative each year, and every man will have the same representative power as every other man. in this respect it recognizes a darling idea of our institutions, which cannot be disowned without weakening their foundations. it gives to the great principle of human equality a new expansion and application. it makes all men, in the enjoyment of the electoral franchise, whatever their diversities of intelligence, education, or wealth, or wheresoever they may be within the borders of the commonwealth, whether in small town or in populous city, absolutely equal at the ballot-box. i know that there are persons, sir, who do not hesitate to assail the whole doctrine of the equality of men, as enunciated in our declaration of independence and in our bill of rights. in this work two eminent statesmen of our own country and england have led the way.[ ] but it seems to me, that, if they had chosen to comprehend the meaning of the principle, much, if not all, of their objection would have been removed. very plain it is that men are not born equal in physical strength or in mental capacity, in beauty of form or health of body. this is apparent to all, and the difference increases with years. diversity or inequality in these respects is the law of creation. but as god is no respecter of persons, and as all are equal in his sight, whether rich or poor, whether dwellers in cities or in fields, so are all equal in natural rights; and it is an absurd declamation--of which no gentleman in this convention is guilty--to adduce, in argument against them, the physical or mental inequalities by which men are characterized. now i am not prepared to class the electoral franchise among inherent, natural rights, common to the whole human family, without distinction of age, sex, or residence; but i do say, that from the equality of men, which we so proudly proclaim, we derive a just rule for its exercise. for myself, i accept this principle, and, just so far and just so soon as possible, i would be guided by it in the system of representation. but there are other reasons still. [ ] see _ante_, vol. ii. p. . _secondly._ the rule of three, as applied to representation, is commended by its simplicity. it supersedes all the painful calculations to which we have been driven, the long agony of mathematics, as it was called by my friend over the way [mr. giles], and is as easy in application as it is just. _thirdly._ this rule is founded in nature, and not in art,--on natural bodies, and not on artificial bodies,--on men, and not on corporations,--on souls, and not on petty geographical lines. on this account it may be called a natural rule, and, when once established, will become fixed and permanent, beyond all change or desire of change. and, _fourthly_, this rule removes, to every possible extent, those opportunities of political partiality and calculation, in the adjustment of representation, which are naturally incident to any departure from precise rule. it was beautifully said of law by the greatest intellect of antiquity, that it is _mind without passion_; and this very definition i would extend to a rule which, with little intervention from human will, is graduated by numbers, passionless as law itself in the conception of aristotle. the object of free institutions is to withdraw all concerns of state, so far as practicable, from human discretion, and place them under the shield of human principles, to the end, according to the words of our constitution, that there may be "a government of laws, and not of men." but, just in proportion as we depart from precise rule, it becomes a government of men, and not of laws. such considerations as these, thus briefly expressed, seem to vindicate this rule of representation. but i would not forget the arguments adduced against it. these assume two distinct forms: one founded on the character of our towns and the importance of preserving their influence; the other founded on the alleged necessity of counteracting the centralization of power in the cities. now of these in their order. and, first, of the importance of preserving our towns. sir, i yield to no man in appreciation of the good done by these free municipalities. the able member for erving [mr. griswold], who began this debate, the eloquent member for berlin [mr. boutwell], and my excellent friend of many years, the accomplished member for manchester [mr. dana], in the masterly speeches which they have addressed to the convention, attributed no good influence to the towns which i do not recognize also. with them i agree, cordially, that the towns of massachusetts, like the municipalities of switzerland, have been schools and nurseries of freedom,--and that in these small bodies men were early disciplined in those primal duties of citizenship, which, on a grander scale, are made the foundation of our whole political fabric. but i cannot go so far as to attribute this remarkable influence to the assumed fact, that each town by itself was entitled to a representative in the legislative body. at the time of the revolution this was the prerogative of most towns, though not of all; but it cannot be regarded as the distinctive, essential, life-giving attribute: at most, it was only an incident. sir, the true glory of the towns then was, that they were organized on the principle of self-government, at a time when that principle was not generally recognized,--that each town by itself was a little republic, where the whole body of freemen were voters, with powers of local legislation, taxation, and administration, and, especially, with power to choose their own head and all subordinate magistrates. the boroughs of england have possessed the power to send a member--often two members--to parliament; but this has not saved them from corruption; nor has any person attributed to them, though in the enjoyment of this franchise, the influence which has proceeded from our municipalities. the reason is obvious. they were organized under charters from the crown, by which local government was vested, not in the whole body of freemen, but in small councils, or select classes, originally nominated by the crown, and ever afterwards renewing themselves. no such abuse prevailed in our municipalities; and this political health at home, sir, and not the incident of exclusive representation in a distant legislature, has been the secret of their strength. i would cherish it ever. this brings me, in the next place, to the objection founded on centralization of power in the cities. it is said that wealth, business, population, and talent, in multitudinous forms, all tend to the cities, and that the excessive influence of this concentrated mass, quickened by an active press, by facilities of concert, and by social appliances, ought to be counterbalanced by allotment to the towns of representative weight beyond their proportion of numbers. now, sir, while confessing and regretting the present predominance of the cities, i must be permitted to question the propriety of the proposed remedy. and here, differing in some respects from friends on both sides, i make an appeal for candid judgment of what i shall candidly say. let us deal fairly by the cities. no student of history can fail to perceive that they have performed different parts at different stages of the world. in antiquity, they were the acknowledged centres of power, often of tyranny. in the middle ages, they became the home of freedom, and the bridle to feudalism. for this service they should be gratefully remembered. and now there is another change. the armed feudalism is overthrown; but it is impossible not to see that it has yielded to a commercial feudalism, whose seat is in the cities, and which, in its way, is hardly less selfish and exacting than the feudalism of the iron hand. my friend, the member for manchester [mr. dana], was clearly right, when he said that the boston of to-day is not the boston of our fathers. let me be understood. i make no impeachment of individuals, but simply indicate those combined influences proceeding from the potent spirit of trade, which, though unlike that spirit of the lord where is liberty, is not inconsistent with the most enlarged munificence. i think, while confessing the abounding charities of the rich men whose eulogy we have heard more than once in this debate, it must be admitted that those pure principles which are the breath of the republic now find their truest atmosphere in calm retreats, away from the strife of gain and the hot pavements of crowded streets. sir, it is not only when we look upon the fields, hills, and valleys, clad in verdure, and shining with silver lake or rivulet, that we are ready to exclaim,-- "god made the country, and man made the town." but, sir, while maintaining these opinions, i cannot admit the argument, that the centralized power of the cities may be counteracted by degrading them in the scale of representation. this cannot be purposely done, without departing from fundamental principles, and overthrowing the presiding doctrine of personal equality. cities are but congregations of men; and men exert influence in various ways,--by the accident of position, the accident of intelligence, the accident of property, the accident of birth, and, lastly, by the vote. it is the vote only which is not an accident; and it should be the boast of massachusetts, that all men, whatever their accidents, are equal in their votes. here the hammer of the president fell, as the hour expired; but, by unanimous consent, mr. sumner proceeded. the idea of property as a check upon numbers, which on a former occasion found such favor in this hall, is now rejected in the adjustment of our representative system. and, sir, i venture to predict that the proposition, newly broached in this commonwealth, to restrain the cities by curtailment of their just representative power, will hereafter be as little regarded. ii. mr. president,--such is what i have to say on the history and principles of the representative system, particularly in the light of american institutions; and this brings me to the _practical question_ at this moment. i cannot doubt that the district system, as it is generally called, whereby the representative power will be distributed in just proportion, according to the rule of three, among the voters of the commonwealth, is the true system, destined at no distant day to prevail. and gladly would i see this convention hasten the day by presenting it to the people for adoption in the organic law. to this end i have striven by my votes. but, sir, i cannot forget what has passed. the votes already taken show that the convention is not prepared for this radical change; and i am assured by gentlemen more familiar with public sentiment than i can pretend to be, that the people are not yet prepared for it. thus we are brought to the position occupied successively by the conventions of and , each of which, though containing warm partisans of the district system, shrank from its adoption--as in virginia, the early recommendation of jefferson, and his vehement support at a later day, have been powerless to produce this important amendment. john lowell, who appeared at the bar of the massachusetts legislature in to vindicate the principle of equality in representation, and theophilus parsons, author of the powerful tract which proposed to found the representative system on the rule of three, were both members of the first convention,--and i know not if the district system has since had any abler defenders. to these i might add the great name of john adams, who early pleaded for equality of representation, and declared, in words adopted by the essex convention, that the representative assembly should be "an exact portrait in miniature of the people at large."[ ] in the convention of , the district system was cherished and openly extolled by a distinguished jurist, at that time a justice of the supreme court of the united states,--joseph story,--whose present fame gives additional importance to his opinions. and yet the desire of these men failed. the corporate representation of towns was preserved, and the district system pronounced impracticable. in the address put forth by the convention of , and signed by its president, james bowdoin, these words may be found:-- [ ] thoughts on government: works, vol. iv. pp. , . essex result, p. . "you will observe that we have resolved that representation ought to be founded on the principle of equality; but it cannot be understood thereby that each town in the commonwealth shall have weight and importance in a just proportion to its numbers and property. an exact representation would be unpracticable, even in a system of government arising from the state of nature, and much more so in a state already divided into nearly three hundred corporations."[ ] [ ] journal of the convention, p. . the convention seem to have recognized the theoretic fitness of an "exact representation," but did not regard it as feasible in a state already divided into nearly three hundred corporations. in the convention of , joseph story, who has been quoted by my eloquent friend [mr. choate], used language which, though not so strong as that of the early address, has the same result. "in the select committee, i was in favor of a plan of representation in the house founded on population, as the most just and equal in its operation. i still retain that opinion. there were serious objections against this system, and it was believed by others that the towns could not be brought to consent to yield up the corporate privileges of representation, which had been enjoyed so long, and were so intimately connected with their pride and their interests. i felt constrained, therefore, with great reluctance, to yield up a favorite plan. i have lived long enough to know, that, in any question of government, something is to be yielded up on all sides. conciliation and compromise lie at the origin of every free government; and the question never was and never can be, what is absolutely best, but what is relatively wise, just, and expedient. i have not hesitated, therefore, to support the plan of the select committee, as one that, on the whole, was the best that, under existing circumstances, could be obtained."[ ] [ ] debates, etc., in the convention to revise the constitution of massachusetts, - , p. _c._ story's miscellaneous writings, p. . sir, i am not insensible to these considerations, or to the authority of these examples. a division of the state into districts would be a change, in conformity with abstract principles, which would interfere with existing opinions, habitudes, and prejudices of the towns, all of which must be respected. a change so important in character cannot be advantageously made, unless supported by the permanent feelings and convictions of the people. institutions are formed _from within_, not _from without_. they spring from custom and popular faith, silently operating with internal power, not from the imposed will of a lawgiver. and our present duty here, at least on this question, may be in some measure satisfied, if we aid this growth. two great schools of jurisprudence for a while divided the learned mind of germany,--one known as the historic, the other as the didactic. the question between them was similar to that now before the convention. the first regarded all laws and institutions as the growth of custom, under constant influences of history; the other insisted upon positive legislation, giving to them a form in conformity with abstract reason. it is clear that both were in a measure right. no lawgiver or statesman can disregard either history or abstract reason. he must contemplate both. he will faithfully study the past, and will recognize its treasures and traditions; but, with equal fidelity, he will set his face towards the future, where all institutions will at last be in harmony with truth. i have been encouraged to believe in the practicability of the district system by its conformity with reason, and by seeing how naturally it went into operation under the constitution of the united states. but there is a difference between that case and the present. a new government was then founded, with new powers, applicable to a broad expanse of country; but the constitution of massachusetts was little more than a continuation of preëxisting usages and institutions, with all dependence upon royalty removed. this distinction may help us now. if the country were absolutely new, without embarrassment from existing corporate rights,--_claims_ i would rather call them,--it might easily be arranged according to the most approved theory, as philadelphia is said to have been originally laid out on the model of the german city which its great founder had seen in his travels.[ ] but to bring our existing system into symmetry, and to lay it out anew, would seem to be a task--at least i am reluctantly led to this conclusion by what i have heard here--not unlike that of rebuilding boston, and of shaping its compact mass of crooked streets into the regular rectangular forms of the city of penn. and yet this is not impossible. with each day, by demolishing ancient houses and widening ancient ways, changes are made which tend to this result. [ ] julius, nordamerikas sittliche zustände, band i. p. . sir, we must recognize the existing condition of things, remedy all practical grievances so far as possible, and set our faces towards the true system. we must act in the present, but be mindful also of the future. there are proper occasions for compromise, as most certainly there are rights beyond compromise. but the representative system is an expedient or device for ascertaining the popular will, and, though well satisfied that this can be best founded on numbers, i would not venture to say, in the present light of political science, that the right of each man to an equal representation, according to the rule of three, and without regard to existing institutions or controlling usages, is of that inherent and lofty character--like the god-given right to life or liberty--which admits of no compromise. * * * * * several grievances exist, which will be removed by the proposed amendments. there is one which i had hoped would disappear, but which is the necessary incident of corporate representation: i mean the unwieldy size of the house. it is generally said that a small body is more open to bribery and corruption than a large body; but, on the other hand, i have heard it asserted that the larger is more exposed than the smaller. i put this consideration aside. my objection to a large house is, that it is inconvenient for the despatch of public business. there is a famous saying of cardinal de retz, that every assembly of more than one hundred is a mob; and lord chesterfield applied the same term to the british house of commons. at the present time that body has nominally six hundred and fifty-four members. it is called by lord brougham "preposterously large"; but a quorum for business is forty only; and it is only on rare occasions of political importance that its benches are completely occupied. the house of lords, nominally, has four hundred and fifty-nine members; but a quorum in this body consists of three only;[ ] and much of its business is transacted in a very thin attendance. [ ] according to the old rule, _tres faciunt collegium._ the experience of congress, as also of other states, points to a reduction of our present number. indeed, for many years this was a general desire through the state. in the earliest colonial days every town was allowed three deputies; but in five years the number, on reaching thirty-three, was reduced to two for each.[ ] at a later day, in , a great contest in the house was decided by a vote of twenty-six against twenty-four.[ ] in the agitating period between and , covering the controversies which heralded the revolution, the house consisted, on an average, of one hundred and twenty members; and only on one occasion the magnitude of the interest is reported by hutchinson to have drawn together so many as one hundred and thirteen. at the last session of the provincial legislature, in may, , when the revolutionary conflict was at hand, the complete returns of the journal show one hundred and forty. in there was a house of three hundred and five; but this "enormous and very unwieldy size," according to the language of the time, was assigned as a reason for a new constitution. i regret that we cannot profit by this experience. a house of two hundred and fifty, or, since we are accustomed to large congregations,[ ] of three hundred at most, would be an improvement on the present system. [ ] records of the governor and company of the massachusetts bay, vol. i. pp. , , . [ ] hutchinson, history of massachusetts, vol. ii. p. . [ ] the house for many years numbered upwards of five hundred members,--in , ' , and ' swelling to the truly "enormous and unwieldy size" of , , and ; and even under the greatly reduced apportionment established by the amendment of , the numbers in the two years ( and ) preceding the present convention were no less than and . see gifford and stowe's manual for the general court, (boston, ,) p. . there are two proposed improvements which i hail with satisfaction: one relates to the small towns, and the other to the cities. the small towns will have a more constant representation; and this of itself is an approach to the true principle of representation, which should be constant as well as equal. the cities will be divided into districts, and this i regard of twofold importance: first, as the beginning of a true system; and, secondly, as reducing the power which the cities, by the large number of their representatives, chosen by general ticket, now exercise. a respected gentleman, now in my eye, has reminded me that in boyhood his attention was arrested in this house by what was called "the boston seat," reserved exclusively for the boston members, who sat together on cushions, while other members were left to such accommodation as they could find on bare benches. this discrimination ceased long ago. but it seems to me that this reserved and cushioned seat is typical of another discrimination, which boston, in common with the cities, still enjoys. sir, in voting for forty-four representatives, the elector in boston exercises a representative power far exceeding that of electors in the country; and the majority which rules boston and determines the whole delegation exercises a representative power transcending far that of any similar number in the commonwealth. this is apparent on the bare statement, as forty-four sticks are stronger in one compact bundle than when single or in small parcels. thus, while other counties are divided, the delegation from boston is united. in all political contests, it is like the well-knit macedonian phalanx, or the iron front of the roman legion, in comparison with the disconnected individual warriors against whom they were engaged. this abuse will be removed; and here is the beginning, i had almost said the inauguration, of a true electoral equality in our commonwealth. and now, in conclusion, while thanking gentlemen for the kind attention with which they have honored me, let me express briefly the result to which i have come. i have openly declared my convictions with regard to the district system, and in accordance with these have recorded my votes in this convention. these votes, which reveal my inmost desires on this matter, i would not change. but the question is not now between the district system, which i covet so much for massachusetts, and the proposed amendments, but between these amendments and the existing system. on this issue i decide without hesitation. i shall vote, sir, for the propositions of amendment before the convention, should they come to a question on their final passage, not because they are all that i desire, not because they satisfy the requirement of principles which i cannot deny, not because they constitute a permanent adjustment of this difficult question, but because they are the best which i can now obtain, because they reform grievances of the existing system, and because they begin a change which can end only in the establishment of a representative system founded in reality, as in name, on _equality_. their adoption will be the triumph of conciliation and harmony, and will furnish new testimony to the well-tempered spirit of our institutions, where "jarring interests, reconciled, create the according music of a well-mixed state." bills of rights: their history and policy. speech on the report from the committee on the bill of rights, in the convention to revise and amend the constitution of massachusetts, july , . as chairman of the committee on the bill of rights, mr. sumner submitted a report, on which, in committee of the whole, he spoke as follows. mr. chairman,--as chairman of the committee on the preamble and bill of rights, it is my duty to introduce and explain their report. it will be perceived that it is brief, and proposes no important changes. but in justice to the distinguished gentlemen with whom i have the honor of being associated on that committee, i deem it my duty to suggest that the extent of their labors must not be judged by this result. it appears from the proceedings of the convention of , that the committee on the bill of rights at that time sat longer than any other committee. i believe that the same committee in the present convention might claim the same preëminence. their records show twenty different sessions. at these sessions, the preamble and the bill of rights, in its thirty different propositions, were passed in review and considered clause by clause; the various orders of the convention, amounting to twelve in number, the petitions addressed to the convention and referred to the committee, as also informal propositions from members of the convention and others were considered, some of them repeatedly and at length. on many questions there was a decided difference of opinion, and on a few the committee was nearly equally divided. but after the best consideration we could bestow in our protracted series of meetings, it was found that the few simple propositions now on your table were all upon which a majority of the committee could be brought to unite. as such i was directed to present them. admonished by the lapse of time and the desire to close these proceedings, i might be content with this simple statement. but, notwithstanding the urgency of our business, i cannot allow the opportunity to pass--indeed, i should not do my duty--without attempting for a brief moment to show the origin and character of this part of our constitution. in this way we may learn its weight and authority, and appreciate the difficulty and delicacy of any change in its substance or even its form. i will try not to abuse your patience. * * * * * the preamble and bill of rights, like the rest of our constitution, were from the pen of john adams,--among whose published works the whole document, in its original draught, may be found. at the time when he rendered this important service to his native commonwealth and to the principles of free institutions everywhere, he was forty-four years of age. he was also quite prepared. the natural maturity of his powers had been enriched by the well-ripened fruit of assiduous study and of active life, both of which concurred in him. the examples of greece and rome and the writings of sidney and locke were especially familiar to his mind. the common law he had made his own, and mastered well its whole arsenal of freedom. for a long time the vigorous and unfailing partisan of the liberal cause in boston, throughout its many conflicts,--then in congress, whither he was transferred, the irresistible champion of independence,--and then the republican representative of the united, but still struggling, colonies at the court of france,--in the brief interval between two foreign missions, only seven days after landing from his long ocean voyage, he was chosen a delegate to the constitutional convention, and at once brought all his varied experience, rare political culture, and eminent powers to the task of adjusting the framework of government for massachusetts. as his work, it all claims our regard; and no part bears the imprint of his mind so much as the preamble and bill of rights; nor is any other part authenticated as coming so exclusively from him. at the time of its first adoption the massachusetts bill of rights was more ample in provisions and more complete in form than any similar declaration in english or colonial history. glancing at its predecessors, we learn something of its sources. first came, long back in the thirteenth century, magna charta, with generous safeguards of freedom, wrung from king john by the barons at runnymede. from time to time these liberties were confirmed, and, after an interval of centuries, they were again ratified, near the beginning of the unhappy reign of charles the first, by a parliamentary declaration, to which the monarch assented, known as the petition of right, which, in its very title, reveals the humility with which the rights of the people were then maintained. finally, in a different tone and language, at the revolution of , when james the second was driven from his dominions, a "declaration of the true, ancient, and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of the kingdom," familiarly known as the bill of rights, was delivered by the convention parliament to the new sovereigns, william and mary, and embodied in the act of settlement, by virtue of which they sat on the throne. these, sir, are english examples. their influence was not confined to england. it crossed the ocean. from the beginning the colonists were tenacious of the rights and liberties of englishmen, and at various times and in various forms declared them. connecticut, as early as , virginia in and , pennsylvania in , new york in ,--and i might mention others still,--put forth declarations, brief and meagre, but kindred to those of the mother country. in the colony of new plymouth, the essential principles of magna charta were proclaimed in , under the name of "the general fundamentals"; and in the inhabitants of massachusetts bay announced, in words worthy of careful study, that "the free fruition of such liberties, immunities, and privileges, as humanity, civility, and christianity call for, as due to every man in his place and proportion, without impeachment and infringement, hath ever been and ever will be the tranquillity and stability of churches and commonwealths, and the denial or deprival thereof the disturbance, if not the ruin, of both."[ ] such was the preamble to the "body of liberties" of the massachusetts colony in . it would be difficult to find any text more comprehensive than these remarkable words,--the object being "liberties, immunities, and privileges," to such extent "as humanity, civility, and christianity call for"; and this declaration, broader than magna charta, became the inspiration of massachusetts, if not of the nation. nor does massachusetts stand alone in this honor. connecticut is by her side.[ ] [ ] preamble to the body of liberties of the massachusetts colony, : coll. mass. hist. soc., d ser. vol. viii. p. . see also general laws and liberties of the massachusetts colony, revised and reprinted by order of the general court, , p. . [ ] the preamble in combination with the first article of the massachusetts body of liberties was adopted as the preamble to the connecticut code of . see public records of the colony of connecticut, edited by j. h. trumbull, (hartford, ,) p. ; and compare with coll. mass. hist. soc., _ut supra_. i should not do justice to this "body of liberties," if i did not call attention to at least four different declarations. there is, first, the clause: "there shall never be any bond slavery, villenage, or captivity amongst us, unless it be lawful captives taken in just wars, and such strangers as willingly sell themselves or are sold to us"; and although this provision falls short of that universal freedom which is our present aspiration, it is a plain limitation upon slavery, and marks the hostility of the colony. another declaration sets an example of hospitality: "if any people of other nations, professing the true christian religion, shall flee to us from the tyranny or oppression of their persecutors, or from famine, wars, or the like necessary and compulsory cause, they shall be entertained and succored amongst us according to that power and prudence god shall give us." and it is further declared: "every person within this jurisdiction, whether inhabitant or foreigner, shall enjoy the same justice and law that is general for the plantation, which we constitute and execute one towards another, without partiality or delay." here is nothing less than equality before the law, without this compendious term. there is another declaration, which has the same exalted character: "every man, whether inhabitant or foreigner, free or not free, shall have liberty to come to any public court, council, or town meeting, and either by speech or writing to move any lawful, seasonable, and material question, or to present any necessary motion, complaint, petition, bill, or information, whereof that meeting hath proper cognizance, so it be done in convenient time, due order, and respective manner." such declarations as these belong to the history of freedom. in the animated discussions immediately preceding the revolution, the rights and liberties of englishmen were constantly asserted as the birthright of the colonists. this was often by formal resolution or declaration, couched at first in moderate phrase. at the outrage of the stamp act, a congress of delegates from nine colonies, held at new york in october, , put forth a series of resolutions embodying "_declarations of our humble opinion_ respecting the most essential rights and liberties of the colonists."[ ] the humility of this language recalls the english petition of right under charles the first. this was followed in by the declaration of the continental congress, which, in another tone and with admirable force, in ten different propositions, arrays the rights which belong to "the inhabitants of the english colonies in north america, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the english constitution, and the several charters or compacts."[ ] [ ] proceedings of the congress at new york, p. . hutchinson's history of massachusetts, vol. iii., appendix, p. . [ ] journals of congress, october , , vol. i. p. . "time's noblest offspring is the last"; and the whole colonial series is aptly closed by the declaration of independence, announcing not merely the rights of englishmen, but the rights of men. only a few brief weeks before the declaration of independence, virginia, taking the lead of her sister colonies, established a constitution, to which was prefixed an elaborate declaration of rights. this remarkable document, which became the immediate precedent for the whole country, marks an epoch in political history. massachusetts and connecticut had already led the way in that early and most comprehensive preamble, which has been too little noticed; but in all english declarations of rights, and generally even in those of the colonies, stress was laid upon the liberties and privileges of englishmen. the rights claimed even by the continental congress of , in their masculine declaration, were the rights of "free and natural-born subjects within the realm of england." but the virginia bill of rights, standing at the front of its first constitution, discarded all narrow title from mere english precedent, planted itself on the eternal law of god, above every human ordinance, and openly proclaimed that "all men are by nature equally free and independent,"--a declaration which is repeated, though in other language, by the massachusetts declaration of rights. * * * * * the policy of bills of rights is sometimes called in question. it has been said that they were originally privileges or concessions extorted from the king, and, though expedient in a monarchy, are of little value in a republic. as late as , in the convention for revising the constitution of new york, doubts of their utility were openly expressed by mr. van buren. but they are now above question. state after state, ending with california, follows the example of virginia and massachusetts, and places its bill of rights in the front of its constitution. nor can i doubt that much good is done by this frank assertion of fundamental principles. the public mind is instructed, people learn to know their rights, liberal institutions are confirmed, and the constitution is made stable in the hearts of the community. bills of rights are lessons of political wisdom and anchors of liberty. they are the constant index, and also scourge, of injustice and wrong. in massachusetts, slavery itself disappeared before the declaration that "all men are born free and equal," interpreted by a liberty-loving court.[ ] [ ] see, on this subject, a paper entitled "the extinction of slavery in massachusetts," by emory washburn: coll. mass. hist. soc., th ser. vol. iv. pp. - . * * * * * in the convention of the bill of rights formed a prominent subject of interest. the necessity of such a safeguard had been pressed upon the people, and its absence from the constitution of was unquestionably a reason for the rejection of that ill-fated effort. indeed, the constitution was openly opposed because it had no bill of rights. in the array of objections at the period was the following, which i take from an important contemporaneous publication: "that a bill of rights, clearly ascertaining and defining the rights of conscience and that security of person and property which every member in the state hath a right to expect from the supreme power thereof, ought to be settled and established previous to the ratification of any constitution for the state."[ ] accordingly, at the earliest moment after the organization of the convention, a motion was made, "that there be a declaration of rights prepared previous to the framing a new constitution of government," which after adoption gave way to another, "that the convention _will prepare_ a declaration of rights," and this motion prevailed by a nearly unanimous vote,--the whole number present, as returned by the monitors, being two hundred and fifty-one, of whom two hundred and fifty voted in the affirmative.[ ] thus emphatically did the early fathers of massachusetts manifest their watchfulness for the rights of the people; and there is good reason to believe, also, that among the motives which stimulated it was a determination in this way to abolish slavery.[ ] the convention then resolved to "proceed to the framing a new constitution of government." a grand committee of thirty was chosen to perform these two important duties; and this committee, after extended discussion, intrusted to john adams alone the preparation of a declaration of rights, and to a sub-committee, consisting of james bowdoin, samuel adams, and john adams, the duty of preparing the form of a constitution, which sub-committee again delegated the task to john adams: so that to the pen of this illustrious citizen we are indebted primarily both for the declaration of rights and the form of the constitution.[ ] [ ] essex result, p. . [ ] journal of the convention, pp. , . [ ] this was the testimony of the late rev. charles lowell, who had received it from his father, hon. john lowell, a member of the convention, in whose family was a tradition that the latter obtained the insertion of the words "all men are born free and equal," for this declared purpose. see, _ut supra_, coll. mass. hist. soc., th ser. vol. iv. p. . [ ] observations on the reconstruction of government in massachusetts during the revolution: works of john adams, vol. iv. pp. , . it is not difficult to trace most, if not all, of the ideas and provisions of our preamble and declaration of rights to their primitive sources. the preamble, where the body politic is founded on the fiction of the social compact, was doubtless inspired by the writings of sidney and locke, and by the english discussions at the period of the revolution of , when this questionable theory did good service in response to the assumptions of filmer, and as a shield against arbitrary power. of different provisions in the bill of rights, some are in the very words of magna charta,--others are derived from the ancient common law, the petition of right, and the bill of rights of ,--while, of the thirty articles composing it, no less than nineteen,[ ] either wholly or in part, may be found substantially in the virginia bill of rights: but these again are in great part derived from the earlier fountains. [ ] namely, articles , , - , - , , , . the virginia bill of rights consists of sixteen articles, three of which (the th, th, and th) are divided in the massachusetts declaration, constituting respectively the substance of articles and , and , and . * * * * * and now, sir, you have before you for revision and amendment this early work of our fathers. i do not stop to consider its peculiar merits. with satisfaction i might point to special safeguards by which our rights have been protected against usurpation, whether executive, legislative, or judicial. with pride i might dwell on those words which banished slavery from our soil, and rendered the declaration of independence here with us a living letter. but the hour does not require or admit any such service. you have a practical duty, which i seek to promote; and i now take leave of the whole subject, with the simple remark, that a document proceeding from such a pen, drawn from such sources, with such an origin in all respects, speaking so early for human rights, and now for more than threescore years and ten a household word to the people of massachusetts, should be touched by the convention only with exceeding care. finger-point from plymouth rock. speech at the plymouth festival in commemoration of the embarkation of the pilgrims, august , . the president, richard warren, esq., said they had already been delighted with the words of a distinguished member of the senate of the united states [mr. everett.] they were favored with the presence of another; and he would give as a sentiment:-- _the senate of the united states_,--the concentrated light of the stars of the union. in his reply, mr. sumner attempted to obtain a hearing for the antislavery cause and the party of freedom. in picturing the english puritans he had in mind our antislavery puritans, who, like their prototypes, were at first "separatists," and then "independents." the abuse showered on each was the same. though nothing is said directly on present affairs, they were clearly discerned behind the puritan veil. such was the sensibility in certain quarters, that it was objected to as out of place. others were pleased with its fidelity. among the latter was the poet john g. whittier, who wrote at the time: "its tone and bearing are unmistakable, and yet unobjectionable.... when i read the toast which called thee up, i confess i could see very little appropriateness in it; in fact, it seemed to me a very unpromising text, and i almost feared to read the sermon. i enjoyed it all the better for my misgivings." mr. president,--you bid me speak for the senate of the united states. but i know well that there is another voice here, of classical eloquence, which might more fitly render this service. as one of the humblest members of that body, and associated with the public councils for a brief period only, i should prefer that my distinguished colleague [mr. everett], whose fame is linked with a long political life, should speak for it. and there is yet another here [mr. hale], who, though not at this moment a member of the senate, has, throughout an active and brilliant career, marked by a rare combination of ability, eloquence, and good-humor, so identified himself with the senate in the public mind that he might well speak for it always, and when he speaks, all are pleased to listen. but, sir, you have ordered it otherwise. from the tears and trials at delft haven, from the deck of the mayflower, from the landing on plymouth rock, to the senate of the united states is a mighty contrast, covering whole spaces of history, hardly less than from the wolf that suckled romulus and remus to that roman senate which on curule chairs swayed italy and the world. from these obscure beginnings of poverty and weakness, which you now piously commemorate, and on which all our minds naturally rest to-day, you bid us leap to that marble capitol, where thirty-one powerful republics, bound in common fellowship and welfare, are gathered together in legislative body, constituting one government, which, stretching from ocean to ocean, and counting millions of people beneath its majestic rule, surpasses far in wealth and might any government of the old world when the little band of pilgrims left it, and now promises to be a clasp between europe and asia, bringing the most distant places near together, so that there shall be no more orient or occident. it were interesting to dwell on the stages of this grand procession; but it is enough, on this occasion, merely to glance at them and pass on. sir, it is the pilgrims that we commemorate to-day, not the senate. for this moment, at least, let us tread under foot all pride of empire, all exultation in our manifold triumphs of industry, science, literature, with all the crowding anticipations of the vast untold future, that we may reverently bow before the forefathers. the day is theirs. in the contemplation of their virtue we derive a lesson which, like truth, may judge us sternly, but, if we can really follow it, like truth, shall make us free. for myself, i accept the admonition of the day. it may teach us all, though few in numbers or alone, never, by word or act, to swerve from those primal principles of duty, which, from the landing on plymouth rock, have been the life of massachusetts. let me briefly unfold the lesson,--though to the discerning soul it unfolds itself. few persons in history have suffered more from contemporary misrepresentation, abuse, and persecution, than the english puritans. at first a small body, they were regarded with indifference and contempt. but by degrees they grew in numbers, and drew into their company education, intelligence, and even rank. reformers in all ages have had little of blessing from the world they sought to serve. but the puritans were not disheartened. still they persevered. the obnoxious laws of conformity they vowed to withstand, till, in the fervid language of the time, "they be sent back to the darkness from whence they came." through them the spirit of modern freedom made itself potently felt, in great warfare with authority, in church, in literature, and in state,--in other words, for religious, intellectual, and political emancipation. the puritans primarily aimed at religious freedom: for this they contended in parliament, under elizabeth and james; for this they suffered: but, so connected are all these great and glorious interests, that the struggles for one have always helped the others. such service did they do, that hume, whose cold nature sympathized little with their burning souls, is obliged to confess that "the precious spark of liberty had been kindled and was preserved by the puritans alone," and he adds, that "to this sect the english owe the whole freedom of their constitution." as among all reformers, so among them were differences of degree. some continued within the pale of the national church, and there pressed their ineffectual attempts in behalf of the good cause. some at length, driven by conscientious convictions, and unwilling to be partakers longer in its enormities, stung also by cruel excesses of magisterial power, openly disclaimed the national establishment, and became a separate sect, first under the name of brownists, from the person who led in this new organization, and then under the better name of separatists. i like this word, sir. it has a meaning.[ ] after long struggles in parliament and out of it, in church and state, prolonged through successive reigns, the puritans finally triumphed, and the despised sect of separatists, swollen in numbers, and now under the denomination of independents,[ ] with oliver cromwell at their head and john milton as his secretary, ruled england. thus is prefigured the final triumph of all, however few in numbers, who sincerely devote themselves to truth. the pilgrims of plymouth were among the earliest of the separatists. as such, they knew by bitter experience all the sharpness of persecution. against them the men in power raged like the heathen. against them the whole fury of the law was directed. some were imprisoned, all were impoverished, while their name became a by-word of reproach. for safety and freedom the little band first sought shelter in holland, where they continued in obscurity and indigence for more than ten years, when they were inspired to seek a home in this unknown western world. such, in brief, is their history. i could not say more of it without intruding upon your time; i could not say less without injustice to them. [ ] our abolitionists and free-soilers were separatists. [ ] like the republican party.--whose triumph is here foreshadowed. rarely have austere principles been expressed with more gentleness than from their lips. by a covenant with the lord, they had vowed to walk in all his ways, according to their best endeavors, _whatsoever it should cost them_,--and also to receive whatsoever truth should be made known from the written word of god. repentance and prayers, patience and tears, were their weapons. "it is not with us," said they, "as with other men, whom small things can discourage or small discontentments cause to wish themselves at home again." and then again, on another occasion, their souls were lifted to utterance like this: "when we are in our graves, it will be all one, whether we have lived in plenty or penury, whether we have died in a bed of down or on locks of straw." self-sacrifice is never in vain, and with the clearness of prophecy they foresaw that out of their trials should come a transcendent future. "as one small candle," said an early pilgrim governor, "may light a thousand, so the light kindled here may in some sort shine even to the whole nation." and these utterances were crowned by the testimony of the english governor and historian, whose sympathy for them was as little as that of hume for the puritans, confessing it doubtful "whether britain would have had any colonies in america at this day, if religion had not been the grand inducement,"--thus honoring our pilgrims. and yet these men, with such sublime endurance, lofty faith, and admirable achievement, are among those sometimes called "puritan knaves" and "knaves-puritans," and openly branded by king james as "very pests in the church and commonwealth." the small company of our forefathers became jest and gibe of fashion and power. the phrase "men of one idea" was not invented then; but, in equivalent language, they were styled "the pinched fanatics of leyden." a contemporary poet and favorite of charles the first, thomas carew, lent his genius to their defamation. a masque, from his elegant and careful pen, was performed by the monarch and his courtiers, turning the whole plantation of new england to royal sport. the jeer broke forth in the exclamation, that it had "purged more virulent humors from the politic body than guaiacum and all the west indian drugs have from the natural bodies of this kingdom."[ ] and these outcasts, despised in their own day by the proud and great, are the men whom we have met in this goodly number to celebrate,--not for any victory of war,--not for any triumph of discovery, science, learning, or eloquence,--not for worldly success of any kind. how poor are all these things by the side of that divine virtue which, amidst the reproach, the obloquy, and the hardness of the world, made them hold fast to freedom and truth! sir, if the honors of this day are not a mockery, if they do not expend themselves in mere self-gratulation, if they are a sincere homage to the character of the pilgrims,--and i cannot suppose otherwise,--then is it well for us to be here. standing on plymouth rock, at their great anniversary, we cannot fail to be elevated by their example. we see clearly what it has done for the world, and what it has done for their fame. no pusillanimous soul here to-day will declare their self-sacrifice, their deviation from received opinions, their unquenchable thirst for liberty, an error or illusion. from gushing multitudinous hearts we now thank these lowly men that they dared to be true and brave. conformity or compromise might, perhaps, have purchased for them a profitable peace, but not peace of mind; it might have secured place and power, but not repose; it might have opened present shelter, but not a home in history and in men's hearts till time shall be no more. all must confess the true grandeur of their example, while, in vindication of a cherished principle, they stood alone, against the madness of men, against the law of the land, against their king. better the despised pilgrim, a fugitive for freedom, than the halting politician, forgetful of principle, "with a senate at his heels." [ ] this masque, entitled _coelum britannicum_, was performed at whitehall, february , . such, sir, is the voice from plymouth rock, as it salutes my ears. others may not hear it; but to me it comes in tones which i cannot mistake. i catch its words of noble cheer:-- "new occasions teach new duties; time makes ancient good uncouth; they must upward still and onward who would keep abreast of truth: lo, before us gleam her camp-fires! we ourselves must pilgrims be, launch our mayflower, and steer boldly through the desperate winter sea." ireland and irishmen. letter to a committee of irish-born citizens, august , . boston, august , . gentlemen,--it is not in my power to be with you on the evening of the celebration at faneuil hall, but, i pray you, do not consider me insensible to the honor of your invitation. permit me to say that no country excites a generous sympathy more than ireland; nor is any society more genial and winning than that of irishmen. believe me, gentlemen, faithfully yours, charles sumner. the landmark of freedom: no repeal of the missouri compromise. speech in the senate, against the repeal of the missouri prohibition of slavery north of ° ´ in the nebraska and kansas bill, february , . cursed be he that removeth his neighbor's landmark. _and all the people shall say, amen._--deuteronomy, xxvii. . "the nebraska debate," as it was called at the time, was one of the most remarkable in our history. it grew out of the proposition to overturn the famous missouri compromise, so as to admit slavery into the vast territory west of the mississippi, where it had been prohibited by that compromise. the country was startled by the outrage. many who had tried to reconcile themselves to the fugitive slave bill, as required by the constitution, were maddened by this most audacious attempt. even assuming that the fugitive slave bill was in any sense justifiable, there was nothing to justify this flagrant violation of plighted faith, where slavery was the inexorable robber. here began those heats which afterwards showed themselves in blood. never was the action of congress watched with more anxiety. speeches were read as never before, especially those opposed to this new aggression. that of mr. sumner was extensively circulated in various editions, and he received numerous letters expressing sympathy and gratitude. the tone of these illustrates the reception of the speech. the late rufus w. griswold, so well known in contemporary literature, wrote from new york on the day after its delivery: "the admirable speech which you delivered in the senate yesterday will bring you a wearying quantity of approving letters; but, though aware of this, i cannot refrain from assuring you of my own admiration of it and gratitude for it, nor from telling you that all through the city it appears to be the subject of applauding conversation.... i congratulate you on having made a speech so worthy of an american senator, and calculated to be so serviceable to the cause of liberty." frederick douglass, who watched the contest from a distance with the interest of a former slave, wrote: "all the friends of freedom in every state and of every color may claim you just now as their representative. as one of your sable constituents, i desire to thank you for your noble speech for freedom and for your country, which i have now read twice over." an original abolitionist wrote: "let me thank you from my heart of hearts for your noble speech. it is everything that we could wish,--bold, free, and true. god will surely bless you!" the feeling of the hour appeared also in the following from john g. whittier: "i am unused to flatter any one, least of all one whom i love and honor; but i must say, in all sincerity, that there is no orator or statesman living in this country or in europe whose fame is so great as not to derive additional lustre from such a speech. it will live the full life of american history." professor c. s. henry, of the new york university, wrote: "i thank you for your noble speech on the nebraska bill. in every quality of nobleness transcendently noble. unsurpassed in tone and temper,--unrivalled in impregnable soundness and judicious statement of positions, in clearness and logical force of historical recital, in conclusiveness of reasoning, in beautiful fitness of style, and in the true eloquence of a justice-loving soul." among the curiosities of praise, considering the political position of the writer, was a letter from pierre soulé, our minister at madrid, and formerly senator from louisiana, containing the following passage: "que je profite de cette occasion pour vous dire combien j'ai été heureux du succès, et pour mieux dire, du triomphe éclatant que vous avez obtenu à l'occasion de votre discours sur le _nebraska bill_. courage! _sic itur ad astra._ mais que dis-je? vous y êtes déjà, et habile qui réussirait vous en déloger." these are examples only; but they help to exhibit the condition of the public mind. the north was aroused, and felt as never before towards those who spoke in its behalf. * * * * * the origin of the debate will appear from a statement of facts. on the th of december, , mr. dodge, of iowa, asked and obtained leave to introduce a bill to organize the territory of nebraska, which was read a first and second time by unanimous consent and referred to the committee on territories. this was a simple territorial bill, in the common form, containing no allusion to slavery, and not in any way undertaking to touch the existing prohibition of slavery in this territory. on the th of january, , mr. douglas, of illinois, as chairman of the committee on territories, reported this bill back to the senate with various amendments, accompanied by a special report. by this bill only a single territory was constituted, under the name of nebraska; the existing prohibition of slavery was not directly overthrown, but it was declared that the states formed out of this territory should be admitted into the union "with or without slavery," as they should desire. on the th of january, mr. dixon, of kentucky, in order to accomplish directly what the bill did only indirectly, gave notice of an amendment, to the effect that the existing prohibition of slavery "shall not be so construed as to apply to the territory contemplated by this act, or to any other territory of the united states; but that the citizens of the several states or territories shall be at liberty to take and hold their slaves within any of the territories of the united states, or of the states to be formed therefrom." on the next day, january , mr. sumner, in order to preserve the existing prohibition, gave notice of the following amendment. "_provided_, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to abrogate or in any way contravene the act of march , , entitled 'an act to authorize the people of missouri territory to form a constitution and state government, and for the admission of such state into the union on an equal footing with the original states, and to prohibit slavery in certain territories'; wherein it is expressly enacted, 'that in that territory ceded by france to the united states, under the name of louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, not included within the limits of the state contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and is hereby, forever prohibited.'" it is worthy of remark, that at this stage the proposition of mr. dixon, and also that of mr. sumner, were equally condemned by the _washington union_, the official organ of the administration. it had not then been determined to sustain the repeal. on the d of january, mr. douglas, from the committee on territories, submitted a new bill, as a substitute for that already reported. here was a sudden change, by which the territory was divided into two, nebraska and kansas, and the prohibition of slavery was directly overthrown. according to his language at the time, there were "incorporated into it one or two other amendments, which make the provisions of the bill upon other and more delicate questions more clear and specific, so as to avoid all conflict of opinion." it was formally enunciated in the bill, that the prohibition of slavery "was superseded by the principles of the legislation of , commonly called the compromise measures, and is hereby declared inoperative." this of course superseded the proposed amendment of mr. dixon, who subsequently declared his entire assent to the bill in its new form. it also presented the issue directly raised in mr. sumner's proposed amendment. on the next day, january th, when the amended bill had just been laid upon the tables of senators, and without allowing the necessary time even for its perusal, mr. douglas pressed its consideration upon the senate. after some debate it was postponed until the th of january, and made the special order from day to day until disposed of. meanwhile an appeal to the country was put forth by a few senators and representatives in congress, calling themselves independent democrats. the only senators who signed this appeal were mr. chase and mr. sumner. it was entitled, "shall slavery be permitted in nebraska?" and proceeded in strong language to expose the violation of plighted faith and the wickedness about to be perpetrated. this document was extensively circulated, and did much to awaken the public. on the th of january the senate proceeded to the consideration of the bill, when mr. douglas took the floor and devoted himself to denunciation of the appeal by the independent democrats, characterizing its authors as "abolition confederates," and particularly arraigning mr. chase and mr. sumner, the two senators who had signed it. when he sat down, mr. chase replied at once to the personal matters introduced, and was followed by mr. sumner, in the few remarks below; and this was the opening of the great debate which occupied for months the attention of the country. mr. president,--before the senate adjourns i crave a single moment. as a signer of the address referred to by the senator from illinois [mr. douglas], i openly accept, before the senate and the country, my full responsibility for it, and deprecate no criticism from any quarter. that document was put forth in the discharge of a high public duty,--on the precipitate introduction into this body of a measure which, as seems to me, is not only subversive of an ancient landmark, but hostile to the peace, the harmony, and the best interests of the country. but, sir, in doing this, i judged the act, and not its author. i saw only the enormous proposition, and nothing of the senator. the language used is strong, but not stronger than the exigency required. here is a measure which reverses the time-honored policy of our fathers in the restriction of slavery,--which sets aside the missouri compromise, a solemn compact, by which all the territory ceded by france under the name of louisiana, north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude and not included within the limits of missouri, was "forever" consecrated to freedom,--and which violates, also, the alleged compromises of : and all this opening an immense territory to slavery. such a measure cannot be regarded without emotions too strong for speech; nor can it be justly described in common language. it is a soulless, eyeless monster,--horrid, unshapely, vast: and this monster is now let loose upon the country. allow me one other word of explanation. it is true i desired that the consideration of this measure should not be pressed at once, with indecent haste, as was proposed, even before the senate could read the bill in which it is embodied. you may remember that the missouri bill, as appears from the journals of congress, when first introduced, in december, , was allowed to rest upon the table nearly two months before the discussion commenced. the proposition to undo the only part of that work which is now in any degree within the reach of congress should be approached with even greater caution and reserve. the people have a right to be heard on this monstrous scheme; and there is no apology for that driving, galloping speed which shall anticipate their voice, and, in its consequences, must despoil them of this right. the debate was continued from day to day. on the th of february mr. douglas proposed still another change in his bill. there seemed to be a perpetual difficulty in adjusting the language by which the existing prohibition of slavery should be overthrown. he now moved to strike out the words referring to this prohibition, and to insert the following:-- "which, being inconsistent with the principles of non-intervention by congress with slavery in the states and territories, as recognized by the legislation of , commonly called the compromise measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void: it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the constitution of the united states." on the th of february this amendment was adopted by a vote of thirty-five yeas to ten nays. the debate was then continued upon the pending substitute reported by the committee for the original bill. on the st of february mr. sumner took the floor and delivered the following speech. speech. mr. president,--i approach this discussion with awe. the mighty question, with untold issues, oppresses me. like a portentous cloud surcharged with irresistible storm and ruin, it seems to fill the whole heavens, making me painfully conscious how unequal to the occasion i am,--how unequal, also, is all that i can say to all that i feel. in delivering my sentiments to-day i shall speak frankly, according to my convictions, without concealment or reserve. if anything fell from the senator from illinois [mr. douglas], in opening this discussion, which might seem to challenge a personal contest, i desire to say that i shall not enter upon it. let not a word or a tone pass my lips to divert attention for a moment from the surpassing theme, by the side of which senators and presidents are but dwarfs. i would not forget those amenities which belong to this place, and are so well calculated to temper the antagonism of debate; nor can i cease to remember, and to feel, that, amidst all diversities of opinion, we are the representatives of thirty-one sister republics, knit together by indissoluble ties, and constituting that plural unit which we all embrace by the endearing name of country. the question for your consideration is not exceeded in grandeur by any which has occurred in our national history since the declaration of independence. in every aspect it assumes gigantic proportions, whether we consider simply the extent of territory it affects, or the public faith and national policy which it assails, or that higher question--that _question of questions_, as far above others as liberty is above the common things of life--which it opens anew for judgment. it concerns an immense region, larger than the original thirteen states, vying in extent with all the existing free states,--stretching over prairie, field, and forest,--interlaced by silver streams, skirted by protecting mountains, and constituting the heart of the north american continent,--only a little smaller, let me add, than three great european countries combined,--italy, spain, and france,--each of which, in succession, has dominated over the globe. this territory has been likened, on this floor, to the garden of god. the similitude is found not merely in its pure and virgin character, but in its actual geographical situation, occupying central spaces on this hemisphere, which, in their general relations, may well compare with that "happy rural seat." we are told that "southward through eden went a river large": so here a stream flows southward which is larger than the euphrates. and here, too, all amid the smiling products of nature, lavished by the hand of god, is the lofty tree of liberty, planted by our fathers, which, without exaggeration, or even imagination, may be likened to "the tree of life, high eminent, blooming ambrosial fruit of vegetable gold." it is with regard to this territory that you are now called to exercise the grandest function of lawgiver, by establishing rules of polity which will determine its future character. as the twig is bent the tree inclines; and the influences impressed upon the early days of an empire, like those upon a child, are of inconceivable importance to its future weal or woe. the bill now before us proposes to organize and equip two new territorial establishments, with governors, secretaries, legislative councils, legislators, judges, marshals, and the whole machinery of civil society. such a measure at any time would deserve the most careful attention. but at the present moment it justly excites peculiar interest, from the effort made--on pretences unsustained by facts, in violation of solemn covenant, and in disregard of the early principles of our fathers--to open this immense region to slavery. according to existing law, this territory is now guarded against slavery by a positive prohibition, embodied in the act of congress approved march th, , preparatory to the admission of missouri into the union as a sister state, and in the following explicit words:-- "sec. . _and be it further enacted_, that in all that territory _ceded by france to the united states, under the name of louisiana_, which lies north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, not included within the limits of the state contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the parties shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and is hereby, forever prohibited." it is now proposed to set aside this prohibition. but there seems to be a singular indecision as to the way in which the deed shall be done. from the time of its first introduction, in the report of the committee on territories, the proposition has assumed different shapes; and it promises to assume as many as proteus,--now one thing in form, and now another,--now like a serpent, and then like a lion,--but in every form and shape identical in substance; with but one object,--the overthrow of the prohibition of slavery. at first it proposed simply to declare that the states formed out of this territory should be admitted into the union "with or without slavery," and did not directly assume to touch this prohibition. for some reason this was not satisfactory, and then it was precipitately proposed to declare that the prohibition in the missouri act "was superseded by the principles of the legislation of , commonly called the compromise measures, and is hereby declared inoperative." but this would not do; and it is now proposed to enact, that the prohibition, "being inconsistent with the principles of non-intervention by congress with slavery in the states and territories, as recognized by the legislation of , commonly called the compromise measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void." * * * * * all this is to be done on pretences founded upon the slavery enactments of . now, sir, i am not here to speak in behalf of those measures, or to lean in any way upon their support. relating to different subject-matters, contained in different acts, which prevailed successively, at different times, and by different votes,--some persons voting for one, and some for another, and very few for all,--they cannot be regarded as a unit, embodying conditions of compact, or compromise, if you please, adopted equally by all, and therefore obligatory on all. but since this broken series of measures is adduced as apology for the proposition now before us, i desire to say, that, such as they are, they cannot, by any rule of interpretation, by any charming rod of power, by any magic alchemy, be transmuted into a repeal of that original prohibition. on this head there are several points to which i would merely call attention, and then pass on. _first_: the slavery enactments of did not pretend, in terms, to touch, much less to change, the condition of the louisiana territory, which was already fixed by congressional enactment. the two transactions related to different subject-matters. _secondly_: the enactments do not directly touch the subject of slavery, during the territorial existence of utah and new mexico; but they provide prospectively, that, when admitted as states, they shall be received "with or without slavery." here certainly can be no overthrow of an act of congress which directly concerns a territory _during its territorial existence_. _thirdly_: during all the discussion of these measures in congress, and afterwards before the people, and through the public press, at the north and the south alike, no person was heard to intimate that the prohibition of slavery in the missouri act was in any way disturbed. _fourthly_: the acts themselves contain a formal provision, that "nothing herein contained shall be construed to impair or qualify anything" in a certain article of the resolution annexing texas, where it is expressly declared, that, in any state formed out of territory north of the missouri compromise line, "slavery or involuntary servitude, except for crime, shall be prohibited." i do not dwell on these things. these pretences have been amply refuted by able senators who have preceded me. it is clear, beyond contradiction, that the prohibition of slavery in this territory was not superseded, or in any way contravened, by the slavery acts of . the proposition before you is, therefore, original in character, without sanction from any former legislation, and it must, accordingly, be judged by its merits, as an original proposition. * * * * * here, sir, let it be remembered that the friends of freedom are not open to any charge of aggression. they are now standing on the defensive, guarding the early intrenchments thrown up by our fathers. no proposition to abolish slavery anywhere is now before you, but, on the contrary, a proposition to abolish freedom. the term abolitionist, so often applied in reproach, justly belongs, on this occasion, to him who would overthrow this well-established landmark. he is, indeed, no abolitionist of slavery; let him be called, sir, abolitionist of freedom. for myself, whether with many or few, my place is taken. even if alone, my feeble arm should not be wanting as a bar against this outrage. on two distinct grounds, "strong both against the deed," i arraign it: _first_, in the name of public faith, as an infraction of solemn obligations, assumed beyond recall by the south, on the admission of missouri into the union as a slave state. _secondly_, i arraign it in the name of freedom, as an unjustifiable departure from the original antislavery policy of our fathers. these two heads i shall consider in their order, glancing, under the latter, at the objections to the prohibition of slavery in the territories. before i approach the argument, indulge me with a few preliminary words on the character of this proposition. slavery is the forcible subjection of one human being, in person, labor, and property, to the will of another. in this simple statement is involved its whole injustice. there is no offence against religion, against morals, against humanity, which, in the license of this enormity, may not stalk "unwhipped of justice." for the husband and wife there is no marriage; for the mother there is no assurance that her infant child will not be ravished from her breast; for all who bear the name of slave there is nothing that they can call their own. without a father, without a mother, almost without a god, the slave has nothing but a master. it would be contrary to that rule of right which is ordained by god, if such a system, though mitigated often by patriarchal kindness, and by plausible physical comfort, could be otherwise than pernicious. it is confessed that the master suffers not less than the slave. and this is not all. the whole social fabric is disorganized; labor loses its dignity; industry sickens; education finds no schools; and all the land of slavery is impoverished. and now, sir, when the conscience of mankind is at last aroused to these things, when, throughout the civilized world, a slave-dealer is a by-word and a reproach, we, as a nation, are about to open a new market to the traffickers in flesh that haunt the shambles of the south. such an act, at this time, is removed from all reach of that palliation often vouchsafed to slavery. this wrong, we are speciously told by those who seek to defend it, is not our original sin. it was entailed upon us, so we are instructed, by our ancestors; and the responsibility is often thrown, with exultation, upon the mother country. now, without stopping to inquire into the value of this apology, which is never adduced in behalf of other abuses, and which availed nothing against that kingly power imposed by the mother country, but overthrown by our fathers, it is sufficient for the present purpose to know that it is now proposed to make slavery our own original act. here is a fresh case of actual transgression, which we cannot cast upon the shoulders of any progenitors, nor upon any mother country, distant in time or place. the congress of the united states, the people of the united states, at this day, in this vaunted period of light, will be responsible for it, so that it shall be said hereafter, so long as the dismal history of slavery is read, that in the year of christ a new and deliberate act was passed by which a vast territory was opened to its incursions. historic instances show how such an act will make us solitary among the nations. in autocratic russia, the serfdom which constitutes the "peculiar institution" of that great empire is never allowed to travel with the imperial flag, according to american pretension, into provinces newly acquired by the common blood and treasure, but, by positive prohibition, in harmony with the general conscience, is carefully restricted within its ancient confines; and this prohibition--the wilmot proviso of russia--is rigorously enforced on every side, in all the provinces, as in bessarabia on the south, and poland on the west, so that, in fact, no russian nobleman is able to move into these important territories with his slaves. thus russia speaks for freedom, and disowns the slaveholding dogma of our country. india, the land of caste, and turkey, the abode of polygamy, both fasten upon slavery the stigma of reprobation. the barbary states of africa, occupying the same parallels of latitude with the slave states of our union, and resembling them in the nature of their boundaries, their productions, their climate, and the "peculiar institution" which sought shelter in both, are changed into abolitionists. algiers, seated on the line of ° ´, is dedicated to freedom. tunis and morocco are doing likewise. as the effort now making is extraordinary in character, so no assumption seems too extraordinary to be advanced in its support. the primal truth of the equality of men, proclaimed in our declaration of independence, is assailed, and this great charter of our country discredited. sir, you and i will soon pass away, but that charter will continue to stand above impeachment or question. the declaration of independence was a declaration of rights, and the language employed, though general in character, must obviously be confined within the design and sphere of a declaration of rights, involving no such pitiful absurdity as was attributed to it yesterday by the senator from indiana [mr. pettit]. sir, who has pretended that all men are born equal in physical strength or in mental capacities, in beauty of form or health of body? certainly not the signers of the declaration of independence, who could have been guilty of no such self-stultification. diversity is the law of creation, unrestricted to race or color. but as god is no respecter of persons, and as all are equal in his sight, both dives and lazarus, master and slave, so are all equal in natural inborn rights; and pardon me, if i say it is a mere quibble to adduce, in argument against this vital axiom of liberty, the physical or mental inequalities by which men are characterized, or the unhappy degradation to which, in violation of a common brotherhood, they are doomed. to deny the declaration of independence is to rush on the bosses of the shield of the almighty,--which, in all respects, the supporters of this measure seem to do. to the delusive suggestion of the senator from north carolina [mr. badger], that by overthrow of this prohibition the number of slaves will not be increased, that there will be simply a beneficent diffusion of slavery, and not its extension, i reply at once, that this argument, if of any value, if not mere words and nothing else, would equally justify and require the overthrow of the prohibition of slavery in the free states, and, indeed, everywhere throughout the world. all the dikes, which, in different countries, from time to time, with the march of civilization, have been painfully set up against the inroads of this evil, must be removed, and every land opened anew to its destructive flood. it is clear, beyond dispute, that by the overthrow of this prohibition slavery will be quickened, and slaves themselves will be multiplied, while new room and verge will be secured for the gloomy operations of slave law, under which free labor will droop, and a vast territory be smitten with sterility. sir, a blade of grass would not grow where the horse of attila had trod; nor can any true prosperity spring up in the footprints of a slave. but it is argued that slaves will be carried into nebraska only in small numbers, and therefore the question is of little practical moment. my distinguished colleague [mr. everett], in his eloquent speech, hearkened to this apology, and allowed himself, while upholding the prohibition, to disparage its importance in a manner from which i feel obliged, kindly, but most strenuously, to dissent. sir, the very census attests its vital consequence. there is missouri, at this moment, with illinois on the east and nebraska on the west, all covering nearly the same spaces of latitude, and resembling each other in soil, climate, and natural productions. mark now the contrast! by the potent efficacy of the ordinance of the northwestern territory illinois is a free state, while missouri has eighty-seven thousand four hundred and twenty-two slaves; and the simple question which challenges answer is, whether nebraska shall be preserved in the condition of illinois or surrendered to that of missouri? surely this cannot be treated lightly. but i am unwilling to measure the exigency of the prohibition by the number of persons, whether many or few, whom it may protect. human rights, whether in a multitude or the solitary individual, are entitled to equal and unhesitating support. in this spirit, the flag of our country only recently became the impenetrable panoply of a homeless wanderer who claimed its protection in a distant sea;[ ] and in this spirit i am constrained to declare that there is no place accessible to human avarice or human lust or human force, whether the lowest valley or the loftiest mountain-top, whether the broad flower-spangled prairies or the snowy caps of the rocky mountains, where the prohibition of slavery, like the commandments of the decalogue, should not go. [ ] martin koszta, hungarian by birth, who had made the preliminary declaration of citizenship, and had a protection from the united states consul at smyrna, was, july , , surrendered by an austrian man-of-war in the harbor of smyrna at the demand of a man-of-war of the united states. i. and now, sir, in the name of that public faith which is the very ligament of civil society, and which the great roman orator tells us it is detestable to break even with an enemy, i arraign this scheme, and hold it up to the judgment of the country. there is an early italian story of an experienced citizen, who, when told by his nephew, at the university of bologna, that he had been studying the science of _right_, said in reply, "you have spent your time to little purpose. it would have been better, had you learned the science of _might_, for that is worth two of the other"; and the bystanders of that day all agreed that the veteran spoke the truth. i begin, sir, by assuming that honorable senators will not act in this spirit,--that they will not wantonly and flagitiously discard any obligation, pledge, or covenant, because they chance to possess the power,--that they will not substitute _might_ for _right_. sir, the proposition before you involves not merely the repeal of existing law, but the infraction of solemn obligations, originally proposed and assumed by the south, after protracted and embittered contest, as a covenant of peace, with regard to certain specified territory therein described, namely, "all that territory ceded by france to the united states, under the name of louisiana,"--according to which, in consideration of the admission into the union of missouri as a slave state, slavery was forever prohibited in all the remaining part of this territory which lies north of ° ´. this arrangement between different sections of the union, the slave states of the first part and the free states of the second part, though usually known as the missouri compromise, was at the time styled a compact. in its stipulations for slavery, it was justly repugnant to the conscience of the north, and ought never to have been made; but on that side it has been performed. and now the unperformed outstanding obligations to freedom, originally proposed and assumed by the south, are resisted. years have passed since these obligations were embodied in the legislation of congress, and accepted by the country. meanwhile the statesmen by whom they were framed and vindicated have, one by one, dropped from this earthly sphere. their living voices cannot now be heard, for the conservation of that public faith to which they were pledged. but this extraordinary lapse of time, with the complete fruition by one party of all the benefits belonging to it under the compact, gives to the transaction an added and most sacred strength. prescription steps in and with new bonds confirms the original work, to the end, that, while men are mortal, controversies shall not be immortal. death, with inexorable scythe, has mowed down the authors of this compact; but, with conservative hour-glass, the dread destroyer has counted out a succession of years, which now defile before us, like so many sentinels, to guard the sacred landmark of freedom. * * * * * a simple statement of facts, derived from the journals of congress and contemporary records,[ ] will show the origin and nature of this compact, the influence by which it was established, and the obligations it imposed. [ ] as the volumes of the annals of congress covering the proceedings on the missouri compromise were not published when this speech was made, mr. sumner was obliged to rely upon the national intelligencer and niles's register. in the present edition references are made to the annals of congress. as early as , at the first session of the fifteenth congress, a bill was reported to the house of representatives, authorizing the people of the missouri territory to form a constitution and state government, for the admission of such state into the union; but at that session no final action was had. at the next session, in february, , the bill was again brought forward, when an eminent representative of new york, whose life was spared till this last autumn, mr. james tallmadge, moved a clause prohibiting any further introduction of slaves into the proposed state, and securing freedom to the children born within the state, after admission into the union, on attaining the age of twenty-five years. this important proposition, which assumed a power not only to prohibit the ingress of slavery into the state, _but also to abolish it there_, was passed in the affirmative, after a vehement debate of three days. on a division of the question, the first part, prohibiting the further introduction of slaves, was adopted by eighty-seven yeas to seventy-six nays; the second part, providing for the emancipation of children, was adopted by eighty-two yeas to seventy-eight nays. other propositions to thwart the operation of these amendments were voted down, and on the th of february the bill was read a third time, and passed with these important restrictions. in the senate, after debate, the provision for the emancipation of children was struck out by thirty-one yeas to seven nays; the other provision, against the further introduction of slavery, was struck out by twenty-two yeas to sixteen nays. thus emasculated, the bill was returned to the house, which, on the d of march, by a vote of seventy-eight nays to seventy-six yeas, refused its concurrence. the senate adhered to their amendments, and the house, by seventy-eight yeas to sixty-six nays, adhered to their disagreement; and so at this session the missouri bill was lost: and here was a temporary triumph for freedom. meanwhile the same controversy was renewed on the bill pending at the same time for the organization of the territory of arkansas, then known as the southern part of the territory of missouri. the restrictions already adopted in the missouri bill were moved by mr. taylor, of new york, subsequently speaker; but, after at least five close votes, on the yeas and nays, in one of which the house was equally divided, eighty-eight yeas to eighty-eight nays, they were lost. another proposition by mr. taylor, simpler in form, that slavery should not hereafter be introduced into this territory, was lost by ninety nays to eighty-six yeas; and the arkansas bill, on the th of february, was read the third time and passed. in the senate, mr. burrill, of rhode island, moved, as an amendment, the prohibition of the further introduction of slavery into this territory, which was lost by nineteen nays to fourteen yeas. and thus, without any provision for freedom, arkansas was organized as a territory: and here was a triumph of slavery. at this same session alabama was admitted as a slave state, without any restriction or objection. it was in the discussion on the arkansas bill, at this session, that we find the earliest suggestion of a compromise. defeated in his efforts to prohibit slavery in this territory, mr. taylor stated that "he thought it important that some line should be designated beyond which slavery should not be permitted," and he moved its prohibition hereafter in all territories of the united states north of ° ´ north latitude, _without any exception of missouri, which is north of this line_. this proposition, though withdrawn after debate, was at once welcomed by mr. livermore, of new hampshire, as "made in the true spirit of _compromise_." it was opposed by mr. rhea, of tennessee, on behalf of slavery, who avowed himself against every restriction,--and also by mr. ogle, of pennsylvania, on behalf of freedom, who was "opposed to any compromise by which slavery in any of the territories should be recognized or sanctioned by congress." in this spirit it was opposed and supported by others, among whom was general harrison, afterwards president of the united states, who "assented to the expediency of establishing some such line of discrimination," but proposed a line due west from the mouth of the des moines, thus constituting the northern, and not the southern boundary of missouri, the partition line between freedom and slavery. this idea of compromise, though suggested by mr. taylor, was thus early adopted and vindicated in this very debate by an eminent character--mr. louis mclane, of delaware--who has since held high office in the country,[ ] and enjoyed no common measure of public confidence. of all the leading actors in these early scenes, he and mr. mercer alone are yet spared. on this occasion he said:-- "the fixing of a line on the west of the mississippi, north of which slavery should not be tolerated, _had always been with him a favorite policy_, and he hoped the day was not distant, when, upon principles of _fair compromise_, it might constitutionally be effected."[ ] [ ] secretary of state and minister to england under president jackson, and a second time minister to england under president polk. [ ] annals of congress, th cong. d sess., feb. , , vol. ii. col. . the present attempt, however, he regarded as premature. after opposing the restriction on missouri, he concluded by declaring:-- "at the same time, i do not mean to abandon the policy to which i alluded in the commencement of my remarks. i think it but fair that both sections of the union should be accommodated on this subject, with regard to which so much feeling has been manifested. the same great motives of policy which reconciled and harmonized the jarring and discordant elements of our system originally, and which enabled the framers of our happy constitution to compromise the different interests which then prevailed upon this and other subjects, if properly cherished by us, will enable us to achieve similar objects. if we meet upon principles of reciprocity, we cannot fail to do justice to all. _it has already been avowed by gentlemen on this floor, from the south and the west, that they will agree upon a line which shall divide the slaveholding from the non-slaveholding states. it is this proposition i am anxious to effect; but i wish to effect it by some compact which shall be binding upon all parties and all subsequent legislatures_,--which cannot be changed, and will not fluctuate with the diversity of feeling and of sentiment to which this empire, in its march, must be destined. there is a vast and immense tract of country west of the mississippi yet to be settled, and intimately connected with the northern section of the union, _upon which this compromise can be effected_."[ ] [ ] ibid., . the suggestions of compromise were at this time vain: each party was determined. the north, by the prevailing voice of its representatives, claimed all for freedom; the south, by its potential command of the senate, claimed all for slavery. the report of this debate aroused the country. for the first time in our history, freedom, after animated struggle, hand to hand, was kept in check by slavery. the original policy of our fathers in the restriction of slavery was suspended, and this giant wrong threatened to stalk into all the broad national domain. men at the north were humbled and amazed. the imperious demands of slavery seemed incredible. meanwhile the whole subject was adjourned from congress to the people. through the press and at public meetings, an earnest voice was raised against the admission of missouri into the union without the restriction of slavery. judges left the bench, and clergymen the pulpit, to swell the indignant protest which went up from good men without distinction of party or pursuit. the movement was not confined to a few persons, nor to a few states. a public meeting at trenton, in new jersey, was followed by others in new york and philadelphia, and finally at worcester, salem, and boston, where committees were organized to rally the country. the citizens of baltimore, in public meeting at the court-house, with the mayor in the chair, resolved "that the future admission of slaves into the states which may hereafter be formed west of the mississippi ought to be prohibited by congress." villages, towns, and cities, by memorial, petition, and prayer, called upon congress to maintain the great principle of the prohibition of slavery. the same principle was also commended by the resolutions of state legislatures; and pennsylvania, inspired by the teachings of franklin and the convictions of the respectable denomination of friends, unanimously asserted at once the right and the duty of congress to prohibit slavery west of the mississippi, solemnly calling upon her sister states "to refuse to covenant with crime." new jersey and delaware followed. ohio asserted the same principle: so did indiana. the latter state, not content with providing for the future, severely censured one of its senators for his vote to organize arkansas without the prohibition of slavery. the resolutions of new york were reinforced by the recommendation of de witt clinton.[ ] amidst these excitements congress came together in december, , taking possession of these halls of the capitol for the first time since their desolation by the british. on the day after the receipt of the president's message two several committees of the house were constituted, one to consider the application of maine, and the other of missouri, to enter the union as separate and independent states. with only the delay of a single day, the bill for the admission of missouri was reported to the house without the restriction of slavery; but, as if shrinking from the immediate discussion of the great question it involved, afterwards, on motion of mr. taylor, of new york, modified by mr. mercer, of virginia, its consideration was postponed for several weeks: all which, be it observed, is in open contrast with the manner in which the present discussion has been precipitated upon congress. meanwhile the maine bill, when reported to the house, was promptly acted upon, and sent to the senate. in the interval between the report of the missouri bill and its consideration by the house, a committee was constituted, on motion of mr. taylor, of new york, to inquire into the expediency of prohibiting the introduction of slavery into the territories west of the mississippi. this committee, at the end of a fortnight, was discharged from further consideration of the subject, which, it was understood, would enter into the postponed debate on the missouri bill. [ ] see niles's weekly register, vol. xvii. _passim_. this early effort to interdict slavery in the territories by special law is worthy of notice on account of expressions of opinion it drew forth. in the course of his remarks, mr. taylor declared that "he presumed there was no member--he knew of none--who doubted the constitutional power of congress to impose such a restriction on the territories."[ ] [ ] annals of congress, th cong. st sess., i. . a generous voice from virginia recognized at once the right and duty of congress. this was from charles fenton mercer, who declared, that, "when the question proposed should come fairly before the house, he should support the proposition.... he should record his vote against suffering the dark cloud of calamity which now darkened his country from rolling on beyond the peaceful shores of the mississippi."[ ] [ ] ibid., . at length, on the th of january, , the house resolved itself into committee of the whole on the missouri bill, and proceeded with its discussion, day by day, till the th of february, when it was reported back with an amendment excluding slavery from the proposed state. at the opening of the debate an amendment was offered with a view to compromise, when mr. smith, of maryland, for many years an eminent senator of that state, but at this time a representative, while opposing the restriction of missouri, vindicated the prohibition of slavery in the territories. "he said that he rose principally with a view to state his understanding of the proposed amendment, namely: that it retained the boundaries of missouri as delineated in the bill; that it prohibited the admission of slaves west of the west line of missouri, and north of the north line; that it did not interfere with the territory of arkansas, or the uninhabited land west thereof. _he thought the proposition not exceptionable_, but doubted the propriety of its forming a part of the bill. he considered the power of congress over the territory as supreme, unlimited, before its admission; that congress could impose on its territories any restriction it thought proper; and the people, when they settled therein, did so under a full knowledge of the restriction. if citizens go into the territory thus restricted, they cannot carry with them slaves. they will be without slaves, and will be educated with prejudices and habits such as will exclude all desire on their part to admit slavery, when they shall become sufficiently numerous to be admitted as a state. and this is the advantage proposed by the amendment."[ ] [ ] annals of congress, _ut supra_, i. , , january , . meanwhile the same question was presented to the senate, where a conclusion was reached earlier than in the house. a clause for the admission of missouri was moved by way of tack to the maine bill. to this an amendment was moved by mr. roberts, of pennsylvania, prohibiting the further introduction of slavery into the state, which, after a fortnight's debate, was defeated by twenty-seven nays to sixteen yeas. the debate in the senate was of unusual interest and splendor. it was especially illustrated by an effort of eminent power from that great lawyer and orator, william pinkney. recently returned from a succession of missions to foreign courts, and at this time the acknowledged chief of the american bar, particularly skilled in questions of constitutional law, his course as a senator from maryland was calculated to produce a profound impression. a speech from him, which for two days[ ] drew to this chamber an admiring throng, and at the time was fondly compared with the best examples of greece and rome, is without any record; but another, made shortly afterwards, remains to us, and here we find the first authoritative proposition and statement of what has been since known as the missouri compromise. this latter effort was mainly directed against the restriction upon missouri, but it began and ended with the idea of compromise. "notwithstanding," he says, "occasional appearances of rather an unfavorable description, i have long since persuaded myself that the _missouri question_, as it is called, might be laid to rest with innocence and safety by some _conciliatory compromise_ at least, by which, as is our duty, we might reconcile the extremes of conflicting views and feelings, without any sacrifice of constitutional principle." and he closed with the hope that the restriction on missouri would not be pressed, but that the whole question "might be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to all, _by a prospective prohibition of slavery in the territory to the north and west of missouri_."[ ] here let me remark, that, in the nomenclature of the time, the term "restriction" was applied to the requirement of freedom proposed for the state of missouri, while the term "prohibition" was applied to the outlying territory north of a certain line. [ ] january and , : annals of congress, _ut supra_, i. , . [ ] ibid., i. - , february , . wheaton's life of pinkney, appendix, pp. - . the compromise proposed was abandonment of the "restriction," with recognition of the "prohibition." this authoritative proposition of compromise from the most powerful advocate of the unconditional admission of missouri, was made in the senate on the th of february. from various indications, it seems to have found prompt favor in that body. on the th of february, the union of maine and missouri in one bill prevailed there by twenty-three yeas to twenty-one nays. the next day, mr. thomas, of illinois, who had always voted with the south against any restriction upon missouri, introduced the famous clause prohibiting slavery in territory north of ° ´ outside this state, which constitutes the eighth section of the missouri act. an effort was made to include within the prohibition "the whole country west of the mississippi, except louisiana, arkansas, and missouri"; but the south united against such extension of the area of freedom, and it was defeated by twenty-four nays to twenty yeas. the prohibition, as moved by mr. thomas, then prevailed by thirty-four yeas to only ten nays. among those in the affirmative were both the senators from each of the slave states, louisiana, tennessee, kentucky, delaware, maryland, and alabama, and also one of the senators from each of the slave states, mississippi and north carolina, including in the honorable list the familiar names of william pinkney, james brown, and william rufus king. this bill, thus amended, is the first legislative embodiment of the missouri compact or compromise, the essential conditions of which were the admission of missouri as a state without any restriction of slavery, and the prohibition of slavery in all the remaining territory of louisiana north of ° ´.[ ] janus-faced, with one front towards freedom and another towards slavery, this must not be confounded with the simpler proposition of mr. taylor, at the preceding session, to prohibit slavery in all the territory north of ° ´, including missouri. the compromise now brought forward, following the early lead of mr. mclane, both recognized and prohibited slavery north of ° ´. here, for the first time, these two opposite principles commingled in one legislative channel; and it is immediately subsequent to this junction that we discern the precise responsibility assumed by different parties. and now observe the indubitable and decisive fact. this bill, thus composed, containing these two elements, this double measure, finally passed the senate by a test vote of twenty-four yeas to twenty nays. the yeas embraced every southern senator except nathaniel macon, of north carolina, and william smith, of south carolina. mr. butler, of south carolina (_interrupting_), mr. gaillard, of south carolina, voted with mr. smith. mr. sumner. no, sir: the journal, which i now hold in my hand, shows that he voted for the bill with the compromise. i repeat, that the yeas on this vital question embraced every southern senator except mr. macon and mr. smith. the nays embraced every northern senator, except the two senators from illinois, one senator from rhode island, and one from new hampshire. and this, sir, is the record of the first stage in the adoption of the missouri compromise. first openly announced and vindicated on the floor of the senate by a distinguished southern statesman, it was forced on the north by an almost unanimous southern vote. [ ] the eminent judge story, who was then in washington, mentions these conditions in a private letter, under date of february , , as follows: "there is a great deal of heat and irritation, but most probably a compromise will take place, admitting missouri into the union without the restriction, and imposing it on all the other territories."--_letter to stephen white, esq._: life and letters of story, vol. i. pp. , . * * * * * while things had thus culminated in the senate, discussion was still proceeding in the house on the original missouri bill. this was for a moment arrested by the reception from the senate of the maine bill, amended by tacking to it a bill for the admission of missouri, embodying the compromise. upon this the debate was brief and the decision prompt. the house was not disposed to abandon the substantial restriction of slavery in missouri for what seemed its unsubstantial prohibition in an unsettled territory. the senate's amendments to the maine bill were all rejected, and the bill left in its original condition. this was done by large votes. even the prohibition of slavery was thrown out, by one hundred and fifty-nine yeas to eighteen nays, both north and south uniting against it,--though, in this small, but persistent minority, we find two southern statesmen, samuel smith and charles fenton mercer. the senate, on receiving the bill back from the house, insisted on their amendments. the house in turn insisted on their disagreement. according to parliamentary usage, a committee of conference between the two houses was now appointed. mr. thomas, of illinois, mr. pinkney, of maryland, and mr. james barbour, of virginia, composed this important committee on the part of the senate; and mr. holmes, of massachusetts, from the district of maine, mr. taylor, of new york, mr. lowndes, of south carolina, mr. parker, of massachusetts, and mr. kinsey, of new jersey, on the part of the house. meanwhile the house voted on the original missouri bill. an amendment peremptorily interdicting all slavery in the new state was adopted by ninety-four yeas to eighty-six nays; and thus the bill passed the house and was sent to the senate on the st of march. so, after an exasperated and protracted discussion, the two houses were at a dead-lock. the double-headed missouri compromise was the ultimatum of the senate. the restriction of slavery in missouri, involving, of course, its prohibition in all the unorganized territories, was the ultimatum of the house. at this stage, on the d of march, the committee of conference made their report, which was urged at once upon the house by mr. lowndes, the distinguished representative from south carolina, and one of her most cherished sons. and here, sir, at the mention of this name, still so fragrant among us, let me for one moment stop this current of history, to express the honest admiration with which he inspires me. mr. lowndes died before my memory of political events, but he is still endeared by the self-abnegation of a single utterance,--_that the presidency is an office not to be sought or declined_,--a sentiment which by its beauty, in one part at least, shames the vileness of aspiration in our day. such a man, on any occasion, would be a host; but he now threw his great soul into the work. he even objected to a motion to print the report, on the ground "that it would imply a determination in the house to delay a decision of the subject to-day, which he had hoped the house was fully prepared for." the question then followed on striking out the restriction in the missouri bill. the report in the "national intelligencer"[ ] says:-- "mr. lowndes spoke briefly in support of the compromise recommended by the committee of conference, and urged with great earnestness the propriety of a decision which would restore tranquillity to the country, which was demanded by every consideration of discretion, of moderation, of wisdom, and of virtue." "mr. mercer [of virginia] followed on the same side with great earnestness, and had spoken about half an hour, when he was compelled by indisposition to resume his seat." [ ] see also annals of congress, _ut supra_, ii. , , march , . such efforts, pressed with southern ardor, were not unavailing. in conformity with the report of the committee, the whole question was forthwith put at rest. maine and missouri were admitted into the union as independent states. the restriction of slavery in missouri was abandoned by a vote in the house of ninety yeas to eighty-seven nays; and the prohibition of slavery in territories north of ° ´, exclusive of missouri, was substituted by a vote of one hundred and thirty-four yeas to forty-two nays. among the distinguished southern names in the affirmative are louis mclane, of delaware, samuel smith, of maryland, william lowndes, of south carolina, and charles fenton mercer, of virginia. the title of the missouri bill was amended in conformity with this prohibition, by adding the words, "and to prohibit slavery in certain territories." _the bills then passed both houses without a division_; and on the morning of the d of march, , the "national intelligencer" contained an exulting article, entitled "the question settled." another paper, published in baltimore, immediately after the passage of the compromise, vindicated it as a perpetual compact, which could not be disturbed. the language is so clear and strong that i will read it, although it has been already quoted by my able and excellent friend from ohio [mr. chase]. "_it is true, the compromise is supported only by the letter of a law repealable by the authority which enacted it; but the circumstances of the case give to this law a moral force equal to that of a positive provision of the constitution; and we do not hazard anything by saying that the constitution exists in its observance._ both parties have sacrificed much to conciliation. _we wish to see the compact kept in good faith_, and trust that a kind providence will open the way to relieve us of an evil which every good citizen deprecates as the supreme curse of this country."[ ] [ ] niles's weekly register, march , . sir, the distinguished leaders in this settlement were all from the south. as early as february, , louis mclane, of delaware, urged it upon congress, in the form of a "compact binding upon all subsequent legislatures." it was in brought forward and upheld in the senate by william pinkney, of maryland, and passed in that body by the vote of every southern senator except two, against the vote of every northern senator except four. in the house it was welcomed at once by samuel smith, of maryland, and charles fenton mercer, of virginia. the committee of conference, through which it finally prevailed, was filled, on the part of the senate, with inflexible partisans of the south, such as might fitly represent the sentiments of its president, john gaillard, a senator from south carolina; on the part of the house, it was nominated by henry clay, the speaker, a representative from kentucky. this committee, thus constituted, drawing its double life from the south, was unanimous in favor of the compromise, with but one dissenting voice, and that from the north,--john w. taylor, of new york. a private letter from mr. pinkney, written at the time, and preserved by his distinguished biographer, shows that the report made by the committee came from him. "the bill for the admission of missouri into the union (_without_ restriction as to slavery) may be considered as passed. that bill was sent back again this morning from the house, _with the restriction as to slavery_. the senate voted to amend it by striking out the restriction (twenty-seven to fifteen), and proposed, as another amendment, _what i have all along been the advocate of, a restriction upon the vacant territory to the north and west, as to slavery_. to-night the house of representatives have agreed to _both_ of these amendments, in opposition to their former votes, and this affair is settled. to-morrow we shall (of course) recede from our amendments as to maine (our object being effected), and both states will be admitted. _this happy result has been accomplished by the conference, of which i was a member on the part of the senate, and of which i proposed the report which has been made._"[ ] [ ] wheaton's life of pinkney, p. . thus again the compromise takes its life from the south. proposed in the committee by mr. pinkney, it was urged on the house of representatives, with great earnestness, by mr. lowndes, of south carolina, and mr. mercer, of virginia: and here again is the most persuasive voice of the south. when passed by congress, it next came before the president, james monroe, of virginia, for his approval, who did not sign it till after the _unanimous_ opinion, in writing, of his cabinet, composed of john quincy adams, william h. crawford, john c. calhoun, smith thompson, and william wirt,--a majority of whom were southern men,--that the prohibition of slavery in the territories was constitutional. thus yet again the compromise takes its life from the south. as the compromise took its life from the south, so, in the judgment of its own statesmen at the time, and according to unquestionable facts, the south was the conquering party. it gained forthwith its darling desire, the first and essential stage in the admission of missouri as a slave state, successfully consummated at the next session,--and subsequently the admission of arkansas, also as a slave state. from the crushed and humbled north it received more than the full consideration stipulated in its favor. on the side of the north the contract has been more than executed. and now the south refuses to perform the part which it originally proposed and assumed in this transaction. with the consideration in its pocket, it repudiates the bargain which it forced upon the country. this, sir, is a simple statement of the present question. a subtile german has declared that he could find heresies in the lord's prayer; and i believe it is only in this spirit that any flaw can be found in the existing obligations of this compact. as late as , in the discussions of this body, the senator from virginia [mr. mason], who usually sits behind me, but who is not now in his seat, while condemning it in many aspects, says:-- "yet, as it was agreed to, as a compromise, by the _south_, for the sake of the union, _i would be the last to disturb it_."[ ] [ ] congressional globe, th cong. st sess., vol. xix., appendix, p. . even this determined senator recognized it as an obligation which he would not disturb. and, though disbelieving the original constitutionality of the arrangement, he was clearly right. i know, sir, that it is in form simply a legislative act; but as the act of settlement in england, declaring the rights and liberties of the subject and settling the succession of the crown, has become a permanent part of the british constitution, irrepealable by any common legislation, so this act, under all the circumstances attending its passage, also by long acquiescence, and the complete performance of its conditions by one party, has become part of our fundamental law, irrepealable by any common legislation. as well might congress at this moment undertake to overhaul the original purchase of louisiana as unconstitutional, and now, on this account, thrust away that magnificent heritage, with all its cities, states, and territories, teeming with civilization. the missouri compact, in its unperformed obligations to freedom, stands at this day as impregnable as the louisiana purchase. i appeal to senators about me not to disturb it. i appeal to the senators from virginia to keep inviolate the compact made in their behalf by james barbour and charles fenton mercer. i appeal to the senators from south carolina to guard the work of john gaillard and william lowndes. i appeal to the senators from maryland to uphold the compromise which elicited the constant support of samuel smith, and was first triumphantly pressed by the unsurpassed eloquence of pinkney. i appeal to the senators from delaware to maintain the landmark of freedom in the territory of louisiana early proposed by louis mclane. i appeal to the senators from kentucky not to repudiate the pledges of henry clay. i appeal to the senators from alabama not to break the agreement sanctioned by the earliest votes in the senate of their late most honored fellow-citizen, william rufus king. sir, i have heard of honor that felt a stain like a wound. if there be any such in this chamber,--and surely there is,--it will hesitate to take upon itself the stain of this transaction. sir, congress may now set aside this obligation, repudiate this plighted faith, annul this compact; and some of you, forgetful of the _majesty of honest dealing_, in order to support slavery, may consider it advantageous to use this power. to all such let me commend a familiar story. an eminent leader in antiquity, themistocles, once announced to the athenian assembly, that he had a scheme in contemplation, highly beneficial to the state, but which could not be made public. he was thereupon directed to communicate it to aristides, surnamed the just, and, if approved by him, to put it in execution. the brief and memorable judgment of aristides was, that, while nothing could be more advantageous to athens, nothing could be more unjust; and the assembly, responding at once, commanded that the project should be abandoned. it appears that it was proposed to burn the combined greek fleet, then enjoying the security of peace in a neighboring sea, and thus confirm the naval supremacy of athens.[ ] a similar proposition is now brought before the american senate. you are asked to destroy a safeguard of freedom, consecrated by solemn compact, under which the country is reposing in the security of peace, and thus confirm the supremacy of slavery. to this institution and its partisans the proposition may seem advantageous; but nothing can be more unjust. let the judgment of the athenian democracy be yours. this is what i have to say upon this head. i now pass to the second branch of the argument. [ ] plutarch, themistocles. ii. mr. president,--it is not only as an infraction of solemn compact, embodied in ancient law, that i oppose this bill; i arraign it as a flagrant and extravagant departure from the original policy of our fathers, consecrated by their lives, opinions, and acts. [here mr. sumner proceeded to set forth the antislavery policy at the foundation of the government,--less fully than in the earlier speech, _freedom national, slavery sectional_, but substantially in the same vein. after alluding to the memorial of franklin, addressed to the first congress under the constitution, he proceeded as follows.] the memorial of franklin, with other memorials of a similar character, was referred to a committee, and much debated in the house, which finally sanctioned the following resolution, and directed the same to be entered upon its journals, namely:-- "that congress have no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them, within any of the states: _it remaining with the several states alone to provide any regulations therein which humanity and true policy may require_."[ ] this resolution, declaring the principle of non-intervention by congress with slavery in the states, was adopted by the same congress which had solemnly affirmed the prohibition of slavery in all the existing territory of the union; so that one may be regarded as the complement of the other. and it is on these double acts, at the first organization of the government, and the recorded sentiments of the founders, that i take my stand, and challenge all question. in the country, at this time, there was strictly no dividing line between antislavery and proslavery. the antislavery sentiment was thoroughly national, broad and general, pervading alike all parts of the union, and uprising from the common heart of the entire people. the proslavery interest was strictly personal and pecuniary, and had its source simply in the self-interest of individual slaveholders. it contemplated slavery only as a domestic institution, not as a political element, and merely stipulated for its security where it actually existed within the states. [ ] annals of congress, st cong. d sess., ii. - , march , . sir, the original policy of the country, begun under the confederation, and recognized at the initiation of the new government, is clear and unmistakable. compendiously expressed, it was _non-intervention by congress with slavery in the states, and its prohibition in all the national domain_. in this way discordant feelings on this subject were reconciled. slave-masters were left at home in their respective states, under the protection of local laws, to hug slavery without interference from congress, while all opposed to it were exempted from any responsibility therefor in the national domain. this, sir, is the common ground on which our political fabric was reared; and i do not hesitate to say that it is the only ground on which it can stand in permanent peace. * * * * * our republic has swollen in population and power, but it has shrunk in character. it is not now what it was in the beginning, a republic merely permitting, while it regretted slavery,--tolerating it only where it could not be removed, and interdicting it where it did not exist,--but a mighty propagandist, openly favoring and vindicating it,--visiting, also, with displeasure all who oppose it. sir, our country early reached heights which it could not keep. its fall was gentle, but complete. at the session of congress immediately following the ratification of the prohibition of slavery in the national domain, a transfer of the territory now constituting tennessee was accepted from north carolina ( d april, ), loaded with the express proviso, "that no regulations made or to be made by congress shall tend to emancipate slaves": a formal provision, which, while admitting the power of congress over slavery in the territories, waived the prevailing policy of executing it. this was followed, in , by the transfer from georgia of the region between her present western limit and the mississippi, under a similar condition. in both these cases apology may be found in the very terms of the transfer, and in the fact that the region constituted part of two states where slavery actually existed,--though it will be confessed that even here there was a descent from that summit of freedom on which the nation had so proudly rested. without tracing this downward course through its successive stages, let me refer to facts which too palpably reveal the abyss that has been reached. early in our history no man was disqualified for public office by reason of his opinions on this subject; and this condition continued for a long period. as late as , john w. taylor, representative from new york, who pressed with so much energy, not merely the prohibition of slavery in the territories, but its restriction in the state of missouri, was elected to the chair of henry clay, as speaker of the other house. it is needless to add, that no determined supporter of the prohibition of slavery in the territories at this day could expect that eminent trust.... to such lowest deep has our government descended! these things prepare us to comprehend the true character of the change with regard to the territories. in all existing national domain was promptly and unanimously dedicated to freedom, without opposition or criticism. the interdict of slavery then covered every inch of soil belonging to the national government. louisiana, an immense region beyond the bounds of the original states, was subsequently acquired, and in , after a vehement struggle which shook the whole land, discomfited freedom was compelled, by a dividing line, to a partition with slavery. this arrangement, which, in its very terms, was exclusively applicable to a particular territory purchased from france, has been accepted as final down to the present session of congress; but now, sir, here in , freedom is suddenly summoned to surrender even her hard-won moiety. here are the three stages: at the first, all consecrated to freedom; at the second, only half; at the third, all grasped by slavery. the original policy of the government is absolutely reversed. slavery, which at the beginning was a sectional institution, with no foothold anywhere on the national territory, is now exalted as national, and all our broad domain is threatened by its blighting shadow. * * * * * thus much for what i have to say, at this time, of the original policy, consecrated by the lives, opinions, and acts of our fathers. certain reasons are adduced for the proposed departure from their great example, which, though of little validity, i would not pass in silence. the prohibition of slavery in the territories is assailed, as beyond the power of congress, and an infringement of local sovereignty. on this account, at this late day, it is pronounced unconstitutional. now, without considering minutely the sources from which the power of congress over the national domain is derived,--whether from express grant in the constitution to make rules and regulations for the government of the territory, or from power, necessarily implied, to govern territory acquired by conquest or purchase,--it seems to me impossible to deny its existence, without invalidating a large portion of the legislation of the country, from the adoption of the constitution down to the present day. this power was asserted before the constitution. it was not denied or prohibited by the constitution itself. exercised from the first existence of the government, it has been recognized by the three departments, executive, legislative, and judicial. precedents of every kind are thick in its support. indeed, the very bill now before us assumes a control of the territory clearly inconsistent with those principles of sovereignty which are said to be violated by congressional prohibition of slavery. here are provisions determining the main features of the government, the distribution of powers in the executive, legislative, and judicial departments, and the manner in which they shall be respectively constituted,--securing to the president, with the consent of the senate, the appointment of governor, secretary, and judges, and to the people only the election of the legislature,--and even ordaining the qualifications of voters, the salaries of the public officers, and the daily compensation of the members of the legislature. surely, if congress may establish these provisions, without interference with the rights of territorial sovereignty, it is absurd to say that it may not also prohibit slavery. in this very bill there is an express prohibition on the territory, borrowed from the ordinance of , and repeated in every act organizing a territory, or even a new state, down to the present time, where it is expressly declared that "no tax shall be imposed upon the property of the united states." now here is a clear and unquestionable restriction upon the territories and states. the public lands of the united states, situated within an organized territory or state, cannot be regarded as the _instruments_ and _means_ necessary and proper to execute the sovereign powers of the nation, like fortifications, arsenals, and navy-yards. they are strictly in the nature of _private property_ of the nation, and as such, unless exempted by the foregoing prohibition, would clearly be within the scope of local taxation, liable, like the lands of other proprietors, to all customary burdens and incidents. mr. justice woodbury has declared, in a well-considered judgment, that, "where the united states own land situated within the limits of particular states, and over which they have no cession of jurisdiction, for objects either special or general, little doubt exists that the rights and remedies in relation to it are usually such as apply to other land-owners within the state."[ ] i assume, then, that without this prohibition these lands would be liable to taxation. does any one question this? nobody. the conclusion, then, follows, that by this prohibition you propose to deprive the present territory, as you have deprived other territories,--ay, and states,--of an essential portion of its sovereignty. [ ] united states _v._ ames, woodbury & minot, . and these, sir, are not vain words. the supreme court of the united states has given great prominence to the sovereign right of taxation in the states. in the case of _providence bank_ v. _billings and pittman_, peters, , they declare,-- "that the taxing power is of vital importance; _that it is essential to the existence of government_; that the relinquishment of such a power is never to be assumed." and again, in the case of _dobbins_ v. _commissioners of erie county_, peters, , they say:-- "taxation is a sacred right, _essential to the existence of government, an incident of sovereignty_. the right of legislation is coëxtensive with the incident, to attach it upon all persons and property within the jurisdiction of a state." now i call upon senators to remark, that this sacred right, reputed so essential to the very existence of government, is abridged in the bill before us. for myself, i do not doubt the power of congress to fasten this restriction upon the territory, and afterwards upon the state, as is always done; but i am at a loss to see on what grounds this restriction can be placed, which will not also support the prohibition of slavery. the former is an unquestionable infringement of sovereignty, as declared by our supreme court, far more than can be asserted of the latter. i am unwilling to admit, sir, that the prohibition of slavery in the territories is in any just sense an infringement of local sovereignty. slavery is an infraction of the immutable law of nature, and as such cannot be considered a natural incident to any sovereignty, especially in a country which has solemnly declared, in its declaration of independence, the unalienable right of all men to life, _liberty_, and the pursuit of happiness. in an age of civilization, and in a land of rights, slavery may still be tolerated _in fact_; but its prohibition within a municipal jurisdiction by the government thereof--as by one of the states of the union,--cannot be considered an infraction of natural rights; nor can its prohibition by congress in the territories be regarded as an infringement of local sovereignty, founded, as it must be, on natural rights. then comes another argument, most fallacious in its character. it is asserted, that, inasmuch as the territories were acquired by the common treasure, they are the common property of the whole union, and therefore no citizen can be prevented from carrying into them his slaves, without infringement of the equal rights and privileges which belong to him as a citizen of the united states. but it is admitted that the people of this very territory, when organized as a state, may exclude slaves, and in this way abridge an asserted right, founded on the common property in the territory. now, if this can be done by the few thousand settlers who constitute the state government, the whole argument founded on the acquisition of the territories by a common treasure is futile and evanescent. but this argument proceeds on an assumption which cannot stand. it assumes that slavery is a national institution, and that property in slaves is recognized by the constitution of the united states. nothing can be more false. by the judgment of the supreme court of the united states, and also by the principles of the common law, slavery is a local municipal institution, deriving its support exclusively from local municipal laws, and beyond the sphere of these laws it ceases to exist, except so far as it may be preserved by the uncertain clause for the rendition of fugitives from service. madison thought it wrong to admit in the constitution the idea that there can be property in men; and i rejoice to believe that no such idea can be found there. the constitution regards slaves always as "persons," with the rights of "persons,"--never as property. when it is said, therefore, that every citizen may enter the national domain with his property, it does not follow, by any rule of logic or of law, that he may carry his slaves. on the contrary, he can carry only that property which is admitted such by the universal law of nature, written by god's own finger on the heart of man. in vain do you speak of "rights" in the territories,--as if this august word could be profaned to characterize such a claim. the relation of master and slave is sometimes classed with the "domestic relations." now, while it is unquestionably among the powers of any state, within its own jurisdiction, to change the existing relation of husband and wife, and to establish polygamy, i presume no person would contend that a polygamous husband, resident in one of the states, would be entitled to enter the national territory with his harem,--his property, if you please,--and there claim immunity. clearly, when he passes the bounds of that local jurisdiction which sanctions polygamy, the peculiar domestic relation would cease: and it is precisely the same with slavery. * * * * * sir, i dismiss these considerations. the prohibition of slavery in the territory of kansas and nebraska stands on foundations of living rock, upheld by the early policy of the fathers, by constant precedent, and time-honored compact. it is now in your power to overturn it; you may remove the sacred landmark, and open the whole vast domain to slavery. to you is committed this high prerogative. our fathers, on the eve of the revolution, set forth in burning words, among their grievances, that george the third, "determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, had prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce."[ ] sir, like the english monarch, you may now prostitute your power to this same purpose. but you cannot escape the judgment of the world, nor the doom of history. [ ] first draught of the declaration of independence: jefferson's writings, vol. i. p. . it will be in vain, that, while doing this thing, you plead in apology the principle of _self-government_, which you profess to recognize in the territories. sir, this very principle, when truly administered, secures equal rights to all, without distinction of race or color, and makes slavery impossible. by no rule of justice, and by no subtilty of political metaphysics, can the right to hold a fellow-man in bondage be regarded as essential to self-government. the inconsistency is too flagrant. it is apparent on the bare statement. it is like saying _two_ and _two_ make _three_. in the name of liberty you open the door to slavery. with professions of equal rights on the lips, you trample on the rights of human nature. with a kiss upon the brow of that fair territory, you betray it to wretchedness and shame. well did the patriot soul exclaim, in bitter words, wrung out by bitter experience, "o liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name!"[ ] [ ] "o liberté, que de crimes on commet en ton nom!"--mme. roland. in vain, sir, you will plead that this measure proceeds from the north, as has been suggested by the senator from kentucky [mr. dixon]. even if this were true, it would be no apology. but, precipitated upon the senate, as this bill has been, at a moment of general calm, and in the absence of any controlling exigency, and then hurried to a vote in advance of the public voice, as if fearful of arrest, it cannot justly be called the offspring of any popular sentiment. in this respect it differs widely from the missouri prohibition, which was adopted only after solemn debate, extending through two sessions of congress, and ample discussion before the people. as yet, there is no evidence that this attempt, though espoused by northern politicians, proceeds from that northern sentiment which throbs and glows, strong and fresh, in the schools, the churches, and the homes of the people. _populi omnes ad aquilonem positi libertatem quandam spirant._[ ] and could the abomination which you seek to perpetrate be now submitted to the awakened millions whose souls are truly ripened under northern skies, it would be flouted at once, with indignant and undying scorn. [ ] bodinus, de republica, lib. i. cap. , p. . but the race of men, "white slaves of the north," described and despised by a southern statesman, is not yet extinct there, sir. it is one of the melancholy tokens of the power of slavery, under our political system, and especially through the operations of the national government, that it loosens and destroys the character of northern men, exerting its subtle influence even at a distance,--like the black magnetic mountain in the arabian story, under whose irresistible attraction, the iron bolts which held together the strong timbers of a stately ship, floating securely on the distant wave, were drawn out, till the whole fell apart, and became a disjointed wreck. alas! too often those principles which give consistency, individuality, and form to the northern character, which render it stanch, strong, and seaworthy, which bind it together as with iron, are sucked out, one by one, like the bolts of the ill-fated vessel, and from the miserable loosened fragments is formed that human anomaly, _a northern man with southern principles_. sir, no such man can speak for the north. [here there was an interruption of prolonged applause in the galleries.] the president (mr. stuart in the chair). the chair will be obliged to direct the galleries to be cleared, if order is not preserved. no applause will be allowed. several voices. let them be cleared now. mr. sumner. mr. president, this bill is proposed as a measure of peace. in this way you vainly think to withdraw the subject of slavery from national politics. this is a mistake. peace depends on mutual confidence. it can never rest secure on broken faith and injustice. permit me to say, frankly, sincerely, and earnestly, that the subject of slavery can never be withdrawn from the national politics until we return once more to the original policy of our fathers, at the first organization of the government under washington, when the national ensign nowhere on the national territory covered a single slave. * * * * * amidst all seeming discouragements, the great omens are with us. art, literature, poetry, religion, everything which elevates man, all are on our side. the plough, the steam-engine, the railroad, the telegraph, the book, every human improvement, every generous word anywhere, every true pulsation of every heart which is not a mere muscle and nothing else, gives new encouragement to the warfare with slavery. the discussion will proceed. wherever an election occurs, there this question will arise. wherever men come together to speak of public affairs, there again will it be. no political joshua now, with miraculous power, can stop the sun in its course through the heavens. it is even now rejoicing, like a strong man, to run its race, and will yet send its beams into the most distant plantations, melting the chains of every slave. but this movement, or agitation, as it is reproachfully called, is boldly pronounced injurious to the very object desired. now, without entering into details, which neither time nor the occasion justifies, let me say that this objection belongs to those commonplaces which have been arrayed against every good movement in the world's history, against even knowledge itself, against the abolition of the slave-trade. perhaps it was not unnatural for the senator from north carolina [mr. badger] to press it, even as vehemently as he did; but it sounded less natural, when it came, though in more moderate phrase, from my distinguished friend and colleague from massachusetts [mr. everett]. the past furnishes a controlling example by which its true character may be determined. call to mind, sir, that the efforts of william wilberforce encountered this precise objection, and that the condition of the kidnapped slave was then vindicated, in language not unlike that of the senator from north carolina, by no less a person than the duke of clarence, of the royal family of great britain. in what was called his maiden speech, on the d of may, and preserved in the parliamentary debates, he said: "the negroes were not treated in the manner which had so much agitated the public mind. he had been an attentive observer of their state, and had no doubt but he could bring forward proofs to convince their lordships that their state was far from being miserable: on the contrary, that, when the various ranks of society were considered, they were comparatively in a state of humble happiness." and only the next year, this same royal prince, in debate in the house of lords, asserted that the promoters of the abolition of the slave-trade were "either fanatics or hypocrites," and in one of these classes he ranked wilberforce. mark now the end. after years of weary effort, the slave-trade was finally abolished; and at last, in , the early vindicator of this enormity, the maligner of a name hallowed among men, was brought to give his royal assent, as william the fourth, king of great britain, to the immortal act of parliament, greater far than any victory of war, by which slavery was abolished throughout the british dominions. sir, time and the universal conscience have vindicated the labors of wilberforce. the movement against american slavery, protected by the august names of washington, franklin, and jefferson, can calmly await a similar judgment. sometimes it is said that this movement is dangerous to the union. in this solicitude i cannot share. as a lover of concord, and a jealous partisan of all that makes for peace, i am always glad to express my attachment to the union; but i believe that this bond will be most truly preserved and most beneficently extended (for i shrink from no expansion where freedom leads the way) by firmly upholding those principles of liberty and justice which were its early corner-stones. the true danger to this union proceeds not from any abandonment of the "peculiar institution" of the south, but from the abandonment of the spirit in which the union was formed,--not from any warfare upon slavery within the limits of the constitution, but from warfare upon freedom, like that waged by this very bill. the union is most precious; but more precious far are that "general welfare," that "domestic tranquillity," and those "blessings of liberty" which it was established to secure,--all which are now wantonly endangered. not that i love the union less, but freedom more, do i now, in pleading this great cause, insist that freedom, at all hazards, shall be preserved. the great master, shakespeare, who with all-seeing mortal eye observed mankind, and with immortal pen depicted the manners as they rise, has presented a scene which may be read with advantage by all who would plunge the south into tempestuous quarrel with the north. i refer to the well-known passage between brutus and cassius. reading this remarkable dialogue, it is difficult not to see in brutus our own north, and in cassius the south. "_cas._ urge me no more, i shall forget myself; have mind upon your health, tempt me no further. * * * * * "_bru._ hear me, for i will speak. must i give way and room to your rash choler? * * * * * "_cas._ o ye gods! ye gods! must i endure all this? "_bru._ all this? ay, more: fret, till your proud heart break: _go, show your slaves how choleric you are, and make your bondmen tremble._ must i budge? must i observe you? must i stand and crouch under your testy humor? * * * * * "_cas._ do not presume too much upon my love; i may do that i shall be sorry for. "_bru._ _you have done that you should be sorry for._ there is no terror, cassius, in your threats; for i am armed so strong in honesty, that they pass by me as the idle wind, which i respect not. * * * * * "_cas._ a friend should bear his friend's infirmities, but brutus makes mine greater than they are. "_bru._ i do not, till you practise them on me. "cas. you love me not. "_bru._ i do not like your faults." and the colloquy proceeding, each finally comes to understand the other, appreciates his character and attitude, and the impetuous, gallant cassius exclaims, "give me your hand!"--to which brutus replies, "and my heart too!" afterwards, with hand and heart united, on the field of philippi they together upheld the liberties of rome. the north and the south, sir, as i fondly trust, amidst all differences, will ever have hand and heart for each other; and believing in the sure prevalence of almighty truth, i confidently look forward to the good time, when both will unite, according to the sentiments of the fathers and the true spirit of the constitution, in declaring freedom, and not slavery, national, to the end that the flag of the republic, wherever it floats, on sea or land, within the national jurisdiction, may cover none but freemen. then will be achieved that union contemplated at the beginning, against which the storms of faction and the assaults of foreign power shall beat in vain, as upon the rock of ages,--and liberty, seeking a firm foothold, will have at last whereon to stand and move the world. when will the north be aroused? letter to a personal friend, march , . the following private letter found its way into the public prints. senate chamber, march , . my dear----: your letter has cheered and strengthened me. it came to me, too, with pleasant memories of early life. as i read it, the gates of the past seemed to open, and i saw again the bright fields of study in which we walked together. our battle here has been severe, and much of its brunt has fallen upon a few. for weeks my trials and anxieties were intense. it is a satisfaction to know that they have found sympathy among good men. but the slave power will push its tyranny yet further, and there is but one remedy,--union at the north without distinction of party, to take possession of the national government, and administer it in the spirit of freedom, and not of slavery. oh, when will the north be aroused? ever sincerely yours, charles sumner. a liberty-loving emigration to guard kansas. letter to a massachusetts committee, may , . senate chamber, may , . my dear sir,--i cannot be with you at your meeting on wednesday next: my post of duty is here. but i must not lose the opportunity afforded by your invitation to express anew my abhorrence of the outrage upon freedom and public faith attempted by the nebraska bill, and to offer my gratitude to those who unite in the good work of opposing it. in this warfare there is room for every human activity. by speech, vote, public meeting, sermon, and prayer, we have already striven. but a new agent is now announced. it is proposed to organize a company of liberty-loving citizens, who shall enter upon the broad lands in question, and by example, voice, and vote, trained under the peculiar institutions of massachusetts, overrule the designs of slave-masters. the purpose has a nobleness which gives assurance of success. with a heart full of love for massachusetts, her schools, libraries, churches, and happy homes, i should hesitate to counsel any one to turn away from her, a voluntary exile. i do not venture such advice. but if any there be among us, to whom our goodly commonwealth seems narrow, and who incline to cast their lines in other places,--to such i would say, that they will do well, while becoming, each for himself, the artificer of his fortune, to enter into the sacred legion by which liberty shall be safely guarded in nebraska and kansas. thus will mingle public good with private advantage. the pilgrim fathers turned their backs upon their native land to secure liberty for themselves and their children. the emigrants whom you organize have a higher motive. liberty for _themselves_ and their children is already secured in massachusetts. they will go to secure liberty for _others_,--to guard an immense territory from the invasion of slavery, and to dedicate it forever to liberty. in such an expedition volunteers may win a victory of peace, which history will record with admiration and gratitude. believe me, dear sir, very faithfully yours, charles sumner. thomas drew, esq., chairman of the committee. final protest, for himself and the clergy of new england, against slavery in nebraska and kansas. speech in the senate, on the night of the final passage of the nebraska and kansas bill, may , . among the important incidents of the nebraska debate was a protest from three thousand clergymen of new england, which was severely denounced by the supporters of the aggression, especially by mr. douglas. particular objection was taken to the words, "in the name of almighty god, and in his presence," which were employed by the protestants. the heats on both sides increased. at a later stage mr. sumner felt constrained to speak again, which he did for himself and the much-abused clergy. this brief effort attracted unusual attention. it seemed to meet the rising sentiments of the people, and especially of the clergy. rev. dr. allen, formerly president of bowdoin college, wrote: "our _northampton courier_ of yesterday contained your bold and admirable midnight speech. i thank you for what you said for the clergy, but more especially what you said for the country and for freedom." rev. dr. storrs, of braintree, massachusetts, an eminent congregationalist, wrote: "i took my pen only to say a single word,--to tell you of my grateful admiration of your courage, faithfulness, and eloquence in defence of truth and godliness against the increasing tide of hellish principles and passions." rev. theodore parker wrote: "i have had no time to thank you for your noble speech till this minute. nat. bowditch says it is the best speech delivered in the senate of the united states in his day. you never did a thing more timely, or which will be more warmly welcomed than this." george s. hillard, a friend of many years, but differing in position on political questions, wrote: "your last brief speech on the nebraska bill is capital. i think it the best speech you have ever made. the mixture of dignity and spirit is most happy. we are going to fill up that region with free laborers, and secure it against slavery." john g. whittier wrote: "it was the fitting word; it entirely satisfied me; and with a glow of heart i thanked god that its author was my friend." as the speech received the sympathy of friends, so it aroused all the bad passions on the side of slavery. the manifestation that ensued will appear in a note at the end. the original debate in the senate on the nebraska and kansas bill, in which mr. sumner took part, was closed by the passage of that bill--after a protracted session throughout the night--on the morning of saturday, march , , by a vote of thirty-seven yeas to fourteen nays. the bill was then sent to the house of representatives. it was there taken up and referred to the committee of the whole; but, owing to the mass of prior business, it became impossible to reach it. under these circumstances, a fresh bill, nearly identical with that which passed the senate, was introduced and passed the house. this, of course, required the action of the senate. on the d of may a message from the house announced its passage, and asked the concurrence of the senate. it was at once read a first time; but, on the objection of mr. sumner, its second reading was stopped for that day. the next day, on motion of mr. douglas, all prior orders were postponed for the purpose of considering it. the debate upon it continued during that day and the next. the interest it excited was attested by crowded galleries to the end. among spectators on the floor of the senate was the earl of elgin, governor-general of canada, with his suite, then in washington to negotiate the canadian reciprocity treaty. late in the night of the last day, after the bill was reported to the senate, and the question put by the chair, "shall the bill be engrossed and read a third time?" mr. sumner took the floor and said:-- mr. president,--it is now midnight. at this late hour of a session drawn out to unaccustomed length, i shall not fatigue the senate by argument. there is a time for all things, and the time for argument has passed. the determination of the majority is fixed; but it is not more fixed than mine. the bill which they sustain i oppose. on a former occasion i met it by argument, which, though often attacked in debate, still stands unanswered and unanswerable. at present i am admonished that i must be content with a few words of earnest protest against the consummation of a great wrong. duty to myself, and also to the honored commonwealth of which i find myself the sole representative in this immediate exigency, will not allow me to do less. but i have a special duty, which i would not omit. here on my desk are remonstrances against the passage of this bill, some placed in my hands since the commencement of the debate to-day, and i desire that these voices, direct from the people, should be heard. with the permission of the senate, i will offer them now. the presiding officer (mr. stuart in the chair). the remonstrances can be received by unanimous consent. several voices. let them be received. the presiding officer. the chair hears no objection. mr. sumner. taking advantage of this permission, i now present the remonstrance of a large number of citizens of new york against the repeal of the missouri compromise. i also present the memorial of the religious society of friends in michigan against the passage of the nebraska bill, or any other bill annulling the missouri compromise act of . i also present the remonstrance of the clergy and laity of the baptist denomination in michigan and indiana against the wrong and bad faith contemplated in the nebraska bill. but this is not all. i hold in my hand, and now present to the senate, one hundred and twenty-five separate remonstrances, from clergymen of every protestant denomination in maine, new hampshire, vermont, massachusetts, rhode island, and connecticut, constituting the six new england states. these remonstrances are identical in character with the larger one presented by my distinguished colleague [mr. everett],--whose term of service here ends in a few days by voluntary resignation, and who is now detained at home by illness,--and were originally intended as part of it, but did not arrive in season for annexation to that interesting and weighty document. they are independent in form, though supplementary in nature, helping to swell the protest of the pulpits of new england. with pleasure and pride i now do this service, and at this last stage interpose the sanctity of the pulpits of new england to arrest an alarming outrage,--believing that the remonstrants, from their eminent character and influence as representatives of the intelligence and conscience of the country, are peculiarly entitled to be heard,--and, further, believing that their remonstrances, while respectful in form, embody just conclusions, both of opinion and fact. like them, sir, i do not hesitate to protest against the bill yet pending before the senate, as a great moral wrong, as a breach of public faith, as a measure full of danger to the peace, and even existence, of our union. and, sir, believing in god, as i profoundly do, i cannot doubt that the opening of an immense region to so great an enormity as slavery is calculated to draw down upon our country his righteous judgments. "in the name of almighty god, and in his presence," these remonstrants protest against the nebraska bill. in this solemn language, most strangely pronounced blasphemous on this floor, there is obviously no assumption of ecclesiastical power, as is perversely charged, but simply a devout observance of the scriptural injunction, "whatsoever ye do, in word or deed, do all in the name of the lord." let me add, also, that these remonstrants, in this very language, have followed the example of the senate, which, at our present session, has ratified at least one important treaty beginning with these precise words, "in the name of almighty god." surely, if the senate may thus assume to speak, the clergy may do likewise, without imputation of blasphemy, or any just criticism, at least in this body. i am unwilling, particularly at this time, to be betrayed into anything like a defence of the clergy. they need no such thing at my hands. there are men in this senate justly eminent for eloquence, learning, and ability; but there is no man here competent, except in his own conceit, to sit in judgment on the clergy of new england. honorable senators, so swift with criticism and sarcasm, might profit by their example. perhaps the senator from south carolina [mr. butler], who is not insensible to scholarship, might learn from them something of its graces. perhaps the senator from virginia [mr. mason], who finds no sanction under the constitution for any remonstrance from clergymen, might learn from them something of the privileges of an american citizen. and perhaps the senator from illinois [mr. douglas], who precipitated this odious measure upon the country, might learn from them something of political wisdom. sir, from the first settlement of these shores, from those early days of struggle and privation, through the trials of the revolution, the clergy are associated not only with the piety and the learning, but with the liberties of the country. new england for a long time was governed by their prayers more than by any acts of the legislature; and at a later day their voices aided even the declaration of independence. the clergy of our time speak, then, not only from their own virtues, but from echoes yet surviving in the pulpits of their fathers. for myself, i desire to thank them for their generous interposition. already they have done much good in moving the country. they will not be idle. in the days of the revolution, john adams, yearning for independence, said, "let the pulpits thunder against oppression!" and the pulpits thundered.[ ] the time has come for them to thunder again. so famous was john knox for power in prayer, that queen mary used to say she feared his prayers more than all the armies of europe. but our clergy have prayers to be feared by the upholders of wrong. [ ] a specimen is an address by rev. thomas allen, minister of pittsfield, mass., entitled "instruction and counsel of a country clergyman, given to his people, lord's day, june , , immediately after reading [to them] the address of the honorable congress to the inhabitants of these united states." see boston independent chronicle, july , . there are lessons taught by these remonstrances, which, at this moment, should not pass unheeded. the senator from ohio [mr. wade], on the other side of the chamber, has openly declared that northern whigs can never again combine with their southern brethren in support of slavery. this is a good augury. the clergy of new england, some of whom, forgetful of the traditions of other days, once made their pulpits vocal for the fugitive slave bill, now, by the voices of learned divines, eminent bishops, accomplished professors, and faithful pastors, uttered in solemn remonstrance, unite at last in putting a permanent brand upon this hateful wrong. surely, from this time forward, they can never more render it any support. thank god for this! here is a sign full of promise for freedom. these remonstrances have especial significance, when it is urged, as has been often done in this debate, that the proposition still pending proceeds from the north. yes, sir, proceeds from the north: for that is its excuse and apology. the ostrich is reputed to hide its head in the sand, and then vainly imagine its coward body beyond the reach of pursuers. in similar spirit, honorable senators seem to shelter themselves behind scanty northern votes, and then vainly imagine that they are protected from the judgment of the country. the pulpits of new england, representing in unprecedented extent the popular voice there, now proclaim that six states, with all the fervor of religious conviction, protest against your outrage. to this extent, at least, i maintain it does not come from the north. from these expressions, and other tokens which daily greet us, it is evident that at last the religious sentiment of the country is touched, and, through this sentiment, i rejoice to believe that the whole north will be quickened with the true life of freedom. sir philip sidney, speaking to queen elizabeth of the spirit in the netherlands, animating every man, woman, and child against the spanish power, exclaimed, "it is the spirit of the lord, and is irresistible." a kindred spirit now animates the free states against the slave power, breathing everywhere its involuntary inspiration, and forbidding repose under the attempted usurpation. it is the spirit of the lord, and is irresistible. the threat of disunion, too often sounded in our ears, will be disregarded by an aroused and indignant people. ah, sir, senators vainly expect peace. not in this way can peace come. in passing such a bill as is now threatened, you scatter, from this dark midnight hour, no seeds of harmony and good-will, but, broadcast through the land, dragons' teeth, which haply may not spring up in direful crops of armed men, yet, i am assured, sir, will fructify in civil strife and feud. from the depths of my soul, as loyal citizen and as senator, i plead, remonstrate, protest, against the passage of this bill. i struggle against it as against death; but, as in death itself corruption puts on incorruption, and this mortal body puts on immortality, so from the sting of this hour i find assurance of that triumph by which freedom will be restored to her immortal birthright in the republic. _sir, the bill you are about to pass is at once the worst and the best on which congress ever acted._ yes, sir, worst and best at the same time. it is the worst bill, inasmuch as it is a present victory of slavery. in a christian land, and in an age of civilization, a time-honored statute of freedom is struck down, opening the way to all the countless woes and wrongs of human bondage. among the crimes of history, another is soon to be recorded, which no tears can blot out, and which in better days will be read with universal shame. do not start. the tea tax and stamp act, which aroused the patriot rage of our fathers, were virtues by the side of your transgression; nor would it be easy to imagine, at this day, any measure which more openly and wantonly defied every sentiment of justice, humanity, and christianity. am i not right, then, in calling it the worst bill on which congress ever acted? there is another side, to which i gladly turn. sir, it is the best bill on which congress ever acted; _for it annuls all past compromises with slavery, and makes any future compromises impossible_. thus it puts freedom and slavery face to face, and bids them grapple. who can doubt the result? it opens wide the door of the future, when, at last, there will really be a north, and the slave power will be broken,--when this wretched despotism will cease to dominate over our government, no longer impressing itself upon everything at home and abroad,--when the national government will be divorced in every way from slavery, and, according to the true intention of our fathers, freedom will be established by congress everywhere, at least beyond the local limits of the states. slavery will then be driven from usurped foothold here in the district of columbia, in the national territories, and elsewhere beneath the national flag; the fugitive slave bill, as vile as it is unconstitutional, will become a dead letter; and the domestic slave-trade, so far as it can be reached, but especially on the high seas, will be blasted by congressional prohibition. everywhere within the sphere of congress, the great _northern hammer_ will descend to smite the wrong; and the irresistible cry will break forth, "no more slave states!" thus, sir, standing at the very grave of freedom in nebraska and kansas, i lift myself to the vision of that happy resurrection by which freedom will be assured, not only in these territories, but everywhere under the national government. more clearly than ever before, i now penetrate that great future when slavery must disappear. proudly i discern the flag of my country, as it ripples in every breeze, at last in reality, as in name, the flag of freedom,--undoubted, pure, and irresistible. am i not right, then, in calling this bill the best on which congress ever acted? sorrowfully i bend before the wrong you commit. joyfully i welcome the promises of the future. when mr. sumner took his seat, he was succeeded by mr. mason, of virginia, who spoke as follows. i understand that the petitions which the senator [mr. sumner] who has just taken his seat offers were to be admitted, as they were offered, by the unanimous consent of the senate. two of them, when offered, were sent to the president's table. the last he has reserved, and made the vehicle for communicating the sentiments of the pulpits of new england to the senate, on the subject of this bill. i object to its reception; and i object to it because i understand that senator to say that it is _verbatim_ the petition that was presented by his honorable colleague, who is not now with us, in which the clergy presented themselves in this senate and to the country as a third estate, speaking not as american citizens, but as clergymen, and in that character only. i object to its reception. i object to it, that i may not in any manner minister to the unchristian purposes of the clergy of new england, as the senator has just announced them. i object to it, that i may be in no manner responsible for the prostitution of their office (once called holy and sacred, with them no longer so) in the face of the senate and of the american people. i object to it, that the clergymen of my own honored state, and of the south, may, as holding a common office in the ministry of the gospel, be in no manner confounded with or contaminated by these clergymen of new england, if the senator represents them correctly. sir, if the senator has represented these clergymen correctly, i rejoice that there is to be a separation between the church north and the church south; for, i say, if these men dare to lay aside the character of american citizens, and come here profaning their office, profaning the name of the almighty, for the purpose of political alliances, they are unworthy of their associates in the church. sir, it is the first time in the history of this country that a church of any denomination has asserted a right to be heard, as a church, upon the floors of legislation; and if the senator represents that body correctly, they have profaned their office, and i predict now a total separation between the church north and the church south, if i understand the sentiments of the church south. the church there, i know, is yet pure in its great and holy mission. when its ministers address themselves from the pulpit, they are heard with respect, under the sanctity of their office. you find none of them coming here to the doors of legislation to mingle in political strife. they truly hold themselves "unspotted from the world." if the senator who has just taken his seat has correctly expounded the clergymen of new england, i object to that petition. if he has correctly stated that it is _verbatim_ copied from the petition presented by his colleague, i say it is a prostitution of their office to the embrace of political party; and the senate shall not, by my assent, be made the medium of so unholy an alliance. i do not mean to go further into this debate; but i object to the reception of the petition. * * * * * the presiding officer. the petitions cannot be received without unanimous consent. mr. sumner. it may be, sir, at this moment, within the competency of the honorable senator from virginia to object to the reception of these remonstrances; but i am satisfied that at another time his calmer judgment will not approve this course, much less the ground on which now, as well as on a former occasion, he has undertaken to impeach the right of clergymen to appear by petition or remonstrance at the bar of congress. sir, in refusing to receive these remonstrances, or in neglecting them in any way, on reasons assigned in this chamber, you treat them with an indignity which becomes more marked, because it is the constant habit of the senate to welcome remonstrances from members of the society of friends in their religious character, and from all other persons, by any designation which they may adopt. booksellers remonstrate against the international copyright treaty; last-makers against a proposed change in the patent laws; and only lately the tobacconists have remonstrated against certain regulations touching tobacco: and all these remonstrances are received with respect, and referred to appropriate committees in the senate. but the clergy of new england, when protesting against a wicked measure, which, with singular unanimity, they believe full of peril and shame to our country, are told to stay at home. almost the jeer is heard, "go up, thou bald head!" if not well, it is at least natural, that the act you are about to commit should be attended by this concordant outrage. * * * * * from the kansas and nebraska bill came forth a demon. down to this time the hostility to mr. sumner in the senate was limited. it now became more general, although he had said nothing in any way to justify it, except that he had exposed slavery and the pretensions in its behalf. from the senate it extended among the partisans of slavery. meanwhile an incident in boston was used to arouse a feeling against him. on the evening of the th of may anthony burns was seized there as a fugitive slave, on the claim of a citizen of virginia, and detained by the marshal in a room of the court-house. in the course of the evening of the th, immediately after a meeting at faneuil hall, addressed by abolitionists, the court-house was attacked by a number of citizens, and in the defence, james batchelder, one of the guard, was killed. the report of his death caused a great sensation at washington. it was received while the impression of mr. sumner's midnight speech was still fresh, and was at once attributed to that effort. mr. sumner was treated as responsible for this act, and the official organs of the administration openly denounced him as "murderer." it was predicted in the speech that the bill would "scatter dragons' teeth," which he was assured would "fructify in civil strife and feud"; but plainly there was nothing to suggest or excite violence, even if at the time the speech had been known in boston, as it was not. it was concluded on the morning of the th of may, at too late an hour for the telegraph, and in fact was not known in boston until it reached there by mail on the th; but batchelder was killed on the previous evening. and yet, in the face of these unquestionable facts, there was a cry against mr. sumner. the _union_, which was the official organ, thus broke forth on the morning of may th. "boston in arms against the constitution, and an abolition fanatic, the distant leader, safe from the fire and the fagot he invokes from his seat in the senate of the united states, _giving the command_. men shot down in the faithful discharge of duty to a law based upon a constitutional guaranty, and _the word which encourages the assassin_ given by a man who has sworn on the holy evangelists and in the presence of his maker to support the constitution of the country. but our charles sumner tells us that a new era has been inaugurated, ... that the constitution shall not be obeyed, and that slavery shall at all and every hazard be uprooted and destroyed, in spite of all that has been pledged and written in other days." the _star_, another organ of the administration, repeated the imputations of the _union_, in a long article, of which the following is a specimen. "if southern gentlemen are threatened and assaulted, while legally seeking to obtain possession of property for the use of which they have a solemn constitutional guaranty, if legal rights can only be sought for and established at the bayonet's point, _certain northern men now in our midst_ will have to evince a little more circumspection than they have ever evinced in their walk, talk, and acts. "public sentiment in alexandria is intensely excited in condemnation of sumner and his allies. we know that it increases in this city every hour. the masses look upon sumner as responsible for the death of batchelder. they attribute, and justly, the action of the murderers to the counsel of sumner. we hope that the public sentiment against these abolition miscreants who infest congress and our fair city, and fill the atmosphere in which they move with the odor of a brothel, will not descend to acts of personal violence. such conduct can find no justification. but let public opinion condemn these men everywhere,--in the street, in the capitol, in every place where men meet. _let sumner and his infamous gang_ feel that he cannot outrage the fame of his country, counsel treason to its laws, incite the ignorant to bloodshed and murder, and still receive the support and countenance of the society of this city, which he has done so much to vilify. "while the person of a virginia citizen is only safe from rudeness and outrage behind the serried ranks of armed men, charles sumner is permitted to walk among the 'slave-catchers' and 'fire-eaters' of the south in peace and security. while he incites his constituents to resist the federal laws _even to the shedding of blood_, concocts his traitorous plots, and sends forth his incendiary appeals under the broad protecting panoply of the laws he denounces, he retains his seat in the senate, and yet daily violates the official oath which he took to support the constitution of the united states." such articles were plainly intended to excite a mob against mr. sumner. the conspiracy obtained headway in alexandria. one proposition was, to seize him as hostage for the surrender of the fugitive slave whose case was then pending in boston; another was, to inflict upon him personal indignity and violence; another was, "to put a ball through his head." these menaces were communicated to him, and he was warned to leave washington. this he refused to do, and he insisted upon walking to the senate by pennsylvania avenue, always unarmed. at a restaurant, where he dined, he was directly menaced and insulted. the following telegram in the new york _times_, under date of may , states the case briefly. "a strenuous and systematized effort is making here and in alexandria to raise a mob against senator sumner, in retaliation for the boston difficulty.... the _star_ of this evening has two articles, the incendiary purpose of which cannot be mistaken. senator sumner himself has been several times warned to-day of personal danger, and assured that persons bearing close relation to the administration are inciting the people to violence against him. northern men are much excited in consequence, and if an outrage is committed, there is a probability that there will be serious trouble." the same telegram was sent to other places. throughout new england it excited great sensation, attested at once by the public press and by private letters. the following was received by mr. sumner, under date of may , from joseph r. hawley, of connecticut, afterwards a general in the war, and governor of connecticut. "if you really think there is any danger worth mentioning, i wish you would telegraph me instantly. i will come to washington by the next train, and quietly _stay by_. i have revolvers, and can use them,--and while there should not be a word of unnecessary provocation, still, if anybody in alexandria or washington _really_ means to trouble you, or any other free democrat there, you know several can play at that game. i feel comparatively little anxiety as to the result in boston. let them hunt slaves till the people get sick of it. but such threats as are conveyed by that despatch should be quietly prepared for, and met as they deserve." george livermore, of boston, gave expression to the same anxiety in a different form. he wrote thus, under date of june . "there is but one feeling here respecting the infamous threats of the _union_ and _star_. _let the minions of the administration and of the slavocracy harm one hair of your head, and they will raise a whirlwind that will sweep them to destruction._ i have read your closing remarks on the nebraska bill with the greatest admiration, and most heartily indorse every word and sentiment. you never made a better speech. what higher praise could i offer? many persons not of the free-soil party have spoken of it in terms of the highest commendation." the violence was postponed; but the malignant spirit continued active. beyond the sentiment of indignation at the menaces to which mr. sumner was exposed arose another against slavery. persons who had been cold or lukewarm before were excited now. here again contemporary newspapers and private letters testify. john b. alley, for several years afterwards the representative from essex, wrote thus, under date of june . "the most eventful week that boston has ever seen has just passed, and i cannot refrain from troubling you with a description of the state of feeling here. in the first place, allow me to congratulate you upon the glorious position you occupy in the hearts of the people of boston. praises from the lips of the most ultra hunker whigs have greeted my ears (i need not tell you with how much pleasure) during the past week. "boston, it is true, has been humbled in the dust, and it is hard, terribly hard, to be compelled to witness the surrender of a panting fugitive into the hands of the slave-hunters; but never, since i have been engaged in the antislavery cause, have i seen occasion for rejoicing as now. "thank god, the chains that have bound the people to their old organizations have been snapped asunder, and they have proved in this case but as packthreads upon the arms of an unshorn samson.... your speech in defence of the clergy is noble, and wonderfully effective, apparently, in stirring up their sympathies for the slave." numerous letters describe the surrender to which mr. alley alludes. the following from r. h. dana, jr., under date of june , gives details. "judging from present appearances, there are few compromise men left in boston. i firmly believe that in the providence of god it has been decreed that one cup more should be put to our lips, and that it should not pass away until we had drained it to the dregs. to this end, a folly has been put in their counsel and a madness in their hearts, that they might do the things that should work in the end the utmost good. the delays, the doubts as to the propriety of the decision (more than doubts even with the moderate), the military indignities and violence, the noonday procession, the refusal to sell, the presidential intervention, all have tended to the desired effect. poor burns himself looked with terror to a renewal of slavery. not that colonel suttle was cruel. he has never lived with suttle, but he is intelligent, reads and writes, is weak in his injured head, and therefore of little value, and liable to be sold and abused. "batchelder was not a deputy-marshal. he is only a man who has volunteered, this third time, against advice, to help catch and keep a fugitive slave. you observe the marshal only calls him one of his 'guards.' this guard were a precious set of murderers, thieves, bullies, blacklegs,--with a very few men who went into it from party bias, old hunker democratic truckmen. batchelder was a truckman, i am told, and may be personally respectable for aught i know. i can give you no advice as to the pension. they ought to know what batchelder was. it seems to me unconstitutional and unprecedented. if it can be defeated without your stir, it would be better, no doubt. i do not find there is any feeling for his case here. he volunteered for the duty, and met the consequences. he voluntarily risked his life for pay, in an odious and dangerous business, and lost it." george livermore, always a decided whig, who had written under date of june , wrote again, under date of june :-- "i am, as i always have been, a conservative whig, but i am ready to fraternize with _anybody who will do the most for freedom_; and if one who has heretofore been called a democrat or a free-soiler will do more for this cause than a candidate who has been called a whig, he shall have my vote, and my hearty coöperation in every way in my power." a merchant of boston wrote at the same time:-- "i rejoice that a man of your sympathies and sensibilities is not here to see the court-house again in chains, and justice administered behind bayonets. the only retaliation at present proposed is a petition to repeal the fugitive slave act, now in the news-room, on its second day, with several thousand names attached. but what is the use of petition, or polished sentences and rounded periods, in a contest with the pirate honor of slavery? it is like an attempt to hew down a mountain of granite with a glass pick-axe." the sentiments of the people, and particularly of the clergy, are sketched by rev. george c. beckwith, secretary of the peace society, in a letter dated june , from which an extract is given. "you will have learned ere this that the deed is done.--the deed of shame and degradation to our good old state. i witnessed the scene from an insurance office on state street, and never before felt such a sense of degradation. i am glad that so many seemed to share it with me: for i observed a sort of funereal sadness on the vast masses before and around me. there were groans and hisses at even our own troops, the militia, that had come out at the call of our mayor; but every effort to get up any counter applause proved a failure. "i took my pen, however, for another purpose, as you will get from other sources a better account of this day's public proceedings. i wish to say a word about our clerical friends, whom you have vindicated with so much spirit and force in your brief speech before the senate. they met yesterday morning, almost without notice, to the number of some four or five hundred, for consultation on this subject. i never attended a meeting that evinced a truer spirit or a greater amount of moral power. little or no effervescence on the surface, but a depth of feeling, a calmness of conviction, and an energy of purpose, from which, i am well satisfied, the whole country will hear in due time. * * * * * "i think i am still true to my peace principles, but my heart is stirred to its lowest depths of indignation; and i say frankly to men who applaud what our forefathers did, that _we_ have now even _stronger_ reasons for resistance to the slave power than they had to the usurpations of england." thomas sherwin, late head-master of the boston high school, and once a tutor of mr. sumner at harvard university, wrote as follows. "you, sir, in my opinion, command the highest respect from the people, not only of massachusetts, but of the entire union. to yourself, chase, giddings, smith, benton, and a few others, the great majority of our people look for protection against the machinations of politicians who would bring upon our country the contempt of the civilized world, and upon the government the execration of unborn millions." these extracts prepare the way for the next scene in the drama. union of all parties necessary against the slave power. letter to a massachusetts committee, may , . senate chamber, may , . gentlemen,--for the present my post of duty is here, so that i must forego the pleasure of meeting our friends on wednesday next. the massachusetts host, i am glad to learn, will be reinforced on that occasion by brave voices from other states. mr. giddings you will be glad to welcome. could i meet my fellow-citizens, i should not lose the opportunity of sounding the alarm and exhorting them to action. the nebraska bill has passed, but it is a mistake to suppose that the propagandists of slavery will stop here. other audacities are at hand. more land from mexico is sought, on which to extend a nefarious institution. the calamities of war with spain, incalculably disastrous to the commerce of new york and boston, are all to be braved in order to appropriate slaveholding cuba. an intrigue is now pending to secure a foothold in hayti; and even the distant valley of the amazon is embraced in these gigantic schemes, by which the despotism of the slave power is to be established, while you and i, and all of us from the north, are to bow down before it. for myself, i will not bow down; but, gentlemen, you will understand that no individual can effectually oppose these schemes. this can be done only in one way. as all at the south, without distinction of party, unite for slavery, so all at the north, without distinction of party, forgetting vain differences of whig and democrat, must unite for freedom, and, rising in majority and might, take control of the national government. for this work the people are now ready; and they can surely accomplish it, if they will. the only impediment, at this moment, is to be found in those blind or selfish politicians who perversely seek a triumph of mere party, instead of a triumph of freedom. neither the whig party nor the democratic party, through its national organization dependent on slaveholding wings, is competent to the exigency. the slaveholding wings can be kept in concert with the northern wings only when they give the law to the movement. for a poor triumph of party, the north yields, in advance, all that is dear to it, and, while vainly calling itself _national_, helps to instal the _sectional_ power of slavery in the national government. this must be changed. with an earnest soul, devoted to the triumph of the righteous cause, and indifferent to the name by which i may be called, i would say to all at this time, abandon old party ties; forget old party names; let by-gones be by-gones; and for the sake of liberty, and to secure the general welfare, now unite against the despotism of slavery, and in this union let past differences disappear. believe me, gentlemen, very faithfully yours, charles sumner. hon. f.w. bird, james m. stone, committee. the boston petition for the repeal of the fugitive slave act. speech in the senate, on the boston petition for the repeal of the fugitive slave act, june , . the midnight speech of mr. sumner on the kansas and nebraska bill contained language which was soon justified. in pronouncing the bill "the best on which congress ever acted," he said that it annulled all past compromises with slavery, and "thus it puts freedom and slavery face to face, and bids them grapple." and this was the case in boston, immediately after the passage of the bill, when a fugitive slave was surrendered. the indignation was general, and a petition for the repeal of the fugitive slave act was extensively signed, in the following terms. "to the honorable the senate and house of representatives in congress assembled: the undersigned, men of massachusetts, ask for the repeal of the act of congress of known as the fugitive slave bill." there were twenty-nine hundred petitioners, among whom were many who had heretofore sustained this atrocious measure; but they felt at last relieved from this service. in this respect this petition marks an epoch in public sentiment. its reception in the senate marks an epoch there. it was presented on the d of june, by mr. rockwell, the new senator in mr. everett's place, who moved its reference to the committee on the judiciary. other petitions of like character had been treated very unceremoniously. this was debated at length, and finally referred according to the motion of mr. rockwell. on the th of june the debate began, in which mr. jones, of tennessee, mr. rockwell, of massachusetts, then again mr. jones, and mr. brodhead, of pennsylvania, took part. at this stage mr. sumner spoke as follows. mr. president,--i begin by answering the interrogatory propounded by the senator from tennessee [mr. jones]: "can any one suppose, that, if the fugitive slave act be repealed, this union can exist?" to which i reply at once, that, if the union be in any way dependent on an act--i cannot call it a _law_--so revolting in every aspect as that to which he refers, then it ought not to exist. to much else that has fallen from that senator i do not desire to reply. matters already handled again and again, in the long-drawn-out debates of this session, he has discussed at length. like the excited hero of macedonia, he has renewed past conflicts,-- "and thrice he routed all his foes, and thrice he slew the slain." of what the senator said on the relations of senators, north and south, of a particular party, it is not my province to speak. and yet i do not turn from it without expressing at least some confidence that men from the north, whether whigs or democrats, will neither be cajoled by any temptation nor driven by any lash from the support of those principles which are inseparable from the true honor and welfare of the country. at last there will be, i trust, a backbone in the north. my colleague has already remarked that this petition proceeds from persons many of whom were open supporters of the alleged compromises of , including even the odious fugitive slave act. i have looked over the long list, and, so far as i can judge, find this to be true. and, in my opinion, the change shown by these men is typical of the change in the community of which they constitute a prominent part. once the positive upholders of the fugitive slave act, they now demand its unconditional repeal. there is another circumstance worthy of especial remark. this petition proceeds mainly from persons connected with trade and commerce. now it is a fact too well known in the history of england, and of our own country, that these persons, while often justly distinguished by individual charities, have been lukewarm in opposition to slavery. twice in english history did "the mercantile interest" frown upon endeavors to suppress the atrocity of algerine slavery; steadfastly in england it sought to baffle wilberforce's great effort for the abolition of the african slave-trade; and at the formation of our own constitution, it stipulated a sordid compromise, by which this same detested, heaven-defying traffic was saved for twenty years from american judgment. but now it is all changed,--at least in boston. representatives of "the mercantile interest" place themselves in the front of the new movement against slavery, and, by their explicit memorial, call for the removal of a grievance which they have bitterly felt in boston. mr. president, this petition is interesting to me, first, as it asks a repeal of the fugitive slave act, and, secondly, as it comes from massachusetts. that repeal i shall be glad, at any time, now and hereafter, as in times past, to sustain by vote and argument; and i trust never to fail in any just regard for the sentiments or interests of massachusetts. with these few remarks i would gladly close. but there has been an arraignment, here to-day, both of myself and of the commonwealth which i represent. to all that has been said of myself or the commonwealth, so far as it is impeachment of either, so far as it subjects either to any real censure, i plead openly, for myself and for massachusetts, "not guilty." but pardon me, if i do not submit to be tried by the senate, fresh from the injustice of the nebraska bill. in the language of the common law, i put myself upon "god and the country," and claim the same trial for my honored commonwealth. so far as the arraignment touches me personally, i hardly care to speak. it is true that i have not hesitated, here and elsewhere, to express my open, sincere, and unequivocal condemnation of the fugitive slave act. i have denounced it as at once a violation of the law of god, and of the constitution of the united states; and i now repeat this denunciation. its violation of the constitution is manifold; and here i repeat but what i have often said. too often it cannot be set forth, so long as the infamous statute blackens the land. it commits the great question of human freedom,--than which none is more sacred in the law,--not to a solemn trial, but to summary proceedings. it commits this great question, not to one of the high tribunals of the land, but to the unaided judgment of a single petty magistrate. it commits this great question to a magistrate appointed, not by the president with the consent of the senate, but by the court,--holding his office, not during good behavior, but merely during the will of the court,--and receiving, not a regular salary, but fees according to each individual case. it authorizes judgment on _ex parte_ evidence, by affidavit, without the sanction of cross-examination. it denies the writ of _habeas corpus_, ever known as the palladium of the citizen. contrary to the declared purposes of the framers of the constitution, it sends the fugitive back "at the public expense."[ ] [ ] see madison's debates, august , . adding meanness to the violation of the constitution, it bribes the commissioner by a double fee to pronounce against freedom. if he dooms a man to slavery, the reward is ten dollars; but saving him to freedom, his dole is five dollars. this is enough, but not all. on two other capital grounds do i oppose the act as unconstitutional: first, as it is an assumption by congress of powers not delegated by the constitution, and in derogation of the rights of the states; and, secondly, as it takes away that essential birthright of the citizen, trial by jury, in a question of personal liberty and a suit at common law. thus obnoxious, i have always regarded it as an enactment totally devoid of all constitutional, as it is clearly devoid of all moral obligation, while it is disgraceful to the country and the age. and, sir, i have hoped and labored for the creation of such a public opinion, firm, enlightened, and generous, as should render this act practically inoperative, and should press, without ceasing, upon congress for its repeal. for all that i have thus uttered i have no regret or apology, but rather joy and satisfaction. glad i am in having said it; glad i am now in the opportunity of affirming it all anew. thus much for myself. in response for massachusetts, there are other things. something surely must be pardoned to her history. in massachusetts stands boston. in boston stands faneuil hall, where, throughout the perils which preceded the revolution, our patriot fathers assembled to vow themselves to freedom. here, in those days, spoke james otis, full of the thought that "the people's safety is the law of god."[ ] here, also, spoke joseph warren, inspired by the sentiment that "death with all its tortures is preferable to slavery."[ ] and here, also, thundered john adams, fervid with the conviction that "consenting to slavery is a sacrilegious breach of trust."[ ] not far from this venerable hall--between this temple of freedom and the very court-house to which the senator [mr. jones] has referred--is the street where, in , the first blood was spilt in conflict between british troops and american citizens, and among the victims was one of that african race which you so much despise. almost within sight is bunker hill; further off, lexington and concord. amidst these scenes a slave-hunter from virginia appears, and the disgusting rites begin by which a fellow-man is sacrificed. sir, can you wonder that our people are moved? "who can be wise, amazed, temperate and furious, loyal and neutral, in a moment? _no man._" [ ] rights of the british colonies (boston, ), p. . [ ] letter to edmund dana, march , : loring's hundred boston orators, d ed., p. . [ ] dissertation on the canon and feudal law: works, vol. iii. p. . it is true that the slave act was with difficulty executed, and that one of its servants perished in the madness. on these grounds the senator from tennessee charges boston with fanaticism. i express no opinion on the conduct of individuals; but i do say, that the fanaticism which the senator condemns is not new in boston. it is the same which opposed the execution of the stamp act, and finally secured its repeal. it is the same which opposed the tea tax. it is the fanaticism which finally triumphed on bunker hill. the senator says that boston is filled with traitors. that charge is not new. boston of old was the home of hancock and adams. her traitors now are those who are truly animated by the spirit of the american revolution. in condemning them, in condemning massachusetts, in condemning these remonstrants, you simply give proper conclusion to the utterance on this floor, that the declaration of independence is "a self-evident lie." here i might leave the imputations on massachusetts. but the case is stronger yet. i have referred to the stamp act. the parallel is of such aptness and importance, that, though on a former occasion i presented it to the senate, i cannot forbear from pressing it again. as the precise character of this act may not be familiar, allow me to remind the senate that it was an attempt to draw money from the colonies through a stamp tax, while the determination of certain questions of forfeiture under the statute was delegated, not to the courts of common law, but to courts of admiralty, without trial by jury. this act was denounced in the colonies at its passage, as contrary to the british constitution, on two principal grounds, identical in character with the two chief grounds on which the slave act is now declared to be unconstitutional: first, as an assumption by parliament of powers not belonging to it, and an infraction of rights secured to the colonies; and, secondly, as a denial of trial by jury in certain cases of property. on these grounds the stamp act was held to be an outrage. the colonies were aroused against it. virginia first declared herself by solemn resolutions, which the timid thought "treasonable,"--yes, sir, "treasonable,"[ ]--just as that word is now applied to recent manifestations of opinion in boston,--even to the memorial of her twenty-nine hundred merchants. but these "treasonable" resolutions soon found response. new york followed. massachusetts came next. in an address from the legislature to the governor, the true ground of opposition to the stamp act, coincident with the two radical objections to the slave act, are clearly set forth, with the following pregnant conclusion:-- "we deeply regret it that the parliament has seen fit to pass such an act as the stamp act; we flatter ourselves that the hardships of it will shortly appear to them in such a point of light as shall induce them, in their wisdom, to repeal it; _in the mean time we must beg your excellency to excuse us from doing anything to assist in the execution of it_."[ ] [ ] hutchinson, history of massachusetts, vol. iii. p. . [ ] journal of the house of representatives of massachusetts bay, october , , p. . hutchinson, vol. iii., appendix, p. . the stamp act was welcomed in the colonies by the tories of that day, precisely as the unconstitutional slave act has been welcomed by an imperious class among us. hutchinson, at that time lieutenant-governor and judge in massachusetts, wrote to ministers in england:-- "the stamp act is received among us with as much decency as could be expected. it leaves no room for evasion, and will execute itself."[ ] [ ] bancroft, history of the united states, vol. v. p. . like judges of our day, in charges to grand juries, he resolutely vindicated the act, and admonished "the jurors and people" to obey.[ ] like governors of our day, bernard, in his speech to the legislature of massachusetts, demanded unreasoning submission. "i shall not," says this british governor, "enter into any disquisition of the policy of the act. i have only to say that it is an act of the parliament of great britain."[ ] the elaborate answer of massachusetts--the work of samuel adams, one of the pillars of our history--was pronounced "the ravings of a parcel of wild enthusiasts,"[ ] even as recent proceedings in boston, resulting in the memorial before you, have been characterized on this floor. am i not right in this parallel? [ ] ibid. [ ] journal of the house of representatives, september , , p. . hutchinson, vol. iii. p. . [ ] bancroft, history of the united states, vol. v. p. . the country was aroused against the execution of the act. and here boston took the lead. in formal instructions to her representatives, adopted unanimously in town meeting at faneuil hall, the following rule of conduct was prescribed:-- "we therefore think it our indispensable duty, in justice to ourselves and posterity, as it is our undoubted privilege, in the most open and unreserved, but decent and respectful terms, to declare our greatest dissatisfaction with this law: _and we think it incumbent upon you by no means to join in any public measures for countenancing and assisting in the execution of the same_, but to use your best endeavors in the general assembly to have the inherent, unalienable rights of the people of this province asserted and vindicated, and left upon the public records, that posterity may never have reason to charge the present times with the guilt of tamely given them away."[ ] [ ] boston gazette, september , . the opposition spread and deepened, with a natural tendency to outbreak and violence. on one occasion in boston, it showed itself in the lawlessness of a mob most formidable in character, even as is now charged. liberty, in her struggles, is too often driven to force. but the town, at a public meeting in faneuil hall, called without delay, on the motion of the opponents of the stamp act, with james otis as chairman, condemned the outrage. eager in hostility to the execution of the act, boston cherished municipal order, and constantly discountenanced all tumult, violence, and illegal proceeding. on these two grounds she then stood: and her position was widely recognized. in reply, march , , to an address from the inhabitants of plymouth, her own consciousness of duty done is thus expressed:-- "if the inhabitants of this metropolis have taken _the warrantable and legal measures to prevent that misfortune, of all others the most to be dreaded, the execution of the stamp act_, and, as a necessary means of preventing it, have made any spirited applications for opening the custom-houses and courts of justice,--_if, at the same time, they have bore their testimony against outrageous tumults and illegal proceedings_, and given any example of the love of peace and good order, next to the consciousness of having done their duty is the satisfaction of meeting with the approbation of any of their fellow-countrymen."[ ] [ ] boston gazette, march , . thus was the stamp act annulled, even before its actual repeal, which was pressed with assiduity by petition and remonstrance, at the next meeting of parliament. among potent influences was the entire concurrence of the merchants, and especially a remonstrance against the stamp act by merchants of new york, like that now made against the slave act by merchants of boston. some at first sought only its mitigation. even james otis began with this moderate aim. the king himself showed a disposition to yield to this extent. but franklin, who was then in england, when asked whether the colonies would submit to the act, if mitigated in certain particulars, replied: "no, never, unless compelled by force of arms."[ ] then it was that the great commoner, william pitt, in an ever-memorable speech, uttered words which fitly belong to this occasion. he said:-- "sir, i have been charged with giving birth to sedition in america. they have spoken their sentiments with freedom against this unhappy act, and that freedom has become their crime. sorry i am to hear the liberty of speech in this house imputed as a crime. but the imputation shall not discourage me. it is a liberty i mean to exercise. no gentleman ought to be afraid to exercise it. it is a liberty by which the gentleman who calumniates it might have profited. he ought to have profited. he ought to have desisted from his project. the gentleman tells us america is obstinate, america is almost in open rebellion. i rejoice that america has resisted. three millions of people, so dead to all the feelings of liberty as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would have been fit instruments to make slaves of the rest.... i would not debate a particular point of law with the gentleman; but i draw my ideas of freedom from the vital powers of the british constitution,--not from the crude and fallacious notions too much relied upon, as if we were but in the morning of liberty. i can acknowledge no veneration for any procedure, law, or ordinance, that is repugnant to reason and the first elements of our constitution.... the americans have been wronged. they have been driven to madness by injustice.... upon the whole, i will beg leave to tell the house what is really my opinion. _it is, that the stamp act be repealed, absolutely, totally, and immediately,--that the reason for the repeal be assigned, because it was founded on an erroneous principle._"[ ] [ ] hansard, parliamentary history, xvi. . [ ] hansard, parliamentary history, xvi. - . bancroft, history of the united states, v. - . thus spoke this great orator, at the time tutelary guardian of american liberty. he was not unheeded. within less than a year from its original passage, the stamp act--assailed as unconstitutional on the precise grounds which i now occupy in assailing the slave act--was driven from the statute-book. sir, the stamp act was, at most, an infringement of _civil_ liberty only, not of _personal_ liberty. how often must i say this? it touched questions of property only, and not the personal liberty of any man. under it, no freeman could be seized as a slave. there was an unjust tax of a few pence, with the chance of amercement by a single judge without jury; but by this statute no person could be deprived of that vital right of all which is to other rights as soul to body,--_the right of a man to himself_. who can fail to see the difference between the two cases, and how far the tyranny of the slave act is beyond the tyranny of the stamp act? the difference is immeasurable. and this will yet be pronounced by history. i call upon you, then, to receive the petition, and hearken to its prayer. all other petitions asking for change in existing legislation are treated with respect, promptly referred and acted upon. this should not be an exception. the petition asks simply the repeal of an obnoxious statute, which is entirely within the competency of congress. it proceeds from a large number of respectable citizens, whose autograph signatures are attached. it is brief and respectful, and, in its very brevity, shows that spirit of freedom which should awaken a generous response. in refusing to receive it or refer it, according to the usage of the senate, or in treating it with any indignity, you offer an affront not only to these numerous petitioners, but also to the great right of petition, which is never more sacred than when exercised in behalf of freedom against an odious enactment. permit me to add, that by this course you provoke the very spirit which you would repress. there is a plant which is said to grow when trodden upon. it remains to be seen if the boston petitioners have not something of this quality. but this i know, sir,--that the slave act, like vice, is "a monster of so frightful mien, as, to be hated, needs but to be seen." and the occurrences of this day will make it visible to the people in new forms of injustice. reply to assailants: oath to support the constitution; weakness of the south from slavery. second speech in the senate on the boston petition for the repeal of the fugitive slave act, june , . the preceding speech was followed by a debate without example in anger, excitement, and brutality. mr. butler, of south carolina, mr. mason, of virginia, mr. pettit, of indiana, mr. dixon, of kentucky, mr. mallory, of florida, and mr. clay, of alabama, vied with each other in bullying denunciation of mr. sumner. mr. butler began by claiming that the american revolution was carried through by "slaveholding states," thus making boast for slavery,--and then turned to pour contempt upon mr. sumner, whose speech he characterized as "a species of rhetoric intended to feed the fires of fanaticism in his own state"; then it was "a fourth of july oration,"--"vapid rhetoric,"--"a species of rhetoric which ought not to come from a scholar,"--"a rhetoric with more fine color than real strength"; and then he announced, "if sectional agitation is to be fed by such sentiments, such displays, and such things as come from the honorable gentleman near me, i say we ought not to be in a common confederacy, and we should be better off without it." then again, "if the object be to make the issue between the north and the south, let the issue come." he then asked if massachusetts "would send fugitives back to us after trial by jury or any other mode?" then, turning to mr. sumner, he demanded, with much impetuosity of manner, "will this honorable senator tell me that he will do it?" to which mr. sumner promptly replied, "is thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing?" the _globe_ reports the disorderly ejaculations which followed from mr. butler, winding up with the words, "you stand in my presence as a coëqual senator, and tell me that it is a dog's office to execute the constitution of the united states?" here mr. sumner remarked, "i recognize no such obligation,"--meaning, plainly, no obligation to return a fugitive slave. mr. mason, afterwards so conspicuous in the rebellion, followed in similar vein. he began by saying: "i say, sir, the dignity of the american senate has been rudely, wantonly, grossly assailed by a senator from massachusetts,--and not only the dignity of the senate, but of the whole people, trifled with in the presence of the american senate, either ignorantly or corruptly, i do not know which, nor do i care." he then proceeded to vindicate the "gentleman from virginia" who had sought his slave in boston, denounced mr. sumner for having "the boldness to speak here of such a man as a slave-hunter," and boasted that the law had been executed in boston,--that "in that city, within the last fortnight, it has done its office, and done it in the presence of a mob, which that senator and his associates roused and inflamed to the very verge of treason, subjecting them to traitors' doom, while he and his associates sat here and kept themselves aloof from danger." then he exclaimed: "why, sir, am i speaking of a fanatic, one whose reason is dethroned? can such a one expect to make impressions upon the american people from his vapid, vulgar declamation here, accompanied by a declaration that he would violate his oath now recently taken?" all that was said by these two representatives of slavery was intensified and aggravated by mr. pettit, of indiana, who charged mr. sumner with openly declaring in the senate that he would violate his oath, and then proceeded to foreshadow a proposition for his expulsion. at the same time he vindicated at length his original statement, that the construction put upon the declaration of independence by the abolitionists of the country "made it a self-evident lie, instead of a self-evident truth." at this stage the senate adjourned, leaving the question of reference still pending. the next day was occupied by other business, contrary to the declared desire of mr. sumner, who said that he had "something further to say" upon the petition. on the th of june the attack on mr. sumner was renewed by mr. pettit, but without taking up the petition. an attempt was made to stifle further debate. motions to postpone, and then to lay on the table, were proposed, when mr. sumner remarked:-- i am unwilling to stand in the way of the general wish of the senate to go on with its business; i desire at all times to promote its business; but this question has been presented and debated. several senators have already expressed themselves on it. other senators within my knowledge expect to be heard. i too, sir, claim the privilege of being heard again, in reply to remarks which have fallen from honorable senators. i hope, therefore, the memorial will have no disposition that shall preclude its complete discussion. the senate refused to postpone, and mr. mallory, of florida, afterwards secretary of the navy in the cabinet of jefferson davis, began the assault on mr. sumner, expressing horror at his declarations in the senate, and then adducing his early language in the boston speech so often referred to. the future rebel dwelt with unction on the obligations of an oath, saying: "sir, if there be any principle in the breast of the american citizen which more than any other lies at the foundation of law, morals, and society, it is his habitual observance and recognition of _all_ the sacred obligations of an oath; and this no man knows better than the senator himself." mr. clay, of alabama, afterwards a violent rebel, succeeded in interpolating into the speech of mr. mallory a tirade of personality and brutality, which will be found in the _globe_, and, after presenting a portrait meant for mr. sumner, "who held himself irresponsible to all law, feeling the obligation neither of the divine law, nor of the law of the land, _nor of the law of honor_," proceeded to ask, "how would such a miscreant be treated? why, if you could not reach him with the arm of the municipal law, if you could not send him to the penitentiary, you would _send him to coventry_." and the orator of slavery wound up by saying: "if we cannot restrain or prevent this eternal warfare upon the feelings and rights of southern gentlemen, we may rob the serpent of his fangs, we can paralyze his influence, by placing him in that nadir of social degradation which he merits." this brief account of the debate is important, as showing the atmosphere of the senate, and the personal provocation, when mr. sumner at last obtained the floor and spoke as follows. mr. president,--since i had the honor of addressing the senate two days ago, various senators have spoken. of these, several have alluded to me in terms clearly beyond the sanction of parliamentary debate. of this i make no complaint, though, for the honor of the senate, at least, it were well, had it been otherwise. if to them it seems fit, courteous, parliamentary, let them "unpack the heart with words, and fall a-cursing, like a very drab, a scullion"; i will not interfere with the enjoyment they find in such exposure of themselves. they have given us a taste of their quality. two of them, the senator from south carolina [mr. butler], who sits immediately before me, and the senator from virginia [mr. mason], who sits immediately behind me, are not young. their heads are amply crowned by time. they did not speak from any ebullition of youth, but from the confirmed temper of age. it is melancholy to believe that in this debate they showed themselves as they are. it were charitable to believe that they are in reality better than they showed themselves. i think, sir, that i am not the only person on this floor, who, listening to these two self-confident champions of that peculiar fanaticism of the south, was reminded of the striking words of jefferson, picturing the influence of slavery, where he says: "the whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism, on the one part, and degrading submission on the other. our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal.... the parent storms. the child looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose to the worst of passions, and, thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. _the man must be a prodigy, who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances._"[ ] nobody, who witnessed the senator from south carolina or the senator from virginia in this debate, will place either of them among the "prodigies" described by jefferson. as they spoke, the senate chamber must have seemed to them, in the characteristic fantasy of the moment, a plantation well-stocked with slaves, over which the lash of the overseer had free swing. sir, it gives me no pleasure to say these things. it is not according to my nature. bear witness that i do it only in just self-defence against the unprecedented assaults and provocations of this debate. in doing it, i desire to warn certain senators, that, if, by any ardor of menace, or by any tyrannical frown, they expect to shake my fixed resolve, they expect a vain thing. [ ] notes on virginia, query xviii. there is little that fell from these two champions, as the fit was on, which deserves reply. certainly not the hard words they used so readily and congenially. the veteran senator from virginia [mr. mason] complained that i had characterized one of his "constituents"--a person who went all the way from virginia to boston in pursuit of a slave--as slave-hunter. sir, i choose to call things by their right names. white i call white, and black i call black. and where a person degrades himself to the work of chasing a fellow-man, who, under the inspiration of freedom and the guidance of the north star, has sought a freeman's home far away from coffle and chain,--that person, whosoever he may be, i call slave-hunter. if the senator from virginia, who professes nicety of speech, will give me any term more precisely describing such an individual, i will use it. until then, i must continue to use the language which seems to me so apt. but this very sensibility of the veteran senator at a just term, truly depicting an odious character, shows a shame which pleases me. it was said by a philosopher of antiquity that a blush is the sign of virtue; and permit me to add, that, in this violent sensibility, i recognize a blush mantling the cheek of the honorable senator, which even his plantation manners cannot conceal. and the venerable senator from south carolina, too, [mr. butler,]--he has betrayed his sensibility. here let me say that this senator knows well that i always listen with gurgles forth,--sometimes tinctured by generous ideas,--except when, forgetful of history, and in defiance of reason, he undertakes to defend what is obviously indefensible. this senator was disturbed, when, to his inquiry, personally, pointedly, and vehemently addressed to me, whether i would join in returning a fellow-man to slavery, i exclaimed: "is thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing?" in fitful phrase, which seemed to come from unconscious excitement, so common with the senator, he shot forth various cries about "dogs," and, among other things, asked if there was any "dog" in the constitution? the senator did not seem to bear in mind, through the heady currents of that moment, that, by the false interpretation he fastens upon the constitution, he has helped to nurture there a whole kennel of carolina bloodhounds, trained, with savage jaw and insatiable scent, for the hunt of flying bondmen. no, sir, i do not believe that there is any "kennel of bloodhounds," or even any "dog," in the constitution. but, mr. president, since the brief response which i made to the inquiry of the senator, and which leaped unconsciously to my lips, has drawn upon me such various attacks, all marked by grossness of language and manner,--since i have been charged with openly declaring a purpose to violate the constitution, and to break the oath which i have taken at that desk, i shall be pardoned for showing simply how a few plain words will put all this down. the authentic report in the "globe" shows what was actually said. the report in the "sentinel" is substantially the same. and one of the new york papers, which has been put into my hands since i entered the senate chamber to-day, under its telegraphic head, states the incident with substantial accuracy,--though it omits the personal, individual appeal addressed to me by the senator, and preserved in the "globe." here is the new york report. "mr. butler. i would like to ask the senator, if congress repealed the fugitive slave law, would massachusetts execute the constitutional requirements, and send back to the south the absconding slaves? "mr. sumner. do you ask me if i would send back a slave? "mr. butler. why, yes. "mr. sumner. 'is thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing?'"[ ] [ ] new york daily times, june , . to any candid mind, either of these reports renders anything further superfluous. the answer is explicit and above impeachment. indignantly it spurns a service from which the soul recoils, while it denies no constitutional obligation. but senators who are so swift in misrepresentation, and in assault upon me as disloyal to the constitution, deserve to be exposed, and it shall be done. now, sir, i begin by adopting as my guide the authoritative words of andrew jackson, in , in his memorable veto of the bank of the united states. to his course at that critical time were opposed the authority of the supreme court _and his oath to support the constitution_. here is his triumphant reply. "if the opinion of the supreme court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coördinate authorities of this government. the congress, the executive, and the court must, each for itself, be guided by its own opinion of the constitution. _each public officer, who takes an oath to support the constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others._ it is as much the duty of the house of representatives, of the senate, and of the president, to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval, as it is of the supreme judges, when it may be brought before them for judicial decision.... the authority of the supreme court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the congress or the executive, when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve."[ ] [ ] senate journal, d cong. st sess., pp. , . mark these words: "each public officer, who takes an oath to support the constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others." yes, sir, as he understands it, _and not as it is understood by others_. does any senator here dissent from this rule? does the senator from virginia? does the senator from south carolina? [_here mr. sumner paused, but there was no reply._] at all events, i accept the rule as just and reasonable,--in harmony, too, let me assert, with that liberty which scorns the dogma of _passive obedience_, and asserts the inestimable right of private judgment, whether in religion or politics. in swearing to support the constitution at your desk, mr. president, i did not swear to support it as _you_ understand it,--oh, no, sir!--or as the senator from virginia understands it,--by no means!--or as the senator from south carolina understands it, with a kennel of bloodhounds, or at least a "dog" in it, "pawing to get free his hinder parts," in pursuit of a slave. no such thing. sir, i swore to support the constitution _as i understand it_,--nor more, nor less. but andrew jackson was not alone in this rule of conduct. statesmen before and since have declared it also,--nobody with more force and constancy than jefferson, who was, indeed, the author of it, so far as anybody can be the author of what springs so obviously from common sense. repeatedly he returns to it, expressing it in various forms. "each department," he insists, "is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself _what is the meaning of the constitution_ in the cases submitted to its action, and especially where it is to act ultimately and without appeal."[ ] i content myself with a single text from this authority. the same rule was also announced by hon. john holmes, a representative from massachusetts, afterwards senator from maine, in the famous debate on the admission of missouri. "this constitution," he declares, "which i hold in my hand, i am sworn to support, not according to legislative or judicial exposition, _but as i shall understand it_."[ ] here is the rule of jackson, almost in his language, twelve years before he uttered it. [ ] letter to judge roane, sept. , : writings, vol. vii. p. . see also, p. , letter to mr. jarvis, sept. , ; and, vol. vi. pp. , , letter to w. h. torrance, june , . [ ] annals of congress, th cong. st sess., i. , jan. , . and since jackson we have the rule stated with great point in this very chamber, by no less an authority--at least with democrats--than mr. buchanan. here are a few words from his speech on the united states bank. "if all the judges and all the lawyers in christendom had decided in the affirmative, when the question is thus brought home to me as a legislator, bound to vote for or against a new charter, upon my oath to support the constitution, _i must exercise my own judgment_. i would treat with profound respect the arguments and opinions of judges and constitutional lawyers; but if after all they failed to convince me that the law was constitutional, i should be guilty of perjury before high heaven, if i voted in its favor.... even if the judiciary had settled the question, i should never hold myself bound by their decision.... i shall never consent to place the political rights and liberties of this people in the hands of any judicial tribunal."[ ] [ ] congressional globe, july , , appendix, pp. , . in short, he would exercise his own judgment: and this is precisely what i intend to do on the proposition to hunt slaves. now i will not occupy your time, nor am i so disposed at this moment, nor does the occasion require it, by entering upon any minute criticism of the clause in the constitution touching the surrender of "fugitives from service." a few words only are needful. assuming, sir, in the face of commanding rules of interpretation, all leaning towards freedom, that, in the evasive language of this clause, "paltering in a double sense," the words employed can be judicially regarded as justly applicable to fugitive slaves, which, as you ought to know, sir, is often most strenuously and conscientiously denied, thus sponging the whole clause out of existence, except as a provision for the return of persons actually bound by lawful contract, but on which i now express no opinion,--assuming, i say, this interpretation, so hostile to freedom, and derogatory to the members of the national convention, who solemnly declared that they would not give any sanction to slavery, or admit in the constitution the idea that there could be property in men,--assuming, i repeat, an interpretation which every principle of the common law, claimed by our fathers as their birthright, must disown,--admitting, for the moment only, that the constitution of the united states has any words which in any legal intendment can constrain fugitive slaves,--then i desire to say, that, as i understand the constitution, this clause does not impose upon me, as senator or citizen, any obligation to take part, directly or indirectly, in the surrender of a fugitive slave. sir, as senator, i have taken at your desk the oath to support the constitution, _as i understand it_. and understanding it as i do, i am bound by that oath, mr. president, to oppose all enactments by congress on the subject of fugitive slaves, as a flagrant violation of the constitution; especially must i oppose the last act, as a tyrannical usurpation, kindred in character to the stamp act, which our fathers indignantly refused to obey. here my duties, under the oath which i have taken as senator, end. there is nothing beyond. they are all absorbed in the constant, inflexible, righteous obligation to oppose every exercise by congress of any power over the subject. in no respect by that oath can i be compelled to duties _in other capacities, or as a simple citizen_, especially when revolting to my conscience. now in this interpretation of the constitution i may be wrong; others may differ from me; the senator from virginia may be otherwise minded, and the senator from south carolina also; and they will, each and all, act according to their respective understanding. for myself, i shall act according to mine. on this explicit statement of my constitutional obligations i stand, as upon a living rock; and to the inquiry, in whatever form addressed to my personal responsibility, whether i would aid, directly or indirectly, in reducing or surrendering a fellow-man to bondage, i reply again, "is thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing?" and, sir, looking round upon this senate, i might ask fearlessly, how many there are, even in this body,--if, indeed, there be a single senator,--who would stoop to any such service? until some one rises and openly confesses his willingness to become a slave-hunter, i will not believe there can be one. [_here mr. sumner paused, but nobody rose._] and yet honorable and chivalrous senators have rushed headlong to denounce me because i openly declared my repudiation of a service at which every manly bosom must revolt. "sire, i have found in bayonne good citizens and brave soldiers, _but not one executioner_," was the noble utterance of the governor of that place to charles the ninth of france, in response to the royal edict for the massacre of st. bartholomew;[ ] and such a spirit, i trust, will yet animate the people of this country, when pressed to the service of "dogs." [ ] sismondi, histoire de france, tom. xix. p. , note. to that other question which has been proposed, whether massachusetts, by state laws, will carry out the offensive clause in the constitution according to the understanding of the venerable senator from south carolina, i reply, that massachusetts, at all times, has been ready to do her duty under the constitution, as she understands it, and i doubt not will ever continue of this mind. more than this i cannot say. in quitting this topic, i cannot forbear to remark that the assault on me for my disclaimer of all constitutional obligation, resting upon me as senator or citizen, to aid in enslaving a fellow-man, or in surrendering him to slavery, comes with ill grace from the veteran senator from virginia, a state which, by its far-famed resolutions of , claimed to determine its constitutional obligations, even to the extent of openly declaring two different acts of congress null and void; and it comes even more strangely from the venerable senator from south carolina, a state which, in latter days, has arrayed itself openly against the national authorities, and which threatens nullification as often as babies cry. surely the senator from south carolina, with his silver-white locks, would have hesitated to lead this assault upon me, had he not for the moment been entirely oblivious of the history of the state which he represents. not many years have passed since an incident occurred at charleston, in south carolina,--not at boston, in massachusetts,--which ought to be remembered. the postmaster of that place, acting under a controlling public opinion there, informed the head of his department at washington that he had determined to suppress all _antislavery_ publications, and requested instructions for the future. thus, in violation of the laws of the land, the very mails were rifled, and south carolina smiled approbation. but still further. the postmaster-general, mr. kendall, after prudently alleging, that, as he had not seen the papers in question, he could not give an opinion of their character, proceeded to say that he had been _informed_ that they were inflammatory, incendiary, and insurrectionary, and then announced:-- "by no act or direction of mine, official or private, could i be induced to aid knowingly in giving circulation to papers of this description, directly or indirectly. _we owe an obligation to the law_, but a _higher_ one to the communities in which we live; and if the former be perverted to destroy the latter, _it is patriotism to disregard them_. entertaining these views, i cannot sanction, and will not condemn, the step you have taken."[ ] [ ] letter of postmaster-general to postmaster at charleston, s. c., august , : niles's weekly register, th ser. vol. xii. p. . such was the approving response of the national government to the postmaster of charleston, when, for the sake of slavery, and without any constitutional scruple, he set himself against an acknowledged law of the land. and yet the venerable senator from south carolina now presumes to denounce me, when, for the sake of freedom, and in the honest interpretation of my constitutional obligations, i decline an offensive service. there is another incident in the history of south carolina, which, as a loyal son of massachusetts, i cannot forget, and which rises now in judgment against the venerable senator. massachusetts ventured to commission a distinguished gentleman, of blameless life and eminent professional qualities, who had served with honor in the other house [hon. samuel hoar], to reside at charleston for a brief period, in order to guard the rights of her free colored citizens, assailed on arrival there by an inhospitable statute, so gross in its provisions that an eminent character of south carolina, a judge of the supreme court of the united states [hon. william johnson], had condemned it as "trampling on the constitution," and "a direct attack upon the sovereignty of the united states."[ ] massachusetts had read in the constitution a clause closely associated with that touching fugitives from service, to the following effect: "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states," and supposed that this would yet be recognized by south carolina. but she was mistaken. her venerable representative, an unarmed old man, with hair as silver-white almost as that of the senator before me, was beset in charleston by a "respectable" mob, prevented from entering upon his duties, and driven from the state,--while the legislature stepped forward to sanction this shameless, lawless act, by placing on the statute-book an order for his expulsion. and yet, sir, the excitable senator from south carolina is fired by the fancied delinquencies of massachusetts towards slave-hunters, and also by my own refusal to render them any aid or comfort; he shoots questions in volleys, assumes to measure our duties by his understanding, and ejaculates a lecture at massachusetts and myself. sir, before that venerable senator again ventures thus, let him return to his own state, seamed all over with the scars of nullification, and first lecture there. ay, sir, let him look into his own heart, and lecture himself. [ ] letter to john quincy adams, july , ; opinion in ex parte henry elkison, august , : report no. , com. h. of r., th cong. st sess., jan. , , appendix, pp. , . * * * * * but enough for the present on the extent of my constitutional obligations to become slave-hunter. there are, however, yet other things in the assault of the venerable senator, which, for the sake of truth, in just defence of massachusetts, and in honor of freedom, shall not be left unanswered. alluding to those days when massachusetts was illustrated by otis, hancock, and "the brace of adamses," when faneuil hall sent forth notes of liberty which resounded even to south carolina, and the very stones in the streets of boston rose in mutiny against tyranny, the senator with the silver-white locks, in the very ecstasy of slavery, broke forth in exclamation that massachusetts was then "slaveholding," and he presumed to hail these patriots representatives of "hardy, slaveholding massachusetts." sir, i repel the imputation. true, massachusetts was "hardy"; but she was not, in any just sense, "slaveholding." had she been so, she could not have been "hardy." the two characteristics are inconsistent as weakness and strength, as disease and health,--i had almost said, as death and life. the senator opens a page on which i willingly dwell. sir, slavery never flourished in massachusetts; nor did it ever prevail there at any time, even in early colonial days, in such measure as to be a distinctive feature of her progressive civilization. her few slaves were for a term of years or for life. if, in fact, their issue was sometimes held in bondage, it was never by sanction of any statute or law of colony or commonwealth. such has been the solemn and repeated judgment of her supreme court.[ ] in all her annals, no person was ever born a slave on the soil of massachusetts. this, of itself, is an answer to the imputation of the senator. [ ] littleton _v._ tuttle, mass., , note; lanesborough _v._ westfield, mass., ; edgartown _v._ tisbury, cush., ; jackson _v._ phillips et als., allen, . benign and brilliant acts of her legislature, at an early date, show her sensibility on this subject. unhappily, in , two negroes were brought from the coast of guinea in a boston ship. instead of holding them as slaves, the record shows "a resolve to send them back."[ ] one year later, "a negro interpreter, with others, unlawfully taken," became the occasion of another testimony. thus spoke massachusetts:-- "the general court, conceiving themselves bound by the first opportunity to bear witness against the heinous and crying sin of man-stealing, as also to prescribe such timely redress for what is past, _and such a law for the future, as may sufficiently deter all others belonging to us to have to do in such vile and most odious courses, justly abhorred of all good and just men_, do order, that the negro interpreter, with others, unlawfully taken, be, by the first opportunity, at the charge of the country for present, sent to his native country of guinea, and a letter with him, of the indignation of the court thereabouts, and justice thereof."[ ] [ ] mass. records, oct. , , vol. iii. p. . winthrop, history of new england, vol. ii. p. . [ ] mass. records, nov. , , vol. iii. p. . note the language: "such vile and most odious courses, justly abhorred of all good and just men." better words could not be employed against the infamies of slavery in our day. the colony that could issue this noble decree was inconsistent with itself, when it permitted its rocky soil to be pressed by the footstep of a single slave. but a righteous public opinion early and constantly set its face against slavery. as early as the following vote appears on the records of boston: "the representatives are desired to promote the encouraging the bringing of white servants, _and to put a period to negroes being slaves_."[ ] perhaps, in all history, this is the earliest testimony from any official body against negro slavery, and i thank god that it came from boston, my native town. in a heavy duty was imposed upon every negro imported into the province;[ ] in the importation of indians as servants or slaves was strictly forbidden;[ ] but the general subject of slavery attracted little attention till the beginning of the controversy which ended in the revolution, when the rights of the blacks were blended by all true patriots with those of the whites. sparing unnecessary detail, suffice it to say, that, as early as , one of the courts of massachusetts, anticipating by two years the renowned judgment in somerset's case, established within its jurisdiction the principle of emancipation, and, under its touch of magic power, changed slave into freeman. similar decisions followed from other courts. in the whole number of blacks, both free and slave, sprinkled thinly over "hardy" massachusetts, was five thousand two hundred and forty-nine, being to the whites as one to sixty-five,[ ]--while in "slaveholding" south carolina the number of negro slaves at that time was not far from one hundred thousand, being at least one slave for every freeman, thus rendering that colony anything but "hardy." in these figures i give south carolina the benefit of the most favorable estimates. good authorities make the slaves at that time in this state more than twice as numerous as the freemen.[ ] at last, in , even before the triumph of yorktown led the way to that peace which set its seal upon national independence, massachusetts, glowing with the struggles of the revolution, and filled with the sentiments of freedom, placed foremost in her declaration of rights those emphatic words, "all men are born free and equal," and by this declaration exterminated every vestige of slavery within her borders. all hail, then, to massachusetts! the just and generous commonwealth in whose behalf i have the honor to speak. [ ] coll. mass. hist. soc., d ser. vol. viii. p. . drake's history and antiquities of boston, p. . [ ] acts and laws of the province of the massachusetts bay, , ch. vi. § . [ ] ibid., - , ch. v. [ ] coll. mass. hist. soc., vol. iv. p. . [ ] hewatt, history of south carolina, vol. ii. p. ; drayton, view of south carolina, p. ; mills, statistics of south carolina, p. . in harmony with these is the recent history of south carolina, by william gilmore simms, (ed. ,) p. . thus, sir, does the venerable senator err, when he presumes to vouch massachusetts for slavery, and to associate this odious institution with the names of her great patriots. but the venerable senator errs yet more, if possible, when he attributes to "slaveholding" communities a leading part in those contributions of arms and treasure by which independence was secured. here are his exact words, as i find them in the "globe," revised by himself. "sir, when blood was shed upon the plains of lexington and concord, in an issue made by boston, to whom was an appeal made, and from whom was it answered? the answer is found in the acts of slaveholding states,--_animis opibusque parati_. yes, sir, the independence of america, to maintain republican liberty, was won by the arms and treasure, by the patriotism and _good faith_, of slaveholding communities."[ ] [ ] congressional globe, d cong. st sess., june , , vol. xxviii. p. . observe, sir, the words as emphasized by himself. surely, the senator, with his silver-white locks, all fresh from the outrage of the nebraska bill, and that overthrow of a solemn compact, cannot stand here and proclaim the "_good faith_ of slaveholding communities," except in irony,--yes, sir, in irony. and let me add, that, when this senator presumes to say that american independence "was won by the arms and treasure of _slaveholding_ communities," he speaks either in irony or in ignorance. the question which the venerable senator from south carolina opens by his vaunt i have no desire to discuss; but since it is presented, i confront it at once. this is not the first time, during my brief service here, that this senator has sought on this floor to provoke comparison between slaveholding communities and the free states. mr. butler [_from his seat_]. you cannot quote a single instance in which i have done it. i have always said i thought it was in bad taste, and i have never attempted it. mr. sumner. i beg the senator's pardon. i always listen to him, and i know whereof i affirm. he has profusely dealt in it. i allude now only to a single occasion. in his speech on the nebraska bill, running through two days, it was one of his commonplaces. there he openly presented a contrast between the free states and "slaveholding communities" in certain essential features of civilization, and directed shafts at massachusetts which called to his feet my distinguished colleague at that time [mr. everett], and more than once compelled me to take the floor. and now, sir, the venerable senator, not rising from his seat and standing openly before the senate, undertakes to deny that he has dealt in such comparisons. mr. butler. will the senator allow me? mr. sumner. certainly: i yield the floor to the senator. mr. butler. whenever that speech is read,--and i wish the senator had read it before he commented on it with a good deal of rhetorical enthusiasm,--it will be found that i was particular not to wound the feelings of the northern people who were sympathizing with us in the great movement to remove odious distinctions. i was careful to say nothing that would provoke invidious comparisons; and when that speech is read, notwithstanding the vehement assertion of the honorable senator, he will find, that, when i quoted the laws of massachusetts, particularly one act which i termed the _toties quoties_ act, by which every negro was whipped every time he came into massachusetts, i quoted them with a view to show, not a contrast between south carolina and massachusetts, but to show that in the whole of this country, from the beginning to this time,--even in my own state,--i made no exception,--public opinion had undergone a change, and that it had undergone the same change in massachusetts; for at one time they did not regard this institution of slavery with the same odium that they do at this time. that was the purpose; and i challenge the senator, as an orator of fairness, to look at it and see if it is not so. mr. sumner. has the senator done? mr. butler. i may not be done presently; but that is the purport of that speech. mr. sumner. will the senator refer to his own speech? he now admits, that, under the guise of an argument, he did draw attention to what he evidently regarded an odious law of massachusetts. and, sir, i did not forget, that, in doing this, there was, at the time, an apology which ill concealed the sting.[ ] but let that pass. the senator is strangely oblivious of the statistical contrasts which he borrowed from the speech of a member of the other house, and which, at his request, were read by a senator before him on this floor. the senator, too, is strangely oblivious of yet another imputation, which, at the very close of his speech, he shot as a parthian arrow at massachusetts. it is he, then, who is the offender; and no hardihood of denial can extricate him. for myself, sir, i understand the sensibilities of senators from "slaveholding communities," and would not wound them by a superfluous word. of slavery i speak strongly, as i must; but thus far, even at the expense of my argument, i have avoided the contrasts founded on detail of figures and facts which are so obvious between the free states and "slaveholding communities"; especially have i shunned all allusion to south carolina. but the venerable senator to whose discretion that state has intrusted its interests here will not allow me to be still. [ ] the following, from the _congressional globe_ ( d cong. st sess., appendix, p. ), will show the spirit of mr. butler's remarks, on the occasion referred to. "mr. butler. ... i have said, that, before the adoption of the missouri compromise, even the northern states were not so very kind and philanthropic towards this race, which is now under the peculiar care of the senator from massachusetts, as he would represent. i have before me a statute of that state, which i ask my friend from alabama [mr. c. c. clay], who sits beside me, to read." [here mr. clay read from the act in question (withholding the title, "_an act for suppressing and punishing of rogues, vagabonds, common beggars, and other idle, disorderly, and lewd persons_") a section prohibiting the tarrying of vagrant negroes in the state _longer than two months_, on pain, in case of complaint, and continuance after due warning, of being "whipped not exceeding ten stripes, and ordered to depart out of the commonwealth within ten days; and if he or she shall not so depart, the same process to be had and punishment inflicted, and so _toties quoties_."] "mr. broadhead. what is the date of that statute? "mr. butler. seventeen hundred and eighty-eight; and it remained on the statute-book _in full force_ until , until after the adoption of the missouri compromise. i will call it the _toties quoties_ act. the negroes were to be whipped every time they happened to get to boston, or any other place in massachusetts. that is a specimen of statutory philanthropy at least." to this mr. sumner replied at once:-- "the senator from south carolina is so jealous of the honor of his own state, that he will pardon me, if i interrupt him for one moment, merely to explain the offensive statute to which he has referred. i have nothing to say in vindication of it: i simply desire that it should be understood. this statute, which bears date , anterior to the national government, was applicable only to africans or negroes not citizens of some one of the united states; and, according to contemporary evidence, it was intended to protect the commonwealth against the vagabondage of fugitive slaves. but i do not vindicate the statute; i only explain it; and i add, that it has long since been banished from the statute-book." there is a report to the massachusetts legislature by theodore lyman, jr., as chairman of a committee "to report a bill concerning the admission into this state of free negroes and mulattoes," dated january , , which confirms the position of mr. sumner. after a few preliminary remarks, it is said:-- "the committee have already found in the statute-books of this commonwealth a law, passed in , regulating the residence in this state of certain persons of color. they believe that _this law has never been enforced_, and, ineffectual as it has proved, they would never have been the authors of placing among the statutes a law so arbitrary in its principle, and in its operation _so little accordant with the institutions, feelings, and practices of the people of this commonwealth_." the report then goes into a history of the public acts and proceedings in relation to colored persons in massachusetts, from the earliest colonial times down to the date of the enactment, in order to show the spirit of the people towards this class, and concludes with observations like the following:-- "the feelings of the people disclosed since the year in the votes of towns and in the verdicts of juries, ... the fact that there is no law at present in force which makes a distinction between white and black persons, ... the same law which allows justices to expel blacks from the state after a certain notice expressly recognizing the right of blacks to become citizens (a law, the constitutionality of which has been called in question, and which it is well known was passed on the same day as the abolition act of march, , in order to prevent the state from being overrun with runaway slaves),--blacks having the same public provisions for education, and the same public support in case of sickness and poverty,--many blacks before and during the revolution having obtained their freedom by a legal process, and, as the spirit of the constitution of this state abrogates all exclusive laws, thereby becoming invested with all the rights of freemen, and with a capability of becoming freeholders, ... and, above all, the construction given to the first principle in the declaration of rights at the time of the adoption of this constitution, both in the public mind and in the courts of law,--clearly manifest and demonstrate that the people of this commonwealth have always believed negroes and mulattoes to possess the same right and capability to become citizens as white persons." god forbid that i should do injustice to south carolina! i know well the gallantry of many of her sons. i know the response which she made to the appeal of massachusetts for union against the stamp act--the fugitive slave act of that day--by the pen of christopher gadsden. and i remember with sorrow that this patriot was obliged to confess, at the time, her "weakness in having such a number of slaves," though it is to his credit that he recognized slavery as "crime."[ ] i have no pleasure in dwelling on the humiliations of south carolina; i have little desire to expose her sores; i would not lay bare even her nakedness. but the senator, in his vaunt for "slaveholding communities," has made a claim for slavery so derogatory to freedom, and so inconsistent with history, that i cannot allow it to pass unanswered. [ ] bancroft, history of the united states, vol. v. pp. , , . * * * * * this, sir, is not the first time, even during my little experience here, that the same claim has been made on this floor; and this seems the more astonishing, because the archives of the country furnish such ample and undoubted materials for its refutation. the question of the comparative contributions of men by different states and sections of the country in the war of the revolution was brought forward as early as , in the first congress under the constitution, in the animated and protracted debate on the assumption of state debts by the union. on that occasion, fisher ames, a representative from massachusetts, famous for classic eloquence, moved a call upon the war department for the number of men furnished by each state to the revolutionary armies. the motion, though vehemently opposed, was carried by a small majority. shortly afterwards an answer to the call was received from the department, at that time under the charge of general knox. this answer, which is one of the documents of our history, places beyond cavil or criticism the exact contributions in arms made by each state. here it is,--taken from the original, in a volume of the "american state papers,"[ ] published under the authority of congress. this is official. [ ] military affairs, vol. i. pp. - . compare with coll. new hamp. hist. soc., vol. i. p. . _statement of the number of troops and militia furnished by the several states, for the support of the revolutionary war, from to , inclusive._ number of number of total militia conjectural continental militia. and continental estimate of northern states. troops. troops. militia. new hampshire , , , , massachusetts , , , , rhode island , , , , connecticut , , , , new york , , , , pennsylvania , , , , new jersey , , , , ------ ------ ------ ------ total , , , , southern states. delaware , , , maryland , , , , virginia , , , , north carolina , , , , south carolina , ---- , , georgia , ---- , , ------ ------ ------ ------ total , , , , at this time there was but little difference in numbers between the population of the southern states and that of the northern states. by the census of the southern had a population of , , ; the northern a population of , , . notwithstanding this essential equality of population in the two sections, the north furnished vastly more men than the south. of continental troops, the southern states furnished , ; the northern, , : making about three men furnished to the continental army by the northern states to one from the southern. of militia whose services are authenticated by the war office, the southern states furnished , ; the northern, , : making nearly four men contributed to the militia by the northern states to one from the southern. of militia whose services are not authenticated by the war office, but are set down in the return as "conjectural" only, we have , furnished by the southern states, and , by the northern: making, under this head, five men contributed by the southern to two from the northern. the chief services of the southern states, for which the venerable senator now claims so much, it will be observed with a smile, were _conjectural_ only. looking, however, at the sum-total of continental troops, authenticated militia, and "conjectural" militia, we have , from the southern states, while , were from the northern: making upwards of , men contributed to the war by the northern more than by the southern. the disparity swells, when we compare south carolina and massachusetts directly. of continental troops and authenticated militia and "conjectural" militia, south carolina furnished , , while massachusetts furnished , : making nearly three for every one furnished by south carolina. look, however, at the continental troops and the authenticated militia from the two states, and here you will find only , furnished by south carolina, while , were furnished by massachusetts,--_being thirteen times more than by south carolina, and much more than by all the southern states together_. here are facts and figures of which the senator ought not to be ignorant. so obvious was this at the time, that we find john adams recording in his autobiography, that "almost the whole army was derived from new england."[ ] general knox, in a letter to colonel joseph ward, of massachusetts, under date of july , , with regard to the reestablishment of the army, has a few words in point. after complaining of the general inertness, as sufficient "to induce a ready belief that the mass of america have taken _a monstrous deal of opium_," he says:-- "it is true, the eastern states and new york have done something in this instance, but no others. propagate this truth."[ ] [ ] works, vol. iii. p. ; see also p. . [ ] jackson's history of newton, p. . in a letter to general gates, under date of philadelphia, march , , john adams touches a difference in sentiment between the northern and southern states, which of itself accounts for this disparity of military contributions. "however, my dear friend gates, all our misfortunes arise from a single source, _the reluctance of the southern colonies to republican government_."[ ] [ ] works, vol. i. p. . nothing could be stronger, although it is painful to think that it was true. foreign testimony, also, is in harmony with the official statement. the marquis de chastellux, who travelled through the states towards the close of the revolution, records somewhere that he "never met anybody from the north who had not been in the army." so marked and preeminent was the service of the northern states, ay, sir, so peculiar and special was the service of boston, from which comes the present petition, that the revolution was known in europe by the name of this patriotic town. edmund burke exclaimed in parliament: "the cause of boston is become the cause of all america. every part of america is united in support of boston. by these acts of oppression you have made boston the lord mayor of america."[ ] and it was the same on the continent. our fathers in arms for independence were known as "the insurgents of boston." the french king was praised for protecting with his arms what was called "the justice of the bostonians."[ ] in saying this, i do not speak vaguely or without authority. [ ] hansard, parliamentary history, vol. xviii. col. . [ ] vie publique et privée de louis xvi., p. . see also memoir of the right honorable hugh elliot, by the countess of minto, published since this speech, where will be found (p. ) a letter from a fine lady of vienna, who, writing to mr. elliot in , confesses that she has been "bostonian at heart": _j'etais bostonienne de coeur._ did occasion require, i might go further, and minutely portray the imbecility of southern states, and particularly of south carolina, in the war of the revolution, as compared with northern states. this is a sad chapter, upon which i dwell unwillingly. faithful annals record, that, as early as , the six south carolina regiments, composing, with the georgia regiment, the regular force of the southern department, did not, in the whole, muster above eight hundred men; nor was it possible to fill up their ranks. the succeeding year, the governor of south carolina, pressed by british forces, offered to stipulate the neutrality of his state during the war, leaving its permanent position to be decided at the peace: a premonitory symptom of the secession menaced in our own day. after the fatal field of camden, no organized american force was left in this region. the three southern states--_animis opibusque parati_, according to the vaunt of the senator--had not a single battalion in the field. during all this period the men of massachusetts were serving their country, not at home, but away from their own borders: for, from the declaration of independence, massachusetts never felt the pressure of a hostile foot. the offer of the governor of south carolina to stipulate the neutrality of his state during the war has been sometimes called in question. but, unhappily, the case is too clear. general moultrie, who commanded at charleston, under the governor, and whose name has been since given to one of the forts in the harbor there, has furnished an authentic record in two volumes, entitled "memoirs of the american revolution, so far as it related to the states of north and south carolina and georgia." he is my witness. as the british approached, the governor and his council became frightened, and proceeded forthwith to talk about capitulation. at last, after debate, "the question was carried for giving up the town upon a neutrality."[ ] colonel john laurens was requested to carry this offer of capitulation from the governor to general prevost, the british commander; but "he begged to be excused from carrying such a message; that it was much against his inclination; that he would do anything to serve his country, but he could not think of carrying such a message as that." other envoys were found who most reluctantly undertook this service. the message was as follows:-- "to propose a neutrality during the war between great britain and america, and the question, _whether the state shall belong to great britain or remain one of the united states_, be determined by the treaty of peace between those two powers."[ ] [ ] moultrie, memoirs, vol. i. p. . [ ] ibid., p. . the same story is told by others. ramsay, himself of south carolina, in his "history of the american revolution," says:-- "commissioners from the garrison were instructed 'to propose a neutrality during the war between great britain and america, and that the question, _whether the state shall belong to great britain or remain one of the united states_, be determined by the treaty of peace between these powers.'"[ ] [ ] history of the american revolution, vol. ii. p. . chief justice marshall, in his authentic work, thus chronicles the disgraceful business:-- "the town was summoned to surrender, and the day was spent in sending and receiving flags. the neutrality of south carolina during the war, leaving the question, _whether that state should finally belong to great britain or the united states_, to be settled in the treaty of peace, was proposed by the garrison, and rejected by prevost."[ ] [ ] life of washington, vol. i. ( d edition) pp. , . it is also presented with precision by professor bowen, of harvard university, in his recent life of general lincoln, who remarks on it as follows:-- "this proposal did not come merely from the commander of a military garrison, in which case, of course, it would have been only nugatory; the governor of the state, clothed with discretionary powers, was in the place, and probably most of his council along with him. whether such a proposition would have been justifiable under any circumstances is a question that needs not be discussed; at any rate, it would not have evinced much honorable or patriotic feeling. but to make such an offer in the present case was conduct little short of treason."[ ] [ ] life of benjamin lincoln: sparks's american biography, d ser. vol. xiii. p. . this author concludes an animated review of the proposition with the remark, that it "was equivalent to an offer from the state to return to its allegiance to the british crown."[ ] [ ] life of benjamin lincoln: sparks's american biography, d ser. vol. xiii. p. . the fate of the state was typified in the capture by the british, some time afterwards, of the ship "south carolina," of forty guns, the largest and most costly of our infant navy, and called by cooper "much the heaviest ship that ever sailed under the american flag, until the new frigates were constructed during the war of ."[ ] but here is the same story. her service was altogether inadequate. [ ] history of the navy of the united states ( d edition), vol. i. p. . at last, the military genius and remarkable exertions of general greene, a northern man, who assumed the command of the southern army, prevailed in rescuing south carolina from british power. but the trials of this successful leader reveal in a striking manner the weakness of the "slaveholding" state he saved. some of these are graphically presented in his letters. writing to president reed, of pennsylvania, under date of th may, , he says:-- "the strength and resources of these [southern] states to support the war have been greatly magnified and overrated; and those whose business and true interest it was to give a just state of the situation of things have joined in the deception, and, from a false principle of pride of having the country thought powerful, have led people to believe it was so. it is true, there were many inhabitants, but they were spread over a great extent of country, and near equally divided between the king's interest and ours. the majority is greatly in favor of the enemy's interest now, as great numbers of the whigs have left the country.... the love of pleasure and the want of principle among many of those who are our friends render the exertions very languid in support of our cause; _and unless the northern states can give more effectual support, these states must fall_."[ ] [ ] life and correspondence of joseph reed, vol. ii. p. . johnson's life and correspondence of nathaniel greene, vol. ii. p. . writing to colonel davie, under date of d may, , general greene again exposes the actual condition of the country. "the animosity between the whigs and tories of this state renders their situation truly deplorable. there is not a day passes but there are more or less who fall a sacrifice to this savage disposition. the whigs seem determined to extirpate the tories, and the tories the whigs. some thousands have fallen in this way in this quarter, and the evil rages with more violence than ever. if a stop cannot be soon put to these massacres, the country will be depopulated in a few months more, as neither whig nor tory can live."[ ] [ ] gordon, history of the rise, etc., of the independence of the united states, vol. iv. p. . to lafayette, general greene, under date of th december, , describes the weakness of his troops. "it is now within a few days of the time you mentioned of being with me. were you to arrive, you would find a few ragged, half-starved troops in the wilderness, destitute of everything necessary for either the comfort or convenience of soldiers.... the country is almost laid waste, and the inhabitants plunder one another with little less than savage fury. we live from hand to mouth, and have nothing to subsist on but what we collect with armed parties. in this situation, i believe you will agree with me, there is nothing inviting this way, especially when i assure you our whole force fit for duty, that are properly clothed and properly equipped, does not amount to eight hundred men."[ ] [ ] johnson's life and correspondence of greene, vol. i. p. . writing to mr. varnum, a member of congress, the general says:-- "there is a great spirit of enterprise prevailing among the militia of these southern states, especially with the volunteers. but their mode of going to war is so destructive, that _it is the greatest folly in the world to trust the liberties of a people to such a precarious defence_."[ ] [ ] ibid., p. . nothing can be more authentic or complete than this testimony. here, also, is what is said by david ramsay, an estimable citizen of south carolina, in his history of the revolution in that state, published in , only a short time after the scenes which he describes. "while the american soldiers lay encamped in this inactive situation," (in the low country near charleston,) "their tattered rags were so completely worn out, that seven hundred of them were as naked as they were born, excepting a small slip of cloth about their waists; and they were nearly as destitute of meat as of clothing."[ ] [ ] history of the revolution of south carolina, vol. ii. p. . to the same effect is a letter from greene to sumter, under date of jan. , . "it is a great misfortune that the little force we have is in such a wretched state for want of clothing. more than one half our numbers are in a manner naked, so much so that we cannot put them on the least kind of duty. indeed, there is a great number that have not a rag of clothes on them, except a little piece of blanket, in the indian form, around their waists."[ ] [ ] johnson's life and correspondence of greene, vol. i. p. . the military weakness of this "slaveholding community" is but too apparent. as i show its occasion, you will join with me in amazement that a senator from south carolina should attribute independence to anything "slaveholding." the records of the country, and various voices, all disown his vaunt for slavery. the state of south carolina itself, by authentic history, disowns it. i give the proofs. the first is from the debate on the confederation in the continental congress, as early as july, , when the following passage occurred, which i quote from "notes of debates in the continental congress in and ," preserved by john adams. mr. lynch, a young representative of south carolina, showing the sensibilities, if not the evil spirit, engendered by slavery, speaking in behalf of the southern states, said: "if it is debated whether their slaves are their property, there is an end of the confederation. our slaves being our property, why should they be taxed more than the land, sheep, cattle, horses, &c.?" without noticing the menace against the confederation, the beginning of a long line, franklin replied, with sententious authority: "slaves rather weaken than strengthen the state, and there is therefore some difference between them and sheep. _sheep will never make any insurrections._"[ ] franklin touched the point. [ ] works of john adams, vol. ii. p. . see also bancroft's history of the united states, vol. ix. p. . and now listen, if you please, to peculiar and decisive testimony, under date of th march, , from the secret journals of the continental congress. "the committee appointed to take into consideration _the circumstances of the southern states_, and the ways and means for their safety and defence, report, ... that the state of south carolina (as represented by the delegates to the said state, and by mr. huger, who has come hither at the request of the governor of the said state, on purpose to explain the particular circumstances thereof) is unable to make any effectual efforts with militia, by reason of the great proportion of citizens _necessary to remain at home, to prevent insurrections among the negroes_, and to prevent the desertion of them to the enemy; that the state of the country, and _the great numbers of those people among them_, expose the inhabitants to great _danger_, from the endeavors of the enemy to excite them either to revolt or desert."[ ] [ ] secret journals, vol. i. pp. , . here is south carolina secretly disclosing her military weakness, and its ignoble occasion: thus repudiating in advance the vaunt of her senator, who finds strength and gratulation in slavery rather than in freedom. it was during the war, and in the confessional of the continental congress, that, on bended knees, she shrived herself. but the same ignominious confession was made, some time after the war, in open debate, on the floor of congress, by mr. burke, a representative from south carolina. "there is not a gentleman on the floor who is a stranger to the feeble situation of our state, when we entered into the war to oppose the british power. _we were not only without money, without an army or military stores, but we were few in number, and likely to be entangled with our domestics, in case the enemy invaded us._"[ ] [ ] annals of congress, st cong. d sess., ii. , march , . similar testimony to this weakness was borne by mr. madison in open debate in congress. "every addition they [georgia and south carolina] receive to their number of slaves _tends to weaken, and render them less capable of self-defence_."[ ] [ ] ibid., st cong. st sess., i. , may , . the historian of south carolina, dr. ramsay, a contemporary observer of the very scenes which he describes, to whom i have already referred, also exposes this weakness. "the forces under the command of general prevost marched through the richest settlements of the state, where are the fewest white inhabitants in proportion to the number of slaves. _the hapless africans, allured with hopes of freedom, forsook their owners_, and repaired in great numbers to the royal army. they endeavored to recommend themselves to their new masters by discovering where their owners had concealed their property, and were assisting in carrying it off."[ ] [ ] history of south carolina, vol. i. pp. , . the same candid historian, describing the invasion of the next year, says:-- "the slaves a _second_ time _flocked_ to the british army."[ ] [ ] ibid., p. . at a still later day, mr. justice johnson, of the supreme court of the united states, and a citizen of south carolina, in his elaborate life of general greene, speaking of negro slaves, makes the same unhappy admission. he says:-- "but the number dispersed through these [southern] states was very great,--_so great as to render it impossible for the citizens to muster freemen enough to withstand the pressure of the british arms_."[ ] [ ] life of greene, vol. ii. appendix, p. . here is illustration from an english pamphlet entitled "account of the duckenfield hall estate negroes, , law case," where will be found the following incident. "in i bought ten negroes, which, with sixty others, were taken by a privateer from a plantation in south carolina." thus from every quarter are we conducted to the same conclusion. and all this cumulative and unimpeachable testimony is reinforced by testimony of an earlier day, also from south carolina. the assembly of the colony represented to the king, in , that they were "subject to _many intestine dangers from the great number of negroes_ that are now among us."[ ] [ ] grahame, history of the united states, vol. iii. p. . another representation shortly afterwards declared:-- "if any stop be put to the exportation of rice from south carolina to europe, it ... may render the whole colony an easy prey to their neighbors, the indians and spaniards, _and also to those yet more dangerous enemies, their own negroes, who are ready to revolt on the first opportunity_, and are eight times as many in number as there are white men able to bear arms."[ ] [ ] ibid., p. . thus was it before, as during the revolution,--weakness always, nothing but weakness. and this is precisely according to human experience. it was in south carolina as it had been in other lands where slavery prevailed. here i read the testimony of a remarkable writer, archbishop whately. "for if there be any one truth which the deductions of reason alone, independent of history, would lead us to anticipate, and which again history alone would establish independently of antecedent reasoning, it is this: that a whole class of men placed permanently under the ascendency of another as subjects, without the rights of citizens, must be _a source, at the best, of weakness, and generally of danger, to the state_.... it is notorious, accordingly, how much sparta was weakened and endangered by the helots, always ready to avail themselves of any public disaster as an occasion for revolt."[ ] [ ] essays on some of the dangers to christian faith, pp. - , note f, d edition. see also bacon's essays, with annotations by whately, pp. - : annotations to essay xv. the archbishop then recalls how hannibal for sixteen years maintained himself in italy against the romans, and, though scantily supplied from carthage, recruited his ranks by the aid of roman subjects. truly does he say that every page of history teaches the same lesson, and proclaims in every different form, "how long shall these men be a snare unto us?"[ ]--and also, "the remnant of these nations which thou shalt not drive out shall be pricks in thine eyes and thorns in thy side."[ ] [ ] exodus, x. . [ ] numbers, xxxiii. . * * * * * surely, sir, this is enough, and more. from authentic documents, including the very muster-rolls of the revolution, we learn the small contributions of men and the military weakness of the southern states, particularly of south carolina, as compared with the northern states; and from the very lips of south carolina herself, on four different occasions,--by a committee, by one of her representatives in congress, by her historian, and by an eminent citizen,--we have the confession, not only of weakness, but that this weakness was caused by slavery. and yet, in the face of this combined and authoritative testimony, we are called to listen, in the american senate, to the arrogant boast, from a venerable senator, that american independence was achieved by the arms and treasure of "slaveholding communities": an assumption baseless as the fabric of a vision, in any way it may be interpreted,--whether as meaning baldly that independence was achieved by those southern states, the peculiar home of slavery, or that it was achieved by any strength or influence which came from that noxious source. sir, i speak here for a commonwealth of just renown, but i speak also for a cause which is more than any commonwealth, even that which i represent; and i cannot allow the senator to discredit either. not by slavery, but in spite of slavery, was independence achieved. not _because_, but _notwithstanding_, there were "slaveholding communities," did triumph descend upon our arms. it was the inspiration of liberty universal that conducted us through the red sea of the revolution, as it had already given to the declaration of independence its mighty tone, resounding through the ages. "let it be remembered," said the nation, speaking by the voice of the continental congress, at the close of the war, "that it has ever been the pride and boast of america, that the rights for which she contended were the rights of human nature."[ ] yes, sir, in this behalf, and by this sign, we conquered. [ ] address to the states, april , : journal of congress, vol. viii. p. . such, sir, is my answer on this head to the senator from south carolina. if the work which i undertook has been done thoroughly, he must not blame me. justice demanded that it should be thorough. but, while thus repelling insinuations against massachusetts, and assumptions for slavery, i would not unnecessarily touch the sensibilities of that senator, or of the state which he represents. i cannot forget, that, amidst all diversities of opinion, we are bound together by ties of a common country,--that massachusetts and south carolina are sister states, and that the concord of sisters ought to prevail between them; but i am constrained to declare, that, throughout this debate, i have sought in vain any token of that just spirit which within the sphere of its influence is calculated to promote the concord whether of state or of individuals. * * * * * and now, for the present, i part with the venerable senator from south carolina. pursuing his inconsistencies, and exposing them to judgment, i had almost forgotten his associate leader in the wanton personal assault upon me in this long debate,--i mean the veteran senator from virginia [mr. mason], who is now directly in my eye. with imperious look, and in the style of sir forcible feeble, that senator undertakes to call in question my statement, that the fugitive slave act denies the writ of _habeas corpus_; and in doing this, he assumes a superiority for himself, which, permit me to tell him now in this presence, nothing in him can warrant. sir, i claim little for myself; but i shrink in no respect from any comparison with that senator, veteran though he be. sitting near him, as has been my fortune since i had the honor of a seat in this chamber, i have come to know something of his conversation, something of his manners, something of his attainments, something of his abilities, something of his character,--ay, sir, and something of _his_ associations; and, while i would not disparage him in any of these respects, i feel that i do not exalt myself unduly, that i do not claim too much for the position which i hold or the name which i have established, when i openly declare, that, as senator of massachusetts, and as man, i place myself at every point in unhesitating comparison with that honorable assailant. and to his peremptory assertion, that the fugitive slave act _does not_ deny the _habeas corpus_, i oppose my assertion, peremptory as his own, that it _does_,--and there i leave that issue. mr. president, i welcome the sensibility which the senator from virginia manifests at the exposure of the fugitive slave act. he is the author of that enormity. from his brain came forth the soulless monster. he is, therefore, its natural guardian. the senator is, i believe, a lawyer. and now, since at last he shows parental solicitude to shield his offspring, he must do more than vainly parry the objection that it denies the great writ of _habeas corpus_. it is true, sir, if anything but slavery were in question, such an objection, if merely plausible, would be fatal; but it is not to be supposed that the partisans of an institution founded on denial of human rights can appreciate the proper efficacy of that writ. sir, i challenge the senator to defend his progeny,--not by assertion, but by reason. let him rally all the ability, learning, and subtilty which he can command, and undertake the impossible work. let him answer this objection: the constitution, by an amendment which samuel adams hailed as a protection against the usurpations of the national government, and which jefferson asserted was its very "foundation," has solemnly declared that "the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." stronger words could not be employed to limit the powers under the constitution, and to protect the people from all assumptions of the national government, particularly in derogation of freedom. by the virginia resolutions of , which the senator is reputed to accept, this limitation of the powers of the national government is recognized and enforced. the senator himself is understood, on all questions not affecting the claims of slavery, to espouse this rule in its utmost strictness. let him now indicate, if he can, any article, clause, phrase, or word in the constitution which gives to congress any power to establish a "uniform law throughout the united states" on the subject of fugitive slaves. let him now show, if he can, from the records of the national convention, one jot of evidence inclining to any such power. whatever its interpretation in other respects, the clause on which this bill purports to be founded gives no such power. sir, nothing can come out of nothing; and the fugitive slave act is, therefore, without any source or origin in the constitution. it is an open and unmitigated usurpation. when the veteran senator of virginia has answered this objection, when he is able to find in the constitution a power which is not to be found, and to make us see what is not to be seen, then let him answer another objection. the constitution has secured the inestimable right of trial by jury "in suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars." of course freedom is not susceptible of pecuniary valuation; therefore there can be no question that the claim for a fugitive slave is within this condition. in determining what is meant by "suits at common law," recourse must be had to the common law itself, precisely as we resort to that law in order to determine what is meant by "trial by jury." let the senator, if he be a lawyer, undertake to show that a claim for a fugitive slave is not, according to early precedents and writs,--well known to the framers of the constitution, especially to charles cotesworth pinckney and john rutledge, of south carolina, both of whom had studied law at the temple,--a _suit at common law_, to which, under the solemn guaranty of the constitution, is attached the trial by jury, as an inseparable incident. let the senator show this, if he can. and, sir, when the veteran senator has found a power in the constitution where none exists, and has set aside the right of trial by jury in a suit at common law, then let him answer yet another objection. by the judgment of the supreme court of the united states, a claim for a fugitive slave is declared to be _a case under the constitution_,[ ] within the judicial power; and this judgment of the court is confirmed by common sense and common law. let the senator show, if he can, how such exalted exercise of judicial power can be confided to a single petty magistrate, appointed, not by the president, with the advice and consent of the senate, but by the court,--holding his office, not during good behavior, but merely during the will of the court,--and receiving, not a regular salary, but fees according to each individual case. let the senator answer this objection, if, in any way, by twist of learning, logic, or law, he can. [ ] prigg _v._ pennsylvania, peters, . thus, sir, do i present the issue directly on this monstrous enactment. let the author of the fugitive slave bill meet it. he will find me ready to follow him in argument,--though i trust never to be led, even by his example, into any departure from those courtesies of debate which are essential to the harmony of every legislative body. * * * * * such, mr. president, is my response to all that has been said in this debate, so far as i deem it in any way worthy of attention. to the two associate chieftains in this personal assault, the veteran senator from virginia, and the senator from south carolina with the silver-white locks, i have replied completely. it is true that others have joined in the cry which these associates first started; but i shall not be tempted further. some there are best answered by silence, best answered by withholding the words which leap impulsively to the lips. [_here mr. sumner turned to mr. mallory and mr. clay._] and now, giving to oblivion all these things, let me, as i close, dwell on a single aspect of this discussion, which will render it memorable. on former occasions like this, the right of petition has been vehemently assailed or practically denied. only two years ago, memorials for the repeal of the fugitive slave act, presented by me, were laid on your table, mr. president, without reference to any committee. all is changed now. senators have condemned the memorial, and sounded in our ears the cry of "treason! treason!"--but thus far, throughout this excited debate, no person has so completely outraged the spirit of our institutions, or forgotten himself, as to persevere in objecting to the reception of the memorial, and its proper reference. it is true, the remonstrants and their representatives here are treated with indignity; but the great right of petition, the sword and buckler of the citizen, though thus dishonored, is not denied. here, sir, is a triumph for freedom. when mr. sumner had finished, mr. clay, of alabama, made haste to say, "he has put the question, whether any senator upon this floor would assist in returning a fugitive slave? no response was made to the interrogatory; and lest he should herald it to the world that there was no senator upon this floor who had the _moral courage_ to say 'ay,' in response to the interrogatory, i tell him that i would do it." to which mr. sumner replied at once, "then let the senator say the _immoral courage_." mr. butler rose to reply, when mr. badger asked his "friend from south carolina, whether it would not be better for him to allow us now to adjourn?" to which mr. butler answered: "no, sir; i would not subject myself to the temptation of preparing a reply that might have something in it, that, like a hyena, i was scratching at the graves in massachusetts, to take revenge for the elaborate and vindictive assault that has been made by the gentleman who has just spoken." the _globe_ shows his continued anger and excitement, which broke out especially at the comparison mr. sumner made between the stamp act and the slave act, and at his refusal to surrender a fugitive slave. these seemed to be the two grounds of offence. on the latter point, mr. butler, contrary to mr. sumner's positive declaration, was persistent in saying that he had denied the obligation of his oath to support the constitution, when he had only denied his obligation to surrender a fugitive slave. at this stage, mr. fessenden, of maine, remarked: "the answer made by the senator from massachusetts was in these precise words: 'i recognize no such obligation.' i did not understand that senator as meaning to say that he would not obey the constitution, or would disregard his oath,--nor, allow me to say, was he so understood by many gentlemen on this side of the chamber; but he simply meant to say (i certainly so understood him) that he did not consider that the constitution imposed any such obligation upon him. that is all." before the debate closed, mr. toucey, of connecticut, said: "i beg leave to ask the senator from massachusetts whether he now recognizes an obligation to return a fugitive slave? i put the question in general language: does he recognize the obligation to return a fugitive slave?" mr. sumner then said, "to that i answer distinctly, _no_." the petition was then referred to the committee. * * * * * as mr. sumner resumed his seat, after his speech in reply to his assailants, mr. chase, who sat next to him, said: "you have struck slavery the strongest blow it ever received; you have made it reel to the centre." the rage of its representatives was without bounds. the suggestion of mr. pettit to expel him was the first idea, which at last gave way to that of mr. clay to put him in coventry. the first was not abandoned at once. it was seriously entertained. the newspapers of the time represent that it was under consideration from the day of his speech,--that "the opposition to mr. sumner is general and bitter in the senate, and that it would be rash, therefore, to assert that the resolution will not be presented, and that, if presented, it will not be carried." it was added, that four northern senators were pledged to the resolution. the _evening post_ said, jestingly: "the washington _union_, and those of whom it is the special organ, are as much puzzled what to do with senator sumner as the lilliputians were how to dispose of mr. lemuel gulliver, when he made his appearance among them." other papers treated the subject more gravely. the _national era_, at washington, said: "when we heard that a project for the expulsion of mr. sumner was under consideration among some senators, we scouted the report as simply ridiculous; but there is no limit to the insolence and folly of some men. on inquiry, we learned that such a project was seriously canvassed." * * * * * this debate was profoundly felt throughout the country. mr. sumner's speech was telegraphed to the north, and extensively read. people there were smarting under the repeal of the missouri prohibition and the attempt to enforce the fugitive slave act. they were glad to find the audacious pretensions of the slave-masters repelled in congress. newspapers were enthusiastic. the correspondent of the new york _times_ wrote:-- "this able, triumphant vindication, which covered the assailants with confusion, told with the more effect because it was unexpected. it had been supposed that mr. sumner would submit quietly to any indignity that might be heaped upon him; but the people, doubtless, when they read his speech, will acknowledge that he held in reserve, and knew when and how to use, weapons of defence far keener than the bowie-knife, and far more certain and fatal than the duellist's rifle; and his countrymen will honor the moral courage that enabled him to bear unflinchingly all the cruel taunts of his misreckoning assailants, until the time had arrived for drawing the arrows of truth.... i have not been accustomed to praise the senator who is now my theme; but that heart must be cold, and that judgment lamentably distorted, which could withhold from mr. sumner his well-earned tribute for to-day's acquittance." the springfield _republican_ thus characterizes the speech:-- "curiosity has been greatly stimulated to see it in full, and it will amply repay attention. mr. sumner has made more brilliant, classical, scholarly speeches, but never one more effective, nor one upon which his fame as congressional debater can more creditably rest. it was a full vindication of himself and of massachusetts, and its influence and effect have been marked at washington. it ended the discussion which the south so vauntingly provoked. there has been no essay at reply. it carried the war into the bowels of his opponents in a manner not ordinarily excusable, but, after the provocation which had been given, in this instance most abundantly justifiable. his annihilation of his accusers was complete." in a speech at providence shortly afterwards, mr. giddings, of the house of representatives, referred to this effort, which he heard, in sympathetic terms. "they assailed sumner because he said, 'is thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing?' in reply to the question, whether he would assist in the capture of a fugitive slave? he was assailed by the whole slave power in the senate, and for a time he was the constant theme of their vituperation. the maddened waves rolled and dashed against him for two or three days, until eventually he obtained the floor himself. then he arose and threw back the dashing surges with a power of inimitable eloquence utterly indescribable.... i assure you that last week was the proudest week i ever saw. sumner stood inimitable, and hurled back the taunts of his assailants with irresistible force. there he stood towering above the infamous characters who had attempted to silence him, while i sat and listened with rapturous emotion." the interest awakened by the conflict in the senate and the part borne by mr. sumner can be understood only by reading the testimony of the time in private letters, which have additional value in the light of subsequent events. it will be seen how mr. sumner was supported, and what already was the sentiment of the north. letters came from unknown persons, saying, "i want to thank you for that speech." on the next day after its delivery rev. theodore parker wrote:-- "i never felt so proud of you as now, and can't go to bed without first thanking you for the noble words which apthorp has just read me of yours from the _transcript_ of to-night. even phlegmatic---- is roused up with your fire. god bless you!" hon. john p. hale, of the senate, wrote from dover, n. h., under date of july d:-- "as i came from washington to this place, in new york, boston, and in steamboats and railroad cars, i heard but one expression in regard to your speech, and that was of unmingled gratification. i have heard all classes, whigs and others, and there is no exception. ladies particularly are in ecstasies at it. mrs. hale says, 'give him my thanks for his speech.' the feeling of gratification at your speech is so great, that people do not think, much less speak, of the billingsgate by which you were assailed." hon. henry wilson thus expressed his feelings in a letter from boston:-- "i write to say to you that you have given the heaviest blow you ever struck to the slaveholding oligarchy. all our friends are delighted, and men, who, even up to this hour have withheld all words of commendation, are proud of your speech, and loud in their commendations." john a. andrew, esq., wrote:-- "your recent rencontre with the wild beasts of ephesus has been a brilliant success. i have regarded that debate with pride and gratification. i am glad it has occurred for many reasons, private and personal, as well as public and universal. and i have heard no person refer to it but in terms the most gratifying to my friendship for you, and my interest in the controversy itself. i think our friends here are in good spirits and full of hope. "how do those people treat you now, since they have come to close quarters with you? i hope you will spare not. you had ample occasion, and now i hope you will keep up the war _aggressively_; never fail to attack them, in the right way, whenever they deserve it. the insolence of the presumption to stand between a man and his own conscientious interpretation of the constitution, especially when they defiantly and every day dare everybody to tread on their coat-tails, at the price of treason and rebellion, under the name of '_disunion_,' is utterly unbearable. "i only wish they _would_ expel you, and chase, and gillette,--all three." wendell phillips was most earnest, as follows:-- "the storm of letters of congratulation is perhaps lulled a little by this time, and you'll have a moment's leisure to receive the admiring thanks of an old friend. amid so much that was sad and dark at home, it has been delightful to sun one's self now and then in the glad noon of hope at washington. the whole state is very proud of you just now. if your six years were out this next winter, i think you'd be run in again without a competitor, and by a vote of all parties. "all your late efforts have been grand: see the benefit of being insulted. your last richly merited the claim you made of being _thorough_. i liked and entirely approved the self-respect with which you put your own opinion side by side with the virginian's and left it. you claimed not a tittle too much, and he deserved just that sort of treatment. "if, amid such universal congratulation, it be any joy to you to hear my amen, be assured it is most heartily shouted." rev. joshua leavitt, the lifelong abolitionist, wrote from new york:-- "i have just read the full report of your speech with intense satisfaction. it is a glorious work. the report, the echo, the effect in the other fleet, shows that it was such a broadside as they never had before." john jay wrote from bedford, new york, the country home of his grandfather, the chief justice:-- "i have read your speech of the th june with, i think, more thorough satisfaction and delight than any other in my life, not excepting even your first speech on the fugitive bill, for which i waited so impatiently, as your first great blow in the senate against american slavery. your last is a glorious, a most triumphant effort, and has given you a proud and commanding position before the country, as the long hoped-for champion of the north, before whose fearless front and avenging arm southern insolence at length shall quail. how the free states will receive your words is already clear, if doubt could have been entertained of it, by the tone generally of the public press, and the delight manifested, both in the town and country, by almost all who speak of it. in our quiet neighborhood i find people talking of it enthusiastically whom i never before heard express the slightest feeling on the slavery question." rev. convers francis, the eminent professor of harvard university, wrote:-- "when i came to that answer of yours, 'is thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing?' i could not but cry out, 'that is just the thing! mr. sumner could not have found in all literature or history elsewhere so fitting words for reply, when he was asked whether he would send back a slave.' and your admirable application of jefferson's description of the manners produced by slavery did my very heart good. i have heard but one opinion of these speeches from every side: indeed, there can be but one,--that which expresses unmingled admiration and delight." dr. joseph sargent, of worcester, wrote:-- "you must allow me to thank you for your reply to the assaults of mr. pettit and mr. clay. it is a personal matter with me, and all of us; for we have felt ourselves insulted, and we are satisfied. i have read all your speeches in the senate with instruction and gratification; but this has warmed me so that i cannot withhold my thanks, though i trespass on your time. the whole community feels as i do. men stop their business to ask each other if they have read mr. sumner's speech, and even men calling on me to visit their sick families forget their errand till they have put the universal question. we have hitherto admired your forbearance, but your reply is as dignified and noble as your forbearance, while it is strong, rich, and saxon. we have had nothing like it since the hülsemann letter. i will say no more, but i could say no less." theophilus p. chandler, esq., of boston, wrote:-- "i cannot express the pleasure your friends have enjoyed at the result of the late senatorial conflict. old fogies read your speech with satisfaction, although some complain of the jackson doctrine." count gurowski wrote from newport:-- "you showed what is the real backbone of a gentleman, considered in the higher moral or philosophical point of view, by far superior to what your assailers conceive or are able to imagine in their vulgar or low conceptions." rev. william h. furness, the distinguished divine and devoted abolitionist, wrote:-- "i congratulate you upon having been blackguarded and denounced. it has redounded to your honor. it has proved a rare success. i think you should thank god for placing you, in his wise providence, in a position which, utterly hateful as it must be to you (fighting with wild beasts at ephesus), proves to furnish occasion for the heroic element. i can dimly surmise how much it costs you to stand there; but i doubt not the experience you are having testifies that it will pay the cost, and a great deal more. i may be mistaken, but, from all i have learned of your position in the senate, things look as if those southern men, after trying to steal your sting away by all sorts of courtliness and courtesy, and trying in vain, have turned upon you like rabid dogs, with the intent to tear you in pieces. they have not done it, nor will they." hiram barney, esq., of new york, wrote:-- "i congratulate you on that day's work. it was well and nobly done. i have seen something of your assailants, and know something of their habits and manners, and can appreciate your forbearance. it is a shame that you should be obliged to meet so much that is disgusting to the taste and shocking to the moral sense in the american senate. but it is a matter of just pride that the friends of freedom there are gentlemen, and always win upon the field of argument." william c. russell, esq., of new york, afterwards professor at cornell university, wrote:-- "i am delighted beyond measure by your reply to the southern chivalry. it is grand, gentlemanly, cool, pointed, well aimed, and true metal. i do not wonder that mr. butler did not want to play vampire to massachusetts. the fact is, it is getting to be rather serious work to interfere with the old commonwealth; and i shall be surprised, if the southern bull-dogs do not bay in some other quarter." hon. charles p. huntington, of northampton, afterwards judge of the superior court of the county of suffolk, wrote:-- "i have been, as usual, exceedingly gratified with the manner, style, and spirit in which you have met your senatorial responsibilities on this trying nebraska question. but the reply to the personal attacks and insults of butler and mason last week has gratified me more than anything that has fallen from your lips,--so severe, yet so just,--so cutting, yet so keen and polished,--so decided, manly, and bold,--so indicative of backbone, as well as pith and marrow, that your adversaries were fairly hung up and impaled." hon. charles g. loring, the eminent lawyer, wrote:-- "your reply to the southern gentlemen, who seem to think that a northern man must be craven, elicited general and great admiration. i heartily enjoyed it, and think that mr. mason must have had at least one experience in his life of the comfort of being squeezed through the little end of the horn. you will doubtless be treated with some consideration by these worthies hereafter. in what school of blackguardism was clay of alabama graduated? he certainly is a magnificent specimen of southern chivalry. you would have great reason to thank him for placing you in coventry, at a distance beyond hailing from him and his compeers." andrew ritchie, esq., of boston, wrote:-- "these gentlemen have been unfortunate in attacking you. you have punished them in a most exemplary manner, without descending to their vulgar level. you have exposed their ignorance of our revolutionary history, vindicated the character of your own state, and brought forward, to their utter confusion, their own general jackson, to justify your remark that you would not voluntarily do anything to promote the execution of what you deemed an unconstitutional law. in a word, you have taught these orators how much more effective is a _caustic civility_ of reply than coarse, intemperate reviling." hon. s. e. sewall, the constant abolitionist, of boston, wrote:-- "it is hardly necessary for me to tell you, what you probably see in the newspapers, that you have become one of the most popular men in massachusetts. even the whigs are beginning to find out that you have maintained the character of the state far better than their own senator. "i suppose the idea of expelling you from the senate, which was reported in the papers some weeks ago, could never have been seriously entertained. but the mere suggestion of such an outrage roused many men who had never been your political friends; for everybody felt that to attempt such an act would be an indignity to the state not to be tolerated. "i find that i have left to the end of my letter, what i meant to have said in the beginning, that all your friends are delighted with your course in congress under the very trying circumstances of the present session. we all agree that you have fought a good fight." william i. bowditch, esq., of boston, communicated the following incident:-- "one gentleman whom i saw this forenoon said that he involuntarily gave three cheers, when he had finished reading your speech; and an 'old hunker' said to me smilingly, 'i really don't know but that i shall myself come out at last a sumner man.'" dr. james w. stone, an indefatigable member of the free-soil party, wrote:-- "but i should not only fail to express my own feelings, but also the universal satisfaction here evinced, did i long delay to tell you, even if i have time to do nothing more, how great the enthusiasm is in your behalf, for your noble reply to the unworthy assaults from pettit, whose name is more significant of his mental than of his physical calibre, from butler the faithless, and from clay the slave-hunter, _et id omne genus_. i doubt whether even you can repress the enthusiasm which so earnestly demands a public reception for you on your return home." hon. benjamin f. butler, afterwards general, and representative in congress, wrote:-- "my interest in the subject of the speeches procured me the reports while they were being delivered. at that time i was at concord, in court, seeing people of all parties; and i can assure you, from observation, that your course in the senate is sanctioned by the approving sentiment of massachusetts." robert carter, esq., the journalist and writer, wrote from cambridge:-- "a month ago i thought your popularity had reached a wonderfully high pitch, that you had at a leap overcome prejudices and misconceptions that seemed likely to be surmounted only by the gradual toil of years. but the last week has wrought even greater wonders. multitudes, formerly your enemies and revilers, are not merely willing to tolerate you, not merely willing to be satisfied with you, but have become actually proud of you, as their representative, and the champion of massachusetts and the north. i hear on all sides nothing but commendations and exultations." john c. dodge, esq., of boston, wrote:-- "i rejoice that massachusetts has found a defender who will, without fear or favor, tell the whole truth, when she is assailed. and i assure you that such is the voice of nearly our whole community. whigs, democrats, and free-soilers unite in the expression of approbation and pleasure." hon. albert g. browne, of salem, wrote:-- "let me say seriously, frankly, your reputation as a fearless, brave, and true man is firmly established,--confidence also in your discretion and good judgment, as shown in this last debate and in the management of this whole affair. there is a settled conviction that you know how to withstand the entreaties or coolness of friends, when your thoughts are not their thoughts,--that you have shown great moral and physical courage, united with admirable ability, in meeting and discomfiting the foes of freedom, when, in your opinion, the right time had come." professor edward t. channing, of harvard university, whose memory is dear to a large circle of pupils, wrote to a friend:-- "sumner has done nobly. he is erect and a man of authority among the slave holders, dealers, and hunters. he has made an historical era for the north; for at least one among us has dared to confront the insolent. he makes cowards of them, or rather shows what cowards they are at the south. so will it ever be, when the truth is bold; though it is rare for a young or old hero in politics to produce effect so rapidly. still, and notwithstanding, and nevertheless, our whigs would send apollyon to the senate as soon as sumner, if his term should expire when they are uppermost." t. c. connolly, esq., under date of august , reported from washington the opinion of mr. gales, the very able editor of the _national intelligencer_. "i rejoice in the assurance universally felt here, that your position in the senate will be far more pleasant in the future than it has been in the past. i enjoyed the pleasure of a conversation with mr. gales on this subject a few days since. he introduced your name, and remarked that the absence of sympathy in your views could not influence his fair judgment of your worth. he was an attentive reader of the debates of the senate, and he had seen that every step you had taken was a step upward, and that they who had affected to contemn were at length driven into a tacit acknowledgment of their very great error. he spoke in particular of the reproofs you had found it necessary to administer to senators around you, and said, that, while they were exceedingly severe and effective, they were equally just, and unaccompanied by a single word that could be regarded as incompatible with the place and presence in which you stood." men particularly interested in the peace cause united in the prevailing sentiment. of these, hon. amasa walker, afterwards a representative in congress from massachusetts, wrote:-- "your reply to the slaveholders is capital, and receives universal admiration in this quarter. it was just such a flagellation as the slavocrats deserved, and such a one as they never received before in the senate. i think, from what i can observe, that your course is universally popular, always excepting the mercenary minions of the government." j. p. blanchard, esq., devoted to peace, wrote:-- "i take this occasion to express my warm admiration of the spirit and power you have exhibited in your late contest with messrs. butler, pettit, _et id genus omne_. i am rejoiced and grateful that your 'backbone' has proved strong enough to stand such a test without bending: that i have not given you this acknowledgment earlier is because, being very busy, i did not take time to write a letter for that purpose only, as i knew you were so well acquainted with my sympathies that the expression of them was unnecessary. i am glad to understand that you have received commendations on this score from sources where a short time ago you would not have expected them." elihu burritt, the missionary of peace, wrote:-- "and now i want to thank you with my whole heart for your grand and brave rejoinder to butler and mason. it was the best, bravest thing done in the senate this many a year. i think more hearts in the free states will glory in your courageous and overwhelming reply to these plantation senators than in any public effort of your life. you must have made it, too, on short notice. i never read anything with more satisfaction." other letters attest a change in sentiment among those who had been lukewarm on slavery, and perhaps adverse to mr. sumner. hon. daniel shattuck, of concord, wrote:-- "being one of the old-time whigs, i was not pleased with your election to the high seat which you hold: for that opinion you will forgive me, i am sure, when i say that i go with you now heart and soul, and approve all you have said in defence of your native state, whose sons i know approve your course and wish you god-speed. george m. browne, esq., of boston, wrote:-- "differing with you as i do in political sentiments, and having no other connection with public affairs than what pertains to every citizen, i desire nevertheless to express to you, what i believe to be the general feeling among all classes of reflecting minds here, an admiration for the dignified and gentlemanly bearing with which you have gone through the contest and rebuked the ruffian onslaught,--and to say, moreover, that we should, i have no doubt, all unite, from all sides, as one man, in sending you back to the senate, should the maniac threats of expulsion by any possibility be carried into effect." the following poem, suggested by this debate, belongs to this history. to c. s. i have seemed more prompt to censure wrong than praise the right,--if seldom to thine ear my voice hath mingled with the exultant cheer borne upon all our northern winds along,-- if i have failed to join the fickle throng in wide-eyed wonder that thou standest strong in victory, surprised in thee to find brougham's scathing power with canning's grace combined,-- that he, for whom the ninefold muses sang, from their twined arms a giant athlete sprang, barbing the arrows of his native tongue with the spent shafts latona's archer flung, to smite the python of our land and time, fell as the monster born of crissa's slime, like the blind bard who in castalian springs tempered the steel that clove the crest of kings, and on the shrine of england's freedom laid the gifts of cumæ and of delphi's shade,-- small need hast thou of words of praise from me. thou knowest my heart, dear friend, and well canst guess, that, even though silent, i have not the less rejoiced to see thy actual life agree with the large future which i shaped for thee, when, years ago, beside the summer sea, white in the moon, we saw the long waves fall baffled and broken from the rocky wall, that to the menace of the brawling flood opposed alone its massive quietude, calm as a fate, with not a leaf nor vine nor birch-spray trembling in the still moonshine, crowning it like god's peace. i sometimes think that night-scene by the sea prophetical, (for nature speaks in symbols and in signs, and through her pictures human fate divines,)-- that rock, wherefrom we saw the billows sink in murmuring rout, uprising clear and tall in the white light of heaven, the type of one who, momently by error's host assailed, stands strong as truth, in greaves of granite mailed, and, tranquil-fronted, listening over all the tumult, hears the angels say, well done! j. g. w. _ th month, th, ._ peaceful opposition to the fugitive slave act. letter to the mayor of boston, for the celebration july , . senate chamber, st july, . dear sir,--i have been honored by the invitation of the municipal authorities of boston to unite with them in commemorating the approaching anniversary of our national independence. please tender to them my gratitude, that they have thus remembered me, an absent citizen, who tries to serve truth and justice in the sphere where he has been placed. pleasure would take me home among congenial souls, but duty keeps me here. the approaching anniversary of independence in boston should be something more than a show and expense. it ought to be the occasion of a practical vow to those primal principles of freedom which have been assailed. our municipal history should be carefully read, and, unless we are prepared to disown our fathers, the conduct of boston at memorable times should be set forward anew, as an example which her children must never forget. i do not refer to the violent act by which her harbor was converted into a "teapot"; but i would especially dwell on the peaceful opposition, which, according to her own records, now preserved at the city hall, she organized against a tyrannical and unconstitutional act of parliament,--"bearing testimony against outrageous tumults and illegal proceedings," but never failing to "take legal and warrantable measures to prevent that misfortune, of all others the most to be dreaded, the execution of the stamp act." the city clerk will find these words in his books, under date of th march, , whence i have with my own hand copied them. with this great precedent of freedom in my memory, i ask the municipal authorities--should i be remembered at their hospitable board--to propose in my name the following sentiment. _the city of boston._--while still in colonial dependence, and with no aim at revolution, her municipal fathers steadfastly opposed the execution, within her borders, of an unconstitutional and tyrannical act of parliament, until, without violence or collision, it was at first practically annulled, and at last repealed. truly honoring the fathers, let boston not depart from their example. i remain, dear sir, your faithful servant, charles sumner. to the mayor of boston. no pension for service in support of the fugitive slave act. minority report to the senate of the united states, on the bill granting to the widow of james batchelder a provision for her future support, july , . an attempt was made to obtain a pension for the widow of james batchelder, killed in boston, while guarding anthony burns, the fugitive slave, on the evening of may , . a bill was reported from the committee on pensions. mr. sumner and mr. seward, constituting a minority of the committee, made the following adverse report, which was drawn up by the former. views of mr. sumner and mr. seward. the undersigned, a minority of the committee on pensions, cannot concur with the majority of the committee in reporting a bill for the relief of the widow of the late james batchelder. they also dissent from the report accompanying the bill, which, however, is understood not to proceed from a majority of the committee. in granting pensions, or bounties of a kindred nature, it has been the habit of the committee to require evidence of all essential facts and circumstances,--not, indeed, according to the rigorous forms of a court of law, but with substantial fulness and authenticity. applications for pensions are constantly rejected for defect of testimony. but this reasonable practice, which is a necessary safeguard against abuse, has been disregarded in the present case. no evidence of any kind--not a shred or particle--was produced. the majority of the committee undertook to act at once, on loose and general report, gathered from the public press at a moment of excitement. in this report they have obviously proceeded with more haste than discretion. such a course cannot be in conformity with approved precedents. in itself it will be a bad precedent for the future. but this proceeding seems more obnoxious to comment, when it is known that it appears, from the very sources on which the committee relied, that the facts in question are all at this moment the subject of judicial inquiry, _still pending_, in the courts at boston. several citizens have been indicted for participation in the transaction to which reference is made, and in which batchelder is said to have been killed. their trials have not yet taken place, but are near at hand. under these peculiar circumstances, the indiscreet haste of the committee, thus acting in advance of authentic evidence, and _lite pendente_, is enhanced by possible detriment to the grave interests of justice, which all will admit should not be exposed to partisan influence from abroad. the report accompanying the bill, without any aid from human testimony, undertakes to pronounce dogmatically on facts which will be in issue on these trials. anticipating the court, and literally without a hearing, it gives judgment on absent persons, as well as on distant events. on grounds irrespective of the merits of the case, the undersigned object to any action upon it on the present evidence, and in the existing state of things. they object for two reasons: _first_, that such action would become a bad precedent, opening the way to a disregard of evidence in the distribution of pensions and bounties; and, _secondly_, that it would be an interference--offensive, though indirect--with the administration of justice, in matters _still pending_, and involving the fortunes of several citizens. these reasons are ample. but on other grounds, of a different character, and vital to the merits of the case, the undersigned must dissent from the majority of the committee. regarding the act of congress usually known as the fugitive slave act as unconstitutional, while it is justly condemned by the moral sense of the communities where it is sought to be enforced, the undersigned are not disposed to recognize any services rendered in its enforcement as meritorious in character. especially are they unwilling to depart beyond the clear line of precedent, in voting bounties on account of such services. this of itself is sufficient reason for opposition to the proposed bill. but admitting for the moment the asserted constitutionality of the fugitive slave act, and its conformity with just principles of duty, and admitting further, that efforts for its enforcement are to be placed in the same scale with efforts to enforce other acts of congress, of acknowledged constitutionality, and clear conformity with just principles of duty, then the undersigned beg leave to submit, that, according to the practice of our country, such efforts have not been considered as entitled to the ordinary reward of pensions or kindred bounties. the pensions and kindred bounties of our country have been founded exclusively on _military_ and _naval_ services. in england, _civil_ services, whether on the bench, in diplomacy, or in the departments of state, are subjects of pension; but it is otherwise here. with us there are no general laws to this end; nor are there special laws of such clear meaning and character as to become precedents, sanctioning pensions or bounties for civil service. a report of this committee, made by its chairman at this very session of congress, states the rule and practice of congress. here is the whole report. "in the senate of the united states. "april , .--ordered to be printed. "mr. jones, of iowa, made the following report. "_the committee on pensions, to whom was referred the petition of rebecca bright, beg leave to report_:-- "that the petitioner is the widow of jacob bright, an armorer, who was killed at the navy-yard in this city by the bursting of a shell. _he being an employee of the government, and in no sense to be regarded as in its 'military or naval service,' the committee can find no reason, founded in law or justice, for pensioning his widow._ her case is precisely that of the widow of a laborer or mechanic employed by the day or month upon any public work. they therefore recommend that the prayer of the petitioner be rejected."[ ] [ ] reports of the committees of the senate, d cong. st sess., no. . and yet, in the very teeth of this recommendation, made by themselves at this very session, the committee now propose to bestow a bounty upon such services. if the committee were right in their former report, they cannot be right now. the report accompanying the bill shows that three of the committee have felt that their recommendation needed the support of precedents, and they have ransacked the records for them. two only are produced. the first is an act of congress, bearing date june , , which provides "that the sum of two thousand dollars be allowed to the widow of robert forsyth, late marshal of the district of georgia, for the use of herself and the children of the said robert forsyth." on search in the office of the secretary of the senate, where this bill originated, and also at the treasury, where the money was paid, no papers have been found showing the occasion of this grant; nor has anybody undertaken to state any. this precedent, then, can be of little value in establishing an important rule in the dispensation of national bounties. the only other precedent adduced by the committee is an act bearing date may , , providing "that the postmaster-general be, and he hereby is, authorized and directed to pay to the widow of john heaps, late of the city of baltimore,--who, while employed as a carrier of the mail of the united states, and having the said mail in his custody, was beset by ruffians and murdered,--out of the money belonging to the united states, arising from the postage of letters and packets, five hundred dollars in ten equal semiannual payments." on this precedent congress will surely hesitate to establish a rule which will open a new drain upon the country. the general laws do not award pensions or bounties for services in enforcing the revenue laws of the country; and it is not known that any special acts have ever been passed rewarding such services, though they have often been rendered at imminent danger to life, as well from shipwreck as from the violence of smugglers. the proposed bill will be an apt precedent for bounty in this large class of cases; and it may properly be opposed by all who are not ready for a new batch of claimants. the undersigned venture to make a single comment further on the report accompanying the bill. this report, not content with assigning reasons for its proposed bounty, proceeds to take cognizance of the conduct of the people of massachusetts, the citizens, the soldiers, the marshal and his deputies, the mayor and police of boston, in the recent transaction, and assumes to hold the scales of judgment. in this respect it evinces an indiscreet haste, similar to that already displayed in acting on the present proposition, without authentic evidence, and during the pendency of judicial investigations. it appears from the public journals, out of which all our information on this matter is derived, that the conduct of several public functionaries, on this occasion, in massachusetts, has been seriously drawn in question. the marshal of the district is openly charged with making the arrest of the alleged fugitive under the fraudulent pretence that he was a criminal,--a scandalous device, which no honest man can regard without reprobation. the mayor of boston is also openly charged with violation of the primal principles of free institutions and of the law of the land, in surrendering the city for the time being into the possession of a military force, and thus establishing there that supremacy of arms under which all law is silent. but on these things the undersigned express no opinion. they desire only to withhold all assent from the blindfold ratification which the report accompanying the bill volunteers, without reason or occasion, to the conduct of public functionaries, as well as of others, who, according to some evidence, may have acted very badly. charles sumner. william h. seward. james otis an example to massachusetts. letter to the cape cod association of massachusetts, july , . here, again, is an effort against the enforcement of the fugitive slave act. senate chamber, july , . dear sir,--i have been honored by the cape cod association with an invitation to unite with them in their approaching festival at yarmouth. amidst these unprecedented heats it is pleasant merely to think of the seaside; much pleasanter would it be to taste for a day its salt, refreshing air, especially with cherished friends, and stirred by historical memories, in these times bracing to the soul. but my duties will keep me here. in that part of massachusetts to which you invite me was born james otis, one of our immortal names. he early saw the beauty of liberty, and in those struggles which preceded the revolution gave his eloquent tongue to her support. to the tyrannical _writs of assistance_, offspring of sovereign power, and at that day regarded as constitutional, he offered inflexible resistance, saying, "i will to my dying day oppose, with all the powers and faculties god has given me, all such instruments of slavery on the one hand and villany on the other. i cheerfully submit myself to every odious name for conscience' sake. let the consequences be what they will, i am determined to proceed." and then again he declared of this outrageous process, "it is a power that places the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer." with this precision he struck at an engine of tyranny, and with fervid eloquence exposed it to mankind. such a character should not be forgotten at your commemoration. were i there, i might ask leave to propose the following sentiment. _the memory of james otis, of barnstable, the early orator of american liberty._--massachusetts cherishes the fame of her patriot child. let her also imitate his virtues. i remain, dear sir, very faithfully yours, charles sumner. to the chairman of the committee. struggle for repeal of the fugitive slave act. debate in the senate, july , . all efforts of the friends of freedom in congress encountered opposition at every stage. attempts by john quincy adams to present petitions were thwarted in every way that vindictive rage could prompt. propositions for the repeal of obnoxious laws sustaining slavery were stifled. to accomplish this result, parliamentary courtesy and parliamentary law were both set at defiance. on a former occasion,[ ] when mr. sumner brought forward his motion for the repeal of the fugitive slave act, he was refused a hearing, and obtained it only by taking advantage of the civil and diplomatic appropriation bill, and moving an amendment to it, which no parliamentary subtlety or audacity could declare to be out of order. on the presentation of petitions against the fugitive slave act, from time to time, he was met by similar checks. meanwhile anything for slavery was always in order. an experience of a single day will show something of this. * * * * * on the st of july, , mr. seward, of new york, under instructions from the committee on pensions, reported a bill, which had already passed the house of representatives, for the relief of betsey nash, a poor and aged woman, whose husband had died of wounds received in the war of , and asked for its immediate consideration. this simple measure, demanded by obvious justice, was at once embarrassed by an incongruous proposition for the support of slavery. mr. adams, of mississippi, moved, as an amendment, another bill, for the relief of mrs. batchelder, widow of a person killed in boston, while aiding as a volunteer in the enforcement of the fugitive slave act. in the face of various objections this amendment was adopted. mr. sumner at once followed by a proposition in the following words:-- "_provided_, that the act of congress, approved september , , for the surrender of fugitives from service or labor, be, and the same is hereby, repealed." this was ruled out of order, as "not germane to the bill under consideration"; and the two bills, hitched together,--one for a military pension, and the other for contribution to the widow of a slave-hunter,--were put on their passage. mr. sumner then sprang for the floor, when a struggle ensued, which is minutely reported in the _congressional globe_. the careful reader will observe, that in order to cut off an effort to repeal the fugitive slave act, at least two unquestionable rules of parliamentary law were overturned. [ ] see _ante_, p. . mr. sumner. in pursuance of notice, i now ask leave to introduce a bill. mr. stuart (of michigan). i object to it, and move to take up the river and harbor bill. the presiding officer (mr. cooper, of pennsylvania). the other bill is not disposed of. the third reading of a bill for the relief of betsey nash. the bill was then read a third time and passed. mr. sumner. in pursuance of notice, i ask leave to introduce a bill, which i now send to the table. mr. stuart. is that in order? mr. sumner. why not? mr. benjamin (of louisiana). there is a pending motion of the senator from michigan to take up the river and harbor bill. the presiding officer. that motion was not entertained, because the senator from massachusetts had and has the floor. mr. stuart. i make the motion now. the presiding officer. the chair thinks it is in order to give the notice. mr. sumner. notice has been given, and i now, in pursuance of notice, introduce the bill. the question is on its first reading. the presiding officer. the first reading of a bill. mr. norris (of new hampshire). i rise to a question of order. mr. sumner. i believe i have the floor. mr. norris. but i rise to a question of order. i submit that that is not the question. the senator from massachusetts has given notice that he would ask leave to introduce a bill. he now asks that leave. if there be objection, the question must be decided by the senate whether he shall have leave or not. objection is made, and the bill cannot be read. mr. sumner. very well; the first question, then, is on granting leave, and the title of the bill will be read. the presiding officer (to the secretary). read the title. the secretary read it as follows: "a bill to repeal the act of congress approved september , , for the surrender of fugitives from service or labor." the presiding officer. the question is on granting leave to introduce the bill. mr. sumner. and i have the floor. the presiding officer. the senator from massachusetts is entitled to the floor. mr. sumner. i shall not occupy much time, nor shall i debate the bill. some time ago, mr. president, after the presentation of the memorial from boston, signed by twenty-nine hundred citizens without distinction of party, i gave notice that i should, at a day thereafter, ask leave to introduce a bill for the repeal of the fugitive slave act. desirous, however, not to proceed prematurely, i awaited the action of the committee on the judiciary, to which the memorial, and others of a similar character, were referred. at length an adverse report was made, and accepted by the senate. from the time of that report down to this moment, i have sought an opportunity to introduce this bill. now, at last, i have it. at a former session, sir, in introducing a similar proposition, i considered it at length, in an argument which i fearlessly assert---- mr. gwin (of california). i rise to a point of order. has the senator a right to debate the question, or say anything on it, until leave be granted? the presiding officer. my impression is that the question is not debatable.[ ] mr. sumner. i propose simply to explain my bill,--to make a statement, not an argument. mr. gwin. i make the point of order. the presiding officer. i am not aware precisely what the rule of order on the subject is; but i have the impression that the senator cannot debate---- mr. sumner. the distinction is this---- mr. gwin. i insist upon the application of the decision of the chair. mr. mason (of virginia). mr. president, there is one rule of order that is undoubted: that, when the chair is stating a question of order, he must not be interrupted by a senator. there is no question about that rule of order. the presiding officer. the senator did not interrupt the chair. mr. sumner. the chair does me justice in response to the injustice of the senator from virginia. the presiding officer. order! order! mr. mason. the senator is doing that very thing at this moment. i am endeavoring to sustain the authority of the chair, which certainly has been violated. [ ] nothing is clearer, under the rules of the senate, than that mr. sumner was in order, when, on introducing his bill, he proceeded to state the causes for doing it. the presiding officer. it is the opinion of the chair that the debate is out of order. i am not precisely informed of what the rule is; but such is my clear impression. mr. walker (of wisconsin). if the senator from massachusetts will allow me, i will say a word here. mr. sumner. certainly. mr. walker. it is usual, upon notice being given of intention, to ask leave to introduce a bill. the bill is sent to the chair, and it is taken as a matter of course that the senator asking it has leave. but in this instance, differing from the usual practice, objection has been made to leave being granted. the necessity is imposed, then, of taking the sense of the senate on granting leave to the senator to introduce his bill. that, then, becomes the question. the question for the chair to put is, shall the senator have leave? the presiding officer. that was the question proposed. mr. walker. now, sir, it does seem to me that it is proper, and that it is in order, for the senator to address himself to the senate, with the view of showing the propriety of granting the leave asked for. he has a right to show that there would be propriety on the part of the senate in granting the leave. i think, therefore, as this may become a precedent in future in regard to other matters, that it should be settled with some degree of deliberation. mr. gwin. let the chair decide the question. the presiding officer. the chair has decided that debate was not in order, in his opinion. mr. sumner. from that decision of the chair i most respectfully take an appeal. the presiding officer. from that ruling of the chair an appeal is taken by the senator from massachusetts. the question is on the appeal. mr. benjamin. in order to put a stop to the whole debate, i move to lay the appeal on the table. that is a motion which is not debatable. mr. sumner. is that motion in order? the presiding officer. certainly it is in order.[ ] mr. weller (of california). i desire to make one remark in regard to the rule. the presiding officer. it is not in order now. the question must be taken without debate. mr. sumner. allow me to state the case as it seems to me. i was on the floor, and yielded it to the senator from wisconsin strictly for the purpose of an explanation. when he finished, i was in possession of the floor; and then it was that the senator from louisiana, on my right---- the presiding officer. will the senator from massachusetts give leave to the chair to explain? mr. sumner. certainly. the presiding officer. a point of order was made by the senator from california [mr. gwin], that debate was not in order upon the question of granting leave; and the chair so decided. the senator from massachusetts then lost the floor, as i apprehend, and he certainly did by following it up by an appeal. after that he could go no further. he lost the floor then again for a second time, and then it was that the senator from louisiana intervened with another motion, which is certainly in order, to lay the appeal on the table. that is not debatable. this, it seems to me, is the state of the case. [ ] the motion was clearly out of order: first, because in the senate an appeal from the decision of the chair on a question of order cannot be laid on the table; and, secondly, because mr. sumner was already on the floor, so that mr. benjamin could not make a motion. mr. chase (of ohio). will the chair allow me to make a single statement? the presiding officer. certainly. mr. chase. the senator from massachusetts rose and held the floor during the suggestion made to the chair by the senator from wisconsin. the chair then, after the senator from wisconsin had finished his suggestion, declared his opinion to be, notwithstanding the suggestion, that debate was not in order. the senator from massachusetts then took an appeal, and retained the floor for the purpose of addressing the senate on that appeal. while he occupied the floor, the senator from louisiana rose and moved to lay the appeal upon the table. that will be borne out by the gentlemen present. the presiding officer. that is so; but the chair does not understand that debate was in order on the appeal. the appeal was to be decided without debate, and therefore the senator from massachusetts necessarily lost the floor after he took the appeal. mr. bell (of tennessee). i would inquire whether there is not a bill already pending for the repeal of the fugitive slave law? the presiding officer. i have not inquired of the secretary, but it is my belief there is a similar bill pending; but it was not on that ground the chair made this ruling. mr. bell. i would inquire whether there is not such a bill pending? did not the honorable senator from ohio some time ago bring in such a bill? mr. weller. i think he did. mr. chase. no, sir. mr. bell. then i am mistaken. mr. chase. my bill is not on that subject. the presiding officer. the question is on the motion of the senator from louisiana, to lay on the table the appeal taken by the senator from massachusetts from the decision of the chair. mr. chase. i ask if the motion of the senator from louisiana is in order, when the senator from massachusetts retained the floor for the purpose of debating the appeal? mr. benjamin. the senator is not in order in renewing that question, which has already been decided by the chair. the presiding officer. if the chair acted under an erroneous impression in supposing that debate on the appeal was not in order, when it actually is, it was the fault of the chair, and it would not have been in order for the senator from louisiana to make the motion which he did make, while the senator from massachusetts was on the floor. but the chair recognized the senator from louisiana, supposing that the senator from massachusetts had yielded the floor. the senator had taken an appeal; he followed it up by no address to the chair, indicating an intention that he intended to debate the appeal, or the chair certainly should so far have recognized him. but the chair would reconsider his ruling in that respect, with the consent of the senator from louisiana. mr. bright (of indiana). the chair will permit me to suggest that i think the motion proper to be entertained now is the one proposed by the senator from new hampshire [mr. norris]. the senator from massachusetts presented his bill; the senator from new hampshire raised the question as to whether the senate would grant leave to introduce it; and i think the proper question to be put now is, will the senate grant leave to introduce a bill repealing the fugitive slave law? the effect of the motion of the senator from louisiana would be to lay the subject on the table, from which it might be taken at any time for action. for one, i desire to give a decisive vote now, declaring that i am unwilling to legislate upon the subject, that i am satisfied with the law as it reads, and that i will not aid the senator from massachusetts, or any senator, in---- the presiding officer. the senator from indiana is certainly not in order. mr. bright. i certainly am in order in calling the attention of the chair to the fact that the senator from new hampshire---- the presiding officer. the senator from indiana is not in order. mr. bright. then i will sit down and ask the chair to state wherein i am out of order. the presiding officer. in discussing a question which is not before the senate. mr. bright. i claim that the motion is before the senate. the senator from new hampshire raised the question immediately, that---- the presiding officer. the chair decides otherwise. mr. bright. then i appeal from the decision of the chair, and i state this as my point of order: that, before the bill was presented in legal parlance, the senator from new hampshire raised the question as to whether the senate would grant leave, and that is the point now before the senate. the presiding officer. the chair will state the question which he supposes to be pending. the senator from california made a point of order, that debate on the bill proposed to be introduced by the senator from massachusetts was not in order. the chair so ruled. from that ruling the senator from massachusetts took an appeal. the chair supposed that the senator from massachusetts had yielded the floor, and he gave the floor to the senator from louisiana, who moved to lay that appeal on the table. that is the question which is now pending. the chair before suggested, that, if the senator from massachusetts had not yielded the floor, he had made a mistake in giving the floor to the senator from louisiana, but he did not suppose that the senator from massachusetts, after taking the appeal, without some indication of his intention to debate it, could continue to hold the floor, and he therefore recognized the senator from louisiana. the chair is sorry, if he did the senator from massachusetts injustice in that respect; but he did not hear him, and recognized the senator from louisiana. mr. bright. i would respectfully ask the chair what has become of the motion submitted by the senator from new hampshire? the presiding officer. the chair did not understand him to submit a motion, but the senator from california took his point of order. mr. bright. i wish to inquire of the senator from new hampshire whether he has withdrawn his motion? the presiding officer. it was not entertained. it is not in his power to say whether it was withdrawn or not, for it was not entertained. mr. norris. i think i can inform my friend from indiana how the matter stands. the senator from massachusetts proposed to introduce a bill on notice given. i raised the question, that it could not be introduced without leave of the senate, if there was objection. mr. sumner. do i understand the senator to say without notice given? i asked leave to introduce the bill in pursuance of notice. mr. norris. the senator from massachusetts, i have already stated, offered his bill agreeably to previous notice. mr. sumner. precisely. mr. norris. the question was then raised, whether it could be received, if there was objection? the question arose, whether leave should be granted to the senator from massachusetts to introduce the bill? mr. sumner. that is the first question. mr. norris. the senator from massachusetts, upon the question of granting leave, undertook to address the senate. he was then called to order by my friend from california for discussing that question. the chair sustained the objection of the senator from california. from the decision of the chair the senator from massachusetts took an appeal; and that is where the question now stands, unless the senator from louisiana had a right to make the motion which he did make, which was to lay the appeal on the table. the presiding officer. the question is, unless the senator from louisiana will disembarrass the chair by withdrawing it, on the motion of the senator from louisiana to lay the appeal on the table. mr. sumner. on that motion i ask for the yeas and nays. the yeas and nays were ordered. mr. foot (of vermont). on what motion have the yeas and nays been ordered? the presiding officer. on the motion of the senator from louisiana. mr. walker. i wish to know, before voting, what will be the effect of a vote given in the affirmative on this motion? will it carry the bill and the whole subject on the table? mr. foot. an affirmative vote carries the whole measure on the table. the presiding officer. yes, sir; if the motion to lay on the table be agreed to, it carries the bill with it. several senators. no, no! mr. benjamin. the question is, whether, on the motion for leave to introduce the bill, there shall be debate? the chair has decided that there shall be no debate. those who vote "yea" on my motion to lay the appeal of the senator from massachusetts on the table will vote that there is to be no debate upon the permission to offer the bill, and then the question will be taken upon granting leave. mr. walker. the chair decides differently. the chair decides, if i understand, that it will carry the bill on the table. then how can we ever reach the question of leave, when objection is made? mr. weller. i object to this discussion. the chair will decide that question when it arises. it does not arise now. i insist that the secretary shall go on and call the roll. mr. walker. suppose some of us object to it? mr. weller. then i object to your discussing it. the presiding officer. the chair, on reflection, thinks that the motion, if agreed to, would not have a further effect than to bring up the question of granting leave. mr. bright. i desire to understand the chair. i do not wish to insist on anything that is not right, or that is not within the rules. that i insist upon having. the honorable senator from louisiana is right in his conclusions as to his motion, provided he had a right to make the motion; but i doubt whether he had a right to make that motion while the motion of the honorable senator from new hampshire was pending. i do not wish, however, to consume the time of the senate. if the effect of the decision of the chair is to bring us back to the question as to whether we shall receive the bill or not, i will yield the floor. the presiding officer. that is it. mr. bright. very well. mr. sumner. before the vote is taken, allow me to read a few words from the rules and orders, and from jefferson's manual. "one day's notice, at least, shall be given of an intended motion for leave to bring in a bill." that is the th rule of the senate; and then to that rule, in the publication which i now hold in my hand, is appended, from jefferson's manual, the following decisive language:-- "when a member desires to bring in a bill on any subject, _he states to the house, in general terms, the causes for doing it_, and concludes by moving for leave to bring in a bill entitled, &c. leave being given, on the question, a committee is appointed to prepare and bring in the bill." now i would simply observe, that my purpose was merely to make a statement---- mr. benjamin. i call to order. the presiding officer. the senator had presented his bill, and was debating it afterwards. the question is on the motion of the senator from louisiana to lay the appeal on the table, and on that the yeas and nays have been ordered. the question, being taken by yeas and nays, resulted,--yeas , nays , as follows:-- yeas,--messrs. adams, atchison, bell, benjamin, brodhead, brown, butler, cass, clay, cooper, dawson, dodge, of iowa, evans, fitzpatrick, geyer, gwin, johnson, jones, of iowa, jones, of tennessee, mallory, mason, morton, norris, pearce, pettit, pratt, rusk, sebastian, slidell, stuart, thompson, of kentucky, thomson, of new jersey, toombs, toucey, and weller,-- . nays,--messrs. chase, fessenden, fish, foot, gillette, rockwell, seward, sumner, wade, and walker,-- . so the appeal was ordered to lie on the table. the presiding officer. the question now is on granting leave to introduce the bill. mr. sumner. on that question i ask for the yeas and nays. mr. stuart. i rise to a question of order; and i think, if the chair will consider it for the moment, he will, or at least i hope he will, agree with me. the parliamentary law is the law under which the senate act. whenever there is a motion made to lay on the table a subject connected with the main subject, and it prevails, it carries the whole question with it. it is different entirely from the rules in the house of representatives. the rules in the house vary the parliamentary law, and you may there move to lay a matter on the table, because that is the final vote, and is equivalent to rejecting it, and a motion to take it up from the table is not in order. but now the presiding officer will see, that, if this course be pursued, the senate may grant leave to introduce this bill, they may go on and pass it, and yet next week it will be in order for the senator from massachusetts to move to take up the appeal which the senate has just laid on the table; whereas the whole subject on which his appeal rested might have been passed and sent to the other house. that surely cannot be so. the ruling of the chair in this respect, therefore, i suggest is wrong, and the motion to lay on the table carries the whole subject with it. it is important to have the matter settled for the future practice of the senate. the presiding officer. at the first mooting of the proposition, the chair was of that opinion; but he is perfectly satisfied now that it did not carry the whole question with it. the question was on the motion to lay the appeal on the table, and that motion was exhausted when it did lay the appeal on the table. it did not reach back to affect the question of granting leave. that is now the question before the senate. on that the yeas and nays have been asked for by the senator from massachusetts. the yeas and nays were ordered. mr. stuart. i will not take an appeal from the decision of the chair, but i only wish to say, that, as i am satisfied i am right, i do not wish, by acquiescing in the decision of the chair, to embarrass us when such occasions may arise again. the question, being taken by yeas and nays upon granting leave to introduce the bill, resulted,--yeas , nays , as follows:-- yeas,--messrs. chase, dodge, of wisconsin, fessenden, foot, gillette, rockwell, seward, sumner, wade, and walker,-- . nays,--messrs. adams, atchison, bell, benjamin, bright, brodhead, brown, butler, cass, clay, cooper, dawson, evans, fitzpatrick, geyer, gwin, johnson, jones, of iowa, jones, of tennessee, mallory, mason, morton, norris, pearce, pettit, pratt, rusk, sebastian, slidell, stuart, thompson, of kentucky, thomson, of new jersey, toombs, toucey, and weller,-- . so the senate refused to grant leave to introduce the bill. duties of massachusetts at the present crisis. formation of the republican party. speech before the republican state convention at worcester, september , . the free-soil party, having assumed the name of republican party, held its annual convention at worcester, september , . it was organized by the following officers: hon. robert rantoul, of beverly, the venerable father of the late mr. rantoul, as president; george r. russell, of west roxbury, b. w. gage, of charlestown, samuel hopkins, of northampton, charles shute, of hingham, albert currier, of newburyport, warren lovering, of medway, adam harrington, of shrewsbury, francis watkins, of hinsdale, robert sturtevant, of savoy, asaph churchill, of dorchester, richard p. waters, of beverly, william washburn, of boston, charles beck, of cambridge, benjamin b. sisson, of westport, joel shed, of bridgewater, augustus morse, of leominster, foster hooper, of fall river, levi reed, of abington, john a. andrew, of hingham, vice-presidents; joseph denny, of worcester, william h. harris, of worcester, e. w. stacy, of milford, charles r. ladd, of chicopee, william h. decosta, of charlestown, secretaries. at the same convention hon. henry wilson was nominated for governor, and hon. increase sumner for lieutenant-governor. john a. andrew, esq., was made chairman of the state committee. mr. sumner's reception in the convention was quickened by recent events in which he had borne part. it is thus described in a report of the convention. "at this point the hon. charles sumner entered the hall. his reception was such as is rarely accorded to a public man. the whole vast audience rose as one man to welcome him, and the most deafening cheers of welcome resounded for several minutes. we have never seen a more hearty and enthusiastic demonstration in honor of any man. it was the spontaneous homage of true men to the man who had upheld the freedom standard and carried it into the thickest of the fight,--to the man who had upheld the honor of massachusetts in the senate, vindicated her opinions, and thrown back upon her assailants the taunts and insults which they had never ceased to heap upon her. the cheering, as our senator appeared upon the platform and took his seat, was loud and long continued." mr. sumner was at once called to speak. his speech is given as reported by the boston _traveller_, which ran a special train in one hour from worcester, a distance of forty miles, in order to lay it before the public without delay. in this speech mr. sumner had two objects,--first, to vindicate the necessity of the republican party, and, secondly, to destroy the operation of the fugitive slave act in massachusetts, showing especially that citizens are not constrained to its support. his position with regard to the oath to support the constitution was much discussed at the time, and the _national intelligencer_, in elaborate articles by mr. gales, undertook to call him to account. to the latter he replied by letter. the speech had an extensive circulation. mr. sumner came to the convention at the invitation of mr. andrew, chairman of the provisional state committee, whose first letter, dated july , , was as follows. "you will have seen, before receiving this note, the report of the meeting at worcester, at which _a new party was begun_, and the steps preliminary to a state nominating convention taken. i think, in spite of strong opposition from the whig presses and fuglemen, who cannot bear to give up their factitious powers and influence, that there is a great popular movement commenced, which may, under proper cultivation, disclose a splendid result in the fall. but more depends upon the aid you can give than upon that of any one man. your recent battles in the senate have shut the mouth of personal opposition, wrung applause from the unwilling, excited a state's pride and gratitude, such as rarely it is the fortune of any one to win. your presence at the nominating convention, to be held on the th of august,--probably at springfield,--is a point which must be agreed to at once. it will secure a most triumphant meeting, certainly in point of numbers and enthusiasm. i want you to write to me at once, permitting me to say to any of our friends that you _will_ attend the meeting. a speech of half an hour, or an hour, is all that you _need_ make, though you could have three hours, if you would use them.... i am bold, speak urgently, since i am, as chairman of the provisional state committee, officially responsible for the utmost exertions to serve the cause in this behalf." this was followed by another letter from mr. andrew, dated august , , as follows. "i, however, wish to have the authority now to say definitely to all inquirers that you will be present on the th, and address the convention, and i wish this to be considered as a formal and official invitation. there are constant references made to the hope of seeing and hearing you there, on all hands. everybody counts for that gratification. and we can do nothing which will so completely secure a triumphant gathering as to announce your name. the whole free-soil party, proud of your recent achievements, and grateful for the many exhibitions of your devotedness to our principles at all times of hazard and necessity, and the people of all parties, who feel you to have been the most conspicuously representative man to whom massachusetts has intrusted her interest in congress since the death of john quincy adams, are alike anxious to greet you. "i do not wish you to feel under the necessity of preparing for one of your greatest speeches. no one will demand that of you. they only want you to come, and to say what seems to yourself proper to say at the time." the speech drew from mr. chase the following expression. "your speech was just the thing. i read it with delighted admiration. only one thing abated my pleasure,--the dissolution of the independent democracy. i am now without a party: but no matter; i shall soon cease to have any connection with politics." mr. seward wrote thus:-- "i have read your noble speech. it is eminently able, and in a tone that is as characteristic as it is worthy of you. of its particular direction, as relates to parties, it is not becoming me to speak. its merits as an argument are unsurpassed." mr. president, and fellow-citizens of massachusetts:-- after months of constant, anxious service in another place, away from massachusetts, i am permitted to stand among you again, my fellow-citizens, and to draw satisfaction and strength from your generous presence. [_applause._] life is full of change and contrast. from slave soil i have come to free soil. [_applause._] from the tainted breath of slavery i have passed into this bracing air of freedom. [_applause._] and the heated antagonism of debate, shooting forth its fiery cinders, is changed into this brimming, overflowing welcome, while i seem to lean on the great heart of our beloved commonwealth, as it palpitates audibly in this crowded assembly. [_loud and long applause._] let me say at once, frankly and sincerely, that i am not here to receive applause or to give occasion for tokens of public regard, but simply to unite with fellow-citizens in new vows of duty. [_applause._] and yet i would not be thought insensible to the good-will now swelling from so many honest bosoms. it touches me more than i can tell. during the late session of congress, an eminent supporter of the nebraska bill said to me, with great animation, in language which i give with some precision, that you may appreciate the style as well as the sentiment, "i would not go through all that you do _on this nigger question_ for all the offices and honors of the country." to which i naturally and promptly replied, "nor would i,--for all the offices and honors of the country." [_laughter and long applause._] not in such things are the inducements to this warfare. for myself, if i have been able to do aught in any respect not unworthy of you, it is because i thought rather of those commanding duties which are above office and honor. [_cries of "good! good!" and loud applause._] and now, on the eve of an important election in this state, we are assembled to take counsel how best to perform those duties which we owe to our common country. we are to choose eleven representatives in congress,--also, governor, lieutenant-governor, and members of the legislature, which last will choose a senator of the united states, to uphold, for five years ensuing, the principles and honor of massachusetts. if in these elections you were governed by partialities or prejudices, personal or political, or merely by the exactions of party, i should have nothing to say now, except to dismiss you to the ignoble work. ["_that is it!_" "_good! good!_"] but i assume that you are ready to renounce these influences, and press forward with single regard to the duties now incumbent. * * * * * here two questions occur, absorbing all others: _first_, what are our political duties here in massachusetts at the present time? and, _secondly_, how, and by what agency, shall they be performed? what and how? these are the two questions, of which i shall briefly speak in their order, attempting no elaborate discussion, but aiming to state the case so that it will be intelligible to all who hear me. * * * * * and first, what are our present duties here in massachusetts? unfolding these, i need not dwell on the wrong and shame of slavery, or on the character of the slave power--that oligarchy of slaveholders--now ruling the republic. these you understand. and yet there are two outrages, fresh in recollection, which i must not fail to expose, as natural manifestations of slavery and the slave power. one is the repeal of the prohibition of slavery in the vast missouri territory, now known as kansas and nebraska, contrary to time-honored compact and plighted faith. the other is the seizure of anthony burns on the free soil of massachusetts, and his surrender, without judge or jury, to a slave-hunter from virginia, to be thrust back into perpetual bondage. ["_shame! shame!_"] these outrages cry aloud to heaven, and to you, people of massachusetts! [_sensation._] their intrinsic wickedness is enhanced by the way in which they were accomplished. of the first i know something from personal observation; of the latter i am informed only by public report. it is characteristic of the slave power not to stick at the means supposed needful in carrying forward its plans; but never, on any occasion, were its assumptions so barefaced and tyrannical as in the passage of the nebraska bill. this bill was precipitated upon congress without one word of public recommendation from the president, without notice or discussion in any newspaper, and without a single petition from the people. it was urged by different advocates, on two principal arguments, so opposite and inconsistent as to slap each other in the face [_laughter_]: one, that, by the repeal of the prohibition, the territory would be absolutely open to the entry of slaveholders with their slaves; and the other, that the people there would be left to determine whether slaveholders should enter with their slaves. with some, the apology was the alleged rights of slaveholders; with others, the alleged rights of the people. with some, it was openly the extension of slavery; and with others, openly the establishment of freedom, under the pretence of "popular sovereignty." the measure thus upheld in defiance of reason was carried through congress in defiance of all the securities of legislation. it was carried, _first_, by _whipping in_, through executive influence and patronage, men who acted against their own declared judgment and the known will of their constituents; _secondly_, by _thrusting out of place_, both in the senate and house of representatives, important business, long pending, and usurping its room; _thirdly_, by _trampling under foot_ the rules of the house of representatives, always before the safeguard of the minority; and, _fourthly_, by _driving it to a close_ during the present congress, so that it might not be arrested by the indignant voice of the people. such were some of the means by which the nebraska bill was carried. if the clear will of the people had not been defied, it could not have passed. if the government had not nefariously interposed, it could not have passed. if it had been left to its natural place in the order of business, it could not have passed. if the rules of the house and the rights of the minority had not been violated, it could not have passed. if it had been allowed to go over to another congress, when the people might be heard, it would have failed, forever failed. contemporaneously with the final triumph of this outrage at washington, another dismal tragedy was enacted at boston. in those streets where he had walked as freeman anthony burns was seized as slave, under the base pretext that he was a criminal,--imprisoned in the court-house, which was turned for the time into fortress and barracoon,--guarded by heartless hirelings, whose chief idea of liberty was license to wrong [_loud applause, and cries of "that's it! that's it!"_],--escorted by intrusive soldiers of the united states,--watched by a prostituted militia,--and finally given up to a slave-hunter by the decree of a petty magistrate, who did not hesitate to take upon his soul the awful responsibility of dooming a fellow-man, in whom he could find no fault, to a fate worse than death. how all this was accomplished i need not relate. suffice it to say, that, in doing this deed of woe and shame, the liberties of all our citizens, white as well as black, were put in jeopardy, the mayor of boston was converted to a tool [_applause_], the governor of the commonwealth to a cipher [_long continued applause_], the laws, the precious sentiments, the religion, the pride and glory of massachusetts were trampled in the dust, and you and i and all of us fell down while the slave power flourished over us. [_"shame! shame!" and applause._] these things in themselves are bad, very bad; but they are worse, when regarded as natural offspring of the oligarchy now swaying the country. and it is this oligarchy which, at every political hazard, we must oppose, until it is overthrown. lord chatham once exclaimed, that the time had been, when he was content to bring france to her knees; now he would not stop till he had laid her on her back. nor can we be content with less in our warfare. we must not stop till we have laid the slave power on its back. [_prolonged cheers._] and, fellow-citizens, permit me to say, not till then will the free states be absolved from all political responsibility for slavery, and relieved from that corrupt spirit of compromise which now debases at once their politics and their religion; nor till then will there be repose for the country. [_immense cheering._] indemnity for the past and security for the future must be our watchwords. [_applause._] but these can be obtained only when slavery is dispossessed of present vantage-ground, by driving it back exclusively within the limits of the states, and putting the national government, everywhere within its constitutional sphere, openly, actively, and perpetually on the side of freedom. the consequences of this change of policy would be of far-reaching and incalculable beneficence. not only would freedom become national and slavery sectional, as was intended by our fathers, but the national government would become the mighty instrument and herald of freedom, as it is now the mighty instrument and herald of slavery. its powers, its treasury, its patronage, would all be turned, in harmony with the constitution, to promote freedom. the committees of congress, where slavery now rules,--congress itself, and the cabinet also,--would all be organized for freedom. the hypocritical disguise or renunciation of antislavery sentiment would cease to be necessary for the sake of political preferment; and the slaveholding oligarchy, banished from the national government, and despoiled of ill-gotten political consequence, without ability to punish or reward, would cease to be feared, either at the north or the south, until at last the citizens of the slave states, where a large portion have no interest in slavery, would demand emancipation, and the great work would commence. such is the obvious course of things. to the overthrow of the slave power we are summoned by a double call, one political and the other philanthropic,--first, to remove an oppressive tyranny from the national government, and, secondly, to open the gates of emancipation in the slave states. [_loud applause._] while keeping this great purpose in view, we must not forget details. the existence of slavery anywhere within the national jurisdiction, in the territories, in the district of columbia, or on the high seas beneath the national flag, is an unconstitutional usurpation, which must be opposed. the fugitive slave bill, monstrous in cruelty, as in unconstitutionality, is a usurpation, which must be opposed. the admission of new slave states, from whatsoever quarter, from texas or cuba [_applause_], utah or new mexico, must be opposed. and to every scheme of slavery, whether in cuba or mexico, on the high seas in opening the slave-trade, in the west indies, or in the valley of the amazon, whether accomplished or merely plotted, whether pending or in prospect, we must send forth an everlasting no! [_long continued applause._] such is the present, immediate duty of massachusetts, without compromise or hesitation. thus far i have spoken of duties in national matters; but there are other duties of pressing importance, here at home, not to be forgotten or postponed. it is often said that charity should begin at home. better say, _charity should begin everywhere_. while contending with the slave power on the broad field of national politics, we must not forget the duty of protecting the liberty of all who tread the soil of massachusetts. [_immense cheering._] early in colonial history massachusetts set her face against slavery. at the head of her declaration of rights she solemnly asserted that all men are born free and equal, and in the same declaration surrounded the liberties of all within her borders by the inestimable rights of trial by jury and _habeas corpus_. recent events on her own soil have taught the necessity of new safeguards to these great principles,--to the end that massachusetts may not be the vassal of south carolina and virginia, that the slave-hunter may not range at will among us, and that the liberties of all may not be violated with impunity. i am admonished that i must not dwell longer on these things. suffice it to say that our duties in national and state affairs are identical, and may be described by the same formula: in the one case to put the national government, in all its departments, and in the other case the state government, in all its departments, openly, actively, and perpetually on the side of freedom. [_loud applause._] * * * * * having considered _what_ our duties are, the question now presses, _how_ shall they be performed?--by what agency, by what instrumentality, in what way? the most obvious way is by choosing men to represent us in the national government, and also at home, who will recognize these duties, and be ever loyal to them [_cheers_],--men who at washington will not shrink from conflict with slavery, and also other men who at home in massachusetts will not shrink from the same conflict when the slave-hunter appears. [_loud applause, and cries of "good! good!"_] in the choice of men we are driven to the organization of parties; and here the question arises, by what form of organization, or by what party, can these men be best secured? surely not by the democratic party, as at present constituted [_laughter_]: though, if this party were true to its name, pregnant with human rights, it would leave little to be desired. in this party there are doubtless individuals anxious to do all in their power against slavery; but indulge me in saying, that, so long as they continue members of a party which upholds the nebraska bill, they can do very little. [_applause and laughter._] what may we expect from the whig party? [_a voice, "resolutions."_] if more might be expected from the whig party than the democratic party, candor must attribute much of the difference to the fact that the whigs are _out of power_, while the democrats are _in power_. [_long continued cheers._] if the cases were reversed, and the whigs were in power, as in , i fear, that, notwithstanding the ardor of individuals and the resolutions of conventions [_great laughter_],--made, i fear, too often, merely to be broken,--the party might be brought to sustain an outrage as great as the fugitive slave bill. [_laughter and applause._] but, without dwelling on these things (to which i allude with diffidence, and, i trust, in no uncharitable temper or partisan spirit), i desire to say that no party which calls itself _national_, according to the common acceptation of the word,--which leans upon a slaveholding wing [_cheers_], or is in combination with slaveholders [_cheers_],--can at this time be true to massachusetts. [_great applause._] and the reason is obvious. it can be presented so as to penetrate the most common understanding. _the essential element of such a party, whether declared or concealed, is compromise; but our duties require all constitutional opposition to slavery and the slave power, without compromise._ ["_that's it!_" "_good! good!_"] it is difficult, then, to see how we can rely upon the whig party. to the true-hearted, magnanimous citizens ready to place freedom above party, and their country above politicians, i appeal. [_immense cheering._] let them leave old parties, and blend in an organization which, without compromise, will maintain the good cause surely to the end. here in massachusetts a large majority concur in sentiment on slavery,--a large majority desire the overthrow of the slave power. these must not scatter their votes, but unite in one firm, consistent phalanx [_applause_], whose triumph will constitute an epoch of freedom, not only in this commonwealth, but throughout the land. such an organization is presented by this republican convention, which announces its purpose to coöperate with the friends of freedom in other states. [_cheers._] as republicans, we go forth to encounter the _oligarchs_ of slavery. [_great applause._] through this organization we shall secure the election of men who, unseduced and unterrified, will at washington uphold the principles of freedom,--and also here at home, in our own community, by example, influence, and vote, will help invigorate massachusetts. i might go further, and say that by no other organization can we reasonably hope to obtain such men, unless in rare and exceptional cases. men are but instruments. it will not be enough to choose those who are loyal. other things must be done here at home. in the first place, all existing laws for the protection of human freedom must be rigorously enforced [_applause, and cries of "good!"_]; and since these are found inadequate, there must be new laws for this purpose within the limits of the constitution. massachusetts will do well in following vermont, which by special law places the fugitive slave under the safeguard of trial by jury and the writ of _habeas corpus_. but a legislature true to freedom will not fail in remedies. [_applause._] a simple prohibition, declaring that no person, holding the commission of massachusetts as justice of the peace, or other magistrate, shall assume to act as a slave-hunting commissioner, or as counsel of any slave-hunter, under some proper penalty, would go far to render the existing slave act inoperative. [_applause._] there are not many so fond of this base trade as to continue in it, when the commonwealth sets upon it a legislative brand. besides more rigorous legislation, public opinion must be invoked to step forward and throw over the fugitive its protecting ægis. a slave-hunter will then be a by-word and reproach; and all his instruments, especially every one who volunteers in this vileness without positive obligation of law, will naturally be regarded as part of his pack, and share the ignominy of the chief hunter. [_laughter and cheers._] and now, from authentic example, drawn out of recent history, learn how the slave-hunter may be palsied by contrition. i take the story from late letters on neapolitan affairs by the eminent english statesman, mr. gladstone, who has copied it from an italian writer. a most successful member of the neapolitan police, bolza, of the hateful tribe known as _sbirri_, whose official duties involved his own personal degradation and the loathing of others, has left a record of the acute sense retained of his shame by even such a man. "i absolutely forbid my heirs," says this penitent official, "to allow any mark, of whatever kind, to be placed over the spot of my burial,--much more any inscription or epitaph. i recommend my dearly beloved wife to impress upon my children the injunction, that, in soliciting any employment from government, they shall ask for it elsewhere than in the _executive police_, and not, unless under extraordinary circumstances, to give her consent to the marriage of any of my daughters with a member of that service."[ ] thus testifies the italian instrument of legal wrong. let public opinion here in massachusetts once put forth its might, and every instrument of the fugitive slave act will feel a kindred shame. [_great applause._] they will resign. when, under the heartless charles the second of england, the act of uniformity went into operation, upwards of two thousand pulpits were vacated by the voluntary withdrawal of men who thought it better to face starvation than treachery to their master. here is an example for us. let magistrates and officers, called to enforce a cruel injustice, take notice. [ ] two letters to the earl of aberdeen, on the state prosecutions of the neapolitan government, by the right hon. w. e. gladstone, (london, ,) letter ii. p. . it is sometimes gravely urged, that, since the supreme court of the united states has affirmed the constitutionality of the fugitive act, there only remains to us, in all places, whether in public station or in private life, the duty of absolute submission. yes, sir, that is the assumption, which you will perceive is applied to the humblest citizen who holds no office and has taken no oath to support the constitution, as well as to the public servant who is under the special obligations of an official oath. now, without stopping to consider the soundness of the judgment affirming the constitutionality of this act, let me say that the constitution, as i understand it, exacts no such _passive obedience_. in taking the oath to support the constitution, it is as i understand it, and not as other men understand it. [_loud applause._] in adopting this rule, first authoritatively enunciated by andrew jackson, when, as president of the united states, in the face of the supreme court, he asserted the unconstitutionality of the bank, i desire to be understood as not acting hastily. let me add, that, if it needed other authority in its support, it has the sanction also of the distinguished cabinet by which he was then surrounded, among whom were that unsurpassed jurist, edward livingston, secretary of state, and that still living exemplar of careful learning and wisdom, roger b. taney, then attorney-general, now chief-justice of the united states. beyond these, it has the unquestionable authority of thomas jefferson, by whom it was asserted again and again as a rule of conduct. thus, if any person at this day be disposed to deal sharply with me on account of the support which i now most conscientiously give to this rule, let him remember that his thrusts will pierce not only myself, the humblest of its supporters, but also the great fame of andrew jackson and of thomas jefferson,--patriots both of eminent life and authority, on whose atlantean shoulders this principle of constitutional law will ever firmly rest. reason here is in harmony with authority. from the necessity of the case i must swear to support the constitution either _as i do understand it_ or _as i do not understand it_. [_laughter._] but the absurdity of dangling on the latter horn of the dilemma compels me to take the former, and there is a natural end of the argument. [_great laughter and cheers._] is there a person in congress or out of it, in the national government or state government, who, when this inevitable alternative is presented, will venture to say that he swears to support the constitution as he does _not_ understand it? [_laughter and applause._] the supposition is too preposterous. but let me ask gentlemen disposed to abandon their own understanding of the constitution, and to submit their conscience to the standard of other men, by whose understanding do they swear? surely not by that of the president: this is not alleged: but by the understanding of the supreme court. in other words, to this court, being at present nine persons,--represented by a simple majority, it may be of _one_ only,--is accorded the power of fastening such interpretation as they see fit upon any part of the constitution,--adding to it, or subtracting from it, or positively varying its requirements,--actually making and unmaking the constitution; and to their work all good citizens must bow, as of equal authority with the original instrument, ratified by solemn votes of the whole people! [_great applause._] if this be so, the oath to support the constitution is hardly less offensive than the famous "et cætera" oath devised by archbishop laud, where the subject swore to certain specified things, with an "&c." added. such an oath i have not taken. ["_good! good!_"] an old poet anticipates my objection:-- "who swears _&c._ swears more oaths at once than cerberus out of his triple sconce; who views it well with the same eye beholds the old half serpent in his numerous folds accursed."[ ] [ ] cleveland. see hudibras, ed. grey, part i. canto , note to v. . the power of our supreme court is great, and its sphere is vast; but there are limits to its power and its sphere. according to the constitution, "the judicial power shall extend to _all cases_ in law and equity, arising under the constitution, the laws of the united states, and treaties"; but it by no means follows that the interpretation of the constitution, _incident_ to the trial of these "cases," is final. of course, the judgment in the "case" actually pending is final, as the settlement of a controversy, for weal or woe, to the litigating parties; but as a _precedent_ it is not final even on the supreme court itself. when cited afterwards, it will be regarded with respect as an _interpretation of the constitution_, and, if nothing appears against it, of controlling authority; but, at any day, in any litigation, at the trial of any "case," it will be within the unquestionable competency of the court to review its own decision, _so far as it establishes any interpretation of the constitution_. if the court itself be not constrained by its own precedents, how can coördinate branches, under oath to support the constitution, and, like the court itself, called _incidentally_ to interpret the constitution, be constrained by them? in both instances, the power to interpret is simply _incident_ to other principal duties, as the trial of "cases," the making of laws, or the administration of government; and it seems as plainly _incident_ to a "case" of legislation or of administration as to a "case" of litigation. and on this view i shall act with entire confidence, under the oath i have taken. for myself, let me say, that i hold judges, and especially the supreme court, in much respect; but i am too familiar with the history of judicial proceedings to regard them with any superstitious reverence. [_sensation._] judges are but men, and in all ages have shown a full share of human frailty. alas! alas! the worst crimes of history have been perpetrated under their sanction. the blood of martyrs and of patriots, crying from the ground, summons them to judgment. it was a judicial tribunal which condemned socrates to drink the fatal hemlock, and which pushed the saviour barefoot over the pavements of jerusalem, bending beneath his cross. it was a judicial tribunal which, against the testimony and entreaties of her father, surrendered the fair virginia _as a slave_,--which arrested the teachings of the great apostle to the gentiles, and sent him in bonds from judæa to rome,--which, in the name of the old religion, persecuted the saints and fathers of the christian church, and adjudged them to a martyr's death, in all its most dreadful forms,--and afterwards, in the name of the new religion, enforced the tortures of the inquisition, amidst the shrieks and agonies of its victims, while it compelled galileo to declare, in solemn denial of the great truth he had disclosed, that the earth did not move round the sun. it was a judicial tribunal which, in france, during the long reign of her monarchs, lent itself to be the instrument of every tyranny, as during the brief reign of terror it did not hesitate to stand forth the unpitying accessary of the unpitying guillotine. ay, sir, it was a judicial tribunal in england, surrounded by all forms of law, which sanctioned every despotic caprice of henry the eighth, from the unjust divorce of his queen to the beheading of sir thomas more,--which lighted the fires of persecution that glowed at oxford and smithfield, over the cinders of latimer, ridley, and john rogers,--which, after elaborate argument, upheld the fatal tyranny of ship money against the patriot resistance of hampden,--which, in defiance of justice and humanity, sent sidney and russell to the block,--which persistently enforced the laws of conformity that our puritan fathers persistently refused to obey, and afterwards, with jeffreys on the bench, crimsoned the pages of english history with massacre and murder, even with the blood of innocent women. ay, sir, it was a judicial tribunal in our own country, surrounded by all forms of law, which hung witches at salem,--which affirmed the constitutionality of the stamp act, while it admonished "jurors and people" to obey,--and which now, in our day, lends its sanction to the unutterable atrocity of the fugitive slave act. [_long continued applause, and three cheers for sumner._] of course judgments of courts are binding upon inferior tribunals, and their own executive officers, whose virtue does not prompt them to resign rather than aid in executing an unjust mandate. over all citizens, whether in public or private station, they will naturally exert, _as precedents_, an impartial influence. this i admit. but no man, who is not lost to self-respect, and ready to abandon that manhood which is shown in the heaven-directed countenance, will voluntarily aid in enforcing a judgment which in conscience he believes wrong. he will not hesitate "to obey god rather than men," and calmly abide the peril he provokes. not lightly, not rashly, will he take the grave responsibility of open dissent; but if the occasion requires, he will not fail. pains and penalties may be endured, but wrong must not be done. [_cheers._] "where i cannot obey i am willing to suffer," was the exclamation of the author of "pilgrim's progress," when imprisoned for disobedience to an earthly statute. elsewhere i have said what i now repeat and proclaim on the house-top. better suffer injustice than do it. better be even the poor slave returned to bondage than the unhappy commissioner. [_applause and sensation._] i repeat, judges are but men, and i know no difference between the claim of power now made for them and that other insulting pretension put forth sometimes in the name of a king and sometimes of a people. listen to what king james of england once wrote: "it is atheism and blasphemy to dispute what god can do: good christians content themselves with his will revealed in his word. so it is presumption and high contempt in a subject to dispute what a king can do, or say that a king cannot do this or that: but rest in that which is the king's revealed will in his law."[ ] thus wrote one who was called "the wisest fool of christendom." and so we are to rest in that popular will revealed in the fugitive slave act, and ratified by the supreme court. the rabble of revolutionary france, in a spirit kindred to that of king james, cried out, as the executioner's cart tracked its way in blood, "we can do what we please,"--adding, "there is no god." of course, if there were no god, they could not do as they pleased; nor could the king, whose pretension for himself was no better than that of the rabble. but there is a god, to be obeyed in all things, although kings, people, and even courts, assert the contrary. [ ] speech in the star-chamber, june , : works of the most high and mighty prince, james, by the grace of god king of great britain, &c., (london, , folio,) p. . see also finch's law, p. . the whole dogma of _passive obedience_ must be rejected, whatever guise it assumes, under whatever _alias_ it skulks,--whether in tyrannical usurpations of king, parliament, or judicial tribunal,--whether in exploded theories of sir robert filmer, or rampant assumptions of the fugitive slave act. the rights of the civil power are limited; there are things beyond its province; there are matters out of its control; there are cases in which the faithful citizen may say,--ay, _must_ say,--"i will not obey." one of the highest flights of mirabeau was, when, addressing the national assembly of france, he protested against a law then pending, and exclaimed, "if you make such a law, i swear never to obey it!"[ ] no man now responds to the words of shakespeare, "if a king bid a man be a villain, he is bound by the indenture of his oath to be one." nor, in this age of civilization and liberty, will any prudent reasoner, who duly considers the rights of conscience, claim for any earthly magistrate or tribunal, howsoever styled, a power which the loftiest monarch of a christian throne, wearing on his brow "the round and top of sovereignty," dare not assert. [ ] projet de loi sur les Émigrations, février, : oeuvres, (paris, ,) tom. iii. p. . on this twofold conclusion i rest, and do not doubt the final result. the citizen who has sworn to support the constitution is constrained to support it simply as he understands it. the citizen whose private life has kept him from assuming the obligations of official oath may bravely set at nought the unrighteous ruling of a magistrate, and, so doing, he will serve justice, though he expose himself to stern penalties. fellow-citizens of massachusetts, our own local history is not without encouragement. in early colonial days, the law against witchcraft, now so abhorrent to reason and conscience, was regarded as constitutional and binding,--precisely as the fugitive slave act, not less abhorrent to reason and conscience, is regarded as constitutional and binding. a special court of oyer and terminer, with able judges, whose names are entwined with our history, enforced this law at salem by the execution of nineteen persons as witches,--precisely as petty magistrates, acting under sanction of the supreme court of the united states, and also of the supreme court of massachusetts, have enforced the fugitive act by the reduction of two human beings to slavery. the clergy of massachusetts, particularly near boston, and also harvard college, were for the law. "witchcraft," shouted cotton mather from the pulpit, "is the most nefandous high treason," "a capital crime,"--even as opposition to the fugitive act has been denounced as "treason." [_laughter._] but the law against witchcraft was not triumphant long. the general court of the province first became penitent, and asked pardon of god for "all the errors of his servants and people in the late tragedy." jurymen united in condemning and lamenting the delusion to which they had yielded under the decision of the judges, and acknowledged that they had brought the reproach of wrongful bloodshed on their native land. sewall, one of the judges, and author of the early tract against slavery, "the selling of joseph," whose name lives freshly in his liberty-loving descendant [hon. s. e. sewall] [_applause_], stood up in his place at church, before the congregation, and implored the prayers of the people, that the errors he had committed might not be visited by the judgments of an avenging god on his country, his family, or himself. and now, in a manuscript diary of this departed judge, may be read, on the margin against the contemporary record, in his own handwriting, words of saddest interjection and sorrow: _væ! væ! væ!_ woe! woe! woe![ ] [_sensation._] [ ] holmes, annals, vol. i. p. , note. in similar spirit, john winthrop, the early governor of massachusetts, on his death-bed refused to sign an order to banish a heterodox person, saying, "i have done too much of that work already."--hutchinson, history of massachusetts, vol. i. p. . the parallel between the law against witchcraft and the fugitive act is not yet complete. it remains for our legislature, successor of that original general court, to lead the penitential march. [_laughter._] in the slave cases there have been no jurymen to recant [_laughter_]; and it is too much, perhaps, to expect any magistrate who sanctioned the cruelty to imitate by public penitence the magnanimity of other days. yet it is not impossible that future generations may be permitted to read, in some newly exhumed diary or letter by one of these troubled functionaries, words of woe not unlike those wrung from the soul of sewall. [_sensation._] * * * * * fellow-citizens, one word in conclusion: be of good cheer. ["_that's it!_"] i know well the difficulties and responsibilities of the contest; but not on this account do i bate a jot of heart or hope. [_applause._] at this time, in our country, there is little else to tempt into public life an honest man, who wishes, by something that he has done, to leave the world better than he found it. there is little else to afford any of those satisfactions which an honest man can covet. nor is there any cause which so surely promises final success. there is nothing good--not a breathing of the common air--which is not on our side. ours, too, are those great allies described by the poet,-- "exultations, agonies, and love, and man's unconquerable mind." and there are favoring circumstances peculiar to the present moment. by the passage of the nebraska bill, and the boston kidnapping case, the tyranny of the slave power is unmistakably manifest, while at the same time all compromises with slavery are happily dissolved, so that freedom stands face to face with its foe. the pulpit, too, released from ill-omened silence, now thunders for freedom, as in the olden time. [_cheers._] it belongs to massachusetts, nurse of the men and principles which made the earliest revolution, to vow herself anew to her ancient faith, as she lifts herself to the great struggle. her place now, as then, is in the van, at the head of the battle. [_sensation._] to sustain this advanced position with proper inflexibility, three things are needed by our beloved commonwealth, in all her departments of government,--the same three things which once, in faneuil hall, i ventured to say were needed by every representative of the north at washington. the first is _backbone_ [_applause_]; the second is backbone [_renewed applause_]; and the third is backbone. [_long continued cheering, and three cheers for "backbone."_] with these massachusetts will be felt and respected, as a positive force in the national government [_applause_], while at home, on her own soil, free at last in reality as in name [_applause_], all her people, from boston islands to berkshire hills, and from the sands of barnstable to the northern line, will unite in the cry,-- "no slave-hunt in our borders! no pirate on our strand! no fetters in the bay state! no slave upon our land!" the good farmer and the good citizen. letter to the norfolk agricultural society, september , . another voice against the fugitive slave act. boston, september , . my dear sir,--i am grateful for the honor done me by the invitation of your society, and also for the kind manner in which you have conveyed it. but another engagement promises to occupy my time so as to deprive me of the pleasure thus kindly offered. from the mother earth we may derive many lessons, and i doubt not they will spring up abundantly in the footprints of the norfolk agricultural society. there is one that comes to my mind at this moment, and which is of perpetual force. the good farmer obeys the natural laws; nor does he impotently attempt to set up any behest of man against the ordinances of god, determining day and night, summer and winter, sunshine and rain. the good citizen will imitate the good farmer; nor will he impotently attempt to set up any statute of man against the ordinances of god, which determine good and evil, right and wrong, justice and injustice. let me express these correlative ideas in a sentiment which i trust may be welcome at your festival:-- _the good farmer and the good citizen_: acting in conformity with the laws of god, rather than the statutes of man, they know that in this way only can true prosperity be obtained. believe me, dear sir, with much respect, very faithfully yours, charles sumner. hon. marshall p. wilder. the fugitive slave act to be disobeyed. letter to a committee at syracuse, new york, september , . the escape of the fugitive slave, jerry, at syracuse, was commemorated at a public meeting, to which mr. sumner was invited. his answer was published at the time as "from a man who is not afraid to speak out." boston, september , . dear sir,--i cannot be with you at syracuse, according to the invitation with which i have been honored; but i shall rejoice at every word uttered there which helps to lay bare the true nature of slavery, and its legitimate offspring, the fugitive slave bill. that atrocious enactment has no sanction in the constitution of the united states or in the law of god. it shocks both. the good citizen, at all personal hazard, will refuse to obey it. yours very faithfully, charles sumner. position and duties of the merchant, illustrated by the life of granville sharp. address before the mercantile library association of boston, on the evening of november , . veluti in speculum. here was another effort to obtain a hearing for unwelcome truth. while portraying the life and character of granville sharp, mr. sumner was saying what he had most at heart on slavery, and exposing that swiftness which had been shown here in support of the fugitive slave act. describing the simple championship of the englishman, he presented an example for imitation. showing how slavery had been overturned in england, he exhibited the essential rule of interpretation, by which, in the absence of precise words of sanction, it necessarily becomes impossible. condemning the london merchants who contributed to support this wrong, and also the able lawyers who lent themselves to the same cause, he presented a picture where our merchants and lawyers might see themselves. extolling that conscience which sustained granville sharp in his career, he vindicated all among us who would not bow before injustice. the address was well received. the tide was then turning. since then the lecture-room has been free. the condition of the public mind was noticed at the time. one newspaper said, that "a boston audience of the kind then and there present would not have listened to it with patience four years ago,"--that, "valuable as the lecture is on account of its literary merits, its real importance consists in marking an era in boston opinion." another paper says, with enthusiasm, "that mr. sumner should have delivered such a lecture before 'the solid men of boston' is a great, a sublime fact in american history," and, after proceeding in this strain, concludes with the remark, that "it is one of the most striking examples of whipping one set of people over the backs of another that we ever heard of." address. mr. president, and gentlemen of the mercantile library association:-- i have been honored by an invitation to deliver an address, introductory to the annual course of lectures which your association bountifully contributes to the pastime, instruction, and elevation of our community. you know, sir, something of the reluctance with which, embarrassed by other cares, i undertook this service,--yielding to kindly and persistent pressure, which only a nature sterner than mine could resist. and now i am here to perform what i promised. i am to address the mercantile library association of boston, numbering, according to your last report, two thousand and seventy-eight members, and possessing a library of more than fifteen thousand volumes. with so many members and so many books, yours is an institution of positive power. two distinct features appear in its name. it is, primarily, an association of persons in mercantile pursuits; and it is, next, an association for the improvement of its members, particularly through books. in either particular it is entitled to regard. but it possesses yet another feature, more interesting still, which does not appear in its name. it is an association of young men, with hearts yet hospitable to generous words, and with resolves not yet vanquished by the trials and temptations of life. especially does this last consideration fill me with a deep sense of the privilege and responsibility to which you have summoned me. i am aware, that, according to usage, the whole circle of knowledge, thought, and aspiration is open to the speaker; but, as often as i have revolved the occasion in my mind, i have been brought back to the peculiar character of your association, and have found myself unwilling to touch any theme not addressed to you especially as merchants. i might fitly speak to you of books; and here, while considering principles to govern the student in his reading, it would be pleasant to dwell on the profitable delights, better than a "shower of cent per cent," on the society, better than fashion or dissipation, and on that completeness of satisfaction, outvying the possessions of wealth, and making the "library dukedom large enough,"--all of which are found in books. but i leave this theme. i might also fitly speak to you of young men, their claims and duties; and here again, while enforcing the precious advantages of occupation, it would be pleasant to unfold and vindicate that reverence which antiquity wisely accorded to youth, as the season of promise and hope, pregnant with an unknown future, and therefore to be watched with tenderness and care,--to show how in every young man the uncertain measure of capacities yet undeveloped gives scope to magnificence of anticipation beyond any reality,--and to inquire what must be done, that all this anticipation may not wholly die while the young man lives. but there are other things which beckon me away. not on books, not on youth must i speak, but on yet another topic, suggested directly by the name of your association. with your kind permission, i shall speak to-night on what this age requires from the mercantile profession, or rather, since nothing is justly required which is not due, what the mercantile profession owes to this age. i would show the principle by which we are to be guided in making the _account current_ between the mercantile profession and humanity, and, might i so aspire, hold up the _looking-glass of the good merchant_. and since example is better than precept, and deeds are more than words, i shall exhibit the career of a remarkable man, whose simple life, beginning as apprentice to a linen-draper, and never getting beyond a clerkship, shows what may be accomplished by faithful, humble labor, and reveals precisely those qualities which in this age are needed to crown the character of the good merchant. * * * * * "i hold every man a debtor to his profession," was a saying of lord bacon, repeated by his contemporary and rival, lord coke. but this does not tell the whole truth. it restricts within the narrow circle of a profession obligations which are broad and universal as humanity. rather should it be said that every man owes a debt to mankind. in determining the debt of the merchant, we must first appreciate his actual position in the social system. at the dawn of modern times trade was unknown. there was nothing then like a policy of insurance, a bank, a bill of exchange, or even a promissory note. the very term "chattels," so comprehensive in its present application, yet, when considered in its derivation from the mediæval latin _catalla_, cattle, reveals the narrow inventory of personal property in those days, when "two hundred sheep" were paid by a pious countess of anjou for a coveted volume of homilies. the places of honor and power were then occupied by men who had distinguished themselves by the sword, and were known under the various names of knight, baron, count, or--highest of all--duke, _dux_, leader in war. under these influences the feudal system was organized, with its hierarchy of ranks, in mutual relations of dependence and protection; and society for a while rested in its shadow. the steel-clad chiefs who enjoyed power had a corresponding responsibility, while the mingled gallantry and gentleness of chivalry often controlled the iron hand. it was the dukes who led the forces; it was the counts or earls who placed themselves at the head of their respective counties; it was the knights who went forth to do battle with danger, in whatever form, whether from robbers or wild beasts. it was the barons of runnymede--there was no merchant there--who extorted from king john that magna charta which laid the corner-stone of english and american liberty. meanwhile trade made its humble beginnings. but for a long time the merchant was of a despised caste, only next above the slave who was sold as a chattel. if a jew, he was often compelled, under direful torture, to surrender his gains; if a foreigner, he earned toleration by inordinate contribution to the public revenue; if a native, he was treated as caitiff too mean for society, and only good enough to be taxed. in the time of chaucer he had so far come up, that he was admitted to the promiscuous company, ranging from knight to miller, who undertook the merry pilgrimage from the tabard inn to canterbury; but the gentle poet satirically exposes his selfish talk:-- "his resons spake he ful solempnely, souning alway the encrese of his winning: he wold the see were kept for any thing betwixen middelburgh and orewell."[ ] [ ] canterbury tales, prologue, - . the man of trade was so low, that it took him long to rise. a london merchant, the famous gresham, in the time of elizabeth, founded the royal exchange, and a college also; but trade continued still a butt for jest and gibe. at a later day an english statute gave new security to the merchant's accounts; but the contemporaneous dramatists exhibited him to the derision of the theatre, and even the almanacs exposed his ignorant superstitions by chronicling the days supposed to be favorable or unfavorable to trade. but in the grand mutations of society the merchant throve. his wealth increased, his influence extended, and he gradually drew into his company decayed or poverty-stricken members of feudal families, till at last in france (i do not forget the exceptional condition of italy), at the close of the seventeenth century, an edict was put forth, which john locke has preserved in the journal of his travels, "that those who merchandise, but do not use the yard, shall not lose their gentility"[ ] (admirable discrimination!); and in england, at the close of the eighteenth century, his former degradation and growing importance were attested in the saying of dr. johnson, that "an english merchant is a new species of gentleman."[ ] but this high arbiter, bending under feudal traditions, would not even then concede to him any merit,--proclaiming that there were "no qualities in trade that should entitle a man to superiority,"--that "we cannot think that a fellow, by sitting all day at a desk, is entitled to get above us,"--and to the supposition by his faithful boswell, that a merchant might be a man of enlarged mind, the determined moralist replied: "why, sir, we may suppose any fictitious character; but there is nothing in trade connected with an enlarged mind."[ ] [ ] king's life of locke, vol. i. p. . [ ] boswell's life of johnson, ed. croker, (london, ,) vol. ii. p. , note, anno . [ ] boswell's johnson, vol. v. pp. , , oct. , . in america feudalism never prevailed, and our revolution severed the only cord by which we were connected with this ancient system. it was fit that the congress which performed this memorable act should have for its president a merchant. it was fit, that, in promulgating the declaration of independence, by which, in the face of kings, princes, and nobles, the new era was inaugurated, the education of the counting-house should flaunt conspicuously in the broad and clerkly signature of john hancock. our fathers "builded better than they knew"; and these things are typical of the social change then taking place. by yet another act, fresh in your recollection, and of peculiar interest to this assembly, has our country borne the same testimony. a distinguished merchant of boston, who has ascended through all the gradations of trade, honored always for private virtues as well as public abilities,--need i mention the name of abbott lawrence?--has been sent to the court of st. james as ambassador of our republic, and with that proud commission, higher than any patent of nobility, taken precedence of nobles in that ancient realm. here i see the triumph of personal merit, but still more the consummation of a new epoch. yes, sir! say what you will, this is the day of the merchant. as in the early ages war was the great concern of society, and the very pivot of power, so is trade now; and as feudal chiefs were the "notables," placed at the very top of their time, so are merchants now. all things attest the change. war, which was once the universal business, is now confined to a few; once a daily terror, it is now the accident of an age. not for adventures of the sword, but for trade, do men descend upon the sea in ships, and traverse broad continents on iron pathways. not for protection against violence, but for trade, do men come together in cities, and rear the marvellous superstructure of social order. if they go abroad, or if they stay at home, it is trade that controls them, without distinction of persons. in our country every man is trader: the physician trades his benevolent care; the lawyer trades his ingenious tongue; the clergyman trades his prayers. and trade summons from the quarry choicest marble and granite to build its capacious homes, and now, in our own city, displays warehouses which outdo the baronial castle, and sales-rooms which outdo the ducal palace. with these magnificent appliances, the relations of dependence and protection, marking the early feudalism, are reproduced in the more comprehensive feudalism of trade. there are european bankers who vie in power with the dukes and princes of other days, and there are traffickers everywhere whose title comes from the ledger and not the sword, fit successors to counts, barons, and knights. as the feudal chief allocated to himself and his followers that soil which was the prize of his strong arm, so now the merchant, with grasp more subtle and reaching, allocates to himself and his followers, ranging through multitudinous degrees of dependence, all the spoils of every land, triumphantly won by trade. i would not press this parallel too far; but at this moment, especially in our country, the merchant, more than any other character, stands in the very boots of the feudal chief. of all pursuits or relations, his is now the most extensive and formidable, making all others its tributaries, and bending at times even the lawyer and the clergyman to be its dependent stipendiaries. such, in our social system, is the merchant; and on this precise and incontrovertible statement i found his duties. wealth, power, and influence are not for self-indulgence merely, and just according to their extent are the obligations _to others_ which they impose. if, by the rule of increase, to him that hath is given, so in the same degree new duties are superadded: nor can any man escape from their behests. if the merchant be in reality our feudal lord, he must render feudal service; if he be our modern knight, he must do knightly deeds; if he be the baron of our day, let him maintain baronial charity to the humble,--ay, sir, and baronial courage against tyrannical wrong, whatsoever form it may assume. even if i err in attributing to him this peculiar position, i do not err in attributing to him these duties; for his influence is surely great, and he is at least a man, bound by simple manhood to regard nothing human as foreign to his heart. the special perils which aroused the age of chivalry have passed away. monsters, in the form of dragons, griffins, or unicorns, no longer ravage the land. giants have disappeared from the scene. robbers have been dislodged from castle and forest. godeschal the iron-hearted, and robin hood, are each without descendants. in the new forms which society assumes, touched by the potent wand of trade, there is no place for any of these. but wrong and outrage are not yet extinct. cast out of one body, they enter straightway another, whence, too, they must be cast out. alas! in our day, amidst all this teeming civilization, with the horn of abundance at our gates, with the purse of fortunatus in our hands, with professions of christianity on our lips, and with the merchant installed in the high places of chivalry, there are sorrows not less poignant than those which once enkindled knightly sympathy, and there is wrong which vies in loathsomeness with early monsters, in power with early giants, and in existing immunity with robbers once sheltered by castle and forest,--stalking through your streets in the abused garb of law itself, and by its hateful presence dwarfing all the atrocities of another age. a wicked man is a deplorable sight; but a wicked law is worse than any wicked man, even than the wretch who steals human beings from their home in africa; nor can its outrage be redressed by any incidental charities, perishing at night as manna in the wilderness. like the monster, it must be overpowered; like the robber, it must be chained; like the wild beast, it must be exterminated. to the merchant, then, especially to the young merchant, i appeal, by the position you have won and by the power which is yours,--go forth to redress these grievances, whatever they may be, whether in the sufferings of the solitary soul or audaciously organized in the likeness of law. that i may not seem to hold up any impracticable standard, that the path of duty may not appear difficult, and that no young man need hesitate, even though he find himself alone and opposed by numbers, let me present briefly, as becomes the hour, the example and special achievement of granville sharp, the humble englishman, who, without wealth, fame, or power, did not hesitate to set himself against the merchants of the time, against the traditions of the english bar, against the authority of learned lawyers, and against the power of magistrates, until, by persevering effort, he compelled the highest tribunal of the land to declare the grand constitutional truth, that the slave who sets his foot on british ground becomes that instant free. his character of pure and courageous principle may be little regarded yet; but as time advances, it will become a guiding luminary. there are stars aloft, centres of other systems, in such depths of firmament that only after the lapse of ages does their light reach this small ball which we call earth. be assured, mr. president, i shall not tread on forbidden ground. to the occasion and to your association i shall be loyal; but let me be loyal also to myself. thank god, the great volume of the past is always open, with its lessons of warning and example. nor will the assembly which now does me the honor to listen to me be disposed to imitate the pious pirates of the caribbean sea, who daily recited the ten commandments, always omitting the injunction, "thou shalt not steal." i know well the sensitiveness of certain consciences. this is natural. it is according to the decrees of providence, that whosoever has been engaged in meanness or wickedness should be pursued, wherever he moves, by reproving voices, speaking to him from the solitudes of nature, from the darkness of night, from the hum of the street, and from every book that he reads, like fiery tongues at pentecost, until at last the confession of satan himself can alone express his wretchedness:-- "me miserable! which way shall i fly? which way i fly is hell: _myself am hell!_" granville sharp was born at durham, in . his family was of great respectability and of ancient lineage. his grandfather was archbishop of york, confidential chaplain and counsellor of the renowned chancellor, heneage finch, lord nottingham. his less conspicuous father was archdeacon and prebendary of the church, who, out of his ecclesiastical emoluments, knew how to dispense charity, while rearing his numerous children to different pursuits. of these, granville was the youngest son, and, though elder brothers were educated for professional life, he was destined to trade, a portion being set apart by his father to serve as his apprentice-fee in london. with this view his back was turned upon the learned languages, and his instruction was confined chiefly to writing and arithmetic; but at this time he read and enjoyed all the plays of shakespeare, perched in an apple-tree of his father's orchard. when fifteen years old, he was bound as apprentice to a quaker linen-draper in london, and at this tender age left his father's house. of his apprenticeship he has given an interesting glimpse. "after i had served about three years of my apprenticeship, my master, the quaker, died, and i was turned over to a presbyterian, or rather, as he was more properly called, an independent. i afterward lived some time with an irish papist, and also with another person, who, i believe, had no religion at all."[ ] [ ] memoirs, by prince hoare, (london, ,) p. . although always a devoted member of the church of england, these extraordinary experiences in early life placed him above the prejudice of sect, and inspired a rule of conduct worthy of perpetual memory, which he presents as follows. "it has taught me to make a proper distinction between the opinions of men and their persons. the former i can freely condemn, without presuming to judge the individuals themselves. thus freedom of argument is preserved, as well as christian charity, leaving personal judgment to him to whom alone it belongs."[ ] [ ] memoirs, p. . only two years before the enrolment of granville sharp among london apprentices,--that class so famous in local history,--another person, kindred in benevolence, and now in fame, howard, the philanthropist, on whose career burke has cast the illumination of his genius, finished service in the same place, as apprentice to a wholesale grocer. i do not know that these two congenial natures--or yet another contemporary of lowly fortunes, robert raikes, the inventor of sunday schools--ever encountered in the world. but they are joined in example,--and the life of an apprentice, in all its humilities, seems radiant with their presence, as with heavenly light. perhaps among the apprentices of boston there may be yet a granville sharp or john howard. and just in proportion as the moral nature asserts its rightful supremacy here will such a character be hailed of higher worth than the products of all the mills of lowell, backed by all the dividends and discounts of state street. shortly after the completion of his apprenticeship and entrance upon business, sharp lost both his parents, and very soon thereafter, abandoning trade, obtained a subordinate appointment as supernumerary clerk in the ordnance office, where, after six years' service, he became simply "clerk in ordinary." meanwhile, conscientiously fulfilling this life of routine and labor, not unlike the toils of charles lamb at the india house, he pursued, in moments saved from business and snatched from sleep, a series of studies, which, though undervalued by his modesty, the scholar may envy. that he might better enjoy and vindicate that book which he reverently accepted as the rule of life, he first studied greek and then hebrew, obtaining such command of both languages as to employ them skilfully in the field of theological controversy. music and french he studied also, and our own english tongue too, on the pronunciation of which he wrote an excellent essay. these quiet pursuits were interrupted by an incident which belongs to the romance of truth. an unhappy african, by the name of jonathan strong, was brought as a slave from barbadoes to london, where, after brutal outrage, at which the soul shudders, inflicted by the person who called himself master,--i regret to add lawyer also,--he was turned adrift on the unpitying stones of the great metropolis, lame, blind, and faint, with ague and fever, and without a home. in this plight, while staggering along in quest of medical care, he was met by the good samaritan, granville sharp, who, touched by his misfortunes, bound up his wounds, gave him charitable assistance, placed him in a hospital, and watched him through a protracted illness, until at last health and strength returned, and he was able to commence service as freeman in a respectable home. in this condition, after the lapse of two years, he was recognized in the street by his old master, who at once determined to entrap him, and to hold him as slave. by deceitful message the victim was tempted to a public house, where he was shocked to encounter his cruel claimant, who, without delay, seized and committed him to prison. here again was the good samaritan, granville sharp, who lost no time in enjoining upon the keeper of the prison, at his peril, not to deliver the african to any person whatever, and then promptly invoked the intervention of the mayor of london. at the hearing before this magistrate, it appeared that the claimant had already undertaken, by formal bill of sale, to convey the alleged slave to another person, who, by an agent, was in attendance to take him on board a ship bound for jamaica. as soon as the case was stated, the mayor gave judgment in words worthy of imitation. "the lad," said this righteous judge, "has not stolen anything, and is not guilty of any offence, and is therefore at liberty to go away." the agent of the claimant, not disheartened, seized him by the arm, and still claimed him as "property,"--yes, even as property! sharp, in ignorance of legal proceedings, was for a moment perplexed, when the friendly voice of the coroner, who chanced to be near, whispered, "charge him"; on which hint, our philanthropist, turning at once to the brazen-faced claimant, said, with justifiable anger of manner, "sir, i charge you, in the name of the king, with an assault upon the person of jonathan strong, and all these are my witnesses,"--when, to avoid immediate commitment, and the yawning cell of the jail, he let go his piratical, slave-hunting grasp, "and all bowed to the lord mayor and came away, jonathan following granville sharp, and no one daring to touch him."[ ] [ ] memoirs, pp. - . clarkson's history of the abolition of the african slave-trade, vol. i. pp. - . but the end was not yet. by this accidental and disinterested act of humanity sharp was exposed at the same time to personal insult and to a suit at law. the discomfited claimant--the same lawyer who had originally abandoned the slave in the streets of london--called on him "to demand gentlemanlike satisfaction"; to which the philanthropist replied, that, as "he had studied the law so many years, he should want no satisfaction that the law could give him." and he nobly redeemed his word; for he applied himself at once to his defence against the legal process instituted by the claimant for an alleged abstraction of _property_. here begins his greatness. it is in collision with difficulty that the sparks of genuine character appear. this simple-hearted man, now vindictively pursued, laid his case before an eminent solicitor, who, after ample consideration with learned counsel, among whom was the celebrated sir james eyre, did not hesitate to assure him, that, under the british constitution, he could not be defended against the action. an opinion given in , by the attorney-general and solicitor-general of the time, yorke and talbot,--two great names in the english law, and each afterwards lord chancellor,--was adduced, declaring, under their respective signatures, "that a slave, by coming from the west indies to great britain or ireland, either with or without his master, _doth not_ become free," and "that the master may legally compel him to return to the plantations"; and lord mansfield, the chief justice, was reported as strenuously concurring in this opinion, to the odious extent of delivering up fugitive slaves to their claimants. with these authorities against him, and forsaken by professional defenders, sharp was not disheartened; but, though, according to his own striking language, "totally unacquainted either with the practice of the law or the foundations of it, having never in his life opened a law-book except the bible," he was inspired to depend on himself. an unconquerable will, and instincts often profounder in their teaching than any learning, were now his counsellors. for nearly two years, during which the suit was still pending, he gave himself to intense study of the british constitution in all its bearings upon human liberty. during these researches he was confirmed in his original prepossessions, and aroused to undying hostility against slavery, which he plainly saw to be without any sanction in the constitution. "_the word_ slaves," he wrote, "_or anything that can justify the enslaving of others, is not to be found there, god be thanked!_"[ ] and i, too, say, god be thanked! [ ] memoirs, p. . the result of these studies was embodied in a tract, entitled "a representation of the injustice and dangerous tendency of tolerating slavery, or of admitting the least claim of private property in the persons of men in england." this was submitted to his counsel, one of whom was the famous commentator, sir william blackstone, and, by means of copies in manuscript, circulated among gentlemen of the bar, until the lawyers on the other side were actually intimidated, and the slave-hunter, failing to bring forward his action, was mulcted in treble costs; and thus ended that persecution of our philanthropist. in this important tract was printed. thus far it was an individual case only which engaged his care. another soon followed, where, through his chivalrous humanity, the intolerable wrongs of a woman kidnapped in london and transported as slave to barbadoes, were redressed,--so far as earthly decree could go. learning the infinite woe of slavery, he was now aroused to broader effort. shocked by an advertisement in a london newspaper,--such as often appeared in those days,--of "a black girl to be sold, of an excellent temper and willing disposition,"--he at once protested to the chancellor, lord camden, against such things as a "notorious breach of the laws of nature, humanity, and equity, and also of the established law, custom, and constitution of england";[ ] and in the same year, may , , by letter to the archbishop of canterbury, he solemnly appealed against the slave-trade, and thus by many years heralded the labors of clarkson and wilberforce. "i am myself convinced," he said, "that nothing can thrive which is in any way concerned in that unjust trade. i have known several instances which are strong proofs to me of the judgments of god, even in this world, against such a destructive and iniquitous traffic."[ ] in these things he showed not only his love of justice, but his personal independence. "although i am a _placeman_," he wrote on another occasion, "and indeed of a very inferior rank, yet i look on myself to be perfectly independent, because i have never yet been afraid to do and avow whatever i thought just and right, without the consideration of consequences to myself: for, indeed, i think it unworthy of a _man_ to be afraid of the world; and it is a point with me never to conceal my sentiments on any subject whatever, not even from my superiors in office, _when there is a probability of answering any good purpose by it_."[ ] [ ] memoirs, p. . [ ] ibid., p. . [ ] ibid., p. . still again was his protecting presence enlisted to save a fellow-man from bondage; and here it is necessary to note the new form of outrage. a poor african, thomas lewis, once a slave, was residing quietly at chelsea, in the neighborhood of london, when he was suddenly seized by his former master, who, with the aid of two ruffians, bought for the fiendish purpose, dragged him on his back into the water, and thence into a boat lying in the thames, when, with legs tied, and mouth gagged by a stick, he was rowed down to a ship bound for jamaica, under a commander previously enlisted in the conspiracy, to be sold for a slave on arrival in that island. but this diabolical act, though warily contrived, did not escape notice. the cries of the victim, on his way to the boat, reached the servants of a neighboring mansion, who witnessed the deadly struggle, but did not venture a rescue. their mistress, a retired widow, mother of the eminent naturalist and traveller, sir joseph banks, on learning what had passed, instantly put forth her womanly exertion. without the hesitation of her sex, she hurried to granville sharp, now known for knightly zeal to succor the distressed, laid before him the terrible story, and insisted upon vindicating the freedom of the stranger at her own expense. all honor to this woman! a simple warrant, first obtained by sharp, was scouted by the captain, whose victim, bathed in tears, was already chained to the mast. the great writ of _habeas corpus_ was next invoked; and the ship, which had contumaciously proceeded on its way, was boarded in the downs, happily within british jurisdiction, by a faithful officer, who, in the name of the king of england, unbound the african, and took him back to freedom. a complaint was now presented against the kidnappers, who were at once indicted by the grand jury. the cause was removed to the king's bench, and on the th of february, , brought into court before lord mansfield. the defence set up, that the victim was their slave, and therefore property to be rightfully seized. here the question was distinctly presented, whether any such property was recognized by the british constitution? the transcendent magistrate who presided on the occasion saw the magnitude of the issue, and sought to avoid its formal determination by presenting the subordinate point, whether the claimant, supposing such property recognized, was able to prove the man to be his? the kidnappers were found guilty; but judgment against them was waived, on the recommendation of lord mansfield, who, be it observed, at every stage, shrank from any act by which slavery in england should be annulled, and on this occasion avowed his "hope that the question never would be finally discussed." sharp was justly indignant at this craven conduct, which, with all gentleness of manner, but with perfect firmness, he did not hesitate to arraign as open contempt of the true principles of the constitution.[ ] [ ] memoirs, pp. - . alas! it is the natural influence of slavery to make men hard. gorgon-like, it turns to stone. among the judicial magistrates of the time, lord mansfield was not alone. his companion in contemporary fame, blackstone, shared the petrifaction. the first edition of his incomparable commentaries openly declared, that a slave, on coming to england, became at once a freeman; but, in a subsequent edition, after the question had been practically presented by granville sharp, the text was pusillanimously altered to an abandonment of this great constitutional principle; and our intrepid philanthropist hung his head with shame and anxiety, while the counsel for the slave-hunters triumphantly invoked this tergiversation as new authority against freedom.[ ] [ ] memoirs, pp. , , note. the text of the first edition ( ), as quoted by sharp's biographer, hoare, was as follows: "and this spirit of liberty is so deeply implanted in our constitution, and rooted even in our very soil, that a slave, or a negro, the moment he lands in england, falls under the protection of the laws, and, with regard to all national rights, becomes _eo instanti_ a freeman." as altered, the latter part was found to read thus: " ... a negro, the moment he lands in england, falls under the protection of the laws, and so far becomes a freeman; though the master's right to his service may _possibly_ still continue." hoare remarks, that he finds this reading in the fifth edition, . it appears also in an edition printed at philadelphia so early as . and thus the text was finally left by the author, and so remains. in the third edition, printed at oxford in , for "_possibly_" in the last clause we have the word "probably." of this prior reading hoare makes no mention. the day was at hand when the great philanthropist was to be vindicated, even by the lips of the great magistrate. the slavery question could not be suppressed: the chief justice of england could not suppress it. drive out nature with a pitchfork, and still she will return. only a few months elapsed, when a memorable case arose, which presented the question distinctly for judgment. a negro, james somerset, whose name, in the establishment of an immortal principle, will help to keep alive the appellation of the ducal house to which it originally belonged,--was detained in irons on board a ship lying in the thames, and bound for jamaica. on application to lord mansfield in his behalf, supported by affidavits, december , , a writ of _habeas corpus_ was directed to the captain of the ship, commanding him to return the body of somerset into court, with the cause of his detention. in course of time, though somewhat tardily, the body was produced, and for cause of detention it was assigned, that he was the property of charles stewart, esq., _of virginia_, who had held him in virginia as a slave,--that, when brought as such to london, he ran away from the service of his master, but was recovered, and finally delivered on board the ship to be carried to jamaica, there to be sold as the slave and property of the _virginia gentleman_.[ ] as no facts were in issue here, the whole cause hinged on the constitutionality of slavery in england; and the great question which the chief justice had sought to avoid, and on which the commentator had changed sides, was once again to be heard. [ ] since this address, private papers have seen the light, by which it appears, that the claimant was cashier and paymaster of customs in north america, and for some years previous to this important case _resided in boston_, where somerset was known. through all the arguments he is spoken of as from virginia, and reference is constantly made to the laws of virginia; nor is this mistake astonishing, when it is understood that an orator in parliament once spoke of the "island of virginia," and nobody corrected him.--mass. hist. soc. proceedings for - , p. : _villenage_, by emory washburn. that the proceedings might have a solemnity in some degree corresponding to their importance, the cause was brought by lord mansfield before the king's bench, where it was continued from time to time, according to the convenience of counsel and the court, running through months, and occupying different days in january, february, and may, down to the d june, , when judgment was finally delivered. during all this period, somerset, having recognized with sureties for his appearance in court, was left at large. to granville sharp he had repaired at once, and by him was kindly welcomed and effectually aided. under the advice of this humble clerk, counsel learned in the law were retained, who were instructed by him in the grounds of defence. at his expense, too, out of his small means, the proceedings were maintained. "money," he nobly said, "has no value but when it is well spent; and i am thoroughly convinced that no part of my little pittance of ready money can ever be better bestowed than in an honest endeavor to crush a growing oppression, which is not only shocking to humanity, but in time must prove even dangerous to the community."[ ] on the other side the costs were defrayed by a subscription among the merchants. hear this, merchants of boston, justly jealous of the good name of your calling, and hang your heads with shame! [ ] memoirs, p. . to the glory of the english bar, the eminent counsel for the slave declined all fee for their valuable and protracted services; and here let me pause for one moment to pay them an unaffected tribute. they were five in number: mr. serjeant davy, who opened the cause with the proposition, "that no man at this day _is_ or _can be_ a slave in england,"--mr. serjeant glynn,--mr. mansfield, afterward chief justice of the common pleas,--mr. hargrave, and mr. alleyne,--each of whom was patiently heard by the court at length. the argument of mr. hargrave, who early volunteered his great learning in the case, is one of the masterpieces of the bar. this was his first appearance in court; but it is well that liberty on that day had such support. for all these gallant lawyers, champions of the right, there is honor ever increasing, which the soul spontaneously offers, while it turns in sorrow from the counsel, only two in number, who allowed themselves to be enlisted on the side of slavery. i know well that in westminster hall there are professional usages--which happily do not prevail in our country, where every such service depends purely on _contract_--by which a barrister thinks himself constrained to assume any cause properly presented to him. if this service depended on contract there, as with us, the sarcasm of ben jonson would be strictly applicable:-- "this fellow, for six sols more, would plead against his maker."[ ] [ ] the fox, act iv. sc. . but i undertake to affirm that no usage, professional or social, can give any apology for joining the pack of the slave-hunter. mr. dunning, one of the persons in this predicament, showed that he acted against his better nature.[ ] the first words in his argument were: "it is incumbent on me to justify the detainer of the negro." pray, why incumbent on him? he was then careful to show that he did not maintain any absolute property in him; and he proceeded to say, among other things, that it was his misfortune to address an audience, the greater part of which, he feared, was prejudiced the other way,--that, for himself, he would not be understood to intimate a wish in favor of slavery, but that he was bound in duty to maintain those arguments most useful to the claimant, so far as consistent with the truth; and he concluded with this conscience-stricken appeal: "i hope, therefore, i shall not suffer in the opinion of those whose honest passions are fired at the name of slavery; i hope i have not transgressed my duty to humanity."[ ] clearly the lawyer had transgressed his duty to humanity. no man can rightfully enforce a principle which violates human nature; nor can any subtilty of dialectics, any extent of erudition, or any grandeur of intellect sustain him. notwithstanding the character for liberal principles which john dunning acquired, and which breathes in his sensitive excuses,--notwithstanding his double fame at once in westminster hall and saint stephen's chapel,--notwithstanding the peerage which he won,--this odious service rendered to a slave-hunter, calling himself a virginia gentleman, cries in judgment against him, and will continue to cry, as time advances. (do not start, mr. president,--i am narrating occurrences in another hemisphere and another century.) as well undertake a slave-hunt in the deserts of africa as in the streets of london. as well pursue the fugitive with the hired whip of the overseer as with the hired argument of the lawyer. as well chase him with the baying of the blood-hound as with the tongue of the advocate. it is the lawyer's clear duty to uphold _human rights_, whether in the loftiest or the lowliest; and when he undertakes to uphold a wrong outrageous as slavery, his proper function is so far reversed that he can be aptly described only in the phrase of the roman church, _advocatus diaboli_, the devil's advocate. [ ] a private letter from the claimant to james murray, esq., of boston, dated london, june , , carries us back to the times, and even to the court-room. "i am told," writes the claimant, "that some young counsel flourished away on the side of liberty, and acquired great honor. dunning was dull and languid, and would have made a much better figure on that side also." of course he would. after speaking of the "load of abuse thrown on l--d m----, for hesitating to pronounce judgment in favor of freedom," the claimant says, "dunning has come in also for a pretty good share for taking the wrong side." (mass. hist. soc. proceedings for - , pp. , .) abolitionists had begun to be critical. [ ] howell's state trials, xx. - . passing from counsel to court, we find occasion for gratitude and sorrow. the three judges, aston, willes, and ashhurst, who sat at the side of lord mansfield, were silent through the whole proceedings, overawed, perhaps, by his commanding authority, so that he alone seems to be present. of large intellect, and extensive studies, running into all regions of learning,--with a silver-tongued voice, and an amenity of manner which gave constant charm to his presence,--with unsurpassed professional and political experience combined,--early companion of pope, and early competitor of pitt,--having already once refused the post of prime minister, and three times refused the post of chancellor,--he stood forth, at the period when the poor slave was brought before him, an acknowledged master of jurisprudence, and, take him for all in all, the most finished magistrate england had then produced. but his character had one fatal defect, too common on the bench. he lacked _moral firmness_,--happily not lacking in granville sharp. still more, he was not naturally on the side of liberty, as becomes a great judge, but always, by blood and instinct, on the side of prerogative and power,--an offence for which he was arraigned by his contemporary, junius, and for which posterity will hold him to strict account. but his luminous mind, prompt to perceive the force of principles, could not resist the array of argument now marshalled for freedom. he saw clearly that a system like slavery could not find home under the british constitution, _which nowhere mentions the name slave_; and yet he shrank from the sublime conclusion. more than once he coquetted with the merchants, who had the case so much at heart, and twice ignobly suggested that the claimant might avoid the decision of the great question, fraught with freedom or slavery to multitudes, simply by manumitting the individual. and when at last the case could not be arrested by any device, or be longer postponed,--when judgment was inevitable,--he came to the work, not warmly or generously, but in trembling obedience to the truth, which waited to be declared. on other occasions, of purely commercial character, his judgments are more learned and elaborate, besides being reported with more completeness and care; but no judgment of equal significance ever fell from the great oracle. from various sources i have sought its precise import.[ ] it is remarkable for several rules, which it clearly enunciates, and which, though often assaulted, still stand as reason and as law. of these, the first is expressed in these simple words: "if the parties will have judgment, _fiat justitia, ruat coelum_: let justice be done, whatever be the consequence." the latin phrase which here plays such a prominent part, though of classical stamp, cannot be traced to any classical origin, and it has even been asserted that it was freshly coined by lord mansfield on this occasion, worthy of such commanding truth in such commanding phrase. but it is of older date, and from another mint,--though it is not too much to say, that it took its currency and authority from him. coming from such a conservative magistrate, it is of peculiar importance. with little expansion, it says openly: to every man his natural rights; justice to all, without distinction of person, without abridgment, and without compromise. let justice be done, though it drags down the pillars of the sky. thus spoke the chief justice of england.[ ] [ ] it is strange that there should be no single satisfactory report of this memorable judgment. that usually quoted from howell's state trials, vol. xx. coll. - , was copied from lofft, a reporter generally avoided as authority. there is another report in hoare's memoirs of sharp, pp. - ; also another in campbell's lives of the chief justices, vol. ii. p. ; and still another, and in some respects the best, in the appendix (no. ) to a tract published by sharp in , entitled "the just limitation of slavery in the laws of god, compared with the unbounded claims of the african traders and british american slaveholders." it is considered and quoted in other contemporary tracts. [ ] a british writer, giving an account of the somerset case, says of this maxim, that "it has found its way into use as a classical expression, and, as no one has been able to find it in any latin author, it is supposed to have been of lord mansfield's own coining." (chambers's edinburgh journal, july , , n. s. vol. xviii. p. : _slaves in britain_.) this is a mistake. the precise phrase will be found in ward's "simple cobler of aggawamm in america," written in , and first printed in ,--"it is lesse to say, _statuatur veritas, ruat regnum_, than _fiat justitia, ruat coelum_" (p. ); but its origin, in substance, if not in form, is earlier. there is little doubt that it does not occur in any latin author. its latinity is good, and might belong to the classical period. the latter clause, _ruat coelum_, has classical authority, as in the passage of terence, showing that it was a common saying in his time, "quid si redeo ad illos _qui aiunt_, quid si nunc _coelum ruat_?" (heauton., act. iv. sc. .) the idea is also roman. on the european continent, and especially in germany, the maxim has another form, which is common,--_fiat justitia, pereat mundus_. binder, in his _novus thesaurus adagiorum latinorum_, (stuttgart, ,) cites it in this form as _regula juris_, explained as "a designation for the maxims, taken from the _corpus juris_ and the works of the different ancient civilians, which have become proverbial." in the same authority is the hexameter verse, _fiat justitia, pereat licet integer orbis_, from johannis leibi _studentica_ (coburg, ). in england the maxim was current in other forms. as early as february , - , in a letter to the english ambassador at holland, alluding to "the business of amboyne," we meet _fiat justitia et ruat mundus_. (birch's court and times of james i., vol. ii. p. .) in a speech in the house of commons, december , , against the judges who pronounced in favor of ship-money, an orator says: "if ever any nation might justifiably, we certainly may now, now most properly, most seasonably, cry out, and cry aloud, _vel sacra regnet justitia vel ruat coelum_." and he concludes with a motion, "that a special committee may be appointed to examine the whole carriage of that extrajudicial judgment, ... and, upon report thereof, to draw up a charge against the guilty; and then _lex currat, fiat justitia_. (parl. hist., d ed., london, , vol. ix. p. .) in the answer of the duke of richmond (january , - ) to the charge of the commons, it is said: "_magna est veritas et prevalebit_. i wish it may do so in what concerns me. _regnet justitia et ruat coelum._" (parl. hist., vol. x. p. . also, howell's state trials, vol. iv. col. .) the first clause of the maxim is an old law phrase, found in law dictionaries, and often repeated. a letter, dated london, may , , relating the fine and degradation of lord bacon, concludes, _fiat justitia_. (birch's james i., vol. ii. p. .) charles i., in a letter to the lords, dated may , , interceding for strafford, said: "but if no less than his life can satisfy my people, i must say, _fiat justitia_." (parl. hist. vol. ix. p. . howell's state trials, vol. iii. col. .) if not classical in authority, the maxim is not without interest from association with great events of english history, while it is a perpetual injunction to justice. shakespeare gives expression to similar truth, when he says, "be just and fear not." and still another rule, hardly less important or less commanding, was clearly proclaimed in these penetrating words: "i care not for the supposed _dicta_ of judges, however eminent, _if they be contrary to all principle_"; or, in other language, in vain do you invoke great names in the law, even the names of hardwicke and talbot, and my own learned associate, blackstone, in behalf of an institution which defies reason and outrages justice. human precedent is powerless against immutable principle. thus again spoke the chief justice of england. braced by these rules, the next stages were logically easy. and here he uttered words which are like a buttress to freedom. he declared, that, tracing slavery to _natural principles_, it can never be supported: that is to say, slavery is a violation of the great law of nature, established by god himself, coextensive in space and time with the universe. again he proclaimed, slavery cannot stand on any reason, moral or political, but only by virtue of _positive law_; and he clinched his conclusion by the unquestionable truth, that, in a matter so _odious_, the evidence and authority of this law must be taken strictly: in other words, a wrong like slavery, which finds no support in natural law or in reason, can be maintained, if at all, only by some dread mandate, from some sovereign authority, irresistibly clear and incapable of a double sense, which declares in precise and unequivocal terms, that men guilty of no crime may be held as _slaves_, and be submitted to the bargains of the market-place, the hammer of the auctioneer, and the hunt of the blood-hound. clearly no such mandate could be shown in england. after asserting the obvious truth, that rights cannot depend on any discrimination of color, and thus discarding the profane assumptions of race, while he quoted apt roman authority,-- "quamvis ille niger, quamvis tu candidus esses," the chief justice concluded, "and therefore let the negro be discharged." such was this immortal judgment. i catch its last words, already resounding through the ages, with the voice of deliverance to an enslaved people. from westminster hall, where he had been held so long in painful suspense, the happy freedman, with glad tidings of deliverance, hurried to his angel protector, granville sharp, who, though organizing and sustaining these proceedings, was restrained by unobtrusive modesty from all attendance in court, that he might in no wise irritate the chief justice, unfortunately prepossessed against his endeavor. and thus closed the most remarkable constitutional battle in english history, fought by a simple clerk, once apprentice to a linen-draper, against the merchants of london, backed by great names in law, and by the most exalted magistrate of the age. like the stripling david, he went forth to the contest with only a sling and a few smooth stones from the brook; and goliath fell prostrate. not merely the individual slave, but upwards of fourteen thousand human beings,--four times as many slaves as could be counted throughout new england at the adoption of the national constitution,--rejoiced in emancipation; a slave-hunt was made impossible in the streets of london; and a great principle was set up which will stand forever as a landmark of freedom. this triumph, hailed at the time by the friends of human happiness with exultation and delight, was commemorated by poetry and eloquence. it prompted cowper, in his "task," to these touching verses:-- "slaves cannot breathe in england; if their lungs receive our air, that moment they are free: they touch our country, and their shackles fall. that's noble, and bespeaks a nation proud and jealous of the blessing. spread it, then, and let it circulate through every vein of all your empire, that, where britain's power is felt, mankind may feel her mercy too." it inspired curran to a burst of eloquence, grand, and familiar to all who hear me. "i speak in the spirit of the british law, which makes liberty commensurate with and inseparable from british soil,--which proclaims even to the stranger and sojourner, the moment he sets his foot upon british earth, that the ground on which he treads is holy and consecrated by the genius of universal emancipation. no matter in what language his doom may have been pronounced,--no matter what complexion, incompatible with freedom, an indian or an african sun may have burnt upon him,--no matter in what disastrous battle his liberty may have been cloven down,--no matter with what solemnities he may have been devoted upon the altar of slavery: the first moment he touches the sacred soil of britain, the altar and the god sink together in the dust, his soul walks abroad in her own majesty, his body swells beyond the measure of his chains that burst from around him, and he stands redeemed, regenerated, and disenthralled by the irresistible genius of universal emancipation."[ ] [ ] defence of archibald hamilton rowan, january , : speeches, ed. davis, (london, ,) p. . it was this triumph which lifted brougham, in our own day, to one of those vivid utterances by which truth is flashed upon unwilling souls. "tell me not of rights,--talk not of the property of the planter in his slaves. i deny the right,--i acknowledge not the property. the principles, the feelings of our common nature rise in rebellion against it. be the appeal made to the understanding or to the heart, the sentence is the same that rejects it. in vain you tell me of laws that sanction such a claim. there is a law above all the enactments of human codes,--the same throughout the world, the same in all times: ... it is the law written on the heart of man by the finger of his maker; and by that law, unchangeable and eternal, while men despise fraud and loathe rapine and abhor blood, they will reject with indignation the wild and guilty fantasy that man can hold property in man."[ ] [ ] speech on negro slavery, july , : works, vol. x. p. . granville sharp did not rest from labor. the humanities are not solitary. where one is found, there will others be also. the advocate of the slave in london was naturally the advocate of liberty for all everywhere. in this spirit he signalized himself against that scandal of the english law, the hateful system of impressment, while he encountered no less a person than dr. johnson, whom he did not hesitate to charge with "plausible sophistry and important self-sufficiency, as if he supposed that the mere sound of words was capable of altering the nature of things";[ ] also, against the claims of england in the controversy with her american colonies, zealously maintaining our cause in a publication, of which it is said seven thousand copies were printed in boston[ ]; also, in establishing a colony of liberated slaves at sierra leone, on the coast of africa, predecessor of our more successful liberia; and, finally, as leader, not only against the slave-trade, but also against slavery itself, so that he was hailed "father of the cause in england," and was placed at the head of the illustrious committee by which it was conducted, though his rare modesty prevented him from taking the chair to which he was unanimously elected. but no modesty could check his valiant soul in conflict with wrong. not content with his warfare in court, he addressed lord north, the prime minister, warning him in the most earnest manner to take measures for the immediate abolition of slavery in all the british dominions, as utterly irreconcilable with the principles of the british constitution and the established religion of the land, and solemnly declaring that "it were better for the nation that their american dominions had never existed, or even that they had sunk in the sea, than that the kingdom of great britain should be loaded with the horrid guilt of tolerating such abominable wickedness."[ ] with similar boldness, in an elaborate work, he arraigned the doctrine of _passive obedience_, advanced now in favor of judicial tribunals, as once in favor of kings, and he openly affirmed, as unquestionable truth, that every public ordinance contrary to reason, justice, natural equity, or the written word of god, must be promptly rejected.[ ] other things, too, i might mention; but i am admonished that i must draw to a close. pardon me, if i touch yet one other shining point in his career. [ ] memoirs, p. . [ ] a declaration of the people's natural right to a share in the legislature (london, ). memoirs, pp. , . [ ] memoirs, pp. - . [ ] the law of passive obedience, p. , note. the news of the battle of bunker hill, which reached london at the end of july, , found him at his desk, still a clerk in the ordnance office, and by position obliged to participate in the military preparations now required. he was unwilling to be concerned, even thus distantly, in what he regarded as "that unnatural business"; and though a close attendance on his office for seventeen years, to the neglect of all other worldly opportunities, made it important to him as a livelihood, yet he resolved to sacrifice it. out of regard to his great worth and the respect he had won, he was indulged at first with leave of absence; but when hostilities in the colonies advanced beyond any prospect of speedy accommodation, then he vacated his office. this man of charity, who lived for others, was now left without support. but he was happy in the testimony he had borne to his principles: nor was he alone. lord effingham, and also the eldest son of lord chatham, threw up commissions in the army rather than serve on the side of injustice. they were all clearly right. it is vain to suppose that any human ordinance, whether from king, parliament, or judicial tribunal, can vary our moral responsibilities, or release us from obedience to god. and since no man can stand between us and god, it belongs to each conscience for itself to determine its final obligations, and where pressed to an unrighteous act,--as if to slay, or, what is equally bad, to enslave, a fellow-man charged with no crime,--then at every peril to disobey the mandate. the example of granville sharp on this occasion is not the least among the large legacies of wisdom and fidelity which he has left to mankind. all these are especially commended to us, as citizens of the united states, by the early and constant interest which he manifested in our country. by pen and personal intercession he vindicated our political rights,--and when independence was secured, his sympathies did not abate, as witness his correspondence with adams, jay, franklin, and america's earliest abolitionist, anthony benezet. his name became an authority here,--at the south as well as the north,--and the colleges, including brown university, harvard university, and william and mary, of slaveholding virginia, vied with each other in conferring upon him their highest academic honors. but the growing numbers of the episcopal church had occasion for special gratitude, only to be repaid by loyal regard for his character and life. on separation from the mother country, they were left without episcopal head. to repair this deprivation, granville sharp, in published writings extensively circulated, proposed the election of bishops by the churches, and their subsequent consecration in england, as congenial to the usage of early christians, and, after much correspondence and many impediments, enjoyed the satisfaction of presenting two bishops elect from america--one of whom was the exemplary bishop white, of philadelphia--to the archbishop of canterbury, by whom the christian rite of laying on of hands was performed; and thus was the english episcopacy communicated to this continent. i know not that the powerful religious denomination befriended by him in its infancy has ever sympathized with the great effort by which his name is exalted; but they should at least repel the weak imputation, so often levelled against all who are steadfast against slavery, that their benefactor was "a man of one idea." * * * * * mr. president, i have striven to keep within the open field of history and philanthropy, on neutral ground; but you would not forgive me, if, on this occasion, i forbore to adduce the most interesting testimony of granville sharp touching that much debated clause in our national constitution which has been stretched to the surrender of fugitive slaves. anterior to the constitution, even during colonial days, he wrote, that any law which orders the arrest or rendition of fugitive slaves, or in any way tends to deprive them of legal protection, is to be deemed "a corruption, null and void in itself"; and at a later period, in an elaborate communication to the abolition society of maryland,--mark, if you please, of slaveholding maryland,--which was printed and circulated by this society, as "the production of a great and respectable name," calculated to relieve persons "embarrassed by a conflict between their principles and the obligations imposed by unwise and perhaps unconstitutional laws," he exposed the utter "illegality" of slavery, and especially of "taking up slaves that had escaped from their masters."[ ] but, in a remarkable letter to franklin, dated january , ,--a short time after the constitution had left the hands of the convention, and some months before its final adoption by the people,--and which has never before been adduced, even in the thorough discussion of this question, the undaunted champion, who had not shrunk from conflict with the chief justice of england, openly arraigned the national constitution. here are his words. "having been always zealous for the honor of free governments, i am the more sincerely grieved to see the new federal constitution stained by the insertion of two most exceptionable clauses: the one in direct opposition to a most humane article, ordained by the first american congress to be perpetually observed" (referring to the sufferance of the slave-trade till ); "and the other, in equal opposition to an express command of the almighty, 'not to deliver up the servant that has escaped from his master,' &c. _both clauses, however_, (the th section of the st article, and the latter part of the d section of the d [ th] article,) _are so clearly null and void by their iniquity, that it would be even a crime to regard them as law_."[ ] [ ] letter to the maryland society for promoting the abolition of slavery, (baltimore, ,) pp. , . [ ] memoirs, p. . it does not appear that franklin ever answered this letter, in the short term of life which remained to him. but, in justice to his great name, i desire to express my conviction here, of course without argument, that this patriot philosopher never attributed to the clause, which simply provides for the surrender of fugitives from "service or labor," without the mention of _slaves_, any such meaning as it has since been made to assume. and granville sharp himself, in putting upon it the interpretation he did, forgot the judgment he had extorted from lord mansfield, affirming that any law out of which slavery is derived must be construed _strictly_; and, stranger still, he forgot his own unanswerable argument, _that the word slaves is nowhere to be found in the british constitution_. the question under the fugitive clause of our constitution is identical with that happily settled in england. * * * * * in works and contemplations like these was the life of our philanthropist prolonged to a generous old age, cheered by the esteem of the good, informed by study, and elevated by an enthusiastic faith, which always saw the world as the footstool of god; and when, at last, in , bending under the burden of seventy-seven winters, he gently sank away, it was felt that a man had died in whom was the greatness of goodness. among the mourners at his grave stood william wilberforce; and over the earthly remains of this child of lowly beginnings were now dropped the tears of a royal duke. the portals of that great temple of honor, where are treasured england's glories, swung open at the name of england's earliest abolitionist. a simple tablet, from the chisel of chantrey, representing an african slave on his knees in supplication, and also the lion and the lamb lying down together, with a suitable inscription, was placed in the poet's corner of westminster abbey, in close companionship with those stones which bear the names of chaucer, spenser, shakespeare, milton, dryden, goldsmith, gray. as the muses themselves did not disdain to watch over the grave of one who had done well on earth, so do the poets of england keep watch over the monument of granville sharp. nor is his place in that goodly company without poetical title. the poet is simply _creator_; and he who was inspired to create freemen out of slaves was poet of the loftiest style. not in the sacred abbey only was our philanthropist commemorated. the city of london, centre of those slave-hunting merchants over whom his great triumph was won, now gratefully claimed part of his renown. the marble bust of england's earliest abolitionist was installed at guildhall, home of metropolitan justice, pomp, and hospitality, in the precise spot where once had stood the bust of nelson, england's greatest admiral, and beneath it was carved a simple tribute, of more perennial worth than all the trophies of trafalgar:-- granville sharp, to whom england owes the glorious verdict of her highest court of law, that the slave who sets his foot on british ground becomes that instant free. gentlemen of the mercantile library association,--such was granville sharp, and such honors england to her hero paid. and now, if it be asked, why, in enforcing the duties of the good merchant, i select his name, the answer is prompt. it is in him that the merchant, successor to the chivalrous knight, aiming to fulfil his whole duty, may find a truer prototype than in any stunted, though successful votary of trade, while the humble circumstances of his life seem to make him an easy example. imitating him, commerce would thrive none the less, but goodness more. business would not be checked, but it would cease to be pursued as the "one idea" of life. wealth would still abound; but there would be also that solid virtue, never to be moved from truth, which, you will admit, even without the admonition of plato, is better than all the cunning of dædalus or all the treasures of tantalus.[ ] the hardness of heart engendered by the accursed greed of gain, and by the madness of worldly ambition, would be overcome: the perverted practice, that _policy is the best honesty_, would be reversed; and _merchants would be recalled, gently, but irresistibly, to the great practical duties of this age_, and thus win the palm of true honesty, which trade alone can never bestow. [ ] euthyphron, § . "who is the honest man? he that doth still and strongly good pursue, to god, his neighbor, and himself, most true."[ ] young merchants of boston! i have spoken to you frankly and faithfully, trusting that you would frankly and faithfully hearken to me. and now, in the benison once bestowed upon the youthful knight, i take my leave: "go forth! be brave, loyal, and successful!" [ ] herbert, the temple: _constancy_. wages of seamen in case of wreck. speech in the senate, on introducing a bill to secure wages to seamen in case of wreck, february , . on the th of december, , mr. sumner introduced the following resolution:-- "_resolved_, that the committee on commerce be directed to consider if any legislation be needed in order to secure the wages of merchant seamen in the case of wreck." on the th of february, , mr. sumner followed up this resolution by introducing a bill, which was read twice and referred to the committee on commerce, as follows:-- "_a bill to secure wages to seamen in case of wreck._ "_be it enacted_, &c., that, in case of wreck or loss of any ship or vessel of the united states, every seaman belonging thereto shall be entitled to his wages up to the period of such wreck or loss, whether such ship or vessel shall or shall not have previously earned freight, provided such seaman shall have exerted himself to the utmost to save the ship, cargo, and stores; and in any trial of the question of services, the master, although a party to the suit, shall be a competent witness on this question. "sec. . _and be it further enacted_, that every stipulation, by which any seaman shall consent to abandon his wages, in case of wreck or loss of the ship or vessel, or in case of the failure to earn freight, shall be wholly void." on this bill mr. sumner spoke as follows. mr. president,--in introducing this bill, i desire to make a brief explanation, which shall, at least, be a record of my views with regard to it. the bill proposes an amelioration of the existing maritime law in respect to the wages of merchant seamen, which, so far as england is concerned, has been made already by act of parliament, and in our country can be accomplished only by act of congress. by existing maritime law, the seaman's wages depend upon a technical rule, which sometimes occasions hardship. freight is compendiously said to be the mother of wages. in conformity with this fanciful idea, wages are made to depend upon the earning of freight, unless the freight is waived by agreement of the owner, or the voyage or freight is lost by negligence, fraud, or misconduct of the owner or master, or voluntarily abandoned. in case of wreck, the sailor has simply the chance of something under the name of salvage, if the fragments saved happen to be of any value; but if the loss be total, then he is without remedy. in wrecks, which occur with melancholy frequency, on our churlish winter coast, this hardship adds even to the sorrows of disaster. thus, as in a case which has actually arisen, a crew may commence service at calcutta, may navigate the indian ocean, double the cape of good hope, and bring their ship safely within sight of land, and then, by total loss of ship and cargo, from acknowledged perils of the sea, they may lose everything, even their right to wages, and may find themselves in a strange port, the prey of poverty. nor can any merit, either throughout the protracted voyage or in the hour of peril and shipwreck, prevent the operation of this technical rule. there is also another circumstance which constrains the poor sailor. the owner may insure his ship, and also his freight, so that he may lose nothing but the premium he pays; but the sailor is not allowed to protect himself by insurance from loss of wages: his loss is literally total. now this technical rule, which fastens the wages of the sailor to the fortunes of the vessel, or, in other words, makes the right dependent on the successful issue of the enterprise for which he is hired, must be considered an offshoot of mediæval maritime law. it is not found in the roman law, nor in the maritime legislation of the eastern empire, nor in that early compilation which goes under the name of the rhodian laws. an eminent american judge, who sheds great light upon maritime jurisprudence,--i refer to the learned and able judge ware, of the district court of maine,--says, in a judicial opinion, that "it owes its origin to the necessities and peculiar hazards which maritime commerce had to encounter in the middle ages, when to the dangers of the winds and waves were added the more formidable perils of piracy and robbery."[ ] the rule, having been thus established, was preserved in the maritime jurisprudence of europe, when the special exigencies in which it had its birth ceased to exist. it has outlived the circumstances and excuses of its origin, and now survives to vex, oppress, and disappoint the most needy, if not the most meritorious, of all concerned in the business of the seas. [ ] _the dawn_, daveis, . this hard rule survives with us, but not everywhere. the greatest commercial nation of the world has led the way in its abolition, and set an example to the united states. the act of parliament, of th and th victoria, ch. , sec. (at the close),--called "the merchant seamen's act,"--provides that "in all cases of wreck or loss of the ship, every surviving seaman shall be entitled to his wages up to the period of the wreck or loss of the ship, whether such ship _shall or shall not have previously earned freight_: provided the seaman shall produce a certificate from the master or chief surviving officer of the ship, to the effect that he had exerted himself to the utmost to save the ship, cargo, and stores." but the sailor was not completely protected by this provision. experience in england showed that the cunning of agents was able to introduce into the shipping articles an agreement waiving the right to wages in case of loss, which the unthrifty sailor signed, ignorant or careless of its import. to remedy this abuse, a further act of parliament, of th and th victoria, ch. , sec. ,--known as "the mercantile marine act,"-- "no seaman shall, by reason of any agreement, forfeit his lien upon the ship, or be deprived of any remedy for the recovery of his wages, to which he would otherwise have been entitled; and every stipulation which is inconsistent with any provision of this act, or of any other act relating to merchant seamen, and every stipulation by which any seaman consents _to abandon his right to wages in the case of the loss of the ship_, or to abandon any right which he may have or obtain in the nature of salvage, _shall be wholly inoperative_." the bill which i now introduce is grounded on the provisions quoted from the two acts of the british parliament, and contains two principles: _first_, that seamen shall be paid their wages down to the time of the loss of the ship, in case they serve faithfully to the last; and, _secondly_, that they shall not be permitted to lose their wages through any agreement in the shipping articles. in some details i have departed from the british act. it does not seem advisable to make the wages dependent on "a certificate from the master or chief surviving officer of the ship," but to leave the question of services open to proof in any way, according to received rules of evidence. therefore i have said that the wages shall be paid, "_provided_ the seaman shall have exerted himself to the utmost to save the ship, cargo, and stores." the reasons for this course are clear. masters are often part owners of american ships, and thus have a personal interest adverse to the sailor. in a mood of selfishness or recklessness, they might refuse the certificate, even though well earned. now, in constructing a protection to the sailor, it does not seem prudent to make his wages dependent upon any such quarter. indeed, it is hardly just to take from him the right to establish his claim before the admiralty court, merely because an interested master refuses a certificate, when, perhaps, plenary proof might be furnished _aliunde_. moreover, if the question were put in control of the master, he might obtain an improper influence over the minds of the crew, inducing them even to sacrifice truth in the event of litigation between owners and underwriters. there can be no harm in leaving the question of fact to be proved by competent witnesses, like every other question of fact: and the seamen should be competent witnesses for each other. a sagacious court will know how to weigh their testimony, should it come in conflict with that of the officers. it seems proper that the master, too, though a party to the suit,--as in the case of a libel against him _in personam_, or in a suit at common law,--should be competent to testify to the conduct of the libellant or plaintiff,--in other words, whether he has "exerted himself to the utmost"; and i have introduced into the bill a provision accordingly. the british act of th and th victoria contains another defect. it limits the wages to "every surviving seaman." i can see no good reason why the wife and children of the sailor who has perished in the forlorn hope perhaps, in the cause of all, should be deprived of the humble wages so dearly earned by their natural protector, and thus be compelled to feel a new deprivation added to their bereavement. in the proposed bill there is no such limitation. beyond this brief statement, i need not on this occasion add another word. already congress has shown a disposition to modify the rigorous maritime law in some of its provisions. in it made a change in the liability of ship-owners as common carriers. but this very liability originated, to a certain extent, in the same principles from which is derived the liability of the seamen, if they fail to bring the ship and cargo to port. ship-owners and sailors were both treated as insurers. this was in the age of force, before the contract of insurance had spread its broad protection over commerce in every sea. the seaman should share this protection. he should be treated as not necessarily either pirate or coward. in the discussions of the senate on the proposed change in the liability of ship-owners, it was effectively urged by my immediate predecessor, a distinguished senator from massachusetts, the late robert rantoul, jr., that, if the united states failed to adopt that measure, the other maritime nations would have an advantage in the carrying trade. it is equally true, that, unless we adopt the measure now proposed, great britain will have the advantage of us in the rate of seamen's wages; for, under her existing laws, the seaman can afford to work cheaper on board a british ship than under the american flag. the measure now proposed is of direct importance to the hundred and fifty thousand seamen constituting the mercantile marine of the united states. it also concerns the million of men constituting the mercantile marine of the civilized world, any of whom, in the vicissitudes of the sea, may find themselves in american bottoms. i commend it as a measure of enlightened philanthropy, and also of simple justice. i ask that the bill, having been read twice, be referred to the committee on commerce. the motion was agreed to. against capital punishment. letter to a committee of the massachusetts legislature, february , . senate chamber, february , . dear sir,--in response to your inquiry, i beg leave to say, that i am happy in an opportunity to bear my testimony against capital punishment. my instincts were ever against it, and, from the time when, while yet a student of law, i read the classical report to the legislature of louisiana, by that illustrious jurist, edward livingston, i have been constantly glad to find my instincts confirmed by reason. nothing of argument or experience since has in any respect shaken the original and perpetual repugnance with which i have regarded it. punishment is justly inflicted by human power, with a twofold purpose: _first_, for the protection of society, and, _secondly_, for the reformation of the offender. now it seems to me clear, that, in our age and country, the taking of human life is not _necessary_ to the protection of society, while it reduces the period of reformation to a narrow, fleeting span. if not necessary, it cannot come within the province of _self-defence_, and is unjustifiable. it is sad to believe that much of the prejudice in favor of the gallows may be traced to three discreditable sources: _first_, the spirit of vengeance, which surely does not properly belong to man; _secondly_, unworthy timidity, as if a powerful, civilized community would be in peril, if life were not sometimes taken by the government; and, _thirdly_, blind obedience to the traditions of another age. but rack, thumbscrew, wheel, iron crown, bed of steel, and every instrument of barbarous torture, now rejected with horror, were once upheld by the same spirit of vengeance, the same timidity, and the same tradition of another age. i trust that the time is at hand, when massachusetts, turning from the vindictive gallows, will provide a comprehensive system of punishment, which by just penalties and privations shall deter from guilt, and by just benevolence and care shall promote the reformation of its unhappy subjects. then, and not till then, will our beloved commonwealth imitate the divine justice, which "desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he may turn from his wickedness and live." believe me, dear sir, very faithfully yours, charles sumner. to the chairman of the committee. the demands of freedom: repeal of the fugitive slave act. speech in the senate against mr. toucey's bill, and for the repeal of the fugitive slave act, february , . on the d of february, , on motion of mr. toucey, of connecticut, the senate proceeded to the consideration of "a bill to protect officers and other persons acting under the authority of the united states," by which it was provided that "suits commenced or pending in any state court against any officer of the united states, or other person, for or on account of any act done under any law of the united states, or under color thereof, or for or on account of any right, authority, claim, or title set up by such officer or other person, under any law of the united states," should be removed for trial to the circuit court of the united states. it was seen at once that under these words an attempt was made to oust the state courts of cases arising from trespasses and damages under the fugitive slave act; and the bill was pressed, as everything for slavery was always pressed, even on friday, to the exclusion of the private claims to which that day was devoted under the rules of the senate. a debate commenced, which was continued with much animation and feeling late into the night. mr. sumner seized this opportunity to urge again his proposition to repeal the fugitive slave act. just before the final question, he took the floor and spoke as follows. mr. president,--on a former occasion, as slavery was about to clutch one of its triumphs, i rose to make my final opposition at midnight. it is now the same hour. slavery is pressing again for its accustomed victory, which i undertake again for the moment to arrest. it is hardly an accidental conjunction which constantly brings slavery and midnight together. since eleven o'clock this forenoon we have been in our seats, detained by the dominant majority, which, in subservience to slavery, refuses to postpone this question or to adjourn. all other things are neglected. various public interests, at this late stage of the session, demanding attention, are put aside. according to usage of the senate, friday is devoted to private claims. i am accustomed to call it our day of _justice_,--glad, that, since these matters are referred to us, at least one day in the week is thus set apart. but slavery grasps this whole day, and changes it to a day of _injustice_. by the calendar, which i hold in my hand, it appears that upwards of seventy-five private bills, with which are associated hopes and fears of widows and orphans, and of all who come to congress for relief, are on your table,--neglected, ay, sir, sacrificed, to the bill now urged with so much pertinacity. like juggernaut, the bill is driven over prostrate victims. and here is another sacrifice to slavery. i do not adequately expose this bill, when i say it is a sacrifice to slavery. it is a sacrifice to slavery in its most odious form. bad as slavery is, it is not so bad as hunting slaves. there is seeming apology for slavery at home, in states where it prevails, founded on difficulties in the position of the master and the relations of personal attachment it sometimes excites; but every apology fails, when you seek again to enslave the fugitive whom the master cannot detain by duress or kindness, and who, by courage and intelligence, under guidance of the north star, can achieve a happy freedom. sir, there is wide difference between slaveholder and slave-hunter. but the bill before you is to aid in the chase of slaves. this is its object. this is its "being's end and aim." and this bill, with this object, is pressed upon the senate by the honorable senator from connecticut [mr. toucey]. not from slave soil, but from free soil, comes this effort. a senator from the north, a senator from new england, lends himself to the work, and with unnatural zeal helps to bind still stronger the fetter of the slave. mr. rusk (of texas) [_interrupting_]. will the honorable senator allow me to interrupt him? mr. sumner. certainly. mr. rusk. i ask him to point out the words in this bill where slavery is mentioned. mr. sumner. i am glad the senator from texas asks the question, for it brings attention at once to the true character of this bill. i know its language well, and also its plausible title. on its face it purports to be "a bill to protect officers and other persons acting under the authority of the united states"; and it provides for the transfer of certain proceedings from state courts to the circuit courts of the united states. and yet, sir, by the admission of this whole debate, stretching from noon to midnight, it is a bill to bolster up the fugitive slave act. mr. rusk. i have not listened to the debate, but i ask the senator to point out in the bill the place where slavery is mentioned. if the constitution and laws appoint officers, and require them to discharge duties, will he abandon them to the mob? mr. sumner. the senator asks me to point out any place in this bill where "slavery" is mentioned. why, sir, this is quite unnecessary. i might ask the senator to point out any place in the constitution of the united states where "slavery" is mentioned, or where the word "slave" can be found, and he could not do it. mr. rusk. that is evading the question. i asked the senator to point out in the bill the clause where slavery is mentioned. the bill proposes to protect officers of the united states, whom you appoint, in discharging their duties. if they are to be left unprotected, repeal your law. mr. sumner. i respond to the senator with all my heart, "repeal your law." yes, sir, repeal the fugitive act, which now requires the support of supplementary legislation. remove this ground of offence. and before i sit down, i hope to make that very motion. meanwhile i evade no question propounded by the honorable senator; but i do not consider it necessary to show that "slavery" is mentioned in the bill. it may not be found there in name; but slavery is the very soul of the bill. [mr. rusk rose.] mr. sumner. the senator has interrupted me several times; he may do it more; but perhaps he had better let me go on. mr. rusk. i understand the senator; but i make no boast of that sort. mr. sumner. very well. at last i am allowed to proceed. of the bill in question i have little to say. its technical character has been exposed by various senators, and especially by my valued friend from ohio [mr. chase] who opened this debate. suffice it to say, that it is an intrusive and offensive encroachment on state rights, calculated to subvert the power of states in the protection of the citizen. this consideration alone would be ample to secure its rejection, if the attachment to state rights, so often avowed by senators, were not utterly lost in stronger attachment to slavery. but on these things, although well worthy of attention, i do not dwell. objectionable as the bill may be on this ground, it becomes much more so when regarded as an effort to bolster up the fugitive slave act. of this act it is difficult to speak with moderation. conceived in defiance of the constitution, and in utter disregard of every sentiment of justice and humanity, it should be treated as an outlaw. it may have the form of legislation, but it lacks every essential element of law. i have so often exposed its character on this floor, that i shall be brief now. there is an argument against it which has especial importance at this moment, when the fugitive act is made the occasion of new assault on state rights. _this very act is an assumption by congress of power not delegated to it under the constitution, and an infraction of rights secured to the states._ you will mark, if you please, the double aspect of this proposition, in asserting not only an assumption of power by congress, but an infraction of state rights. and this proposition, i venture to say, defies answer or cavil. show me, sir, if you can, the clause, sentence, or word in the constitution which gives to congress any power to legislate on this subject. i challenge honorable senators to produce it. i fearlessly assert that it cannot be found. the obligations imposed by the "fugitive" clause, _whatever they may be_,[ ] rest upon states, and not upon congress. i do not now undertake to say what these obligations are,--but simply, that, whether much or little, they rest upon states. and this interpretation is sustained by the practice of congress on another kindred question. the associate clause touching "privileges of citizens" is never made a source of power. it will be in the recollection of the senate, that, during the last session, the senator from louisiana [mr. benjamin], in answer to a question from me, openly admitted that there were laws of the southern states, bearing hard upon colored citizens of the north, which were unconstitutional; but when i pressed the honorable senator with the question, whether he would introduce or sustain a bill to carry out the clause of the constitution securing to these citizens their rights, he declined to answer. [ ] here, as in other places, mr. sumner did not recognize that the language of the constitution was applicable to "fugitive slaves." mr. benjamin. i think, mr. president, i have a right to set the record straight upon that point. i rose in the senate on the occasion referred to, as will be perfectly well recollected by every senator present, and put a respectful question to the senator from massachusetts. instead of a reply to my question, he put a question to me, which i answered, and then i put my question. instead of replying to that, he again put a question to me. considering that as an absolute evasion of the question which i put to him, i declined having anything further to say in the discussion. mr. sumner. the senator from louisiana will pardon me, if i suggest that there is an incontrovertible fact which shows that the evasion was on his part. the record testifies not only that he did not reply, but that i was cut off from replying by efforts and votes of himself and his friends. let him consult the "congressional globe," and he will find it all there.[ ] i can conceive that it might be embarrassing for him to reply, since, had he declined to carry out the clause in question, it would be awkward, at least, to vindicate the fugitive slave act, which is derived from an identical clause in the constitution. and yet there are senators on this floor, who, careless of the flagrant inconsistency, vindicate the exercise of power by congress under the "fugitive" clause, while their own states at home deny any power of congress under the associate clause, on the "privileges of citizens," assume to themselves complete right to determine the obligations of this clause, and then, in practical illustration of their assumption, ruthlessly sell into slavery colored citizens of the north. [ ] congressional globe, d cong. st sess., july , , vol. xxviii. pp. - . mr. butler [_interrupting_]. does the senator allude to my state? mr. rusk. no,--to mine. mr. butler. if he means south carolina, i will reply to him. mr. sumner. i do allude to south carolina, and also to other southern states,--but especially to south carolina. if i allude to these states, it is not to bring up and array the hardships of individual instances, but simply to show the position occupied by them on a constitutional question, identical with that in the fugitive act. and now, at the risk of repetition, if i can have your attention for a brief moment, without interruption, i will endeavor to state anew this argument. the rules of interpretation, applicable to the clause of the constitution securing to "the citizens of each state all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states," are equally applicable to its associate clause, forming part of the same section, in the same article, and providing that "persons held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." of this there can be no doubt. if one of these clauses is regarded as a compact between the states, to be carried out by them respectively, according to their interpretation of its obligations, without intervention of congress, then the other must be so regarded; nor can any legislative power be asserted of congress under one clause which is denied under the other. this proposition cannot be questioned. now mark the consequences. congress, in abstaining from all exercise of power under the first clause, when required to protect the liberty of colored citizens, while assuming power under the second clause, in order to obtain the surrender of fugitive slaves, shows an inconsistency, which becomes more monstrous when it is considered that in the one case the general and commanding interests of liberty are neglected, while in the other the peculiar and subordinate interests of slavery are carefully assured; and such an exercise of power is an alarming evidence of that influence of slavery in the national government which has increased, is increasing, and ought to be overthrown. looking more precisely at these two clauses, we arrive at the true conclusion. according to express words of the constitution, in the tenth amendment, "the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"; and since no powers are delegated to the united states in the clause relating to "privileges and immunities of citizens," or in the associate clause of the same section, relating to the surrender of "persons held to service or labor," therefore all legislation by congress, under either clause, must be an assumption of undelegated powers, and an infraction of rights secured to the states respectively, or to the people: and such, i have already said, is the fugitive slave act. i might go further, and, by the example of south carolina, vindicate to massachusetts, and every other state, the right to put such interpretation upon the "fugitive" clause as it shall think proper. the legislature of south carolina, in a series of resolutions adopted in , asserts the following proposition:-- "_resolved_, that free negroes and persons of color are not citizens of the united states _within the meaning of the constitution_, which confers upon the citizens of one state the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."[ ] [ ] reports and resolutions of the general assembly of south carolina, sess. , december , p. . here is a distinct assumption of right to determine the _persons_ to whom certain words of the constitution are applicable. now nothing can be clearer than this: if south carolina may determine for itself whether the clause relating to the "privileges and immunities of citizens" be applicable to _colored citizens_ of the several states, and may solemnly deny its applicability, then may massachusetts, and every other state, determine for itself whether the other clause, relating to the surrender of "persons held to service or labor," be really applicable to _fugitive slaves_, and may solemnly deny its applicability. mr. president, i have said enough to show the usurpation by congress under the "fugitive" clause of the constitution, and to warn you against abetting this usurpation. but i have left untouched those other outrages, many and great, which enter into the existing fugitive slave act, among which are the denial of trial by jury, the denial of the writ of _habeas corpus_, the authorization of judgment on _ex parte_ evidence without the safeguard of cross-examination, and the surrender of the great question of human freedom to be determined by a mere commissioner, who, according to the requirement of the constitution, is grossly incompetent to any such service. i have also left untouched the hateful character of this enactment, as a barefaced subversion of every principle of humanity and justice. and now, sir, we are asked to lend ourselves anew to this enormity, worthy only of indignant condemnation; we are asked to impart new life to this pretended law, this false act of congress, this counterfeit enactment, this monstrosity of legislation, which draws no life from the constitution, as it clearly draws no life from that supreme law which is the essential fountain of life to every human law. sir, the bill before you may have the approval of congress; and in yet other ways you may seek to sustain the fugitive slave act. but it will be in vain. you undertake what no legislation can accomplish. courts may come forward, and lend it their sanction. all this, too, will be in vain. i respect the learning of judges; i reverence the virtue, more than learning, by which their lives are often adorned. nor learning, nor virtue, when, with mistaken force, bent to this purpose, can avail. i assert confidently, sir, and ask the senate to note my assertion, that there is no court, howsoever endowed with judicial qualities or surrounded by public confidence, which is strong enough to lift this act into permanent consideration or respect. it may seem for a moment to accomplish the feat. its decision may be enforced, amidst tears and agonies. a fellow-man may be reduced anew to slavery. but all will be in vain. this act cannot be upheld. anything so entirely vile, so absolutely atrocious, would drag an angel down. sir, it must drag down every court or judge venturing to sustain it. and yet, sir, in zeal for this enormity, senators announce their purpose to break down the recent legislation of states, calculated to shield the liberty of the citizen. "it is difficult," says burke, "to frame an indictment against a whole people." but here in the senate, where are convened the jealous representatives of the states, we hear whole states arraigned, as if already guilty of crime. the senator from louisiana [mr. benjamin], in plaintive tones sets forth the ground of proceeding, and more than one state is summoned to judgment. it would be easy to show, by critical inquiry, that this whole charge is without just foundation, and that all the legislation so much condemned is as clearly defensible under the constitution as it is meritorious in purpose. sir, the only crime of these states is, that liberty is placed before slavery. follow the charge, point by point, and this is apparent. in securing to every person claimed as slave the protection of trial by jury and the _habeas_ _corpus_, they simply provide safeguards strictly within the province of every state, and rendered necessary by the usurpation of the fugitive act. in securing the aid of counsel to every person claimed as slave, they but perform a kindly duty, which no phrase or word in the constitution can be tortured to condemn. in visiting with severe penalties every malicious effort to reduce a fellow-man to slavery, they respond to the best feelings of the human heart. in prohibiting the use of county jails and buildings as barracoons and slave-pens,--in prohibiting all public officers, holding the commission of the state, in any capacity, whether as chief justice or justice of the peace, whether as governor or constable, from any service as slave-hunter,--in prohibiting the _volunteer militia_ of the state, in its organized form, from any such service, the states simply exercise a power under the constitution, recognized by the supreme court of the united states even while upholding slavery in the fatal _prigg_ case, by positive prohibition, to withdraw its own officers from this offensive business. for myself, let me say that i look with no pleasure on any possibility of conflict between the two jurisdictions of state and nation; but i trust, that, if the interests of freedom so require, the states will not hesitate. from the beginning of this controversy, i have sought, as i still seek, to awaken another influence, which, without the possibility of conflict, will be mightier than any act of congress or the sword of the national government: i mean an enlightened, generous, humane, christian public opinion, which shall blast with contempt, indignation, and abhorrence all who, in whatever form or under whatever name, undertake to be agents in enslaving a fellow-man. sir, such an opinion you cannot bind or subdue. against its subtile, pervasive influence your legislation and the decrees of courts will be powerless. already in massachusetts, i am proud to believe, it begins to prevail; and the fugitive act there will soon be a dead letter. mr. president, since things are so, it were well to remove this act from our statute-book, that it may no longer exist as an occasion of ill-will and a point of conflict. let the north be relieved from this usurpation, and the first step will be taken towards permanent harmony. the senator from louisiana [mr. benjamin] has proclaimed anew to-night, what he has before declared on this floor, "that slavery is a subject with which the federal government has nothing to do." i thank him for teaching the senate that word. true, most true, sir, ours is a government of freedom, having nothing to do with slavery. this is the doctrine which i have ever maintained, and am happy to find recognized in form, if not in reality, by the senator from louisiana. the senator then proceeded to declare that "all that the south asks is to be let alone." this request is moderate. and i say, for the north, that all we ask is to be let alone. yes, sir, let us alone. do not involve us in the support of slavery. hug the viper to your bosoms, if you perversely will, within your own states, until it stings you to a generous remorse, but do not compel us to hug it too; for this, i assure you, we can never do. the senator from louisiana, with these professions on his lips, proceeds to ask, doubtless with complete sincerity, but in strange forgetfulness of our country's history: "did we ever bring this subject into congress?" yes, sir, that was his inquiry,--as if there was any moment, from the earliest days of the republic, when the supporters of slavery ceased to bring this subject into congress. almost from the beginning it has been here, through the exercise of _usurped power_, nowhere given under the constitution: for i am glad to believe that the constitution of my country contains no words out of which slavery, or the power to support slavery, can be derived; and this conclusion, i doubt not, will yet be affirmed by the courts. and yet the honorable senator asks, "did we ever bring this subject into congress?" the answer shall be plain and explicit. sir, you brought slavery into congress, when, shortly after the adoption of the constitution, you sanctioned it in the district of columbia, within the national jurisdiction, and adopted that barbarous slave code, still extant on your statute-book, which the senator from connecticut [mr. gillette] so eloquently exposed to-night. you brought slavery into congress, when, at the same period, you accepted the cession of territories from north carolina and georgia, now constituting states of the union, with conditions in favor of slavery, and thus began to sanction slavery in territories within the exclusive jurisdiction of congress. you brought slavery into congress, when, at different times, you usurped a power, not given by the constitution, over fugitive slaves, and by most offensive legislation thrust your arms into distant northern homes. you brought slavery into congress, when, by express legislation, you regulated the coastwise slave-trade, and thus threw the national shield over a traffic on the coast of the united states which on the coast of congo you justly brand as "piracy." you brought slavery into congress, when, from time to time, you sought to introduce new states with slaveholding constitutions into the national union. and, permit me to say, sir, you brought slavery into congress, when you called upon us, as you have done even at this very session, to pay for slaves, and thus, in defiance of a cardinal principle of the constitution, pressed the national government to recognize property in man. and yet the senator from louisiana, with strange simplicity, says that the south only asks to be let alone. sir, the honorable senator borrows the language of the north, which, at each of these usurpations, exclaims, "let us alone!" and let me say, frankly, that peace can never prevail until you do let us alone,--until this subject of slavery is banished from congress by the triumph of freedom,--until slavery is driven from its usurped foothold, and freedom is made _national_ instead of _sectional_,--and until the national government is brought back to the precise position it occupied on the day that washington took his first oath as president of the united states, when there was no fugitive act, and the national flag, as it floated over the national territory within the jurisdiction of congress, nowhere covered a single slave. and now, sir, as an effort in the true direction of the constitution, in the hope of beginning the divorce of the national government from slavery, and to remove all occasion for the proposed measure under consideration, i shall close these remarks with a motion to repeal the fugitive act. twice already, since i have had the honor of a seat in this chamber, i have pressed that question to a vote, and i mean to press it again to-night. after the protracted discussion involving the character of this enactment, such a motion belongs logically to this occasion, and fitly closes its proceedings. at a former session, on introducing this proposition, i discussed it at length, in an argument which i fearlessly assert never has been answered, and now, in this debate, i have already touched upon various objections. there are yet other things which might be urged. i might exhibit abuses which have occurred under the fugitive act,--the number of free persons it has doomed to slavery, the riots it has provoked, the brutal conduct of its officers, the distress it has scattered, the derangement of business it has caused,--interfering even with the administration of justice, changing courthouses into barracks and barracoons, and filling streets with armed men, amidst which law is silent. all these things i might expose. but in these hurried moments i forbear. suffice it to say, that the proposition to repeal the existing fugitive act stands on fundamental principles which no debate or opposition can shake. there are considerations belonging to the present period which give new strength to this proposition. public opinion, which, under a popular government, makes and unmakes laws, and which for a time was passive and acquiescent, now lifts itself everywhere in the states where the act is sought to be enforced, and demands a change. already three states, rhode island, connecticut, and michigan, by formal resolutions presented to the senate, have concurred in this demand. tribunals of law are joining at last with the people. the superior court of cincinnati has denied the power of congress over this subject. and now, almost while i speak, comes the solemn judgment of the supreme court of wisconsin, delivered after elaborate argument, on successive occasions, before a single judge, and then before the whole bench, declaring this act a violation of the constitution. in response to public opinion, broad and general, if not universal, at the north, swelling alike from village and city, from seaboard and lake,--judicially attested, legislatively declared, and represented also by numerous petitions from good men without distinction of party,--in response to this public opinion, as well as in obedience to my own fixed convictions, i deem it my duty not to lose this opportunity of pressing the repeal of the fugitive slave act once more upon the senate. i move, sir, to strike out all after the enacting clause in the pending bill, and insert instead these words:-- "that the act of congress, approved september , , usually known as the 'fugitive slave act,' be, and the same is hereby, repealed." and on this motion i ask the yeas and nays. on taking his seat, mr. sumner was followed by mr. butler, of south carolina, when the following passage occurred. mr. butler. mr. president, i have no idea of irritating sectional differences. if gentlemen have the opinions which it seems the gentleman from massachusetts entertains, be it so. i assure him i do not intend to bandy words with him. he talks as if he was disposed to maintain the constitution of the united states; but if i were to put to him a question now, i would ask him one which he, perhaps, would not answer me honestly. mr. sumner. i will answer any question. mr. butler. then i ask you honestly now, whether, all laws of congress being put out of the question, you would recommend to massachusetts to pass a law to deliver up fugitives from slavery? mr. sumner. the senator asks me a question, and i answer, frankly, that no temptation, no inducement, would draw me in any way to sanction the return of any man to slavery. others will speak for themselves. in this respect i speak for myself. mr. butler. i do not rise now at all to question the right of the gentleman from massachusetts to hold his seat, under the obligation of the constitution of the united states, with the opinions which he has expressed; but, if i understand him, he means, that, whether this law or that law or any other law prevails, he disregards the obligations of the constitution of the united states. mr. sumner. not at all. that i never said. i recognize the obligations of the constitution. mr. butler. he says he recognizes the obligations of the constitution of the united states. i see, i know he is not a tactician, and i shall not take advantage of the infirmity of a man who does not know half his time exactly what he is about. [_laughter._] but, sir, i will ask that gentleman one question: if it devolved upon him as a representative of massachusetts, all federal laws being put out of the way, would he recommend any law for the delivery of a fugitive slave under the constitution of the united states? mr. sumner. never. mr. butler. i knew that. now, sir, i have got exactly what is the truth, and what i intend shall go forth to the southern states.... when the gentleman talks in the way he does, i choose to rebuke him. any man who comes up here with a philanthropy inconsistent with what is practical justice and liberty, i do not say that i scorn him,--i use no such word,--but by heavens[ ].... [ ] congressional globe, d cong. d sess., appendix, vol. xxxi. p. . the tone of senator butler on this occasion shows the intolerable spirit of slavery, which would not endure mr. sumner. the question, being taken by yeas and nays on the amendment offered by mr. sumner, resulted,--yeas , nays ,--as follows. yeas.--messrs. brainerd, chase, cooper, fessenden, gillette, seward, sumner, wade, and wilson,-- . nays.--messrs. adams, badger, bayard, bell, benjamin, bright, brown, butler, clay, dawson, douglas, fitzpatrick, geyer, gwin, hunter, jones, of iowa, jones, of tennessee, mallory, mason, morton, pearce, pettit, rusk, sebastian, shields, slidell, thomson, of new jersey, toucey, weller, and wright,-- . so the amendment was rejected. * * * * * transcriber's note: we have attempted to reproduce the spelling and punctuation of the original. some spelling and punctuation, accents and formatting markup have been normalized and include the following: ..."very pests in the church and conmowealth." was changed to ..."very pests in the church and commonwealth." ...here on my desk are remonstances was changed to ...here on my desk are remonstrances ...the difference is inmeasurable. was changed to ...the difference is immeasurable. the oe ligature has been expanded.